my theory was that it seems to work for Australia (and also perhaps America). To counter the popularity of sport on tv as well as to compete with other forms of entertainment, you need high quality facilities. NZs model of self sustaining stadiums that can barely keep up with maintaining itself, while charging it's tenants through the roof to get the revenue to do so is likely to result in declining attendances, and sports teams going broke while having to charge higher ticket prices to recoup costs.
I can't remember what ticket prices were at the time, but going on CPI $20 in '97 is roughly $29 now. Also, not sure how much better facilities some of the stadiums in Australia are compared to Westpac (apart from them mostly being rectangular). The attendances in major population centres are mainly due to population, less than 1% of Sydney turned up for the Sydney derby which is a lower percentage of Wellingtonians turning up for 'Nix games (with a larger population it is easier to also spread costs of upgrades/tenant subsidies).
Don't know where this is going, other than lets get an appropriately sized and shaped stadium (preferably also taking into account weather and public transport).
It's not a football thing though its all sports in NZ. A dozen years ago the Canes would sell out the stadium on a regular basis and the lions probably half filled it.
The North Island vs South Island cricket game this weekend had literally more players on the pitch than in the crowd.
For a country that is supposed to be mad about sports we are really apathetic for anything non all blacks. The sustainability of professional sport in NZ itself must be at risk. I definitely don't know how the domestic cricket and first two teirs of rugby can be pro.
The new bar at the stadium is pretty good with founders beer on tap and fairly nice food - it's also not that busy compared to the crap downstairs so it can't be the food. In Scotland they get better crowds to football from similar sized centres and they only serve pies and bovril.