Stadium claims rubbish – Farry

Last time I checked, they're still making hoses.

Last time I checked Carisbrook is already equipped with such frames - it's also the site of, umm, occasionaly informal toilet facilities, but being next to the field is easily hosed down - I wonder how the new stadium will handle that

God knows how people could stand for 80mins in the terraces at carisbrook. Probably Zimmer frames, but I'm guessing it was because they didnt really care, too busy enjoying themselves.

Maybe they can ask for BYO cushions/bean bags for those who are left with temporary seating. That would cut costs. Also, how about stadium- supplied Zimmer frames for those left standing? It's a long time standing, unsupported. This might get a few more along to the game.
Better still, why not look at the game on Sky more comfortably in your living room? Oh.... that's right... people are doing that now!

The first media report from the ODT I can find was from 10 August 2006. It stated up to 32,000 capacity (no mention of seats or otherwise) and quoted Malcolm Farry saying that funding would need to come from the Community Trust of Otago, DCC, ORC, and private sector. By February 2007, Fairfax Media was reporting the preferred option was a 25,000 seat stadium with a roof, with the ability to increase capacity up to 30,000 for big events. That sounds rather like what we've got now. This whole reduced seat argument is just so disingenuous. The new stadium's seating capacity has been in the public domain for one whole year.
It's hardly a state secret. So what if the base figure for seating in the Stadium is 17242 plus another 2,000 standing patrons. For most events it's perfectly adequate. If warranted the stadium has a capacity of over 30,000. The design is better than having fixed seats which require maintenance and depreciation and inhibit potential uses for space. Yes, there's an operational cost in setting up temporary seating but it's only for big events that would sell out the venue and that operational cost would be passed on to the consumer as normal. As an aside, Carisbrook has over 5,000 standing capacity on the Terraces. Should this figure be removed when discussing that ground's capacity? I suppose so if it's politically expedient.

So you have a brand new stadium in a Rugby World Cup year. Everyone else who needs temporary seating has theirs already booked - as the new guy on the block, where do we get ten thousand temporary seats from? They're not just sitting in a warehouse locally on the off chance - realistically you're going to have to buy them.
So expect a panicked request for a few more million next year from CST people who tried to cut corners and are now caught out.

The numbers of permanent seats in the Awatea Street stadium is there for all to see in the ODT story and has been confirmed a number of times. The total is 17,242.
Of course we were all promised a high-tech, state-of-the-art stadium that would seat 30,000. What has emerged is that the difference between what was promised and what is being delivered is 13,272 who will either be standing or who will be seated in temporary seating.
It would be interesting to know whether this temporary seating consists of scaffolding with plastic seats or benches and whether the purchase price and storage costs of this ad hoc seating is included in the guaranteed maximum price or whether it is to be part of an operational budget or perhaps there is to be yet another request for a further ratepayer handout.
The answer to this seems unclear. Time for some straight answers.

The permanent seating capacity is 17,242. The total seating capacity (including temporary seats) is 27,086. And there is room for around 3500 to stand.

The number of permanent seats is 17,242. Malcolm Farry, Chair of Carisbrook Stadium Trust, needs to have a little peep at his own website where the claim of 25,000 permanent seats is indeed 'rubbish'. The other claim of 35,000 capacity on his website is also 'rubbish'. The stadium has shrunk.

The stadium is being built - we can all see that - so why the need for coyness over the stadium specifications? Or must we wait until after the upcoming local elections for information that will ultimately be common knowledge?

While we're making claims of 'rubbish' I'd like to say the same of Mr Farry's claimed 30,514 'seating capacity' since it incudes approx 3600 people who are standing, who don't have actual seats, at the very least the real seating capacity is under 27000.

 With an all up stadium cost of more than $361m - that's a cost of more than $13,000 a seat - they better be gold plated or something

I've added up Mr Farry's own figures. Unless I am missing something, which I don't think I am, the numbers of those 'seated' come to 26,786. The remainder, according to the same information, are, plainly 'standing'. So, as I see it, Rob Hamlin's 26,000 is closer to the mark. No doubt you could cram in 50,000 or thereabouts on a 'Guinness-Book-of-Records' basis, but I'll go with Mr Farry's own 26,786 as a ball-park figure for the numbers seated. That is, patently, not a 'seating-capacity' of 30,514, as claimed.

A basically one word rejoinder - 'Rubbish' - to Dr Rob Hamlin's comment on the stadium's construction design, and its impact on the number of seats, is not a counter argument. It is a defensive, fallback position that gives no further light to the issue. Indeed, it avoids the issue.

So let's have a look at the current plans - the CST when previously asked about this issue refused to let people review them. If Mr Farry is correct he shouldn't have a problem releasing the plans for independent review.

While we're at it we can check and make sure there are enough toilets for a crowd that size.

Throughout this saga, there has been a deplorable shortage of reliable facts and open information. 

- Abridged