by | April 29, 2009 · 10:51 pm
↓ Jump to Comments

StS Gallery: BAD art STOPS fundraising

http://www.stopthestadium.org.nz
Image: Democracy is for the weak!

UPDATED. ODT takes up the story in Friday’s newspaper.

39 Comments

Filed under CST, Hot air, Politics, Stadiums, STS

Tagged as , , , , ,

39 responses to “StS Gallery: BAD art STOPS fundraising”

  1. Anne Elliot
    April 29, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    Rarely have I seen a better cartoon!

    Reply
  2. Paul
    April 30, 2009 at 8:00 am

    Likening Dunedin’s community leaders to those who have committed the worst atrocities against humanity in the 20th Century is against the pail.

    Surely Anne, coming from a country that was greatly affected by the NAZI regime, you must take some offence to this.

    Political satire and comic wit is meant to illustrate a point. What is the point here? Democracy is dead, NO! We have NAZI’s in the city – NO! We have a community group, whom despite following free democratic processes, including judicial have been found to have little or no case – YES.

    All this shows is that those on the side of a debate who did not get their wishes are devoid of any imagination thus resorting to name calling on possibly the most offensive level.

    You bastards.

    Reply
  3. Jody
    April 30, 2009 at 8:53 am

    Please, please don’t attribute that revolting cartoon to ALL anti-stadium people!

    Rarely have I seen such an offensive cartoon!

    Reply
  4. Paul
    April 30, 2009 at 9:00 am

    Thank you Jody, and no I am not attributing this to all Anti-Stadium people, many of whom are close friends to me.

    I’m kinda flabbergasted really. First someone thought it was funny, then someone thought it was OK to publish. Some people I guess are just offensive.

    Reply
  5. KLK
    April 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm

    The StS nutjobs on skyscapercity.com were likening the council to the IRA the other day, so its par for the course.

    Pathetic.

    Reply
  6. KLK
    April 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    …and by “nutjobs”, I did not mean all the anti-Stadium contributors to that website.

    Reply
  7. Paul
    April 30, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Because if What if? has demonstrated more than anything else, Anti-Stadium players can conduct meaningful, insightful conversations without the rubbish. I’ve seem some of the stupidity sent to the StS by pro-stadium folk (read a football friend of mine), we are not immune to stupidity, we are thankfully to date above NAZI imagery (or IRA).

    Reply
  8. David
    April 30, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    A lot of people are very angry at the councillors – very angry – as they regard they’ve done nothing less than steal thousands of dollars off every household so they can build themselves a rugby stadium.

    All because the people who will actually use the stadium can’t be bothered to do any fund raising at all – none – why bother paying for what you use, if you can forcefully take (steal) the money off all those who won’t use it.

    The council has handled the whole fiasco appallingly – and treated 50-80% of ratepayers as if they don’t exist.

    The cartoon might offend some people, but it’s pretty mild compared to some of the things I’ve heard said about council lately.

    While the Nazi reference is OTT, the marching blindly forward regardless of cost, conditions broken, deadlines broken, lines in the sand crossed, ratepayers opinion, finances, massive debt, no private funding, economic crisis, plummeting rugby numbers etc etc – makes a valid point.

    Reply
  9. KLK
    April 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    Why must there be 100% private funding for a Stadium, but not for museums, libraries etc, where a similar % of the population (maybe more?) who are contributing to it will hardly (if ever) use it?

    And I’d suggest that the Stadium will provide more return to the Council and the City than a library or museum ever will – combined….

    Reply
  10. KLK
    April 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Oh, I’d never suggest libraries or museums don’t have “good support”.

    But really, if we took a commercial view, would we put money into a library or museum given the return to the council, or the money-multiplier effect for the city and region? Probably not.

    Which is why its a little tiring listening to the same old statement as to why a different mindset should apply to the Stadium. Yes, it costing alot more money. But people are actually paying a decent amount to use it. And it will bring in 100 times more money to the city and region (the construction industry is already suggesting $50m in additonal spend) than a libabry or museum ever will.

    Reply
  11. KLK
    April 30, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    It is unlikely a Stadium could ever be built in NZ from 100% private funding. Just wouldn’t happen.

    So does that mean it should never be built? That that it would never contribute to the local economy? That it could never, in addition to being a commercial enterprise, be a valuable community asset? That public funding should not be the difference between being built and otherwise?

    I don’t doubt that the Stadium has to be commercial going forward. But I don’t think it should (nor can) be 100% privately funded either. If I was an Otago ratepayer, I’d be quite content with it being funded in the majority by the public because it has a role in the community and brings the bonus of providing an economic return – directly and indirectly – to the city and region far in excess of other council expenditure, even taking into account its cost.

    And in that regard I find the tiresome comments of “let those who use it pay for it” (i.e. 100% private funding) hypocritical and lacking in any reasonable thought.

    Reply
  12. Elizabeth
    April 30, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    At https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/sts-gallery-bad-art-stops-fundraising/#comment-2047 I said:

    [Professor Mark Henaghan’s name is still associated with the Rates Revolt notice on the STS home page – a man of law, does he know about this? The wording of the notice differs only slightly from that on the flyer handed out at the Town Hall meeting.]

    I now have this on good authority: “Some of you may remember the ODT article about Mark distancing himself from StS and the use of his comments in the pamphlet. This caused discussions to occur and the stuff that is on the website is updated to reflect Mark’s comments.”

    Phew.

    Reply
  13. KGB
    April 30, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    KLK said
    “The StS nutjobs on skyscapercity.com were likening the council to the IRA the other day, so its par for the course.”

    It’s funny how some of those notorious Sinn Fein members have gone on to become highly respected politicians.
    Let’s hope some of the DCC councillors can make that transition one day

    Reply
  14. Paul
    April 30, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    KGB, watch the words, I will not put up with any suggestion of use of imagery of the NAZI or IRA with respect to our council.

    Is it not lost on you that the most violent and vile actors in this whole debate have been the nutters within the StS. It wasn’t Pro Stadium folk sending each other cut throat (hideous) emails to each other after successive committee implosions.

    Reply
  15. David
    April 30, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Paul – you seem surprised that the anti group is more agressive than the pro group.

    The anti group is being forcefully ripped off for thousand of dollars per house for something they don’t want.

    If they refuse to pay, they have been threatened with losing their homes.

    The pro group is deriving great benefits from stealing millions of dollars from the anti group.

    Reply
  17. David
    May 1, 2009 at 10:00 am

    You’re taking (by force) everybody else’s money to build your rugby stadium, the main benefactor, the ORFU is putting in less than me, you haven’t even got off your butts to do any fundraising (our local school and kindy put more effort into fundraising than rugby followers have for the stadium), and then the most intelligent thing you can say is “yawn”.

    And then show indignation when there is a cartoon parodying stadium supporters disregarding everyone else.

    Reply
  19. David
    May 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    The depth and intelligence of your comments is astounding.

    Anybody juvenile enough for a “triple-yawn”

    Reply
  20. Paul
    May 1, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Next you’ll be giving me the “tax is theft” line. I loath everything Military, my tax money goes to that, and GE research, but I don’t bloody bleat about it because that is a social democracy.

    Dressing the civic leaders in NAZI uniforms is not parody, nor satire, nor anything resembling intelligence and respect for the millions of people who died at the hands of the murderous regime.

    Keep up the “Stadium for the ORFU” line and we’ll really have respect for the 1000 years to pay off line.

    I’ll see your Yawn and add a “Be Bovered”

    Reply
  21. David
    May 1, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    Paul, I’d quite like a new stadium. All you need to do is show me an intelligent convincing financial arguement for it, and I’ll be on your side.

    Unforutnately pretty much everything that I’ve seen so far is the opposite.

    What is this stadium worth to you? What average construction cost, on a per household basis, is the most you think should be paid? (and what would be too much).

    i.e. is it worth $1000 per house, $2000, $5000, $10,000, $20,000?

    I’ve asked this question to a lot of pro stadium people, and not a single one has ever had even thought of a ball park figure of what is the maximum we should pay, and what would be too much.

    My point is that the stadium supporters I’ve talked to want the stadium whatever it costs – whether it bankrupts the city or not, no price is too high.

    In a sane world there is a price that is too high, but for supporters I’ve talked to this figure doesn’t exist.

    So give me your figures. What’s the maximum household average we should pay?

    And what’s too high?

    Reply
  22. KLK
    May 1, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    I yawned because, yet again, your argument is based on the stadium being a sole-purpose facility (“rugby stadium”, “used for 12 days a year”).

    Frankly David, its boring. I expressed that with a yawn.

    You are only prepared to look at the argument with one eye open. You must insist on it being a sole-purpose venue because if it isn’t, you are talking hot air. If you take that approach, you can’t make an informed decision as far as I am concerned.

    The depth and intelligence of your argument is…well, sadly lacking.

    Come back and chat when you are happy to consider the issue in its entirety.

    Reply
  23. KLK
    May 1, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    “So give me your figures. What’s the maximum household average we should pay?

    $66p/yr.

    Reply
  24. David
    May 1, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    KLK – the “multi-purpose” claim has already been proven to be hollow. We’ve had ludicrous suggestions from the CST. Even using their own projections, the stadium will be 95% empty for the vast majority of non-rugby events.

    Using their own optimistic suggestions of the attendances at meetings, conferences, concerts, and soccer games brings in a total revenue LESS than I make in my small home office.

    So the $200 million venue makes LESS total revenue from non rugby events than an insignificant 2 person home business run from a basement office. So my business gives a better return than a $200m stadium.

    If I was investing $200m I’d expect a return of $25m per year – not a pathetic $0.25m ( CST forecast total annual profit including all events plus rugby).

    Reply
  25. David
    May 1, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    KLK “$66p/yr.”

    Sorry – you can’t have a stadium for $66/yr per house.

    With 52,000 households ($66x 52,000 = $3.42m x 20 years = $68.6m) That won’t even cover capital payments for half the stadium, it won’t cover the interest for half the stadium – hell- it wouldn’t even cover the depreciation (required by law to be funded).

    Sorry, but you’ll have to bid several times more than $1320 ($66x20yrs) per house just for capital costs.

    Add actual and real interest (around $100m over 20 years) and depreciation (again around $100m over 20 years) on top of the $200m cost, and you’ll need to bid a around eight times that amount per house (unless there are cost over runs and running costs, in which case it will be more).

    Try again.

    Reply
  26. KGB
    May 1, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    KLK lives in Malaysia.
    He’s just one of Paul’s deciples

    Reply
  27. KLK
    May 1, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    Sorry David, your figures “don’t get past first base”.

    Oh, and “hollow comments re multi-purpose. That gave me a good laugh. Cheers.

    Thanks KGB. I’m many things, but a “deciple” (?) isn’t one of them. Nice work.

    Its going ahead, it will be a great asset, and a success. Get over it :)

    Now onto matters of design….

    Reply
  28. Paul
    May 1, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    “He’s just one of Paul’s deciples” cool, me mum will be well chuffed. I’ll have to ask her if I was immaculately conceived?

    Rather have ‘disciples’ than Bev Butler blind mice.

    David in answer to your question, while you are holding onto the 1000 years to repay the stadium, I’m not going to dignify that with an answer. I was sick to my teeth with having to put up with the clinically insane telling me that South Dunedin will float away ‘fact’ due to global warming. I’m just sick of it, can’t anyone have a bloody rational argument.

    David how come all of the KPMG accountants or whoever they have been that have looked over the figures time and time again didn’t come up with this fantastical figure of repayment by 3009, why is it only you, not even Rodney Hide’s lot, nobody. Do you not think that if you were correct and this figure presented to the Judge that he would have been alarmed, or did he just have one hell of a good giggle.

    Personally I’m happy to pay the $66, since that is the cost in rates to my family each year.

    Reply
  29. David
    May 1, 2009 at 8:58 pm

    KLK – there’s this thing called interest – perhaps you should look it up in a dictionary.

    On a $105m loan over 20 years, at the figure usually used by DCC and CST (7.5%) interest will come to around $100m.

    Depreciation. You might want to look at that one as well. For ther stadium that will cost in the order of $100m for 20 years or $5m per year – it has to be funded by law, and is missing from CST running costs.

    So you think you can fund a $200m stadium, $100m interest, and $100m depreciation ($400m total) with just $68m. It must be nice living in fantasyland.

    Reply
  30. Paul
    May 1, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    Cool it’s $400m now – that makes final figure #176 I think, so hard to keep up. Mind you it’s less than Dr Hamlin’s $500m so that’s a bonus.

    David, I know all of these, so do the accountants, so does most other people, but not one other person has told the world that the stadium won’t be paid off until 3009. You are either an accounting genius or you are missing something, and I am not one to judge you.

    Reply
  31. David
    May 1, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Paul “Personally I’m happy to pay the $66, since that is the cost in rates to my family each year.”

    If you belicve that is all you’ll pay, then you’ve been conned.

    The “thousand years” to pay for the stadium, is how long it would take if we used the profits it will generate – just $200,000 per year according to CST. So in 1000 years that would come to $200m.

    Off course the thousand year figure is is ficticious, because as a stand alone proposition, the stadium will make massive losses of $15+ million per year. it’s just not viable.

    The only way it can go ahead is if ratepayers are absolutely shafted over the next 20 years. The DCC in their printed information to households have forcast a minimum 40.5% increase in just the next four years – that’s an average increase of $593 per household, with more large increases after that.

    DCC have committed ratepayers to at least $300 (to pay for HALF of the stadium). We have a $105m loan, $100m interest in the loan, and a similar amount of $100m in depreciation (but still ongoing after 20 years).

    $300m divided by 52,000 households is an average of $5769 per house (remember just for half the stadium) Of course there are also ORC rates, and will probably be some cost over runs, and likely running losses.

    Some costs will be picked up from business and commercial property rates, however everyone I know is adding these extra rates onto rents, adding them to product prices, or taking them off their wage bills – whatever they do – the cost will be spread pretty evenly among 52,000 households.

    So you’re happy to pay $66. Are you happy paying around $6000?

    If so, can you pay mine?

    Reply
  32. KLK
    May 1, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    Depreciation is “funded”?

    What are you talking about.

    Depreciation is, effectively, spreading the cost of an asset over its useful life. Along with reducing the net value of the asset on the balance sheet, it does cause an expense to be recognised on the income statement (thereby reducing profit on that statement), but that is not an expense that requires “funding” (like a utilities expense, for instance).

    Turf management, event management, ETFE technology, basic accounting principles….anything else you want help on?

    Reply
  33. David
    May 1, 2009 at 10:09 pm

    KLK “Depreciation is “funded”?”

    Yes.

    I’m very aware of how depreciation works for a business.

    However for local bodies it’s completely different – they are required by law to fully fund depreciation i.e. take the value of the depreciation and put that money aside.

    Westpac Stadium in Wellington (which was substantially cheaper than our stadium will be) has to fund over $3m per year.

    This has been a legal requirement for local bodies since 1996.

    Scoff all you like, but you are scoffing at a fact. (and dismissing around $100m in ratepayer costs in the first 20 years)

    Reply

Leave a reply to KLK Cancel reply