How will the National Conference Centre pay for itself??

Slideshowbob

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0801/1224301686670.html

The good news is RTE are using an upper lobby for Mike Murphy's new series of interviews !! :rolleyes:

GSF

Slideshowbob wrote: »

The good news is RTE are using an upper lobby for Mike Murphy's new series of interviews !! :rolleyes:

with da Bertie no less.

Maybe Bertie can do a nightly stand up and fill the gaff for about 200 weeks?

Cookie_Monster

with conferences I would presume :pac:

or not

FreudianSlippers

Slideshowbob wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0801/1224301686670.html

The good news is RTE are using an upper lobby for Mike Murphy's new series of interviews !! :rolleyes:

So we shouldn't have a functional, modern national convention centre?

Sometimes the people of this country are SO backward it's annoying. Shur, we don't need a conference centre...

Slideshowbob

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0801/1224301686670.html

The good news is RTE are using an upper lobby for Mike Murphy's new series of interviews !! :rolleyes:

So we shouldn't have a functional, modern national convention centre?

Sometimes the people of this country are SO backward it's annoying. Shur, we don't need a conference centre...

No

Are you aware that the proposal John O'Donoghue approved for it was a substantially higher cost than another proposal?

thebman

It is very pretty though IMO.
http://www.theccd.ie/index.jsp?p=101&n=124

I like that part of Dublin. I don't like a lot of Dublin TBH.

Pete_Cavan

Slideshowbob wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0801/1224301686670.html

Under the deal, the State will pay the consortium about €715 million over 25 years before the centre reverts to State ownership.

The Times seems to have arrived at the figure to be paid over to the consortium by multiplying the figure for the first 12 months by the 25 years of the contract. The actual cost over the 25 years is just under €380m in present day values. I would imagine the repayments are front loaded to cover the cost of construction. The building has been built to meet the 100-year design life so the present contract will only last for at most a quarter of the life span of the building, meaning the state will still own it for at least another 75 years. It is worth noting that the funding mechanism used has actually won a number of awards, see here.

Slideshowbob

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Times seems to have arrived at the figure to be paid over to the consortium by multiplying the figure for the first 12 months by the 25 years of the contract. The actual cost over the 25 years is just under €380m in present day values. I would imagine the repayments are front loaded to cover the cost of construction. The building has been built to meet the 100-year design life so the present contract will only last for at most a quarter of the life span of the building, meaning the state will still own it for at least another 75 years. It is worth noting that the funding mechanism used has actually won a number of awards, see here.

PPP's are still young and have not stood the test of time: http://bulatlat.com/main/2011/09/16/public-private-partnerships-in-education-health-more-costly-act-teachers-party/

Ask me in 50 years if they work!

I note your last link refers to a "third party revenue risk". Who is the 3rd party or indeed the other 2?!! Is there a 4th, 5th ....? Could any of these parties be in NAMA or could they go there in the short to medium term future??? :rolleyes:

Of course it also may be worth pointing out the webpage of the link you gave to the awards is in itself sponsored by Ernst & Young. Now where would they potentially sit in a PPP deal they wouldn't they laude a PPP? :rolleyes:

Time shall tell, so far from what I've seen the NCC is not hitting it's metrics

PS - are RTE paying for rent the upper lobbies on a sq.ft basis??

Slideshowbob

Pete Cavan

You made some very assertive comments in your last post and I since replied.

I'd appreciate your views on my last post.

OMD

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Pete Cavan

You made some very assertive comments in your last post and I since replied.

I'd appreciate your views on my last post.

12 hours ago FFS. some people sleep. And in fairness you didn't really address his points apart from "wait 50 years"which doesn't really amount to analysis

namenotavailablE

I note your last link refers to a "third party revenue risk".

It's worth defining this term: "Third party revenue risk" is the risk that revenues arising from third party demand for the property will be greater or less than expected.

On that basis, I'd assume that the term refers to those companies/ organisations actually hiring the facility for their own conferences. Without sight of the contract, it suggests that both the state and the developers of the conference centre have agreed some sort of a risk sharing arrangement in the contract in the event that the projected demand falls below projections i.e how the annual revenue shortfall (or even surplus, which seems somewhat unlikely at present) gets to be divided up between the 2 contracting parties.

Slideshowbob

OMD wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Pete Cavan

You made some very assertive comments in your last post and I since replied.

I'd appreciate your views on my last post.

12 hours ago FFS. some people sleep. And in fairness you didn't really address his points apart from "wait 50 years"which doesn't really amount to analysis

Well thats my point, it's hard to provide proper analysis on the real benefits of PPP to a nation as they are only a recent fad and have not stood the test of time.

Recent findings from the UK has questioned their long term value.

oppenheimer1

The conference centre was always about more than the building itself. It was about providing a place for corporates to have their do and then for the delegates to go and spend money in the rest of the city. Even if the centre doesn't cover its costs directly, the benefits to tourism should outweigh any subsidy it gets.

Sleepy

Didn't I see a figure recently claiming that the centre was losing in the region of €500 - €1000 per delegate attending a conference there?

MadsL

Yet Treasury Holdings own REO who "said yesterday that it had submitted a business plan to Nama, the agency that has taken over troubled property loans from Irish banks as part of the State’s recapitalisation plan. The company owes it £780 million." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1030/1224282314272.html

Why don't we seize the NCC as payment for the £780 million and tear up the €25m a year or whatever contract.

The NCC smaller event rates/meeting room are not comptetitive against other commercial venues and will end up costing the tax payer big money.

Slideshowbob

I apologise, I was wrong to assume that PPP's were new :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/plantation/planters/es04.shtml