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.