
bruce
Contributor
I think he means the residential land bordering Cornwall Park which is leasehold.A 45,000 seat stadium costs more in R&M than a park, Mike!
We get it. Ads aren't what you are here for. NZWarriors.com has been up for almost 20 years and relies on ad revenue to help keep the server running.
Please add us to your ad blocker's whitelist or disable to run on our website. Alternatively, click here to upgrade your account to remove all ads.
I think he means the residential land bordering Cornwall Park which is leasehold.A 45,000 seat stadium costs more in R&M than a park, Mike!
I think he means the residential land bordering Cornwall Park which is leasehold.
Good point. That land is high value, especially compared with an industrial dump like Mount Smart. I recall it was one of the first points that JD raised.
As a business decision it never made sense to upgrade it just for the RWC that is obvious now. The business people i.e. the Councils lenders and maybe even Treasury will know that. I am sure it is just the sentimental politics getting in the way. I say that because of John Key's lack of support so far for the new stadium.
I personally wouldn't want the EPTB, or the ARU or Auckland cricket involved with the ownership of the new Stadium - I was thinking of them using the land rent to help meet their financial obligations of R&M and the current loan repayments .... They created their own mess, they should be left to sort them out.A 45,000 seat stadium costs more in R&M than a park, Mike!
Commercial developments are on skinny margins without having to pay tens of Millons of dollars to cover someone else's depreciation.
I personally wouldn't want the EPTB, or the ARU or Auckland cricket involved with the ownership of the new Stadium - I was thinking of them using the land rent to help meet their financial obligations of R&M and the current loan repayments .... They created their own mess, they should be left to sort them out.
I agree.
However, if they want to join the Warriors in a new council owned waterfront stadium they would need to ay market rent as tenants. The only way to do this would be to sell off Eden Park.
It was interesting to see how Dallas/Ft Worth is dealing with their traffic issues. In a lot of places, they have built/are building a second layer of freeway above the existing and it's tolled. So you have a choice - sit in the cues or driving in the tolled lanes. Once the tolls have made enough to cover that section of roading, the tolls are removed and the entire upper level is used to take traffic in one direction and the lower level is used to take traffic in the other.Hey, if the Council can work with private investors to help raise the capital required I'm all for a waterfront stadium then I'm all for it. What is of much greater concern to Aucklanders right now though is the city's infrastructure. Transport options and traffic are diabolical (but small inroads are being made at least) and our housing market is of course completely fucked... unless your a wealthy property speculator. So, I think its fair to say that Auckland has more pressing matters to attend to that a stadium build, at least in the near future. I'd love to see it happen, and plans can certainly be made now but I can't see the lights being switched on within the next 10 years.
Difficulty with the EPTB selling of the current assets is that although the entire property they own is valued at $260 mil, the land it's self is valued at only $13 mil (figures are from the Council GIS site based on the rateable value of the property). Let's say that figure is wrong due to the rapid increase in property values in Auckland and double the land value to $26 mil - that still doesn't cover the nearly $50 mil owed to the council by the EPTB if the figures in the following article are to be believed. Of course, they may be extremely lucky and find someone who wants to buy a complete stadium but realistically who would - especially if the plan is to provide a new Waterfront Stadium with similar capacity and a developer is not going to want to pay market rates ($260 mil) for a Stadium only to rip it down for land worth only $13-$26 mil. The current improvements only have value as a Stadium.
The only real way forward is for the EPTB to add value to the assets it owns which aren't directly related to the Number #1 ground and stadium and use that to reduce it's current debt load and R&M costs.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11333220
Here's a question for those in the financial field:
If assets owned by Eden Park Trust Board is valued in their books at say $300 mil and they were to sell the whole property to a developer for $25 mil for the land value, are they able to claim back of their taxes a percentage of the loss of sale of the asset (a percentage of the $275 loss incurred due to the sale) and use that money to firstly pay of their debts ($50 mil) and then provide funding for a waterfront stadium with the rest?
I personally don't want Auckland Cricket near the new Stadium - surely those "bright sparks" at EPTB and RFA can see that the #1 problem with Eden Park is the shape of the ground. Unless it's filled close to capacity, the ground has very little atmosphere for union/league/football because of the distance the fans are from the pitch and it's too small to be considered a good cricket ground.And if the new stadium doesn't happen its rugby and cricket's problem - they will be the ones with the crumbling stadium.
Who knows! The land value will increase but the improvement value will decrease as it only goes up if more money is spent on improving the facilities is more than what amount would be depreciated annually.Eden Park probably won need major work for 10 years, about the time the warriors will be looking to renegotiate their next lease - what will the land value be then?
I personally don't want Auckland Cricket near the new Stadium - surely those "bright sparks" at EPTB and RFA can see that the #1 problem with Eden Park is the shape of the ground. Unless it's filled close to capacity, the ground has very little atmosphere for union/league/football because of the distance the fans are from the pitch and it's too small to be considered a good cricket ground.
They need to look at creating a Hagley Park type cricket venue in Auckland for all first class and international games and not repeat the same mistake.
So lets think about this; by 2028 Eden Park will need major works to keep it open and the Warriors lease on Mount Smart will be up for renewal. Surely, around 2020 there should be a discussion around;
1) Upgrading Western Springs so it can cater for all major cricket matches played in Auckland - the cost could be covered by the council but recouped by a fair lease to the cricket people (and by fair leases I mean ones which enable the council to maintain the stadium and pay back the interest and make a return on its investment)
2) Building a rectangular waterfront stadium of 50,000 seats - it could be designed to allow upper tiers to be opened as and when required - the cost should be covered by the council but recouped by fair leases to the Blues, Auckland Rugby, the NZRFU, the NZRL and the Warriors, plus one-off hires for football and concerts
3) Eden Park and Mount Smart could be sold off by the Eden Park Trust/council in 2029-30
4) QBE stays as is and a fair lease is negotiated with North Harbour Rugby and the Blues
Here's a question for those in the financial field:
If assets owned by Eden Park Trust Board is valued in their books at say $300 mil and they were to sell the whole property to a developer for $25 mil for the land value, are they able to claim back of their taxes a percentage of the loss of sale of the asset (a percentage of the $275 loss incurred due to the sale) and use that money to firstly pay of their debts ($50 mil) and then provide funding for a waterfront stadium with the rest?
Found online the latest EPTB Annual ReportShort answer: it depends.
You'd need a lot more information before you could make that call. Being a Trust - do they pay tax to the IRD? If so, how much? Regarding tax losses - you can't claim a percentage and get cash for that. All you can do is use them to offset current or future income, negating current or future tax paid. And that depends on whether or not there is continuity of shareholding (I forget if it's 49% or 66% required for losses - one percentage is continuity for losses, one is continuity for imputation credits).
Given they seem short of cash, without looking at their financials, I'd hazard they don't make a large profit or pay a lot of tax. Meaning a large loss on sale would then booked, but probably never used! The carried over amount could be used on a waterfront stadium provided they stayed within the continuity of shareholding % for tax losses with the IRD.
Found online the latest EPTB Annual Report
https://edenpark.co.nz/uploads/images/EPT Annual Report and Financial Statements 31Oct15_Final.pdf
In summary, they made a $5.2 mil loss in 2015 and a $7.4 mil loss in 2014.
For Lord Gnome of Howick MBE, they've recently had the land revalued to $22 mil. so my guestimate of $26 mil. wasn't too bad. The book value of their assets given in their report is $222 mil. so the value of the improvements would be a maximum of $196 mil. (around $50 mil. less than the Council valuation of $247 mil.)
In summary, they made a $5.2 mil loss in 2015 and a $7.4 mil loss in 2014