Submitted on 2012/05/19 at 9:59 am
…keeping the DVL 6-month loss out of the media was a PR success for the McKerracher Group. The size of the loss ($5.2 million) is very significant and so it is inconceivable that Dave Cull and Paul Orders were unaware of it. The idea of pretending that the stadium is completely represented by DVML is DCC policy. The plan was that DVML’s finances could be manipulated to break-even and all the losses would end up in DVL. DVL was to be swept under the carpet and not talked about.
This deception is the likely purpose of having both DVL and DVML. The real financial horror story is seen by simply adding the results of DVML and DVL and the DCC.
The size of the DCC costs is undisclosed, but my guess is maybe $3 million. So we have for the total ratepayer impact for the 6 months of operation $2.0m (DVML loss – not $1.9m) + $5.2m (DVL loss) + $3m (DCC costs) = $10.2 million.
It is a reasonable assumption that the full-year ratepayer impact will be double the 6-month result, i.e. $20 million (remember the $3m is a guess). I expect this to continue for the lifetime of the stadium. It is easy to hide this from the councillors, but the awareness and collaboration of Dave and Paul is shown by them promoting the “only $1.9m loss” spin.
Read the full comment here.
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr