Tag Archives: David Davies

DVML and ORFU refuse to disclose 2012 Otago Rugby deal

Terry Davies [re-imaged screenshot - youtube.com] 1
Dunedin Venues chief executive Terry Davies was asked to release details of the “Otago Rugby deal” struck in 2012 as part of the Otago Rugby Football Union recovery package.

Surprise! Mr Davies and ORFU don’t want you to know how much DVML pays ORFU for each rugby game played at Forsyth Barr Stadium, and given DVML is struggling to meet the sponsorship commitment (see previous post). Worse, DVML keeps paying even though ORFU is now flush with funds.

Just how are these payments passing through Council-owned books? The money comes from your rates; piling on top of every other subsidy DCC is gifting to the stadium and professional rugby.

The 2012 deal involved David Davies, the previous DVML chief executive. Who else was involved at ORFU, NZRU and DCC? Was the Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull a signatory? More to come.

Correspondence received from Bev Butler
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 at 2:38 p.m.

Message: They really don’t want any part of this agreement out.

From: Terry Davies [DVML]
To: Bev Butler
Subject: LGOIMA request: DVML/ORFU venue hire agreement
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:28:54 +0000

Dear Bev

Please find attached a response to your email request dated 27 August 2014 as per below. A copy has been posted to you today.

Yours faithfully
Terry Davies [DVML]

From: Bev Butler
Date: 27 August 2014 10:08:59 am NZST
To: Terry Davies [DVML]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA request: DVML/ORFU venue hire agreement

Thanks, Terry.
I would still appreciate a redacted copy of the agreement.
Thank you.
Regards
Bev

From: Terry Davies [DVML]
To: Bev Butler
Subject: FW: LGOIMA request: DVML/ORFU venue hire agreement
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:19:21 +0000
Dear Bev

Thank you for your email below. Please find attached the response which has also been posted to you.

Yours faithfully

[Terry Davies, DVML]

From: Bev Butler
Sent: Monday, 28 July 2014 9:01 a.m.
To: Terry Davies [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: LGOIMA request: DVML/ORFU venue hire agreement

Dear Terry

In 2012 DVML signed a venue hire agreement with the ORFU. I request the following:

1. The date of this agreement;
2. The names of the signatories on the agreement;
3. A copy of this agreement.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Letter from DVML to Bev Butler 11.09.14

█ Download: Letter to Bev Butler 11.09.14 (PDF, 49.4 KB)

Related Posts and Comments:
8.9.14 Jim Harland and the stadium MESS
● 1.8.14 DVML and the “Otago Rugby” deal (sponsorship and payments)
15.7.14 Stadium: Who is being protected?
24.6.14 Stadium: DVML, mothballing, and ‘those TVs’ #LGOIMA
18.6.14 Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope…
11.5.14 Stadium: DCC proposes extra funds for stadium debt repayment
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler
10.4.14 Stadium: Edgar’s $1m donation (private sector fundraising)
3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)
22.3.14 DVML, ‘Money for jam…..fig jam’
19.3.14 ORFU: Black-tie dinner, theft or fraud?
17.3.14 ORFU: Black-tie dinner on ratepayers
15.3.14 Mayoral DISGRACE: DCC won’t ask ORFU to repay $480K bailout
14.3.14 ORFU flush to pay creditors
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)
7.9.13 Stadium: $266 million, more or less?
30.7.13 Stadium: Accountability, paper trail leads unavoidably to NEWS
4.7.13 Carisbrook: DCC losses
15.2.13 Carisbrook: Call for OAG investigation into DCC / ORFU deals

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: whatifdunedin – re-imaged screenshot from YouTube clip, Terry Davies press conference regarding streaker (ODT 15.6.14)

3 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, DVML, Economics, Highlanders, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

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]

32 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, DCC, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, What stadium

Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses

Dunedin City Council released the following report through the LGOIMA process, in reply to Bev Butler who lodged an information request.

The report by independent auditors Crowe Horwath investigates the work expenses of DVML’s ex Commercial Manager, then part-time contractor Guy Hedderwick.

Crowe Horwath report cover (May 2014)

Download: Crowe Horwath Report – Review of DVML Expenses (PDF, 363 KB)

NOTE: The report is not the result of a forensic audit, which should now take place to provide clarification for Mr Hedderwick and his manager.

QUESTION: Why is Dunedin City Council not seeking requirement for a forensic audit?

Related Post and Comments:
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
22.3.14 DVML, Money for jam…..fig jam’ [see links provided]
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

6 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, DVML, Economics, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums

DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)

Updated post 17.6.14

Crowe Horwath Report – Review of DVML Expenses (PDF, 363 KB)

Dunedin City Council has released a report recently completed by independent auditors Crowe Horwath, into the work expenses of DVML’s ex Commercial Manager then part-time contractor Guy Hedderwick. ODT reporter Chris Morris is covering the story.

[Received]

Readers of this site will recall the efforts that campaigner Bev Butler went through to track down the expenditure incurred by Guy Hedderwick while he was the Commercial Manager for Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML).

After much effort through the LGOIMA process Ms Butler was told that Mr Hedderwick had run up bills of nearly $80,000 during 51 work-related trips since 2010.  

Readers will also recall the reaction by Neville Frost, DVML’s Finance Manager (ODT 22.3.14), who labelled Ms Butler’s claims of this expenditure as “completely inaccurate and ill-informed” while accusing her of “disgraceful” conduct and that she was “lacking in personal integrity”.  

Readers should now be fully informed that the figure of nearly $80,000 was indeed incorrect. The figure arrived at in the report compiled by Crowe Horwath is $144,879 – the amount released by Mr Frost in response to Ms Butler’s LGOIMA request has nearly doubled.

Readers should also be informed that the report found there was almost $4,000 spent by Mr Hedderwick with no evidence of what it was spent on; and a total of over $34,000 with no evidence of any approval.  

City ratepayers now need real answers to some basic questions.

1. Why, when Neville Frost was required to provide accurate information under an LGOIMA request on Guy Hedderwick’s expenditure, did he provide information that was inaccurate and misleading? Readers should not need to be reminded that when Steve Prescott, Manager of Aquatic Facilities at the DCC, did just this recently he resigned.  

2. Now that the full extent of Guy Hedderwick’s spending has been revealed by the Crowe Horwath report, can DVML still maintain as Neville Frost did in his press release, that it was “frugal”?  

3. What is DVML doing to obtain refunds from Guy Hedderwick on those sums incurred where there was no approval, or where there was no evidence of what the expenditure was for? For expenditure where there was no approval, is Neville Frost or Darren Burden at fault for lack of oversight and lack of management, and if so, should they be also responsible for repayment?  

4. What benefit to DVML and the ratepayers occurred from this $144,879 expenditure? Guy Hedderwick seems to have had carte blanche to travel at his own whim and it appears that DVML can’t point to any general or particular benefit from any of it.  

5. What accountability will be enforced by DCC, on behalf of the ratepayers, on the actions of Guy Hedderwick, for Neville Frost’s failure to both financially control this expenditure and to mislead and misinform both Bev Butler as the LGOIMA requestee and the general public by the content of his press release, and on the Board for its failures to contain costs?  

6. A full, comprehensive and public apology must be obtained from Neville Frost for his disgraceful and inaccurate statements made in his press release of March 22, 2014.

Note: Thanks to Bev Butler and Russell Garbutt for these statements.

Related Posts and Comments:
22.3.14 DVML, Money for jam…..fig jam’ [see links provided]
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

59 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, DVML, Economics, Events, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism

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

DVML Letter (page merge) clrvandervis310314

Media Release 310314

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

20 Comments

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

DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Flatscreen TV [pngimg.com AFP] 2OFF 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.

Stadium Flatscreen expanded text [refer ODT 3.4.14][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

17 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Sport, Stadiums

Davies “in the middle of a conversation” – how to fudge DVML, DCC, ORFU and Highlanders

### ODT Online Wed, 14 Dec 2011
Mayor unhappy at ORFU release
By David Loughrey
A “premature” press release from the Otago Rugby Football Union is behind controversy and “conspiracy theories” about Dunedin Venues Management Ltd’s dalliance with the business of running rugby, Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says. There was general agreement among councillors spoken to yesterday it would have been better if they had heard about the relationship between the two organisations before it appeared in the Otago Daily Times early this month.
Read more

Related Posts:
2.12.11 DVML gets into bed with ORFU
13.10.11 MAD Classics #26 – You’re a crook or a businessman?

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

106 Comments

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