Forsyth Barr head confident Dunedin stadium haters will 'see the light'
Any large construction project launched in New Zealand these days will attract criticism from those who can only see the negative, but the head of Dunedin stadium sponsor Forsyth Barr says he pays little attention to the doubters.
Forsyth Barr chairman Eion Edgar says the criticisms thrown into the path of the stadium are the same seen any time a new project as big as the new stadium is planned, but that they are usually forgotten after completion.
“You saw exactly the same thing happen with the Wellington stadium, and even in Dunedin, you saw it when Moana Pool and the town hall were constructed, and nobody moans about the cost of establishing those iconic buildings now.”
Forsyth Barr unveiled its logo and branding for the new stadium last week, and Mr Edgar said that those with doubts about the project often forgot some key points about it.
“They always seem to overlook the fact that it’s not just about rugby, with less than 20% of its usage planned for rugby in the long run. And they also fail to see the appeal of the covered stadium.
“This is going to be a stadium with a roof for 30,000 people who enjoy all sorts of sorts and entertainment, and you can expect to see a lot more happening in the region because of that cover. Who is going to want to play anywhere else in the middle of winter?
“So we tend to take the view that they’ll eventually see the light, and you can see that light shining in the aurora of our new logo.”
Mr Edgar, a member of the NBR rich-list and 2004’s NBR New Zealander of the Year, added that the naming rights were a “wonderful thing” for Forsyth Barr considering its origin in Dunedin in 1936.
The investment company will celebrate its 75th anniversary in 2011, when the stadium is due to be completed in time for the Rugby World Cup.
Forsyth Barr will have its name above the gates at the stadium for at least the first 10 years of its existence, with the right to renew after that point.
He would not be drawn on how much Forsyth Barr paid for that privilege, but said it was a “substantial sum” and the largest sponsorship deal Forsyth Barr had ever signed.
“It was less than what the stadium trust wanted for it and more than we wanted to pay, so we found a happy medium. We’re already getting a lot of profile from the deal, so it’s already starting to pay off.”
Most Popular
Sponsored Links
- NBR World Corporate Golf Challenge Comes to New Zealand – Secure Your Place Today.
- Talk to FleetPartners now and make the right decision about your vehicle fleet solution.
- Meet the SpaceseatTM, a new way to fly long-haul with Air NZ from November 2010
- Aviemore: " Grab an exclusive lake frontage land in South Island"
NZ Market Snapshot
NBR Services
.jpg)
Latest
- PRIVATE BIN: Shell shindigs at risk?
World cup ‘party central’ will help keep Auckland traffic flowing- Ad agency can't handle the jandal
- Hotchin wife grilled over trust assets
- 2degrees promises to reveal customer numbers Friday
- Quietly, 2degrees becomes a little less Kiwi
- Oops: Vodafone NZ loses another 9000 customers
- What are they doing in there?
- Buy a one-way ticket and leave the country now!
- Wall Street rebounds as Greek financial rescue plan emerges
.gif)
Comments
With the greatest of
With the greatest of respect, Planet Edgar is a nice place to be sure. Rose coloured glasses all round!
How can ratepayers (Regional and City) forget the costs of this mad project when it is itemised on their bill?
And as for only 20% of it's use being for rugby, if that is the case then why has the DCC bought the old stadium for an inflated price and got ORFU board representation?
The stadium is not needed or wanted by the majority and every time someone says this the pro stadium people bring up the swimming pool and the town hall, both built in a different era for Dunedin when it was moving ahead, not contracting as it is now.
Come on NBR you can have a great story here if you dig a bit!
Apples with Apples
...and comparisons with the Wellington Stadium do not stack up either. They have a population of approx 400,000 compared to Dunedin's 120,000 (outside of Uni holidays). Wellington Stadium can host cricket matches, has the Sevens tournament, the Wellington Phoenix playing regularly. These are the reasons why it has been one of the VERY few successful stadiums in the world. I remain unconvinced this is in the best interests of our residents.
Negativity
Why are the people in this country so negative about every single developement that is undertaken. NZ's infastructure is a third world disgrace. Our roads, stadiums etc are well below international standards. It would seem that the Dunedin residents against the stadium have become too isolated from the rest of NZ and the world for that matter. It's time you opened your eyes or Dunedin really will become the arse end of the NZ
Negativity or Realism?
AB, it is not the initial development costs that concern me it is the ongoing viability. I will be only too happy to be proven wrong but do consider a new stadium a 'nice to have' rather than a 'must have'. Dunedin will not suddenly be inundated with overseas performers just because we have a roofed stadium. The anchor tenant will always be the ORFU and we have seen the way the crowds are trending locally and internationally with regards rugby. Novelty factor aside 'white elephant' spings to mind!
Mr Edgar, If the stadium is
Mr Edgar, If the stadium is as good as you make out, why did you not have the intestinal fortitude to raise the capital privately.
I am not against stadiums, but private enterprise should have come to the party - not ratepayers.
Events
Take a look at the sudden increase in international acts that Auckland has had since completing Vector Arena. Dunedin will be the only large indoor venue in the South Island capable of hosting big international acts. The potential is huge and this should be seen as such a positive development not only for Dunedin but the entire south island. Drop the negativity, be positive PLEASE!!!
What majority?
I wish people would stop spinning the line that the majority oppose the stadium. Both sides have opinion polls supporting their positions, backed by carefully worded/loaded questions.
The Councils have voted on behalf of the ratespayers who elected them. We elected councillours knowing their positions and in the case of the DCC, the anti-stadium ones got voted out. Whether they were booted because of their stance, or because electors saw through the shallowness of people who take a position before being in full possesion of the facts, is another thing.
The cost debate is an interesting one. If I had to choose between say supporting a stadium (which has a chance of bringing some economic gain) or the provision of subsidised council housing (surely a role better filled by central government) I know where my money would go.
The project is underway, I want it to work, I think it will work, but I'm also prepared to eat my words and face the financial consequences if it doesn't. Is the anti-stadium lobby mature enough to admit that they may be wrong? Only time will tell.
dunedin stadium
Very adult of Paul P to offer to 'eat his words and face the financial consequences' if he is wrong about the stadium. That should really help, in the absence of his, and the majority of DCC councillors, failing to research or even comprehend why it will be a financial disaster. The most recent annual report of the Wellington Stadium shows that it made an operating surplus of $2.86m, just enough to pay interest on the $40m ratepayer loan, in what the chairman stated to be the best preformance it could hope for. The Dunedin loan looks like being at least $150m by the time the job is finished, but with those like Paul P ready to stand tall and face the results, there's nothing to worry about. Phew!
Events
AB, again you are not comparing apples with apples.
International acts have good reason to come to Auckland - ticket sales. They don't come to have a look at the Vector Arena.
Dunedin does not have the population (or discretionary income) to attend concerts every second week. These are all feel good factors that the stadium supporters trot out in their argument that it will be a multi-purpose stadium.
Me, I am still unconvinced.
Yes they will
As I said Mr Dunedin Doubter it should be seen as a positive for the South Island. I am sure people from Christchurch would rather travel to Dunedin to see a concert than travel to Auckland. International acts will only perform at a venues that are econmically viable for them and as far as I can see the South Island doesn't currently have any such venues, just as there wasn't in Auckland until the Vector Arena. Why should the south island miss out on world class entertainment just because negative, narrow minded, tunnelled visioned people such as yourself choose to be negative. Despite what Labour will have you believe, its not a crime to think positive.
Christchurch
AB, you have obviously not heard of the Westpac Arena in Christchurch which holds 9,000 and suits the requirements of most acts. FYI I am a glass half-full person so lay off the negativities yourself! There is nothing wrong in having an alternative opinion and being able to substantiate it.
Fill it up
Your whole live is probably spent running on half empty. Go and tank up with high octane positivity. Dundedin will host premium events and I know you will be the first to line up and buy tickets.
Absolutely, Positively...Blind
Dunedin Doubter is absolutely right. AB's whole argument is based around BLIND optimism. Nobody should subscribe to that. Healthy debate assists in the due diligence process.
Chance of economic gain?
I fail to see how there can be any economic benefit by simply tearing down an existing stadium and building a new one. The opposite may apply. There will be less disposable income in 50,000 households, which is a lot less money to be spent with our local retailers and service industries, even though they will be required to pay higher commercial rates.
And the wider economic impact is?
I'm not saying the stadium will make money as a stand alone entity. It will be a piece of civic infrastructure like the Town Hall, Moana Pool, the Art Gallery, and Botanic gardens to name a few. In pure accounting terms none of these pay their way but the City is better off (I was going to say richer) for having them.
AB is Delusional
Holding large events is a complex task, one that many entities have tried and failed to do. Just look at the theatre debacles in AK, the soccer matches that lost money, Area9 in Central that tanked leaving 3/4 million dollars in unpaid bills, that concert in the Octagon, that failed miserably.
Is this Filed of Dreams? "Build it and they will come?" B/s all it is a giant conflict of interest, and all these parties are shifting the risk from themselves to the public. Who will lose if it fails? US. Who will win if it is successful? Private Eneterprise. The world is rapidly changing and then fat lot of good a stadium is if we enter another depression. All these people just want more debt assigned to us, and it is probably better for them if it does fail, then once again they will get a physical asset for imaginary debt....
PS Build it just don't expect everyone else to pay for it.. I thought we were capitalists, AB and the rest of your Socialist buddies should reach into your own pockets...
Paul P
So its not a business venture, its a cultural icon is that what your saying? Cos i don't think the DCC agrees with you on that...
If the stadium was so great
If the stadium was so great why wouldn't the private sector cough up to pay for it?
Why should Dunedin ratepayers subsidise any rugby team, let alone a team that has run at a loss both on the field and financially for the last few years?
Why should big acts come to Dunedin when Dunedin can't even sell out the Regent Theatre (Seats 1,684) for a genuine international act with inter-generation appeal like John Cleese?
The fans attending Highlanders games have numbered somewhere in the vicinity of 6000 for the 2009 season, why would you expect this to change just because there is a new stadium?
I hope there are enough people in Dunedin with the brains to met out due retribution at the next local body elections to those pro-stadium councillors who proceeded with this profoundly stupid decision.
Careful
Careful, you will be called negative for asking such searching questions...
who pays
Like most of these type of people - big ideas but sure make someone foots the bill in case it goes belly up
I don't agree with the DCC
I don't agree with the DCC on a lot of fronts.
We all pay for stuff via our rates that we don't use. I haven't been to the library, the civic pools (what do they cost - $6m pa to operate and why doesn't private enterprise pay for them if they are so good) for years or use kerbside recycling or council housing. Still pay for them and am not unhappy about it.
Paul P
Paul P, the answer is that Dunedin had a perfectly good stadium already... We didn't need a new one. The proof is that world cup rugby games would be played at Carisbrook if the new stadium was not completed. So why again did we need it?
P.P.
I thought Paul Potts was a singer, not a comedian...
Bugger the rugby
I agree Mike, you would be mad to build a stadium for one event or sport. That the new one is likely to be ready for the rugby world cup is a bonus, it's not the reason.
Have many strings to my bow
Have many strings to my bow but singing isn't one of them and come to think of it, I'm not very funny either. Will have to settle for good looking, intelligent and open minded.
Carisbrook
Carisbrook is an absolute joke. The fact Dunedin residents are happy for international teams and visitors to see, let alone use this scrap yard is beyond me. Look at the venues other countries have to offer, and how proud they are to boost these facilities. Why don't all the people against the stadium move to Stewart Island and construct their own third world sh*t hole?
AB
Not a very positive spin there AB. The argument remains that alot less money could have been spent on tarting up Carisbrook than on building an under-used new stadium which becomes a burdon to the city.
Fluffy economic spin-offs will remain to be seen.
Paul P
So what is the stadium for? Concerts? Cricket? Netball? Conferences?
Not in the revised edition
Dunedin
Before you say anything I lived in Northeast Valley for ten years, and the fact that Dunedin with a population of 120,000 wants the BIGGEST stadium in NZ and the second largest in the Southern Hemisphere is a joke
(http://www.ourstadium.co.nz/multipurpose.html)
What with 10% of the population of AK.
Its airline acronym "DUDS" is appropriate. At the 2001 census, Dunedin went against the national trend (7.%) and LOST 3.2% of its population, its a town full of students and streetkids.
It talks about seating for 30,000 so it plans to get a QUARTER of its population to games etc?
The website is a joke, full of grandiose ideas and empty dreams, 500 extra students because of the stadium? If its such a good idea then why havent some one done it? Have a look at the new Staple Centre in LA...... Privately Funded.
Auckland SHOULD have built the Harbor one because it is our largest city.
PS
I think Duds needs A stadium, but I think rebuilding Carisbrook, or the current option, but both at the cost of a NZRU/Highlanders/ Private funding venture. They take the risk, and if it pays off then all good.
Post new comment