Stadium of Canterbury
-
If anyone didn't read this excellent piece in this week's Fairfax, I urge you to do so now.
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/110674808/plunder-how-the-bill-for-the-canterbury-earthquakes-was-passed-on](Everything was Fucked.)
-
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
-
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
-
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
can they raise the stands, like they did at the Caketin, to allow temporary seating on to the field below on test day?
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
can they raise the stands, like they did at the Caketin, to allow temporary seating on to the field below on test day?
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
can they raise the stands, like they did at the Caketin, to allow temporary seating on to the field below on test day?
Problem with that is your regular seats end up being miles from the action. The caketin uses the extra space from being an oval to accommodate those seats.
-
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
No need for 40000. It’d be an empty white elephant. Yes you could fill it for AB tests, possibly a lions match every 12 years vs the cruaders, possibly a super rugby final but for run of the mill super rugby and npc games 40000 is way too much. Better smaller, closer to capacity with better atmosphere.
-
It seems strange to go for 25K + 5K, rather than 30+5.
However, despite the predicted population growth, I think there may be a movement across most venues to go smaller. I can’t see NZ getting the WC again, concerts can add shows if there is more demand, and getting 30K to any non AB game is a trick now. So, given the trends during the last 15 years, smaller covered grounds could be a better bet (and I say this as someone in the process of buying a property in Canterbury).
-
It seems strange to go for 25K + 5K, rather than 30+5.
However, despite the predicted population growth, I think there may be a movement across most venues to go smaller. I can’t see NZ getting the WC again, concerts can add shows if there is more demand, and getting 30K to any non AB game is a trick now. So, given the trends during the last 15 years, smaller covered grounds could be a better bet (and I say this as someone in the process of buying a property in Canterbury).
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
It seems strange to go for 25K + 5K, rather than 30+5.
However, despite the predicted population growth, I think there may be a movement across most venues to go smaller. I can’t see NZ getting the WC again
Yep, spot on. we don't have the money or the timezones to make it worthwhile. There's an argument for supply/demand too - if tickets are hard to get for big events, they value of them goes up.
If you can partially cover the stadium it woudl be good too. Makes winter test matches a very different proposition
-
As an example, Leinster, who are much better supported than the crusaders, with a catchment population of at least a million, have a stadium with 20’000 (RDS) and it’s just much better than a half empty aviva (old Lansdowne). I think the plans are spot on in terms of capacity.
-
Probably rehashing something from earlier in the thread, but doesn't 25 -30 mean Christchurch runs the risk of missing out on major AB tests? Might be something the city will regret if that's the case.
-
With all the space in the Christchurch rebuild, as well as all the space in Logan Park Dunedin and two new separate facilities built there, it drives me mad that the councils haven't seen to cost saving logic of something like these:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/34/f1/6d34f10cd1033b73cf39a10f133be4b6.jpg
Auckland aren't even thinking about this, yet talk is being thrown around of moving both rugby and cricket.
-
With all the space in the Christchurch rebuild, as well as all the space in Logan Park Dunedin and two new separate facilities built there, it drives me mad that the councils haven't seen to cost saving logic of something like these:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/34/f1/6d34f10cd1033b73cf39a10f133be4b6.jpg
Auckland aren't even thinking about this, yet talk is being thrown around of moving both rugby and cricket.
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
With all the space in the Christchurch rebuild, as well as all the space in Logan Park Dunedin and two new separate facilities built there, it drives me mad that the councils haven't seen to cost saving logic of something like these:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/34/f1/6d34f10cd1033b73cf39a10f133be4b6.jpg
Auckland aren't even thinking about this, yet talk is being thrown around of moving both rugby and cricket.
Makes sense, but you need a lot of space and a lot of cash. I'm sure the EP residents would go ape about that one. The Auckland way will be to do a piecemeal job that isn't totally fit for purpose and needs replacement or massive redevelopment far too early
-
If anyone didn't read this excellent piece in this week's Fairfax, I urge you to do so now.
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/110674808/plunder-how-the-bill-for-the-canterbury-earthquakes-was-passed-on](Everything was Fucked.)
@Canerbry said in Stadium of Canterbury:
If anyone didn't read this excellent piece in this week's Fairfax, I urge you to do so now. (Everything was Fucked.)
Jesus - that takes a bit of digesting, but it sounds disgraceful!
More than Shipley who should be being sent large bills (ironically, public liability insurance will cover her costs).
-
If anyone didn't read this excellent piece in this week's Fairfax, I urge you to do so now.
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/110674808/plunder-how-the-bill-for-the-canterbury-earthquakes-was-passed-on](Everything was Fucked.)
@Canerbry i read that last night. That's pretty fucking disgraceful if it's true (and i see no reason to believe it's not).
And i am astounded something like that isn't getting more attention. Probably because both sides of politics are at fault.
-
With all the space in the Christchurch rebuild, as well as all the space in Logan Park Dunedin and two new separate facilities built there, it drives me mad that the councils haven't seen to cost saving logic of something like these:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/34/f1/6d34f10cd1033b73cf39a10f133be4b6.jpg
Auckland aren't even thinking about this, yet talk is being thrown around of moving both rugby and cricket.
@Rapido This is exactly the original plan for North Harbour Stadium The outer oval with embankments and oak trees was envisaged as being developed into a boutique cricket ground using the amenities and corporate facilities of the main stand.
Unfortunately pro rugby overtook events and all plans went out the window. Plus they forgot Albany is like 4.5 hours from downtown Auckland and TBF the view of the Warehouse isn't quite as appealing a backdrop as The Remarkables.
-
@Rapido This is exactly the original plan for North Harbour Stadium The outer oval with embankments and oak trees was envisaged as being developed into a boutique cricket ground using the amenities and corporate facilities of the main stand.
Unfortunately pro rugby overtook events and all plans went out the window. Plus they forgot Albany is like 4.5 hours from downtown Auckland and TBF the view of the Warehouse isn't quite as appealing a backdrop as The Remarkables.
-
@Rapido This is exactly the original plan for North Harbour Stadium The outer oval with embankments and oak trees was envisaged as being developed into a boutique cricket ground using the amenities and corporate facilities of the main stand.
Unfortunately pro rugby overtook events and all plans went out the window. Plus they forgot Albany is like 4.5 hours from downtown Auckland and TBF the view of the Warehouse isn't quite as appealing a backdrop as The Remarkables.
@dogmeat said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido This is exactly the original plan for North Harbour Stadium The outer oval with embankments and oak trees was envisaged as being developed into a boutique cricket ground using the amenities and corporate facilities of the main stand.
Unfortunately pro rugby overtook events and all plans went out the window. Plus they forgot Albany is like 4.5 hours from downtown Auckland and TBF the view of the Warehouse isn't quite as appealing a backdrop as The Remarkables.
I understand that NH was the only Auckland Council sports ground that covers its costs due to high usage as a conference facility.
-
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
can they raise the stands, like they did at the Caketin, to allow temporary seating on to the field below on test day?
Problem with that is your regular seats end up being miles from the action. The caketin uses the extra space from being an oval to accommodate those seats.
@Cyclops said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
can they raise the stands, like they did at the Caketin, to allow temporary seating on to the field below on test day?
Problem with that is your regular seats end up being miles from the action. The caketin uses the extra space from being an oval to accommodate those seats.
What he said.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
No need for 40000. It’d be an empty white elephant. Yes you could fill it for AB tests, possibly a lions match every 12 years vs the cruaders, possibly a super rugby final but for run of the mill super rugby and npc games 40000 is way too much. Better smaller, closer to capacity with better atmosphere.
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
No need for 40000. It’d be an empty white elephant. Yes you could fill it for AB tests, possibly a lions match every 12 years vs the cruaders, possibly a super rugby final but for run of the mill super rugby and npc games 40000 is way too much. Better smaller, closer to capacity with better atmosphere.
The last figures I could find on average attendance at Crusaders games were from 2017 and we were getting a little under 15k to each game. Winners are grinners though so I wouldn't be at all surprised if this rose last year and did so again this year.
We've been winning now for 20 years and with the pieces in place that we have there is no reason to believe that changes going forward, so that combination of a winning team and a fancy new stadium could easily attract 25,000 per game for at least the first couple of seasons. I think the Crusaders need something like 12,000 per game in order to make some coin so this would put the Crusaders as a tenant and by default the stadium (V Base?) in a strong position.
Additionally, while you've forked out for 40,000 seats up front, you wouldn't need to open up the entire stadium and those associated costs (staff at all posts etc) for every game. You'd look to sell out the main stand which should also be the one on camera, and once that's full or close to it (obviously depepndent on which sections) you'd open up other areas. This keeps down event costs.
A 40,000 seater is the horse to back, but it's not even at the starting gate at this stage.
