If we are sucsessful and Bristol is a world cup venue there would be some extra costs as there is for any other event like the Harbour festival etc but the costs are comparatively small especially as it would advertise itself.
Gary Hopkins, July 10 2009
Bristol City Council last night published a press release – rather conveniently handing the story to the local blogging community first – claiming the cost of hosting World Cup group games in 2018 is:
“Approximately £17 million include an estimated £8 million to pay for temporary additional stadium seating (to increase seating up to 40,000 for World Cup matches), £2 million for transport costs, £2 million for marketing, and £2 million project management, including legal and financial advice in the lead up to the competition.”
Unfortunately the city council is deliberately withholding the detailed report about these costs so it’s hard to form any firm opinion on the veracity of their figures – although we know they’re notoriously vague around the maths on this matter.
However, we do know they don’t include the £10.25m being demanded by central government that the Blogger identified on Thursday. This takes costs to around £27.25m.
Is this what Mr Hopkins meant by “comparatively small” costs? And is this what Chief Exec Gormlessdroyd calls “minimal public spending”?
And it doesn’t stop there does it? There’s a further public subsidy – so far – of £12.5m (waived s. 106 monies and costs related to BRT) towards Steve Lansdown’s stadium. That’s about £40m of public money going in to corporate football then.
It’ll be interesting too, to hear where the council thinks this money’s coming from. Lib Dem leader Barbara Janke told councillors on the Scrutiny and Overview Management Committee on 22 October:
Whilst the first six months spending review indicates that projects/programmes are generally being delivered within approved budgets there is a shortfall, currently estimated at £14m in the level of capital funding.
Therefore, at this time there is no scope to add new, locally funded projects to the programme.
Going forward the expectation is that there will be a reduction in the availability of new capital funding. Public finances are frail which is likely to lead to reduced government capital allocations, whilst the current state of the property market has reduced the realisation of capital receipts available for re-investment.
Was Barbara lying? Has Ormondroyd really got £50m tucked under her mattress? Or is there another plan involving huge cuts and privatisation of public services to get this money?
I think we should be told.