Bridge work begins at stadium site

You can't eat catch phrases - nor can you build an economy on them.

The basic problem is that the stadium isn't sustainable by private investment - if it wont fly in the private capital markets it simply means it's been judged by those who know as "not economically viable". If it were otherwise, Mr Farry would have gone ahead and built it already and it wouldn't be an issue - instead he's gone to the council and had them rifle our wallets for him.

Really what's being built is too big and expensive for the size of the local population - I'm sure any of those money men Mr Farry went to eventually asked a question along the lines of: "you mean you have to get 1/4 of the town's population into it to fill it? what are you thinking?"

Nothing would make me more happy! it would by far be the better option for all. But i just dont think there is the money out there in the private sector to do it. The only ones who are willing to take the risk are the council, and they do it, I assume, as a way to stimulate growth and all those other catch phrases.Maybe it should have been stipulated the union would buy a controling share (or another party if one could be found) within a set time frame

I too am intrigued about the nature of this product. Are you referring to some kind of grid or solid cladding which can be repeatedly lain over the turf and removed again? If so, it looks to me like a very expensive and labour-intensive solution. Please enlighten us.

There is no need for 'a future crime', as cyberjab calls the anticipated failure of the Awatea St stadium. Rugby supporters can build as many stadiums as they wish, providing they finance them themselves and they follow the necessary regulations.

Anti-stadium people are essentially offended by the manner by which they are now paying for something they never agreed to. And something which Malcolm Farry publicly stated he would not build.

An apology and the removal of the financial millstone would satisfy the majority. After all, the facts are out there in the public record. Little point in denying them.

Why is Cyberjab so sad? The problems of negativity can be remedied so that both 'sides' can be happy about the stadium. Make it privately-funded. Easy to do - it is going to be so successful, we are told. Then those disturbed by the rates burden of the stadium are happy and those who want have a stadium and do not have to pay for it through their rates. Cyberjab, it's as simple as that. You can then be happy. We are on the same 'side' after all.

'Mikenette', the nature of damage to the stadium turf, even in the event that it will grow, will be the same as that which causes the degradation of any rugby pitch - abrasion caused to the surface by boot-sprigs, generally, at points where players accelerate when running or rely on traction to propel scrums, rucks, etc in the desired direction. Since these activities have the effect of tearing the turf out in clumps, generally, it is difficult to see what 'miracle product' would be capable of protecting the turf from such wear-and-tear and not inhibit its growth in the meantime.

But, in the highly unlikely event that you have an answer to the problem, please share it, because my lawn could do with some of this 'product' at the moment.

One thing which might be beneficially spread around comes from bulls and cows, is an undesirable by-product of the dairying industry, constitutes a growing national problem and is usually available in copious quantities on many threads on this web-site. I am sure you will be familiar with the one I mean.

In case you haven't noticed, it's an election year. Our local council politicians have done something incredibly financially stupid in their past term, something so large it probably can't be undone. Sweeping that under the carpet and pretending it didn't happen will just encourage them to make similar, equally stupid decisions in the future.

Instead, for democracy to continue to work there have to be consequences. They need to be voted out - not just so we get rid of the current mob so they don't do it again, but also to act as an example to future councils as what not to do.

So no, we won't forget about it. We will keep pointing out how our council has behaved in railroading this thing through against the wishes of the vast bulk of the ratepayers and what the effects will be on the future financial viability of the city.

It was a stupid, selfish decision, and exposing that stupidity in the run up to an election is important.

Not so, cyberjab. I am strongly opposed to the stadium but if there is something I wish to attend, and it is at the unwanted stadium, I will certainly attend. After all, I'm contributing towards this thing anyway. Most opponents will. I daresay that there will be a handful who won't, but nowhere near enough to make a difference.

My opposition is based on the economics. There is no way in the world this venture can genersate sufficient turnover to warrant its existence. Look at the recently stated trading surplus of $3 million per annum, or say $60,000 per week. That is the income profit to be received by the stadium - in other words, rent over and above the running costs, which are obviously in the millions. Nobody in tthe world would believe that with the exception of a handful of councillors, who ignored most of Dunedin's citizens and their own advisors.

There is a huge price to pay for this foolishness, and I don't mean the small rare increase levied per hosehold. It is the opportunity cost that will stifle this city for decades. I suspect that is the attitude of most who are against this stadium.

In the end it is being built, and it saddens me that so many don’t feel the same as i do. The main thing i am afraid of now is that this will become self-fulfilling. I am starting to think that people are going to be stubborn enough to boycott the place just to prove they were right and no one wins then.

 I hope that once it is built that if some of you that are against it see something you would like to watch being held there you still give it a go.If it doesn't work then it doesn't work, and i would put my hand up and say i was wrong (for what its worth)....but to make it not work would be a much larger crime than anything done so far, in my opinion.

...just because of it's roof and turf. Oh, I'm sure that'll bring them in by the droves. Maybe 5 out-of-towners a month will come down just to do a stadium tour - how exciting.
And soccer, another straw grasped... oh, maybe twice a year, ho hum. Big bang for the buck, not.

I don't care if the thing was made out of titanium (for the cost, you'd think it was), the stadium concept is state of the ark, in the face of Sky TV.

Large stadia only come into their own in a ciy with a huge population base, or within minutes of other resonable sized cities, and have the transport infrastructure to whisk then in and out. A laugh with our third world railway that has no train service from ChCh, and our airport, which can only handle two 737s at a time. Oh well, there's 260 odd people, 29,740 odd still to go to fill the thing.

Mikenette:   First you can't provide a reference for your claims regarding entertainment dollars, and now the stadium is "state of the art" and the grass is going to be covered by a miracle product from Germany that will protect it.

Let's debunk the state of the art thing for a starter. It is a 17,242 permanent seat rugby stadium. The south and north stands are actually slabs of concrete on the ground and any seating in excess of this 17,242 will have to be provided by temporary seating erected on the concrete. State of the art? Yeah, right.

What other bits are state of the art? The roof? Yes, it has a roof which is made of material that could be called state of the art. But will this material ensure that the open grass surface can be used for anything other than rugby? Nothing I've seen in any of the publicity shows that, for instance, the Crusty Demons can be there on a Wednesday and then the Highlanders - if they are still in existence by then - could use it on a Friday night.

It seems that it is unlikely that any event can take place on the surface during the rugby season other than rugby to ensure that the marginal growing potential of the grass can be realised so the surface recover from the last game.

So, is this miracle German product something that actually covers the whole playing surface? We are all anxious to hear directly from the horse's mouth, so we can achieve the same degree of enlightenment that you clearly have. While you are getting together this information, you may care to take the time to find that commissioned report you seem to be unable to locate so far. [Abridged]

Oh, mikenette - will you never stop cracking us up?

Soccer will also find its home along with a multitude of activities. As for the turf...it will be covered with a product from Germany that ensures its protection. This stadium is state of the art...believe it now or wait till you are the last to acknowledge it.

So, Mikenette, you know it was a professional study and you are quoting from it. So you must have it and therefore are able to tell us all what the study is called and where it can be obtained. To simply say "It was a professional study commissioned. The CST or DCC may be able to provide the findings for you. It was certainly used by the CST in the early days of the proposal" doesn't tell us anything and doesn't even tell us who it was commissioned by.  I do urge you to reveal the source of your claims that you have posted.

Mikenette, who produced the professional study commissioned? Who commissioned it? It is not sufficient for you to put forward supposed results without verifying and referencing the source. If you are certain that the CST used it then you must be privy to it. If so, why not tell us?

It was a professional study commissioned. The CST or DCC may be able to provide the findings for you. It was certainly used by the CST in the early days of the proposal.

No you're wrong - if it fails we're out $365m that we still have to pay. For it to succeed it has to bring in more money to the city than it is going to cost us over its life time. I've yet to see a business plan for the stadium that show us how it will make back what it will cost (to be fair I've yet to see a business plan that will show us how it will make money at all). You'd think they'd have done their sums first rather than just trusting in rugby. You get extra credit if that $365m ends up back in the hands of those who were forced to pay for it rather than a few select local business men.

Whose interpretation of the stadium issue has suddenly seen all opposition to the cost of the thing to be anti-rugby, I wonder? The issue, is not 'anti-rugby' (I watched the Chiefs vs Crusaders match myself last evening on TV, as I don't regard the 'local-flakes', at eleventh on the table and still plummetting, as worth following anymore). The real issue, for the benefit of 'Mikenette' and his fellow zealots, is not whether a vast sum of money has been spent, or not; it's what, at the end of the day, has been accomplished for the general good of Dunedin.
This short-sighted, simplistic, one-time panacea for all of Dunedin's ills, real and imagined, does not reflect the leadership and level of fiscal responsbility which ratepayers and Dunedin's citizens generally, are entitled to expect of their elected representatives. Even should the Stadium prove to be a scintillating business success, (and you may exercise your various opinions as to the likelihood of that eventuality), the project still represents a reckless gamble which should never have been taken by a body charged with such responsibilities.
To give expression to this viewpoint is not necessarily anti-progress, or anti-anything-else, it's simply a desire for value-for-money which most of us insist upon in other facets of our day-to-day existences.

[Abridged]

The turf experts say there should be no use of the turf for any other purposes during the rugby season. February - September (i.e. no concerts or other sports during the majority of the year when the roof would be most useful) The only synergy with the uni is half the cost of one wall. They'd be better off with with the sports institute being built beside a plain old open air playing field - at least the sports students would have a field they could use, unlike the stadium pitch. And your support is based "entirely on synergies"? In that case it is "entirely" misguided support.

Richard - you really expect us to beleive that we are spending $20 million to divert a road just a couple of hundred metres all to take it around the other side of a single minor university building. If anybody was truly worried about students crossing Anzac Avenue, then for just 1% of that money a set of pedestrian crossing lights could have been put in (hell - you could build the uni a whole new building for 90% less than that). The fact that there's been years with no crossing lights shows that this is not really a very high priority for council at all - in reality, it's plain for all to see that it is all about the second rugby stadium.

Are we supposed to be pacifists and lie down quietly, even if it is being built? (Something we would have done had there been a binding referendum and then we had lost). But time after time opportunities for such democratic process were deliberately fobbed off or simply ignored. A major injustice has been done to basically monopolise this city's spending for eons to come replacing something that isn’t broken, for a very fringe benefit. 
Iif it was being funded by the rugby crowd, then there would be little opposition.

[Abridged]

To the people who have swallowed the line"3rd or 4th biggest sporting event" hook line and sinker I feel very sorry for you. The RWC in global terms is a non event. I have lived in both the UK (03 when England won) and Australia (99 when Wallabies won) during two previous World Cups Pot Black outrated the RWC final in 03 when England won. Most people in these countries couldn't have cared less. Yes some people will come here but nowhere near the amount of people they think and if this is one of the reasons for this new stadium then it shows a clear lack of intelligence. Oh and as for being unpatriotic by not liking rugby - what a joke. I hate the sport along with a growing number of kiwis but I have never felt prouder than watching the All Whites qualify in Wellington. Real sport.

I do urge Mikenette to reveal to all of us the basis of his extraordinary claims regarding cost benefit analysis and the flow of entertainment dollars. Is this contained in a professional study or perhaps simply a social study?

While he is scrambling to do so, he may care to comment on Chris Laidlaw’s comments in today’s ODT that further reveal the parlous state of professional rugby. If pro rugby is losing millions each year, how in goodness sake can they afford to hire the stadium for five minutes let alone for the period necessary to protect the wonderful grass surface?

Dave up the hill asks why 'anti stadium' folk complain? there is an election in October. The people who brought us a massive debt creating stadium are all going to try and get back on council. It's that simple.

"If it (the stadium) fails at least they tried' is what we are told in support of the stadium gamble with rate/rent payers funds. Thank you, that pretty much encapsulates the mentality behind why the stadium is being built. It is using rate/rentpayer funds so there is no responsibility to make the stadium financially viable as there would be with a privately funded stadium. Roll on Mayor Chin's promised privately funded stadium.

I must admit the stadium debacle has caused my reaction to rugby to go from "rugby? meh", something that just didn't interest me, to now a realisation that we've been selfishly played by local rugby supporters to spend a third of a billion dollars to make a place where they can watch a professional team that should be economic and self funding in its own right.

We don't owe the Highlanders a living, they should earn it - just like the stadium I don't think they're financially viable long term without large injections of capital - spending a fortune on a stadium just for a team no one goes to watch and that may not be here a decade from now seems an insane idea. .

It's not fair that I should pay twice the amount in rates for the stadium I don't want or need than rugby supporters like you do - why are the rugby people sitting mutely by the sidelines and not raising money for a replacement for Carisbrook - where's your share?

[Abridged]

Mikenette has really gone over the top this time. No longer is it to do with the $50 million cost benefit analysis, but now entirely on the synergies around the University of Otago and its multi- use all weather status. Opposition is now all about a distaste and or dislike of rugby. I don't recall much comment about dislike of rugby. Rather it is all about the economics. Is a seldom used $200 plus million stadium affordable for a maximum pool of less than 200,000 people? Do the sums Mikenette.

I do find it sad that so many love to put down the stadium but offer nothing of their own as a way to improve the city or even arrest the slow decline inthat some of us witness. You "stadium haters" may think it is a bad idea . .  .  but that's just your opinion...others of us think it is a great idea and will bring money back into the city. If it fails then at least they tried.

There are a number of sports that are bigger in NZ than rugby - they may not have the same artificial level of media coverage - but the facts show rugby it not what it was. For boys, soccer is more popular. And for girls and women it rugby barely rates at all (not in top 15 for women)

Golf, tennis, soccer, swimming, cricket - even horse riding and skiing all come above rugby for many groups. Even if you try to make it top, by ruling out all the population except adult males, one SPARC survey says " Rugby Union as the fifth most popular sport for New Zealand adult men.". (but only if you don't count sports like running, fishing, walking and swimming, and some surveys have suggest soccer and netball are also higher - if you count those, it's even further down the list)

How pathertic to say that not liking rugby is almost anti-NZ. There's more to life the the world's 87th most popular sport (actually if you combine Rugby Union and rugby league, apparently it just sneaks into the world top 15)

The Howarth report estimated that the number of people who stayed in Dunedin for concerts rather than going elsewhere (if there was a new stadium with two major concerts per year), would be 3050 per year. Their average spend that would be saved (nowhere near $15m - that would be $5000 per person per concert), would be offset by what they spent on a Dunedin concert (as most of that money would also leave the city to go to the event promoters and the acts). T

hey estimated the total expenditure retained in Dunedin that would otherwise have been lost to other centres for concerts, conferences and sporting events will be $30 million - over the next 50 years. And that's if there's two major concerts per year. Wellington currently spends around a million dollars per year to attract acts to the Caketin - even with four times our population, it gets on average less than one concert per year (1/2 concert per year on average).