$2.7 million grant for koala research facility reallocated for Steel Taipan construction

[Guest 239]

15 minutes ago, joz said:

The double standards here are amazing, and as is typical with the same group on here, people HAVE to drag someone else through the mud to say why the thing they like is good. It's rather appalling really. 

This isn't called for and its rather insulting towards the community. The response on here has been pretty unanimous in agreeing that no wrong-doing was done here, yet their rebuttals are being palmed off as the 'typical same group'. A vast majority of the arguments here have not dragged someone else through the mud and I don't see anybody just going "But it's Dreamworld! They're just great! We love them!".

I have no idea what you want from Dreamworld. Do you want Koalas? Do you want them to pay back the money? It honestly just seems like you're upset that people aren't upset. 

[Richard]

8 minutes ago, Tim Dasco said:

I wonder what @Richard's view is on this. I am not suggesting any issues with polar bear welfare, and I know Sea World does amazing work for animals. But if someone has a different opinion to simply suspend them seems like an abuse of power. This form legit is proof people have different opinions, lets still respect peoples opinions.

We have banned animal activists in the past for spreading misinformation about animal treatment at all of the theme parks and we will continue to do so.

[rappa]

Dom is correct that everyone has different opinions and everyone is entitled to them.

My position has/is always also (as much as many don't like it) that enthusiast opinions (including my own) really do matter little when it comes to the grand scheme of things in terms of the business side of a theme park.

I will say though that I read maybe 8 versions of this story posted on News socials yesterday. In each case the overwhelming public majority was a down vote to Dreamworld and angry comments about it.
So right or wrong, my opinion or yours is largely irrelevant here, what is important is the optics are bad, for a park who already had bad optics as a legacy.

The government is the government, so their shit actions will be largely forgotten amongst the next shit thing they do, unfortunately Dreamworld's rep is somewhat less resilient. 

[Guest 239]

7 minutes ago, Slick said:

Given that the company has north of 160m in cash and no debts, should Ardent pay that money back to tax-payers if they didn't need it in the end and it wasn't used for its intended purpose?

I think local businesses relying off tourism and the Queensland government would be unanimous in agreeing that money should be put back into creating a popular and profitable theme park. 

[New display name]

1 minute ago, rappa said:

Dom is correct that everyone has different opinions and everyone is entitled to them.

My position has/is always also (as much as many don't like it) that enthusiast opinions (including my own) really do matter little when it comes to the grand scheme of things in terms of the business side of a theme park.

I will say though that I read maybe 8 versions of this story posted on News socials yesterday. In each case the overwhelming public majority was a down vote to Dreamworld and angry comments about it.
So right or wrong, my opinion or yours is largely irrelevant here, what is important is the optics are bad, for a park who already had bad optics as a legacy.

The government is the government, so their shit actions will be largely forgotten amongst the next shit thing they do, unfortunately Dreamworld's rep is somewhat less resilient. 

The thing is you don't know how it played out and you're always the first to put the dagger into DW. 

 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 28/7/2022 at 11:21 AM, Slick said:

especially when the business is in a financial position where they're now debt-free and are about to make a second killing from the sale of Dreamworld.

They're in the position that they're in now largely due to the help they received - including this grant. 

On 28/7/2022 at 11:24 AM, Brad2912 said:

Asking the question was smart business practice. If the project the funds were given for was off the table, then the only options available is to:

a) just spend the money on something else

b) consult the govt who provided the money on what they wanted to have done with it 

DW chose the responsible option, and the Qld govt gave them the ok to divert the funds elsewhere. From that moment on, DW was absolved of any issue as they provided full transparency. 
 

we’re talking $2.7m. It’s a sneeze to the govt who just blew $250m on a quarantine camp that they don’t even own as an asset any longer and was visited less than DW on a wet day…

This is totally inaccurate. Government grant compliance is extraordinarily strict. Grant recipients have to provided audited accounts back to the government to show how everything was spent and how each dollar was justified. They couldn't just choose to spend it elsewhere. The only two options were:

1. give it back
2. ask permission to spend it on something else, and put forth a business case on why it would be worth approving (similar to the original grant application).

Seriously, everyone's acting like Dreamworld just winked at the government and pointed at a bag of cash and Anastacia just gave a thumbs up in return - trust me - its a lot more involved than that.

On 28/7/2022 at 11:29 AM, Slick said:

Given that the company has north of 160m in cash and no debts, should Ardent pay that money back to tax-payers if they didn't need it in the end and it wasn't used for its intended purpose?

How can you attribute their current position absent the grant? for all we know their current success is simply because they were allowed to use the funds to build Taipan, and without that, their Summer 21\22 season was toast and they were bankrupt.

There were plenty of discussions ON THESE FORUMS about how Ardent couldn't even afford to build Taipan. (Just in case you forgot - you can refresh your memory here: No-go roller coaster: how Dreamworld banked on a hand-to-mouth recovery strategy they could never afford | Parkz - Theme Parks)

Quote - "HAND TO MOUTH STRATEG”

On 28/7/2022 at 11:37 AM, rappa said:

I will say though that I read maybe 8 versions of this story posted on News socials yesterday. In each case the overwhelming public majority was a down vote to Dreamworld and angry comments about it.

And this is the crux of the matter. People are outraged because the media wanted them to be outraged and designed the clickbait headline and article slant to achieve that aim. This very website has published pieces calling out the mainstream media for their bias and all your statement here does is confirm it.

Edited August 14, 2022 by rappa

[Jobe]

This is an interesting situation.

Being based in NSW , I am neither biased towards either Village or Dreamworld.

From a measure of outside looking in, my take on the situation is that Dreamworld had in place a grant that was approved to build a Koala research centre for a specified sum. This was a government grant and from the looks of it , was approved and planned pre-pandemic. Then along came COVID, the priorities of the park shifted (along with revenue and patronage during this time). DW obviously decided that they needed to alter their plans and saw they had a pool of money for a planned koala research centre. Given that they found that they required help to build a bright, shiny , expensive new coaster , they asked the government if these funds could be diverted towards the new coaster , which will help the park survive in these times and lead the park through the pandemic and give people a reason to return to the park post pandemic. Given that DW is a massive part of the GC tourist landsacpe, the government not unreasonably , saw this request for what it was , a diversion of already approved funds , to help a struggling entertainment entity deliver a new atraction that would aid in their post pandemic recovery , thereby aiding in keeping what is arguably one of the states most important tourist attractions and areas solvent and viable.

The government approved this and it was all above board. From my perspective, it certainly passes the "pub test" . 

I think we can all agree that the presentation of the Steel taipan coaster and the success and influence it has had on DW has been very positive. My overall feeling on this situation is that things change and priorities shift. To me this , what DW have done here is not something that I feel is in any way morally corrupt or illegal. I think it shows good business sense and use of available funds to aid in an unprecedented situation in order to help the business survive. 

[Brad2912]

3 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

People are outraged because the media wanted them to be outraged and designed the clickbait headline and article slant to achieve that aim. This very website has published pieces calling out the mainstream media for their bias and all your statement here does is confirm it.

This is 100% where it’s at. 
 

Dreamworld, boo, hiss. The media will do anything they can to find a negative slant to throw at them. I’m not even pro-DW, I’m pro-theme parks, but DW cop it deluxe with a negative vibe on anything. Even if a positive is found they ensure “and it is x years since TRRR” finishes the article. 
 

the media is morally corrupt - we all know that - yet people still will pick and choose when they believe what is written is credible based on if it reflects their own thoughts/feelings. 

[rappa]

7 minutes ago, New display name said:

The thing is you don't know how it played out and you're always the first to put the dagger into DW. 

 

Did you read what I wrote at all? Or are you too busy frantically searching Parkz for years old posts from people to try and dig up as some kind of 'gotcha'? <- which is just damn friken sad by the way, get a life!

I said it's irrelevant what we think, the reaction from the public was bad, which is not what the park needs. I know how this played out, because I watched it yesterday.

[Brad2912]

4 minutes ago, Jobe said:

The government approved this and it was all above board. From my perspective, it certainly passes the "pub test" . 

Agree entirely 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Quote

Dreamworld's chief executive officer John Osborne suggested to the Gold Coast Bulletin that they're seeking government funding in order to complete the project.

"It is shovel ready and will be a real boost to local construction jobs and the tourism industry. We remain optimistic that we will be able to complete this world-class attraction in 2021 and continue to work with government to achieve a realistic opening date and funding."

 

[Slick]

Just now, Dom said:

I think local businesses relying off tourism and the Queensland government would be unanimous in agreeing that money should be put back into creating a popular and profitable theme park. 

You're shifting the goal posts so i'll re-articulate. If an airline or a large financial institution becomes unprofitable during a crisis like the GFC, requires a government handout to continue to operate, and then returns a large dividend to share-holders, have the tax-payers been taken for a ride and is it moral despite being totally 100% legal?

1 minute ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

They're in the position that they're in now largely due to the help they received - including this grant. 

They're in the position they're in now because Ardent Leisure finally sold the bit of their organisation that actually makes money. Your argument almost seemingly infers that they're profitable and successful seemingly only because of the help they've received from government (neither of which is true).

5 minutes ago, Jobe said:

Then along came COVID, the priorities of the park shifted (along with revenue and patronage during this time)

As I pointed out, that's not the timeline. You can't believe everything a presser or a comms person says.

[joz]

Weird he didn't say 'We're hoping to divert funding away from Koala Research facility". 

 

1 minute ago, Slick said:

requires a government handout to continue to operate, and then returns a large dividend to share-holders

As a passionate share holder and defender of Ardent Leisure, I'd like to thank the QLD Government for some of my money

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Just now, joz said:

Weird he didn't say 'We're hoping to divert funding away from Koala Research facility". 

 

Probably because he doesn't work for Murdoch

[Jobe]

6 minutes ago, Slick said:

As I pointed out, that's not the timeline. You can't believe everything a presser or a comms person says.

Ok interesting. Can you explain the timeline further? From my understanding  the announcement was in March of 2019?

COVID hit pretty hard soon after that? We have had 2 and half years of lockdowns, border closures and disruptions since then? 

[Guest 239]

1 minute ago, Slick said:

You're shifting the goal posts so i'll re-articulate. If an airline or a large financial institution becomes unprofitable during a crisis like the GFC, requires a government handout to continue to operate, and then returns a large dividend to share-holders, have the tax-payers been taken for a ride and is it moral despite being totally 100% legal?

Probably a poor example because this happens frequently. Harvey Norman, a business that made record profits during COVID-19 but still got government handouts, only paid back $6 million of their $20 million they got from taxpayers. 

Dreamworld, by all comparisons, are saints here compared other institutions. Genuinely I don't believe that Dreamworld should need to pay back any money to taxpayers if it wasn't their initial obligation. Just because they're profitable now doesn't negate that they previously weren't and required support.

[New display name]

11 minutes ago, rappa said:

 which is just damn friken sad by the way, get a life!

 

When you get one, can you tell me what it's like?

[joz]

To be fair, comments on Facebook are a pretty ordinary guide when it comes to finding the truth on a subject. I don't think 'what does Facebook think' should be the gold standard. I stand by my original comment, nothing was illegal, but it's not a good look. There's something about taking away money from researching Koalas to building a coaster that doesn't sit right and shifts it into a morally grey area. If it was 'We were going to spend it on a coaster rather than a dark ride' no one would care. But Koalas are cute man.

[Brad2912]

7 minutes ago, rappa said:

Yes, the same people who do or don't buy tickets to theme parks..

No one is determining if they’ll visit a a theme park or not based on if the Qld govt (or DW if they have the story wrong) chose to spend $2.7m on a rollercoaster rather than Koalas. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

5 minutes ago, rappa said:

Yes, the same people who do or don't buy tickets to theme parks..

I can guarantee you that those people visiting the parks in December will have long forgotten their outrage for the Koalas. 

[joz]

2 minutes ago, Dom said:

Just because they're profitable now

Are they profitable now? 

[Guest 239]

1 minute ago, joz said:

To be fair, comments on Facebook are a pretty ordinary guide when it comes to finding the truth on a subject. I don't think 'what does Facebook think' should be the gold standard.

Agreed. Myself and others have been fairly heavily criticised in the past for using Facebook and social media reactions as an indication towards how things are going within the parks. 

[Brad2912]

37 minutes ago, Slick said:

Given that the company has north of 160m in cash and no debts, should Ardent pay that money back to tax-payers if they didn't need it in the end and it wasn't used for its intended purpose?

Now has. Didn’t then. So no.

if I have a mate doing it tough so shout him a night out, and then 2 years later he has a great job and surplus funds, I don’t expect him to pay me back.
 

 

[Guest 239]

Just now, joz said:

Are they profitable now? 

Not sure, but have plenty of cash from what @Slick is saying.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

4 minutes ago, joz said:

There's something about taking away money from researching Koalas to building a coaster that doesn't sit right and shifts it into a morally grey area. If it was 'We were going to spend it on a coaster rather than a dark ride' no one would care. But Koalas are cute man.

They still have koalas. they have an entire plantation just to feed them. This facility was pooh-poohed when it was announced, but now everyone is up in arms that it didn't get built!