Dylan Cleaver: Report into stadiums simply states the obvious

Eden Park. Photo / NZ Herald.

Auckland's lack of sporting vision has been laid bare, with the release of a council report into the future of the city's major stadiums.

The report highlights what everybody knew: that Eden Park, Mt Smart and North Harbour Stadiums were under-utilised and run along financial models that were tenuous.

The document's position could just as easily be summed up as an exercise in justifying the $250 million-plus spent on one stand at Eden Park in time for the World Cup.

Already there has been a backlash. Eden Park has a debt of $55 million and could become the financial responsibility of the Auckland Council if a shared ownership and management goes through. It is currently owned by the Eden Park Trust Board.

Mayor Len Brown has refused to rule out ratepayers getting into bed with Eden Park, something that has councillor Cathy Casey concerned.

"I have to wonder if this is a backdoor way of saving Eden Park using ratepayers' money," she said.

That will be a massive concern for the multitudes of struggling ratepayers facing sharp increases.

What will also concern Auckland sports lovers is the complete lack of anything amounting to foresight.

Over its history, Greater Auckland has burdened itself with ill-conceived stadiums in awkward outposts, ignoring the global trend of using big sports and entertainment events to revitalise CBDs.

What does this discussion document do to redress those errors? Nothing.

Test cricket at Albany? Jeremy Wells, who has a vision for tests to be played in downtown Victoria Park, puts it best when he says: "The idea of playing test cricket in Albany must have been mooted by someone in the council who loves softball."

Auckland Cricket CEO Mark Cameron is using statute to put the kibosh on any enforced move - Auckland Cricket can be their own worst enemy but in this instance you can hardly blame them.

Robert Domm, chief executive of Regional Facilities Auckland, the council body that formulated the plan, believes this is a debate that needs to be had. He is right, but the debate could have used a much stronger starting point than this document.