Ready for F1 in Singapore?
-
I personally would prefer that Singapore just buy a plot of land at the Iskandar Development Region to construct a world-class race track, instead of trying to build one in Singapore.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If there's a time to make motorsports a part of mainstream Singaporean culture, now's the time.
Sustainability means you have to create a base from bottom up, starting with the schools through smaller scale activities like Formula SAE, go-karting, GT race management and apprenticeship. -
From today's BT.
Citigroup sees $200m F1 tourism earnings
Its estimate, higher than govt's $100m, is based on other host countries' track record
By RONNIE LIM
SINGAPORE'S Formula One race starting next year could generate tourism earnings of $150-200 million - versus the government's $100 million estimate - based on the track record of other host countries, says Citigroup.
Mr Ong: There will be a cap on the profit that race organiser Singapore GP can earn from staging the F1 race
And the US-based banking giant sees big spin-offs for the economy at large as the race exposes the 'Singapore brand' worldwide, saying F1 is the third most-watched sporting event after the Olympics and World Cup.
'It is watched on average 58 billion times a season through television broadcasts to over 200 countries. Singapore will suddenly be on the map for these millions,' says Citigroup economist Chua Hak Bin in a report. 'The immediate costs to the government coffers will likely be defrayed over time by the branding and advertising gains.'
The Citigroup report comes as news emerged yesterday that there will be a cap on the profit that race organiser Ong Beng Seng's Singapore GP can earn from staging the F1.
Any amount above this cap, which is confidential under the terms of the deal, will go to reduce the government's future grants. But any losses incurred will be borne by the race organiser.
This previously unknown arrangement has emerged amid questions over the government's commitment to bear 60 per cent - about $90 million - of the estimated annual cost of $150 million to stage the F1 here.
It has been asked why the government should use taxpayers' money to help Singapore GP, which will foot only $60 million, organise the race, thus enabling Mr Ong to make a bundle.
But Citigroup's estimates, if they turn out to be correct, mean a 'win-win' F1 for all parties.
'We think tourism earnings could be higher, closer to $150-200 million, with the right promotion,' the bank's report says. 'The government forecast looks conservative when compared to the earnings of other F1 hosts.
'Valencia (the latest Spanish venue on the F1 circuit) is hosting the race early 2008 and estimates about $190 million of earnings, based on Barcelona's experience. Bahrain earned $600 million in 2006 and Shanghai $653 million in 2004. Malaysia generated $175 million of earnings.'
Citigroup says the winners from the Singapore F1 will include hotels, retail, private banking and the media. 'The integrated resorts should also gain when they are ready. The F1 crowd is primarily the rich and middle class,' it says.
Hotel rates typically rise by as much as three times on the race weekend, as in Melbourne and Monaco, while the Australian GP generates about US$10.5 million in advertising and promotions during the four-day event.
Annual budgets for the auto race participants are also huge, totalling some US$1.5 billion, with Toyota the biggest spender at US$290 million, followed by Ferrari (US$250 million) and Renault (US$155 million) based on 2005 figures.
Some of the manufacturers also spend a big sum on hospitality, with Toyota reportedly shelling out almost US$7 million last year.
Red Bull Racing spent US$6 million, including setting up a floating energy station in the harbour for the Monaco GP and a US$1.2 million Chinese village at the Shanghai GP, Citigroup says -
Motorsports is not a desirable part of mainstream Singaporean culture. Malaysia is a veteran of F1 races now. They have permanent racetracks and go-kart races (which caused a death recently) but there has not been significant spillover benefits economy of associated industries apart from the F1 event itself.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If there's a time to make motorsports a part of mainstream Singaporean culture, now's the time.
Sustainability means you have to create a base from bottom up, starting with the schools through smaller scale activities like Formula SAE, go-karting, GT race management and apprenticeship.
We do not have F1 races every day. Having the disruptions to traffic etc for a few days is worth it if it is economically beneficial, but apart from the race itself, the industry only supports a small number of jobs, many of which are based overseas in automobile companies.
After 5 years we should review the situation. By then, if our IRs have established themselves and if the F1 race has not brought in the revenue we expect, then kill it. -
A street circuit like ours will require the use of fewer resources to set up and maintain than a permanent track.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:You haven't made the case as to why allowing a semi-permanent track will benefit the environment. Motoring sports damage rather than benefit the environment. The only reason why we should bring them in is for the economy.
If the economy does not benefit from F1, I would rather it goes away to another country. There will be less disruption to traffic and less noise pollution for nearby residents.
No, I support the F1 only because the figures appear to show it can bring in more revenue for the economy. It is an elite sport that does not improve the health and fitness of ordinary Singaporeans. I do not see any other reason for it apart from the economic benefit it can bring. Let's call a spade a spade.
And we could do with an event that involves a greater level of disruption than your average marathon run. In general, we're too used to having everything around us run like we expect it to.
It should stay not just because of the economical benefits. It'll improve our exposure to a worldwide audience, there's the extra vibrancy and passion that sports fans from everywhere bring, the buzz as the event approaches every year, and the pride that arises from being having a world-class event on our calendar. It's not an elite sport because it has fans from all walks of life in equal proportions.
Pay attention when the Formula 1 circus returns to Silverstone, or when MotoGP heads to Donington Park (and not just to the sound of money changing hands). Maybe you'll understand then. -
The one and only reason for holding races in Singapore is for the economy, not to pander to the interests of a minute elite. How many Singaporeans can afford to pay for the tickets to watch the race? And how many will be inconvenienced by the traffic disruptions and diversions? No, the economic benefit is the only reason why I support it.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:A street circuit like ours will require the use of fewer resources to set up and maintain than a permanent track.
And we could do with an event that involves a greater level of disruption than your average marathon run. In general, we're too used to having everything around us run like we expect it to.
It should stay not just because of the economical benefits. It'll improve our exposure to a worldwide audience, there's the extra vibrancy and passion that sports fans from everywhere bring, the buzz as the event approaches every year, and the pride that arises from being having a world-class event on our calendar. It's not an elite sport because it has fans from all walks of life in equal proportions.
Pay attention when the Formula 1 circus returns to Silverstone, or when MotoGP heads to Donington Park (and not just to the sound of money changing hands). Maybe you'll understand then.
If F1 does not measure up and the revenue does not come in, kill it when it comes for renewal after 5 years. -
FI will boost my tourism and put our country into a spotlight, in a way, it is good for the country
-
Well, I strongly support having the F1 in Singapore.
My view is that it will help to boost Singapore's image around the world. You and I both know that although a lot of people have heard about Singapore, but have very little idea of where and what we are. Having images of Singapore beamed around the world would really help to generate more awareness about Singapore (i.e. that we are more than just another "small asian country").
This awareness, coupled with F1's glamour factor and following big money circus (actually, who follows who is up for debate) will inadvertantly have significant spinoffs, especially when the track is actually in the city itself, instead of some track in the moddle of nowhere.
In the long term, the benefits of the exposure we'll get through F1 will probably be difficult to calculate and put into bare numbers, but it's definitely there.
I am very sure that the Singapore F1 GP will be a good thing for the economy, provided its organised and run well, without any embarrassing restrictions (both on the race and spectators) that will demonstrate our Government's penchant for going overboard in being totally kiasu and kiasi.
My personal view, Singapore F1 GP is a watershed in some ways for the Singapore govt. It shows that the govt is seriously looking to go upmarket and attempt some risk in the chase for economic gain. Yes, it took LKY to complain about F1 to get them moving, but at least its a positive move. Singapore has to make brave decisions if it wants to stay ahead in the economic race, and I think this is one of them.
Oh yeah, and in the end, we also get to have a premier motorsport event right at our doorstep! I mean, how cool is that??
Just my 2 cents. -
Who are you to decide if it's part of Singapore's culture or not?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Motorsports is not a desirable part of mainstream Singaporean culture.
Don't bet on trying to stem it, there are groups here who want to push motorsports into the public light and turn it into a mainstream event. And for the record, I am fully behind it. -
I have already told you why those who attend the races and watch them on TV are not "a minute elite". We're talking about a global audience in the hundreds of millions. Going by other races ticket prices are never an issue to fans, they'll still fill the stands to capacity.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The one and only reason for holding races in Singapore is for the economy, not to pander to the interests of a minute elite. How many Singaporeans can afford to pay for the tickets to watch the race? And how many will be inconvenienced by the traffic disruptions and diversions? No, the economic benefit is the only reason why I support it.
If F1 does not measure up and the revenue does not come in, kill it when it comes for renewal after 5 years.
The governments or bodies of other countries that host the other legs of the F1 world championship still invest in upgrading their track facilities and fight to retain their races even if they lose money. Surely there are more than just economic interests at hand? It'll be worth the disruption to traffic.
I'll take you seriously only when you start to show some signs of understanding of what we're talking about. -
What nonsense is this? Trying to prop up a non-viable economic concern with taxpayers' hard-earned money?Originally posted by Kuali Baba:I have already told you why those who attend the races and watch them on TV are not "a minute elite". We're talking about a global audience in the hundreds of millions. Going by other races ticket prices are never an issue to fans, they'll still fill the stands to capacity.
The governments or bodies of other countries that host the other legs of the F1 world championship still invest in upgrading their track facilities and fight to retain their races even if they lose money. Surely there are more than just economic interests at hand? It'll be worth the disruption to traffic.
I'll take you seriously only when you start to show some signs of understanding of what we're talking about.
The races must demonstrate that it is good value for the nation's investment or they should be dumped. Let other nations lose money if they want. -
Singapore government can take the risk lah..only $90m...sup sup soi lah. I would rather see them doing something like that than to construct some multi million dollar government office building.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What nonsense is this? Trying to prop up a non-viable economic concern with taxpayers' hard-earned money?
The races must demonstrate that it is good value for the nation's investment or they should be dumped. Let other nations lose money if they want. -
i only see F1 in singapore as an injection to the economy. Just another example of noblesse oblige of the "freshly formed" government which just happens to reap twice the rewards..
-
You don't want to face it because you'll look silly.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What nonsense is this? Trying to prop up a non-viable economic concern with taxpayers' hard-earned money?
The races must demonstrate that it is good value for the nation's investment or they should be dumped. Let other nations lose money if they want.
He hath spoken...Originally posted by Gazelle:Singapore government can take the risk lah..only $90m...sup sup soi lah. I would rather see them doing something like that than to construct some multi million dollar government office building. -
On a sidenote, goodness, if Microsoft did not become the majority tenant at One Marina, it would have been a huge white elephant with the signage of NTUC on the side.
-
nope, there is currently a major shortage of office space in Singapore, that wont happen.Originally posted by LazerLordz:On a sidenote, goodness, if Microsoft did not become the majority tenant at One Marina, it would have been a huge white elephant with the signage of NTUC on the side. -
but it wasn't the case a year or two back.Originally posted by Gazelle:nope, there is currently a major shortage of office space in Singapore, that wont happen.
at least now, it wouldn't have been that terrible. -
Oh I fully agree with taking the risk to hold the F1 here next year...I will probably go and watch it myself to get a feel if it can really bring in profits. What I said was that if, after 5 years, the event loses money rather than bring in revenue (like the ill-fated Albert Park in Australia), then there is no reason to renew the contract after 5 years.Originally posted by Gazelle:Singapore government can take the risk lah..only $90m...sup sup soi lah. I would rather see them doing something like that than to construct some multi million dollar government office building. -
We'll see. It's down to who understands this government's policies better and which argument will make more sense to our government.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Who are you to decide if it's part of Singapore's culture or not?
Don't bet on trying to stem it, there are groups here who want to push motorsports into the public light and turn it into a mainstream event. And for the record, I am fully behind it.
For the record, I am fully behind any decision that will bring economic benefit to the nation. To win big, we have to take risks. But if it looks like a lemon, it's no shame to admit we made a mistake and bail out quickly. -
You still don't get it. Not everything that has an economic benefit will ultimately benefit the growth and maturity of Singapore as a nation, one good example is legalisation of gambling through the casinos.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:We'll see. It's down to who understands this government's policies better and which argument will make more sense to our government.
For the record, I am fully behind any decision that will bring economic benefit to the nation. To win big, we have to take risks. But if it looks like a lemon, it's no shame to admit we made a mistake and bail out quickly.
Heck, you might also just legalise guns, drugs too, because the government can earn from said excise revenue as well, and take a cut off any legal drug importation.
That said, is it beneficial to the nation? I surely think not.
Motorsports may be a niche activity for now, but at least the OC from developing this sector has less vagarities than adding more casinos into the mix.
Economics is but one aspect. Always remember that. A nation may be stronger even if it's not the richest. Don't fall prey to the Faustian bargain that a strong economy will always equate to a strong Singapore. It might just be the start of a Potemkin village. -
I am afraid you do not get it. There must be a weighing of the cost-benefit ratio in every policy. The downside of bringing in a casino has to be weighed against the economic benefits and we bring them in only if the latter triumphs the danger of the casino.Originally posted by LazerLordz:You still don't get it. Not everything that has an economic benefit will ultimately benefit the growth and maturity of Singapore as a nation, one good example is legalisation of gambling through the casinos.
Heck, you might also just legalise guns, drugs too, because the government can earn from said excise revenue as well, and take a cut off any legal drug importation.
That said, is it beneficial to the nation? I surely think not.
Motorsports may be a niche activity for now, but at least the OC from developing this sector has less vagarities than adding more casinos into the mix.
Economics is but one aspect. Always remember that. A nation may be stronger even if it's not the richest. Don't fall prey to the Faustian bargain that a strong economy will always equate to a strong Singapore. It might just be the start of a Potemkin village.
Motorsports will always remain an activity for a select few who can afford it, as a sport it is by no means crucial for building up physical fitness, as an entertainment it is damaging to the environment and consumes a disproportionate amount of resources, it is disruptive to city life and adds to noise and air pollution. If it is not balanced by significant economic benefits, it will be irresponsible of the government to allow the F1 in, not to mention the huge public investment. Indeed, if we build a permanent racetrack as some have advocated here and if that is not economically viable, it will indeed be the archetypal Potemkin village. -
Oh, we were talking about motorsports as a whole, not just about F1. And FYI, if you don't already know, that racetrack will never be used for F1. So I suppose that should placate you.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I am afraid you do not get it. There must be a weighing of the cost-benefit ratio in every policy. The downside of bringing in a casino has to be weighed against the economic benefits and we bring them in only if the latter triumphs the danger of the casino.
Motorsports will always remain an activity for a select few who can afford it, as a sport it is by no means crucial for building up physical fitness, as an entertainment it is damaging to the environment and consumes a disproportionate amount of resources, it is disruptive to city life and adds to noise and air pollution. If it is not balanced by significant economic benefits, it will be irresponsible of the government to allow the F1 in, not to mention the huge public investment. Indeed, if we build a permanent racetrack as some have advocated here and if that is not economically viable, it will indeed be the archetypal Potemkin village.
If we build that racetrack and use it exclusively for F1 and close out all the other peripheral motoring users, I would be the first one to raise heck and thunder. -
Well, I think you are a little confused here isn't it? If you say "there must be a weighing of the cost-benefit ratio in every policy", and that Singapore has decided to build the IRs because the economic benefits outweigh the dangers of the IRs, then it means that Singapore has already given a great deal of thought into whether F1 will be an economic benefit or a economic disaster.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I am afraid you do not get it. There must be a weighing of the cost-benefit ratio in every policy. The downside of bringing in a casino has to be weighed against the economic benefits and we bring them in only if the latter triumphs the danger of the casino.
As we all Singaporeans know, our government will never do anything that is detrimental to our economy and our government are just as "kiasu" as Singaporeans. If that's the case, I truly believe our government has already been in deep thoughts long enough to realise that at the end of the day, F1 will be an economic benefit. And that's the reason why we went full steam ahead to try to sign a contract with F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone to host F1 races in Singapore for 5 years. -
No, I have said that I fully support the decision to go with the F1 for the next 5 years because having weighed the costs and benefits, the government felt that it was a worthwhile risk, and I agree. However, I do not see any evidence to support taking yet another risk and incurring further public spending for a permanent race track. I have no objection to the race track itself, if a private enterprise wants to take it up after doing its own sums and if we have a suitable piece of land lying vacant for rental. That's fine by me. If it works, the public purse benefits from the taxes. If it fails, the taxpayer is not hurt by it.Originally posted by alleggerita:Well, I think you are a little confused here isn't it? If you say "there must be a weighing of the cost-benefit ratio in every policy", and that Singapore has decided to build the IRs because the economic benefits outweigh the dangers of the IRs, then it means that Singapore has already given a great deal of thought into whether F1 will be an economic benefit or a economic disaster.
As we all Singaporeans know, our government will never do anything that is detrimental to our economy and our government are just as "kiasu" as Singaporeans. If that's the case, I truly believe our government has already been in deep thoughts long enough to realise that at the end of the day, F1 will be an economic benefit. And that's the reason why we went full steam ahead to try to sign a contract with F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone to host F1 races in Singapore for 5 years.
That said, nothing remains static and things change quickly. Despite our best projections, we may be wrong about how things will look in a few years' time. If the F1 fails to deliver the economic benefits we expect, then it should be killed off when the contract comes for renewal after 5 years.
If you read carefully, you won't be confused. Jumping to comment without a proper reading is the reason why so many students fail English Comprehension. -
You notice that in the history of the sport it's the FIA and not the organisers that wields the axe, don't you? What makes you so smug to think we'll be able to make the first move when everyone else is trying to revive, save or bid for their Grand Prix?
Once you can explain the reason for that trend you'll realise that it's more than just about $$$. -
If you were to pay more attention, you WOULD have realised that Singapore's government always plan at least 10 years ahead. YES, there are times when even our government makes mistakes, but it is rare. To plan 5 years ahead of time is simply not enough for our government.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Despite our best projections, we may be wrong about how things will look in a few years' time. If the F1 fails to deliver the economic benefits we expect, then it should be killed off when the contract comes for renewal after 5 years.
If you read carefully, you won't be confused. Jumping to comment without a proper reading is the reason why so many students fail English Comprehension.
A good example of Singapore planning very long ahead of time is our reserve sand. Tell me, how many of us Singaporeans would have predicted that Indonesia would one day stop selling sand to us? No one did, but our government predicted that long ago and started stocking up on sand.
That said, I believe that our government has already thought of nearly every pros and cons of hosting F1 races and that pros outweigh the cons. So I believe F1 in Singapore will definitely make profits, boost Singapore's image in European countries and boost tourism too. I'm all in for it.
And that part you said about many students failing English Comprehension, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not one of these students that failed English Comprehension. I simply do not see what is so hard about it.