Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3225 ..

MR WHITECROSS: You get only six out of 10 for that supplementary question, Paul. Do better next time. Mr Speaker, my question without notice is to the Chief Minister, Mrs Carnell. Chief Minister, in a question on ABC radio 2CN this morning you were asked about the deal the Raiders have struck with your Government to play at Bruce Stadium. When asked by the host, Cathy Van Extel, whether the Government was guaranteeing minimum returns to the Raiders, you replied:

No. We're not at all. The Raiders will get more money if they get more people to their games. We've made it quite clear, and I think the Raiders have as well, the Raiders will have to get crowds to achieve returns.

When asked whether, if they get the same crowd figures next year as they did this year, they will be better off financially, you stated:

No, they won't be better off financially; they will be about the same. But they will get better crowds, I believe.

Of course, we all expect that they will get better crowds. Chief Minister, while your statement that if the Raiders get the same crowd figures next year they will be about the same financially is transparently true, because the new agreement does not come in until 1999, can you confirm that if the Raiders get the same crowd figures in 1999 as they achieved in 1997, which were historically low, the Raiders will be about $2.3m better off than they are under the current arrangements? Can you also confirm, Chief Minister, that the deal you have struck with the Raiders will see the Raiders get paid $2.2m even if they get a total crowd of 22,000 people for the whole season - that is, an average of 2,000 people per match? Can you confirm that this equates to $100 per person per game?

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I am pleased that Mr Whitecross does realise that the contract does not come in for a couple of years yet. Mr Whitecross probably needs a bit of a briefing, shall we say, on the contract, because the things that - - -

Mr Whitecross: I have been asking for it for weeks.

MRS CARNELL: We are very happy to give you a briefing. I am very happy to give a briefing on the arrangements that have been put in place, Mr Speaker, because the comments that Mr Whitecross makes are wrong. It is that simple. There is no guaranteed income payable by the stadium to the Raiders regardless of how many patrons they attract to their home games.

Mr Whitecross: That was not the question.

MRS CARNELL: That is, basically, the question, Mr Speaker. There is no guaranteed income payable. The Raiders, as a hirer, will receive the greater percentage of revenue from ticket sales, but this is not predicated on any minimum or maximum crowd figure. Logically, if the Raiders attract 25,000 people to a home game, they will generate more revenue than if they get only 5,000 paying patrons. This is exactly the same as is the case

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .