DVML, DVL and DCHL annual reports

### ODT Online Fri, 28 Oct 2011
Lack of revenue puts stadium loss at $3.2m
By Chris Morris
Forsyth Barr Stadium chief executive David Davies says his feet are “firmly on the ground” after the company tasked with running the roofed venue recorded a $3.2 million loss in its first financial year. The result was confirmed in Dunedin Venues Management Ltd’s first annual report, for the year ending June 30, 2011, to be presented to councillors at the next full council meeting on Monday.

• The report covers the period the company was in start-up mode, before the stadium’s opening on August 5 this year, meaning DVML was accruing costs while unable to earn revenue.
• It did not include the four Rugby World Cup matches held at the stadium, which fell outside the reporting period but were expected to result in a further loss of $400,000 for DVML.
• The company’s annual report identified employee expenses as the main driver behind the loss, totalling $446,293 in 2010 but growing to just over $1.3 million in 2011, while directors fees rose from $66,760 last year to $88,000 this year.

Read more

### ODT Online Fri, 28 Oct 2011
No statement of intent filed
By Chris Morris
Dunedin Venues Ltd – the company that owns the Forsyth Barr Stadium – breached the Local Government Act by not filing a statement of intent, it has been confirmed. The confirmation came in the Dunedin City Council-owned company’s first annual report, to be considered at the next full council meeting on Monday. The report acknowledged DVL’s directors failed to provide a statement of intent for the year beginning on July 1, 2010, or report the company’s performance against the statement.
Read more

Meeting of Dunedin City Council on 31 October 2011 at 2pm
Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers

Agenda – Council – 31/10/2011 (PDF, 42.9 KB)

Report – Council – 31/10/2011 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Annual Reports from Dunedin Venues Management Ltd and Dunedin Venues Ltd

Report – Council – 31/10/2011 (PDF, 2.1 MB)
Dunedin City Holdings Ltd Annual Report

DCC pagelink (other reports)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

55 Comments

Filed under DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums

55 responses to “DVML, DVL and DCHL annual reports

  1. Elizabeth

    Did anyone attend the Council meeting today? What happened?

    Sorry no media posts from me today as yet, this is coming to you from the depths of Dunedin Hospital ED, in an all day support role and continuing…

  2. Ro

    There’s to be a press conference tomorrow…

  3. Elizabeth

    Thanks Ro! Good grief, don’t tell me there’s finally going to be change, but how much change we said?!

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Mon, 31 Oct 2011
      Focus on DCHL structure
      By Chris Morris and David Loughrey
      Dunedin City Holdings Ltd’s under-fire governance structure is about to go under the microscope, but Mayor Dave Cull says the solution will be up to the Dunedin City Council. DCHL directors are due to hold their annual meeting today, at which any changes to the structure of the board of directors and its subsidiaries are expected to be considered. The meeting comes after a political storm erupted in late July, following an announcement Dunedin City Council companies would not be able to come up with $8 million of dividends to help pay for multimillion-dollar spending.
      Read more

  4. Russell Garbutt

    Let us hope that:

    1 The entire membership of the Boards are dismissed
    2 The appointment of Directors is carried out by a transparent, open and competitive process
    3 The structure reflects that the entities operate in a business-like manner and that only true profits are returned to the DCC
    4 No borrowing to supply a dividend will be allowed
    5 No Councillor is ever allowed to become a Director of any DCHL company
    6 All financial reporting to be completed in an open, transparent manner enabling all ratepayers to easily assess just who is making what, who or what is losing money, and who is responsible.

    It would also be desirable if those current Directors currently hauling tens of thousands of ratepayer dollars out of the system could be taken to the Octagon and held to account for their dismal performance.

    Finally, it is essential for the OB network currently used to appoint Directors to be run out of town.

  5. Mike

    Reading the report it seems to me that DVML is not putting aside any money for insurance; I know the DCC is self insuring but that means you have to create an insurance pool, the stadium portion should be showing up on DVML’s balance sheet.

    They’re also depreciating the stadium equipment over 3 years; do they truly expect everything to need replacing after 3 years or is the plan to make the yearly paper losses look smaller?

    Finally, the award for most ambiguous council report goes to “This report proposes replacing Councillor Wilson as the representative on the DPAGSC” (probably makes more sense if you know whether or not she is already on the council).

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Tue, 1 Nov 2011
      DCHL statement today
      By David Loughrey
      A major announcement about the future of Dunedin’s council-owned companies is expected today, after political ructions that have soured city politics since July, and a behind-closed-doors meeting yesterday. The announcement will follow the Dunedin City Council’s acceptance yesterday of its companies’ annual report, despite some tense debate among councillors. Dunedin City Holdings Ltd’s (DCHL) annual report, released in September, showed a healthy profit and multimillion-dollar dividend to the council.
      Read more

  6. Mike

    Ha! Everyone sacked

  7. Mike

    Replaced by the ex board of SCF

  8. JimmyJones

    Mike means that the DCHL board of directors have all had their positions terminated (according to National Radio, 1pm.)

  9. Elizabeth

    Holy hell, Athol is still employed by DCC. How did that happen.

    ### ch9.co.nz November 23, 2011 – 6:24pm
    DCC to transfer ownership of Forsyth Barr Stadium to Dunedin Venues Ltd
    The Dunedin City Council has issued its proposal to transfer ownership of Forsyth Barr Stadium to Dunedin Venues Limited. Councillor Syd Brown and DCC general manager of Finance and Development, Athol Stephens, are pleased with the stadium’s recent valuation.
    Video

  10. JimmyJones

    The full press release is here >> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1111/S00602/proposed-transfer-of-stadium-to-dunedin-venues-limited.htm

    The Financial Blackhole Stadium will be sold to DVL for the valuation price of $225 million. To justify this valuation the business would have to make a net profit of maybe $22 million/year. A more realistic profit forecast is a loss of $15 – 20 million/year.

    We are told that the net debt is estimated to be $140m-$150m, but the actual debt has already gone over $150m and there is no indication that this is the total/full amount. As well as that, the construction cost to the City will be more than $150m because the net debt has been reduced by payments from rates.

    Remember we were told the total DCC cost was going to be $91.4m; $150m represents a cost blow-out of $58.6m. I suspect that this will be the biggest cost blow-out ever suffered by the renters and ratepayers of Dunedin. Who thinks that this-morning’s ODT will mention the enormous FB Stadium cost blow-out? And who thinks that Dave Cull is going to tell us? This must be what it is like living in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe.

  11. Anonymous

    In the game of “watch the lady”, please keep track of the fact that while DCC net debt has dropped, the net debt of DVL has increased. DVL is owned by DCC so while the net debt may have moved, it hasn’t gone away. The decisions now for DCC are geared around how to support DVL so that it does not fail.

    Revenue to DVL is provided by DVML which is made up of venue hire, concession fees, some merchandising etc around the venues that DVML controls (FBS, Edgar Centre, eventually Town Hall, maybe Regent). Since DVML is not public, it has no duty to disclose revenues, fee structure, sales targets or remuneration structure publicly.

    After Elton John, the events publicly announced are: Phoenix vs Roar in December and 7 Super Rugby games in 2012; very roughly one major event per 6 weeks. There’s been approximately 90 events since opening, the majority of which are at the $1000/night venue hire for meetings, parties and other functions. Extrapolate this up and you end up with 15 major events per year and 360 minor events: 15 * $100K + 360 * $1000 = $1.86M/year from venue hire from FBS.

    The interest cost on $150 million at 5% is $7.5 million/year. That’s a lot of shortfall to make up from Edgar Centre and Town Hall revenues and/or cost savings via shared services and contracting out models.

  12. Phil

    Keeping in mind that no-one has actually paid the $100,000, nor intends to in the foreseeable future. The sale price for concerts has already been set below that figure (thanks to Capital C Concerts), and the agreed venue hire price for the Super Rugby matches is around $20,000 per match. Then there is the quesion of how many of those $1,000 smaller events would have been picked up by either the Town Hall or the Edgar Centre, meaning a corresponding shortfall for those venues.

    • Elizabeth

      Athol may have had a lobotomy.

      While the valuation is not the much-debated true cost – which is still some time away from being confirmed – it may be close, council finance and corporate support general manager Athol Stephens said yesterday.

      ### ODT Online Thu, 24 Nov 2011
      Stadium worth $225 million
      By David Loughrey
      Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium has been officially confirmed as being worth $225 million, as the Dunedin City Council prepares to hand the facility over to one of its companies…That valuation is more than the $188 million initial figure the city was told about, and the $198 million it rose to more recently. The stadium, and its net debt, will be transferred to Dunedin Venues Ltd (DVL) on December 13, if a finance, strategy and development committee on Monday agrees to a recommendation in a report released yesterday.
      Read more

      Cr Brown told media at a press conference he wanted people to be “fully aware” of the process the council was going through.

      Who owns what? (via ODT)

      DCC: Fully owns Dunedin Venues Management Ltd and Dunedin Venues Ltd.
      Dunedin Venues Ltd: Owns Forsyth Barr Stadium, and carries its debt. Leases the stadium to Dunedin Venues Management Ltd.
      Dunedin Venues Management Ltd: Manages the stadium, as well as Dunedin Centre, Dunedin Town Hall, and Edgar Centre.

  13. Peter

    I observed Sydney Brown at this press conference on last night’s Channel 9, trying to work out if he is just a man who is unsure of himself in front of the camera or was he in the position of being someone like a real estate agent, trying to sell a dud house to a naive buyer? He didn’t seem at all convinced by the $225m valuation as he knows full well we are up shit creek with this financial millstone around the ratepayers’ necks.
    Maybe I was reading something into his appearance on TV, but…….

  14. JimmyJones

    Anonymous, don’t look to the Edgar Centre and the Town Hall to help with paying for the DCC Stadium losses. All three are financial basket cases. They all have revenues, but not enough to pay their expenses (including interest and depreciation).
    Your estimate of stadium revenue of $1.86m per year should be a concern to ratepayers because DVML has expenses of $4m/year to maintain and operate the stadium as well as $4m/year as rental to DVL (DVL also needs a huge ratepayer subsidy to survive). The official SOI forecast, very optimistically, predicts DVML’s revenue will be $9m/year.
    Your estimate includes 360 minor events. It seems reasonable to assume that many of these will be cannibalised from the DCC’s other venues, which will consequently make larger losses.

  15. Calvin Oaten

    “Stadium worth $225m. Ownership and debt transferred to DVL.”

    The announcement above poses more questions than it answers.

    Firstly, a valuation of $225m ought not be confused with costs. The valuer happens to be the same who valued Carisbrook at $7m and we are still awaiting the market to pronounce on that.

    Then the acknowledgement that the debt being assumed by DVL (yet to be confirmed) is estimated at between $140m and $150m. We also know that the principal will be paid by DCHL at the rate of $5m per annum. The DCC foregoes this amount in its dividend to be received from DCHL. DVL’s only income appears to be $4m pa rental from DVML. From this it pays the interest on the debt, which at 7% would require $9.8m or $11.2m pa, leaving a $5.8m or $7.2m shortfall.

    Worse, if we look at DVML’s statement of intent financial projections, we see that operating expenses absorb all revenue but for about $90,000 pa. This is supplemented by annual payments (obtained under the LGOIA) of some $3,041,200 from Private Funding pledges.

    Incidentally, we were promised faithfully that the PF was part of the construction capital, but this is obviously untrue. Notwithstanding this, there appears to be a shortfall of around $900,000 pa in the $4m requirement.

    $4m would cover the interest on $140m only if the rate was 2.85%. Nowhere outside the USA or Japan has those interest rates.

    So in all of this we can only deduce that the annual shortfall is likely to be in the order of $10m to $12m pa in the financing of interest only of this stadium. It makes no allowance for depreciation (required by statute) nor maintenance.

    This all adds up to another attempt to deceive the sitting councillors (not a difficult task) and the public as to the real dire situation that exists in the Council’s finances.

    • Elizabeth

      DCC Finance, Strategy and Development Committee meeting
      Monday, 28 November 2011 at 1.00pm
      Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers

      Agenda – FSD – 28/11/2011 (PDF, 51.5 KB)

      Report – FSD – 28/11/2011
      (PDF, 279.2 KB)
      Christchurch Rebuild Business Opportunities

      Report – FSD – 28/11/2011 (PDF, 613.8 KB)
      Financial Result – 4 months to 31 October 2011

      Report – FSD – 28/11/2011 (PDF, 69.4 KB)
      Insurance Update

      Report – FSD – 28/11/2011 (PDF, 6.7 MB)
      Approval of Agreements on the Transfer of the Forsyth Barr Stadium from Dunedin City Council to Dunedin Venues Ltd

    • Elizabeth

      Register to read D Scene online at
      http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

      ### D Scene 30-11-11 (page 8)
      Opinion – Dunedin on Dunedin
      Figures disputed
      By Calvin Oaten, Pine Hill
      “Stadium worth $225m.” This is the introduction to arguably the most egregious act yet perpetuated in this never-ending saga of financial tricks.
      Deal: on December 13, the stadium and its net debt will be transferred to Dunedin Venues Ltd (DVL). It will take onto its books an asset of $225m (not the true cost, but a formulated opinion by John Dunckley, registered valuer) and against that asset borrow $140 to $150m. This will be paid to the DCC and its debt reduced accordingly. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) – which manages the operations of the stadium, the Town Hall/Conference Centre and the Edgar Centre – will pay to DVL $4m rental per annum from which DVL will service its debt.
      Calvin Oaten goes on to describe the “Problem” this deal entails.
      {continues} #bookmark

  16. Mike

    I’m not sure exactly where to post this but kudos to the DCC who are now posting the amount the stadium will be reducing our rates rebate on their rating page – I haven’t done the math to see if the numbers are correct yet.

    But as an example you can see how much the rates the stadium pays has increased because of the cost of the stadium:
    http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/rates-information/rates?ratingID=421318

  17. Calvin Oaten

    Mike, it is interesting to see that the land value is given as $8.5million. Not bad when one considers that the upset price to obtain that land was somewhere around $36million. Who are they kidding? The poor ‘plebs’ will somehow or other pay. They always do. Merry Xmas and a Ho Ho Ho!

  18. Mike

    Yeah – I wondered about that, it would seem that the market values the land at a much higher value, maybe the next valuation will catch up with that. I wonder what the valuation was for the transfer to DVML.

    Speaking of which it would seem that the DCC is picking up the tab for the stadium’s rates – a GST rort if ever there was one – or maybe the webpage just hasn’t caught up with reality.

  19. Calvin Oaten

    Of course the DCC is picking up the tab for the rates. How the hell could DVL meet them? It has no revenue other than the $4m rental from DVML (assuming it eventuates), and that won’t go half way to meeting the debt interest, let alone anything else. Keeping the value so low compared with the sale price is only to keep the end figures in some sort of proportion. As Scott – or was it Burns? – said: “Oh what tangled webs we weave when once we practice to deceive.”

  20. Rob Hamlin

    The $8.5 million is an interesting one. As the land value is drawn from the 2010 GV, and as the land that is directly used for the Stadium/University Plaza is clearly identified as a consolidated block at ‘130 Anzac Avenue’, this would suggest that this may be an official acknowledgement that Farry et al’s ‘robust negotiations’ delivered a price that Quotable Value at least considered to be way out of line with market realities in the immediate vicinity – this only a year out from the multiple transactions concerned.

    This raises two interesting issues. Firstly, given this GV, how were the prices that were later paid to certain land owners along the route of fhe SH88 south of the Leith justified? (had compulsory purchase powers been used, the law requires realisitc market values – not ‘robust negotiation’ values to be paid).

    Secondly, the whimiscal valuation of $225 million recently assigned to the Stadium by the DCC for internal accounting purposes now seems to constitute an acknowledgement that the total Stadium construction costs undertaken on this site, excluding land purchase, were in the region of $220 ($225-5) million – some $70 million (circa 50%) in excess of the trumpeted GMP. This has to be so, because this valuation has to be based on the current documented land value, plus the historical cost of the structure, rather than its current commercial value – which is zero at best.

    The land value of $5 million is used, as by the time this DCC ‘valuation’ was prepared the land had been further subdivided and the University presumably owned a fair chunk of it – reducing the value of what’s left to some $5 million, minus the additional depreciation that has happened since – perhaps to $4.5 million for the remaining plot that still belongs to the ratepayers. That’s a pretty cheesy outcome, even if there wasn’t a worthless structure sitting on top of it.

  21. Calvin Oaten

    “A pretty cheesy outcome”, as in, appealing to Rats.

  22. Calvin Oaten

    What Rob describes as a ‘whimsical valuation of $225 million’ equates nicely with Malcolm Farry saying in his interview in the 12-page stadium supplement, “What people need to be reminded of, however, is that they have been given (I like that) an amenity that has been valued in excess of $220 million, and the [city council] ratepayer funding is under $100 million. That’s not a bad deal.”

    He is so far out of touch with the realities of the matter as to be verging on the insane, if not criminally so. Worse, he then goes on to justify the ‘$50 million from the private sector’, saying that is another figure that has attracted criticism. The argument on that issue is that money from selling sponsorship and seating packages can not be described as private sector funding.

    “If they listened to us at the start we indicated that the funding from the private sector would come from donations, from purchases of naming rights, and from purchases of seats and memberships,” Mr Farry said. “Some in the community have said that’s not private sector fundraising, that was the sale of product. Well how else were we going to get money? I don’t know what magic trick they thought we had to get this money. I don’t care what you call it, it’s cash, and we needed that cash to build the stadium. You can give it any name you like.”

    How about money by false representation? Has a certain ring to it. Or, how about “Claytons construction money”? Seeing as how, at the moment the money is not even there, and that it is now clear that it is to be diverted to servicing debt, that seems an entirely appropriate description. Of course, Mr Farry would not wish to discuss this further, and the journalist was remiss in not following that line.

    This whole debacle will not go away, but continue to fester in the city forever, lest some natural event removes the hideous edifice from the face of the earth. Well done Malcolm Farry.

    {The stadium supplement, ‘Inside the Stadium’, was published in the ODT on 12 December 2011. The article referred to features on pages 6-7. -Eds}

  23. Anonymous

    In terms of private sector funding, in my naivete, I expected that funds would be invested in return for part-ownership or revenue-sharing. Perhaps as a bond issue, or shares in a stadium venture or something.

    Translating: “Well, how else were we going to get money, once people found out what the projected return on investment was?”

  24. Hype O'Thermia

    How else would they get private funding, Anonymous? Hmmmm, good Q.
    Well, ordinary people thought wealthy people who believed in the importance of the stadium and rugby would donate. Especially the ord-peeps who believed the sales pitch. And non-ordinary people – steakholders, tartans – thought “Is there any way we can look good without parting with actual money, so as to keep the myth alive till the ord-peeps have been committed to paying for it all themselves?”

  25. Mike

    Calvin, the thing is I have no problem having the stadium pay for itself – there’s no reason to call “paying off the mortgage” from income, “private fundraising”, other than it was a way to obfuscate what was really going on (we had to borrow that $50m dollars and pay interest on it ourselves over the next 5-10 years as the seating income comes in).

    Of course any of us who’ve taken out a mortgage check first to make sure we have enough income to actually pay for it and to continue to pay for food and the necessities of life. A corporation has to make sure its cash flow adds up and meets appropriate goals – hiding all the debt behind a couple of corporate facades (and then paying the interest with the company credit card) it’s so obvious there’s things to hide here – in the private sector this would be a way of red tagging a project.

    In the stadium’s case Farry’s plan leaves the vast bulk of the fundraising on the public purse despite his public plans claiming it would all be raised privately.

    How does one lobby against someone getting a gong?

  26. Calvin Oaten

    Another problem concerns the ORFU and the Highlanders. I can’t believe that they aren’t aware of it so presume we can look forward to some other subterfuges to conceal the truth from the ‘plebs.’ And this is the question: how do the ORFU and the Highlanders get sufficient revenue to fund their operations? If we look at the standard form of contract on which the so-called private funding is based we see the agreement is as follows: “Lounge Membership”, “Deluxe Club Lounge” and “Designated Seats” qualify the holder/s to attend all ‘scheduled events’. These include all Super Rugby home matches involving the Highlanders. All National Provincial rugby home matches involving the Otago team. All International rugby test matches (not being RWC games) held at the stadium.

    Now, if the NZRU, in their accustomed manner take the test gates, will they not also want the prepaid equivalents? If not, how long do we believe that there will be any tests in the stadium? In the case of the Highlanders and the ORFU, the balance only of attendees will be available. Not enough in my view to keep them afloat. Watch for a massive subsidy from the ratepayers. The prepaid can’t be diverted, as DVML has been confirmed as the recipient in order to fund the $4 million rental obligation to DVL. DVL relies on this to service its debt. Over ten years at $4m per year would require $40m. But, if we look at DVML’s projected income to 2021 from private contracts it only shows a total of some $33m. Further, the contracts in place are only for five years, with rights of renewal at reviewed costs. What if there is a large number of drop outs, on the grounds of insufficient value for money? An interesting point in five years’ time.

    Then of course there is the $45 or $50 million construction capital (which was to be Private Funding) being still held as debt by the DCC. This, in real terms, means that the debt is $155 – $160 million, so Malcolm’s “under $100m” is “crap.”

    Even at just $110 million (as Athol Stephens seems to think we believe), at 7% interest this would require $7.7 million per annum. so a $3.7 million deficit immediately presents. It really is an unholy mess which I don’t believe elected council, Malcolm Farry nor anyone else (except Lee Vandervis and, hopefully, Paul Orders) understands, or are prepared to acknowledge. Dave Cull has certainly sleepwalked on this one, big time. Everything being equal, it should result in him being a one-term Mayor.

  27. Mike

    A great point – I too have been wondering how they pay the ORFU/NZRFU for the loss of revenue represented by those seats

  28. Elizabeth

    ### ODT Online Fri, 9 Mar 2012
    DVML six-month report held for ‘advice’
    By David Loughrey
    A document that may give the Dunedin public some idea of whether Forsyth Barr Stadium will pay for itself, or end up an annual drain on city finances, is being held for “formal advice”. The six-month report from Dunedin Venues Management Ltd, the Dunedin City Council-owned company set up to run the stadium and other venues, did not turn up with the reports from other council companies yesterday. The report will list the company’s revenue, expenditure, and profit or loss, and council finance and corporate support general manager Athol Stephens said yesterday he expected the public would discover when the document was finally released the first six months had been “a challenge”. The council yesterday released the six-month reports for Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL), and its subsidiary companies.
    Read more

    ****

    DCC Media Release 08 Mar 2012.
    Dunedin City Holdings Limited – Half Year Result to 31 December 2011

    http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/latest-news/march-2012/dunedin-city-holdings-limited-half-year-result-to-31-december-2011

    ****

    ### ODT Online Fri, 9 Mar 2012
    DCHL reports $5 million profit
    By David Loughrey
    The Dunedin City Council’s holding company yesterday reported a “steady” $5 million after-tax profit from the first six months of the financial year, as work on finding new directors begins. Dunedin City Holdings Ltd’s (DCHL) first six months under new directors Denham Shale and Bill Baylis had been “difficult, in view of the general economy”, but revenue had increased by 8% to $122.4 million, and cash flows from the group to the holding company up 10% to $17.9 million.
    Read more

  29. Calvin Oaten

    DCHL’s profit of $8 million before tax. But revenue was up by 8% at $122.4 million. This is a gross return of just 6.5% and net at 4% so it is easy to see how the shareholder DCC rapes and pillages this group.

    Notice also the increase in term borrowings, $602 million, up from $404 million a year ago. Pertinent to note that at 30 June (six months ago) the term borrowings stood at $534.220 million. The $198 million increase year on year is very probably sitting waiting for DVL to draw down its requirements for the taking ownership of the stadium.

    I guess there is a reason why Athol postponed the transfer to DVL in order to sort out just how much will be required. It is obvious the suggested $110 million as mooted is to be padded up by the seriously at risk Private Funding (currently being underwritten by DCC, plus DVML’s losses).

    Now that the ORFU is in danger of tanking, all the more reason why Cull and Orders have their arms up their backs. If they capitulate and forgive the $400,000 debt as rumoured, it will be interesting to see how they pitch that to the citizens.

    Dave Cull is looking more and more like the “Tar Baby” in the brambles by the day. No wonder Athol is stalling as long as he can the publishing of DVML’s report, and now we see the Draft Annual Plan [LTP] is reputably held up by the auditing process. I bet it will finally be a document to behold. Like a good “Swiss Cheese” it will be full of holes and bacteria.

  30. Calvin Oaten

    Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention the University’s $10 million, now apparently missing, so that will just about cut out the $198 million sitting in DCHL’s books. Lovely eh?

  31. Anonymous

    I’d lay odds that the $8 million outstanding from the University (they paid an advance of $2 million) will have been eaten up by RWC-related and contractor f— ups and will have to be eaten by someone. Doesn’t take much guessing that will be the ratepayers via DCC.

    With regard to the Frederick/Anzac High Court action, it also doesn’t take much of a genius to work out that all the requests for adjournments are on the DCC side as they frantically try to limit the damage. April will be an interesting month – DVML 6-month report, ORFU refloating, High Court.

    The debt settlement won’t need to go before Council as it will fall under CEO’s operational remit.

  32. JimmyJones

    Calvin, that’s interesting about the DAP, because the council meeting to approve the draft Long Term Plan was meant to happen today, but was postponed to next week. The agenda and Draft LTP was available yesterday, but gone without a trace from the website today.

    The Draft LTP said that DVL will buy the stadium by [probably on] 30/6/12 and it is completely void of any financial figures/forecasts for the operating losses/funding of DVL and DVML. Asset sales this year will be $234.6 million; this represents all or nearly all of the stadium sale price. Whatever the well managed PWC investigation comes up with (my guess is it will be about $225 – $235m), there will be a lot more to come; another nasty surprise to bring it to the actual construction price.

  33. JimmyJones

    Anonymous, $8 million is a lot to go missing. Are you sure that it has? The payments should be visible in the UoO financial statements. There were meant to be 9 scheduled payments (FY 2008 to 2011).

  34. Anonymous

    I know for a fact that only one invoice for $2 million has been paid from Otago Uni to DCC with respect to the Plaza.
    The original Otago Uni contribution was supposed to be $10 million, in land and shared costs.
    The $8 million is the difference which has not yet been paid. It is not missing, it has just not transferred from one coffer to another. My guess is that one party has incurred significant overruns due to the need to get ready for RWC 2011 and the other party is unwilling to meet those costs. Given the amount of work that had to be done in a hurry, the total clusterf*ck regarding the staging of the concrete panels etc, the $8 million sounds about right for an overrun on a $40 million project.

    • Elizabeth

      Rearranging deck chairs would be cheaper. But at this rate Minister Nick Smith won’t be able to ignore Dunedin’s plight.

  35. Calvin Oaten

    Anonymous – The Otago University $10 million never existed as part of the stadium build budget. It was an assumption on Malcolm’s part, probably as a result of a conversation with Dr Skegg. The University agreed to share some costs for joint wall and landscaping of Plaza. The University purchased the land for their Unipol building, nothing to do with stadium. Plaza land is in ‘joint tenants in common’ with DCC hence the negotiations over shared costs of landscaping. So the only portion directly related to the stadium is the shared wall, probably much less than $1 million. At the end of the day, the University would not be able to invest in the stadium as it is not University property or business. So the $188 million stadium budget kicked off on a lie right from the get go. Red faces all round I suspect as I am sure the citizens and councillors all were under the assumption that what was printed in the three successive LTCCPs, including $10 million from the University was gospel.

  36. Phil

    What a difference 12 hours makes. I decided to sit down and read the post from Calvin with regard to the City Property asset portfolio but its now been shunted so far down the posting list that I don’t even remember what thread it was posted under. Would sure love to, though.

  37. Hype O'Thermia

    How to have a good clean-out:
    Tuck into the brandied prunes.
    After a seemly adjournment all move 1 place to the right and resume same-as like nothing has happened.
    There will be opportunities for other people to join the game.
    But not while we and our ever helpful buddies have breath in our bodies.
    Message received read and understood?
    Thank you. That will be all.

  38. Hype O'Thermia

    From http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/200790/keeping-it-all-above-board

    ” With a variety of New Zealand’s directors busy standing in the dock of various courtrooms around the country at present, the Otago Daily Times was curious to find out how directors are appointed and about the qualities they should have – starting with the interim chairman, Shale.
    Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull believes Shale’s name was one suggested by the author of the Larsen report, Warren Larsen, as one of “a handful” of potential candidates.
    Mr Cull says Shale’s name “came to the top” because he is president of the Institute of Directors, while Bayliss was local and considered “extremely experienced and highly thought of”.
    And it helped that one (Shale) was a lawyer and the other an accountant.”

    I wonder if Mayor Cull remembers the councillor Michael Guest who was a lawyer.
    Out of curiosity I put the search term “NZ lawyers accountants convicted dishonesty”. and restricted the search to the last 12 months. Try it, you will/won’t be shocked, depending on whether or not you share Cull’s opinion that being a lawyer or an accountant is NECESSARILY desirable. I do not mean to suggest that these two men, or indeed many lawyers and accountants, are bent. But one must not assume that any employment category is without its low-lifes – or its selfless heroes either. Prejudice is not only about gender, religion and race.

  39. Hype O'Thermia

    Well, would you ever! What a swell party this is.

  40. Anonymous

    Yes, they are all hooking themselves up to the ratepayer cash cow. Stakeholders have got to cover their past misdeeds and future interests more than ever now. Even if the filthy bastards get caught, it’s just a bit of community service and a wee fine for the Old Boys.

  41. Hype O'Thermia

    Has anyone investigated what Christchurch needs and can Milburn supply it (even if it means adapting)? Or is it “we don’t produce Specifically-This so there’s nothing we can do now except close”?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s