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

[Nick30]

Based on the below article the new information released is as follows:

- The scoreboard and northern hill will be retained.
- 50,000 seats to be provided across three pavilions.
- A function centre is planned for the southern entrance.
- Underground link will run below the whole oval to give access to services such as caterers.
- A carpark underneath the eastern grandstand will have 400 to 450 spaces.

Not much new so far other than the underground link for caterers and the scale model.

http://city-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/may-vote-on-adelaide-oval-upgrade/

May vote on Adelaide Oval upgrade


http://city-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/may-vote-on-adelaide-oval-upgrade/

 

[jo172]

The back of those eastern stands will be hell come Summer afternoons at the cricket/twilight footy games!

 

[Cap]

My understanding (of that little SACA quote) and the Associations Incorporation Act is that you can direct the Chairman of the meeting on how you wish your proxy to be used, as in it's not necessarily at their discretion.

Therefore the Chairman might cast 5,000 yes votes and 6,000 no votes etc.

From the Constitution - your correct.

will be interesting, typically it a vocal minority would be able scuttle this deal.

67A. Proxies
67A.1 A Member entitled to attend and cast a vote at a General Meeting may appoint any other Member as the Member’s proxy to attend and vote for the Member at the General Meeting.
67A.2 An instrument appointing a proxy must be in writing and signed by the appointor or by that appointor’s properly appointed attorney and contain the following information:
(a) the appointor’s name and address;
(b) the Association’s name;
(c) the proxy’s name or if the proxy is the Chairperson, that office;
(d) the meeting(s) at which the proxy may be used; and
(e) the manner in which the proxy is to vote in respect of a particular resolution.
67A.3 The Chairperson may determine that an appointment is valid even if it contains only some of the information prescribed by Rule 67A.2. The Chairperson’s decision will be final on the validity of a proxy appointment.
67A.4 For an appointment of a proxy to be effective, the notice of appointment, and any power of attorney under which it was signed or authenticated, must be received by the Association at least three (3) days prior to the General Meeting to which it relates. For the purposes of this Rule 67A.4, the Association receives a notice of appointment (and any necessary accompanying documentation):
(a) when the notice of appointment is received at a place, fax number or electronic address specified for the purpose in the relevant notice of meeting; and
(b) if the notice of meeting specifies other electronic means by which a member may give the notice of appointment – when the notice of appointment given by those means is received by the Association.
67A.5 Where a person is appointed as a proxy in accordance with Rule 67A.2, that person must vote in accordance with the directions of the appointor in respect of a particular resolution. If the Chairperson determines, in its absolute discretion, that a person has failed to vote in accordance with the directions of their appointor in respect of a particular resolution, that vote shall be rendered invalid.
67A.6 A proxy will have the same rights as their appointor to speak at the meeting, vote (to the extent allowed by the appointment) and join in demanding a ballot.
67A.7 A vote cast in accordance with the terms of an instrument of proxy will be valid even if before the vote was cast the appointor:
(a) died;
(b) became of unsound mind; or
(c) revoked the proxy or power,
unless written notification of the relevant event is received by the Association before the General Meeting at which the relevant proxy was used. The Chairperson’s decision as to whether a proxy has been revoked will be final and conclusive.
(b) 67A.8 A proxy will be revoked by the appointor attending and taking part in any General Meeting.”

Also


"Special Resolution" means a resolution passed by a majority of not less than 3/4 of the members of the relevant body present (in person or by proxy) and voting at the meeting dealing with the relevant resolution.

 

[Hondo]

I notice Ian MacLachlan describes as no vote as only a "serious drawback". He didn't say it was the end of the project.

Thoughts? Something he knows that we don't?

If the SMA, SACA, SANFL, AFL, ACC and the State Govt don't have a plan B in spite of a no vote then they wouldn't have let it get this far IMO.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The back of those eastern stands will be hell come Summer afternoons at the cricket/twilight footy games!

Sort of like every ground in the world then

 

[jo172]

Sort of like every ground in the world then

When the Western Stand is bigger than the Eastern Stand though there's some cover, particularly at the real twilight stages such as D/N cricket, twilight footy.

Those models appear to have the Eastern stand bigger than the Western stand.

Also, how the SACA members come out of this without the best stand is as gooder reason as any to vote no.

 

[Cap]

I would imagine Jo* that the Western stand will have works completed on it to bring it too or above the level of the non members.

*Well I knew...but things may have changed.

 

[jo172]

I would imagine Jo* that the Western stand will have works completed on it to bring it too or above the level of the non members.

*Well I knew...but things may have changed.

As for the last 18 months I remain weary of looking a gift horse in the mouth.

 

[Hondo]

Also, how the SACA members come out of this without the best stand is as gooder reason as any to vote no.

I hope you are joking. You would vote no because you don't have the best stand?

If that is as good a reason as any other for a SACA member to vote no then, as I said, I bet there is a plan B in case of a no vote and, with all due respect, thank god for that.

Self-interested SACA members that number 2% of the city's population making decisions that affect the other 98% based on who has the best stand =

Maybe you were in jest and I am being unfair?

 

[Cap]

I imagine jo is being slightly tongue in cheek.

Given this is $535m on tax payer funds you would imagine apart from minor upgrading of certain aspects the majoirty would be spent on the remaining structures to house to GP.

 

[Hondo]

Fair enough, if he is joking my apologies

I get encouraged when I hear SACA members suggesting they will vote no on issues like a drop in pitch or a lack of information from the SACA. Something that's not all about them.

Then I hear talk about how AFL games should be included for free and who has the better stand and I am discouraged.

SACA members appear to have an important say (I don't believe it's the final one) in a major redevelopment in the CBD and sometimes power goes to people's heads (in hopefully a minority of cases).

 

[Cap]

I am a member of both

for me the issue of information is frustrating - I would have thought an email to members (given how "important" they are) would have been a bare minimum which I'm still yet to receive.

My only concern about this proposal is the way forward and what planning has been done around PT and future proofing the stadium.

 

[jo172]

I hope you are joking. You would vote no because you don't have the best stand?

If that is as good a reason as any other for a SACA member to vote no then, as I said, I bet there is a plan B in case of a no vote and, with all due respect, thank god for that.

Self-interested SACA members that number 2% of the city's population making decisions that affect the other 98% based on who has the best stand =

Maybe you were in jest and I am being unfair?

I'm joking to an extent.

However, how the SACA would justify to it's members paying $400 a season for 7 days of cricket a year without even having the best seats in the house

 

[Elite Crow]

I'm joking to an extent.

However, how the SACA would justify to it's members paying $400 a season for 7 days of cricket a year without even having the best seats in the house

Forget the stand, how can you justify that full stop? You guys must love your cricket.

 

[jo172]

Forget the stand, how can you justify that full stop? You guys must love your cricket.

More time and money than brains

 

[aneale]

I hope they have taken the roof off all the stands for viewing on the model purposes. That looks a little blustery.

 

[MarcusP2]

There's not even a roof shown on the new stand, so I don't think that model shows the whole design.

 

[srv23]

I'm joking to an extent.

However, how the SACA would justify to it's members paying $400 a season for 7 days of cricket a year without even having the best seats in the house

Look I'm a SACA member - but isn't that the same as the AFC justifying to it's members paying 400-500 dollars a year for 11 games of footy a year without even having the best seats in the house? And given that the average footy game goes for 2.5 -3 hours while the average day of cricket is something like 7 - 8 hours - then your average SACA member who attends every day of cricket at Adelaide Oval is sitting in the stands for longer than your average crows member who attends every home game of footy.

The big difference is that us as SACA members actually get a say in whether or not this thing happens.

 

[jo172]

Look I'm a SACA member - but isn't that the same as the AFC justifying to it's members paying 400-500 dollars a year for 11 games of footy a year without even having the best seats in the house? And given that the average footy game goes for 2.5 -3 hours while the average day of cricket is something like 7 - 8 hours - then your average SACA member who attends every day of cricket at Adelaide Oval is sitting in the stands for longer than your average crows member who attends every home game of footy.

I challenge your premise that we sit in the stands for 7-8 hours

And it is similar, except that SACA members will potentially be relatively worse off, and effectively subsidising better seats than they've got.

It doesn't seem overly fair.

The big difference is that us as SACA members actually get a say in whether or not this thing happens.

And it's amazing how much vitriol is being directed at the SACA for being a member controlled organisation, when the same people are calling for the SANFL to give up control of the Crows.

 

[Cap]

jo did you listen to Ian McLachlans presser?

Members are not worse off - in fact better with 5000 seats in the southern stand included

i await the information pack being sent out but for me i'll be voting yes unless there is something really smelly

 

[jo172]

jo did you listen to Ian McLachlans presser?

Members are not worse off - in fact better with 5000 seats in the southern stand included

i await the information pack being sent out but for me i'll be voting yes unless there is something really smelly

Nope.

I'll be checking the information to be assured of no disruption to international cricket caused by the building (particularly re 2014/15 Ashes and World Cup whereas if it's a NZ or WI year i I don't give a ****) and some signs for conciliation re drop in pitches.

Will vote no or abstain. Would need an extra cherry such as dropping of current price or football access to vote yes.

 

[srv23]

I challenge your premise that we sit in the stands for 7-8 hours

And it is similar, except that SACA members will potentially be relatively worse off, and effectively subsidising better seats than they've got.

It doesn't seem overly fair.



And it's amazing how much vitriol is being directed at the SACA for being a member controlled organisation, when the same people are calling for the SANFL to give up control of the Crows.

I guess for me I'm both a SACA member and an AFC member so I can see both sides as opposed to just the SACA members point of view.

I will say at the outset that I am a football follower moreso than a cricket supporter (although I love my cricket) so maybe my views centre more around what is best for the Crows and also what is best for the state rather than purely thinking about what is in my best interests as a SACA member.

Now my personal preference would be to have a new inner city stadium rather than a redeveloped Adelaide Oval. However my prevailing personal opinion is that we need to have footy in the CBD. So if Adelaide Oval is what we're going to get then I'm happy to support it with my caveat being that it is done right, and is not another 1 way freeway waiting to happen. (I'm not a big fan of the horseshoe design personally) My other caveat is that the AFC are no worse off. I don't believe I'll be worse off as a SACA member than I am now - but I can understand the cricket purists concerns about the ground, drop in pitches etc.

Now provided that the AFC genuinely believe we will be better off being at Adelaide Oval, and we're not being dragged/forced into this kicking and screaming, then I'm happy to support it. In my opinion it will be good for football, it will be good for the state. I'm not convinced it's the magic bullet Port/Crows need to increase their crowds but we'll have to wait and see on that.

I can understand the point of view of many non-SACA members when they voice their frustration that the vote of 25000+ people could potentially derail a project that is effectively a state infrastructure project which a lot of time,money and in depth discussion between (you would hope) far more qualified people than us BF posters has been invested in. I can understand the frustration of Port/Crows members who are as involved/affected by the outcomes of this redevelopment as SACA members when they sit and watch the fate of their football clubs being placed in the hands of only 1 of the 3 main players in this project. On the flip side I guess I can understand people who are solely SACA members voting for what they feel is in their best interests - I just hope the "no" votes are about "drop in pitches, impact on cricket etc" and not about "who gets the best stand" and "wanting access to all football for no additional cost etc

And in the end I hope that if this does goes ahead, we make sure we bloody well get it done right.

 

[brucetiki]

Nope.

I'll be checking the information to be assured of no disruption to international cricket caused by the building (particularly re 2014/15 Ashes and World Cup whereas if it's a NZ or WI year i I don't give a ****) and some signs for conciliation re drop in pitches.

Will vote no or abstain. Would need an extra cherry such as dropping of current price or football access to vote yes.

It's already been announced that the Ashes originally scheduled for 2014/15 has been brought forward to 2013/14 because of the 2015 World Cup.

Lets hope that the stadium is fully completed for the 2015 World Cup - the last thing we need is another Eden Gardens

 

[Smoooothy]

Nope.

I'll be checking the information to be assured of no disruption to international cricket caused by the building (particularly re 2014/15 Ashes and World Cup whereas if it's a NZ or WI year i I don't give a ****) and some signs for conciliation re drop in pitches.

Will vote no or abstain. Would need an extra cherry such as dropping of current price or football access to vote yes.

from what i've heard, abstaining votes will be automatically granted a yes vote by the saca chairman

 

[NTRabbit]

jo did you listen to Ian McLachlans presser?

Members are not worse off - in fact better with 5000 seats in the southern stand included

I'll be voting no. Unless I get guaranteed football access added to my SACA membership, a guarantee that there will be no drop in pitches, and no other disruption to the Cricket or any sort of favour of the AFL ahead of the Cricket when potential clashes appear, I won't even consider voting yes, because really I'm fundamentally against the whole project anyway.

Of all the members I know, only one will be voting yes, if he goes to the meeting.

This just in my inbox, and it sounds a little desperate at the end

“This is an important decision and I urge all members to vote.
“After months of careful consideration the SACA Board believes this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to support a unique arrangement which will deliver great opportunities for cricket in this state.
“I am asking all SACA members to think beyond our own needs. There is really no alternative for Adelaide but to have a dual purpose stadium at a location in the city, if Adelaide is to stay relevant in the sporting world.“