Opinion: StS vice-president

### ODT Online Thu, 9 Apr 2009
Opinion: ‘Vision’ of Awatea St overcome by dark clouds

By Dave Witherow

Dave Witherow questions the commitment of the Dunedin City Council to consultation over the proposed new stadium.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

ODT credits Dave Witherow as vice-president of Stop The Stadium.

6 Comments

Filed under CST, Design, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Politics, Site, Stadiums, STS

6 responses to “Opinion: StS vice-president

  1. What the bloody hell is the ODT up to.

    On one hand they are doing something finally to give some sort of balance and objectivity to the debate with the 2 part Q&A Chin Harland articles, and on the other hand they print this rubbish.

    Once again it’s subjective fluff, alarmist, with bugger all grasp on reality, wild accusation. FFS they just won’t give up on the ‘stir up circulation’ will they.

    There is no way that 90% of what Witherow had stated here has anything to do with reasoned debate.

    “It was to be a futuristic, roofed stadium”

    It’s an even more beautiful building now, and still have a bloody roof. The simple suggestion seems to indicate (as per the StS song book) that there is a sub standard complex being built – there bloody well isn’t.

    There still is moveable seating, there still is ability for multiplicity of use.

    There is so much shit in this article rehashed from tired and discredited argument, I wonder how or why it got published at all.

    “The stadium peer reviewers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, confirm this by noting that, apart from rugby, “no other possible uses were identified”.

    Except this has been proven to be wrong, and is also a wrong interpretation of the PWC statement anyway. Just this week we have been told of out of town sporting organisations willing to come to Dunedin for the first time, all because of the new stadium. Really Witherow once again you are doing this city one massive disservice repeating these old untruths.

    Don’t go on about the Concerts, again with the Phoenix and Warriors, this only proves that all you have to do is approach the promoters who actually want to create a business income, and it will happen. To state categorically something that he has now ability to prove is unfair and again alarmist. Who would have thought that the US rap group De La Soul would have played in Wanaka, well the promoter who wanted them there did – that’s what I am on about.

    “It is essentially a rugby venue”

    Bullshit and shut the F up you ignorant moron.

    Bloody pathetic ODT.

  2. David

    Paul says “Bullshit and shut the F up you ignorant moron.”

    And the pro-lobby try to say it’s the StS making poisonous personal assertions?

    It was the best summation I’ve seen of the whole stadium fiasco.

    And that’s why it’s gone from mass support to mass derision.

    Peer reviews have projected that there will only be around five large non-rugby events per year (i.e. events where the stadium will be over 15% full).

    You can yell “multipurpose” as much as you want, but the figures show that less that 10% of income will come from ALL other events.

    Like the article says – the more you yell at us, the less people believe you.

    Off to Oz – Keep up the good work Elizabeth

  3. “It was the best summation I’ve seen of the whole stadium fiasco”

    Thus you are open to fluff and hyperbole then, that’s about where we stand.

    There was nothing in that article that wasn’t complete and utter rubbish, least of all the underhand moans about the design of the bloody thing.

    I agree David has been good at arguing the economics of it, but then again like all things this is one interpretation of the facts. In accounting there is no one definitive answer as some have been seeking, and there are those who could and have argued the contrary to what David has been saying. There was almost respect going out to the conviction and sticking to the facts and figures, but any belief that what Witherow had to say was in any way helpful, informative or even interesting is laughable.

    While “It is essentially a rugby venue” reigns supreme then debate around the stadium is a joke on this level.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s