AFL at Adelaide Oval - it will never happen (Part 5)

[Chief Crow]

The SACA board and the State Cabinet are not the SACA membership and State Parliament.

All the SACA Board can do is agree pending a member vote.

That is correct, we all no this. The SACA members couldn't vote until all the details are released and the both parties (SACA, SANFL) agree on terms of use.

 

[jo172]

Unusually unoptimistic from Richard Earle:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-oval-faces-critical-hurdle/story-e6frecj3-1226013810434

SA Cricket Association officials and angry members will face off in a clash set to scuttle the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

The State Government will tomorrow release details of an official agreement between cricket and football to stage AFL fixtures at Adelaide Oval, but frustrated SACA members can shatter any accord at the ballot box.

A 75 per cent majority of members must vote in favour of a special resolution at a yet-to-be-scheduled special general meeting to change the SACA constitution and progress the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

Effectively, for every vote against the proposal to hand control of Adelaide Oval to the Stadium Management Authority, there has to be three voting in favour.

Many cricket members resent a looming "football takeover" at Adelaide Oval - and are yet to learn the extent of any concessions made to seal a union with SA National Football League in the city.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-oval-faces-critical-hurdle/story-e6frecj3-1226013810434

 

[Nick30]

Unusually unoptimistic from Richard Earle:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-oval-faces-critical-hurdle/story-e6frecj3-1226013810434



http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/adelaide-oval-faces-critical-hurdle/story-e6frecj3-1226013810434

They will struggling to get 50% of the vote with the traditional members as they are, to get 75% there will need to be serious sweeteners for the SACA members or Ian McLachlan will need to do something 'creative' with the proxy voting system.

From a traditional cricketing point of view I don't think the pros outweigh the cons:

Pros
- western grandstand levy returned

Cons
- loose the oval for seven months of the year
- drop in pitch
- possibly loose access to Rugby 7's, NRL & SANFL games.

Irrelevancies
- SACA dept paid off (from a SACA board point of view its great but SACA members have been advised that the SACA can pay it off without the football so it shouldn't matter to the average member)
- no improvement in seating
- no indication that the fees will be reduced
- 5000 tickets to all football and cricket for just under $1000 (you can do that now for a similar cost buying them separately)

It will be interesting to see what advantages there are for SACA members in the details released tomorrow, perhaps entry to Port games...

 

[Papa G]

Cons
- loose the oval for seven months of the year

Where is it going? Does it magicaly dissappear? Is this in the original costings?

Jokes aside, I can possibly see the point of the other grievences, this one I can't. The Oval lays dormant in the off season barring SANFL games, if they are scheduled there. What exactly are they loosing? If anything, they will be gaining (if they are prepared to pay for it) and loosing nothing if they are not, unless grass growing suddenly becomes a spectator sport.

I do agree though, gaining 75% is going to be a tough ask. Surely there has to be some sort of a way around this? Surely we can't have come this far, costs and otherwise to have a scuttled by the SACA membership? Surely?

 

[Nick30]

Where is it going? Does it magicaly dissappear? Is this in the original costings?

Jokes aside, I can possibly see the point of the other grievences, this one I can't. The Oval lays dormant in the off season barring SANFL games, if they are scheduled there. What exactly are they loosing? If anything, they will be gaining (if they are prepared to pay for it) and loosing nothing if they are not, unless grass growing suddenly becomes a spectator sport.

I do agree though, gaining 75% is going to be a tough ask. Surely there has to be some sort of a way around this? Surely we can't have come this far, costs and otherwise to have a scuttled by the SACA membership? Surely?

In regard to the loss of the oval I was referring to the SACA attracting other events such as the NRL games which members have an allocation of tickets for at other times of the year outside the cricket season.

To be a 100% honest with you Papa G I don't think the SACA members will be able to stop this, too much negotiating has happened for this and I would imagine that Ian McLachlan has a few 'creative' tricks up his sleeve to get around this issue.

 

[Jose Cruzeiro]

Jokes aside, I can possibly see the point of the other grievences, this one I can't. The Oval lays dormant in the off season barring SANFL games, if they are scheduled there. What exactly are they loosing? If anything, they will be gaining (if they are prepared to pay for it) and loosing nothing if they are not, unless grass growing suddenly becomes a spectator sport.

They've already got this, it's called the Sheffield Shield! Nah just kidding, sort of.

I wasn't aware that they needed 75 percent of the vote, in my head it was majority but according to today's article that was clearly wrong on my part. I reckon that the Victoria Square redevelopment will get under way before the SACA can squeeze 75 percent out of its members.

Oh well, maybe Labor will throw up a 'brand spanka' at the 2013 (?) election in a desperate bid to stay in office!

 

[feenix67]

Seriously, if this gets up at a SACA members vote, then those in favour deserve their AO redevelopment. It will be a mighty task to convince 75% of members to vote yes (or a heck of a good job on the proxies). Like some others, I thought only a majority was required.

As an aside, does anyone know why the SACA only gets charged a nominal rate for the AO lease? Does anyone think that, if the no vote wins and status quo prevails, that the ACC might have a re-think on that?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Oh well, maybe Labor will throw up a 'brand spanka' at the 2013 (?) election in a desperate bid to stay in office!

I still beleive this option will become plan B from the SANFL the very moment they have heard the SACA members have voted this down. I don't know if they will or not but 9am the very next day, I'd be predicting Leigh Wickers will be on the phone or in Pat Conlon's office saying..."show me the money" if it does.

 

[Nick30]

I still beleive this option will become plan B from the SANFL the very moment they have heard the SACA members have voted this down. I don't know if they will or not but 9am the very next day, I'd be predicting Leigh Wickers will be on the phone or in Pat Conlon's office saying..."show me the money" if it does.

I hope your right alex, it would best the best solution (in my opinion) and the SANFL could argue that they came to the party but it's the SACA's fault that the deal fell through.

 

[Hondo]

I still beleive this option will become plan B from the SANFL the very moment they have heard the SACA members have voted this down. I don't know if they will or not but 9am the very next day, I'd be predicting Leigh Wickers will be on the phone or in Pat Conlon's office saying..."show me the money" if it does.

If that happened watch the slow burn of events disappearing from the AO to the new stadium. I don't know what hold they have on cricket games but I am sure the sporting public would prefer to watch 20-20 games at the new stadium.

The AO would become a venue that holds one test match per year I fear. Eventually. NRL games, international soccer, concerts, everything .... gone. The only thing happenning on it most of the year will be a ride on mower!

I think a rival stadium is the absolute last thing the SACA wants.

Because of this, and because of the Govt grant on offer, I will be very surprised if the SACA, SANFL, AFL, State Govt and the ACC don't have a plan B to go ahead in spite of a negative SACA members vote. Otherwise, why do all the work to get to this point only to have it stopped by 7,500 SACA members. It's ridiculous when you think about it.

In fact, in principle I don't believe 30,000 SACA members should have the right to decide the fate of such an important project. That's 2% approx of the population of Adelaide. I think there's a bigger picture and far more stakeholders who should have their say somehow. That's why I believe the Govt would step in to get the development done in spite of a no vote.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

If that happened watch the slow burn of events disappearing from the AO to the new stadium. I don't know what hold they have on cricket games but I am sure the sporting public would prefer to watch 20-20 games at the new stadium.

The AO would become a venue that holds one test match per year I fear. Eventually.

I agree, cricket won't go anywhere the SACA cannot control or gain some financial advantage out of it - Cricket Australia have a partnership with the SACA and they won't program any games without their support.

Look at the battle in Victoria at the Dome and NSW with Stadium Australia. Some games have been switched to the Dome but the VCA have been financially compensated and Stadium Australia are trying to get matches at Stadium Australia but won't compensate as much as cricket NSW are asking for.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I hope your right alex, it would best the best solution (in my opinion) and the SANFL could argue that they came to the party but it's the SACA's fault that the deal fell through.

I actually hope i'm wrong and the AO development goes ahead but it will be great but they must have a plan B if this falls over. To beleive they don't have any plan B is just foolish.

 

[Nick30]

If that happened watch the slow burn of events disappearing from the AO to the new stadium. I don't know what hold they have on cricket games but I am sure the sporting public would prefer to watch 20-20 games at the new stadium.

The AO would become a venue that holds one test match per year I fear. Eventually. NRL games, international soccer, concerts, everything .... gone. The only thing happenning on it most of the year will be a ride on mower!

I think a rival stadium is the absolute last thing the SACA wants.

Because of this, and because of the Govt grant on offer, I will be very surprised if the SACA, SANFL, AFL, State Govt and the ACC don't have a plan B to go ahead in spite of a negative SACA members vote. Otherwise, why do all the work to get to this point only to have it stopped by 7,500 SACA members. It's ridiculous when you think about it.

In fact, in principle I don't believe 30,000 SACA members should have the right to decide the fate of such an important project. That's 2% approx of the population of Adelaide. I think there's a bigger picture and far more stakeholders who should have their say somehow. That's why I believe the Govt would step in to get the development done in spite of a no vote.

I think you’re missing the rental cost and ownership issues.

20/20 Cricket will always be at Adelaide Oval as the SACA will own 51 percent of the local franchise and I can’t see international cricket going anywhere.

Any new venue would have to be 50,000+ seating which would make rental higher than either AO of Hindmarsh, can you really see the NRL or A-League playing regular games in a venue so big it wouldn’t have any atmosphere when there are other options?

Because of the venues we have we don’t get international Soccer anyway and the only way we will get any games in the future is if either a 40,000 seat rectangular stadium is built or a multipurpose venue, the FFA weren’t interested at giving us any Asian Cup games even with the redevelopment, so based on this I would say Adelaide would remain a no-go zone for Socceroos’s.

I do agree that the project is unlikely to be stopped by the SACA members vote.

 

[Papa G]

If that happened watch the slow burn of events disappearing from the AO to the new stadium. I don't know what hold they have on cricket games but I am sure the sporting public would prefer to watch 20-20 games at the new stadium.

The AO would become a venue that holds one test match per year I fear. Eventually. NRL games, international soccer, concerts, everything .... gone. The only thing happenning on it most of the year will be a ride on mower!

I think a rival stadium is the absolute last thing the SACA wants.

Because of this, and because of the Govt grant on offer, I will be very surprised if the SACA, SANFL, AFL, State Govt and the ACC don't have a plan B to go ahead in spite of a negative SACA members vote. Otherwise, why do all the work to get to this point only to have it stopped by 7,500 SACA members. It's ridiculous when you think about it.

In fact, in principle I don't believe 30,000 SACA members should have the right to decide the fate of such an important project. That's 2% approx of the population of Adelaide. I think there's a bigger picture and far more stakeholders who should have their say somehow. That's why I believe the Govt would step in to get the development done in spite of a no vote.

Cue Jo172 with his members rights clauses and sub clauses. I don't have mine handy. But you are right and it is ridiculous and you'd think that after all this it would not all come down to a members vote, but maybe it does? That's what we keep hearing. There would be more than few old school establishment OAF SACA members out there, lawyers, QC's, judges, Von Einem associates that would love to challenge any over ridings or percieved over ridings of their member rights. Would be a legal mine field.

 

[Nick30]

Seriously, if this gets up at a SACA members vote, then those in favour deserve their AO redevelopment. It will be a mighty task to convince 75% of members to vote yes (or a heck of a good job on the proxies). Like some others, I thought only a majority was required.

As an aside, does anyone know why the SACA only gets charged a nominal rate for the AO lease? Does anyone think that, if the no vote wins and status quo prevails, that the ACC might have a re-think on that?

In regards to the ACC changing the lease amount, based on the 2006-07 SACA Annual Report the following are the lease conditions:

"The Adelaide oval lease is a non-cancellable lease expiring of the 30th day of June 2044. The lease agreement provides that the minimum lease payments shall be increased by the Consumer Price Index (all groups) Adelaide on an annual basis. The Association is unable to sublet, assign or encumber the lease without the written permission of the lessor. Terms of renewal are not included in the lease agreement."

http://helium.saca.com.au/helium/library/SACA Annual Report 06-07.pdf

So if they wanted to increase the lease amount they would need to wait till 2044 by which time we may have almost sorted this mess out.

 

[brucetiki]

I agree, cricket won't go anywhere the SACA cannot control or gain some financial advantage out of it - Cricket Australia have a partnership with the SACA and they won't program any games without their support.

Look at the battle in Victoria at the Dome and NSW with Stadium Australia. Some games have been switched to the Dome but the VCA have been financially compensated and Stadium Australia are trying to get matches at Stadium Australia but won't compensate as much as cricket NSW are asking for.

ANZ Stadium hosted the NSW T20 domestic matches for the past couple of years, and will be the home of one of the new Big Bash teams. ANZ Stadium has also secured the rights to international T20 matches, though none have been programmed there yet.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

ANZ Stadium hosted the NSW T20 domestic matches for the past couple of years, and will be the home of one of the new Big Bash teams. ANZ Stadium has also secured the rights to international T20 matches, though none have been programmed there yet.

Yes, because Cricket NSW have been financially compensated in the deal. Cricket won't leave the AO unless the SACA are financially compensated.

 

[chardonnay]

But the survival of the state's two AFL clubs, Adelaide and Port Adelaide, demands football's return to the city.
The AFL, Crows and Power will seek to stop the fan drain from AAMI Stadium by launching a new promotional campaign dubbed "See It For Yourself".
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...elaide-oval-deal/story-e6frea83-1226014295508

Is the above statement correct?

In WA the Eagles sell out every game but 'bums on seats' dont equal a full stadium. Is that the case at Footy Park?
Is the SANFL seat allocation a similar problem?
Does the Crows members seat allocation normally account for empty seats?

 

[jo172]

From memory, at the last AGM they tried to amend the Constitution to allow amendments to be voted on by proxies (an obvious strategic precursor to an AO vote) and it failed dismally.

 

[feenix67]

Cue Jo172 with his members rights clauses and sub clauses. I don't have mine handy. But you are right and it is ridiculous and you'd think that after all this it would not all come down to a members vote, but maybe it does? That's what we keep hearing. There would be more than few old school establishment OAF SACA members out there, lawyers, QC's, judges, Von Einem associates that would love to challenge any over ridings or percieved over ridings of their member rights. Would be a legal mine field.

This from the man who cries that his club isnt member owned? Why shouldn't the members of the SACA have a say about what happens to their organisation? Isnt that what you so desperately want for your club?

 

[jo172]

This from the man who cries that his club isnt member owned? Why shouldn't the members of the SACA have a say about what happens to their organisation? Isnt that what you so desperately want for your club?

What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander

 

[jo172]

Ok, I want to know which one of you is Kevin Naughton? His mixture of bashing the ACC while being informedly uniformed could only come from here.

 

[aneale]

Where is it going? Does it magicaly dissappear? Is this in the original costings?

I think the extreme end of the Shield season is the only concern. This season it started 8 October and the end day officially is 21 March. Despite the moving of Shield fixtures to Glenelg Oval you'd think that the SACA would reserve the right to bring it back.

Its the only reason why I can see they want a straight 50/50 arrangement of 6 months each.

 

[aneale]

Cue Jo172 with his members rights clauses and sub clauses. I don't have mine handy. But you are right and it is ridiculous and you'd think that after all this it would not all come down to a members vote, but maybe it does? That's what we keep hearing. There would be more than few old school establishment OAF SACA members out there, lawyers, QC's, judges, Von Einem associates that would love to challenge any over ridings or percieved over ridings of their member rights. Would be a legal mine field.

it's really not that different than a handful of ratepayers, in fact you could establish a pretty decent argument that members of an establishment like the SACA have just as much, if not more, legal right to exercise their powers than people who just happen to live in a particular suburb.

 

[jo172]

If we ever hosted another shield final (optimistic I know) I'd be pretty pissed if it's not at Adelaide Oval.