Cricket is looking after itself in backing Eden Park over an Auckland waterfront stadium while also concealing the added costs from the public
So New Zealand Cricket has decided to throw its two cents’ worth into the Eden Park debate – the only problem is, it’s going to cost the public a lot more than that.
It’s hard to know where to start with chief executive Scott Weenink’s comments last week, when New Zealand Cricket (NZC) told us all that it backed Eden Park 2.1 as the country’s premier sporting stadium.
But how about we start with words like parochialism and self-interest before we move on to his maths?
NZC has had its nose out of joint for a couple of years now after the backers of the three waterfront stadium ventures (now down to one at Quay Park) all independently rejected any overtures to accommodate an internationally certified cricket oval in their plans.
There are very good economic reasons why, but we’ll get to them in a moment.
Not content with already having adequate ovals around the country for red-ball and white-ball cricket, Scott and his mates want to also play games with Auckland’s ratepayers.
So they’ve thrown their lot in with the grand masters of fleecing Aucklanders and central Government – Eden Park.
Weenink described a revamped and roofed Eden Park as a “game-changer”.
“The Eden Park redevelopment makes much more sense across the board, taking in the considerations and needs of all the different sports and events that will be impacted,” he said.
“Having a venue in Auckland with regulation-sized boundaries and the potential for a roof – well, it’s bit of a no-brainer for us, it would transform our national venue strategy and bring much more international cricket into the city.”
And then the crowning glory. Weenink tells us this will only cost a “fraction” of the cost of a new stadium in the CBD.
If only.
Eden Park says it will “only” need $537 million to revamp Eden Park – including a roof.
The reality is it will almost certainly cost north of a billion dollars to drag the old girl kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
As per normal, Eden Park is mute on where this money will come from. So is NZC, although you can be damn sure they don’t intend contributing.
Nobody from Eden Park will tell Aucklanders where this capital raise will come from, despite the Government and the local council making it clear there will be no contribution from the public purse.
Maybe Weenink knows more than the rest of us. Maybe he knows where Eden Park is going to get its money from for its “national stadium” when nobody in the organisation has any experience in raising money (although they’re world-class at spending it).
Maybe it’s private capital.
Maybe he knows why private investors would prefer to spend their money on a stadium in the suburbs that has to be closed by 10pm every night, instead of a modern precinct downtown capable of hosting major concerts and events.
Maybe he knows why international visitors will be happy to stay in the CBD and waterfront hotels and then decamp themselves to a suburb miles away to watch Taylor Swift.
Or maybe he and his mates at New Zealand Cricket are just looking after themselves and taking the taxpayer and Auckland ratepayer for yet another ride when we inevitably have to bail Eden Park out yet again.
It’s not like Eden Park doesn’t have form in this area.
Remember the $40m bank loan from the ASB for the 2011 Rugby World Cup grandstand build? Eden Park couldn’t even pay the interest on that and the debt landed at Auckland Council’s doorstep.
Here’s some more maths Aucklanders should be aware of.
If Eden Park can’t secure private capital (and the world’s biggest and most successful stadia designer Populous passed over the chance to be involved and instead backed the Wynyard Point option), does it intend securing a bank loan instead?
Even if they get a loan, at an 8% interest rate, they’ll be paying $43m annually in interest alone on a $537m build.
Last year, Eden Park lost $21m. So how will they pay anybody back when they couldn’t even meet the interest on the $40m Rugby World Cup loan?
Eden Park has hand out for more public cash for 2028 T20 Cup
NZC’s self-interest will only result in costs for Eden Park’s 2.1 version spiralling north.For starters, the roof will need to be 50m high to gain certification from the International Cricket Council.
The only roofed stadium in New Zealand, Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr, is 37m high – the same height decided upon for Christchurch’s Te Kaha stadium, opening the year after next.
Are NZC and Eden Park seriously trying to tell us that adding another 13m in height won’t cost any more in construction costs – or is it conveniently sidestepping that point because it starts to make 2.1 look just as costly as a waterfront option?
Then there’s the plan to turn the park into an even more inferior experience for spectators.
NZC is seeking to co-host the 2028 Twenty20 World Cup alongside Australia. Auckland will only be included if it turns Eden Park into a proper cricket oval.
To achieve this, Eden Park will need to take 10 metres out of every spectator stand to create an ICC-certified “oval”.
And the reward for this extravagance of trying to create a cricket ground? Auckland will likely gain a couple of pool matches and one quarter-final (and let’s hope we can avoid a blockbuster like Bangladesh v Afghanistan from this year’s T20 World Cup).
Even then, I have a strong suspicion that those sitting at the top of the two main stands won’t be able to see the extra 10m of grass on their side from their vantage point. How daft is that?
But it will also shaft fans of quality sports played on a rectangular field by inflicting an even poorer viewing experience upon us.
Eden Park is very fond of comparing itself to great viewing stadiums like Brisbane’s Suncorp Stadium, the sold-out venue for a rollicking State of Origin rugby league decider last night.
That’s nonsense. Lang Park, as it was formerly known, is a true sporting coliseum where fans feel like they are right on the edge of the action.
Eden Park already suffers from its “half-in, half-out” cricket attitude. It’s why Mt Smart Stadium can regularly conjure an atmosphere Eden Park rarely hits.
NZC wants to inflict Eden Park 2.1 on us because it suits them – and them alone.
No thought is being given to rugby, league or football fans – let alone music fans forced to traipse out to the suburbs and then having to spend more time getting home than the concert lasted (the author’s personal experience at a Pink concert earlier this year).
Sports Insider could cut NZC some slack if we were guaranteed a steady flow of international cricket in Auckland.
But with T20 leagues worldwide now the staple money-making venture for any self-respecting elite cricketer, we all know New Zealand’s national teams are only going to get weaker in both the red-ball and white-ball game.
How much “international cricket” can we really expect in return for a billion-dollar investment? One or two white-ball games? An occasional test against South Africa B, like last summer?
That’s the reason backers of the three waterfront options didn’t accommodate cricket’s needs. The economic incentive is simply not there.
Ask Wellington sports fans if they would have still gone with an oval at the Cake Tin instead of a rectangular field if they had their time over again? I can tell you what Phoenix and Hurricanes fans will say.
This while the red-ball game dies a natural death with the Big Three of India, Australia and England now the only tests of significance.
Maybe this wouldn’t be so bad if Auckland ratepayers (with a likely Government bailout on top) weren’t going to inevitably have to carry the can for these follies.
How can private investors possibly make money out of a billion-dollar white elephant in the suburbs?
I have greater confidence that private investors will build at the waterfront than I do that Eden Park won’t follow its now century-old playbook of talking big and then requiring yet another expensive bailout.
Sports Insider: NZ Cricket's daft idea will send Eden Park's rebuild costs soaring
OPINION: Cricket is looking after itself while concealing the added costs from public.
