|
Post by Clive_Woody on Aug 8, 2005 4:39:32 GMT -5
Like any statistcian you can find/massage figures to suit your story, and I think we all know where you are coming from and what 'cause' you are fighting.
Why blame the RWC for a drop in tourism outside of the cities where the rugby was being played. Surely the Australian tourist board should be held accountable for the lack of interest in other Australian cities. Rugby has always been pro-freedom-of-choice and the visitors to the Rugby World Cup did just that. The cities where the rugby was played benefited greatly from the influx of rugby fans, the other may have seen a downfall.
I think the reality is that there are only so many people with the money and the inclination to travel to Oz. When the 3rd largest sporting event in the World is held in Oz you will find these visitors concentrate on the cities hosting this event. I imagine it will be similar for the London Olympics, visitors to the UK will focus on the Capital to the detriment of other tourist venues in the UK. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Clive_Woody on Aug 8, 2005 4:57:35 GMT -5
Conclusion SECTION 6 6-1 6 Conclusion RWC 2003 involved a total of 48 matches, including 40 pool matches and eight finals over a six-week period in October to November 2003 in Australia. Matches were spread across 11 venues in ten cities (Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Gosford, Launceston, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, Townsville and Wollongong). The Semi Finals and Final were played in Sydney at Stadium Australia. The results of this economic impact analysis indicate that RWC 2003 contributed to additional economic activity in the short term throughout the Australian economy in terms of industry sales, employment, GDP and Government revenue. With RWC ticket sales valued at nearly $200 million and with approximately 1.8 million spectators attending matches and people travelling to RWC matches from around Australia and overseas, the impact of the event on the economy was felt across a range of industries particularly trade and hotels, usiness services and recreational services sector. In terms of longer-term impacts, based on previous studies undertaken on the effects of events in the long-term impact one can expect that Australia’s increased exposure in terms of tourism and business location could lead to further opportunities. However, as noted in this report the value of these additional opportunities was difficult to accurately quantify. Based on the data collected from various key RWC stakeholders, the key short-term economic impact results indicate that the RWC: - Generated $494 million in additional industry sales, particularly in the trade and hotels industry, finance and business services and recreational services with NSW, Vic and Qld gaining the majority of RWC industry sales; - Created an additional 4,476 full and part time jobs with again the trade and hotels industry, finance and business services and recreational services gaining the bulk of these jobs with NSW, Vic and Qld gaining the majority share of these short term full and part time jobs; - Providing an additional $55 million in Commonwealth government revenue (before commonwealth grants to State governments); and - Contributing an additional $289 million in GDP to the Australian economy with NSW, Vic and Qld gaining the majority of this additional GDP/GSP. Longer-term impacts of the event were also examined using previous research undertaken on the effects of previous sporting events, particularly the effects of the 2000 Olympics on the Australian economy. Based on these studies, a “rule of thumb” was established allowing URS to estimate that in 2004 and 2005, additional international visitors as a result of the RWC were expected to be 5,755, spending an additional $27.3 million. www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/feddep/FinalEconomicImpactOfRWC2003.pdf ;D
|
|
chips
Junior Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by chips on Aug 8, 2005 16:55:56 GMT -5
I have read a lot of comments from Kiwis about how many Lions fans travelled to NZ for the recent Lions tour and how well behaved they were despite drinking many towns dry. ;D I bet they spilt more than they drank.
|
|
rus
Full Member
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by rus on Aug 11, 2005 20:39:21 GMT -5
So union has always been about freedom of choice. You might get some disagreement on that point. No one put obstacles in the path of union having their WC in Australia. What I object to is the notion that it is a function of government to try & pick winners with regard to the largess they dispense. In the case of the union WC, taxpayers' money was spent to promote this minor (predominately) British empire sport. Read again the assumptions underlying the supposed benefits of these events. Note in the 'Executive Summary p12:' www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/feddep/FinalEconomicImpactOfRWC2003.pdf A number of assumptions ...include the displacement impacts, substitution of expenditure (e.g. an Australian RU supporters demands for RUWC tickets would be expected to decrease demand in another sector (s) of the economy providing little net stimulus) as well as the possibility of visitors rescheduling their trip to coincide with the RUWC...It seems to me the tourist figures for the WC fit the 'displacement' warning like a glove. The union WC tourists took accommodation in various tourist areas distorted the price signals for other (potential) tourists. There are these linkages (called externalities by economists) which have effects on the whole economy. The union WC can be blamed. True-the downfall was grater than the upfall (sic) in the WC areas. The Cairns Post article mentions 40,000 union WC visitors which they estimated reduced other visitors by 9%(420,000 arrived in October). The governments 'Impact' statement mentioned 60,000 meaning the reduced other tourist were down by 13% to 14%. Probably true-but a lot didn't want to come here when the union WC was being staged
|
|
|
Post by Clive_Woody on Aug 12, 2005 9:33:53 GMT -5
I think we are talking about different things, I am talking about the Rugby World Cup (RWC) that was discussed in the report you posted a link to, you seem to be going on about a RUWC whatever that might be! ;D
|
|
rus
Full Member
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by rus on Aug 12, 2005 21:10:07 GMT -5
The title of this forum is 'Union v League.' My Oxford dictionary defines 'rugby' has having two forms, 'league & union.' When I was growing up the short term for both codes was 'league or union.' Why should I change?
As the WC played in Australia was of the union (rugby) variety I choose to call it union (for short).
This is the correct English usage. You can not define a word to have a meaning what you want it to have. This is what Humpty-Dumpty did in 'Alice in Wonderland.' Look what happened to him.
|
|
|
Post by Clive_Woody on Aug 15, 2005 4:24:41 GMT -5
The title of this forum is 'Union v League.' My Oxford dictionary defines 'rugby' has having two forms, 'league & union.' When I was growing up the short term for both codes was 'league or union.' Why should I change? As the WC played in Australia was of the union (rugby) variety I choose to call it union (for short). This is the correct English usage. You can not define a word to have a meaning what you want it to have. This is what Humpty-Dumpty did in 'Alice in Wonderland.' Look what happened to him. Rus, You seem to be a man who likes accuracy, so when I see you getting the name of a competition wrong I have to question the rest of your 'facts' regarding said competition. If you can't get something so simple as the name of the Rugby World Cup right, why should we pay any attention to the rest of the inofrmation you post and claim to be accurate! Clearly you are battling for the league 'cause' but if you could try and stick to the facts and not start nattering about Humpty Dumpty and Alice in Wonderland people may take you a bit more seriously. Cheers Clive ;D
|
|
|
Post by georgehotel on Aug 19, 2005 16:22:08 GMT -5
In reality another case of the union cup overstating its impact, tv audience, etc, etc to make it seem far more important to the world than it actually is, when it seems it had far less economic impact on the countries it visited than it claimed. Absolutely no surprixse there.
More hype = less actual impact = rugby union
|
|
|
Post by Clive_Woody on Aug 22, 2005 7:06:12 GMT -5
In reality another case of the union cup overstating its impact, tv audience, etc, etc to make it seem far more important to the world than it actually is, when it seems it had far less economic impact on the countries it visited than it claimed. Absolutely no surprixse there. More hype = less actual impact = rugby union Mr Hotel, Why so bitter? Are you jealous of the success of rugby compared to league which is still floundering away in the north of Engand and bits of Australia? I can't wait for the next RLWC to see what new made-up international teams you guys come up with, it's the interviews that are best, where strangely enough almost everybody has an Australian accent. ;D
|
|
|
Post by georgehotel on Aug 22, 2005 16:33:40 GMT -5
In reality another case of the union cup overstating its impact, tv audience, etc, etc to make it seem far more important to the world than it actually is, when it seems it had far less economic impact on the countries it visited than it claimed. Absolutely no surprixse there. More hype = less actual impact = rugby union[/quote Mr Hotel, Why so bitter? Are you jealous of the success of rugby compared to league which is still floundering away in the north of Engand and bits of Australia? I can't wait for the next RLWC to see what new made-up international teams you guys come up with, it's the interviews that are best, where strangely enough almost everybody has an Australian accent. ;D Rugby is doing quite thanks Clive, growing mostly organically now in an number of countries (even where RU boards are actively trying to stop it), without the crap and hype that surrounds union. RL won't be going ahead with claims of 3 billion viewers and thank god for that. As for the 2nd point - Henry Paul or recently Paul Franze to join all the Kiwis in Italy
|
|
rus
Full Member
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by rus on Aug 22, 2005 20:12:10 GMT -5
|
|
rus
Full Member
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by rus on Aug 22, 2005 21:41:12 GMT -5
The title of this forum is 'Union v League.' My Oxford dictionary defines 'rugby' has having two forms, 'league & union.' When I was growing up the short term for both codes was 'league or union.' Why should I change? As the WC played in Australia was of the union (rugby) variety I choose to call it union (for short). This is the correct English usage. You can not define a word to have a meaning what you want it to have. This is what Humpty-Dumpty did in 'Alice in Wonderland.' Look what happened to him. Rus, You seem to be a man who likes accuracy, so when I see you getting the name of a competition wrong I have to question the rest of your 'facts' regarding said competition. If you can't get something so simple as the name of the Rugby World Cup right, why should we pay any attention to the rest of the inofrmation you post and claim to be accurate! Clearly you are battling for the league 'cause' but if you could try and stick to the facts and not start nattering about Humpty Dumpty and Alice in Wonderland people may take you a bit more seriously. Cheers Clive ;D I used the Humpty Dumpty analogy about the meaning of words after I read an interview with a Noble Prize literature winner. If you have a problem with that & his process of reasoning why don't you take it up with the Nobel Prize Selection Committee?
|
|
|
Post by Clive_Woody on Aug 25, 2005 7:29:40 GMT -5
Rus, You seem to be a man who likes accuracy, so when I see you getting the name of a competition wrong I have to question the rest of your 'facts' regarding said competition. If you can't get something so simple as the name of the Rugby World Cup right, why should we pay any attention to the rest of the inofrmation you post and claim to be accurate! Clearly you are battling for the league 'cause' but if you could try and stick to the facts and not start nattering about Humpty Dumpty and Alice in Wonderland people may take you a bit more seriously. Cheers Clive ;D I used the Humpty Dumpty analogy about the meaning of words after I read an interview with a Noble Prize literature winner. If you have a problem with that & his process of reasoning why don't you take it up with the Nobel Prize Selection Committee? You can use analogies from interviews with Nobel Prize winners all you like, but if you can't even get the name of a competition correct then how on earth are you going to manage to convince anybody your facts and figure are accurate! You also seem to ignore the information in links you provide and offer conclusions that you can't support, we all know what cause you are fighting, and while I think your little battle is very sweet, more often than not you don't make a lot of sense. ;D
|
|
rus
Full Member
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by rus on Aug 28, 2005 3:44:49 GMT -5
Clive
Please specify the links I have provided that don't substantiate what I assert.
|
|
rus
Full Member
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by rus on Sept 6, 2005 21:39:59 GMT -5
|
|