harrytom 642 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Well if the AC or RWC were beneficial NZ,particulary Auckland,why is the super city almost broke? we would of have had money in the bank for the on going infrastructure, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkMT 68 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 the better it is for our economy. Keep in mind that in practice the benefits accrue to the few. The funding comes from the many, whether they like it or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Priscilla II 392 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 The hosting fee of a estimated US$80 million is a massive leap skyward compared to the fee paid to ACM for the last Cup in Bermuda. ETNZ Inc shareholders are looking to the public for a bonanza bonus pay day. Whistle dixie you greedy selfish blackmailing pack of thankless twits. Take it to Russia Italy Zimbabwe, so off you go bozos and good riddance . As previously stated ETNZ has received great dollops of public loot and would have ceased to exist long ago without the public financial support. ETNZ ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 642 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 http://nzmarine.nzmarine.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2017/11/AC-REPORT-Nov-2017.pdfwell if that report makes you think wow great. Just have a read of what kiwis spend each year on boats/outboards fishing gear etc far out ways on per head than any AC and its on going,not just for a few years. Totally independant no goverment interferrence,When it was presented to government dismissed straight away and seeked peer reveiwed http://www.nzmrf.org.nz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 642 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 And whats more what we have added to the GDP comes with additional no expense for infrastructure to any local body council a Billion dollar industry that a handful 700th people generate each and every year Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkMT 68 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 http://nzmarine.nzmarine.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2017/11/AC-REPORT-Nov-2017.pdf It's great that there's a specific industry organization that encompasses and represents those who'll benefit from the Cup. The government and Auckland City will know exactly who to bill for the cost of infrastructure and hosting. Good of them to put their hands up like this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Priscilla II 392 Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Jim has stepped up and called a spade a spade. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11953679 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
raz88 96 Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 Dalton spoke last night at a sponsors event last night at the squaddy, and while he didn't mention the fee he basically said that they were committed to hosting in Auckland and implied that some of the reports of looking at other locations were exaggerated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deep Purple 511 Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 You don’t mess around with Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Battleship 100 Posted December 22, 2017 Author Share Posted December 22, 2017 Another sensationalist headline when in fact it is barely news. The last paragraph. "MBIE added that the error did not affect its economic impact estimates for hosting the regatta in Auckland. It maintained that between 2018 and 2021 it would add between $0.6 - $1 billion in value add to New Zealand's economy and boost employment by between 4700 and 8300" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkMT 68 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 add between $0.6 - $1 billion in value The way I understand it, that's not the key piece of information - in fact by itself it's kind of misleading since that's not net of the cost that has to be invested to produce that benefit. The point of the article is that you have to spend something pretty close to that amount, potentially even more than that, to get that benefit - which is not exactly an economic miracle. And that money that has to come from somewhere (aka someone). And as far as I understand, the analysis (haven't read in detail) doesn't take account of the opportunity cost, i.e. what alternative benefit might be achieved by spending that money in completely different ways, including leaving it entirely in the private economy. Tell me if I'm wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.