Search the Community

Manchester United have once again signalled a restart with the sacking of Ten Hag, and just days later, announced the appointment of Ruben Amorim, who will join midway through the first half of the current season from Sporting Lisbon. Back to square one yet again for the Red Devils who, despite being one of the most successful clubs in England and biggest clubs in the world, have not won a league title since Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement in 2013. Since then, they’ve gone through a whole host of managers with varying degrees of success. My exact reaction to Ten Hag's early dismissal, after the United hierarchy publicly backed him in the summer and gave him a new contract 2013 to 2016 - David Moyes was Sir Alex’s immediate successor, lasting just 10 months as United trudged to seventh place. His replacement was three-time Netherlands manager Louis van Gaal, who won the FA Cup but faced the sack two days afterwards. 2016 to 2022 - Jose Mourinho, arguably the biggest name on this list, won the Europa League and the League Cup in his first season, but fell out with certain players and members of the board, and bade United goodbye a week before Christmas in 2018. Club legend Ole Gunnar Solskjaer stepped up and lasted the longest despite not winning anything, but was dismissed just five weeks shy of three years at United. Ralf Rangnick was brought in as an interim coach for the rest of the 21/22 season. 2022 to 2024 - Erik Ten Hag came from Ajax and despite winning the League Cup in his first season and the FA Cup in his second, was shown the door ten games into the 24/25 season after a poor run of results despite signing a new deal in the previous transfer window. The last Portuguese manager to manage United, and in my opinion, the best hire since Sir Alex's retirement However, with the investment of INEOS and its owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe, himself a proclaimed United supporter and who assumed the responsibilities of the footballing aspects of the club, the club moved fast to snap up Amorim, who reportedly has been on their radar for quite some time. This marks a positive change of United identifying and signing targets that would benefit the club in the long run, much unlike when the Glazers, United’s majority shareholders and much-hated owners (with good reason), simply threw fat, lucrative contracts at big stars whose light were fading, clearly to boost shirt sales. Having been poorly run for the last eleven years, and one might argue even before Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement, the future looks bright for the Mancunian club. Gone are the days of signing has-beens. United’s past few transfers have been with the future in mind – think Rasmus Hojlund, Leny Yoro, and Joshua Zirkzee – and many academy graduates have been promoted to the first team and have had a big impact – think Alejandro Garnacho and Kobbie Mainoo. A young and vibrant United team overcame current title-holders and city rivals Manchester City in the 2024 FA Cup final, with academy graduate Kobbie Mainoo (not in shot) scoring the winner Given new gaffer Amorim’s track record at Sporting Lisbon, winning the club’s first league title in two decades and repeating the feat three years later, and going toe-to-toe with Europe’s elite in the Champions League despite having a significantly lesser budget, he will presumably have a lot of credit in the bank, even with the ficklest of United supporters. With the Old Trafford faithful yearning for an exciting style of play and the pacy, counterattacking football of the successful United teams of yesteryear, the Portuguese manager seems like a good fit for the fallen giants. Only time will tell if he can reap long-term success and bring back the glory days or end up as just another failed United project. - Fremont - Images from Twitter

Weeks ago, the Government announced changes to the age-old COE system, in a bid to level the playing ground in the industry as well as to ensure a better division of COE allocation between premium and mass market cars. Under the new implementation, banding for Category A will be tighten to cars with less than 130bhp only, on top of a 1.6-litre engine capacity. This means cars that were previously in Cat A but with more than 130bhp will be re-categorised into Cat B. The revised banding will take effect from February next year, and will without doubt affect the local car industry. With the influx of Cat A cars that will be shifted into Cat B, the latter’s COE premium is expected to soar due to higher demand. Assuming that premiums for Cat A take on a softer stance after the change, buyers may be attracted to model variants with lower power, and will turn to aftermarket kits to tune up the performance of their cars afterwards, as this route is more economically viable. Models such as those from German marques Audi and Volkswagen have become the local's tuning favourites. The increasing availability of basic and fuss-free tuning options, such as ECU re-flash and chip tuning, can easily bring cars at the brim of Cat A banding, such as the base Volkswagen Golf (122bhp) and Audi A3 Sportback 1.4 (122bhp), to Cat B standards of over 130bhp. This will likely spark new life into the aftermarket industry. But it will also make the situation unfavourable and unjust for Cat B car buyers. As such, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) may seize the opportunity to further clamp down on illegal modifications, possibly conducting more random checks and increasing the number of enforcement officers on patrol. Vehicle inspections would probably be more stringent as well, and in order to determine if the engine has been tuned, dyno tests could be conducted during inspections.

The LTA recently revealed a Land Transport Masterplan which maps out enhancements to the public transport as well as road management. We look at the some intrinsic details and finds out what they can mean to us. Naturally, one of the key highlights of the plan lies in the public transport sector. Both the rail and road systems will receive substantial boost, such as extending bus services to more areas, giving more priorities to buses, as well as an ambitious plan to double the island's rail network by 2030. For a moment, the plan does seem to have hit the nail on head. But we reckon there is more than meets the eye. Our rail system has been plagued by frequent service faults and disruptions. Even with the current network, train operators have been struggling to keep maintenance up to the mark, and statistics have proven this point. There were four cases of service disruptions in October alone, and no less than nine cases in previous three months. On that point, imagine the amount of workload on the maintenance with the doubled network, which will likely lead to more disruptions if all things remain constant. Then, there is the mindset of the local commuters. A study has shown that locals still prefer private mode of transport. And if nothing is done to adjust this preference, the enhanced public transport network will just be a 'white elephant'. Next, the plan aims to address road congestion by putting ERP gantries on major roads (Bukit Timah Road, Holland Road etc.). At this instance, one question springs to our minds: If the current 71 gantries placed on expressways and arterial roads have limited effect on congestion, how will adding gantries to major roads help? And hence, the big question remains: Do you think the master plan will succeed?

MCFers, A big day for democracy. Let's pen our thoughts here for the last few weeks and recall significant incidents

Any accountants/ finance managers around ???? Need to clear some doubts over the Dupont 3 and 5 part model 1) The answers form the 2 models will be similar ? 2) the calculation on the leverage factor: it is definded as total assets in 2012 / total equity in 2012 OR total assets (2012) / total equity (2011)?

This is our D Prime Minister talking leh. His argument very spot-on and direct. I feel safe and see much future in Singapore. My future so bright....I got to wear shades! I hope those non-average singaporeans are feeling ok too. Just have to buy smaller house(or stay with parents) and take MRT it will be ok! http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/...429-342813.html DPM Tharman: Average S'porean won't feel the sharp effects of inflation The average Singapore will not feel the effects of a sharp inflation, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said today in a speech at this year's May Day dinner. He acknowledged that the 5.2 per cent increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for March 2012 compared to a year ago, was a "high figure". But more than half of this inflation rate of 5.2 per cent comes from higher COE premiums on cars and the effect of higher market rents on homes, the Manpower Minister said. So those who already own their homes and are not buying a new car will be unaffected. In fact for most Singaporeans, inflation in actual household expenses is lower than 5 per cent. Mr Tharman explained that the increase in prices of daily necessities and essential services, such as food, clothing and footwear, and education, has actually been much more moderate, at 3.0 per cent or lower. Nevertheless the Government is closely monitoring the situation, including prices of everyday goods and services, Mr Tharman said. Inflation remains an important challenge and it is also one that union leaders are most concerned about, he said. The Monetary Authority of Singapore has been gradually strengthening the value of the Singapore dollar to reduce the impact of imported inflation. Actions have also been taken to cool the property market as an overheated property market with inflated property prices, while by themselves not part of the CPI, can drive up other prices.

http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2012/04/...heap-labor.html Breaking out from the cycle of cheap labor and low productivity. After Professor Lim proposed his shock therapy to push up wages of low income workers earning below $1500 and freeze the wages of those earning more that $15000, Minister Lim Swee Say & Lee Yi Shyan came out to make the standard argument against wage intervention: "National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) secretary-general Lim Swee Say felt local economist Lim Chong Yah's suggestions for a wage restructuring was 'too risky"..... "However, labour chief Lim Swee Say said that if productivity does not lead to a corresponding increase, competitiveness would be lost which may cause some businesses to close down or re-locate out of Singapore. This in turn would lead to a higher unemployment rate and structural unemployment." - Wage restructuring suggestion 'too risky': Lim Swee Say. When you run an economy, you have to make sure that business don't become too dependent on cheap labor and income inequality does not become too big otherwise you can end up in a situation where there are no good easy risk-free solutions for the problems you face. Professor Lim's proposed approach is risky - that's why he calls it "shock therapy". The only reason for shock therapy is that things cannot be maintain at the current state - societies with this high level of inequality do far worse that societies that have more equality[Link] and the longer you have this level of inequality the deeper your problems become and the harder it is to break out of the vicious cycle[is Higher Income Inequality Associated with Lower Intergenerational Mobility].The PAP govt took a long time to recognize the problem and do something about it. It was only in 2011 that they saw the trend of falling productivity & low wages and came up with programmes to improve productivity. Lim Swee Say suggests that instead of doing "shock therapy" we try to improve productivity first then wages will improve. Remember the earlier approach of "skills upgrading" to improve the wages of low income earners - after more than a decade skills upgrading we find the wages of these workers either stagnant or falling because they were retrained to fill one low paying job after another. To illustrate the various approaches clearly, lets look at a simple example. In some parts of India, the wages is so low, they human beings to do what is normally done by machines in developed countries. Hard to believe but this is a human powered ferris wheel that uses cheap labor. The obvious way to improve productivity is to buy a motor and reduce the number of workers. However, the business man that owns this ferris wheel is not going to do it because he has access to cheap labor - why spend money on a motor when it is cheaper to use humans to do the job. No amount of productivity campaigns and urging by the govt can overcome the business logic of keep cost down by using the cheapest means to keep the wheel turning. The business man is not going to invest in a motor just because Lim Swee Say tells him to do so. There are only 2 ways to get productivity up. The first way is for govt to subsidize the purchase of motors but that doesn't guarantee the boss will pay his workers better after productivity goes up but he will certainly sack the workers he doesn't need. The 2nd way is to make labor expensive by setting a minimum wage. Once the cost of labor goes up, the businessman has no choice but to invest in a motor because he cannot pay all his workers and still make a profit. The workers who are now better paid have more money for consumption and that generates demand which will create employment for workers that were laid off. When wages are pushed up, there is a risk that the businessman will choose to simply shut down his Ferris wheel and close shop however as long as there is demand for Ferris wheel rides and money to be made, he is likely to stay open for business. Before Malaysia decided to implement minimum wage, Malaysia businesses claimed that 3 million jobs will be lost and lobbied against minimum wage. This is essentially the same argument put up by the PAP govt against minimum wage and Prof Lim's shock therapy. It will be interesting to watch what happens in Malaysia once minimum wage is implemented. Hong Kong implemented minimum wage and saw no significant impact on employment[businesses still hiring despite new minimum wages]. One of the particularly bad schemes implemented by the PAP that will cause our current problems to be entrenched is Workfare. On the surface it looks like money given to lowly paid workers to keep their heads above water. However, it is actually a subsidy for businesses using cheap labor - business don't pay workers enough for basic living and the govt steps in to make up the difference. Workfare creates no incentive for businesses to improve productivity because it encourages businesses to use cheap labor by subsidizing their wage bill. Workfare traps workers in menial jobs and perpetuates the current state of affairs because the PAP uses this scheme to justify not doing more to break out of the low wage and low productivity cycle. If we want to break out of this vicious cycle, there is no choice now but to take some risk using wage intervention approaches. One way to do it is set a minimum wage and raise it every year until it reaches living wage level at the same time restricting the access to cheap foreign labor. The rate at which we do it depends on how much time we believe we have to solve this problem of income inequality. Professor Lim recommends a "shock" approach (50% increase in wages low income earners in 3 years) to snap us out of this vicious cycle because he sees Singapore nearly reaching a dangerous situation unless we do something. The PAP on the other hand has gone on a completely separate direction - they seem to think that they have all the time in the world to get this fixed favoring approaches that are so gradual they hardly moves us away from the status quo.

Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh Many of us will experience the joy of voting this year. More thrilling, perhaps, is that we will actually have tough choices to make

Hi All My fren got into this minor accident. But as a matter of principle for discussion, would like to know your learned opinions. Scenario: My fren traveling on a single lane, 2 way road, i.e. single lane in each direction with solid line in the middle. He wanted to turn into a HDB estate on the RIGHT side, i.e. have to cut across the road which traffic is coming in the opposite direction. When he make his turn, a bike slams into him, hitting the back door. The bike was actually trying to over-take him. My fren did NOT put on his signal. The rest is not important, ny fren got down and help him etc etc, injury to motorcyclist was minimal. Analysis: Who is more in the wrong? The only thing my fren did wrong is that he forgot to turn on his signal. Actually he told me look in the mirror see no one so tot not necessary to turn on, the biker must have been in his blind spot. To me the fault more on the biker (80%?) mainly cos: (1) the vehicle behind supposed to keep safe distance from vehicle in front which he obviously did not (2) it is very forseeable when a car in front of u slows down when approaching a turn that the reason he is slowing down is to make the turn (3) in trying to overtake my fren, biker was riding on the road that was coming in the opposite direction, i.e. riding against the flow of traffic - isn't dat worse than not turning on the signal? I m not sure but is it allowed to even overtake on a single lane road? I tot i remember cannot. In this scenario, although biker did not actually hit the rear of the car (bumper) but is also considered hit my fren from behind right? Cos he was behind my fren. Also, my fren is not obliged to check for vehicles on his right cos it is a single lane and he is already at the edge of the lane turning right, correct? Its not like lane 2 filtering to lane 1 then of course must check for on coming vehicles. Will insurance say due to my fren never on signal then is my fren fault? Can't be right? Cos thousands of ppl don't signal when they turn or change lane and if everytime that happens is grounds for an accident then i open car workshop liao. Anyway my fren workshop say 50-50 but i tink very unfair. i also used to be a biker and defensive riding is No 1 priority.

Hi Bros, Where do you read your pre-match analysis/previews? Currently I'm reading from soccernet and The New Paper. Anymore better online sources to share? Cheers

i got a friend who bought his lancer EX 1.5 yrs ago for 63k with 8k COE. Now C&C is offering the same car (facelifted) for 71k with 24k COE. assuming the OMV is 20k (assume only) my friend paid 34k premium (65 - 8 - 20) if i buy now from C&C my premium is 27 (71 - 24 - 20) am I getting a better deal or my calculation is wrong?

As I will be sending my car for servicing, I like to do an analysis on my used oil for my car. A couple of questions I like to ask forummers include: 1) Does the workshop perform the UOA? 2) What do we tell the workshop? 3) How much it cost to do the UOA? 4) If doing the UOA is separate from the workshop, how will the workshop separate my used oil from other cars' used oil and who do we send the UOA to? How much used oil is needed? 5) How long does it take for the result of the UOA? Hope to hear from fellow forummers who had done their UOA before and can advise me accordingly. Thanks and cheers!

It is finally here! See the attached .pdf file! Only if you are really interested, I can PM you Terry's comments. He doesn't want it public. My personal comments. TBN is at 5.0 and this is oil is sampled at 8k. So it does have some life left. It looks a little better than the one by the Corolla. This could be due to my mild driving style I strive for. I would say, it can last 10k if you are a pretty mild driver. If the Corolla driver is a mild driver, I must say the 1ZZ-FE engine is pretty hard on oil . The oil still sheared down from a 40wt. 40wt should be 12.5 to 16.5 Cst. Should work well for the 1.4L DOHC Aveo engines up to 10k. Up to 12k if you dare. Still pretty good for a cheap oil. Go get it if you drive a similar engined Aveo like me. Disclaimer: This UOA is the wear analysis for my car which is a 1.4L DOHC Aveo. It is a result of my driving style as well. In no way should it be applied to your engine. 87128_NGEE1_E140-34251-1543.PDF

I ran 7960km on this RP 10W30 and this is the wear analysis i got. Metals (ppm) Aluminium (Al) 6 Copper (Cu) 14 Chromium (Cr) 2 Iron (Fe) 18 Lead (Pb) 3 Tin (Sn) 3 Nickel (Ni) < 1 Contaminants / Additives (ppm) Silicon (Si) 24 Boron (B) < 5 Sodium (Na) 11 Potassium (K) 7 Phosphorus (P) 868 Molybdenum (Mo) 100 Magnesium (Mg) 8 Calcium (Ca) 1937 Zinc (Zn) 1103 Physical Tests Water (% by FTIR) <0.1 Nitration (Abs) 10 Viscosity (cSt,40

I will post some data. RP 5W20 saw pretty low wear even though I stressed the engine like hell. Below are numbers for lead (Pb), iron (Fe), copper (Cu) and tin (Sn) in ppm. RP 5W20 Pb 7 Fe 10 Cu 9 Sn 7 CLTR 5W40 Pb 2 Fe 13 Cu 11 Sn 5 Conoco Pb 5 Fe 24 Cu 13 Sn 11 The RP 5W20 saw 5k mileage, CLTR 5W40 saw 7k mileage and Conoco is 9.5k mileage. Longer oil service will lead to more wear so it looks OK but the jump up in Conoco's case is a little too high. Antiwear levels, RP and Conoco are equal. The zinc (Zn) and phosphate (P) are indicative of the ZDDP antiwear additive. Both are high but calcium (Ca) for Conoco's case is the highest. But Conoco is lacking in molybdenum (Mo). RP and CLTR's trump card. RP 5W20 Zn 1500 P 1123 Ca 2213 Mo 87 CLTR 5W40 Zn 993 P 845 Ca 1847 Mo 41 Conoco Zn 1443 P 1135 Ca 3146 Mo 1 Comparing with the data above. Seems like the engine likes something with molybdenum in it together with the Zn. It seems to like SAE40 oil (which engine doesn't?) but I experienced poorer fuel economy. With this, I will go back to RP 5W20 to see what better results I can squeeze out. Those on RP 10W30 are already on something good.

Check them out at BITOG. Link here.

Go to BITOG is check it out. Link here.

http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message%5fid=79442