The Green Point Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association is mandated to assist ratepayers and protect their rights. We therefore wish to inform you as clearly and realistically as possible about the contents of the Report and the nature and consequences of this Application (both potential benefits and risks). This Statement is intended to provoke your interest, trigger comments and solicit alternative opinions for consideration.
The proposals in the Business Plan
The report should be understood in the context that City’s instructions to the Study analysts were quite specific and limiting in that they were asked to explore five predetermined business models. The analyses were to include assessment of sustainable income streams based on loss minimization and revenue maximisation (p.21). The business operating areas are defined as the Stadium precinct and Park (not the sports codes land) (p.10).
The report states that there is significant potential for commercialisation (p.19). However these are in fact rather limited, and disappointingly there is no real eureka suggestion.
The commercial opportunities may be summarised as:
- sporting events within the Stadium (bowl events), which would be maximised with an anchor tenant (p.23
- occasional big non-sporting bowl events within the Stadium (concerts, etc.),
- smaller non-bowl events in the Stadium (p.23),
- Park events,
- a 4-storey commercial building (hotel or office block) between the Stadium and Granger Bay Blvd,
- a 4-storey parking garage between the Stadium and Granger Bay Blvd,
- the development of in-Stadium hospitality suites to augment income from bowl events,
- developments within Green Point Park (an eco-centre, green (?) cafe, tearoom) (p.14),
- other developments within the Stadium (gym, office,; conference facilities, kitchen facilities, banquet facilities, kiosks on the podium, restaurants, coffee shops, sports bars and late night venues),
- a liquor and beverage distribution area,
- bulk waste management areas,
- commercial parking.
Most disturbingly, there is no analysis of the financial viability or likelihood of success of these proposals.
The Report tabulates possible events in and around the Stadium (Tables 16-21 and items 1-4 above) but the projected numbers (43 bowl events, 145 non-bowl events, 52 park events per annum) appear extremely optimistic.
The suggested commercial buildings alongside Granger Bay Blvd (items 5 and 6 above) would be very expensive to build, and there is no guarantee that they would be profitable.
The Report appears to propose (Table 23) building 259 new suites with a coverage of 18 903 sq m. This would be another expensive investment of public monies with no guarantee of recouping the costs.
The profits from an eco-centre, green cafe, and tearoom will surely be minimal (p.14). And the ROD permits these anyway.
What is the potential of the Stadium to attract significant commercial activity? The Report states that one would have to ensure high levels of foot traffic (p.47). What is going to attract people to the Stadium when there are the attractions of the Waterfront, Green Point Main Road, Sea Point, and Cape Town City Centre nearby?
Conclusions of the Report
The Report reaches the following conclusions:
- Models with a high level of City involvement will result in a lower level of risk (p.11).
One would expect risk to be defined as an ongoing financial liability to the ratepayer for maintaining an unprofitable Stadium. The focus of the Report appears to be more on the risk that managers of the Stadium would not have the control and power to leverage funds for ongoing investment in facility maintenance and future ugrades of stadium infrastructure (p.23).What the City sees as risk is in fact only lack of asset preservation (p.27), not risk of further cost to ratepayers.
Thus, a high level of City involvement would mitigate this concept of risk because ratepayers will be tied to funding the Stadium. This is no consolation to the ratepayer.
- Only models with a premium anchor tenant would result in possible medium-term revenue generation and cost recovery (p.11).
We agree. The concern is that thus far the City has failed to achieve this, and that such tenants seem not to find the Stadium a financially viable business.
- There is a need for full commercialisation of the stadium in order to create the environment for possible revenue generation and/or cost recovery (p12).
The words create the environment for possible revenue generation indicate that this is only a hope. This is hardly the basis for more spending of public money, and certainly not for the sacrifice of the Public Open Space of Green Point Common.
- There are no operational success guarantees (p.12).
This report presents little clarity and certainty about the future financial options of the Stadium to satisfy the beleaguered ratepayers of Cape Town.
The City proposes a way forward (p.49) which seeks first to change the ROD in a far-reaching and general way. What should come first is the economic feasibility study; and only then, when it has been established which undertakings will be viable, should they apply for only specific and limited amendments to the ROD which are necessary for these specific undertakings, and which are acceptable to those who own the land – the residents of Cape Town.
The City’s public participation process
Position Statement of the GPRRA
The background to our Position Statement
- Donate to WPRU - Ralph Malan.pdf [394.3 KB] [2015-08-13 10:43:44]
- Media Statement - Future of Cape Town Stadium.pdf [15.19 KB] [2015-08-13 10:43:45]
- Public responses to GPRRA Stadium Business Plan Position Statement - 2 April 2013.pdf [33.08 KB] [2015-08-13 10:43:45]