Paul Lewis: Build a stadium, they will come

Why aren't we building a new super-stadium or spending the $130-odd million to upgrade Eden Park? Why are we waiting to see if the NZRU-Government bid to host the 2011 rugby World Cup is accepted? It most likely won't be. Most of us know that.

In the midst of chummy political unity and corporate slickness at the unveiling of the bid for the 2011 Cup, the main issue lies unresolved. For New Zealand to host a World Cup or Commonwealth Games, we need the infrastructure.

NZRU chairman Jock Hobbs and Minister of Sport Trevor Mallard made much of the fact that the bid wouldn't be decided on political grounds. That's right. It'll be about who can give the IRB the fattest cheque from the proceeds.

The IRB use a World Cup to cash up and grow the game - and who can blame them? The single greatest obstacle to New Zealand hosting a world-class event is our lack of a stadium capable of holding 80,000. Japan's got 'em. So does South Africa, the other favoured World Cup contender. So why don't we?

Or, more to the point, instead of making what might be a futile bid to host the 2011 Cup, why do we not go ahead and build a super-stadium or revamp Eden Park anyway? The alternative has already been mentioned by Hobbs. Miss this one and New Zealand might be priced out of hosting another because of soaring costs.

Excuse me? So that's it? Miss this one and New Zealand doesn't host another?

Before anyone starts informing me of financial realities, or the debt connected to the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, let's look at Auckland's history. I remember a visionary mayor, who everyone knew as Robbie, who was derided for suggesting the city build a rapid rail system. Too expensive, cried detractors. Too ambitious, a political figure building himself a municipal shrine, said others. But he was right, wasn't he? Forward the clock 30-40 years and you have Auckland - clogged by the car, with a public transport system so pathetic that a bus strike makes sod-all difference to the frustrated majority.

And our answer? More roads for even more cars. There is no party nor individual with the political will to take the unpalatable decision of forcing Aucklanders out of their cars. The cost has leapfrogged to unattainable heights. And so the automobile excess grinds on.

It'll be similarly so with the stadium. If November comes and New Zealand doesn't have the 2011 World Cup, all the talk about an Eden Park upgrade or a new stadium will go where Robbie's rapid rail went.

In outlining the bid, there was a lot of vibrant phrasing given over to the importance of rugby in New Zealand. If it's so important, why don't we build the stadium needed to capture the tournament, rather than the other way round? In October, NZRU CEO Chris Moller told the Herald on Sunday that a new stadium capable of hosting a final would cost $300-$400 million. That option has been shelved. Too expensive. That whirring noise is Robbie spinning in his grave.

Yet the Hobbs/Mallard show let drop sweet references to feasibility studies about spending about $380m in New Zealand if we win the World Cup bid, plus taxes of $90 million. Is it just me, or does this appear to balance the books?

Rugby has a special place in New Zealand. New Zealand has a special place in the rugby world. But we stand a chance of slipping down from best in the world - perhaps in the same 30-40 years it took for Robbie's prophecy to come true.

We haven't won the World Cup since 1987. Hosting the tournament is a big help. Only once has the host nation not made the final. If we have a new stadium, or a properly revamped Eden Park, we have a chance of continuing the pre-eminence of a sport which, whether we like it or not, has helped define us as New Zealanders.

If the Government wanted to boost rugby in the way described at the bid launch, it would find a way to build the stadium. As I read about the bid, the horrid and wholly unworthy thought occurred to me that it might be just a hollow gesture - an effort to look professional and concerned after the NZRU debacle of 2003 and the loss of the World Cup hosting.

Couldn't be. The bid is costing up to $3 million of someone's money - no one would do that for what is likely to be an empty gesture.

Because if I did think that, I would be calling for volunteers to line up to be given Heineken bottles, the use of which was so graphically described by Mallard in response to the 2003 hosting debacle. Only I'd recommend no bottle-tops be returned. Mallard was talking about the IRB when he advocated unusual use of the bottles. I'd be thinking closer to home. To quote Kevin Costner, Mr Mallard: "Build it and they will come."

To misquote David Lange (he was talking about Ruth Richardson), anyone who misses this chance should be sent to Singapore, where they are mostly small people, where he can sit in a darkened room (to save power) and think about what he has done.

Or hasn't done.

- HERALD ON SUNDAY