STS changes name to 'Sort the System'

If the Herald with the news from Martin Snedden is correct: Tournament organiser Martin Snedden yesterday revealed that the forecast loss had grown $9.3 million from the original $30 million, then perhaps "Max" might like to offer the Saviour of Dunedin Ratepayers' Investment in the Stadium, by offering the Manchester Promoter Mr.Davies, to put a spark into the required fund raising and bring people to this far away nation. That might be the answer don't you think? There is no doubt this will be the catalyst for a successful undertaking, after all Dunedin Councillors claim, they were lucky to have engaged the services of such talent here in the Greater Dunedin Metropolis.

As per usual Amanda K, you have just read what you want to read. What I actually said is that I don't disagree with STS and followers that a referendum should have been held on this issue...and I'm not OK that one wasn't held...my reasons being that (a) I believe in democracy and I think that the democratic option was to hold one and (b) I have no doubt that the referendum would have shown that the vast majority of the citizens of Dunedin support the stadium.
But there wasn't one held so I am comforted by the courage our elected representatives on council have shown by moving this project forward for Dunedin. And, if I may, what is with the whole 'public gathering' that you keep going on and on about. I have shown my support for the stadium by buying 4 seats - I am certain that's enough 'evidence' of my support....and, if it makes you happier, I'll make sure I look Mr Davies up when I'm at the stadium on opening night (with the other 30,000 people)....I'm sure even you would agree that that will be a 'public gathering' large enough to demonstrate 'happiness' to Mr. Davies (and the DCC/ORC, Mr Farry, the CST, Arrow International, Hawkins and all others involved in this project).

Since it seems that constructive suggestions for a new name for 'Stop-the-Stadium' seem to be in-order, and that the names suggested should have a 'Council' flavour about them; may I respectfully suggest 'Shaft-the-Sods'?

Our drains have been under increasing pressure since early 1960. We have been contributing to a "Depreciation Fund" for core services for some years. What has happened to this? Robbed to build Council feel good projects. These Councillors should be financially liable for neglecting core services. Instead of getting junkets overseas and all the other trapings of the so called position. Get back to core services first.

Professional rugby is not sport - it's entertainment marketed to us by and designed to separate us from our money, it's no different from Hoyts selling a movie. And as a for profit business the city has no business subsidising it - if you want to go and see it it you should pay your way, I shouldn't have to kick in over half the cost of your tickets. When I was a kid rugby was a sport - the Otago team represented us, we all knew someone who's older brother or uncle played for them and we were intensely proud when they did well. The Highlanders though don't represent us any more than they do the actual towns their players come from - they are just marketed to us as being 'ours' - because the NZRFU split up the country and some guys got this bit. It's a bit like how Speights is 'ours' - when it's now really a Japanese beer ....
Anyway sport is not sitting in the stands and watching - that's just being entertained, like going to the movies - sport is getting getting off your backside and playing. If you want the city to subsidise some sports choose some that actually represent us - none of my kids play rugby - if you have to have a stadium give priority to the kids on rainy days for all codes - have club rugby use it, and soccer, and cricket - this whole plan to reserve it for profit making business but not let the very citizens who are forced to pay for it play there kind of tips your hand and shows that you don't really care about Otago sport.

Libraries, museums etc incur losses that don’t even show up on the radar compared to the stadium, (at least when set vs it’s usefulness) and I think we need books, CDs, DVDs and all the other services libraries offer. We'll need it even more now since there'll be no new other things coming up in this town, with what's taking all the money. Libraries and such are core, and the majority use it, stadium supporters generally appear not to use it... hmmm... We know stadiums also feature in most large towns, no dispute there, and indeed we have that too, it's been there for over 100 years and got a large revamp scant few years back. Museums attract visitors who spend their money in the region, so they do their part to create a spin off, and it's the value of our heritage and culture that counts, not the price save or preserve it, if one has a sense of responsibility, that is. While the museums we have already are good, Dunedin is not punching its weight in this important sector. We compare very poorly to places north, more so to Oz, USA or UK. If you make a museum with wow factor exhibits (like aircraft for example) and have lots of interactive things, you have not only a visitor attraction, but a place for education (which like the library, which seems to some to be less important than stadia) with school visits. Not to mention a place where many people enjoy volunteer getting their hands dirty restoring new exhibits. Something creative, and there's sod all of that available in this town. And at this rate, for a long time in the future. We'll definitely have to make more use of the library, I guess...

Stop the Squandering (on a futile, fringe benefit project) befits... and let those who want the stinking thing pay for it, then the slander... (oops, misnomer, all justified criticism more like) would stop over night. And yes, people's places wouldn't flood out when there's a deluge - somewhat more important than rugby temples - so the storm water issue would go too. Why should people pay extra rates to a stadium when they get water threatening their homes? So far the only drain that's working efficiently is the stadium one getting public money poured into it.

albino, were you saying that you were OK with there being no referendum because you were confident that the majority would have voted for the stadium anyway? Can you imagine how it would distress someone if they felt the opposite, just as vehemently as you, but were not given the chance to express their opinion? You had your opinion supported by those in power, lucky you. Anyway, if you are so confident that the stadium is great then do as I have suggested to other pro stadium people and call for a public opportunity to express your happiness to David Davies in a public welcoming. Anything else is just words and not evidence.

I don't think there's any possibility of saving money on construction costs as the contract has an agreed price. This means it can't go down, but more importantly it can't go up. It also means that we have to keep the roof (Roof structure will be partly on early in the new year so too late for new council to stop). We also have to be careful that we price it within range of other venues in the country in terms of hire costs. If we start to charge too much, then no events will come. But we can't give it away either, as a hire agreement has to cover the costs of the organisation using it. Sky will pay nothing, as they pay the NZRFU for coverage rights, who in turn pay the hire cost for the venue. Several years ago it was reported that the NZRFU pay $100,000 per test - I'm sure this has gone up. This seems like a healthy payment for a few days. Remember a test match will use the venue for more than just two or three hours. There's the captain's run on the Friday beforehand, a few days lead in to get it set up, and a few days after to dismantle everything. I also note that in a document I read recently that the council will make most of the profit from food and drink sales. Maybe there is an opportunity here to offer dining packages before and after the game. Venues such as the stadium, Edgar Centre, and Town Hall are never designed to make profits. Just like libraries, art galleries and museums. They are designed to be venues for residents to use. Without venues such as these there is nothing to do in a place like Dunedin. Imagine a city without the NZSO playing on a regular basis. Imagine no venue for shows and musicals. Imagine Dunedin with no venue for large sports events. It's just not Dunedin. Having a world-class stadium has been, and will continue to be, one of the major features of Dunedin city. Not everyone goes to sport, but not everyone goes to the Fortune Theatre. Having a venue like this is not so much a commercial venture, but providing a community space for cultural and sporting events.

I think it's probably too late at this point to stop the project, I do think it can be reduced in scope and scaled back in time to save money - equally we can make sure that it pays for itself and starts paying back some of the cost of building it by charging the commercial interests who are using it realistic usage charges - for example Sky have deep pockets, they can be billed for as much as we can possibly get out of them for the facilities and resources they use when covering games.

We could leave off the roof, buy a bunch of umbrellas, rugby fans are not a wimpy bunch, that would save a lot.

The DCC has to borrow $100m to build the thing - compound interest over 20 years will be about another $100m - so every dollar we save today, or put off spending to the future so we don't have to borrow for, or we can recover early from users saves us $2.

I certainly hope that there are STS members that stand for council at the next election. MikeStk and I agree that too many candidates running under the same 'slate' will split the vote so I am hopeful that there is genuine coordination between the STS and any other individual (independent or otherwise) that has an 'anti-stadium' view......although I am obviously hopeful that such a candidate(s) won't simply run for council on one issue. I for one, as a vehement supporter of the stadium have never disagreed that a referendum wasn't warranted on the stadium issue (in the main because I have no doubt that a referendum would have shown the majority of citizens in Dunedin want the stadium)and I believe the same will occur in the next election - the council will change very little and Mayor Chin, should he decide to stand again, will win very comfortably. That said, I am happy to be shown I am wrong and that can only occur if there is a genuine challenge to the current council so that we can, once and for all, get the true mandate of Dunedin residents. Because as much as you believe that the stadium is not wanted, I believe it is.....and I guess both 'sides' can't be right.
So MikeStk, I am encouraged by your comments and I hope there is a solid movement by STS and anti-stadium independents to fight for what they believe in - because, at the end of the day, the people will speak. I just hope that we get a decent turn-out at the polls when the time comes. One question though, should the election go as you believe it will.....what chance do you honestly believe that the project could be stopped? It will be 3/4 completed. Liked the blog...agree with your sentiments MikeStk...hope your thoughts are adhered to.

I believe a number of STS's members are planning to stand at the next election - certainly some are holding their cards close to their chests and quietly raising money even now.

The danger is of course the opposite. If, as at the last election, we get too many anti-status-quo candidates and they split the vote. At the last election there were two anti-stadium slates and they split the vote. The fact that despite this, most of one slate still got elected shows you how powerful that vote was.

What's not happening according to STS is that they will not be putting up candidates as 'STS Candidates'. I hope that STS will work behind the scenes to help make sure there's a single united front this time around. If there's going to be a 'super ward' then getting exactly 12 (or whatever the number is) on the ballot and helping them be well funded and well supported is probably the best thing STS can do.

It must be a particularly questionable situation to be a city councillor right now, as virtually none of the present councillors (including our fine Mayor) can confirm that they will be standing again either.

Interesting, that out of 1,500 'members', not one of them is willing to stand in next year's elections.

How about... Sense the Stupidity. Although, 'saving the stormwater' and 'solving starvation' will all happen once this montrosity is built won't it? After all, that fits with the delusions currently being spouted by the 'thousands' in favour! By the way, the stormwater problems will have to wait...the DCC doesn't have the money to address core business at the moment.

This would be fun for both sides... I'll start.
Support The Stadium
Stop The Slander
Save The Stormwater
Solve The Starvation.
Would be funny for stadium supporters to all join and then vote to change the name to Save the Stadium.
Looks like we will only need about 20 members as there's only 15 turning up anyway.