Eden Park
-
Good, this means the last major traditional ground in NZ exists for a few more years.
Now make plans to knock down the North Stand and covert it into a rectangular ground
@Duluth said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
Good, this means the last major traditional ground in NZ exists for a few more years.
Now make plans to knock down the North Stand and covert it into a rectangular ground
Doesn't solve the problems they have trying to make it pay
-
@Duluth said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
Good, this means the last major traditional ground in NZ exists for a few more years.
Now make plans to knock down the North Stand and covert it into a rectangular ground
Doesn't solve the problems they have trying to make it pay
-
Oh the restrictions on the ground that are deliberately killing it should be lifted.
-
@Duluth said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
Oh the restrictions on the ground that are deliberately killing it should be lifted.
I don't know who has the authority to break the stranglehold of the residents association
The council hasn't pushed back. Goff wanted a vanity project to go ahead. The council and the residents were both happy to have restrictions on Eden Park
With this loan the incentives might have changed. If the council want the loan paid back, they should want Eden Park to make some money
-
Eden Park.
The majority of the Rugby World Cup redevelopment budget was funded by a $190m Government grant. This contribution anticipated an approximately $50m contribution from the various Auckland Councils (the now defunct Auckland Regional Council and the region’s seven city and district councils). Ultimately the Councils refused to contribute other than $10m from the Auckland Regional Council. This left a $40m shortfall to fulfil a construction contract and ensure the 2011 Rugby World Cup could be delivered. In order to complete the redevelopment Auckland City Council agreed to guarantee a bank loan of $40m on commercial terms.
This $40m that the (4 separate former city) councils welshed on 8 years ago, keeps popping up. The combined Super CIty wants to continue welshing on it. There is so much horseshit in the media about the financial performance of Eden Park, and bailouts etc.
(welshing is such a ridiculous slur that it is surely not even offensive?)
From the report.
The most pressing issue regarding the future of Eden Park is the unresolved status of the $40,000,000 ASB funding loan, which expires on 30 September 2019.
An Eden Park positive propaganda (myth busting) fact sheet.
https://www.edenpark.co.nz/uploads/images/fact sheet_updated.pdf -
Eden Park.
The majority of the Rugby World Cup redevelopment budget was funded by a $190m Government grant. This contribution anticipated an approximately $50m contribution from the various Auckland Councils (the now defunct Auckland Regional Council and the region’s seven city and district councils). Ultimately the Councils refused to contribute other than $10m from the Auckland Regional Council. This left a $40m shortfall to fulfil a construction contract and ensure the 2011 Rugby World Cup could be delivered. In order to complete the redevelopment Auckland City Council agreed to guarantee a bank loan of $40m on commercial terms.
This $40m that the (4 separate former city) councils welshed on 8 years ago, keeps popping up. The combined Super CIty wants to continue welshing on it. There is so much horseshit in the media about the financial performance of Eden Park, and bailouts etc.
(welshing is such a ridiculous slur that it is surely not even offensive?)
From the report.
The most pressing issue regarding the future of Eden Park is the unresolved status of the $40,000,000 ASB funding loan, which expires on 30 September 2019.
An Eden Park positive propaganda (myth busting) fact sheet.
https://www.edenpark.co.nz/uploads/images/fact sheet_updated.pdf@Rapido It's Welching not Welshing. According to renowned historian A J P Taylor the first person to use the 1845 Gaming Act to try and avoid paying a debt was called Welch. Notwithstanding the above the Pons have a long history of believing all Welsh are thieving sheep shaggers
So yr EP attendances show more people went to see Ponsonby v Varsity than Akl v Waikato :astonished_face:
-
@Rapido It's Welching not Welshing. According to renowned historian A J P Taylor the first person to use the 1845 Gaming Act to try and avoid paying a debt was called Welch. Notwithstanding the above the Pons have a long history of believing all Welsh are thieving sheep shaggers
So yr EP attendances show more people went to see Ponsonby v Varsity than Akl v Waikato :astonished_face:
-
Eden Park.
The majority of the Rugby World Cup redevelopment budget was funded by a $190m Government grant. This contribution anticipated an approximately $50m contribution from the various Auckland Councils (the now defunct Auckland Regional Council and the region’s seven city and district councils). Ultimately the Councils refused to contribute other than $10m from the Auckland Regional Council. This left a $40m shortfall to fulfil a construction contract and ensure the 2011 Rugby World Cup could be delivered. In order to complete the redevelopment Auckland City Council agreed to guarantee a bank loan of $40m on commercial terms.
This $40m that the (4 separate former city) councils welshed on 8 years ago, keeps popping up. The combined Super CIty wants to continue welshing on it. There is so much horseshit in the media about the financial performance of Eden Park, and bailouts etc.
(welshing is such a ridiculous slur that it is surely not even offensive?)
From the report.
The most pressing issue regarding the future of Eden Park is the unresolved status of the $40,000,000 ASB funding loan, which expires on 30 September 2019.
An Eden Park positive propaganda (myth busting) fact sheet.
https://www.edenpark.co.nz/uploads/images/fact sheet_updated.pdf -
@Rapido I don’t really get all that. The Council “guaranteed” a loan? So it’s their loan or Eden Parks?
-
@Nepia The loan is Eden Park's but if it is defaulted on, the Council gets to pay it.
And in the mean time Eden Park Trust has to pay or defer the interest probably at a rate a bank would charge a precarious trust.
Where as all NZ Local Government Authorities have an excellent credit rating via a pooled credit thingamajig and pay low interest.
Could be saving millions a year.
-
@Nepia The loan is Eden Park's but if it is defaulted on, the Council gets to pay it.
And in the mean time Eden Park Trust has to pay or defer the interest probably at a rate a bank would charge a precarious trust.
Where as all NZ Local Government Authorities have an excellent credit rating via a pooled credit thingamajig and pay low interest.
Could be saving millions a year.
@Nepia The loan is Eden Park's but if it is defaulted on, the Council gets to pay it.
And in the mean time Eden Park Trust has to pay or defer the interest probably at a rate a bank would charge a precarious trust.
Where as all NZ Local Government Authorities have an excellent credit rating via a pooled credit thingamajig and pay low interest.
Could be saving millions a year.
Eden Park Trust is a registered charity with its financial statements available here: https://www.register.charities.govt.nz/Charity/CC32802
Going by recent statements, their bank loans are between 2.82% and 4.14% (total bank interest: 2018 - $1.463 million, 2017 - $1.758 million, 2016 - $2.285 million), and 2.43% for the Council loans, so while it would make a difference (around $500K), it would not be the difference between solvency or not. Probably helps that the bank is also a sponsor (ASB).
Having looked over the various financial statements, tickets + membership ($14+ million p.a.) more than pay for the costs of actually running the events (~$9+ million p.a., being direct costs, staff) and contributions to ACA and ARU ($2 million) - the principal issue is depreciation i.e. replacement costs over time, not interest or anything else. It's over $8 million a year, so unless they can find a way to pay for that, they are in dire straits, even if all loans were forgiven/paid by Council.
-
@Nepia The loan is Eden Park's but if it is defaulted on, the Council gets to pay it.
And in the mean time Eden Park Trust has to pay or defer the interest probably at a rate a bank would charge a precarious trust.
Where as all NZ Local Government Authorities have an excellent credit rating via a pooled credit thingamajig and pay low interest.
Could be saving millions a year.
Eden Park Trust is a registered charity with its financial statements available here: https://www.register.charities.govt.nz/Charity/CC32802
Going by recent statements, their bank loans are between 2.82% and 4.14% (total bank interest: 2018 - $1.463 million, 2017 - $1.758 million, 2016 - $2.285 million), and 2.43% for the Council loans, so while it would make a difference (around $500K), it would not be the difference between solvency or not. Probably helps that the bank is also a sponsor (ASB).
Having looked over the various financial statements, tickets + membership ($14+ million p.a.) more than pay for the costs of actually running the events (~$9+ million p.a., being direct costs, staff) and contributions to ACA and ARU ($2 million) - the principal issue is depreciation i.e. replacement costs over time, not interest or anything else. It's over $8 million a year, so unless they can find a way to pay for that, they are in dire straits, even if all loans were forgiven/paid by Council.
@Nepia The loan is Eden Park's but if it is defaulted on, the Council gets to pay it.
And in the mean time Eden Park Trust has to pay or defer the interest probably at a rate a bank would charge a precarious trust.
Where as all NZ Local Government Authorities have an excellent credit rating via a pooled credit thingamajig and pay low interest.
Could be saving millions a year.
Eden Park Trust is a registered charity with its financial statements available here: https://www.register.charities.govt.nz/Charity/CC32802
Going by recent statements, their bank loans are between 2.82% and 4.14% (total bank interest: 2018 - $1.463 million, 2017 - $1.758 million, 2016 - $2.285 million), and 2.43% for the Council loans, so while it would make a difference (around $500K), it would not be the difference between solvency or not. Probably helps that the bank is also a sponsor (ASB).
Having looked over the various financial statements, tickets + membership ($14+ million p.a.) more than pay for the costs of actually running the events (~$9+ million p.a., being direct costs, staff) and contributions to ACA and ARU ($2 million) - the principal issue is depreciation i.e. replacement costs over time, not interest or anything else. It's over $8 million a year, so unless they can find a way to pay for that, they are in dire straits, even if all loans were forgiven/paid by Council.
Are they really though?
In 50 years time, when it is time to turn that depreciation from a paper loss into a real world cost, the loan/costs probably will indeed be paid for by the council. Whether at Eden Park or a stadium somewhere else in the city if the stadium rationalisation happens.Where not talking $8 million a year of degradation of plastic seats, and some guttering etc, its a paper loss - that huge concrete structure is $8 million less value than the year before until it reaches end of life.
Eden Park prior to its redevelopment was a 1960s stadium. The Trust could afford to redevelop the west terrace in 1992 and the North Stand in 1999. The fact that they couldn't cover the cost of redeveloping the South stand and East Terraces in 2011 is not something I'd think they were panicing about in 1975 when they looked at the depreciation on their annual report.
I'm taking a lot of the dire warning reporting with a grain of salt. Eden Park present themselves in dire straits as they want the $50 million turned into council debt so they can concentrate on the achievable target of covering their operating costs only. The various council voices present Eden Park as a white elephant if they have ambitions for a vainglorious empire-building stadium project of their own, or are sports-haters with an aversion to debt.
Currently Auckland have the best stadium in the country located in their city for the meagre cost of $10 million to their council. Albeit they don't own it. They do however own 2 other less good football stadiums with their own debt burdens .....
-
@Nepia The loan is Eden Park's but if it is defaulted on, the Council gets to pay it.
And in the mean time Eden Park Trust has to pay or defer the interest probably at a rate a bank would charge a precarious trust.
Where as all NZ Local Government Authorities have an excellent credit rating via a pooled credit thingamajig and pay low interest.
Could be saving millions a year.
Eden Park Trust is a registered charity with its financial statements available here: https://www.register.charities.govt.nz/Charity/CC32802
Going by recent statements, their bank loans are between 2.82% and 4.14% (total bank interest: 2018 - $1.463 million, 2017 - $1.758 million, 2016 - $2.285 million), and 2.43% for the Council loans, so while it would make a difference (around $500K), it would not be the difference between solvency or not. Probably helps that the bank is also a sponsor (ASB).
Having looked over the various financial statements, tickets + membership ($14+ million p.a.) more than pay for the costs of actually running the events (~$9+ million p.a., being direct costs, staff) and contributions to ACA and ARU ($2 million) - the principal issue is depreciation i.e. replacement costs over time, not interest or anything else. It's over $8 million a year, so unless they can find a way to pay for that, they are in dire straits, even if all loans were forgiven/paid by Council.
Are they really though?
In 50 years time, when it is time to turn that depreciation from a paper loss into a real world cost, the loan/costs probably will indeed be paid for by the council. Whether at Eden Park or a stadium somewhere else in the city if the stadium rationalisation happens.Where not talking $8 million a year of degradation of plastic seats, and some guttering etc, its a paper loss - that huge concrete structure is $8 million less value than the year before until it reaches end of life.
Eden Park prior to its redevelopment was a 1960s stadium. The Trust could afford to redevelop the west terrace in 1992 and the North Stand in 1999. The fact that they couldn't cover the cost of redeveloping the South stand and East Terraces in 2011 is not something I'd think they were panicing about in 1975 when they looked at the depreciation on their annual report.
I'm taking a lot of the dire warning reporting with a grain of salt. Eden Park present themselves in dire straits as they want the $50 million turned into council debt so they can concentrate on the achievable target of covering their operating costs only. The various council voices present Eden Park as a white elephant if they have ambitions for a vainglorious empire-building stadium project of their own, or are sports-haters with an aversion to debt.
Currently Auckland have the best stadium in the country located in their city for the meagre cost of $10 million to their council. Albeit they don't own it. They do however own 2 other less good football stadiums with their own debt burdens .....
@Rapido If the Council and/or Government agrees to replace parts of the Stadium as and when required, then there are no issues, basically. Not sure how likely that is with the anti-rates/tax brigade bleating at every opportunity, but in principle it would solve the problem.
-
-
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/112319438/eden-parks-future-what-the-neighbours-really-think
A mate of mine works in the stats department at Auckland Uni. He was one of the participants given the survey. He wrote to the senior editor at Stuff advising them that the survey was structured in such a way as to be biased towards this result, and it was unlikely that anything of statistical significance could be determined from it. I guess they went ahead and published anyway.
-
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/112319438/eden-parks-future-what-the-neighbours-really-think
A mate of mine works in the stats department at Auckland Uni. He was one of the participants given the survey. He wrote to the senior editor at Stuff advising them that the survey was structured in such a way as to be biased towards this result, and it was unlikely that anything of statistical significance could be determined from it. I guess they went ahead and published anyway.
@Stockcar86 said in Eden Park:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/112319438/eden-parks-future-what-the-neighbours-really-think
A mate of mine works in the stats department at Auckland Uni. He was one of the participants given the survey. He wrote to the senior editor at Stuff advising them that the survey was structured in such a way as to be biased towards this result, and it was unlikely that anything of statistical significance could be determined from it. I guess they went ahead and published anyway.
-
@Duluth This was what I was saying a few months ago when posters were taking pot shots at the residents. There's one very vocal guy who's leading a a tiny group of whingers and that's all the press has focussed on until now.
@Nepia always the way!
Vocal minority, claiming to be part of the majority scream louder.
