Owing $45.5 million in private sector funding

The Star community newspaper carried an update on private sector funding and sponsorship in early February.

### ODT Online Tue, 16 Feb 2010
Stadium funding passes $30 million
By David Loughrey
Private sector funding for the Forsyth Barr Stadium has passed $30 million, with sponsorship packages and seating sales pushing funding to two-thirds of the total required.
Read more

Related post:
5.2.10 Commercial manager Guy Hedderwick on stadium sponsorship

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

142 Comments

Filed under Construction, Economics, Politics, Project management, Site, Stadiums

142 responses to “Owing $45.5 million in private sector funding

  1. kate

    Oddly, on 29 September 2008 Council passed the following resolution:
    Following discussion the motion was put and carried.
    It was moved (Cull/Wilson):
    “That the following resolution passed at the extraordinary Council meeting held on 17 March 2008 be amended as follows:
    7 The acceptance by the Council of a tender price is subject to:
    d) That a minimum of 60% of the private sector funding target of $45.5 million and Council’s satisfaction as to progress in achieving the balance and any further funds including those required for the servicing of any bridging finance arranged by the Council for the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust is confirmed, with signed contracts conditional on the stadium proceeding. This information is to be provided in time for consideration at the Finance and Strategy Committee meeting on 9 February 2009.”
    The meeting adjourned from 6.10 pm to 6.20 pm.
    Following discussion the motion was put and carried.
    It was moved (Cull/Wilson).

    Well done, we have only just got past that mark apparently.

    • Elizabeth

      Such inconvenient news, you realise, though old it may be.
      We wonder:
      Did DCC conveniently forget that motion, or was it CST, or both, in making calculations for public digestion of late.
      Thanks to Cr Wilson for this honest reminder of the mounting CST debt to “society” – or was that to “Council”. Or both.
      CST really have a lot more to gather for us.
      Maybe if Malcolm Farry auctioned his Hawkins’ construction hat and orange hi-viz vest, and his own dark glasses, body, body parts, or teeth, CST could write us some more cheques, past due.

  2. I’m not sure whether there would be many-or any- bids at the said auction. Not even a ‘dummy bid’.

  3. ro

    I think the majority of council conveniently interpreted the “and” in: “That a minimum of 60% of the private sector funding target of $45.5 million AND Council’s satisfaction as to progress in achieving the balance” as an “or”. And when the government chipped in its (what am I saying – OUR) $15m, the majority on council once again broke faith with commitments and promises made in February 2009 and treated this money as fulfilling “and any further funds including those required for the servicing of any bridging finance arranged by the Council for the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust…” So Kate has reminded us of the infidelity, once again, of the majority of councillors. It makes me as angry today as it did then. The infidelity, that is, not Kate. Dishonesty, mendacity, infidelity – I call it nothing else.

  4. Richard

    I think it was Mark Twain who said (tongue-in-cheek) something like “I have seen a lot of changes in my lifetime and I have been against everyone of them”.

    So whether you have been for or against the stadium, or with a great desire to rewrite or reliturgate resolutions of council long superseded please drop by: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-projects/stadium/the-stadium.

    In short, the meeting of Council held on 9 February 2009.

    Or the appeals to the court that followed.

  5. ro

    So, Richard, Council is not to be bound by promises it makes so long as they are “superseded” by subsequent events. When council fails to carry out what it has resolved to carry out, we are to call it superseding its resolutions. So, remind me, exactly what was the point of resolving to set conditions that were to be met before proceeding with the stadium? Was it, perhaps, to bring on board those councillors who opposed it?

    I understand why the majority of councillors found it necessary to “supersede” THIS resolution – but how far does this irresolution with which Council regards its undertakings permeate general business of Council? What other commitments has Council made that have been as consistently “superseded” as those that were made as conditions of proceeding with the stadium?

  6. Richard

    Your little Mark Twain quote is rather disingenuous. He was obviously speaking about change, in general, and how people can be resistant to it.

    Here Kate, and others, are talking about how council resolutions have been changed/ignored/ highjacked for the purposes of moving the project along, by making steadfast reassurances, in order to assuage the concerns of those wary about the stadium’s financial sustainability. This dubious technique is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

    Sorry, Richard. Your Mark Twain ‘own fact’ quote, in relation to thwarted council resolutions, doesn’t wash here. It is a sad excuse for a dishonourable exercise in manipulating both councillors and the general public.

    I thought you’d be smarter.

  7. Richard

    Read what you like into my post. What I am saying is that if you want to discuss or debate something, it helps if we all, at least, start from ‘the same songsheet’.

    Simple as that.

  8. Simple as that? What are you actually saying, Richard? You don’t respond to any point in particular.

  9. Peter;
    Richard doesn’t have a song sheet. He ad libs. Not very tunefully I would have to say.

    • Elizabeth

      Sidebar [from Otago Chamber of Commerce this morning]:

      @paulusthebrit RT @MeredithMBell “Good judgment comes from experience. And where does experience come from? Experience comes from bad judgment.” Mark Twain

  10. Richard

    Well, Calvin I will modestly say I am more ‘in tune’ on many things than your goodself! I concede that is probably because I have the opportunity to circulate and talk with a larger number of people in the community.

    My point is Peter, nothing stays the same. Things change. Council frequently revisits matters because of changing circumstances.

    In this instance, i.e. the stadium, there is little point (for or against) in going back past the resolutions adopted by council last year.

    You might not agree with them but they are the resolutions on which the project has gone forward and represent changes that evolved as things went along. And, if you really care to look at the past resolutions, not much changed except timing.

    Of course, I suppose one can always dissect the entrails of chickens!

  11. Richard

    Ah yes, another t-i-c from the venerable Mark. He did visit us once you know. Thought Dunedin was ‘heaven’ but then, you should know that so I won’t set his comment out in full other than to say, it was ‘rediscovered’ when I was Mayor. Has been in frequent usage ever since!

    Now what was it that Thomas Bracken said about “Poor souls with stunted vision”?

    I also like this one:
    “Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock” – Ben Hecht.

    Today’s task, repairing the letterbox. I am on lunch break!

  12. kate

    TIC can’t your letterbox take the weight of the rates bill? :-)

  13. Richard

    The tone, and depth, of your above responses is entirely predictable. Vintage Richard !

    Picking up some quotes from another time, another context, is not debating specific points.

    Let’s just take one example of how things have changed with time – if you like. Remember the council voting to find an extra $20m in private funding to offset rates for the DCC’s $91.4m contribution to the stadium? This was put in place to keep the show on the road. It did the trick at the time, but the trouble is there are pesky people who remember and won’t let you, or your complicit colleagues, forget. We’re still waiting.

    There is indeed a point in going back to council resolutions. They are, in effect, promises made to the people. You make your self accountable by adopting these resolutions. Or at least that is how it should work! If council resolutions mean nothing and are dispensed with in time, why bother having them in the first place?

  14. kate

    I do believe at times Council can and should change from resolutions where new compelling information comes to light, and that happened with one of our other issues we have faced this year concerning a gate. And to be fair the motions we passed on 17th March were a change of resolutions already passed – a clarification and tightening up. With all respect to Richard et al, I never thought new compelling information came to light, nor the more stringent requirements met with regard to the stadium. But that is old news now. Yes sometimes we need to change motions; sometimes they are not great, the ones we move anyway. But the issue is the process by which we change them and on what basis. That is what I think Council needs to be careful about in the future.

  15. Richard

    Kate – probably no, it’s a vintage letterbox, designed and constructed by the builder to resemble the house!

    Peter – oh dear! Do you really understand the process? You cannot even get it right about that “$20m” you refer to!

    The crucial thing is that the way the project was funded changed. That reflected the response to the council survey. The requirement in regard to individual ratepayer funding went down! D-O-W-N. That hasn’t changed since.

  16. kate

    Richard I hope the house doesn’t follow the letterbox!

  17. Richard

    Just minor stuff! Walking up and down the drive with the bits ’n pieces is a challenge though!

  18. Just in regards to the stadium, the council has more often than not changed tack, not because ‘new and more compelling information’ has come to light, but ‘lines in the sand’ and ‘conditions’ have not been met. Time and again we have been told that the project will stop if certain conditions are not met, only to find the stadium is pushed even more strongly by those self interested parties who so desperately want it. Any new conditions to tighten up the project have been cynically agreed to – and then ignored.

    Richard. Please explain how I got the $20m wrong?

    The failure to get upfront private funding for construction costs explains why the conditions for financing the stadium have changed – to the detriment of the ratepayers of Dunedin/ Otago.

  19. Richard

    Sorry Peter, I do my homework. I can only suggest you do the same.

  20. Richard; You are ‘in tune’ like an old guitar. As you say, ‘you have the opportunity to circulate and speak to a good many people’. Is it the constant circulating which has disorientated you?

  21. Here’s a gem from the past:
    At the council meeting discussing the $1.8 million increase in appropriation for DVML to manage the stadiums events, our ‘sultan of glib’, Cr Michael Guest, described the opposing councillors as “petulant children”, with a “hidden agenda” of destroying the project. This ‘trite’ outburst brought back echos from the canyons of my mind, to September 2007, when Mr Guest said unequivocally, “that in six to eight weeks it will be announced that the stadium will be built, and that it will require no ratepayer input”. He said he would stake his career on confirmation of this, even saying he would resign if it did not eventuate. Subsequently, when challenged, he said he would “absolutely” not stand down from his council seat. Instead, he said he was staking his career on the money being eventually found. “I still believe the stadium will be built with very little annual input from ratepayers,” he said. He then said by the end of six weeks, council candidates opposing the stadium “will look silly”, while the public would be “very pleasantly surprised”.
    All this brought back further echos, such as the truly mendacious announcement by Malcolm Farry when he said: “We are going to build a new stadium. It will be situated at Awatea St. It will have a roof, and it will not cost a cent over $188 million. And no, we will not be seeking any financial contribution from the ratepayers.” I feel a song coming on. Should it be ‘sweet sweet, memories are made of this’ or perhaps ‘Michael row the boat ashore’ ?

    • Elizabeth

      And this person is fit to have a governance role on behalf of ratepayers? That and the lack of business nous doesn’t an astute picture make.

  22. Richard

    I am not going to get involved in an argument about who said what.

    What I do want, Calvin, is absolute verification of the statement you attribute to Malcolm Farry: i.e.
    “We are going to build a new stadium. It will be situated at Awatea St. It will have a roof, and it will not cost a cent over $188 million. And no, we will not be seeking any financial contribution from the ratepayers.”

    I have seen this attribution – and similar ones before. No-one has ever verified it, or responded to a request to do so.

    So can you kindly provide us with the media in which the statement was published and the date.

    No semantics. No duck-shoving.

    Just the reference. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Thank you.

  23. Richard,
    Malcolm, at his announcement of the project at the meeting convened for that purpose, at which I was present, chaired by Robin Charteris, supported by CST member Ron Anderson, he did say those words verbatim. I heard them and was stunned. I think most there expected to hear a report on the state of Carisbrook and what would be recommended to bring it up to required standard. Richard, those words are burned into my memory like it was yesterday. Perhaps you would like to check with Robin Charteris.
    There you are, no semantics, no duck shoving, just the facts, man.
    As a matter of interest, why don’t you want me to verify Michael’s comments as well. Oh, I forgot, you were there.

    • Elizabeth

      In the opinion piece by Dave Witherow (ODT Online 9/4/09), he says:

      “The Awatea St “vision” was revealed to the Dunedin public in August 2006, and a few months later an ODT poll showed 82% of respondents in favour.”

      Now, someone has to do a full newspaper search (August to October 2006) – or contact the ODT archivist for guidance on what was reported, or said by Mr Farry at the time in question. Failing that, a search of other newspaper archives/microfiche held in the city.

      Rule is, any further statements about this wretched stadium made by local bureaucrats and civic leaders should be TAPED. Dick Smith has excellent stock for the purpose. Or use your iPhones and video recording devices. We’re now in the age of cheap effective recording; and newsmaking via social media is precisely in the hands of the public.

  24. The ‘not a cent more than $188m’ is common knowledge – except for Richard, who wants to conveniently forget. It was also tied up with the Guaranteed Maximum Price of $188m which, of course, was all hogwash. As I said before it is all part of the process of moving the project along – by giving solemn reassurances – only to later give the two-finger salute to the ratepayers of Dunedin. The cynicism is jaw dropping.

  25. Richard

    Peter:

    My post was in regard to a statement claimed to have been made by Malcolm Farry, nothing else.

    I don’t forget anything!

    Ever since you arrived in Dunedin, you have constantly sniped at council and councillors through Letters to the Editor etc. etc.

    Your management of Lee V’s campaign was ‘a disaster’.

    And when the ‘going got tough’ at STS, you “walked away”, bills unpaid.

    Says it all, really!

    Opinions only merit respect if the person giving them merits respect.

  26. Richard

    Calvin

    Thanks. Mm…hh. No-one else seems to recall it but I will check with Robin Charteris.

    As for MG, well I may have been ‘there’ but I do not have to explain or clarify what a council colleague says. And I am not going to get mixed up in your ongoing personal vendetta with him.

  27. kate

    Richard, I know that Dave Cull brought the clipping to a Council debate at some stage – Malcolm was definately quoted as saying it would not need ratepayer money.

  28. Richard

    Stu:

    Thanks for ‘jogging’ my memory with that reference. The media release from STS is in my file. It is, as you would expect, rather ‘biased’ and mixes some opinion with fact.

    If that carried on into the briefs later given by STS to their legal counsel, then one should not be surprised at the outcome of the appeals.

    Whatever, the STS statement only refers to Malcolm Farry saying in October 2006 that: “Ratepayers would be the funders of last resort” (etc), all quite different to what has been posted here (and elsewhere) by Calvin and others.

    In any case, what was being discussed and considered in mid-October 2006 was (for want of a better term) “speculative” as the first firm details did not emerge until the first Pre-Feasibility Study (a draft) ex the CST emerged at Council on 17/11/o6.

    That draft was subsequently finalised in the Feasibility Report made to Council on 19 February 2007. What followed from there is, of course, very well documented.

    Suffice to say, that both the Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Reports detailed funding options and both included funding from the Dunedin City and Otago Regional Councils. ($65m and $30m respectively).

    My interest in this particular point of “who said what” and where the claim in regard to what Malcolm Farry is claimed to have said, is not related to whether one is/was for or against the stadium, just the actual chronology of “what went down”.

    In short, for the “record” when one comes to write about it all.

  29. Richard

    Hi Kate

    The lines in the STS media release referred to by Stu do not attribute a source. The ODT archives reveal nothing but their search engine is currently updating and might not yet go back – on this subject anyway – to 2006.

    So far, the quote in the STS media release is the only one I have. The preamble must be disregarded as the only words directly attributed to Malcolm are: “Ratepayers would be the funders of last resort”.

  30. Richard

    Addendum:

    While having ‘brekkie’, I checked through all the newsclippings in my file ex ODT for September/October 2006. There is a ‘welter’ around the time of the Council meeting of 25/9/06. A welter.

    None include the comment attributed to Malcolm Farry.

    There is reference to him suggesting that “the stadium NEED NOT ADD TO RATES” (or words to that effect), but he did suggest that Council could re-prioritise its planned capital projects and this got plenty of attention in further items in the ODT on subsequent days, including the front page editorial of 28/09/06.

    That is all I can find. I think my file is complete but there is always a chance I missed a report of the meeting Calvin refers to because I can find no reference to it.

    Would be ‘strange’ if there was not one, especially given that the then Editor of the ODT was apparently ‘in the chair’.

    I note that a possible council rate contribution to the Stadium was referred to by CEO, Jim Harland, in his report to the Council meeting of 25/9/06.

    I also note – for the record – that I am quoted in the ODT of saying “…we would be kidding ourselves to rule out a rate to fund capital and/or operational expenditure of any new or redeveloped stadium.”

    If nothing else, the report to Council for its meeting on 25/9/06 and these news stories clearly established that ratepayer/council funding was an integral and very public part of the proposal from the outset.

  31. Stu

    Someone should talk to Michael Sam about his paper.
    http://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/53
    It’s behind a paywall so unavailable generally, but most Otago Uni academics keep preprints in PDF form of their publications.

    “Stand Up and Be Counted
    Numerical Storylines in a Stadium Debate
    Michael P. Sam

    University of Otago, New Zealand, mike.sam@otago.ac.nz

    Jay Scherer

    University of Alberta, Canada

    The purpose of this article is to investigate how numbers come to be part of the political fabric of an ongoing debate to build a new stadium with public funds. We begin by briefly outlining the importance of numbers in the broader context of policy-making. More specifically, we situate the emphasis on numbers in governmental decision-making within the growth of `technocracy’ and more contemporary demands for `evidence-based’ policy. Drawing from an interpretive methodology of narrative analysis, we then turn to our case to illustrate how numbers came to be articulated and politicized, focusing on three inter-connected storylines: 1) the story of decline and merit, 2) the story of helplessness and control, and 3) the story of risk and assurance. In the last section we attempt to synthesize a brief comment concerning number narratives in stadium debates, particularly those associated with expertise and the implications for public trust.”

    Google indicates that this paper may contain quotes relevant to this debate.

    Richard, I note your comments above. In the brief searching I did last night to turn up that reference, I was struck by the difference between the 2007 reports and the 2006 “vision” statements. In 2006, ratepayer funding is “last resort”, in 2007 it is front and central to the plan. I would suggest that the period between September 2006 and December 2007 is of most interest, historically.

  32. Richard

    Your nasty tone is typical of yourself when backed into a corner. (For your information I did not manage Lee Vandervis’s campaign in the last election. eg of your ‘own fact’. Also STS has never said it won’t pay court costs. Also there was no ‘walking away’ from STS as you put it. Sometimes you have to know when to step aside and let others take an organisation further in a new direction.) Some people, like yourself, don’t have the sense to know when it is time to retire – but hang on because their own self worth is dependent on being seen and heard.
    I was unaware that writing letters to the editor, criticising the council, was wrong. There are a lot more than myself doing this. Should we all be rounded up and shot?! This comment goes rather nicely with your recent comment on this site that Living in Dunedin doesn’t make you a ‘Dunedite’. It shows your belligerent attitude to people who don’t agree with you.

  33. Russell Garbutt

    Richard, the “politician” always “forgetting” the “inconvenient”, and when things get a trifle difficult or embarrassing there is always the resort of personal attack.

    The genesis of this debacle – as you are well aware – was that the ORFU knew it was in the financial mire and wanted a new stadium. t was the DCC, the ORC, the CTO and the ORFU that got together and decided what was going to happen. How their decisions were put into train was through the forming of a private trust – the Carisbrook Stadium Trust. It has never been fully explained why this mechanisim was chosen, but we all have our own ideas and beliefs about that – no doubt “including you”. Nonetheless, the CST are acting, and were acting, as an agent of the DCC. If the CST were saying things that the DCC didn’t agree with, then point us to the records of “when” and “where” this happened, and where the DCC disagreed with the statements of the CST. No semantics, no duck-shoving, just the references, nothing more, nothing less.

    Malcolm Farry made it very plain that there would be a stadium at Awatea Street built without ratepayer contributions or with minimal ratepayer contribution, and it is also equally plain that these statements were made with DCC knowledge. To now deny this Richard would need to be put against your voting record on this issue. Or, are you saying that Calvin is lying about what he heard at the meeting? Are you suggesting that Cr Dave Cull didn’t bring along a clipping containing this message to a Council debate? Straight answer please, no duck-shoving, no avoidance.

    Richard, you have never failed to vote for this stadium at every significant opportunity. Fact. You have never failed to vote against ultimate ratepayer responsibility for the stadium at every significant opportunity. Fact. Everything you utter on this matter must be set against these facts.

  34. Richard; I like your pedantics. Because you have no written record of the actual words, does this imply that I am making them up? To be honest, I wouldn’t even know if any reporters were present. And you know as well as I do that what is often reported in the media has very little to do with the actual record. I repeat, he said it. I heard it. Whether in retrospect Malcolm wished he hadn’t is beside the point. I don’t appreciate the implication that I may be constructing my own story.

  35. Richard

    It is not up to me to verify the statement. I am not the one making the claims!

    Calvin has opined what he claims was said at a meeting. He can put that down in writing and make a statutory statement before a JP.

    Same for you Russell. You say (Malcolm) made statements with DCC knowledge. Balderdash. The reports in the ODT in 2006 I have referred to and the difference of views that I and my council colleagues were party to is proof positive of that.

    And, when it comes to my voting record on the issue, you are wrong.

    And you are wrong in regard to how the CST was set up. That is fully recorded in Council Minutes and Reports and reported in the ODT from 2005!

    You are entitled to your opinions but your homework on the issue is ‘a litany of sloppiness, own facts and failure to check the record’.

  36. This is all part of Richard rewriting history. As Chairman of the Finance and Strategy Committee he knows his signature, and votes, are behind a seriously flawed project, not to mention his upfront role in presiding over the worst debt in the DCC’s history. His previous reputation for sound financial management is now in tatters. History has put him in the firing line.

  37. Richard

    Peter:

    The only one rewriting history here is, yourself.

    I have no problem with vigorous debate. I have no problem with honestly held opinions. Never have.

    Whether you agree with it, or not, I have stuck with what I put before the electors of Hills in 2004 and 2007.

    And no, writing letters to the editor etc is “not wrong”.

    But, have you ever contributed anything constructive. It has been snipe, snipe and more often that not, a descent into personal mudslinging.

    The email file I hold of your messages (apart from one quite gracious compliment) is evidence of that.

    Methinks you are the one standing in the corner more often.

    I have always wondered why, if you dislike council, if you have nothing to contribute, you came here in the first place! Just to take?

    Now, along with your mates Russell and Calvin, get out an enjoy the sun.

    • Elizabeth

      Richard, please check your email inbox -Eds

    • Elizabeth

      On one of Dunedin’s best weather days, I would hate this thread to devolve much further in the direction it is tending. The thread is being monitored for the avoidance of any defamatory statements. -Eds

  38. Russell Garbutt

    The truth hurts Richard. I knew you would adopt the personal attack line – it’s about the only defence left open to you. Now to enjoy the sun!

  39. Richard

    Russell – you made these statements:

    “How their decisions were put into train was through the forming of a private trust – the Carisbrook Stadium Trust. It has never been fully explained why this mechanisim was chosen, but we all have our own ideas and beliefs about that – no doubt “including you”.”

    “Malcolm Farry made it very plain that there would be a stadium at Awatea Street built without ratepayer contributions or with minimal ratepayer contribution, and it is also equally plain that these statements were made with DCC knowledge.”

    My challenge to you was/is – VERIFY THEM.

    Instead you cut and run!

  40. Richard;
    I have in fact been away for a spell in the sun. ‘I can put down in writing and make a statutory declaration before a JP.’ Are you for real? Can I take it from this that you are saying I am a liar? What is it with you that you can’t take anything that disagrees with your opinion as being anything but honest? To me it indicates a paucity of intellect and a lack of empathy with your fellow man.

  41. Richard

    Calvin

    For reasons I have already stated, I have only asked for verification of a much quoted claim in relation to a comment attributed to Malcolm Farry.

    That is all.

    You, Peter and now Russell have, so far, been unable to do that.

    It is up to the three of you to do so. Until that occurs, it is “hearsay”. And yes, I am quite serious about it.

  42. Oh dear, then I was right. I don’t know, it must be due to poor potty training.

  43. Russell Garbutt

    No, no cut and run – I took some good advice and read an excellent book in the sunshine.

    Richard – verify what? Don’t you remember how the CST came about? That’s not my problem, that’s yours.

    Don’t you remember what Malcolm Farry said about private and public funding? Again, your problem, not mine. Although you could ask your fellow Councillor who bought a clipping pointing that out. That has already been pointed out by another fellow Councillor – maybe ask her. Lots of people remember all too well, and they also remember your unwavering voting record in favour of ratepayer funding of the stadium.

    Been a good day in the sun Richard?

  44. Richard

    Excellent. A very pleasant day. Some gardening, some quiet time to read etc and spend a couple of hours with an old friend.

    Now Russell, I suggest in the cool of the evening, you go and verify ‘your facts’.

    For a start, just look back at the above posts.

    Calvin quotes what he believes Malcolm Farry said at a meeting.

    That is fine but is it what Calvin thought he heard or what Malcolm actually said?

    Peter – and then you – introduced side issues or ‘denials’. Neither of you tried to verify your statements. In fact, Peter even managed to get the GMP for the project wrong.

    As is Peter’s and your custom, we got a welter of general comments, unverified statements and, of course, the inevitable mud-slinging. Nothing new, of course, in that.

    In your latest post (above), you again fail to address my question in regard to your claims.

    I assume you are not able to?

    Otherwise, why I am I not surprised that you again ‘cut and run’ with masterful sidestepping when asked to back them up.

    If, on the other hand, they are your OPINIONS as distinct from STATED FACTS, then that is a different matter.

    All I/we need is for you to say so.

  45. Russell Garbutt

    What Calvin heard in a meeting is between you and Calvin – what I read on this thread is that you are suggesting there is a difference between what Calvin said he heard and what you suggest Malcolm did or didn’t say. That is up to you and Calvin to sort out, but others reading this thread may easily come to their own conclusions.

    What Peter is writing, again, is a matter between you and Peter if you disagree with it. Not my issue or problem.

    Now let us address the issues I’ve raised and those that you have studiously failed to address.

    Can you point to any Council records that indicate that you have been other than a supporter of a ratepayer funded stadium? Are you suggesting to those that read this thread that you have, at any time, voted against the stadium? If so, please show us all where to find these minutes or records. Not ODT reported statements of what you may or may not have said in a Council meeting, but actual voting records.

    Are you suggesting that the genesis of the CST was other than what I’ve pointed out?

    Are you suggesting that Malcolm Farry didn’t say that public funding was not an option that he wished to pursue? Perhaps the Mark Peart article of 3 March 2007 may cause you to remember something when Mr Farry is quoted as saying – ““I don’t want my name on a project that asks for a significant amount of money, and we just lump that on top of expenditure that we’re already committed to for the next few years,” Mr Farry said.

    “We have said our preference is for a reprioritisation so that it’s not additional spending, but that it is a project that replaces other projects that could either be excluded or just delayed,” he said.”

    So Richard, I have avoided the tactics that you follow of personal attack and have confined myself to issues of substance – could you find something in yourself to do the same and just answer the questions that have been posed to you?

  46. kate

    The energy that has gone into debate today belies the heat of the day – maybe it was hotter here, but I do live in the sunniest part of Dunedin! What amazes me is that although this thread may involve interesting snippets of past debate, yet Elizabeth on her post about yesterday’s news – the Port merger has raised really interesting questions and that has not generated at all the same rigor, yet she raises potentially even more important future issues for the City.

  47. Russell Garbutt

    The big problem is that if we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past, we are destined to repeat them in the future.

    You are right about the current moves concerning the Ports, but again the problem is that all of these issues are concurrent.

    And yes, a very hot day in Dunedin, but the mobility is somewhat decreased at present.

  48. Richard; You seem determined to paint me as a liar, and obviously won’t accept anything I say. Why then, don’t you ask Malcolm Farry to sign an affidavit in front of a JP as to what he did or did not say? After all, it was he who said whatever it was that he said. If you get my drift. Frankly, you test anyone’s belief in your rationality on this line of discussion. Maybe it is the sun, the gardening or the couple of hours with an old friend, or as previously suggested, poor potty training.

  49. I know a few people whose reading on a lie detector would go off the screen, Calvin.

  50. Phil

    Of course, one could always produce evidence that something WASN’T said.

  51. Going back through our files.
    Carisbrook Stadium Trust advertisement, ‘The Facts About The New Stadium’, printed in the ODT, Saturday May 31 2008.
    Paragraph headed, ‘The Stadium will be built for $188m.’ It then says:
    ‘The budget of $188 million was established over 18 months ago. It has not and will not change, and that is allowing for the cost to acquire the land needed for the stadium. We know it is the right budget because it is based on the cost to build the new Christchurch AMI stadium stands.
    In March 2008, two of New Zealand’s leading quantity [surveying] companies confirmed that the stadium could be built for the budget. The budget allows for escalation and contingencies through to the completion of the project.’
    So there you are Richard.

  52. Whoops. Missed out the word SURVEYING.
    “In March 2008, two of New Zealand’s leading quantity SURVEYING companies confirmed that the stadium could be built for the budget.”

  53. Peter, have you not noticed, Richard’s gone. A fit of incontinence perhaps.

  54. Phil

    Some people will wave around the $130 million GMP contract as evidence of the cost for construction. It’s already been established that the published contract excluded several significant cost items, estimated at around $30+ million. All P&G costs, the contractor’s contingency sum and, best of all, the contractor’s profit margin, were all specifically excluded from the published price. There’s been mention that those items were later added in, with no adjustment to the original price. Suggesting that Hawkins Construction are doing this contract for free. As, of course, we all believe. However, unlike the original “exclusion” contract, this apparent revised contract seems to be missing from public view. Even the ODT tried, and failed, to get an answer to the question of contract exclusions.

    In the current atmosphere of silence, draw your own conclusions.

  55. Richard

    Peter: You overlook that the main factor in the increase to $198m is that Carisbrook (the existing ground) was taken “out of the equation”. That meant the anticipated proceeds from its sale (as projected by the CST) needed to be added back.

    As noted in various reports to Council, when the future of the various properties that make up Carisbrook is decided, the proceeds that stem from that* will be credited against the stadium account. Ditto for any excess land not needed for the FB Stadium and which is sold to LTNZ or other parties.

    The amount realised could, of course, return a surplus over what Council paid the ORFU. On that point, you will note from the recent report in the ODT, that the ORFU made ‘a loss’ on their sale to the DCC putting to rest your claim about that!

    (*Note: there will be public consultation about the future of the actual ground and its future use. Many understandably favour retaining it with some rationalising of the use of other grounds. There is also the future of the sportsfields along the Ocean Beach Domain to consider. Whatever, at some point, the cost of purchasing Carisbrook – which you may recall, I advocated from “Day One” about 8 years ago – and the other properties will come back, at some stage, as a credit).

  56. Richard

    Calvin: you have posted a statement attributing to Malcolm Farry, these words.

    “We are going to build a new stadium. It will be situated at Awatea St. It will have a roof, and it will not cost a cent over $188 million. And no, we will not be seeking any financial contribution from the ratepayers.”

    When I asked for verification, you responded:

    “Malcolm, at his announcement of the project at the meeting convened for that purpose, at which I was present, chaired by Robin Charteris, supported by CST member Ron Anderson, he did say those words verbatim. I heard them and was stunned. I think most there expected to hear a report on the state of Carisbrook and what would be recommended to bring it up to required standard. Richard, those words are burned into my memory like it was yesterday.”

    No date, no venue, no verification. That is all I have asked for from you and others.

    If you do not want to do so, fine with me.

    As one other contributor astutely observes, someone may choose to verify that they did not make such a statement.

    And then where does that leave you?

    Have a nice day!

  57. Richard
    You are just talking about ‘maybes’ with the ‘possible’ sale of Carisbrook. Even you say it might be kept. I can understand this shred of hope you hold out for Carisbrook given the anger within rugby circles concerning any future sale and demolition of the iconic Carisbrook.
    I am talking about ‘facts’ from the CST advertisement – as it stands today – not some time in the maybe future scenarios.
    As the advert says about the $188m cost, ‘It has not and will not change.’ All goes to show, with what we now know, your assurances count for nothing.
    As Chair of the F and S committee, do you know who were the two leading quantity surveying companies?

  58. Richard; if you are suggesting that the meeting did not in fact take place then fair enough. If you want to continue living in fairyland then that is your prerogative. Robin Charteris, for one, would not appreciate being considered a figment of the imagination.
    How do you verify a meeting taking place, other than the fact that it did? The venue was Skeggs Gallery. The date, about August 2006, I think.
    The fact that your mind works in such a convoluted manner on these things worries me that the city is run on these lines.

  59. Richard

    Peter: whether the Carisbrook Ground is sold for redevelopment or stays in DCC ownership for use (say) as a community sportsground, is immaterial.

    The stadium account must be credited.

    The decision to purchase Carisbrook and its constituent properties was the DCC’s not that of the CST.

  60. Richard

    Calvin: please do us all the courtesy of going back, what I asked for and why.

  61. Richard

    ‘The stadium account must be credited.’ Can it? Will it?

    By the way, I believe I was at the same meeting in the Clifford Skeggs Gallery as Calvin.

    This was the one that launched the CST Feasibility Report. Chaired by Robin Charteris with Malcolm in the hot seat. This was the one where questions came up at Question Time, at the end, about the ownership of the stadium land. Malcolm said it was on public record at QV, but he wasn’t going to go into it. It all got sticky.We were left in no doubt it was option 1a that the CST was gunning for with two quantity surveyor estimates – $188m or $240m. Surprise surprise the CST chose $188m. (Sounded better, I suppose.)
    This meeting took place February 28, 2007. The Community Trust announced its $10m before the DCC made its decision after pitifully little debate ‘the next day’.

    You didn’t answer my last question, Richard. I can’t assume you forgot because you have just told us you never forget.

  62. Richard;
    The Carisbrook Stadium Trust announced at a function last night (August 9, 2006) it had all but abandoned the option to upgrade Carisbrook in favour of replacing the 130-year-old stadium with a multipurpose venue. The project was costing between $150 million – $180 million. Concept plans for the project could include capacity for up to 32,000, but this would ultimately depend on the cost.
    CST chairman Malcolm Farry ignored the best advice of his minders and advisers last night and declared Dunedin’s new multipurpose stadium would have a roof.
    “This project hinges on the support of all our funding parties,” Mr Farry said. Mr Farry was adamant any council funding for the project should come from existing capital expenditure and a re-evaluation of existing projects, rather than raising rates.
    “I’m not prepared to put that burden on ratepayers” he said.
    See front page Otago Daily Times August 10, 2006.
    Richard, are you now prepared to concede that what I quoted is a reasonable summary of the events? Probably not.

    • Elizabeth

      As alluded to, Mr Farry as CST chairman at that meeting was in no position to comment on DCC matters such as funding the proposed capital project, council assets, and how such a project might affect rates.

      One individual does not – and cannot – determine or decide how a council should operate.

      At that point he should have been knocked on the head.

  63. Elizabeth;
    Knock him on the head? Feel free. Nevertheless, Malcolm Farry ran the show and said what he did. The fact is that the council essentially ran with it, and Richard knows it. That is what makes his performance over the last couple of days so disingenuous.

  64. Russell Garbutt

    I also attended that meeting held in the Dunedin Casino and what Calvin states is absolutely correct.

    I think however that again the genesis of the CST must be examined very closely with the “investigative” body that preceded it being a very interesting grouping of the DCC, the ORC, the CTO and the ORFU. That body’s proceedings would be interesting to examine against the decisions that followed.

    All that said, I do note that Cr Walls has not had the time to come back to this thread and lay out his voting record on the stadium as requested, and neither has he offered any form of apology to anyone that shows that his recollections of what Mr Farry said on the matter of public funding for the stadium is somewhat incomplete. As I pointed out at the time, Cr Wall’s utterances must be reviewed in the context of his unwavering support for a ratepayer funded stadium.

    I further note that I have addressed the issues and not indulged in any personal attack on Cr Walls – just his decisions.

  65. Richard

    Let’s be clear about one thing, Malcolm Farry did “not run the show” – any show.

    He was asked to undertake a task on behalf of council. That he did.

    If you wish to believe otherwise, then that is your perogative.

    One that is divorced from reality.

    • Elizabeth

      Are you saying, Richard, that Mr Farry at that meeting had the full support of councillors, by a majority? Since when. Where is that written. Who at “council” gave Mr Farry the right to make those particular pronouncements. Someone(s) or no-one. Hmmm.

  66. Richard

    One good thing, Russell. You now post under your name and do not hide behind a nom-de-plume.

    Just keep “hitting below the belt”.

  67. Richard

    Thank you, Calvin for the reference. Would have saved us all a lot of time if you had given this in the first place instead of going off and “getting your knickers in a twist”.

    So, the front page of the ODT on 10 August 2006 reports a meeting in the Dunedin Casino as follows: “The Carisbrook Stadium Trust announced at a function last night (August 9, 2006) it had all but abandoned the option to upgrade Carisbrook in favour of replacing the 130-year-old stadium with a multipurpose venue. The project was costing between $150 million – $180 million. Concept plans for the project could include capacity for up to 32,000, but this would ultimately depend on the cost.

    CST chairman Malcolm Farry ignored the best advice of his minders and advisers last night and declared Dunedin’s new multipurpose stadium would have a roof.

    “This project hinges on the support of all our funding parties,” Mr Farry said. Mr Farry was adamant any council funding for the project should come from existing capital expenditure and a re-evaluation of existing projects, rather than raising rates.

    “I’m not prepared to put that burden on ratepayers” he said.

    See front page Otago Daily Times August 10, 2006.
    Richard, are you now prepared to concede that what I quoted is a reasonable summary of the events? Probably not”.

    Well you got that right, Calvin. Absolutely!

    Here is what you told us was “burned into your memory”.

    “We are going to build a new stadium. It will be situated at Awatea St. It will have a roof, and it will not cost a cent over $188 million. And no, we will not be seeking any financial contribution from the ratepayers.”Somewhat different?

    Verbatim?

    But now you know why I was asking!

  68. Russell Garbutt

    I’m not hitting below any belts Richard. Just set out your voting record for a start and we can all see what are clean straight facts. Taking a lesson from your other messages to others on this thread, just deal in the facts without any form of embellishment.

    I do make one point in relation to your reliance on ODT reporting. You know and I know that what is reported in the ODT quite often bears no resemblance to what was actually said or sometimes done. It is a resume done by a reporter, trying to pick the eyes out of an event.

    So, just steer us all to your voting record and I’ll keep on refraining from getting at all personal.

  69. Russell Garbutt

    Richard, just to clarify and make really sure of what you are saying – can you confirm that the announcements made at that meeting in the Casino that night on August 9th, 2006 were not, as reported, a surprise to Mr Farry’s minders and advisors, but were known beforehand to the DCC?

    Or are you referring to another meeting?

    A good reliable reference to that claim would be appreciated.

  70. Richard

    Please enlighten me.

  71. Richard

    And, Rusell, I am not relying on ODT reporting – as you apparently do.

    Really, your ‘homework’ is so sloppy.

  72. ‘Well, you got that right, Calvin. Absolutely.” Finally, an admission from you Richard, that what I have been saying all along was correct. Game set and match, with you to buy the drinks. To then get pedantic on the exact wording I had conveyed from memory of three and a half years ago is, to say the least, not what one would expect from a senior councillor. Just why you can never graciously concede a point is something which will not be lost with a lot of people.

  73. Richard

    Absolutely not. Malcolm as the Chair of CST was clearly putting forward his own views – or that of the CST – as he is/was entitled to do.

    Council did not formally have anything before it until the following month, as the chronology in one of my earlier posts above confirms.

    From there, it can all be (relatively) easily tracked.

    • Elizabeth

      So did Mr Farry, with respect, make it totally clear they were his personal views or those of CST in saying these things? Which hat when is a method he should have been well tutored in. You have to spell the hats out. This reduces umbridge and incredulity.

  74. Richard

    Calvin

    Oh dear, Calvin. You have lost the plot, old fellow.

    What you said: “Richard, are you now prepared to concede that what I quoted is a reasonable summary of the events? Probably not”.

    Well you got that right, Calvin. Absolutely!

    No, I am not. As the ODT report you have so kindly provided confirms.

    What it says – and what is “burnt into your memory” – are quite disparate.

    Now, having said that, I accept that is your perception of what was said by Malcolm. It suits your argument/position to do so.

    Fine. But it is not what was said – OR REPORTED – is it?

    By the way, you and Russell are really an “Odd Couple”. Like a tag wresting team, all the dirty, underhand tricks in the book.

    Debate the issue, not the person!

    Now, go tuck yourself up.

  75. Richard

    Sorry, Elizabeth. I have no idea. And whoever “the minders” (I can’t figure out who they would be!) they were they were not from the DCC!

    All this, of course, took place in advance of any formal report from the CST coming to council.
    i.e. the first Pre-Feasibility Study (a draft) ex the CST on 17/11/o6 and the Feasibility Report made to Council on 19 February 2007. (as posted above).

    Point is – as you have correctly identified – Malcolm did not speak for Council, only for himself and/or the CST.

    And he said something quite different to what Calvin believes was said. Even STS got it RIGHT in the media released referred to by Stu!

  76. Richard

    Mr. R. Garbutt:

    Russell – you made these statements:

    “How their decisions were put into train was through the forming of a private trust – the Carisbrook Stadium Trust. It has never been fully explained why this mechanisim was chosen, but we all have our own ideas and beliefs about that – no doubt “including you”.”

    “Malcolm Farry made it very plain that there would be a stadium at Awatea Street built without ratepayer contributions or with minimal ratepayer contribution, and it is also equally plain that these statements were made with DCC knowledge.”

    I challenged you to – VERIFY THESE CLAIMS.

    In doing so, I said that the reports in the ODT in 2006 I have referred to and the difference of views that I and my council colleagues were party to is proof positive of that.

    And that you are wrong in regard to how the CST was set up. That is fully recorded in Council Minutes and Reports and reported in the ODT from 2005!

    Not surprisingly, you STILL continue to cut and run!

  77. Richard, you are developing into a silly old man. I am willing to bet that any right minded person would see that what Malcolm Farry said was essentially the same as what I said. Only you could quibble and split straws so finely in defense of your untenable position. As I said, you seem unable to bring yourself to concede anything. As to the veracity of Malcolm Farry’s comments. He is chair/spokesperson of the CST, set up, funded by, and given full backing of council then, and continuously since. So don’t try and duck out on the basis that he was speaking for himself without approval of council. It just won’t wash. Talking of ‘lost the plot’ it might be worth your while having a look at that site as well. Unless you want to tuck yourself up. You won’t even need to undress, as, like the emperor you have no clothes.

  78. Richard

    Paddy! Paddy! Calvin. I know you pride yourself on always being right. Must be frustrating to you that your memory did not serve you well. Overcooked perhaps?

    MF’s statement was precise. STS even quoted it correctly.

    If you had answered the simple question I asked at the outset instead of ‘ducking and diving’, uttering weasel words et al with your ‘tag-team’ partner, you could have spared yourself a huge embarrassment.

    And it’s all on record now – forever.

    Thank you! Really!

    Must send a copy to your ‘close friend’, Mike.

  79. Richard; If you mean Mike, the defrocked/reinstated on probation lawyer, your friend. Then I can assure you he is no friend, close or otherwise, of mine. Speaking of ‘ducking and diving’ and weasel words, you have raised that to an art form. But then, being a postulating, populist politician is your forté.
    Richard, we could trade insults ad infinitum, but what is the point. You are convinced that your interpretation of what MF said is right, and that my memory did not serve me well. I am equally convinced that your view is as shonky as the whole stadium project is. A seriously flawed economically disastrous exercise, destined to be a debt millstone for the city for generations. I believe that deep down you know that to be true. But only time will tell. Let’s hope you and I are around long enough to see. How’s your health?

  80. Russell Garbutt

    I’m not going to grace your utterances with a response Richard, but merely would point out that you have yet again failed to produce your voting record on the stadium.

    And no, I’m not a member of any tag team, nor any organisation, just a person that treats truth as precious. If you perceive that as a problem and it somehow consists of hitting you below the belt, then I simply don’t understand where you are coming from.

    Enough said. I will leave it to you to come back with your voting record – if you don’t then we will all understand why, if you do then the truth will be plain for all to see. I will not trade insults with you so there is no point in trading them with me.

  81. Richard

    Calvin: you miss the original point and by missing it you have got yourself into the deep mire.

    I was simply seeking verification of the claims made by many, and revived here by you – and on ODT Online by Russell under his original nom-de-plume – as to when and where Malcolm made the statement you attribute to him.

    You told us that he said: “We are going to build a new stadium. It will be situated at Awatea St. It will have a roof, and it will not cost a cent over $188 million. And no, we will not be seeking any financial contribution from the ratepayers.”

    Yesterday, you posted an extract from the ODT of 10 August 2006 which said something quite different.

    Quite different.

  82. Richard

    Russell don’t make excuses. You left this site in a huff several months ago and were not coming back.

    But, you must have been watching and as soon as you saw the opportunity for a stoush, into the ring you jumped.

    If it looks like ‘a tag team’, grunts like a tag team, uses ‘dirty tricks’ like a tag team and throws insults like two wrestlers in a tag team …. it’s a tag team.

    And like them, for you it’s all about playing the person. You have never been any different.

  83. Richard
    I’d say it is more like yourself who is in ‘a deep mire’ with your disingenuous excuses and evasions. On the final ‘Day of Reckoning’ when this whole sorry saga can no longer be ignored by those from afar, who could do something, but just look on in the meantime, you could find yourself scrambling for the helicopter as it lifts off the roof of the Town Hall.
    Just a little reminder to someone who never forgets anything who are the two quantity surveyors who confirmed the $188m price tag mentioned in the May 31 2008 CST advertisement?

  84. How about your tag team with Michael Guest? You both do it so well.

  85. Cr Richard Walls states above:
    “The amount realised could, of course, return a surplus over what Council paid the ORFU. On that point, you will note from the recent report in the ODT, that the ORFU made ‘a loss’ on their sale to the DCC putting to rest your claim about that!”

    Today’s ODT, Richard Reid, CEO of ORFU states:
    “The selling of Carisbrook had been a success, considering the union had gone into negotiations with the council with a debt of $8 million, and had 87.5% of that debt paid off.”

    They laughed all the way to the bank, Richard, Chair of the Finance and Strategy committee.
    Great finance, great strategy….for the ORFU that is.

    Who nominated you for council, Richard? Any connection to the above?

  86. Richard

    No, none at all.

    But it was you saying a couple of weeks or so ago that “the DCC had paid too much etc and that the ORFU had made millions out of the sale” or words to that effect.

    As the earlier report in the ORFU highlighted, the writedown (or book loss) for the ORFU was approximately $4m. The piece you have quoted from the ODT this morning relates to their “cash” position.

    Carisbrook was – and will prove to have been – a good buy for Council. What happens to it, what it is to be used for and what flows from that are recognised by many as the key to the overall redevelopment of “the flat”.

    I am sorry though, that once again, you cannot resist that penchant for signing off with a snide or sarcastic remark.

    Looking back over many exchanges of opinion over the years, we have had some quite fruitful ones while others have been spoilt by succumbing to ‘that temptation’.

    Something that you yourself acknowledged.

    Which is why I did not “lump you in with the tag team”. That said, if you “dish it out”, expect to to have “it dished back”.

  87. Richard

    “Projecting”, Elizabeth? Hmm..h. Not certain what you mean although I once did work at a very young age as a cinema projectionist.

    That said, of one thing you can be certain, I am always looking forward to how things might be.

    Some of the ideas for the future of Carisbrook that I have been made aware are quite exciting – and visionary. And I can certainly visualise them by ‘projecting’. But then, you know that. I even do it at times during consent hearings when I want to mentally recall an image relevant to what is being talked about. And there I had better stop!

    Oh yes, before I forget. I anticipate a report to start the process in regard to the future of Carisbrook to come to Finance and Strategy on 15 March or 26 April.

    I anticipate wide interest given that already expressed.

    Cheers!

  88. Richard

    Peter: “Just a little reminder to someone who never forgets anything who are the two quantity surveyors who confirmed the $188m price tag mentioned in the May 31 2008 CST advertisement?”

    I am not quite certain what the point of this is, Peter. We both know who they are. We also know that the final detail of land purchases and the subsequent acquisition of Carisbrook were outside their brief and in the hands of Council, not the CST.

  89. So I take from all that verbiage you won’t answer my questions. One can read between the lines, why not.

    The debt ridden stadium, Carisbrook, was bought with debt. DCC CEO Jim Harland said quite unashamedly it was to get the ORFU in to a viable position as the main user of the stadium. Thus the new debt ridden stadium is theirs, but without carrying the debt. Smart move for them. Not for you as Chairman of the Debt Finance and Strategy Committee.

    Spare us, Richard, of the sanctimonious comments about myself, and others, not being ‘nice’ to you. You do indeed ‘dish back’- or rather dish up- in the first place. You do this when when you won’t answer questions

  90. Richard

    I don’t know who the two quantity surveyors are. If I did I wouldn’t be asking the question. Please inform me.

  91. Richard

    Yes, Peter. You quote Jim Harland correctly. And that obviously assisted the ORFU to get out of something that they no longer needed to own. As has happened elsewhere.

    It was only one factor. The purchase stands on its own merits.

    New stadium or not, it was going to happen anyway and should have, several years ago! As I have consistently said.

    As for your other comment. I have always been prepared to answer reasonable questions. It is why I came on here in the first place.

    That sometimes leads to reasonable and fruitful exchanges. Not necessarily to agreement.

    The problem with you, Russell and Calvin, is that when you get an answer you do not like, “you all lose your cool” and “play the person”.

    Just look at this thread. It started off with my asking for verification of a statement attributed to Malcolm Farry.

    It turns out that what Calvin and Russell remember is something quite different to what Malcolm said.

    Calvin was, as you will have noted, adamant he had it down VERBATIM. “Burnt on his memory.”

    Well, that is not the case. He might think he had it right, but he hasn’t. So “the toys went out of the cot”.

    Your question on the QS. Well, I know who the ones that reported to ouncil were. I assume they would be the same as the CST refers to but suggest you ask them.

  92. Richard;
    You say that by missing the original point I have got myself in the mire. What exactly was the original point? If it is the comparison of what I said Malcolm Farry said, compared with what the ODT claims he said, then there must be a serious disconnect with your synapses if you see any great conflict of meaning there. No Richard, all your conspiracy theories about who said what, where and when are just that. Simply put, Malcolm made the mistake of saying he would not expect the ratepayers to carry any additional burden because of the new stadium. He knew as soon as he said it that he had compromised the Council. Richard, please give the people credit for being able to see it for what it is. All your blustering fulminations trying to prove otherwise is insulting to those same people. It also at the same time shows them just what lengths you will go to in order to disguise your own shortcomings.

  93. Richard

    The CST being an independent trust has no obligation to answer questions. You, as a councillor, do. You know, so why send me on an unnecessary, and probably circuitous, expedition? This is a common ploy by politicians to avoid the question being answered. So, why don’t you cough up?
    Richard’s quote: ‘And that got the ORFU out of something they no longer needed to own.’ Substitute ‘needed’ for ‘wanted’.
    In reference to your above point about the land purchase details and the Carisbrook deal being outside the CST’s brief. (The CST signed the land contracts too.) We know they work together on this project. The CST was borne through the DCC. It is the DCC’s ‘bastard child’, if you like.

  94. Elizabeth; Richard projecting? It is probably the viagra.

  95. Richard

    The original point? I simply asked for a verification of a statement by Malcolm Farry simply because I could not reference it.

    You gave us (what you called) a “VERBATIM” statement, one “burned into your memory”.

    Russell backed you up with his very emphatic comment: “Malcolm Farry made it very plain that there would be a stadium at Awatea Street built without ratepayer contributions or with minimal ratepayer contribution, and it is also equally plain that these statements were made with DCC knowledge.” He then went off on his usual tangent in regard to my voting record (what did that have to do with it?) of “running a rabbit”.

    His sort of approach sums up precisely why the ant-stadium side of the debate ended up “shot full of holes”. Neither Russell or you ever stop to listen to other than what you want to hear and the ‘homework’ got sloppier and sloppier as the obsession grew!

    When we finally got to verification by way of the ODT report of 10/8/2006, it turned out to be something different.

    I can understand that you might have thought that was what Malcolm said. If you had said that, fair enough. But you didn’t. You claimed it was VERBATIM. “Burnt on your memory.”

    Do you understand the word? Do you read your posts?

    Simple fact, Malcolm did not say what you think he said.

    Even the STS did not misquote him in the Media Release that ‘Stu’ kindly referenced for us. They may have implied but they did not misquote.

    Now, I doubt that anyone else on ‘What if?’ other than the three or four of us are bothering with this thread.

    I have got the information, I was looking for. That part of the file is complete. Well, I hope it is.

    So, I won’t be wasting any more time on you, Russell or Peter and your obsession.

  96. Russell or Peter; can we take that as a capitulation by Richard? Near as I can see, that is what it is. I doubt Richard intended it that way, but we will see. He doubts anyone else watching this thread are bothered. In his dreams.

  97. Calvin

    I think we can indeed say that he has capitulated. He has not answered my questions. In fact, he’s done a sterling job to avoid answering them.
    Dr Rob Hamlin spoke of entrapment with councillors who have found themselves sucked into the ‘vision thing’ and can’t get themselves out – despite the welter of evidence from peer reviews, submissions to the DCC/ORC, university survey which have told them loud and clear the stadium is not a goer. Richard is an intelligent man. I can’t understand how he has become so bewildered in the first place. Only entrapment can explain why he is still there in the mire.
    He has even stated publicly the council cannot afford the stadium but voted for it anyway.

  98. Russell Garbutt

    Still no sight of any voting record from Richard, but I, and no doubt the others that are following this thread shouldn’t be surprised at that.

    I would remind you Calvin that Cr Wilson posted the following on this thread in response to Richard denying the message of what Malcolm Farry had to say:

    kate
    February 21, 2010 at 7:58 am Richard, I know that Dave Cull brought the clipping to a Council debate at some stage – Malcolm was definately quoted as saying it would not need ratepayer money.

    Seems like Richard doesn’t recall that as he hasn’t responded.

    As far as I’m concerned, as I said earlier, I’m not going to trade insults with Cr Walls – he has clearly shown an unwillingness to be accountable for his decisions and an equal unwillingness to act in anything other than a fashion that doesn’t behoove a City Councillor.

  99. Richard

    Peter: re Quantity Surveyors. A quick check suggests Rawlinson and Rider Levett Bucknall are the ones referred to in the CST advertisement you quote. Council also engaged Davis Langdon to undertake a Peer Review on its behalf. The papers are all in the Report that went to Council dated 17.3.2008.

  100. Richard

    For the record, I would remind Mr Garbutt that, in the opening pages of his submission to the Draft Annual Plan in 2008, he suggested that “the Council and possibly officers of the DCC could be held accountable for decisions that can be shown to have been imprudent or irresponsible”.

    This line was later picked up and developed by Dr Hamlin and subsequently shown to have no basis.

    This had nothing to do with ‘accountability to the electors’. It reached far beyond that.

    I mention it here because it was a sign of things to come.

    Threats are not part of the democratic process and they are, quite frankly, quite unacceptable.

    • Elizabeth

      Oi, Richard

      Psych 101*
      What is projection? Projection is to blame another person for one’s actions.

      And, the words, ‘you made me do it,’ slip out ever so easily.

      ****

      Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person’s own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.

      Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves. Humour has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humour presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth.

      Paleo-anthropologically speaking, this faculty probably had survival value as a self-defense mechanism when homo sapiens’ intellectual capacity to detect deception in others improved to the point that the only sure hope to deceive was for deceivers to be self-deceived and therefore behave as if they were being truthful.

      From the layperson’s Wiki… ;-) Classic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      *Kathi Stringer wrote: “Psych 101 – What you didn’t learn in nursing school.” (Self-published, 2008) Her book contains the article: ‘What is Projection, Exactly?’….

  101. Richard
    After many attempts at dodging you have finally answered as someone in your position is required to do. Thank you.
    The CST advertisement was not correct when it stated that two quantity surveyors confirmed the $188m estimate.
    Now knowing this we can recall Davis Langdon’s estimate was $240m. Rawlinson’s estimate was $188m, but Rider Levitt Bucknall estimated $198m. My wife, Bev Butler, had to go to the ombudsman office to get the $198m figure released because the DCC deleted it from the peer reviews and would not release it. So the council knew back in March 2008 that it was $198m.
    As Chairman of DCC Finance and Strategy you not only knew about this figure you publicly stated that the council could not afford the $91.4m contribution for the stadium but voted for it anyway.

  102. Richard

    Peter: the figures you quote are not those in the report I referred to. Not $198m either. Nor have you got it right about ther $91.4 million. My statement you are referring to relates to the original source of rate funding, i.e. before the proposal to use a CCO came up etc.

    By the bye, I am not “required” to do anything.

  103. Richard

    And I fear that Calvin and Russell (but I hope Elizabeth, not you) have gone ‘dtok khob’.

  104. Russell Garbutt

    Good grief Richard, not content with ignoring a simple request to provide us all with your voting record on a ratepayer funded rugby stadium, and ignoring your fellow Councillor’s statement about statements concerning Malcolm Farry, you now seem to believe that Councillors and Council staff are immune from actions that could be taken where those people have acted imprudently or irresponsibly.

    I suggest that you take a little time out from your postings and have a long hard read of the Local Government Act.

    Then come back and give us your voting record and tell us all why you have ignored Cr Wilson’s statement further up this thread.

    I would then suggest you take some further time out and enjoy a good book or maybe a movie – I can thoroughly recommend “The Caine Mutiny”.

  105. Richard

    I guess it was a mistake to say I had concluded my part in this drawn out affair.

    So let me say this. Calvin’s so-called verification turned out to be something other than what he claimed. FACT.

    What Malcolm Farry said at the meeting Calvin has gone on …. and on and on and on and on … about and which was reported in the reference finally produced by him (i.e. the ODT report of 10/8/2006) was reflected in a front page (yes, front page) editorial in the ODT on 28/9/06.

    So whoever wrote that did not take it the way Calvin did.

    As for Peter, well sadly he did not know the difference between the Skeggs Gallery and The Casino.

  106. Dear me, Richard, you really are grasping at straws. I obviously had the wrong meeting referred to by Calvin. Understandable, really as they were both chaired by the same person and only a few months apart. I am man enough to admit I was wrong on this occasion. Are you man enough to admit you are ever wrong? Note I said I ‘believed’ I was at the meeting. Not that I was there.
    The figures I have quoted above are from the peer reviews which formed part of the Council meeting on 17/03/08. You need to go back and check again so you can see that the figures I quoted above are correct.
    You did state publicly that the council could not afford the $91.4m contribution but then went ahead and voted to continue supporting it anyway.
    This is all on record.

  107. Richard; your protestations of incorrectness in my statement compared with MF’s is tiresome to say the least. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the English language would say that essentially both statements say the same thing. All that aside, it mystifies me as to just why you would set yourself up as the damage control person in this, placing you in an untenable position. After all, it has all along been a progression of bad judgment and decisions by you and your fellow councillors, your staff and the CST people. None are without blame, and yet you stand up alone, and try to salvage an impossible public relations debacle. I can see why Russell Garbutt suggests ‘The Caine Mutiny’ film. Captain Queeg immediately springs to mind. Richard, I take my hat off to you. None of your other colleagues, including your friend Mike would.

  108. Richard

    Of course. We all make mistakes and/or errors of judgement, but for my part, my vote/s to support the FB Stadium is not one. I know you hold a different view but why be so ‘disagreeable’ about it?

    Were there two meetings?

    I suspect we are talking about different reports.

    The ones I have referred to were in the public papers. They were updates of previous reports/peer reviews. I pointed out on several occasions that the initial ones on which STS fixated for months and months, were not the be all and end all. It was a continuing process. It was an on-going process. No-one – and especially STS – seemed to take any notice. STS stayed with the initial ones.

    Whoever was advising Bev was/were not ‘up-to-it’, and the ‘fishing expedition’ prior to the appeal was a glaring example of that.

    Yes my comments are record, as is my correction of what I said at the meeting of F&S that you refer to.

    It was a long meeting, you will recall that at the outset in the Public Forum, I exercised my discretion to allow your wife, Bev Butler, to speak even although she had been late in making her request to do so. I could have refused it. Then what would you have said?

    I cannot recall a ‘thank you’, not that I have ever had anything other than a courteous relationship with Bev. But I have often wondered who her advisors were given the ‘gaping holes’ in the submissions and comments etc and especially the continuous flow of requests to the Ombudsmen for reports already on the public record. Such as the ones that you refer to.

    Oh well!

    • Elizabeth

      I guess it’s easy to forget (joke) you’re redistributing wealth away from the majority of your residents and ratepayers to line the pockets of a very small clique of businessmen who parade as if they have saved the town. From what? This is part of their whole charade. Balloon heads. Or, bullshit artists.

      They suffer from a complete lack of critical socio-economic understanding and ethical standing.

      I like ro’s comment at the other thread: https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/eion-edgar-predicts/#comment-10259

      But then, today I’ve been dealing to the announcement that ODHB will slash away home support services for seniors. This is morally repugnant, and affects so many deserving and vulnerable people. Here we are shredding their quality of life – for a fucking edifice to ‘the boys’, who are rotten to the core.

      So angry.

  109. Richard

    Calvin, you really are quite funny, sad…funny! You have forgotten that I am a movie buff. I know quite well who Captain Quegg is!

    I can understand why Russell likes it. Captain Garbutt of the good ship ‘Sport Otago’!

    As for ‘Oi, Psych 101* How apt’. Right on! Pity you do not understand.

    Thomas Bracken must have been thinking of people like you!

  110. Richard

    Says Calvin – “Richard; your protestations of incorrectness in my statement compared with MF’s is tiresome to say the least. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the English language would say that essentially both statements say the same thing.”

    No, they do not.

    I remind you that you – not me – claimed what you said Malcolm said was VERBATIM. That it was scorched/seared or whatever on your brain.

    The Editor of the ODT did not place the same interpretation on it as you did.

    Thank goodness!

    And I was not defending anyone. As I made it clear at the outset I was seeking verification for another purpose.

    But let me leave it in no doubt, if you choose to claim infallible memory et al, I WILL USE IT.

  111. Russell Garbutt

    Richard, the Captain is Queeg, not Quegg. And yes, it is a book and movie that I have and do enjoy. So much to learn from fiction sometimes, don’t you think?

    I have no idea of why you should bring up my past connections with Sport Otago, but since you did, I will merely record that I served as a volunteer member of the Board of that excellent organisation from 1998 until 2006 and was the Chair of that Board for some years. Since that time I have had no connection with the organisation, but continue to support its aims of involving the community in active participation and recreation. They are good people doing a great job in the community and I’m proud of the time that I spent with them. You seem to treat the organisation or my time with it with a certain degree of derision – is this your intent?

    Now Richard, you need to follow my advice for just a little bit. There is a hint, that despite your protestations to the contrary, that you may be conceding that on every significant occasion you have voted to support a ratepayer funded rugby stadium. If you are proud of that position, then just say it. If you have voted against the stadium at any significant ocassion, then please supply your voting record to verify it.

    Can you also answer Cr Wilson’s posting that Cr Cull did provide to a Council meeting a clipping that showed that “Malcolm was definately quoted as saying it (the stadium) would not need ratepayer money.”

    And now since you have raised it, can you confirm that it is quite possible under the Local Government Act that Council and possibly officers of the DCC could be held accountable for decisions that can be shown to have been imprudent or irresponsible?

    I have noticed by chance that other web pages have been referring to this particular thread and it seems that a great many people are viewing with some interest. Not my intention by any means, but I sense that others have been distributing some of the more extreme claims of Cr Walls.

  112. Richard
    You really are so confused. Or are you trying to rewrite history yet again?
    Requests for the peer reviews were refused. It was the ombudsman who facilitated their release. This is now on public record – sorry Richard, you can’t rewrite that one. Also the peer reviews, when released in the public arena, contained deletions. Again it was the ombudsman’s intervention which facilitated the release of this information which among other things revealed that one of the quantity surveyor’s (RLB) estimate was $198m NOT $188m as claimed in the CST advertisement of 31/5/08.

    The Press 18/03/08
    “Committee chairman Richard Walls signalled that he may vote one way with his personal vote and differently as chairman with his casting vote. He said that with his heart he would vote for the motion but his head told him the council could not afford its $91.4m contribution.
    A late amendment by Bezett, introduced five hours into the debate, swept the table.
    It charged the council’s rates and funding working party with finding $20m in savings to the ratepayers’ contribution to the capital cost of the stadium. When asked by council chief executive Jim Harland if that meant if $20m of savings were not found it would be “game over”, Bezett agreed.”

    NOTE: The $20m has never been found. In fact the DCC contribution has increased from the initial $91.4m contribution.

  113. Richard;
    “The editor of the ODT did not place the same interpretation on it as I did.” Thank goodness you say. Richard, let me remind you of the meaning of interpretation. ‘To expound the meaning of (abstruse words, writings, dreams etc.) To make out the meaning of; bring out the meaning of, render by artistic representation or performance; explain, understand, in specified manner.” So there you are. MF said whatever he said, I interpreted it my way, the ODT did his way. Result, same outcome. As the saying goes: ‘a little bit of education can be a dangerous thing.’ It would be well to dwell on this thought for a moment Richard.

  114. Richard

    Correct, Peter. Later clarified, here and elsewhere. What I was saying is that my “heart” is/was at Carisbrook but it was the future, not my past that was important. And the future beckoned!

    And yes, I was certainly not satisfied with how the $91.5m was to be funded. That changed when the CCO option was brought to the table.

    As shown in the advertisement placed by Council (not the CST) in the Otago Daily Times on Saturday, 29 March 2008. Now that substantially reduced the proposed rating levy. In your case from $76 to $56 (approx) pa. At the same time you received an increase of just on 9% or about $32 in investment come taking your rebate to $380. So, looking at it another way, the stadium levy actually cost you $24 in the first full year. From 2011/12 it is, of course, deducted from the investment income but the effect – as I have previously explained – is neutral.

    The tax advantages that also accrue to the council and ratepayer from forming the CCO add to the mix. I accept that they are not easily explained or understood.

    So, when it comes to ‘discretionary non-core spending’, you pay as part of your rates $108 for libraries; $36 for the Public Art Gallery; $34 for the Settlers Museum; $3 for the Chinese Garden; $42 for the Otago Museum; $47 for swimming pools; $47 for the Botanic Garden and $56 for the Stadium. A total of $326. So, it could be said you get all that for ‘free’ and have $54 left as a credit against the other levies.

    Which explains, of course, why Dunedin has one of the lowest total rates in the country, seventh lowest last year to be precise, with only $100 separating us from Christchurch City.

    In regard to the report in ‘The Press’, as Chair, I have always recognised that I must differentiate and put a personal opinion aside. That is why I have only once used my ‘casting vote’ and that was years ago on the OHB. You would not know that anyway, it was not important and, of course you were resident then in (I understand) New Plymouth.

    Make no mistake, when I subsequently voted to go ahead with FB Stadium, I had done my ‘homework’, especially on the finances. I have done what I said I would do in my pre-election undertaking to the electors of Hills in 2007. You might also remember I “topped the poll”.

    You disagree with my position. Fine.

    So, ‘what’s the beef’? More importantly, what’s the point? The FB Stadium rises and rises and hey, it just might be ‘a roaring success’. Indeed, I suspect it will be for a whole host of reasons. I know that might infuriate but I, for one, won’t ‘be rubbing it in’.

    The responsibility of determining what are public or non-public agenda items is the responsibility of the Chief Executive. Councillors can, however, by motion determine whether they stay that way when ‘Confirmation of the Agenda’ is considered at the start of any meeting. They can also by resolution determine what parts of a non-public item can be released after discussing it in non-public. Any other requests e.g. from The Ombudsman, or members of the public, are (by law) dealt with by the Chief Executive or his nominee, usually the Administration Manager.

    The reports from the Quantity Surveyors I referred to are ‘public’. Parts relating to specific costs may have been blocked out so as not to disclose information that would be useful to intending tenderers. It surely would be daft not to.

    Whatever, I cannot get over is the number of requests that were made through The Ombudsman for papers that were already ‘public’. Including several from STS.

    Apart from all that – and excluding the above – I have today been “cracking my sides” at what Calvin and Russell have been posting.

    As is his custom, Russell does not want to do any “legwork”, or verify his claims. He just ‘cuts and pastes’, shoots from the hip and says you verify them! No, I do not remember ever seeing any news clipping that Dave Cull brought to council. He may have said something as Kate suggests. But why ask me? In the media world it’s called “lazy journalism”.

    Instead of ‘The Caine Mutiny’, Russell would be better of reading ‘Boy’s Own’ or watching ‘Finding Nemo’. I think however that he imagines himself as Charles Laughton playing Captain Bligh. More like WC Fields, I think.

    He does not even understand that, if we wanted just a ‘rugby stadium’, we would have just bought Carisbrook and left it as is. And incurred operating costs of about $700,000 a year – its projected deficit over revenue. Oh dear! And all this from a former Chair of Sport Otago, a man with a mission against rugby! You are ‘blogging’ on too many fronts, Russell.

    I printed it all off and gave it to someone else to read. They couldn’t believe it. Laughed and laughed.

    So I had to laugh to. At you all and myself!

    Their Final Verdict: Richard, you should not have got involved. None of these people are interested in any opinions other than their own. You have ‘sussed them out’ but are wasting your time.

    On that note, goodnight!

  115. Richard

    There is a lot in your post that deserves a response. I’ll try my best.

    I have no problem with where your heart is/was but it is on record that you were dissatisfied with the $91.4m. The CCO factor with its tax advantages is complicated as you say but, surely, when the total cost of the stadium rose, officially, from $188m to $198m that is what is crucially significant. We know it will cost far more than that with the exclusions, interest etc that will add to this bill and it has to be largely paid by us the ratepayers – no matter how you try to rejig the books to minimise the impact. People are interested in the final costs and how it impacts on the city as a whole. Your assessment of the stadium component, for myself, through looking at the rates site on the DCC website will be of little relevance to the wider populace.

    The release of the peer reviews were initially refused and it was the intervention of the Ombudsman which facilitated their release. This is on public record.
    You say above:
    “Parts relating to specific costs may have been blocked out so as not to disclose information that would be useful to intending tenderers. It surely would be daft not to.”
    Richard, as a general rule, this would be the case. However, in the case of the peer reviews’ deletions of the $198m, it had nothing to do with the tendering process. That is why the Ombudsman facilitated the release of these deletions. Fact.

    Your claim of unnecessary Ombudsman requests doesn’t add up. People make requests because information is withheld. The process to extract information can be tortuous and takes tenacity. They would hardly go through the process if the information was already public. It is worthy to note that the 20-day provision to answer has been used to the hilt.

    The latter part of your post concerning Calvin and Russell is intended to be mocking and insulting. I’m sure they will have a rejoinder, but I was left wondering about that ‘party’. Were you all drinking? Were the others laughing with you or at you? Just wondering.

  116. Russell Garbutt

    Richard, the tone and content of your last post with reference to me is, as usual, not even worth the dignity of a response. For a person who says they deal in issues and don’t “play the man” then all that can be said is that your judgement seems to be seriously flawed.

    I too, wondered at your friend’s response. The responses I have had from people that have read your postings are very different, but then again, we obviously have very different friends, ideas and values, so that can be expected.

  117. Richard;
    You say: “if we wanted just a ‘rugby stadium’ we would have just bought Carisbrook and left it as it is. And incurred operating costs of about $700,000 per year – its projected deficit over revenue.”
    Why? Carisbrook was already there, owned and operated by the ORFU. The public at large were quite contented with it the way it was. The fact that the NZRFU had told the ORFU that Carisbrook no longer met the standard required to host ‘A grade tests’ was not a reason for the DCC to get involved. The problem was the ORFU’s. That the ORFU was technically bankrupt was again, not the DCC’s business.
    For the DCC’s surrogate body the CST to then come out of left field and state that Dunedin should have a ‘multi-purpose stadium’ at a cost of $188 million was a staggering move. There was not then, nor has there ever been, a mandate from the people for that. There had never been a single utterance from the public, either quietly or via the media of any wish for a publicly owned stadium. It was simply a highjack of the public purse to save the ORFU from its problems. The ‘multi-purpose’ aspect is just an exercise in kite flying to enlarge the concept. Its forecasts are based solely on anecdotal projections without a single empirical fact to back them up.
    Face it Richard, it is a “RUGBY STADIUM” full stop. You know it, most councillors know it, Mr Harland knows it, the bulk of the thinking public know it, and indeed secretly, so does the ORFU. But the most egregious aspect of the whole saga, is that of the council agreeing to blatantly use the citizens’ treasure to bail out a commercial business operation, which has found itself the victim of a seriously flawed business model, foisted on it by the NZRFU. Richard, you and your fellow councillors and administration can employ all the so called expert, over paid, executives and consultants, recruited from all points of the globe, to try and disguise the fact that this travesty is anything but a disaster for this city.
    As the saying goes: “If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like duck, then the odds are that it is a duck.”

  118. Phil

    Of course the new stadium also fails to meet the requirements for category ‘A’ tests. In fact it barely scrapes in to qualify for ‘B’ tests. Technically it fails by not having a permanent large screen in place. That was another deletion from the project. The hirer of the venue will be required to provide the screen. Which means that Dunedin will never, ever, see the Wallabies or the British Lions play against the All Blacks. Despite the great rendered graphics from the architect. Not a lot gained on that front.

  119. Phil;
    Not a lot more to be said really. But Richard will.

  120. Calvin
    I think Richard has embarrassed himself enough, don’t you?

  121. Phil
    This article from August 2006 partly ties in with what you are saying. How times have changed with our now scaled down stadium. Even Malcolm Farry says, ‘There would be no point in building a stadium of this nature and not being able to host the biggest games.’ Well said Mr Farry.

    From the NZ Herald

    DUNEDIN DEMANDS BIG TESTS
    By Gregor Paul
    Link 5:00 AM Sunday Aug 13, 2006

    The trust behind Dunedin’s proposed new stadium is adamant the ground will be granted A-list status despite the fact initial plans don’t meet capacity criteria.

    The New Zealand Rugby Union’s rules say any stadium wanting to host A-list games – either Tri Nations or Lions tests – must have 35,000 covered seats.

    The Carisbrook Stadium Trust has announced innovative plans for a stadium with up to 32,000 seats but chief executive Malcolm Farry says that should not stop the new ground hosting premium games.

    The trust is in negotiation with the NZRU and Farry believes the rules should be bent to reflect the fact the new stadium will offer a high percentage of premium seating that will enable the stadium to generate similar revenue to bigger grounds.

    Farry said: “We will have a category A stadium. There would be no point in building a stadium of this nature and not being able to host the biggest games.

    “We are suggesting that while we don’t comply with the numbers, we are bringing a new dimension and that should always allow for some discretion.

    “We are presuming that with clever design, premium seating will be everywhere.”

    The other key factor likely to help the stadium win A-status is that it will have a retractable roof.

    Last year’s Lions test in Christchurch was played in sub-zero temperatures and driving, icy rain, while this year, a few hundred tickets went unsold at Jade for the Bledisloe clash as the city and surrounding region were hit by heavy snow.

    Jade Stadium and Carisbrook have struggled at times to sell out for winter tests, with the weather cited as a significant factor in keeping punters away.

    NZRU deputy chief executive Steve Tew says no decision on category status can be made until there is definitive detail.

    “The important thing is that we are supportive of the work being done in Dunedin. We will look at any proposition that can give Dunedin test football,” says Tew.

    Farry says definitive plans will be some time away but the trust has confirmed the new stadium will be built on harbourside land behind the Dunedin College of Education on an area referred to as Awatea St.

    The total cost has been estimated at between $150 million and $180m, with Farry believing that between $39m-$67m could be raised by selling 10-year seats and up to $30m raised by selling naming rights.

  122. Phil

    I remember Malcolm’s nationwide press conference comments, Peter. Yup, it was going to be Category A, have a retractable roof, 35000 capacity, and cost stuff all.

    Mind you, that was before Malcolm had actually asked anyone how much it might all cost.

    About a week later, the retractable roof disappeared, then the big screen, followed by the ground capacity. The turf was also downgraded from a robust hybrid to an all natural. The internal finishing of the offices went. Seating and landscaping were removed from the contract, along with, I think, the pitch lighting.

    Not exactly sure what we’ve paid for now.

    • Elizabeth

      We might get some grass.

      11.2.10 ODT Online ‘Columns for stadium due tomorrow
      It was hoped work on the stadium playing surface would begin in October this year, although grass was unlikely to be seeded until next January, once the roof was watertight, Mr Davies said.

      24.2.10 D Scene ‘Stadium countdown’ (page 13) #Bookmark
      “When we hand over the keys we will make sure the toilets flush, the grass stands and the lights turn on,” [David] Davies said. He hoped to sew grass for the turf before Christmas. The pitch will be made up of five types of rye grass.

  123. Elizabeth. You say, ‘We might get some grass.’ Turf or ‘weed’?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s