$40-45 Million Soccer Specific Stadium - Petone Phoenix

Terminator the best and most logical post on this thread. You are missing nothing and are spot on. It is solely negotiation 

For those that didn't see the first time I said it, the stadium proposal did not come from Welnix and actually pre-dates their existence.

The problem with the current system is that unlike democracy which requires a majority or a significant portion of those involved to support something before it becomes law or whatever.

In the case of the Retirement Village over by memorial, 17 people have used their 'democratic right' to oppose something that thousands support and many more indifferent on.  17 people are happier to see the burnt out, graffittied hulk of an old school than a brand new complex with quiet residents and better security than what is in their yards now.

The stadium is the same.

Democracy is good, people being allowed to offer their views is good, but a tiny minority's ability to overturn what is clearly supported (or at least not opposed) by a large majority isn't democracy.

Thanks for that jd that was a really interesting read.

"Don't growl, dear. He's doing great things for Kiwi football."

"Sure. But I don't like what he wants to do to us!"

"Don't be sily, pet. We're not free-range and irresponsible like the littlies."

"I know. But we should still show solidarity."

Yeah thanks for trying to explain that JD. I don't think I understand completely but the gist of it seems to be that Welnix loan the money to a trust and they earn some interest on that loan and might even some or all of their principle back in the future. So yeah at the face of it that's more attractive than just subsidising the Nix to run at a loss in a stadium that's not fit for purpose.

Of course, I'd still love to see the details!

There are so many variables in play here. For instance, I'm sure that that the Nix are no longer running at anything like $1m a year deficit anymore (Domey basically said that on the podcast). So if you're only losing say $300-$500k a year does the new stadium deal (as you've explained it) still stack up given the risks? Also, over the kind of time-scale we should be looking at here (20-30 years) it seems likely that Westpac itself will need to be replaced. From a regional perspective do you say, Hutt's already got $25m, Welnix got $25m, let's get Wgtn and Porirua to put some in and just build a proper football stadium next to Westpac now? Sometimes you gotta act just because the wind's blowing in the right direction.

My point was that some seem to think that this has come about as a result of Welnix/GM putting it out there... I couldn't see myself how they'd really recoup their investment but JD had clarified that (thanks).

What seems to have happened is the proposal has been sitting there waiting for an opportunity that didn't require full ratepayer funding, and recent noises by Welnix have presented that opportunity. Now the council are looking to see whether it really is a viable option... And whether ratepayers will have a bar of it.

Just the kind of headline to get Petone ratepayers nervous.

"Costs of new Petone stadium keep coming"

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9826435/Costs-of-new-Petone-stadium-keep-coming

Unfortunately with the way the article is, The opponents are likely to jump on it and have a field day with rants about hidden costs and ratepayer money. My hope would be once "fingers crossed" the stadium proposal get included in the draft annual plan then we will be able to see breakdown of costs from new money to what would merely be a reallocation of existing money, as well as more information  around some of the other issues such as parking. As a phoenix fan I support the proposal but think there needs to be more information made public before a truly informed decision can be made.

At minimum a 10 year contractual commitment from the proposed anchor tenant (The Wellington Phoenix), including confirmation of an agreed 10 year licence with the Australian ‘A’ league. A significant advantage the proposed Arena offers is that it is proposed that it comes with an anchor tenant – The Wellington Phoenix. This is fundamental to the success of the Arena.

I expect the current Phoenix license will be extended, now it will be interesting to see if everyone (AFC) agrees it's for another 10 years or more.

DOOMPOST MANTRA - never let the truth get in the way of a story

I swear my eyes nearly bleed whenever i try and read some of the reasons for nimbys not wanting the arena.

There are some valid discussions to be had. We've tried to have them in a reasonable manner on their Facebook page. 

Unfortunately for the most part they don't have (or want) enough information to have any sort of reasonable discussion beyond their immediate point. If you discuss or question them any further they go into their shell, repeat their first point (ignoring anything you've said or asked) or just exit the conversation completely. 

One guy even resorted to calling us out as abusive (or something like that? Can't quite remember) and making up facts,  when we have done nothing of the sort.

So...a bit like these forums?

The Doom Post article certainly does not help balance the debate. Buried in the article was a comment that the new stadium would open debt free....now that would have made a nice headline, but it does not suit their agenda.

I struggle to see how people can make up their minds before all the financial details are out in the open. The DP article says "shock horror"  the "costs keep coming". But as the Hutt councilor pointed out the Council already give operating grants to all their public use facilities...if they don't then nobody does cleaning and  maintenance etc. What we need to see is the costs vs income. i.e if the HCC pay $350,000 per year operating cost then whats the income?.The Phoenix will pay to stage their home games and train there. They will also pay market rental for their office staff. I would also imagine some of the Academy stuff could be moved to the new venue. Thats all guaranteed income. If you add in possible rentals from other sports bodies, perhaps WELTEC, concerts, conferences etc it could well be that income excedes costs. But until these sums are done then anyone bitching about the cost of running the thing is just spouting hot air.

I can see where the Hutt Council is coming from. If they can tie in a key tenant for a long term lease/rental and  if they can get private funders to come up with half the construction money then its a very good deal for a Council. They get a public amenity that could well not run at a loss and they only have to pay for half of it. Plus there are  rumours why the Hutt CC is looking at putting money into civil amenities throughout their area now. They have a very low debt compared to many other councils. There is likely to be an amalgamation of Councils following on from the Auckland amalgamation. They probably think "why not spend a bit now and get some good amenities for our constituents  and run up a bit of dept"  Because under amalgamation their low debt will just be absorbed and its unlikely a Wellington super Council will suddenly turn around an pour money into the Hutt region.

Good work Smithy and whichever one of you lads is Jimmy Russell for your comments on that Doom Post article. I respect your restraint in not just ripping into some of those morons and instead presenting calm, rational responses to their ill-informed idiocy.

From the naysayers -

I was pondering on the number of ratepayers in the Hutt. My 'guesstimate" is that the $350K would be between $8 and $15 per ratepayer PER YEAR.

Paul Easton at the DomPost who wrote the article replied to me. He says...

Andy Foster trying to get a few votes? Conflict of interest. Smithy, you called it right,  if the stadium trust didn't rip people off so much, this debate would not be happening.

So they can charge $8 all day parking during the week and then charge $30 for an event and thats not ripping people off, rate payer type people?

And what would you recommend to be a reasonable and fair cost?

What he is saying is that it is user pays vs ratepayers pay. 

At the moment the users are effectively paying for the upkeep and improvements of the stadium. The stadium receives no additional funding. 

Therefore any decrease in price to the nix or to carparks will probably mean the ratepayers will have to chip in to make up the shortfall. 

Specifically to carparks, people are obviously paying it, presumably if they could make more money by reducing the price they would. Therefore if you reduce price, you reduce revenue, and once again the ratepayer would possibly have to cough up the shortfall. 

However I do believe it is fair that the ratepayer should burden some of the cost, and the stadium should get funding. As much as user pays does sound fair, Wellington city does get a benefit out of events being held at the stadium as well, so they should also contribute in my opinion. 

Edit: to save confusion id like to add that when I say 'revenue' I don't mean profit - all revenue goes back into funding maintenance and improvements of the stadium. 

Yeah interesting point. There would come a point though where that almost 'runs out' and they should start contributing again. Perhaps when the loans are repaid?

Gunman's point about carpark pricing is illustrative.

It demonstrates mentality.

The Trust's approach and mandate is to maximise revenue, not just from spectators but in any way they can.

That approach has led to death by a thousand cuts for the spectator experience.

On another point, the idea that WCC is somehow "still paying" for the Stadium may be financially accurate but in isolation a statement like that is tremendously misleading.

Anyway, I think this whole "ratepayer subsidy" argument is bogus. You can argue that not all ratepayers utilize the stadium so not all ratepayers should help pay for it but that's only really defensible if you're some sort of Ayn Rand loving extreme user pays individualist libertarian. The basic idea of most taxation is to take some money from everyone and then use that to pay for things which have a greater social good but don't necessarily benefit every taxpayer. Now of course a stadium isn't like a school or a hospital or a road, but events at the stadium do benefit the region as a whole. It employs people, it brings out of towners in to spend money at bars and cafes and hotels, and you could even argue that it adds to a sense of community and social cohesion, which although it isn't a direct economic benefit is still a social benefit. There's probably other benefits I haven't thought of too. So the individual ratepayers might say "why should I pay for the stadium when I don't use it?" but a lot of people never go to the library or the local museum but they don't complain about rates subsidizing those. I think there's an element of snobbery in some of this - the idea that sport is just people chasing a ball around and therefore not culturally valuable. Or something.

Or to put it another way, would you rather save $10 a year on rates, or live in a city that has a major sporting and cultural events  on a regular basis?

Okay, now I end rant.

I'm just very disappointed that the international acts have been few and far between. Accoustically the stadium is fine but are these musicians not coming because of logistics and a small Airport Runway and perhaps too much is being asked of them to use the facility combined with the local nimbys getting upset by 2-3 hours of noise.

Thanks Smithy for seeing where I am coming from so to speak.

Also consider that the stadium trust are maximising their income by contracting out to companies such as Spotless whom offer a cheaper alternative. Ibet they'd make more money by turning it into a food court type scenario. I believe some of the Australian stadiums do this and the choices available are things we here can only dream about enjoying.

I don't think that the stadium have at all done a good job balancing maintaining the thing and keeping up investment in the things fans want ( I hate the term "fan experience"). But I don't think the answer to the phoenix not making money is for The council which means ratepayers to start injecting money - thats just a recipe for disaster and massive push back plus its a complete change in the whole model. 

I definitely dont think its been run perfectly, but i dont think the answer is to change tge parameters. In the end they are making money which is their mandate from the trust principles, they just need to be a lot smarter in using that to get more people through the turnstiles