Long Kesh Park takes another step forward

[SammyG]

So are the people in the boxes and premium seats not spectators requiring car parking, shops, banqueting and other corporate hospitality?

They certainly are but they're not included in the figures that I'm quoting (and the report is extremely vague on them in general).

[Donagh]

So are the people in the boxes and premium seats not spectators requiring car parking, shops, banqueting and other corporate hospitality?

They certainly are but they're not included in the figures that I'm quoting (and the report is extremely vague on them in general).

I think then we can lay the myth of £100 ticket or £80 burger in a grave somewhere then. Obviously some people will be paying a large premium while most others will not.

[thejuice]

Not sure if I want to get into this debate but its sort of in my line of work so its interesting, but the figure that Sammy produced is likely to be the most accurate average ticket cost for a seat at the stadium available to the public at this stage.

The people proposing the development may have yet to disclose the range of tickets and prices, though im sure they have already done some finaincial feasability study already of course.

By the way does anyone know what stage this is at. Is there anything in Lisburns local council like drawing plans, EIA's, Feasibility reports etc?

[his holiness nb]

Thats ludicrous - "the board" is made up of many individuals with different opinion.
Should this board be embarassed by every cringeworthy moment Fearon creates for example? are you in part culpable for every bigoted statement on this board?

There has been numeorus other GAA men been on there for a lot longer than you and "the boards" true colours havent forced them out.

People here are quick to point out to tony when he is being an idiot.
there was an eerie silence from the decent posters over there while the vultures were picking.

[his holiness nb]

Certainly am and I asked you several times to point out the posts, that you had a problem with and you refused (and are still refusing)

Refusing? I couldnt give a shite Sammy, I am done with that site. They can do what they want for all I care.


Incidentally, given that I have said I will never go back on the site, it would prove quite difficult therefore to quote those posts should I be arsed 

[Chrisowc]

Thats ludicrous - "the board" is made up of many individuals with different opinion.
Should this board be embarassed by every cringeworthy moment Fearon creates for example? are you in part culpable for every bigoted statement on this board?

There has been numeorus other GAA men been on there for a lot longer than you and "the boards" true colours havent forced them out.

People here are quick to point out to tony when he is being an idiot.
there was an eerie silence from the decent posters over there while the vultures were picking.

I had a quick nosey for myself there and in fairness I read a few posts from 'both sides of the fence' telling you to stick around and argue your points.  I was only reading one thread but it's a pity you didn't take that advice.

[his holiness nb]

Honestly Chris, I couldnt be arsed. Its just an internet board, and unless one enjoys the discussions, then theres really very little reason to stick around.

[Main Street]

The table on Page 79 is projected operating revenues, for the Maze (which apply were ever the stadium is built) . I am talking abouut the rationale for picking the Maze over Belfast, which is in section 11 of the report 'Conclusions and Reccommendations', from page 121.

This says that the reason for picking the Mze is that it will have a net cost of only £37 million after four years and this is based on projected cost of £240 million with £203 million revenue from spectators. And just for good measure those figures assume 0 running costs, in the first 4 years.

You need to read the whole report and not try and chery pick individual tables.

Not quite, you wrote this "the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket".

Visitor spend figures are not calculated from ticket revenue, it is a seperate calculation. It is an estimate of what visitors are expected to spend while they are attending the Maze stadium.
The estimates for income gained from visitor spend are detailed in section 7 and they are also compared with visitor spend figures for other stadium options and also calculated in the figures for other options. If you have the opinion that the visitor income figures exaggerated then they could well be exaggerated for the other options.

OK let's assume you're correct and the figures are total spectator revenue not just tickets (even though the report says different). So we have £30 quid per ticket and £80.34 spent on burgers and sundries. Even Wembley only charge £7 for a burger and chips meal and that includes a drink, what's the other £73 going to be spent on?

Where in the report does it say different?  
Visitor income = income from what visitors spend.
It has nothing to do with the ticket prices.

'Visitor Spend – the high NPV of visitor spending benefits for the New Stadium
option reflects the additional visitors and their spend that the stadium attracts
form outside Northern Ireland;
Income from sporting bodies etc for rent is calculated elsewhere in operating income.
If you want to see how they calculate the income from visitors, knock yourself out in Section 7  and what % of what people spend is used in the calculation

Caculations made for GAA fans are based on day trips,
for 120k  average spent at the Maze is less than a tenner

[SammyG]

So are the people in the boxes and premium seats not spectators requiring car parking, shops, banqueting and other corporate hospitality?

They certainly are but they're not included in the figures that I'm quoting (and the report is extremely vague on them in general).

I think then we can lay the myth of £100 ticket or £80 burger in a grave somewhere then. Obviously some people will be paying a large premium while most others will not.

For the umpteenth time the figures I'm quoting are for SPECTATOR REVENUE, ie each spectator will generate £110.34 per event. These are based solely on the conclusions section of the report and are the reason why the Maze was 'more feasible' than Belfast.

More than happy to discuss, the issue of premium seats or corporate sponsorship etc, if you want but they have nothing to do with the figures I'm quoting.

[SammyG]

Where in the report does it say different?  
Visitor income = income from what visitors spend.
It has nothing to do with the ticket prices.

'Visitor Spend – the high NPV of visitor spending benefits for the New Stadium
option reflects the additional visitors and their spend that the stadium attracts
form outside Northern Ireland;
Income from sporting bodies etc for rent is calculated elsewhere in operating income.
If you want to see how they calculate the income from visitors, knock yourself out in Section 7  and what % of what people spend is used in the calculation

Caculations made for GAA fans are based on day trips,
for 120k  average spent at the Maze is less than a tenner

See previous answer to Donagh.

[Main Street]

My question was
'Where in the report does it say different?'

So you say the answer to my question is in here

For the umpteenth time the figures I'm quoting are for SPECTATOR REVENUE, ie each spectator will generate £110.34 per event. These are based solely on the conclusions section of the report and are the reason why the Maze was 'more feasible' than Belfast.

More than happy to discuss, the issue of premium seats or corporate sponsorship etc, if you want but they have nothing to do with the figures I'm quoting.

   good answer.

The concluding end of the report is a summary of the report.
Obviously you just try to digest the report headlines and still get it wrong.

The proposed Belfast stadium was projected to generate Visitor Spending of over £54m
The proposed Maze stadium was projected to generate Visitor Spending of £41m
How in your opinion does that make the PWC report biased towards the Maze?

[SammyG]

My question was
'Where in the report does it say different?'

So you say the answer to my question is in here

For the umpteenth time the figures I'm quoting are for SPECTATOR REVENUE, ie each spectator will generate £110.34 per event. These are based solely on the conclusions section of the report and are the reason why the Maze was 'more feasible' than Belfast.

More than happy to discuss, the issue of premium seats or corporate sponsorship etc, if you want but they have nothing to do with the figures I'm quoting.

   good answer.

The concluding end of the report is a summary of the report.
Obviously you just try to digest the report headlines and still get it wrong.

The proposed Belfast stadium was projected to generate Visitor Spending of over £54m
The proposed Maze stadium was projected to generate Visitor Spending of £41m
How in your opinion does that make the PWC report biased towards the Maze?

The Maze is proposed to generate visitor spending (to use your phrase) of £203 million not £41 million. £240 million initial cost with £37 million remaining after 4 years. It really isn't that difficult.

[Main Street]

The Maze is proposed to generate visitor spending (to use your phrase) of £203 million not £41 million. £240 million initial cost with £37 million remaining after 4 years. It really isn't that difficult.

Visitor spending is not my phrase, it it the description used in the report.

There are only 2 tables in the conclusion 11.1 and 11.2

First you called it ticket revenue, then you called it spectator revenue, what next will you call it? 

The conclusion of PWC  comes up with similar figures for Belfast and the Maze, why do you think the report is biased towards the Maze.

Do you have the foggiest notion of what you are rattling on about?

[SammyG]

The Maze is proposed to generate visitor spending (to use your phrase) of £203 million not £41 million. £240 million initial cost with £37 million remaining after 4 years. It really isn't that difficult.

First you called it ticket revenue, then you called it spectator revenue, what next will you call it? 

I said it was ticket revenue (as detailed in the report) you didn't accept this so I agreed that we'd assume it was total spectator revenue rather than just tickets (it still doesn't add up either way.

The conclusion of PWC  comes up with similar figures for Belfast and the Maze, why do you think the report is biased towards the Maze.

Because it blatantly distorts the Maze figures to enable it to reach it's conclusion (the conclusion that was requested by the people paying for the report)

Do you have the foggiest notion of what you are rattling on about?

Certainly do thanks and luckily, now that the report has been published, so does everybody else, which is why the Maze is now a dead-duck.

[Donagh]

Certainly do thanks and luckily, now that the report has been published, so does everybody else, which is why the Maze is now a dead-duck.

Just one problem though, it leaves us without a stadium we never needed and the GAWA taking the boat to England for matches instead of the bus to Lisburn.