therisingblues wrote:Psyber wrote:therisingblues wrote:Spending money on Football Park would have an almost gauranteed return though right?
They average about 40,000 a footy game over 22 rounds which by that rough sum comes to almost a million, and that is in just half a year. Upgrade it and it becomes better to host other sports also. Looks like money that should make money to me.
Not really - the people who attend major weekend sports are a minority, even 100,000 in Melbourne out of a population of over 5 million. They would barely generate reasonable interest on that much capital. The money may be better spend benefitting the whole community and leaving the sporting clubs to fund themselves.
$100 million needs to earn $8 million a year to be a worthwhile investment.
I take it you understand how much Footy Park makes a year?
I don't think it really matters if it is a minority if it turns over a big profit. Your last statement is what interests me. Mr Whicker mentions that it is an investment made by the Government. That could mean a lot of things so I would want to hear more about what interests this secures for the Government in Footy Park, and what (if any) share of the spoils the Government will take.
No idea - I was thinking in terms only of what the extra $100 million would need to add to the existing income to be a viable investment.
I agree we would have to see what was promised to the government in return, and make some assessment of how realistic it was, to really know whether it was an investment or a publicity stunt.
Organisations often promise great benefits that are quite unrealistic when they are trying to sell a project. You should have seen some of the rubbish CommSec invited me to invest in, primarily because the Commonwealth Bank was funding the scheme and wanted to make sure their funds were secure by encouraging others to share the risk.
Result - I've just dumped CommSec!