News24

Moses Mabhida losing cash

2012-10-24 10:26

Durban - Durban's Moses Mabhida Stadium is not generating enough money to make it financially sustainable, the Mercury reported on Wednesday.

Audit and risk committee member Peter Christianson said the R3.1 billion stadium built for the 2010 FIFA World Cup was incurring "cash losses".

Christianson suggested the stadium be managed as a separate entity, in the same way the Durban International Convention Centre and uShaka Marine were being run.

He said there was a flow of funds into the stadium but it was difficult to establish what the figure was.

"We also urge that the council investigates all possible options, including reopening negotiations with the rugby union, for the Sharks to move to the stadium," Christianson was quoted as saying.

Ethekwini Municipality spokesperson Thabo Mofokeng said one of the options the city could consider was changing the stadium to a legal entity.

This would mean it would have a board to manage its affairs and the city would play an oversight role.

He said negotiations with the SA Rugby Union were at an "exploratory level"

SAPA

Comments
  • wesley.rousseau.58 - 2012-10-24 10:32

    As a Sharks fan I wouldn't mind the move there at all! imagine hosting the 2013 Super Rugby final there!

      seanread.crisp - 2012-10-24 10:55

      I've been saying the Sharks should move there since 2010. Kings Park looks like crap in comparison the Moses M Stadium. Just look at that thing in the pic - its amazing! They might lose some money in the moving process or on rent but they would probably pull more spectators

      wesley.rousseau.58 - 2012-10-24 11:04

      @leesports, I hear you, forgot it didn't have suites, but surely there is away they can add them? hahaha i dunno

      joe.bat.52 - 2012-10-24 11:25

      @wesley..disagree with and I certainly do not want the sharks to move there. Kings Park is a rugby stadium and is meant for Rugby as opposed to the Soccer stadium. Because of greed and irresponsiblilty from the city council and the politicians they should pay the ultimate price for their ingenius decision. They should have upgraded the Kings park and all problem would have been solved.Last but not least I dont like the soccer stadium because its too far from the action.

      terry.burne - 2012-10-24 11:26

      As a Sharks Fan and Season Ticket holder I would definitely object to the Sharks moving there. The stadium might be an architectural masterpiece, but it is totally impractical for rugby - the field is so far away from the stands that you need binoculars even in the front row. In addition - the Sharks don't need a stadium to cater for 55,000 people - they would maybe fill it once every 5 years. Sutcliff and his side-kicks totally ignored any input from the Sharks when they were building it, and basically told the Rugby Union to take a hike. Now they are trying to use bully tactics to force the Rugby Union to relocate (veiled threats to not be able to supply policing and traffic support when required for rugby games, etc.). If they had only discussed the requirements for the Sharks before they built the stadium - it could have been a win-win situation, but sadly it was typical political pig-headed stupidity of the ANC that has resulted in this white elephant.

      rejeanne.nel.33 - 2012-10-24 11:32

      The Peter Mokaba stadium in Polokwane is also loosing money (Peter Mokaba by the way is famous for his "One Bullet one Boer" phrase) and we have similar problems. A local engineer calculated that if we paid a company to demolish the stadium and cleared the site, that we would roughly break even after 7 years compared to the cost of keeping the stadium open.

      hans.himmler.7 - 2012-10-24 11:34

      They can keep their ANC stadium. It will never have the legacy nor atmosphere of Kingspark. They were warned that it would become a white elephant - how many countires have gone through this with FIFA. They could've upgraded Kingspark, but like Leesport pointed out, it was to prove a point and to be spiteful - at the cost of the tax payers.

  • gary.desousa.7 - 2012-10-24 10:43

    I wonder if any of the stadiums built for the world cup are profitable?

      peter.ndamase - 2012-10-24 11:20

      My point as well. The sustainability of all stadiums were not considered, the priority was to build them within the world cup time schedule and the taxpayers will foot the running cost as usual!!!

  • amanda.vandenberg.758 - 2012-10-24 10:47

    Duhhh- most of the stadiums built for the soccer2010 were never a viable option except for the people who scored from the corruption .

      pollen.teffo - 2012-10-24 11:32

      Prove that there was corruption!angry people

      andrez.kolesky - 2012-10-24 12:33

      @pollen.teflonkop. Go and educate yourself; go and Google "Institute for Security Studies" -- Conflicting interests and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. But please take your time DWS, it'll hopefully keep you busy for a while.

      david.s.duncan.1 - 2012-10-24 12:41

      Um, pollen, wherever Fifa goes you are sure to find corruption. Books,articles etc have been researched and written about Fifa's shadiness.

  • heiner.freese.5 - 2012-10-24 10:47

    No kidding, really? I suggest they start mining inside it if they ever realistically thought of servicing that expenditure, but alas, I suppose it will be the ratepayers that cough up!

  • tshepo.maganedisa - 2012-10-24 10:49

    Last time i was there i saw lots of tourist taking pictures and lots of resturants no longer operating, so my take is consider charging tourists for pictures maybe you might make some money :-)

      justice.league.9469 - 2012-10-24 11:35

      While they are there, they should also charge them for breathing air!!! They will make millions

      andrez.kolesky - 2012-10-24 14:05

      @tshepo. These pictures were taken to show the world how not to waste money. I trust you also took some pictures. They'll become treaures when the stadium in plundered and in ruins

  • gary.doyle.520 - 2012-10-24 11:18

    Pathetic planning, what a waste of money that stadium is. Would never make sense for sharks to move because of the corporate suites at kings park which generate massive revenue for the union and the amazing atmosphere that can't be replaced for supporters. Kings park could have had a face lift at a fraction of the cost on the north, south and west stands to go with the east stand which is now only 17 years old.

      pollen.teffo - 2012-10-24 11:33

      I suppose you could have planned it better!!

      gary.doyle.520 - 2012-10-24 11:42

      Pollen.teffo. Are you stupid?? It was not my job to do the planning, but it does not take rocket science to see that the planning that was done has backfired!!

      robert.m.sylvester - 2012-10-24 18:24

      Gary the sharks OWN Kings Park. Why would they put themselves at the whims of the many different corrupt personalities involved. Imagine persponing the Curry Cup final because of a league soccer game, which wont be attended anyway. Its just not on.....

  • steveroodt - 2012-10-24 11:33

    When they proposed this stadium before the world cup the ratepayers complained and upgrades should be given to Kings Park but Mr Suttcliff stated they had long term profitable ventures for the future. Mmmmmm Taking our ratepayers cash seems very profitable.

      robert.m.sylvester - 2012-10-24 18:25

      Suttcliff got his "cut" and retired.

  • richard.russmann - 2012-10-24 11:37

    Move from delapidated old waterlogged kings park, add a coule suites, it is EASY. Cash flow will be WAY better, concessions, comfort, etc. Just needs WILLING administrators/ policitians who have the best interest of fans, and the teams, at heart and not themselves. Therein lies the rub.

      gary.doyle.520 - 2012-10-24 12:03

      Fortenately the union still has a 50 year lease on kings park stadiums land. Its really not delapidated, and how do you propose they build another 250 suites at moses mabidha? The smallest suite at kings park is about R170 000 a season. How would the Natal rugby union make up for that lost revenue in a stadium that's more expensive to maintain??

      robert.m.sylvester - 2012-10-24 18:27

      Who will purchase Kings Park???. The NRU has a huge investment here.

  • Partiboy - 2012-10-24 11:58

    Brilliant! They were warned beforehand from the Sharks union and chose to ignore them, so the municipality must fork out the expenses to run that white elephant and not the ratepayers and the sharks union!

  • Ze Don - 2012-10-24 12:00

    @pollen. Go ask your buddy Bobby Motaung about corruption when building the stadiums.

  • sydney.campbell.7758 - 2012-10-24 12:35

    Its so typical of the government to fork out millions for a party and in this case billions for a stadium for a few matches in 2010. They made the problem, they must sit with it!

  • sydney.campbell.7758 - 2012-10-24 12:37

    And in anycase...the Sharks wont move there casue then they have to change the name from Shark tank to Fish bowl. hehehe

  • frost.frost.980 - 2012-10-24 14:31

    Should use it for domestic cricket... Maybe even allow schools to play tournaments there, Hey if you making a loss might as well let the public enjoy it!

      robert.m.sylvester - 2012-10-24 18:29

      They are far too spiteful for that................

  • vvalashiya - 2012-10-24 18:52

    guys live politics out of this,we talking sport not who s black who is white

      joe.bat.52 - 2012-10-24 22:27

      Agree leesport, where in the above comments did anyone speak about black and white thing..so far i only read people stating how disingenius and corrupt the city council and the politicians were as well including FIFA. I just find it incomprehensible that some people like vvalashiya jump into conclusion without reading the comment properly and respnd accordingly. The politicians and the city council were warned about the stadium becomung a white elephant.

  • pages:
  • 1