Salary up to $225,000

Terry Davies.
Terry Davies.
The new boss of Dunedin Venues Management Ltd will be paid up to $225,000 to try to turn the struggling company's fortunes around, it has been confirmed.

Terry Davies (53), a former professional cricketer and deputy chief executive of the South Australian Cricket Association, who works for the South Australian Tourism Commission, was last week named as the DVML's new chief executive.

Mr Davies was not yet giving interviews, but DVML staff have confirmed he would be paid a base salary of $200,000, with an additional $25,000 at-risk portion.

That could see Mr Davies paid up to $225,000, depending on his performance, and he would receive a yet-to-be-determined allowance for the cost of relocating from Adelaide, DVML spokeswoman Kim Barnes said.

That was in line with former chief executive Darren Burden, who was also appointed on a $200,000 salary, with an at-risk $25,000 bonus on top, although he received none of it after his early departure from the role.

Both men were paid less than DVML's first chief executive, David Davies, who received an annual salary of up to $250,000, including an at-risk portion linked to performance, some of which he received upon his departure.

However, DVML's recruitment costs were coming down, with the hunt to find Mr Burden's replacement - which led to Terry Davies - costing $33,750, it was confirmed this week.

That was less than the cost of recruiting Davies Davies, which cost the Dunedin City Council $66,571.90, and the later search that led to Mr Burden, which cost DVML $51,307.45.

Mrs Barnes said 46 people applied to replace Mr Burden, of whom 33 were from outside New Zealand.

The $33,750 bill that resulted covered Optima Global Talent's fee and the cost of psychometric assessments, she said.

Other costs, including advertising, video conferencing and flights to bring the final two candidates to Dunedin, were yet to be determined, but would be made public once confirmed, she said.

styly 1, So?

styly 1, So?

The real problem is lazy couch dwellers?

Well QSRC, you might be onto something there but i don't think lazyness is the reason. The biggest selling item of 2013 was a playstation 4 at (from memory) 420 million units. Not bad considering it was only released a month before christmas and was largely unavailable here until last month.

The reasons I no longer support rugby are as follows

1) Ticket cost. $10 was a reasonable cost to pay to watch a 80 minuite game. The cost nowdays is not worth it especially when you go to the venue to purchase your ticket and still get landed with a booking fee. Im not there to book the ticket, im there to buy it.

2) Cost of alcohol and food is excessive and that's what you get when it's contracted out to those who are only in it for profit. $20 for 4 beers? Another $20 for 3 hotdogs and a couple of pottles of chips? No surprise the drinkers are staying home and watching it on the tv. 

3) They lost all the smokers when they refused to even allow smoking under the stands and channelled all those that wanted one off the property and out onto Burns st.

4) I made a promise to myself that if the new statium went ahead, I would never go to another game again and I dare say this rings true for many here. I went to the last AB game and the last Otago game at the Brook and have not even been bothered to watch the games on the tv since. Lost all interest. 

You just have to look at the popularity of online gaming. The big games. like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Grand Theft Auto take millions on release and even blockbuster movie releases pale in comparison. In fact, they don't even come close.

As far as rugby goes, it's so "last century" these days and there''s much better and cheaper entertainment available at home where you can drink cheaply and smoke if you want too.  

Not my fault

Hey Ign, not my fault interest in the Super 15 seems to be flagging. Loftus was almost empty as well. Just out of interest I see the NRL numbers are well down with average crowds lower in numbers than the A League. I think TV and too much sport may be the issue, perhaps it is ticket prices, perhaps people have other things to do? whatever the reason it may be that sports administrators have to think about over the exposure of their product.

Blatant spin-doctoring

The $66.00 per annum cost to the average household ratepayer that the DCC presented as being the cost of their stadium was blatant spin-doctoring. The DCC described this payment as being "a contribution" towards the stadium expenses. This was a very slimy thing to say because it gave us the impression that this was the total ratepayer cost. They, however knew at the time that $66 was only a small proportion of the total ratepayer cost. In my view, their claim was a lie because it gave a false impression.

Mayor Cull last year on Dunedin TV (Channel 39) was asked about this figure and he said (approximately) "[laugh, laugh, laugh] I don't think anyone really believed that at the time...". The reason that the ratepayers aren't laughing is because Dave Cull and the DCC staff still refuse to release the total annual cost of their stadium. They have been asked many times, but the response is always to avoid or refuse giving a useful answer.

The DCC continues to use the cheap trick of "a contribution" to avoid revealing the total cost. In the current DCC Draft Annual Plan on page 15 we are told about: "the ratepayer contribution towards the Forsyth Barr Stadium". This adds up to $9.125 million each year. This contribution is, however, a lot less than the total annual cost to ratepayers for all the losses and costs caused by their stadium. Mayor Cull and the DCC Chief Executive owe us an apology for continuing to mislead us about the total cost of running their stadium.

fudge facts

You people are letting the facts get in the way of my rosy view of Dunedin's massive optimistic future.

It's worse than that, MikeStk

Steve and MikeStk both seem to have had memory fades about "any actual repayment of the principal on the loans made to pay for the rugby stadium - $200m+ total cost spread over 20 years is $10+m a year of principle" as MikeStk puts it, though at least he remembers principal - we can be sure the lenders won't forget!

I checked back and found that, unless it's been changed again, the term has been reduced which alters the amount to be paid each year. The DCC is now paying off the stadium over 18 years rather than 20.  That means that they need to pay off $11.1m+ per year spread over 50,000 rate payers.  So that comes to $222 a year, not $200, in other words a total of $422.  That is an awful lot on the ratepayer's average rates demand, compared with the charges for core business.  To be sure it is not all on the rates bill, it is also in landfill charges, parking, permits and compliance costs and various other ways of making it less visible but it is still coming out of our pockets.

Steveone this is why

Stevesone57 here my take on why rugby is a dead game, it has not been the no 1 sport in NZ for years now. Only a few sad people who have yet to realise there is much more to life then rugby still watch or go to the games. More people watch motor sports, golf, or dare I say it darts on TV then rugby nowadays. Anyway most people, who watch the game, watch it on sky now. Much better to sit in the warm confines of your lounge with a brew brought from the Mill house for less then you will pay for the tickets. Less chance of catching a cold or flu keeping you off work and costing tax paying money in medical care.

And no worries about getting through all the 10 or 20 people at the stadium to walk back to your car to then drive using oil based products to get home creating more of those green house gases so many Dunediners seem to be worried about now days. It also means less cars on the road for a while so people on their bikes will be that little bit safer for a short time while the rugby fans sit at home to watch the game and over indulge in the alcohol and junk food while enjoying a cancer causing smoke.

See lots of reasons why people stay home now to watch the game


Rugby and rates

Prehaps you two should get together somewhere and discuss your mutual dislike of rugby? then everybody else would not have to constantly read your off topic rugby bashing. 

Hey did you know rugby participation numbers are currenly growing at about 6% per year! wow numbers have never been higher. Its still NZs top game team sport according to  Sparc's Active NZ sports survey. 

The real problem is lazy couch dwellers won't go to the games. Perhaps a UK type solution is required where say you live in London then Man U games are not broadcast live, so if you want live action you have to go.

The next great problem is monthly sports participation in general is down a staggering 13% in the past ten years. there lies your problem you lot are just plain lazy.


QsRC: How on earth do you equate asking the question of Council as to the validity of the $66 dollar charge for the stadium with hate? If the numbers on our rates notice mean nothing then what is the point? It is clear that the $3.3 million they say we have been rated is only a third of the interest bill. If they say you are paying $50 for rubbish removal but it's $150 don't you see that as an issue? I have been saying for some time that we need to reduce the consolidated Council debt of $625 million by selling assets. This would be like selling your boat or extra car if you were struggling with your mortgage. If a large portion of this debt were to be paid we could reduce the huge interest bill which will rise with a proposed half percent interest increase almost certain for later in the year. If you divide the $625 million by the number of rate payers we each carry a debt of $12,500. So let's stop taking chunks out of each other and think about how we reduce this massive impost.

In a handbasket

Whats this? $600,000,000 in dept now? Really? Nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in dept? How can this be true? Where has this money gone?

How can this be tolerated for one more second? We as the ratepayers need some accountability NOW.

The reason carisbroke was sold for $3,500,000 is because the ORFU where $7,000,000 in the hole then remember? Just after spending $14,000,000 on the corporate boxes for the same people who never stumped up for the new stadium. It seems their business model has not changed.

$400+ a year

Steve: your estimate of the rugby stadium cost seems to be missing any actual repayment of the principal on the loans made to pay for the rugby stadium - $200m+ total cost spread over 20 years is $10+m a year of principle - spread over 50,000 ratepayers that's going to average $200+ per ratepayer per year.

Add that to the $200 you've calculated, that makes $400+ each on average we  must be paying for the rugby stadium, all except for qsrc and his rugby mates who claim to not be pulling their weight by only paying $66 each.

Super 15 has no traction

The Cake Tin was empty for the Hurricanes v Brubbies game, Loftus was empty for the Bulls v Blues match. The marqee players who fans come to see like Dagg and Nonu don't appear interested whilst others are on sabatical. Unless the All Blacks are playing it seems the interest is waning in the competition. Not really sure what the problem is but the powers that be have to be concerned, maybe the TV rights are enough to cover the costs so they don't care?

$60 a year?

Absoloute bargain! we should get two of them at that price! One for the Highlanders and one for the Otago NPC team. Maybe we should even get a bigger circular one for the Volts then maybe they would get some of the hate to - it only seems fair to share it around.

Accounting 101

We have been told that the stadium costs us $66.00 per annum on our rates. I understand there are about 50,000 rate payers so how can that be? That equates to $3.3 million and yet the annual interest alone on the stadium debt is $9.25 million. Add in operational losses and the $1.2 million loss by DVML and we must be looking at well over $200 per annum per rate payer. I have not included the $3.1 million dollar loss on Carisbrook or any funds paid to bail out the ORFU.
Now I know there will be those who want to tell me to stop whining but I ask if this is any way to run a business? The business I refer to is the council, which seems to think it can lie to us and keep up the pretence that we are only paying $66.00 per annum. What other creative accounting do they get up to? Do we really have a consolidated debt of $625 million or is it more?
If we as ratepayers don't question the numbers our elected officials can just tell us anything and get away with it. [Abridged]

Rugby is now minor sport

Digger: You are absolutely correct. Rugby stopped being a "sport" in the early 1990s when the English changed the rules and it moved from a sport for all sizes and skills, to a reliance on steroids and sheer brutality to excite the masses. The ORFU have completely lost the plot with their emphasis on greed. A Test match held in Japan between NZ and Australia. to garner more money? Good grief! And the same Union does nothing to encourage rugby in Pacific countries - no tours, no invitations. No wonder kids have turned to other sports like soccer. Steve Tew is way off-course with his thinking and his refusal to fully support club rugby in monetary terms. [Abridged]

Selling assets

I don't much like the idea of selling off the silverware either, but what choice do we have? Our city is carrying a debt of $625 million and rising. Other than putting up rates to unsustainable levels what can be done to reduce the debt? Interest rates will rise later in the year, which will just compound the problem. We need to sell off some assets and get this debt down before it engulfs us.

Not cool

Stevesone57: The problem - if you can call it that - is that people have varied interests now. Rugby is no longer cool. It is now somwhat naff. Watching beefcakes do their thing is so five minutes ago. NZ is no longer about rugby racing and beer.

I might try that...

...when my next rates bill arrives. I'll let you know how I get on!

"Dear DCC, I simply can't afford to pay my bill this year. You'll just have to accept it, draw a line, find another way to make up for my shortfall and move on. I mean, I don't think anybody really seriously thought I was going to be able to pay it anyway, right?"


Priorities all wrong

Stevesone57: Please explain the reasoning behind selling off the performing assets of the city to pay for the one that isn't performing.

Although according to the Mayor he is doing something similar and will be selling down underperforming properties to pay for the Wall St upgrade, I imagine the plastic box isn't one of them. I would like to know what benchmark he is using to determine which properties rate as under performing.

Empty stadiums

Watching the Hurricanes v Brumbies at the Cake Tin and there are thousands and thousands of empty seats. Is it live TV? Is it lack of interest in the Suoer 15? Is the product the problem? It has to be a worry for all concerned with the promotion of the national game.

Rugby won't pay

Mikestk: I think we can forget the Otago Rugby Union ever paying back one cent of the ratepayer funds they recieved. I think had they had any intention to do so we would have heard about it by now. If the stadium were to be closed the Highlanders franchise would just move their operation to Invercargill. I am just as upset as you are about the terrible losses which have been incurred, but we have to find ways of moving forward. The debt must be paid down, and in order to do this assets must be liquidated. If this is not done the consolidated city debt of $625 million will just continue to escalate.

Mothball it

Steve: I think that one of the real problems with the stadium is that there's no pressure on the real cause of the stadium's failure to function financially - rugby not paying its way. It's just too easy for the council to rifle a few more ratepayers' pockets that to deal with the real cause of our problems.

I think that if rugby doesn't come to the  party, doesn't start paying its way and start raising that private fundraising they promised then we should mothball the stadium for a year or two. That should wake them up and force them to come to the table. The worst thing that could happen would be that we'd lose less money while it's closed - frankly we can't lose here, we're better off whether rugby comes to the table or not. And if after a couple of years they don't see the light sell it for whatever you can get - ten cents on the dollar still saves us $50m in principle and interest.

Closing not an option

I do not think closing the stadium is an option, we must find some way to mitigate the losses. Firstly I would ask that all facts and figures re the state of the stadium's finances are put on the table by Council once and for all. No more surprises, no more creative accounting. The huge debt must be paid off and perhaps we as a community can look at Council assets which could be sold off to retire not only stadium debt but the $625 million in total debt run up by successive Councils. We cannot move forward as a city with this level of accumulated debt, neither can Council afford to spend money on economic development whilst still carrying such a massive debt load. Raising commercial rates recently proposed by Council will stifle economic growth and will hardly be the catalyst for attracting business to our city. Doing nothing is not an option, we cannot continue burying our heads in the sand and arguing amongst ourselves about the stadium's future. We must find a way forward.

Some positive things are possible

Steve: I agree it is a poison chalice and probably impossible, but it's not true that there's nothing he could do to make a difference to the losses faced by the ratepayers. He could decide to close it for a start - that would save us the money it loses every day. Equally he could stop DVML from being a soft touch when it come to dealing with rugby and negotiate with a realistic contract with them that would involve the rugby stadium making an operating profit.  That too would make a difference to the amount of money currently being suctioned from the ratepayer's pockets.

Another way

Maybe DVML should have considered tendering for this job.  Put up the specs, put up the expectations, and open it up for bidding.  Wonder how many people would have bet on their determination to succeed? The current system seems to guarantee a payment of a quarter of a million a year with no guaranteed measure of success.  An easy way to make some quick money.

The current system of setting CEO's "packages" is clearly out of step with reality and performance so maybe an entirely new approach is needed.

Declining recruitment costs

Is the bit about DVML's recruitment costs coming down supposed to make us feel good that they are trying hard to save money and divert our attention from the salary being offered for a position that many doubt is actually required? After all, how many companies failing at this level and having produced nothing since April last year need the level of employees that this organisation does? Maybe they have a loyalty card with Optima Global Talent and get it stamped each year. You watch, the tenth one will be for free.

Poison Chalice

What are we expecting from the DVML's next CEO? There is no hope he can turn a profit or make any difference to the losses faced by rate payers. We are best to understand this from the word go as expecting him to create a miraculous turn around in the stadiums fortunes is utterly unrealistic. He has already been employed by stadiums losing millions as most stadiums around the world already do. A 30,000 seat stadiium in a town of 100,000 people can never and will never succeed, surely by now we all understand that? Mitigating losses is the best we can hope for, our newest CEO has an impossible mission.

No bonus payments!

Newbie: Regardless of my suggested salary, I still stand by my comments about "at-risk" payments. There are many many high salaries paid without any "add-ons". It is also a fact that most people on high salaries are not necessarily attracted by the salary - more so by the challenge of the position, or the "power" of the role. Ask any MP in ANY country. NO - bonus payments are not necessary to attract good people. 

Interesting stats

whijo: Got the right experience. Looks like he will fit right in here then.

Wrong Trev

For a senior management role, charged with finding a profit, I am surprised this salary is that low.

There are many, many senior executives in Dunedin being paid considerably more money than
this for lower profile roles with less of a public interest in performance. I can't comment on the individual concerned, but this role needs a very experienced executive with an excellent skillset.

If you don't like the current performance of the company, you really can't criticise when a reasonable salary is offered to turn it around.

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
McNaughton Roofing SystemsCromwellRoofers
Totara Lowlands Gift Shop & Specialty FoodsOamaruGifts
Kevin C WeirDunedinLandscape Gardeners
Lance Doran AutomotiveOamaruServicing & Mechanics