TVNZ Sport: Blog FOR the stadium

Thanks to UglyBob at SkycraperCity blog for the reference…

### TVNZ ONE Sport: Rugby Published: 10:50AM Tuesday April 28, 2009
New stadium a triumph for Dunedin
Blog by’s Max Bania

Despite all the debates the Dunedin Stadium is finally going ahead and’s Max Bania believes that city will be all the richer for it.
Read more

Max Bania – short profile Link


Filed under Architecture, Design, Economics, Fun, Geography, Inspiration, Media, Politics, Site, Stadiums, STS

88 responses to “TVNZ Sport: Blog FOR the stadium

  1. David

    So our “leaders” this week have given final commitment to a $200m stadium – the same week it is announced that the Super 14 may finish in 2010.

  2. KLK

    “the Super 14 may finish in 2010.

    Probably to become a Super 15.

  3. David

    With no South Africa?

  4. Yes with no South Africa, but most probably with an Asian-Pacific team, where the real new money is. Super 14 may come and go but rugby in NZ will continue. I am not a rugby guy, but it is the life blood of NZ sport like it or lump it.

    Just wait for the hype of 2011, Rugby will once again be on the top of the pile, then Football in 2012 with U21 world cup…

  5. KLK

    With SA it will be a Super 15. Without SA, it will still be a professional tournament, likely trans-tasman focused. And likely more popular than the exisiting format.

    The point is, much to disdain of the anti-stadium (read anti-rugby) brigade, professional rugby isn’t going away.

  6. KLK

    Can’t play football at this venue Paul.

    Haven’t you heard? Its a “rugby stadium”….

  7. And the hype surrounding rugby in this country come 2011 will be insane. It was brilliant during the Lion’s Tour, and will be ten fold that.

    The inside word is that NZ Football has been given the big “put a bid in” word (unheard of from FIFA), they were that impressed with the way we conducted the U17 women’s world cup. And if you think Rugby World Cup 2011 was big, wait till the biggest sport in the world brings it’s number two tournament to NZ. The newish Eden Park, Westpac Stadium in Wgtn, the New AMI Stadium ChCh and the New Stadium Dunedin, not a bad showcase to the rest of the world.

  8. David

    KLK “The point is, much to disdain of the anti-stadium (read anti-rugby) brigade, professional rugby isn’t going away.”

    Maybe not – but the people watching it are – numbers are plumeting plumeting plumeting – less than half the crowds at Carisbook that were there ten yeasrs ago, the same elsewhere even at new stadiums, Carisbrook memberships down from 3200 to 800, and this year another 20% drop nationwide.

    There too much rugby and it’s too boring. Putting on more games with more diluted teams (i.e.lower quality) will not reverse the decline – it will speed it up.

    I can’t wait to see the Manawatu Highlanders (visiting from Palmerston North) play the Kyoto team – what a scintilating match that will be. It will have the city humming – probably draw huge crowd – at least several hundred.

    I could borrow the word “yawn” but I won’t.

  9. KLK

    Lucky its a multi-purpose vanue and not a rugby stadium then.

  10. David

    Paul – you (and many in the pro stadium group) seem to place illogically large importance of what people think of us – what impression we make. (ok – it’s a NZ wide psychological disorder).

    Perhaps it comes from a lack of confidence, being stuck at the bottom of the world etc. No one else cares.

    Ask the average Kiwi if Newlands has in anyway improved their impression of Cape Town, they’ll ask you what you are talking about.

    So a few people on the other side of the world watch a game in a stadium, and they’ll watch another one somewhere else the next week, and more the next week – whoopteee.

    Why are we so insecure that this becomes some big deal to us. Who cares – we need to get over it and get a life.

    It’s pretty obvious that a large part of this stadium is that it’s a vanity project, an ego feeder. We certainly don’t need it to have meetings (we’re spending $45m on a new meeting venue at the town hall), or have concerts (we have difficulty filling the Regent), or play rugby (most of Carisbook is only 10 years old).

  11. David

    KLK “Lucky its a multi-purpose vanue and not a rugby stadium then.”

    Where for the majority of non-rubgy events, the stadium will be over 90% empty (acording to CST forecasts) bringing in a total revenue for every non-rugby event that is so low it’s completely insignificant – less than a small home business.

    Dunedin people worked out years ago that the “multi-purpose” tag is mainly to con people into thinking that it’s not primarily for rugby.

    The more it’s touted, the more people think it’s a con.

  12. KLK

    “90% empty”, “CST forecast”. More porkies….

    Anyway – I’m over indulging your want to be a sore loser, and to cry over spilt milk.

  13. David

    CST forecast just $256,100 revenue for all venue hire except rugby in its first year. In later years it drops a little and goes up a little but doesn’t change much. In 2022-2025 CST predicts it will just scratch above $300,000 (note revenue – not profit).

    CST papers handed to DCC show apart from rugby there will be four concerts at around half full.

    The next biggest event will be an exhibition (one) with a forecast of 4000 people (4000/30,000 is 87% empty).

    Next largest are soccer games at 1000 people (97% empty).

    Next largest is a corporate event (one event) at 500 people (98.5% empty).

    All other forecast events are for 250 people of less (99% empty) i.e. Functions (250 people) Conferences (120-225 people), meetings (30 – 150 people).

    Considering the council is blowing $45m (i.e. nearly $1000 per household or nearly a year’s rates) on refurbishing conference and meeting facilities at the Dunedin Centre, then this seems a massive and wasteful duplication of facilities – but then I suppose the whole project is a duplication of facilities.

    So I completely stand by the statement that for the majority of non-rugby events, the stadium will be 90% empty. Although it would be more accurate to change it to – for the VAST majority of events, the stadium will be 97% empty.

    The DCC/CST figures back me up.

    Interesting that you don’t believe the stadium proponents own figures.

  14. KLK

    Interesting you claim that it is not a multi-purpose venue, but there you have listed at least half a dozen purposes…..and there are plenty of other alternatives to.

    Come on David, you are being mischevious with the claim of 90% empty, and you know it. But hey, if you must, to support your argument, so be it.

    If this was a rugby stadium, your claims would have merit. But its not. As you have provided in excellent detail above, it is a multi-purpose venue. Some of those events will require it to hold 30,000 people, other events 250 people.

    I don’t remember any claims that it will be full more often than its not, but it needs to have that flexibility – to be “big” or “small” – to be a multi-purpose facility. And it is that flexible by virtue of its design. Not everything is held on the grass field. And clearly, as you have shown, it can provide for a multitude of smaller events 353 days a year (those outside the 12 days it will be used for rugby).

    Anyway, great facility. Dunedin is lucky to have it. Can’t wait to see the progress.

  15. Ah screw it, somewhere to grow a bloody great cash crop, we’ve all seen Scarfies, just lower the floodlights and we’ll have David’s burden paid off in weeks, then who cares what David thinks, it’s free hold and we can do what we want with it.

    {Does anyone else spot the obvious flaw in all of his argument – that he is the only person on the face of this earth to come to these conclusions} You are seriously missing out on your calling, High Court Judge, Partner at KPMG, NYSE?

  16. And David of course is working from the “it says so here on the paper, so nothing else will change” rule book.

    Just indulge me for one minute. What if the first concert is an outrageous success, gets national coverage (it will NZ’s first major indoor arena), people come from around the country (as they will), more acts and promoters (proven wrong) are encouraged to come along, the whole bloody thing snowballs and before you know it, the predictions aren’t worth the piece of paper they are written on, because of it’s success.

    See how easy it is to look on the bright side Brian, just purse your lips and give a whistle.

    Because as much as your doom and gloom scenario is seemingly written in gospel, so is our vision for the success of this thing. Auckland’s Vector Arena had predictions and projections, they have been blown out the window. But because they were more conservative on paper, does this mean the reality isn’t real, that we ignore the success.

    Without a crystal ball, you have no valid way of proving or even predicting doom and gloom, and to be quite frank, while analysis of a 1000 year repayment plan are in discussion, excuse us for thinking (“really, he said that out loud?”). Mind you best thing about a 1000 year payment plan, spreads things out and you won’t have to worry about it.

  17. “Can’t wait to see the progress.”

    Ah-ha, phase two of “What if?” blog, the building.

    Watch this space as they say…

  18. “Why are we so insecure that this becomes some big deal to us”

    anyone spotting again the irony of this statement, apart again from the fact that it’s bollox.

    We are not insecure, we want to build a new stadium, which will be a good thing for this city (for reasons way too numerous to go over again and again). There is no deeper psychological reason, other than the cultural security blankie and pride that Kiwis take from sporting endevors – and that’s not a Kiwi only thing, just look at the Olympics.

    BTW, we are over it, we were from day one of the Bev Butler alternative reality show – you know like the Truman Show, only the reality is she can’t walk off the set at the end of filming, this is our nightmare, we have to put up with her.

  19. David

    Paul, I love your fictional scenario and the naive belief that it HAS to be overwhelmingly successful (your mind is so closed about this you have blanked out all negatives).

    With your endless optimism that it couldn’t possibly go wrong, that it will only ever draw large crowds, and the $15m+ per year of ratepayers money that goes down the drain is irrelevant because of the wondrous events that will take place, all reminds me of my little boy who is yet to see the harsh reality of the real world.

    So optimistic, that you haven’t been able to give me an average household figure (total cost divided by 52,000 households) that would be too much to pay.

    Not a single pro stadium person has been able to do this – say what the cut off point is. They are so blindly optimistic that they’ll happily bankrupt the city for it.

    What’s the maximum you’d pay per house?

    What is too much?

    I doubt you’ve ever actually had an intelligent financial look at this.

    Answer the questions and prove me wrong.

  20. David

    Elizabeth – you’re right. The CST’s own documents show they only expect to get a profit of 1/1000th on the stadium.

    The crowd figures to give this pitiful return are already being revised downwards.

    80-90% of all stadium atendance will be for rugby.

    And KLK misses the odd $100m from their calculations as they don’t know about depreciation.

    It’s the sort of difference between the stadium being viable or not viable – not that that matters to them. Financial viability doesn’t register on their radar.

    I expect almost no pro stadium people have ever done any financial analysis at all.

    They’re the sort of people that have no limit on what the stadium is worth.

    They are totally clueless about what their cut-off figure would be.

  21. David

    Paul says “Just indulge me for one minute. What if the first concert is an outrageous success, gets national coverage (it will NZ’s first major indoor arena), people come from around the country (as they will), more acts and promoters (proven wrong) are encouraged to come along, the whole bloody thing snowballs and before you know it, the predictions aren’t worth the piece of paper they are written on, because of it’s success.”

    The dream is a nice one Paul, but unfortunately there are a few facts that get in the way of it. Personally I think it would be great if we got large concerts in Dunedin, but here are a few realities that will mean we will never get many large concerts if any at all.

    1/ Population. Concerts are very risky events. Promoters will always go for large population bases first. If we do get a concert, it is very likely that Chch, Wellington and Auckland will also get it. So why would they travel here?

    2/ Population. We have a low catchment area outside of the city. In fact all the rest of the Southern SI put together has less population than Dunedin.

    3/ Travel to Dunedin is limited. Flights to Dunedin have average loadings of 70-80%. On Fridays and weekends they are close to capacity. Most weekends, if an extra 2000 people wanted to fly into Dunedin, the vast majority wouldn’t find tickets. An extra couple of 737s could be put on, if they could be found or taken off other routes. But unless they sit on the tarmac all weekend (not financially feasible), their return journeys would be near empty. i.e their return trip would have an average 50% loading – not financially feasible. Even if an extra couple of 737s flights were put on, that is a mere 272 additional people maximum.

    4/ Compared to Dunedin, people from the major centres are not in the habit of having to travelling to concerts. In the unlikely event a promoter took a major risk and put on a concert only in Dunedin, not many people from major centres would travel here – they have plenty of other choice right at home.

    5/ Lack of money in Dunedin. With its larger than normal percentage of students and retired people, Dunedin’s average income is way behind other centres. We don’t have the same disposable income as elsewhere (about to become $600 less disposable income per year with the average DCC rates increase).

    Promoters would love to bring big concerts to Dunedin. As they say, venue is not the issue – it’s completely irrelevant. Lack of money, lack of population, and the inability for large numbers of people to fly to Dunedin in a short period means Dunedin is a no-go area for large concerts.

    These are the factors why Dunedin doesn’t and won’t get large concerts – a new venue doesn’t change a single thing about them.

  22. David don’t confuse opinion with FACTS.

    Untill we have never had a large concert at the stadium, you can not categorically state that this won’t happen, it defies logic and reasoned argument.

    You just don’t get it, no if we do get a big concert it will most likely be at the expense of CHCH and WGTN, with AUK – DUN split. If they were up and running and were able to land Simon and Garfunkel then it still would have sold out and people from all over the country would have come. I know of 10 lucky people from all over NZ going to AUK for the concert – it’s a failed argument. Because unlike your opinion, the FACTS of the matter contradict it.

    Population has nothing to do with it, or tell the Mission Concerts that they don’t have enough people there to host the myriad of massively big names at their concerts. I loved driving from Wgtn to Napier to see Ray Charles in concert. Again FAILED argument. Hell I drive to CHCH for concerts, I flew to AUK three times in the last year for concerts. It happens and a true music fan will do it. For pity’s sake the bloody Cliff Richard fans drive the length of the country to go to EVERY one of his concerts every time he comes here.

    The travel argument fails big time. You do like to dress things up in so called facts don’t you. Shame you don’t account for people planning ahead and including a holiday, flying to Q-Town first, flying to CHCH to see family and driving. Sorry argument FAILS.

    Points 4-5 are so weak, I can’t even be arsed having a go at those. Dunedin has one of the highest relative upper middle class incomes, it’s a small thing called a University. You of course aren’t even accounting (in your figures) for that most poorest of group the students, whom spend an irrational amount of their discretionary income on frivolous entertainment. A mini-Big Day out, or Big Day Out South is a very viable and desirable possibility for Dunedin, remember you are stumbling distance to the 20,000+ students.

    Youa re right the venue isn’t the issue, but I wonder how the discussions went for the Rippon Concerts or Mission concerts, “you are too far from population, people don’t travel to concerts, you have poor people there….” Shame these two off the cuff examples shot that argument down right there and then.

    You are so wrong on this one it’s a little embarrassing, (give me the word and I’ll delete it for you – all will be forgiven or forgotten).

    Because as I have stated, flawed opinion isn’t and can never be paraded as FACT.

  23. David if you haven’t noticed, I didn’t engage you when you were making some sense with the economics of it all before your break. The accounting of it all I leave to the experts, but once you dress opinion up as fact, game on, because if you haven’t noticed this is fun.

  24. David

    Paul – clearly you know much more than Dunedin promoters. Perhaps you should offer your expertise and tutor them.

    And again, you seem completely clueless about a cut off figure for the stadium – is it because you don’t have one?

  25. David

    Paul – you stated there were no problems growing grass under ETFE – this is false.

    The testers have said that the ETFE will cut at least 40% of light for photosynthesis during winter, and there will NOT be enough light for the grass to grow or recover during this time.

    Furthermore, they suggested that use of the pitch during winter be kept to an absolute minimum – no non essential use and no concerts (it’s sort of the time of year you’d think a roofed stadium would be most useful)

    In fact they go further and say there should be no concerts or similar events for seven months per year from the start of March to the end of September.

    That clearly rules out netball, basketball and any other winter events (or autumn or spring events) that wanted to use the stadium.

    Perhaps we could call it a summer stadium, except that we’ll probably all need umbrellas – condensation is apparently another serious issue.

  26. David

    Paul, when you rave about the Mission concert, I understand you.

    You’re saying we don’t need to waste $200,000,000.00 on a stadium for a concert – we just need a paddock.

  27. “it’s sort of the time of year you’d think a roofed stadium would be most useful”

    Are you a Dunedin Resident? Anytime in Dunedin from Feb-Dec is a good time to have a roofed stadium.

    Further the March to September season is the low season for concerts and the like, it’s actually the summer festival season in the Northern Hemisphere, and if we are to draw top acts here, they won’t be coming during that time, it all fits nicely together. I can’t remember a Winter Mission concert, the Big Day Out was a summer thing.

    Further are you working off the final reports (not completed), the drafts from Nov 2007 (18 Months ago) or thin air, because my understanding is that the trails are ongoing and that 3 years out from opening of the stadium that a lot of work can be done. Further the last published report from Nov 2007 stated nothing of the time scale you claim. Their biggest concern is for May to July. You are indeed an alarmist (does this surprise us, you are still claiming 1000 years to pay it off), the condensation isn’t a serious issue, the DEW was noted. But back to the report, they stated (18months ago) that “It would be prudent to work with these figures until we acquire more light transmission values at low sun angles and a better model of roof and side wall light transmission on the actual stadium design.” What, you mean lets see what further studies and altered plans show? So you are telling me that a study done 18 months ago, with the view to illuminating us as to possible issues that may be addressed (at that stage nearly 5 years out from opening), of which there have been considerable design changes. Also I assume that you too have noted that a big proviso noted in this DRAFT report is that the Rig used a material which is different to what is actually to be used on the roof (‘250 super clear ETFE’), which is some 4% poorer transmitter of light and other fun stuff needed to grow turf. Unless in my tired state, there was no such entry stating that there should be no concerts etc in the period that you claim.

    No I do not know more than the Dunedin promoters, but if you haven’t noticed lately we have been poorly served by said promoters, and it’s probably about time we bypassed them, or in the very least put a bloody rocket up them.

    What was the last major act to come to Dunedin, Joe Cocker? How long ago was that, and was that the best act to bring to Dunedin with 22,000 students (whom 30 years ago would have been the prime audience target). If promoters think that is the best way to treat Dunedin, the I say it is time to see heads roll and the old school given a shake-up.

    You seem very much of the school of these promoters, and I guess we just have to wait with cap in hand till they bring the next elderly rocker, or impersonator bands, and be bloody thankful for the hard work that they do.

  28. David

    Paul – with all due respect you’re spouting a load of B/S.

    You say there’s absolutely no problem with the turf – false – it’s pointed out on CST documents.

    Then you try to claim the problems aren’t actually for the time I’ve stated – false again – it’s written in black and white in the very same document.

    You state there is nothing about concerts – false for a third time – concerts are specifically mentioned as something that should not happen seven months per year.

    Furthermore, it’s stated they should not happen in the other five months of the year unless there is sufficient time between the concert and any sporting event to let the grass recover. So that probably rules out March and February as well. Unless the Super 14 is cancelled as may happen before the stadium is finished – you’d think any intelligent councillor would bother to find out that rather important information before committing to a $200m stadium. (Chin admitted on TV3 to committing to the stadium without bothering to find out if the Highlanders will be around by then).

    Grass grown under direct sunlight in Dunedin in winter is at the absolute limit of what can grow and recover. But ETFE will stop 40% of light in winter – so it doesn’t really matter what design you have. It’s going to be below what will grow and recover.

    Unless you can design for additional hours of winter sunlight (I’ll change to your side if you can do that).

    The turf analysts have mentioned numerous covered stadiums, and retractable roof stadiums, that all need very expensive pitch replacements every year, and up to three times per year.

    They also mentioned we would need special turf for our cold conditions, which might die in summer heat in a roofed stadium. They also mentioned that only certain aspects can be tested, and there are numerous factors which they can’t adequately test, or test at all – completely different from your false statements that the specialists have found no problems with the turf.

    It’s well known that Dunedin is a risky place to bring concerts – often reasonable acts don’t even sell enough tickets to fill the town hall or Regent. If they can’t get a couple of thousand people, what chance do they have of getting 15,000. (newsflash to Paul – people go to see bands – not stadiums)

    And no figure yet Paul? What’s your figure for the total stadium cost, divided by 52,000 households, that you think would be too expensive for a stadium?

    (if you can’t come up with a figure for this then you clearly haven’t really thought about whether it’s actually feasible or not)

  29. David

    And another thing Paul – you state dew is not a serious issue – did you just make this up as well?

    They specifically state that dew makes a “significant” difference in the amount of light getting through ETFE in autumn, winter and spring.

    So significant that they suggest wiping the dew off the stadium roof every morning at some times of year, just to help the grass grow – that’s no small job – it would take all day for 20 people with chux cloths, then they’d have to start again.

    Getting into umbrella sales in Dunedin might be a smart move. The can be sold to current Carisbrook patrons (although crowds are so small soon they’ll all fit in the corporate boxes), and if the new stadium is built, they can be sold to spectators to stop dew drips at the Carisbrook Stadium Trust’s Forsyth Barr Stock Brokers at University Of Otago Logan Park Awatea Street Multipurpose Plaza Stadium (aka The Bread Bin).

  30. Phil

    There has been a bit of work done in recent years regarding natural turf issues world wide. Results range from a turf mat which is rolled out in strips for NFL games, through to rubber impregnated natural turf. All have met with varying degrees of success. The consensus is that you can grow natural turf in a stadium that does not receive a lot of natural direct sunlight. But at a high ongoing cost. And that’s where things are going to come unstuck longterm. I suspect that the cost of preparing a natural turf surface suitable for a top class sporting event will severally limit the number of times that the ground will be available for such events. I seem to recall that the original design incorporated the rubber additional with natural turf, but was deleted due to the installation cost. This seems to be the most successful method of maintaining such a surface in similar climate regions. Not the smartest move in hindsight. But I guess that’s only a problem for the poor sap who gets stuck with the maintenance job. And not for the person who receives a knighthood and a free corporate box for bringing the project in on budget. I recall something written about Wembley Stadium using a natural grass that came from the Netherlands. Apparently it grows in bugger all light. But that might have been just a nasty rumour.
    Dew is an interesting issue. I understand that the stadium is open at both ends, allowing for air and temperature movement. That might help to resolve the dew issue somewhat. Condensation forms when the temperature of a surface is colder than the temperature of the air around it. If the roof is exposed to the elements equally on all sides, then there shouldn’t be a huge problem. But they will need some pretty powerful exhaust fans to quickly move the hot air generated by spectators and players away from the roof surface. Or there will be a problem. And a yucky one at that. Especially on those crisp winter evenings.

  31. Hi Phill & David

    There were subtle but significant design changes that were designed to increase air movement, this was well over 8 months ago. This was made after the draft report indicated dew build-up. But don’t be fooled, you are not dealing with fools, you are dealing with HOK Sport, without a doubt the most successful and accomplished stadium architectural firm in the world, coupled with JASMAX from Auckland. See the difference between what you people imagine going on at the CST offices and the reality is quite different. They commissioned reports to see areas that might need to be addressed, they identified areas of concern (the dew) they took these back to the architects, who made changed (time and time again) and issues have been addressed. This is far preferable to building the thing and finding that there are problems after construction, then needing to address them – imagine the outrage if that direction was taken.

    I remember how wonderfully uninformed and alarmist opponents became when it was discovered that openings were included to allow airflow. I remember having that fight with folk here middle of last year, they were claiming all sorts of rubbish, that you’d need an umbrella now because of the openings, that it would be as cold inside as out, it would be as windy outside as in, all because of these openings which were incorporated in the design to address the dew issue identified in the DRAFT turf ETFE report of Nov 2007. Of course their concerns were rubbish, rain would not get in, if there was a 100km southerly outside the wind inside would be about 7-10km and temperatures would be significantly greater inside than out.

    The Super 14 is in a state of change, and unlike the NPC home games aren’t played there every second week, there are trips to Australia, a bye and the South African trip. Here’s an ideal situation. Thursday night home Super 14 match, Saturday night concert (with the grass covered with protective layers as per everywhere else that concerts are held on stadium turf) and then an away Super 14 game(s) in Australia or the Republic, possibly even throw in a bye. That’s weeks of recovery that the turf has to undergo, at pretty much the height of the turf growing season, if this years March and April were anything to go with. Further the NPC finishes late October, and once again the height of the summer concert season hasn’t even started then, but we could get the jump on things, because some bright spark thought of putting a roof on the stadium.

    David how am I to come up with a real cost per household for the stadium using opponents figures. They have ranged from $250m through to $500m.

    I tend to go with the official figure of $66.

    Repeating rubbish doesn’t make it any more valid rubbish. The twisting of the information in the documents around the turf, from a DRAFT document over 18months old, under a different material than what will be used on the roof, to ALARM the public is all fine and well for your game, but again, it’s there for the whole world to see, and to see that no where in those documents does it say, this can’t be done. And I’ll repeat for you, many of the issues have been addressed.

    Yes Elizabeth I agree, a turf farm is possibly essential, but where and how, yes these are serious problems. How about on the Taieri, somewhere not too far from the Train line, it could be transported more or less right to the stadium door, isn’t there two airports out there, where nothing else but grass is allowed to grow, no sheep, no birds, just grass – use these.

    David STOP with the concert line, seriously if you think presenting Gerry (with ring-in) Pacemakers is going to be a money spinner at the Regent, that the tens of thousands of young people in Dunedin will want to go to, you are not only sorely ill-informed, you are sorely misguided. But wait there will be a Pink Floyd or Beatles tribute band popping up there some time soon – that should get the high spending discretionary entertainment dollar out of the students. Hell I’m not surprised a promoter doesn’t put up a Yodelling Country singer on the stage while Shrek the Sheep is being shorn yet again. There is no law written that states that Auckland has first dibs and only rights on concerts in this country. Until ChCh was audacious enough to acquire the Ellerslie Flower Show, people would have thought it never possible for ChCh to host a major flower show, let alone flog Auckland’s off them, nice move.

    The model for money making in the modern music industry is vastly different from 30 years ago, and even 10 years ago. Bands are giving away albums free, but following them up with lucrative concert tours. This has been one way to combat the music download phenomenon – and very successful it has been too. Coldplay have just announced that they are giving away their next album. Unfortunately 90% of New Zealand promoters haven’t cottoned onto this and continue to use NZ as their seemingly part time job. The two last big concerts I went to, the first was independently promoted and the second was on the back of the Australian promoters. Kiwi promoters are taking the proverbial and they are using models that are so outdated that it’s a wonder they are still in business. No doubt there will be another Country All Starts nationwide tour in the offering soon to calm my fears.

    David, if you wish to continue to carry on this line that everything is insurmountable, I can only say phew! – thank goodness you aren’t involved in the planning of this wonderful building.

  32. David

    Paul – in winter turf grass in Dunedin is at it’s absolute limits of growth and recovery (in the outside)

    Any lessening of sun – i.e. 40% less under efte, or maybe 36% less with the newer efte – means the grass will not grow properly. As the experts have said, in this sort of climate mass turf replacement is often needed, even in completely open stadiums.

    I haven’t even talked about demographics but you seem to be having a arguement with yourself about them.

    You FALSELY attribute comments about Gerry and the Pacemakers to me – and have the nerve to go on about facts.

    And then you show that your thinking on the stadium hasn’t yet reached the most elementary point – what’s it worth paying per house, and what would be too much?

    If you can’t see that the $66 figure only covers a small part of the DCCs commitment, then you need to get a calculator out. Hell, even with the back of an envelope you can quickly work out there is something very wrong with the council’s figures.

    If you think we should only be putting $66/yr per household, we’ll get a total of $68m ($66 x 20yrs x 52,000 households). As a third is needed for depreciation, a third for interest and a third for captial – that’s a contribution of $23m to the stadium.

    You’re going to need nearly ten times that much per house. ($200m divided by $23m = 8.69 ).

    Interesting that DCC published the rates increases over the next four years will total 40.5 %. For the average house that’s a $593 per year increase. (8.98 times more than $66).

    Considering the $66 is only the tip of the icerberg as far as the DCC contribution is concerned, the vast majority is coming from city company dividends that would normally subsidise our rates.

    Take away these dividends that subsidise rates, and spend the money on the stadium, and sudenly you need a $593 rate increase for every house.

    You could charge several hundred dollars per house for the stadium, you could charge nothing and take if all from from dividends that subsidise our rates, or you could take a little bit (i.e. $66) from ratepayers and the rest from subsidies – it makes no difference to how much we pay.

    The only difference it makes is it allows the very gullible to be tricked into thinking they are only paying $66/year.

  33. Richard

    Some simple facts:

    The documents – all the documents – including last year’s Annual Plan and this year’s Draft Community Plan (LTCCP) dividend – all audited – clearly set out that when ownership of the stadium and the associated debt passes to DCVL, the “dividend” from the council companies which, rightly or wrongly, subsidise rates, reduce by $5 million.

    It is that $5 million and nothing else that the ratepayer will make up.

    An entry on to the Rate Calculator on the DCC Website for the $291,000 average residential property will show that, even when the stadium contribution is factored in, the discretionary activities levied in the General Rate are generally all offset by the dividend.

    Thus we arguably get the Botanic Garden, libraries, our museums (Dunedin Public Art Gallery, Otago Museum, Settlers Museum) , Dunedin Centre (including Town Hall), Chinese Garden, swimming pools and the stadium “free”.

    On the $291,000 average, the cost of these totals $396. The investment income (or subsidy) is $445.

    The draft Community Plan also shows projected rate increases across 10 years, not 3 years.

    The main driver of these projected increases remains the infrastructure upgrades (water and wastewater) and their increased operating costs.

    Richard Walls
    Chair, Finance and Strategy
    Dunedin City Council

  34. Oh dear, it is confirmed, Richard seriously believes his own propaganda.
    We get the Botanic Gardens, Libraries, our museums (Dunedin Public Art Gallery, Otago Museum, Settlers Museum), Dunedin Centre (including Town Hall), Chinese garden, swimming pools and stadium “free”.
    The most disturbing fact of all is that he thinks that by saying it we will all believe him.
    Next, he will tell us that Father Xmas is real, if only we would all trust them. Richard is a magician of some renown, but this really caps his all.

  35. Jay

    ETFE lets through 90 to 95% of photosynthetic light

  36. Richard

    Calvin –

    I was very careful in my choice of words. I said “arguably”.

    Until the companies were formed, in particular, DCHL – in which you remember, I had a major leadership role as Mayor – there were no “dividends” at all. Indeed, apart from the then DCC Electricity, most (if not all) all the trading activities now within the company structure, received some rates support.

    Nor do I believe in retrospect, that what started out as a reasonable return to ratepayers, was intended to get to the level it has. Indeed, you may share that view.

    Whatever, as the stadium debate developed it became very clear that many, many ratepayers did not realise just why the city rates are so low in comparison with all the other major centres with the exception of Christchurch which is in even a more fortunate situation.

    As ‘a magician’, the one thing I do know is where it is coming from!

    Sarcasm does not become you.

  37. Calvin, thanks for contributing to the conversation, shame you didn’t actually want to contribute.

    David, no I didn’t attribute Gerry and a Pacemaker to you, but you said we’ve been struggling to get people into concerts even at the Regent. I said, look at the (lack of) quality that we’ve been presented to attend (even with my love of the Mersey crooner), and I can show you how and why we don’t have people going to concerts in Dunedin – plain and simple.

    No, don’t dive away from that one sunshine, you stated clearly Population twice in one post as the reason we don’t have concerts here. I have said, rubbish, if 22,000 students and thousands of other young people in Dunedin, not to mention the catchment area for an act worth travelling to isn’t the right demographic what the hell is.

    Plain and simply the promoters in NZ are taking the concert going public for a ride, and we don’t like it.

    Leave the grass out of it, I have shown that this isn’t an insurmountable issue. If you are so concerned about grass growth in Dunedin, why isn’t it an issue at the current Carisbrook, indeed it’s a stunning surface to play any winter sport on. The issue of a ‘turf farm’ has been mooted, the question was, where, how much etc. I’ve suggested that since the train goes right past Steadman road, and that the land around airports can’t be used for anything other than growing grass, not even grazing animals, why not get turf gown out there. Load Turf on at Steadman Road, and off at the door of the Stadium, could that be really that expensive???

    Seriously someone tell me why this isn’t possible and I’ll listen, until then, for every issue there are possible solutions, all we have to do is use that wonderful thing we have, a brain.

    David, I’ve given up on listening to your reasoning re the figures while you are holding onto the 1000 year repayment plan, I have better things to do with my time than argue someone’s misguided fantasy. Sorry if that comes across so harsh, but really. It’s about as useful as saying the Beatles are reforming to play at the stadium.

    Told you I’m a stubborn SOB.

  38. Richard, you are possibly the best person to ask re the Airport.

    If we are to have a turf farm, what is the ownership issues around Taieri George Railway and Dunedin Airport and/or Taieri Airport.

    Surely if we don’t allow any other activity tan grass growing on these sites, these would have to be the prime site to grow grass for any turf replacement at the Stadium, door to door delivery.

  39. David

    Jay says “ETFE lets through 90 to 95% of photosynthetic light.

    The experts, having done the tests, say it lets through an average of 75-80% in warmer months and just 60% with low sun angles in winter.

    If you want it to let through 90% + in the winter, you are going to have to change the position of the sun to being directly overhead.

    CST hasn’t budgeted for moving the sun.

  40. David

    Richard – It’s blatantly obvious that $5m per year does not service the capital and interest payments on a $105m 20 yr loan (the interest alone, at the usually used figure of 7.5%, is nearly $8m per year. Then there’s capital payments at an average of around $5m per year. In addition there’ll be depreciation at $3-$5m per year.

    Despite being asked, you have failed to tell us how much it will cost annually to service this loan, and where the money will come from.

    The more you keep this secret, the more it looks like you’re hiding the real costs, and trying to trick everyone.

    Clearly you know the total annual costs of servicing capital and interest on the $105m loan.

    Please tell us.

    If you don’t know, then you must have voted to pay a loan without even knowing what it will cost (and obviously that would be a serious breach of a number of council regulations).

  41. Don’t forget David, you left out the most important bit, that it’s a complete sham and will take until 3009 to pay off.

    Elizabeth, nothing is insurmountable, even growing grass in Dunedin in winter. Carisbrook does it, and that’s with week in, week out NPC, which is at the height of winter not like the late Summer Super 14.

    Considering we have 2+ years till opening, if we can’t find somewhere in Dunedin, where the council has a majority holding in a company where the only permit-able activity is to grow grass around landing and taking off planes, which is really close to a rail link that goes right to the back door of the stadium, and figure out how to do it as cheap as possible, then we aren’t deserved of the title intelligent beings.

  42. David

    Paul says “Leave the grass out of it”


    Paul says ” I have shown that this isn’t an insurmountable issue”

    No you haven’t. You have totally contradicted the experts on this.

    Now you’re suggesting turf replacement – something the experts say should be avoided if at all possible as it is, quote “hugely expensive”

    Even the cheaper options they suggest to overcome winter grass growth (i.e. special lighting) cost millions of dollars, and the figure they give for the power bill alone will be greater that the total projected annual profit from the whole stadium.

    Paul, you have clearly shown (backed up by repeated failure to answer my question) that you have no limit on what you will spend for the stadium.

    I don’t know what you do for a job, but I’ll take a guess that it has nothing to do with everyday commercial reality of getting a return on expenditure.

  43. David

    Paul, you seem to be clinging a flippant 1000 year comment, and repeating it as much as you can.

    I’ve explained it before, but clearly you don’t understand it, so I’ll try again, in more simple terms.

    The cost of the stadium (before interest, depreciation, overruns or running costs) is roughly $200,000,000.

    The annual profit forecast by the CST averages the $200,000 – $250,000 range, i.e. about 1/1000th of the total stadium cost.

    IF, like any other business, the stadium used its own profit to pay itself off (which it’s NOT doing as ratepayers are being rorted for the money), then it would take around 1000 years to pay itself off.

    The example was used to show how pathetic profitability of the stadium is, compared to real world businesses and investments.

    Paul – the 1000 years is not a real situation.

    Repeat, it is not a real situation.

    But it does give you an idea of the appallingly low return on $200m, compared to what you would expect elsewhere.

    IF the city wasn’t throwing somewhere between $10m and $20m per year into the stadium debt spiral, and the stadium was treated like any other stand alone investment or business, then it would take a thousand years to earn back $200m.

  44. Richard


    The information you seek is all public. For a start, check the report that went to Council on 9 February. I am not going to waste my time posting the details. You do not seemingly accept any explanation that does not fit your own concept of accounting.

    Just take one example: as has been explained on any number of occasions (including on this site), depreciation is an operating not a capital cost.

    Any accountant will tell you that.

  45. Richard


    Growing turf off-site and “bringing it into the stadium” only comes into things in the event the construction programme is unduly delayed and the playing area cannot not be naturally sown by December 2010.

    As Jock Allison has reported, there are several sites on the Taieri on which turf can be grown.

    The Readylawn people grew their turf out near Lindisfarne for years and I think there is one now near Outram.

    The grass that grows within the perimeter of the airfield itself is harvested to provide hay silage for our two dairy farms which operate on land held for airport expansion.

    Sowing and later removing turf in that area would, in any case, attract birds and they do not exactly “mix well” with aircraft. So, I am certain that is a NO-NO. (Elizabeth, the airport has its own Airport Zone as a result of the plan change made last year).

    Back to the turf: as their detailed reports indicate, Jock and the turf specialists involved are all very confident about grass growth under EFTE given the results from the test rig. And, Elizabeth, yes it has been tested with a simulation machine that gives it a more rigorous working over than “the real thing”. It has also had some testing with rugby players. We were told some time ago that the turf patch outside the rig, which is subject to the same testing, actually fared worse! So that is a good sign.

    The fallback option is the ‘Grassmaster’ system where polypropolene fibres are injected into the surface with the grass grown in sand between the fibres. I understand this is what is being used in parts of Eden Park.

  46. David

    So Richard – you still can’t / won’t answer the most basic fact about the stadium

    What are the annual costs for captial and interest for the $105m loan?

    Remembering that your own council code of conduct state that you have to be both honest and open.

    It’s astonishing that you’ve voted the city into massive debt, and you can’t off the top of your head give me a ball park figure (even to the closest million) what it will cost each year to service.

  47. David

    Paul – now you’re talking of turf replacement and turf farms – the most expensive option that experts say should be avoided if at all possible.

    Do you not stand by your earlier quote? –
    “The TOP turf scientists in NZ have been testing the turf for a long time now. Yes it will grow and yes it will be playable and yes it will withstand the rigours of multi-purpose use.”

    You’ve fluctuated from there being no problem at all, to the other extreme of the very costliest solution possible.

  48. Richard

    David – I have told you where the information you want can be found. I’ll ignore the rest of your patronising comments. You see too much ‘Orange’.

  49. David

    Richard – actually you have not told me where I can find the report you talk about. It is not on the Stadium section of the DCC website.

    I find it appalling that a councillor will not be open and honest about how much the city is up for to service the $105m loan.

    You have dodged and weaved and avoided and done everything posible to to avoid answering a most basic question that every Dunedin citizen should know the answer to, and has the right to know the answer to.

    What is the annual cost to service the capital and interest of the $105m loan?

  50. Richard

    I repeat: “The information you seek is all public. For a start, check the report that went to Council on 9 February. I am not going to waste my time posting the details.”

    And I will not respond to anyone who accuses me of being “dishonest”.

  51. David why should we be responding to you, your figures don’t make sense, 1000 years to repay the stadium – come on, you don’t even believe that, it’s a wind-up. Slow news weekend?

  52. David, I wasn’t the one who raised the issue of turf farms, but since they were raised and again thrown up as another reason why we shouldn’t be building the stadium, I offered possibly the cheapest option for turf replacement ever conceived by humanity, on a council owned land where no access is permitted next to a rail road which goes to the back door of the stadium. I’m not sure of the costs of that one, but I’m guess a hell of a lot cheaper than land in and around the city.

    Yes I do stand by my statement, and if I wasn’t to explore and explode more myths perpetuated by the likes of you, I wouldn’t be having any fun at all would I. The option of turf farming is expensive if it is one conducted in the city, on probably expensive land in an area that would need to be off limits to the public.

    Airport = 0 usage + rail line door to door, must come out to (even by your liberal figures) SFA.

  53. “We look forward to more information as CST grinds its facts out.”

    and wasn’t that precisely the role of the CST as outlined by the DCC, to investigate and implement the construction of the stadium. that would include foreseeing any issues (which they are doing nicely 2 years out from opening).

    I’m sticking to my guns over growing grass at the airport – land that’s completely off limits and hence unproductive, being turned into something valuable to the city. It’s something worth considering if this is the avenue we are having to travel down.

    Every stadium in the world (which uses natural turf) needs to over come these issues to one degree or another, in North America it is common to see snow on the grass before kick off, or during games. Tromos in the Artic circle is the most northerly place in the world with a professional football team, they overcome all issues around turf management.

    I would never accuse you of this Elizabeth, but some members of the public really have us believe that we are the first in the world to be building a stadium and that all of these issues are brand new for which the CST must overcome.

  54. David

    Paul says the experts doing the turf research are some of the best in the world.

    Paul says there is not issue with growing grass.
    The experts say there are serious issues, and it won’t actually grow during winter.

    Paul says we can have concerts in the winter.
    The experts say we can’t

    Paul says turf replacement can be done cheaply.
    The experts say it should be avoided at all costs and is “hugely expensive”.

    Paul says there are no issue with dew.
    The experts say dew may have such negative effects, that it may be neccessary to clean the stadium roof every morning

    Paul slams those who growing natural turf under an etfe roof poses unique problems.
    The experts say this will be the first stadium in the world with natural turf under etfe. And that they really won’t have all the answers until after it is built.

    And to top it off, you then ascribe all the expert testing and results, which have all been taken directly from the turf reports, as myths that I’ve perpetuated.

    Paul – when you contradict the experts results (the same experts you say are top in the world), written plainly in black and white for all to see, it just makes you look silly.

  55. David

    Richard – I have asked over and over for some of the most basic information, which I am sure (having just made a $200m decision) you are fully aware of.

    You have failed repeatedly to let me or the public know what we – the city – have committed to.

    As a paid public representative and councillor you have certain responsibilities, including –

    You are required to be open.
    You are required to be accountable to the public.
    You are required to justify your actions.
    You are required not place yourself in a situation where your honesty and integrity can be questioned (like repeatedly avoiding and dodging a basic question about how much annual debt repayments you signed the city up to).

    It’s a simple question. All I would like to know is how much it will cost to service the $105m loan – what are the annual capital and interest repayments?

    If you won’t answer, then I will assume the obvious – that you don’t want the public to know this figure.

  56. Richard


    I repeat: “The information you seek is all public. For a start, check the report that went to Council on 9 February. I am not going to waste my time posting the details.”

    And I will not respond to anyone who accuses me of being “dishonest”.

  57. David

    Richard, The report cannot be found on the DCC website.

    As stated, I can now safely assume you don’t want the public to know this figure.

    The question now is “Why do you not want the public to know?”

  58. David

    Richard – I did not accuse you of being dishonest.

    I accused you of failing to be open and honest about the annual figure you voted to commit the city to.

    You can be open and honest about the figure and give me an answer…..or you can fail to be open and honest about it.

  59. David

    Thanks Councillor Kerr – good job.

    It’s a shame the place you’d expect the DCC to inform people – the stadium section of their website – currently tells the public that the costs of the stadium are only $188m, and has other equally out of date info relating to the cost of the stadium.

  60. David

    Elizabeth, I came across an interesting report warning councillors of the biggest risks to the stadium.

    A major risk was lack of public support, and the primary reason given for this was a lack of information from council.

    How ironic.

  61. Elizabeth

    Yes I remember that one, truly prophetic!

    Hell, it never stopped anyone, right?

  62. Phil

    Thanks for the notes re the roof and condensation issues, Paul. HOK (Populous) do have an impressive CV with regard to stadia construction. I’m certainly not going to enter into a debate regarding their pedigree. I am certain that they have the potential condensation issues well in hand. I’m not so convinced about the turf issue, but here I believe that HOK have had their hands tied by the brief and budget. So I certainly don’t have a problem with their input on the subject. The issue isn’t the roof, as I see it. That’s a bit of a red herring. The issue is generic with any modern, high walled, bowl stadia. The direct sunlight necessary for constant natural turf growth is simply not there. No worries with light passing through the translucent roof, but more of a concern with the ability to pass through the concrete walls on all sides. Having worked for a few years in Parry Street I’ve seen first hand the impact that the North East Valley and Highgate ridges have on direct sunlight. Especially from April till September. Which is going to be ok for the Super rugby competition I think. But an issue for the NPC season. I could see maybe the Caledonian ground being used as an alternative home ground for the NPC. If it’s big enough. If I find time I’ll try and put together a sun shade study. Just to put my own mind at rest. Good turf management is the key, I agree there. Which translates to turf replacement. I would really like to see what work has been done with regard to the frequency and cost of that work. Maybe it’s out there and I just haven’t seen it. If you are referring to the Alfheim Stadium in Tromos, Norway, then it actually uses a heated artificial or hybrid turf. As do most stadia in the Nordic region. Personally I have not observed any difference in appearance or playing styles with their turf. Looks just like ordinary grass to me. I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. They also get around the problem by playing football in the summer, not winter. The official season kicked off last week. Playing on a natural surface in Scandanavia is not possible until well into summer. The subsurface doesn’t thaw until the end of May. Thankfully we are spared such worries in New Zealand.

  63. Cheers for that Phill, I didn’t realise that Tromso had switched to they Hybrid turf (used widely in the USA), brilliant move. I have friends who have made it their life mission (don’t ask why – they were young) to go to the most out of the way placed to find football matches, and of course being the only top flight football field in the Arctic circle it made sense that they got their. They were lucky and it was a beautiful 2°C day, they said the pitch was in perfect condition.

    As you mention the angle of the sun at the lowest points (or surrounding months) is possibly one of the reasons why it doesn’t have high solid walls all the way around and the shape of the ‘glass’ roof?

    Elizabeth I do agree, the council, if they haven’t learnt a massive lesson on public education/information in a modern media landscape, will have some hard lessons to learn. So much of the mis/disinformation could have been easily mitigated with much more transparent and open information. Having said that I don’t harbour some of the ideas some do that it’s all done behind a wall of silence and that there is so much we don’t know about. Yes there is stuff we don’t know about, but then there is stuff we have no right to know about, and despite what some people believe, just because it’s ‘our’ money, this doesn’t preclude the DCC from engaging in the appropriate manner with sensitive commercial information. Otherwise we are asking the Council to limit it’s options in getting the best prices, best contracts, and all round asking the council to perform under levels we would expect of the private sector – and that is so far from the desirable course of action. In fact some of the demands of the StS, if they came to being, would have resulted in competing companies knowing quotes etc, and there is no way a council should be expected to work as well if not better than the private sector.

    Once again with the turf. Turf is a relatively easy option. Unlike foundations or engineering stability, turf can be changed, remedied, improved (as it always is) tweaked, options explored etc. We all remember the mud bath days of Carisbrook, they are long gone, and to suggest that the turf that will be down in the new building on day one will be the same turf 5 years down the track. But in the mean time they are working with the best in the field to achieve the best possible turf in the building

  64. Phil

    Ok, curiosity got the better of me here. Clearly I have too much time on my hands. I tracked down an HOK commissioned report on the roof, turf etc. Included in the report were a series of rendered shadow diagrams. Which gave me a great benchmark. Recreating the stadium from published diagrams I went through the same process. I also factored in for the surrounding hills, which the report appears not to have done, based on their early morning diagram. Looking at the worst case, mid June, first. Sunrise is around 8:30am. The stadium is shaded completely by Signal Hill and Opoho until just after 9am. From about 10am there is daylight on 50% of the pitch, nearest to the main stand. The whole pitch receives daylight between 12:30 and 2:30pm. Then the effect from the north east wall starts to kick in. Daylight is gone from the area at 4pm. Things look better for the month either side of June with an hour extra direct pitch daylight each day. Stepping back another month there is direct daylight on the entire pitch from 10:30am through until 3pm. And from then on there are no problems. All in all it’s not too bad for about two thirds of the playing pitch. The rest may struggle to grow for one third of the year, but that can possibly be mitigated with additional mobile lighting and partial replacement. The opaque roof over the main stadium does not influence pitch daylight at all. Of course I can only talk about actual daylight hours, not the quality or intensity of the light. But it’s better than no light. And it’s a good design, all things considered.

  65. David

    Well done in finding this Elizabeth (I flew out to Aus the next day so things were a bit frenetic on that day).

    S0 we have a total of around ten million in repayments for the loan every year, and additional three million depreciation to fund each year.

    I’ll be interested to see how we service the $10 million annual repayments with no more that $5 of ratepayers funds.

    And as for depreciation. Richard says that’s part of the running costs, but it seems to be missing from the stadium revenue and cost projections supplied to council.

    No one seems to know who will pay the $3m per year.

  66. Richard

    And David, you missed out on the chocolate fish!

  67. David

    So Richard, we know that $5m of the loan commitments comes from ratepayers.

    Who pays the other $5m?

    And who pays depreciation? It’s missing from the stadium forecasts supplied to DCC?

    And while were at it, if private funding comes up short a few million, who will pay?

    And if the stadium runs at a loss who will pay?

    And if there are cost over runs that are not covered by the contractor, who will pay?

    And if expensive turf replacement is needed regularly, which is not budgeted for, who will pay?

    And if several million dollars of special lighting is needed to help the grass grow, who will pay?

    And the $200,000 – $300,000 annual power bill for the extra lighting – who will pay that?

    It seems that I (and every other ratepayer) is putting more money into this than the main benefactor – the ORFU.

    Are we also going to get lumped with a shortage in private funding, and a myriad of other cost over runs and unforeseen costs?

  68. I Like the if’s shame not one of them even considers if the bloody thing will do well – which it will despite the nay-sayers.

    Where’s that oversized used game-show buzzer BZZZZZZZ, sorry you loose, the stadium is not paid for by the sweat of every hardworking ratepayer for the bloody ORFU.

  69. David

    Paul says “I Like the if’s shame not one of them even considers if the bloody thing will do well – which it will despite the nay-sayers.”

    If you want to take that risk, go ahead – do it with your money. But you are taking a really big gamble for a forecast miniscule return, and you are doing it with everyone else’s money, while the main beneficiaries pay nothing.

    Paul says “Where’s that oversized used game-show buzzer BZZZZZZZ, sorry you loose, the stadium is not paid for by the sweat of every hardworking ratepayer for the bloody ORFU.”

    Actually, that’s exactly what’s happening.

    Ratepayers aren’t making money from it – they’ll lose a hundred million (two hundred million by the time you count interest, over three hundred million if you count funding depreciation).

    But the ORFU will make good money out of it. They’re hoping for big crowd increases, and they pay less for it than I do.

  70. Don’t forget over A THOUSAND YEARS (maniacal laughter with little finger in side of mouth) mmWaaahhhhaaaaa

  71. David

    Paul – it was clear the point had gone way over your head, so I explained the 1000 years in the very simplest of terms – but alas, you are still completely missing the point.

    Even my nine year old understands the concept – that if ratepayers didn’t fork out for the stadium, then using stadium profits alone (of $200,000 per year) it would take a thousand years to accumulate $200,000,000 (the cost of the stadium).

    If you think this is real then you are probably right about your self description of being maniacal.

    Although you don’t have any idea whatsoever of what price per house would be too much to pay for the stadium, so perhaps we should not have high expectations of your grasp on financial matters.

  72. David

    Paul, when the Beatles came to Dunedin, we were the only city in the world that didn’t sell out.

    Perhaps you’re right. Promoters need to bring more popular bands, rather than such an unknown group with small niche following like The Beatles.

  73. Richard, you may care to comment on the situation regarding the STS injunction hearing. The crux of the complaint was that the DCC ought not sign a contract prior to the new LTCCP going through the consultation process. This was on the grounds that the stadium proposal in the new plan was substantially different to the present plan.

    Defense (Barton /Harland) admitted that the bridging finance requirements had escalated from $19.4 ml. to $42.6 ml. but that this was offset by Govt’s $15 ml. leaving a total of $27.6 ml. An increase of $8.2 ml.

    Add this to the $10 ml. increase to $198 ml. plus the reduction of $3 ml. from the OTC and we have a difference from last year’s plan, an increase of $21.2 ml.

    Now, an increase in DCC commitment of $21.2 ml. is significantly different, thus requiring further consultation? Did the DCC not mislead the judge by saying that there was not a significant change? Why then, did council go ahead and sign the contract?

    Indeed, it has been said that the matter of the bridging costs of the $27.6 ml. would be taken care of by the revenue of DCVL’s activities, even when the Price Waterhouse report expresses serious doubt about the revenue projections for DCVL.

    Is this not in fact misleading the citizens?

  74. David are you serious. Actually on your track record I do think you are serious. A concert 40 years ago is the template for concert promoting in Dunedin – I am starting to get the picture you are one of ‘those’ music promoters so fantastically serving New Zealand.

    For those wanting a more realistic impression of the Beatles in NZ,

  75. David

    Paul says “David are you serious”

    Of course not.

  76. This web site is awesome. I constantly encounter something new & different right here. Thank you for that data.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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