Things that cost €30 million

later12

It would be interesting to have a discussion, if possible, solely on the financial aspect of the British royal visit and the Obama visit.

In the case of the Queen's arrival, there is the question of some sensitive nationalist types having their feelings hurt (as is wont to happen to them), yes there is, also, the risk of civil trouble, or an attack of some sort on the crowd welcoming the QE2. But lets leave that to other threads and have a clinical examination of the cost of both trips, discussing their costs and benefits.

Now first of all, it is not possible to know precisely how much the security for both visits will cost. But the figure of €30m appears to have won acceptance. In the complete absence of any other figures (and in the absence of a denial of this figure by government, when asked), it is the only estimate we can realistically work with, albeit an imperfect estimate.

The Queen's visit will undoubtedly make up the vast bulk of this security cost based on time alone. Considering that they both have similar itineraries, and given that the Obama is only getting ¼ of the exposure to Ireland, we might roughly put the Obama:Queen cost at a ratio of 1:3 .

Now in addition to this security cost, there is a possibility that businesses inside certain security zones may suffer. This is more likely to be an issue for the royal visit than for the Obama visit. The Guinness storehouse, as an example, must close all day on Tuesday and again on Wednesday morning for security clearance. Much smaller businesses may be subject to security curtailments, and will already be suffering from traffic or travel restrictions, both in Dublin and Cork. Losses here are difficult to quantify, but we should know more after the event.

Now we get to the income. If anybody would like to fill me in on this aspect of the visit, I would be very grateful. However, if you are going to provide estimates of income related to the whole thing going swimmingly, I wonder if you might add to that an estimate of losses if things go somewhat less perfectly.

And as per the thread title, and leaving aside any non-security related losses, here are a list of some things that one might do with a €30 million note!

• double the school buildings improvement scheme announced in the jobs initiative from €30m to €60m, thereby getting more people back doing a days work and simultaneously improving school buildings.
• double the national retrofit programme allocation in the jobs initiative, again from €30m to €60m. This would bring the total allocated to a very impressive €120m, thereby reducing energy bills and aiding employment. The Government said that their recent initiative would create 2,000 new jobs. We could have doubled it.
• Wipe out the cost to the exchequer of abolishing the travel tax this year, twice over.
• double the amount of money in the Insurance Compensation fund, thereby lessening the levy payable by insurance customers in bailing out Quinn.
• Triple the spend on the national internship programme this year, which pays welfare beneficiaries an extra 50 euro per week to get back into working environments.
• Buy Dimitar Berbatov to play for Ireland
  

Any other suggestions are welcome. In the current climate, however, I am sure that your average unemployed man or woman, sitting at home watching a perfectly nice old grandma doing some flower arrangements at the garden of remembrance would much prefer, however, any of the above - particularly those that actually relate to job creation and supply a tangible benefit.

GSF

This is just getting tedious now. So basically you are arguing we should have no contact with the outside world if you extrapolate your arguement to its (logical?) conclusion.

I see this policy is working well for North Korea.

You could look up the visitor figures to Ireland from the UK & the US (but you know this as its been posted here many times already).

You could also count the wasted hours of people posting endlessly about this on the internet in terms of national productivity if you want to up your € estimate

Welease

Plenty of things cost 30m, and many are not necessary..

However, tourism and the marketing of Ireland are important.. In 2009, tourists spent €3.9 billion in Ireland, which was down 19% from 2008 where they spent almost €4.8 billion..

These trips will make worldwide news especially the Queen's visit, and will be a way for Ireland to market herself GLOBALLY, and start to bring much needed foreign money into Ireland as well as helping ensure the existence of many business's around Ireland that are dependent on tourism..

3.7% of tax revenue comes from foreign tourism, which in 2009 still amounted to almost a billion Euro despite the downturn..
http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteCorp/media/FailteIreland/documents/Research%20and%20Statistics/Tourism%20Facts/Tourism_Facts_2009_544KB.pdf

TheInquisitor

If both visits go off well we will get back 10 times the input from future tourism. We are not closing ourselves off to the world. The more world leaders that want to come and visit the better.

We need as many friends as possible

beeftotheheels

Well, there is the school of thought that the visits will provide a boost to tourism which will support the jobs initiative measures although it will be difficult to quantify those benefits.

Did you note that we're putting €750k into the Competitive Start-up Fund? Imagine expanding it and putting the €30m in to support small growth businesses, or starting an enterprise investment bank to encourage the domestic economy?

GSF

The OP could ask how much it would cost to buy the amount of tv airtime that will be devoted to the visits on UK & US tv perhaps?

I'm guessing it might be at least €30m?

later12

GSF wrote: »

This is just getting tedious now. So basically you are arguing we should have no contact with the outside world if you extrapolate your arguement to its (logical?) conclusion.

Not at all. Communication with the outside world brings a tangible, and an economic benefit. Having this dear old lady over, welcome as she should be made to feel, really does not do anything logical (as far as I can see).

GSF

later10 wrote: »

Not at all. Communication with the outside world brings a tangible, and an economic benefit. Having this dear old lady over, welcome as she should be made to feel, really does not do anything logical (as far as I can see).

Are you really that tunel visioned?

I thought it was about Heads Of State visiting? Or do you only want male, under 50 head of states? Otherwise whats this "old lady stuff" about?

PS. You must also want Slane, the Europa Cup final cancelled as well as the €30m goes to that too. Please confirm?

later12

GSF wrote: »

The OP could ask how much it would cost to buy the amount of tv airtime that will be devoted to the visits on UK & US tv perhaps?

I'm guessing it might be at least €30m?

The President of Malta is today on a state visit to Bulgaria.

I'm sure that the tourist industry in both countries is positively exploding with excitement.

Sorry, that just isn't how tourism works. People don't take choose their holiday destinations based on CNN news updates. Perhaps we could actually invest this in advertising, instead of providing coverage for inevitable public protests. Do you think they won't be screened too?

GSF

later10 wrote: »

People don't take choose their holiday destinations based on CNN news updates.

I know of many US friends who do indeed base their holiday decisions in part based on what they see & read in the papers, on tv and on the internet. Its called brand awareness - you need to be on the list of destinations that feature in peoples consciousness as a starter.

Basic marketing would tell you that there is brand awareness and there is advertising that produces specific sales. Both are needed in marketing products.

Welease

later10 wrote: »

The President of Malta is today on a state visit to Bulgaria.

I'm sure that the tourist industry in both countries is positively exploding with excitement.

Sorry, that just isn't how tourism works. People don't take choose their holiday destinations based on CNN news updates. Perhaps we could actually invest this in advertising, instead of providing coverage for inevitable public protests. Do you think they won't be screened too?

You don't seem to realise that it is advertising.. and damn good advertising given the political history (or bad if a few idiots gets their way.. but then again the cost is largely because of those idiots.. )..

Its the same reason, we host the Europa finals, or the Ryder cup, or European City of Culture, or Expos etc.. the actual event is worth a small amount in comparison to the publicity the overall country receives because of the events.

later12

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Did you note that we're putting €750k into the Competitive Start-up Fund? Imagine expanding it and putting the €30m in to support small growth businesses, or starting an enterprise investment bank to encourage the domestic economy?

That's an increase by a factor of 40, it could certainly go a long way.

I'm sure people see this as pedantic, but that money could actually make a real difference elsewhere to business who really need it. If this visit serves no other purpose (and it won't) at least it can be used it to point out these inefficiencies in public spending, perhaps.

johnnyskeleton

later10 wrote: »

Not at all. Communication with the outside world brings a tangible, and an economic benefit. Having this dear old lady over, welcome as she should be made to feel, really does not do anything logical (as far as I can see).

No more tangible than the benefits of having good diplomatic relations with our nearest neighbour.

later12

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No more tangible than the benefits of having good diplomatic relations with our nearest neighbour.

We have *excellent* diplomatic relations with Britain. To the point where we share embassy work, in some cases.

later12

GSF wrote: »

Basic marketing would tell you that there is brand awareness and there is advertising that produces specific sales. Both are needed in marketing products.

And the protests? Will the protests not be covered too? Extensively, even?

Welease

later10 wrote: »

That's an increase by a factor of 40, it could certainly go a long way.

I'm sure people see this as pedantic, but that money could actually make a real difference elsewhere to business who really need it. If this visit serves no other purpose (and it won't) at least it can be used it to point out these inefficiencies in public spending, perhaps.

Business's like tourism that saw a 15% drop from our biggest market Britain in 2009...? But are still worth 3.9 billion to the economy..

You seem happy to ignore all the stats already provided...

You seem very quick to state it will have no benefit.. Explain how...

later10

later10 wrote: »

The President of Malta is today on a state visit to Bulgaria.

I'm sure that the tourist industry in both countries is positively exploding with excitement.

Sorry, that just isn't how tourism works. People don't take choose their holiday destinations based on CNN news updates. Perhaps we could actually invest this in advertising, instead of providing coverage for inevitable public protests. Do you think they won't be screened too?

Totally different - our no 1 tourists are the British, for 30 years all they heard on tv about Ireland was bombings and shootings with bombs in their cities too.

This would have held alot of people back from coming here. Now we have the chance to show them via the Queen that this is a place you can visit.

http://goireland.about.com/od/preparingyourtrip/qt/statistics.htm
1.6 million British come here a year if we can push that to 2 million or more we will make our money back in spades.

Its not the same as Obama coming here and expecting that to boost tourism. The situation is completely different and if you believe that the 30 years of bombs in British cities and the butchery that went on over here wouldnt put people off then your deluded

Fittle

She's coming. And so is he.

This discussion is moot.

later12

Welease wrote: »

Business's like tourism that saw a 15% drop from our biggest market Britain in 2009...? But are still worth 3.9 billion to the economy..

You seem happy to ignore all the stats already provided...

You seem very quick to state it will have no benefit.. Explain how...

On the contrary; if you read the first post, I am asking for evidence.

I don't see how, unless something very dramatically negative happens, tourism will be affected by this visit. British people have been coming here in droves for years, it is important that we still welcome them and remain competitive, but this visit is unrelated to that as far as I can see.

If they have been coming here less and less it may be because of their financial situation - it certainly is not because they're waiting for the Queen to go first.

Why not start a thread on things that cost 70 billion?
http://www.dbrs.com/research/238847/ireland-republic-of/dbrs-downgrades-ireland-to-a-on-higher-bank-losses-trend-remains-negative.html

.........Anglo is a black hole at least the British will come over on holidays and we`ll get money back!

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

1.6 million British come here a year if we can push that to 2 million or more we will make our money back in spades.

Where does the 2 million figure arise from? You've just increased our UK tourist numbers by a quarter? Based on what evidence?

Surely, if you want to advertise, you spend it on advertising. Not a state visit with a possibility of some serious protests and hostility.

GSF

later10 wrote: »

Surely, if you want to advertise, you spend it on advertising.

Promotion that doesnt lok like conventional advertising delivers incredibly more return than buying 30 second tv spots or glossy pages in magazines. Its what companies spend huge amount of energy on trying to achieve.

Welease

later10 wrote: »

On the contrary; if you read the first post, I am asking for evidence.

Which is a ridiculous position.. If you don't agree with it, then YOU provide some evidence that backs up your claim..

later10 wrote: »

I don't see how, unless something very dramatically negative happens, tourism will be affected by this visit. British people have been coming here in droves for years, it is important that we still welcome them and remain competitive, but this visit is unrelated to that as far as I can see.

So you think we should stop all advertising and shut down Bord Failte etc?
After all people have been coming for years, and it's obviously not linked to any forms of advertising or selling the country /boggle

later10 wrote: »

If they have been coming here less and less it may be because of their financial situation - it certainly is not because they're waiting for the Queen to go first.

It may.. It may also be because other countries have become more enticing, it may be because a fear of the sort of prejudice some people have shown, it may be for a myriad of reasons.. You don't know though, you don't seem to have done even a basic amount of investigation into it, but you are willing to state categorically that this trip "serves no purpose"..

Welease

later10 wrote: »

Where does the 2 million figure arise from? You've just increased our UK tourist numbers by a quarter? Based on what evidence?

Surely, if you want to advertise, you spend it on advertising. Not a state visit with a possibility of some serious protests and hostility.

IT IS ADVERTISING...

If a section of Irish people want to advertise the fact they are unable to move on and want to remain entrenched in bigoted anti British sentiment, then that will also get advertised.. but isn't that what they want???? to insult our biggest market for tourism...

Welease

GSF wrote: »

Promotion that doesnt lok like conventional advertising delivers incredibly more return than buying 30 second tv spots or glossy pages in magazines. Its what companies spend huge amount of energy on trying to achieve.

..and that ignoring the fact this will be front page news across every UK newspaper and TV/Radio news outlets.. how much would that cost alone..

later12

Welease wrote: »

Which is a ridiculous position.. If you don't agree with it, then YOU provide some evidence that backs up your claim..

What? I am asking for evidence. No evidence of a financial benefit has been supplied anywhere. It would be rather foolish to accept a benefit without evidence.

So you think we should stop all advertising and shut down Bord Failte etc?

Yes. Yes Exactly. That's everything I want and more. Thank you.

later12

Welease wrote: »

..and that ignoring the fact this will be front page news

which, the protests or the queen?

later12

GSF wrote: »

Promotion that doesnt lok like conventional advertising delivers incredibly more return than buying 30 second tv spots or glossy pages in magazines.

Sorry do you have evidence for any of this? Setting up a contentious state visit with the inevitability of protests and possibly skirmishes is a pretty interesting approach to 'advertising'. This is becoming a fact free zone guys, either the facts are there or they are not, either logic supports this or it does not.

Welease

later10 wrote: »

which, the protests or the queen?

The Queen will be front page news..

Anything negative that happens post that, will be up to a section of the Irish people, and how they want to be perceived to our largest single tourism market.. an industry that has seen a massive contraction in the last couple of years and is desperate to retain jobs.

Legal protests are fine, and should be respected.. Planting bombs (hoax or not) would not entice me to visit a country..

later12

Welease wrote: »

The Queen will be front page news..

How do you know the protests won't? Why do we want to risk this?

For symbolism, they all cried in unison.

johnnyskeleton

later10 wrote: »

We have *excellent* diplomatic relations with Britain. To the point where we share embassy work, in some cases.

And what better way to keep it like that than to invite their head of state over every once and a while for a knees up and a gawp at our castles?

later12

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And what better way to keep it like that than to invite their head of state over every once and a while for a knees up and a gawp at our castles?

I'm sure no reasonable person has a problem with that, but it is quite unreasonable to say that such a visit is welcome at any cost. How much is too much? €30m? €40m? €60m? what?

I would suggest that the evidence of a positive effect is lacking, and that the money could be spent elsewhere, to good effect. Such as going towards business start ups. Or tourism campaigns that doesn't include unemployed hooligans throwing stones. Why not triple the internships mentioned in the first post and help to get those hooligans off the streets instead?

Onikage

Deleted User wrote: »

Totally different - our no 1 tourists are the British, for 30 years all they heard on tv about Ireland was bombings and shootings with bombs in their cities too.

I was once asked by a chinese girl if Ireland was a "terrorist country". I jokingly said yes but quickly realised she was deadly serious. So, this is how we are perceived from abroad. Why not show we can play nice? Challenge potential tourists perceptions.

dvpower

later10 wrote: »

What? I am asking for evidence. No evidence of a financial benefit has been supplied anywhere. It would be rather foolish to accept a benefit without evidence.

Tourism Ireland estimate the advertising value to be €150m
http://www.businessandleadership.com/marketing/item/30080-tourism-ireland-looks-to-ca/

Welease

later10 wrote: »

How do you know the protests won't? Why do we want to risk this?

For symbolism, they all cried in unison.

So we should never do anything in case some idiots cause problem??? gotcha...

If they do.. then we might look bad.. and more people might lose their jobs.. that's the way the world works..

It's nothing to do with symbolism.. this is just another pointless thread.. If you actually have an economic point to make.. then make it..

later12

dvpower wrote: »

Tourism Ireland estimate the advertising value to be €150m
http://www.businessandleadership.com/marketing/item/30080-tourism-ireland-looks-to-ca/

Yes that's a curious story, since it seems to involve their taking out advertising, as opposed to any natural inflow following on from the trip.

Online ads targeting the Irish diaspora will run on key websites including IrishCentral.com. Full-page ads in Irish-related publications such as Irish Echo and Irish America will be supported by advertorials with literary and genealogy themes.

Certainly we should (and it is the govt's intention) to widen the scope for genealogical research and US and international interest in Irish roots, but where the Queen comes into this is very muddied, it seems.

later12

Welease wrote: »

So we should never do anything in case some idiots cause problem??? gotcha...

You clearly have no interest in looking at this logically or examining the evidence. Yes I want to abolish tourism and cut off our links with the outside world and never "do anything". You are, as always 100% correct, welease. There you go.

Welease

later10 wrote: »

You clearly have no interest in looking at this logically or examining the evidence. Yes I want to abolish tourism and cut off our links with the outside world and never "do anything". You are, as always 100% correct, welease. There you go.

Examing what evidence?, you have provided none...

You have been shown how much British tourism is worth, you have been shown the recent declines and what that cost the economy, you have been shown how people believe it will effect us... a report was linked to (but I havent read)..

What evidence have you actually provided?

GSF

So again this €30m cost. Its for 4 events isn't it?

And the cost is mainly overtime to the guards. So that would be taxed at nearly 50% so the net cost would be €15m to the state assuming no multilplier effect from the guards spending their o/t.

Tourism Ireland estimate we are getting free advertising worth €150m alone before the return from that advertising in additional visitors.

Seems like a no-brainer really.

GSF

Onikage wrote: »

I was once asked by a chinese girl if Ireland was a "terrorist country". I jokingly said yes but quickly realised she was deadly serious. So, this is how we are perceived from abroad. Why not show we can play nice? Challenge potential tourists perceptions.

Every time I'm in the UK or the US meeting people through workwith no Irish background in their family, you quickly become aware of how little people know about Ireland in general.

It shouldnt really surprise me though. I know very little about say Costa Rica or Norway.

later12

GSF wrote: »

And the cost is mainly overtime to the guards. So that would be taxed at nearly 50% so the net cost would be €15m to the state assuming no multilplier effect from the guards spending their o/t.

That's not really a logical nor an efficient approach to spending. With that line of thinking we would just distribute money from helicopters. Money has to be distributed efficiently and with a logical basis for a return on that money.

At a time when we are borrowing to such a grave extent, we must examine our spending. This trip sounds like a relic of some sort of celtic tiger excess. Why not put this money into jobs funding, like other apparently similarly wasteful projects?

Saruman

Apply Eurovision logic to this... yeah I said that

Eurovision costs Millions to put on but everyone wants to win because it is pure advertising for the country.

Know much about Azerbaijan? Ever thought to visit? Come next year they will spend Millions to put on a stupid song contest but the advertising for their country could well turn them in to not only a tourist destination for years to come, but an economic destination.

Forget the tourism value the Queen and Obamas visit will bring. It is the economic exposure we need and will get.

GSF

later10 wrote: »

Why not put this money into jobs funding, like other apparently similarly wasteful projects?

errrr what CREATES jobs.... let me guesss............ exports..... oh wait tourism is an export.......

sounds like a perfect subject for a post event cost/ benefit review. Perfect for an economics thesis. maybe the British council will sponsor it, if any economist wants to do it.

later12

Saruman wrote: »

Apply Eurovision logic to this... yeah I said that

The flaw in your logic is that the coverage of the Eurovision is always convivial and, apart from perhaps the rare occasion when the UK fails to supply us with 12 points, does not incite much controversy.

This visit is controversial. There is no evidence to suggest, at this moment, that its cost will bring about a return, nor that it will damage the tourist industry (lets wait and see the coverage and the protestors, first).

But why are people insisting that this will make us popular as a tourist destination (one poster saying it could increase our numbers from the UK by 25%...why???), or at least be revenue raising? Is there evidence? I would prefer if people simply admitted, where appropriate, that they enjoy the symbolism or the pomp. But please don't pretend there is evidence of an economic benefit if there is, in fact, none.

dvpower

later10 wrote: »

Yes that's a curious story, since it seems to involve their taking out advertising, as opposed to any natural inflow following on from the trip.
.

The €150m was a figure they put on the positive exposure. They intend to capitalise on this with their own advertising spend.

Saruman

later10 wrote: »

This visit is controversial.

Only to a very small minority of the population I would guess.

Locust

30million .... and how many 100's or whatever of millions would we lose in trade etc... if something happened to Liz whilst she was over here? I could certainly see the UK boycotting anything Irish.

later12

Saruman wrote: »

Only to a very small minority of the population I would guess.

Indeed; a small and a somewhat backward minority. Nevertheless, one with the potential to cause harm, and shock horror, even harm our image. Nobody wants a repeat of the Love Ulster fiasco, and I am sure we are all glad that it didn't feature a head of state, and even more glad that the major news networks were not around to cover it.

Again, everybody seems to have costed, and done a little dance around the figures proclaiming how much this will improve our image, and nobody seems to be counting the cost of it diminishing the image of Ireland as a secure and a well adjusted state - damage that, in monetary terms, is only too well known in Ulster.

OS119

later10 wrote: »

We have *excellent* diplomatic relations with Britain. To the point where we share embassy work, in some cases.

indeed we do - to the betterment of both sides (witness, for instance, the mutually supportive consular work involved in the Libyan evacuation) - however it would be difficult to describe the damage that would be done to that relationship if the visit were to be cancelled or curtailed because Ireland could not guarantee the safety of a visiting Head of State from its closest neighbour and largest trading partner.

these things can be kicked into the grass for a while, but at some stage this nettle is going to have to be grasped - otherwise people are going to ask if the 'sensitivity' is just a smokescreen for 'not a place where the governments writ actually runs'.... and then my friend, €30m is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the business Ireland will lose.

later12

OS119 wrote: »

these things can be kicked into the grass for a while, but at some stage this nettle is going to have to be grasped - otherwise people are going to ask if the 'sensitivity' is just a smokescreen for 'not a place where the governments writ actually runs'.... and then my friend, €30m is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the business Ireland will lose.

I don't actually believe that business operates on the basis of hurt feelings arising from the sovereigns travels.

Prince Charles once hunted with my local hunt when I was a kid down the country, drank in the local pub, and even brought a tear to john bruton's adoring eye. There have been other official visits before, including the far more relevant PMs on both sides and members of the royal family. So no, I don't think this is a big deal, but I do think it is a waste of money that could be applied very usefully elsewhere.

I'm sure the unemployed watching the state visit in their weary sitting rooms, desperate for work, would rather it was spent elsewhere as well.

OS119

later10 wrote: »

...and nobody seems to be counting the cost of it diminishing the image of Ireland as a secure and a well adjusted state....

sorry, you fundamentally don't get it, if the Head of State of Irelands closest neighbour and largest trading partner can't visit Ireland at the invitation of the Irish govenment because Ireland either can't guarantee her safety or can't afford that security, then Ireland is not a 'secure and well-adjusted state'.

Ireland will be Somalia with crap weather.