Page 18 of 498
To of 498
18
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
(d) In the contract signed between the Council and Wembley International (HK) Ltd, what are the responsibilities, duties, areas of work and obligations of Wembley International (HK) Ltd. in the stadium management?
(e) When the consultant recommended the appointment of a private company to manage the Hong Kong Stadium, has the Urban Council been advised by the consultant to evaluate the performance of the management company on a regular basis? If 'yes', what criteria and methods should be adopted? The Council has appointed Wembley International (HK) Ltd. for three years now. Has the Council reviewed its performance in the past?
(f) When Wembley International (HK) Ltd presented the overall business plan to the Council, what was the stipulated number of event days in the Hong Kong Stadium to achieve the objective of optimizing its use? In the 1995/96 financial year, there were only 52 event days in the Hong Kong Stadium. Was this in accordance with the business plan of Wembley International (HK) Ltd? Does the Council have any plans to stage more diversified events in the Stadium?
(g) According to the investigation report by the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints in 1995, the contract signed between the Urban Council and Wembley International (HK) Ltd stipulates that the Council has the right to terminate the contract if the Hong Kong Stadium runs into a deficit in several consecutive years. Please advise on how 'deficit' is calculated. Is the Stadium account presented on an 'accrual' or 'cash' basis? Is the $175 million fitting-out costs paid by the Council in 1994 regarded as an accumulated deficit? Has the Hong Kong Stadium—Board of Governors prepared a five-year forecast on the financial position of the Hong Kong Stadium? Does it envisage a deficit? If so, has the BOG considered its impact on the contract signed between the Urban Council and the Wembley International (HK) Ltd.?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG, MEMBER OF THE HONG KONG Stadium Board oF GOVERNORS, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—The question is in seven parts and I will answer each of them separately.
The first part of the question is about the reasons why the Urban Council agreed with Consultants' recommendation to appoint a private company to manage the Hong Kong Stadium instead of tasking the Urban Services Department to manage the Stadium. As a matter of fact, the redevelopment of the Hong Kong Stadium came under the auspices of a Working Group on the Redevelopment of Hong Kong Stadium which was set up in December 1991. In June 1992, the Working Group decided that UC should accept Government's offer to take up the management of the new Hong Kong Stadium. In July 1992, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council agreed to appoint Graf Consulting Group International (GCGI) to advise on the operation and management options of the Stadium. A Core Group comprising seven Urban Councillors was formed in October 1992 to consider GCGI's
Page 18 of 498
Page 18 of 498
To of 498
18
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
(d) In the contract signed between the Council and Wembley International (HK) Ltd, what are the responsibilities, duties, areas of work and obligations of Wembley International (HK) Ltd. in the stadium management?
(e) When the consultant recommended the appointment of a private company to manage the Hong Kong Stadium, has the Urban Council been advised by the consultant to evaluate the performance of the management company on a regular basis? If 'yes', what criteria and methods should be adopted? The Council has appointed Wembley International (HK) Ltd. for three years now. Has the Council reviewed its performance in the past? (f) When Wembley International (HK) Ltd presented the overall business plan to the Council, what was the stipulated number of event days in the Hong Kong Stadium to achieve the objective of optimizing its use? In the 1995/96 financial year, there were only 52 event days in the Hong Kong Stadium. Was this in accordance with the business plan of Wembley International (HK) Ltd? Does the Council have any plans to stage more diversified events in the Stadium?
(g) According to the investigation report by the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints in 1995, the contract signed between the Urban Council and Wembley International (HK) Ltd stipulates that the Council has the right to terminate the contract if the Hong Kong Stadium runs into a deficit in several consecutive years. Please advise on how 'deficit' is calculated. Is the Stadium account presented on an 'accrual' or 'cash' basis? Is the $175 million fitting-out costs paid by the Council in 1994 regarded as an accumulated deficit? Has the Hong Kong Stadium— Board of Governors prepared a five- year forecast on the financial position of the Hong Kong Stadium? Does it envisage a deficit? If so, has the BOG considered its impact on the contract signed between the Urban Council and the Wembley International (HK) Ltd.?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG, MEMBER OF THE HONG KONG Stadium Board oF GOVERNORS, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—The question is in seven parts and I will answer each of them separately.
The first part of the question is about the reasons why the Urban Council agreed with Consultants' recommendation to appoint a private company to manage the Hong Kong Stadium instead of tasking the Urban Services Department to manage the Stadium. As a matter of fact, the redevelopment of the Hong Kong Stadium came under the auspices of a Working Group on the Redevelopment of Hong Kong Stadium which was set up in December 1991. In June 1992, the Working Group decided that UC should accept Government's offer to take up the management of the new Hong Kong Stadium. In July 1992, the Standing Committee of the Whole Council agreed to appoint Graf Consulting Group International (GCGI) to advise on the operation and management options of the Stadium. A Core Group comprising seven Urban Councillors was formed in October 1992 to consider GCGI's
Page 18 of 498
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.