[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Port Adelaide Fan]

Western grandstand redevelopment recognised with architecture award

HASSELL & Cox have received a Public Architecture Award for the Adelaide Oval Western Grandstand Development at the Australian Institute of Architects State Awards held on Friday 10 June 2011.

The jury noted: “Faced with strong community concern about the impact of redevelopment on the identity and charm of one of the world’s most historic and picturesque grounds, a plethora of heritage constraints and a tight budget and program, the architects have responded with a structure that is both respectful of the past and a model for planned future stages.”

more: http://www.cricketsa.com.au/Article/New ... 38&id=1559

[Wayno]

There's still much gnarling and gnashing of teeth:

McLachlan demands Stephens apologises

Dear SACA Member, In a speech he made in the Parliament last night Mr Stephens has defamed SACA, its officers and Board; SACA’s Returning Officer, Ernst & Young (one of the largest and most respected accountancy firms in the world), Computershare (one of the world’s largest and leading providers of investor services), and SACA’s Scrutineer, Pitcher Partners (a reputable Australian accountancy firm).

I have today challenged Mr Stephens to repeat his statements outside the House.

I think much of what Mr Stephens said in the Chamber last night was so defamatory to so many people in South Australia, that he won’t have the courage to repeat his comments outside the Chamber.

The process of administering the proxy nominations and vote counting for SACA’s Special Meeting on 2 May 2011 was conducted by Ernst & Young, Computershare and Pitcher Partners according to the highest standards of probity and was independent of SACA.

I am advised that Computershare performed a 100% review on all the proxies received and that this was supplemented with a random review by the Scrutineer, Pitcher Partners.

Mr Stephens has quoted from an email he has received from an unnamed source, the source claims that on the Friday before the vote I advised Jesper Fjeldstad that proxy nominations were running at 60 per cent in favour of the development.

This is not true.

I have never discussed the ‘for’ or ‘against’ figures with Mr Fjeldstad and at the time assumed that he had got the reported figure from someone else.

I have discussed this matter with Mr Fjeldstad today, who has confirmed that he is prepared to sign a statutory declaration attesting to the fact he has never had a discussion with me about the proxy nomination figures and that he got the figure reported from someone else.

Mr McLachlan refuted the claim that two journalists voted six times on behalf of other members.

It is not possible for journalists to have legally voted six times on behalf of other members as the online form required a membership card number, post code and legally binding signature check-box to be selected and the hard copy forms needed to be signed.

I am disappointed that these allegations have not been raised earlier, or with the Returning Officer or Scrutineer.

If journalists have faked members’ signatures they have committed fraud and I urge Mr Stephens or the unnamed person to report these journalists immediately.

If multiple nominations were received from the same member (either electronically or by hard copy) these were invalid with only the most recently dated nomination form being counted.”

SACA Special General Meeting Voting Report

To put an end to this speculation at the expense of SACA, Ernst & Young, Computershare and Pitcher Partners, SACA has today released a detailed breakdown of the voting results (attached above).

The Voting Report from Ernst & Young clearly shows that based on the votes cast at the meeting and the proxy nominations received before the meeting, 80+ per cent plus of the SACA members who voted wanted the redevelopment to go ahead.

The Returning Officer’s Report quite clearly shows that the Chairman’s directed proxies were distributed exactly according to members’ instructions.

The Chairman’s undirected proxies, (which the ballot paper clearly stated would be cast in favour of the resolution) amounted to 132 votes and had therefore, proved to be immaterial to the final result.

On the night of the meeting the Scrutineer (Pitcher Partners) and the Returning Officer (Ernst &Young) confirmed that all of the procedures associated with the vote had been carried out in accordance with the highest standards of probity.

I understand the politics involved but this time Mr Stephens has gone too far. I hope he will be severely disciplined by his leader and that he will apologise to the firms and people he has defamed.

SACA PresidentIan McLachlan

[spiller]

Those are some pretty firm words. Stephens must be feeling pretty silly today...

[crawf]

The SANFL today also confirmed plans to move Port Adelaide's season finale against Melbourne from AAMI Stadium to Adelaide Oval in early September.

SA Football Commission chairman John Olsen announced the revival package at AAMI Stadium today, saying, "This gives SA football security to Adelaide Oval."

"SA Football is strongly united and committed to this strategy that underpins our business success," he said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 6084929884

[stumpjumper]

Stephens was stupid to have gone ahead without ironclad evidence of fraud.

What is not in dispute is the large number of new members, with their attendant proxy votes, recruited by SACA officials in the weeks before the vote. Even if the new members swung the vote for SACA, even if there were inducements offered to the new members, it's all perfectly legal.

Similarly, leaving the decision whether or not to spend over $500,000,000 of taxpayers' money on a privately operated oval to the obviously very interested members of the private operating body was perfectly legal.

Now we have two footy clubs pinning their hopes for financial stability on the completion of the AO redevelopment. There's no question of legality there, just common sense. I would like to know exactly how, without far bigger crowds than we've been seeing at AAMI, the two AFL clubs will each pick up the millions from AO that they are hoping for.

[Pants]

What is not in dispute is the large number of new members, with their attendant proxy votes, recruited by SACA officials in the weeks before the vote. Even if the new members swung the vote for SACA, even if there were inducements offered to the new members, it's all perfectly legal.

Huh?

[Nathan]

Similarly, leaving the decision whether or not to spend over $500,000,000 of taxpayers' money on a privately operated oval to the obviously very interested members of the private operating body was perfectly legal.

They did not vote on "whether or not to spend over $500,000,000 of taxpayers' money". That decision had already been made. They voted to amend SACA's constitution, which was just one hurdle that needed to be cleared.

[mattblack]

What is not in dispute is the large number of new members, with their attendant proxy votes, recruited by SACA officials in the weeks before the vote. Even if the new members swung the vote for SACA, even if there were inducements offered to the new members, it's all perfectly legal.

Huh?

Seriously stumpjumper I think your losing it. The SACA recruited new members for the vote? Oh wait, I see, They sarted building the western grandstand before the entire development was even slated but somehow the SACA knew that it was going ahead and made sure that the granstand would be finished in time to accept all people on the waiting list. They also, being the underhanded folk they are, made sure that all people accepted onto the waiting list would vote yes, or be to lazy to vote for the imagined total redevelopment of the oval therefore 'buying' the result. Makes perfect sense to me .............. NOT.

[Will]

What is not in dispute is the large number of new members, with their attendant proxy votes, recruited by SACA officials in the weeks before the vote. Even if the new members swung the vote for SACA, even if there were inducements offered to the new members, it's all perfectly legal.


.

and in another thread.....

I never make unsubstantiated blanket comments.

[dsriggs]

Hey now, if people disagreeing with him isn't proof of shady dealings, I don't now what is.

[Matt]

Christ alive, is this still going on?

[stumpjumper]

Pants wrote:
stumpjumper wrote:

What is not in dispute is the large number of new members, with their attendant proxy votes, recruited by SACA officials in the weeks before the vote. Even if the new members swung the vote for SACA, even if there were inducements offered to the new members, it's all perfectly legal.


Huh?

My information came from Rebekah Rosser, Corporate Communications Manager for SACA. She told me that in 2009 the waiting list for SACA membership was 'up to 5 years'. After the redevelopment was announced, the waiting list dropped to 'a matter of months for processing'. In addition to reducing the waiting list to zero, new members were also recruited. The proxies of new members remained with the chairman by default, which contributed to the very high (83%) yes vote by 10038 members. I don't know how many proxy votes were cast (nor does it matter - they were legal as I said). I was at the Showgrounds on the night of the vote and there were not 10,000 people in attendance.

Nathan wrote:
They did not vote on "whether or not to spend over $500,000,000 of taxpayers' money". That decision had already been made. They voted to amend SACA's constitution, which was just one hurdle that needed to be cleared.

Well, you're splitting hairs. The vote was to amend the SACA Constitution, but if the vote had been no, the money wouldn't have been spent.

mattblack wrote:
Seriously stumpjumper I think your losing it. The SACA recruited new members for the vote? Oh wait, I see, They sarted building the western grandstand before the entire development was even slated but somehow the SACA knew that it was going ahead and made sure that the granstand would be finished in time to accept all people on the waiting list. They also, being the underhanded folk they are, made sure that all people accepted onto the waiting list would vote yes, or be to lazy to vote for the imagined total redevelopment of the oval therefore 'buying' the result. Makes perfect sense to me .............. NOT.

This is what I was trying to get to the bottom of with SACA Communications Manager Rebekah Rosser (a long-term staffer to Liberal Senator Jeannie Ferris and Senate hopeful herself). The recent history of SACA membership is complicated, but as I understand it, there were no new memberships granted in 2009 because of the western stadium being built, although people were still accepted onto the waiting list, which by 2010 had grown from 3 years to 5 years. With the completion of the western grandstand, 5,000 new members were accepted, presumably from the waiting list. Once the vote for the constitutional amendment to enable the current redevelopment was proposed, there was a recruiting drive, according to Rebekah Rosser. The proxies for the 5,000 new members and any members picked up in the recruiting drive would remain with the chairman by default.

This was the first time SACA had ever actively recruited new members. I wondered why a club which historically had a waiting list would bother to do that. I don't claim to have full knowledge or to understand what went on, mattblack. I know that Greg Howe's small random survey showed SACA members split about 50/50 on whether or not to vote yes. On the night, it turned out to be 83/17. I'm not suggesting fraud, but I think the chairman's proxies probably won the day.

If I am losing it, it's not over the Adelaide Oval.

Will wrote:
and in another thread.....

stumpjumper wrote:
I never make unsubstantiated blanket comments.

That was humour - irony, self-directed sarcasm etc. "I never generalise..."

dsriggs wrote:
Hey now, if people disagreeing with him isn't proof of shady dealings, I don't now what is.

Ha ha. I have a mild dislike for shady dealings where public money or assets held in public trust are involved. Usually, the evidence of potential shady dealings is denial rather than disagreement (as in 'denies any wrongdoing') followed by a rapid scurry out of the limelight, usually to destroy evidence or to coordinate stories. It's on such goings on that I try to lift the lid, usually without effect but occasionally with a win for 'truth and justice'. I don't know if it's a weird hobby or if I'm a frustrated priest, not that I'm religious.

[stumpjumper]

Just putting the record straight, matt.

I hear rentals are slowing in old London town. Still massive by our standards...

[Waewick]

well from what i've heard, the SACA has some idea what was coming after the Western Stand....

[cruel_world00]

I went a long to the game yesterday and it was great to see AFL return to the city.

Shame about the result and that it was a Port game but overall it was definitely a win.

I wouldn't mind seeing more of the lower profile games transferred to Adelaide Oval over the next year or two so that we are spared the horrid AAMI for the entirity of this period.