Capacity crowd at Carisbrook last Saturday

Hell, even a half-decent crowd at the new stadium needs plenty of toilets…

Cartoonist’s view – Tremain 19/6/10

Post by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Architecture, Construction, Design, Economics, Events, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums

101 responses to “Capacity crowd at Carisbrook last Saturday

  1. wirehunt

    In one picture he has said a lot…..

  2. anon

    What the picture and reaction shows is that people don’t understand the deficiencies of Carisbrook as a modern sports ground. Toilet facilities, food and beverage facilities, team changing rooms, media facilities, quality of seating, concourse space for crowd movement, seating bowl configuration — Carisbrook doesn’t come up to scratch in any of these areas. It attracts full houses to Test matches because the NZRU allocates the Test. That allocation is based on work on a replacement facility not the deficient qualities of the existing ground.

    • Elizabeth

      You have no idea how superficially limited your comment on Carisbrook is in the face of Dunedin sporting history and tradition – and sense of place. What a party spoiler. Mind you, I’m still happy to live in a tent or mud hut during a Dunedin winter.

  3. Russell Garbutt

    I know for certain that one of the original working party looking into Carisbrook believed and stated that the only things needing refurbishment at Carisbrook were the toilets and press facilities.

    Richie McCaw was quoted after the last test as saying that the Carisbrook playing surface was the best in the country.

    Come down to the nitty gritty. When the average crowd to any Super 14 game or Otago Game is somewhere round the 4 or 5 thousand mark, why does the City need to build a new rugby ground?

    The ocassional test was still a succesful event and the ground met the requirements. We may all want a new flash car, but if we can’t afford one, we may have to do up our slightly older one that we have already spent quite a lot on.

  4. wirehunt

    When hasn’t Carisbrook sold out for a test???

    I seem to recall even having trains parked up as a viewing platform. I wonder how they’ll do thing’s like that at ‘the lemon’?

  5. Russell Garbutt

    It’s not a Fubar Stadium, it’s not a white elephant and it’s not even a lemon….. it’s a portaloo! $350m ratepayer funds so Dunedin citizens can have a dump, temporarily. Alternatively, it’s a place we have been forced to dump $350m permanently. Looks like Portaloo is winning the war and we are facing our Waterloo.

  6. Calvin Oaten

    All the emphasis on tests. They are a mirage. There is less money in them for the local union than a mediocre crowd at a Super 14, oops, 15, or a provincial match. Why? Because the NZRU takes the gate sales for all tests, pays match fee plus expenses to the host union. It’s the NZRU that gets the cream. We, the mugs just get the glory. So tests will never pay the overheads of the stadium, because the ORFU will only be hiring it per event. They are not, I repeat not, a permanent tenant. There is not one. And therein lies the great lie of this extravaganza. The council and supportive citizens have been conned into believing that there will be a permanent cash flow into the stadium coffers whereas, every day the gates are closed it will be leaching cash like we wouldn’t believe.

  7. Anonymous

    Two stats:

    1. The total number of tests played at Carisbrook is around 40
    2. The profit from the Wales test was around $200K

    Profit from 40 tests over the next 100 _years_ could be expected to be $8 million. Put that in perspective: profit from test matches over the next CENTURY would not pay the interest cost on the new stadium for ONE year.

    • Elizabeth

      There’s the cold light of day right there, Anonymous.

      Today got my invite to “Your City / Our Future Forum 2010”, to be held in July. Would like to put some stats like this to hot music, bring in dancers, video clips and lasers, as the ship sinks.

      {Pity the multipurpose stadium won’t be ready in time to host this. -Eds}

  8. Calvin Oaten

    Anonymous: If the profit from the Wales test was $200K. How much did the ORFU get? And how much did the NZRFU get? These facts are very germane to the stadium welfare. Facts never addressed by anyone, least of all the CST and the DCC. Details of revenue, costs, the ORFU’s share and the NZRFU’s portions of the Wales test results are information which the ODT should have sought and published as a matter of public interest. But it never does. With the ratepayers soon to carry the lion’s share of the finance costs of the new stadium it is more imperative than ever. But no-one will face up to this and tell it as it is. A scandal.

  9. Russell Garbutt

    The tune should be obvious:

    My my, at Awatea Chin and mates built the stadium
    Oh yeah, and Malcolm and his Trust fulfilled all our fears
    The history book in a few years
    Will be recording all of our tears

    Portaloo – not enough dunnies to meet the need
    In the poo – covered in debt for rugby’s greed
    What a crew – the Councils are making us bleed
    The ORU – at the trough for another feed
    The Forbar U – didn’t need it but they didn’t heed

    My my, we tried to make you see some sense but you ignored us all
    Oh yeah, the tartan mafia and their mates were all having a ball
    And why should we sense some relief
    When in October they’ll all come to grief

    Portaloo – not enough dunnies to meet the need
    In the poo – covered in debt for rugby’s greed
    What a crew – the Councils are making us bleed
    The ORU – at the trough for another feed

    The history book in a few years
    Will be recording all of our tears

    Portaloo – not enough dunnies to meet the need
    In the poo – covered in debt for rugby’s greed
    What a crew – the Councils are making us bleed
    The ORU – at the trough for another feed
    The Forbar U – didn’t need it but they didn’t heed

    • Elizabeth

      Should I set this to thrash metal or folksy blues, open to ideas – this seems an easier dilemma to solve than headbutting the larger Waterloo, which Abba management might complicate with IP claims. And god knows what Napoleon’s estate would say.

  10. wirehunt

    So your telling me we don’t charge the ORFU or the NZRFU to hire the stadium? They just give us a bit of loose change off the top. This should be maximum charge too, what with the new stadium and all….

    This is just a mess, the whole thing is ridiculousness.

    That’s 37 tests over the last 104 years I believe. So what’s that? A test every 2.5 years. And what, ten games through the NPC and Super whatever per annum. This thing is going to pay itself back in no time. Why are you moaning?? Oh, and isn’t it costing something like half a mill per annum to have.

  11. Phil

    The way it works with the NZRFU, is that it is the NZRFU who decide how much they will pay the venue operators. Rather than the operators telling the NZRFU how much the venue costs to hire. It’s an “Agree to our price or you don’t get football games” arrangement.

    The fee is a percentage of the gate takings, with a reducing scale from test matches down to Otago matches. The format is that the NZRFU takes 100% of the gate takings. They then pay a percentage back to the ORFU. The ORFU retains some of that money, as a handling fee, and then passes the rest on to the venue operator.

    The question has been asked previously if the pre-sold seats are excluded from the matchday fee paid by the NZRFU or not. I don’t recall what the answer to that was.

    We did this exercise a few months ago on this forum, posting the fees for various levels of rugby matches. Someone might be kind enough to repost the NZRFU imposed figures.

  12. Phil

    Oh, it was me who wrote it ? Well, there you go. Yup, it was that second link I was thinking of. Thanks, Elizabeth. Again.

  13. Russell Garbutt

    At the time of the test here a week ago, there was a radio interview with Montgomery that was looking into the issue of the players putting some pressure on the IRB to up their playing fees.

    I believe that it was stated that the players from the Welsh test here got 36% of the take – presumably split 50/50 between the Welsh and the All Blacks.

    The suggestion is that since there will be less tests during the year of the RWC then the international players will have their income from this source reduced, so they want compensation in the form of a much larger slice of the cake during the RWC.

    The way it is looking for the splitting up of the cake the venue owners – read DCC ratepayers – will be getting way less than some of the players.

    I have some notes that I took from a meeting that spelt out the splits and I’ll try and find them today.

  14. Russell Garbutt

    Found those notes that I took from a meeting with the previous CEO of the CST.

    From Air NZ Cup matches the income to the stadium were 15% of the take and were budgeted at $35,000 per annum, Super 14 was assumed to host initially 13 games and was reduced down to 9 games and also attracted 15% of the take, and the NZRU took 7.5% of the take.

    At the same time, there were 3 concerts per year budgeted at giving $5k income each, and one at $10k with an additional 15% of the gate per concert.

    Interesting to also note from a letter receieved at the time – October 2008 – that “some” operational or revenue monies were being counted as being part of the required private funding for construction. Fact is, as we have always known, that all of the future revenue has been diverted in this way. All this means is that future operational costs will not be able to be matched with any significant income. And that means, you and I will be meeting all operational and running costs.

    As has been pointed out many times, the public cost of building the new rugby stadium is crippling, but the cost of running it will be like dealing with a non-healing sore.

  15. James

    Phil: The question has been asked previously if the pre-sold seats are excluded from the matchday fee paid by the NZRFU or not. I don’t recall what the answer to that was.

    When I did the sums around the private sector funding, it seems it’s fairly clear that it is not included. In essence, the annual revenue from the pre-sold seats is sufficient to pay off the loan over 20 years with the starting value of the private sector funding (~$40m). This seems consistent with AMI Stadium Christchurch’s ability to do the same.

    As for other sources of income, HHTL suggest 15% of the food and beverage spend, and also that the carparking would be leaseable. Their estimates for the latter seem a bit high – $320,000 pa, or $20 per park per week, which is quite above what the University charges its own staff. There will also be the parking charge on event days.

  16. Calvin Oaten

    On page 28 of the 2004 MWH report covering “Possible Sources of Funding for the Major Redevelopment, or Building of a New Stadium.

    Quote: The NZRU does not provide any direct funding assistance towards any development facilities. However, it does pay a management fee for the test matches and a KPI payment based on performance (This has amounted to about $75,000 per test match for the ORFU in recent years.)

    One would presume the venue hire would come out of the KPI. Other than that, it seems the ORFU gets only its event expenses out of the gate with the NZRFU taking the rest. No fortunes for the region there.

  17. James

    Just following Phil’s sums on the other thread, where he expects about $300k in money from gate takings each year, perhaps $300k for parking, and following HHTL’s estimates it seems Food & Beverage might yield similar to gate takings. This still seems well short of the overhead costs.

    Incidentally, looking back at the HHTL report, they were very much considering the yield from the pre-sold seating packages as paying for overhead costs. They were also envisaging a very different relationship with ORFU than what might currently be expected.

    One other thing that struck me as odd is that the new stadium will have considerably fewer corporate boxes than Carisbrook (HHTL report), but that they hope to be able to sell them for more owing to their scarcity. That seems a dangerous assumption, and given that the money from the corporate boxes goes more directly to the stadium than normal seat sales, having fewer corporate boxes seems daft. Looking at the stadium the other week, it struck me that corporate fishbowls suspended in the main truss would have an amazing view…

  18. James

    I should clarify that where I said:
    In essence, the annual revenue from the pre-sold seats is sufficient to pay off the loan over 20 years with the starting value of the private sector funding (~$40m)

    I meant that the revenue from the pre-sold seats would pay off an approx $40m loan (the value of the private sector funding) over 20 years, not any of the other much larger loans related to the stadium.

    Which brings up another interesting point in the HHTL report. They assume a rebate to ORFU from pre-sold seats (possibly an assumption that they would be anchor tenant rather than casual hirer?), but the HHTL report is very much predicated on pre-sold lounge/corporate seats as revenue for meeting operating costs of the stadium, rather than paying off part of the capital construction cost. Aaaaannnnd the DVML Statement of Intent says “budgeted financial targets are based on financial information presented by CSCT based on Horwath HTL reports”. Have they been counting the money twice?

  19. Calvin Oaten

    All along the private funding was in the overall development budget. But, later it somehow became part of the revenue, the surplus of which was to cover the loan interest servicing.The capital to be paid by DCHL at $5million per year. The shortfall in dividend to the city because of this is to be made good by the ‘mythical’ $66 per average ratepayer. This was queried extensively with no satisfactory explanation. So yes, it would seem that it has been – and is – counted twice.

  20. Russell Garbutt

    James, if the whole deal had been done in an open, transparent and honest way, then these questions would not have arisen, nor would they continue to rise. But then again the project would have been stopped in its tracks.

    For the whole project to get off the ground it had to be predicated upon secrecy, opaqueness and deals done that we will never know the details of.

    What it has relied upon since the first approach by the ORFU to who they had identified as their financial saviours until now is for the public to fund the project and bail out the ORFU. Remember Harland’s plea to the Councillors – “it is important that there is a perception”?

    Really it was a done deal once the pro-stadium, pro-rugby Councillors of both Councils took control over those others that were unable to think the implications through.

    The sham continues. I see Walls is saying that there is going to be a “public” meeting where ideas for the future of Dunedin are going to be discussed. Open to invitation only of course with an invite to the ORFU among others. You would wonder at the process of the LTCCP would you not? What’s that for?

    • Elizabeth

      My invitation arrived last week, Russell – not sure how DCC’s Your City / Our Future Forum 2010 will be conducted, more information is to follow.

      It’s important we regularly look at city directions and areas for business investment and opportunity – amongst other things (since the stadium was never going to be a gold-plated opportunity).

      Somehow (???) we have to move the city and the Otago Southland region into higher production – at the same time we’ll be paying the ‘second’ stadium off (the dead-weighted muddy albatross, who needs BP…).

      I’m keen to put thought to that production and working to strengths – a forum is just one means of energising the partnerships we’ll need to form and enhance, to be a competitive force.

      The Long-term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) is a 10-year council-community vision that mainly addresses the city council’s core (loaded word) business and budget projections.

      The Your City / Our Future Forum is likely to be a more adventurous all-comprising animal. The signs are already here that we want to build relationships and profiles to get some serious work done in rural and urban communities.

      It’s a massive mistake to privilege just one large employer (Dunedin’s tertiary education sector is up for huge change) or one agricultural sector (dairying, given the prospect of global competition and ‘at home’ adverse environmental issues tagged to that)… I’m strongly for getting sustainability and diversity into primary production and the growth of quality processing facilities for export of high-class products and IP.

      We all need to ‘process’ rather than kick a ball aimlessly in a roofed paddock!

      It’s never been any different except that we have failed as a community to steer off bad politicians and property investors looking after their own turf (read profits) around Port Otago landholdings and the ‘need’ (yeah right) for a harbour arterial.

      This small and evil diversion (to become stadium related) thought up by conflicted parties represents limited thinking at its worst.

      Hell, no-one is getting tested in the media over the pending port merger.
      No-one is asking the hard questions about whether there are any benefits at all for Otago Southland communities in allowing a port merger.

      As a southern community we’re continually at the mercy of people who, around the board tables, are unable to think strategically to take their community and country forward, before their own sorry hides and retirement houses at Wanaka.

  21. Phil

    Ironic how we weren’t invited to create the problem, but we’re now being charged with the task of fixing it. So it’s suddenly our problem. Something about stable doors and bolting horses?

    Jumping back briefly to the venue hire. With regard to the recent Dunedin test match, the NZRFU took 100% of the gate takings. They then gave the ORFU 15% of the gate takings. The ORFU kept half of that 15% as a management fee, and gave the remainder (being 7.5% of the total gate taking) to the venue operator as a venue hire fee.

    The same fomula applies for Highlanders and Otago matches, but the NZRFU gives a lower percentage to the ORFU in those cases. ORFU always retains 50% of the amount given to them by NZRFU.

  22. Anonymous

    Revenue from pre-sold seats will cover interest payments on the loans, not principal.

    Revenue from the stadium to DVML will be limited to venue hire and concession income only. Not per-seat based charging.

    This thing will need one major event per week to make any inroads into the loans over 20 years. So the whole value proposition for me resolves down to this question: Can the regional economy support 3000+ people paying out $100+ of their disposable per week, every week, for 20 years, at one venue?

    • Elizabeth

      Absolutely the region / we can’t afford that~!!! I’d rather use the new stadium, as one ODT reader suggested recently, as a chopper service base and storage hangar for offshore oil exploration crews. I was thinking just some large doors knocked in the side, a bit like those at the Crystal Cathedral.

  23. Russell Garbutt

    So, has the maths changed?

    Not a jot since this mess started, and yet the people that we entrusted to provide us with good wise prudent and conservative governance (the requirements of the Local Government Act) have failed us miserably.

    No matter how many times Richard and his ilk may tell us that we may be allowed to have opinions but only he and his kind have the right to be right, it doesn’t make it true. There is a certain element of entitlement amongst that stance and I’m not sure that we haven’t heard all of it yet.

    Time for the tired old yesterday’s men to make way for some new directions and some transparency down at Harland Hall.

  24. David

    James asks “Have they been counting the money twice?

    Yes – In more ways than one.

    When there wasn’t enough “private” money to cross the line in the sand set by the DCC for the project to go ahead, five-year memberships were counted and totalled as if they were ten-year memberships.

    Only by falsifying the total did they cross the DCC threshold.

    Which brings up the question, did councillors miss such blatant fabrication of figures, or did they turn a blind eye?

  25. Russell Garbutt

    David, in most cases of this type, there is a reliance on some people who should know better not even understanding the most basic of concepts.

    Can you remember at any stage vigorous examination of what was being dished up before the DCC? Better just to take the word of some that appeared to know what they were talking about and vote along with them….

  26. The Your City / Our Future Forum will just produce more bureaucracy and even more empire-building, and more debt and even higher rates.
    A lessons of economic history show that a prosperous City comes from the enterprise of business, not from bureaucrats and politicians. The City Council is part of the problem, not the solution. Dunedin is suffering from restrictive planning rules, high consent and other fees, never-ending rates rises, and regular bungles from the bureaucracy.

  27. Richard

    Just for the record, the loan on FBS is repaid by the $5 million reduction in dividends/investment income from DCHL. That equates to the $57 per median on a $250,000 residential property with a capital value of $250,000 or $66 on the average residential property of $291,000. If a property has a higher CV, then it will pay more. A lower CV and it will pay less.

    That has been the position from the outset. Nothing has changed.

    What some contributors to this (and other threads) conveniently omit to note is that the ‘dividend/investment’ is also apportioned on a Capital Value basis, thus the higher the value of the property, the higher the ‘dividend’. A lower CV and it receives less.

    Thus the average residential property showing a Capital Value of $291,000 will show on the Rates Assessment total rates to be charged of $1,567. The gross total and the actual cost of providing the services, facilities and amenities that we share as a community is, however, $2,010. that we share as a community.

    I also note – again for the record – that the dividends/income progressively increased until the 2009-10 year.

  28. David

    Richard – the problem with your $66 figure is no-one believes it.

    And the reason no-one believes it is because added up, it only comes to one third of the annual loan repayments.

    And that’s without cost over-runs, any additional running costs, maintenance, marketing etc – already millions over budget, and it hasn’t even been finished yet (and I didn’t mention another million for West Stand toilets).

    With a predicted 3% increase in interest rates, possibly within a year, that could add an additional couple of million every year that’s not budgeted for (most CST figures worked out on 7%, when interest rates are predicted to go to 9%).

    The easy way to get a ballpark figure of what it will cost us is divide the capital and interest on the loan – say a ballpark figure of $200m (though quite possibly much more), by just over 40,000 households, and the cost to each house is roughly $5,000 each (before maintenance, over runs, toilets etc).

    Whether we pay directly though rates, or indirectly through loss of subsidies from city companies, additional electricity line charges via our power companies to the DCC-owned company, through extra parking fees, through retail prices when businesses have to increase prices to cover their rate rises – however we pay – it will average in the order of at least $5,000 per house.

    And of course this is on the capital and interest on HALF of the stadium.

    • Elizabeth

      What about the (stadium) rates paid by businesses and farms… they get walloped. It’s not just households. Leasing tenants are about to be wiped off the planet by passed on costs. For some reason pro-stadium DCC councillors think the downhill adverse effects of stadium development – recognised globally – are NOT going to happen here. It’s like they think the world is flat.

  29. Richard

    The General Rate for non-residential and farming sectors is levied on the same proportionate basis against capital value as the residential sector.

    Their ‘dividend/investment income’ is therefore proportionately higher.

    Some examples on the rate for 2010/11:

    A farm with a CV of $3,000,000:
    Total General Rate $10,237.72
    Dividend/Investment Income ($4,164.30)
    Nett Payable: $6.073.42

    Non-residential with a CV of $950,000:
    Total General Rate $10.500.78
    Dividend/Investment Income ($$4,273.46)
    Nett Payable: $6,227.32

    Residential with a CV of $2,800,000:
    Total General Rate $10,731.67
    Dividend/Investment Income ($4,369.29)
    Nett Payable: $6,362.38

    And for the much quoted average residential
    property with a CV of $291,000:
    Total General Rate $1,296.68
    Dividend/Investment Income ($454.09)
    Nett Payable: $842.59

    The calculator for individual properties can be at:

    A reminder: From the 2011/12 financial year, the dividend from DCHL will – as previously set out in the LTCCP – be reduced by $5m and the DIRECT levy by rate will cease. The effect is neutral as can be judged from the examples quoted. The benefit that flows from tax efficiency etc by doing this were very well explained some months ago by James on another thread.

    • Elizabeth

      The actual state of dairy and non dairy farming enterprise and property owners’ ability to have ‘dividend/investment income’ over and above existing debt servicing (given the banking sector is severely tight on credit lines) is a moot point indeed.

      Oh, but what does DCC do, it cripples its constituents by direct rating (a short burst only), which then devolves to a less direct clawback (aka the pressure cooker of recessionary practice) meaning the community is, again, the ‘stadium bank’. Because somebody has to pay for the gross indulgence (there are other words) of our local body politicians supporting rugby stalwarts and a small number of (known) property investors with rather ‘private’ (non public) aims for profit-making, in a depressed local economy.

      The stadium proponents wouldn’t know sustainable business practice if it bit them in the bum.

      Screw your citizens, I think it’s called. The stadium debt will go on and on until we can pay no more.

      No council company structure is going to stop the costs of capital development and debt servicing for the stadium/harbour arterial project(s) from being passed on to citizens. Haves, have-nots. Who wins?

      Council asset sales, a forthcoming legacy?

  30. Calvin Oaten

    Wow! Thanks Richard for all that. I can now go off happy in the knowledge that the stadium is a great thing and that all the debt created in recent times is really of no great moment. Problem is, as David points out, there seems to be a big gap between the money available and the money required to soothe and shrink this debt monster. But never mind, I am sure Richard, that you will find a way. After all, as you say, the DCC handles its “maximum debt” very, very, responsibly.

  31. James

    David:The easy way to get a ballpark figure of what it will cost us is divide the capital and interest on the loan – say a ballpark figure of $200m (though quite possibly much more), by just over 40,000 households, and the cost to each house is roughly $5,000 each (before maintenance, over runs, toilets etc).

    No. If we take your ballpark figures of $200m (double the capital to get repayments), then $100m is interest. This saves $30m in tax. There is a further $21.3m in tax savings from depreciation. This pulls us back to $148.6m. There are a bit over 44,000 households, which gets you back to $3,379 per house. Assuming a population
    of 4m for NZ, then the tax savings will cost each household an additional $35, to a grand total of $3,414 or $171 per year.

    This calculation of course assumes that all the farms in Dunedin city sell all their product back to Dunedin residents, ditto for all other Dunedin businesses, so the true figure is likely to be somewhat less. But then, of course, there are the ORC rates, cost over-runs etc.

    If we put the ORC and cost over-runs to the side for a minute, there is still a gap between what we’ve been told we’ll pay, and what we’ll have to pay that has not been satisfactorily explained. Also, my estimates are based on Athol Stephens Affidavits, and the budget changes to tax levels and depreciation may have a negative impact for the city.

  32. Richard

    For The Record:

    Calvin Oaten (in post 11647 -above):
    “After all, as you say, the DCC handles its “maximum debt” very, very, responsibly.”

    What Richard Walls actually said:
    “The city had always managed its debt “very, very competently”. (ODT 22.6.10).

    And it has.

  33. Russell Garbutt

    Ah, when something is reported in the ODT it is correct.

    I remember very clearly that the ODT reported that the DCC had purchased Carisbrook for $6m for the ground and carpark and $1m for the residential sections. Not so, said Richard, but no corrective action taken by Richard.

    So selective correctness?

    Just for the record of course……..

  34. Richard

    The statement in the ODT referred to by Russell Garbutt in comment 11651 was not made by me, or attributed to me. It was not therefore mine to correct.

    My subsequent comment stands.

  35. David

    James – some other asssumptions in your analysis:
    – depreciation can be claimed on the building (when the govt has signalled that it can no longer be claimed).

    – to claim tax back, first it has to make a profit. Council is using a loophole to claim losses on the stadium against possible (but not guaranteed) profits from other council owned companies.

    The govt is looking at stopping this type of loophole. Why should that stadium be able to be claimed as a loss when a) it has no benefit to the other companies, and b) it was never ever likely to make a profit on its own.

    In other words it is not a legitimate business expense, because it doesn’t fit the most basic of tax tests, as told to me by a tax investigator – is it an expense that is neccessary for the business to generate an income.

  36. David

    Richard – the rates calculator says the rates payable for the average $291,000 house are $1,567 AFTER the dividend payment.

    That’s 86% higher than your figure of $842.59

  37. Richard

    David: You are looking at the total rates on a RESIDENTIAL property.

    Targetted rates for such things as water are not levied against non-residential and farmland properties.

  38. Calvin Oaten

    Richard: Point taken. However, you may have noted I had it correct in today’s ODT letter. But does it really matter whether it is the maximum or just all of the debt? Indeed, what is the difference? The fact is the DCC does not necessarily handle the debt very very competently or otherwise. It handles it exactly as dictated by the lender. The lender always calls the shots as you may well find out if and when interest rates climb off their historic lows. Then we will see just how competent the DCC is.

  39. Johnson

    Calvin, (sigh) Maximum debt is a measure of the debt to equity threshold any company has to use as a viable business. All of the debt may or may not be the maximum sustainable debt figure. There lies the “difference”. Perhaps you believe it’s another “Ponzi” scheme eh? The amount of debt is immaterial, the ability ot meet interest and principal payments is paramount. If this is in hand, then the debt is being managed. You are for once correct in that the lender calls the shots. Of course they do, and they lend an appropriate amount that can be paid back on their terms within an agreed timeframe with the loan recipient. You say “The fact is the DCC does not necessarily handle the debt very very competently or otherwise”. How is this a “fact”? Please enlighten us. It appears to be an opinion and an uninformed one at that. Whether debt is handled “competently” is subjective but also relies on legal and equity ratio tests that are fixed. If loans are not “called in” on short notice then the debt is being managed appropriately.

  40. James

    Hi David,
    None of these are my assumptions, but contained in Athol Stephen’s Affidavits.
    *I’m really very surprised that none of the DCC’s financial critics have picked up on the depreciation thing. It could easily add another $10-20m to the cost. I’m not sure whether its a surprise for later, or if the change somehow doesn’t apply to this type of building. It does apply to commercial office blocks etc. (which was an actual surprise in the budget). Also, the change in company tax may impact on the cost of the stadium.
    *There is a possibility that there might be insufficient profit, but then losses can be accrued. I understand that one of the reasons why the stadium was funded this way was that council companies had run out of accrued losses, so would have to start paying actual tax on dividends to the council.
    *Government changing loss off-setting rules. Yes, the government have made some changes in this respect, but again mostly targetted at rental properties and people reducing their personal income. Changing this for businesses could have many unintended consequences. Certainly it would discourage new investments for example (if you couldn’t offset losses within a larger tax group while setting up a new business then there would be an incentive not to expand).
    *Business viability. The stadium will never make enough of a profit to cover its financing costs. But once it’s debt-free, it *might* cover its basic operating costs, which is probably enough. I’d guess.
    *Incidentally, in playing round with the numbers in the affidavit, it is clear that there is an equity movement within the tax group of about $60m to the stadium over 20 years. It’s not an expense per se, so on an accounting level, it could be argued not to be a cost, but it is money that can’t be used for anything else, so I think to a lay interpretation it would be reasonable to consider it a cost. It would amount to a further $40 a year to the average valued house, so it would be $106 rather than $66 a year. If the stadium actually makes a profit before financing costs, then this would reduce.

  41. Richard

    Ah well, Calvin that is your view. comment you refer to was not made in isolation. I have whipped off a short letter to the ODT in response that I hope will enlighten you and Peter.

    Separately, I simply repeat that aside from the actual funding itself, it is what any borrowing is for that is important. It may surprise you but the Chairman of the DDR&HA even quoted my comment on that and supported it in his submission on the Draft Annual Plan.

  42. James

    So just in summary, I’d really like to hear what if any tax rate and depreciation changes [have effect on] the funding of the stadium. Did it just get more expensive?
    And that extra $60m. How isn’t that a cost?

  43. James

    Oh wait, according to AJS2 in the Affidavit, the stadium will make a minimum $3m operating surplus each year (which covers off $60m over 20 years), which means that the net loss for the stadium each year is $7m, which conveniently is the $2m tax savings + $5m in foregone dividend, so the stadium is back to $66 a year (which is now $67.46 after the GST increase). Would love to see the assumption underlying the operating surplus… Certainly doesn’t line up with HHTL’s projections.

  44. Calvin Oaten

    Johnson (double sigh) thanks for the lecture in basic debt structures, it is most appreciated. So what you say is that the amount of debt, or the reasons for which it is raised is of no consequence so long as the ability to meet interest and principal payments is there. What then of the lost opportunity of the monies devoted to that interest and capital payment? What then if the purpose for which the money was borrowed fails to meet expectations both as a revenue generator, and the peoples wishes? What then of the people who are to provide the money to meet the interest and principal? What consideration of their circumstances matters? To simply say that if a loan is not called in, it is therefore being handled appropriately, as you suggest, is an arrogant display of buffoonery. I suggest you pluck up the courage and read on about history and economics. I am sure you would find it enriching.

  45. Calvin Oaten

    Ah well, Richard, you are absolutely right when you say; “it is what any borrowing is for that is important.” Therefore it can, by extension be argued that if the reason for the borrowing was problematical in the first place, then how could the resultant debt be said to be being handled ‘competently’?
    It seems from the knowledgeable postings of both Phil and James that the borrowing relative to the stadium project is supported by a number of – yet to be proved – clever manipulations around taxation, depreciation, subventions, questionable viability projections and cash flows, just to name a few which have been cobbled up in order to make what is very probably a sow’s ear into a silk purse.
    This of course brings us back, Richard, to the matter of whether the borrowing and the management of the subsequent debt is, ‘very, very competent’.

  46. Richard

    Oh dear me, Calvin. Athol has explained all this – several times (including to you personally) and I am not going to bother further because we just go round in circles.

    There is nothing yet-to-be-proved. No ‘Ponzis’ no manipulations.

    Catch a bus. Go see a movie.

  47. James

    Richard, while I agree there is no Ponzi etc., are you able to find out definitively if the changes to depreciation have had any impact?

  48. Richard

    The changes in such things as ‘depreciation’ are not, of course, in isolation and along with the others apply across the entire COUNCIL GROUP. The implications are currently being worked through.

  49. James

    That’s very true. The change is having quite an effect, not just for companies that mostly invest in property, but also other entities that have many building holdings as part of their core business (eg the university, Ryman healthcare with their resthomes). However, as the stadium funding model was predicated on tax savings (from depreciation as well as interest costs), it seems very relevant.

  50. Russell Garbutt

    Step back for a moment and ignore all the intricate and distracting bs circulating about “implications”, tax benefits of borrowing from Council companies and the like.

    Did the Council decision to go ahead with a ratepayer funded stadium for no other defined use than a small number of professional rugby matches make sense when the decision was made?

    Does it make sense now, now we know more?

    If the answer for you is “yes” on both counts, then vote for the current crop of Councillors.

    If your answer is “no” on either count, then make sure that you don’t rank any of the existing Councillors that voted for a ratepayer funded stadium to commence or continue. Their names should be ingrained in your memories by now.

  51. Calvin Oaten

    Russell: you’ve got it in one.

  52. Calvin Oaten

    Oh dear me-Richard, as you were not at my meeting with Athol Stephens, you would have no idea what was discussed.

  53. Richard

    So Russell’s ‘in one’ lasted what … all of 65 minutes. You are living in a world of your own if you do not think I was – as Chair of Finance and Strategy – and having suggested the meeting, briefed on what was discussed?

  54. Richard

    “Hearsay is…” being briefed by both parties?

  55. Russell Garbutt

    Goodness only knows what Richard is talking about when he said to Calvin – So Russell’s ‘in one’ lasted what … all of 65 minutes.”

    I know Richard is not responding to me which is actually quite good, but I re-iterate my point in the faint hope that there is some level of understanding.

    If you just consider the basic questions of how a household might want and could possibly afford a new rugby stadium, why the DCC agreed to purchase Carisbrook, why the DCC were in the business of loaning the ORFU $2m, why Delta are a major sponsor of the ORFU, and agree with what Chin, Brown, Walls, Bezett, Noone, Guest, Acklin, Collins, Hudson and Weatherall have voted to start and continue, then go ahead and rank them somewhere in October.

    If you don’t agree with those things and their voting record, then don’t rank them at all in October.

    Now Richard, its probably too late for you to catch a bus and watch a movie, but I’m sure there is something else for you to do.

  56. Calvin Oaten

    Richard; you wanted to be at that meeting but Athol, for whatever reason didn’t want you. I reiterate, you weren’t there, so do not know what transpired, whether you are the chair of the Finance and Strategy or not. As a matter of interest, if you had been there then I would have left.

  57. Richard

    I entered a few posts responding to requests for some information and, as I expected, in you come and get personal – again. You just cannot resist getting personal.

    What you have suggested is an absolute lie. I suggested you meet with Athol but never suggested or wanted to be present.

    And the outcome, your allegations of Ponzi schemes and all that. Says it all really.

  58. Russell Garbutt

    Richard, I am bewildered at your last post to Calvin with some new words appearing in your post.

    What does “ebtered” mean? And “bunever suggessted”?


    Maybe you could spend the last hours of the day responding to my suggestions on why we should rank existing Councillors. Or maybe ranking yourself as to your performance over the last few years? Do you give yourself a pass mark?

    {The typos have been fixed. We offer a light editing service to all posting here. -Eds}

  59. Russell Garbutt

    Typos aside, an interesting response….

    I do note that Richard has never answered the fundamental questions I have posed. That should tell us something.

    Maybe in the morning?

  60. Johnson

    Calvin, “buffoonery” Pot calling the kettle black rather isn’t it. I need to tell you, I’ve actually witnessed you speak on these matters, and it was, to be charitable, more entertaining than enlightening. You are oblivious to the amateurish errors and assumptions you make.

  61. Calvin Oaten

    Johnson, I am not sure what matters you are referring to, but as you say, you need to tell me. I do like your charitable disposition. I am pleased you find me entertaining, at least that is one out of two. You, on the other hand add nothing, nor are you entertaining.
    Incidentally, you may have noticed that Richard has reneged on responding to the Carisbrook thread, particularly to the reasons why the DCC purchased it. As they say, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Richard, on the other hand takes it literally and really goes. Funny that.

  62. Richard

    No Calvin, I did not renege. You quoted comments by Jim Harland in regard to the purchase of Carisbrook. They are a matter of record. So?

    Winston Churchill said: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”.


    There is just no point in anyone let alone me, trying to discuss anything with you or Russell.

  63. Richard

    Oh yes!

    You both had the opportunity to attend the recent open meeting on Carisbrook but neither of you fronted.

    Says it all really!

  64. Peter

    Richard. Few see any point in attending your council’s sham consultation meetings. Why would you turn up? The consultation process has been corrupted by ‘has beens’ who have been there for far too long. You only want to hear what a great fellow you are.

  65. Russell Garbutt

    I see the “always right” Richard is back on this site, but it is a pity that he doesn’t yet address the questions, and by choosing not to respond he really does show no-one up but himself.

    Not sure the point of the Winston Churchill quote, but I was more of a Shakespeare fan who, in Macbeth, reminded us of “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

    Richard, you and your colleagues purchased Carisbrook to get the ORFU out of a financial jam with a very clear message from Harland as to the purpose of the purchase. Why on earth would anyone bother going through the charade of “consultation” when your minds were already made up. Just a waste of time.

    To try and shift the “blame” back onto the community is nothing other than cynical nonsense.

  66. Richard

    I am not going to debate your opinons, Russell. I simply say this – and you know damn well from the ‘blog trail’ (of which I have kept copies) this SIMPLE FACT.

    The sale of Carisbrook to Council or a Trust was always part and parcel of any plan for the redevelopment of Carisbrook and subsequently the FB Stadium.

    When Council untangled the sale from the CSCT and agreed the purchase, it was clearly stated that the ground and carpark properties would be onsold for industrial use. (The third is residential).

    It also promised consultation.

    Many ideas and submissions are coming from the community and address wider issues relating to South Dunedin.

    But oh no! Instead of participating, you and Calvin harp on and on and on about the past. What’s the point?

    Time you and Calvin stopped watching black and white television. Here’s some news for you, we have colour now … and widescreen!

  67. Russell Garbutt

    Good to see you confirm that the ground and carpark are to be on-sold for industrial use. When? Before we have to start paying another half million per annum on interest payments?

    We can assume that the DCC are going to retain the residential properties – whether leasehold or otherwise. Unless you tell us otherwise?

    So, now tell us what is the purpose of the “consultation” if your course of action is already determined.

    The past comprises the decisions that you and your colleagues have made. Those decisions determine the future. The point of looking at past decisions is to understand why they were made and what formed the basis of the decision.

    My participation in this debate is to find out what deals or understandings have been reached that are not in the public view. You have, as I understand it, an obligation and duty to serve the ratepayers. No matter how it is looked at, it seems that the interests of the ORFU are much closer to the Council’s heart than the interests of the ratepayers.

    Oh yes, that “opinion” on consultation is one reflected in the recently released survey on Council performance.

  68. Anonymous

    The land is to be sold as industrial and the residential possibly sold. But consultation is open.

    Public consultation: what kind of industrial use would you like?

    That whooshing sound that you can hear is Richard moving along. He claims on the ODT forum to be so busy he can’t engage in further dialogue, yet here he is.

  69. Calvin Oaten

    Richard, why would anyone go to the meeting when it is cut and dried. Harland says the purchase was to secure the ORFU as an anchor tenant and to secure a piece of industrial land for the future of Dunedin. Syd Brown said that “we made it pretty clear that we had ideas on how we might maximise our returns on our investment, but first we wanted to hear what the public thought we should do”. This suggests to me that it is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Not a united front, but rather an ‘ad hoc’ effort of a disconnected body. Richard, at the end of the day, how can you honestly stand there and believe anyone will be convinced that Syd Brown can see a return on an investment starting at $7million, which come the end of 2011 will cost the city around $750,000 per annum just for interest? To quote another homily: “Oh what tangled webs we weave when once we practice to deceive.”
    And yes Richard you did renege. Why else do you not defend either Harland or Brown? They can’t both be right. Which is it?

  70. Russell Garbutt

    I’d like to know a little more about the residential area that the DCC have bought from the ORFU – despite Richard’s unwillingness to give us a breakdown of the $7m that the DCC so kindly coughed up to the ORFU, it appears that at least some of the properties are still leased. The underlying land in some cases is owned by another entity entirely unconnected with either the ORFU or the DCC. Does this explain the fact that the DCC paid $7m and the ORFU “only” received $6m? Or was there a real estate fee that hasn’t been made public yet?

    No doubt Richard will, in his spirit of making sure we all know the “facts” be able to tell us exactly what the DCC owns in Burns Street. Or will it be “commercial sensitivity” that prevents this?

    Oh and yes, if the long term plan was to on-sell the ground and carpark for industrial use, what was the basis of this very fortuitous valuation that “supported” the purchase price?

    • Elizabeth

      Russell, further to your comments the online DCC Rates Book (linked to WebMaps) shows:

      DCC City Property is the Ratepayer for the houses at 45, 47, (51)*, 55, 57, 59, 63, 67 and 69 Burns St.

      *51 Burns St is multi-unit residential – Ratepayer stated as “DCC City Property E P H”.

      73 Burns St – Ratepayers: David Eagles and Marie Louise Campbell, of Wellington.

      Unit A, 55 Murrayfield St – Ratepayers: Bernice Lexie and David Webster, of Dunedin.

      Unit B, 55 Murrayfield St – Ratepayer: CBCT Foundation Trust, of Dunedin.

      The Rates Book gives land value and capital value for each property.

  71. Phil

    City Property has a block of community housing (pensioner flats) on Burns Street. But they’ve owned those for years, and shouldn’t be confused with any recent residential purchases.

  72. David

    Richard – the council has shown without a shadow of a doubt with the stadium, that public consultation is a totally pointless money wasting exercise that makes no difference.

    The current council has totally killed any confidence from some of our most esteemed citizens that consultation is anything but a hollow council facade.

  73. Russell Garbutt

    David – don’t expect a response for our self-appointed repository of the truth.

    What you have to see is that up until now the Council, through its unwillingness to conduct a ratepayer referendum, its unwillingness to accept the University survey on ratepayer attitude, its unwillingness to conduct any meaningful debate or consultation, its willingness to ignore huge public support in opposition to Council actions, and its unwillingness to be open, transparent and trustworthy, has always believed that it was “entitled” to act this way. Richard, Chin, Brown, Guest, Bezett, Weatherall, Acklin, Noone and their mates, I’m sure, actually have come to believe in their “right to govern”.

    It isn’t a right, and come October, we have the chance to put those into positions of trust that deserve to be there.

  74. Calvin Oaten

    While we are talking about the capacity crowd at Carisbrook, let’s talk about the capacity crowd at the new stadium.
    On the Forsyth Barr Facebook site they state, “Just so everyone understands, the east and west stands are permanent structures, they both have permanent roofs, permanent walls, permanent concrete slabs. They will have temporary seats in them for events as required.”
    So there we go. Permanent seats only in the north and south stands, excluding corporate boxes. This means between 15,000 and a max. 17,500. The cost of placing 12,500 temporary seats and removing same after each event will be a direct cost to the event. Then, due to the temporary nature they will require the approval of the fire authority, and of course the insurance people underwriting the public liability. Will the people pay the premium to sit on makeshift seats at the ends of the field? A grade tests? Hmmm?

  75. Russell Garbutt


    I also noticed this thread on the Stadium site had been removed for some reason.

    What I took from the information that had been provided by Forsyth Barr – the owners of the site – that there is no such thing as the East and West stands. There will be a roof, walls and a concrete floor, but no seats or stands.

    Does anyone have an accurate and truthful picture of what is actually going to be included for this GMP?

    I for one am not interested in a fancy fly-by animation of what something “may” or “could” look like when the stadium is in the “full” mode. Where is a picture of what we are going to get for our money?

    • Elizabeth

      As expected, the efforts to fill the carbuncle with glorious events have leaked a tad, in the direction we anticipated – it’s what happens when you fly a promoter in, they talk to their connections in Dunedin.

      The story goes, we (who is we at Dunedin?) will “underwrite” events to have your acts here. Large money was described as on offer…

      Was that the $24m boost shunted through DCC at the last minute – I guess some of that would be a great incentive to a promoter.

      But if the promoter explained to the one offering largesse that other councils don’t/shouldn’t get into underwriting [we’ve all seen what happens when they do…woops] and that one wasn’t listening…well, hey that is the world of open cheque books which are SHORT TERM liabilities before something NASTY catches up with the folks who run them.

      There is never something for nothing, and the stadium can’t be a sinkhole any size larger.

      I’ve edited the information received to such an extent it begins to resemble only punctuation. Sorry folks, taking care and all that.

    • Elizabeth

      Thanks Russell, perhaps a message to All:

      If you see something fascinating on websites or Facebook DO record the material and the original link.

      I often just grab it and email it to myself so I get a date record on it and a trail…

      Here today, not gone tomorrow.

  76. Anonymous

    Piling is currently being done for the West stand. It will be done first and the East stand is the last part of construction. The large arch is due for lifting before the end of the month, the second is under construction on the stands and will follow. The roofing material has arrived. 380 days to go.

    At this stage, looking at progress, I find it very hard to see how this will be complete and ready for RWC 2011. The “call” date for Carisbrook as alternate venue is November.

    • Elizabeth

      I’m generally positive about construction timelines (no hurricanes in sight) but not for the stadium – and not for RWC 2011. I look at the (cough) progress weekly. Am I imagining it’s slowing? I hate to wish evil on it but it looks positively skimpy. Well OK, the arches are due… but this is mid-July. Ready to lay the turf by January? Best keep the Carisbrook surface in good condition and cost out some little improvements there to take the few allotted rugger pool games? Malcolm can still sell his beer and pies at the old ground, probably got them in the freezer already. Well no, that would be a bit too soon.

  77. Anon

    The discussion is still there on the FB facebook site; if you are not a fan of the site then some comments get blocked; this is usually because an anti-stadium person/s has commented on the topic and the thread has degenerated into name calling.

  78. Anon

    Is the piling for the West Stand or the adjoining University Building. I thought piling was completed for both West and East Stand structures late last year.

    Calvin, I’m not sure what your point is regarding permanent capacity; this information has been public for well over a year with about 19,000 capacity across the North and South Stands including 1,000 standing in the North Stand. If CST/DVML sell all their membership packages then that accounts for 3,000 or so seats leaving 16,000 for general sale. That’s plenty of capacity for most occasions.

    As for the East and West Stand set-up, I assume DVML will acquire approxiately 4,000 seats as originally proposed and the rest would be hired as required. If the NZRU is holding a test or concert promoter is holding a large event at the venue then it would be reasonable to expect that the extra cost of seat set up would be apportioned against all 30,500 plus ticket sales from the outset.

  79. Phil

    1,000 standing as part of a normal proceedings ? Wasn’t it just this week that the CST announced that there would be one seat per person ? To eliminate the current secruity and policing problems on the Carisbrook terraces. Maybe I misread the press release. However, I’m sure that must be outdated information as standing stadiums are a thing of the ancient past.

  80. Russell Garbutt

    Anon – I think that the Forsyth Facebook site thread in question went for a while and has now reappeared. I think you are also correct in your recollection that all the piling was completed on site some time ago.

    I agree with your view regarding the name-calling antics by some of the contributors – I see little evidence of a great deal of mental abilities there to hold a debate that is worthwhile. “Calc” in his many disguises does nothing for that debate for example.

    But the question of what has been actually built on the site is, like most things associated with this project, surrounded in mystery and lack of transparency.

    One thing seems absolutely sure.

    The new stadium will not seat any more than just over 17,000 seats in its delivered state. The CST had to make some sort of decision about whether there would be a massive cost blow-out and deliver on what was “sold” to the City, or quietly halve the seating and try and meet the budget. I would remind all that many years ago, I formally submitted to the DCC that the average price for an uncovered stadium based on quality research by academics who looked at final prices was $10,000 per seat. The CST, and the DCC, and the ORC didn’t want to know that, but insisted that it would be nothing like that – remember Malcolm Farry saying we would do it the southern way? Based on my factual historical figures, a permanent seating 30,000 unroofed stadium would cost $300m. Add the roof and the cost is going to be about $450m. Add the SH88 diversion, the purchase of Carisbrook, the “hidden” ratepayer funding of the ORFU through Delta sponsorship, the guaranteeing of ORFU overdrafts and the like, and my calculator is starting to run hot. But not as hot as the speed of ratepayers being fleeced by Peter and his mates.

    According to the CST website, as of tonight, this is what they say – “The seating bowl will be organised into 4 stands. The North, South and East stands will have a permanent seating capacity of 25,000 people and the West stand will have temporary seating for 5,000. However, the Stadium will have the capacity to attain 35,000 people seated and standing should the need arise.”

    Note carefully the wording of that statement. “35,000 seated or standing.” Judging by the previous sentence, that indicates 10,000 standing. A world class, state of the art, stadium? The only thing that is world class or state of the art is the BS. In particular, the statement says that the East stand will have permanent seating. I say, prove it.

    The evidence is that I don’t think anyone – including current Councillors – have been shown the plans or diagrams or pictures – of what will actually be delivered. The actual plans of delivery certainly have not been published. On the CST website are only “possibles” or “options”. If you were building a house or a factory, would you be happy with possibles, or options? Knowing the answer, nor should ratepayers.

  81. Phil

    Ah, the good old GMP. Thanks for bringing that gem up again, Russell. I do so enjoy playing with it. It’s almost developed “old friend” status. What’s included in the GMP ? Alas, if only life were that simple. Once upon a time we were shown an official summary of the GMP contract. Transparency, open consultation, and all that. However, when it was noted that the published GMP contract (for 130 odd million) was excluding about 35 million dollars worth of direct overheads, indirect overheads, and profit margins, we were immediately informed that, in fact, this wasn’t the ACTUAL contract. And that there was now a NEW contract. Still for the same 130 odd million, but now INCLUDING the 35 million dollars worth of work previously excluded. With no change in the original total price. 35 mill for free. We were on a winner, and we should be bloody grateful about it.

    Upon hearing this miraculous turn of events, my views on major contractors immediately improved. God bless Hawkins and their ability to find 35 million dollars worth of overheads and profit in a contract price that previously had a 0% profit/overheads margin. I’ve got a family wedding coming up soon. I might see if Hawkins can come along and cater with a few loaves and fishes.

    Sadly, unlike the previous contract, which turned out not to be the contract, we’re not allowed to see the actual contract that is being worked under today. It must be commercially sensitive, I guess. Unlike the original contract. Which we were allowed to see. But wasn’t the contract being used.

    Then again, we have had a councillor tell us not to worry, that it’s all been sorted. That’s much better than seeing it for ourselves. After all, what would we know about such high level things ?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s