Signs Of Pre-Determination

8 Mar

I get the feeling Mayor Tim is ready to vote yes on taking over Rugby Park.

Mr Shadbolt said stadiums never made money, but like other facilities around the city that the council owned and did not make money from, it was about providing a community facility.

“I have a feeling at the end of the day we are the only powerful and economically viable strength in terms of sustaining a stadium.

“I think in the long term we should lump all these venues together and just accept that they will run at a loss.”

“It will be back on council’s agenda.”

Given the non-compliance of the organisation and the fact that Rugby Southland have been the primary users, why should we (the ratepayers) cover Rugby Southland’s bad decisions?

While several options were discussed for the home of the Southland Stags, the favoured option would involve the Community Trust of Southland forfeiting the $750,000 loan owed by the stadium trust and the licensing trust covering the debt owed to Pacific Dawn Ltd, which is just over $100,000.

The city council would then look at footing the bill to Rugby Southland for about $600,000 before taking over the Tweed St facility and running it as part of its asset portfolio.

ILT (with a legal requirement to give away money) get away with $100,000 and the ratepayers are expected to cover the advances Rugby Southland made to the stadium trust.  Rugby Southland chose to advance that money (because they are the main beneficiaries of Rugby Park).  It was in effect an unsecured loan.  It is not up to the ratepayers to help them out because they made bad decisions.  I have already given a possible solution and what is happening is pretty close to that.  As I said then, I’m not happy with it.  If it does go ahead, Rugby Southland ‘debt’ should NOT be repaid.  They made the informed decision at the time to advance it.


One Response to “Signs Of Pre-Determination”

  1. Realist March 8, 2014 at 3:50 pm #

    I concur regarding the Mayor having already shown signs of predetermination a number of times on this issue, as such I would expect him to abstain from any voting.

    However what i find more amusing from good old Timmy, is he has catagorically stated it wont make money, so how does he expect Councillors to be able to comply with their decision making obligations as they relate to “prudent” use of resources, to invest n something that is going to make a loss is financial mismanagement.

    The term community asset, would hardly apply to the stadium as to date there has been no use of need of this monolith as a “Community Asset” most community assets owned by a local authority are either, free for to the public, or have a minimal cover charge which allow the residents entry, following which they can utilise the facilities (eg the Pool, Museum, Library, parks etc) A rugby stadium on the other hand does not give the same community outcomes.

    There is no way on Gods good green earth that Stadium Southland should be purchased by the ICC to bail out a trust and burden ratepayers with debt for the sake of NZ Rugby.

    If they can guarantee 100% that no ratepayer funding will ever be required and that they can structure the acquisition to write losses of tax liabilities then, and only then should and such fantasy be considered.

Got something to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: