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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3226 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

under current arrangements. The Raiders will receive a share of income generated from the sale of naming rights, something that is not the case at the moment; advertising signage; the sale of corporate suites that will be of a significantly higher standard than the existing corporate boxes; and food and beverage sales. So you cannot compare the current situation with the basis for revenue projections in the future. However, obviously, if no advertising or corporate suites are sold there will be no revenue to share. Everyone will get nothing. A share of zero, the last time I checked, is zero.

The Government has not offered the Raiders incentives amounting to $2m spread over 10 years, as I have heard some people say, to prevent the team from relocating to Seiffert Oval. What Mr Whitecross is saying is simply untrue. It is really that simple, Mr Speaker. There is no guaranteed minimum or maximum. This is a businesslike arrangement. I think it is probably worth, at this stage, reading a bit from a letter from Kevin Neil of the Raiders.

Mr Whitecross: A bit?

MRS CARNELL: I am happy to table the letter, if you like. That is not a problem. Mr Neil was referring to an article in the Chronicle, I think, last week, and he said this:

To suggest somehow that either party has achieved a "deal of the decade" is ridiculous. The newspaper article claimed, in effect, that the Raiders would get the same amount of money from ticket sales regardless of what size crowd they attracted. This is wrong. Our share of revenue depends upon our ability to attract paying patrons. The more patrons, the more revenue we achieve.

The Raiders are excited and supportive of the opportunities available to us from the redeveloped Stadium. The Raiders certainly needed a venue to a standard which your Government is committed to constructing to be successful in the rugby league business. If this redevelopment did not occur, other venues around Australia would have needed to be considered. Like you, we are committed to Canberra and its future and this has been reflected in our decision to play all our home games at Bruce Stadium for the next 10 years.

Mr Speaker, again, I am happy to table this letter. The Raiders make it clear that there is no guaranteed amount of money regardless of how many people they get. It is based upon crowd numbers. Also, they say that they would have had to look outside Canberra if we had not done this.

MR WHITECROSS: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. First of all, Chief Minister, in answering my question you said you could not compare the new deal with the old deal. Why did you sign a new deal when you have no basis for comparing it with the previous arrangement to tell whether it is better or worse? How can you say that it is not better than the previous arrangement if you cannot compare them, as you said? Is your failure to answer either of my questions an admission that both of the ideas in my questions were true, or would you like a second opportunity to answer the questions?

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