Page 32 of 115
60
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 32 of 115
61
chose Wembley as the Manager of the Stadium. I hope that this can satisfy Mr. WONG.
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):—If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, the BOG might have wrongly interpreted the decision of the SCWC in signing the contract with Wembley. I recall very clearly that one of our conditions was that the Manager of the Stadium should promote international sport events. Can Mr. LÂU confirm that? The most important condition laid down by SCWC was that the Manager of the Stadium should be able to promote sports and attract international sports activities to the venue.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—This is not a question.
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):—I am asking for confirmation, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—Confirm what?
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): To confirm the decision of the SCWC which is unlike what Mr. LAU has mentioned. Mr. LAU only talked about managing but the SCWC wanted the Stadium Manager to promote sports activities as well as to introduce international sports activities into Hong Kong.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): It is unrelated to the main question. An answer does not have to be given. Maybe you can ask this at the next SCWC meeting. Further question, Mr. Fred LI?
THE HONOURABLE LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese):— Mr. Chairman, even if it is a guesstimate, the fact is that the UC has advanced $175 million as fitting out costs. It is expected that future surplus could cover that. It should not be recovered from our recurrent revenue or rates to subsidize the Hong Kong Stadium. Nevertheless, as the chances for concerts to take place, especially profit-making local concerts, are becoming slim, can the BOG inform me whether there are any contingency plans if the number of concerts is decreasing? The preliminary surplus will be 8 million odd dollars and there is still a long way to go to recover the $175 million fitting-out cost. Even for this $8 million we still have to share with the Government. Can Mr. LAU inform me if there are no further concerts taking place, how can he get $175 million to settle the account?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Fred Li for his question. I think this also underlines one of the problems faced by the BOG. It is almost two months after the opening and more than 400,000 people have attended functions at the Stadium. I don't know whether we only have good patronage but not good earning. I hope that by September, six months after the opening, we can take a further look at the financial situation and we can have a review then. It is premature if you want the BOG to make prediction just after two months to see whether relying only on sports activities without popular concerts can help us break even? We hope that we can wait for a few more months to have more data to substantiate our thinking.
MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):—Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on one of Mr. Wong Siu-yee's questions and the answer thus given. I was a member of the Core Group. I clearly recalled that Mr. LAU was correct. We agreed to appoint Wembley as the Manager on the condition that Wembley should not organise activities itself. Wembley was appointed because it had adequate international experience to manage as well as promote the use of the venue. Promotion in this regard includes inviting world-class promoters to organise activities in Hong Kong. It is not for Wembley itself to organise but it should invite internationally renowned promoters to come. As Mr. WONG Siu-yee has said if Wembley couldn't do that, why should we appoint Wembley in the first place? I think this is a big issue. As for the areas of responsibility, some of us who are not BOG members haven't had a clear idea of it? Therefore, I would like to know the terms of reference of the Manager so that we don't have to speculate? If Wembley does not undertake such work, I am sure any staff member of the USD, who has managed the Hong Kong Stadium in the past can do the management. So what is the issue involved? We appointed Wembley because it was considered that Wembley was experienced to introduce lively sports activities to Hong Kong, otherwise we didn't have to appoint Wembley in the first place. So I would like to stress Mr. WONG'S point. We did mention that in the past. That was one of the reasons we had identified Wembley. But what Mr. LAU has said is also correct. We are not asking Wembley to organise activities itself. It has to do marketing to invite internationally renowned and top promoters to Hong Kong to hold activities.
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, as I have said in paragraph 9, Wembley is responsible for managing the venue and for marketing. It is to promote its usage comprehensively. It is not to promote a certain category of programmes. In the past two months, in terms of usage, whether it was for concerts or sport activities, the patronage was quite good, even for soccer match, we had more than 30,000 spectators. It was unprecedented. So should credit be given to Wembley, or the BOG, or the promoter? It is hard to say but one thing is sure. In future the BOG will urge Wembley to comprehensively promote the usage of the Stadium. As I have said, we should not expect Wembley to organise programmes itself because that is not within its jurisdiction. If Members would like to know whether Wembley is performing its duties in compliance with the terms of reference, every month the BOG gives a report to the SCWC detailing the work of the Stadium Manager in that month. If Members have comments, at the second SCWC meeting of the month, they can comment on that particular monthly report and the BOG will of course be delighted to take members' views on board.
Page 32 of 115