Stadium of Canterbury
-
@rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
bells and whistle
Tottenham and Parramatta stadiums' bells and whistles hospitality are based on size and amount of use.
Parramatta won't have loads more bells and whistles because of its 5,000 extra capacity. But because it has 2 financially viable tenants playing in longer competitions (than pro RU) bringing in about 2.5 times as many match-days all year round as Christchurch (which will be basically be a one town / one team stadium).
Tottenham also, with it's average of 25 home games a season, is at 2.5. times the use of Christchurch.
No one builds loads of bars in concourses if the venue gets used bugger all, unless it is public money with no consequences ...
I think there would have been scope for greater hospitality if all the focus hadn't been on the roof. I'm not saying you have to have multiple food courts, a gastro pub, 471 different craft beers and a Bubba Gumps available, but I look at how much money gets spent at the venues down Lincoln Road before people wander down to the dump and think how much better the business case would have been for any new stadium had the powers that be factored in getting a piece of it.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
I'll take three.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
I'll take three.
what's incredible is, those numbers stack up somehow given an NFL team plays 8 home games a year...
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
I'll take three.
what's incredible is, those numbers stack up somehow given an NFL team plays 8 home games a year...
... if the city provides the stadium on a sweetheart deal because ... sports?
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
bells and whistle
Tottenham and Parramatta stadiums' bells and whistles hospitality are based on size and amount of use.
Parramatta won't have loads more bells and whistles because of its 5,000 extra capacity. But because it has 2 financially viable tenants playing in longer competitions (than pro RU) bringing in about 2.5 times as many match-days all year round as Christchurch (which will be basically be a one town / one team stadium).
Tottenham also, with it's average of 25 home games a season, is at 2.5. times the use of Christchurch.
No one builds loads of bars in concourses if the venue gets used bugger all, unless it is public money with no consequences ...
I think there would have been scope for greater hospitality if all the focus hadn't been on the roof. I'm not saying you have to have multiple food courts, a gastro pub, 471 different craft beers and a Bubba Gumps available, but I look at how much money gets spent at the venues down Lincoln Road before people wander down to the dump and think how much better the business case would have been for any new stadium had the powers that be factored in getting a piece of it.
I'm am probably giving way to much credit for thought to the decision makers here but surely directing punter's spending toward already existing ratepayer businesses is better than having a multinational provider with the catering contract take $ out of the region?
I went to FBS for the first time a couple of weeks ago and tbh I think the formula they have there (with a few extra seats ) would work well for you.
As punters we spent money locally for most of our food and drink but still spent a bit at the stadium. The offerings were as expected. Being close to other food and drink options meant that the stadium offerings weren't an issue.
By far the biggest bonus was the roof. -
@crucial I thought of that trade-off, too. But moving the stadium already spells the death-knell for at least one of the Lincoln Rd venues. I don't see Morrell & co and the Pedal Pusher surviving without the revenue they get from Crusaders games. And the existing venues within the Four Avenues opened without regard to the MUA as it was always years away. So unless the CCC somehow forces punters to go to the Lincoln Rd venues, or grant them new licences near the new venue, that argument doesn't hold water.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial I thought of that trade-off, too. But moving the stadium already spells the death-knell for at least one of the Lincoln Rd venues. I don't see Morrell & co and the Pedal Pusher surviving without the revenue they get from Crusaders games. And the existing venues within the Four Avenues opened without regard to the MUA as it was always years away. So unless the CCC somehow forces punters to go to the Lincoln Rd venues, or grant them new licences near the new venue, that argument doesn't hold water.
I've tried to work it out but I can't. What does MUA stand for?
-
@crucial Sorry, I should add that I do take your point re the revenue being best directed towards existing establishments, and I agree that's a good thing. But by the same token, those establishments began trading without the expectation of stadium revenue so they wouldn't be handicapped by a stadium having it's own on-site hospitality.
-
@hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial I thought of that trade-off, too. But moving the stadium already spells the death-knell for at least one of the Lincoln Rd venues. I don't see Morrell & co and the Pedal Pusher surviving without the revenue they get from Crusaders games. And the existing venues within the Four Avenues opened without regard to the MUA as it was always years away. So unless the CCC somehow forces punters to go to the Lincoln Rd venues, or grant them new licences near the new venue, that argument doesn't hold water.
I've tried to work it out but I can't. What does MUA stand for?
Multi Use Arena
What they really should call it is the WHESCTCIODCHWCAHSOASS or the We Hope Ed Sheeran Comes To Christchurch Instead Of Dunedin Concert Hall Which Can Also Host Sports On A Small Scale
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial I thought of that trade-off, too. But moving the stadium already spells the death-knell for at least one of the Lincoln Rd venues. I don't see Morrell & co and the Pedal Pusher surviving without the revenue they get from Crusaders games. And the existing venues within the Four Avenues opened without regard to the MUA as it was always years away. So unless the CCC somehow forces punters to go to the Lincoln Rd venues, or grant them new licences near the new venue, that argument doesn't hold water.
Sorry, the argument totally holds water. I am only arguing that your desire for lots of hospo at any new build will be detrimental to hospo wherever it is sited.
I get that moving from the current site will shift trade and that some businesses will suffer but years of notice on that front gives them the opportunity to plan for their future (or not).
Despite that it is still preferable for $ to be directed at local businesses than going into the pockets of the likes of Spotless who, whatever their promises going into a contract would be will still revert to hot dogs, burgers, chips and piss weak beer served by minimum rate casuals.
Besides that aren't there new business opportunities around the outside of the stadium itself?Main point is that if asked whether I would trade a slightly better menu/drink for 2 hours of the event day for a roof the answer is a big yes.
If I lived in Dunedin I would go to plenty of games with a visit to Emersons on the way to and from. -
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial I thought of that trade-off, too. But moving the stadium already spells the death-knell for at least one of the Lincoln Rd venues. I don't see Morrell & co and the Pedal Pusher surviving without the revenue they get from Crusaders games. And the existing venues within the Four Avenues opened without regard to the MUA as it was always years away. So unless the CCC somehow forces punters to go to the Lincoln Rd venues, or grant them new licences near the new venue, that argument doesn't hold water.
I've tried to work it out but I can't. What does MUA stand for?
Multi Use Arena
What they really should call it is the WHESCTCIODCHWCAHSOASS or the We Hope Ed Sheeran Comes To Christchurch Instead Of Dunedin Concert Hall Which Can Also Host Sports On A Small Scale
I will stop now because any business plan based on hoping Ed Sheeran will be playing is just plain wrong on somany counts.
-
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial I thought of that trade-off, too. But moving the stadium already spells the death-knell for at least one of the Lincoln Rd venues. I don't see Morrell & co and the Pedal Pusher surviving without the revenue they get from Crusaders games. And the existing venues within the Four Avenues opened without regard to the MUA as it was always years away. So unless the CCC somehow forces punters to go to the Lincoln Rd venues, or grant them new licences near the new venue, that argument doesn't hold water.
Sorry, the argument totally holds water. I am only arguing that your desire for lots of hospo at any new build will be detrimental to hospo wherever it is sited.
I get that moving from the current site will shift trade and that some businesses will suffer but years of notice on that front gives them the opportunity to plan for their future (or not).
Despite that it is still preferable for $ to be directed at local businesses than going into the pockets of the likes of Spotless who, whatever their promises going into a contract would be will still revert to hot dogs, burgers, chips and piss weak beer served by minimum rate casuals.
Besides that aren't there new business opportunities around the outside of the stadium itself?Main point is that if asked whether I would trade a slightly better menu/drink for 2 hours of the event day for a roof the answer is a big yes.
If I lived in Dunedin I would go to plenty of games with a visit to Emersons on the way to and from.It doesn't hold water, because the trade that could be done at stadium venues was never going to the CBD venues anyway; it had been with Lincoln Road venues. So people drinking and eating at the new stadium can't be detrimental to CBD venues, as they never had that trade anyway. It'd be different if we were talking about a stadium on the same CBD site having been demolished, venues holding on awaiting a rebuild and then the MUA cutting them off at the knees by expanding it's hospo offering.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial I thought of that trade-off, too. But moving the stadium already spells the death-knell for at least one of the Lincoln Rd venues. I don't see Morrell & co and the Pedal Pusher surviving without the revenue they get from Crusaders games. And the existing venues within the Four Avenues opened without regard to the MUA as it was always years away. So unless the CCC somehow forces punters to go to the Lincoln Rd venues, or grant them new licences near the new venue, that argument doesn't hold water.
Sorry, the argument totally holds water. I am only arguing that your desire for lots of hospo at any new build will be detrimental to hospo wherever it is sited.
I get that moving from the current site will shift trade and that some businesses will suffer but years of notice on that front gives them the opportunity to plan for their future (or not).
Despite that it is still preferable for $ to be directed at local businesses than going into the pockets of the likes of Spotless who, whatever their promises going into a contract would be will still revert to hot dogs, burgers, chips and piss weak beer served by minimum rate casuals.
Besides that aren't there new business opportunities around the outside of the stadium itself?Main point is that if asked whether I would trade a slightly better menu/drink for 2 hours of the event day for a roof the answer is a big yes.
If I lived in Dunedin I would go to plenty of games with a visit to Emersons on the way to and from.It doesn't hold water, because the trade that could be done at stadium venues was never going to the CBD venues anyway; it had been with Lincoln Road venues. So people drinking and eating at the new stadium can't be detrimental to CBD venues, as they never had that trade anyway. It'd be different if we were talking about a stadium on the same CBD site having been demolished, venues holding on awaiting a rebuild and then the MUA cutting them off at the knees by expanding it's hospo offering.
You don't think that expanding hospo offerings at the current site under a re-build would affect the Lincoln Road venues?
Corporate boxes and hospo has died at stadiums in NZ. Tax laws are the main reason. The days of throwing money at clients as a perk have long gone. If you want a white elephant like the Caketin is fast becoming then go for it. Keep it basic and attractive to punters while close to transport, accommodation and restaurants/bars is the way to go.
I thought the main reason that you currently struggle at times for crowds was that it is cold and uncomfortable, not because the pies aren't gourmet.
The roof really adds to the crowd atmosphere which has people coming back -
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Corporate boxes and hospo has died at stadiums in NZ. Tax laws are the main reason. The days of throwing money at clients as a perk have long gone.
Partial derail sorry, bun out of curiosity what changes are they? Making it harder to write off those expenses?
-
Does Bankwest have greater hospitality? I don’t even remember the hospitality from my visits out there.
Plus, it’s never been even half as cold, wet and windy as some of the miserable nights I’ve had at Lancaster Park.
Roof over hospitality for me - for my once every 3-5 years visits to Christchurch. 🤣
-
-
@cyclops said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Corporate boxes and hospo has died at stadiums in NZ. Tax laws are the main reason. The days of throwing money at clients as a perk have long gone.
Partial derail sorry, bun out of curiosity what changes are they? Making it harder to write off those expenses?
Maybe someone willing to own up to being an accountant can explain, all I know is that businesses used to be quite happy buying "perks" but it hardly happens now.
I think that the IRD over time have refined and tightened definitions and it is more the paperwork required that is a problem than the tax itself -
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@cyclops said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Corporate boxes and hospo has died at stadiums in NZ. Tax laws are the main reason. The days of throwing money at clients as a perk have long gone.
Partial derail sorry, bun out of curiosity what changes are they? Making it harder to write off those expenses?
Maybe someone willing to own up to being an accountant can explain, all I know is that businesses used to be quite happy buying "perks" but it hardly happens now.
I think that the IRD over time have refined and tightened definitions and it is more the paperwork required that is a problem than the tax itselfNot an accountant, but probably tightening of FBT (fringe benefit tax). It is costly for health insurance and multiple use cars, so I can assume it will be for a corporate box at a stadium. Also yes, the paperwork for a company car that is also used privately is enough to put anyone off.
-
@snowy said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@cyclops said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Corporate boxes and hospo has died at stadiums in NZ. Tax laws are the main reason. The days of throwing money at clients as a perk have long gone.
Partial derail sorry, bun out of curiosity what changes are they? Making it harder to write off those expenses?
Maybe someone willing to own up to being an accountant can explain, all I know is that businesses used to be quite happy buying "perks" but it hardly happens now.
I think that the IRD over time have refined and tightened definitions and it is more the paperwork required that is a problem than the tax itselfNot an accountant, but probably tightening of FBT (fringe benefit tax). It is costly for health insurance and multiple use cars, so I can assume it will be for a corporate box at a stadium. Also yes, the paperwork for a company car that is also used privately is enough to put anyone off.
I did read an article recently about FBT that basically said that a company can decide to give no Fringe Benefits and have no problems, or give them and almost create a whole FTE just to keep track of it all and make sure that you don't get it wrong and be penalised.
Makes it difficult even for sponsoring something. You can take clients and make sure that it is all 'marketing' but if you invite any staff that aren't 'working' with clients you have to declare it.
Have a look at the stadium corporate boxes these days. Hardly anyone using them.
