Jump to content

Rio Bid Book


Recommended Posts

some 25,000 rooms in media villages alone.

With Additional Accoms at the Port and Maracana Stadium. So if you are a Track and Field Commentator or Soccer Color Commentator you are on the Stadium grounds with a Hotel or within that Cluster. I did not realize that there is Urban Railway and Subway to Maracana. That is probably the case with JH Stadium with the Metro as well. Basically they might have the Accoms covered For the Media without having existing rooms in the count taken up for Media but for the General Public.

jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You and Jim might well be right that Brazil is in a rude state of health financially whilst the most developed countries are in a slump, but that doesn't really change the fact that Rio would still have the most to do of the cities. Maybe less so in terms of venues, but in terms of roads, airports and especially hotel rooms it's a way behind.

It's great that Brazil has a strong financial base from which to build this necessary infrastructure but the point is, it needs to be built.

say Rob I wonder if we could find out where Beijing was with regards to these required pieces of the puzzle in 2001 compared with Rio in 2009 ? I think Beijing was actually further behind in regards to Venues simply because the Bird Nest and Water Cube did not exist even in the Designers heads until Later. The birds nest design was not awarded until July 2003 and the water cube was earlier in 2003. Both Broke Ground in December of 2003 and were finally completed in early 2008.

At the same time span you had the Airport, Subway and Bus Rapid Transit under construction . I don't think Rio is behind compared to Beijing at this point and Beijing really has to be regarded as one of the smoother run Capital Projects and Games ever. You might hate the general idea of Beijing 2008 Politically but they pulled off something that will be hard to match in the next couple of decades at least.

jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
You and Jim might well be right that Brazil is in a rude state of health financially whilst the most developed countries are in a slump, but that doesn't really change the fact that Rio would still have the most to do of the cities. Maybe less so in terms of venues, but in terms of roads, airports and especially hotel rooms it's a way behind.

It's great that Brazil has a strong financial base from which to build this necessary infrastructure but the point is, it needs to be built.

How dare you suggest that Rio has work to do. Money solves everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
True. No one said it changed anything. We here in Brazil know well our problems, our weaknessess and the cost of being a country of dense populated not-so-well-planned big cities. But this is not the time and here is not the place to explain the historical reasons for all this trouble. We either want to use it as an excuse for anything.

When we talk about our economy we want the international community to drop that old idea that Brazil is an unstable, extremely fragile country that can break any moment. This idea was and still is used as an excuse when people turn their back on us. Some people are so tied to their old concepts they still think Brazil doesn't changed a bit in the past 50 years, that we are a huge forest with monkeys and starving people everywhere.

I don't think it's that Victor. It's just that you are currently committed to one billion-dollar extravaganza for 2014. It would be very risky for the IOC to have you commit to a Part Two, Billion-Dollar Extravaganza -- especially when it isn't their money. I mean, once you/them commit; you COMMIT! There's no turning back -- and if the numbers are wrong, well, another country's in deep financial doo-doo again, and the IOC will get blamed for that mess. So if the IOC's a little gun-shy insofar as risking 2016 on Rio, who can blame them? If you didn't have 2014 to deal with, then Rio would've been the sure winner for 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's that Victor. It's just that you are currently committed to one billion-dollar extravaganza for 2014. It would be very risky for the IOC to have you commit to a Part Two, Billion-Dollar Extravaganza -- especially when it isn't their money. I mean, once you/them commit; you COMMIT! There's no turning back -- and if the numbers are wrong, well, another country's in deep financial doo-doo again, and the IOC will get blamed for that mess. So if the IOC's a little gun-shy insofar as risking 2016 on Rio, who can blame them? If you didn't have 2014 to deal with, then Rio would've been the sure winner for 2016.

All true. On the other hand, Chicago could also be seen as riskier than Madrid and Tokyo's bids with respect to financial guarantee. Sure, I know, it's the US and it's most likely that Chicago will be able to raise the money needed from the domestic sponsors but I still think the IOC, given the current situation in Vancouver and London, would have loved to have a public funding guarantee for the Olympic Village. Chicago is definitely a strong contender: the shoe-in some believe, certainly not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Table 9.4.1

Temporary works will start in 2015 and end in 2016.

This is unrealistic. Venue overlay e.g. scaffolding doesn't need a 6 month - 1 year installation period.

And couldn't it be that some of the overlay will be put in place for the test events?

Mo, go and check past bid books and you will see that it's not unrealistic and it has been on the table before (Paris 2012 was to build some of its temporary venues by 2011 for test events).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thats one "flaw" I picked up and hence my observation.

The table needs to include a column or 2 for the temporary works overlay for test events, perhaps even a proposed schedule for test events.

For an exhibition/convention venue its unreasonable, depending on the demand for the venue to have the temporary overlay in place for a year. So rather than cities stating 2015-2016 or in Chicago's case, May -July 2016, an additional column for temporary overlay for test events would make sense.

A few of the overlay figures for Chicago seem low.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's that Victor. It's just that you are currently committed to one billion-dollar extravaganza for 2014. It would be very risky for the IOC to have you commit to a Part Two, Billion-Dollar Extravaganza -- especially when it isn't their money. I mean, once you/them commit; you COMMIT! There's no turning back -- and if the numbers are wrong, well, another country's in deep financial doo-doo again, and the IOC will get blamed for that mess. So if the IOC's a little gun-shy insofar as risking 2016 on Rio, who can blame them? If you didn't have 2014 to deal with, then Rio would've been the sure winner for 2016.

Ah Baron did you read the Rio Bid Book ? The Brazil Government has 250 Billion Fund backstopping Development of Brazil in the next decade. 14.5 billion is not a large amount when talking about one quarter of a trillion dollars. 14.5 Billion could be paid for in simple interest from a fund like that in three years. I think Rio 2016 somehow said lets put up a realistic figure as the others will low ball this and history will make them look very stupid while we look extremely smart. Frankly is there 14.5 billion in expense there with what RIO has today ? Consider that the three other bids barely make estimates combined equaling RIO 2016. This might have an effect on Opposition to the Olympics in Chicago simply because they have had their experience with construction cost overruns for sports Venues and the City of Chicago is guaranteeing little on the Olympics.

From what I am reading of Brazil's Finances this is totally plausible because their foreign Exchange accounts stand at 200 billion dollars and those were built in the last 5 to 7 years . Like I have said Brazil has done a couple of things A. turned annual trade deficits 7 years ago to 50 billion dollar a year trade surpluses to 2006 and those surpluses are still growing B. Retired all foreign Held Debt C. Prevented Capital Flight in pretty much every sector of their economy D. Made it law that all levels of Governments must balance their books without borrowing externally of Brazil. Brazil's Development beyond these two mega sports events includes 5 new petrochemical refineries to add value to what they pull out of their offshore which is huge deposits of Oil and Natural Gas. An LNG Gas Train is typically costing 10 billion these days. I am sure the Brazilians will be in that line of Business soon. They produce all their own Automobiles, Trucks and Buses for their market of 190 million people or the Fifth Largest population on earth in the 10th largest economy. The Brazilian economy is a 2 trillion dollar a year Deal . This is the country with the largest makers of Buses and the third largest Aircraft maker in the world.

yeah I love how the excuses indeed Fly with frontier Nations involved with South South trade Kicking the so called first Worlds BUTTS inside out. Like I said keeping your view that South Americans , Chinese or Africans are stupid or don't progress their countries in the last couple of decades is dangerous thinking . We are just to ignorant and unaware to know while believing the Sun will never set on our Empires

Jim Jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
All true. On the other hand, Chicago could also be seen as riskier than Madrid and Tokyo's bids with respect to financial guarantee. Sure, I know, it's the US and it's most likely that Chicago will be able to raise the money needed from the domestic sponsors but I still think the IOC, given the current situation in Vancouver and London, would have loved to have a public funding guarantee for the Olympic Village. Chicago is definitely a strong contender: the shoe-in some believe, certainly not.

Public money Guarantee will never happen in a Class Act lawsuit USA. That is a non starter for anything in the US. While countries in the rest of the world will fall all over events like formula one and the olympics the US has the attitude of this has to make money for us in real terms.

The USOC ironically has true separation from the government that the IOC desires simply because there is no government funding from the Federal or State levels. Public Funding Guarantees would not prevent what has happened with London or Vancouver . With Chicago and no Government back up the IOC can be looking at revisiting Denver 1976 if things get bad for Chicago 2016. You have that in the spectra of the economic meltdown we are in and the huge Debt Load the US is going to have and the Olympics in Chicago can be swept away in a heart beat just like Denver 1976.

Not having the guarantees, unlike other places in Europe mainly, has had Los Angeles lose the most times being Nine but host twice when the Olympics needed rescue. The Olympics are only done on the United States Terms if the United States hosts at all. Lake Placid is the third most losing place to host and they hosted also as a rescue package in 1980.

Jim Jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
Public money Guarantee will never happen in a Class Act lawsuit USA. That is a non starter for anything in the US. While countries in the rest of the world will fall all over events like formula one and the olympics the US has the attitude of this has to make money for us in real terms.

The USOC ironically has true separation from the government that the IOC desires simply because there is no government funding from the Federal or State levels. Public Funding Guarantees would not prevent what has happened with London or Vancouver . With Chicago and no Government back up the IOC can be looking at revisiting Denver 1976 if things get bad for Chicago 2016. You have that in the spectra of the economic meltdown we are in and the huge Debt Load the US is going to have and the Olympics in Chicago can be swept away in a heart beat just like Denver 1976.

Not having the guarantees, unlike other places in Europe mainly, has had Los Angeles lose the most times being Nine but host twice when the Olympics needed rescue. The Olympics are only done on the United States Terms if the United States hosts at all. Lake Placid is the third most losing place to host and they hosted also as a rescue package in 1980.

Jim Jones

Gee thnaks for the lecture, I know all that.

I was not saying that the lack of public guarantee will kill Chicago's bid, just that it is one (and probably the only major) issue with Chicago's bid, especially in the current context.

Comparing Denver 1976 and Chicago 2016 is preposterous: first of all, the scale of the event cannot be compared (winter games in the 70s, summer games now, different world); second of all, again the current economic situation makes it rather unlikely to find a last minute substitute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's that Victor. It's just that you are currently committed to one billion-dollar extravaganza for 2014. It would be very risky for the IOC to have you commit to a Part Two, Billion-Dollar Extravaganza -- especially when it isn't their money. I mean, once you/them commit; you COMMIT! There's no turning back -- and if the numbers are wrong, well, another country's in deep financial doo-doo again, and the IOC will get blamed for that mess. So if the IOC's a little gun-shy insofar as risking 2016 on Rio, who can blame them? If you didn't have 2014 to deal with, then Rio would've been the sure winner for 2016.

The 2007 extravaganze (once you said that here) was full-paied in oct.2007. No dollar to be paied in 2008.

Facts:

Brazilian Government got more than R$ 1 trillion (yes, TRILLION) last year in taxes (near US$ 600 billion). Are you really concerned about money in Brazil?

Imagine how much money can be save in 7 years!

Rio de Janeiro state GDP is bigger than whole Greece... Brazil is the 8th biggest economy... And go on...

Baron, don't be concerned about money in Brazil. The check was already signed last week when Rio-2016 comittee sent the bid-book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2007 extravaganze (once you said that here) was full-paied in oct.2007. No dollar to be paied in 2008.

Facts:

Brazilian Government got more than R$ 1 trillion (yes, TRILLION) last year in taxes (near US$ 600 billion). Are you really concerned about money in Brazil?

Imagine how much money can be save in 7 years!

Rio de Janeiro state GDP is bigger than whole Greece... Brazil is the 8th biggest economy... And go on...

Baron, don't be concerned about money in Brazil. The check was already signed last week when Rio-2016 comittee sent the bid-book.

Danny, see my reply to thorb in the other "Who Do You Want to see win thread?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
for their market of 190 million people or the Fifth Largest population on earth in the 10th largest economy.

Uhmm..Danny says 8th. Will you guys make up your minds? It's going to look funny to the IOC if you can't get your facts together. (Frankly, I think it is #10. First, there's the G7, then China #8; India #9 - then maybe Brazil #10...or is it Russia?)

Also, uhmmm - USA - #3 - population.

#1 - economy (even though it's enduring rough times now); Japan - #2 - economy

So I wouldn't exactly use those stats vs. the US because Brazil doesn't emerge on top in those scores.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brazilian Government got more than R$ 1 trillion (yes, TRILLION) last year in taxes (near US$ 600 billion).

So? For a country of 191m people that's not a huge revenue to be honest (about US$3500 per person).

How much of that is already earmarked for public spending and how much does that leave you with?

Our government takes in billions in taxes (I don't know the exact figure) but they still have to borrow to cover spending commitments; most countries do, just as most people do.

I'm sure, as people have been saying, Brazil is healthy financially and would be able to cover the cost of these Games. I've no reason to doubt that. But giving arbitary tax yields without considering outgoings or the size of the country we're talking about is silly. Are we really supposed to be impressed by big numbers, was that the idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shaky bid when looking at the whole picture, but the planets could be in perfect alignment. I admire the realistic budget projection. Any of the other three cities' budgets would DEFINITELY escalate dramatically London-style. The thing about the three so-called "stable" cities is that there are many more players and layers involved, and all of them have more power and capability to grab for a piece of the pie that just gets bigger and bigger and bigger until the games themselves. The raw costs would only increase modestly, but the bureaucracy of a healthier economy tends to souffle from the inside, and the one thing that matters is the bottom line. People wont talk about "the raw materials for our stadium only cost xxxxxx! so successful!" They're going to talk about the final bill to be paid. Rio is the antithesis to the megacity bids and even if its not successful, it will bring about some ideas about bid structuring, who is backing it, and perhaps more importantly what certain groups are going to want out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee thnaks for the lecture, I know all that.

I was not saying that the lack of public guarantee will kill Chicago's bid, just that it is one (and probably the only major) issue with Chicago's bid, especially in the current context.

Comparing Denver 1976 and Chicago 2016 is preposterous: first of all, the scale of the event cannot be compared (winter games in the 70s, summer games now, different world); second of all, again the current economic situation makes it rather unlikely to find a last minute substitute.

Two different eras yes but the result when things got tuff for Denver THEY tossed it back to the IOC not the IOC taking it away from them . The IOC in fact offered it then to Vancouver who bid for the 1976 Winter games as well before switching to Innsbruck .

If needed be the games could go to many places in an emergency and be accepted with a waiting list in these times and under this commercial model. You could have at least 12 places either as recent hosts or Bid Brides maids take the games. Innsbruck 1976 did not see the world on fire with the facilities or vision but it did hold the games over for that year.

If Chicago was to get into a situation like London is today they would toss the games in a heart beat and Still the IOC would be awarding future Olympics to the US plan and simple. Funny how the games got abandoned by Denver for 1976 and then Lake Placid rescued the 1980 winter games.

I think it would always be in the back of IOC members minds what if the US economy collapses while we are in mid stream of an Olympics in delivery in the US ?

Risk assessment is a funny thing but looking at the different Nations debt, their growth and their liabilities financially and you would not consider the three candidates north of the equator to be as able as RIO. The Brazilians and the Chinese have a great deal in common in that they actually produce much of the goods that make the world go round while America is flipping the Worlds Hamburgers that Brazil sell the Meat for the Americans to flip those burgers.

Jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a shaky bid when looking at the whole picture, but the planets could be in perfect alignment. I admire the realistic budget projection. Any of the other three cities' budgets would DEFINITELY escalate dramatically London-style. The thing about the three so-called "stable" cities is that there are many more players and layers involved, and all of them have more power and capability to grab for a piece of the pie that just gets bigger and bigger and bigger until the games themselves. The raw costs would only increase modestly, but the bureaucracy of a healthier economy tends to souffle from the inside, and the one thing that matters is the bottom line. People wont talk about "the raw materials for our stadium only cost xxxxxx! so successful!" They're going to talk about the final bill to be paid. Rio is the antithesis to the megacity bids and even if its not successful, it will bring about some ideas about bid structuring, who is backing it, and perhaps more importantly what certain groups are going to want out of it.

Realism can work two ways for Rio . A. Scare the hell out of people with such a huge amount or B. Be refreshingly honest with no running commentary for aspiring cities to see in the News continuously like we have with London 2012.

The IOC hopefully realizes that the Seven Lie that many Awarded cities have had can't be good for future business no matter what the economic conditions. ALL North of the Equator Bids are in fantasy lands really. Barcelona broke the 10 billion barrier for 1992 in regards to everything they did but lets face it they certainly didn't put up a birds nest stadium or a great architectural monument for an Aquatics Centre.

Jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
If needed be the games could go to many places in an emergency and be accepted with a waiting list in these times and under this commercial model. You could have at least 12 places either as recent hosts or Bid Brides maids take the games.

Ridiculous.

You have absolutely no idea about what it takes to stage the Games: I am not talking only about venues and general infrastructure, but also the time needed to pass appropriate laws, launch a domestic marketing program, set up an accommodation and transportation plan. If you have 5 cities in the world, that's a maximum and they would need at least 3 to 4 years to get ready.

If a city is elected 7 years in advance, there is a good reason for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ridiculous.

You have absolutely no idea about what it takes to stage the Games: I am not talking only about venues and general infrastructure, but also the time needed to pass appropriate laws, launch a domestic marketing program, set up an accommodation and transportation plan. If you have 5 cities in the world, that's a maximum and they would need at least 3 to 4 years to get ready.

If a city is elected 7 years in advance, there is a good reason for that.

No it is you who fail to understand if the Olympics was up against it with canceling the games the laundry list would become much much shorter pretty fast. Especially in the times where you have multi-million and billion commercial relationships going on for a couple of decades for the IOC. The IOC does not want to break that chain.

If anything you would see it happen now as opposed to the era prior to 1984 when Commercial Relationships did not have the influence . Why is it that Atlanta would be Awarded a mere 5 years after LA 84? Pretty simple Money gets things done either in a underhanded ways or via what the IOC will gain through legit Means.

jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
No it is you who fail to understand if the Olympics was up against it with canceling the games the laundry list would become much much shorter pretty fast. Especially in the times where you have multi-million and billion commercial relationships going on for a couple of decades for the IOC. The IOC does not want to break that chain.

If anything you would see it happen now as opposed to the era prior to 1984 when Commercial Relationships did not have the influence . Why is it that Atlanta would be Awarded a mere 5 years after LA 84? Pretty simple Money gets things done either in a underhanded ways or via what the IOC will gain through legit Means.

jim jones

Listen Jones,

As usual you have not addressed the issue.

Did I say the IOC does not want to break the chain? No. Of course, should a Games edition be threatened, the IOC as well as the other Games client would be willing to make some concessions.

It remains that money can make anything happen but within a given time frame. No matter how much money you throw at a project, some things need time to get achieved : as I said, besides the construction of venues and other infrastructures, building the appropriate legislative frame, a domestic sponsorship programme, setting up Games operations would need at least 3 to 4 years, in a city that already has most if not all the infrastructure required. Just as an example, assuming that you could use university dorms as an OV, do you think you can come up to a university and say : "BTW, I will be needed your dorm next summer and, in order to install the Olympic overlay, I will need exclusive access starting in 6 months"?

Your claim was that "at least 12 places may take the Games". Besides LA, Seoul and possibly Sydney, name the other 9.

Especially in the current economic situation, I can assure you that not so many cities would be ready to step up as a last minute host.

Spare us your lectures will you. You have never worked for the IOC, nor a bidding or organising committee. By your ridiculous assessment of the CGF 2014 race, you have proven that you have no idea about how complex organizing a mega-event is. The only thing you can think of is money, which one key element needed but hardly sufficient.

Finally, don't try to spin your way as usual: explain how the fact that Atlanta was awarded the Games 6 years after LA (and Yea, a little homework would have taught you that Atlanta was elected in Tokyo in fall 1990) can back up your claim that at least 12 places may take the Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...