General Auckland Waterfront Stadium

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

It is like increasing the rent on the house you own and live in just to pay more to the bank.

The council own North Harbour and own Eden Park in all but name - surely it would be better for rugby and cricket to pay an increased rent than to have nowhere to play their games when the stadiums are not fit for purpose (in the case of Eden Park this is not far away?)
 
Miket12

Miket12

Who said that?.
Comments on talkback and it's one of the arguments that keeps coming up.

Another is that a stadium on the waterfront or tank farm would be dangerous because it can only be approached from one or two sides. Soldier Field, in Chicago, is pretty much surrounded on three sides by the Museum Campus so access is limited mostly to one direction yet it holds over 60,000 people - far more that the suggested capacity of a new stadium here.

The formula for accessing or leaving a certain area is pretty easy and the size of the access is determined by the number of people you want to have pass through it at a certain point. It's hardly the rocket science you'd think some are suggesting on talkback.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bruce
bruce

bruce

Contributor
surely it would be better for rugby and cricket to pay an increased rent than to have nowhere to play their games when the stadiums are not fit for purpose (in the case of Eden Park this is not far away?)
I see your point.

I don't think they are earning enough money except from the really big games. They had the ICC games this year, and the Aussie limited overs but that wont' happen again in time to save them. The rugby union must be in the same situation.
 
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

But its not the council's problem if North Harbour and Auckland rugby, or NZ cricket, lose money? Their concern should be about not wasting rate payers money. It can be done as the Warriors have proved in their negotiations with the council around Mt Smart.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
But its not the council's problem if North Harbour and Auckland rugby, or NZ cricket, lose money?
I don't think it is about NZ cricket and rugby they have a choice where they go.

It is Auckland cricket and rugby and North Harbour rugby who have or are the problem. They are not earning enough from their crowds to pay the rent, especially at North Harbour.

They haven't had a cricket test at Eden park since I can't remember. There used to be one there every summer. Now they choose places like the Dunedin University Oval and Hamilton and even the Basin Reserve because they are cheaper to hire.

Nobody goes to North Harbour to watch anything. To me that would be the logical place to downsize although they have that massive arch of the grandstand to get rid of first. In any case it doesn't matter, they will never fill that place for anything except another RWC, and that is going to be next century.
 
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

So charge Auckland and North Harbour rugby higher rents as the fixed tennants (and the NZRU and NZ cricket when they want to use the stadiums.)

The Warriors are obviously paying enough rent at Mt Smart to cover the council's costs associated with owning the stadium so why not the council's other tenants?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Cheap Seats
bruce

bruce

Contributor
So charge Auckland and North Harbour rugby higher rents as the fixed remnants (and the NZRU and NZ cricket when they want to use the stadiums.)

The Warriors are obviously paying enough rent at Mt Smart to cover the council's costs associated with owning the stadium so why not the council's other tenants?
I think the Warriors are earning way more than Auckland Rugby and Cricket. That was why the Council wanted them at Eden Park.

I don't think either Auckland rugby or Cricket accountants were particularly impressed with the offer to upgrade Eden Park. It never stacked up but it did buy them some time on upkeep. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
 
STEEDEN

STEEDEN

CBD stadium idea gathers speed

Upload 2016 3 21 6 2 59

Planning for a new Auckland downtown stadium could begin in the next month.

Chris Brooks, the council boss overseeing the city's stadium strategy, wants to bring together the sporting codes and people with the right skills to consider the feasibility of a new stadium.

He said the process would require market research on the sort of stadium needed, public and private funding models, and planning how it could be done.

"This is something we should get moving in the next month or so," said Mr Brooks, chief executive of Regional Facilities Auckland.

Last week, the Herald revealed that a new downtown stadium was back on the table, a decade after the city's politicians and rugby establishment said no to a stadium on the waterfront.

An unscientific Herald online poll of more than 16,000 readers found 82 per cent favoured a CBD stadium.

Warriors owner Eric Watson yesterday called on Aucklanders - the media, tertiary institutions, business and communities - to support a new downtown stadium and make it a reality. The rich-lister pledged to invest in a new stadium.

"It's important to have good people behind the concept of a downtown stadium and Warriors CEO Jim Doyle, Regional Facilities CEO Chris Brooks and mayoral candidate Phil Goff have indicated strongly that they are," Mr Watson wrote in a Herald on Sunday column.

Mr Brooks said he did not know Mr Watson but does know Mr Doyle, who has been pushing for a multi-code, multi-purpose stadium with a capacity of 30,000 to 40,000 people, which he believed would cost about $600 million and take about four years to build.

Mr Goff said it makes sense to start thinking about options now rather than leaving it too late, as happened in 2006.

The downtown stadium has received another boost after prominent sports administrator Martin Snedden backed the concept - despite his long-standing ties with Eden Park.

Mr Snedden said a multi-purpose stadium on the waterfront could revitalise the city, as long as it was planned and designed with the right amount of due diligence. He believes a mid-sized arena, with a capacity between 25,000-30,000, would be the best option for the Queen City.

"A downtown stadium needs to be the right size. There is no point going for a capacity of 50,000 or something - we already have one of those."

"The reality is in our market place it is very, very hard to draw crowds above 30,000. The All Blacks do it a couple of times a year, cricket did it for the Cricket World Cup but otherwise it doesn't and we manage it for the [NRL] Nines on a one-off basis.

"It's hard to see how anything larger than that could be made to work financially."

Snedden was New Zealand Cricket chief executive between 2001-2007, then spent the next four years organising and delivering the 2011 Rugby World Cup, with the showpiece games at the Sandringham venue.

At the time he backed the Eden Park redevelopment.

"It was the safer option," said Snedden. "I could always see the potential in the downtown idea but at the time the proposal was really light on certainty and detail ... even down to getting the land that was necessary."

But now he admits Eden Park faces an uncertain future, mentioning that commercial development of the number two ground could be the only way to make the stadium viable into the future.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11608967
 
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

What would be the point of building a new stadium and keeping Eden Park - how does that solve the problem that the chairman of the Eden Park trust raised last week (they can pay the bills and their loans but cannot afford the upkeep and maintenance?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce
Miket12

Miket12

What would be the point of building a new stadium and keeping Eden Park - how does that solve the problem that the chairman of the Eden Park trust raised last week (they can pay the bills and their loans but cannot afford the upkeep and maintenance?)
Auckland Council need to really decide what they will allow to occur there - they want the money owed to them to be repaid yet seem reluctant to allow changes to allow Eden Park 2 and the other properties around the stadium that the EPTB own to be commercially developed.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
What would be the point of building a new stadium and keeping Eden Park - how does that solve the problem that the chairman of the Eden Park trust raised last week (they can pay the bills and their loans but cannot afford the upkeep and maintenance?)
Auckland Council need to really decide what they will allow to occur there - they want the money owed to them to be repaid yet seem reluctant to allow changes to allow Eden Park 2 and the other properties around the stadium that the EPTB own to be commercially developed.
I think it is the old guard that regard Eden Park as a shrine. They carry a lot of weight, especially in conservative politics. They won't fork out their own money to keep the place going though.
 
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Auckland Council need to really decide what they will allow to occur there - they want the money owed to them to be repaid yet seem reluctant to allow changes to allow Eden Park 2 and the other properties around the stadium that the EPTB own to be commercially developed.

Even that is just a short term solution as the Eden Park trust would have to sell the land, something you can do only once.

If they borrowed the money and did the redevelopment themselves the return would pay for the development but not the additional income required for the stadium upkeep.
 
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

I think it is the old guard that regard Eden Park as a shrine. They carry a lot of weight, especially in conservative politics. They won't fork out their own money to keep the place going though.

So if they won't fork out and the Eden Park trust doesn't have the money who is expected to bail them out?
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
So if they won't fork out and the Eden Park trust doesn't have the money who is expected to bail them out?
Right now it appears to be the Auckland Council. It is the old story if you owe the bank a little bit you have problems, if you owe them a lot they have problems. That is where the politics comes into it but I think the likes of Martin Snedden entering the debate on the side of the new stadium shows where the sensible opinion is.
 
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Right now it appears to be the Auckland Council. It is the old story if you owe the bank a little bit you have problems, if you owe them a lot they have problems. That is where the politics comes into it but I think the likes of Martin Snedden entering the debate on the side of the new stadium shows where the sensible opinion is.

They are paying their loans it's the uokeep they cannot afford. If the council loans them more money it will be the loan repayments they cannot afford.

Make a no sense unless they start charging their tennants more or the council lets them default on their existing loans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce
Miket12

Miket12

Even that is just a short term solution as the Eden Park trust would have to sell the land, something you can do only once.

If they borrowed the money and did the redevelopment themselves the return would pay for the development but not the additional income required for the stadium upkeep.

Not necessarily - do what the Iwi did wth the Waterfront, the Anglican Church has with St Johns and the One Tree Trust have done around cornwell park and sell of the rights to someone else to undertake the development of the land as leasehold so it creates an annual land rent/income for EPTB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce
Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Not necessarily - do what the Iwi did wth the Waterfront, the Anglican Church has with St Johns and the One Tree Trust have done around cornwell park and sell of the rights to someone else to undertake the development of the land as leasehold so it creates an annual land rent/income for EPTB.

A 45,000 seat stadium costs more in R&M than a park, Mike!

Commercial developments are on skinny margins without having to pay tens of Millons of dollars to cover someone else's depreciation.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
Not necessarily - do what the Iwi did wth the Waterfront, the Anglican Church has with St Johns and the One Tree Trust have done around cornwell park and sell of the rights to someone else to undertake the development of the land as leasehold so it creates an annual land rent/income for EPTB.
Good point. That land is high value, especially compared with an industrial dump like Mount Smart. I recall it was one of the first points that JD raised.

As a business decision it never made sense to upgrade it just for the RWC that is obvious now. The business people i.e. the Councils lenders and maybe even Treasury will know that. I am sure it is just the sentimental politics getting in the way. I say that because of John Key's lack of support so far for the new stadium.
 

Similar threads

mt.wellington
Replies
6
Views
549
tajhay
tajhay
mt.wellington
Replies
4
Views
180
bruce
bruce
mt.wellington
  • Showcase: Item
Replies
4
Views
176
bruce
bruce
mt.wellington
Replies
217
Views
8K
Ref
Ref
mt.wellington
Replies
26
Views
2K
playdaball
playdaball