Search the Community

SINGAPORE - Singapore Press Holdings-owned sgCarMart has started a financial services arm to muscle in on the billion-dollar car-financing market. The car portal will offer financing to used car dealers for their vehicle inventory as well as to car dealers to offer hire purchase loans to buyers. sgCarMart's wholly-owned online auction subsidiary, Quotz, will take a 30 per cent stake in sgCarMart Financial Services for $1.5 million. The remaining 70 per cent of the venture is held by T Financial (51 per cent) and five other parties, SPH said in an announcement to the Singapore Exchange. T Financial is a fully-owned subsidiary of Toh Capital, which used to be a major shareholder in four used car dealerships. The other shareholders are car trader Lake View Group and individual investors from the management team of sgCarMart. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sgcarmart-moves-into-financial-services?utm_medium=Social&xtor=CS1-10&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1541585998

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29961566

Yahoo report :Samsung-Apple Fight Moves to Marketing By TANZINA VEGA and BRIAN X. CHEN | New York Times

[sweatdrop] From STOMP: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sg..._moves_off.html Posted on 20 Jun 2012 How could this happen? Doors remain open even as train moves off STOMPer wasabi was on her way home when one of the train doors remained stuck open even as the train moved off from Lakeside station. Said the STOMPer: "I was on my way home from Boon Lay MRT to Cityhall MRT at about 10pm last night. "At Lakeside station, one of the doors started making noises during 'Doors Closing' and remained stuck open even while the train started moving. "Thank goodness the train was relatively empty, if not it would have been dangerous for people standing near that door in a crowded train! "The doors eventually closed at the next station."

With the COE prices expected to rise due to the next quota announcement in June, used car dealers have been moving quickly in tune with the COE bidding. This car (see link below) was listed at $72.8K just last week....now it's gone up by $5K! http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...564&DL=1047

ESPN latest : Refs' chief unhappy with "half-hearted" Ferguson Sir Alex Ferguson's apology to Alan Wiley has been described as "half-hearted" by Alan Leighton, the national secretary of the union Prospect that represents match officials. Ferguson has courted controversy following a personal attack on Wiley that came after a 2-2 draw with Sunderland on October 3. Speaking on ESPN, the Manchester United manager accused the referee of not being fit enough and needing a rest during the game. It has been reported that Ferguson's criticism forced Wiley to consider his future in the game and the United boss issued an apology after being contacted by the Football Association to explain his contentious comments. His contrition has not satisfied Prospect though, who have already threatened legal action if the FA does not impose a satisfactory punishment. Instead of drawing a line under the row, they claim Ferguson's apology has broadened the argument by appearing to indicate that the fitness of all referees is a concern. The passage in Ferguson's apology that appears to have angered Prospect read: "My only intention in speaking publicly, was to highlight what I believe to be a serious and important issue in the game, namely that the fitness levels of referees must match the ever increasing demands of the modern game, which I hope will now be properly addressed through the appropriate formal channels." So SAF had angered the referees and any players from ManU get booked or Red carded, he can accuse them of bias against him and the team..... Now the referees in order to stay clear of SAF bombardment, might show less cards to his players or be accused of bias against his players. Smart Move, Sir Alex Ferguson, Smart Move..........

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Sto...ory_313315.html I REFER to Monday's letter by Mr Geoffrey Lim of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) on the benefits of bus lanes ('LTA takes care implementing bus lanes'). Mr Lim has pointed out in his numerous replies that a bus carries 80 passengers, while a car has 1.5 passengers. He used the same point in a reply to a letter last month questioning the benefits of having a bus lane along Upper Bukit Timah Road ('Special lane improves bus speeds', Nov 8). I think we all know a bus carries more people than a car. But that does not necessarily mean buses can move more people, as Mr Lim suggested. They can, but it depends on bus frequency. In his earlier reply, Mr Lim stated that '60 or so' buses an hour ply the 5km stretch of Upper Bukit Timah Road. This works out to 5,200 bus passengers per hour (assuming 65 buses with a full load of 80). According to my calculations, a single 5km lane can 'move' 6,389 cars an hour at the speed of 23kmh cited by Mr Lim (using an average car length of 4.5m and three body length spacing between the cars, which I believe is generous, given that the cars are moving at only 23 kmh). At 1.5 passengers per car, this means 9,583 people per lane - 4,383 more people than by bus, or 84 per cent more. Even if we assume all 65 buses are double-deckers with an estimated full load of 120 people, the single 5km lane can 'move' 23 per cent more people by car than by bus. How then do bus lanes 'optimise overall usage of our scare road space', as LTA claims? Mr Lim mentioned an improvement in bus speeds as one of the benefits of introducing bus lanes. An increase in bus speeds of 10 to 12 per cent is obviously nice for bus users, but without an increase in bus frequency, this has no impact at all on the number of people moved. And what about the impact of the bus lane on vehicles in the other lanes? Simple logic suggests the flow or speed of vehicles in the other lanes will suffer. Mr Lim merely states that this 'remains acceptable'. In the case of Upper Bukit Timah Road, only '60 or so' buses use that 5km stretch of lane every hour, but road users in the other lanes have to contend with an average speed of 23 kmh, and the possibility of more ERP gantries if the speed becomes unacceptable according to LTA's definition. How does this 'balance the needs of different groups of road users', as LTA suggests? Jatin Doktor

Your thoughts on the episode? For those who didn't know, here's a recap: 5 Aug: 24-year-old Jenson Button has signed a contract to drive for Williams-BMW in 2005 and 2006. Button became Britain's youngest driver to race in Formula 1, when he competed in the Australian GP in 2000. Button said, "I am very pleased that I had the option to re-join the BMW WilliamsF1 Team where my Formula One career started. For the meantime, the 2004 season has my full focus and attention. Beyond this, I have every confidence that the massive investment in resources and the depth of talent at WilliamsF1 and BMW provides the best platform for my future ambitions to be a World Champion." The British driver is currently third in the World Drivers' Championship with BAR-Honda, but has decided to quit the team and will return to the team where he began his F1 career in 2000. With both Juan Pablo Montoya and Ralf Schumacher moving on from Williams at the end of the season, Williams has been looking to fill both seats for the 2005 season. At the German GP the team announced the signing of Australian Mark Webber, and now the team lineup is set with the signing of Button. Frank Williams said, "There has been a long-term relationship between the BMW WilliamsF1 Team and Jenson, indeed his Formula One career started with the team in 2000. We have maintained that relationship until the present day, and I am delighted that one of the most talented drivers in Formula One has accepted the opportunity to return to the team." 6 Aug: BAR has issued a statement making it clear that it believes that Jenson Button is under contract for 2005. "Jenson is under contract with BAR for 2005," says team boss David Richards, "since we took up an option on his services only last month. At no time during the last few months has Jenson expressed anything other than his desire to continue working with BAR to achieve our collective goal of winning the World Championship". At the German Grand Prix Honda confirmed its long-term commitment to BAR announcing the extension of their existing contract to at least 2007, with an even greater commitment of engineering resources. 9 Aug: A great deal of rubbish is currently being said and written about Jenson Button's decision to switch from BAR-Honda to BMW Williams next season. BAR may have tried to claim the moral high ground by claiming that Button is breaking a contract but this has yet to be proven. If the matter does go to the FIA Contract Recognition Board and Button loses he could go back to BAR-Honda next year. It is hard to imagine that the relationship will be a happy one but it has happened before not least when the Board refused David Coulthard the right to leave Williams to join McLaren back in 1994 and was forced to stay with Williams in 1995. At the end of the year he moved to the Woking team. Under European law, one cannot force someone to work if they do not wish to do that job and so Button could go to Williams anyway although in this case a financial settlement would need to be found. Clearly, however, Williams has taken legal advice and this has indicated that the team is within its rights to sign Button. If this legal opinion is upheld by the Contract Recognition Board Button will join Williams and that will be the end of the matter unless BAR wants to prolong the whole thing and move on from there to a civil action. The team could do this but that would take several months and the team would no be able to sign a replacement for Button in the interim because of its claim. There is no obvious way in which the Briton will be in any danger of any licence suspension or not being allowed to race. If the switch was happening at the next race there might be the possibility of an injunction but that is clearly not the case in this dispute. If BAR decides to drop Button now, it will seriously undermine its own case (not to mention its World Championship hopes) and so this is not really a viable option unless the team decides to give up and let Button go to Williams. In that case Button would probably be able to sue the team for breach of contract. "Their track record of 11 F1 World Championships clearly places them in an outstanding position to provide the resources to take the team and Jenson to the very top," the team said in the statement. "It is our intention to enforce our current contractual position with Jenson," Richards said. "My duty is to the 400-strong workforce which has worked tirelessly over the past two seasons to give Jenson the car he has today; and to our partners, whose unfailing support and commitment to the team has contributed to the solid structure we now have in place. Unfortunately this is now a matter for the lawyers and I have every confidence that the legal process will confirm that yesterday's announcement has not only been premature but also invalid". 11 Aug: British American Racing says that the dispute between Jenson Button and the team over the English driver's contract with Williams for 2005 and 2006 cannot go beyond the Contract Recognition Board. They argue that the Concorde Agreement signatories accept decisions made by the CRB and that there is a precedent in the 1999 case of Pedro Diniz versus Arrows in which the team tried to argue that the case should go to the High Court in London but was overruled. The BAR team does however accept that there can be legal actions related to compensation if the teams do not agree with the CRB decision. The team has enlisted the help of sports lawyer Mark Gay, the leading expert in sports law in England and Gavin Kealey QC, a barrister who specializes in commercial law and international arbitration. This will guarantee that whatever happens the team is going to have a very painful legal bill. The details of the dispute continue to leak out with the latest suggestion being that the dispute is based on the difference the terms "will" and "intend to" in the agreement between BAR and Honda. Button's option was dependent on Honda delivering BAR with competitive engines. Button's lawyers are believed to be arguing that intent is not the same as a straight commitment. all courtesy of www.grandprix.com