Skyscraper City Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1221 - 1240 of 2216 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Not what I said or inferred at all!

"Fact 3. The stadium hasn't stopped water and sewage upgrade."
It hasn't stopped the construction of the new outfall but Councillor Walls has said the further treatment plant is one of the capital projects which must be put on the list of those to be considered for dropping or postponing, along with the stadium. He's saying one option would be to proceed with the stadium but defer or abandon the further treatment plant.

With respect, Pater - and without wishing to enter the debate on the stadium - I neither said, or implied, any such thing!

I quote the precise text of my comment in 'The Otago Daily Times' of 23 October. The full report - and the context in which it was made - can be referenced in ODT Online under the headline "Question mark over Dunedin's financial future".


" Finance and Strategy committee chairman Richard Walls said until the situation changed, projects like the Settlers Museum, the Tahuna secondary treatment plant, and drainage and road renewal might have to be deferred. The stadium is in that mix." But Cr Walls said nobody should be losing sleep over the issue. "The management of our financing is in extraordinarily good hands."


The ODT report referred to carried comment by Athol Stephens, Council's General Manager, Finance and Corporate, and Mayor Peter Chin as well as myself, and was made against the backdrop of the turmoil in financial markets and possible difficulties that could arise in funding the projected capital works programme of Council as set out in the current (10 year) Community Plan.

It was therefore very much a “what might” or “what if” scenario. Nothing more, nothing less …. reflecting reality in uncertain times.

Nothing has occurred since 23 October that has required Council to act. ALL the major capital works listed in the 10 year Community Plan (the LTCCP) stand.

If any changes are proposed - for any reason - then that will occur, as is normal each year in conjunction with the Draft Annual Plan in January. Any changes in both are subject to public consultation.

If any major changes to the capital works programme are made outside of that process, then they too are subject to statutory public consultation.



Richard Walls
Chair, Finance and Strategy
Dunedin City Council
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
Perhaps you should move to Dunedin Bob and pay for it all.
And while you're at it you could prop up the payments of people's mortgages.
Afterall Dunedin doesn't want to be known as the city of suicides does it?
Certainly considering a move back down Dunedin way at some stage over next two or three years Rosie, so as a ratepayer I'd gladly contribute to the stadium and other Council initiated projects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
I hate to be a pessimist, but if this thing DOES go ahead, I see it as being a colossal failure. Would a new stadium really be enough to entice people in Dunedin to use it? Highlanders games in Invercargill and even Queenstown attract larger crowds by several magnitudes (though admittedly that could be because only 1 game per season is held in those 2). Perhaps if they made it REALLY multipurpose, then somehow it might pay off.

Here's the Air NZ Cup attendances for 08:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Air_New_Zealand_Cup#Attendances

Of the five matches played at Carisbrook, attendances were 5000, 3500, 4500, 2000, and 3500, averaging only 3,700 people.
By contrast, the five matches played in Invercargill ranged from 9k to 7k (avg of 7.5k), and the five played in Christchurch ranged from 10k to 7k (avg of 8.3k).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
I hate to be a pessimist, but if this thing DOES go ahead, I see it as being a colossal failure. Would a new stadium really be enough to entice people in Dunedin to use it? Highlanders games in Invercargill and even Queenstown attract larger crowds by several magnitudes (though admittedly that could be because only 1 game per season is held in those 2). Perhaps if they made it REALLY multipurpose, then somehow it might pay off.

Here's the Air NZ Cup attendances for 08:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Air_New_Zealand_Cup#Attendances

Of the five matches played at Carisbrook, attendances were 5000, 3500, 4500, 2000, and 3500, averaging only 3,700 people.
By contrast, the five matches played in Invercargill ranged from 9k to 7k (avg of 7.5k), and the five played in Christchurch ranged from 10k to 7k (avg of 8.3k).
I don't really think 2008 Highlanders crowds are that relevant. Poor performance on the field is really the issue and Yes I would attribute better crowds at Invercargill and Queenstown to the novelty factor of hosting games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
Early Xmas present?

Govt expects stadium call
ODT 20 December 2008

HAVING set a goal of supporting development and infrastructure projects during the election campaign, the Government is ‘‘expecting the call’’ from Dunedin stadium bosses looking for funding, deputy prime minister Bill English says.
Read more
Still a long way to go but encouraging ...

Surge in private funding for stadium
ODT 20 December 2008

CARISBROOK Stadium Trust chairman Malcolm Farry is feeling buoyant after a $1.9 million surge in private sector funding for Otago Stadium in the past week.
Read more
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
But of course it's not just a rugby stadium as some might claim...
Games may be held at proposed stadium
The Southland Times | Thursday, 18 December 2008

THE possibility of holding netball games on a court laid on the main field at the proposed Otago Stadium was one Netball New Zealand would not discount, Netball New Zealand game development manager Kate Agnew said.

The idea had been "loosely" discussed, Agnew said.

"The proposed capacity is something like 30,000 imagine a netball game in front of that many people. It's certainly a ground-breaking idea, but whether it would come to fruition ... It would be a different kind of experience."

Just how it would work wasn't clear, but one option could be to put down a court in one part of the field, rather than the centre of it, then use the closest seating area, and perhaps put up temporary seating.

However the idea, much like the stadium, was purely conceptual at this stage, Agnew said.

Netball New Zealand had had brief discussions with Carisbrook Stadium Trust trustees, including Kereyn Smith, a former chairwoman of Netball New Zealand, about the potential of netball's involvement with the proposed stadium.

"There's a huge difference and distance from what people might have as a concept through to finishing, but we are really keen to be working with anybody looking at new venues and making sure it could meet the needs of netball when it comes together," Agnew said.

She said, should the stadium go ahead, that would not necessarily make the Edgar Centre redundant in terms of hosting netball fixtures.

"It may be that a capacity of 30,000 might not be something we would use every single time. We might want to use the Edgar Centre or we might be better to position things in Invercargill, for example," Agnew said.

"There's usually a very long process from initial discussions to final delivery of venues and that's one reason we like to discuss it very early, to make sure netball gets consideration for the needs of a venue."

Otago Stadium would include a court with seating for 5000 people at one end of the ground.
What's that now NZ Institute of Sport, Soccer South, Sport Otago all supporting the stadium ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
I don't really think 2008 Highlanders crowds are that relevant. Poor performance on the field is really the issue and Yes I would attribute better crowds at Invercargill and Queenstown to the novelty factor of hosting games.
For the Highlanders I'd say that is indeed the case, poorish performance coupled with the novelty factor of Invercargill/Queenstown games.
I don't think that is the case with NPC games though, looking at the attendances for other SI cities. And NPC (or Air NZ Cup as it is now) would be the other major use of the facility, I imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,846 Posts
I must say I am shocked by the way the government, both national and regional have dealt with stadium projects for 2011
What are you talking about?

From the word go this was - rightly or wrongly - never going to be an event in which the national government poured endless amounts of cash into stadium infrastructure - limited-capacity aside, we actually have alot of good quality stadiums in NZ for a country of 4m. What we don't have is a large, world-class central venue - enter Eden Park (or what should have been a new stadium). I doubt the government ever expected to be spending as much on Eden park as they are, which was a victim of Auckland's inadequate governance structure (currently under review) as much as anything else. Believe me - there are bigger and better victims of that than Eden Park (PT for instance). If anything, the government has come (to some degree) to Auckland City's rescue.

But what problems are there with other regional authorities and their stadiums? I can't think of a single one.

Christchurch fastracked the upgrade of Jade, as did Napier (McLean Park). Nelson was planning an upgrade even before the RWC2011 announcement and with the Makos confirmed in the top tier and council assistance, that looks a goer. Whangarei are looking at a new venue but they too had to wait on the local teams confirmation in the top flight.

The other main venues - North Harbour, Mt Smart, Hamilton, New Plymouth, Wellington etc are fine as they are or will undergo some cosmetic changes but hardly anything thats going to be contentious at a council level.

As for Otago, the respective councils have been supportive of the project all along but have, quite rightly, set criteria from the Trust in order for it to go ahead. For a small city like Dunedin's, thats merely prudent.

So I really don't know what you have been "shocked" about.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,846 Posts
I hate to be a pessimist, but if this thing DOES go ahead, I see it as being a colossal failure. Would a new stadium really be enough to entice people in Dunedin to use it? Highlanders games in Invercargill and even Queenstown attract larger crowds by several magnitudes (though admittedly that could be because only 1 game per season is held in those 2). Perhaps if they made it REALLY multipurpose, then somehow it might pay off.

Here's the Air NZ Cup attendances for 08:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Air_New_Zealand_Cup#Attendances

Of the five matches played at Carisbrook, attendances were 5000, 3500, 4500, 2000, and 3500, averaging only 3,700 people.
By contrast, the five matches played in Invercargill ranged from 9k to 7k (avg of 7.5k), and the five played in Christchurch ranged from 10k to 7k (avg of 8.3k).

If it was purely a rugby stadium, you are probably right. But its not, its multi-purpose. See the note on netball. See the reports on soccr wanting to use it. Etc etc

In any case, Ugly Bob's comments re performance being the issue are spot on. And thats always cyclical. Auckland has a similar problem at the moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard7666
I don't think that is the case with NPC games though, looking at the attendances for other SI cities. And NPC (or Air NZ Cup as it is now) would be the other major use of the facility, I imagine.
Well yes also bearing in mind that Southland has just had its best ever Air NZ Cup tournament and Canterbury is traditionally strong. In both cases reasonable crowds would be expected. When Otago was strong in the late '90s etc the punters showed up to Carisbrook. I see no reason why a strong Otago team wouldn't again pull the crowds. Also Test matches such as the recent Tri-Nations match would get capacity crowds.

Then as KLK notes, it's not just rugby. The Carisbrook Stadium Trust has consistently said rugby would only use the stadium 22 days a year. Trade shows, conferences, concerts (community or commercial), other sports, high performance clinics for the NZ Institute of Sport etc would make up the rest with bookings handled by a council owned event management company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Laughable, and boring....

The same rubbish was shouted about the Cake Tin in Wellington when I first started working there and it was under discussion. Imagine if they had listen to the rants of the penny-pinchers then?

This is Dunedin's Cake Tin. Wouldn't it be disappointing if the opportunity failed in favour of such underachievers in life like Rosie and co.
The cake tin didn't need so much public money.

It cost $130m to build.

The money came from:

1. Wellington Regional Council (pop 445,400): $25m (a loan).

2. Wellington City Council (pop 192,800): $15m (a loan).

3. Grants and donations: $7m.

4. Fundraising: $50m.

5. ANZ bank: $33m (a loan).

By comparison the Otago Stadium is estimated to cost $188m.

The money is supposed to come from:

1. Otago Regional Council (pop 190,600): $37.5m (a grant).

2. Dunedin City Council (pop 120,000): $91.4m (a grant).

3. Community Trust of Otago: $10m. (To be decided but probably not available.)

4. Private fundraising: $55m ($8.7m as of 20 December).

Wellington City's $15m loan is much less than Dunedin City's $91.4m grant - which it will have to borrow. Wellington proper has more than half as many people again as Dunedin City to bear the cost of less than a quarter of the money being advanced as a loan, not a gift. The Wellington Region has more than double the number of people in the Otago Region to bear the expense of lending, not giving, only two thirds of the amount required from the Otago Region as a gift.

There may have been some moaning about the cost to citizens of the Cake Tin. But the Otago Stadium requires absolutely and proportionately far more public money. From the city council it is roughly four times as much from a population not much more than half of Wellington's.

These are the figures which make even keen Dunedinites say "no".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
With respect, Pater - and without wishing to enter the debate on the stadium - I neither said, or implied, any such thing!

I quote the precise text of my comment in 'The Otago Daily Times' of 23 October. The full report - and the context in which it was made - can be referenced in ODT Online under the headline "Question mark over Dunedin's financial future".


" Finance and Strategy committee chairman Richard Walls said until the situation changed, projects like the Settlers Museum, the Tahuna secondary treatment plant, and drainage and road renewal might have to be deferred. The stadium is in that mix." But Cr Walls said nobody should be losing sleep over the issue. "The management of our financing is in extraordinarily good hands."


The ODT report referred to carried comment by Athol Stephens, Council's General Manager, Finance and Corporate, and Mayor Peter Chin as well as myself, and was made against the backdrop of the turmoil in financial markets and possible difficulties that could arise in funding the projected capital works programme of Council as set out in the current (10 year) Community Plan.

It was therefore very much a “what might” or “what if” scenario. Nothing more, nothing less …. reflecting reality in uncertain times.

Nothing has occurred since 23 October that has required Council to act. ALL the major capital works listed in the 10 year Community Plan (the LTCCP) stand.

If any changes are proposed - for any reason - then that will occur, as is normal each year in conjunction with the Draft Annual Plan in January. Any changes in both are subject to public consultation.

If any major changes to the capital works programme are made outside of that process, then they too are subject to statutory public consultation.



Richard Walls
Chair, Finance and Strategy
Dunedin City Council
With equal respect Richard you are only confirming what I said.

"... projects like the Settlers Museum, the Tahuna secondary treatment plant, and drainage and road renewal might have to be deferred. The stadium is in that mix."

It might be decided to do the stadium and defer the Tahuna secondary treatment plant.
 

·
A Christchurch Son
Joined
·
4,200 Posts
Best of luck in Brisbane sweetie
Watch out for those like Markie
I think you should be banned Rosie - :banned:

What you have clearly implied is against the law, insulting and pure evil - :banned:

Ever since you have attempted to join this community you have done nothing but added poision. You have contributed to no other threads and are using SSC as a platform for your pathetic ramblings. I for one am sick of it.

Insulting Marky in such a low and underhanded way sums up the type of person you must be and obviously are.

You know.............Marky's bright and beautiful enough to look after himself - but he is my friend and I'm not standing by to let someone like you type poison about him like that.

Just go away Rosie - stop insulting people and stop giving beautiful Dunedin a bad name and image - you don't care about anyone here or your city at all - not one little bit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,302 Posts
I think you should be banned Rosie - :banned:

What you have clearly implied is against the law, insulting and pure evil - :banned:

Ever since you have attempted to join this community you have done nothing but added poision. You have contributed to no other threads and are using SSC as a platform for your pathetic ramblings. I for one am sick of it.

Insulting Marky in such a low and underhanded way sums up the type of person you must be and obviously are.

You know.............Marky's bright and beautiful enough to look after himself - but he is my friend and I'm not standing by to let someone like you type poison about him like that.

Just go away Rosie - stop insulting people and stop giving beautiful Dunedin a bad name and image - you don't care about anyone here or your city at all - not one little bit.
Hear hear! Flyin' when you next sign on I think Davee is bang on the money when he says she deserves a ban.

I can't believe I missed that comment amongst the faecal matter spewed in this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
The cake tin didn't need so much public money.

It cost $130m to build.

The money came from:

1. Wellington Regional Council (pop 445,400): $25m (a loan).

2. Wellington City Council (pop 192,800): $15m (a loan).

3. Grants and donations: $7m.

4. Fundraising: $50m.

5. ANZ bank: $33m (a loan).

By comparison the Otago Stadium is estimated to cost $188m.

The money is supposed to come from:

1. Otago Regional Council (pop 190,600): $37.5m (a grant).

2. Dunedin City Council (pop 120,000): $91.4m (a grant).

3. Community Trust of Otago: $10m. (To be decided but probably not available.)

4. Private fundraising: $55m ($8.7m as of 20 December).

Wellington City's $15m loan is much less than Dunedin City's $91.4m grant - which it will have to borrow. Wellington proper has more than half as many people again as Dunedin City to bear the cost of less than a quarter of the money being advanced as a loan, not a gift. The Wellington Region has more than double the number of people in the Otago Region to bear the expense of lending, not giving, only two thirds of the amount required from the Otago Region as a gift.

There may have been some moaning about the cost to citizens of the Cake Tin. But the Otago Stadium requires absolutely and proportionately far more public money. From the city council it is roughly four times as much from a population not much more than half of Wellington's.

These are the figures which make even keen Dunedinites say "no".
Wow, that really puts it in perspective, doesn't it =/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
With equal respect Richard you are only confirming what I said.

"... projects like the Settlers Museum, the Tahuna secondary treatment plant, and drainage and road renewal might have to be deferred. The stadium is in that mix."

It might be decided to do the stadium and defer the Tahuna secondary treatment plant.


Peter, "you draw a long bow - a very long bow". And not for the first time!

In one of your previous postings you said: "Fact 3. The stadium hasn't stopped water and sewage upgrade. It hasn't stopped the construction of the new outfall but Councillor Walls has said the further treatment plant is one of the capital projects which MUST BE PUT ON THE LIST of those to be considered for dropping or postponing, along with the stadium."

FACT: I did not put it on any "list". I did not highlight it. YOU DID.

Only some of Council’s forward capital projects were referred to in the ODT report of 23 October. As you well know, the complete list is in the current Annual Plan adopted by Council last June and available in printed form or on Council’s website.

The secondary treatment plant at Tahuna - budgeted to cost around $70 million - is but one.
Amongst others, you totally ignored the Dunedin Centre Redevelopment, the Logan Park Redevelopment (two projects in which you have expressed direct interest), the upgrade of the Dunedin Public Library and so on.

Then ‘The Star’ followed up some 6 weeks later - 6 weeks LATER - when it hooked on to the views of surfers for its front page story that the last stage of the Tahuna upgrade might be deferred!

The reality is that if the financial market becomes tight and/or interest rates make borrowing too expensive, then Council would obviously need to determine what capital projects in its forward programme could be accommodated or afforded.

In the extreme and unlikely event that the loan market totally collapsed or dried up, there would be no funding for any capital projects at all.

Like it or not, in such circumstances, nothing on the Council's LIST can be excluded from consideration.

Council simply does not make its decisions on the basis of how one group might be affected but on the benefits to the wider community. Nor are such decisions made in isolation.

In line with the semantics that permeates much of this "debate" - both here and elsewhere - what you are saying rather confirms "The Imhoff Theory".

I have not "confirmed what you said". Your opinion of what I said is your own. That is fine, but it is YOUR opinion. You are entitled to that but you are not entitled to your own facts!


Merry Christmas!
 
1221 - 1240 of 2216 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top