Road to the Roar Financials Detailed

Monday, May 17, 2010 07:16 PM

Prince George, B.C.- The Road to the Roar curling event, left a legacy of $111,475. That is despite the fact the budgeted projections for everything from attendance to all sorts of revenue were below expectations.

The organizers had expected 28 thousand people to attend, but the actual attendance was closer to 25 thousand. "We were disappointed with the attendance" says Larry Parker, Chair of the Road to the Roar Committee, "but the reps from Canadian Curling Association were ecstatic."

The dip in attendance was offset by lower expenses.

In a report presented to Prince George City Council, the event was viewed on T.V. during prime time by more than 3.4 million people, and 3 million watched during non prime time.

The bottom line for the event saw $25 thousand given to the Community Foundation Trust for curling in the Prince George region. The balance, $86,475, was returned to the City of Prince George which had invested $300 thousand in the event.

Parker also says the event was expected to have created a $3 to $4 million dollars worth of spin off economic benefits to the City.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 07:16 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: trackster on May 17 2010 9:12 PM

Excellent work Larry and Gang. Prince George was well exposed and should look forward to future considerations from Curling Canada.

Posted by: gus on May 18 2010 7:24 AM

So let me get this straight.

$111,475 was a so-called "legacy" left by The Road to the Roar curling event.

$25,000 was given to the community trust for use towards curling needs.

$86,475 was returned to the City. That means the City provided $213,525 towards this event in return for $3 to $4 million dollars worth of spin off economic benefits to the City.

What exactly were these benefits? Did any of them come back to the City coffers to further reduce the $213,525 dollars "invested"? For instance, were any City facilities rented resulting in direct revenues to the City for facilities which would otherwise not have been rented? Did revenues to the hotels and restaurants increase in a percentage such that their portion of taxes paid to the City returned a good portion of that investment?

Finally, if we were to hold 100 such events in this city and subsidize them to the tune of $20 million dollars, would there be sufficient return on the "investment" that our taxes would drop by say 20%. Or would our taxes actually increase and businesses would make addtional profits at the expense of the taxpayer?

In other words, give us some real calculations or else simply quite the economic benefit argument and provide us with the "but it feels good" part of the justification for this expenditure.

We really do not have a good economic benefit measurement system for this, do we?

Posted by: faxman on May 18 2010 8:02 AM

Yes you do gus, it's called keeping people employed and letting local business make a nice profit for a week.

Go talk to any waiter or waitress who worked that week if you really need a "good economic benefit measurement system".

Posted by: gus on May 18 2010 10:22 AM

So what you are saying is that the City taxpayer is paying waiters and waitresses.

I did not realize that was the reason I was paying the city taxes. I could have sworn it was to fix potholes, maintain water lines, and clear the snow from roads.