M_O_S Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Uhmm...yes and no. Montreal and Mexico did NOT have enough funds to pay for their parties -- and their citizens were still paying a special tax until 30 years later when those bonds were paid off and retired. I believe the Greek national budget went into the negative starting in 2005. Did it have something to do with a big party in 2004?? At least the privately-financed US Games do not impose on anyone who does not believe in the Games and that their tax money be spent on that. In that regard, the USOC is most sensitive to the individual taxpayer and recognizes that the Games are NOT for everyone -- compared to ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES where you have to still pay your taxes whether you believe in spending for the 2-week sports party or not. I'd rather do it our way...where we have a choice to support it or not. And look...who still ended up with a surplus?? Why do you say what Atlanta and Salt Lake ended up with was ridiculous. The Games are NOT MEANT to make money. They are registered as non-profit enterprises. Therefore, their main goal in the US is to at least just break even. If there is even one cent profit, then that's GREAT!! But it still didn't cost the taxpayer a single dime. (Now, security costs are another issue.) In the case of Mexico they were huge, but then again they brought a much desired development and international boosting. That's why Rio will probably get away with having the highest budget. In many cases, and as you've argued in other posts, most of these bids have to build a lot of stuff from scratch and take advantage of the games. Montréal's spending spree was real bad, bad budget planning by the government. It is still quite startling that it took them 30 years to pay back the whole thing. About developed countries, it's just a different way of doing things. The state puts the money, and it's pay by everyone based on the fact that not everyone might go to the Olympics (and even dislike them) but nevertheless they will be benefited by an increase in visitors, jobs during construction and during the Games themselves as well as a legacy in way of sports venues or improved facilities. That is why cities like Rio (or Barcelona for that matter) get into such a mess. As I've said above, it's a different way of doing things which is neither better nor worse. I'm more on the public spending side, you're on the private. Fair enough, both work. What I do know though is that if there happens to be no funds left the government will pay for sure, whilst if it's private investment the risk is higher. About profits, I know they're non-profit seeking events, but the investors who put money behind it do expect something in return , whether it's publicity, money or even social recognition if they're donors. When I say they are ridiculous I mean to say that, given the magnitude of the event, it would be very easy to make bigger benefits (and still be a small percentage) as happened with LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 About profits, I know they're non-profit seeking events, but the investors who put money behind it do expect something in return , whether it's publicity, money or even social recognition if they're donors. When I say they are ridiculous I mean to say that, given the magnitude of the event, it would be very easy to make bigger benefits (and still be a small percentage) as happened with LA. The LA-$223 mil, Atlanta- $10 and Salt Lake-$56 mil are just how the books of those respective Organizing COmmittee closed out. It has nothing to do with say, what Coca-Cola or Visa or McDonald's made with regards to their investment. Since those are private companies-- and they amortize their Olympic investment over a 4-year period anyway, we really do not know how much return they got. But the fact that Macs, Coke, Visa and GE return year after year as -- and this is why I brought up the subject in the first place -- TOP sponsors, paying... I think they go for $55 mil - 60 mil per quadrennium now (of course, the returning ones get it cheaper), then their association with the Olympics must continue to prove profitable otherwise their stockholders would raise hell. The other US companies that bailed out of that top category were IBM, John Hancock Insurnace, Johnson & Johnson. (For awhile there was US Postal Service, Home Depot and UPS.) Obviously,as you said, a change in the fortunes of those companies (or ownership) forced them to discontinue their expensive Olympic association. But some of them just step down to the cheaper domestic sponsorship categories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Looking at history there is no AFrica!!!! I mean there is no Cape Town!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lehari Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Looking at history there is no AFrica!!!! I mean there is no Cape Town!!! In fact I would like to know from you if Cape Town is going to bid in the future, for example in 2020? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Look at the 2008 bid 20 years since an Asian host 5 bidders European host in 2004 Results 1. Beijing 2. Toronto 3. Paris 4. Istanbul 5. Osaka The last place finisher is a relatively unknown internally important city to a country that has a major would city, a la Nice and Manchester. The European finishers are 3rd and 4th, even though Paris and Toronto had roughly equally strong bids and both were stronger than Beijing's. Something other than bid strange was at play, Athens 2004 maybe? Now 2016 20 years since an Americas host 4 bidders last Olympics in Europe. So.... 1. Chicago/Rio 2. Tokyo 3. Madrid 4. Chicago/Rio. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Look at the 2008 bid20 years since an Asian host 5 bidders European host in 2004 Results 1. Beijing 2. Toronto 3. Paris 4. Istanbul 5. Osaka The last place finisher is a relatively unknown internally important city to a country that has a major would city, a la Nice and Manchester. The European finishers are 3rd and 4th, even though Paris and Toronto had roughly equally strong bids and both were stronger than Beijing's. Something other than bid strange was at play, Athens 2004 maybe? Now 2016 20 years since an Americas host 4 bidders last Olympics in Europe. So.... 1. Chicago/Rio 2. Tokyo 3. Madrid 4. Chicago/Rio. ?? This thing about Beijing '08 NOT impacting Tokyo's chances is really false. It can happen for Europe (Athens 2004 - London 2012) because THEY control the votes. But, let's face it, that concession* will NEVER be extended to Asia, Oceania, let alone So. America or Africa. *(past the alternating between Euro and No. America in the 70s-80s when there was a dearth of bidders) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 hence why is its Chicago/Rio over Tokyo in the final round. But history tells us there will be a concerted effort to eliminate one of the Americas bids in the first round, a la Osaka in 2008 and than the elimination of the next bid(s) that are from the previous host continent. Leaving Tokyo versus Chicago/Rio and Beijing and Korea will cost Tokyo the votes to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 hence why is its Chicago/Rio over Tokyo in the final round. But history tells us there will be a concerted effort to eliminate one of the Americas bids in the first round, a la Osaka in 2008 and than the elimination of the next bid(s) that are from the previous host continent. Leaving Tokyo versus Chicago/Rio and Beijing and Korea will cost Tokyo the votes to win. You mean this? Beijing. PR of China - 44 - 56 Toronto. Canada - 20 - 22 Paris. France - 15 - 18 Istanbul. Turkey - 17 - 9 Osaka. Japan - 6 (Previous winner was Athens 04.) Interesting theory, Faster. But I think they will eliminate either the one from the previous continent first or the previous host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I see the logic behind your look at the 2008 bidders, but there is only four cities bidding instead of five, and all technically are on a different continent (at least according to my interpretation of continental divide). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 That's convenient Soaring! But I find it hard to believe either Chicago (or any other US city) or Rio would win in 2020 if the other won in 2016. Maybe it's not as strong a geographical tie as London and Madrid, but it's still there and two games in a row in the Americas seems unlikely. This is the danger for the US; as far as timezones and TV coverage goes, the IOC could very well think of Rio as a nice alternative to Chicago if they don't want to go back to the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I agree. If Rio won in 2016, the U.S. should not even think of bidding for 2020. I would wait until 2024, depending on who won 2020. I do think the USOC sent a strong message when they did not put a bidder in for the 2018 WOG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I'm sure the US would bid for 2020 if they failed this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Here's the crux between choosing Rio or Chicago. Do we want to go to a sure place where our coffers will be their fullest and we think very compact, efficient Games will be run -- and risk displeasing up & coming countries? Chicago will not come back... Or... Should we be adventurous...go to a new neighborhood...but risk fiscal uncertainty due to another big event just before ours, and to deal with a less than ideal terrain for our large extravaganza -- and risk displeasing our, to use a pun -- sugar daddies? We know Rio will come back for another round. It's really a pitch of the head over heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm Jeremie Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 The now or never card has never worked in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 The now or never card has never worked in the past Well Beijing said after there loss in 2000 that they would never bid again, if I remember correctly Samaranch practically begged the Chinese to bid again for 2008. Athens also said that if they did not win 2004 they would never bid again. Anyways, the 2008 race is probably the best example to look at what is going to happen in Copenhagen in October, it has many of the same markings, though with no obvious outright winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Milan -- Ugly city. Besides, they're more interested in fashion and opera than sports. You should know, the CONI never takes them seriously. It's not an ugly city. It's just bad maintened in some of its parts and the fashion+opera thing is so clichè. It's much more than that. It's true that they may have disregarded sport nowadays but at its time Milan loved its sports and was one of its cradle and not only in Italy (and not just for football). And btw there have been hosts not properly charming or particulary related to sport compared to Milano when it came to the awarding such as, to say some, Atlanta.. or even Athens. Milan, technically, has all it needs to push on a very strong bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Milan, technically, has all it needs to push on a very strong bid. But it never really does...like say Barcelona to Madrid, Melbourne to Sydney, Montreal to Toronto, LA to New York, to a lesser degree Rio over Sao Paolo, Osaka to Tokyo. It's that in those cases, at least the thought-of #2 city has actually gone ahead and upstaged the #1 City in terms of bidding and actually staging an Olympics or a major Expo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrack Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 But it never really does...like say Barcelona to Madrid, Melbourne to Sydney, Montreal to Toronto, LA to New York, to a lesser degree Rio over Sao Paolo, Osaka to Tokyo. It's that in those cases, at least the thought-of #2 city has actually gone ahead and upstaged the #1 City in terms of bidding and actually staging an Olympics or a major Expo. Point well-made, but I think Montreal was Canada's main city at the time it big and hosted. And Tokyo already hosted, so does that count as upstaged? Anyway, Rome already hosted, so a Milan bid would not be an upstage either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 The now or never card has never worked in the past j, I did not -- nor has Chicago actually used it in that sense. I am just stating what I think is a fact. I think nowhere has Chicago hinted that it will go another round...whereas one just feels it in one's bones that Rio will be South America's Istanbul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Montreal hasn't been Canada's main city in over a 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Montreal hasn't been Canada's main city in over a 100 years. Exactly. That's what I was saying. Thru the 60s, even while Montreal was #2, they staged Expo 67 and then SOG 1976. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I think Chicago is a #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I think Chicago is a #2. There was a whole debate on that somewhere here, Stu. Until I think 1979-1980, Chicago was a way-ahead #2. But it looks like, even from Chicago stalwarts, it is now acknowledged that Chicago is really #3 in terms of population, economic might and influence. Maybe someone can find that link? But I guess in terms of a downtown/inner city density, it is #2 to NYC. Of course with the present administration, its influence is certainly on the upswing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Baron, I see your point and you're basically right. Milan REALLY never did put a bid. Even in 1993 when they were so close to make it (there's a bid book), they withdrawn as the Tangentopoli scandal was just going to stand out. I think Milan (unlike Barcelona, Melbourne etc..) lost its time-momentum. It should have bid for the 80's, when its "fame" was at its highest. They might have met favors in the 70's too but Roma'60 would have annoyed them. The recent push for 2016 (and also previous bids) ended soon mostly because the inner battle with Rome which always claims the right to take the precedence in bidding. Plus, CONI is quite Romanocentric. And now (sadly) they bet on the 205Expo. So for the nth time Rome seems to have no domestic competitor for 2020 bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 There was a whole debate on that somewhere here, Stu. Until I think 1979-1980, Chicago was a way-ahead #2. But it looks like, even from Chicago stalwarts, it is now acknowledged that Chicago is really #3 in terms of population, economic might and influence. Maybe someone can find that link? But I guess in terms of a downtown/inner city density, it is #2 to NYC. Of course with the present administration, its influence is certainly on the upswing again. You're right. Chicago can be considered a #2 when it comes to city life, but LA has a much wider geographical line, and its entertainment industry and spot on the west coast make it the official #2 in many people's opinion. Even a Chicago 2016 won't change Chicago's #3 status in a lot of ways, but can certainly strengthen its economic and cultural might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.