Dunedin Venues Limited – 2012 Annual Report now 2 months overdue

UPDATED POST 26.10.12 at 1:46 am

JimmyJones at ODT Online today mentioned this timing anomaly. DVL is late with its 2012 annual report. We all know how steep the numbers will be and just approximately, how decimating!

We don’t hold out any hopes for DVL.

● DVL 6-monthly result, $5.2 million loss.

● DVML (with the same board as DVL) annual result, $1.9 million loss.

● DCHL annual result, $5m loss for the group.

Dunedin City Council, the companies’ owner, persists in keeping public eyes away from the true state of the books, and the activities and wrongdoings that have led to gross mismanagement of council finances.

Fudging, obfuscation, corruption, fraudulence, lack of transparency and accountability – this is your council. Breaching its own prudential limits…

It keeps coming… (sample)
26.7.12 Cull’s council thinks $750,000pa to DVML represents good value?
30.8.12 DCC seen by Fairfax Business Bureau deputy editor Tim Hunter
11.9.12 Delta Utility Services Ltd

Denham Shale, Bill Baylis and Co have been hired to make it all go away.

Then, ah-ha! There’s our man Slippery aka Warren Larsen, who authored the report to salve DCC’s conscience and not much else.

Governance = ineptitude, manipulation and lots and lots of crime…

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

8 responses to “Dunedin Venues Limited – 2012 Annual Report now 2 months overdue

  1. Elizabeth

    Telling it… at ODT Online.

    How to get re-elected
    Submitted by MikeStk on Thu, 25/10/2012 – 12:53pm.

    Digger: Dave Cull seems like a smart guy, I’m sure he’s seen the Residents Survey the DCC just released and he sees the writing on the wall – that only 30% of the city’s residents have ever been to the stadium, the other 70% are quietly avoiding it, and that residents care far more about city debt/spending/rates rises over spending money on the stadium by 189:50, almost 4:1 – only 20% of us want to spend more money on the stadium.

    It also means that 1/3 of Dunedin residents who have ever been to the stadium think that no more money should be spent on it, the rest presumably are rugby fans. If he wants to get reelected he already knows he can’t bluff his way through the next election, those numbers are just too big to get by.

    If the mayor wants to get re-elected he needs to take a stand, stop throwing good money after bad at the stadium, stop pandering to a small minority who continually have their hand out wanting more, and start a real DCC financial recovery plan.

  2. Hype O'Thermia

    It’s that low attendance that suggested to me the reason for holding more-debt generating functions in the Fubar, as I wrote to our local paper:
    ‘Making it work’
    Dave Cull before the election said he was only in favour of the minimum additional spending on the stadium necessary to “make it work”. Since then spending has gone on, overt parting with dollars, as well as the hidden type which is having various activities in the building that do not pay what it costs to use it, let alone make a profit. So the debt mounts up.
    The only reason I can see for continuing this latter practice is to find ways for the greatest number and variety of people to attend something – anything – in the stadium. This, I suggest, is so that it can be presented as a community asset like the library and footpaths, therefore the mounting rates burden and probable sale of assets may be “sold” to ratepayers without causing too much anger. I cannot think of any other reason for those who administer such a major money-sucker to go out of their way to subsidise (with money they do not have) use of the facility. It is less extravagant to keep the doors closed and if keeping costs to ratepayers down were a priority that is what they would do.

    • Elizabeth

      As various commentators have expressed, DVL is the vehicle created by the city council to offload stadium debt onto, taking the physical and accounting ‘item’ off the DCC books, in the lame attempt amongst other things to shield the unsuspecting public/ratepayers from the magnitude of the monster your councillors have made. Can’t wait to hear DVL chairman Hansen interpreting the report when it comes alive.

  3. Mike

    Heh – those numbers are great, I’ve been pushing them because they tell a story, people are staying away in droves, but the people who are going have all been an average of 10 times – the stadium is being used a lot, but only by a small minority of us – it’s losing lots of money which means the rest of us are subsidising the rugby tickets, we won’t see the bills until DVML’s bank account runs dry and they’re forced to come asking cap in hand for more because they can’t afford to keep the stadium doors open.

    It’s time to say “no” and make the people who benefit from the stadium’s existence pay for their entertainment

  4. Anonymous

    How leveraged is DVL currently?
    How much more leveraged can it become?
    It owns a $235 million asset, which it can borrow against.
    Conversely, how much tax loss can DVL offset?

  5. Rob Hamlin

    No it can’t borrow against it because any bank would only lend against a collateral asset that would realise the value of the debt (plus a safety margin) without too much bother. The Stadium is worthless on the open market – as many have pointed out. The banks would never lend a cent against it on its own. That’s why DCHL has its own internal ‘bank’ (aka DCTL) to spread its assets around among the deadbeats.

    The fact that DCHL have swallowed the DVML/DVL sugar coated Foobar poison pill is one reason why there is so much ‘encouragement’ to corporatise the water assets of this City because this is the collateral antidote that DCHL so desperately needs before the overstretched elastic of their ‘la- la’ valuations of their other assets finally snaps, and the creditors demand more equity.

    The right to screw the citizenry forever, which control of the water asset effectively represents, would be a highly effective poison pill antidote. Unlike the stadium, Big-Biz would pay big money for it without hesitation if push came to shove and DCHL debts were called. So effective a rugger-related poison pill antidote would it be in fact that DCHL could well be persuaded to promptly swallow another one. This one would be the ‘necessary’ $40 or $50 million upgrade (via DVML/DVL) of the pretty much worthless (< $2 million) Carisbrook ‘asset’ to host our darling Highlanders if/when they are ‘kicked for touch’ by DVML next year.

    You see how it works.

  6. gandalf

    Yes indeed. And Cull and the stadium cabal are hoping that we don’t realise that selling our water asset is their get out of jail free card for the stadium debt. They want to keep that nice and quiet so that Syd, Noone and the other secret seven can get re-elected next year and then tell us all that sadly, due to the massive debt the city is carrying (that just occurred somehow by unknown forces), our water must be sold.

  7. JimmyJones

    The deadline for DVL’s Annual Report is set by the Statement Of Intent which says that the report must be provided within 8 weeks of the end of the financial year (30/6/2012 + 8 weeks = 25/8/2012).
    The Local Government Act also sets a deadline – 3 months from the end of the financial year – to deliver the report to the shareholder and make it available to the public. That 3 month deadline expired on 29/9/2012 (nearly 4 weeks ago). On other occasions when they have decided to exceed LGA deadlines, council staff have claimed that Audit New Zealand had given them permission. While Audit NZ might have done that, they certainly have no power to grant an exemption to the LGA. They seem to be aiding and abetting lawbreaking.

    DVL is currently at the centre of a big media blind-spot, presumably at the request of the DCC. Both the ODT and DScene failed to report the 6 monthly result ($5.2 million Loss, not including a surreptitious interest rate subsidy) and probably they will not report the much larger full year loss, when the report eventually comes.

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 )

Connecting to %s