Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Heh, not sure that handball counts. Also, an estimate of potential cumulative viewers is very different from actual cumulative viewers.
Suspect that, like some other sports, they were giving an aggressive positive spin to viewer numbers.
Even if they were spinning it aggressively, even if they were spinning it by 100% of the actual number (I don't know what the actual number was), they still estimated only 2/3 of what the 2007 RWC actually achieved. There's little doubt that 2011's RWC will have even greater viewer numbers, given that Americans have had a lot of exposure to rugby in the intervening years and that the general trend in viewer numbers has been consistently upwards.
-
I’ll be staggered if the UEFA Euro Champs aren’t bigger than the RWC.
Be staggered, then.
Estimate for the last UEFA season was two billion cumulative viewers.
Compared with the 2007 RWC's cumulative audience of three billion viewers.
-
It's also global marketing for our national businesses including tourism, so there's logic in govt involvement in such large events.
Absolutely. I have no problem with "NZ Inc" putting money into events such as the RWC, on the grounds that it's advertising that couldn't be bought for any price. However, such things come from a national level and should be funded as such.
-
Sacha, there are definitely winners from increased retail and hospitality activity associated with events such as the RWC: the retailers/hospitality providers, and central government. Local government in this country has no power to levy income-related rates, so gains nothing from a one-off event such as the RWC. Rather it's a sodding great money sink, what with all the amenities expenditure and the inevitable clean-up that'll have to be done every time there's a game. If this was a recurrent event, like the 7's, then a targeted rate in the areas that gain most from the increased patronage would make sense. But it's not, so it doesn't, and we also have plenty of business owners who consider it mighty unfair that there's a rating differential between people who can increase their income at will (within reason) and reclaim the GST whenever there's a rates increase, and those who must simply pay the bill and suffer it. You really think people with that mentality will sit meekly by if local government tries a locally-targeted rate? I don't.
-
Local governments get nadda
Rates from businesesAnd those rates are related to income how, exactly? The rates take increases relative to customer numbers from a one-off event how, exactly?
-
Admittedly it's a bigger event
I wouldn't count on it - and in tv audience terms, most certainly not.
In terms of impact on a single city, it absolutely is. You're right about global audience, though. It stuns a lot of people that the RWC is the third-most watched sporting event in the world, after FIFA WC and the summer Olympics.
-
From memory, Auckland had a good chance to build a new stadium in a much better location than in the middle of the suburbs, which could
You mean the waterfront stadium idea? That was going to leave no change from a billion dollars (yes, with a b), and given that our local bodies are being pushed to contribute significantly to the $190m tag to upgrade Eden Park, how much debt do you think would've been lumped on Auckland City Council and the ARC? Hint: far, far, far too much. It's easy for y'all from out of town to sneer, but it would've been a lot of your tax money going into paying for it, and it wouldn't have been your rates going into paying for the rest. How many other cities in NZ would be keen on forking out for a billion dollar stadium?
Plus there's the simple fact that this country has a terrible track record of getting things built on time, and facilities for the RWC have to be ready by a fixed date. There's no leeway for an "oh, shit, we didn't see that hurdle coming" moment.
-
Nothing? Im guessing the gain of nothing is the same reason Auckland & Dunedin are keen to get the 7s into town as well. Of course the city gains something when a few extra thousand people turn up for the weekend.
Except that the capacity of Eden Park is being increased to 60k only temporarily. The final increase on current capacity is, from memory, about 4,000, and as it is there are very few sell-out crowds each year. Plus, RWC is a once-off. The city spends lots on the surrounding area, and gets nothing back. If there's going to be so much more money spent as a result of the RWC, the argument for Central Government funding is greatly amplified because they're the ones who collect all the income taxes and GST. Local governments get nadda.
-
The appearance to me (which is certainly unfair of me) is that everybody else is stumping up cash and having a good shake at getting this thing done, but the Auckland lot aren't.
Oh, you mean like the tens-of-millions that Auckland is spending on upgrading roads and public transport facilities around Eden Park? Eden Park is private property, not a council facility, so whatever public money goes into it gains the city nothing. Central Government bid on it, they can fund it. I have no problem with taxpayer money going into stadia in other centres that've been allocated as venues, for the same reason, but I'm heartily pissed off at the demands/expectations that Auckland spend ratepayer money on a private venue.
-
There's nothing that says "don't bother" like a pre-emptive declaration that it's all moot.
It worked for the smacking referendum.
Totally. All that advertising and lobbying and whining in the media. Completely shut down the debate.
The big difference is that the s59 repeal has mostly been a non-event. Prosecutions for parents assaulting their children have decreased. Reported incidents of parents assaulting their children have decreased. The law has clearly not lead to rafts of parents being hauled before the courts for giving Little Joanne a swat on the rear for having a tanty in the supermarket. A referendum to overturn a law that was not fulfilling its opponents' deepest, darkest fears was hardly a worthwhile exercise.
Compare that with the MDA, which the Law Commission feels is doing significant harm to the health of the country, and you can see that one debate is very definitely worth having. The other debate only became apparently irrelevant once it was underway and information became available about how irrational the fears of the instigators actually were.