NZ-France test benefits city $5.3m

But it just says it (Carisbrook) was kind of busy, thriving and bought in some money, as opposed to pay of a tiny fraction of interest, then the aftermath cleanup. In fact some of that could have gone to the rugby union to pay its debts, rather than the city having to pick up the huge tab.Living in the past? Well, have you heard of Sky TV? Yes, most other people use that to see their rugby, it means that they can sit at home, no costly ticket no traffic jams, looking for parks, and they can drink without limiting it for the drive home. It's much like the internet with online buying, another late 20th century device that will start to make malls look like an anacronism as SKY does with mega stadium concepts. And four nights of rugby per year will make this city go round? Get real. You keep ignoring the obvious facts. No need to fix something that isn't broken. Many rugby people even say that.

That figure was probably put in the well utilised hyperbole spinner, but even if it's dead on, it'll only arrest a small tad of the huge interest charges, nothing more. Scaled down, it's rather like paying your Mastercard bill, which is $2500 in debit, with just $50, perhaps once or twice a year. But the interest happens to be around $30 a month while the credit debit isn't paid off. Even if you pay the mimimum monthly amount due, you are only paying off the monthly interest. Then in that time on the stadium, there's maintainance, you name it. Oh yes, the council's lenders will be laughing all the way to the bank. I wonder if the matches at The Brook have got as far as paying off the last spell of renovations, like the huge hotel sized 5 story corporate block. Hmm, perhaps not.
All this for underwriting flaming rugby which accounts for 5 hours at the most, per year. Forget the other thousands of hours, weeks, months that make up a year in this town.
The steady trickle of monies from travellers visitng would well outweigh all that, without the vandalism repair costs. And indeed would increase if we created more, pandering to intelligent worldly beings, not puerile boorish, bottle throwing, urinating oafs who might only be deterred inside due to CCTV, another cost of the thing. The mind boggles. It won't happen in there due to CCTV? That's fine, they'll just trash the streets, people's cars and properties, as they do anyway, make it look like a third world dump. These unevolved rugby obsessed rednecks clearly have no respect for anything, and certainly not the environment with the recyclable stuff they chuck about, especially bottles smashed on the road, which the likes of myself get punctures from.
A mate in Wellington was objecting profusely to the fact there are levies on his rates to pay for the money-sucking Caketin stadium up there, and it's roofless, $130 million, completed in 1999. 10 years on, still a huge millstone, and it certainly didn't beautify the cityscape. In 10 years, it might finally get paid off, at about the same time they'll want to renovate it for another many million. And that's a city with well more than double our population.
$66 a year. Did you see any ratepayers come down in the last shower?

Carisbrook which no one would come to at all and no income. Stop living in the past enjoy the benefits of this fantastic opportunity. I am proud of this project and will enjoy all your negative scenarios being blown out of the water. Bring opening day on.

To get a return on the $340m, the entire amount injected has to go to the host organization (i.e. Dunedin venues or whatever it is called this week). The $5.3m is a figure spread across the entire local economy.
So you end up needing several large events to get any payback (to the host) from having the stadium at all and several more for the local economy to actually benefit.
To make $17m, try filling the stadium 34 times a year at an average ticket price of $33 (roughly half the tickets are presales - founders club, open club reserve etc)
Dunedin Stadium Founders. Has a nice ring to it, eh?

It's going to cost us $340m to build this stadium - and the local economy is just going to get a $6m/year return?

Now if we invested the same money at 5% we'd get $17m - reduce rates by that amount and you'd be putting almost 3 times into the local economy than a test would bring in. This means that the stadium leaves us $6m-$17m or -$11m worse off year by year for 20 years.

Even better: we could have just not borrowed the money and not have raised rates in the first place. - we'd be $0m worse off.

Or - thinking outside the box here - we could not build the stadium, use Carisbrook, continue to bring in $6m/year from tests and leave the $17m/year in the economy - we'd be $6m in the black rather than $11m in the red.

So just as we find out that we are to (without a choice) underwrite the ORFU to the tune of millions, this piece of spin appears in print.