Should SA Motorsport Board go for IRL on with V8s?

[cavvy]

Newsstalker are you denying economic benefits from events?

Been at Adelaide airport on Melbourne Cup day? A different sport but the economic benefits are as hard to deny as they are for Adelaide at Clipsal time.

Or is your argument with the calculation of those benefits?

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

once again you appear to be waffling about something that i have no idea what your saying.

your quoting some report that i have no idea off and you have never referenced

you can see the audited report, if you have something to add, bring it to the table instead off making up unsubstantiated BS

Push that white flag a little higher Pecky

In reference to Cavvy, without details on how economic benefits and costs were classified and calculated the announced numbers hold little credibility, as VESA and NSW Government are finding out.

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

In reference to Cavvy, without details on how economic benefits and costs were classified and calculated the announced numbers hold little credibility, as VESA and NSW Government are finding out.

Been VESAs problem in WA for a decade, its not new.

I was querying whether there is a denial of economic benefit?

[peckstar]

not really DRT, you dont raise a white flag against blanks.

fire a bulet and i will respond, just asking what he is talking about because they havent provided any evidence just some obscure refernce to spending in Spain (and other countries). would like to know what he is talking about it and where is the info from,

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by NewsStalker

DTF is the ultimate govt body who dish out all money, report all income and expenditure IOW the Treasury. They will fund items that go towards everything but aren't necessarily reported by that sports controlling body - thus the amounts shown as 'travel' etc that you won't find reported by the SA Motor Sports Board - which begs the question - how accurate IS the reported cost of the race to the state?

Just because a govt states it brings in economic benefit does not mean it will continue fund an event - look at Rally Australia - until 2-3 years ago, the WA govt was very happy to continue with it because of the economic benefit it brought in - but then ditched it as reality crept in and this 'economic benefit' didn't actually translate into dollars in Treasury's coffers.

bit of spin there Newsstalker re the WA event.

WRC had been held in WA for what 20 years ... the benefit to WA was perceived to be international recognition, not direct economic benefit. The event was not advertised throughout Australia to capitalise on the Australian market. Also why the replacement event is the Red Bull air race.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by cavvy

I was querying whether there is a denial of economic benefit?

Not from me, however everything has an economic impact/benefit. The question lays with what did it cost to achieve this benefit.

[NewsStalker]

bit of spin there Newsstalker re the WA event.

WRC had been held in WA for what 20 years ... the benefit to WA was perceived to be international recognition, not direct economic benefit. The event was not advertised throughout Australia to capitalise on the Australian market. Also why the replacement event is the Red Bull air race.

No spin - I accept the accepted benefit was international exposure - yet the govt saw fit to pull out because that benefit was no longer being seen. Red Bull gave it a better 'profit' line compared to rallying which is horrendously expensive for organisers (not just in terms of actual dollars spent but also inconvenience for ares that have to be shut down to accommodate it)

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by NewsStalker

No spin - I accept the accepted benefit was international exposure - yet the govt saw fit to pull out because that benefit was no longer being seen. Red Bull gave it a better 'profit' line compared to rallying which is horrendously expensive for organisers (not just in terms of actual dollars spent but also inconvenience for ares that have to be shut down to accommodate it)

Fair go, 'profit' is your description - clearly that is wrong, it is not a profit,no one is claiming the event runs at a profit.

Given you accept the economic benefit argument, & we all see the difficulty of quantifying that benefit, your criticism is on an event by event basis is it?

[rustyinsthoz]

Originally Posted by peckstar

im not sure what you base that on, its audited by the auditor general? i guess you must by some high powered chartered accountant with inside knowledge?

or does it just not agree with your opinion

Nothing to do with opinion. Its all about the numbers they use.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by rustyinsthoz

Nothing to do with opinion. Its all about the numbers they use.

so what you are saying is that professional people who have trained for probably 6 years and have many years of work experience are wrong and you who appears to know nothing are right.

Provide us with some information to support your case. its that or we write you off as some loony