Unfortunately certain armchair politicians who frequent this website are likely too old to enter the 2012 AICPA Accounting Competition but for student members of the AICPA currently enrolled in school, there's a $10,000 prize waiting for the team who can come up with winning strategy for a made up presidential candidate you'll be advising: You’ve […]
Alright, so we weeded out the first round and wrapped up the GC freelancer finals yesterday, leaving us with 3 candidates and a lot of comments both good and bad for each. In the interest of making this easy on everyone, let's analyze. As is, it's looking like we need a final head-to-head death match […]
For some people, NASCAR is a big deal. So big that it, like other “sports,” deserves a hall of fame. The location of which is carefully chosen after a competition amongst cities who feel they are best suited to give the legends of the sport an appropriate and worthy grounds which to immortalize their seemingly noteworthy accomplishments. For NASCAR, this city was Charlotte, North Carolina. The Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority, who operates the Hall of Fame, predicted that the facility would be a monstrous success with 800,00 visitors coming to this shrine of southern boys behind steering wheels in its first year.
Things didn’t really turn out as planned with disappointing attendance and operating losses. Of course this ruffled a few feathers and they invited PwC to perform an “80-hour, monthlong audit” to see what’s what.
Among its findings: Projections for 800,000 visitors in the $200 million NASCAR museum’s first year of operation were based on bluster as much as anything. “Our limited analyses have not identified due diligence or studies supporting these projections,” the PwC report states. “Rather, we understand from our discussions with CRVA representatives that earlier, more modest attendance projections were revised as the competition between Charlotte, Atlanta, and Daytona intensified for the Hall of Fame. It is not clear what, if any, due diligence was conducted in support of these upward revisions.”