Link received from Martin Legge
Monday, 27 January 2014 11:44 a.m.
—
### interest.co.nz January 27, 2014 at 10:30am
Opinion
Monday’s Top 10: New view on mobility; Dunedin’s problem; multinationals and climate change; end of low rents; gold’s odd demand/price setting; Dilbert, and more
Posted by David Chaston
Here’s my edition of Top 10 links from around the Internet at 11:00 am today. We now have a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule for Top 10.
![interest.co.nz 27.1.14 [screenshot]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/interest-co-nz-27-1-14-screenshot.jpg)
[screenshot – click to enlarge]
The Press 28.6.13 Uncovered stadium possible, Parker says
—
Related Posts and Comments:
25.1.14 Stadium: Some helped it along, or themselves!
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
Comment to the minority of prostadia at ODT Online:
Ah, some rugby supporters?
Submitted by russandbev on Mon, 27/01/2014 – 12:13pm.
Opinion999 and Its Me are also bereft of any workable solutions to the realities. Wouldn’t it be good for both of them to take off their rose-tinted glasses, throw them away, and start looking at the real world.
The rugby stadium has had the “benefit” of Malcolm Farry and his private trust examine how to make it into a profit making business which was promised in all of those big ads in the ODT. It has had the benefit of close on a million dolllars worth of consultants to come up with unworkable ideas, and still not one workable solution to the hard fact that there is little or no income and burgeoning costs.
Easy to throw rocks at those that have been pointing out the bleeding obvious for years and yes, it must be hard for all of you to suddenly realise you were wrong all along. But as avid supporters of this white elephant, tell us all your plans to turn multimillion annual losses into profits.
Here’s a plan that’s already proven to net millions.
Take a discreet financial interest in 3 top performing pokie bars, preferably in the poorest areas of Auckland. Throw DIA off the scent (not hard) by having others front your bars while you sign up with a pokie trust most of whom are happy to break the law and grant the charitable funds back to your interests at the expense of genuine community groups.
It’s highly illegal and it’s rife but the DIA won’t mind so why should you!
Really, rugby is the elephant in the room, sitting there quietly hoping no one will notice.
I don’t think there will any long term viable solution for the stadium that doesn’t involve rugby people collectively paying enough for their tickets to cover all the operating losses from running their stadium.
That either means more of them showing up, or them paying more for their individual tickets. If they want to increase attendance I suggest they (the NZRFU) renegotiate with Sky to do as the NFL does in the US and black out local games that are not sold out, and move games back to the afternoons so that kids can attend, I understand that a new magical technology called “tape delay” is available.
Really, the DCC can’t do much here: they have only two real options force rugby to get its act together, wake up that gray quivering flesh hiding in the corner of the room and make it act like a grown up; or shut the place down.
In the real world, however, I don’t really think that local rugby has the nous, or the balls, to do the right thing. The DCC does hold all the cards, they have all the rugby venues in Dunedin, if they want to hold the ORFU’s feet to the grindstone they can – it’s actually pretty easy to play chicken with the ORFU if you will end up losing less money if you mothball.
I like both Mike’s and Martin’s suggestions. Martin’s suggestion of purchasing three or four bars with pokies licenses in Auckland (the further away the better as it is an economic gain for our region) load the proceeds on trucks and bring it straight back to Dunedin. Not a problem, even as they pass the DIA’s windows. Face it with Peter Dunne holding the DIA portfolio who’s to care. He couldn’t possibly quibble lest his own Ohariu Electorate’s dodgy deals come up.
Mike’s suggestion that the operating costs plus a profit be assessed, and an annual rental be imposed on the ORFU on a take it or leave it basis. That puts the onus on it and the NZRFU to rustle up both the support and the ideas to cover their outgoings. Raffles, sausage sizzles membership subscriptions and even a national players’ levy. Anything to keep rugby going south of the Waitaki. If they can’t or won’t then so be it. At least it will have proved the point and the decision to keep or demolish will be the DCC’s.
The current bizarre problem is that the venue operator does not have control over the price of tickets for rugby matches. The price is set by the NZRFU who also dicate the venue hire fee. Who in their right mind would agree to such a one-sided deal ? Every rubgy stadium operator in the country, is who. So long as one operator is prepared to take the inevitable loss, the others follow suit or they don’t get awarded any rugby matches. What needs to happen is for all of the venue operators throughout New Zealand to stand their collective ground and take back the financial control which is rightly theirs. The NZRFU today carries zero risk when it comes to match day revenue, with the venue operator assuming 100% risk. The NZRFU doesn’t need every stadium in NZ. It doesn’t need Dunedin. But it needs SOME stadia, if every match is not going to be played offshore. The stadia operators have the power, they are just currently too scared and too fragmented to use it.
Phil – I agree – we need a contract that pays the NZRFU/ORFU after our costs have been taken out, just as one would if one were renting any other building to put on an event.
BTW the originally secret ORFU/NZRFU contract was in the large dump we got from the DCC earlier last year.
Forsyth Barr Venue Hire Agreement between ORFU and DCC (PDF, 3018 KB)
8 Feb 2012: Signed in August 2009, this is the venue hire agreement between the DCC and the ORFU for the Forsyth Barr Stadium.
****
Minimum facility standards (PDF, 15KB)
7 Feb 2007: big screen and second temporary screen • Clean below 1.2 m • Onsite lounge available for NZRU VIP hosting (150 capacity) • Hospitality able to be managed by NZRU • 2,000 prime seats … available for NZRU use • Ability to comply with NZRU
****
PwC Stadium Review Documents
This page contains the report from PwC reviewing the Forsyth Barr stadium costs and includes all attachments to the report.
{Document added, thanks. -Eds}
*2009_04_27-Venues-Hire-and-Licence-Agreement-Subcommittee-Agendas
—
The version of the hire agreement I have* that the DCC released has some extra sections (an added ‘Due Diligence” clause added as section 2 shuffling the other section numbers).
There are no blacked out sections in my copy in particular the blacked out portions in your document read:
12.2 (your 11.2): The licensor shall have the right to impose a Development Levy on all tickets and 100% of such levy shall be the property of the Licensor provided that such Development Levy shall not exceed 7.5% of the ticket price plus GST. The Licensor shall notify the Licensee in writing, at least thirty days in advance of the relevant year, whether it shall impose a Development Levy for the Year and at which percentage rate.
13.1 (your 12.1): In addition to direct cost recoveries and all othe revenue payable by the Licensor to the Licensee hereunder, the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor in each year a venue hire charge (“the Venue Hire Charge”) which shall be the greater of:
a. The amount of three hundred thousand dollars plus GST and 7.5% of gross ticket revenue for any NZRFU fixture (the “Minimum Venure Hire Charge”); or
b. 15% of Gross Ticket Revenue for each Rugby Event, provided that in respect to any NZRFU fixture the charge shall by 7.5% of Gross Ticket revenue
22.4 (your 21.4): The licensor shall not give up or allow its rights to the conduct or control of rugby in Otago or the Super 14 franchise for the region in favour of another entity without first requiring that new entity to enter into an agreement with the Licensor upon the same terms and conditions as are contained herein and in any such event the proposal shall be subject to the same requirements for consent as are herein contained in respect to an assignment
22.5.1 (your 21.5.1): The Licensor shall not transfer its rights or obligations under this Agreement nor grant any sublicensee or concession without the prior written consent of the Licensor
25.2 (your 24.2): The default percentage is the greatest interest rate payable by the Licensor for the period of default to its bankers on any overdraft together with an additional 5% per annum
There you go, that last section was probably blacked out because it tells us how much extra the ORFU owes the city for its bankruptcy, since the money’s not been paid back it likely still applies. The previous two sections show us that splitting off the Highlanders without a DVML contract broke the original contract, and the first two sections show us that we only get 7.5% of the gross for NZRFU games.
And one might also ask why the NZRFU has refused to release its own investigation report into the the demise of the ORFU, a report that contains clear links of ORFU’s involvement in 3 South Auckland pokie bars, its relationship with a Pokie Trust (TTCF) and Harness Racing (Mike O’Brien), now subject of the joint DIA/SFO investigation.
NZRU voluntarily provided a copy of their report to the DIA but it was not for the purposes of righting any wrongs or recovering community funds, it was provided so the NZRFU could safely pump more money into ORFU with the assurance from a Govt regulator that there would be no legal action or recovery of community funds by DIA. They need not have worried!!!
Attempts have been made by media to get a copy of the NZRU report but DIA are withholding it on grounds that it would jeopardise the future flow of information from NZRU.
We now have a situation where a Govt regulator is protecting the commercial interests of a business (professional rugby) over and above DIA’s core function, ensuring the fairness and transparency of gambling within NZ. So far the Ombudsman agrees with DIA.
Search engine term today:
having the mongrel mob onto you
Hard to imagine a thicker more singular plank.
stevepf says:
“If the stadium were allowed the luxury of spending money on sales and marketing activities rather than worrying constantly about how the dollar spent will be perceived maybe they would be securing more events.”
Don’t read more…
One day soon he will explode with embarrassment.
Stevepf perhaps should get together with ‘okley dokley’ Staynes and together they could use some, or all of the $50,000 to brainstorm savings to put toward the stadium. Could be a winner with those two great intellects applying their collective efforts.
Or Calvin, DCC could throw the whole $50,000 on a TAB Triple Trio bet.
(same or better result than what they did backing the stadium and ORFU)
Chairman defends stadium profit predictions
The chairman of the company running Dunedin’s troubled Forsyth Barr Stadium, Sir John Hansen, has been forced to defend ”optimistic” predictions of profit, as the company eyes a possible six-figure drop in revenue next year.
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull yesterday confirmed the council was concerned by the potential for a drop in revenue at the stadium totalling ”several hundred thousand dollars” in 2014-15.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/289638/chairman-defends-stadium-profit-predictions
Review does not discourage CEO candidates
The planned shakeup of Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium has failed to discourage candidates lining up to run the troubled venue, stadium company board chairman Sir John Hansen says. The review of the stadium operation – with all options on the table – was announced by Dunedin City Council chief executive Dr Sue Bidrose last week, in response to the venue’s deteriorating financial outlook.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/289637/review-does-not-discourage-ceo-candidates
How can anyone with average numeracy skills manage to mistake a loss on that scale for a profit – it’s not within a bull’s roar of break-even.
“Sir John Hansen, has been forced to defend “optimistic” predictions of profit, as the company eyes a possible six-figure drop in revenue next year.”
Places in remedial numeracy class urgently requested for “candidates lining up to run the troubled venue” – or is “stadium company board chairman Sir John Hansen” wrong about that too, and they’re actually ratepayers lining up waiting for the food bank to open?
How long before the Forsyth Barr naming rights are up for renewal? Can’t imagine them wanting to be associated with such a byword for mismanagement. But all is not lost, BMC has come up with (could we say “gifted” a la Toitu?) a splendid name: FUBARDIUM. Unique, euphonious and deeply meaningful without flowery explanations.
See http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/289113/stadium-review-we-need-solution#comment-52420
Yes, well, probably only a matter of time before the Dunedin City Council buys the naming rights for itself. Top dollar of course, since the ratepayer’s paying. Nothing like the “discount” handed to Eion and chums. Nope, ten million dollars deposit, back-dated six years and automatic renewal for the next 20 years.
Go on, laugh. I dare you.
Anonnynonnynon… think what FB Ltd gets for free across just 5 years of name sponsorship (or one glorious rugby year and no more) that we must gather had a hard time paying. Zut alors!
Speaking of which, it was published mid year in the Central Otago paper that Edgar said that he would honour his promise to make a million dollar donation to the stadium. I’d love to know if he has indeed paid over that, but I do have to say that the track record of him and Forsyth Barr actually coming up with the dosh promised is not good. Remember that cosy meeting when Edgar and Farry held a press conference to announce that Forsyth Barr had paid a substantial amount for the naming rights – an amount said to be not quite what Farry wanted, but more than Forsyth Barr wanted to pay? That turned out to be, lets say, “misleading” and payments in arrears were finally being paid 18 months later. But hey, lets not have some Qtown residents falling out over little details like that. Wonder if Farry is answering his phone these days? So many people like ItsMe ringing him up for advice.
Wilma McCorkindale at Fairfax went for broke on that story, distributed far and wide to every letter box, over hill and dale (sic), in Central Otago. Since then there’s been much detective work to see if a donation happened or a “purchase of product”. And wishwashy replies that fail to clear this up.
Related Posts and Comments:
10.7.13 Stadium: Edgar will honour $1M personal pledge to project
3.7.13 [Pulled!] Call for Dunedin stadium cash
Anybody got any idea how you apply for Burden’s job? I’ve seen no ads. But I could do it for four years and retire at 57. Could put a fair enough CV together for a crack. Here’s how I would improve performance.
1) Increase my pay to $400,000
2) Shut it down
3) Buy a very small electric lawnmower and mow the grass myself full time ’til 2018.
You forgot the $ tens of thousands of bonuses for breathing in AND out.
Rob, you are selling yourself too cheap. Surely, the skills involved in mowing that grass full time are quite complex. It would be far more effective if you purchased and used a pair of shears, just like they use to take wool off high country merinos. In between times you could clean the steps with a toothbrush. Another skill in itself, worth the $400,000pa. If you took Burden’s $250,000 plus Sir John Hansen and his fellow brigands’ $75,000 and their expenses it would be, in Jim Harland speak “fiscally neutral”.