[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[mattblack]

its all smiles around the house here as it looks like the NO vote will win through
an excellent result for the SA taxpayer

let the VFL fund their own new stadium and let the SACA finance their own debt

And let South Australians continue to mope around saying that nothing ever happends in this city.

[stumpjumper]

Waewick wrote: I agree that it is a shame that a few people can dictate to the rest of the state

I'm not a SACA member, just a taxpayer, yet the decision whether to spend a minimum of $535 million of taxpayers' money is in the has of a few thousand SACA members.

Wouldn't you call that a few people dictating to the rest of the state? Whichever way the vote goes, it will be a few dictating to the many.

Usually an investor can assess risk before deciding whether to invest.

As a taxpayer, I'm an investor, but the information I need to assess risk isn't available. Not that that matters since I won't be voting, but the information isn't even available to SACA members.

The business plan is 'commercial in confidence', and there's a raft of other important questions that haven't been answered. Who underwrites any cost blowout? Who guarantees SANFL its $8 million per year? What will tickets cost? Who gets the parking income?

How many SACA members are voting yes primarily because the proposal pays off SACA's debt, and are hoping that the development will sort itself out? The same goes for the footy clubs - as Matt Primus said in a TV interview: 'Look, if it means Port gets 2, 3, 4 million every year out of it, I'm in favour.'

The questions above aren't the technical questions of a knee-jerk opponent, they are the legitimate, prudent queries of anyone being asked to invest large amounts of money. I'm not against the project under any circumstances - just extremely sceptical, and therefore against it until I see information that would convince me otherwise.

Why can't SACA members at least see the business plan that claims so much before they vote to commit hundreds of millions of their fellow South Australians' scarce dollars to this?

[Stump Jumper]

That is not the purpose of the vote. No you should not be entitled to force referendums on anything you personally disagree with.

[Waewick]

stumpjumper - your a voter who directly or indirectly voted the current government in meaning you've already agreed to the taxpayer spending on the stadium

that is what some of the No vote people don't realise, we aren't voting for AO redevelopment or the Keith Hospital (or what ever other self interest some of these people have)

[spiller]

Wow rice crackers, a fantastic result for the sa taxpayer. You say that as if we will all be paying less tax if this falls through. I'd rather my tax went towards something that adelaideans can enjoy for generations to come. Your narrow mind obviously can't see that. You're still stuck on the topic of drop-in pitches and a roof. Get real.

[ricecrackers]

it seems some are having difficulty dealing with the reality of the SACA constitution and this just outcome
such bitterness in shooting the messenger is unbecoming and something we could do less of in this state.

the problem is the whining and not that nothing gets built, which is a fallacy in any event

well done to Anne Moran for exposing the misleading info

the assumption by some that the NO supporters are unintelligent or misinformed is arrogant at best. just because someone disagrees with your opinion it doesn't mean they are guilty of all the ridiculous charges you have leveled at them in this thread.

it is indeed possible that those people of the NO persuasion may be privy to information or experience that those on the YES side lack. show some respect is all i can ask.

others who deem themselves financial experts should familiarize themselves with the concept of debt and interest on debt. perhaps they have lived their whole lives in debt, owned by the bank and feel this is perfectly acceptable on any scale. well some of us would differ on that count.

on the subject of counting, there are still the Monday night votes remaining that need to be counted

[crawf]

Hello Plan B...

This whole process is such a joke, like seriously...

[crawf]

The statement that 'SA can't afford this right now' is tiresome, when can this state afford it?... when majority of it's young people have moved interstate, residents suffering from higher taxes or when our state capital of 1.2 million is classed in the same group as Townsville, Darwin, Hobart. Which in some ways has already happened, or that we are now just an outer suburb of Melbourne.

Melbourne was kinda in the same situation in the dark 90s, continue to be a boring backwater or become a vibrant booming city, same with Brisbane in the 1980s. Now it's our turn

[stumpjumper]

Waewick wrote: stumpjumper - your a voter who directly or indirectly voted the current government in meaning you've already agreed to the taxpayer spending on the stadium

That's a leap. What you're saying is that the democratically elected Rann government has a mandate to proceed on AO. That's arguable for a start, but if it were the case, why then do we need the approval of a few thousand SACA members?

Stand back from this for a minute, and ask yourself a question.

If you had a blank cheque to spend on a sports facility in Adelaide, would you build the AO proposal?

[Stump Jumper]

Stand back from this for a minute, and ask yourself a question.

If you had a blank cheque to spend on a sports facility in Adelaide, would you build the AO proposal?

Yes.

[rev]

Who really cares about the vote today.

SACA will use a loophole to get the redevelopment happening anyway. And if they don't, the government will force it through one way or another.
Rann is going to be replaced soon, and it wont do that much damage. The majority want this redevelopment, and are apathetic anyway when it comes to politics. A new leader will repair any damage before the next election which is a while off anyway.
So this vote is pretty much a pointless exercise when it comes down to it.

[Waewick]

Waewick wrote: stumpjumper - your a voter who directly or indirectly voted the current government in meaning you've already agreed to the taxpayer spending on the stadium

That's a leap. What you're saying is that the democratically elected Rann government has a mandate to proceed on AO. That's arguable for a start, but if it were the case, why then do we need the approval of a few thousand SACA members?

Stand back from this for a minute, and ask yourself a question.

If you had a blank cheque to spend on a sports facility in Adelaide, would you build the AO proposal?

That is a completly different question - If I had a blank cheque I'd bulldoze the lot and start again with a state of the art enclosed stadium with moveable stands to encourage soccer and rugby as well as the ability to move the grass from inside the stadium to outside the stadium to make sure the surface is good.

I'd also put a massive underground carpark and a tram line into the city.

I don't have a blank cheque, what I have is the option for a 50k stadium in the city or nothing.

I vote for the 50k stadium in the city.

[dsriggs]

Stand back from this for a minute, and ask yourself a question.

If you had a blank cheque to spend on a sports facility in Adelaide, would you build the AO proposal?

No.

Does the State Government have a blank cheque?

No.

[Professor]

I have a bad feeling that the Adelaide Oval proposal will not get through tonight. The negative campaigh from the state liberals and the ACC will have a large impact. And we will then get nothing in Adelaide other than some half baked promise that will never eventuate. The hospital will go ahead regardless and then there will be no land available for a new stadium there. although this proposal was always a spoiler, never a real option.

It will be a real pity if the Adelaide Oval vote fails because the city needs some vibrancy and this is as good an opportunity as we will get.

[silverscreen]

Professor - I'd love to know how much money the ACC and Libs spent on the so-called "negative campaign". I suspect its a rather piddling amount compared with what the SMA and others have thrown at the Yes campaign. Wonder if they'll be as coy about that as the CEO was this morning when asked on the ABC if he knew the results of the proxy votes. A straight NO on that occasion would have givern me confidence in the voting process