Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "7NEWS Australia" channel.

  1. 140
  2. 10
  3. 8
  4. 7
  5. 6
  6. 6
  7. 6
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. Large sporting matches create millions in revenue for the host city via spectator spending. A 1/4-1/2 of spectators will travel to a large sporting venue by public transport for example. That generates large percentage of revenue for public transit that is integral to their operating budgets. Without that money public transport ceases to be a viable service to offer. A portion of those who drive to the venue will try to get cheap or free parking by parking in the surrounding streets. This generates significant revenue for council via parking fines. An event like this is always part of their enforcement strategy because it's such a large part of revenue. There will be a team of inspectors dedicated to the area who arrive about 30-40 minutes after the match starts. Spectators overall tend to do more than go from home/office to sporting venue then straight back home. They tend to go from the sporting venue to pubs, bars and restaurants injecting money into the hospitality sector. As it's a test match it draws in interstate tourists (and usually international ones as well), who spend money on accommodation, restaurants, retail, transport, entertainment, sightseeing, etc. Large annual events like this test match represent a massive clunk of a states economy, and of a host cities operating budgets. When QLD took the AFL & NRL earlier in the year they stole a chunk of the economy from Victoria and NSW. Berejiklian was upset over the cricket because she was worried QLD would do the same to cricket. To be clear, the budget Sydney councils and NSW state government released earlier in the year rely in part on money from these sporting events. Without it, those budgets no longer work and it effects services. That's why they're so adamant that the test match goes ahead. And why QLD is all too happy to create special bubbles for large sporting matches and host all of the teams. It's money, but it isn't coming from Cricket Australia. It's coming from the fans.
    2
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. It's not bribery @chrispapa2782  it's far more complicated than that. For starters Cricket Australia aren't paying money. If anything the NSW government are paying them money to still hold the event. All major sporting events generate large volumes of stimulus for a local economy and make up a significant portion of the operating budget for some government departments and services. For example, all of those spectators don't magically appear at the venue. At least a 1/3 of spectators for any large event take public transportation, without those kinds of massive boosts to revenue public transport wouldn't be a sustainable service that could be offered. Of the spectators that drive, a percentage of them will try to avoid parking fees by parking illegally in the surrounding streets. Those vehicles represent significant revenue for the council through fines and enforcements. After the game all of those spectators don't just immediately go straight home. They burn off their excitement at nearby bars, clubs and restaurants. Money that will help keep those businesses afloat and will immediately flow into the wider economy They visit casinos or pub gaming rooms, which also attract state taxes. And all of that spending is contagious, having roll on effects for the economy for several weeks after. Should Sydney have cancelled spectators at the test? Absolutely. A broadcast only game would have made Cricket Australia similar volumes of revenue and stopped the spread. There's money involved in the poor decision, no fight to keep the test going, but it's coming from the spectators. We'd never hear about the SCG as the source of spread even if it were because that would have political consequences. The real problem here is we have politicians playing politics during a pandemic instead of simply doing the public health measures necessary.
    1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1