Stadium ‘JAFAS’: a wildlife report

D Scene was counting sheep this week Zzzzzz

What of scandals breaking, or little items of interest? Try this:

### Facebook: The DCC has lost the Plot. Wed 21 April 2010
Pat McCarty On the St Clair bus (one of the usual bone-shakers supplied by our impoverished council), I got talking to a JAFA, imported to Dunedin to help finish the stadium for the RWC. He informed me that he is one of the 70+ JAFAs and assorted Northerners recently drafted here to work on the FUBAR Stadium. There seems to be …more than a little concern that FUBAR will not be finished in time. He informed me that if by Christmas Farry’s ant-hill looks like it won’t make the deadline, Carisbrooke [sic] will be hurriedly refurbished.
Read more

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

32 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Construction, Economics, Geography, People, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Urban design

32 responses to “Stadium ‘JAFAS’: a wildlife report

  1. Russell Garbutt

    Which raises an interesting question of course.

    Why did the DCC purchase Carisbrook? Despite all sorts of questions around this – let alone for what price – there are no answers. Various reports are due for consideration in future meetings, but wouldn’t you have thought that, apart from the obvious reason of meeting the ORFU debt, that before you or I shelled out $7 million – which had to be borrowed – you would have had some pretty firm ideas of what you were going to do with it?

    Seems clear to me that this was some sort of insurance policy to stop the City being embarrassed about not having a venue to hold some sort of pool matches for the Rugby World Cup.

  2. Richard

    Russell, your continual regurgitation of issues that have been well canvassed is tiresome. Please do some ‘homework’.

    For a start try: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/minutes_agenda/0005/110885/ma_fsc_r_carisbrook_2010_04_26.pdf

  3. Russell Garbutt

    Richard, your response may be typical, but I do wish you wouldn’t resort to the way that you respond. I really would ask that you address the issues instead of your normal personal sideswipes that really impress no-one.

    I quote from the report in the link you supplied – “The Council acquired all three sets of properties (we are talking about Carisbrook) late in 2009. At that time, it intended to sell the properties when the purpose of holding them had passed”.

    OK – so what was the purpose other than relieving the ORFU of their debt?

    You seem to be bound to keep Carisbrook going as a ground for the ORFU to the 1st October, 2011. What you have never explained is why the DCC feels that it has this never-ending financial obligation to the ORFU. It was a privately owned property and the owners owed you a lot of money – sorry, owed US a lot of money.

    All this talk about consultation and the like has come after the decision to purchase was made. I remake my point – why was the ground and associated properties purchased?

    The link you supplied talks about Carisbrook being part of the “development of the arts and social cohesion” for the uses of the ground. Come on!

    Some straight answers would be appreciated.

  4. Richard

    Russell: That the ORFU leases the ground until October 2011 seems to escape you.

    Please read the report instead of putting your own (usual) spin on it. It is not your ‘personal’ plaything. Nor is it mine.

    The Committee – not me – will determine where the report goes from here. I anticipate, however, that the F&S Committee will agree to the recommendations given the wide community interest in what happens to the sites.

    Thank you though for not mentioning my name in personally disparaging as consistently as you have done over recent months and especially over recent weeks.

    And, I trust you are ‘chipping’ into help STS meet their legal bill.

    {Richard, please refrain from STS mentions as strange form of attack – the organisation ‘Stop The Stadium’ is no longer on the What if? books as ’twere. -Eds}

  5. Russell Garbutt

    Richard – the fact that the ORFU is leasing the ground that it used to own has not escaped everyone’s notice.

    I’m not putting any spin on anything.

    The fact is that the DCC purchased Carisbrook and it isn’t at all clear from any published minutes or reports why they chose to do so. The fact that the amount paid by the DCC for Carisbrook equated to the level of debt of the ORFU cannot be simply passed off as coincidental – or are you suggesting that it is just that?

    What the STS legal bill has to do with me is beyond my understanding and I have no idea why you think for a moment that this has to do with anything connected with the decision of the DCC to purchase the assets of the ORFU. I am not a member of, nor have been a member of STS.

    Just stick to the issues, and tell us why you recommended the purchase of Carisbrook.

  6. Richard

    I did not recommend anything.

    The reasons why Council purchased Carisbrook were made at the time the transaction occurred.

    They are a matter of public record. I do not intend to go back over them again simply to satisfy your craving for another endless argument with me.

    Which you inevitably personalise as, indeed, a look back at almost every blog you make. You just cannot resist it, Russell! It is in your DNA!

    As for STS, I never suggested you were a financial member. I just asked if you were “going to chip” in to help them with their court costs. I am curious as to why you felt the need to make ‘the denial’.

    • Elizabeth

      Richard, I draw your attention to the editorial note entered against your previous comment. Your mentions of STS in reply to Russell are cheap shots.

      Russell’s question is perfectly kosher – and we would all like to know the answer (this week we have view counts in the 300s):

      Please spell out if you would be so kind, why DCC purchased Carisbrook? In case we missed the logic or the particular report that nails it.

  7. Russell Garbutt

    So Richard, I would be grateful if you would remind us all of the ORIGINAL purpose of purchasing Carisbrook. Rest assured, it has nothing to do with any desire or craving for any endless argument with you. Simple and non-confrontational responses that answered the questions raised would not result in further questions.

    Something drove you – and your colleagues – to purchase Carisbrook and the reasons for that purchase AT THAT TIME seem now to not apply. Now “consultation” with the public because of the interest being shown in the purchase is going to occur which seems to indicate that there still aren’t any clear identified purpose for the purchase. I’m certainly not sure what “development of the arts and social cohesion” has to do with Carisbrook, but maybe you can enlighten us on that aspect of the report as well.

    It is also interesting to point out that the valuation obtained by the DCC would need to be based upon an end use – for example the value of the stadium would be a lot less if the intended purpose was to flatten it. The release of the detail of how that valuation was arrived at would tell us all what was intended as well.

    Standing back and looking at things in a big picture way, it seems that the DCC decided to borrow $7m to purchase the property package from the ORFU. This sum was necessary to clear the debt of the ORFU. The Council then lease back to the ORFU the ground and make sure that the cost of the lease covers the interest on the loan, insurance and maintenance etc. However the DCC then guarantees to cover ORFU seasonal losses up to a significant amount.

    Doesn’t this seem to you that the DCC are acting as a banker or money supplier or guarantor to the ORFU? Can you tell us whether any other private business has received this sort and level of treatment from the DCC in your experience?

  8. Johnson

    I agree completely with Kiwifly, why don’t you stop looking for conspiracies Russell and accept the minutes and the answers reflect what was decided by the committee. I’m not sure why you keep looking for things that aren’t there, and suggest matters both grim and forboding. I find it astonishing. No matter what answer you get to your queries, you’re never satisfied.

    • Elizabeth

      People are being edited. Sorry folks – STS has nothing to do with the current discussion. -Ed

    • Elizabeth

      Council minutes of committee meetings are edited concisely. Discussion of business items on the agendas is minimally detailed if at all in the minutes; resolutions and decisions by vote are duly recorded.

      Yes it’s standard business procedure to keep minutes concise; their informational content, however, can suffer in the process. I say this after having attended a great many council meetings over the years.

      People interested in a particular business item(s) on a committee agenda should try to attend the meeting – it’s recognised this is difficult for many if they have inflexible work hours.

      Media reports after the event aren’t always useful in capturing the comprehensiveness of business carried.

  9. Richard

    That the ORFU would sell Carisbrook to either the DCC or a Trust has been the crucial part of every proposal since the original Carisbrook WP reported in 2004. And since what was then Awatea Street came into play, it has been part of every major resolution.

    On the question of valuations. I am surprised you bring that up given that was settled back on ODT Online in December last. Your opinions, Russell, then proved to be (well let’s say) “just that” although I am tempted to call them “own facts”.

    Your statement that “DCC decided to borrow $7m to purchase the property package from the ORFU is incorrect”. Council only borrowed $5m.

    Your statement that “DCC (then) guarantees to cover ORFU seasonal losses up to a significant amount” is also incorrect. The DCC “agreed to guarantee THE INTEREST on the ORFU’s seasonal debt for three years from the settlement date of 11 August 2009. The maximum seasonal debt covered by the agreement is up to $1.2 million.

  10. Richard

    As for Council records, the reports which form the Agenda are very much part of the formal record of proceedings.

    I am always willing to answer reasonably framed questions. The problem I have with Russell (as his last post proves) is that he ‘flavours them with his opinion” all the better, I guess, to start an argument. Well, he can have that with himself.

    {Richard, the blog is at the discretion of the editors. You’ve kindly been invited to answer why Carisbrook was purchased by Dunedin City Council. Just to refresh our collective minds, and of course you’re under no compunction to reply. -Eds}

  11. kiwifly

    aww dont like the truth Elizabeth just goes to show that this site is as anti stadium as the sts and wont brook any body saying anything that you dont like eg anything pro stadium.Used too have some respect for you Elizabeth….all gone now!!

  12. kiwifly

    not much point in agreeing with me Johnson she deletes anything i write anyway(this too most likely)

  13. kiwifly

    no your not Elizabeth
    otherwise you wouldnt delete my reasoned posts

  14. Richard; interesting that you should say that the DCC only borrowed $5m to purchase Carisbrook. A trivial sum really. This means that the DCC has gifted to the ORFU $2m, being the debt owed. That money, if not borrowed, could well have been used to pay down other debt of the DCC of which there is plenty. So it really gets back to $7m, and Russell is correct in his assertions. You say that the DCC is only guaranteeing overdraft facilities up to $1.2m, as if that in itself was another trivial sum. Richard, this is another happening which looks awfully like a duck, as it most certainly waddles and quacks incessantly.

  15. kiwifly

    so Elizabeth agreeing with Richard is not useful?ok i see the error of my ways and promise not too post on here again, shame on me.

  16. kiwifly

    this is another happening which looks awfully like a duck, as it most certainly waddles and quacks incessantly.
    very much like you do Calvin

  17. Richard

    Elizabeth:
    If you checked the preceding post, you will note that I have already responded on the reason for the purchase of Carisbrook.

  18. Richard

    Well Calvin: No. The $2m advanced to the ORFU back in 1997 (when I was not on Council) was from cash, not a loan.

    • Elizabeth

      I’m in a benevolent mood after a very surprising meeting out, and will be lenient for a little while at least – cheers, folks!

      Co-author and site owner Paul, as a football player and coach is always with his eye on the ball – never too far away for the crunch, for which we can all be pleased. He’s also a fantastic lurker and spirited commentator, even I’m scared of Paul if things go haywire here. Hahaha.

  19. Richard

    Well Elizabeth, sit back and enjoy a glass of wine. Relax!

    All that this and any other blogs need is for people to play the ball and not the person.

  20. Russell Garbutt

    Richard – I agree, so I look forward to hearing some substantive responses to the “balls” raised.

  21. Calvin Oaten

    Well Richard; you say the $2m advanced to the ORFU was way back in 1997 and was cash, not a loan. Are you saying it was a gift? If so, why over the years has the ORFU from time to time had difficulty with paying the interest? I am sorry Richard, whether it was cash or a cheque, it was a loan. Why else would the upset price be $7m if the DCC only paid $5m? The waddle and the quacking is getting more pronounced.

  22. Richard

    For goodness sake, Calvin. I did not say: “the $2m advanced to the ORFU was way back in 1997 and was cash, not a loan.”

    What I said was: “The $2m advanced to the ORFU back in 1997 (when I was not on Council) was FROM cash, not a loan.

    In short, Council did not take out a loan of $2m to lend to the ORFU.

    The ORFU paid all interest due until the loan was repaid.

  23. Calvin Oaten

    Richard: just to refresh your memory, if you go to page 27 Part IV of the MWH report of October 2004 you will see that the non current liabilities of the ORFU as at 30 November 2003 was $5.830m. Back to page 26 and you will see that ” A fixed term loan from the Dunedin City Council was at an interest rate of 4%, secured by a third mortgage over the ORFU’s property, and repayable on 30 November 2007.” Not repaid, as the ORFU was unable to until the properties were sold to the DCC in 2009. The price of $7m was to enable the ORFU to discharge its debt of $3.8m to the BNZ, $2m to the DCC leaving an overdraft plus cash in hand to quote Jim Harland: “to ensure that the ORFU would be a viable base tenant for the new stadium.” So there we are Richard. What say you now?

  24. Calvin Oaten

    Richard: to say that it was FROM cash still means the ratepayers’ funds were used. And yes, the loan was repaid from the receipt of the $7m from the sale of the properties. Now, if the DCC didn’t repay its own loan, why else did it need to pay $7m ?

  25. Richard

    Calvin:

    You confuse two separate things. Price of Purchase $7m. Loan Repaid $2m. Cost of Purchase in DCC ‘Books’ $7m.

  26. Calvin Oaten

    Richard: your damn ‘tooting’ I am confused.

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