It's not a very deep analysis. In previous threads (and in letters from Steve Heap) we have been told that one of the reasons for the insecurity of income from the arena concerts was that a large proportion of tickets were sold on the day and therefore gate receipts were subject to the weather. This is not mentioned in the analysis. If the arena is to be used it must be underwritten by pluvius insurance (apparently highly expensive and adding to the cost of ticket) or by a local body. As no local body was willing to do this then the viability of using the arena remains in doubt. If someone is willing to underwrite the arena in the future then why aren't they willing now?