Durban's Stadium Generates R4m

R4m revenue over 3 months in the context of a R3.4bn expenditure is pretty irrelevant.

The interest (i.e. opportunity cost to taxpayers) on that amount of money alone approaches R30m per month. Put another way, unless the stadium consistently generates at least R30m per month in profit (not revenue) it is a financial black hole.
 
Djtay said:
You dont seriously expect replies do you?

Where are those screaming "white eliphant' brigade?
Click to expand...

It's just a new novelty so people are excited to go view it from the top. That pit will dry up .... What then?
 
i did a rough sum and, with an average load of 10 people, and a trip lasting 15 minutes (including travel time)...
they would have needed to have been running non stop at full capacity for 22 hours a day 7 days a week, or 11 hours a day if they have been operating for 6 months (i tried to be generous on their side).
that sounds pretty impressive. the queues for this thing must be crazy. or maybe my maths sucks :)

anyways, i went up in the skycar about a month ago. the stadium is looking amazing. it really feels like a piece of the first world in africa.
you've got to hand it to them - if you want something done well in africa, rather ask the germans :D

but when i got to the top, i cound't see the stadium beneath me. they've purposely built it so that you can't peer over.
which i found terribly underwhelming. i don't want to take pictures of kings park and the harbour.
for pete's sake, i can do that from a flat on ridge road, the bluff or innes road park.
you think they could have put a glass floor or something in there so i could see the pitch at least.
perhaps the walk on the other side has a better view?
the place could have done with a few coin operated telescopes too.
 
Last edited:
murraybiscuit said:
i did a rough sum and, with an average load of 10 people, and a trip lasting 15 minutes (including travel time)...
they would have needed to have been running non stop at full capacity for 22 hours a day 7 days a week, or 11 hours a day if they have been operating for 6 months (i tried to be generous on their side).
that sounds pretty impressive. the queues for this thing must be crazy. or maybe my maths sucks :)
Click to expand...

The capacity is 25. The trip apparently takes 3 minutes. Not sure how long it sits at the top. Another article mentions other activities. Bear in mind it is not just the sky car but the adventure walk, bungy jump and stadium tours.

Mention was made in the one article that over 4000 people went up in the sky car over the Easter weekend alone.
 
Can someone explain to me how the money spend on the world cup stadiums just evaporates into thin air ? Because I've never understood this argument. Did not the money go towards paying hundreds of thousands of people a living wage ? Towards many people learning new skill sets ? To better roads and well, stadiums ? Towards local construction companies ?

With that considered what's the hype all about ? Consider it one big public works program.
 
Money spent on building the stadiums goes to the construction consortiums that designed and built the stadium. Quite obvious I'd imagine...
 
genetic said:
Money spent on building the stadiums goes to the construction consortiums that designed and built the stadium. Quite obvious I'd imagine...
Click to expand...

Right. And the thousands of people that work for them. The point is it does not just go "poof". Much of it finds it's way back into the tax system and almost all of it back into the economy. Company exec buys new car from X, workers buy food from Y etc etc. The idea of there was Z amount of money and now it's all just gone/wasted is to me a little silly. Frankly I'm for the government spending money on getting people working even if it's just getting them to dig holes and fill them up again. Here at least we get some pretty stadiums and new roads. Why so grumpy ?
 
While it is true that the projects inject cash into the economy, the counterargument is that the additional cash leads to higher inflation and a larger money supply leading to a weaker rand while the additional expenditure leads to a greater tax burden, etc etc... so at the end of the day there is no real net benefit apart from the intangible prestige of having pretty stadiums. Far better to spend the money on infrastructure such as roads, power stations, education, crime fighting etc - all of which would have a more direct long lasting positive influence on our economy.
 
garp said:
While it is true that the projects inject cash into the economy, the counterargument is that the additional cash leads to higher inflation and a larger money supply leading to a weaker rand while the additional expenditure leads to a greater tax burden, etc etc... so at the end of the day there is no real net benefit apart from the intangible prestige of having pretty stadiums. Far better to spend the money on infrastructure such as roads, power stations, education, crime fighting etc - all of which would have a more direct long lasting positive influence on our economy.
Click to expand...

Weaker rand would be a good thing is you ask me. This current strong rand makes it very hard to compete in the export market.

One could argue that an investment in a global event such as this is more than a mere sporting event it's a public relations campaign. If all goes well the ultimate goal is to fix the distorted and pessimistic perspective people have of Africa. South Africa is after all far removed from starving fly ridden children with bloated bellies. We're a major developing economy with extremely good economic prospects given the growth potential in sub saharan Africa. A world cup littered with images of modern cities and beautiful scenery will not only stimulate tourism it will also stimulate foriegn investment and grow South Africa's "brand". The idea of a South African car or computer would be laughable to most people today , even in Africa. But after a healthy world cup ?

Remember we don't need to show we're as good as Europe etc. We simply need to show people "We're not all that crap" and it would be a massive improvement in our , and Africa's standing in the world's eyes. We might just be the darling of the world again. The scrapping little african country who could. And what better way to tackle the problems of crime etc than a growing and thriving economy benefitting from a increased status and world wide appreciation of South Africa ? You won't grow an economy sufficiently without investing in it in creative and ballsy initiatives. It's either go big or go back to the shack.
 
Last edited:
In an ideal world maybe the PR aspect justifies the expenditure, but the risk is just too great in SA that just one high profile crime against a world cup tourist will destroy the good PR and thanks to the very same attention provide even worse PR than we would have had without the event. It's the "I told you so" factor - one gratuitous tourist rape, stabbing, kidnapping, violent hijacking etc and SA will be remembered for being crime-ridden, not for pretty stadiums.
 
LancelotSA said:
The capacity is 25. The trip apparently takes 3 minutes. Not sure how long it sits at the top. Another article mentions other activities. Bear in mind it is not just the sky car but the adventure walk, bungy jump and stadium tours.

Mention was made in the one article that over 4000 people went up in the sky car over the Easter weekend alone.
Click to expand...

+1

In December I waited almost 2 hours to go up. I'd guess at full capacity around 800 per day and December and April would have put it at full capacity
 
alf101 said:
I'n sure it is amazing.
The stadium in Cape Town is also amazing.
If they built 10 more stadiums just like that all over Cape Town, I'd be amazed and say well done.

My issue is not that they are "crap" stadiums, its that we really don't need them. we don't need to waste taxpayers money on them either.

Yes! There are many benefits that trickle down, because new roads etc are being built, but they spend Fall on roads for 20 years - so they kinda needed to do that anyway.

I am really not happy to see my tax money wasted like this.
Click to expand...

You must be joking?
 
garp said:
In an ideal world maybe the PR aspect justifies the expenditure, but the risk is just too great in SA that just one high profile crime against a world cup tourist will destroy the good PR and thanks to the very same attention provide even worse PR than we would have had without the event. It's the "I told you so" factor - one gratuitous tourist rape, stabbing, kidnapping, violent hijacking etc and SA will be remembered for being crime-ridden, not for pretty stadiums.
Click to expand...

But what are the chances of a tourist getting hurt during the world cup ? Extremely small. South Africa has a very good record of tourist safety. Given how negative the publicity has been (mostly I'll admit from South African's themselves) the world is expecting tourist genocide. So when nothing bad happens, as I'm convinced will be the case, we can start to shred this bogus image our bitter expats have planted around the world.
 
garp said:
R4m revenue over 3 months in the context of a R3.4bn expenditure is pretty irrelevant.

The interest (i.e. opportunity cost to taxpayers) on that amount of money alone approaches R30m per month. Put another way, unless the stadium consistently generates at least R30m per month in profit (not revenue) it is a financial black hole.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The 'opportunity cost' you speak of has nothing to do with the actual cost of the stadium. Quite how generating R16million a year even before a ball has been kicked in the stadium is a bad thing, I'll never know.
 
hj2k_x said:
Nonsense. The 'opportunity cost' you speak of has nothing to do with the actual cost of the stadium. Quite how generating R16million a year even before a ball has been kicked in the stadium is a bad thing, I'll never know.
Click to expand...

No , me neither. I really don't understand the current psyche of some people in this country. Our crime etc is not unique in any way. But our extreme pessimism and self defeatism and hope for failure is certainly one of a kind.
 
JohnGalt said:
Weaker rand would be a good thing is you ask me. This current strong rand makes it very hard to compete in the export market.
Click to expand...
I hate this argument whenever I hear it. Even the Chinese, arguably the worlds largest exporter of... well... everything... have a stronger currency than we do. So does Brazil, Argentina, the USA, Canada, UK, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other countries very successfully exporting their goods and competing internationally. I love how the rand is referred to as strong when at stages in the 70's it was stronger than the US dollar and yet the economy hit double digit growth percentages. Just how weak do you people want the currency? And do the disastrous effects a weak currency has on inflation not worry you at all? A weak rand affects the oil price which in turn affects everything else negatively, just to name one thing. It also adversely affects our businesses ability to automate and expand, since most modern machinery is imported and paid for in USD, thus hampering our ability to produce in the first place.

EDIT:

On the actual stadium - Love it. Glad to hear it's making money. The investment was definitely needed and just like the Gautrain, that also attracted endless criticism, infrastructure investment is something that needs to be done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X