‘Forsyth Barr Stadium Base Building Further Requirements’

Incompetence by another name, actually, ‘Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust Exclusions’.

Davis Langdon was asked to review progress made by the trust, and it was the reviewer’s report that first coined the term “exclusions” to describe what was considered to have been missed from the project’s planning. The exclusions included a kitchen fit-out, broadcasting facilities, electronic turnstiles, score boards and replay screens. -ODT

Dunedin City Council’s finance, strategy and development committee met on Monday 14 March.

How they voted
There were several votes at the non-public meeting. For the substantive vote, that the committee recommend the council approve additional borrowing of up to $5.15 million to fund capital expenditure for the stadium, Crs Bill Acklin, John Bezett, Syd Brown, Neil Collins, Paul Hudson, Chris Staynes, Richard Thompson and Mayor Dave Cull voted for, while Crs Fliss Butcher, Jinty MacTavish, Teresa Stevenson, Lee Vandervis and Kate Wilson voted against. Cr Andrew Noone had left the meeting, and Cr Colin Weatherall apologised for non-attendance. -ODT

### ODT Online Sat, 19 Mar 2011
How $5.1m worth of ‘exclusions’ became included
By David Loughrey
Construction at Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium may be rapidly reaching a conclusion, but in the shadow of the structure, the financial debate and the entrenched political tensions, continue. Dunedin City Council reporter David Loughrey explores why an extra $5.1 million funding was granted for the stadium this week, and finds some differing views.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Sat, 19 Mar 2011
Editorial: Drilling into the debt mountain
Amid the bickering and sabre-rattling, some clarity is beginning to emerge on the true extent of the impost Forsyth Barr Stadium funding is imposing on Dunedin city debt levels. Part of that funding – $5 million annually, to be precise – is supposed to come from dividends yielded by the council’s various companies, under the umbrella of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd.
Read more

****

More blither from people who don’t know how to fundraise, oh that’s DCC…

### ODT Online Sat, 19 Mar 2011
Trusts to be targeted again
By David Loughrey
Charitable trusts can expect another round of requests for funding for the Forsyth Barr Stadium, following a Dunedin City Council decision earlier this week. The decision came after a report to the finance, strategy and development committee that showed 16 trusts had been asked for money in the last few years, and four had come up with $7.9 million.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Advertisements

66 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Construction, CST, Design, DVML, Economics, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Urban design

66 responses to “‘Forsyth Barr Stadium Base Building Further Requirements’

  1. Phil

    Well, David, there’s a bit more to “exploring” than asking the one person who is going to give you the answer that your editor is looking for. I, along with I’m sure many other people, are currently sitting looking at a copy of the original Schedule of Quantities. One which shows all the now “excluded” items as being INCLUDED. Cut price journalism never fails to deliver what it promises. As they’re clearly not interested, I might send this to Ian Wishart myself.

  2. Bev Butler

    Phil
    Under the Service Level Agreement between the CST and the DCC it states that the CST “shall not agree to any significant modification to the Master Plan which makes inferior the integrity of the Vision without input from the Stakeholder Group and the ultimate approval in writing of DCC”.
    You may wish to request through LGOIMA which modifications were actually approved in writing by the DCC.
    This Service Level Agreement is dated 27 January 2010 and as revealed under LGOIMA this is the only contract between the DCC and the CST.
    What this means is that the DCC were pouring millions of dollars through the CST with no contract in place. Ian Wishart may indeed be very interested in this. Feel free to email (or phone me) for a copy of the Service Level Agreement. My address is bevkiwi@hotmail.com Alternatively, should you wish to keep your identity confidential I could send a copy of the SLA via Elizabeth.

  3. Phil

    Not quite if we’re talking about the same thing, Bev. I’m talking about the Schedule of Quantities that was prepared by the consultant prior to construction started. Which clearly lists items such as screen, signage, kitchen, and internal fit out being included as standard items. Something which Malcolm seems content to deny. With the support of David Loughrey (or his superiors), it would seem. It was Malcolm who turned those included items into excluded items, prior to tabling the tender submission from Hawkins Construction. At the time it went to Council for signing, those items were noted as being excluded, so all parties were aware. The ODT seem to have conveniently continued to ignore the fact that all profits and overheads were also excluded. Someone (I presume in jest) tried to tell me later that those two items had since been included, with no change in the GMP price. I’ll go to my grave refusing to believe that Hawkins Construction are doing this project for free. They are not so big that they can, or would want to, carry a 30 million dollar loss.

  4. Anonymous

    With respect to the signage arrangements: “That strategy [getting FB to pay for signage] was unsuccessful”.

    Strategy:
    – approach sponsor to pay several million for naming rights
    – get laughed at
    – get screwed over by the sponsor for the naming rights
    – approach sponsor for extra to pay for their own signage
    – get laughed at

    Small fish, small pond. While the old-boy network may work in Dunedin, it works less well to influence the investment strategies of others elsewhere.

  5. Bev Butler

    Phil
    I don’t have a copy of the “original Schedule of Quantities”. So what you are saying then, Phil, is that the items such as screen, signage, kitchen, and internal fit out being included as standard items were in the original Schedule of Quantities prepared by a consultant but that Malcolm removed these items prior to tabling the tender submission from Hawkins Construction. You also say that Malcolm is denying this.
    Through my digging over the DCC habitual bond holders issue (decision expected soon from Ombudsman) it has been established by the ombudsman that the CST is subject to LGOIMA. You could have the information which Malcolm is denying, confirmed under LGOIMA. This would be helpful for Ian Wishart or any other journalists outside Dunedin willing to investigate.
    You then say that at the time it went to Council for signing, those items were noted as being excluded, so all parties were aware. The councillors can not claim ignorance as they are fully aware that these items were deliberately removed to give the perception that the stadium could be built within the touted $198m. Also, the CST and councillors knew long before it was ever made public that the $188m price tag was unachievable. This was one of the blacked out portions of one of the peer reviews back in March 2008.

    What I am saying in my previous post is in reference to modifications. The SLA makes it clear that the CST must have written permission from DCC for any modifications eg permanent seating which has changed from 25,000 down to 17,242. There will, of course, have been other modifications which should have been approved in writing by DCC as stated in the SLA.

  6. Russell Garbutt

    Is it not becoming more than clear that “spin” has become revealed as deceit? At what point does it become more than that?

  7. Phil

    What I am saying is this. First, Malcolm is saying that these items were always excluded. That isn’t correct, and he’s deliberately re-writing the sequence of events to show this. They only became excluded because he chose to remove them. Against the advice of his consultants.

    Malcolm didn’t deceive Council in terms of what was excluded, at the time the contract was approved. It was clearly documented that those previous included items had been removed. The purchase of the fixed seating, and the laying of the turf, were also shown as excluded items. He did fail to mention several other necessary but excluded items, such as the lighting rigs, which he had been told by his own consultants would be required. But given that my documentation came from the same source as the Councillors’ documentation, they have all had the same opportunity as I have had to acquire that information. If they have failed to do so, then they have to take an equal share of responsibility.

    As far as the mythical sponsorship claims for those excluded items goes, again I believe that the responsibility for the failure has to be shared equally between Council and CST. There was no evidence to show that this strategy was appropriate in this situtaion. Take the kitchen fit-out, for example, and the claim that it was standard practice around the world for an operator to carry out, and pay for, their own fit-out. That may well be, I’m not privy to the catering arrangements at other stadiums. What I do know is that we don’t live in those parts of the world, and they don’t live in ours. So it was either foolish, or mischievous, to rely on anecdotal evidence from somewhere else. There would be no more than half a dozen caterers in our region capable of picking up such a contract. It would have taken an hour to either pick up the phone and ring all those contractors, or check their existing premises, to see what their current arrangements were, and what agreements they would be willing to enter into. Then they would have known if it was a reasonable request for local caterers or not. Before claiming it as gospel. Likewise with the signage, and with the notion that the hirer would be prepared to pay for a big screen hire. No-one bothered to ask those potential hirers and sponsors first, before making the claims. Someone should have asked CST that very question, but they didn’t.

    It has been a fatal mistake to assume that they, the project team, held all the cards and all the power. That’s extremely disrespectful towards the contracting industry and a terrible way to start a business relationship. No one with any serious project experience would have knowingly taken such a risk, unless they knew all along that there was a back-up strategy. As we saw last week. Back the client into a corner, and they will be forced to pay.

    The only party who doesn’t need to carry any of the blame here, is the venue operator. They have inherited an always un-workable contract, having had zero input into it. They are going to cop continuing bad press over this, while the real perpetrators are able to quietly slink back into the shadows.

    • Elizabeth

      Do we care about the price of fish…

      The catering contract for the stadium, to be called the Otago Stadium during the Rugby World Cup, has a fraught history.

      ### ODT Online Thu, 21 Jul 2011
      Multinational to cater for stadium appetites
      By David Loughrey
      Catering at Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium will be provided by the New Zealand subsidiary of a multinational company with an operating profit last year of more than 1 billion ($NZ1.89 billion).
      Read more

      Compass had longer-term contracts for four other stadiums in New Zealand.

  8. Russell Garbutt

    Phil, to encapsulate what you have posted seems to be saying that Farry is not telling the truth about whether the “excluded” items were always “excluded”.

    Secondly, what you seem to be saying is that past Councillors were either incompetent or part of a plan to deliberately obscure the true costs of the stadium.

    Do you have a view whether any of these three situations are in any way actionable to any degree to ensure that those that should be accountable for their actions (or inactions in case of incompetence) can be bought to account?

    What responsibility does previous CEO Harland have in these matters in your view?

    {Russell, we note the questions but warn anyone attempting to reply to them in this forum must bear in mind that the owner and managers of What if? will not be put in a legally liable position. If you wish to freely correspond with each other on these matters then we suggest you take the opportunity do so offline. -Eds}

  9. Russell Garbutt

    Phil, one last question.

    Bearing in mind all the background to this, do you believe the current Council had an option to go back to Farry and his CST and tell them to stump up with the costs of the “excluded” items?

  10. Bev Butler

    Phil.
    Taking up on your point in your last paragraph. David Davies and his crew may well have inherited these ‘exclusions’ deceptions and, in some way, you can kind of feel sorry for him coming into the mess Farry has created. However, he is being paid $250k per annum to work harder and smarter. He has to carry the can, along with Farry, when they approached the council for $5.15m, this time, for the exclusions – with more requests to come. Farry and Davies ideally have to work out the tensions between them on this. Probably [this] will not happen and, in the end one, or both, will either leave or be pushed.

  11. Phil

    In response to your last quesion, Russell, of course there was the option to go back and tell the CST to find the money themselves. You know that as well as I do. The problem with that card, is that it’s being played about 6 months too late. The implications for not having a fully functioning stadium by September far outweigh, in my opinion, the self satisfaction attained from trying to prove a point. In theory, I agree entirely with you. In practical terms, someone needed to take control and get the job done. Clearly that someone wasn’t CST. A situation that never needed to arise, but now a physical reality requiring a definite and positive solution.

  12. Phil

    Bev, I don’t think we’ve seen anything to suggest that Mr Davis isn’t working hard and smart. In fact, he’s been the only one fronting up the moment that problems have been identified. The people creating the problem are much slower in putting their hands up. Whether or not something should have been included in a construction contract is no concern of his. There’s no real link between his role as the venue operator, and Malcolm’s construction project. In my view. He has a stadium that needs to work. He’s realised that it doesn’t, and he’s taken proactive steps to resolve the problem. He seems to be the only person doing that. I’m not surprised that he’s feeling a bit stressed over this. It’s not a situation he would have encountered in his experiences with professional sporting organisations in Europe, and you can guarantee it wasn’t conveyed to him prior to his acceptance of the position.

  13. Bev Butler

    Phil
    If it was revealed the stadium was/is/maybe hired out free of charge rather than on a standard commercial basis would you consider this working hard and smart?

  14. Russell Garbutt

    Phil, I don’t think that self-satisfaction has anything to do with it.

    The issues are these.

    We had a Council who had received submission upon submission pointing out in plain terms the issues regarding funding and debt. Those submissions were completely ignored. We had, and have, a private, self-elected trust, who seem to have made a number of statements about private funding levels and other funding which are now being called into question in a very serious way by a number of present Councillors. Those statements have also been refuted over a long period of time in submissions to Council and have also been ignored.

    Public money has been used where private money was promised to fund a project. In the end the ratepayers must be in a position to know who was responsible for the decisions that were made that have resulted in levels of rates and levels of debt from either poor decision making or other reasons.

    It seems to me that there must be responsibility attached to decision making. I don’t believe that either incompetent or poor decision making is able to be skirted round – particularly when the Local Government Act requires people to act in certain ways.

    In terms of legalities on this site – I hope that I have been very careful not to cross any lines. It is a tricky position however when it is plain that there are significant gaps appearing all over the place that have been revealed in recent Council meetings.

  15. Phil

    Bev, if you’re talking about the free hire of the venue for the RWC, that was a deal made by the NZ government, which local venues operators had no choice in. And that agreement pre-dates Mr Davis’ appointment. The precedent for free venues was set by the IRB at the 2007 tournament.

    If you’re referring to Elton John, then I’ll concede the point. The venue promoters have said that they have secured the venue for a reduced fee. They have been quite open about that in the media. If I recall correctly, Mr Davis is (still?) an employee of DCC. So either he made the call himself to reduce the venue hire fee for Capital C Concerts, or was instructed to by his superior, being the then CEO of DCC. We don’t know what the reason for the DCC to lower the venue hire fee was. Presumably it was necessary to secure the concert, and that the money coming into the purses of people in the city would be greater than the amount going out. One would hope that’s the reason, but with the lack of an official explanation, it’s pure speculation.

  16. Phil

    Couldn’t agree with you more, Russell. But that doesn’t get the stadium the screen etc that it needs to meet the conditions necessary to host matches at the RWC. I agree with you that responsibility and accountability needs to be made more clear to the general population. That is starting to happen now. You don’t see Malcolm’s beaming face on the front page any more. Most people have figured him out now. It’s not much, but it’s more than we had 6 months ago.

  17. Bev Butler

    Thanks, Phil.
    It wasn’t the RWC I was referring to. Nor was I talking about reduced fees.
    I was talking about free of charge. But will leave it there for now.
    Russell, see SLA p8 13.5 re CST trustees full indemnity cover – excludes Misfeasance.
    6.2 of SLA has been breached.
    8.2 of SLA needs to be enacted.

  18. Russell Garbutt

    Phil, thanks for that.

    But I suggest that Farry could not have got to where he is today regarding funding without acquiesence from a number of past Councillors on either the DCC or the ORC. Either Council, if they had listened or read what was supplied to them by either the CST or submitters, would have realised that there were enormous gaps that needed explanation that allowed them to act in a circumspect, cautious and responsible manner. That is what is required of them under the Act.

    It still doesn’t settle in my mind any reason for this present Council not to go back to Farry and demand that his trust fund the “excluded” items. It may be brinkmanship, but at the moment the way I read it is that this Council blinked first and once again the ratepayers suffer the decision.

    It may be that this [elected] Council is being damned for what some see as a small amount to have to “underwrite” while at the same time those that were responsible for the much larger amount of expenditure are already slinking back into the shadows and indeed wanting to make sure that their side of this sorry saga is being written up. But this Council did have an opportunity to make a very strong point, and the way I read it, they have failed to take that opportunity.

  19. Peter

    I totally agree with you, Russell. Lies/deceptions must never be rewarded just because they appear to be a fait accompli. There are always consequences for wrong doings – and the suspect people should pay. Not the ratepayers.

  20. Russell Garbutt

    In line with the continuing lack of transparency with anything to do with the wretched stadium, does anyone know what role ex-CEO Harland has to do with anything as of now? My understanding is that he was to continue to act in some form of role with the stadium after his interesting exit from the DCC but it is entirely unclear exactly what that role is and what responsibility or accountability he has.

  21. Russell Garbutt

    It was announced that “as part of his new role, Mr Harland will retain his position on the Stadium Project Delivery Team because of the synergy between the Stadium, the realignment of SH88 and his knowledge of the project.”

    What does this actually mean? Who is this Project Delivery Team? Farry, Harland, Chin, Walls, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all? What is their actual standing or authority?

    Does it mean that he can continue to make decisions that affect Dunedin ratepayers?

    • Elizabeth

      What if? has covered the membership of the Stadium Project Delivery Team previously. It is also searchable via Google. There’s been some shuffling, comings and goings – back in history it looked like this – see CST Press Release.

      It has been documented by DCC at its website also. No time to search.

  22. Phil

    Over on the Stuff website there’s a photo of a couple of the Crusaders rugby players standing on the playing pitch at Twickenham stadium. Behind them in the photo, and switched on for effect, is a portable “grass growing” lighting rig. In case anyone is interested in seeing one before it arrives here.

    {NZStuff: Crusaders straight down to business in London -Eds}

  23. Anonymous

    My little bird says: keep a close eye on cost overruns on the University Stadium Plaza building. The data cabling architecture and plumbing are wonders to behold, apparently, and not in a good way.

  24. Peter

    On the Channel 9 News tonight David Davies was interviewed. He was asked for confirmation that everything will in place at the stadium for the RWC.
    He said for the turf to become established it needed about four/five months’ growth, from memory, and the stadium will actually have a few more months than that – covering the winter period, presumably, when it won’t be played on. Does this ‘natural growth’ include the addition of turf master during this period? It kind of puzzles me this turf growth/turf master business and judging the growth to be a ‘success’. Being, personally, very thin on top I’d find it difficult – and embarrassing – to say to people that my hair is growing again when, for argument’s sake, I was having hair implants. (I’m not by the way!!)
    He also said there would be teething problems for the stadium during the RWC period and up to a year after it is opened. He didn’t envisage any ‘major’ teething problems. Fair enough, I suppose, given the stadium has been built very quickly, in time for the RWC, and you’d expect with the tight time frame, and cuts made here and there to save money, there will be balls ups only discovered later on when the building settles in. Let’s hope he’s right and the ‘teething problems’ are not more serious – to the point where the ‘teeth’ are more like falling out.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ch9.co.nz March 31, 2011 – 6:52pm
      Stadium is ready for tournament
      The announcement of extra games to be played in Dunedin during the Rugby World Cup is being welcomed by the man in charge of ensuring Otago’s stadium is ready for the tournament. Dave Davies expects the stadium to have some teething issues in its first months of operation, but he does not expect them to be significant.
      Video

    • Elizabeth

      Malcolm’s pic for this one I leave to your discretion.

      ### ODT Online Sat, 23 Apr 2011
      Stadium’s turf work appears imminent
      By David Loughrey
      Forsyth Barr Stadium developers are about to begin installing the artificial turf system at the Dunedin site. The Otago Daily Times understands the machinery for the work has arrived from overseas, has cleared Customs and is ready to operate.
      Read more

      http://www.dessosports.com/en/desso-grassmaster/

      • Elizabeth

        Grass on steroids…
        Fabulous, all this in little ol’ Dunedin

        ### 3news.co.nz Wed, 27 Apr 2011 6:27p.m.
        Special grass being laid at Dunedin stadium
        By Dave Goosselink
        Dunedin’s Forysth Barr Stadium has been billed as the world’s first permanently enclosed, natural turf stadium. And while the grass appears to be growing, with the World Cup fast approaching stadium bosses are hedging their bets and reinforcing the natural turf with the synthetic GrassMaster system.
        Read more + Video

        • Elizabeth

          ### ODT Online Thu, 28 Apr 2011
          Stadium’s grass surface all stitched up
          By David Loughrey
          The line between sewing and sowing became seriously blurred yesterday, as natural grass and its artificial counterpart became intertwined at Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium.
          Read more

  25. Kiwifly

    My little bird says: keep a close eye on cost overruns on the University Stadium Plaza building. The data cabling architecture and plumbing are wonders to behold, apparently, and not in a good way.

    your little bird has said a lot over the last few years and none of it has ever come to fruition….so i think we can treat your comments with the contempt they deserve hmmm?

  26. Anon

    I see the ODT today refers to Guy Hedderwick being the sole NZ participant at the Stadia Design and Technology Expo 2011 in Los Angeles. The conference programme lists Mr Hedderwick, David Davies and Craig MacGregor of DVML as in attendance:
    http://www.stadiadesignandtechnology.com/downloads/programme_2011.pdf

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Fri, 8 Apr 2011
      Stadium to feature at LA conference
      By Chris Morris
      Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin will be on show to the world at an international gathering of stadium representatives in the United States next week. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd commercial manager Guy Hedderwick, part of the team tasked with running Dunedin’s new venue, has been invited to address the Stadia Design and Technology Expo 2011.
      Read more

      ****

      See earlier post:

      5.11.10 International connections

  27. Anonymous

    I believe that the July 22 All Black test, although confirmed for FBS, will be played at Carisbrook instead.

  28. Phil

    While the conference fees will be met by the conference organisers, the travel expenses for the 3 Amigos are, I presume, coming out of the stadium operating budget. With 70 of the 500 delegates being selected as speakers (only 3 women, I noted), you’d feel a bit peeved if you didn’t get asked to speak.

  29. Kiwifly

    yet more lies and non facts from Anonymous, how about supplying some facts

    {Moderated. -Eds}

  30. kiwifly

    Thank you Eds, I get a little annoyed at some of the BS passed off as facts on here. And can sometimes get a little mouthy. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

  31. Anonymous

    Good evening Kiwifly,
    The July 22 game has been pulled from FBS. No lies, no non-facts, no BS.
    Any thoughts?

  32. Russell Garbutt

    I watched the TV3 story on TV tonight – quite straight from the venerable gods on high – no match at the new rugby stadium because it isn’t ready and won’t be ready. Off to Carisbrook. Dear dear, never mind.

    • Elizabeth

      Hey, Carisbrook has greater crowd capacity – it helps fundraising, the purpose of the exercise.

      ### 3news.co.nz Tue, 12 Apr 2011 6:40p.m.
      Stadium delay sees All Blacks’ extra test moved
      By David Di Somma
      The All Blacks’ extra test this year is to no longer to be played at Dunedin’s new stadium due to a delay on checks being carried out on the Fiji team. It’s believed the delay’s been caused by the time it’s taking to get team lists from the Fijian Rugby Union, so they can be checked by Foreign Affairs.
      Read more + Video

      • Elizabeth

        ### ODT Online Wed, 13 Apr 2011
        Rugby: Carisbrook still in the running
        By Steve Hepburn
        A test against Fiji at Carisbrook is still a possibility but there are hurdles to overcome. The game, if it occurs, will not be played at the new Forsyth Barr Stadium and Carisbrook may struggle to sell out.
        Read more

        • Elizabeth

          ### ODT Online Fri, 15 Apr 2011
          Rugby: North-South game suggested for ‘Brook
          By Hayden Meikle
          Samoa pulled out. Fiji is looking questionable. The new stadium will not be ready in time. Is it time to look for a fresh solution to the question of who will play at Carisbrook in the fundraising game on July 22? And can that solution be found in the past?
          Read more

  33. Anonymous

    Hey, it could be worse. We could be a town of a population of around 110K people that can’t afford to build a $25M stadium.
    http://www.lohud.com/comments/article/20110412/NEWS03/104120341/State-judge-OKs-Ramapo-s-25M-bond-baseball-stadium

    Oh, wait…

  34. Peter

    Not being able to host the Fiji match on July 22 – only nine days before the official finish date – doesn’t sound promising. When things are so tight and pressured you’d expect cock ups. David Davies has already acknowledged this with his recent ‘teething problems’ comment – expected for up to a year after the stadium opens. The teething problems will undoubtedly go on for longer than that. In order to contain costs I wonder if there have been dangerous shortcuts made during construction. Hope not. You can’t always trust that quality control type ‘sign offs’ – or whatever the official term is – have been done ethically when pressure to complete for the RWC is so intense. (Remember Southland stadium) The last thing we need is another Hungerford disaster.

  35. Kiwifly

    with all the BS you spout on here Anonymous you were bound to finally get something right…..so how about those other things you said on this thread…are they correct or yet more BS from you hmm?

  36. Anonymous

    Kiwifly,
    I accept your graceful apology.

  37. Kiwifly

    are you going to answer my question
    Anonymous

  38. fergal

    Hungerford disaster? Why on earth would we have a mass murderer running round shooting people ? Your suggestion of shortcuts and dodgy sign-offs is one thing, but a mass murderer on the rampage because of the shortcuts…really?
    As much as I disagree with many of your comments, I think this is either a massive overreaction or mistake. I’m hoping a mistake….

  39. Anonymous

    Kiwifly,
    I have made no other claims in this thread.
    Thanks for your continued attention.

  40. Stu

    I believe for “Hungerford”, read “Hillsborough”. Or even “Ibrox”.

  41. Peter

    Sorry, it was a mistake. Thanks, Stu. I meant Hillsborough. I haven’t heard of something similar at ‘Ibrox. (Not that I’m doubting you.)
    Fergal says, ‘a mass murderer on the rampage because of the shortcuts…’ Now wouldn’t that be a first!

  42. Kiwifly

    yes you have Anonymous “quote”, My little bird says: keep a close eye on cost overruns on the University Stadium Plaza building. The data cabling architecture and plumbing are wonders to behold, apparently, and not in a good way. – So answer my question – How about those other things you said on this thread…are they correct or yet more BS from you hmm?

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Fri, 15 Apr 2011
      University ends year with $22m surplus
      By Allison Rudd
      Record enrolments helped the University of Otago achieve a strong financial result last year. It ended the year with an operating surplus of just over $22 million and no debt, a position financial services director Grant McKenzie described this week as “solid”.

      Expenditure on land and buildings last year was $45.57 million – $15.76 million, or 25%, less than budgeted. The main reason for the difference was almost $10 million less than budgeted being spent on the university’s building at the Forsyth Barr Stadium site, Mr McKenzie said. The variance was a timing issue relating to a longer-than-anticipated design and tender process. The rest of the money set aside for construction would be spent this year.

      [Yesterday the university] confirmed the budget was $51.8 million – $46.2 million for the building and its interior fit-out and $5.6 million for the land.

      Read more

    • Elizabeth

      The budget for the plaza was “definitely” within the stadium budget, and was not an extra cost. -Cr Syd Brown

      ### ODT Online Fri, 19 Aug 2011
      Stadium plaza plans released
      By David Loughrey
      The Dunedin public has its first view of the Forsyth Barr Stadium plaza just weeks before it is due to be finished. The plaza, 50% of which is owned by the Dunedin City Council and 50% by the University of Otago, is still the subject of “discussions” between the two parties over who pays for what, and does not include complete closure of Anzac Ave, which the university and the Carisbrook Stadium Trust wanted.

      Carisbrook Stadium Trust chairman Malcolm Farry said the plaza was a joint venture between the trust, which was working as the council’s agent, and the University of Otago.

      Read more

  43. fergal

    Even still…Hillsborough was basically a crowd control issue…nothing to do with dodgy structures, corner cutting in construction etc. I don’t doubt that there have been stadiums with these tags, but crowd control is no longer an issue with all/nearly all seated stadiums.

  44. Anonymous

    Ah yes I missed that one; I had thought that comment was in a different thread.
    Talk to the plumbing and data contractors to verify.

  45. Kiwifly

    actually i have and they state things are fine …..so yet again please prove your unfounded speculations regarding your so called facts please.

  46. Stu

    @Peter
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrox_disaster#Second_Ibrox_disaster

    I’m just old enough to remember the aftermath of the 1971 disaster. It had an influence on the design of exitways/staircases.

  47. Peter

    Thanks for that reference, Stu. I guess something like this was a crowd problem that can’t be anticipated. It would be reassuring to know if our exit ways and staircases are up to scratch design-wise. I heard a rumour the other day that they put the fire extinguishers in the wrong places at the stadium and had to put them in the right places after they realised the mistake. Mistakes happen. Still……

  48. Sub-Rosa

    Here’s a photo of the Grassmaster enabling works taken a couple of days ago:
    http://bit.ly/hYzJOL

    {Appreciated. A short link has been substituted. -Eds}

  49. Peter

    Or grass with viagra.

  50. Anonymous

    As predicted, someone would jump at the chance to spend the $2-3million for the fit-out in exchange for an exclusive contract.

  51. Hype O'Thermia

    It’s that phrase again: “within the stadium budget”.

    Will that roof stand up to the droppings from all the pigs and tuis?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s