ecolarge.com

ecolarge.com

Grand Prixtensions 2000 Prixtensions 2000-Overview The Australian Grand Prix Corporation runs the Melbourne Grand Prix races on the assertion that it is good for the Victorian economy. This presentation (Prixtensions 2000) addresses this assertion based on previous work in 1998 and further refinements in 1999 2001. March 2000 Key Points 1. Methodology/data 2. AGPC losses 3. Imports & License fees 4. Economic losses/gains 2 Main Points: 1 Methodology & Data AGPC loses money

AGPC 2000 Grand Prix lost $16.1m rather than the $3.996m reported. AGPC has accumulated losses of $73.7m to date ($13.5m on AGPC data). AGPC F1 Grand Prix is expected to accumulate losses, by the end of the 2010 contract in the order of $231.3m ($53.5m on extrapolation of AGPC data). Survey technique, visitor numbers, expenditure levels are still questionable. The GPEE2 report repeats a claim made in the previous report that Victorians save less because of the Grand Prix. A claim rejected by most economists; Prof. Peter Forsyth - To the extent that savings are reduced to fund current expenditure, future expenditure will be reduced Letter to SAP, Head of

Economics, Monash Uni, Cost-benefit/Tourism expert. March 2000 (calculated on an accounting basis based on the existing trend) 3 Main Points: 2 Imports & License fees Economic losses & gains The AGPC pays out license fees (hidden from the public), prize money and insurance. These are imports which should be offset by the exports earned from offshore. In the words of GPEE2* - The ideal situation for major events is a net import content of at least zero or negative. If net import content is positive then in the

absence of offsetting effects, there would be little to be gained from Victoria hosting the event. GPEE2, pg 4 License fees are hidden-Trust Us! *GPEE2 refers to the Grand Prix Economic Evaluation 2000 by the Vic Government. March 2000 Dwyer/Forsyth back of the envelope estimates imply a net surplus of $7.59m from F1 QAGP (if we accept GPEE2 data - which we do not & assuming that all the $7.59m accrues to Victoria - which it will not!). The cost of the promotion is the net cost of the FI QAGP. The cost of the promotion in 2000 is the cost of staging F1 QAGP. We estimate a cost of $16.142m (AGPC estimates $3.996m). Net benefit=$16.142m - $7.59m = a loss of $8.552m - there is a loss from the 2000 F1 Grand Prix. 4

The Main Report In subsequent pages we outline the analysis behind the main points in the previous slides Associated Documents Letter from Professor Peter Forsyth (see notes below). See Executive summary provided in written (ie non-powerpoint) format Copy of report by AGPC consultants on the economic impact of the 2000 F1 Grand Prix (GPEE2) - available from the Vic govt. SAP paper on survey methodology. See notes attached to some overheads. March 2000 6 Sources: 1 Papers prepared by Professor Forsyth et al. Sources:Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P., Government Support for Inbound Tourism Promotion: Some Neglected Issues, Australian Economic Papers, December 1993, pg 355 - 374. Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P., Impacts and Benefits of MICE Tourism: A Framework for Analysis, Tourism Economics, 1997, Volume 3, No 1, pg 21 - 38. March 2000 7

Sources: 2 Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P., Assessing the Benefits & Costs of Inbound Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 20, 1993, pg 751 - 768. Dwyer, L., and Forsyth, P., Estimating the Employment Impacts of Tourism to a Nation, Tourism Recreation Research, Volume 23, No 2, 1998, pg 3 - 12. Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P., Modelling Tourism Jobs: Measuring the Employment Impacts of Inbound Tourism, Commonwealth Department of Tourism, 1994. March 2000 8 Data, Methodology Discussed in 1997 Prixtensions report. GPEE2 has adopted some of our points. Previous points still stand. Survey technique, visitor numbers, expenditure levels are still questionable. Last time we focussed on the detail, this time we focussed on the systemic issues. March 2000 9

Victoria saves less due to F1 The GPEE2 report repeats a claim made in the previous report that Victorians save less because of the Grand Prix. A claim rejected by most economists. Prof. Peter Forsyth - To the extent that savings are reduced to fund current expenditure, future expenditure will be reduced Letter to SAP, Head of Economics, Monash Uni, Cost-benefit/Tourism expert. March 2000 10 Summary of GPEE2 net impact International Visitors $13.2m @ an average $1497.7/visitor (7556 net additional visitors) (probably reduce significantly). Interstate visitors $22.5m/visitor (15,996 net additional visitors) @ $1,346 per head (probably reduce significantly). Event personnel/complementary expenditures $14.5m. High but AGPC says: Trust us!! Induced tourism $8.1m. Enhanced resident expenditure effect $11.5m. Complementary expenditures $2m. Direct import content $-0.4m (this becomes positive by about $4m if $11.5m in savings is dropped as we suggest). Repulsion tourism effect $-1.8m (they adopted one of our criticisms but gave it a low value). March 2000 11

Major Cost Overrun AGPC reported losses of $3.996m. Annual accounts fail to include: Depreciation (within F1 accounts); Capital cost; Additional capital increments. Capital cost is shifted to government or paid by government. Add back the capital cost and the AGPC lost $16.14M in 99/00 - see table. March 2000 12 Table 1 AGPC Version of the Annual Accts AGPC Annual Report Data 1999/2000 pg 16 Formula One Grand Prix Sales Revenue Total Revenue Total Expenditure Operating Surplus/Deficit Missing rows from the AGPC Annual Report Table are: Depreciation $m Dividend for shareholders Shareholders equity $ '000

Return on equity (%) March 2000 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $0 $40,018 $37,895

$34,818 $34,791 $38,112 $55 $51,140 $48,470 $45,357 $44,109 $47,952 $3,240 $52,886 $51,189 $47,155 $47,340 $51,948 (-$3,185) (-$1,746)

(-$2,719 ) (-$1,798 ) (-$3,231 ) (-$3,996 ) By missing rows we mean that the Formula 1 Grand Prix accounts need to include the data in the missing rows in order to provide a complete picture of the AGPC financial performance $? $? $? $? $? $? $? $? $? $? $? $?

$50,500 $50,500 $50,500 $50,500 $50,500 $50,500 xx% xx% xx% xx% xx% xx% 13 Corrected AGPC Acct Table 2 Australian Grand Prix Corporation Version of the Accounts (6) 94/95 (5) Gross Revenue $ Operating Costs $ Non-operating costs $

- $ $ $ 95/96 51,140,000 52,886,000 - 96/97 $ 48,470,000 $ 51,189,000 $ - 97/98 $ 45,357,000 $ 47,155,000 $ - 98/99 $ 44,109,000 $ 47,340,000 $ - 99/00 $ 47,952,000 $ 51,948,000

$ - Profit (loss) $ - $ (1,746,000) $ (2,719,000) $ (1,798,000) $ (3,231,000) $ (3,996,000) Capital Cost (4) $ 50,500,000 *Note - non-operating costs refer to costs not directly incurred by operations of the race but by the financial structure of the business. Corrected Version of the Accounts Table 3 94/95 (5) Gross Revenue $ Operating Costs $ Non-operating costs $ Profit (loss) $ - $ $ $

95/96 51,140,000 52,886,000 11,081,667 - $ (12,827,667) 96/97 $ 48,470,000 $ 51,189,000 $ 12,503,799 97/98 $ 45,357,000 $ 47,155,000 $ 12,454,392 98/99 $ 44,109,000 $ 47,340,000 $ 11,978,411 99/00 $ 47,952,000 $ 51,948,000 $ 12,146,731 $ (15,222,799)

$ (14,252,392) $ (15,209,411) $ (16,142,731) Capital Cost (4) $ 50,500,000 March 2000 14 The Forgotten Costs Non-operating costs per financial year not included in the AGPC Annual report calculation Financial Year Depreciation(1) Return on investment (2) Government capital works costs (3) Other costs (7) 94/95 (5) $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ 95/96

3,366,667 7,575,000 140,000 Total Non-operating Costs $ - $ 11,081,667 96/97 3,366,667 7,575,000 659,132 903,000 $ $ $ $ $ 12,503,799 $ $ $ $ 97/98 3,366,667 7,575,000

1,237,725 275,000 $ 12,454,392 $ $ $ $ 98/99 3,366,667 7,575,000 797,843 238,901 $ 11,978,411 $ $ $ $ 99/00 3,366,667 7,575,000 1,110,304 94,760 $ 12,146,731 Note (1) Depreciation assumed to be a return of 1/15th of the original capital expenditure, each year for 15 years between 1996 and 2010. Note (2) Return on investment is calculated as being 15% of the capital value of the investment which should be paid to shareholders

(ie taxpayers, government) each year. Note (3) Government has been making 'below the line' contributions to QAGP capital expenditures as a result we have added these expenditures back as additional non-operating costs. Note (4) The government commissioned report into the economics of the Grand Prix (Grand Prix Economic Evaluation 2000 (GPEE)) used this updated figure in year 2000 dollar terms. We suspect the figure is higher than this but are happy to illustrate our point using thier figures since it gives a 'conservative' outcome. Note (5) The costs incurred in 1994/95 have been assumed to have been capitalised (that is included in the capital cost figure of $50.5m). Note (6) The cost data has been taken from the AGPC Annual Report 1999/00 page 16. Note (7) See the table of other costs compiled by the Save Albert Park Group. Table 4 March 2000 15 Other costs by component Table 5 Additional Costs compiled by the Save Albert Park group not considered under the AGPC Formula 1 accounting framework Other Operating Costs 94-95 Compaction compensation (Budget) (1) $ Net costs to other public sector agencies (Aud-G) (2) $ Parks Victoria -direct costs (PV) (3) $ Police (Audit-General report) (4) $ Total (5) Note (1)

Note (3) Note (2) Note (3) Note (4) Note (3) Note (3) Note (3) Note (5) $ 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 Total 93-00 - $ $ $ $ 100,000

40,000 - $ $ $ $ 778,000 125,000 - $ $ $ $ 75,000 200,000 $ $ $ $ 211,000 27,901 - $ $ $ $

50,300 44,460 - $ $ $ $ 100,000 1,039,300 312,361 200,000 - $ 140,000 $ 903,000 $ 275,000 $ 238,901

$ 94,760 $ 1,651,661 The following notes are listed by year and then by note number. 95/96: $100,000 compaction compensation carried by Dept of State Development ($161,000 paid in 94/95); (Source:Report of the Auditor-General on the Statement of Financial Operations, 1995-96, p. 148). $40,000 direct costs to Parks Victoria (information provided by Minister Garbutt's office). 96/97 $778,000 net costs of Public Transport Corp.(Report of the Auditor General on the Govt's Annual Financial Statement , p.129. $125,000 direct costs to Parks Victoria (source as above). 97/98 $200,000 estimated police costs - Auditor-General's Report on Victorian Govt's Finances, 1997-98 (p.99) reported total costs incurred by Victoria Police for two GP events as $240,000. $75,000 direct costs to Parks Victoria. 98/99 $27,901 directs to Parks Victoria. $7,000 VicRoads (Report of the Auditor-General on Vic Govt's Finances, 1998-99, p. 56). $99,000 costs incurred by two tram businesses (as above). $105,000 incurred by Dept of Infrastructure (transport related) (source as above). 99/00 $44,460 direct costs to Parks Victoria (source as above). $24,500 incurred by VicRoads (Report of the Auditor-General on the Finances of the State of Victoria, 1999-2000, p. 56). $25,800 incurred by Dept of Infrastructure for promotion of public transport (source as above). This does not include public agency sponsorship provided to the Grand Prix. Such sponsorship is controversial and it is likely that some of it should be attributable to the Grand Prix. March 2000

16 Additional capital costs Table 6 Additional capital costs compiled from AGPC annual accounts (9) Capital costs not elsewhere included 94-95 AGPC race infrastructure (5) AGPC capital works in Albert Park (6) Other capital-related items (7) $ $ $ Total $ Note (5) Note (6) Note (7) Note (8) Note (9) 95-96 - 96-97

$ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $ 187,633 471,499 659,132 97-98 $ $ $ 78,246 1,005,003 154,476 $ 1,237,725 98-99 (note 3) $ $

$ $ 384,681 215,319 197,843 797,843 99-00 $ $ $ 831,188 160,812 118,304 $ 1,110,304 Total 93-00 $ $ $ 1,294,115 1,568,767 942,122 $ 3,805,004 Source AGPC Annual reports Source AGPC Annual reports Source AGPC Annual reports

This does not include our revisions of the original capital cost data These are paid by government but not attributed to the Grand Prix though they appear to be used by, and to the benefit, of the Grand Prix Table 7 Total Additional Capital costs and other agency costs 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 (note 3) 99-00 Total 93-00 Total other agency costs $ Total capital costs $ - $ - $ 140,000 $ 903,000 $ 275,000 $ 238,901 $ 94,760 $ 1,651,661 - $ 659,132 $ 1,237,725 $ 797,843 $ 1,110,304 $ 3,805,004 Total Additional Costs from both sources $ - $

140,000 $ 1,562,132 $ 1,512,725 $ 1,036,744 $ 1,205,064 $ 5,456,665 March 2000 17 AGPC F1 in the red AGPC 2000 Grand Prix lost $16.1m rather than the $3.996m reported. AGPC has accumulated losses of $73.7m to date ($13.5m on AGPC data). AGPC F1 Grand Prix is expected to accumulate losses, by the end of the 2010 contract in the order of $231.3m ($53.5m on extrapolation of AGPC data). (calculated on an accounting basis based on the existing trend) March 2000 18 AGPC Version of Accounts AGPC Version of Accounts Chart 1 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 Gross Revenue

Total costs (operating + non-operating) Profit (loss) Dollars $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $94/95 (5) 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 $(10,000,000) Financial Years March 2000 19 Corrected version of Accounts Corrected version of Accounts Chart 2 $70,000,000

$60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 Gross Revenue $20,000,000 Total costs (operating + non-operating) Profit (loss) $10,000,000 $94/95 (5) 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 $(10,000,000) $(20,000,000) $(30,000,000)

Financial Years March 2000 20 AGPC loss vs real losses Chart 3 Profit Comparison $94/95 (5) 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 $(2,000,000) $(4,000,000) $(6,000,000) $(8,000,000) AGPC Profit (loss) Actual Profit (loss) $(10,000,000)

$(12,000,000) $(14,000,000) $(16,000,000) $(18,000,000) Financial Years March 2000 21 Imports=hidden license fees The AGPC pays out license fees (hidden from the public), prize money and insurance. These are imports which should be offset by the exports earned from offshore. In the words of GPEE2 - The ideal situation for major events is a net import content of at least zero or negative. If net import content is positive then in the absence of offsetting effects, there would be little to be gained from Victoria hosting the event. GPEE2, pg 4 March 2000 22 Show Us The Money!!!!! License fees are not disclosed - import & export details not made available If the import/export details are wrong (license fees understated) this event becomes a net

importer and the economic benefits are reduced possibly substantially We are asked to take this on trust! License fees need to be disclosed March 2000 23 TV payments to F1 HQ Payments (net) for TV license fees do not appear to be included - these go directly from networks to Formula One overseas and would be imports. If they are significant GP imports would exceed exports by a significant margin undermining the alleged economic gains to Victoria such that there would be little to be gained from Victoria hosting the event.GPEE2, pg 4 March 2000 24 Economic benefits F1 rationale - good for the Victorian economy. GPEE2 claims economic benefit through increased economic activity ($130.7m). Is this true? Depends on: The foregone project; The cut-off point Definition of economic benefit. March 2000 25

What did we give up? The foregone project - GPEE2 suggests we gave up some public works. We suggest that the Kennett Govt would have added to the budget surplus, and lent money to the private sector via the market creating a new or bigger business - ie focus on economic growth. If they wanted to add value to tourism they could also have underwritten a overseas tourism campaign. March 2000 26 Business vs Party option In the previous report we assessed the economic impact of a business option. The business option (investing in industry) delivers benefits that exceed those from the party or F1 option. Why does the business option deliver more than the party option? The business option creates wealth through uniting capital with a business enterprise - in the next section we map out the trade-off posed by the QAGP. March 2000 27 The Grand Prix trade-off GPEE2 identifies five revenue sources unlocked by the event.

The business option identifies what could have been - profits/return on investment & recouped capital expenditure as sources of new additional expenditure given up in pursuit of F1. March 2000 28 AGPC: costs & revenues $ Net additional revenue claimed by GPEE2 to provide the source of economic benefits A Operating cost for QAGP Apparent loss on QAGP paid by government B Actual losses suffered by govt D C Outline of the QAGP business Gross revenue Capital investment

= $50.5m (assumed low estimate from GPEE2) March 2000 Categories of expenditure Missing profits & depreciation Diagram 1 Not drawn to scale 29 Key policy question? How much should you spend in government subsidy to suck expenditure into Victoria before the cost of the subsidy outweighs the net benefit? This question is not answered by GPEE2 which is why it is an inadequate explanation. According to diagram 1 govt spends the yellow part to earn the extra revenues (maroon) which we believe is offset by the foregone profits and depreciation (orange). March 2000 30 GPEE2 claims net additional revenue GPEE2 claims economic benefit derived from additional revenue comprising: Retained Victorian expenditure;

Ticket revenue from interstate & overseas; Non-ticket expenditure by additional non-Victorian visitors + enhanced expenditure by Victorians; Non-Victorian sponsorship Retained sponsorship. Source GPEE2, pg 4 (see page 49 for the amounts) We could compare the F1 option vs business option at this point but it would be misleading because the wrong data is being used. March 2000 31 The AGPC & Gross Product $ Net additional revenue claimed by GPEE2 to provide the source of economic benefits Not drawn to scale Categories of expenditure Pink + Yellow = Gross revenue of QAGP Yellow = purchases on supplies (intermediate goods) by QAGP Gross revenue Pink = purchases of labour, capital by QAGP equivalent to Gross State Product (Gross State Surplus) used in GPEE2 as a measure of economic activity GPEE2 claims that the pink expands because of F1 Capital investment = $50.5m (assumed low estimate from GPEE2) March 2000

Where gross revenue goes beneath the line this captures the subsidy from government Diagram 2 32 AGPC vs public works $ Net additional revenue claimed by GPEE2 to provide the source of economic benefits B Column B represents the gross revenue of the project chosen by GPEE2 to be foregone (given up) in order to fund the QAGP Not drawn to scale Diagram 3 Categories of expenditure Green + brown = Gross revenue of foregone project Brown = purchases on supplies (intermediate goods) Green = purchases on capital & labour (ie gross state surplus as correctly measured by GPEE2) Gross revenue Pink + Yellow = Gross revenue of QAGP Capital investment Yellow = purchases on supplies (intermediate goods) by QAGP

= $50.5m (assumed low estimate from GPEE2) Pink = purchases of labour, capital by QAGP equivalent to Gross State Product (Surplus) used in GPEE2 as a measure of economic activity - GPEE2 claims that the pink expands because of F1 March 2000 33 Misleading: net versus gross GPEE2 correctly subtracts the green in the foregone project (column B) from the pink (gross state surplus in the QAGP). The net gross state surplus is considered to be the increase in Gross State Surplus caused by the F1 according to GPEE2. Gross State Surplus is the equivalent to a large company subtracting input costs from the gross revenue and claiming this is the benefit to shareholders. The benefit to shareholders is profit - not gross state surplus. March 2000 34 Misleading Data: net vs gross Not drawn to scale $

Net additional revenue claimed by GPEE2 to provide the source of economic benefits B The Pink area represents the gross state surplus from QAPG (pink) less the gross state surplus equivalent from the foregone project (green) as undertaken in GPEE2. Diagram 4 A cost-benefit analysis would have compared the net surpluses from each project B F1 Categories of expenditure Gross revenue Capital investment = $50.5m (assumed low estimate from GPEE2) March 2000 In cost - benefit analysis the gross surplus is useless as a measure of the benefit because it does not tell us what the profit is. That is the labour and capital tied up in producing the gross surplus did not come for free - this capital & labour could have been used elsewhere. In order to determine the net surplus the costs of labour and capital should be

deducted. The light blue areas represent the net surplus component of the gross surplus of each entity. The net surplus represents the unique increment in wealth flowing from the chosen project. 35 Net Surplus: how are costs calculated? The costs of labour & capital are the wages or return on investment that they would have earned in an alternative project. The F1 is only a net benefit, all other things being equal, if the net surplus from QAGP > the net surplus from the business option and/or the aerospace museum option. Next we provide an example, representing the standard economic view, from Prof Peter Forsyth to illustrate. March 2000 36 Tourism promotion example Assume Aust Govt spends $1m through the Australian Tourism Commission to promote Australia overseas. Raising $1m in revenue causes costs to the economy of $0.275m through efficiency and foreign currency losses (this is not essential to the analysis but is part of being complete). Estimates show that $1m spent on overseas promotions produces additional tourist expenditure of $40m in Australia. March 2000

37 $1m expended = $40m on gross benefit The gross benefit needs to adjusted to reflect the cost of factors of production (labour, capital). Modelling shows that for every $1 spent on tourism by a tourist only 5 cents is available to provide a net benefit or net surplus. That is each $1 of gross benefit requires 95 cents to be spent to purchase labour and capital from other sectors of the economy leaving only 5cents as a net gain in Oz wealth. March 2000 38 Net OZ gain from $1m overseas promotion $1m (which is really costs $1.275m) in promotion = $40m in gross tourism revenue which = $2m in net surplus (@5cents per $1 spent) + $1.65m in additional foreign exchange effects (receiving additional foreign exchange is beneficial to Australia but also has costs). Therefore $1.275m in promotion = $3.65m in net benefit (source see notes - Forsyth & Dwyer paper). March 2000 39

Net Surplus Analysis The previous analysis required strong assumptions to be made by the writers. It illustrates the error in the approach of using gross measures to indicate benefits. It provides a order of magnitude measure of the net gains to Australia from extra tourism revenue. Applied to the F1 QAGP it reveals that Australia gained only $7.59m in net benefit (surplus) in 2000 (see following table). March 2000 40 Dwyer/Forsyth model applied to FI QAGP Calculating the net benefit for: 1. a dollar spent on promotion; and 2. a dollar spent in gross tourism revenue. 1. According to Forsyth & Dywer (Professor Peter Forsyth, Head of the Economics Department at Monash University and Larry Dwyer from the Centre for Tourism and Hospitality at the University of Western Sydney.) (source: Dwyer, L., and Forsyth, P., Government Support for Inbound Tourism Promotion, Australian Economic Papers, December 1993, pg 369. $1.275 spent on promotion leads to $3.65 in net benefit it can be assumed that $1 in promotion equals $x in net benefit This implies that the following ratios 1.275: 3.65 1: x can be used to calculate the value of $x therefore x = equals ($3.65 divided by $1.275) which is $2.863 That is $1 spent on promotion leads to $2.863 in net benefit (surplus) in Australia 2. According to Forsyth & Dywer (source: see above)

$40,000,000 in tourism revenue leads to $3,650,000 in net benefits for Australia. This implies that $1,000,000 in tourism revenue generates $y in net benefits (surplus) This implies that the following ratios $40,000,000:$3,650,000 $1,000,000: y can be used to calculate the value of $y therefore y= equals ($3.65m divided by $40m) which is $0.091250 million That is $1m spent in tourism revenue leads to $91,250 in net benefit for Australia as a whole On this basis, on GPEE2* data, the FI Grand Prix created a net surplus of $7.59m (see calculation below) Total GPEE2 direct expenditure value for F1 QAGP $m $ 83.20 Net surplus per $1m of gross expenditure $m $ 0.09125 Therefore net surplus created based on GPEE2 figures $m $ 7.59 *GPEE2 = Grand Prix Economic Evaluation 2000 prepared by the Victorian Department of State Development March 2000 41 Implications for QAGP

Dwyer/Forsyth back of the envelope estimates imply a net surplus of $7.59m from F1 QAGP (if we accept GPEE2 data - which we do not & assuming that all the $7.59m accrues to Victoria - which it will not!). The cost of the promotion is the net cost of the FI QAGP. The cost of the promotion in 2000 is the cost of staging F1 QAGP. We estimate a cost of $16.142m (AGPC estimates $3.996m). March 2000 42 2000 F1 GP loses $8.552m The 2000 F1 GP created $7.59m in net surplus based on AGPC data using the Forsyth model yet cost $16.142m to stage (gross revenue less staging costs). The net loss to the economy caused by the Grand Prix is the $7.59m minus $16.142m: that is $8.552m. March 2000 43 QAGP a loser It is our conclusion that the QAGP causes Victorians to be poorer when the analysis is conducted in a proper cost-benefit framework. Economic impact modelling has its place but needs to be integrated into a cost-benefit framework to measure the net benefit to the Victorian economy from government investments in tourism.

The methodology chosen in GPEE2 is inappropriate and leads to misleading conclusions about the net benefits of QAGP. March 2000 44 [email protected] & Associates Melbourne, March 2001 Any commentary in this document is solely the responsibility of [email protected] & Associates Adding Value to Society March 2000 45 ENDs Here Folks! March 2000 46

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • OUTLINE - Geza Bottlik

    OUTLINE - Geza Bottlik

    full-time workers in France are guaranteed at least five weeks vacation -- guaranteed those long lazy days in the sun, and leisurely lunches in outdoor cafes. On top of the five weeks, there are another dozen public holidays, and a...
  • SPORT INJURIES AND BIOMECHANICS - bougoulias.com

    SPORT INJURIES AND BIOMECHANICS - bougoulias.com

    SPORT INJURIES AND BIOMECHANICS ACL RUPTURE ANATOMY Intra capsular knee joint structure Length 38mm( 25 to 41mm) Width 10mm (7 to 12mm) Made up multiple collagen fibers Surrounded by synovial membrane envelope ANATOMY Femoral proximal attachment :postero- lateral corner of...
  • Unit 16 - cob.jmu.edu

    Unit 16 - cob.jmu.edu

    Depreciation Tables to derive Net Book Value for any period. Gains and Losses on Disposal of Equipment. Deferred Taxes caused by Depreciation Differences (tax vs. book) Sales on Credit, Credit Checks, Collection Efforts, Dunning. Bad Debt Handling, Allowance for Doubtful...
  • Skull and Spine - Des Moines Area Community College

    Skull and Spine - Des Moines Area Community College

    Skull, Spine and Limbs Skull Anesthesia usually required Many variations in skull types-need to know anatomy Basic principles all the same Did the DV and lateral in lab Skull Dolichocephalic breeds Mesaticephalic breeds Brachycephalic breeds Cats Skull Ventrodorsal view Patient...
  • Potential Errors In Epidemiology

    Potential Errors In Epidemiology

    Stratification and multivariate analysis are two methods used to control the effect of confounding in the analysis stage Stratification is a technique in which data are stratified by the levels of confounding factor and the relative risk estimates are compared...
  • Welcome to Introduction to the draft English as

    Welcome to Introduction to the draft English as

    Impact of language intensity of different learning (topics, learning areas) on levels of EAL learner achievement. Curriculum areas that have been identified as requiring higher levels of English language intensity for students to access.
  • MyWritingLabPlus and English 1100 and 1109 What is

    MyWritingLabPlus and English 1100 and 1109 What is

    MyWritingLabPlus is used in a variety of courses at CSUB, ranging from English to Business to Chemistry. The online program allows you to work on grammar, mechanics, writing, and research skills. MyWritingLabPlus supports different learning styles as well, utilizing audio...
  • The Nature and scope of religious autonomy Protections

    The Nature and scope of religious autonomy Protections

    Autonomy has become a synonym for "liberty" or "freedom." ... Significantly, under German law, the labor judge is not subject to an unlimited obligation to defer to church positions, but must assure that church determinations do not contradict the basic...