Ratepayers to get first shot at Sir Elton tickets

I couldn't care less if he released something last year, or last week for that matter. Elton John hasn't released anything that has charted for a long time. And nothing that's deserved to chart in even longer.

Good on you you for taking the punt and bringing him here. There are obviously enough people prepared to pay over $100 for a has-been, whether that's because he's a bona fide "big" name still or simply because he's the biggest name that's played here I don't know. And I don't care. 

I do care that as someone having $100 a year stolen from my pocket to build the venue. We were promised a big name to open the stadium, and to me an overpriced has-been simply isn't that.

Sound bouncing off glass? The roof is not made of glass, or are you not up to play. It is a special membrane and doesn't bounce. Plus we invest heavily in the very best sound equipment and have the best engineers in the world to meticulously set levels and direction to deliver the optimum for the concert.

As to ticket price. This is Elton John and ticket prices are on  par with shows worldwide. In fact they are identical to the previous shows in NZ absorbing the higher GST costs.

Elton released new material as late as last week in a new Disney movie. Recently he made a new album with totally new songs with friend Leon Russell. Billy Elliot, Lion King, the Captain and the Kid and the list goes on.

You have failed to answer who you think would come to Dunedin, be bigger, have broader demographic appeal and sell the number of tickets this concert wiil. Please enlighten us all.

[Abridged] 

We are paying a handsome % for hiring the venue (can't be more specifric than this as detail is commercially confidential)

We are paying for 10,000 extra seats being shipped in  from Wellington.

We are paying  for all sound and lighting.We are paying for all screens etc.

We pay for everything we use, hire, labour, etc etc.

The venue pays for nothing.

So it's now been established that neither the Dunedin Stadium operators, the DCC, nor any of their associated companies, will incur any costs, nor be at risk of incurring any costs, associated with the Elton John concert. And that the concert promoter will be paying the venue operator 100% of the venue standard market hire rate. That's brilliant news. Why hasn't someone told us about this before ? Thanks, Max. Bring on more of these "can't lose" concerts, I say.

Thanks, Max. I couldn't agree more.  Now, can you please provide some by answering some of the requests addressed to you?

Silentlord; Factful statistics and news I’ve read (as have many others speaks the obvious truth, a look at stadium losses in other parts of the world, in more densely populations would have a somewhat strong influence.  Starting with the huge losses that Queensland stadium incur, by the millions per year.  And just to prove my ‘doomed arguments’ and those of fellow antis (glad you noted there are so many of us), for the best example see this link

The truth is out there.  

[Abridged]

If it was anything else we were talking about, all the DCC ‘bean counters' would be minding every penny, not so for a stadium, that no matter what is tried on us, it's still built for rugby.  Indeed Carisbrook is more multi purpose, and hypothetically could have hosted Elton John anyway.  Melbourne may well have a stadium, (their equivalent to Carisbrook), of course somewhat bigger a complex etc but it's a huge city. 
Let's hope as has been suggested, when it goes into liquidation, it can finally be multipurpose and converted for a totally different, and purposeful use.  Most large cities only build structures like that for a new additional airport terminal at a hub airport, something that will pay for itself, having thousands through it each day.    It's interesting how a big city like Auckland didn't even think another stadium was worthwhile, a big city like that can smell the coffee.

Priceless Max. First Dunedin is going to have 10,000 out of town vistors spending $5-7 million; next the majority of Otago will be there. Now you have received letters of support outnumbering critics by 1700 to 1. That's somewhere around 340,000 letters of support.

One accurate comment from you is that size matters. Of course it does. New Plymouth is easily accesible by road to most of the 3 million plus Nth Islanders. Dunedin is accessible by road to around 1 million. Dunedin city itself has a very low earning average, and a high proportion of students and pensioners.

Most people I know are more than happy to support sensible proposals, but scrapping Carisbrook in favour of the new stadium was just not a resposible or sensible way to spend public money. So good luck and the only thing I would ask of you is to stop throwing around silly numbers.

Max Burns, you have been more than obliging, forthcoming and transparent in your responses to a "disaffected few".  For this I commend you and your organisation.

Like you, I am extremely excited about the concert, and am sure it will be a success for all parties.

All the very best with the planning.

If you reread the article it actually says: "Westpac Stadium is fantastic, Sprey says, but other stadiums and venues nationwide are courting him with offers to hire their premises for about 10 per cent of the cost".

Nowhere does it say the venue operator has to pay 90% of the venue operating costs. I think you will find it actually means there are other venues that cost 10% of the price of Westpac Stadium. 

Compare this. Why can New Plymouth with a fraction of Dunedin's population get multiple 'A' list artisst to perform at their Bowl of Brooklands each year? Each time they get16-17,000 people.

Don't Dunedin people deserve seeing some great artists?

Also it is a little precious and selfish to consider only Dunedin itself when the stadium is 'owned' by ALL Otago ratepayers plus will cater for those in Southland, West Coast, South Canterbury etc who will never have an indoor stadium in their area. Not even Christchurch will have anything indoors on this scale.

The guys in our office continue to be amazed at the pessimistic and negative comments some Dunedinites make. Luckily they are a minority as correspondence we have recived by email and post outweighs them on the positive side by 1700:1

Topsy. Yes Phil did make that statement but the rental fee which is paid to the venue owner is above all costs. Yes staff, catering, R&M, etc etc. is additional.

The venue therefore takes Nno risk.

Please if you make statements make sure you have the facts first.

In 2008, Phil Sprey (who is Max Burns' boss) stated in a published article that he typically hires stadium venues within NZ for 10% of their normal hire cost. That leaves the venue operator to front up with the remaining 90% of the venue operating costs. I would consider that to be a risk to someone other than Capital C. Wouldn't you, Max?

Max Burns, in reply to this comment and others - your assurances about Capital C taking all the risk and "DCC and DVML have nothing to do with any deals other than renting us the venue" might sound reassuring to some, but not to me. Presumably your comments represent the position of Capital C, however some things you claim relate to aspects that do not involve Capital C.

When you say "we take all the risk" that is not quite the same thing as saying that there is no risk to DCC/DVML/DVL/ratepayers because of things that you don't know about. Understand that I have no criticism of Capital C, and while your claims may or may not be true, some of them fall outside your realm of responsibility and/or knowledge. We need to hear from the DCC.

[Abridged]

...or the next best ($110) you'll be so far away from Sir Elton you'll need a pair, or a small telescope. I checked the stadium price/plan map. Of course the huge screen will be there, but doesn't that make it like just watching a concert live on TV, for somewhat less? Or shell out $395 to be close by. The bouncing soundwaves in the huge areas of glass surely won't sound too good, a bit of law of physics applied there.

They haven't gone on sale yet. 

Oh no the Chinese Garden isn't doing as well as "promised". Might be good practice flogging the dragon before we tackle the white elephant because I think we are going to need that practice.

Of course we care about the deficit - that's the whole point here, a city has to live inside its means or it strangles itself unable to build or repair new infrastructure - look how long it's taken to get a vaguely useful sewage system for the city. Your "let's build a stadium and hang the expense" attitude is exactly the thing that's strangling the city and it's future economy, it's the reason many of our kids won't stay around. Saying that people shouldn't mind the city's deficit is so totally short sighted.

[Abridged]

how gullible the pro stadium people are. All the figures we were fed were so flawed it would be laughable, were it not so appalling for the city. Anyone with even a basic understanding of business economics knows that the stadium will not make a profit. The Chinese Garden was the template for the stadium, pushed through without ratepayer backing, on the assurance that it would be a valuable, revenue earning asset for the City and, lo and behold, it is costing us well over half a million dollars every year. The stadium will replicate this on a much, much larger scale.

As far as the Elton concert is concerned, it may be that the promoter is bearing all the risk himself. However, knowing the way that the Dunedin Venues Management works, it simply would not surprise me to see that various incentives were offered. In fact I would be amazed if they weren't.  I have yet to see anyone advise us how much the Stadium is supposed to make from the event. Funny that.

[Abridged]

You cannot compare the Wellington Stadium to Dunedin.  Did they really have a stadium of large capacity to begin with?  We do, it’s called Carisbrook, and though I'm certainly not into rugby, it’s an icon of the town with more seating than the replacement.  Their population is three or four times Dunedin’s and even pro rata to 12 years inflation since it was built, their open topped job was done at way lower cost. 

Oh, and it’s also close to some other large cities.  Dunedin isn’t.  In any case, all the entertainment you menation again is rugby.  Benefits one interest sector only.

I do wish you well with your concert, as other concert promoters said they’d never consider Dunedin, new stadium or not, due to it’s track record.  

[Abridged]

Ahem!.... How many tickets have been actually sold? What is really happening right now apart from proclaimations of grand results?  Forecasting results of events that have not occurred with alarming levels of confidence mixed with arrogance aligns the "Pro Stadia Group" with Nostradamus's hallucinogenic proclimations.

There is a need to be scientific, realistic and mathematical in approaches toward major financial moves in these days of economic recession and debt abuse.  Rhetorical impositions of fantasy from a rich minority (and a seemingly very wealthy and time laden expatriate population), does not reflect the reality the extremely fragile economy of Dunedin. 

I suggest that if this Stadium is not economically viable in the next few years, that we privatise it or claim bankruptcy and convert it/sell it.  

hello Max,

as you seem to be in the know please can you infom me of the following.

how much are the promoters paying for the stadium hire?

who is paying for the extra seating?

who is paying for the lightning?

who is paying for the screen?

many thanks

Oh please, if the headline read "Stadium marks 10 years of straight profits" I'd be bemoaning that the editor was on an acid trip.

Not even Malcolm Farry has claimed such is even possible. The fact that the stadium is planned to run at a loss (and thus a cost to ratepayers) is of great concern to me, and I'll bemoan away at will if it prevents us from repeating the same mistake.

Silentlord, totally agree. I gave up responding to these deficit-minded bloggers late last year and suggest that people who support this amazing project do the same.

The deficit-minded take every piece of information and turn it round to suit their arguments. I'm just back from Melbourne where residents are beneficiaries of some of the finest publc spaces and stadia in the world...and they pay for it. Hard to compare, I understand but nevertheless that city has for 180 years invested in its public amenities and oh how refreshing.

And in little Dunedin, right here, right now we can now enjoy something similar. I will be forever grateful to those who drove the Forsyth Barr Stadium.  

Elton hasn't released anything good since the early '80s.  At a bare minimum I'd look at pairing Elton with some else, eg Billy Joel, to make it vaguely interesting if this was to be the stadium's big name gig.

But that's not the point. The pro-stadium folk claimed that we'd get all the big-name concert tours including Dunedin if we build the stadium. And I'm still yet to see anything that sugests this will actually happen anything more than occasionally; a one-off concert of a has-been is far from proof of such.

I'll happily be wrong and be able to retrieve some value from the money stolen from me to build the stadium. But for me Elton John  is simply not value for that money. Most certainly not at over $80.

Oh Dear Max. Good on you for posting here, but keep it real. To say that most Dunedin people are supportive of the stadium is untrue - demonstrably so; the vast mjority are strongly opposed to it. To say that most Otago people will attend The EJ concert is even sillier. I'm sure you'll be delighted if you can pull more than 10% from Otago. That's a pretty good result for an event anywhere. Claiming that the event will boost the Dunedin economy by $7 million is just nonsense. and the only justification you have provided is based on hugely optimistic figures coming from outside Otago, and over the top spending estimates.

Did you really expect anything different..?  I admit, it was quite amusing to sit back and watch the anti-stadium candidates, and listen to the rhetoric from their supporters about what will happen once 'their crowd'is elected.

They forgot however, that they are at heart, politicians.  

A politician in opposition can be 'very concerned' about all sorts of things, as they are never required to 'do' anything about it other than voice opposition.

Once elected, they find that the reality is not quite in line with the speeches they had been giving.

that there are so many people so vehemently opposed to the statdium, who will completely lose sight of all logic and reason in pursuit of their doomed arguments. They decry the statistics of others as flawed, while inflating and mis-interpreting their own.

I think Max_Burns deserves a medal for putting up with what must seem like mass pessimism on a provincial scale.  I lost count of how many time he mentioned that everything is being paid for by the promoter. Not the
city.

It's been mentioned elswhere here that some don't consider Elton John to be a big act...  How big does it need to be?  The Second Coming....?

Frankly, if the headline had read "Stadium marks 10 years of straight profits" there would still be some of our more regressive citizens bemoaning the waste of taxpayer funds...

I see from the Ticket Direct website that the Elton John presales are open to Otago ratepayers, ODT subscribers and Ticket Direct members. Since anybody in NZ can become a Ticket Direct member it appears that we've been once again sold a lemon. I wonder therefore if it will also be like regular pre-sales where only a certain amount of seats from each area will be released.