Gert Bam writes that the news of pitch at Cape Town Stadium being revamped by the City is an obvious attempt to place this project in a positive light, rather than the reality of serious oversight, poor budgeting and planning. Picture: Phando Jikelo/African News Agency (ANA)
by Gert Bam
The City of Cape Town issued a press release at the weekend, which I happened to read on Facebook.
In it, it announced the process to replace the turf at the Cape Town Stadium. This would commence with the issuing of a tender in October 2022 and the projections are that the new pitch will be ready for use by October next year.
The press release quoted various figures relating positive comments about this development. While this move is welcomed, I offer another perspective.
I contend that this is an obvious attempt to place this project in a positive light, rather than a case of serious oversight, poor budgeting and planning.
Ultimately this is rooted in poor management by both the City and WP Rugby who, during the negotiations to become the anchor tenant, should have insisted that the pitch be replaced prior to rugby matches commencing at the stadium.
It was fairly obvious during the international rugby matches between the Springboks and the Lions and Wales, as well as during the recently held Rugby World Cup Sevens, that the pitch was in a poor condition.
Large tufts of turf were being dislodged, especially at scrum time, putting the players at risk, besides disadvantaging the scrummaging power of the Springboks and the Stormers when they use the stadium for their URC matches.
Apart from affecting the playing standard, it is also a damning reflection of Cape Town as a world-class city, endeavouring to maximise its tourist potential through hosting world-class events.
Indeed, it is no exaggeration to state that during the Rugby Sevens World Cup, the pitch resembled more an under-maintained community sports field than a pitch befitting such an iconic international venue hosting world-class sporting and other events. Certainly, this is a bad advertisement for a city that prides itself on excellent service delivery and maintenance of its facilities.
Anybody with the minimum knowledge of managing a stadium hosting international rugby and football matches would acknowledge that the most important element is the actual pitch.
With WP Rugby moving there and the Springboks scheduling their tests for the Cape Town Stadium, replacing the current pitch with the correct pitch should have been a top priority.
Not planning the budgeting process to enable the replacement of the pitch in time was definitely an oversight, to say the least. Indeed, the attempt to put a positive spin on this process of replacing the pitch is nothing else but the City seeking to portray itself as saviours of a self-created mess.
This furthermore highlights the unintended consequences when a municipality becomes hamstrung by the cumbersome tender processes and procedures of local government when assuming management of a major international sports facility.
It is best run by acknowledged experts, such as the rugby federation who has the expertise and experience of managing a stadium like this.
If the replacement of the pitch is managed by WP Rugby, it can easily take just about three months or six months at most instead of more than a full year. The quality of the playing surface at Newlands, the previous home of WP Rugby is a stark testament to their ability.
Free from the restrictions of local government regulations, WP Rugby would be able to negotiate a cost-effective and appropriate deal with the manufacturer, something which the City structures are not able to do.
This also then begs the question as to why the City is in fact still managing the stadium. It has hitherto been a financial burden leading to financial loss, draining the municipal fiscus.
I remember clearly that in 2010, post the Football World Cup, the executive director responsible for the Cape Town Stadium sought my advice as the director of Sport, Recreation and Amenities for the City during the process of the City deciding a way forward for the Cape Town Stadium.
This was subsequent to the collapse of the partnership with Sail Stade de France where the city had to pay out about R8m without any progress being made. (By the way, this is a deal which I warned against right at the outset but was ignored by senior management and politicians who knew nothing about stadium management).
I sketched the financial scenario (on the assumption that the norm of 6% of capital cost spend on maintenance annually) of the City spending an annual operational budget of between R40m and R60m to manage the stadium.
I pointed out that it would mean that with minimal revenue the City would, over a period of five years, by 2015, have literally used between R200m and R300m of ratepayers’ cash without a commensurate return, which in essence would be a wasteful expenditure that could have been avoided.
At the time, my advice was to immediately enter into a management agreement with WP Rugby or even hand the stadium responsibility to them provided they take care of the total operational costs of the stadium.
The question is who is held accountable for this state of affairs? To recover this loss, the stadium would need to realise an annual profit of close to R100m over 10 years.
Even if we are optimistic and reduce the assumed loss by 50% then to recover R500m over 10 years the stadium would have to realise a profit of R50m per year, alternatively over 20 years an annual profit of R25m.
In light of this analysis, it is important that we resist political cheap shots but act in the interest of the people of the city, in whose interests political and administrative leaders purport to act.
Once again I evoke the words of Amilcar Cabral who states that we should: “Hide nothing from the masses of our people. Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories.”
It is in this spirit that I am sharing these thoughts in the hope that they will illicit positive debate on the issue of accountability and trust and that if there should be a response from whatever quarters it is about (pardon the pun) playing the ball and not the person.
* Gert Bam is the City of Cape Town’s previous Director: Sport, Recreation and Amenities.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Do you have something on your mind; or want to comment on the big stories of the day? We would love to hear from you. Please send your letters to arglet@inl.co.za.
All letters to be considered for publication, must contain full names, addresses and contact details (not for publication).