1984 — Page 35

Page 35 of 233

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

comment. At that time, Members of this Council will be able to study the contents of the Green Paper and to publicly debate the proposals therein.

As Urban Councillors, whether we are elected or appointed, we should now take the lead in encouraging our 5.5 million people to face our future with courage and pragmatic optimism. Let us devote our utmost energies towards achieving higher living standards for Hong Kong citizens within an environment of economic prosperity, democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

One practical way in which the Urban Council is fulfilling its community responsibilities is by its participation in the United Nations International Youth Year which will take place in 1985. We shall be playing a substantial role in providing venues and a wide range of cultural, entertainment, sports and recreational programmes for hundreds of thousands of young people to participate in and to commemorate this most significant year.

PAPER

The following paper was laid on the table:-

(1) Report to the Urban Council by the Director of Urban Services and Secretary, Urban Council, for the month of May 1984.

QUESTIONS

1. Mr. WALTER M. SULKE asked the following question (in English):—There has been some quite nasty criticism voiced in readers' letters in some newspapers of the Council's policy for charging hirers of the Coliseum and Queen Elizabeth Stadium. I believe that this criticism was entirely unjustified. Could I please have confirmation? And could I also please know why this criticism was not replied to immediately it was published?

MR. STEPHEN M. L. LAU, CHAIRMAN OF THE Entertainment Select Committee, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—This question concerns hiring charges for the Hong Kong Coliseum and the Queen Elizabeth Stadium.

May I ask the Council's indulgence if my reply seems rather long, but there is much to be said on this. In short, however, Mr. SULKE is quite correct in his belief that this criticism is entirely unjustified. With the opening of the Coliseum last year Hong Kong gained Asia's biggest entertainment stadium, with a capacity of 12,500 people. Being so big, the Coliseum enjoys big patronage and big ticket sales—and, let it be said, for highly successful shows, big profits, too. Literally millions of dollars are involved in popular shows running over several days' performances and ticket sales have been known to gross as much as $900,000 for an evening. So with commercial promotions the Council must adopt a businesslike attitude to ensure first that it gets a fair share of the turnover and second that it does not provide commercial promoters with a subsidy in the form of unrealistically low hiring charges etc.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

adopt a businesslike attitude to ensure first that it gets a fair share of the turnover and second that it does not provide commercial promoters with a subsidy in the form of unrealistically low hiring charges etc.

If this criticism were genuinely valid, if our fees and charges were too high, if we were literally squeezing the last cent out of promoters, it is quite obvious that they would not be using our venues, particularly the Coliseum. But the fact is that the Coliseum has quickly established itself as a mass-entertainment venue of enormous popularity. It is highly viable as far as promoters are concerned—and these are the same promoters who pay the charges and fees which are subject to this unwarranted criticism.

Now, to go into the minutiae of the different scales of charges which hirers of the Coliseum and the Queen Elizabeth Stadium are normally required to pay, the details are as follows.

Hirers of the Hong Kong Coliseum and the Queen Elizabeth Stadium may be required to pay three types of charges. First, a rental charge at a daily minimum of $30,000 for the Coliseum and $10,000 for the Queen Elizabeth Stadium or—and I must emphasize the word or—20% of the gross gate receipts for days when 20% of receipts exceeds the minimum charge. Second, reimbursable charges for the engagement of technical and utility services. And third, miscellaneous charges for operating optional facilities such as the telecasting system.

The reimbursable and miscellaneous charges represent the actual costs of the engagement of specific services which are then passed onto the hirers. The Council does not seek any benefit from these charges.

As regards the rental charges which seem to be the crux of many complaints, they have been set at levels which seek to enable the two stadia to be self-financing. However, we are mindful that in so doing, we do not deter usage of the two stadia by non-profit making organization or smaller commercial operators. These users must pay only the daily minimum charge and the 20% charge is not invoked in respect of their events, for I must emphasize that the 20% charge is imposed when the gate money justifies it and is in fact a part of the venture's operating cost. No commercial entrepreneur could expect the Council to charge less than the cost of operating the venue and I must emphasize that I am only talking about operating costs, not capital costs for building and land—and I believe no reasonable person would expect that the Council should be precluded from earning more if the venture's return is extremely profitable. Let us remember that unlike the venue charges, ticket fees are gauged on what the entrepreneur thinks the audience will pay and would not be reduced if the Council charged a lower fee for the venue.

Concerning the second part of the question, as to why the criticism published in the newspapers was not answered immediately. Since I understand that Mr. SULKE was out of Hong Kong for the greater part of the period concerned, he

Page 35

Page 36

Page 36 of 233