Econ Rhoda Case

ECON

In this report, Mr. Rhoda used two ways to evaluate the reasonableness of the reports of ICC, ERA and the bond offering statement (“BOS”). First, he compared these three reports and came to the findings that ICC represented a more realistic goal while ERA and BOS were unsupportable. Second, in order to prove his findings were right, he compared ICC, ERA and BOS with some similar arena projects that completed by CSL.

However, Mr. Rhoda didn’t test the accuracy of his method. After reading the whole report, I can feel that Mr. Rhoda think it is reasonable to compare these documents, even though he compared a lot of data and made some “reasonable” inferences.

I didn’t trust Mr. Rhoda’s findings for the following reasons. First, in a formal report, it is very important to choose a right and reasonable way to do the research, but Mr. Rhoda just compared the past reports or studies. Mr. Rhoda didn’t test the accuracy of data in ICC, ERA, and BOS, in addition, he questioned that the higher event and attendance levels included in the BOS and the lower creating expense projection, but Mr. Rhoda didn’t do the deep investigation to figure out the reason why BOS will get this conclusion.

Second, the result that through comparing these reports is insufficient and unreasonable. Even though ICC, ERA and BOS all discussed Prescott Valley Event, but there were still some differences, such as ICC focused on the area within a 20-mile radius in 2001, the ERA and the BOS focused on the area within a 25-mile radius in 2005. Mr. Rhoda neglected the tiny differences since different areas and years may get different data. In the last several pages, Mr. Rhoda compared these reports with CSL’S previous studies. Although Mr. Rhoda announced that these studies are similar to the Prescott Valley event, in order to make this comparison more “reasonable”, he used the comparable study average as a reference. However, these CSL studies...