Well guy's - here it goes - Christchurch's contribution to Rugby stadiums for the up coming World Cup and the future! :)

The Christchurch Star

28.07.2006

The planned revamp of Jade Stadium for the 2011 Rugby World Cup is under way after the project – estimated to cost $60 million – was unveiled yesterday.

Vbase, which manages Jade Stadium for the city council, is confident $40 million dollars can be funded privately – leaving a likely $20 million to be found from ratepayers and central government.

Getting a major world cup match, such as a semi-final, will depend on the Jade upgrade.

Auckland’s Eden Park has been confirmed for the final and at least one of the two semi-finals. That leaves a revamped Jade stadium competing with Wellington’s Westpac Stadium for the second semi – if it is not also allocated to Auckland.

Christchurch will get pool games and quarter-finals. But would an All Blacks versus Scotland, Wales or Ireland quarter-final be a sell-out?
Today The Star is asking readers what they think of the plans, and if a bigger and more modern Jade Stadium will be great for the city’s profile, regardless of the world cup.

Do you think the revamp has gone far enough?

Should all of Jade be enclosed like Suncorp in Brisbane, recognised as the finest football ground in Australasia?

And should ratepayers have to foot any of the bill?

Late last year when the revamp was first suggested The Star asked readers: Who Should Pay For Jade?

There was a big response and most people said the rugby union should pay for the revamp.

What do you think now, and what benefits to Christchurch would a bigger and more modern Jade bring?

And as an aside, the stadium will not be called Jade during the world cup. International Rugby Board commercial rules mean it will control what branding is associated with the stadium, including what it is known as. Lancaster Park? Highly unlikely!

Vbase manager Bryan Pearson yesterday said the revamp – a new stand to replace the No.1, 2 and 3 stands that are nearing the end of their structural life – will increase seating from 36,000 to 43,000.

The stands were built in the late 1950s and mid 1960s. Mr Pearson said Vbase was mindful it could not burden the city with a white elephant after the world cup. “We need this to done right for years to come,” he said.

Mayor Garry Moore said there was a compelling case for the project to get the go ahead. “Just a year after the new stand is built there’ll be a payback to the city of at least the $60 million estimated cost of development from the spending of the thousands of international rugby fans here for the Rugby World Cup,” he said.

:)

Vision

As two of the world's most celebrated sporting events prepare to come to New Zealand, it's time for Jade Stadium to come full circle, to complete Christchurch and Canterbury's international sporting arena and position the city to play a leading role.

http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/IM_Custom/ContentStore/Assets/13/74/acbd9372ad7913a3a4f8cf00a21cbea5.jpg

The 2011 Rugby World Cup and 2015 Cricket World Cup are a catalyst to replace the three old eastern stands, which have come to the end of their structural life. Our plan is to build a new three-level East Stand on the Wilsons Road frontage, bringing the permanent capacity of Jade Stadium up to 43,000 people.

This will mean a range of Rugby World Cup games for Christchurch. But just as importantly, it will mean that Jade Stadium will continue to be a sporting and entertainment venue that Christchurch can be proud of well into the future.

The Stadium of the Future.

With the proposed redevelopment, Jade Stadium in 2010 will be a great stage for sports and entertainment that Christchurch will be proud to call its own. It will also be a great stage for Rugby World Cup 2011 and Cricket World Cup 2015. It will accommodate more people in more pleasant surroundings, while cutting down lighting and sound spill to the neighbourhood and improving traffic management in the surrounding streets.

http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/IM_Custom/ContentStore/Assets/13/79/31202f3a01afc132bc696f92e01f1e15.jpg

If the proposed new 2010 development goes ahead, Jade Stadium will have a:

Modern arena-style stadium
Total permanent capacity of 43,000 people - 7000 more than at present
Covered seating area of up to one third of the stand
Additional capacity flexibility for major events
Better traffic management
Less light spill onto Wilsons Road
Better noise containment
Stadium that is capable of hosting the highest level of international sporting contests
An internal Level 1 concourse connecting the East Stand with the Tui Stand, the Hadlee Stand and the Paul Kelly Stand. The concourse will circle over the memorial gates on Stevens Street.

The Proposed East Stand

The key part of the concept plan is a new East Stand, almost mirroring the Paul Kelly Stand, which was completed in 2002.

http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/IM_Custom/ContentStore/Assets/13/80/f8c29b9a43689382c27fe8020765a68c.jpg

http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/IM_Custom/ContentStore/Assets/13/82/308cf783ad2ee3eb2487bdfd67a6b560.gif

If the proposed development goes ahead, the new East Stand will have:

Three levels, making it lower than the Paul Kelly Stand
One level (included in the 3 levels) of hospitality seating, including more club lounges and more Lancaster Reserve type seating, which was oversubscribed when the Paul Kelly Stand seats went on sale
Seating for 16, 672 people, two thirds of them covered
Great views of the ground, from anywhere in the stand
Additional car parks, under and around the stand
An add on option of 10, 000 square metres of office space, providing it is commercially viable
The eastern lighting towers relocated to the front of the stand roof
A Wilsons Road frontage, taking up most of the existing Wilsons Road car parking area and bringing the front of the stand closer to the road.

Time Table

Many of these dates are estimates only. We will advise you nearer the time if you have registered your interest with us at feedback@jadestadium.co.nz . Please also watch our website for further information: www.jadestadium.co.nz

July 27 Draft concept plans revealed publicly and feedback sought
August 18 Feedback on draft concept plans due in by 5pm
Mid September Next set of plans publicised and further discussion sought
Late September Any further feedback due
Early October Resource consent application lodged
March/April If required, resource consent application hearing
Early 2008 If consent is granted, demolition of the old No. 1 - 3 Stands could begin
Mid 2008 Construction of new East Stand could begin
Early 2010 New East Stand completed in time for the Super 14

Im actually disappointed I wanted a 55,000 seating stadium now its 43,000 thats like what jade use to be whe the embankment was there. To compete in the world you have to have a stadium that holds more than 50,000. i dont no im just gutted I guess like come on Greater CHristchurh will be hitting 500,000+ in 10-15 years so theres a bigger enough population for it.:(

Mmm, yes, the design is excellent but the capacity should have been higher.

Just read another article from the press about it saying there will be temporary seating to push capacity up to 55,000 for the world cup. i dont get it why do that when they should have put that seating figure into the stadium design.

Im actually disappointed I wanted a 55,000 seating stadium now its 43,000 thats like what jade use to be whe the embankment was there. To compete in the world you have to have a stadium that holds more than 50,000. i dont no im just gutted I guess like come on Greater CHristchurh will be hitting 500,000+ in 10-15 years so theres a bigger enough population for it.:(

I agree, and I think many others will to - I wonder if they are playing some sort of game........? They still keep stressing this is the first intial concept/drawings etc. Perhaps they are testing public feeling.

I want a mirror east and west stand :)

hey this is really neat news. i was getting a bit worried nothing was happening.

Im actually disappointed I wanted a 55,000 seating stadium now its 43,000 thats like what jade use to be whe the embankment was there. To compete in the world you have to have a stadium that holds more than 50,000. i dont no im just gutted I guess like come on Greater CHristchurh will be hitting 500,000+ in 10-15 years so theres a bigger enough population for it.:(


Population has nothing to do with it. Its how many times a week you can have the stadium packed with paying customers.

England is a population of 60+ million, and i think there are about 4 to 5 stadiums with 50,000 capacity and more (old trafford, twickenham, emirates stadium, wembly, cardiff). I think if someone did a ratio of stadiums 20 000 seated+ to population between the countries, NZs ratio would be much higher. Im afraid that after world cup we are going to have constantly half filled stadia everywhere.

And they have football, rugby and cricket. If we had a massive football fan base and we could fill our stadiums then we could justify building them bigger

I agree, and I think many others will to - I wonder if they are playing some sort of game........? They still keep stressing this is the first intial concept/drawings etc. Perhaps they are testing public feeling.

I want a mirror east and west stand :)

I heard that they couldnt do the same stand on the east because of prblems with the shadow effect and not being able to keep the grass growing.

Plus about filling the stadiums I think you could get the stadiums around nz full every week if the rugby competions were tighter closer games. I think that will happen with the new npc and super 14 is slowly getting tighter and tighter so give it 5 years and rugby games will be very very close affairs. Which is what people want.

Plus about filling the stadiums I think you could get the stadiums around nz full every week if the rugby competions were tighter closer games. I think that will happen with the new npc and super 14 is slowly getting tighter and tighter so give it 5 years and rugby games will be very very close affairs. Which is what people want.

It's sad how apathetic Crusaders fans have gotten - couldn't even sell out a semi-final because everyone was waiting to go to the final. I'm worried the new NPC is just going to create bigger gaps by diluting the talent at the middle and bottom of the points tables, kind of like what a lot of people said happened with the Super 14 this year.

The situation's even worse in Dunedin, where I'm at the moment - some of their NPC games had crowds of literally a few thousand - smaller than Northland were getting, who had a 24-game losing streak at the time!

If dunedin built a new stadium which i think they are planning to do then the crowds will get bigger, build it and they will come!

I think the expanded air nz cup is a great idea, the new boys played well against the stronger unions I pretty much watched every game and from what i saw there will be some upsets for sure, but it does take time to find your feet in the top competion, it took my team the BOP Steamers 3 years to make a significant imapct on the old npc, so give them time

if dunedin do build a new stadium they should make something that looks cool, instead of just focusing on a large capacity

because that is all jade stadium seems to think about since it will be one of the ugliest stadiums in the world

if dunedin do build a new stadium they should make something that looks cool, instead of just focusing on a large capacity

because that is all jade stadium seems to think about since it will be one of the ugliest stadiums in the world


Pardon legless one??????

Be you from the Edinburgh of the South??

:)

no

To be perfectly honest i kind of agree with "IHaveNoLegs".

The development of jade stadium or lancaster park or whatever has resulted in a number of stand alone, erm, stands. In my opinion this looks ugly because there is a huge gap between all the stands! None of them are aligned well with each other and it looks tacky.

It just doesn't look first class, im sorry. why cant they actually build a proper stadium? The problem seems to be the DB/Tui stand. It is at an odd position to the West and proposed East stands. Knock that waste of space down and build a perfectly aligned stand!!! The whole stadium should wrap around the ground, just like the cake tin and ellis park and suncorp stadium to name a few. Then it will look impressive.

oh yeah im also pissed off about the proposed capacity. Not the lack of capacity but how it will be gained from 43,000 to 55,000. How can they be serious about competing as an international rugby venue when the way to up capacity to 55,000 is to remove the seats from the Tui stand???!!! This just sounds like using sellotape to keep your car together. A better idea would be to replace the Tui stand with an aligned three teir stand the same height as the Paul Kelly (West) stand BUT make the top teir capable of being dismantled post world cup. I think that is a much better idea, it has been done before (similarly) at Homebush (Sydney olympic site). Anyway just a thought. Im just disapointed, it doesn't sound world class. It doesn't sound like the home ground of the most successful Super rugby franchise nor the top South Island stadium. It sounds cheap.

Yeah i know im demanding.

im also really disappointed the stadium will only increase its capacity to 43,000 it should atleast be 50,000. I had hoped they would replicate the west stand on the eastern side to...but owell :( :ohno:

no

Good to have you on the Kiwi threads.

Pop your details into the Kiwi Count thread and keep your posts coming :)

It's sad how apathetic Crusaders fans have gotten - couldn't even sell out a semi-final because everyone was waiting to go to the final. I'm worried the new NPC is just going to create bigger gaps by diluting the talent at the middle and bottom of the points tables, kind of like what a lot of people said happened with the Super 14 this year.

The situation's even worse in Dunedin, where I'm at the moment - some of their NPC games had crowds of literally a few thousand - smaller than Northland were getting, who had a 24-game losing streak at the time!

Tim if you can remember back to the 90's when Auckland dominated the rugby scene you'll notice that this "apathy" also occurred back then. Back then commentators harked on and on about declining numbers at Eden Park.

I guess it will take another team to come up and challenge the dominance - Hurricanes maybe? I used to love it a few years back when it was Crusaders/Blues dueling it out for the top.

I think a capacity of 43,000 is about right - it would be silly to build something much larger for just a few games, which would sit empty afterwards. They'll put temporary seating in for the World Cup that could easily boost it to over 50,000.

I guess it will take another team to come up and challenge the dominance - Hurricanes maybe? I used to love it a few years back when it was Crusaders/Blues dueling it out for the top.

I think a capacity of 43,000 is about right - it would be silly to build something much larger for just a few games, which would sit empty afterwards. They'll put temporary seating in for the World Cup that could easily boost it to over 50,000.

yes but if you read my rant above, you will see that they are temporarily upping capacity by removing seats in the tui and hadlee stands to create "embankment" type areas. I think this is cheap and embarresing!

Capacity could be temporarily upped by replacing the tui/south stand (formerly DB) with a new stand that compliments the west and east stands more and that perhaps has a temporary 2nd or even 3rd teir of seating that could perhaps be removed post 2011.

As a note; the Tui stand does not compliment the West, and proposed East, stands at all and looks awful.

Does the capacity increase/decrease when in oval form (cricket)? Jade Stadium, like most NZ major grounds have irregular dimensions for cricket and rugby. Is the money and demand their to have a 52 000 multi-purpose seater like Telstra Stadium in Sydney? Better still Eden Park and Jade should emulate the Suncorp Stadium plan.

Council to look again at undergrounding in Jade Stadium area

18 August 2006

Removing overhead cabling on a set of streets near Jade Stadium and putting them underground will be reconsidered by the Christchurch City Council.

On Thursday the Council considered a request from its Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to look again at policy for funding of undergrounding.

Board chairman Bob Todd said there had been an understanding with residents at the time the western stand of Jade Stadium was developed that the Council would look favourably at their area for undergrounding.

The Charleston Neighbourhood Plan involves a programme of improvements for a cluster of streets east of the stadium. The community board recently agreed that final design, tendering and construction should begin for kerb and channel renewals in Barbour, Grafton and Henry streets. Also in the cluster are Frederick, Grenville and Laurence streets.

The Council decided it would not re-visit the entire issue, but instead would ask staff to look specifically at how it might finance undergrounding in that one area. Mr Todd and John Hoskin, chairman of the Charleston Neighbourhood Association, met Mayor Garry Moore and Council staff after the Council meeting and were happy with the outcome.

"We welcome and commend Council on the resolution and also the Mayor who has given an undertaking that the whole project will proceed to the original plan,” Mr Todd said. “We appreciate the fact that Garry will try to make sure that the plan goes ahead so by the time of the World Cup in 2011 the area will be pristine for visitors from around the world.”

Mr Hoskin said people in his area would be pleased to hear the news. "We've fought long and hard for this project and are highly delighted at the prospects of this plan coming to fruition,” he said. “The community board and the neighbourhood group appreciate the Mayor becoming involved in this issue.”

East stand concept for Jade

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/CityScene/2006/August/images/Jade.jpg

An artist's impression of how the new
East Stand might look from Wilsons and
Steven's intersection.

Council company Jade Stadium Ltd has unveiled a preliminary four-year plan to increase seating capacity by 7000 to 43,000 as the stadium moves to replace its ageing eastern stands and support the city’s role in the 2011 Rugby World Cup and the 2015 Cricket World Cup.

Stand replacement concept drawings were made public last month.

“The concept drawings are … by no means finalised and are subject to ongoing modification and change as we discuss these with all concerned,” said Bryan Pearson, chief executive of Vbase Venue Management Group Ltd, managers of Jade Stadium.

“In particular, we will work closely with the local Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board and the Charleston Neighbourhood Association to ensure any concerns are taken into consideration.”

The over all plan calls for the removal of the No 1, 2 and 3 stands, and their replacement with an East Stand to bring Jade Stadium’s permanent seating capacity to 43,000, with flexibility to increase this further for major events.

At three levels, the height of the proposed new stand would be lower than the four-level Paul Kelly Stand. “Based on the concept plans, we’re estimating the new stand and its services would cost $60 million,” said Mr Pearson.

“The catalyst for the redevelopment of the east side of Jade Stadium is the Rugby World Cup 2011,” he said. “The old stands are at the end of their life and need replacement, so it’s a good opportunity for us to address this and for us all to benefit from the economic impact and international profile of the third-largest sports tournament in the world.”

Mayor Garry Moore said the concept stacked up well and there was a compelling case for the project to get the go-ahead from the community.

“Just a year after the new stand is built there’ll be a payback to the city of at least the $60m estimated cost of development from the spending of the thousands of international rugby fans here for the Rugby World Cup. That’s based on hard data the city has received from a study of the economic impact of last year’s Lions test match at Jade Stadium.”

It suggested about 10,000 Lions’ supporters spent around $22m in a week. “If we go ahead and build this East Stand, we could get up to 60,000 supporters visiting Christchurch and Canterbury. It doesn’t take much to do the sums.

“Research commissioned by the Rugby World Cup Establishment Board has said the total economic benefit from this Rugby World Cup will be over $400m and we want Christchurch to get a decent chunk of that. Mr Pearson said that early financial projections indicated up to two thirds of the estimated $60m investment required could be funded by Jade Stadium with the support of the private sector and stadium partners.

“The funding of the balance is the subject of ongoing discussions with the City Council and others,” he said. “However, given the economic impact of the Rugby World Cup and the substantial benefits this will bring to Christchurch, it’s a compelling investment decision.”

Bryan Pearson said the additional 7000 seating would not significantly affect traffic at a major game, but the proposed development was an opportunity to address transport and traffic planning in conjunction with this next stage of development.

“For Rugby World Cup 2011, capacity may be increased further on a temporary basis, with the aim of securing a portfolio of matches up to and including the currently unallocated second semi-final,” Mr Pearson said.

“Securing pool games and quarter finals would be great for Christchurch, and securing the currently unallocated second semi-final would be the cherry on the top.”

Looking sweet.

MEDIA RELEASE October 2006

Redrafted concept for proposed East Stand

In response to feedback from neighbours and other key people, Jade Stadium has made some modifications to its initial concept plans to replace the ageing eastern stands and support the city’s role in the 2011 Rugby World Cup and the 2015 Cricket World Cup.

The slightly modified concept drawings were recently shown to a meeting of the stadium’s immediate neighbours and other interested parties.

“From the feedback that came in after the initial announcement, we could see the opportunity for Jade Stadium to become more connected with its surrounding community and so we have removed some of the barriers to this – the fences on the Wilsons Road, Stevens Street and Lismore Street frontages – and are looking at landscaping and planting the area that is not going to be used for car parking, as well as putting a café with indoor-outdoor seating on the Stevens Street and Wilsons Road corner,” said Bryan Pearson, chief executive of Vbase Venue Management Group, managers of Jade Stadium. “There has also been a bit of feedback about the traffic before and after a game, and we are taking the opportunity to review this, in particular how to create vehicle free pedestrian areas, minimise the effects of vehicles on Wilsons Road residents and how to maximise the use of public transport.” he said.

Pearson said the additional 7000 seating would not significantly affect traffic at a major game, but the proposed development was an opportunity to address transport and traffic planning in conjunction with this next stage of development.

Other comments from people included the possibility of shading of properties opposite the proposed stand on Wilsons Road.

“We plan to minimise shading where possible, however recognise that for some local residents, this will increase. However, it is highly likely that both noise and light spill will decrease for nearby residents following completion of the stand,” he said.

The overall plan calls for the removal of the No 1, 2 and 3 stands, and their replacement with an East Stand to bring Jade Stadium’s permanent seating capacity to 43,000, with flexibility to increase this further for major events like the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

At three levels, the height of the proposed East Stand would be lower than the four-level Paul Kelly Stand. The new stand also has the potential for 10,000 square metres of commercially leased office space that would have a Stevens Street address, but this is still subject to an on going feasibility study.

“Based on the concept plans, we are estimating the new stand and its services would cost $60 million, plus an additional privately funded amount if the office complex proves commercially viable,” said Mr Pearson.

There were also several comments, as well as numerous letters to the editor, about how the proposed redevelopment would be funded.

“As was the case with the previous stand development at Jade Stadium, a lot of the East Stand project funding is planned to come from the private sector and stadium partners with the remainder expected from local and central government and a range of charitable and sporting trusts,” he said.

“The concept drawings are available for viewing, but they are by no means finalised and are subject to ongoing modification and change as we discuss these with all concerned. In particular we will work closely with the local Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board and the Charleston Neighbourhood Association to ensure any concerns are taken into consideration.”

“We are planning to lodge the consent application in November in order to meet the overall programme which is ultimately targeted at the 2011 Rugby World Cup,” said Mr Pearson.

“We are encouraging this process to be notified in order to continue the consultative process already adopted with the community.”

There are loads of pictures, renders and plans here:

http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/Full%20Circle/Redevelopment

I haven't the brains to be able to load them onto the thread site (they are all in pdf formate). But if someone else can, that would be brilliant.

Its not brains mate, its just a little patience and knowing how to use your adobe acrobat software

Are these the graphics you are meaning...
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/primerendering.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/overhead1.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/lismorest.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/eaststand.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/eaststandcrosssection.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/eaststandtypical.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/architect1.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/architect2.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/architect3.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/architect4.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/cpst_davis/architect5.jpg

Hooray, they're the ones!!

Cheers Kane!!

If walking from Cathedral Square in the city to Hagley Oval or Jade Stadium, which is the shorter walk?

As long as Christchurch gets some more highrise buildings & Auckland gets a brand new stadium on the waterfront im not really bothered with what happens to Jayde Stadium. Im sure it will turn out 'alright'. If we dont get the above...then il be pissed off. Thanks for sharing the renders with us Kane.

It appears as if they have made some modifications:

1st concept
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j67/tonybratina/acbd9372ad7913a3a4f8cf00a21cbea51.jpg

2nd concept
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j67/tonybratina/primerendering1.jpg

I like the look of the new Jade Stadium additions, seems to fit in well with the existing stadia and the context.

its good to see renders of what the new east stand will look like from the view of the west stand

If walking from Cathedral Square in the city to Hagley Oval or Jade Stadium, which is the shorter walk?


Thats a hard one. I think Hagley Oval is closer, but at present it is a bit of a all over the place walk to get too! If the plans go ahead for the planned walk way to Jade from the square, it would only take about 15 minutes, all flat, no ups and downs!

I would really like to see the Hagley Oval developed as a major cricket ground - it's in a beaut spot, there has been talk of something - but it's all gone quiet.

I would really like to see the Hagley Oval developed as a major cricket ground - it's in a beaut spot, there has been talk of something - but it's all gone quiet.

From what I remember Hagley Oval is opposite the hospital. Great for a major sports venue!:) But again it comes down to historical value of Lancaster Park, which I read on their website. Seems cricket was there first, but rugby has since had a major impact on the expansion plans, and continues to do so. Im still undecided if this is positive or negative effect on Christchurch, that is from not having two separate sporting venues.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10410269

Government officials believe the $80 million job of upgrading Jade to the 60,000 seats required for the main cup venue could start as late as July 2008.

I would love to see Christchurch host the world cup - and I think it could do it well - However:

I feel were heading towards a disaster with this whole stadium thing - it all seems so hurried. I think the waterfront idea in AKL is fantastic - but the time frame?

I hate the fact that Christchurch is being used as the second best option. Did CHC accualy come close to having the oppotunity to host the world cup or is this a crazed threat by the government to spur AKL on?

Everyone is now on tender hooks for the next two weeks.

Would save the government hundreds of millions of dollars.

It would be dumb to put a 60,000 seat stadium in Christchurch for the rwc as its population is only 380,000 people, as it is they cant fill up jayde stadium for an all blacks test. What would happpen after the world cup.... you would be left with a half empty stadium for years. Auckland is the best place for it, they have the best options and the large population.

It would be dumb to put a 60,000 seat stadium in Christchurch for the rwc as its population is only 380,000 people, as it is they cant fill up jayde stadium for an all blacks test. What would happpen after the world cup.... you would be left with a half empty stadium for years. Auckland is the best place for it, they have the best options and the large population.

Similar article in the Press was much more detailed and althought the stadium could hold 60,000 for the final, the actual permanent seating wouldn't go too far above the initial planned amount and the rest would come from even more temporary seating which will only be brought in for large events such as these, the plan was already at 53,000 incl temp arrangements - so I don't see how it's a dumb idea, no matter how good this would be for the city, we all know that what auckland wants it usually gets, christchurch hasn't even secured a semi final...

i have been told that
"the new East Stand has been designed so that it will be possible, at some future time when funding is available, to join the Paul Kelly Stand and the new East Stand at both ends, which would create the fully circular stadium.
So the completed circular stadium that has been suggested certainly could eventuate, but it will take time and a lot more funding than currently proposed in our business case"
but one must ask could jade stadium not request government funding, seeing as how they are keen to cash out on a brand new waterfront stadium, why not fund a stadium in christchurch that does not physically make me sick

What do you mean by your last line?

It sounds more like you have not found your sea legs yet. The have sea sickness pills for such ailments.

Christchurch has more of a chance at filling a 60k seat stadium than Auckland does IMHO. Seriously, the 46k seating arrangement at Jade Statium is expected to cost $80m. If we got the final, we'd need to put a three tiered stand at the south end too. I'd say we could have a 60k sports bowl for around $150-$200m

That's far cheaper than either of Aucklands options. Not only that, the government could give another $100m to the Chch city council to tidy up the city centre and the area between it and Jade Stadium. There are plans for another few hotels in the next few years so accommodation isn't a problem either.

The problem I suspect comes down to votes... The current government is willing to shell out heaps to Auckland (roading, stadium etc) because next year is election year and there are about 1.2 million votes at stake versus Christchurch's 400k votes.

One more side issue... What they save by not spending up on Aucklands waterfront can be spent on Education, Health, Roading/Rail, Superannuation, Housing. Now wouldn't that be a novel idea?

Christchurch has more of a chance at filling a 60k seat stadium than Auckland does IMHO. Seriously, the 46k seating arrangement at Jade Statium is expected to cost $80m. If we got the final, we'd need to put a three tiered stand at the south end too. I'd say we could have a 60k sports bowl for around $150-$200m

That's far cheaper than either of Aucklands options. Not only that, the government could give another $100m to the Chch city council to tidy up the city centre and the area between it and Jade Stadium. There are plans for another few hotels in the next few years so accommodation isn't a problem either.

The problem I suspect comes down to votes... The current government is willing to shell out heaps to Auckland (roading, stadium etc) because next year is election year and there are about 1.2 million votes at stake versus Christchurch's 400k votes.

One more side issue... What they save by not spending up on Aucklands waterfront can be spent on Education, Health, Roading/Rail, Superannuation, Housing. Now wouldn't that be a novel idea?

agreed, but I don't see this happening, Auckland should just become the capital (wellington having passed it's used by date) and the south island a republic!

agreed, but I don't see this happening, Auckland should just become the capital (wellington having passed it's used by date) and the south island a republic!

Aqaba - please don't go down that road:ohno: We have had that debate and it got a bit :nuts: :evil: :gaah: :wallbash: :crazy2: :devil: :mad2: :wtf: :gunz: you could find it in the achive I think.................:)

agreed, but I don't see this happening, Auckland should just become the capital (wellington having passed it's used by date) and the south island a republic!

Please, no! As an Aucklander 600km is almost not far enough to keep the politicians away. I nominate: Oban, Half Moon Bay.

Please, no! As an Aucklander 600km is almost not far enough to keep the politicians away. I nominate: Oban, Half Moon Bay.

Nah, why not the Chatham Islands?

Back to Jade...

I think it is still feasible for Chch to host the WC final... and do so more viably than Auckland. Really, $750m-odd is a shit load of cash to sink on a giant toilet pan. We can do it under $200k tops.

Unfortunately Chch will always be the poor cousin of the 3 largest urban areas in NZ. Auckland will always get big handouts by the govt because there are a lot of voters there. Wellington will always get big handouts because all the MP's spend a lot of time there.

Don't get me wrong... Auckland and Wellington are great places in their own way. And they need to have good infrastructure like any city should. But personally, Central Govt's primary job is to make descisions in the whole country's best interest - to me, spending $750m in Auckland doesn't seem right when the govt can get much the same result in Chch for third of the price.

I think the govt should offer a fixed amount (say $200m) and then let the various regions submit their proposals. Whoever has the most sound proposal (taking all aspects of hosting the WC final, funding, post WC uses etc) gets the loot. Any costs over the govts offer are the responsibility of the region.

Just my opinion.

^^ your right. The government should distribute its tax revenue equitably. Should we make this retro active to make up for past discrepancies? Well as they say 2 wrongs don't make a right. However in this instance this wrong may actually benefit the whole country in the long term, thus it maybe will be worth it.

What is actually happening is the perceived re-organising of infrastructure expenditure. But the magical word here is perception. It’s more a case of robing Paul to pay Mary. The Paul here is Auckland's proportional share of most government expenditure - whether health, social welfare, education etc - and the Mary is the roads.

Fact Auckland contributed 35% of the governments income last year. But it only received 28-29% of its expenditure. Add to this that 33% of NZer's live there and someone in government failed School C maths! These figures are available in the City development - Auckland (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402736&page=8) thread or its archives by now.

These facts have been true for the last 30 years or more, and in those years every government has in fact leached off Auckland a subsidy for the rest of the country. We are not moaning. We see that around the world major cities are the engine rooms of nations. We see that what we contribute is in fact good for us as well. Investing down country gives Aucklanders access to good roads, an excellent Wellington rail system (yes - from taxes), Te Papa, Big Hydro projects that in turn keep our lights on, the big irrigation projects that keep certain areas arable and send actual produce for our ports to facilitate off shore, the same ports that provide trinkets to the farm wives, lawyers and surveyors and a plefora of other services that have a symbiotic relationship.

No, consider that a good will gesture. An equitable share of the 35% tax take would be just about right. 35% of this years cash surplus should be about $4.2milliard. Seems $500 or $950 million would be good use of this.

Ok, off the chest now. Phew. Back to the best location of the stadium. I think an analogy should be used here. Olympic stadiums. I know NZ will never get these games. But these stadiums are generally 1/3 larger again than the RWC stadium. Plus add to that all the other plefora of facilities and one can see why logically the minimum sized city of a modern Olympic Games is about 3million plus. Cities smaller just cannot be economically acceptable.

Now some Vodoo Maths. Thus my 1/3’d scale can be used here. The RWC will be 1/3 or less than the Olympics. Auckland is about 1/3 the size of Sydney, Melbourne, Barcelona, Atlanta etc. Christchurch is over 3 times smaller again. Stadium Australia was actually running in the black, despite what some here are saying. But it wasn't enough to pay the initial construction costs and that’s why it was flogged off. Christchurch would muster up for the RWC and a few other events. But it wont be sustainable. 350,000 people in all of Christchurch, hell 200,000 Aucklanders are expected at the Domain on 2006/12/09 for Christmas in the park – that still will leave 1.1million of them needing other distractions on that afternoon!
:)

Some interesting facts:

http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/yourhome/pricing+plans/vectoraucklandresidential.pdf

http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/yourhome/pricing+plans/orionchristchurchresidential.pdf

Looks like your power is already a bit cheaper. Payback for your tax dollars maybe? What I find particularly annoying is that a big chunk of it is generated down here and then sent north and somehow gets cheaper as it goes. The story is even worse in Dunedin where they get hit with a special (higher) winter rate.

I think the final should be in Auckland (not Chch) BTW. Just can't see where $700M spent on a stadium would ever be a good idea.

Its called "economies of scale". Sort like how a 3 hour flight to Tahiti costs each passenger more than an eight hour flight to Bali. The Bali plane is a larger 400 seat 747 vs a 150-200 seat 737. More passengers to distribute the costs among, greater efficiencies plus a more economical logistical train.

Anyway, isn't the cheapest electricity reserved for the Bluff Aluminum refinery?

Touche - Equally annoying is most of NZ petroleum is refined up North and sent south, were it stays at about the same price - regardless of economies of scale :)

Its called "economies of scale". Sort like how a 3 hour flight to Tahiti costs each passenger more than an eight hour flight to Bali. The Bali plane is a larger 400 seat 747 vs a 150-200 seat 737. More passengers to distribute the costs among, greater efficiencies plus a more economical logistical train.

Anyway, isn't the cheapest electricity reserved for the Bluff Aluminum refinery?

Touche - Equally annoying is most of NZ petroleum is refined up North and sent south, were it stays at about the same price - regardless of economies of scale :)

Economies of scale don't apply so readily to the power distribution industry. Losses associated with long distance transmission are substantial and there is the maintenance and construction costs of the transmission system also to factor in. You also tend to need an equal amount of distribution equipment per customer no matter whether you're located in Auckland or Dunedin.

I find it hard to believe that most petrol is shipped south (unless you mean the fact the Auckland is south of Whangerei). A lot (40% +) of petrol is imported ready refined anyhow. Also petrol IS more expensive further south. Don't forget that we all pay a special Auckland roading levy on each litre we buy no matter where we are located.

Also remember that while cheap SI power was shipped north cheap NI gas was never sent south. We get imported Australian LPG down here.

What's the cost of 91 per litre at your gas station?

^^ your right. The government should distribute its tax revenue equitably. Should we make this retro active to make up for past discrepancies? Well as they say 2 wrongs don't make a right. However in this instance this wrong may actually benefit the whole country in the long term, thus it maybe will be worth it.

What is actually happening is the perceived re-organising of infrastructure expenditure. But the magical word here is perception. It’s more a case of robing Paul to pay Mary. The Paul here is Auckland's proportional share of most government expenditure - whether health, social welfare, education etc - and the Mary is the roads.

Fact Auckland contributed 35% of the governments income last year. But it only received 28-29% of its expenditure. Add to this that 33% of NZer's live there and someone in government failed School C maths! These figures are available in the City development - Auckland (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402736&page=8) thread or its archives by now.

These facts have been true for the last 30 years or more, and in those years every government has in fact leached off Auckland a subsidy for the rest of the country. We are not moaning. We see that around the world major cities are the engine rooms of nations. We see that what we contribute is in fact good for us as well. Investing down country gives Aucklanders access to good roads, an excellent Wellington rail system (yes - from taxes), Te Papa, Big Hydro projects that in turn keep our lights on, the big irrigation projects that keep certain areas arable and send actual produce for our ports to facilitate off shore, the same ports that provide trinkets to the farm wives, lawyers and surveyors and a plefora of other services that have a symbiotic relationship.

No, consider that a good will gesture. An equitable share of the 35% tax take would be just about right. 35% of this years cash surplus should be about $4.2milliard. Seems $500 or $950 million would be good use of this.

Ok, off the chest now. Phew. Back to the best location of the stadium. I think an analogy should be used here. Olympic stadiums. I know NZ will never get these games. But these stadiums are generally 1/3 larger again than the RWC stadium. Plus add to that all the other plefora of facilities and one can see why logically the minimum sized city of a modern Olympic Games is about 3million plus. Cities smaller just cannot be economically acceptable.

Now some Vodoo Maths. Thus my 1/3’d scale can be used here. The RWC will be 1/3 or less than the Olympics. Auckland is about 1/3 the size of Sydney, Melbourne, Barcelona, Atlanta etc. Christchurch is over 3 times smaller again. Stadium Australia was actually running in the black, despite what some here are saying. But it wasn't enough to pay the initial construction costs and that’s why it was flogged off. Christchurch would muster up for the RWC and a few other events. But it wont be sustainable. 350,000 people in all of Christchurch, hell 200,000 Aucklanders are expected at the Domain on 2006/12/09 for Christmas in the park – that still will leave 1.1million of them needing other distractions on that afternoon!
:)

i dont see how that makes sense. Wales total population is little over 2 million yet they held the RWC final at Cardiff in 1999. with modern travel the way it is Chch is easy access from the main population bases in the rest of NZ, jet planes and car ferries. It is even cheap and easy to get to from Aussie. It also possess a modern international airport capable of handling all the traffic generated by such an event and UNLIKE AUCKLAND it isnt one of the worlds worst planned cities. HOWEVER what i would love to point out is that Hamilton just nabbed the NZ V8 Supercar round!!! You cant be hypocritical about it, it CAN BE DONE and it WOULD BE A SUCCESS. I dont see how the notion of the RWC final being played in chch is at all unrealistic. Just like Hamilton Chch should bite the bullet if given half the chance and really put the south island on the map! Its so funny how so many people pull out all the excuses they can think of. I dont see a sensible reason why not, and if Auckland cant organise a stadium then how the bloody hell can they organise everything else? its turning into a joke just send it down to us :D

Wales is not in fact an independent nation, but largely self governing component of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thus like NZ, where the stadium could be financed by the state, cardiff's was aided from London. Within 200 km of cardiff is, well London! Nit picking its actually 212km.

So quite a different situation.

Right, just to throw a spanner in the works. Lillehammer, a town of 25,000 people hosted the Winter Olympics not that many years ago... (If anyone wants something better than a rollercoaster, try the olympic luge track in Lillehammer. Its awesome and because you're on concrete, not ice, you only actually go about half the speed the pros go - still its much better than rollercoasters.... Oh those G-Forces.!)

I digress...

So the point of whether it is economical to host the RWC final in Chch becomes less relevant. It can be done. I know Oslo, a million people isn't too far away from Lillehammer, but in this modern age of jet travel, neither is Chch far away from Auckland.

In saying that, yes, i do agree, at face value, the obvious choice should be to host it in Auckland. But at what cost and more importantly, whose cost?
Auckland stands to gain by far the most from it - so it should pay for... well... most of it.

BTW: Yes, I agree with Kane007's comments that Auckland has been under funded over the years... Successive government cock ups to blame for that. As it stands, Chch is underfunded too. In fact if you look at it, all larger centres are propping up the smaller rural places and it will continue to be that way especially now that many rural areas have less people than they did 50 years ago. An example is that Ashburton District has more roading length than any other district council in the country, yet it has only 30,000 people. That number of people simply cannot afford to pay to maintain and develop all those roads - That's where the big cousins in Christchchurch come in... Welcome to the world of cross-subsidisation.

Christchurch hosted the 1974 Commonwealth Games, beating of rivals such Perth, Auckland, Melbourne and Sydney. Everyone said CHC couldn't do it - so Sir Ron Scott and his team pulled off one of the most sucessful games ever. It can be done :)

No one will disagree that Christchurch can't provide for the RWC final. I'm just trying to point out that if they want to do it properly and have a "stunning" stadium the possibilities of a white elephant are 3 or 4 fold after the event.

Temporary seating is a good compromise but how many, at what detriment to the entire "quality" of the stadium?

Aqaba - please don't go down that road:ohno: We have had that debate and it got a bit :nuts: :evil: :gaah: :wallbash: :crazy2: :devil: :mad2: :wtf: :gunz: you could find it in the achive I think.................:)

that is just the general feeling most young people have in CHC, that we would be much better off if we had the chance to do our own thing...

that is just the general feeling most young people have in CHC, that we would be much better off if we had the chance to do our own thing...


It's not just the young people. A lot of us "middle aged" people and many older ones feel the same way. Anyway I don't want to awaken old arguments but just let you know that you certainly aren't alone in this.

^^ thankyou paulsy, it's good to know we're not alone

Does anyone else find the Jade Stadium redevelopments tacky? The existing seating plans are semi-circular along the sidelines and square on (like they should in a rectangle sports field) at the goalpost ends. The problem with Jade and Eden Park for that matter, is that the irregular playing surface does not suit either rugby or cricket players and their fans.

everybody else thinks the redevelopment plans are crap

Hey ihavenolegs are you a regular at Jayde?? or atleast were you there when Australia played NZ back in July?? In the corporate part on the second tier of the new stand they had a part where disabled people can watch the game i was wondering is that where you watch the game from?? not trying to be rude, just thought it was a brilliant idea.

they have those wheelchair things everywhere at jade

i would have gone to that game but i didn't for two reasons
1. tickets were stupidly expensive
2. i didn't want to go

The reason other OECD and Asian countries gain hosting rights to sporting events is because they put a good case forward.That being modern stadia infrastructure.But furthermore,they gain the following.

Repeat hosting rights:

# Hong Kong Sevens - great stadium
# New Zealand Sevens - "wellywood" - great stadium
# Dubai Sevens - great stadium
and so on.......

Good corporate support:

# Heineken
# Telstra
# Cathay Pacific
# Credit Suisse
# Coca Cola
# Microsoft

Great Government support:

# Hong Kong Government Stadium was re-built in 1994 and is now a 40,000 capacity venue.
# Government of Dubai has vested interests in there Stadium.

Return Visits From Tourists:

# When you have entertaining events,stadia that is funded by Government,the game that is sponsored by great sponsors and a roadshow called the media with worldwide coverage and passionate sports fans,it is these ingredients that make it a permanent success.

What is wrong in N.Z!?.

- Auckland Regional Council that have there own selfish agenda [we have Mt Smart,and if we veto Stadium N.Z on Bledisloe Wharf,we will lose all our income from Mt Smart] :nuts:

- Stadiums that have not been financially supported by Government and hence are privately owned and funded with "the smell of an oil rag".:ancient:

- Narrow-minded negative and neurotic self-righteous individuals whom want things to stay exactly the way they have been, since Norman Kirk was Prime Minister.Good old Norm!. :ohno:

*cough*.....oh yeah.....lol......I think Jade Stadium :horse: should get a loan from the govt to bring it up to 50,000.They can support that cause the AB's will attract all the scarifies from Dunedin and beyond.Even the couple from Invercargill that own the Paua House. ;)

Well written Utopia. Very astute ^^
However we all know its wishful thinking because the current crop in charge (both locally and nationally) are tired REPEAT artists. By that I mean they only make decisions based on their experiences and whats worked for them in the past.
Obviously we need more than this from our decision makers in NZ.

Perhaps Jade could use some tips from the Do Dragão Stadium in Portugal?.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i29/blairboy_2006/dragao4.jpg
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i29/blairboy_2006/117834793_5134ce66c9_b.jpg
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i29/blairboy_2006/100815100_8633beaca5_b.jpg

Note the winglets on the main stands,the same as Jade.Also they have the same smaller end stands.All you need to do is bang that roof structure into place. :nocrook: :okay:

very nice stadium...

do you really think the administration at jade stadium would be smart enough to do something like that?

do you really think the administration at jade stadium would be smart enough to do something like that?

no

Well they can not, because cricket also uses the ground, unless they look to Telstra Dome configuration to accommodate oval and rectangle sports.

don't forget the crappy temporary seating that they can put in front of the west and soon to be coming east stands

Note the winglets on the main stands,the same as Jade.Also they have the same smaller end stands.All you need to do is bang that roof structure into place.
that would be alot better if they continued the lower bowl around the ends instead of having the sexy Tui stand

Would be great if if Jade was sexed up a little!!

So...which stadia are to be used in the World Cup? capacities? has this been finalised? is the bid book available on line?

Would be great if if Jade was sexed up a little!!

thats not possible with its current administration

So...which stadia are to be used in the World Cup? capacities? has this been finalised? is the bid book available on line?

Everything is still up in the air :ohno:

Everything is still up in the air :ohno:

oh..that not so good.but then again the cape town stadium is up in the air for another two weeks and that for 2010.

oh..that not so good.but then again the cape town stadium is up in the air for another two weeks and that for 2010.

The Saffers will sort it out - I am guessing that the rest of South Africa is rubbing their hands in glee :lol: it used to be Jozi against iKapa but now it is Durbs and Jozi against the Cape.

A ariel picture i found of jade showing the ground as it is now, as per the proposed plan, and the permitted setback should the current proprosal breach any height regulations(extending the new stand around on the south side, similar to Eden Park having to make its new stand go around 3 sides instead of 2)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/NZ_Jaderedevelopment3.jpg
i reckon it would look very weird from the inside if they had to go with the alternative

^^The proposal in the second model is surely the best, the other alternative would look odd as you say.

It's always annoyed me that the new scoreboard stand is just a glorified terrace. The idea is to build the new East Stand, then knock down or enlarge the scoreboard stand to enclose 80% of the park. In a few years when the Hadlee has outlived it's usefulness, they can complete the enclosure.

i do hate the tui stand, but i'm not bothered how it is a glorified terrace, a stadium does need a place where all the drunks and yobbos go for cheap tickets and create a good atmosphere
property could be a problem, thats why the hadlee stand is so small
i wouldn't consider the current west stand finished, work needs to be done on it to make it up to scratch
1. remove the light towers
2. remove the roof
3. make the top tier go all the way along
4. put a roof that covers most of the seats on
5. put lights along the roof

^^ Yer thats a good idea! what were they thinking putting a roof that doesn't cover half the seats - cheap fuks, they should actually spend a decent amount of money on Jayde so that both of the large stands are the same except for their heights as the new one will have only 2 tiers whilst the old one has three.

As posted b/4 it should look like this.

It's up to the Govt to give Jade Stadium a decent loan in prep for the RWC 2011.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i29/blairboy_2006/dragao4.jpg

I like this stadium..but it could be much better...why does everything have to seem so makeshift?

cool stadium

they've fucked the whole ground up, to continue the west stand around the south/ north sides looks difficult to do without a massive gap between the end of a rugby field and the stands

a recent render i found on the jade stadium site showing what the new east stand will look like from the inside of the ground
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/NZ_Jaderedevelopment8.jpg
the stand dows look impressive

a recent render i found on the jade stadium site showing what the new east stand will look like from the inside of the ground
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/NZ_Jaderedevelopment8.jpg
the stand dows look impressive

^^ hell yes! Very impressive.

Though would be even more so if twaz a complete wrap around.

^^ hell yes! Very impressive.

Though would be even more so if twaz a complete wrap around.

I don't know, the gaps give the stadium a certain character

Yes. A 'cheap look' character

a comibination of a cheap look and incompetent management

The Saffers will sort it out - I am guessing that the rest of South Africa is rubbing their hands in glee :lol: it used to be Jozi against iKapa but now it is Durbs and Jozi against the Cape.
its basically sorted and now CT wants to show off with the waterfront and a huge urban park adjacent to the stadium. zille is quite lucky..i think more developments in terms of infrastructure will take place in the next three years to make up for the last 20 years of ANC underspending.(or not spending at all)

i dont dislike this stadium, its cool, it will make a great venue, the emphasis should be on a quality sustainable venue for a country the size of NZ, a better design at the same cost does of course exist but this one is ok...still a great pity about the waterfront stadium.

http://shakhtar.com/fc/foto/ns/21_10_05/008.jpg

:)

but thats just not possible

btw doesn't jade look a bit like paul brown stadium in Cincinnati?
http://www.culture.ohio.gov/s/bengalsL.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/NZ_Jade6.jpg

^^ Good find, I cant tell if those pics are of Jade Stadium? or not?

Some more elevations of Jade stadiums upgrade:

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j67/tonybratina/Picture1-3.png

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j67/tonybratina/Picture4-1.png

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j67/tonybratina/Picture3.png

I still think they have buggered up Jade by planning a totaly different shaped east stand - the place could have been a model for NZ. :ohno:

The cake tin is the only "thought through and complete" stadium development of international importance in NZ - why do kiwis alway do things by halves?? :bash:

I still think they have buggered up Jade by planning a totaly different shaped east stand - the place could have been a model for NZ. :ohno:

The cake tin is the only "thought through and complete" stadium development of international importance in NZ - why do kiwis alway do things by halves?? :bash:
more like quarters

I like the plan to mirror the West stand... having a complete wraparound would just make it look like a billion other stadiums around the world. The Hadlee stand is one of the most unique things about Jade. I agree that the Tui stand needs to be there for atmosphere, maybe they could add a second tier of cheap seats on top, which would significantly boost capacity.

I don't think it rains enough in Chch to have to worry about covering all the seats, and the lack of roof combined with the 'gaps' give it a more open, atmosphere that suits the whole "Crusaders" theme... think Coliseum... they should call it that if they have to drop Jade Stadium for the RWC.

Christchurch City Council will consult with the public on funding the future development of Jade Stadium.

The Council today supported the proposal to develop Jade Stadium by Vbase, the company which manages the stadium. An amendment to the Council’s 2006/16 Long Term Council Community plan is required and this will go out for public consultation on April 5 as part of the Annual Plan process.

The proposed $60 million upgrade includes replacing the three stands on the eastern side of the stadium with a new stand which will increase the stadium’s seating capacity to between 40,000 and 45,000. The old stands need replacing and New Zealand hosting Rugby World Cup 2011 is a catalyst for the redevelopment.

The Council’s General Manager Roy Baker said the $60 million upgrade would have basically no impact on rates.

Under the funding arrangement proposed, Vbase would borrow $40 million from the Council at commercial rates. Council and Vbase would work together to secure the remaining $20 million from Central Government, the Lotteries Commission and other sources. In the meantime Council would underwrite the $20 million funding gap so that the development could proceed and be completed in time for RWC 2011.

Vbase Chief Executive Bryan Pearson said Vbase was totally confident in its ability to take on and repay the $40 million debt to Council.

Mr Pearson praised the calibre of the project consultants, headed by Athfield Architectus, for their ability to deliver a stadium of international quality at a relatively modest cost.

I read an article prior to that one stating that it's now unlikely the government will fund the $20 million, apparently Christchurch is no longer NZ's second city, just a "regional center", and such regional centers are only allowed max of $5 million for stadium funding.

That's the same royal BS the Clark regime dished up to Auckland with the Dullard memorial was sunk!

^^Damn thats bullshit from the govt! Ridiculous:bash:

The Press | Friday, 9 March 2007

will mount a strong case for fair treatment after the Government signalled yesterday it might not cover a $20 million shortfall for the redevelopment of Jade Stadium.

The Christchurch City Council yesterday agreed in principle to borrow $40m of the $60m cost for the stadium revamp, and it was confident the Lotteries Commission and the Government would provide the rest.

However, Rugby World Cup Minister Trevor Mallard yesterday said the only direct Government funding for regional stadiums was through a Government fund that had so far given a maximum grant of $5.5m.

The Significant Community-based Projects Fund spent $16m of its $32m allocation last year, and the deadline for this year's grants has passed.

That means the Jade shortfall is unlikely to be covered even if the council succeeds in getting about $10m from lottery grants.

Mallard said the only reason the Government was contributing directly to the $170m to $190m upgrade of Auckland's Eden Park was because New Zealand would not have won the 2011 Rugby World Cup hosting rights without a 60,000-seat stadium.

Christchurch Mayor Garry Moore said the Government had bailed out other cities with one-off payments, including $220m for Wellington housing and huge cash injections for roading in Auckland and the Bay of Plenty.

"When is the one-off train going to stop at the Christchurch station? It just seems at the moment that it only stops in the North Island," he said.

Christchurch seldom put its hand up for help, but "maybe we need to develop our squeaky-wheel style as well", Moore said.

Bryan Pearson, the chief executive of the council's venue management company, Vbase, said there were compelling arguments for Lotteries Commission and Government funding.

Pearson began seeking support from Christchurch MPs yesterday and said he was "optimistic we will find a solution".

"I'm not surprised the Minister made a statement to that effect at the moment, but as yet we have not put forward our arguments and a formal proposal," he said.

Vbase said it had "absolute confidence" it could repay the $40m council loan and interest from increased revenue, meaning there would be no direct rates impact.

The proposed new east stand would increase the permanent Jade Stadium capacity from 36,500 to between 40,000 and 45,000.

Other improvements in the $60m revamp are $3m for a new replay screen and $4m for an upgraded playing surface.

Pearson said the Lotteries Commission had given $4m to both North Harbour Stadium and Wellington's Westpac Stadium in the past decade, providing a "reasonable expectation" for Jade to get $8m to $10m.

Councillors yesterday endorsed the Jade redevelopment, which will go out for public submissions as an amendment to the council's long-term plan.

Obviously this Labour & Co Government does not really want the 2011 WC to succeed.
Or they are are letting it get personal - Dullard in particular?
It is the Government of NZ's job to make NZ look good to the outside World.
They have got a funny way of going about it! :nuts:

Jeez, the government is painfully tight-fisted. We cant build stadiums out of number eight fencing wire.:nuts:

Hey - Trades and Dazzle - have you two meet up or plan too. Its great there is a Kiwi chapter in Ireland!!

Hey Dave,

Not too sure but I think Dazzle is heading or has headed back to Auckland. But yeah its great that the forum has an overseas following. I guess we all use it to keep an eye on all the changes on our favourite little gem in the south pacific:) And there has been a ton of changes at home since I left in 2001.

Yeah I'm heading home.
Will be back in Auckland in April for 9-12 months.:)

Obviously this Labour & Co Government does not really want the 2011 WC to succeed.
Or they are are letting it get personal - Dullard in particular?
It is the Government of NZ's job to make NZ look good to the outside World.
They have got a funny way of going about it! :nuts:


Well it would appear so wouldn't it?

If we won the bid for 2018 commonwealth games, how much would they contribute to our stadia and venues, $10 mil? Or perhaps the regional $5 million would still apply:lol:

Christchurch Labour MPs have confirmed Jade Stadium will not receive government funding for its planned redevelopments for the Rugby World Cup in 2011.

Banks Peninsula MP Ruth Dyson says MPs met World Cup Minister Trevor Mallard on Thursday to discuss a $20 million shortfall in paying for the upgrade.

She says they agreed that Auckland's facilities were a funding priority because of its World Cup hosting commitments.

She says the company that manages Jade Stadium is eligible to apply to the Lottery Community Facilities Fund.

^^
Don't ya just love this current Government.
They want the WC but they don't want to fund it properly, so that to the outside world we look like we have our shite together.

This is a central government duty to get things right. They obviously have a different agenda.

Good to see I will be returning to more of the crap that was in place when I left...NOT!!!!

Bye Bye Labour :wave: .... hello National :lovethem:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Jade_Stadium.jpg/800px-Jade_Stadium.jpg

The Press has just reported that the $60million (cost seems to be going up all the time) redevelopment is now going to include a full circle first level concourse around the stadium. All the land around the stadium is to be redeveloped for hospitality and pleasure. Extensive use of greenery is to be used. The WW 1 Memorial Gates at the front of the Hadlee Stand on Stevens Street are to be fully restored. Renders to come hopefully...........:banana:

^^ Yay Go Chrch!!!!!!!! Smart thinking! :banana: :banana:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Jade_Stadium.jpg/800px-Jade_Stadium.jpg

The Press has just reported that the $60million (cost seems to be going up all the time) redevelopment is now going to include a full circle first level concourse around the stadium. All the land around the stadium is to be redeveloped for hospitality and pleasure. Extensive use of greenery is to be used. The WW 1 Memorial Gates at the front of the Hadlee Stand on Stevens Street are to be fully restored. Renders to come hopefully...........:banana:

David, ive searched the net for an article about this, including the press and cant find anything. Would you be so kind and send a link please? :)

perhaps this might help
http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/IM_Custom/ContentStore/Assets/14/26/d434ff3fef6a8c93473ebc021a72fb60/4%20memorial%20gates.pdf

^^ I looked at the Jade website, iv'e seen that pdf before. This is what interests me:The Press has just reported that the $60million (cost seems to be going up all the time) redevelopment is now going to include a full circle first level concourse around the stadium. All the land around the stadium is to be redeveloped for hospitality and pleasure. Extensive use of greenery is to be used..

^^ I looked at the Jade website, iv'e seen that pdf before. This is what interests me:The Press has just reported that the $60million (cost seems to be going up all the time) redevelopment is now going to include a full circle first level concourse around the stadium. All the land around the stadium is to be redeveloped for hospitality and pleasure. Extensive use of greenery is to be used..

The small article can be found in:

The Press
30th March
Page A5
Bottom right hand corner.

I forgot to mention the the Resource concent hearing for the development is due this month.

You will not find it in Stuff or other papers that have Press clippings, it's not a big article. They only give you taster stories that get you to buy the paper.

I have a yearly (about £80) subscription which downloads the entire paper every day as soon as it is printed. It's a laugh - I get to read your tomorrows Press your day before, in the evening while you guys are still in bed - and I'm between 11 - 13 hours behind you........:lol:

I also paraphrased what was written in the article - as you can tell - it's not well constructed. I do this so not to breach the strict copyright laws that are attached to my subscription. News Stand who is the company who deliver the paper have set their system so you cannot cut, copy or paste anything from The Press.

Is the full project not dependent on funding from some fund that will prob not provide the funding necessary to make up the gap between 40 and 60 million dollars. Could this stadium just end up as another makeshift cheap temporary seating project? Or will they spend 40million regardless of the funding outcome?

For the last upgrade a few years back, the council loaned the stadium the $49m it needed for construction. Maybe that's an option again, although getting into that much debt can't be a very sound business decision?

It would be a real shame to leave Chch out of the semi-finals... giving it just a pool is like saying... you're Hamilton! I couldnt make it to Chch for the Lion's test, but some people have told me the atmosphere in the city that night was unlike anything they had seen in the World!

Yucky East Stand.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/DavidEugene/IMG_0453.jpg?t=1176218763

Nice West Stand.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/DavidEugene/IMG_0452.jpg?t=1176218838

Read this article while reading the Press this morning:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4024298a6530.html

Seems as though the new east stand will be even shorter again than originally planned holding 2,000 fewer seats. According to the article it will be less than 34m tall.

One wonders if they are having problems making up the 20 million shortfall in funding that some others here have mentioned and are adjusting the plan accordingly. The article mentions the main reason being concerns over shading of nearby houses but I wonder if the shortfall is part of the equation as well.

Gotta say I'm personally disappointed. Ah well, guess I'll wait and see how it pans out. I would have liked a mirror image of the west stand but I guess that is certainly out of the realms of possibilities now for sure :(

^^^ What is $20 mil when Cullen's fat ass is sitting on more than $6 BILLION ..... the fucking Scrooge !

^^^ What is $20 mil when Cullen's fat ass is sitting on more than $6 BILLION ..... the fucking Scrooge !
LMFAO :lol:

I'd like a bit of that $6 Billion too please! Tax cut anyone ;)

Such a shame... would be so much cooler if it was symmetrical!

some pics of jade stadium at its best

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/4.jpg

Such a shame... would be so much cooler if it was symmetrical!

I agree with you completely. This is just another example of shortsightedness. Why can't NZers do things properly. When we do - we do it well, when we don't - we really f..k it up. This was CHCs big chance to provide a stadium of some note - now forget it!!

HEY - :soapbox: IF ANY OF YOU JADE STADIUM FELLOWS ARE LUCKING AROUND LOOKING AT WHAT US NERDY BUILDING-OPHILES (shall we abbrev to "bos" or "bo") ARE WRITING AND COMMENTING ON - :speech: LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY - WE'RE RIGHT 99% OF THE TIME - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DONT FUCK UP JADE STADIUM. GIVE US SYMMETRICAL STANDS!!!:wallbash:

Rant over :mad:

I think the should duplicate the West stand on the east side but, with a roof that covers all seats. In saying that, they should rip down the lights and roof from the west stand and add extra seating where the huge lighting takes up room on the far left and right edges of the second or third tier and put a new roof that covers all the seating. that way you have to great stands both with shelter from the rain. :) It would be a smart option for the future expanding Jade into a full circle stadium. I wish i could send a letter to them that they would consider in regards to my idea. I really dont like the idea of offices in a stadium, especially when the council is supposedly trying to keep offices in the city. lol They obviously aren't sticking with that plan. :nuts: Also making the East stand shorter in height becuase there are houses behind it is comletely beyond me when Jade is in, and is classified as in an industrial area. Fuck the houses behind the stadium, the bloody idiots should of known better buying a house behind a stadium without suffering the consequences of the stadium getting upgrades. Think on behalf of the entire city not just one bloddy street of complaining retards. The plan i have suggested cant cost that much more than what they are trying to do anyway, so they should follow Dunedins pathway and do good job, not a half assed one. ;)

I think the should duplicate the West stand on the east side but, with a roof that covers all seats. In saying that, they should rip down the lights and roof from the west stand and add extra seating where the huge lighting takes up room on the far left and right edges of the second or third tier and put a new roof that covers all the seating. that way you have to great stands both with shelter from the rain. :) It would be a smart option for the future expanding Jade into a full circle stadium. I wish i could send a letter to them that they would consider in regards to my idea. I really dont like the idea of offices in a stadium, especially when the council is supposedly trying to keep offices in the city. lol They obviously aren't sticking with that plan. :nuts: Also making the East stand shorter in height becuase there are houses behind it is comletely beyond me when Jade is in, and is classified as in an industrial area. Fuck the houses behind the stadium, the bloody idiots should of known better buying a house behind a stadium without suffering the consequences of the stadium getting upgrades. Think on behalf of the entire city not just one bloddy street of complaining retards. The plan i have suggested cant cost that much more than what they are trying to do anyway, so they should follow Dunedins pathway and do good job, not a half assed one. ;)

if a roof was built to cover most of the west stand the ground would get hardly any sunlight, the original proposal for the new east stand was much what you are saying should happen to the west stand(now they fucked it up)
the ground was doomed ever since they built the hadlee stand(although one can't blame vbase since they didn't run the stadium then, but can be blamed for the tui stand)

if you want to contact them
http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/Full%20Circle/Contact

They could at least build it with the option of adding the top tier to match the West stand at a later date.

US NERDY BUILDING-OPHILES (shall we abbrev to "bos" or "bo"

Bo's before ho's huh?

They could at least build it with the option of adding the top tier to match the West stand at a later date.



Bo's before ho's huh?

:lol: :lol:

bo's then!:banana:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/NZ_Jaderedevelopment3.jpg

They should just go the the alternative/setback(but connect the two stands) and at a later date rip the roof off and build a top tier to match west stand

Can someone explain to me why that had to lower the proposed height of the East stand if the existing height is under what they term the "permitted" setback?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=430960

why do other countries come up with such imaginative ideas....

^^
Yeah. It's fustrating isnt it.
That Winnepeg concept would have been really cool in Auckland

http://img146.exs.cx/img146/3400/board26vw.jpg

very nice for christchurch. i think the hotel concept is brilliant. reports from chc is that they are looking to build a new large international conference/convention facility to cope with the demand. something like this would be good. jade is located centrally enough to the city - a bit of thought and it could be a sucess.

This has gone a bit quiet - oh the thread must have been forgoten about....

This has gone a bit quiet - oh the thread must have been forgoten about....

why are you going to these old threads?

The RWC 2011 has been put on hold ;) The powesr that be are still talking and talking and talking ....

....and talking...and talking.........

who ever said that new zealanders arent good talkers?

new pictures of AMI Stadium

http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/Site/Designs/Images/ami/fullcircle-1.jpg

http://www.jadestadium.co.nz/Site/Designs/Images/ami/redevelopment.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Fluck/untitled.jpg

still no decent pictures of what the east stand will look like from the inside

East stand naming rights not going to be sold off, instead vbase want the community to help name the stand. I think the stand should be named after Darryn Perfect, who played rugby for canterbury a few times in the late 90's

^^damn that looks awesome, the new east stand will create a mean atomsphere, ami stadium is going to take a while to sink in tho

^^ Yeah as did Jade. I'm sure people will still be calling it Jade for years to come. I wonder if it will be called Lancaster Park again during RWC time.

Maybe the title of this thread needs to be changed...

It was on the news, love the new stand. :cheers2:

add an athletics track and host the 2018 commies

add an athletics track and host the 2018 commies

True - would go to help clean up that area of town real good :banana:

I don't like the name. I don't like any of the stadium names around NZ & Aus being named after big companies.............suppose it's the way of the world now.

^^
beats being called Eden Park:lol: :lol: :lol:

add an athletics track and host the 2018 commies

i doubt there is room for an athletics track

Poll on stuff for the name of the new east stand

Deans Stand (177 votes, 13.5%)
Mehrtens Stand (120 votes, 9.2%)
Loe Stand (36 votes, 2.8%)
Toddy Blackadder's Stand (97 votes, 7.4%)
Brian O'Driscoll memorial side (42 votes, 3.2%)
Lancaster Stand (723 votes, 55.3%)
Garry Moore's wow side (18 votes, 1.4%)
Ooh ah Umaga stand (94 votes, 7.2%)

it is good to see the public want to name a stand after steve lancaster, one of the great cantabrians of the late 90'2

Ben - could you take the Jade away and replace it with AMI, since that is the new name.

Thanks.

Lancaster stand is the best. the pictures look great, but i still think the new stand would have looked better if it was a mirror of the west one

The Press | Monday, 13 August 2007

Another change to the name of the South Island's premier sports venue is bound to cause a few regrets because the words Lancaster Park still evoke memories of some of New Zealand's greatest sporting moments, writes The Press in an editorial.

Many Cantabrians were sorry nine years ago to see the name substituted by Jade Stadium. Those people will be just as unimpressed that the name is now to be AMI Stadium. But regrets cannot withstand the on-rush of the new age of commercial sport, with its formidable commercial imperatives.

The inescapable reality is that the selling of the naming rights is necessary if the park is to maintain its status as a venue able to host international rugby and cricket and large cultural events. AMI's contribution, probably running to more than $6 million over 10 years, will not guarantee the park's future but it will make that future less problematic.

The cost of readying the park for the World Cup in 2011 and beyond is $60 million. The investment is large but it will give Canterbury a venue with the capacity to meet the growing province's needs over several decades. Crucially, the stadium will be of sufficient quality to attract top events and big crowds and ensure the financing required will be able to be repaid.

Substantial commercial sponsorship will also play a vital role. If Vbase, the Christchurch City Council's company that administers the park, did not have access to the sort of large-scale financial support offered by AMI it could not be so bold in its plans for the place. Lack of boldness in maintaining a state of the art venue would result in a withering of Christchurch's ability to attract big sporting events – an economic loss to the region and a loss to the city's quality of life.

Christchurch must avoid the bind threatening Dunedin's hosting of rugby. The southern experience teaches that a city needs to keep investing in its main sports venue if it is to keep on the international calendar or avoid burdensome catch-up construction. The decade of change at Lancaster Park has prevented Christchurch falling into that hole, and another four years of change will give us even more certainty.

AMI deserves praise for becoming such a generous sponsor of this process. It will gain significant exposure as a result but it plainly is also motivated by a desire to be a good corporate citizen. It has a record of helping community, cultural and scientific organisations. Its commitment to Christchurch is shown by its being the principal sponsor of the city's symphony orchestra – the linchpin of our musical life. AMI has also scored a coup by asking the public to choose the name of the new east stand. That will undoubtedly be a lively process, given the great names that light up Canterbury sport and the passion the province has for rugby and cricket.

The stadium is the beneficiary of smaller sponsorships and commercial deals, which cumulatively help significantly, but it needs the sort of major support that AMI is providing if it is to avoid excessive dependence on central and local government finance.

When completed, the transformation of the old Lancaster Park will be comprehensive. Virtually no trace of the much-loved old venue will exist. But the inspiring spirit of the place will live on in the improved surroundings. And the people will still flock to Canterbury's sporting heart.

this doesn't slound good for christchurch
auckland wanting both semi finals (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4173103a10.html)

this doesn't slound good for christchurch
auckland wanting both semi finals (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4173103a10.html)

Just read in this mornings Press that AKL will almost certainly get the the semis and final.

Oh well........there is always the Commonwealth Games hope........

As an Aucklander I do feel sorry that other cities aren't getting semi-finals. I would have though one semi in Christchurch and the other in Wellington would have been a really good way to share them around, but I guess money talks.

Not that it makes much of a difference to me as the chances of being able to get tickets for these matches is approximately.... ummmm.... zero!

Damn! That isn't good news! I don't want to have to come back in 2011 just to spend the whole time in Auckland grrrrr! :bash: oh well as everyone has been saying money talks. Maybe Chch and Wellington can get the big quarter finals to make up for it? I guess it was all too much to expect 2011 limited to just accept they are going to make a loss and just spread all the games around!

I just wished they would have said this right from the beginning as not to get peoples hopes up. They must have known - they then could have built a stadium worthy - but look what the country has got instead.

I wonder if this the last time NZ will every host this shame like WC?

Once again... the rest of the country has to become second class citizens in what appears to be nothing more that an Auckland event

What seems to be forgotten is that most professional rugby players in this country come from Heartland NZ, not from Auckland. In fact, it always seems that generally the further south in the country you go, the more loyal and supportive the rugby fans are.

After all the many games that I've paid good money to go and watch (Super 12/14, NPC, Tests etc), I feel absolutely ripped off that most of the country is not even going to get much of a look in come RWC 2011.

I can understand that money talks and bullshit walks, but it is times like this that central government needs to provide some assistance. After all, they WERE planning to stump up $700m for (yet anouther auckland hand-out) an Auckland Waterfront Stadium, maybe they should help fund the expected fincancial shortfall that the NZRFU will have by hosting a semi in Chch and one in Welly. I believe this is expected to only be about $10m

Don't get me wrong, this isn't just another attempted auckland bashing exercise. I actually quite like Auckland generally and visit there quite frequently. But I cannot understand why the NZRFU wants to give Aucklanders all the finals while large numbers of rugby supporters around the country get only a pool match, and maybe in many places, a low-rated pool match.

Personally, if Chch misses out on a semi, then I'd have to say that chances of me ever going to another game are pretty slim... I'll rely on a local pub instead, or maybe even just the hourly news bulletin.

Boycott all their games - I know I will. Mind you, I dislike rugby so I never go anyhow.

I don't understand it either; It would be a great way to spread around the tourist dollars and considering most anecdotal evidence points to tourists generally disliking Auckland when on their NZ trips, I think the overall 'product' of the 2011 world cup would be best if there is a semi-final split. I find the 30,000 people that would supposedly want to go to both semis and therefore have to travel between the two cities a bit hard to believe...:nuts:

I find the 30,000 people that would supposedly want to go to both semis and therefore have to travel between the two cities a bit hard to believe...:nuts:

I agree. Not ALL of the 30k tourists would necessarily be booked to go to both games. But even if say half of them did, whatever happened to chartering a Boeing 747 or two to shuttle the tourists between the two cities?

See what the govt is also missing the point of is that if tourists barely venture past the Auckland region, then they miss out of seeing what the rest of the country has to offer. If they don't see, then they may not get the inspiration to migrate to NZ.

Remember that NZ's future does rely significantly on migration and the NZ Immigration Service has made it also clear that they don't just want migrants settling in Auckland and that they'd rather them disperse to the regions too. And of course a higher population means that NZ is more likely to be able to host future major sporting events such as the Winter Olympics etc.

I'm not a fan of rugby either but I still think that's pretty rude. I can't say suprising though.

Agreed.... not at all surprised. Huge shame tho. I would have thought the more people were travelling around the more they were likely to spend?

It is the same psychology mall-planners etc. use - get people in the shop and make them stay in there to spend more money. Not send them to Auckland (the door if you will - Auckland international airport!). You want them poking and prodding and spending money down the back! :lol: Say in Queenstown for instance.... :)

Wow. This World Cup is getting worse by the month.....

what next?

Wow. This World Cup is getting worse by the month.....

what next?

The whole event will be staged in Auckland :lol: :bash: :ohno:

Admittedly, I mostly just want the whole thing to be as successful as possible. As awesome as it would be to have Chch semi, they do have a point that thousands of people getting between the islands overnight would be a problem. Better to have them up north than risk a whole logistics nightmare that will go down in history maybe?

Admittedly, I mostly just want the whole thing to be as successful as possible. As awesome as it would be to have Chch semi, they do have a point that thousands of people getting between the islands overnight would be a problem. Better to have them up north than risk a whole logistics nightmare that will go down in history maybe?

i'm curious if it would be thousands wanting to go to both semi finals though

The NZRFU would lose 7-10 million $ per semi-final if the SFs were held in Wgtn and Chch.
Both stadiums in those two cities are about 20,000 seats LESS than Eden Park at 60,000+.
It is just economics and keeping the operating loss down to manageable proportions.....

Oh yuck!

i'm curious if it would be thousands wanting to go to both semi finals though

I guess it's not really an issue, because both Chch and Wellington would easily sell out their whole stadiums just from the local population. The issue would only come about if there were lots of people holding tickets for both, who then became stranded and couldnt make it to the second one. I mean... what's the total daily capacity of flights between the three major cities? A few thousand at most per route? So they would have to ensure in their balloting that most people only intended to attend one semi.

Keep in mind chartering an entire 747 would move just one half of one percent of the crowd.

I don't think it would be a unsurmountable problem transporting folks between cities.

Anyway, Auckland will have a great opportunity to showcase it's ''world class'' venue which should make us all very proud to be kiwis.

I don't think it would be a unsurmountable problem transporting folks between cities.

Anyway, Auckland will have a great opportunity to showcase it's ''world class'' venue which should make us all very proud to be kiwis.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't think it would be a unsurmountable problem transporting folks between cities.

Anyway, Auckland will have a great opportunity to showcase it's ''world class'' venue which should make us all very proud to be kiwis.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

hmmm anyone been reading the local papers? God that Bob Parker is an Idiot!

I don't think it would be a unsurmountable problem transporting folks between cities.

Anyway, Auckland will have a great opportunity to showcase it's ''world class'' venue which should make us all very proud to be kiwis.

Trouble is, they dont actually have a world class venue. They could have had one if they took up the waterfront stadium option.

If both semis and the final are in Auckland, then it is likely that many people will snap up tickets to both semis and the final. This effectively means that we will have less chance of being able to get tickets to attend. If the semi's were distributed to Wgtn and Auckland, then as some have suggested, moving up to 30k people overnight just isn't going to happen.

But who said that the same people HAVE to go to both semis? Using that stupid mentality would mean that the entire RWC event might as well be held in Auckland including pool matches so that the same 60,000 people can go to all 30-odd matches. Wouldn't it be fairer to give the most number of people more opportunity to go to the games as possible?

In any case, if the semis are in Auckland, then they might as well be in Toronto. After all, what makes an event so memorable will be based on the number of people that experienced going to the games - it won't be any more memorable than the 1980 moscow olympics if all I end up doing is "watching it on TV".

Yesterday I wrote an email to Hon Trevor Mallard, the Minister of Sports and CC'd it to my local MP (ha ha.. a National MP). I suggested that since they were going to dish out $700m for that waterfront stadium which is now not going ahead, then maybe they they could offer to pay the NZRFU the expected ticket revenue shortfall that would occur if the semis were in Wgtn and Chch. That figure is something like about $10-$15m per Semi.

Trouble is, they dont actually have a world class venue. They could have had one if they took up the waterfront stadium option.

What's wrong with Eden Park? I think the design is great!

It's a shame that all the semis are only going to be at one location but if I could choose, then Eden Park is for me:)

What's wrong with Eden Park? I think the design is great!

It's a shame that all the semis are only going to be at one location but if I could choose, then Eden Park is for me:)

Stop Stirring.....:nuts: ;) as if butter wouldnt melt.........:lol:

What's wrong with Eden Park? I think the design is great!

It's a shame that all the semis are only going to be at one location but if I could choose, then Eden Park is for me:)

where shud i begin answering your "whats wrong with it" question?

What's wrong with Eden Park? I think the design is great!

For "New Zealand's Premiere Rugby Venue" in "New Zealands Largest City" - its actually quite awful.

New Zealand is about the same population as say Melbourne... Look at the numerous high capacity, well designed, well located stadiums they have?

OK, AMI stadium isn't an asthetically pleasing stadum either - though that would be because we're having to build it on the cheap as we're not getting much help from the government.

Maybe they could alternate the finals between Eden park and Hamilton?
I think that would be a good solution. Showcasing the best that NZ has to offer.:banana:


and if you think I'm being serious.......?

Hamilton :lol:

I actually thought a while back the best option for building a true "National Stadium" would have been at Albany.

I think it's a bit late to be moaning about everything though now, it's going to happen at Eden Park, that's what Eden Park's going to look like.

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what's planned to happen to the terraces at Eden Park? Are they getting upgraded at all?

Did you guys see Bob Parker winding up our Dunedin brothers over the stadium in the Star last week. He was suggesting they scale back plans for Carisbrooke (sp?) and support the Chch one instead. Went down like a lead balloon down there (knida smacks of what Akl does to the rest of the country too). Apparently the West Coast mayor is setting up a park in Hokitika to be the new main SI stadium!!! :lol:

^^ Bob Parker is a complete idiot. Anybody read the local papers from time to time?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10461832

New east stand has been approved.

Wow great news! :banana:

Stadium gets $60m splurge
NBR

Independent AMI Stadium - aka Jade, Lancaster Park - may have lost out on the World Cup semi-finals, and citizens hate its new name but it's pressing ahead with a $60 million revamp anyway. This week, chief executive Bryan Pearson of facilities manager, city council quango Vbase, announced that resource consent has been granted for the development of a new East Stand. Mr Pearson welcomed the decision by the "Christchurch City Council-appointed independent commissioner" David Collins to grant consent. The $60 million spend up will see the eastern stands replaced with a new one, increasing seating by 15,000 to 41,000 by 2010.

In spite of complaints from some ratepayer quarters that the rugby stadium is only used 17 days a year and is seldom full of spectators, city councillors ratified the expenditure a few weeks ago. The $60 million takes the exposure of Christchurch ratepayers to a total of $93 million when an existing outstanding $32 million loan from a previous development is taken into account. The city council-controlled Vbase also owns and operates the Christchurch Convention Centre, the Christchurch Town Hall for Performing Arts, and Westpac Arena and AMI Stadium, worth more than $150 million with annual turnover approaching of $30 million. Vbase employs 250 fulltime and part-time staff.

^^ Vbase do know what they're doing no doubt about that.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/DavidEugene/P1030282.jpg?t=1190416946

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/DavidEugene/DSCF0067.jpg?t=1190417028

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/DavidEugene/DSCF0066.jpg?t=1190417060

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/DavidEugene/DSCF0063.jpg?t=1190417147

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/DavidEugene/DSCF0066.jpg?t=1190417060


I'm surprised they did that again! I was working under the stands at Jade one night right after September 11 and the plane came right over at a low altitude. You couldnt see it, only hear the (extremely loud) noise approaching. Sounds crazy now, but at the time everyone was screaming because it sounded like a 747 was coming in

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/DavidEugene/DSCF0063.jpg?t=1190417147
You should not be able to see into the stadium from there

Night line tonight had the old east stand being demolished so that construction of the NEW stand can begin very shortly :) - more from tomorrows papers!

The Press | Wednesday, 12 December 2007

The seating capacity at AMI stadium is set to be slashed by 10,000 over the next two years as the redevelopment of the eastern stand swings into action.

Demolition of the eastern stand, including the Nos1, 2 and 3 stands, is well under way and will limit the number of patrons to 26,000 over the next two years, including at next year's All Blacks test against England on June 21.

Building of the new stand, which will seat 15,000, starts in July and is expected to be complete before the start of the 2010 Super 14.

Bryan Pearson, the chief executive of AMI Stadium administrator Vbase, said no extra seating would be erected for the rugby test or the Super 14 seasons.

"Our capacity will be down but it's still equal to most other stadia in the country."

The new stand, when completed, will take the stadium's permanent capacity to 41,000 although Pearson said that could be boosted if needed.

He said they could take numbers "comfortably" to 45,000 with temporary seating and could invest in temporary infrastructure to push seating availability above 50,000 "in some circumstances".

"Once you get above 45,000 the cost to add that additional temporary seating becomes quite costly," he said.

But he said if it was approached by Rugby New Zealand Limited, the joint venture company organising the Rugby World Cup 2011, and asked for a venue capable of holding 50,000 to host a number of games, then it would consider increasing its temporary capacity.

"If that portfolio of games was attractive to us then we'd invest in the temporary infrastructure," Pearson said. "But we'd have to weigh up those things as RWC match allocation decisions become clearer."

He said the World Cup had been the impetus for the building of the new eastern stand but not the only consideration in redevelopment plans.

"The No. 1 to 3 stands were nearing the end of their economic and structural lives," he said. "That was the primary consideration in replacing the stands so that we had a stadium in Christchurch that could meet the long term needs of the city."

A campaign to name the new stand will take place in February.

so they are paying $60m for an extra 5,500 seats? Am I missing something?

One News just had a story about the reconstruction.

Go AMI!

:tiasd:

....the ONLY stadium making genuine and real progress!.:okay: :bow:[Westpac Trust Welly not part of the sad equation]

^^ and how would you expect westpac stadium to be making 'progress'? and what about dunedin anyone know whats happening with that? and wasn't northland supposed to be getting a new ground

The Press | Saturday, 22 December 2007

http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/691792.jpg
Groundwork: demolition of Christchurch's AMI Stadium stand is under way. Fletcher Construction has won the contract.

Fletcher Construction will build AMI Stadium's new stand, after beating several other companies to win the multi-million dollar contract.


Fletcher, which built the newest stand on the west side of the stadium, was chosen for its experience and expertise and it offered the most attractive commercial arrangements, stadium manager Vbase chief executive Bryan Pearson said.

It was not known how much the contract was worth, but Pearson said it was the most substantial cost of the $60 million redevelopment.

Demolition of the eastern stand, including the No. 1, No.2 and No.3 stands, has begun.

Once that was completed the foundations would be laid.

Fletcher would begin construction of the new east stand in mid-2008.

It was scheduled to be completed in December 2009, in time for the cricket and rugby season.

The old stand was being dismantled in pieces, so steel and iron could be recycled.

The concrete would be crushed on site and reused as fill for the new stand. "It's so we don't end up with a whole lot of stuff going off to the landfill," Pearson said.

The new stand would seat about 16,000 and the redeveloped stadium would provide seats for 41,000

Not sure if this has been posted before - I've seen the pics but not the info:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2369/rawpage1bt7.jpg

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1525/rawpage2xs2.jpg

considering what eden park will look like..ami stadium could be the iconic venue of the 2011 world cup. it really deserves to play a large role in the tournament

Indeed, I was just thinking that atleast 1 city will have a great looking venue. Hopefully Dunedin will pull one out of the hat too.

considering what eden park will look like..ami stadium could be the iconic venue of the 2011 world cup. it really deserves to play a large role in the tournament

It would have been great - but the powers to be have spoken - it's all Aucklands.

Oh well, perhaps it might make a fitting venue for an opening and closing for the Commonwealth Games if we get them...........................or will our northern sister take those as well??

deans stand. fantastic name. way better than selling naming rights so they have more money to built a better stand.

deans stand. fantastic name. way better than selling naming rights so they have more money to built a better stand.

Whats wrong with the stand? Looks good to me.

Apologies for it not being better news! :bash::bash::bash:

World Cup hosting setback for South Island
More matches loom for Auckland area

By HAMISH BIDWELL - The Press | Wednesday, 09 July 2008

TAKING SHAPE: AMI Stadium in Christchurch is undergoing a massive redevelopment for the World Cup. But how many major matches will it host?

Christchurch's hopes of holding two Rugby World Cup quarterfinal matches at the 2011 tournament in New Zealand have been dealt a blow.


Canterbury Rugby Football Union (CRFU) chief executive Hamish Riach said yesterday he was not cheered by indications from the tournament organiser that there was no guarantee AMI Stadium would host two quarterfinals.

"One quarterfinal would be a huge disappointment for us," Riach said.

Already set to host the semifinals and final of the tournament, Auckland, or the greater Auckland area, will also be allocated the play-off for third and fourth and perhaps a quarterfinal or two.

Rugby New Zealand 2011 chief executive Martin Snedden has said that Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch are the cities most likely to host quarterfinals, with Rugby World Cup Ltd (RWC Ltd) indicating a preference for two grounds to each stage two of those games.

But in his latest tournament update, Snedden indicated that RNZ 2011 may favour a higher number, meaning that Eden Park, North Harbour Stadium or even Waikato Stadium, given its proximity to Auckland, would come into the mix.

"We think the tournament can't be totally about Auckland and can't be totally about the commercial imperatives," Riach said.

"The tournament was awarded to New Zealand because we campaigned on the basis that this was a stadium of four million people.

"The tournament has to be one for everyone to enjoy and it would be extremely disappointing to see it become so Auckland-centric that the rest of the nation doesn't feel a part of it."

The Christchurch City Council, working alongside the CRFU to secure play-off matches, believed the region had every right to expect two quarter-finals, said council chief executive Tony Marryatt.

"Our bid is certainly for two quarter-finals," he said.

"I think that there's obviously a conflict between the commercial side of things and the desire to create a New Zealand-wide event and, with a selfishly Christchurch hat on, we believe we deserve two quarter-finals."

He was confident that staging the matches at AMI Stadium would not impose a great logistical or financial burden on the tournament organiser.

The region needed a return on its investment, he said.

"We're building the second-biggest stadium in the country, after Auckland, on the basis of hosting two quarterfinals," Marryatt said.

Snedden said it would be improper for him to comment on the allocation of quarterfinals, given that bids for play-off hosting rights were not due until July 17.

Snedden has said that accommodating and moving large numbers of fans up and down the country could be a problem

Once bids were received, he said, RNZ 2011 would make recommendations to RWC Ltd in Dublin on September 3, with an announcement likely "fairly soon after".

I really think the world cup should have gone to Japan. They have better venues and get things done, unlike the shambles NZ is showing itself to be. We could have held it when we were a bit bigger and more grown up and with better facilities.

Oh well.................:ohno:

its no wonder i hardly watch rugby anymore... the NZRU have completely RUINED the game here, in 10 years time we may not be a powerhouse anymore due to poor decisions being made now. They are totally out of touch... Aussie Rules here i come!!!

CRFU's view is both hypocritical and arrogant all in the same breath.

I don't even know where to start.......

I really think the world cup should have gone to Japan. They have better venues and get things done, unlike the shambles NZ is showing itself to be. We could have held it when we were a bit bigger and more grown up and with better facilities.

Oh well.................:ohno:

I second that, why did NZ even bother bidding when they clearly don't have the money or the infrastructure for a gr8 RWC ? What an embarrassment :ohno:

Why does a childish hissy-fit by the CRFU mean the tournament is a "shambles"?

I really think the world cup should have gone to Japan. They have better venues and get things done, unlike the shambles NZ is showing itself to be. We could have held it when we were a bit bigger and more grown up and with better facilities.

Oh well.................:ohno:

We had great plans and all the enthusiasm in the world but the bid team should have expected all the anti-development people in NZ and all the hurdles like consents and RMA. In saying that this was probably the last one we could have hosted (assuming rugby gets more popular) next one could require an 80,000 seat stadium?

^^

Just relax everyone - first of all....

A) Nothing has been anounced as of yet so it is all just speculation; and perhaps yet anohter storm-in-a-tea-cup from The Press...

B) It was not so long ago that there was talk of having a semi-final in Chch so it would be dissapointing to end up with only one quarterfinal.

C) Canterbury has a very proud history as a rugby province; the two current stars of the All Blacks are both from there (I know Richie McCaw is from Otgao but please! give me a bit of lee-way!) earlier this decade there was an entire All Blacks team fielded soley from Canterbury; also lets not forget that the winning coach in 2011 is from Canterbury! :nuts: Robbie Deans!

For one of the world's most succesful Rugby provinces (possibly the most succesful in the professional era) to stage only one quarter final in the sport's premier event would be a shame....

:ohno:

D) By 2011 (going on current growth rates) Christchurch should be the second largest metro area; have the only other international airport of note and also (remember there are two main islands in NZ) is the largest centre on that "other" NZ - the South Island! :lol:

All in all would be disappointing if this is the final decision but fingers crossed it isn't! :)

:cheers:

^^^^ Well said KR!

^^

Just relax everyone - first of all....

A) Nothing has been anounced as of yet so it is all just speculation; and perhaps yet anohter storm-in-a-tea-cup from The Press...

B) It was not so long ago that there was talk of having a semi-final in Chch so it would be dissapointing to end up with only one quarterfinal.

C) Canterbury has a very proud history as a rugby province; the two current stars of the All Blacks are both from there (I know Richie McCaw is from Otgao but please! give me a bit of lee-way!) earlier this decade there was an entire All Blacks team fielded soley from Canterbury; also lets not forget that the winning coach in 2011 is from Canterbury! :nuts: Robbie Deans!

For one of the world's most succesful Rugby provinces (possibly the most succesful in the professional era) to stage only one quarter final in the sport's premier event would be a shame....

:ohno:

D) By 2011 (going on current growth rates) Christchurch should be the second largest metro area; have the only other international airport of note and also (remember there are two main islands in NZ) is the largest centre on that "other" NZ - the South Island! :lol:

All in all would be disappointing if this is the final decision but fingers crossed it isn't! :)

:cheers:

With all due respect Kiwi Rich, most of the above - as reasons to justify a 2nd quarter in Christchurch - is irrelevant at best. As a neutral, I find it just as distasteful as the suggestion the tournament should be Auckland-centric.

What has Canterbury's record in NPC rugby got to do with the staging of a RWC? This is an international tournament governed by the IRB - NZ has merely been given the "right" to stage it. And if we are going to talk about representing large metro areas and regions, surely Wellington has just as much claim to a 2nd quarter as Christchurch does.

The view of the CRFU is nothing but Canterbury-centric - ironic when they vent their spleen about it being an "Auckland-centric" tournament.

Is it just me or is there a massive hypocricy here? The CRFU is incensed that Auckland is getting 4 of the big 8 games (quarters, semis, 3/4th playoff and final), but in the next breath is asking to monopolise the rest (3 of the remaining 4!) They talk of dragging games away from Auckland, but that extra 1/4 final could easily be lost from Waikato or (if the Stadium is in place) Dunedin.

Outside of Auckland (and along with the Capital) Christchurch will benefit most from this tournament - having a "big" team based there, several pool matches, not to mention "Big 5" clashes due to its capacity. Commercial and logistical reasons dictate the final 3 matches being in the same venue, and in NZ thats Auckland - just as it was Paris in 2007, Sydney in 2003. Its life. But just as they argue, quite correctly, this is not "Auckland's Cup", it isn't "Christchurch's Cup" either.

I would point the CRFU in the Capital's direction and see how they are apporaching this - it appears a much more professional approach and focused not only on how they can maximise benefits for their city and region, but how they can help make the whole tournament a success.

Honestly, as someone without an attachment to either place, this just smacks of a Christchurch v Auckland thing. And Auckland is really only involved because the IRB RWC Committe and the NZRFU (as hosts) have made a decision which would appear to be a no-brainer.

With all due respect Kiwi Rich, most of the above - as reasons to justify a 2nd quarter in Christchurch - is irrelevant at best. As a neutral, I find it just as distasteful as the suggestion the tournament should be Auckland-centric.

What has Canterbury's record in NPC rugby got to do with the staging of a RWC? This is an international tournament governed by the IRB - NZ has merely been given the "right" to stage it. And if we are going to talk about representing large metro areas and regions, surely Wellington has just as much claim to a 2nd quarter as Christchurch does.

The view of the CRFU is nothing but Canterbury-centric - ironic when they vent their spleen about it being an "Auckland-centric" tournament.

Is it just me or is there a massive hypocricy here? The CRFU is incensed that Auckland is getting 4 of the big 8 games (quarters, semis, 3/4th playoff and final), but in the next breath is asking to monopolise the rest (3 of the remaining 4!) They talk of dragging games away from Auckland, but that extra 1/4 final could easily be lost from Waikato or (if the Stadium is in place) Dunedin.

Outside of Auckland (and along with the Capital) Christchurch will benefit most from this tournament - having a "big" team based there, several pool matches, not to mention "Big 5" clashes due to its capacity. Commercial and logistical reasons dictate the final 3 matches being in the same venue, and in NZ thats Auckland - just as it was Paris in 2007, Sydney in 2003. Its life. But just as they argue, quite correctly, this is not "Auckland's Cup", it isn't "Christchurch's Cup" either.

I would point the CRFU in the Capital's direction and see how they are apporaching this - it appears a much more professional approach and focused not only on how they can maximise benefits for their city and region, but how they can help make the whole tournament a success.

Honestly, as someone without an attachment to either place, this just smacks of a Christchurch v Auckland thing. And Auckland is really only involved because the IRB RWC Committe and the NZRFU (as hosts) have made a decision which would appear to be a no-brainer.

*cough*

Well... in my defence.....

A) The Press is infamous for its tabloid journalism attempting to masquerade as a serious broadsheet; especially when it comes to anything sporting so as I said before it is probably blown out of all proportion.

B) In 2005 when NZ was bidding they pumped everyone full of that "stadium of 4 million" bullshit. When the dust had settled it was said that Auckland would get the final and a semi; Christchurch the other semi and the rest would be divided up fairly-and-squarely. Even during the Stadium New Zealand debate Trevor Dullard said that if Auckland didn't make up their mind the final would go to Christchurch (tounge most likely in cheek of course). Hubbard later waded in with "If Auckland City don't contribute to the Eden Park upgrade we could lose the final to Christchurch or worse Australia"

Throughout the past year Christchurch has gone from hosting a semi to 2 quarters and now possibly one quarter final. I was simply stating that is disappointing much in the same way that someone may state that the sky is blue....:lol: i.e I agree entirely with Auckland hosting all the main final games and I am not saying that it is fair or unfair or a good or bad decision for NZ as a whole for Chch to lose matches; I was saying that it is disappointing for Chch to keep losing out on things they believed they already had.

C) RWC2011 is a rugby tournament afterall and not some countrywide regeneration/infrastructure building competition/project. In a sane world it would seem a good idea to take account (amongst many other criteria) of a particular area's rugby history when determinining what matches they host. In this regard Canterbury does undeniably have a proud history and its contribution to NZ and world Rugby has been enormous. Whilst it is a concept that is difficult to quantify it should no less be part of the consideration of match allocation. i.e the fact that Christchurch has about 30% of the population of Auckland should not completely strip it of matches when it has provided so much for rugby; afterall people in Chch are rugby-mad enough to be consistently referred to as one-eyed...and like I said earlier over the last 15 years Canterbury has provided the bulk of the All Blacks "stars"

D) According to Christchurch's LTCP the population of the metro area should be nudging 450,000 come 2011. Whilst that may be only fractionally above Wellington's there are a few things that tip the scales in Christchurch's favour.

- Christchurch has the only other airport in the country besides Auckland that is capable of handling long-haul flights. Also this airport will have just finished being upgraded when RWC2011 rolls into town; and can handle more aircraft movements per hour and more passenger per hour than Wellington.

- Christchurch has the second largest stadium in the country with a forecast capacity of circa 46,000 in RWC mode. A stadium that is being entirely funded by locals.

- Christchurch like many other centres has a multitude of projects under-way to ensure that it is scrubbed up and well and truly ready for RWC2011; it has well working infrastructure and can handle an influx of people. (Not saying that Wellington or anywhere else can't; just that Christchurch is certainly capable of hosting any of the RWC matches bar the final)

- Christchurch is seen as the "gateway to the South Island" and all the tourism benefits that it offers. Going back to that stadium of 4 million palaver for "NZ Inc" as a whole it makes sense to try and encourage the 60,000 expected visitors during the tournament to move around the country as much as possible and spread their tourism dollars far-and-wide. When it gets to the stage of finals and semis it would obviously make sense to consolidate everyone in Auckland but until then; get everyone moving around as much as possible!

- Also all the other main regions outside of Auckland have pulled-finger and funded themselves and moved their plans forward without the same level of central govt. help as Auckland (and certainly a lot less whingeing) to ensure that they are ready for the tournament. If it is ok to reward absolute f*ckwittery then by all means give Auckland more games; but I believe the regions that have organised themselves well and funded themselves without going cap-in-hand should be rewarded for that. So if Chch loses any more games give them to the likes of Dunedin or Hamilton but certainly not the complete mess that is Auckland...

:cheers:

Is it just me or is there a massive hypocricy here? The CRFU is incensed that Auckland is getting 4 of the big 8 games (quarters, semis, 3/4th playoff and final), but in the next breath is asking to monopolise the rest (3 of the remaining 4!) They talk of dragging games away from Auckland, but that extra 1/4 final could easily be lost from Waikato or (if the Stadium is in place) Dunedin.


Just out of curiosity have I missed something? Christchurch is asking for 2 of the big 8 games isn't it? Not 3?! :cheers:

Completely agree... Chch isn't asking for any degree of "Christchurch-centricity".... just more than one lousy quarterfinal. To put that in perspective, based on last years quarterfinals, that could be South Africa vs Fiji, or Argentina vs Scotland. Of course the teams involved are pure speculation, but building a new multi-million dollar stand only to be awarded a match involving two bit payers seems a little harsh. (Of course the stadium remains afterwards, but lets face it - the RWC was the catalyst for redevelopment).

The argument for holding the big 3 games in Auckland was logistics. If Chch is able to host a quarterfinal then that argument obviously doesn't apply... so why not award two of them?

*cough*

Well... in my defence.....

A) The Press is infamous for its tabloid journalism attempting to masquerade as a serious broadsheet; especially when it comes to anything sporting so as I said before it is probably blown out of all proportion.

Probably a fair point.

B) In 2005 when NZ was bidding they pumped everyone full of that "stadium of 4 million" bullshit. When the dust had settled it was said that Auckland would get the final and a semi; Christchurch the other semi and the rest would be divided up fairly-and-squarely. Even during the Stadium New Zealand debate Trevor Dullard said that if Auckland didn't make up their mind the final would go to Christchurch (tounge most likely in cheek of course). Hubbard later waded in with "If Auckland City don't contribute to the Eden Park upgrade we could lose the final to Christchurch or worse Australia"

No-one ever said Christchurch would get a semi, nor 2 quarter-finals. Not in public anyway, and I'd bet it was never said in private either judging how semis and quarters have been held in the previous 2 tournaments. I'd suggest the CRFU is bullsh!tting everyone here.

Throughout the past year Christchurch has gone from hosting a semi to 2 quarters and now possibly one quarter final. I was simply stating that is disappointing much in the same way that someone may state that the sky is blue....:lol: i.e I agree entirely with Auckland hosting all the main final games and I am not saying that it is fair or unfair or a good or bad decision for NZ as a whole for Chch to lose matches; I was saying that it is disappointing for Chch to keep losing out on things they believed they already had.

See answer to above - the city hasn't "lost" anything - it never had it.

C) RWC2011 is a rugby tournament afterall and not some countrywide regeneration/infrastructure building competition/project. In a sane world it would seem a good idea to take account (amongst many other criteria) of a particular area's rugby history when determinining what matches they host. In this regard Canterbury does undeniably have a proud history and its contribution to NZ and world Rugby has been enormous. Whilst it is a concept that is difficult to quantify it should no less be part of the consideration of match allocation. i.e the fact that Christchurch has about 30% of the population of Auckland should not completely strip it of matches when it has provided so much for rugby; afterall people in Chch are rugby-mad enough to be consistently referred to as one-eyed...and like I said earlier over the last 15 years Canterbury has provided the bulk of the All Blacks "stars"

I said it was irrelevant for a global tournament before and nothing has changed from my perspective (and likely anyone outside of Canterbury)

D) According to Christchurch's LTCP the population of the metro area should be nudging 450,000 come 2011. Whilst that may be only fractionally above Wellington's there are a few things that tip the scales in Christchurch's favour.

- Christchurch has the only other airport in the country besides Auckland that is capable of handling long-haul flights. Also this airport will have just finished being upgraded when RWC2011 rolls into town; and can handle more aircraft movements per hour and more passenger per hour than Wellington.

I'm not sure hourly flights are going to be required given there is a week between games.

- Christchurch has the second largest stadium in the country with a forecast capacity of circa 46,000 in RWC mode. A stadium that is being entirely funded by locals.

I thought capacity had been downgraded to 43000? which is only 3k more than the Cake Tin with its extended seating - a stadium with a better record of filling its ground and one also paid for by locals (the latter being a question rather than a statement)

- Christchurch like many other centres has a multitude of projects under-way to ensure that it is scrubbed up and well and truly ready for RWC2011; it has well working infrastructure and can handle an influx of people. (Not saying that Wellington or anywhere else can't; just that Christchurch is certainly capable of hosting any of the RWC matches bar the final)

OK - so much like Wellington

- Christchurch is seen as the "gateway to the South Island" and all the tourism benefits that it offers. Going back to that stadium of 4 million palaver for "NZ Inc" as a whole it makes sense to try and encourage the 60,000 expected visitors during the tournament to move around the country as much as possible and spread their tourism dollars far-and-wide. When it gets to the stage of finals and semis it would obviously make sense to consolidate everyone in Auckland but until then; get everyone moving around as much as possible!

How is keeping half of them in Christchurch for 2 of the last 3 weeks (if they got the semi they think they deserve) "spreading them around"? Particularly when - with the 2nd largest allocation of games - plenty will have visited there before?

- Also all the other main regions outside of Auckland have pulled-finger and funded themselves and moved their plans forward without the same level of central govt. help as Auckland (and certainly a lot less whingeing) to ensure that they are ready for the tournament. If it is ok to reward absolute f*ckwittery then by all means give Auckland more games; but I believe the regions that have organised themselves well and funded themselves without going cap-in-hand should be rewarded for that. So if Chch loses any more games give them to the likes of Dunedin or Hamilton but certainly not the complete mess that is Auckland...

Again - I take issue with the Christchurch "loses" comment. Dunedin or Hamilton might "lose" out to Christchurch if the CRFU has its way though

:cheers:


Look - I don't want to appear cynical towards Christchurch or belittle your argument - neither is my intention. Your points show that there are plenty of good reasons to have more of those big games in Christchurch, and if the RWC2011 Ltd had felt splitting quarters between Wellington and Christchurch was the way to go, I would have no problem.

But personally, I have little time (and a fair degree of disdain) for hypocricy - and the CRFU's bleatings stink of it. They act like its "2 quarters or nothing" - and that is far, far, far from the truth. Every other region outside of Wellington would cut their arm off for the allocation and benefits Christchurch will get. And still the CRFU wants more......

I'm not buying the logisitics story. South Africa hosted back in 1995 with semi-finals in durban and cape town and the final in johannesburg. Are you implying inter-city travel and other infrastructure in south africa back in 1995 was superior to what new zealand has today?

I'm not buying the logisitics story. South Africa hosted back in 1995 with semi-finals in durban and cape town and the final in johannesburg. Are you implying inter-city travel and other infrastructure in south africa back in 1995 was superior to what new zealand has today?

Nope - just like it wasn't superior to any of the subsequent tournaments.

If you put aside the multi-country event in 1999, the idea of split semis was canned in subsequent tournaments in Australia (2003) and France (2007) and the same will apply in NZ (2011) and probably the events after that.

I think the "logistics" argument also includes ensuring that finals tourists following their team don't end up in the wrong city. Yes - it could happen in the quarters and they might not make it all, but its definitely a consideration.

It shouldn't be, but yu can bet it is with the IRB, who are the ones who get sole revenue from operators paying to get "exclusive" package rights.

I am happy for you to come up with some other reason - but the fact is somewhere along the line, the IRB and the host countries have decided that SA's lead was not worth following.

KLK - Thanks for your replies;

I do feel as though we may both singing from the same song sheet we just don't see it...

Remember the original article was that it was soon to be announced that there would be only one quarterfinal to be hosted in Christchurch; and the other that was originally intended for Christchurch would now be hosted "somewhere in the Auckland region"; for what seemed to be primarily reasons of infrastructure/number of people hence my ramblings about the airport greater populations etc.

Whether or not this is true (as the press is about good for wrapping fish and chips in only) the gist of my argument was "that stinks - Auckland can't organise a piss-up in a brewery and rightly or wrongly (through the media etc.); the people of Christchurch thought that they were getting more than one quarter-final out of this tournament"

I have no time for the CRFU (ever since I missed out on a rep-team when I was 16 and again at 18 that I felt was unfair and due to the fact that I hadn't attended the correct rugby school *sniff* - not that I hold any grudges! :lol:) So I would expect them to be complete wankers.... well from my first-hand experience anyway and from friends that are now Crusaders development etc who share the feeling.

But RWC2011 shouldn't cut off its nose to spite its face - diregarding the CRFU; the people of Canterbruy would like to have more than one quarterfinal and I believe that they should feel hard done by if they lose one to the "Auckland region"...

But not completely hard-done-by if they lose one to Hamilton or Dunedin or to a lesser degree Wellington. :cheers:

KLK - Thanks for your replies;

I do feel as though we may both singing from the same song sheet we just don't see it...

Remember the original article was that it was soon to be announced that there would be only one quarterfinal to be hosted in Christchurch; and the other that was originally intended for Christchurch would now be hosted "somewhere in the Auckland region"; for what seemed to be primarily reasons of infrastructure/number of people hence my ramblings about the airport greater populations etc.

Whether or not this is true (as the press is about good for wrapping fish and chips in only) the gist of my argument was "that stinks - Auckland can't organise a piss-up in a brewery and rightly or wrongly (through the media etc.); the people of Christchurch thought that they were getting more than one quarter-final out of this tournament"

I have no time for the CRFU (ever since I missed out on a rep-team when I was 16 and again at 18 that I felt was unfair and due to the fact that I hadn't attended the correct rugby school *sniff* - not that I hold any grudges! :lol:) So I would expect them to be complete wankers.... well from my first-hand experience anyway and from friends that are now Crusaders development etc who share the feeling.

But RWC2011 shouldn't cut off its nose to spite its face - diregarding the CRFU; the people of Canterbruy would like to have more than one quarterfinal and I believe that they should feel hard done by if they lose one to the "Auckland region"...

But not completely hard-done-by if they lose one to Hamilton or Dunedin or to a lesser degree Wellington. :cheers:

Thanks Kiwi_Rich.

I guess what I pounced on was the CRFU's claim (which you mention above) that a 2nd quarter final was "intended" for Christchurch, but now might be lost.

I don't believe there was EVER a 2nd quarter final (nor a semi for that matter) intended for Christchurch. I certainly have never heard or read of such a claim - thats not to say it wasn't made in private. I think most people thought they would be split between the 4 main test venues, with perhaps Waikato a sub for Dunedin. So in that effect, nothing has been "lost".... they are merely on the same footing as the Capital.

I think the CRFU have either made some promises they can't keep, or are taking a divine right attitude. Either way, they look like d!ckheads.

Nope - just like it wasn't superior to any of the subsequent tournaments.

If you put aside the multi-country event in 1999, the idea of split semis was canned in subsequent tournaments in Australia (2003) and France (2007) and the same will apply in NZ (2011) and probably the events after that.

I think the "logistics" argument also includes ensuring that finals tourists following their team don't end up in the wrong city. Yes - it could happen in the quarters and they might not make it all, but its definitely a consideration.

It shouldn't be, but yu can bet it is with the IRB, who are the ones who get sole revenue from operators paying to get "exclusive" package rights.

I am happy for you to come up with some other reason - but the fact is somewhere along the line, the IRB and the host countries have decided that SA's lead was not worth following.


This lead was repeated for the 2003 cricket world cup(except PE had a semi-final) and will be repeated for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Semi-finals Durban and Cape Town and finals Johannesburg(with the 3rd place playoff in PE). The decision is a strategic one by the IRB, and blaming logistics is a weak excuse. I suppose in NZ's case its about maximizing revenue after the massive success of France 2007.

If logisitcs are an issue then

Group 1 : Eden Park and North Harbour (host nation)
Group 2: Wellington and...
Group 3: Christchurch and
Group 4: Dunedin and.
Group 5: ?

This lead was repeated for the 2003 cricket world cup(except PE had a semi-final) and will be repeated for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Semi-finals Durban and Cape Town and finals Johannesburg(with the 3rd place playoff in PE). The decision is a strategic one by the IRB, and blaming logistics is a weak excuse. I suppose in NZ's case its about maximizing revenue after the massive success of France 2007.

Can't comment on cricket or football, don't wish to either. In terms of the RWC, recent history is pretty clear.

And you are quite right - it is a "strategic" decision by the IRB - and that strategy includes maximising package revenue, and that involves logistics. I never claimed it to be the sole reason, just a major one.

If logisitcs are an issue then

Group 1 : Eden Park and North Harbour (host nation)
Group 2: Wellington and...
Group 3: Christchurch and
Group 4: Dunedin and.
Group 5: ?

We are talking logistics come the last week/8days of the tournament only.

And Group 5? There isn't one mate......

Only 4 pools in RWC (I assume pools is what you mean).

And its not quite that simple - the hosts usually move around, so you will see the ABs play in all 4 main venues in their pool matches.

Plus there are not only those 5 venues. Proposed to be 11, could be more.

just as it is the IRB's wish that the semi finals are to be held in the same location as the final, i thought that for the quarter finals the IRB wanted two locations hosting two games each and that it had been indicated at the very least that Christchurch/AMI would be a venue for the quarter finals hence logic stipulates TWO QUARTER FINALS for Christchurch/AMI.

Now that there is a suggestion they may only get one quarter when IRB policy indicated two and it had previously been slammed home to Christchurch/AMI that they couldnt have a semi because it was IRB policy at the last whatever world cups and that would not change.... it is my understanding that this is the reason they are pissed... maybe im wrong, i dont really care what happens to be honest but just reading through this and some articles it seems to be a point missed maybe??? A bit of hypocracy???

whatever just picked up on that is all

just as it is the IRB's wish that the semi finals are to be held in the same location as the final, i thought that for the quarter finals the IRB wanted two locations hosting two games each and that it had been indicated at the very least that Christchurch/AMI would be a venue for the quarter finals hence logic stipulates TWO QUARTER FINALS for Christchurch/AMI.

Out of curiosity Sensible, where did you get the idea that the IRB wanted the 1/4s in 2 locations? Because as closely as I have followed this, it was only raised by the CRFU last week. No mention of it by the IRB, no mention of it by Martin Snedden, no mention of it by the NZRU. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I just haven't seen it raised anywhere - publicly at least.

If they have renegged on the deal, why isn't Wellington complaining too on being shafted? (I am assuming the other 2 would be in the Capital)

This goes to the heart of my beef with the CRFU - they appear to be putting words in the IRB/RWC2011 Ltd's mouths.

Now that there is a suggestion they may only get one quarter when IRB policy indicated two and it had previously been slammed home to Christchurch/AMI that they couldnt have a semi because it was IRB policy at the last whatever world cups and that would not change.... it is my understanding that this is the reason they are pissed... maybe im wrong, i dont really care what happens to be honest but just reading through this and some articles it seems to be a point missed maybe??? A bit of hypocracy???

Again - IRB policy? Two 1/4s promised to Christchurch? I think its all in the CRFU's imagination.... Again, Wellington would have an equal gripe - but silence on that front.

whatever just picked up on that is all

If it was, and the 4 games were split between the Capital and Christchurch, I would have no complaints - I quite like that format given both semis and final will be at Eden Park. But publicly at least, that was never the case. Wellington would be complaining just as loudly, but they are not - I imagine they are just as surprised with the CRFU's take on things.

If no second quarter was promised, it can't be "lost" - no hypocricy by the IRB/RWC2011 Ltd as far as I can see.

^^ woah... like i said mate im just making a comment on a few things ive seen and i clearly didnt state those as fact. Its just that i think if it is the case the quarters have been held split over two locations in past world cups but that this scenario could be dropped for 2011 then crfu/christchurch/AMI could rightly feel a bit pissed off since the excuse for holding both semis in auckland was on what went in past world cups... if thats the case then its hypocrytical regardless but heartbreaking for crfu since they gunned pretty hard for a semi in the first place (remember they were prepared to increase capacity to 55 000 in such an event)

it seems it was clearly insinuated that Christchurch/AMI would play a part in the quarters. Going off the logic of the semi finals decision thus they would rightfully expect to host two quarters. If that changes in regards to whats gone before at past world cups then its fair enough for them to be dissapointed. If not then its a bit foul if they are crying about it although they have a very good case anyway. Let me just reiterate that i didnt say the crfu were promised 2 quarters merely insinuated they would play a role and considering they will have the next biggest and best equipped stadium after eden park in the practically 2nd biggest city in the country which is home to 7 times super rugby champions youd expect they would have a pretty compelling case.

Personally i think the quarters should be split between welly and chch as a showing of good will to the next two biggest cities... geographically and demographically it makes sense (in answer to 'why not other centres?') However whether the caketin makes the grade in capacity etc could be interesting.

Fair point about a venue getting 2 quarters - it happened in Australia, although France is slightly different than what we are advocating here. But I don't think choosing to keep the status quo with semis (one venue) as in previous tournaments and not do the same with quarters is hypocritical.

RWC2011 Ltd have never used "they did it so we should too" as the reason for both semis in Auckland. I've used it as a reference if you like, and no doubt Martin Snedden expected some controversy around this so looked at other options (ChCh). But in the end they went with the status quo for semis and its probably for similar reasons to Australia and France. The decision was by no means a surprise - if you have been to recent world cups and, more importantly, read alot of articles written after we were awarded the tournament, you could see it coming a mile off.

With quarters, there was no such indications. I recall a vague reference to 4 main venues, but I am by no means sure. I'm positive there was NEVER a reference publicly to Christchurch or Wellington getting 2 each.

"it seems it was clearly insinuated that Christchurch/AMI would play a part in the quarters". Absolutely - and they are. But was it insinuated that they would get 2 quarters? If the CRFU do business based on "insinuations" (whatever that means) they deserve everything they get. I just don't think it any such insinuation ever happened.

You say that "Going off the logic of the semi finals decision thus they would rightfully expect to host two quarters". They probably should hold 2 (as should Wellington). But "rightfully expect"? Mmmm....I won't go there. The S14 connection is both laughable and irrelevant - particularly when you consider how many non-Cantabrians have won those 7 titles - but I digress....

It seems to me everyone has taken the CRFU's claims as gospel - why? Absolutely nothing in the 2.5yrs of interviews, statements, press releases and IRB visits since the tournament was awarded backs that up remotely as fact.

I agree with you re splitting the games between the Capital and Christchurch would be great. Thats never been my issue. My issue is the CRFU insinuating that Christchurch was promised a 2nd quarterfinal and now claim they were shafted.

I'll go on record now as saying I think thats bullsh!t. If they were, the Capital would be getting the same deal - and their silence says it all really.

(Last time I checked, the new AMI tops out at 43k. the CakeTin can get 38-40k in with extended seating in front of the sideline stands - small difference in capacity if you are prepared to give away Auckland's extra 17k seats for a quarter final in the name of "spreading around".)

I think we need to distinguish between IRB policy and strategy. A strategy may be different for every tournament, even if the format and venues used are the same.
If its become the IRB norm to have the same venue for both semi-finals and the finals, then perhaps its even more suitable given NZ 2011 and the lack of "higher" capacity venues. Policy on the other hand would make this compulsory for any tournament.

Not to go off topic but if South Africa ever hosted a rugby world cup again, it would use the same durban and cape town semi-final format, with the final in johannesburg, unless of course the format becomes IRB policy/law.

I also think if smaller venues/cities are wanting to host QF's then they should be willing to meet IRB requirements in terms of accommodation capacity, stadium capacity and other required guarantees/requirements, even if that means a significant temporary expansion. That should be used as the benchmark requirement and only after that should cities be claiming they are fit to host QF or SF matches

I think we need to distinguish between IRB policy and strategy. A strategy may be different for every tournament, even if the format and venues used are the same.
If its become the IRB norm to have the same venue for both semi-finals and the finals, then perhaps its even more suitable given NZ 2011 and the lack of "higher" capacity venues. Policy on the other hand would make this compulsory for any tournament.

Not to go off topic but if South Africa ever hosted a rugby world cup again, it would use the same durban and cape town semi-final format, with the final in johannesburg, unless of course the format becomes IRB policy/law.

I also think if smaller venues/cities are wanting to host QF's then they should be willing to meet IRB requirements in terms of accommodation capacity, stadium capacity and other required guarantees/requirements, even if that means a significant temporary expansion. That should be used as the benchmark requirement and only after that should cities be claiming they are fit to host QF or SF matches

I'd take it as policy (semis/final allocation at a single venue) unless there is a compelling case to change it for a particular tournament.

You say that "Going off the logic of the semi finals decision thus they would rightfully expect to host two quarters". They probably should hold 2 (as should Wellington). But "rightfully expect"? Mmmm....I won't go there. The S14 connection is both laughable and irrelevant - particularly when you consider how many non-Cantabrians have won those 7 titles - but I digress....

the fact you would even go there is laughable and irrelevant not to mention that your statement is factorily inaccurate. Cmon man there is no need to ruin what was actually a well thought out reply to my post with crap like that which is just silly cos your trying to ridicule what i said. All it does is undermine all the good work you did in the rest of your post.

Anyway i get what you are saying but i think its a storm in a tea cup. You mention a number of important issues which i largely agree with but you bitch and moan about what the CRFU do and say and i dont think anyone cares because its largely irrelevant. I think by and large the non-Auckland population, particularly Wellington and Chch, are very dissapointed at the plans for RWC NZ 2011.

the fact you would even go there is laughable and irrelevant not to mention that your statement is factorily inaccurate. Cmon man there is no need to ruin what was actually a well thought out reply to my post with crap like that which is just silly cos your trying to ridicule what i said. All it does is undermine all the good work you did in the rest of your post.

Anyway i get what you are saying but i think its a storm in a tea cup. You mention a number of important issues which i largely agree with but you bitch and moan about what the CRFU do and say and i dont think anyone cares because its largely irrelevant. I think by and large the non-Auckland population, particularly Wellington and Chch, are very dissapointed at the plans for RWC NZ 2011.

S14 results as a basis for allocation? No way. Still totally irrelevant if you ask me. It deserved a quip too :)

"Factorily" inaccurate? Mmm...factually? I don't think so. Lets agree to disagree :)

And I don't think either of us can speak for the non-Auckland population. I'll wait for the full allocation of games before I comment.

Digressing a bit from this discussion, but last night on TVone was a special report on Auckland development of facilities and the guy interviewed said Auckland would be bidding for the 2016 Commonwealth games (the next one up for grabs is the 2018). In an earlier thread, it is discussed that there was going to be/might be a bid by Christchurch which hosted a marvellous event in 1974, and then Auckland raised its hand and said me too. Searching around I have found a number of comments from Arpass , and Auckland city publications but there seems to be silence from Christchurch City Council and its media Has Auckland managed to pull the rug out from under Christchurch's feet in the RWC and a possible CG 2018 bid? Anyone know what Christchurch city fathers are doing?

Digressing a bit from this discussion, but last night on TVone was a special report on Auckland development of facilities and the guy interviewed said Auckland would be bidding for the 2016 Commonwealth games (the next one up for grabs is the 2018). In an earlier thread, it is discussed that there was going to be/might be a bid by Christchurch which hosted a marvellous event in 1974, and then Auckland raised its hand and said me too. Searching around I have found a number of comments from Arpass , and Auckland city publications but there seems to be silence from Christchurch City Council and its media Has Auckland managed to pull the rug out from under Christchurch's feet in the RWC and a possible CG 2018 bid? Anyone know what Christchurch city fathers are doing?

I saw this on One News too..

I think we can all agree that Christchurch would do a better job of hosting a future Commonwealth Games than Auckland. The '74 Games are arguably the most memorable in the games history.

Now its time to ruffle some feathers....

Auckland is the powerhouse of the NZ economy but that shouldn't give them unconditional rights and Central Government support to any major event that NZ gets its hands on.

It still amazes me that a city like Auckland, which is relatively small in world terms, can't get its act together in regard to planning issues. The whole Rugby World Cup stadium debacle was a disgrace. Christchurch would have done a much better job of hosting the whole thing.. quarters, semi's and final!

Christchurch and Canterbury.. without a doubt the home of the most successful Rugby team/s in the professional era! We know how to play a world-class game and we would know how to host a world-class Rugby World Cup! Lets hope Auckland doesnt stuff it up!

^^

Lol! :lol:

You aren't a one-eyed cantab are you?! :)

I think Auckland would be a lot better than it is now if it was fortunate enought to be like Chch and have only a few local/territorial authorities.

With regard to AMI stadium capacity; I have been doing some trawling on Google News and there are a lot of articles with numbers all over the place (so who knows?!) but it appears as though after redevelopment the stadium has a permanent capacity of anywhere between 41,000 and 43,000.

With easy/straightforward installation of temporary seating for capcity of 45,000 - 46,000 and there are a couple of articles that talk about boosting capacity to 50,000 if needed although the business case begins to border on the un-economic so would need to be huge game/reason etc. etc.

Just my 2 cents...:cheers:

^^ if they got a semi they were going to boost it to 50 - 55 000 i think... shit did i spell factually as 'factorily'? well at least you get what im on about!!! haha!

I think we can all agree that Christchurch would do a better job of hosting a future Commonwealth Games than Auckland. The '74 Games are arguably the most memorable in the games history.


Some dude I spoke to a few years ago told me that financially speaking, the 1974 Commonwealth Games in Christchurch were, and still are to this day, the most successful commonwealth games in history.

Those games were the ONLY commonwealth games to actually record a (small) profit. This is because the games were helped along with many hundreds of volunteer supporters.

You see, in those days, Christchurch was still a relatively quiet city and major 'world class' events were few and far between. When events like this do happen, it encourages the local population to get behind it more. This is unlike many larger cities which frequently play host to major events - their population becomes complacent and in many cases, find the resulting disruptions to traffic etc rather irritating.

Today, I don't think we'd get quite the same level of local support, in part due to people generally having somewhat busier lifestyles, but also because of the overwhelming pressures from the authority that administers the events to make the event as 'glitzy' as possible so that they can sell TV rights - Obviously their ambition to make shit-loads of cash clearly isn't paying off, since all other Commonwealth Games have lost money.

^^ if they got a semi they were going to boost it to 50 - 55 000 i think... shit did i spell factually as 'factorily'? well at least you get what im on about!!! haha!

Ha ha - yeah, I figured it was just a slip and you weren't talking about "factories" :lol:

Those games were the ONLY commonwealth games to actually record a (small) profit. This is because the games were helped along with many hundreds of volunteer supporters.


To be honest "profit" and its definition can vary quite drastically. Any city wanting to host a mega-event to make a profit are either crazy or Los Angeles. Even Athens 2004 made a "profit". The success of a Games and its legacy after that rest on so many more factors than just a "profit".

I honestly prefer CWG on the same scale of Manchester 2002 and would hope that any NZ city that bids would follow their lead rather than Melbourne 2006.

To be honest "profit" and its definition can vary quite drastically. Any city wanting to host a mega-event to make a profit are either crazy or Los Angeles. Even Athens 2004 made a "profit". The success of a Games and its legacy after that rest on so many more factors than just a "profit".

I honestly prefer CWG on the same scale of Manchester 2002 and would hope that any NZ city that bids would follow their lead rather than Melbourne 2006.

Yeah I totally agree; after Melbourne 2006 it seems crazy to think that the games in 1994 in Victoria British Columbia were actually the same event!

I think Melbourne suffered from a case of "little man syndrome" and tried to replicate Sydney 2000 and missed the point entirely...:lol:

17 July 2008.

Christchurch is putting its best foot forward as it lodges its bid to host quarterfinal games for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

“We are confident that the team in Christchurch has done everything it can to secure confirmation of two quarterfinals,” says Mayor Bob Parker.

A steering group made up of Christchurch City Council, Canterbury Rugby Football Union, Police, Vbase, Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism; and Canterbury Development Corporation has put together a powerful case for two matches in the city. That bid has now gone to Rugby New Zealand 2011 for consideration and a recommendation going forward to Rugby World Cup Ltd. RWC will make its decision in early September.

“We’ve had a highly focused and professional team of very committed people working on the Christchurch bid, as well as support from people and groups across the South Island,” says Bob Parker. “We have a compelling case and believe that view will be shared by those making the decisions.

“The hopes and dreams of many thousands of South Island rugby enthusiasts were bundled up with all the technical and logistical information that made up our bid and now all we can do is wait for the outcome. Christchurch deserves two quarterfinals and we believe that the bid document clearly demonstrates that,” he says.

“By 2011 Christchurch will have some of the very best stadium facilities in the country and it will be great to show rugby fans from all over the world how Christchurch and Canterbury can host a world class rugby event in an atmosphere of warm hospitality and friendly sporting rivalry.

“We warmly welcome the opportunity to help Rugby New Zealand 2011 Limited deliver its promise of a world-class event for players, officials, spectators and fans. Beamed to a world-wide cumulative audience of over 4 billion, this is our chance to showcase Christchurch and Canterbury to the world as New Zealand delivers the best-ever Rugby World Cup in 2011,” says Mr Parker.

its always going to be hard for a city that was talked about as being a possible for the final to accept only getting 1 quarter final. yet it has little over wellington as a candidate for 2 quarter finals. wellington and christchurch both getting 2 quarter finals is a good idea, although if dunedin gets their stadium built then they will get a quarter final (as promised by the nzrfu, i think). whoever misses out can easily be compensated by getting better group matches.
i do find it interesting how wellington and christchurch have to bid just to get another quarter final while its simply assumed auckland gets all the semis and finals, despite doing everything immaginable to get these games taken off them; do you want to redevelop eden park? no. do want to build somewhere else? no.

i always thought a good mix for the finals would be something like:
quarter finals:
wellington
dunedin
christchurch
auckland
semi finals:
christchurch
auckland
3rd place match:
hamilton
final:
auckland

its always going to be hard for a city that was talked about as being a possible for the final to accept only getting 1 quarter final. yet it has little over wellington as a candidate for 2 quarter finals. wellington and christchurch both getting 2 quarter finals is a good idea, although if dunedin gets their stadium built then they will get a quarter final (as promised by the nzrfu, i think). whoever misses out can easily be compensated by getting better group matches.
i do find it interesting how wellington and christchurch have to bid just to get another quarter final while its simply assumed auckland gets all the semis and finals, despite doing everything immaginable to get these games taken off them; do you want to redevelop eden park? no. do want to build somewhere else? no.

i always thought a good mix for the finals would be something like:
quarter finals:
wellington
dunedin
christchurch
auckland
semi finals:
christchurch
auckland
3rd place match:
hamilton
final:
auckland

I agree with most of that.

Of course, as has been discussed to death here - there are reasons for the semis and final to be in the one location. Some agree, some dont. But with that decision made, 2 quarters each in ChCh and the Capital sounds like a good idea. Not good comments from Martin Snedden today though - re the financials of going to the smaller venues. Also, Dunedin hasn't been promised a quarter if the new stadium gets built.

I think its a bit rash to say "Auckland" are doing their best to lose the games, whoever "Auckland" might be. They were given only one alternative option (at the 11th hour) that many did not find appealing (Waterfront) and the debates over Eden Park (funding, council contriubutions, environmental issues) is so complex with so many competing interests - things perhaps other venues don't have to deal with (I know, I know, more reason for a new stadium, but lets not go there.....). All parties want the games, they just want to go about it different ways.

Hamiton is a bit of a left-fielder for that 3rd/4th place playoff. Interesting that Auckland are pushing Albany or Mt Smart for that game - different stadium, same region. But Hamilton could be a dark horse with its proximity to Auckland (where the losing semi-final supporters will be).