Stadium of Canterbury
-
The roof is also to minimise sound leakage so Christchurch can host concerts with less resource consent problems, which in turn makes the stadium slightly more viable. There should be another 5,000 temporary seats at some point which means a 30,000 capacity which should get some tier 1 tests occasionally.
The stadium will also be a conference etc venue.
That said, stadiums don't make money, they lose it - if they made money, private developers would build them. I'd build bigger, but there are plenty of taxpayers and ratepayers who complain vociferously about their money being wasted on such things, and politicians have to find a balance between the competing demands.
@Godder So is the cost of a roof actually going to contribute to anything the than opex? I can't see how a couple of concerts a year are going to cover the extra capital expenditure of providing it.
As far as I can work out the only major rugby stadiums with roofs are Millenium and FB? It's a winter game. I think @shark has it right. 35K minimum across two tiers with the ability to screen off the top tier and as much cover for the spectators as is feasible yet cost effective- and steep stands. Better viewing and atmosphere.
-
The problem with more than 25k is that people just don't go to live rugby much any more. Even pre-earthquakes, the crowd at the ITM Cup Final at Jade was about 3,000. So how often are you getting more than 10-15k? Once a year at an AB test? Those are very expensive seats you have to fill.
Stadium business cases should be about the least bad option, but frankly this seems overpriced for what gets delivered. Not that impressed.
-
If the roof means more concerts wouldn't that be a moot point anyway? Forsyth-Barr can hold 36,000ish for a concert so a bigger act will see that as where to go in the South island, particularly now with the power shift when it comes to South island concerts.
-
If the roof means more concerts wouldn't that be a moot point anyway? Forsyth-Barr can hold 36,000ish for a concert so a bigger act will see that as where to go in the South island, particularly now with the power shift when it comes to South island concerts.
@Yeetyaah said in Stadium of Canterbury:
If the roof means more concerts wouldn't that be a moot point anyway? Forsyth-Barr can hold 36,000ish for a concert so a bigger act will see that as where to go in the South island, particularly now with the power shift when it comes to South island concerts.
Why would Forsyth Barr be seen as a better place to go for concerts than the new Christchurch stadium when the new Christchurch stadium can also hold 36k for a concert (supposedly), has a bigger population to draw on and logistically easier to get equipment in with a bigger more accessible airport?
-
The concert hosting thing is a particularly intriguing one, and an absolute sham as part of a business case. Why? Because part of it is about the economic benefits to Christchurch of drawings acts (in lieu of Dunedin). Dunedin does so well out of concerts because so many people travel from Christchurch. They're filling hotel and motel rooms, and spending up on hospitality simply because there's no other option. What happens if and when Ed Sheeran comes to Chch? The vast majority of the crowd will be locals who will car pool to the gig, have a couple of drinks and a pottle of chips, then drive home again. And this happens how often? Every couple of years? So this part of it is garbage. Compare that to 40k rugby fans at a Tier 1 AB test on the hoon before and after a game, pretty much annually. Which is more beneficial??
-
I repeat my earlier comment - if stadiums made money, private developers would build and operate them, so basically all NZ cases for larger stadiums except maybe in Auckland are shams (according to Eden Park's accounts, they make an operating profit - their issue is depreciation i.e. they don't make enough money to also pay for the asset replacement costs). Councils/ratepayers fund them because locals want them - business cases are just fig leaves. It doesn't help in Christchurch's case that cricket has moved to Hagley Oval, as that would have provided a few extra events. The Council funding is primarily insurance, so had to be spent anyway, but no doubt we could have spent less of the government contribution if we wanted to.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to spend two days and $500 on a trip to Dunedin, or miss out because I didn't book the accommodation as soon as the concert was announced (not when the tickets go on sale - accommodation in Dunedin sold out within hours of Queen being announced). Selfishly, I want a concert venue in Christchurch that will reliably bring the big names if they are going somewhere besides Auckland, and while my costs for a Christchurch concert are much lower than travelling to another concert, I will still spend my money somewhere eventually, and that somewhere will most likely be in Christchurch - that's an implied part of a business case that isn't usually discussed heavily, that locals don't travel and spend elsewhere, so they can spend that money locally.
Practically, we probably only need 20,000 permanent seats for Super Rugby and maybe a few thousand temp seats for finals - anything bigger than that is for tests, which the ABs don't play that many in NZ, and we (Chch) will only ever get 1-2 per season. Realistically, AB tests are as spurious as concerts in the business cases - it just comes back to people wanting them.
-
I repeat my earlier comment - if stadiums made money, private developers would build and operate them, so basically all NZ cases for larger stadiums except maybe in Auckland are shams (according to Eden Park's accounts, they make an operating profit - their issue is depreciation i.e. they don't make enough money to also pay for the asset replacement costs). Councils/ratepayers fund them because locals want them - business cases are just fig leaves. It doesn't help in Christchurch's case that cricket has moved to Hagley Oval, as that would have provided a few extra events. The Council funding is primarily insurance, so had to be spent anyway, but no doubt we could have spent less of the government contribution if we wanted to.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to spend two days and $500 on a trip to Dunedin, or miss out because I didn't book the accommodation as soon as the concert was announced (not when the tickets go on sale - accommodation in Dunedin sold out within hours of Queen being announced). Selfishly, I want a concert venue in Christchurch that will reliably bring the big names if they are going somewhere besides Auckland, and while my costs for a Christchurch concert are much lower than travelling to another concert, I will still spend my money somewhere eventually, and that somewhere will most likely be in Christchurch - that's an implied part of a business case that isn't usually discussed heavily, that locals don't travel and spend elsewhere, so they can spend that money locally.
Practically, we probably only need 20,000 permanent seats for Super Rugby and maybe a few thousand temp seats for finals - anything bigger than that is for tests, which the ABs don't play that many in NZ, and we (Chch) will only ever get 1-2 per season. Realistically, AB tests are as spurious as concerts in the business cases - it just comes back to people wanting them.
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I repeat my earlier comment - if stadiums made money, private developers would build and operate them, so basically all NZ cases for larger stadiums except maybe in Auckland are shams (according to Eden Park's accounts, they make an operating profit - their issue is depreciation i.e. they don't make enough money to also pay for the asset replacement costs). Councils/ratepayers fund them because locals want them - business cases are just fig leaves. It doesn't help in Christchurch's case that cricket has moved to Hagley Oval, as that would have provided a few extra events. The Council funding is primarily insurance, so had to be spent anyway, but no doubt we could have spent less of the government contribution if we wanted to.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to spend two days and $500 on a trip to Dunedin, or miss out because I didn't book the accommodation as soon as the concert was announced (not when the tickets go on sale - accommodation in Dunedin sold out within hours of Queen being announced). Selfishly, I want a concert venue in Christchurch that will reliably bring the big names if they are going somewhere besides Auckland, and while my costs for a Christchurch concert are much lower than travelling to another concert, I will still spend my money somewhere eventually, and that somewhere will most likely be in Christchurch - that's an implied part of a business case that isn't usually discussed heavily, that locals don't travel and spend elsewhere, so they can spend that money locally.
Practically, we probably only need 20,000 permanent seats for Super Rugby and maybe a few thousand temp seats for finals - anything bigger than that is for tests, which the ABs don't play that many in NZ, and we (Chch) will only ever get 1-2 per season. Realistically, AB tests are as spurious as concerts in the business cases - it just comes back to people wanting them.
I think it's quite realistic for a stadium to be able to cover its operating costs if its well designed and well run. But a private developer would want their initial investment back plus a decent return, which you rightly point out ain't gonna happen.
Overseas it seems fairly common for sports teams to build and own their own stadiums, which presumably makes the business case more feasible as they are factoring in ticket sales, concession stands etc rather than just the stadium rental fees that a privately (or publicly) held stadium would rely on.
I don't know if the Crusaders ever looked into that as a viable option. I assume that the capital requirements would be prohibitive. Overseas it looks to be a mix of loans (epl football teams) and sweetheart deals from owners or cities trying to attract teams (nfl), neither of which would be realistic for them.
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I repeat my earlier comment - if stadiums made money, private developers would build and operate them, so basically all NZ cases for larger stadiums except maybe in Auckland are shams (according to Eden Park's accounts, they make an operating profit - their issue is depreciation i.e. they don't make enough money to also pay for the asset replacement costs). Councils/ratepayers fund them because locals want them - business cases are just fig leaves. It doesn't help in Christchurch's case that cricket has moved to Hagley Oval, as that would have provided a few extra events. The Council funding is primarily insurance, so had to be spent anyway, but no doubt we could have spent less of the government contribution if we wanted to.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to spend two days and $500 on a trip to Dunedin, or miss out because I didn't book the accommodation as soon as the concert was announced (not when the tickets go on sale - accommodation in Dunedin sold out within hours of Queen being announced). Selfishly, I want a concert venue in Christchurch that will reliably bring the big names if they are going somewhere besides Auckland, and while my costs for a Christchurch concert are much lower than travelling to another concert, I will still spend my money somewhere eventually, and that somewhere will most likely be in Christchurch - that's an implied part of a business case that isn't usually discussed heavily, that locals don't travel and spend elsewhere, so they can spend that money locally.
Practically, we probably only need 20,000 permanent seats for Super Rugby and maybe a few thousand temp seats for finals - anything bigger than that is for tests, which the ABs don't play that many in NZ, and we (Chch) will only ever get 1-2 per season. Realistically, AB tests are as spurious as concerts in the business cases - it just comes back to people wanting them.
I think it's quite realistic for a stadium to be able to cover its operating costs if its well designed and well run. But a private developer would want their initial investment back plus a decent return, which you rightly point out ain't gonna happen.
Overseas it seems fairly common for sports teams to build and own their own stadiums, which presumably makes the business case more feasible as they are factoring in ticket sales, concession stands etc rather than just the stadium rental fees that a privately (or publicly) held stadium would rely on.
I don't know if the Crusaders ever looked into that as a viable option. I assume that the capital requirements would be prohibitive. Overseas it looks to be a mix of loans (epl football teams) and sweetheart deals from owners or cities trying to attract teams (nfl), neither of which would be realistic for them.
-
@Cyclops Quite a number of cities in the US have provided at prohibitive cost, stadiums for professional teams that threaten to up and move, or do so anyway. Billion dollar sports organisations subsidised by near bankrupt municipalities.
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Cyclops Quite a number of cities in the US have provided at prohibitive cost, stadiums for professional teams that threaten to up and move, or do so anyway. Billion dollar sports organisations subsidised by near bankrupt municipalities.
Yep, nfl teams are completely mercenary so happy to play cities off against one another. Euro football teams are intrinsically linked to their host cities or areas in a way that the nfl isn't so generally need to use debt to fund stadium work.
-
The concert hosting thing is a particularly intriguing one, and an absolute sham as part of a business case. Why? Because part of it is about the economic benefits to Christchurch of drawings acts (in lieu of Dunedin). Dunedin does so well out of concerts because so many people travel from Christchurch. They're filling hotel and motel rooms, and spending up on hospitality simply because there's no other option. What happens if and when Ed Sheeran comes to Chch? The vast majority of the crowd will be locals who will car pool to the gig, have a couple of drinks and a pottle of chips, then drive home again. And this happens how often? Every couple of years? So this part of it is garbage. Compare that to 40k rugby fans at a Tier 1 AB test on the hoon before and after a game, pretty much annually. Which is more beneficial??
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The concert hosting thing is a particularly intriguing one, and an absolute sham as part of a business case. Why? Because part of it is about the economic benefits to Christchurch of drawings acts (in lieu of Dunedin). Dunedin does so well out of concerts because so many people travel from Christchurch. They're filling hotel and motel rooms, and spending up on hospitality simply because there's no other option. What happens if and when Ed Sheeran comes to Chch? The vast majority of the crowd will be locals who will car pool to the gig, have a couple of drinks and a pottle of chips, then drive home again. And this happens how often? Every couple of years? So this part of it is garbage. Compare that to 40k rugby fans at a Tier 1 AB test on the hoon before and after a game, pretty much annually. Which is more beneficial??
This is garbage.
Concerts are a crucial part of making a/the stadium viable, and it's at no compromise to the stadium design. (Concerts don't turn stadiums into multi-use ovals etc like Wellington)
Christ, where to begin, none of your post makes any sense.
- a concert every couple of years?
- local concert goers are car-poolers and chip pottle eaters as opposed to go-large local rugby watchers?
- the 500k non-Christchurch South Islanders (plus Wellingtonians) wouldn't make up large proportions of large acts visiting Christchurch and Auckland only?
From wiki:
Concerts:
The stadium has hosted musical performances by international artists starting with Elton John in November 2011. Other notable acts to have performed at the stadium include Macklemore (2013), Aerosmith (2013),[29] Paul Simon (2013), Tinie Tempah (2014), Rod Stewart (2015), Neil Diamond (2015), Fleetwood Mac (2015), Black Sabbath (2016), Stevie Nicks (2017), Roger Waters (2018), Robbie Williams (2018), and Ed Sheeran (2018). It also hosted Kendrick Lamar, Shania Twain, and P!nk during 2018. Fleetwood Mac and Elton John are both due to play the venue for a second time during 2019–20. Queen + Adam Lambert will perform at the stadium on 10 February 2020 as part of The Rhapsody Tour.Ed Sheeran's three concerts during his 2018 tour set a new record for concerts in Dunedin, pulling in an audience between them of 108,000 people,[30] with almost 70,000 of those attending coming from outside the city.
Dunedin had 3 Ed Sheeran concerts over 3 consecutive nights, They've only hosted 6 All Blacks tests in the 9 years since it was constructed.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The concert hosting thing is a particularly intriguing one, and an absolute sham as part of a business case. Why? Because part of it is about the economic benefits to Christchurch of drawings acts (in lieu of Dunedin). Dunedin does so well out of concerts because so many people travel from Christchurch. They're filling hotel and motel rooms, and spending up on hospitality simply because there's no other option. What happens if and when Ed Sheeran comes to Chch? The vast majority of the crowd will be locals who will car pool to the gig, have a couple of drinks and a pottle of chips, then drive home again. And this happens how often? Every couple of years? So this part of it is garbage. Compare that to 40k rugby fans at a Tier 1 AB test on the hoon before and after a game, pretty much annually. Which is more beneficial??
This is garbage.
Concerts are a crucial part of making a/the stadium viable, and it's at no compromise to the stadium design. (Concerts don't turn stadiums into multi-use ovals etc like Wellington)
Christ, where to begin, none of your post makes any sense.
- a concert every couple of years?
- local concert goers are car-poolers and chip pottle eaters as opposed to go-large local rugby watchers?
- the 500k non-Christchurch South Islanders (plus Wellingtonians) wouldn't make up large proportions of large acts visiting Christchurch and Auckland only?
From wiki:
Concerts:
The stadium has hosted musical performances by international artists starting with Elton John in November 2011. Other notable acts to have performed at the stadium include Macklemore (2013), Aerosmith (2013),[29] Paul Simon (2013), Tinie Tempah (2014), Rod Stewart (2015), Neil Diamond (2015), Fleetwood Mac (2015), Black Sabbath (2016), Stevie Nicks (2017), Roger Waters (2018), Robbie Williams (2018), and Ed Sheeran (2018). It also hosted Kendrick Lamar, Shania Twain, and P!nk during 2018. Fleetwood Mac and Elton John are both due to play the venue for a second time during 2019–20. Queen + Adam Lambert will perform at the stadium on 10 February 2020 as part of The Rhapsody Tour.Ed Sheeran's three concerts during his 2018 tour set a new record for concerts in Dunedin, pulling in an audience between them of 108,000 people,[30] with almost 70,000 of those attending coming from outside the city.
Dunedin had 3 Ed Sheeran concerts over 3 consecutive nights, They've only hosted 6 All Blacks tests in the 9 years since it was constructed.
@Rapido you have no idea what you're fucken talking about. Do you think Chch will get every gig that currently goes to Dunedin? You're insane. FBS offers a deal which the CCC would have to match, and even then its very debatable what would happen. And you don't think if Chch had a large, state of the art stadium that we'd have a Tier 1 AB test most years if not every year?! Of course we would. All the historical Dunedin stats you're spouting are themselves garbage in an environment in which Chch has a new stadium. The thing they're going to build simply won't get all of those Dunedin gigs. And if they ran with something closer to my idea then Chch would certainly get more AB tests than Dunedin, and a higher level of opposition more often.
To try and deny that a huge proportion of any Dunedin concert crowd is from Chch and in the same breath say that a Chch gig would be heavily patronised by other South Islanders, is ludicrous as it ignores the 400,000 or so Cantabrians that would be more interested in a local gig than the trauma of going to Dunedin (transport, accommodation etc). It makes absolute sense that a concert in a centre with that population is going to attract a vastly larger crowd of locals than a concert in a city with fewer more than 100,000. So the benefit to the region of said gigs is drastically less than it is to Dunedin. I was a little tongue in cheek re the car pooling but who in their right mind thinks a concert with 30,000 in attendance is going to have a greater economic benefit in terms of hospitality spend than a tier 1 AB test attracting 40,000, or even just 30,000 also? Plus tests are guaranteed to be on a Saturday night whereas your Macklemore or Fleetwood Mac gig could be a bloody Tuesday! And there will be plenty of car pooling on a weeknight, guaranteed!
-
@Rapido you have no idea what you're fucken talking about. Do you think Chch will get every gig that currently goes to Dunedin? You're insane. FBS offers a deal which the CCC would have to match, and even then its very debatable what would happen. And you don't think if Chch had a large, state of the art stadium that we'd have a Tier 1 AB test most years if not every year?! Of course we would. All the historical Dunedin stats you're spouting are themselves garbage in an environment in which Chch has a new stadium. The thing they're going to build simply won't get all of those Dunedin gigs. And if they ran with something closer to my idea then Chch would certainly get more AB tests than Dunedin, and a higher level of opposition more often.
To try and deny that a huge proportion of any Dunedin concert crowd is from Chch and in the same breath say that a Chch gig would be heavily patronised by other South Islanders, is ludicrous as it ignores the 400,000 or so Cantabrians that would be more interested in a local gig than the trauma of going to Dunedin (transport, accommodation etc). It makes absolute sense that a concert in a centre with that population is going to attract a vastly larger crowd of locals than a concert in a city with fewer more than 100,000. So the benefit to the region of said gigs is drastically less than it is to Dunedin. I was a little tongue in cheek re the car pooling but who in their right mind thinks a concert with 30,000 in attendance is going to have a greater economic benefit in terms of hospitality spend than a tier 1 AB test attracting 40,000, or even just 30,000 also? Plus tests are guaranteed to be on a Saturday night whereas your Macklemore or Fleetwood Mac gig could be a bloody Tuesday! And there will be plenty of car pooling on a weeknight, guaranteed!
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido you have no idea what you're fucken talking about.
Stop ya right there fella.
Awful analysis, incorrect conclusions, zero insight. Wrong about pretty much everything.
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido you have no idea what you're fucken talking about.
Stop ya right there fella.
Awful analysis, incorrect conclusions, zero insight. Wrong about pretty much everything.
Haha which one of us, or both??
-
There are still issues with the sound quality for concerts at FBS so they better get that right in their Chch stadium design. Otherwise, they are compromising capacity to attract tier 1 tests for the comfort of a roof.
Auckland's largest concert venue (Mt Smart) doesn't have a roof but the sound is always very good as it is an open-air venue. Spark Arena is still very hit and miss.
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido you have no idea what you're fucken talking about.
Stop ya right there fella.
Awful analysis, incorrect conclusions, zero insight. Wrong about pretty much everything.
Haha which one of us, or both??
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido you have no idea what you're fucken talking about.
Stop ya right there fella.
Awful analysis, incorrect conclusions, zero insight. Wrong about pretty much everything.
Haha which one of us, or both??
All of us!
-
There are still issues with the sound quality for concerts at FBS so they better get that right in their Chch stadium design. Otherwise, they are compromising capacity to attract tier 1 tests for the comfort of a roof.
Auckland's largest concert venue (Mt Smart) doesn't have a roof but the sound is always very good as it is an open-air venue. Spark Arena is still very hit and miss.
@Bovidae said in Stadium of Canterbury:
There are still issues with the sound quality for concerts at FBS so they better get that right in their Chch stadium design. Otherwise, they are compromising capacity to attract tier 1 tests for the comfort of a roof.
Auckland's largest concert venue (Mt Smart) doesn't have a roof but the sound is always very good as it is an open-air venue. Spark Arena is still very hit and miss.
All stadium concerts are shit sound really, doesn't matter. Sheep want the 'event'.
-
@Bovidae said in Stadium of Canterbury:
There are still issues with the sound quality for concerts at FBS so they better get that right in their Chch stadium design. Otherwise, they are compromising capacity to attract tier 1 tests for the comfort of a roof.
Auckland's largest concert venue (Mt Smart) doesn't have a roof but the sound is always very good as it is an open-air venue. Spark Arena is still very hit and miss.
All stadium concerts are shit sound really, doesn't matter. Sheep want the 'event'.
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Bovidae said in Stadium of Canterbury:
There are still issues with the sound quality for concerts at FBS so they better get that right in their Chch stadium design. Otherwise, they are compromising capacity to attract tier 1 tests for the comfort of a roof.
Auckland's largest concert venue (Mt Smart) doesn't have a roof but the sound is always very good as it is an open-air venue. Spark Arena is still very hit and miss.
All stadium concerts are shit sound really, doesn't matter.
A guy I know is a sound engineer and he said it's incredibly difficult to get the sound acceptably good for all the patrons at a big concert.
-
@Bovidae said in Stadium of Canterbury:
There are still issues with the sound quality for concerts at FBS so they better get that right in their Chch stadium design. Otherwise, they are compromising capacity to attract tier 1 tests for the comfort of a roof.
Auckland's largest concert venue (Mt Smart) doesn't have a roof but the sound is always very good as it is an open-air venue. Spark Arena is still very hit and miss.
All stadium concerts are shit sound really, doesn't matter. Sheep want the 'event'.
-
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Bovidae said in Stadium of Canterbury:
There are still issues with the sound quality for concerts at FBS so they better get that right in their Chch stadium design. Otherwise, they are compromising capacity to attract tier 1 tests for the comfort of a roof.
Auckland's largest concert venue (Mt Smart) doesn't have a roof but the sound is always very good as it is an open-air venue. Spark Arena is still very hit and miss.
All stadium concerts are shit sound really, doesn't matter.
A guy I know is a sound engineer and he said it's incredibly difficult to get the sound acceptably good for all the patrons at a big concert.
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
A guy I know is a sound engineer and he said it's incredibly difficult to get the sound acceptably good for all the patrons at a big concert.
The design and shape of the roof will be important to minimise any sound problems. As someone who goes to a lot of concerts I am more critical than the sheep.
-
@Rapido you have no idea what you're fucken talking about. Do you think Chch will get every gig that currently goes to Dunedin? You're insane. FBS offers a deal which the CCC would have to match, and even then its very debatable what would happen. And you don't think if Chch had a large, state of the art stadium that we'd have a Tier 1 AB test most years if not every year?! Of course we would. All the historical Dunedin stats you're spouting are themselves garbage in an environment in which Chch has a new stadium. The thing they're going to build simply won't get all of those Dunedin gigs. And if they ran with something closer to my idea then Chch would certainly get more AB tests than Dunedin, and a higher level of opposition more often.
To try and deny that a huge proportion of any Dunedin concert crowd is from Chch and in the same breath say that a Chch gig would be heavily patronised by other South Islanders, is ludicrous as it ignores the 400,000 or so Cantabrians that would be more interested in a local gig than the trauma of going to Dunedin (transport, accommodation etc). It makes absolute sense that a concert in a centre with that population is going to attract a vastly larger crowd of locals than a concert in a city with fewer more than 100,000. So the benefit to the region of said gigs is drastically less than it is to Dunedin. I was a little tongue in cheek re the car pooling but who in their right mind thinks a concert with 30,000 in attendance is going to have a greater economic benefit in terms of hospitality spend than a tier 1 AB test attracting 40,000, or even just 30,000 also? Plus tests are guaranteed to be on a Saturday night whereas your Macklemore or Fleetwood Mac gig could be a bloody Tuesday! And there will be plenty of car pooling on a weeknight, guaranteed!
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido you have no idea what you're fucken talking about. Do you think Chch will get every gig that currently goes to Dunedin? You're insane. FBS offers a deal which the CCC would have to match, and even then its very debatable what would happen. And you don't think if Chch had a large, state of the art stadium that we'd have a Tier 1 AB test most years if not every year?! Of course we would. All the historical Dunedin stats you're spouting are themselves garbage in an environment in which Chch has a new stadium. The thing they're going to build simply won't get all of those Dunedin gigs. And if they ran with something closer to my idea then Chch would certainly get more AB tests than Dunedin, and a higher level of opposition more often.
To try and deny that a huge proportion of any Dunedin concert crowd is from Chch and in the same breath say that a Chch gig would be heavily patronised by other South Islanders, is ludicrous as it ignores the 400,000 or so Cantabrians that would be more interested in a local gig than the trauma of going to Dunedin (transport, accommodation etc). It makes absolute sense that a concert in a centre with that population is going to attract a vastly larger crowd of locals than a concert in a city with fewer more than 100,000. So the benefit to the region of said gigs is drastically less than it is to Dunedin. I was a little tongue in cheek re the car pooling but who in their right mind thinks a concert with 30,000 in attendance is going to have a greater economic benefit in terms of hospitality spend than a tier 1 AB test attracting 40,000, or even just 30,000 also? Plus tests are guaranteed to be on a Saturday night whereas your Macklemore or Fleetwood Mac gig could be a bloody Tuesday! And there will be plenty of car pooling on a weeknight, guaranteed!
Yes, if Chch stadium is roofed, I think Chch will get 95% of all gigs that are currently going to Forsyth Barr.
