Andrew Faulkner in this morning’s The Australian reports that former SACA ECO, Mike Deare, says that SACA members are being ‘ripped off’ by the proposed deal with the SMA, the SANFL and the State Government. (See the full article here: Mike Deare in this morning’s Oz
In his view the value of the Adelaide Oval is at least $400m on top of which you have the Adelaide Oval brand, a signature for the city which he describes as ‘the place that people know about South Australia’. He says its value is ‘priceless..worth a fortune.’
By speaking out, Deare breaks the conga line of cheerleaders for the proposal that have presented themselves for the Sunday Mail and The Advertiser over the past two months – from ex Prime Ministers to pensioners, where each day it seems another luminary gets their 15 mins of fame on the topic.
As CEO of the SACA until late in the piece before the deal with the AFL and SANFL and Government was announced in 2009, no doubt this assessment of the value of the SACA’s assets, being sold out in this deal for $85m, is based on a detailed assessment of the oval’s and the SACA’s value done at that time, something his successor, John Harnden, and continuing President Ian McLachlan have chosen not to divulge to their members.
Let it not be forgot that while SACA is giving up value to make this deal happen – somewhere between $55m (as stated in the Information Booklet) and the $300m+ Mr Deare refers to, the SANFL is giving up nothing.
Kryztoff understands a number of members have become very frustrated over the past few weeks, as the vote day draws near, by their failure to secure answers to questions asked from either the SACA or the SMA on important matters. It is not clear whether those organisations have received legal advice that suggests providing information beyond that contained in the SACA Information Booklet (as little as there was) may give rise to issues later on, but whatever, the frustration is as much about the rudeness in their lack of any response as it is about what any answer may entail. As a result votes that may have been cast for the proposal are now going against it.
Indeed, much head line material has been used by the media, SACA and the cheerleaders using ‘authorities’ to justify their position but none of the reports they refer to have ever been made public. So here is a list of those reports and documents that ought to have been made public for proper scrutiny but haven’t.
* SA Centre for Economic Studies Report claiming $110m worth of economic benefits to the CBD
* Ernst & Young due diligence report on the financial model referred to in the SACA Information booklet
* Detailed costings that justify the $535m price tag being applied to the development, including details on how much all this publicity is costing and how much it will cost to fix the defects of the western grandstand
* Pro forma financial Statements of both the SACA and the SMA as to how they will trade post any development proceeding, including the costs of laying and removing the drop in pitches
* Draft licence and lease agreements from SA Government to SMA and SACA (that also explain how the Adelaide City Council gets written out of the equation)
* Ernest & Young valuation on the licence the SACA is to receive
* Valuation that justifies the $140-150m figure on the SACA assets been given over in this transaction
* Independent valuation on the SACA’s interest in the oval – that is one that may justify Mike Deare’s figure of $400+
* Business plan provided to the State Government and ACC that showed how the SACA could meet its debts on the Western Oval grandstand
As Kryztoff has pointed out previously, were SACA a company, this proposal would have required all this information to be presented in an Information Memorandum worthy of the name. Using its status as an incorporated entity under the Associations Incorporation Act has allowed the SACA to justify this minimalist stand under the fog of a massive PR campaign and a ‘trust us’ approach to its members that is starting to reek of paternalism and as noted above is not going down well.
So the question remains – why won’t the SACA and the SMA make this information available to its members and the public?
Another question worth asking is this. Why is the SACA running full page ads in The Advertiser and Sunday Mail – cost around $20,000 each – when the only people who vote on this are 20,000 SACA members for most of whom the SACA has their direct email address (and are now spamming it every few days) and they could do another mail out direct to them all for a very great deal less cost than those ads.
Check out all our articles in Kryztoff’s April edition at Kryztoff’s April Edition including:
* Interview with Alex and Allyson Grey at the Rainbow Serpent Festival
* Profile and interview with Rachel Sanderson, MP for Adelaide
* Fashion profiles of both Chasel Nel and Cameo
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.