by Metiria Turei
While it will never likely get the same kind of press that the Auckland Waterfront Stadium did, It nevertheless raises all the same questions about the transparency of local council and central government involvement in these massive infrastructure projects.
I oppose the stadium, and the more I read the more questions I have. Probably the most scathing release to date, admittedly from stadium opponents, reads like a soap opera of insider deals and dubious conflicts of interest:
Conflicts of Interest
The issue of conflicts of interest has arisen many times as many of the players in the project are linked in a variety of ways.
* John Farry, was a minor shareholder in a company that owned land at the Awatea Stadium site. He is the cousin of Malcolm Farry who is the Carisbrook Stadium Trust chairman.
John Farry was past chairman of the Community Trust of Otago, which has indicated ‘in principle’ it will donate up to $10 million to fund the stadium.
* Ron Anderson’s company, Arrow International, was hired to manage the stadium project. Ron Anderson is a Stadium Trust trustee.
* Dunedin Mayor Peter Chin was once a partner in the law firm John Farry and Hansen, now Webb Farry.
*Stadium stakeholders group appointed retired High Court Judge John Hansen of Christchurch to look after the interests of organisations funding the stadium. He had joined John Farry and Hansen, earlier in his career.
The release goes on to claim that upwards of $50 million has been spent to date by the Council with almost nothing to show for it. Given these claims, I wonder why no other politicians are questioning what is going on down here? This leads me to the question of finance, as public funds of any kind should be spent transparently. It’s just healthy politics.
Who is going to be the anchor tenant? It was originally announced that the Otago Rugby football Union would anchor the site, but this seems to have gone by the wayside and they are now listed as casual hirers of the venue. This is probably because they are broke. No one else is fronting and you have to wonder what the ratepayer’s exposure will be when the operating expenses outstrip the income.
Do we have a case here of where the profits of the venture, mainly in construction and land transfers, are privatised while the losses get socialised to the Council ratepayers?
Will it follow the trajectory of Wembley Stadium, where the costs doubled and trebled and then got slashed as banks and the ratepayers refused to cough up any more?
Will it follow Genoa Stadium’s trajectory, put on the block after mounting huge debt, leaving the shareholders, 70% of which were ratepayers, with a massive loss?
Are we likely to follow Stadium Australia, and gift a mega asset to an Australian Bank?
But a decade after the disastrous float of Stadium Australia Group its banker, ANZ, will take control of the debt-laden stadium for next to nothing. In effect the bank has become a mortgagee in possession.
Stadium Australia unit holders were unlikely to see their investment prosper, said John Clarke, head of ANZ Infrastructure Services.
“They will never receive any distributions, they’ll never receive any return on capital,” Mr Clarke said.
ANZ has offered $9.7 million, or 10c a unit, to take over the group, which has been recommended by the group’s board. The offer was made at a discount to the trading price of the units, which closed yesterday at 11.5c.
It seems a pretty risky type of business to engage in. Riskier than opening a restaurant, I reckon. Given that a stadium is so capital intensive and has a relatively poor jobs/capital ratio, it cannot even be justified as “economic stimulus”.
The $90 million committed by the Council last week would be better spent on maintaining Dunedin’s existing roads and other civic infrastructure, like the council housing stock that has been so sorely neglected. That would keep Dunedinites warm and dry this winter and keep Dunedin businesses in business.
![]()
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Metiria Turei on Wed, February 11th, 2009
Tags: council, dunedin, green, new zealand, party, politics, stadium
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei






on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Oh, Meyt!
Just like the stoush happening in Welli over the placement of a new sports stadium on Cobham Drive; off bus routes, so necessitating a huge carpark, and on land which is part of the Rongotai reclamation at the end of Evans Bay, so not the most stable piece of ground in Welli.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4842561a23918.html (lead story, Tuesday)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4842519a6483.html (editorial, Tuesday)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4841518a23918.html (1st story, Monday)
It appears that he has incurrred the wrath of Wellington’s most prominent property developer’s wife. I mean, incurred the wrath of the Mayor.
The situation on WCC is so compromised by conflicts of interest, it should be a study in local government corruption.
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
Dunedin was planning a large insulation programme of North East Valley doing it street by street to maximise efficiencies of location. Unfortuantely the government changed and the project is shelved. So while governments all around the world purse infrastructure projects Dunedin’s want to spend up on baubles. Recreation is important, but Otago Rugby Union is no longer a Club it is a business. Perhaps Dunedin would have more luck pushing their insulation bid. It would provide more jobs reduce health costs and decrease the amount of smog in North East Valley.
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
But everyone in Dunedin is related?
It’s worse than Tasmania. Especially the ‘old money’ there. Though I agree on the basis that ‘Farry’ (ask Bruce Farr) is just an Anglisization of Al Fakhry – and this stadium may well cause air strikes from the Israeli’s (they hate ‘uman shields mon).
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
Ps: Ah sorry! How immoderate of me (once again). Whom I should note are an esteemed and respected 5th generation bunch of hard-working Kiwi’s whom I think you will find above reproach Metiria
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
# Mark Says:
February 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
> ‘Farry’ (ask Bruce Farr) is just an Anglisization of Al Fakhry – and this stadium may well cause air strikes from the Israeli’s (they hate ‘uman shields mon).
It won’t, because Al Fakhry is a Lebanese Christian surname, and Israel’s divide-and-rule strategy re Lebanon has always been to try and cultivate alliances with the Christian community against the Sunni and Shi’ite communities.
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
Have sympathy for the argument for those needing Insulation – including me.
And yes, all Public Funding should have transparency riders.
But if this fails (and it’s a much needed improvement), a lot of Private Individuals will do their dollars too. Personally I think it’ll pay off. There is a difference between Council Funds and Govt. funds – it’s why we have a great swimming complex and a Hospital that will Kill you.
‘Smart Bomb’ is an oxymoron that has dropped! from military vocab – modern weapons tend to kill everyone close – including their own people.
Israel has the one ally it needs, and it’s not regionally based, though they’re working on it.
Mind you, I see O’Bama has stopped ‘the surge’ in Afghanistan from going ahead.
Somehow I thought he might, but he must tread very very carefully – it’s dangerous for the Pres’ to curb the Pentagon.
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
PS: The Israeli attempts to divide the Lebanon along Secular lines have quite rightly met with utter scorn and rejection.
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
Stadia are the last refuge of incompetent councils.
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
Wow, this time I agree with you, Owen. Great post Meyt. Even using single bottom line accounting it’s not a goer.
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
Hey! Bob Hope and Bing Crosby! I loved you guys in ‘The Road to Mandalay’.
Sing ‘Summer Wind’ for me Bing ….gwan gwan…
Bob, is it true that God hangs around with you all day, just to laugh at your jokes? I saw it on the Simpsons – must be true.
Just cos Auckland Wellington and Christchurch have had fantastic fiscal success with their stadia doesn’t mean those lefty scarfies can have one. Na. Dunedin can die on the Vine eh – (snigger snigger).
I wouldn’t let you two run an Ice Cream Parlour in a heatwave
thanks for the laughs always etc.
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
Owen – a very succinct summary of the situation. Well done.
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
Socialism strikes again.
The stadium is a business. If the business case doesn’t work, then why is it being built?
Time to fire the “directors”…..
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
Ah! Rugby World Cup Dear?
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
BP – Socialism? These are the capitalist elite of Dunedin as far as I can tell! But I agree, fire the directors!
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
>>Socialism?
Councils. Demand our money, “redistribute” it to their pet projects, which usually include hand cash to well-connected cronies. Socialism.
>>fire the directors!
No argument here….
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
Jesus. Keyboard disabled or what…..
which usually includes cash being handed to well-connected cronies. Socialism.
Like or Dislike:
0
0 (0)
There is lots of Local Government bizarre spending. The Selwyn District Council and the Christchurch City Council getting into bed with Corporate Farming to promote a dam in the foothills that will have negative impacts on the environment, economy and the social fabric of Canterbury. It is ironic when the councils can spend millions on this without ratepayer input and then agonise about spending one or two hundred thousand on where to locate a library. Go figure.
Then there is the ChCh City Council deciding to spend many millions of ratepayers money on a new council building. The decision was rushed through at a rushed council meeting only hours before the polls closed. Where was Rodney when you needed him
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
Owen is almost right. Stadia are the last refuge of incompetent councils that can’t afford light rail.
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
In answer to the title: “Is the Dunedin Stadium a financial risk?”, the answer is no, it’s not a financial risk at all. A risk implies the possibility that it might succeed, whereas with the proposed stadium, the numbers just don’t stack up even before the inevitable cost overrun is considered, so it’s a guaranteed failure if it goes ahead.
I don’t object to some public money subsidising sporting or cultural activities, but in this case (a) the price is way too high, and (b) I’ve not heard of anything convincing that the new stadium could be used for that can’t already be done at the current one (Carisbrook).
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
Well; One of my Marketing Companies did several deals with the Chief Exec. at the MCG.
I’m not sure all of you fully comprehend the innumerable financial spin-offs that these Stadiums can develop.
Tens of thousands of customers in one place – a Capitalists dream come true.
I would describe the Dunedin Upgrade’s fiscal potential as virtually open ended – for the whole city – and b4 the World Cup?
Millions Maja, goshdarn millions for Dunedin, and NZ
– think Big now Kiwi…
Like or Dislike:
0
1 (-1)
Mark: if it’s really a ‘Capitalists dream come true’ with ‘virtually open ended fiscal potential’, I’m sure there will be capitalists just lining up to pay for it? Oh, wait a minute, they must want the public to pay so they can profit …
If the ratepayers/taxpayers don’t have to front up with most of the money (the DCC is trying to get money from central government), I’ll withdraw my objections.
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
Roy Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
> Mark: if it’s really a ‘Capitalists dream come true’ with ‘virtually open ended fiscal potential’, I’m sure there will be capitalists just lining up to pay for it?
of course not. It’s only a capitalist’s dream come true if you can profit from it without having to use your own capital to build it.
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
Aw Geez Roy – Third Planet out and Land baby.
The Public as you call them, has always paid, and always will – where you been?
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
4000 at the rugby last night at the Brook.
What does a white elephant smell like?
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)
World Class Facitily for multi-spectrum events in Dunedin? Well, it may induce a lot of Rugby World Cup Tourists to travel the length of our fair land.
Or should we forget about tourism?
Then it would be a drawcard for international enterainment tours.
Our No1 Tourist Centre (Queenstown) ain’t so very far away either.
Reckon Dylan’d play there?
And it’s drawcard value for all kiwis south of Christchurch?
Negligible?
Nandor, accessing your website is the hardest thing my computer has encountered (unsuccessfully).
A great shame as not many of our MP’s (past and present) make themselves available so generously.
I wonder if others find the same prob?
Anyway – I try to agree with the ‘lets do nothing’ approach – but it rings holla to me
Like or Dislike:
0
1 (-1)
Mark: I know the public has always and will always pay – but the public should expect something in return for it’s investment.
I didn’t use to oppose the stadium – up till recently I’ve been working under the (clearly erroneous) assumption that the DCC knows what it is doing (and I’ve been quite happy with most of their spending). However the ’spend several tens of millions of ratepayers money in the hope that people will come’ doesn’t make any sense in this case. The case for the stadium is extremely weak.
It’s no use for cricket (rectangular pitch), has minimal facilities for conferences (and we already have better venues for that) and concert promoters have said that Dunedin doesn’t have the numbers, so the _only_ likely use I’ve heard of for the new stadium that Carisbrook couldn’t be used for is the Rugby World Cup – and a handful of rugby matches is going to make this all worthwhile? Yeah, right.
Like or Dislike:
1
0 (+1)