KEY POINTS:
I don't usually suffer from cultural cringe. But the fiasco over where the Rugby World Cup feature games are to be played is downright embarrassing. Especially in light of the fact that we lost hosting rights to the Rugby World Cup last time round due to an inability to follow the requirements of the International Rugby Board.
I'm sure the greybeards on the board aren't too concerned about the headlines emanating from New Zealand. They've seen it all before, with the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. The same arguments were tossed about by the Welsh when it came to building a stadium suitable for hosting World Cup rugby games. We can't afford it. Why should the stadium be built in Cardiff? Why should the rest of the country have to pay for it if it's the Cardiff business people who'll benefit? We'll never get it built in time. (There, the detractors were right. The first game was played when the stadium was only three-quarters finished.) We'll never fill it to capacity again. And so on, and so forth.
The cost for the stadium spiralled from £96 million to £123 million ($275m to $350m at today's rates) but it was primarily funded through the National Lottery and private subscription. Ironically, this year's FA Cup final between Liverpool and West Ham was played in Cardiff when contractors couldn't guarantee Wembley Stadium would be ready on time. It was six months behind schedule and the contractors expected to lose £75 million on their £455 million contract. But, and here's a tip for the Government, the Football Association had negotiated a fixed price for Wembley, which meant they were never going to pay more than the original asking price.
It seems that we have learned nothing from those who have gone before us. Surely, you would have thought, before you went boldly off to Dublin to demand the hosting rights for the biggest rugby party in the world, you'd have sorted out your venue. The venue, as we have learned to our cost, is not a mere detail, a minor concern.
The IRB has strict criteria that host nations must fulfil in terms of where World Cup games can be played, and the Government and the NZRU must surely know that. So why wasn't the venue sorted before everyone flew to Ireland?
And if there were always plans to investigate a waterfront stadium, wouldn't it have been a good idea to listen to the chief executive of the Ports of Auckland? Geoff Vazey this week said there was no way $5 billion worth of business could be shifted from the Ports of Auckland to allow the construction of a waterfront stadium in the timeframe allowed.
Why are his views being ignored?
It makes the waterfront proposal look ill-considered and poorly thought out. And where's the Rugby Union in all this? I really don't blame it for keeping a low profile - I wouldn't want to be raising my head above the parapet right about now - but it's their ball-game, their party. Shouldn't they have a clear view about where the feature games should be played? It would be great to have a beautiful, architecturally magnificent Stadium New Zealand that was a bricks and mortar symbol of the spirit of the nation.
Despite the controversy surrounding the Millennium Stadium, and the fact that it still struggles to pay its way, it's a feature of Cardiff and an iconic monument (most of) the Welsh are proud to call their own.
But whether New Zealand can produce a similarly spectacular statement is doubtful if the present brouhaha is indicative of the level of planning and forethought. One of the panel of experts asked to comment on the problems with Wembley remarked that construction projects are judged on whether they hit their deadlines and their budgets but 50 years on, people aren't concerned about that and they're grateful to have a fantastic stadium in their city.
That's true, but there seem to be plenty of casualties whenever and wherever these landmark projects are undertaken - people resign, companies go under, reputations are lost. I just hope that in New Zealand's case, the public won't end up the loser.
