I am continually amazed at the ability of Kiwi’s to belittle each other.
Stadium cold feet? If the sock fits ‘get over it’
But I fear that it goes beyond the Great Kiwi Knocking Machine, doesn’t it. It demonstrates an arrogance, a preposterous belief in the worth of self and one’s opinion.
The pupils of Columba College participating in the Young Enterprise scheme have come up with an idea. But if we take anything from this whole sorry saga, ideas are the best shooting targets aren’t they? They are not proposing closing down housing for the old and poor, they aren’t suggesting raising taxes, they aren’t even suggesting we pull the legs off unsuspecting spiders, but if you are unfortunate enough to read most of the arrogant and hideous ‘complaints’ and ‘opinions’ over at the ODT following this article, one would have us believe that these girls are in cohorts with the devil himself.
Who was the bereft of ideas who is now framing this discourse beyond the moral to a Holy campaign. I don’t know about you, but if you are framing argument around supposed holy orders or deity inspiration, then dogma will prevail and any notion of debate is shot dead. This is not a Moral campaign and it is certainly not some bloody Holy campaign.
For the first time in a long time during this debate, I was sickened by the words that some have used to pour scorn on these young women. I can not fathom the level of arrogance demonstrated by some, and the weakness of campaign, when a group of young school pupils are subjected to Holy crusades and such ridicule.
They are not the people pushing this development, but they are the very champions I have been wishing would come along out of this project. I know of 3 companies striving to provide food for the hundreds of workers on site each day. I know of one sporting code already deep in planning for hosting of some of the thousands of wealthy Home Nation sports fans here for 2011. These are just one example of the belief I have in the power of one good idea leading others to strive to excel.
To all who wished to rain on the parade of these young women, pull your bloody heads out of your orifices, and if as my Gran used to say, if you haven’t got anything useful to say, keep it to your bloody self, because they aren’t the correct target for your ridicule.
What if? Dunedin... 
Paul – you say were “sickened” by the words used to pour scorn.
Thou dost protest too much – your words are pretty hollow when you follow them up with –
“what a twat”
“arrogant and miserable buggers who have SHAT on the students news story”
“so many heads of the arrogant and gloomy is so far up one’s orifices that cleaning tissue is a requirement if they ever were to come up for breath!”
Couldn’t agree more, Elizabeth. With so many genuine community groups struggling for basic funding, you have to question the wisdom of donating to a commercial venture. Especially one carrying so much controversy. That is definitely announcing an allegiance, intended or not. Maybe they are tough enough, one hopes they received appropriate advice on the consequences before they burst into print. If you are going to back a commercial venture with your own commercial venture, then you also have to accept the baggage and liabilities that comes with it. Can’t have it both ways. That alone is probably a very valuable lesson for the students. On the up side, this boosts the CST private funding effort. About 20 million pairs of socks should just about do it. Sorry, that wasn’t fair on the girls. Huge points for effort, not so many for wisdom or guidance.
We’ve currently got people in Dunedin who are having to decide on whether they cut their heating down and go cold, or cut their food bill back.
Now they are about to be hit with massive rates increases, year on year.
Telling these people to “get over it” is highly inflamatory and I dare say, offensive.
It’s hardly a neutral stand.
It’s no accident that support for the stadium is strongest in Maori Hill. These people just don’t get it that in a recession, some of us will struggle to pay. ‘Get over it’ is about as useful a suggestion as ‘let them eat cake’. I imagine this project won’t sit very comfortably with Columba parents who are already struggling to pay for their daughters’ school fees. Whatever happens, one must not appear to be poor.
One can’t blame the girls, but I do blame their parents for inculcating in them this arrogant attitude, and the ODT for giving this story front page treatment.
Good heavens Paul, I’ve just read the ODT online and I have to say the comments about these girls were mild compared to the tone of your rant.
I am very sorry but if you are “cut their heating down and go cold, or cut their food bill back” and a home owner, then perhaps like my parents have in the past you need to question if you should be a homeowner and all of the costs associated with that.
It is not an unalienable right to be a home owner, it’s bloody fantastic, but it’s not some sort of birthright. My parents have made such a decision in the past, and that quite simply is life.
Meg55 the tone of my rants was inversely proportional to the arrogance and condescending nature of the patronising gits attacking the students.
Now we’re seeing your humane side Paul.
Effectively, if you’re struggling to pay your stadium rates increase, then you shouldn’t have a home.
They should sell their homes so they can afford to pay for Paul’s new rugby stadium.
Paul no one knows what the future holds for them.You could find yourself in a situation where you are dealt a bad blow and some of the arrogance may be knocked out of you.
I suggest that you get down off your pedestal and join the real world. You never know,you may even become enlightened somewhat.
No David, the rates increase was going to go ahead with or without the stadium.
People, the power increases are not mine nor the stadium’s fault, they are a massive failure of tired right wing political ideology. The insulation of houses is in fact what I voted for at the last election, alas my Green party was defeated and the mad buggers running the country decided against insulating the country. So is it the place of council to do so? Some could argue so, but then DO NOT play the opportunity costs game with me, the council was NOT going to borrow massive amounts of money to insulate the houses in this city, not now, not ever.
If I was like my old man who lost his career as a Glass Blower in the early 80’s, I’d be knocking on the doors of Hall Brothers or the construction company until a job came about.
David, respectfully would you shut up about a bloody rugby only stadium, that line of argument has about as much credibility as your 1,000 year repayment line. No I DO NOT want poor people handing over their last dollar for this stadium, but if you are a ratepayer, then as part of your social contract you contribute. Did I say they should sell their homes for a Rugby Stadium, I said they should sell their homes so a few surfers could play in the water at St Clair free of poo. Words fail me.
But then if the numbers were done correctly the rates increases ARE NOT down solely to the stadium development, and no matter of fudging that will ever make it so. We have been bored senseless time and time again about bloody rates increases for the last decade, then we had to undertake projects like sewage and drinking water upgrades, these all contribute.
But could someone, anyone, show me a person running for public office over the last decade who has a sole plan for eliminating debt, ceasing rates increases, providing sewage and clean water upgrades and all of the rest of the social agendas supposedly now within the ‘core’ business of council, and that this person has actually been pronounced clinically sane, and they didn’t own a ‘money tree’.
It may surprise many of you to know, the very first thought that came to mind when I first read a report in the paper that a stadium was being mooted for the city, I instantly thought of the new jobs that would be created, from construction through to catering – wow what a crime to think of job creation, how bloody inhumane of me. And what a marvellous opportunity for one defeated councillor to make some money out of the champers-swilling corporate boxes than to provide the entertainment facilities supposedly lacking from this development. Hell he might even be able to increase his business, take on new staff.
KGB, leave the preaching alone love, you have no idea of my social or political views, and certainly have no place telling me what I can or can’t think. No one knows what the future holds for any of us, and sorry my dear, my family has been dealt enough bad blows throughout my life to understand 100% the issues surrounding nearly every one of the poor beggars you are championing. I do know for fact that work, and the access to work (for those who are physically and mentally able), is the best way out of said situations, and no one will ever convince me that this is not true.
So we’re going to commit the city to $108m + $101m in interest and $56m in depreciation (over a quarter of a BILLION dollars debt for just 50,000 ratepayers) but you say it’s not going to increase rates.
That’s because the money is coming from…..?
Paul says “KGB, leave the preaching alone love, you have no idea of my social or political views,..”
Yes we do – you just told us.
From above, you like to patronise.
You are anti-right wing (you say so above), but you want poor people to pay for Rupert Murdoch’s new $200m rugby TV studio.
You want to keep poor people nice and warm with insulation, unless they can’t pay for the stadium, then they shouldn’t have a house.
You vote green (you say so above) but you have a terrible recycling record. You want to demolish a largely new stadium, and duplicate it with a new concrete and plastic monster (and the carbon footprint for concrete production is atrocious).
You are anti any sort of mild critical language aimed at young entrepreneurs – so anti, that you think that the “heads of the arrogant and gloomy is so far up one’s orifices that cleaning tissue is a requirement if they ever were to come up for breath!”.
And you are termimally optimistic. The sort of terminal optimism that crosses over from being positive to being negative (like the optimisim that caused the property bubble, the sharemarket crash (all of them), the credit crunch etc.).
that was not mild critical language, it was sanctimonious and patronising.
Cool, I caused the credit crunch, and me ma thought I’d slip through life not causing any trouble.
Carbon footprint for concrete – humph, what would the redeveloped Carisbrook be made of – sustainable plantation timber? How many kilometres from the place of concrete production in Dunedin is the present Carisbrook, and what is that across the road of the new stadium?
Yawn!
There is a law of diminishing return within blogs, where argument and discourse fails and mud slinging reigns supreme.
Over at Kiwiblog, NZ’s biggest blog, that law of diminishing return kicks in after the first rabid right wing libertarian pipes up. Hideous place. You can see why I was keen to keep this blog under the radar, or hesitant to engage Peter A all those months ago.
Folks. Let’s take a step back here and remember why we’re here please. The main attraction of this site for me is the presence of good, open minded, sound debate and the absence of gutter dragging or personal insults. The reasons why I avoid the alternatives such as skyscraper etc. There are good people posting here with good sharing of ideas and opinions. I don’t agree with a lot of things that are said here, but I can usually understand from the posters explanation, where they are coming from. And we all benefit from that. Time to move things along a bit here I think. I’d hate to have to go back to surfing porn again.
And you’ve all just beaten me to the punch. Again. I’ll shut up now.
A carbon footprint measures the entire process. Everything from the miners’ vehicle use driving to the various quarries through to the concrete pump used to place the finished product on site. That’s why it’s so good to reuse an existing product, such as crushed up concrete walls where possible. You are largely stepping on an existing footprint. Having Palmers over the road will be a help, if they are successful in their subcontract tender. I would think that most on the concrete work outside of the foundations will be lightweight precast concrete, which is likely to be fabricated off site. Away from Palmers. Maybe. But I’m guessing.
“Isn’t this where we remember a new batching plant is being brought in from up north for said project.”
Is it, that’s a shame, but I’ve also heard from local contractors that the new stadium would also have been a massive drain on the capacity of the current plant.
Concrete’s carbon footprint comes from its manufacture (huge amount of CO2 released and huge amount of energy needed for the process)
Some scientists believe 5% of all carbon produced world-wide comes just from the production of concrete.
Paul:
“But then if the numbers were done correctly the rates increases ARE NOT down solely to the stadium development, and no matter of fudging that will ever make it so. We have been bored senseless time and time again about bloody rates increases for the last decade, then we had to undertake projects like sewage and drinking water upgrades, these all contribute.”
You are correct, Paul.
Forecast rates increases beyond 2009/10 are not due to the stadium. Page 19 of Volume One of the Draft LTCCP, under the headings “Stadium effect” and “Cash flows from CCTOs” describes how the funding of the new stadium will affect ratepayers.
In the current financial year ending 30/6/09, the average value residential property is paying $40 for the stadium. In 2009/10 this will become $66, an increase of $26 per annum (pa).
No increase beyond this is forecast – based on the current differential between residential, farmland and commercial property.
Further reference to the forecast rate increases for Dunedin over the next three years are caused by debt servicing on the Settlers Museum, Dunedin Centre, Sewage Treatment, Water extensions, new Roading projects and increased operating costs on all these and other activities.
Richard – your figures are based on paying a maximum of $5m per year from rates, yet your own figures show we need to pay $13m
($10m for the loan + $2.8m depreciation that is missing form the operational forecasts).
Who pays the missing $8m per year?
Who pays if interest rates come off record lows?
Who pays if the private funding doesn’t show up?
Who pays cost over runs?
Who pays running costs if rugby spectators continue their decade long downward trend?
As the judge said yesterday, the DCC (read ratepayers) have now taken virtually all responsibility for all the risks associated with the stadium.
David and Elizabeth – you fail to grasp how the ownership and operation of the stadium will work.
As has been explained on several occasions, Council has adopted the successful model adopted by Christchurch. FB Stadium is to be managed by a council owned company, provisionally known as Dunedin Venues Management Limited. DVML will be charged with operating the stadium in a professional, business-like manner, co-ordinated and integrated with other Dunedin venues, to better ensure its commercial success.
A second company, Dunedin City Venues Limited, also owned by the Council, will own the physical assets and carry the debt previously borne by the Council.
The cash required to service the debt comes from the collective cash flows and financial efficiencies from within the group of council-owned companies.
At the time ownership of the stadium passes from council to DCVL, council will release the group companies from an obligation to remit $5 million pa in its dividends.
The dividend thus reduces at that point by $5 million for the duration of the loan and the rate to be levied in 2009-10 and 2010-11 therefore ceases.
I have nothing more to add.
I have tried – and tried – David to explain this. You persist in mis-using and/or confusing the figures. That is your prerogative.
My response in this case was, of course, to confirm what Paul had said. Nothing more, nothing less.
Elizabeth:
The “myths” do not continue. The risks have been quantified.
So using this smoke and mirrors payment system, the cost to the ratepayer is still the same, but can be made to look much smaller.
Effectively we lose $8m per year in income from city companies, and pay $5m directly. The cost to ratepayers is still $13m per year.
You could take ALL of that money from city companies, and none directly from ratepayers, or ALL the money from ratepayers, and none from city companies – it makes no actual bottom line difference to ratepayers.
It’s like a person paying an annual mortgage of $13,000, the bank taking $8000 directly from their income, and them paying the other $5000 from what’s left.
Then the bank trying to con them that they are really only paying $5000.
David:
The rates or ratepayer contribution is $5 million per annum.
$5 MILLION.
For two years that is collected by way of rate, when ownership passes to the company, the dividend drops by $5 million.
$5 MILLION.
NOT $8 million.
NOT $13 million.
So basically it’s a sham.
You pay over half the stadium costs from the city companies, using money that would otherwise subsidise rates or pay for sewerage treatment upgrades.
Then you can put huge rates increases onto ratepayers and say it’s not from the stadium – its because there wasn’t enough money for the Tahuna upgrade.
And tell them the stadium is costing virtually nothing.
Sham.
David says: “You pay over half the stadium costs from the city companies, using money that would otherwise subsidise rates or pay for sewerage treatment upgrades.”
Your opinion.
The dividend from the council companies will reduce by $5 million in two years. That is all.
You also fail to recognise that the “dividend” increases in 2009-10.
Is it too much to ask you to actually read my first post on this thread and try and understand the Draft LTCCP and the other material related to it?
I will not be commenting further.
PAUL IS RIGHT!
Oh dear, Richard tries so hard that you almost think he believes what he is saying. Perhaps he does. If so, it explains to a large degree why the city is in such a financial mess. After all, he has been there since JC played fullback for the Israelites.
Richard expects us to beleive we can pay $10m in loan repayments plus $2.8m in depreciation, and it will only cost us $5m.
He doesn’t think the additional $8m that’s secretly siphoned from council companies, that would otherwise pay for rates subsidies, Tahuna upgrade etc – should be counted.
He wants to keep that part secret, so the ratepayers can be conned into thinking the stadium is cheap.
Thank you, Calvin. Your attempt at humor underlines once again that – to quote John Laws – “If you are not aware of your own stupidity, you will have no idea how to handle your own knowledge”.
I take advice. I check the information.
I’ll leave you two to your own ‘little world’.
David: “He (Richard) doesn’t think the additional $8m that’s secretly siphoned from council companies, that would otherwise pay for rates subsidies, Tahuna upgrade etc – should be counted.”
Well the fact is, IT ISN’T!
Richard says “Well the fact is, IT ISN’T!”
So you are admitting the the money secretly siphoned off for the stadium is not counted.
Humour? (English not American) It wasn’t meant to be humorous, it is way too serious for that. Richard, I am well aware of my stupidity, pity others weren’t aware of theirs. But all that is a digression from the subject. Why is it that you always answer questions on council finances from the likes of David with an open ended format, other than to dodge the point? You are a master of derogation without disclosure. Could it be that you know that you are part of the grand deception, or just plain don’t understand?
David: “So you are admitting the the money secretly siphoned off for the stadium is not counted.”
IT ISN’T …..“SIPHONED OFF” in the first place.
Siphoned off, quietly paid behind the scenes, secretly paid – use whatever term you like.
But either way it’s missing from the explanation in the Draft Community Plan of the “Stadium Effects” on finances.
In fact the section explaining the “Stadium Effects” on finances, only has some private spending figures, but no figures at all on public expenditure – not a single one.
It’s all part of the effort to hide the real cost from ratepayers.
Well Calvin, Council has taken some of the best financial advice that can be obtained in this city (and, indeed) New Zealand.
It has been well considered.
David has had plenty of factual answers to any reasonable questions he has posed as distinct from ones coloured by his (shall I say) ‘imaginative’ opinions.
If he chooses – and you choose – not to accept those answers or to misuse it, that is your choice.
You and David might like to think why they are now treated with such little respect.
Richard – your “fact” that we can pay $10m loan repayments with an absolute maximum of just $5m is patently absurd.
We all know the rest of the money is coming from city companies that would otherwise pay for Tahuna etc or reduce our rates.
Now you can blame the massive rates increases over the next few years on projects other than the stadium.
You are hiding the real cost of the stadium.
You are trying to trick ratepayers that the cost is much less than it actually is.
David:
“You are hiding the real cost of the stadium. You are trying to trick ratepayers that the cost is much less than it actually is.”
Assuming “you” means “Council”, you (David) might like to explain how that is being done.
Under statutory processes:
Council is required to produce a Draft Annual Plan which is audited before it goes OUT for public consultation.
Council is required to produce an Annual Report (and every three years an LTCCP) which includes financials and is audited by Audit New Zealand.
Council is required to approve The ‘Statements of Intent’ by the council-owned companies. These are annually submitted to and approved by Council (through Finance and Strategy) in public.
The company accounts are produced in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act and Financial Accounting Standards and either directly audited by Audit New Zealand or by his appointees.
In all the audits, those undertaking the work have access to the very detailed figures etc.
So come on, please explain David just how “the deception” is being done, just what is being hidden in the draft LTCCP nearing the end of the process”.
You have already made these sort of implications on another thread. Don’t try your usual trick of heading off on ‘another tack”.
In short, “put up”, or “shut up”.
Richard – the deception is that the figure given to the public as the total we are paying, is only PART of what we are paying.
Several million more per year will be taken from city companies – that’s money that would have subsidised our rates or paid for other projects.
Because of this, councillors can now make it look like rates increases are for other projects, when they are really because of the stadium.
From David:
“Richard – YOU tell us the annual loan repayments are over $10m per year.
YOU tell us the paying the loan will cost no more than $5m per year.
And you cannot explain where the other $5m is coming from.”
MY RESPONSE:
You misrepresent what I said, yet again, David.
Here is what I ACTUALLY SAID ON THIS WEBSITE on 7 APRIL 2009 – the one you chose to ignore – along with other highly personal accusations!!!!
(2) Interest in Year 1: $7.459m. Year 5: $5,293m
(3) Principal Repayments in Year 1 (on a table loan): $2.6 million. Year 5: $4.86 million.
(4) Depreciation @ $2.83 million is on a straight line basis, this is, of course, an operating expense.
The city will not be funding any of this through rates.
As previously noted and commented upon by Athol Stephens, DCC General Manager, Finance and Corporate, a CCO (Dunedin City Venues Ltd, DCVL) is proposed to own the stadium and other council properties such as the Edgar Centre etc.
A ‘sister’ management company will be the operator of the facility.
These companies make no call on rates.
NO CALL ON RATES.
There’s still the matter of around $25 million missing from the construction calculations, being P&G, Profit, and Provisional Sums. All sitting outside of the GMP total. But I’m getting tired of talking to myself about that.
David:
Your claim that “SEVERAL MILLION (dollars) MORE PER YEAR WILL BE TAKEN FROM CITY COMPANIES” is absolutely and utterly a figment of your imagination.
I could accept that you do not understand something. I can accept your not agreeing with the project. I can accept your having an opinion.
I will repeat for once and for all.
The annual reduction in the dividend from our CCO’s over 20 years is $5 million. This is set out in all the relevant council papers and in the 2009-09 Annual Plan and the 2009-10 Draft LTCCP, soon to be adopted.
What I cannot accept is that when a factual answer is given to you, you mis-use it. Consistently. As you have in the posting you have just made and to which this responds.
In short, YOUR claim that “Several million MORE per year will be taken from city companies – that’s money that would have subsidised our rates or paid for other projects” has no basis of fact.
None at all.
I asked you to “put up or shut up”.
Your response is, to put it politely, pathetic.
Richard –
YOU tell us the annual loan repayments are over $10m per year.
YOU tell us the paying the loan will cost no more than $5m per year.
And you cannot explain where the other $5m is coming from.
Looks dodgy – very dodgy.
David: “Looks dodgy – very dodgy.”
Your opinion.
Richard,
You voted to put the city into serious debt for 20 years, with repayments of $10m per year, but you can’t explain where half the money will come from.
That’s appalling conduct from any councillor.
The ratepayers of Dunedin have a right to know.
And ratepayers have a right to representation that is honest and competent.
David: “And ratepayers have a right to representation that is honest and competent.”
Here we go again. Personal mud-slinging when you cannot foot it, David.
Just go back and look at the inconsistencies and your great obsession that take up 45 = A4 pages on the thread ‘Overt Good Marketing…”.
Anyone else would be embarrassed, I do not expect you to be!
Be careful with your use of that word “honest”.
Richard,
You say that council has taken some of the best financial advice that can be obtained in this city, and indeed in New Zealand.
This is no great sinecure as some of the best financial advisers on the planet have landed it in the worst financial predicament in history.
Financial advisers, often are charged with the task of arguing the indefensible, and in so doing can come up with some tricks of omission which would bring tears to your eyes. Gullible councillors seem to be particularly vulnerable.
In the case of the stadium financials I am so blinded by my tears that I can barely believe that what is happening really is. Cr Michael Guest has even been reduced to garnishing information by holding jam jars against the wall. And he told me that I would pay no more than $1.50 a week to cover all stadium charges including the ORC component.
With statements like that is it any wonder that I treat your protestations with a substantial dose of cynicism.
Mhhh! More obfuscation!
$1.50 pw. Michael might not be too far out. On your property, the DCC Rate will in 2009-10 only take $.0.9615 as against approx. $0.58 for the current year.
Meantime your share of the investment income (dividends) will rise to $336, an increase of about $32.
If that does not change in the next two years (and, at some point, dividends will increase), your share of investment income will go down to $286 approx. or about $16 less per year than it is now.
Not much different to David’s.
You are both happy to take the “dividends’ and neither of you give credit to those who made – and continue to make – it possible.
Now what was David saying about being “competent”?
More to the point, what were you saying about the competency of our “financial advisors”?
You cannot have it both ways!
Richard – so clearly you either can’t answer, or won’t answer, how the other $5m of the loan is being paid each year.
Any councillor who has voted to borrow over $100m, and who is both honest and competent, should be expected to give a simple answer to how the money is paid back.
Richard – now you claim NONE of the stadium loan will be paid for through rates.
You also claim that no more than $5m in rates will be used for the loan.
And you also claim that the loan will cost $10m per year to pay back.
So according to you we’ll variously be paying $0m, or $5m or $10m per year.
And you wonder why people don’t believe what you say.
Clearly YOU don’t belieive what you say – why should we?
For goodness sake, David.
I have not said what you say I have said. It is your version of what you say I have said.
End of story.
Richard quotes the stadium will cost us variously $0m, $5m and $10m (all from above)
“The city will not be funding any of this through rates.”
“The rates or ratepayer contribution is $5 million per annum.”
Cost of the loan year 1 = $10m
“Interest in Year 1: $7.459m… Principal Repayments in Year 1 (on a table loan): $2.6 million.”
Cost of the loan year 5 = $10m
“Interest in Year 5: $5,293m …Principal Repayments in Year 5: $4.86 million.”
Give Chas George or someone from Flanders Marlow a call and ask for a ballpark figure (excuse the phrase) on what would be expected for profit, monetary allowances and P&G on a 130 million dollar base price. Or the local branch of NZIQS. Or indeed any local QS. Probably not Rawlinsons though, as I think they prepared the SOQ. Wouldn’t put them in an awkward position. My estimate is higher than 25 million, based on previous experiences, but I’ll err on the side of caution rather than overinflate for sensation.
Elizabeth:
I have already picked up on Phil’s queries and am checking. (I did not see the earlier post to which he refers).
Some of the answers – maybe all – are in the papers for the Council meeting of Monday 29 April.
I am not certain where Phil gets his information from.
The Contract with Hawkins certainly includes the Contractor’s Profit Margin in the GMP – refer “Fixed Percentage Margin Sum’ under THE GMP, (d) on page 3 of the Layperson’s Guide to the Main Construction Contract. (page 2.7 of the agenda papers that meeting).
I cannot relate “P&G” and “Provisional Sums” to any of the definitions used in the contract.
In relation to your last point, Property are not involved. You seem to overlook that it is the CST as agent for Council that is in charge of the project as covered in the agenda papers referred to.
I also refer you to page 8 of the Layperson’s Guide in regard to ADJUSTMENTS – about 3/4 of the way down.
If Phil is referring to ‘Fixed P&G’, and rovisional Sum’, both are INCLUDED in the GMP. (page 9 (or agenda page 2.7) in the papers referred to above).
The precise figures and details are not yet public – for obvious reasons.
Elizabeth says “The Layperson’s Guide (or how to treat your ratepayers and residents to not the whole truth and everything but the truth)…”
That is a surprise coming from you. You surely do not disclose your detailed estimates/prices etc when sub-contracts et al are in play!
Elizabeth – who is SHOUTING?
Mine’s a GLENMORANGIE!
Elizabeth: “Actually, Phil’s ideas of who to ask about these notions are good. I will speak to Robert Clark at City Property. [I KNOW HE IS NOT CST OR IN ON STADIUM PROJECT. OK? )
Well, I think your original musings/questions were a bit ambiguous then. Sorry!
Sorry to rain on the parade, but the “Layperson’s Guide” states the following:
The GMP as at the date the Contract is signed (i.e. before any Scope Amendments) is made up of:
a. the ‘Guaranteed Maximum Construction Sum’ – This is the amount it is predicted at tender time that the construction ‘Works’ will cost, excluding items b. to d. below.
b. the ‘Provisional Sum’ – This is the total of the provisional sum items stated in Schedule 83;
c. the ‘Fixed Preliminaries and General Sum’ (usually shortened to “Fixed P&G”) – This is the dollar figure stated in Schedule 2, Item 3.2 b.;
d. the ‘Fixed Percentage Margin Sum’ – This is the Contractor’s profit margin. It is an agreed percentage of items a. to c. above.
Please note the word EXCLUDING… It is very specific and very clear. Sorry to harp on about this.
Phil,
Interesting. Those items, b thru d, could at the end of the day prove to be a tidy amount. It certainly leaves a degree of wriggle room. And of course there would have to be the unforeseen contingencies, design modifications, unavoidable cost increases etc. which no self respecting contractor would leave uncovered. In fact, I believe that a so called GMP only exists in a perfect world, one in which we probably don’t live.
So council tells us what the construction will cost – but it’s not the real figure.
And they tell us what we’ll pay – but it’s not the real figure (not even close).
And they tell us what the private sector are contributing – but they count some of the memberships twice so they can get to the required 60% cut off point.
And they tell us how many people will go to the NPC games – but peer review cuts the forecasts in half.
I detect a pattern.
Phil,
A large Aussie construction company I have an interest in makes about 6% on its civil infrastructure projects (but more on its mining infrastructure).
Whereas I believe Fletcher last year made 15% on its infrastructure projects, but latest figures are more like 10%.
Hopefully those offending items are included elsewhere in the previous financial reports. Someone can point me towards them and I can sleep happy then.
Although, the word “predicted” under item “a” has just lept out at me. That doesn’t read quite as definite as, for example, “total”, “maximum”, or even “fixed”. Bum, no sleep tonight either.
Glenmorangie
Thank you Elizabeth. A marvellous wee dram! For 10 years, I had the great pleasure of a close association with the company in my then current occupation. I have been privileged to visit the Ten Men of Tain. Slaith!
Phil: The word “predicted” is not used in the actual contract. I do see “Actual” … “Fixed” … Guaranteed” though. I am double-checking but unlikely to respond for a day or two.
Despite his opposition to the overall project and reservations over the first draft, I recall Dave Cull describing the contract as “a pretty good deal” or words to that effect. He has some experience in ‘the business’.
In response to PHIL on The GMP and after double-checking:
I confirm my earlier post (12/6/09) that the
GMP includes the ‘Contractor’s Profit Margin’.
I also confirm that the GMP includes fixed figures for ‘Provisional Sums’ and ‘Preliminary and General’.
Sleep tight, sleep well!
Thanks for the clarification, Richard. I feel better now. I wasn’t aware that the wording of contract clauses in the Layman’s Guide differed from the actual contract. It’s a little naughty of the company who wrote the guide to alter the contract wording so dramatically in key phrases for public consumption. It’s created unnecessary headaches in a number of areas. Sometimes I think that many people forget to read what they have written before hitting the print button.
Phil: more like a difference between date of drafting and actual.
Ok, so are we saying that the signed contract was amended after the date that the Layperson’s Guide was published? If the signed contract differs from the Guide, then what purpose does the Guide serve to the people of the City? How can a person who reads the Guide know what part is correct and what is not correct? It seems to be of little value.
If this is the case then we have 10 stakeholders viewing one set of documents, and 100,000 stakeholders viewing another set of documents. Which are not correct.
Please remember that, with the failure to release the official contract, the Layperson’s Guide is the only document from which the public can draw information about the contract. It is the sole source of information for 100,000 people. And was specifically designed and marketed to be as such.
Not only do we now know that the Guide is inaccurate, but the error we know about casts the project in a very poor light. Needlessly. For 100,000 people to read. And believe, because it’s an official Council released document. What with sock selling and digger diving, the project can’t seem to buy good publicity at present. And yet here someone has seen fit to leave erroneous bad press out for public viewing. Council spends a lot of money on PR, with consultants and staff members. I can’t believe that this document is still sitting there for viewing. It smacks of arrogance on the part of the project team, not caring what the public think. Which I am sure is not the intention. But is the result none the less.
There should only ever be one version of official documents in circulation. If the Guide is not 100% accurate in all areas then the Layperson’s Guide should be updated, or withdrawn. With the construction contract having been signed by all parties, there is surely no issue regarding commercial sensitivity. And no reason why the contract cannot be released in full. I have written enough construction contracts over the years to know that they are not that difficult for the average person to read and interpret. The only reason for withholding the release of the contract now is if the contractor doesn’t want competitors to know details about profit margins and the like. And that’s not our problem. That is the tail wagging the dog.
I should add that not all the contract documents need to be released. Things like insurances, the priced Schedule of Quantities, drawing and specifications are not necessary. They make up 90% of the contract documents. And probably all but one of the folders. Even the General Conditions of Contract are ok to hold on to. People can view those at any Public Library.
What are important are the Special Conditions of Contract. That contains what is to be done, when, and for how much. It shows bonuses, penalties, liabilities, and exclusions. Everything that is specific to this one contract. It’s where the information in the Layperson’s Guide will have come from.
That simplifies the task.
You have read something into my comment that I did not intend.
The contract has not been amended since it was signed.
The difference between the two relates to ‘actuals’ and other details.
My apology.
As I understand it, the contract will be released to the ‘open agenda’ in due course.
I think I understand, Richard. At least, I hope that I do. What I took from your entry was that the contract was amended prior to signing, but after the Layperson’s Guide was written. I didn’t take that the contract had been amended after it was signed. My apologies if I have this wrong. My concern still stands though, that the Layperson’s Guide does not read the same as the contract at the time the contract was signed. Which I took from our discussion about items shown as being excluded in the Layperson’s Guide, being shown as included in the signed contract.
I got confused just writing that.
Sorry, Elizabeth. I do not agree with your opinion on that.
Richard says: “sleep tight sleep well.” Says it all really. The whole council, Richard included, have done just that.
Meantime the city has been subjected to the biggest heist in its history. And, as they say, “It ain’t finished yet!”
Day by day more revelations are emerging. The Carisbrook purchase is a graphic case in point. The manipulators have known the extent of this little “rort” for quite some time obviously. No matter how they dress it up it is still an added cost to the stadium.
Still to emerge is the detail of where the ORFU’s debt of $2 million to the DCC figures in the equation. My money would be on it being written off, thus making the real price $9 million.
Then of course, there is the small matter of what we, the ratepayers are expected to do with it. Do we pay the costs of demolition and add that to the stadium, or do we just flog it off as is to the highest bidder and add any loss to the cost of the stadium?
Oh, the choices we mugs get presented with, but at the same time have no say. I think they call it democracy.
Okay, Calvin how much is your WAGER?
Considering the government’s input of $15m is conditional on the stadium being ready for the world cup, who pays for the $15m shortfall if there are project delays?
Richard, are you saying then that the $7 million includes the $2 million debt? In other words the money paid will be $5 million and a forgiving of the debt? This still means an increase on the cost of the stadium of $7 million. Yes or no?
Richard,
The last time I won a wager with you I said you to buy the drinks. You told me that the only drink I would get from you would be a bucket of water over my head. So why would I wager with a piker like you? Remember?
Private funding shortfall? More like private funding sham.
So the city covers the private funding with a bridging loan.
We effectively pay for and build the stadium, and operate it.
Then the private funding bridging loan has to be paid back, as does the interest.
So who actually pays it back?
The city does, out of our operational revenue from our stadium.
Apart from naming rights, there is NO private funding. It’s a sham.
If we pay for the stadium, own the stadium, and operate the stadium, why are WE paying pack the private sector loan?
Elizabeth:
The ambiguity was in MY brief comment not Council’s.
Calvin: you are getting personal. The answer is NO, I do not remember it simply because it is not the sort of comment I am wont to make.
Elizabeth
Of course it is in jest. It was Calvin though who said: “My money would be on it being written off, thus making the real price $9 million.” I just called his bluff!
Calvin:
“This still means an increase on the cost of the stadium of $7 million.” Yes or no?
No.
Calvin: “Still to emerge is the detail of where the ORFU’s debt of $2 million to the DCC figures in the equation. My money would be on it being written off, thus making the real price $9 million.”
Wrong – AGAIN!
I refer you to Jim Harland’s comments in the ODT of 6/2/09 where he said: “the ORFU’s $2 million loan to the council would be repaid following the sale of Carisbrook”.
This was confirmed at the Council meeting on 9 February last.
Richard,
It is never personal, always with tongue in cheek. You don’t remember. Clues. About 2003, you were in Australia at the time. Interchange of emails. F&P. Got it?
Richard,
$7 million increase in cost of stadium, yes or no? You say no.
Explain how and why. If it wasn’t that a new stadium was being built, why else would Carisbrook be sold?
Richard,
You say Jim Harland’s comments 6/2/09 said “the ORFU’s $2 million “from” the council would be repaid following the sale of Carisbrook”.
That doesn’t clarify whether it is to be out of the $7 million or whether the $7 million is after the debt has been deducted.
In his reply to my letter 12/6/09, when asked about the loan Mr Harland studiously ignored the point. Why?
He also said that the DCC was purchasing Carisbrook to ensure the viability of the ORFU and to secure them as anchor tenants.
In fact, Malcolm Farry told the ORC in a February briefing that the ORFU would not be the anchor tenant, nor would they be locating their offices in the complex. In fact, they would only rent the facility on an event by event basis. There is no anchor tenant.
So we can only be left with the conclusion that the purchase is purely so the ratepayers can save the fortunes of the ORFU. Nice one.
No. Please send me the emails in the exchange.
I’ve seen this written on another website, who’s name escapes me. So I won’t vouch for the accuracy. However, that report said that the retiring of all debt was included within the $7m purchase price. DCC would give $2m to ORFU, who would promptly hand the same $2m back to DCC. Thus retiring the debt to DCC. It’s money on paper only, and is essentially DCC writing the debt off. DCC would give another $4m to ORFU, who would promptly hand that $4m over to the banks, retiring the bank debt. Finally, DCC would give $1m to ORFU, who would, well, potentially throw a party. Giving $7 million dollars in total.
Make sense to anyone ?
Richard:
Emails from six years ago? You have got to be joking! But hey, my memory is obviously better than yours.
Calvin:
Like everyone else you will just have to wait for the report back to council of the sub-committee handling the detail.
As the report in the ODT on 6/2/09 said: “The sale of Carisbrook had been removed from the stadium budget equation.”
The effect of this being removed is shown on pages 2.16 and 2.17 where the SURPLUS anticipated by the CST to be realised from the sale of Carisbrook was REMOVED.
The consequence of that was that the land cost for the Stadium increased by that amount instead of reducing.
The ODT erred in its report when it referred to it as a ‘budget entry of $5 million to BUY the ground.’
Phil:
That could be right, I wouldn’t know. If so, we write off our debt, pay off the bank debt and gift $1 million to the ORFU.
Was Mr Harland wearing red clothes with long white whiskers at the time? And of course we absorb the debt and pay it off over ten years or so which would be $14 million.
It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll would say.
No, Calvin:
I have Outlook backups which are archived on disk and almost certainly contain the emails. I just cannot be bothered looking them up.
But I do recall the subject if not the “bucket of water”. Must have got hot!
Richard:
Smoke and mirrors. All part of the great deception. The people are not fooled, your lot just think they are.
Richard:
Yeah; under the collar.
Phil asks “Make sense to anyone”?
Answer: No.
Bye! Bye! Calvin!
Why are we buying Carisbrook NOW?
If we bought it in two years time when the new stadium opens, we would save $1m in interest (two years interest on another $7m of debt for two years).
That’s another million down the drain.
And now the poor ratepayer is going to have to pay out even more for a drainage upgrade because it keeps getting blocked by all the money being flushed away by the council.
I think perhaps the ORFU runs the council.
That would explain a lot of things.
“Not a dollar over $92m”
Except the extra $10m for land.
Except the $3m community trust shortfall.
Except we’ll underwrite the private funding shortfall.
Except the capitalised interest.
Except $101m for 20 years of interest.
Except for $7m for Carisbrook.
Except for the roading and roundabout in the sky costs.
Except $56m in depreciation over the first 20 years.
Except extra if there’s pitch problems.
Except $15m if it doesn’t finish in time for the world cup (govt funding is dependent on that).
Except cost over runs.
Except if there’s foundation problems.
Except if we don’t get massive numbers to the Super 14, NPC, and all the massive concerts we’ll be hosting.
Except we’re going to pay back the private funding for them.
Except if we don’t sell as many memberships as we expected.
Except the money we have to pay back to ORFU for ticket rebates for members
Did you say “Not a dollar over $92m”?
I’m sure there’s more.
For a start I forgot the Council’s corporate box………er I mean Delta’s corporate box.
Ta, Richard. Brutely to the point. I admire that. Hopefully the ability to give a good sound direct answer like that will rub off on your colleagues.