Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC

### whaleoil.co.nz Fri, 31 Oct 2014 at 5:20pm
Why is there no law to rein in dodgy ratbag local body politicians?
By Cameron Slater
Former ARC Councillor Bill Burrill is not the first dodgy ratbag Councillor to trough from abuses of power to his own pecuniary advantage in recent years. A few years back in 2009 Council Watch was calling for a number of Councillors from the Canterbury Regional Council to be prosecuted and sacked from their positions after an investigation by the Auditor General Lyn Provost found that four individuals had broken the law by acting in conflict with their official role. Back then those Canterbury Councillors failed to declare a conflict on interest that [led] to a financial benefit for themselves by participating in discussion and voting on proposals before Council. Under investigation the Auditor General’s office chose not to prosecute stating that whilst the Councillors should have withdrawn as a matter of principle – they had each received and shared legal advice that they could participate. And here in lies the problem. The Auditor General and Office of the Ombudsmen publish clear guidelines for Councillors and council staff but the reality is that the law is erroneously filled with holes that are exploited and there is precious little oversight of Local Government leading to the Auditor General loathing to bother and the Courts uninterested.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium: DVML, mothballing, and ‘those TVs’ #LGOIMA

Received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 24 Jun 6:20 p.m.

I am disappointed in the complete indifference of the local press regarding info I have sent them on the scandalous $1.3 million of new flatscreen TVs DVML bought when they already had 94 TVs and were already grossly unable to meet budgets. –Vandervis

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:54 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [ODT; Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: stadium
Subject: Re: stadium

Hi Chris and Debbie,

My understanding is that mothballing the stadium is not being seriously considered, but that it should be to at least give us a sunk-costs base-line to recognise how much keeping the doors open is costing us.
The one-off cost of buying and paying the interest on the stadium is damaging enough with out the continuous massively subsidised ridiculous running costs.

It is a shame that DVML have been allowed to run as an out-of-control Council Trading Organisation for far too long, and that DCC failure to get DVML to operate responsibly as required by their Statement of Intent has encouraged profligate spending, such as buying $1.3 million of new flat screen TVs with fancy computer controls, when they already had 94 new flat screen TVs. [see attached DVML LGOIMA responses] Spending $1.2 million on unauthorized temporary seating, and buying an unauthorized specifically Council-denied growlight system [to keep the turf growing] are two other examples. Despite this the Mayor and other Councillors seem to be happy for years now to keep throwing millions at DVL/DVML.
I have often said that before we seriously consider closing the stadium doors we should strip DVL/DVML of their staff, directors and overheads, appoint a DCC in-house manager to run the stadium along Edgar Centre lines using volunteers including Rotary as was done with Carisbrook, fit a low-maintenance artificial turf to allow everyday use, and see how cheaply the stadium could really be run. Only then would we be in a position to decide whether keeping it open was possible long term.

I have sent original info re DVML’s profligate spending on newer TVs and their disposal of ‘old’ flat screens in separate emails.

Cheers,
Lee

—— End of Forwarded Message

****************************************

Email 1

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:12:59 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response and new questions
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response and new questions

From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:45:59 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA response and new questions

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response to your request in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 9 May 2014. Attached also is a record of the payments made by staff and Directors for the purchases of the second hand televisions.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

Downloads:
Record of Payment (PDF 836 KB)
ClrVandervis030614 (PDF, 129 KB)

—

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 2:47 p.m.
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Terry Davies [DVML]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response and new questions

Thank you Kim for Mr Davies responses to my questions.

Unfortunately some of my questions have not been answered.
Question 2 asks whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new Stadium TV software package that the existing 94 TVs were incompatible.
Can you please respond – yes or no – whether DVML realised they were buying a software package that was incompatible with the stadium existing 94 TVs?

Question 5 asks who was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations”.
My ‘who’ question has not been answered – was it a management requirement lapse, or was it simply a staff member filing error, or some other subcontractor’s recording lapse?

Question 6 asks who was responsible for the damage causing seven TVs to be discarded? Does the “where no blame can be attributed” response mean that nobody was held responsible for the destruction of these seven TVs? Was any insurance claim made for the damaged TVs?

Question 7 requests copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs supplied to DVML staff and directors. Thank you for supply copies of invoices, but it is proof of payment original paperwork that I have asked for. Can you please forward copies of this ‘confirming payment was made’ paperwork?

Your response also raises some additional questions which I wish to pose now as an additional LGOIMA request for information:
TV sale invoices variously describe TVs as “new” “second-hand” or just as “TV”.

Question A – are the “new” TVs so described actually new, and if so why are these new TVs being sold so cheaply? Are the sold ‘new’ TVs from the original 94, or from the subsequent 165 TVs? Are the second-hand TVs from the original 94 or subsequent 165 TVs or both? Of the TVs sold to staff/directors that are neither described as new or second-hand, which were new and which were second-hand?

Question B – why do the TV sale invoices vaguely refer to a generic TV type and not specify the actual TV unit by way of model number or serial number as is required in “a description of the goods” on a GST invoice?

Question C – What is the total number of TVs now in the stadium, and how many are from the original 94 TVs and how many are from the more recent purchase of 165 TVs?

Thank you for the information that you have provided so far as it has helped to clarify some aspects of the $1.3 million cost of the second full stadium TV system excluding the original stadium 94 TVs system.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

****************************************

Email 2

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:12:07 +1200
To: Debbie Porteous [ODT], Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 03:02:38 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 1 April 2014 along with copies of invoices as requested.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

Downloads:
Staff purchase invoices (PDF, 615 KB)
ClrVandervis290414 (PDF, 101 KB)

—

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2014 10:17 p.m.
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Terry Davies [DVML]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim,

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations”?
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

On 1/04/14 5:48 PM, “Kim Barnes” wrote:
Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

—— End of Forwarded Message
{See also correspondence via posts made on 3 April 2014. -Eds}

—

Related Posts and Comments:
18.6.14 Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses
14.6.14 NZRU ‘hustles’ towns and cities to build stadiums
12.6.14 Fairfax Media [not ODT] initiative on Local Bodies
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
█ 3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)
█ 3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

[Punctuation in the string of correspondence lightly edited and highlighting added; all email addresses removed. -Eds]

DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)

Received from Lee Vandervis
Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:37 p.m.

Interesting to note how little of the below ended up in the ODT story!

—— Forwarded Message
From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 04:48:04 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML]
Subject: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

.
Attachments
• ClrVandervis310314
• Samsung-TV-invoice-1
• Samsung-TV-invoice-2
• Media Release 310314

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis’ reply, a further LGOIMA request:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:17:25 +1300
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis sent Kim Barnes’ email with attachments to Chris Morris [ODT] with this cover message:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:33:30 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

Hi Chris

Again as with DVML purchase of Turf Grow Lights which Councillors had decided were not to be bought, DVML disappoint at every turn in their spending and disposal of so many TVs.
They have taken an unacceptable 8 weeks to respond to my request to account for Stadium televisions whereabouts and to provide original purchase invoices.
It appears that they wish to blame an unidentified group or individual for buying the original 94 ‘old technology’ stadium TVs which they claim were unsuitable and that they have bought 165 newer TVs which are an “essential tool in any stadium”. I wish to know who decided to buy the first 94 TVs and on what advice, and whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible.
The 165 newer TVs costing $145,000+ are claimed by DVML to “provide increased revenue opportunities” because they can be operated by a ‘Cisco Stadium Vision software package’ allowing individual imaging.
DVML claim to have gone through an involved process to determine the value for sale of the first 94 ‘outdated’ TVs, but “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
28 of the original 94 TVs continue to be used around the stadium making a total now of 193 stadium TVs, more than double the original number.
7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been terminally damaged and who has been held responsible?
Sales of the original TVs have been made “to staff and two DVML board members, Sir John Hansen and Peter Stubbs”. I have asked to see original paperwork confirming payments by staff members, and payments by DVML Chairman Sir John Hansen and Board Member Peter Stubbs.

My request for confirmation of stadium TV whereabouts was made in response to public questions to me concerning purchasing accountability at the stadium.

I look forward to getting further answers to more questions raised by DVML’s unacceptably slow response.

Kind regards
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Related Post and Comments:
3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

OFF THE BACK OF A TRUCK | RECEIVING | POSSESSION
This story finally broke and not without its share of cover-up still in place. TVs for the boys. Ratepayers paid. Woops, no papertrail.

—

### ODT Online Thu, 3 Apr 2014
DVML defends TV sales to staff, board
By Chris Morris
A decision to sell surplus televisions at Forsyth Barr Stadium to the venue’s staff and board members is being defended by Dunedin Venues Management Ltd. The company, responding to Otago Daily Times questions, confirmed it sold 18 of the stadium’s older screens to DVML staff, board member Peter Stubbs and board chairman Sir John Hansen.
Read more

█ Stay tuned. More to come from deep inside DVML.

****

Comment received from Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2014/04/03 at 10:03 am

Posted today on McPravda’s comments in response to the latest DVML larrikin as reported in McPravda ….TVs this time. As I feel that its appearance there is unlikely, here it is:

“There is but one auction house in Dunedin, and I check its general goods auctions every week, and have done so for decades. As far as I know their nearest competitor is in Alexandra. I recall their sales of Carisbrook surplus items well.

I do not recall seeing bulk lots of high quality 26″-40″+ sized TVs offered for sale at this venue in the recent past. Or even individual ones that match this description. They usually have a good record of getting rid of stuff if the price is right and it looks like at $380 the price that they were prepared to accept was right – for SJH et al at least.

I do not doubt that the consignment records that would confirm their purported attempts to sell these items by public auction have also gone missing…..? Anyway, there’s always Trade Me – although how glass-fronted TVs that hang on the wall above head height get ‘badly scratched’ on a routine basis eludes me.”

Anyway one would have thought that ‘badly scratched’ second hand TVs were more of a student market – wouldn’t one?

It’s also odd that the DVML board appears to have had a precise knowledge of the availability of the company’s surplus TVs on the second-hand market, while at the same time being (apparently) completely ignorant of their previous CEO’s more-or-less concurrent availability on the same surplus/second-hand market!”

[ends]

****

Received from Anonymous
Thursday, 3 April 2014 10:30 a.m.

[ends]

****

Comment received from Russell Garbutt
Submitted on 2014/04/03 at 11:09 am

This is yet another shameful episode in the long history of the stadium and everything that flows from it. The sense of entitlement by those in power is probably not surprising, but unless those that are sucking voraciously on the teats of the public purse for their own nourishment are dealt to, then nothing will change.

I don’t believe for an instant any of the PR crap that has come from DVML in recent or past days and this includes this nonsense of finding TV sets are incompatible to the system now installed at the Foobar.

The Cisco system does use touch screens for some things, but for God’s sake, ripping out nearly 100 HD TV sets which would have been high quality models and hocking them off to the affluent Board members etc at rock bottom prices is nothing short of institutionalised incompetence in my view. Where is the DVML asset register? Quite clearly what went on here and it doesn’t take a genius to realise that there will be lots of bum covering going on.

I don’t accept one word about these things being scratched – just crap!!! Hansen should front up and show us pictures of where he has installed his new TV sets, ditto with Stubbs. Might be difficult if he has on-sold….

[ends]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
22.3.14 DVML, ‘Money for jam…..fig jam’ [Guy Hedderwick story]
19.3.14 ORFU: Black-tie dinner, theft or fraud?
17.3.14 ORFU: Black-tie dinner on ratepayers
11.2.14 Stadium: ‘Business case for DVML temporary seating purchase’
20.12 13 DVML: No harassment policy or complaints procedure, really?
3.12.13 DVML issues and rankles [Burden’s reply]
30.11.13 DVML in disarray [see recent comments and historical links]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML issues and rankles [Burden’s reply]

Received.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013 8:59 AM

Cr Lee Vandervis forwards copy of email correspondence, noting: “An unsatisfactory set of responses to my questions of Darren Burden, now departed, follows.”

—

—— Forwarded Message
From: Darren Burden [DVML]
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:14:39 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Paul Orders [DCC], Sue Bidrose [DCC], Sandy Graham [DCC]
Conversation: DVML urgent issues to be resolved
Subject: FW: DVML urgent issues to be resolved

Lee

Paul forwarded to me your recent comments about Dunedin Venues which I briefly discussed with him. He has asked that I respond to you on the points raised:

A. We have recently installed toilet facilities to Level 2A which in an ideal world would have been installed as part of the original build. However the original build did include the infrastructure for this such as capped services. The work carried out has been consented by the building control department. The cost of the work is within the authority of the DVML board and does not need council approval. In respect of comments from Mr Anderson I have never been introduced to him and was not informed by DVAV that anyone by this name has worked at the stadium for the last 2 years. Refer to point C about DVAV.

B. We have 8 sets of grow lights which cost approximately $35,000 to build. These were manufactured through local suppliers and contractors. These are not used to grow an “ailing” pitch rather to assist worn patches in their re-growth particularly during the winter months. This is not unusual for most stadiums and in fact the size (and cost) of ours are considerably smaller than elsewhere. We estimate the running cost for these in any given year is in the order of $8,000. As a side note, if the pitch had the same amount of use as Carisbrook used to we probably would not need them. However they are of assistance in respect of the significant use the stadium is getting (last financial year we had 60 main bowl events which compares, we believe, with 21 at Eden Park, 14 at Waikato, and 47 at Westpac). Again, our board had authority to approve this cost so did not need council approval. In respect of the electricity cost it should be noted that the stadium has four substations which provides for surety of supply, however this means that our fixed charges are proportionally high to the overall bill. Power usage would be about 50% of our electricity bill.

C. Dunedin Venues has a very good record at paying contractors on time – our monthly financial reports substantiate this. We do, however, have a current dispute with DVAV which is being dealt with through the provisions of the contract by both parties agreeing to go to arbitration. We are not a party to any contractual arrangement between DVAV and Mr Anderson, so any issues that he has would be for him to address directly with DVAV.

Kind regards

DARREN BURDEN
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
_____________________________________________

DDI 03 479 4530 M 029 200 1579
E darren.burden@dunedinvenues.co.nz
W http://www.dunedinvenues.co.nz

—

From: Paul Orders [DCC]
Sent: Friday, 11 October 2013 3:56 p.m.
To: Darren Burden [DVML]
Subject: FW: DVML urgent issues to be resolved
Importance: High

Darren,

Any chance you could draft a response to Lee on each of the points he’s making here.

It would be probably be helpful if we could talk through the response before it goes to Lee.

Regards,

Paul

—

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Thursday, 10 October 2013 12:42 p.m.
To: Paul Orders [DCC]
Cc: Sue Bidrose [DCC]; Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: DVML urgent issues to be resolved
Importance: High

Hi Paul,

The last month has been chock full of people complaining to me about the on-going goings-on at DVML.
I again strongly urge you disestablish this dysfunctional DVML board of directors and review management options.

A – I have it on first hand authority that enormous sums are currently being spent on new toilet blocks and facilities that perhaps should have been part of the original build.
Much work has been completed on level 2 amongst other construction. None of this work has been authorised by Council as far as I am aware, and I have been taking keen interest.
I am also advised that substandard work guaranteeing long term high maintenance [like the substitution of non-tanalised timber where tanalised was specified that I previously advised you of and showed photographic evidence]. Martin Andersen [see email below] has worked at the Stadium for 2 years and can give details.

B – Specifically not authorised by Council was the funding for expensive grow-lights for the ailing turf, which Councillors rejected over a year ago as NOT TO BE FUNDED, as DVML, Farry and Co had assured us that the turf would grow satisfactorily under the EFTE roof. Extensive banks of grow-lights have been used regularly for many months now despite the Council decision, causing further direct lights cost and injurious augmentation of an already obscene electricity cost [$250,000 per year without grow lights – when the whole city’s electric lighting costs $1.5 million].

C – DVML have been refusing to pay a number of contractors in a timely fashion, specifically DVAV [confirm with contacts below] for extensive AV work since March of this year, and are now being expensively sued for breach of contract.

Council has recently bailed out DVML for its spending of unauthorised millions [I have consistently recorded my vote against] and the obvious reasons for not bailing them keep appearing as above.
This has happened on your watch Paul, and I have been forthright in warning you about it.

I demand that action be immediately taken to investigate all DVML decisions, past and present and that a full report on past failings and options be brought to Council asap. The $20 million annual running cost bleeding of the ratepayer by the Stadium must end now.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

—— Forwarded Message
From: Megan Anderson
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:01:18 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Subject: Non payment

Good Afternoon Lee,

As per our conversation this is to confirm that I worked for DVAV and we are still awaiting payment as DVAV are still awaiting outstanding invoice payments from DVML, for confirmation of this please don’t hesitate to contact Mike Cook on [mobile number deleted. -Eds].

Thanks

Marty and Megan Anderson

Sent from Windows Mail

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Editor’s Note:
Mike Cook is the sole director of DV Audio Visual Limited. DVAV was incorporated on 13 July 2012. In Forsyth Barr Stadium marketing literature, Dunedin Venues say they “work closely with DVAV who are a full service audio visual company delivering audio visual, lighting, event production, conference and technical support services”.

—

Related Post and Comments:
30.11.13 DVML in disarray

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML in disarray

● DVML chief executive Darren Burden leaves 24 December, takes up rival role in Christchurch.
● Former DVML commercial manager Guy Hedderwick now part-time contractor, works from Adelaide.

### ODT Online Sat, 30 Nov 2013
Stadium defections, bookings prompt review
By Chris Morris
The board overseeing Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium has launched a management review amid high-profile defections and concerns the entertainment cupboard for this summer is ”a little bit bare”. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd board chairman Sir John Hansen, speaking to the Otago Daily Times, had a blunt message for music fans hoping for a stadium-filling concert this summer.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments: (updated 28.2.14)
26.2.14 Stadium costs, read uncapped multimillion-dollar LOSSES
11.2.14 Stadium: ‘Business case for DVML temporary seating purchase’
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .
20.12.13 DVML: No harassment policy or complaints procedure, really?
3.12.13 DVML issues and rankles [Burden’s reply]
30.11.13 DVML in disarray
18.11.13 DVML: Burden heads to Christchurch #EntirelyPredictable
1.11.13 Council appointments (rumbles) [see comment]
12.10.13 DVML works media/DCC to spend more ratepayer money
4.10.13 DVML . . . | ‘Make the stadium work’ losses continue
20.8.13 DVML foists invoices on DCC
20.6.13 Stadium: DVML, DVL miserable losers! #grandtheftdebt
8.6.13 Stadium: Insurmountable debt but gosh, look at our numbers!
25.2.13 Darren Burden’s ratepayer subsidy bubble and other Fubar myths
29.1.13 Pecuniary interest: Crs Wilson and Thomson in events fund debate
30.12.12 To DVML Board, from Ian Tayor [sic]
11.12.12 Stadium: DCC runs amok with $750K annual subsidy to DVML
2.11.12 Stadium financials: Calvin Oaten on DVML, DVL and DCHL
2.11.12 Stadium financials: JimmyJones v Peter Hutchison (DVML) on accounting method
25.10.12 Council bid lacks cost/benefit analysis: Fifa under-20 World Cup 2015
19.10.12 LGOIMA request: Breakdown of DVML recruitment costs [emails]
19.10.12 Weak boys, Cull and Burden on rugby stadium
11.10.12 Darren Burden plays LGOIMA game like Davies #DVML #PsychoAnswer
22.8.12 DVML: North vs South game profit/loss [email]
26.7.12 Cull’s council thinks $750,000 per annum to DVML represents good value?
29.6.12 DCC recruitment process: DVML chief executive position
22.6.12 DVML chief executive recruitment
9.5.12 DVML report: $1.9 million loss
30.3.12 DCC refuses to release DVML six-monthly report until “most suitable time and forum” is found
14.12.11 Davies “in the middle of a conversation” – how to fudge DVML, DCC, ORFU and Highlanders
2.12.11 DVML gets into bed with ORFU
14.11.11 DVML, Guy, wth ?
28.10.11 DVML, DVL and DCHL annual reports
18.2.11 Audit New Zealand requires DCC to write to DVML

OLD NEWS

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 03/06/2012
Dunedin’s House of Blame
By Steve Kilgallon
The prospect of yet more glittering new stadiums being constructed by ambitious city fathers – as being debated right now in Christchurch and Auckland – is met with scorn by some in Dunedin, where the saga of the Forsyth Barr Stadium has left a city divided and its ratepayers facing vast debts.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Russell Garbutt: DCC, stadium failings

Comment received.

—

Russell Garbutt
Submitted on November 26, 2013 at 9:31 am

I submitted this to the ODT as an Opinion Piece following their editorial, but I have been told that it has not been selected for publication. Up to you to judge why.

“The ODT Editorial of Friday, 22nd November, 2013 headed “Stadium’s hard act to follow” is another stage in what has turned out to be a sorry chapter in Dunedin’s history.

Many residents of Dunedin were dismayed and astonished that the decision to build the new rugby stadium proceeded despite wide-spread protests and well-researched submissions detailing the experiences of other city’s decisions to build stadia which invariably had led to construction cost blow-outs, below budgeted incomes and over budgeted expenditures. As it turns out, these submitters have been proved right time and time again. What is patently obvious to all of those that have read the various reports into this project including the Larsen Report and the PWC report, the project was predicated upon counting future income as private construction costs, and assuming income levels and costs that would have resulted in an actual profit from Year one of operation.

The reality is a great deal different.

The DCC, and the ratepayers of the City, have been forced, through a complex set of financial arrangements, to provide substantial financial support by way of a payment of $7.25m per year to enable the debt to be paid off faster, a payment of $750,000 per year for “promotion of the stadium for community events”, a payment of $725,000 for other stadium debt round seats and pitch machinery, another annual $400,000 to subsidise or attract large events, and ongoing additional costs for financial advice and the like. All this on top of the huge costs for construction and the associated debt which is a very large component of the $12,000 debt owed by each and every ratepayer to the DCC.
Read more

—

“On the eastern coast of New Zealand lies a world-first architectural icon – where 30,000 excited fans are drawn together to watch the action, be entertained, and celebrate. Welcome to Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza: New Zealand’s newest, largest and most versatile indoor events arena.”
Forsyth Barr Stadium, Facebook 22 July 2011 at 17:06

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML: Burden heads to Christchurch #EntirelyPredictable

Updated 27.11.13
Uh-oh, Mr Burden is flitting the coop EARLY – 24 December. See comment.

—

“Darren will be with us for up to another six months as he serves out his notice period.”

### ODT Online Mon, 18 Nov 2013
Stadium boss resigns
By Chris Morris
The head of the company running Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium has resigned, and will instead help Christchurch rebuild its suite of venues, it has been confirmed. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd chief executive Darren Burden’s departure was confirmed in a media statement released this afternoon.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML . . . | ‘Make the stadium work’ losses continue

Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) —operating losses and compounding debt

—

### ODT Online Tue, 1 Oct 2013
DVML loss bigger than forecast
By Chris Morris
Ratepayers will not be hit in the pocket again despite the company running Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium missing its mark by nearly $700,000. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd on Monday revealed a $986,000 loss for the 2012-13 year, which chief executive Darren Burden said represented progress after a $3.21 million loss the previous year. However, the company had been forecasting an even better turnaround, with a $298,000 loss predicted for 2012-13 in a statement of intent published in July last year.

In the end, the $986,000 loss was $688,000 worse than expected, the company’s annual report confirmed.

Mr Burden said the loss could be covered internally using income from other sources, such as ground memberships and other private sector sponsorship arrangements.

Mr Burden said the forecasts for 2012-13 were actually completed in early 2012, about 18 months before this week’s results were released. Because of that, they were also based on only about six months of trading by DVML, he said. For those reasons, there was always going to be ”a level of uncertainty”, but the accuracy of future forecasts should improve, he said.
Read more

—

Associated comments at ODT Online, in the public interest:

Really?
Submitted by overit on Thu, 03/10/2013 – 9:24pm.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, these figures may not be true reflection of the FB Stadium earning its way. Now that DVML has other income streams from the Railway Station and the Dunedin Centre it would be very interesting to see what the separated financial result for FB stadium is rather than DVML as a whole.

Maybe the ODT could report on this?

A grip
Submitted by russandbev on Wed, 02/10/2013 – 6:38pm.

MikeStK, the Larsen report and the PWC report – both of which were published in the ODT – made it plain that the whole basis of the stadium’s finances were nothing than hyperbole. Huge under-estimation of costs of construction, huge over-estimation of economic benefits, and under-estimation of on-going operational costs. By now, surely most proponents of this White Elephant can see how completely destructive this project has been on Dunedin’s well-being. The only people or groups to have benefited directly from this project have been the very fortunate land owners who sold at round 3 times the budgeted amounts, the private CST who received regular fees for their management of the project, the various “consultants” who provided glowing future forecasts for stadium usage which have all proved to be optimistic at best, the ORFU who have been bailed out, the few promoters that have received subsidies for bringing in the few shows that have been staged at the stadium, the anonymous economic impact analysts who provide regular non-peer group reviewed reports on mythical income, and of course the highly paid executives of the entities themselves who seem to make sure the balls are continually being juggled to obscure the true position.

And of course the people to pay for all of this are the ratepayers. Behind it all are the potential governance people who, it seems largely, want to just pretend that all in the garden is lovely. Well, everyone now has the opportunity to make your views known. If you don’t vote, then you are as much to blame as those that made this mess happen. Vote wisely.

Diverting debt repayments
Submitted by MikeStk on Wed, 02/10/2013 – 1:26pm.

Now just a minute – back when we were pretending that income from memberships were really “private fundraising” rather than pre-purchased ticket sales the city borrowed $45m to cover the fact that this money wasn’t going to be paid up front but would instead dribble in over 5-10 years. If Mr Burden’s now going to divert this money that was supposed to be used to pay off the debt borrowed against this future income to paying off his own losses who is going to pay off the actual $45m in principal and associated interest?

This whole rugby stadium thing appears to be a giant game of cups and balls.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Dunedin Venues logo overstitched (re-imaged by Whatifdunedin)

Ratepayers, another windfall —Fifa under-20 World Cup 2015

### ODT Online Thu, 15 Aug 2013
Dunedin to host FIFA U-20 World Cup games
Dunedin will be a host venue for the biggest football tournament to be held in New Zealand.
Forsyth Barr Stadium will host games in the 2015 Fifa world under-20 tournament, organisers confirmed today. Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, New Plymouth, Wellington and Whangarei are also hosting games. Read more

—

Wow. The Spooks have worked overtime on this release, fired by opinion (and even a footnote of purpose) —not, ratepayer budgets.

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Dunedin Confirmed as a Host City for FIFA’s Second Biggest Tournament

This item was published on 15 Aug 2013.

With just under two years until kick off in the first match of the FIFA U-20 World Cup New Zealand 2015, FIFA and the New Zealand Football Local Organising Committee (LOC) have confirmed that Dunedin will play a significant role in the tournament.
Dunedin will host seven matches altogether, including a Round of 16 clash (the round before the quarter finals). All of the games will be played under the roof of Otago Stadium.
The naming of Dunedin as a host city followed a robust selection process where a total of 7 successful cities were named – Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, Whangarei, Christchurch and New Plymouth.
Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull is delighted the city will be participating in one of world football’s premier events.

“This is a wonderful outcome for the city and will be a great opportunity to showcase Dunedin to players, officials and supporters. Hosting 2011 Rugby World Cup matches in Dunedin means we are well equipped to deal with another high-profile international event. We can build on what we learnt hosting RWC matches and will be working closely with Football South and other stakeholders to ensure we get the maximum effect from the event and give visitors to the city a fantastic welcome.”

Mr Cull says the city has negotiated excellent value for the ratepayers with FIFA although the terms of the arrangement will remain confidential at this time.

“Due to the considerable work done by staff, we are confident it is a sound investment.”

Darren Burden, CEO, Dunedin Venues, the company which operates Otago Stadium, is thrilled Dunedin will feature in the tournament.

“Our Stadium is an ideal football venue for players and spectators alike and, with the internationally significant scale of this event, it’s a privilege to host top class football under the roof. This announcement reinforces the importance of having an outstanding venue as a draw card to host international sporting events. I think we’re all in for a sporting spectacular in 2015.”

As for Rugby World Cup 2011, Dunedin’s Stadium will be known as Otago Stadium for the lead up to and duration of the tournament to meet FIFA’s clean sponsorship rules.
Matthew Holdridge, Chair of the FootballSouth Board, says, “On behalf of all the players, supporters, and administrators in the FootballSouth region, I would like to express our delight at the fantastic news Dunedin will host seven matches at the 2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup.

“This is a major event for our Football Federation, one that, if we missed, may not have come around again in our lifetime. I know our football community is keen to be part of this event. FootballSouth will be working closely with FIFA and the Local Organising Committee to ensure our 7,800 affiliated football members and the wider community gets as many opportunities as possible to engage with the event and the teams playing at Otago Stadium.”

Dave Beeche, CEO FIFA U-20 World Cup 2015, is full of praise for all of the cities that were involved in the bidding process and feels that having access to a covered stadium adds significantly to the tournament.

“We’d like to thank all of the cities that put in a bid to host matches for their work over the last year to get to this point. The feedback from FIFA was very positive following the recent site inspection tour and they are looking forward to a highly successful tournament in 2015. With the tournament being played during the winter, it’s fantastic to have a full covered stadium as it means we’ll have ideal pitch conditions and visitors will have another good reason to head south. The FIFA delegates were very impressed with Otago Stadium and see the roof as a major benefit given the timing of the tournament. To have seven stunning venues locked in nearly two years out from the first match gives us a great planning timeframe and we’ll use all of it to ensure that a standout event is delivered. This tournament has a huge global following and that’s the opportunity we have with this event – to deliver exposure for New Zealand and host regions, both directly during the tournament and via a massive international television audience. With the world’s best footballing talent on display and stadiums full of colour, noise, and atmosphere, it will be a new experience for New Zealand that everyone will want to be a part of.”

Altogether the tournament will host 24 national teams, include 52 matches, and will run for three weeks from 30 May until 20 June 2015. This is during the local football season, which will provide a great opportunity for the sport’s large youth playing base to be inspired by the world’s best players. With an average of three goals scored per game in the last three FIFA U-20 World Cup tournaments this will be dynamic, exciting football at its best.
The tournament will be broadcast to more than 100 countries and a global television audience of more than 170 million people[1], providing exposure for the tournament, the host cities, and New Zealand on a massive scale. It is estimated more than 7,000 overseas fans will pour into New Zealand for the tournament and to support their teams.

FIFA Factsheet (PDF, 188.2 KB)

[1] Based on the FIFA U-20 World Cup Columbia 2011 Television Audience Report produced for FIFA TV by KantraSport

Contact Mayor of Dunedin on 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
25.10.12 Council bid lacks cost/benefit analysis: Fifa under-20 World Cup 2015
7.12.11 D Scene: Cull and councillors captured by Fifa bid, it will cost

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: tourismnewzealand.com – NZ U20 WC logo

Stadium: DVML, DVL miserable losers! #grandtheftdebt

### ch9.co.nz June 20, 2013 – 6:18pm
DVML forecasts small profit
The company that runs Forsyth Barr Stadium has forecast a small surplus for the first time in 2015. DVML has been running at a loss, but forecasts that will change to a $10,000 surplus. But the company that owns the stadium, DVL, has forecast its loss will be about $1 million more than expected, at more than $5 million. DCC chief executive Paul Orders said both were just projections, and the DVL loss was due to tax changes. The forecasts will be considered by the council on Monday.
Ch39 Link [no video available]

SURPRISE
Reports for the Council meeting to be held on Monday 24 June 2013 at 1pm not yet available at the DCC website.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Walk this way – Aerosmith to play stadium

Received from Rob Hamlin
Monday, 25 February 2013 11:37 p.m.

—

Best do this quickly quickly as there is one major oddity that has not yet been picked up here. Aerosmith are performing here on April 24 – that’s only weeks away. How long was Elton coming – months/years – that’s the usual lead time for acts of this size, and with good reason. People have to decide to come, make plans, book tickets, hotels etc, in plenty of time. The same applies for preparation in the venue and destination, especially if it’s a small one like Dunedin – eg extra flight capacity. More importantly, the tours themselves are major logistical exercises that have itineraries that are usually planned years in advance.

So what’s happened here? Did they lose a venue at short notice? It certainly hasn’t been reported if they did. Then why the devil are the promoters diverting a major act at considerable inconvenience, cost and at very short notice in our direction.

I suppose that we will be told that it was for the love of the Foobar. However, major events promotion is a hard and chancy business that allows those who play the game successfully over the long term little room for love other than that for money. So my call is that they are coming for money – a lot of it, well over and above their expenses, and guaranteed as well.

I suppose that 40,000 people at $100 a head and no charge for the Stadium, plus help with the travel costs (maybe $450,000 or so that DVML just happened to have come by recently will be a factor here) might deliver a $4 million profit for a few days work – which might interest them.

Maybe the 40,000 will not come, or they will not pay $100. That’s OK, there’s still the guarantee – often innocuously referred to as an ‘event underwrite’. This underwriter is a third party who agrees to cough the agreed amount of revenue if the punters won’t. Some may recall North Island Councils losing their shirts this way before. Is this event underwritten as part of the agreement with DVML? I would be surprised if it wasn’t – Who’s underwriting it? Easy – DVML don’t have that kind of cash. So, got a mirror handy?

Holding big events in small towns is a risky business. Holding them at such very short notice makes it even riskier. That’s why I really don’t think that these guys are taking a risk of this nature. If they aren’t, then we are instead. Maybe we’ll roll the dice and not get burnt this time. But we will eventually if this is indeed what is going on. I would suspect that at a minimum the $450,000 that DVML were recently given by DCC as strategic fund is already well spent. But Darren did say he might (would) be back for more pretty soon.

It’s suddenly getting pretty crowded at the Foobar Multi-Purpose Community Asset innit? Hardly room for Rugby any longer these days. Fifa’s still in the loop with private meetings with our Councillors too – could still be a double booking in the offing. Still no contract with the Highlanders/ORFU and DVML? Now, I wouldn’t be betting on that if circumstances made it worth their while to have one of a certain type in hand when said double booking actually occurs. However, the turf’s still immaculate down the road at DCC/CS Partnership Point – Lucky, eh?

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Darren Burden’s ratepayer subsidy bubble and other Fubar myths

The Elton John concert at Fubar is lauded by ‘prostadia’ as having generated a $14-15 million spend in Dunedin.

Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) commissioned Howard Research to ascertain the economic benefit of the sold-out November 2011 concert.

“Of the $14.9 million, $4.6 million was spent on retail shopping, $4 million on food and beverage and $3.4 million on accommodation.” (ODT 11.2.12)

Nobody seriously believes that, except ‘prostadia’.

With each ratepayer-subsidised act or event to appear at the stadium we’re reminded (no, told) of the great windfall that was ‘Elton John’.

Dunedin Venues’ books say differently. With more events being diaried, what happens when the ratepayer subsidy and events fund runs out? What will the city council dream up next to borrow against, or sell?

[Can we hock off Darren and his team of DVML ‘managers’ and their EPAs?]

—

Aerosmith at Tampa, Florida (11 December 2012). The Global Warming Tour. B.Moore | Visuals

ODT 25.2.13 Walk this way – Aerosmith to play stadium

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Council bid lacks cost/benefit analysis: Fifa under-20 World Cup 2015

Interesting. DCC and DVML aren’t sharing information on the cup bid. General manager Sue Bidrose looks like a fool again (perhaps she is), and Darren is Darren. Nevertheless, all councillors are responsible for the lack of a full cost/benefit analysis.

—

### ODT Online Thu, 25 Oct 2012
Code clash with cash implications
By Chris Morris
The Highlanders could be kicked for touch, and the company running the Forsyth Barr Stadium left out of pocket, if Dunedin secures a share of hosting rights for the Fifa under-20 World Cup in 2015. That was because Fifa required exclusive use of all tournament venues, beginning 10 days before each venue’s first match and continuing until a day after the last match, tournament organising committee interim project manager Peter O’Hara said. That could mean a clash between Fifa’s tournament and the Super 15 rugby competition at stadiums around New Zealand, as the two tournaments would overlap.

[Dunedin Venues Management Ltd chief executive Darren Burden] did not yet know the details of Dunedin’s bid, which was being handled by the Dunedin City Council, but hoped “sensible solutions could be found”.

The council was expected to contribute up to $450,000 towards Fifa’s tournament costs if its bid was successful, but council city strategy and development manager Sue Bidrose said that was if the city won the right to host a number of matches, including the final. The cost could be reduced if the city’s bid was only partially successful, but the true cost – including lost revenue if other stadium events were disrupted – was not known, she said.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr