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 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, thatâs 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.
-
I wrote the following letter on 18.12.2019 and sent it to local and central government politicians and tried to get Stuff to publish it. Check out the last sentence of the first full paragraph.....
Dear Sir or Madam
I am writing to express my concerns around the Christchurch Stadium / âMulti-Use Arenaâ project.
Firstly, I was extremely disappointed to read in the news on Monday 18/11/19 that there was already a shortfall in funding and that this was in actual fact getting worse by the month as building costs rise. Disappointed, but not at all surprised. After all, of the initial $500m projection of funds required to build a fully enclosed stadium of approximately 30,000, the total available between the CCC and central government was only $485m. So there was immediately a shortfall which could only mean either a shrinking in size of the stadium or a reduction in quality (aesthetic and/or functionality), ala the Metro Sports Centre. Naturally over time, the deficiency in funds only grows as costs rise, inflation takes an effect and more and more feasibility studies and the like are potentially commissioned.
Subsequently, on Monday 09.12.2019 it was reported the stadium would take the form of a 25,000 seat, fully roofed $470m project. This is an immensely disappointing announcement for a number of reasons including the low capacity and the accompanying narrative around the removal of several features in order to save costs. I understand the âelevated walkwayâ referred to is actually a mid-level concourse including toilets and concessions which now means all the toilets and concessions will be at ground level. This is not an optional extra, but a basic pre-requisite of a quality, modern stadium. Reduction of the façade area can only mean an aesthetic/architectural feature is being discarded. Similarly the roof design has changed. More and more, it seems this stadium is becoming a very basic (âplasticâ roofed) box and Iâve already heard it referred to as a âclick clack containerâ.
A basic 25,000 seat stadium is not an investment in our future, nor a vote in confidence for our region. Itâs the absolute bare minimum requirement and little more than a lemon.
This stadium â irrespective of the nature of the project in terms of fully enclosed or not (and Iâll get to this later) simply must be aesthetically pleasing as it will be a centrepiece of our largely rebuilt central city. It should look impressive when lit up at night for events and it should possess some architectural features akin to some of the interesting buildings which have sprung up in the CBD since 2011. You should want people who approach the stadium on foot to be drawn to it and those walking past it should want to stop and photograph it. It also must, must, be of a size which can a) attract top-shelf sporting events, and b) be future-proofed for a population which CCC figures project could top 700,000 regionally within 50 years (well within the lifetime of any new stadia).
Instead, based on the ever-reducing funds available, the stadium continues to shrink in capacity (original talk was of a 30,000 or even 35,000 seat stadium but this is now 25,000 seats) and in all likelihood it will evolve into a very simple design which certainly wonât enhance our city-scape and may actually detract from it. We will end up with a very basic design like Forsyth Barr Stadium (FBS), only smaller again and just as ordinary-looking, if not moreso. Apologies here to Dunedinites, but novelty value is one of the few things your stadium has going for it. Itâs functional but relatively small, it isnât fully surrounded by seating - and normally doesnât have any at all at one end â and itâs far from an architectural marvel aesthetically with itâs vast plastic cladding and the two end stand areas looking like additions. Compared to the likes of the Dallas Cowboysâ AT&T stadium â aesthetically, not in size â FBS is very, very ordinary. Again, functional, but ordinary.
Looks aside, such a small stadium leaves Christchurch in a chasing pack of several stadiums who would bid for All Black tests, including FBS, Waikato Stadium, Albany/QBE, McLean Park and possibly even Trafalgar park in Nelson. The majority of the âTier 1â tests would continue to go to Auckland and Wellington due to their greater capacities. Christchurch would never see a Lions test or any RWC knock-out games should we host this tournament again. The rugby public might be sated temporarily should a deal be struck with NZ Rugby for regular tests for the first few years, but after that itâd be open season and big games would be as rare as hensâ teeth (all you need to do is review the stats around All Black domestic test venues since 2012 to see how few Tier 1 games are shared around the smaller venues such as FBS, Waikato Stadium and Albany). For New Zealandsâ second-largest city, this is simply unacceptable.
Why is there such a drive to build a small, roofed venue? Is the bang for our buck equation there with the MUA option? I think not.
As far as concerts go our only advantage over Dunedin would be ease of access from other centres and their own accommodation issues. However, as far as promoters are concerned, are these concerns? Iâd say no, given people travel to Dunedin in their droves regardless. Could events at our stadium charge more for tickets, making Christchurch more attractive than Dunedin as a venue to promoters? I donât see any reason why we could, with the added issue potentially of a smaller capacity. I understand also that FBS is provided at no charge to promoters in order to encourage big acts to Dunedin. Is the CCC (or V-Base) going to offer this?
What about other events which might attract people to Christchurch outside of rugby and concerts? I canât think of any other major money-spinners.
The alternative, making good use of the $470m now available to us? A state-of-the-art (or close to it), âopen roofedâ (thatâs no roof, but fully covered stands) fully seated, fully surrounded (ie the stands all join up without gaps) stadium of approximately 40,000. Bankwest Stadium in Parramatta, Sydney, was recently completed at a cost of AUD360m (NZD382m) and seats 30,000. Upgrades to this design could be enclosed concourses and an attractive solid wrap all around the stands and concourses for weatherproofing and as a design feature, but there may be other costly features which wouldnât be required. At AUD12k per seat, a similar design seating around 40,000 could be completed for approximately whatâs currently available to the CCC. And a bonus: this stadium only took 19-20 months to build.
Part of the reason for the lack of resistance thus far to the MUA proposal is that people are so used to the extremely uncomfortable stadium weâve had to deal with at Addington for the last seven years. But that doesnât warrant an extreme reaction in another direction ie an enclosed rugby stadium, for this is to all intents and purposes â and rightly so - a rugby ground which can be used for other stuff on occasion. A truly world class new stadium, a jewel in the cityâs crown, would by default attract hordes of people including even the most casual of fans initially for the experience, before settling back to above recent average crowds for rugby games as has been the experience in Dunedin since FBS was built. I attended dozens of games at Lancaster Park/Jade/AMI Stadium and no-one ever lamented not having a roof over our heads. On occasion, sitting in the cold, rain (or even heavy fog!) is simply part of the experience.
The opportunity cost of an open stadium? A concert every two years perhaps? One or two other small eventsâŚ.perhaps? What exactly is Forsyth Barr Stadium hosting that is âhurtingâ our local economy so badly and so often that so desperately makes the CCC want to abandon sane principles such as future-proofing and the economic boosts provided by regular Tier 1 All Black tests and other major rectangular field sporting events? Given such a large chunk of the economic boost provided to Dunedin by the likes of Ed Sheeran concerts is hospitality sector income from Cantabrians travelling and being forced to spend money on accommodation, food and beverage for a night or two, how exactly do we benefit from this when the same fans would simply be driving from their homes to a local stadium, and back again, with a far lesser percentage of visitors than Dunedin receives due to our much greater local population? Surely an annual All Black test â even if not always sold out â is a bigger boost to our economy than a biennial concert we might otherwise miss out on to FBS? The larger open stadium could also attract stadium concerts we currently miss out on such as U2, Elton John etc.
From a national stand-point, if we are to ever attract a global event such as a Rugby World Cup again, having another large capacity stadium in addition to Eden Park and Westpac Stadium would be crucial when competing with other nations/regions. But itâs not just rugby; there are FIFA events (NZ Football has just announced a joint bid with Australia for the 2023 Womensâ Football World Cup for an example of the type of even which can and will come up) and more which we would also be able to host, and we could host finals matches with a stadium of significance.
An under-sized, otherwise aesthetically boring but roofed stadium is simply not the way forward for a recovering and growing region. A decision to build a 25,000 seat stadium â and particularly a basic design â would soon be regretted and lamented on a large scale throughout Canterbury and New Zealand in general as itâs limitations became apparent. An opportunity to build a landmark project is on the verge of being lost to what seemingly amounts to ill-placed Dunedin-envy. At the very least, some serious due diligence should be undertaken re non-roofed stadium designs, or if it already has, make the findings public and a legitimate topic for debate based on arguments for both options being fairly represented in an open forum. Has there even been a feasibility study commissioned/completed for an open stadium option? How much consideration has been given to this option? It feels at the moment as if after 8 years of inaction, the first idea to be somewhat ratified by CCC is now being rushed through and to hell with whatâs best long-term.
-
