(23-05-2014, 10:20 AM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ] (23-05-2014, 09:44 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (22-05-2014, 11:01 PM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]Their retail and advertisemnt is on govt leased land. The law is very clear on structures on leased land when the lease expired.
The business needs both hardware and software to survive. Claiming back the hardware alone wouldn't work.
what is the 'software'? a small retail mgt and advert team with probably less than 10 people. the 'software' is not proprietary. can just hire over or outsource if LTA wants to do themselves.
If not, LTA can tender the retail mgt to managing agents like PREMAS/Knight Frank etc OR tender to a master tenant. The advert can tender out like the bus stops to Clear Channel/JC Decaux. LTA done it before.
Well, I don't have the figures, but I doubt the bus stops' advert business is doing well, comparing with PTOs' advert business.
For the sake of owning it, yes, no problem, do a outsource, or even spin-off a subsidiary to do it, but it wouldn't be the same as before.
SMRT needs a CEO with retail experience to grow the advert business. By right it should be easily outsourced to professional or set up a small elite team to do the job, base on your arguments?
(not vested in both SMRT and SBST)
(23-05-2014, 10:47 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (23-05-2014, 10:20 AM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ] (23-05-2014, 09:44 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (22-05-2014, 11:01 PM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]Their retail and advertisemnt is on govt leased land. The law is very clear on structures on leased land when the lease expired.
The business needs both hardware and software to survive. Claiming back the hardware alone wouldn't work.
what is the 'software'? a small retail mgt and advert team with probably less than 10 people. the 'software' is not proprietary. can just hire over or outsource if LTA wants to do themselves.
If not, LTA can tender the retail mgt to managing agents like PREMAS/Knight Frank etc OR tender to a master tenant. The advert can tender out like the bus stops to Clear Channel/JC Decaux. LTA done it before.
Well, I don't have the figures, but I doubt the bus stops' advert business is doing well, comparing with PTOs' advert business.
For the sake of owning it, yes, no problem, do a outsource, or even spin-off a subsidiary to do it, but it wouldn't be the same as before.
SMRT needs a CEO with retail experience to grow the advert business. By right it should be easily outsourced to professional or set up a small elite team to do the job, base on your arguments?
(not vested in both SMRT and SBST)
You mean the last SMRT CEO with the atas retail experience?
On her watch, that the trains keep breaking down?
On hindsight, the Board choice was a big mistake. the retail
did not take off in a big way. Long gestation. While the
trains ops was under-maintained.
The decision is to do in house may be due to Smrt board seeing retail
and advert is core business. As what specuvestor said, it should be a package
deal in the PTO outsource. Foreign players should have the retail and
advert businesses in their home countries.
Regarding the bus stop advert, it is good business for CC/JCD
coz it is profit-sharing basis. And the bus stop capex can last
very long. It is just maintenance and selling advert. Margin should
be as good. If not, they won't tender again and again.
(23-05-2014, 01:57 PM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]You mean the last SMRT CEO with the atas retail experience?
On her watch, that the trains keep breaking down?
On hindsight, the Board choice was a big mistake. the retail
did not take off in a big way. Long gestation. While the
trains ops was under-maintained.
The decision is to do in house may be due to Smrt board seeing retail
and advert is core business. As what specuvestor said, it should be a package
deal in the PTO outsource. Foreign players should have the retail and
advert businesses in their home countries.
Well, I wouldn't dispute the facts on her rail management performance, but we shouldn't dismiss her contribution to the company's retail and advert businesses, since she joined in 2002.
From 2004 (I don't have 2002 report with me) till 2012, when she resigned, the retail cum advert business had been expanded from around 30 mil (2004) to more than 110 mil (2012) in revenue, 25 mil (2004) to 82 mil (2012) in op-profit. That isn't tallied with "did not take off in a big way".
I don't disagree retail/advert should be packaged into the contract. I do disagree that LTA should operate the businesses.
(23-05-2014, 01:57 PM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the bus stop advert, it is good business for CC/JCD
coz it is profit-sharing basis. And the bus stop capex can last
very long. It is just maintenance and selling advert. Margin should
be as good. If not, they won't tender again and again.
I don't have figure with me, so I have to rest the case here.
My gripe is that she is at heart a marketing gal with loud hair. Her focus was singularly on profits. She couldn't understand why the train should not be packed to the brim because I dont think she ever travel SMRT during peak hours IIRC. If we say extend waiting time to 10 minutes, SMRT profit would be much higher but manhours lost is not in her equation.
She shouldn't be running a public goods service in the first place. She would do well in a pte sector, and avoid charities
If you take 8 years to ramp up the occupancy of the malls, the mgt should be sacked. Coz malls in SG starts at 85-90% occupancy. Ask CAPL or Breadtalk. Besides, the idea of MRT retail was in Hk way before SG. Not original idea.
SMRT takes too long to ramp up their retail business. The tenant mix all over the place initially.
Like in tg pagar Xchange mall, they allowed temp pasar malam stalls selling bags. To me, that's sign of bad tenancy mix mgt. Only recently got better.
Don't think SMRT added new forms of advertising in their business. basically posters and bus ads.
Why not let the government to build all the private or public housing? Anyway, the government owns most of the land. Why would we still need private property developers?
Why not the government run every business in the country?
What a wonderful world!
^^^ Absolute statements are only good for political statements and propaganda and no real world use.
Why can't everyone be Steve Jobs or Buffett or Einsteins. Why not let businesses run for political office? Why not hire Blangladeshi to staff the Army? PAP is always wrong.
Absolute statements without considering the overall big picture，considering constraints and devising an optimal way, are just that: 哗众取宠. That's why IMF only got one trick.
Singapore Inc philosophy transformed what was once touted one of the best transport system in the world into what some exaggerated as "disaster" or "failure". I'm glad at least our government is not insane and learn from mistakes and adjust. In any case we are socialising the cost of transport networks, breaking the monopoly of transport routes and inviting private companies to bid; that should be music to a capitalist's ears.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Einstein
Not quite sure what you are getting at, communism?
(23-05-2014, 07:50 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]Why not let the government to build all the private or public housing? Anyway, the government owns most of the land. Why would we still need private property developers?
Why not the government run every business in the country?
What a wonderful world!
Quote:Singapore Inc philosophy transformed what was once touted one of the best transport system in the world into what some exaggerated as "disaster" or "failure". I'm glad at least our government is not insane and learn from mistakes and adjust. In any case we are socialising the cost of transport networks, breaking the monopoly of transport routes and inviting private companies to bid; that should be music to a capitalist's ears.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Einstein
It isn't without any price to the tax payers, besides the transport subsidies.
In this transformation of the public transport system, the only crux is that we will have to expand the civil service or the "pseudo" civil service to provide for the planning and execution of the contract based transport system.
I suppose we have to accept it since it will allow the government to revamp the transport system to the next level. Hopefully, at the level that the public transport is so amazing that it is preferred as the mode of transportation than using private vehicles.
This transformation will not happen if the current public transportation system remains relatively unchanged.
When it is time to tear apart the system that had served us well in the past but unable to morph to the next level, it is better to do it earlier than later.
What's exactly the reason of poor quality of service? It is mostly because the huge influx of foreigners instead of the poor maintenance of the public transport service providers.
Before, it was very common for train to run at 6 minutes per train kinda frequency. Now 2 minutes is considered the standard. It puts great pressure on the infrastructure and the public transport service provider, yet the government does not allow the fare adjustment.