Highlanders news


### Channel 9 News Fri 16 Oct 2009 5.55pm
ODT’s Barry Stewart confirmed the chair of the Highlanders board, Stuart McLauchlan, has stood down. More in Saturday’s newspaper.


### ODT Online Sat, 17 Oct 2009
Rugby: McLauchlan ends stint as Highlanders boss
By Steve Hepburn
Highlanders chairman Stuart McLauchlan is standing down from the position, denying he was pushed and saying he does not have enough time to dedicate to the role.
Read more

● DCC has yet to announce its Highlanders board member.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Sport

12 responses to “Highlanders news

  1. Elizabeth

    ### ODT Online Tue, 20 Oct 2009
    Rugby: Laidlaw named as Highlanders chairman
    By Steve Hepburn

    Ross Laidlaw has been named as the new Highlanders chairman.
    Laidlaw replaced Stuart McLauchlan on both the board and in his role as chairman after a board meeting in Dunedin last night.
    Read more

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Wed, 21 Oct 2009
      Rugby: Laidlaw ready for challenge
      By Steve Hepburn

      Ross Laidlaw has just been handed one of the biggest jobs in southern rugby. But the new Highlanders chairman tells rugby writer Steve Hepburn he would not have taken the job on if it had not been a challenge.
      Read more

      • Elizabeth

        ### ODT Online Thu, 12 Nov 2009
        Rugby: Highlanders must deliver or the money walks
        By Steve Hepburn
        Seven wins over the past two years. Well, seven victories must be the minimum goal for the Highlanders of 2010. Coach Glenn Moore knows it is a big year, not only for the players and the coaching team, but for the good of rugby south of the Waitaki River. The very existence of the franchise in the region is under threat.
        Read more

  2. David

    And if we lose the Highlanders, the stadium will lose the majority of its income, and ratepayers will haemorrhage even more money propping it up.

    But then we always knew that this, along with plummeting spectator numbers, was a very real and serious risk to the viability of the stadium.

    Pity those making the decision didn’t know. How embarrassing for Dunedin when the Mayor admitted on tv that he proceeded with the stadium without bothering to ask if we would keep the Highlanders.

    Who in their right mind would spend $200m without due diligence?

  3. Remember the spin that the stadium was going to be multi purpose? (Haven’t heard that spin lately as we are focusing on its real purpose with the World Cup being the penultimate event). If the worst case scenario eventuates – and it must have a good chance of happening – I imagine we will have a return to hearing this myth more often. ‘Never mind, the Highlanders are gone, but the stadium is multi purpose’. Lest we forget. In the blacked out appendices to the CST Feasibility Report 2007, it was stated that in order to maximise ratepayer funding the stadium had to be PERCEIVED as ‘multi purpose’. In other words they knew it wasn’t REALLY multi purpose. It had to be PERCEIVED to be. It was, and always has been, a rugby stadium. The whole building of the stadium is set for the Rugby World Cup. If this stadium was to be a genuine, long term, community asset for ALL to enjoy for the next 50 plus years, the World Cup would not be such a big deal with $15m of central government money contingent on it being built on time for that event. Why oh why did the councillors agree to a stadium which has such a shaky future, where there is, quite possibly, going to be no home rugby team in two years’ time? If this happens, isn’t Carisbrook more than sufficient? No wonder there are so many angry people in this town. Lest we forget October 2010.

  4. kiwifly

    hey peter have you and sts finished saying sorry to the odt yet thought not.!!!!!

  5. kate

    Elizabeth, your question is the one that we need to focus on, now, as if we do have good other uses we need to ensure that they may be included if possible, without taking away from other venues in Dunedin.

    The time for debate on building the stadium has finished, now we have to ensure that we reduce costs by deriving unique and original ways to fill it, while not adding new financial burdens or reducing income streams of other sites. If Rugby is the game of the past, and that is regrettable in the sense that looking in from the outside I see a team and sports culture that in the most part is very worthy of retaining and is lacking in some more modern pursuits. The question then is what are the games, pursuits, past times or activities of the future that we can use the Stadium for? What events can we create to make it work?

    The world is certainly changing – and what our pursuits are will also impact on other parks and reserves and how the City functions.

    Will it make that much effect on the design of the City? Well I hope so, the grid plan of Dunedin was not designed for cars, but people walking and riding. If we had less cars, for a number of reasons, how differently we could use our streets – but that is for another day!

    I know you dont get the Taieri Herald Elizabeth, but great story in it about Kitty Caldwell and others and their VIMBY group – Vegetables In My Back Yard.

    • Elizabeth

      Hi Kate – starting with your last item first.
      Used to get Taieri Herald, deselected it after a period of un-riveting stories >> will re-select at my Fairfax connection now. VIMBY is ultra cool.

      Cars, roads, streets, public places (+other transport) – nothing’s going to change that much at Dunedin even if alternative energy begins to predominate, er, with time. Will it? Only if we can get some decent wind and solar powered vessels into Otago Harbour?

      Yes, some planning decisions, some citizen-driven changes of pattern/routine/use/activity/need and other factors will cause us to look again at the way we live and recreate here, er2, with time. Kettle’s plan for Dunedin is pretty accommodating – if only the city hadn’t been allowed to sprawl by council bureaucracies (past and present) and had stayed relatively tight and dense – with excellent amenity – mediated by a higher quality of design in the built environment, thereby bringing some (if well engineered) economy to the cost of infrastructure services. But this is New Zealand folks, we rarely use design and engineering to their best for everyday communal existence. We waste. We procrastinate.

      One of the biggest problems with the stadium is its design around a paddock, I’ve maintained this from the point I first read the building’s design. The building is about as inflexible as it gets, and is not about legacy planning – we’ve well and truly missed that boat, even despite how many stadia and arenas are simultaneously being built and planned internationally that apply legacy and succession thinking early in their design process.

      New Zealand is horrible at staying up with contemporary architectural thinking! And worse, Dunedin’s architecture (or was that building only, meaning NO design) is most usually 30 or more years behind “the world”, not just due to the limits of our financial economy. Or lack of sustainable approaches. Yeeessss, observing architecture and building in New Zealand has its VARIOUS MULTITUDINOUS trying moments.

      I have absolutely no clues/no imagination/no extraterrestrial intelligence on how to make the stadium workable/viable in this city.

      One look at the stadium design tells me it’s in the too hard basket as a hunk of concrete to raise enough paying business. Ever.

      With nearly 49.5 years now on the planet, admit I discovered a while back that to waste time on dead things is to waste life.

      If there’s anything for me to think/act on for Dunedin’s future it’s not going to be the stadium that takes my sustainable fancy. Pay it off. Move on. Crush it up for other city site works and building projects, like sustainable low-cost house and garden complexes, egalitarian community services, processing industry and plant for ‘green’ agricultural production (etc etc), is where my head is. Of the earth, not a rugby ball.

      Good news (maybe): others have different visions and objectives, some of which could include the stadium. But no-one seems to be esposing just exactly what it is we can do with it, the stadium – to produce profit.

      Instead, they’re saying (the pros) how many stadiums internationally, by ratio, do not return a profit. We’re doomed. They seem to have given up after “rock concert”.

      Wait! Hone Harawira rallies. Bishop Brian Tamaki tithing services.

      The ideas are flooding in now.

  6. David

    Kate – the multitude of multipurpose uses that would ensure the stadium does not become a financial catastrophe should have been worked out BEFORE the decision was made to go ahead.

    All we got was a few pie-in-the-sky ideas floated around to make the gullible think it is multipurpose.

    But even with the pie-in-the-sky ideas they came up with, there was nothing except rugby that made any significant financial contribution to running costs (well ok, the car park as well – in fact its income is higher than the total projected profit from the whole stadium).

    If we lose the Highlanders, and it haemorrhages money to keep it running, the cheapest option would be to demolish it or simply close it and go back to Carisbrook.

  7. One only has to go back to the same CST Feasibility Report to see where there was a ‘brainstorm’ (if that is the word) list of possible uses. The only funny thing about the stadium is this list. The ‘great ideas’ were absolutely ludicrous. Papal, Dalai Lama, Royal visits, equestrian, swimming, ice skating, BMX and car racing, outdoor cinema etc. Never mind we already have top venues for these events.
    I believe Malcolm Farry has stated that he was ‘delivering a stadium’ and it was up to the people to decide what to do with it. This seems an odd business principle.
    Yes, David, I agree demolition may be the positive solution to the stadium problem when we dive into further debt. It’s happened before.

  8. Kate; you say “The time for debate on the building of the stadium has finished, now we have to ensure that we reduce costs by deriving unique and original ways to fill it, while not adding new financial burdens or reducing income streams from other sites.” Brilliant! So, let’s spend $45 million plus to construct an international class conference centre in the Octagon. That should do it, ensure that the stadium won’t be compromised. Oh, and while we are at it, how about we set up a management company with a board of directors with fees and expenses amounting to some $100,000 pa. Then of course we should have a management structure for the directors to direct. So, we appoint a manager at a salary of $230,000 – $250,000, set up an office with staff, computers etc and then let the whole lot become part of the revenue over expenditure. The revenue of course, will come from patronage of the combined venues. But that is OK because Malcolm Farry said that there would be economic benefits to the region in excess of $20 million per annum once this is all up and running. Kate, as a councillor, don’t you think you should perhaps go and shear some sheep?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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