New chief says rugby officials 'arrogant'

The new head of the Forsyth Barr Stadium has taken rugby officials to task for the "arrogance" he says they have shown the sport's potential supporters.

In an interview with the Otago Daily Times, Dunedin Venues Management Ltd chief executive David Davies said putting up posts and flags and expecting a crowd to come was no longer good enough, and if necessary, he promised to deal with that problem.

• Hard school of experience
• Not just a rugby stadium?

"I expect better from them. If they don't make a difference, I will."

While Otago Rugby Football Union chairman Ron Palenski was not fully comfortable with the term "arrogance", he agreed, when contacted, there was a perception among the public that was the case.

The union was already working amicably with Mr Davies on how the stadium and the union could work together on promoting the game, and the stadium, and the union supported what he was doing.

"Rugby needs to work harder to get people to follow the All Blacks, follow tests, and watch games," Mr Palenski said.

"It's not automatic any more that people go to games."

For Mr Davies, the game needed more than just the new stadium to bring back the crowds.

"Losing bums on seats is not because the stadiums are poor; it's the customer experience," he said.

There was an "obvious arrogance" in rugby union circles, with the expectation crowds would automatically turn up for a game.

"They're not," Mr Davies said, and there was an education process that needed to happen.

"If people spend money, they need a reason.

"Part of this is improving the customer experience."

That was the case whether it was motorsport in Indianapolis or football in the United Kingdom.

Mr Davies is not the only new entrant to the management of Otago rugby who has recognised the Highlanders, at least, have lost their connection with the public.

One of the franchise's recently appointed directors, Kereyn Smith, made it clear early on she felt the Highlanders needed to "re-engage" with fans, and Mayor Peter Chin noted the expectation of the public in the performance of the team, not just on the field, had "not been borne out".

Mr Davies planned to consult the region's rugby clubs, and do something about the criticism he had heard, that people were disconnected from "the pro arm" of the code.

He said in New Zealand, rugby had not marketed itself at a community level to the extent of which it was capable.

"I'm very clear about how we have to present it to the public."

The experience had to be a good one from the time punters parked their cars.

Going through turnstiles had to be a simple and quick process, tickets needed to be bought through mobile phones if necessary, and queues had to be short.

There had to be sufficient television screens in the concourse so people leaving the playing arena to buy food or beverages did not have to rush back if a try was scored.

Entertainment needed to be provided, and children had to have access to players after the match, as they used to be able to do at Carisbrook.

"Trying to capture some of the spirit of Carisbrook of old is something we want to do."

Mr Palenski said discussions with Mr Davies were amicable.

"We want to fill the stadium. They want to fill the stadium. That's great."

Mr Davies had "tremendous experience" in his field, and understood the game of rugby, Mr Palenski said.

"It's wonderful to be able to work with a guy like that."

david.loughrey@odt.co.nz

you misrepresent me

I never said that the stadium was to blame for all that debt - costs and debt are different things, the numbers just happen to be similar - much of the debt from the stadium hasn't been created yet (there's $50m more to go I believe) but I do think it's responsible for a lot of it. Servicing a debt is a cost, but not debt itself (unless you don't pay your mortgage ...).

Nor did I claim that $359m was the 'direct capital cost' of the stadium, again you're putting words in my mouth. $359m is my current estimate, from public sources, of the total cost, all up, the city will have to pay to do build and set up (but not run) the stadium - money to service debt is no different that money to pay off the principal, it all has to come from somewhere - either an larger increase in rates or fees or a drop in city services. If you've found a way to convince banks that people only have to pay off the principal on their house loans I'm sure we all want to know.

The '$188m' number was largely a made up number, as small as possible to be used to sell the project, it didn't include a lot of things that will eventually cost the ratepayers money like servicing the debt or buying Carisbrook. Here's my current estimate of ALL the costs incurred by the stadium that the DCC will have to pay, with references for the figures, the main difference between this list and previous ones I've published is that the NZTA now provides a quantified estimate of what the DCC will have to pay to route SH88 around the stadium (though, given the recent wrangling to buy the land for this part of the project, this may well be a low-balled number)

  • $165m - maximum fixed price contract cost
  • $35.6m - cost of land purchase (Jim Harland's affidavit ODT 16/5/9)
  • $15.3m - CST overhead (Jim Harland's affidavit ODT 16/5/9)
  • $1.1m - DCC administration overhead (Jim Harland's affidavit ODT 16/5/9)
  • $385k - district plan change (Jim Harland's affidavit ODT 16/5/9)
  • $200k - temporary road improvement (ODT 23/5/9)
  • $7M cost of Carisbrook (ODT 18/6/9)
  • $109m - interest on DCC loans to fund (ODT 20/6/9)
  • $6.4 - capital maintenance fund (ODT 20/6/9)
  • $2.5 - changing city council offices to exclude angry ratepayers ODT 5/10/9 (*)
  • $67k - recruitment search cost to find Dave Davies ODT 15/12/9
  • $21k - Dave Davies moving fees ODT 10/11/9
  • $375k - $250k/year Dave Davies salary ODT 10/11/9 (only counting time before the stadium opens 1.5 years)
  • $15.9m - SH88 realignment (NZTA estimate for DCC from NZTA web site) NZTA decision 28/8/9
  • $157k - SH88 investigation (NZTA estimate for DCC from NZTA web site) NZTA decision 28/8/9

That's a total of $359 million dollars - just over a third of a billion dollars. There are other open issues:

  • Cr Walls recently indicated that the CST is getting about $1.1m/year in walking around money - I'm unsure how to add this in. I expect it to add something around $2-3m to the total cost during the construction phase - the contract requires the CST to cover a bunch of things like insurance so it may in part cover that

(*) this $2.5m number is a matter of controversy with some people at the DCC claiming that it's there to "keep angry rate payers away" (which is why I included it as a cost due to the stadium) while others claiming that's not true - I'm going to keep it in my list until the DCC can get it together and speak with one voice

Stadium cost

You try to blame the building of the Stadium for all that debt? The figure you quote is not the debt created by the Stadium, it is the total serviceable debt for the City, of which $198M is the Stadium cost. Again statements with no foundation, just like the STS. I challenge you to show me where the direct capital cost for the Stadium is $359M and I'll eat my words.

Or so blind - when it suits

Read carefully, jackrabbit. When he refers to 'the region' - that's Otago.

So why?

Not sure where Mr Davies said Otago Rugby once in his interview, must be a bummer to be so negative that you only read what you want to read.

So why?

So if, as Mr Davies says, the problem is not with Carisbrook but with the ORFU why are we spending $359m building a new stadium? Instead we should have fired the ORFU and gotten a new one of those - it would be an awful lot cheaper and probably more effective.

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Aberdeen MotelDunedinMotels
Rockburn Wines LtdCromwellWineries
Physio Performance LtdDunedinPhysiotherapists
Blue Moon CollectionArrowtownHome Furnishings