Here's another alternative viewpoint from a Nix season ticket holder who opposes a new stadium, for anyone interested...
http://in-the-back-of-the.net/2014/03/11/guest-post-do-you-hear-the-people-sing/
He misses the point. The main reason for the stadium isn't the expectation that more people will suddenly turn up (although this might be the cases given the buzz around a new stadium etc), but that if 7-8K people is a normal crowd (and it has been his way for the past 5 years) how can we make it financially sustainable for the club. New stadium is likely to have lower hireage costs so we won't need 10K to break even.
^what he said.
I think the author is coming to the question with a conclusion and then fitting his argument to it. Which is fine, but he makes a bunch of poorly substantiated points and totally ignores some important stuff. So it's hard to take it seriously.
Completely agree. I think for fans there is three things to focus on:
- watching in a square stadium where the ground is 3/4 or more full will be way better. Not just a bit better - way, way way better. This isn't about being 20m closer to the game, it's about watching the game how it is supposed to be watched. Now to my mind that means we should do everything possible to get to a venue which gives us that
- there is a real risk (not a theoretical one, a real one) that without a change in venue Welnix say we can't see this breaking even any time in the future and we're out. If they have invested in a stadium the likelihood of this happening goes down a lot.
- Westpac stadium is not the best outdoor venue in Australasia. That is a ridiculous myth. It's a bland, fairly generic multi use stadium. When it opened it offered something completely different to what we had seen before in NZ but that was a long time ago. Its limitations have been exposed as a football venue. The reason it has good sightlines is because it's an oval and while everyone has a good view, everyone is quite a distance from the action.
Also, the stadium isn't run at a profit. Well it is, but only so it can fund itself for the future without further cash from ratepayers - there's no dividend back to the regional council from the stadium trust, no-one takes cash out. Objecting to ratepayers paying for a new stadium, but saying that Westpac shouldn't run a profit to help tenants doesn't make sense - basically you're saying ratepayers should subsidise tenants on an ongoing basis. Either way ratepayers end up paying for something - but in the Petone stadium scenario at least they get a new facility out of it.
As a Phoenix fan I'm totally on board with this plan. The new stadium would be fantastic and I wouldn't even care about having to travel to Petone from Island Bay - it would be worth it. So as a Phoenix fan I hope it happens.
But from just about any other point of view I honestly can't see how you would justify the investment. From a regional perspective it doesn't make a lot of sense - particularly if it undercuts the financial viability of another publicly owned regional stadium.
And the bit I've highlighted above doesn't make any sense to me either. I can't reconcile how Welnix can say on the one hand "the Nix must break-even" but on the other hand "we're prepared to invest $25m+ in a new stadium". Let's say the Nix lose $1m a year. With the $25m you're prepared to invest in a stadium you could actually just run the Nix at a loss for 25 years. And you would actually be better off because your investment would be spread over time instead of a one-off hit. And borrowing the money only makes the equation worse.
Yes, with a capital investment in a stadium you would at least get an asset out of it but in this case the asset would be half owned by Hutt City and it would be on land wholly owned by Hutt City. From Welnix perspective it would be pretty hard to sell on so I can't see how that really plays into it. I agree that if Welnix have invested in a stadium then it ties them to the Nix a lot more and makes their exit seem less likely, but that's my point - why would they do that to themselves if it doesn't financially add up?
As far as I can see the new stadium would have to increase the average attendance considerably (i.e. basically sell-out most of the time) to make the sums work. Is there something I am missing here?
As I said at the start, I'm totally for the new stadium from a fan's point of view but I'm really not sure what Welnix are up to when the option of simply running the Nix at a loss might actually be a better financial option. I smell a bit of BS around this and feel like we might need to lower our expectations. It may yet turn out to be just a negotiating tactic.