Lance's Oz Fee Press Blackout-Bad For Image

[Von Mises]

My point being, the Haiti pledge was given out freely, because it depicts Lance in a positive light.
His Oz fee, would have the opposite effect for both men, so it remains a closely guarded secret.

But why should the fact that professional athlete gets appearance fees put him in a negative light. It is normal practice.

 

[Anonymous]

Funny.
It appeared to be a big issue when people thought he was dipping into his pocket to help Haiti.
BIG headlines and isn't Lance wonderful.

Must have been a major disappointment to find out it was LAF, not Lance, pledging the money to other associations, for use.

Now, we are dealing with a figure that is at least 5 times the LAF amount and it's going into his back pocket.
This "fee" has as much to do with supporting Rann's political campaign, as racing a bike.
Sure Rann is the instigator, but Lance the beneficiary.

My point being, the Haiti pledge was given out freely, because it depicts Lance in a positive light.
His Oz fee, would have the opposite effect for both men, so it remains a closely guarded secret.

Very nice. And apparently Tiger Woods was paid a large appearance fee
to play in Australia, but that was fully disclosed.

I read a quote from a bureaucrat earlier saying that other areas are trying to steal the race so they need to keep secret how to put one on. There's no logic to it. Another part of Australia wants to take over the race but you can save it from happening by not telling whether a celebrity was paid one million or two?

I wonder if the twitter ride was included in the appearance fee, and was he paid less this year, or is he spending way less time there because his price went up?

Truth is a good thing.

 

[craig1985]

I would assume the other part of Australia would be Victoria?

 

[Anonymous]

But why should the fact that professional athlete gets appearance fees put him in a negative light. It is normal practice.

If it's a normal practice in cycling, please name the other Tour Down Under riders who received appearance fees this year. How about at the Giro? Do you think the Volta Ao Algarve is lining Contador's pockets?

 

[Anonymous]

I would assume the other part of Australia would be Victoria?

No idea, sorry. The quote itself was enough to send me scurrying. I don't know if there was any truth to that bit, either. Cheers.

 

[fatandfast]

No idea, sorry. The quote itself was enough to send me scurrying. I don't know if there was any truth to that bit, either. Cheers.

Almost every race pays start money. You need to do research on STILLERSTRONG.org you may find that Lance had a jump on lots of other people giving cash. Get yourself a headband

 

[Anonymous]

It's public/government money. Which could be better spent on, oh I don't know, fighting cancer?

This is what bothers me about the issue of appearance fees. For the SA government, the public will benefit from this through increased tourism to the area (the fan support had a massive increase on the road side during last years appearance), which leads to a massive inflow of money, some of which will be collected in taxes (company tax, goods and services tax etc) that, will probably lead to MORE money in the governments coffers to then spend of things like cancer, education, hospitals etc.

People seem to forget that the governments that pay appearance fees to sports starts, in turn, inject a massive amount of money into the local economy which exceeds what would be injected had the government not paid for a sports star.

To avoid the Lance issue here, look at what Tiger Woods did to the victorian economy for playing 4 days of golf here:
- cost the state 3 million
- +30million dollars injected into local economy, above the normal increase during this event in previous years.
- so you spend 3 million, you get 30 million
- some of this 30 million injection will be recollected by taxes which the government can just spend on more socially acceptable causes
- but the fact is, the local economy is always going to be better off when a government pays for a high profile sports star

People seem to forget that governments have to spend money to make money as well. If they spent Lances $2 million dollar fee (which, lets be honest, is peanuts for a government) on local causes then the government is effectively depriving the public of the, say, $10mill, that may be inject through the local economy had they paid Lance to come.

Paying sports stars appearance fees are an investment by the state which makes the states local economy better off than had they not acted

 

[Bike Boy]

I read a quote from a bureaucrat earlier saying that other areas are trying to steal the race so they need to keep secret how to put one on. There's no logic to it. Another part of Australia wants to take over the race but you can save it from happening by not telling whether a celebrity was paid one million or two?

That comment made me wonder as well. stupid logic.

I would like to get some facts though. Many members of this forum tend to assume that the money goes down into his pocket. But who really knows what happens to the money?

I mean who are we to judge Armstrong if it turns out he will hand over the money to some kind of charity?
Can anyone provide me with some kind of proof that will justify these claims against Armstrong?

Basically I would like to know what this is based on besides the fact that it seems suspicious. I mean all the speculations aside what can we conclude.

 

[Publicus]

This is what bothers me about the issue of appearance fees. For the SA government, the public will benefit from this through increased tourism to the area (the fan support had a massive increase on the road side during last years appearance), which leads to a massive inflow of money, some of which will be collected in taxes (company tax, goods and services tax etc) that, will probably lead to MORE money in the governments coffers to then spend of things like cancer, education, hospitals etc.

People seem to forget that the governments that pay appearance fees to sports starts, in turn, inject a massive amount of money into the local economy which exceeds what would be injected had the government not paid for a sports star.

To avoid the Lance issue here, look at what Tiger Woods did to the victorian economy for playing 4 days of golf here:
- cost the state 3 million
- +30million dollars injected into local economy, above the normal increase during this event in previous years.
- so you spend 3 million, you get 30 million
- some of this 30 million injection will be recollected by taxes which the government can just spend on more socially acceptable causes
- but the fact is, the local economy is always going to be better off when a government pays for a high profile sports star

People seem to forget that governments have to spend money to make money as well. If they spent Lances $2 million dollar fee (which, lets be honest, is peanuts for a government) on local causes then the government is effectively depriving the public of the, say, $10mill, that may be inject through the local economy had they paid Lance to come.

Paying sports stars appearance fees are an investment by the state which makes the states local economy better off than had they not acted

I don't think any disagrees with the notion paying celebrity athletes to attend races/events is generally good for the economy. That being said, that wasn't the issue. It's the fact that they refuse to disclose the fee. There is a strong argument to be made that the government will see the return of the fee many times in terms of tax receipts, etc., but by hiding the amount of the fee, it makes it seem like there is something nefarious afoot.

Just an odd thing to take a stance on when there is a pretty defensible argument for paying the fee. IMHO that is.

 

[BroDeal]

I would like to get some facts though. Many members of this forum tend to assume that the money goes down into his pocket. But who really knows what happens to the money?

All the money might not go into Armstrong's pocket. Some of it will probably find its way into Dr. Ferrari's pocket, and a little will also end up in Pat McQuaid's pocket.

 

[craig1985]

IIRC it is state election time come March. Whether or not that makes a difference, I'm not sure.

 

[buckwheat]

Enlighten me Mellow, why do people keep harping on about what Lance may, or may not get paid in appearance fees? Surely it's within the rights of whoever organizes the race to pay whoever they like however much they want?

Why = this such a big deal?

Saints usually take a vow of poverty.

 

[buckwheat]

Well, Lance is hardly to blame for the twisted priorities of politicians worldwide, is he?

Nah, he's a swell guy, he just exploits them.

 

[buckwheat]

Mello Velo,

Stop pretending that you have some noble interest in this subject. You’re just trying to show LA in a bad light. You’re transparent.

LA shows himself in a bad light all by himself.

 

[Galic Ho]

Mello Velo,

Stop pretending that you have some noble interest in this subject. You’re just trying to show LA in a bad light. You’re transparent.

When you have the history and time on this forum to remove your blatant transparency maybe the regular posters will listen to you. Take the LA love fest elsewhere. Please get it out of my home country asap.

 

[Galic Ho]

This is what bothers me about the issue of appearance fees. For the SA government, the public will benefit from this through increased tourism to the area (the fan support had a massive increase on the road side during last years appearance), which leads to a massive inflow of money, some of which will be collected in taxes (company tax, goods and services tax etc) that, will probably lead to MORE money in the governments coffers to then spend of things like cancer, education, hospitals etc.

People seem to forget that the governments that pay appearance fees to sports starts, in turn, inject a massive amount of money into the local economy which exceeds what would be injected had the government not paid for a sports star.

To avoid the Lance issue here, look at what Tiger Woods did to the victorian economy for playing 4 days of golf here:
- cost the state 3 million
- +30million dollars injected into local economy, above the normal increase during this event in previous years.
- so you spend 3 million, you get 30 million
- some of this 30 million injection will be recollected by taxes which the government can just spend on more socially acceptable causes
- but the fact is, the local economy is always going to be better off when a government pays for a high profile sports star

People seem to forget that governments have to spend money to make money as well. If they spent Lances $2 million dollar fee (which, lets be honest, is peanuts for a government) on local causes then the government is effectively depriving the public of the, say, $10mill, that may be inject through the local economy had they paid Lance to come.

Paying sports stars appearance fees are an investment by the state which makes the states local economy better off than had they not acted

Tell me how they measure the bold? How does one increase value and profit and add wealth? Does money just spend itself? Tiger Woods main audience were locals. They spend money regardless. Perhaps you were refering to the multiplier effect? The only way Woods brought dollars to Victoria was from TV endorsements and course entry fees. Other effects were minimal. Please tell me the how, because my business degree tells me otherwise.

 

[Galic Ho]

Seems like the issue has blown up because they were stung last year - thought they were making a nice fat donation to Livestrong/LAF but whoops, it just slipped into Armstrong's back pocket by mistake. Obviously some clued up opposition members have done their research and now paying Armstrong a lot of money to, um, make the PM look good starts to look like politicking and gladhanding. Add in the string of sports stars that have been paid tax payers money to appear with the PM and you have an awkward situation. Bet they wish they'd just made a substantial donation to cancer charities/research/Haiti instead

It comes down to the grubs running the states in Australia. Wall to wall Labor, with an exception granted to the Sandgropers (WA). You know, the douchebag brothers in arms of the morons running the UK. Enough said there.

 

[St. Elia]

If it's a normal practice in cycling, please name the other Tour Down Under riders who received appearance fees this year. How about at the Giro? Do you think the Volta Ao Algarve is lining Contador's pockets?

Yes I do!! Contador will most likely receive appearance fees for most of the race he goes to... don't you think?

I really don't get it, it's just promotional. Of course they will pay him to show up. The average person only knows Lance and they want to suck others into it. A lot of pro's have said the same thing that he has been good for cycling and attracted a lot of attention to the sport.

BG, I think you need to support the stats that you are talking about with regards to TV coverage. Never the less the US is a big market and if they can tap into it all the better. Look at soccor and Beckam and before him Pele.


As a person I don't really like the guy but really some of you guys have a real hate on LA, I really find this strange.

 

[thehog]

I think whenever we get concerned with Armstrong's motives we should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph6Gd2Cg4gc&feature=youtube_gdata

I feel better now.

 

[Spare Tyre]

I'm pretty sceptical about the economic benefits which supposedly flow from the appearance of these expensive celebrities.

$30 million resulting from Tiger Woods' brief visit? Pull the other one!

The Albert Park Formula 1 Grand Prix was promoted as being of huge economic benefit, blah blah blah, but the attendance figures provided by the organizers are highly dodgy and these days the State Govt subsidizes it to the tune of $50 million per year. I have no idea what money is actually generated, but it seems to be a lavish event for a tiny proportion of the population, and the fact that hotels have higher occupancy for a few days, or restaurants a few more patrons, doesn't seem to compensate, IMO.

Oh, and the other justification - this is a favorite, at least in Victoria - "It puts Melbourne on the world map." LOL

Maybe that's the supposed benefit for SA - the media interest in Lance will 'put Adelaide on the map'?

 

[unsheath]

I would assume the other part of Australia would be Victoria?

Most Likely. Rann would be referring to Victoria's stealing of the Adelaide F1 GP in the 90's. As there is nothing of cultural significance in South Australia, they would want to hold on to any jewels in the crown they may have. In any case im not sure what he's afraid of as the only other cycling event would be the Sun tour in October and we all know the uniballer doesn't race that late into the season.

 

[hughmoore]

Tell me how they measure the bold? How does one increase value and profit and add wealth? Does money just spend itself? Tiger Woods main audience were locals. They spend money regardless. Perhaps you were refering to the multiplier effect? The only way Woods brought dollars to Victoria was from TV endorsements and course entry fees. Other effects were minimal. Please tell me the how, because my business degree tells me otherwise.

No, you are wrong.

My friends and I drove 100km to Adelaide this morning to join in the twitter ride. We spent money in Glenelg at a bakery on breakfast and after a coupl of hours riding spent more money on lunch after.

I would not have normally done this on a Saturday morning, so this is extra money I spent that I wouldnt normally have.

Regards


Hugh

 

[D Avoid]

The headline I'd consider reading is,"Sum begats Scum"

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think any disagrees with the notion paying celebrity athletes to attend races/events is generally good for the economy. That being said, that wasn't the issue. It's the fact that they refuse to disclose the fee. There is a strong argument to be made that the government will see the return of the fee many times in terms of tax receipts, etc., but by hiding the amount of the fee, it makes it seem like there is something nefarious afoot.

Just an odd thing to take a stance on when there is a pretty defensible argument for paying the fee. IMHO that is.

yeh i was just responding to the guy who said the appearance fee could be better spent somewhere else, but i definately agree with you that they should disclose the fee. i'm sure they will eventually, but it does seem odd they haven't/won't announce it given how the Victorian govt announced Tiger's fee without too much backlash.

Tell me how they measure the bold? How does one increase value and profit and add wealth? Does money just spend itself? Tiger Woods main audience were locals. They spend money regardless. Perhaps you were refering to the multiplier effect? The only way Woods brought dollars to Victoria was from TV endorsements and course entry fees. Other effects were minimal. Please tell me the how, because my business degree tells me otherwise.

They would measure it by using some sort of data reference to then determine if there was a significant statistical jump in, say, tourism dollars spent in Melbourne (this data is easily available to the department of treasury, i believe). Following that data, they would then see that the amount of dollars spent on tourism jumped by a significant amount above the normal inflation adjusted level for this kind of event. There are a few statistical tests to show when there has been a significant enhancement of growth above the normal average. Similar to how after the olympics, they calculate how much this contributed to a country's GDP, and its usually a positive investment (one would hope anyway).

I doubt his main audience were just locals tho. I would think that many people from interstate would have come specifically for Tiger (well at least a current affair found plenty of people stating their opinion for entry to the open was specifically for Tiger). So just interstate travel then you have these people spending money on local accomodation, local food, local restaurants, local public transport/cabs then of course the tickets to the open. So even that, its a significant number of dollars injected into the state, that otherwise would not have been there. I'm not sure if they include air travel in these estimates, but if they did then that would also add to the estimated 30 million injection.

So thats just the interstate input. the intra-state input may be similar as well (minus the travel) as there would be a significant number of people who would come to the golf that otherwise wouldn't. Then they spent money again on local food, local restuarants/nightclubs that then dissipates through the local economy.

maybe there is even an international factor as well, but again, i'm not absolutely sure what they include in their measurements. given Tiger's antics with his entourage staying at the most expensive hotel, he probably contributed half a million to the local economy too!!

originally they estimated Tiger's appearance to be 19million injected in the local economy, but then two months or so after the event when they got the data it was estimated to be i think 33mill, but not sure so i just said 30+ mill (it was definately 30 something)

so the jist of the very long post (sorry, a very very long post) is that paying tiger to come leads to more people visiting the state and spending money in the state, who otherwise wouldn't for this sporting event, and using that data they can then determine his impact on the local economy.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sceptical about the economic benefits which supposedly flow from the appearance of these expensive celebrities.

$30 million resulting from Tiger Woods' brief visit? Pull the other one!

The Albert Park Formula 1 Grand Prix was promoted as being of huge economic benefit, blah blah blah, but the attendance figures provided by the organizers are highly dodgy and these days the State Govt subsidizes it to the tune of $50 million per year. I have no idea what money is actually generated, but it seems to be a lavish event for a tiny proportion of the population, and the fact that hotels have higher occupancy for a few days, or restaurants a few more patrons, doesn't seem to compensate, IMO.

Oh, and the other justification - this is a favorite, at least in Victoria - "It puts Melbourne on the world map." LOL

Maybe that's the supposed benefit for SA - the media interest in Lance will 'put Adelaide on the map'?

i certainly understand how you are skeptical about the economic benefits of appearance fees, but in one off cases like Tiger, they do exist (see my above post).

you are spot on about the grand prix in melb tho. this is become a very bad investment for the state government. we should send it back to mike rann.

comparing the two, a 3 million fee to Tiger is a lot less than what they spend on the GP, so i'd say tiger's is easily justified but over the next few years Brumby and co are gonna have trouble justifying the continued millions spent on the GP - we should give it back to adelaide!!