Make no mistake, any Waterfront Stadium is directly linked to what happens at Eden Park. What we are witnessing is Facilities Auckland’s not-to-subtle attempt to bring the Eden Park Trust Board (EPT) to the table.
A bit of background. EPT successfully lobbied the Council to have the Eden Park number 2 ground (the cricket pitch over the Western Terrace from the main ground) zoned for a major housing and retail development within the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The outcome if the Unitary Plan is passed is enough development rentals to offset the EPT’s $8m annual loss with significant funds left over. You can now understand why EPT rejected Facilities Auckland’s request that they throw their lot in with the other facilities in Auckland and have the whole lot run by a central body... they were in control of their own destiny. Well almost.
The problem for EPT is that they are contractually obligated to Auckland Rugby and Auckland Cricket and Auckland Cricket say there’s no way you are developing the number 2 ground without writing us a very big cheque! In other words, EPT needs to do a deal with Auckland Cricket.
How this is currently manifesting itself is Facilities Auckland pointing out that EPT’s annual loss and lack of investment means that in 10 or so years the Council (who control 5 out of 9 seats on the EPT) will be facing a $120m upgrade bill. The question Facilities Auckland rightly poses is “should we spend $120m on Eden Park or on (say) a Waterfront Stadium. However, as noted above, if EPT do a deal with Cricket and the Unitary Plan is approved, they don’t need Facilities Auckland and they can quite happily live with the number of events and attendance they currently have.
The impact of all this on the proposed Waterfront Stadium is that we will never build a 35,000+ Waterfront Stadium if the EPT can develop the number 2 ground. If they can’t, Facilities Auckland’s question regarding where to spend the money is valid. If EPT can develop number 2, a boutique waterfront stadium of 20-25,000 could quite easily live alongside Eden Park at 50,000. Both would have associated retail precincts, albeit Eden Parks’ would be more housing centric while Waterfront more entertainment focussed.
I’ve also heard people say that we should ditch Eden Park, “sell it off and use the money to develop and new stadium downtown” has been the call. The problem is that the EPT deed stipulates what happens if it is sold or leased. In summary you need 7 of the 9 votes to get it passed. That means either cricket or rugby (who have 2 votes each) have to agree with Council and then any proceeds from the sale or lease enable EPT to invest in another facility where Auckland Rugby and Auckland Cricket have the same rights they currently do, or they can simply divide up the funds “...for the benefit and advancement of cricket, rugby union, or other athletic games and pursuits of an amateur character within the Region...”. And before you jump on the “or other athletic games” phrase, the history of the document makes it pretty clear that Auckland Cricket and Auckland Rugby are the parties to bear the most benefit.
So where to from here re the Waterfront Stadium? EPT will try to solve their number 2 ground issue with Auckland Cricket and that might be as simple as writing them a big cheque with the funds provided by a cashed up developer. That will push any Waterfront Stadium debate to a smaller, not bigger stadium... and Facilities Auckland will be cut out of the discussion.
A bit of background. EPT successfully lobbied the Council to have the Eden Park number 2 ground (the cricket pitch over the Western Terrace from the main ground) zoned for a major housing and retail development within the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The outcome if the Unitary Plan is passed is enough development rentals to offset the EPT’s $8m annual loss with significant funds left over. You can now understand why EPT rejected Facilities Auckland’s request that they throw their lot in with the other facilities in Auckland and have the whole lot run by a central body... they were in control of their own destiny. Well almost.
The problem for EPT is that they are contractually obligated to Auckland Rugby and Auckland Cricket and Auckland Cricket say there’s no way you are developing the number 2 ground without writing us a very big cheque! In other words, EPT needs to do a deal with Auckland Cricket.
How this is currently manifesting itself is Facilities Auckland pointing out that EPT’s annual loss and lack of investment means that in 10 or so years the Council (who control 5 out of 9 seats on the EPT) will be facing a $120m upgrade bill. The question Facilities Auckland rightly poses is “should we spend $120m on Eden Park or on (say) a Waterfront Stadium. However, as noted above, if EPT do a deal with Cricket and the Unitary Plan is approved, they don’t need Facilities Auckland and they can quite happily live with the number of events and attendance they currently have.
The impact of all this on the proposed Waterfront Stadium is that we will never build a 35,000+ Waterfront Stadium if the EPT can develop the number 2 ground. If they can’t, Facilities Auckland’s question regarding where to spend the money is valid. If EPT can develop number 2, a boutique waterfront stadium of 20-25,000 could quite easily live alongside Eden Park at 50,000. Both would have associated retail precincts, albeit Eden Parks’ would be more housing centric while Waterfront more entertainment focussed.
I’ve also heard people say that we should ditch Eden Park, “sell it off and use the money to develop and new stadium downtown” has been the call. The problem is that the EPT deed stipulates what happens if it is sold or leased. In summary you need 7 of the 9 votes to get it passed. That means either cricket or rugby (who have 2 votes each) have to agree with Council and then any proceeds from the sale or lease enable EPT to invest in another facility where Auckland Rugby and Auckland Cricket have the same rights they currently do, or they can simply divide up the funds “...for the benefit and advancement of cricket, rugby union, or other athletic games and pursuits of an amateur character within the Region...”. And before you jump on the “or other athletic games” phrase, the history of the document makes it pretty clear that Auckland Cricket and Auckland Rugby are the parties to bear the most benefit.
So where to from here re the Waterfront Stadium? EPT will try to solve their number 2 ground issue with Auckland Cricket and that might be as simple as writing them a big cheque with the funds provided by a cashed up developer. That will push any Waterfront Stadium debate to a smaller, not bigger stadium... and Facilities Auckland will be cut out of the discussion.
RSS Feed
