Snaky Stedman —not answering basic questions Dunedin ratepayers must ask

R. J. Sim of Mosgiel is asking the RIGHT QUESTIONS

Note the acute resemblance Mr Stedman has to Malcolm Farry when trying to sell the Stadium project. When backed into a corner on spurious claims, turns nasty and defensive. Boardroom games and hissy fits. Can’t wait until “Pool Guy” trots out the Hi-Vis vest, little black pants and a white hard hat, just like Malc! Assuming DCC and the GOBs duckshove the project through.

ODT 12.3.15 (page 14)

██ Two of the speeches made at the Stop The Stadium public meeting, Dunedin Town Hall, on 29 March 2009:
● Michael Stedman
● Dave Cull

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’

Received from Rob Hamlin
Wed, 11 Mar 2015 at 10:56 a.m.

Another gem from the ODT today on the Mosgiel Pool repeating the ‘community is willing to pay $7.5 million’ mantra:

Community urged to push for Mosgiel pool – http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/335835/community-urged-push-mosgiel-pool

I posted the following comment:

Mr Stedman says:

“The issue of funding is significant … although the community is willing to put in $7.5 million, or 50%, it certainly doesn’t mean it is close to being a done deal…”

As I have said previously there is no reliable public evidence that this ‘community’ is prepared to put in this money. The Pool Trust’s previously secret, but publicly funded, research report relies upon a small group of wealthy people to contribute nearly all of this money, with less than 100 individuals contributing the lion’s share, and one unnamed individual expected to donate $1.5 million.

In fact, the wider ‘community’ cum catchment in question has yet to be properly defined, which is a necessary precursor to reliable research based upon systematic sampling to gauge their opinions and specific intention to donate to and use this facility. Until this is done, any statement that the “community is willing to donate $7.5 million” is conjecture.

I have noted this lack of support on numerous occasions, and I am very concerned that the Otago Daily Times continues to repeatedly print this very specific sounding but currently unsupported assertion unqualified and unchallenged – pretty much as a statement of fact.

There is a well-known adage that if you repeat something often enough and loudly enough then it will become the truth, regardless of its actual veracity. This is unfortunately an observable phenomenon as far as public perception is concerned, but reality can only be repelled for so long before it rudely intrudes upon such pleasant reveries.

The assertion that this undefined ‘community’ is prepared to pay $7.5 million for a pool facility, when reinforced by the Otago Daily Times’ repeated publication of it, may lead to a ‘deal being done’ on the basis of a misconception created in the minds of our councillors and the community – whoever that community may actually be.

Reality, if it is different from the assertion, may only intrude after such a deal is done – which would be unfortunate if the Council gets itself and its ratepayers hooked on some commitment to pay into this proposal before this reality-intrusion occurs.

This damage would only be increased by any commitment by the Council to underwrite ‘the Community’s’ own fundraising for $7.5 million without further research to establish the community’s (either the wider Mosgiel or narrower rich groups’ intentions to donate this amount).

Underwriting fundraising is actually impossible, as the very act of underwriting a specific fundraising figure means that those funds have then been raised, and everybody involved in such fundraising, both donors and fundraisers, can put their feet up and wait for the underwriter to cough up the full underwritten amount. Councils have been caught this way before.

I am too much of a realist to believe that any further research on the extent of the Mosgiel community’s FISCAL support for this project will be done before a ‘deal is done’. Recent statements by the Mayor to the effect that something is going to happen in the next five years are inconsistent with the Mosgiel Pool remaining as an unfunded item in the long-term (10 year) plan, and that suggests that a funding ‘deal’ of some sort is imminent.

Given that a deal may well be happening quite soon, and that further research seems unlikely, the Council can actually control the risks to the ratepayers of any such deal, by insisting on certain specific conditions as part of it. Here they are:

1) The Council will make no commitment to fund construction until a design for the pool is finalised, reliable estimates for construction are in place, and (ABOVE ALL) a site for the pool has been agreed upon, secured, all necessary zonings are in place and consents have been issued.

2) The Council will not commit funds unless the total identified and unfunded costs of the project at the point of commitment are $15 million or less.

3) Absolutely no variations to the agreed pool plan/site will be allowed once funds are committed.

4) The Council will agree to pay in $7.5 million subject to the above conditions, but absolutely no money will be paid, and no legally binding commitment of the above nature will be made by the Council until the Pool Trust can deliver legally binding third-party funding commitments of the correct specification that total more than $7.5 million.

5) The Pool Trust must acquire legally binding commitments (pledges) to pay, subject to the proviso that these commitments (pledges) only become binding once:

a) The total raised by the Pool Trust exceeds $7.5 million on or before a date that is common to all such commitments (pledges).

b) Conditions 1-3 above are met by the Pool Trust and the Council commits to pay its $7.5 million on a (later) date that is common to all pledges.

So how will this work? Well let’s say that the Pool Trust’s pledge contracts name a date of 31 December 2016. If the Pool Trust’s pledged sum at 4.55pm on that day stands at $7,499,995, then at the stroke of 5.00pm, the private pledges and Council commitment all become void, and the deals with both donors and Council have to be renegotiated – Hard, but fair.

However, if at 4.59pm Mrs Buggins pledges an additional ten bucks, then the sum at the stroke of 5.00pm will stand at $7,500,005. Mrs Buggins, all the other pledgers and the Council are at that moment committed, subject to the Pool Trust meeting conditions 1-3 defined by Council by the second date (say 31 December 2017).

If conditions 1-3 have not already been met and acknowledged by the Council then everybody is fully committed at this point, and the fully funded proposal can then proceed. If conditions 1-3 are not met at this point, and the project subsequently relocates, falls over or blows out in some other way, then once again all potential donors are off the hook if the Council does not finally commit before 5.00pm on 31 December 2017.

I consider these conditions to be reasonable, and for the Council not to insist upon them as a requirement for funding, with or without further research, would in my opinion be an act of recklessness.

These conditions should also be perfectly acceptable for the Pool Trust. If they are truly confident that the ‘Mosgiel Community’ will give them $7.5 million, and they can build this facility where they say they are going to for $15 million, then they should be equally confident of meeting these Council funding conditions without difficulty, and of then proceeding with the construction of this facility as planned.

[ends]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: cicc.tv – Michael Stedman, chair of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (“the Mosgiel pool trust”), tweaked by whatifdunedin

Malcolm Farry, revisited at Nine to Noon (December 2008)

WARM FUZZIES

### radionz.co.nz Friday, 12 Dec 2008
Radio NZ National
Nine to Noon with Kathryn Ryan

Carisbrook Stadium in trouble (Link)
09:30 Malcolm Farry, Chairman Carisbrook Stadium Trust; and Jeff Dickie, property investor and outspoken critic of the stadium.
Audio | Download: Ogg  MP3 ( 13′ 15″ )

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Malcolm Farry tweaked by whatifdunedin

Stadium costs, read uncapped multimillion-dollar LOSSES

Forsyth Barr Stadium critic Russell Garbutt, of Clyde, is not surprised by reports of looming stadium losses.

### ODT Online Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Opinion
Stadium costs predictable, so why the surprise now?
By Russell Garbutt
The ongoing revelations on stadium losses detailed today (ODT, 21.2.14) come as no surprise to anyone who has closely followed this debacle from when the Otago Rugby Football Union first gathered the Carisbrook working party together until now, when a succession of different managers, directors and councillors are all realising that what was promised is as chalk is to cheese.
While not directly specified in the article, the turnaround of an expected $10,000 profit to a $1,400,000 loss in 2014-15 is in the operational budget, and it seems Sir John Hansen, chairman of DVML, is putting most of the blame for this truly stupendous reversal of fortunes down to costs of running the stadium.

While ratepayers continue to face annual injections of over $9 million into the stadium, this is by no means the real figure.

The ”realities” of the real costs of running the stadium are now being recognised, it seems. But let us all just remember a few things that occurred when the stadium was being proposed and then built.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
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
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

For more, enter *dvml* or *stadium* into the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium: ODT editorial (1.2.14) —Garbutt debunks myths

### ODT Online Sat, 1 Feb 2014
Editorial: Business, or community asset?
The Dunedin City Council has been grappling with Forsyth Barr Stadium issues this past week. Fundamentally, they stem from the fact the economics of running the stadium are far worse than initially projected, an outcome that should surprise few. Many stadiums around the world struggle financially and Dunedin’s is no exception.
Read more

****

Comment received from Russell Garbutt
Sunday, 2 February 2014 9:07 p.m.

The Editorial asks a question but answers it in the way to be expected, but unfortunately the arguments that the Editor uses are at best specious, and perhaps are nothing other than a rather obvious way to influence those that are now coming to grips with the review.

Let us debunk a few myths. I attended a number of meetings where Mr Farry presented and the rationale for the stadium altered dependent on the audience. I vividly recall a meeting of University staff held in Burns 1 chaired by the previous Vice Chancellor, Sir David Skegg, where Mr Farry said that it really was a stadium for the University. I attended other meetings where the stadium was to be built as a venue for regular and spectacular travelling rock shows. But it was always a professional rugby stadium.

The biggest elephant in this room is the myth that the stadium — whatever its purpose — was to be built debt free, and would require no ratepayer funding as it would generate a profit each and every year. For the ODT to compare this project with something like Moana Pool is plainly just stupid.

As others have pointed out, anyone can use Moana Pool at any time of day or a big portion of the night and they can do so on almost every day of the year. Thousands use it every day and it is truly a community amenity. The stadium is off limits and the only ones that can use it as they wish are the professional rugby teams.

Just why the ODT and the proponents of the stadium have not talked to Mr Farry, Sir Edgar, and the other members of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) to clarify with them exactly how the stadium was to be provided and run at NO ratepayer cost, is a mystery. Maybe it is because the ODT know that the promises made to do exactly that were nothing other than wishful thinking. But then again, at that crucial time, the CST informed us that two leading New Zealand accountancy firms supported the CST promises. Maybe instead of continuing to support the stadium, the ODT would be best to do some investigative work and find out just why these two firms believed that the CST was on sure ground.

While it might be hard for the ODT and other proponents of the stadium to have to admit that those that saw the actions of the CST in a different light to them and have been proven to be right in every area of concern, it is plainly ridiculous to now adopt the view that stadiums always lose money and so we shouldn’t be worried. That is not what was promised and that is not what has happened.

[ends]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
1.2.14 Stadium: ODT editorial (1.2.14) —“Palpable claptrap” says Oaten
29.1.14 Stadium: Brent Edwards cuts the grass (ODT 29.1.14)
27.1.14 Stadium: No 4 at interest.co.nz
25.1.14 Stadium: Some helped it along, or themselves!
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .
17.1.14 Garrick Tremain: Our Stadium
26.11.13 Russell Garbutt: DCC, stadium failings
7.10.13 DCC councillors, no idea annual cost of owning, operating FB Stadium

For older posts, enter *stadium* in the search box at right.

–

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: dunedintv.co.nz – Russell Garbutt re-imaged by Whatifdunedin

Stadium: ODT editorial (1.2.14) —“Palpable claptrap” says Oaten

### ODT Online Sat, 1 Feb 2014
Editorial: Business, or community asset?
The Dunedin City Council has been grappling with Forsyth Barr Stadium issues this past week. Fundamentally, they stem from the fact the economics of running the stadium are far worse than initially projected, an outcome that should surprise few. Many stadiums around the world struggle financially and Dunedin’s is no exception.
Read more

****

Comment received from Calvin Oaten
Submitted on 2014/02/01 at 1:56 pm

The ODT must have gotten a special on ‘lipstick’, because the Editor has really applied it thick and heavy on this “Pig”. I must go past and have another look at the shade. The last time I saw it was the same old ‘deathly pallor’, befitting its purpose in life.

He says: “Before too long the Stadium might well even struggle to meet operating costs, many of which are fixed.” What sort of statement is that, when it is acknowledged that the ratepayers at present pay $9.125m each year (pa) towards stadium related costs? Right there is a full barrel of ‘lipstick’.

● $144m of debt at 6% pa is $8.6m pa, Capital debt paid in 18 years (as Dave Cull claims) is $8m pa. Total $16.6m pa.

● Then there are the council contributions of $750,000 pa for community use subsidy, plus $400,000 pa events attraction fund. Total $17.75m pa.

● Then there are the Accumulated deficits of DVL and DVML amounting to $16.373m (see both annual reports ‘change in equity’ sections).

All up, the stadium hole is $34 million pa deep.

● Oh, and let’s not forget (as it often is) the High Performance Sports Centre, built on the NE side of the stadium. It was funded by the DCC on the basis of the HPSC paying all costs in order to clear the debt within ten years. This was reputed to cost the HPSC around $850,000 pa. Shortly after, a quiet motion was put to council that it should make an annual grant to HPSC of $850,000 pa, and it was readily approved by the council of the day. So there goes another bundle of ratepayers’ treasure.

We won’t even mention SH88 or the Carisbrook fiasco.

The Editor then says, “the councillors and the people of Dunedin will have to understand the stadium’s valuable place in the city’s extraordinary range of community – educational, cultural and sporting – facilities. It is a valuable community asset.”

Palpable claptrap. If the stadium suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke (we wish) the only thing put out would be Super15, ITM cup and Test rugby. Nothing else, fullstop. Cricket, University Oval, Soccer, Caledonian Ground. All other sports, including lower grade rugby are well and truly catered for. Concerts, the Town Hall/Regent Theatre/Mayfair Theatre. Basketball and Netball, Edgar Centre/Lion Foundation. Swimming, Moana Pool.

Seriously, the stadium is an incredibly expensive arena foisted upon the citizens by a small, very determined group of ‘rugby nutters’, and that is the truth of the matter. The editorial in today’s ODT is nothing more than a ‘hollow attempt’ to put a case for the stadium as an asset, based on nothing but falsehoods and ‘mystical’ dreams. That it will mislead a lot of more deserving citizens is the shame of it all.

[ends]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
29.1.14 Stadium: Brent Edwards cuts the grass (ODT 29.1.14)
27.1.14 Stadium: No 4 at interest.co.nz
25.1.14 Stadium: Some helped it along, or themselves!
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .
17.1.14 Garrick Tremain: Our Stadium
26.11.13 Russell Garbutt: DCC, stadium failings
7.10.13 DCC councillors, no idea annual cost of owning, operating FB Stadium

For older posts, enter *stadium* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: odt.co.nz – Calvin Oaten re-imaged by Whatifdunedin

Darren Burden plays LGOIMA game like Davies #DVML #PsychoAnswer

DVML’s attempts to deceive ratepayers continues under Burden’s control. Mayor Dull is fully complicit.

### ODT Wed, 10 Oct 2012
Letters to the editor (page 8)
Concern over attendance of rugby games
Recent national news stories regarding widespread concern over the NZRU’s ITM Cup competition, which report that the number of spectators are down in significant numbers, along with reduced ratings on Sky TV for their coverage of these matches, lead to some financial concerns for Dunedin ratepayers.
Can Darren Burden, chief executive of DVML who runs and manages the stadium used for these professional rugby matches, confirm that:
1. The average attendance at these matches at the Forsyth Barr Stadium is in the region of 5000.
2. The average ticket price for these 5000 attendees is approximately $20.
3. The gross income from ticket sales is, therefore, approximately $100,000.
4. The NZRU returns approximately 10% of gate sales revenue to the venue operator.
5. The income to DVML from gate sales is, therefore, approximately $10,000.
6. The cost of opening the stadium for a professional rugby match is approximately $100,000.
7. These matches held at the stadium therefore lose approximately $90,000 each time they are held.
If Mr Burden disputes these figures, can he supply in detail his version of the above statements, as well as an accurate profit/loss statement for the ITM matches held at the stadium?

Russell Garbutt
Wakari

[Dunedin Venues chief executive Darren Burden replies: “The ITM Cup provides variety and entertainment to our event schedule and has value to the stadium beyond just financial. The cost of opening the stadium varies depending on the size of the event. However, it is nowhere near $100,000 for an ITM cup match, as suggested. The information requested by Mr Garbutt is complex. I invite him to contact Dunedin Venues directly and we’ll happily review his request for information.”]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

SUNK Stadium: TOO MUCH ratepayer money going west STOP

Garrick Tremain – 11 May 2012

The point is $224 million is not the TRUE COST. It is FAR HIGHER. Dunedin City Council must stop all OBFUSCATION. Open the books to a full independent forensic audit of the council and related entities NOW.

Meantime, close the stadium to stem the losses.

—

### ODT Online Fri, 11 May 2012
Budget blowout pushes stadium cost to $224m
By Chris Morris
The final cost of the Forsyth Barr Stadium has risen to $224 million, after independent auditors uncovered a budget blow-out of more than $8 million, it has been confirmed. The findings showed the stadium’s capital cost had risen by $8.4 million, from $198 million to $206.4 million. Interest accrued during the stadium’s entire construction period, as loans began to be drawn down, also hadn’t been included in costs.

The $8.4 million overspend meant costs exceeded budgets by 4.2%.

The PWC review did not seek to apportion blame, but findings had been passed to council chief executive Paul Orders, who told reporters he would study them “coolly and calmly”.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr