Denise Roche
SkyCity looks to gobble up TVNZ site

There was a good article by Matt Nippert recently outlining how poor a negotiator the Government had been over the SkyCity deal.

Expect this shonky negotiation to continue as SkyCity looks to gobble up as much land as possible adjacent to its casino complex.  SkyCity particularly wants the land currently occupied by Television New Zealand.

SkyCity has already paid TVNZ $5.25 million for prime Auckland CBD reals estate but SkyCity wants more, and potentially even the whole of TVNZ’s current site.

TVNZ themselves are not keen on this idea pointing out that it will be horrendously expensive.

It will be interesting to see if TVNZ decide to move and what discussions are currently occurring between the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman and Steven Joyce.

TVNZ should be hanging tough.  At present then all the cards should be in TVNZ’s hands.  They have the land.  However if the history of this deal, to this point, is anything to go by then we can expect SkyCity to get what it wants, and the taxpayer to end up getting fleeced.

13 thoughts on “SkyCity looks to gobble up TVNZ site

  1. OMG how shocking!
    but we know what key govt thinks…Casino is way more important than TVNZ (unless they stop having any independant/impartial views and opinions). Actually in a not very distant future, skycity might even own TVNZ…
    Is it impossible? well not really under the current govt with very twisted values and priorities for this country. Should I laugh or should I cry?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  2. What is the power relationship like, between an SOE which is a net exporter of money, and its shareholding minister who wants to cause it an expense? Has anyone in the party been close enough to one of these to forewarn us?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Denise says “However if the history of this deal, to this point, is anything to go by then we can expect SkyCity to get what it wants, and the taxpayer to end up getting fleeced.”

    The country is getting a huge national conference centre for zero taxpayer funding – that’s ZERO taxpayer funding – and on planet green this is the taxpayer “getting fleeced”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 (+8)

  4. Most gamblers will be taxpayers, photonz1.
    Casinos fleece gamblers, ergo…

    More to the point, an SOE owns the valuable land. They should be seeking maximum value. If hey are compelled to sell for anything less than fair market value to benefit SkyCity, in order to build a casino convention centre that he governments own advisors say will incur a net public cost, then we are getting fleeced.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  5. “It will be interesting to see if TVNZ decide to move and what discussions are currently occurring between the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman and Steven Joyce”

    Err, Jonathan Coleman is not the Minister of Broadcasting, and nor is Steven Joyce.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. “The country is getting a huge national conference centre for zero taxpayer funding – that’s ZERO taxpayer funding – and on planet green this is the taxpayer “getting fleeced”?”

    That’d be zero nice, cleanly measurable taxpayer funding. We do, however, know, that it will require half a frickin’ lifetime (35 years!) of dealing with externalities created by SkyCity with dubious-at-best rights to change the structure of our legal system to reduce or dissuade those externalities. If Big Tobacco had struck this kind of deal before regulations arrived in 1990, guaranteeing to protect its profits from legislation over 35 years, we’d still be seeing masses of advertising and sponsorship on sporting and other events, aiming to continue getting people addicted at the expense of the rest of New Zealand’s economy and the public health system.

    You can count up numbers and weigh out the good and bad to form an opinion on SkyCity, but stating that the convention centre will involve zero taxpayer funding is silly and misleading. We’ve already footed a $1.3 million government legal bill.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  7. Once again Photonz mistakes the price of something in dollars for its value to the society.

    The country is getting a huge national conference centre for zero taxpayer funding – that’s ZERO taxpayer funding

    One has to laugh.

    If you can’t recognize the problem with this deal I have some bottomland for sale. Just don’t ask what it is at the bottom of.

    THERE AIN’T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!!!

    It is a shame National keeps giving them away.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  8. BJ says “If you can’t recognize the problem with this deal”

    It’s a brilliant deal – wonderfully pragmatic.

    A $300-$400m conference centre for no cost to the taxpayer (If you want to be anal like MikeM you can claim taxpayers put a massive 0.3% of the cost of the project in legal fees)

    The previous government increased pokie machine numbers significantly.

    This govt has declining pokie numbers years on year, EVEN WITH the Sky city deal.

    That’s great as well (though most of you here would probably rather choke and die before praising the reduction in pokie numbers)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  9. It is wonderfully pragmatic for the Government to sell the law. With so many statutes on the books the Government should be able to return to surplus within a few years while continuing to cut tax. Quack.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  10. solkta – we’re already on track to return to surplus.

    Such good news must be depressing for you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  11. I’m currently happy with tax. In fact I wouldn’t even be strongly against bringing in an additional higher tax bracket for very high incomes.

    The downside is so few people earn very high incomes that it would make very little difference to government incomes.

    i.e. each 1% tax increase above $150k brings in an additional $67m or just 1/1000th of government revenue.

    So even massive tax hikes to 50% or 60% will only make around 1 or 2% increase in govt revenue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

The ability to post further comments on this blog will return after the election.