Expensive cars, dead rockers

Is anyone else getting annoyed at the New Zealand Herald's attempts to stir up stadium hate at the moment? Sure, it's a big deal - should we build it on the waterfront, should we upgrade Eden park- but the Herald have decided on our behalf that the waterfront is dead. Hence, their naming and shaming of people who think it might be kind of cool to have a stadium in, you know, the centre of the city, what with the public transport, hotels for people from out of town, lots of pubs, not too many residents with small children who are up all night because of the noisy fans outside, who then go off to work on Monday and do a crap job because they're still tired. Perhaps, realising that the entire debate may not hinge on the fact that Abbott, Tim of Kohimarama prefers the Eden park option, the Herald has let slip the dogs of reporting to really get to the nub of the issue. Imagine Woodward and Bernstein but with l33t reporting skills and, I dunno, X-ray eyes or something.

Your new car will become more expensive. That's right. We go and put a rugby field by the water there, and:

The proposed stadium would "massively disrupt" the flow of imported vehicles into Auckland port, said the chief executives of the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association and the Motor Industry Association said in a joint statement.

Not just disrupt. Massively. Disrupt. Massively.

"Car buyers could expect to pay hundreds of dollars more a vehicle if the waterfront stadium proceeds, because of the disruption to the trade and increased transport costs. It will probably also result in delays for buyers," the statement said.

Hundreds more! That's it! Forget about the 1995 Honda Civic I was going to get in next year, there's no way I can come up with hundreds more! I'm assuming all this extra cost is due to the captains of the ships floating in confused circles under the harbour bridge, wondering where the place where they dropped the cars last time went to. And delays! When I want a second hand 1995 Honda Civic brought in from Japan, I want it now! Because what's the point getting one six months later when everyone is driving the new 1997 model?

It gets worse though. Don't be thinking you could use the new stadium for a bit of the rock and roll when there's no rugby on. According to Steven Thompson, the marketing manager of Wellington's Westpac stadium:

He said it would be a different story in Auckland where the 12,000-seat indoor Vector Arena could compete over a couple of nights against a big outdoor stadium with weather risks. What's more, the only acts able to sell 20,000 tickets were ageing rock bands with only a few touring years left.

That's right. If you build the stadium on the waterfront, Mick Jagger and Elton John will die. And Steven Thompson should know. He's a marketing manager. He manages the marketing! You know, if anyone had ever asked me how I thought Mick Jagger was going to die, killed by construction of sports stadium at the bottom of the world? Not on my list. Come to think of it, how do we know that just by proposing this idea we haven't already killed some of the lesser rock gods? Has anyone seen Mike Love lately?

So there you go. A fair and balanced presentation of both sides of the debate. And my opinion? Well, the waterfront is pretty compelling, but you can't go past keeping rugby at a place with a long and proud tradition. Sure, it would be great to take the ferry in, walk a few hundred metres and watch international rugby, but what is our national sport if not a celebration of all the great matches of the past, all those great players who, though they are gone, are remembered as you gaze on the grass where they enjoyed their greatest victories. And that's why, if the Herald asked me, I would tell them that my vote would be for... Jade Stadium.