Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Hugh Delahunty responds to my letter regarding Lakeside lease issue

Well, how about that - two months after I sent my letters to the Minister for Sport and Recreation Hugh Delahunty and his shadow counterpart John Eren, I received a response from the Minister himself. Still waiting for John Eren's response though.

So, the system works, sorta. I'm not going to go all deeply analytical on this letter, because I think you can see for yourselves what the State Government believes to be the stumbling block, though of course I'm sure many of you out there are willing to put in your two cents in the comments section.

If any of my readers have written to either the Minister or anyone else and received correspondence from them, I'd be glad to upload it to the blog. Unless I was the only one to bother writing, which would be kinda lame.

Click on the picture to enlarge.




14 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Thanks. Very interested to see what the board's take on this is, because it adds a layer of detail for the South Melbourne Hellas public about the board's claim that the legislation is already in place.

      My memory ain't crash hot, but while I can recall explanations about the football exclusivity (and needing to justify it on a business case), I can't recall anything about needing to set up a business case to get to the 40 years.

      Is this the stumbling block? That the club believes that the MOU requires no such thing?

      Delete
  2. Can the board actually detail to us then,what is their business case so as to acquire a 40 year lease,otherwise stop lying and feeding us misinformation.Take the bloody 21 year lease and then work on from that, would seem the logical thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good on you for taking action on this rather than whinging like many others have done. Our business case would not stack up. I think it's time to take the 21 years and run

    ReplyDelete
  4. This board has a lot of explaining to do. Credit to u Paul for getting through to the minister. Have u put this letter forward to the board.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks mate. Only got it this arvo, and had to wait for my brother to help me scan this (I'm bit of a tech novice, and my Canon scanner/printer does not want to talk to my Linux machine).

      As for the board, I know members of the committee read this blog, so I have little doubt that they will see it.

      Delete
  5. Good it be a possibility the Gov found a loop hole. I say take the 21 no hope of 40.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd be happy for 21 and using that 21 years to substantially build he club up to a point where negotiating another 21 years will be simple.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If members of the committee read this blog,why don"t they come out and tell us what the hell is going on,you want our support as members and you get it,how about a bit of honesty for once,this has been dragging on for far too long,TRANSPARENCY is all we ask,and we have a right to that as paid up members,because it looks like at the AGMs you say one thing and then other things seem to be panning out,cmon boys be transparent and honest.

    ReplyDelete
  8. look at all you sell outs..."take the 21 yrs".
    Do you realise how quick the 21yrs will go ?
    40yrs was the agreement. FYI Legislative Conditions actually give you up to 65yrs on crown land. We aren't asking for an increase to this, we are just asking for what we are entitled too, and what was agreed on, and that's 40 yrs.

    But this is just another reason why I will hate the Liberal party into eternity. They're fucking the country, and will continue fucking this state. When will you asshole politicians realise that you work for us, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That letter (if Delahunty is up to date on it) certainly sheds new light on the stand-off.

    Poor form (from the gov't and our club's legal eagles) if the State Gov't and the Trust have had this ace up their sleeve the whole time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good work!. Would be interesting to see what the board has to say about this letter, i wouldn't take everything the Government says as gospel either though - wouldn't be the first time a department has informed a minister incorrectly. I'd also be quite surprised (or maybe not!) if the SM board wasn't aware of such an act when they first entered into this 'agreement'.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Paul for President and get rid of the useless one we have got

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, yeah, nah. We'd be completely fucked if it ever came to that.

      Delete

While I like people commenting on the blog, it would be useful if different posters could at least leave some sort of nickname to make it easier to sort through all the different 'anonymous' posters. If your post doesn't get approved straight away, it's probably because I haven't seen it yet. Lastly, just because I approve a comment for publication does not mean that I endorse its content.