EY’s UCI Impact Study

Dear Sir,

EY’s UCI Impact Study

Independent businesses in Harrogate town centre have read comments on and reports of the UCI Impact Study with dismay; anyone would think that the event had been a glorious success for everyone, when this was far from so. Why have the scope of the review and its methodology not been questioned? Massive assumptions and estimates were made to arrive at the alleged ‘Economic Boost’ to the local economy, and rather than being questioned these have then been touted as fact. In reality the study is based on limited and selective information and vital feedback was specifically excluded from the review. A reading of the small print (and it is small!) makes it clear that the report only deals with the pros while ignoring the cons.

The EY study “was informed by survey interviews with over 450 spectators over the course of the event” and “online questionnaires were shared with accredited media and participating teams, and financial and other information in relation to the event was also shared by event organisers Yorkshire 2019 and the UCI” (whatever this may mean!). “Survey questionnaires … focussed on … the origin of spectators, the purpose of their visit, the activities undertaken during their visit , and their level of spending on different goods and services”. Apparently, all the conclusions were drawn from this very limited input.

The report is specifically designed to show only additional benefits over normal circumstances. “Reduced economic activity … (is) … not included within this study” What value does the report have without this? The methodology says – “EY has spoken with local business representatives, some of whom had mixed views on the event”. No they didn’t. The majority of businesses didn’t have “mixed views”, they were absolutely clear that it was a financial disaster. None of the massive local reduction in turnover is factored into the report.

To add insult to injury, the methodology says that “environmental costs and benefits was (sic) outside the scope of the study”. Therefore, negative economic factors resulting from the ongoing condition of the Stray, which will deter visitors and devalue the town, aren’t taken into account. Also, “Disruption, such as to the transport network, which may in turn result in reduced economic activity … (is) … not considered as part of this study”. In the light of the level of this in the lead-up to, during and after the event, this is a significant omission.

Uncritically touting the results of the survey as being fact and good news without explaining or questioning its limitations and lack of rigour is at best, unhelpful – at worst, dishonest. The independent businesses of Harrogate who suffered real financial damage from the UCI deserve better from those who brought the event to town and who have spent £19,000 of ratepayers money on this seriously flawed study of an event which they continue to spin as an unalloyed success when they know it wasn’t.

IH does not have the funds to commission a survey of its own to counter that of EY, but by just putting out a request to IH members this week we have been told by only 22 town centre businesses so far that they lost £968,000 during the week prior and the main week of the UCI event. This figure does not include far bigger losses by other businesses, including big names and national firms, which we have been told about but which they do not wish to publicise. Whatever the EY Study may say, it is a fact that the UCI was a disaster for a large number of town centre businesses, big and small, who are the life-blood of our local economy, supporting one another and hundreds of local staff. Why can’t other local business groups and our politicians publicly acknowledge this?

Yours faithfully

Nicholas Richardson

Independent Harrogate

About the author

Editor - Independent Harrogate

Comments

  1. Pingback: ciprofloxacina
  2. Pingback: generic ventolin
  3. Pingback: where to buy ldn
  4. Pingback: sildenafil generic
  5. Pingback: buy chloroquine
  6. Pingback: viagra for sale
  7. Pingback: ed pills for sale
  8. Pingback: gnc ed pills
  9. Pingback: buy generic cialis
  10. Pingback: rx pharmacy
  11. Pingback: Get cialis
  12. Pingback: buy vardenafil
  13. Pingback: levitra 20mg
  14. Pingback: vardenafil canada
  15. Pingback: play casino online
  16. Pingback: cialis treats
  17. Pingback: online gambling
  18. Pingback: loan online
  19. Pingback: instant loans
  20. Pingback: loans online
  21. Pingback: viagra cost
  22. Pingback: 5 mg cialis
  23. Pingback: cialis to buy
  24. Pingback: cialis 5 mg
  25. Pingback: generic cialis
  26. Pingback: buy cialis
  27. Pingback: online casinos
  28. Pingback: online slots
  29. Pingback: real money casino
  30. Pingback: generic viagra
  31. Pingback: viagra for sale
  32. Pingback: viagra cost
  33. Pingback: viagra prices
  34. Pingback: online viagra
  35. Pingback: sildenafil
  36. Pingback: buy viagra uk
  37. Pingback: cialistodo.com
  38. Pingback: generic viagra
  39. Pingback: buy viagra generic
  40. Pingback: buy viagra online
  41. Pingback: buy cialis online
  42. Pingback: buy Viagra 120 mg
  43. Pingback: Cialis 60 mg cheap
  44. Pingback: Cialis 20mg price
  45. Pingback: viagra online
  46. Pingback: viagra pills
  47. Pingback: cialis coupon 2020
  48. Pingback: Cialis 20 mg otc
  49. Pingback: sildenafil
  50. Pingback: viagra coupons
  51. Pingback: lasix 100mg cost
  52. Pingback: buy propecia 1mg
  53. Pingback: lexapro 10 mg cost
  54. Pingback: generic viagra
  55. Pingback: antabuse 500mg nz
  56. Pingback: viagra jelly uk
  57. Pingback: cialis kullan?m?
  58. Pingback: get viagra online
  59. Pingback: levitra vs viagra
  60. Pingback: Biaxin 250 mg cost
  61. Pingback: cheap buspar 10 mg
  62. Pingback: cialis tubs

Comments are closed.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap