Stadium of Canterbury
-
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. -
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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 backThat's confusing. When you say current site, do you mean Addington? As that's purely theory and completely irrelevant, but yes of course if in theory a new stadium was built on that site and it had expanded hospitality it'd screw over the Lincoln Rd bars. If you mean the current site as in the site currently being prepared for the new MUA, then we've covered that.
Hard for me to comment on the corporate boxes thing, as they're so limited at Addington that I find our customers snap up the opportunity whenever we have it available. But in general re throwing money at clients via perks and entertainment, it's absolutely rife in my industry. In fact it's a veritable arms race of hospitality, events and loyalty programs.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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 backThat's confusing. When you say current site, do you mean Addington? As that's purely theory and completely irrelevant, but yes of course if in theory a new stadium was built on that site and it had expanded hospitality it'd screw over the Lincoln Rd bars. If you mean the current site as in the site currently being prepared for the new MUA, then we've covered that.
Hard for me to comment on the corporate boxes thing, as they're so limited at Addington that I find our customers snap up the opportunity whenever we have it available. But in general re throwing money at clients via perks and entertainment, it's absolutely rife in my industry. In fact it's a veritable arms race of hospitality, events and loyalty programs.
So basically a fair bit of your argument for trading a roof into better hospo is because it benefits you?
Yeah, it could be because you have better knowledge of how that works as well but either way there is a bit vested in your position.
I will still maintain that an easily accessible stadium with a roof nearby to facilities to 'make a night of it', (especially in your climate) is the best way to go.
Hospo can make money but bums on seats makes more over the long run. -
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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 backThat's confusing. When you say current site, do you mean Addington? As that's purely theory and completely irrelevant, but yes of course if in theory a new stadium was built on that site and it had expanded hospitality it'd screw over the Lincoln Rd bars. If you mean the current site as in the site currently being prepared for the new MUA, then we've covered that.
Hard for me to comment on the corporate boxes thing, as they're so limited at Addington that I find our customers snap up the opportunity whenever we have it available. But in general re throwing money at clients via perks and entertainment, it's absolutely rife in my industry. In fact it's a veritable arms race of hospitality, events and loyalty programs.
So basically a fair bit of your argument for trading a roof into better hospo is because it benefits you?
Yeah, it could be because you have better knowledge of how that works as well but either way there is a bit vested in your position.
I will still maintain that an easily accessible stadium with a roof nearby to facilities to 'make a night of it', (especially in your climate) is the best way to go.
Hospo can make money but bums on seats makes more over the long run.No I'm not in the least worried about whether I have a beer at a bar in the stadium or nearby. I'm just pointing out that not having increased hospo at the stadium is an opportunity missed. I think the best way to make a new stadium viable over the long run is a larger capacity, more impressive, open arena, with increased hospo a bonus which would also generate greater income for the stadium.
-
-
whilst i have been happy with a lower number of fixed seats, it definitely needs the temporary capacity to be higher
i would love to know what forsyth Barr wold cost to build right now, its famously a pretty simple design, two permanent stand with the light weight roof spanning the gap and temp stands at either end
I wonder how much is due to the fancier option, infilling the corners, no big column in the corners, making one big stadium rather than two stands and a roof...if that makes sense
-
-
I can see Christchurch ending up with a disappointing compromise that pleases nobody and they end up regretting in years to come. When they eventually start the thing that is...
-
@tim said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp I imagine that just covid related supply/cost issues will negatively affect a lot of large projects.
just imagine if they managed to get a contract to build it 5 years ago ... y'know, 5 years after the earthquake that wrecked it
-
-
@crazy-horse said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I can see Christchurch ending up with a disappointing compromise that pleases nobody and they end up regretting in years to come. When they eventually start the thing that is...
Yep, that’s what is going to happen. A big shame, considering coming from Lancaster Park to whatever tiny stadium they end up with.
-
@kiwimurph said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark entering the fray to say i told you so in 5.....4.....3.....
Haha yep.
-
This is no surprise to me. After the CCC already quietly down-spec'd it around a year ago by removing a concourse, now they've fucked around for so long they've run it smack bang into the biggest construction boom/crisis in NZ in living memory. The only options for them now are to reduce the size or further remove features.
The real solution is to ditch the fucking "We want Ed Sheeran" roof which might be $150m of the cost (wild guess but it's no doubt a huge proportion of the build cost), make it 40k seats with all the creature comforts and bring it in on or around budget. Problem is this would now take God knows how long to design and get moving as they never seriously considered it in the first place so don't even have concept designs. They could default to their design and build contractors' Australian experience and adopt and modify an existing design to suit.
-
@crazy-horse said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I can see Christchurch ending up with a disappointing compromise that pleases nobody and they end up regretting in years to come. When they eventually start the thing that is...
That was what we already had at 25k seats.
