Fears curtain about to fall on Regent

As I understand it there's a difference - according to the Regent theatre's web site when you 'but' a seat they put a nice little plaque on it acknowledging your donation - if you want to actually use your seat you still have to buy a ticket.

On the other hand if you go to the CST's web page if you 'buy' a block of seats there you also get tickets to regularly scheduled events - in essence you're buying tickets for the future (I assume that 'regularly scheduled events' is code for 'rugby'). No one else gets to use those seats - you're just paying for future use of the seats as if you bought a year's tickets in advance - the city will not be able to sell tickets for those seats to anyone else so it incurs an ongoing debt that's retired over the period the seats are paid for. And the city will be on the hook for paying the ORFU and NZFRU money for the actual tickets for games out of the money the CST takes in for those seats.

It's not 'fundraising' if you have to give the money back, even if it's in another form - at the Regent it's fundraising, at the stadium it's a short term loan.

Cr Walls. This is just distorting things. Everyone knows what donations are about. They usually have no strings attached. There are little in the way of donations to the stadium. Private sector funding is basically zilch-all promises for companies to pay up later. So far the CST/DCC has been 'shy' in naming these companies. I wonder why.
We know that Delta has bought a product- and they are a council- owned company. Hardly private sector.
Cr Walls, haven't you thought it odd how it is all so secret who these private sector companies are who have bought stadium products? Wouldn't you expect these same companies to be proud to announce their support in the hope that others follow?

They'd better buy back Waipori or something, it'll nearly need all of that to heat it, (energy efficient for real - not) just for an audience the size of the Regent (or way less). The sort its 'multi use' might see if anyone is gullible enough to desert Dunedin's real venues - like the Regent. Or maybe this magic low maintenance, plexiglass that won't get dirty or graze, (how funny that airliners aren’t fitted with it eh?) which no one's ever heard of before will have solar panels attached to it....

No 'Digger', I have not misunderstood your point.

What are 'donations' etc and what is 'fundraising' seems to be a matter in the eye of the beholder.

The private sector 'fundraising' for the FB Stadium primarily focusses on the sale of "seats" and naming rights.

Those are precisely the same sort of things that we offered when we set out to buy The Regent nearly 40 years ago.

I cannot recall anyone criticising that or suggesting they were not 'donations' of one kind or another.

So, thank you for reminding me. I trust you can manage a smile given the irony.

I think we've been making this same point over and over again - and the council seems unwilling even to listen - there's nothing special about rugby, or sport in general, the council should be treating those organisations equally to other citizen's groups around the city.

Instead we see hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown at rugby, that hasn't raised a cent, despite widespread citizen protest while the Regent, which has always been responsible goes begging. I think the council is biased and is supporting one small part of the city over the rest. Let's see local sports organisations act like responsible citizens and start raising some money on their own rather than just feeding at the public trough and let's stop subsidising professional sport altogether - it's a business and like any other business it should sink or swim on its own merits, we don't owe them a living.

If people want professional sport in Dunedin they should go to some games, actually pay the entrance fees, rather than staying at home and watching them on Sky and making the rest us who don't much care for it pay for you.

Cr Walls, I think you have misunderstood my point. All I am saying is that the OTT has to fundraise nearly $2m for the theatre's upkeep. However, those vested interests behind the stadium have not been required to fundraise for donations for stadium construction costs.

The rate payers are essentially paying for the stadium. This is clearly unfair. The partnership between the OTT and the DCC is all very well and you could argue that there is no harm in the beneficiaries of an asset making their contribution instead of leaving it all up to the council to pay out. The community involvement of doing so with events like the 24 hour Book Sale is worthwhile.

Why haven't you as a councillor, and your colleagues, insisted that the NZRFU/ORFU make a financial contribution to the stadium? To require those bodies also to get out into the community to fundraise for the stadium? Wouldn't this be a wonderful community building exercise on their part?

(Or do they realise that the community will not support them? Hence they have gone to the council to pay the tab for them.) I'm sorry making submissions to the Draft Annual Plan seems a waste of time with the present council.

[Abridged]

That might be so Mr. Walls, but the facts remain, it makes a stark comparison, and since all is about the stadium, it stands to valid reason that it keeps coming up. Tsk tsk, all those people making a fuss about a few hundred million dollars for a thing like that. I mean, what gives?

If the term ‘level playing field’ was literal, the hallowed oval shaped ball would be hitting one end at a ballistic rate if the myriad examples going around the city are anything to go by.The Regent is the latest of a long line of examples of ‘drop in the bucket cost’ (compared to stadium) heritage projects or venues that get shown the moths in the DCC wallet.

And when one thinks of the stadium’s shortfall in private funding, what happened then? The clandestine letter to government, and one particular councillor got hauled over the coals for doing her part to ensure at least part of democratic and transparent process was at least partly adhered to. If just a fraction of the same scale attempt to keep the Regent afloat was deployed by DCC, it’d be aloft.

But we can see by the attitude that DCC hands want to be washed of it. This is despite the fact it’s done a lot of it’s own fundraising for over 20 years, operated by volunteers (some whom I know personally) who are typically getting a slap in the face for all their years of sterling work, and this sort of response.

If that’s somehow a reworked and tired comment to your mind, I think somehow it’s rather called for in the given circumstances!However, it’s up to the ratepayers again to rise above and put donations where some of the rates should have gone.

This comparison was well highlighted by one of the letters to the editor that appeared in the paper edition on Tuesday 23rd, pointing out how the stadium recently got another $2.4 million without a second murmer from DCC. Indeed the next sentence that said “No question there of requiring private funding to be produced.”

But, maybe it comes down to a case of recalled words of a DCC councillor (shown on a posted bill) who’d been quoted to say “Nobody questions debt when it’s their pet project!”The nails are being hit right on the proverbial.

So it’s no wonder the stadium gets mentioned in other forums. it’s comparison to most of Dunedin’s worthwhile potential and established projects that have to run on a shoestring is now paramount.

This is wrong. Please make sure of your facts before you post.

The Regent has not been asked or 'forced to' scrounge for anything. By council or anyone else.

The council has provided in the Draft Annual Plan for its share of a proposal put to it by The Otago Theatre Trust. In essence it reflects the agreed partnership that the OTT and DCC have had for 30+years. Essentially the council maintains the fabric of the building and the Trust the maintenance of the interior and the theatre operations.

Part of the Trust's proposal for Stage 2 e.g. includes totally new seating. The rest are in the Appeal brochures etc.

The ‘hitch’ at the moment is the probable need for Council to amend its deadlines so that the Trust can process its applications to various organisations e.g. lotteries grants etc, to secure funding for what it is planning. Something similar happened with the Otago Settlers Museum Appeal and was resolved. So, another “line in the sand” may need to be moved. That is reality when you are dealing with this sort of thing.

Whatever, the funding by council is provided for by council in its draft Annual Plan and you – or anyone else – submit on it.

Oh yes, just in case your memory slips, I was the Foundation Chairman of the Otago Theatre Trust and was privileged to lead the appeal to buy it. It was a great community effort. That is on the record. And yes, I do have the poll figures you refer to. They are also on the record.

The Otago Theatre Trust has a top record of achievement and the contribution by many volunteers is outstanding by any record. It is due to them that The Regent is a living entity not just ‘another theatre’ with outstanding architecture and/or design.

This appeal is a continuation of the many remarkable and successful fundraising efforts including the now famous book sale that the Trust has made over the years. Yes, it is by far and away the biggest but that simply reflects that, after 40 years, The Regent must be upgraded to meet the current demands of its users and its audiences.

So 'Digger', put aside your fixation with 'the stadium' and make a submission. Tell us whether YOU are going to personally support the Regent Appeal on its merits or not. [Abridged]

Cr. Walls needs to get used to the fact that criticism of DCC financial management whether in relation to the Regent or the stadium is only going to increase in volume as the council elections approach.

Dunedin ratepayers are obviously angry at being treated as cash-cows by this council. It is very obvious that some councillors are waiting for the stadium roof framing to be installed in 2 months before they announce their candidacy while basking in the ooohs and aaaahs from the ratepayers when they see the stadium rising.

It is time for existing councillors to stand up and have their performance reviewed. Some councillors are now well past their "use-by" date and should retire gracefully.

The topic of this thread is the Regent. The Regent needs money. The Regent is supported by ratepayers as individuals who work for its fund-raising and attend its sales. Dunedin people value the Regent highly - that's why we support it in such numbers. But Cr Walls has it wrong when he says the thread has been "highjacked by opponents of the stadium reworking old and tired comments".

The money being spent on the stadium is money taken forcibly from us despite the majority of ratepayers favouring a stadium if it were paid for by private funding, not out of rates. And as most of us have noticed in our own little lives, when money is spent on one thing it is no longer available for something else, even if the "something else" is really important to us.

That's why there is an inextricable link between the stadium and the lack of money available for the things Dunedin people really want. And watching the rugby players and watchers standing back with their wallets shut tight on the moths - not so much as a bring and buy sale to raise funds for their stadium - tends to bring out latent orneriness in the mildest voter.

So we shouldn't mention the stadium, we're admonished, we shouldn't make old tired comments. Might I suggest that if there had been more listening even after the election had delivered successful candidates 3 years freedom to carry out their wishes - and less of a we won, you lost, eat my shorts attitude - our city could afford the leisure facilities and basic infrastructure we actually want and need.

Cr Walls of course does not want us to see the connection between the stadium being given whatever money it takes to 'succeed, while the Regent Theatre has to scrounge around for donations of up to $2m to ensure its proper upkeep and being able to continue to attract top acts. You can hardly blame him given the upcoming election. By the way, I thought Chris Staynes topped the poll in Hills. I may be wrong. Have you the exact figures, Cr Walls, for the top four candidates?

Sadly these days everything the city does is about the stadium - you spent so much money on it (for only 6250 people at a combined game and concert! probably less for just either) that it distorts and dwarfs all other council spending. It's why you can't afford money for the Regent, and it's why our rates rises are so high and will continue to be above inflation for the rest of the decade.

If you'd shown a little restraint and spent a reasonable amount of money on those 6000 people rather than mortgaging our future we'd be able to afford the work the Regent needs.

Except of course the stadium won't be heated - and it's not even enclosed, the ends are open to the weather - it's going to freeze in there at night in the winter.

And your claim that "last election's candidates were voted in on promises that the stadium would be mainly privately funded" is absolutely fantasy. As you have brought me into your post, I simply state that my position on 'a stadium for Dunedin' is clearly outlined in the reports I sent out to all households in Hills prior to the 2004 and 2007 elections.

It says something quite different to what you claim and, need I remind you, that I topped the poll in Hills for those two elections. Please, can't we have an objective discussion on The Regent (and other things) without the threads being highjacked by opponents of the stadium reworking old and tired comments. Too much to hope with some of you? Thank you.

A good measure of popular support for the Regent vs the stadium is how much the community raises for each. funkie01 appears to be out of touch with the Dunedin community, by suggesting getting rid of a much loved and supported historic icon. We have massive local support, and a huge number of volunteers every year for the book sale. How much have rugby supporters raised for the stadium? Has even a single sausage been sizzled? No - not one - pathetic.

Funkie needs to be reminded that last election's candidates were voted in on promises that the stadium would be mainly privately funded. It is not. But will surely be since it is going to be such a success. Though I am bewildered as to why there has been no public celebration of the stadium's great economic contribution to the town. I would have thought Cr Walls and Guest would have had a party in the Octagon months ago to share the joy with the people of Dunedin. Why haven't they?

I don't care for pro or anti stadium posturing, but the Regent seats over 50,000 people a year - and then there is the amazing book sale. Defining it in any way as 'fringe' is the real example of extremism here.

The result was a resounding victory to those in office now and the unsuccessful candidates are now saturating this good paper with peronal attacks on the council and any councillor who "dares" to look forward. As stated before it is the same few spinning the same preordained script! They had their opportunity and the people said no. The law of the land also said no. I welcome October and are confident the people of Dunedin will again deny the alternative fringe.

That the theatre was still open and had not been condemed years ago. It was past it's use-by date when movies where shown there. So the NZ ballet refuses to get changed there? Who cares! Third rate outfit anyway. This has sucked rates up for ever - at no complaint I might add - so it's time to rid ourselves of it. I feel it would make a good venue for an indoor market. I propose that a new theatre be added to the stadium as phase two, enjoying the benefits of professional management and location. Capable of large and small audiences, so optimizing the real capability of the complex.

Funkie is always right you know, no matter how glaring the facts may be to most of us. Self-delusion, arrogance and holier-than-thou-ness is a trademark of those who drive the stadium, and this seems to have rubbed off onto the most ardent supporters. Forget how it works and where priorities lie in the real world - or indeed, in the rest of the world.

As I've said before, some are a little like Rob Muldoon when in power. What a shame our local body doesn’t have a snap election.

The monetary amounts going to support the arts or movie houses (the Regent isn’t only arts, but also the international film festival etc - yes, somewhat more refined and interesting than rugby) pale in comparison to the amount going to the stadium. 

Given that the stadium's set to suck any real innovative project for the next few decades here, movies are one of those few things you can do to occupy yourself in this sorry town. Oh, and I did forget to mention in my last post, the Regent's just a tad more comfortable than any stadium? The seats happen to have soft squabs and backs!

Imagine some act bypassing the Regent for an act at the stadium, something that indeed would fill the Regent and no more. One corner of the stadium would be used. Apart from the austere surroundings, the lack of ambience, (which the Regent easily wins, hands down) it would take something with the power of a 747 engine to get the stadium as toasty warm as the Regent is on a cold winter’s night.

It they think that a roof will keep it warm then, well, go back to School Cert science. You only need to consider what happens in a house on a winter's night if you leave drapes open. Maybe once the roof they claim wont become crazed and dirty does do so, (it is by the sea after all, and the wind does blow) it might trap some of the day’s warmth, if you are lucky. [Abridged]

A reasonable basic point here - but to describe users and supporters of the Regent as 'fringe' is competely absurd.

Given the dismal attendances at Carisbrook you could hardly say that rugby is that mainstream now. Your 'mainstream' is the same so- called 'silent majority'- that unidentifiable group claimed by vested interests to be behind them when it suits their purposes.

(The fringe doesn't actually start until later this week ...) Dunedin has a wonderful history of pulling together to raise money to build public amenities - buying the Regent and it's maintenance is just one example. Do you not remember when the National government bought the first body scanners for NZ hospitals, but left Dunedin out? We raised a million dollars (back when that really was a lot of money) to buy one for the hospital.

To paraphrase a great man: ask not what your community will give you but what can give to your community - get off your backside, get together with your rugby mates, and go out and raise some money for your stadium. Just don't expect the rest of us to do it for you if you won't do it for yourselves. [Abridged]

The rate payer has subsidised the "arts" for donkeys years, and we have just taken it as being part of a democratic society. Now the shoe is on the other foot, where the "grass roots" of Dunedin is being provided for, the howls and scorn being hurled is laughable!! The fringe have had their free ride; now it is time for the mainstream to be catered for.

Russ&Bev: The report I refer to was used by the CST on it's roadshow and it's presentation at the Civic Centre.
You guys need to join one of the frequently occurring tours of the site or make enquiries and get one organised.
All the informations out there, you just need to be willing to accept it.

Needless to say, the Regent could blow away the stadium for ornateness and atmosphere, and being a part of Dunedin. This is the sort of thing that sells a city renowned for its heritage, not an overpriced generic oversized tomato house. Another case of our rates not looking after what we’ve already got, but instead going toward what we don’t need.

But that news is old hat now, as is this sort of response from DCC, which is playing with our irreplaceable treasures of heritage - which comes as no surprise either, when it’s that vs. their beloved stadium. Funny how the rules conveniently changed compared to shortfalls of a certain pet project of DCC. Typical lack of level playing field (pun not intended) and double sets of rules though.

The stadium, only privately funded up to 30%, falls short, a clandestine letter goes government seeking more funding  -anything to ensure that financial black hole project wasn’t quashed as it should have been long before it even got that far. But for a long established part of Dunedin like the Regent, with a shortfall in 'other' funding, it's a quick easy excuse to drop their side of aiding it (which is a drop in the bucket  compared to stadium). 

Roller is justified in being quietly confident, I believe, that the Regent will get the support from the community. The $1.6 million will be raised by the community because the Regent is a beloved community focal point and is highly utilised by the people of Dunedin. No doubt Mayor Chin and co realise this. But the stadium? When David Davies requested an extra $1.4 million from rate funds a few weeks ago he was given this unhesitatingly only a few weeks ago. Funny old world isn't it?

Can I give the Regent $1500 per year towards their fund-raising in return for tickets to the shows coming up over the next ten years? It would only take 130 of us to do that and the Regent would have the $2 million they need to pay for the upgrade.I've heard this approach has worked well in other areas,  so why not for the Regent?

There's a big difference of course - the arts have raised millions of dollars over the years for the Regent - it's a great example of a community coming together and raising the money to create a wonderful community resource. Kudos go to the ODT for picking up the baton and continuing in the same manner.

The stadium's different though - local rugby supporters and the ORFU have so far raised nothing for the stadium, they haven't even tried, not once, not a raffle, not a cake stall, not a whip round at a game, nothing - in fact they arranged for us to give them $7m for Carisbrook so they're already starting down $7m in their fund raising for the stadium. Of course selling yourselves the best seats in the house cheap doesn't count as fundraising since the city has to pony up with use of the seats that are worth more than you paid for them.