The truth is out about the cost of the "Bertie Bowl ". It will be more than double what we've been told, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
The independent consultants' report on the Sports Campus and Stadium Ireland project at Abbotstown, Co Dublin, has been a long time in gestation. And despite attempts by some to massage its contents, what has emerged is an indictment of woolly thinking on a grand scale.
The consultants, High Point Rendel (HPR), who know a lot about major sports facilities worldwide, submitted a draft of their report to the Minister for Sport, Dr McDaid, in late-September.
Since then, attempts have been made to rewrite some of its essential findings in more acceptable language.
That we have an independent report at all is due to the persistence of the Tánaiste, Ms Harney; had she not intervened last April to insist on the need for it, we might have been railroaded into irrevocable contracts by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd (CSID), which is spearheading the project.
CSID and, in particular, its chairman, Mr Paddy Teahon, and its consultant director of executive services, Ms Laura Magahy, were understandably miffed by one of HPR's essential conclusions - that, in effect, they are not up to the job of delivering a project of such complexity in the manner proposed. According to HPR, the challenges posed by Abbotstown "make it essential that senior management have experience of major international projects" and what CSID needs is "a well-rounded management team with experience of projects of this size, complexity and challenge". It does not have that at present.
The consultants also query CSID's decision to procure the project by advertising for bids from international consortia to design, build, finance, operate and maintain all the facilities at Abbotstown - DBFOM, as it is known in the jargon - especially "in the absence of a detailed business and financial model".
The DBFOM bids from "a limited number" of consortia (four in all) were still being assessed when the consultants were examining the project. However, this process has now been concluded without any apparent result.
Like the earlier nomination by CSID of panels of architects, it was a waste of time.
What's also missing, according to HPR's report, is a "clear definition" by CSID of what it is setting out to achieve and how, precisely, it plans to get there. As a result, they could not carry out a full risk assessment.
But the consultants do warn that a "capital funding gap" due to delays would be the biggest strategic risk.
It is also clear that CSID attempted to move the goalposts while the HPR study was in progress, with the aim of tailoring the cost estimate to more politically acceptable levels.
This included proposing a "sunken bowl" arrangement for the stadium, about which the consultants are dubious for a variety of reasons. They say it has not been properly assessed from operational or commercial viewpoints. It would, for example, involve reducing the number of revenue-generating corporate boxes below the figures already agreed with the FAI, the GAA and the IRFU. Worse still, the grass on the pitch might not grow.
The effect of CSID's exercise in smoke and mirrors was to reduce the cost of the proposed 80,000-seat stadium from £320 million, as assessed by HPR on the basis of the outline bids, to £226 million.
Now, Fianna Fáil sources are talking about scaling it down still further to a 65,000-seat stadium, costing somewhat less.
However, it is abundantly clear from the consultants' report that the real Exchequer liability to the stadium and its attendant "sports campus" would be nearly double what we have been told both by Dr McDaid and Mr Teahon - £704 million, including off-site infrastructure, as opposed to their oft-repeated £350 million.
To this must be added the estimate of £171 million for relocating the State laboratories on the Abbotstown site to Backweston Farm, near Celbridge, Co Kildare, and to Galway. Relocation would not have been required if the "Bertie Bowl" had not arisen and that renovation of the existing facilities would cost considerably less.
At last, we have a "bottom line" for the Sports Campus Ireland project as originally conceived.
And the notion that some £200 million of its cost would miraculously be raised from the private sector is scotched by the consultants. As they point out, the only money "on the table" is the £50 million pledged by the bookmaker, Mr J.P. McManus.
Abbotstown is a project that has grown like Topsy from the initial vision of providing a national stadium to an all-encompassing "sports campus", complete with a velodrome, tennis centre, golf academy, etc.
When the Celtic Tiger was still roaring, it seemed like a runner. Now, with only a bogus Exchequer surplus, it doesn't.
As one observer said yesterday: "Abbotstown is like a homeless person who gets his hands on a site and proceeds to build the Taj Mahal." It would make much more sense, financially and otherwise, to redevelop Lansdowne Road for both rugby and soccer and forget about this "Bertie Bowl" on the M50, sunken or not.