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

[NTRabbit]

It's going to be a long wait until May. But for those SACA members who vote no, think about the city's needs ahead of your own.

As jo pointed out, why is it that only the SACA members are being asked to "do the right thing" and make sacrifices for everyone else?

Here's one for the government - do the right thing, think about the city's needs ahead of your own and commission a proper study rather than an ad hoc plan formulated on the back of a napkin during an election campaign.

 

[jo172]

It's absolutely beyond me why the SACA members are the only ones expected to self-sacrifice

 

[Elite Crow]

NT and Jo, what sacrifices are we asking SACA members to make? You will still have your membership rights and access to the same games you have now. What are you giving up?

 

[Mong]

As jo pointed out, why is it that only the SACA members are being asked to "do the right thing" and make sacrifices for everyone else?

Because SACA members are the only people who get a vote.

Having said that the SANFL are making a sacrifice by giving up sole control of a stadium, the general public are sacrificing public monies. I would have thought the SANFL are making a sacrifice equal of the SACA. And together they hope to share in the spoils. The benefits are mutual.

 

[jo172]

Because SACA members are the only people who get a vote.

Having said that the SANFL are making a sacrifice by giving up sole control of a stadium, the general public are sacrificing public monies. I would have thought the SANFL are making a sacrifice equal of the SACA. And together they hope to share in the spoils. The benefits are mutual.

The SANFL arent giving up control of Footy Park just AFL matches there.

There should be an assurance to SACA members that they will be no worse off and really they should be better off.

In the absence of this stating they should self and financially sacrifice in the name of some arbritrary greater good is insulting.

 

[CarnCrows]

Your reasons for voting yes are your own, and that's fine, but the reasons against are far from trivial.

Call me glass half full, but I just dont see any major negatives.

Hopefully when we are presented the final picture it will answer many a question, which is probably the biggest negative in that the information has not been freely given.

 

[Elite Crow]

The SANFL arent giving up control of Footy Park just AFL matches there.

There should be an assurance to SACA members that they will be no worse off and really they should be better off.

In the absence of this stating they should self and financially sacrifice in the name of some arbritrary greater good is insulting.

Has anyone said you will be worse off? And assuming you are no worse off, why should you be better off? Thats being greedy and putting the wants of a minority ahead of whats best for cricket, footy, the city and the majority of the public.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

As I see it waiting for seven years for membership and then paying all the associated cost allows me to vote based on whatever logic I chose. But I do see your point.

The logic that you're voting no because the ground might be so popular that it will need to expand is...

Better to have a crap ground that no one goes to I guess so that we don't have to make any additions.

 

[jo172]

Has anyone said you will be worse off? And assuming you are no worse off, why should you be better off? Thats being greedy and putting the wants of a minority ahead of whats best for cricket, footy, the city and the majority of the public.

Refer to my post a few pages back regarding my concerns. I strongly suspect that SACA members will be worse off.

And due to putting up with inconvenience for 6/7 years I expect some token. If I'm going to be exactly the same I see no reason to rock the boat.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Lol at the SACA members on here relishing the prospect of voting no and flaunting their power in the face of public opinion.

You go girls!

 

[NTRabbit]

Has anyone said you will be worse off? And assuming you are no worse off, why should you be better off? Thats being greedy and putting the wants of a minority ahead of whats best for cricket, footy, the city and the majority of the public.

In the absence of proof that we will be better off, or even assurances of status quo, it's fair to worry that we will be worse off, especially given the manner in which the AFL conducts itself in negotiations with everyone.

Why should we be better off? Why shouldn't we? Considering everything we're giving up - a raft of members rights, and control over our own stadium - we damn well should be better off.

 

[jo172]

Lol at the SACA members on here relishing the prospect of voting no and flaunting their power in the face of public opinion.

You go girls!

Lol at all the misplaced arrogance being used as a technique of persuasion.

Mind you I suppose it always worked for this project's godfather.

And I'm not committed to any vote until I get some information regarding my concerns. I just reject the hypocritical greater good arguments.

 

[Gets!]

Those that vote NO are the epitome of what is wrong with this state.

 

[Elite Crow]

Refer to my post a few pages back regarding my concerns. I strongly suspect that SACA members will be worse off.

And due to putting up with inconvenience for 6/7 years I expect some token. If I'm going to be exactly the same I see no reason to rock the boat.

I read your concerns and if they are addressed will you vote yes? As for 6/7 years that will take it out to 2017/18, where have you got that time line from? Also you are taking a short term view, your members stand was knocked down and rebuilt, did you also want this not to happen? Look at the long term picture.

 

[Mong]

In the absence of proof that we will be better off, or even assurances of status quo, it's fair to worry that we will be worse off, especially given the manner in which the AFL conducts itself in negotiations with everyone.

Why should we be better off? Why shouldn't we? Considering everything we're giving up - a raft of members rights, and control over our own stadium - we damn well should be better off.

This being a Crows specific forum I would have assumed the wellbeing of the Crows was a fairly high priority for the vast majority, if not all, of us. I don't think that's an unfair assumption. Are the Crows even a consideration for you in all of this?

 

[NTRabbit]

Those that vote NO are the epitome of what is wrong with this state.

Populist drivel.

 

[NTRabbit]

This being a Crows specific forum I would have assumed the wellbeing of the Crows was a fairly high priority for the vast majority, if not all, of us. I don't think that's an unfair assumption. Are the Crows even a consideration for you in all of this?

Surprising as it sounds, the AFC does not need this project to go ahead. In fact, despite claiming it to be the silver bullet to all their problems, Port don't really need this project to go ahead either.

The AFC will be just fine without it. Port have problems that need other solutions.

 

[Gets!]

Populist drivel.

Keep using your big words and watching football at the concrete jungle.

 

[jo172]

I read your concerns and if they are addressed will you vote yes? As for 6/7 years that will take it out to 2017/18, where have you got that time line from? Also you are taking a short term view, your members stand was knocked down and rebuilt, did you also want this not to happen? Look at the long term picture.

I'm counting the disruption in building the existing stand.

And tbh i'd much prefer that they got the new stand right hence my lack of faith in the additional proposal.

But if all my concerns posted a few pages back were allayed I'd have no reason to vote no unless people like gets and rucci (never thought i'd connect those two) keep telling me i should sacrifice for the state.

When I hear or read that i get spiteful.

 

[Elite Crow]

In the absence of proof that we will be better off, or even assurances of status quo, it's fair to worry that we will be worse off, especially given the manner in which the AFL conducts itself in negotiations with everyone.

Why should we be better off? Why shouldn't we? Considering everything we're giving up - a raft of members rights, and control over our own stadium - we damn well should be better off.

So even if you are given assurances you still think you will be worse off?

You shouldn't be better off unless you are prepared to pay for it. Your demand that you get footy included in your membership had to be a joke. If you want what MCC members get, go become one of those.

As for members rights, what rights are you giving up? Will you be seeing less cricket? So you lose control over the stadium during the winter, how exactly did you use that control in winter?

Show me some real sacrifice SACA members are being asked to make that puts their needs above the majority and you might not come across as selfish and bitter.

 

[Mong]

Surprising as it sounds, the AFC does not need this project to go ahead. In fact, despite claiming it to be the silver bullet to all their problems, Port don't really need this project to go ahead either.

The AFC will be just fine without it. Port have problems that need other solutions.

Sure, the AFC will probably survive without it, although diminishing crowds should be cause for at least some level of concern. Do we only want to survive and nothing more? I can't see how we will ever compete evenly with Collingwood, West Coast and some of the big Melbourne teams if the status quo remains.

I find myself concerned at how many Adelaide kids and teens are choosing to follow Vic clubs.

I'm moving into issues far bigger than just the stadium so I won't take it any further off topic but I'm convinced the quality and location of our stadium is hurting us when it comes to competing off the field.

To be honest my reasons for wanting Adelaide Oval to happen are far more than what I've discussed here, but the welfare of the Crows should not be taken for granted.

 

[NTRabbit]

If you want what MCC members get, go become one of those.

If the SANFL wants an MCG-like football stadium, go build one themselves.

If you are unable to see the sacrifice the SACA members will be making, then there is no point continuing.

 

[Elite Crow]

I'm counting the disruption in building the existing stand.

And tbh i'd much prefer that they got the new stand right hence my lack of faith in the additional proposal.

But if all my concerns posted a few pages back were allayed I'd have no reason to vote no unless people like gets and rucci (never thought i'd connect those two) keep telling me i should sacrifice for the state.

When I hear or read that i get spiteful.

You can't count the existing stand, you are not being asked to vote on that.

And your last comment is why SACA members shouldn't get a vote. If there is even the slighest chance this gets voted down because of spite then they don't deserve a vote.

 

[Briggzy]

Those that vote NO are the epitome of what is wrong with this state.

Agree.

I'm voting yes, too great of an opportunity for the city and state. I have full trust in the SACA board to keep the ground up to world class standards.

 

[CarnCrows]

Surprising as it sounds, the AFC does not need this project to go ahead. In fact, despite claiming it to be the silver bullet to all their problems, Port don't really need this project to go ahead either.

The AFC will be just fine without it. Port have problems that need other solutions.

I agree with this. The need is not necessarily there, but the want is.

Port are in an interesting situation. They need a major overhaul in their membership base, maybe this is the start they need? Then again it may be too far from Alberton, too heavily focussed on Adelaide, etc.