Jump to content

cost explosion


ghost1

Recommended Posts

the last 10 to 15 years the costs for Olympic Games increase in an abnormal way. The question is: when will Olympic Games no longer be payable? Please see the last report of London where it is stated that the costs are more than 1 billion pound. This is the best way to drive the cities into ruin. See also Athens where the venues now used as homeplace for gypsies etc. We have to bring Olympic Games back to it´s roots, to the basic sense as it was ment hundred years ago. We have to limit the costs, a reduced program to reanimate the Olympic idea from Mr. Coubertin. We need Games that are oriented on human ideals, peace and sociality. Although professionals joined the Games Olympia is still an amateur event. IOC should select the bidding cities in a better way. It doesn´t make sense like now for 2016, as there are about 10 US Cities who want to bid and spend a lot of money for nothing. There are a lot of cities which have absolutely no chance. This should be cleared very soon by IOC. When looking in the future I can see a point where Olympic Games are no longer payable by most of the cities. Olympic Games should be possible for all cities in the whole world (also Africa) and not only by the rich. Through peaceful Olympic Winter Games in 2014, 100 years after Worldwar I, can set a sign for the whole world for a better future, also for the now existing generation under leadership of the IOC against terrorism, war, rassism for peace, a better life for all the people in the world.Veni Vidi Vici...

Tarik Tanovic

Member of the organisation committee of the 14th Winter Games in Sarajevo

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

He's not the only one. There are other people like him are saying about this, too. I think there is a GB article here that had one of the Torino 2006 officials saying that the Winter Games is starting to be like the Summer Olympics funding-wise.

Therefore, it comes to question on how some of the 2014 applicant cities got the money to be in the bidding game at this stage, like Georgia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To reduce costs there have to be restrictions by the National OC´s in an early phase of the bid process (i.e. 2016: 8 cities from USA from a total of 26). The NOC has to preselect earlier. For 2016 we have 26 possible bidding cities at the moment. My opinion is that IOC should limit the number of bidding cities from each continent to  a max of about 3 cities. A lot of useless bids and a lot of money could be saved if this would be done. I.e. there a bidding cities which hardly could give their people something to eat and now have the support of International organisation. Sure, everyone should have the chance to get the Games but in this case the IOC and other sport organizations have to help with a lot of money. But first of all we have to limit the money spent early in the beginning of a bid process as most of the cities will be bankrupt after the bid, see Athens or examples from today: Kenya, Georgia or Kazahstan. They have to invest an incredible huge amount to get the basics for a regular bid. Who should pay the bill?
Link to post
Share on other sites

To reduce costs there have to be restrictions by the National OC´s in an early phase of the bid process (i.e. 2016: 8 cities from USA from a total of 26). The NOC has to preselect earlier. For 2016 we have 26 possible bidding cities at the moment. My opinion is that IOC should limit the number of bidding cities from each continent to  a max of about 3 cities. A lot of useless bids and a lot of money could be saved if this would be done. I.e. there a bidding cities which hardly could give their people something to eat and now have the support of International organisation. Sure, everyone should have the chance to get the Games but in this case the IOC and other sport organizations have to help with a lot of money. But first of all we have to limit the money spent early in the beginning of a bid process as most of the cities will be bankrupt after the bid, see Athens or examples from today: Kenya, Georgia or Kazahstan. They have to invest an incredible huge amount to get the basics for a regular bid. Who should pay the bill?

well, zenica/tarik - welcome to GamesBids if indeed you are Tarik, formerly of the Sarajevo Organizing Committee.  (Sorry, if I am a little doubtful - but we have had appearances here of the likes of North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung, etc., so you know.......)

But what you point out is very true.  However, where did you get your numbers: like 10 U.S. cities wanting to bid for 2016; and 26 worldwide?  I mean, just speaking for the US, as you've read in one of the lead articles, the USOC will really only consider 6 of them.  And the USOC is doing precisely what you are concerned about - putting a lid on the extravagant waste of time and money.  As for 26 worldwide, I think that's just a lot of early talk and hot air.  When it comes right down to (a) being selected by their NOC; and (B) coming up with the bid deposits - (some) people tend to come back down to earth.  Also, of the 26 you say, I don't think you can seriously count any European cities in there.  If anything, they might just be in there for a 'dry run' for 2020.  

In the end, it's like cream or an expresso, the foam rises to the top.  So these things have a way of sorting themselves out in that by the 'short list' stage, these are pretty much the cities/countries that can REALLY (or think they can) afford this multi-billion dollar party(s).

It's also the IOC's fault in allowing the Games to be a multi-billion dollar extravaganza.  Yes, the cities tend to outdo themselves -- and really why not?  I mean the whole world is watching and you want to show off that you are a progressive, successful society that CAN afford to host a totally non-essential event like an Olympics.  And what makes THE Olympics a unique happening is its very size: 28 World Championships (for the Summer) going on at the same time over 2 weeks, when the very best athletes of 200+ countries come together every leap year and compete for sports' sakes - nothing more.

But the reality of the situation is -- only the large, rich countries can afford to host an Olympics.  It is unconscionable for a smaller, poorer country to do so.  There are other life-and-death priorities.

So, Tarik, can you share any photos you have of Sarajevo '84?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ryan04

well, zenica/tarik - welcome to GamesBids if indeed you are Tarik, formerly of the Sarajevo Organizing Committee.  (Sorry, if I am a little doubtful - but we have had appearances here of the likes of North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung, etc., so you know.......)

But what you point out is very true.  However, where did you get your numbers: like 10 U.S. cities wanting to bid for 2016; and 26 worldwide?  I mean, just speaking for the US, as you've read in one of the lead articles, the USOC will really only consider 6 of them.  And the USOC is doing precisely what you are concerned about - putting a lid on the extravagant waste of time and money.  As for 26 worldwide, I think that's just a lot of early talk and hot air.  When it comes right down to (a) being selected by their NOC; and (B) coming up with the bid deposits - (some) people tend to come back down to earth.  Also, of the 26 you say, I don't think you can seriously count any European cities in there.  If anything, they might just be in there for a 'dry run' for 2020.  

In the end, it's like cream or an expresso, the foam rises to the top.  So these things have a way of sorting themselves out in that by the 'short list' stage, these are pretty much the cities/countries that can REALLY (or think they can) afford this multi-billion dollar party(s).

It's also the IOC's fault in allowing the Games to be a multi-billion dollar extravaganza.  Yes, the cities tend to outdo themselves -- and really why not?  I mean the whole world is watching and you want to show off that you are a progressive, successful society that CAN afford to host a totally non-essential event like an Olympics.  And what makes THE Olympics a unique happening is its very size: 28 World Championships (for the Summer) going on at the same time over 2 weeks, when the very best athletes of 200+ countries come together every leap year and compete for sports' sakes - nothing more.

But the reality of the situation is -- only the large, rich countries can afford to host an Olympics.  It is unconscionable for a smaller, poorer country to do so.  There are other life-and-death priorities.

So, Tarik, can you share any photos you have of Sarajevo '84?

agreed, it is the Olympic Games cities are being watched for about a month by the entire world, also only about 5-10 cities go for an Olympic Games, and the US only sends in one city

Link to post
Share on other sites
The reduction of the program is actually in an early phase. It doesn´t seem that they have very much success in doing this, too. If they are not able to do this (not only the few that are on the list) I can´t see a reduction of costs for the next future. Also the structure of the IOC organization should be discussed. People that are members for more than 40 - 50 years are not able to change anything. These people have lost their power. Now we need new ideas to change things. Olympic Games are in the first line games for the youth. This should also be reflected in the organization. A change in structure would also decrease costs for the member countries.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The games may get slightly smaller to temporarily accomodate logistics, but as world monetary increases, more nations steadily increase in prosperity, more nations become more familiar with uncommon sports, populations increase, and the popularity of every single sport increases (some slower or faster than others,) I don't forsee the cost ever having a dramatic drop.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, zenica.  Those were colorful Games.  Well, actually, most of the Winter Games are colorful.  ANything against a white background comes out colorful.

2 other thoughts on this subject:

1.  There is free choice.  No one is forcing the Olympics on anyone.  Either a city/country or some delusional despot (calling Kim...) wants them...or not.  So cities and countries DON'T really have to line up bidding for these.  There are conventions, beauty contests, summits and film festivals which are far cheaper.    

And it's up to the IOC to award the Olympic Games responsibly.

2.  We have to accept that these are 'multi-billion dollar parties'; no 2 ways around it.  And if they are held in open societies, at least we will know the costs when all is said and done, high though it may be -- VS. not knowing what the real costs would be if staged by some dictatorial society like a Cuba, a North Korea, a Georgia, or a China (well, at least we know their people aren't starving) -- with their unaccounted toll, probably in human suffering.

Of course, there is SMWOBCE - SuperMegaWorldOlympixBowlCupExpo!  :wwww:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Have a look at the latest news from London 2012: the real costs for the stadium will be much higher than budgeted. It will be the same like in Athens. I think there are limits not only for people also for investments. It´s the job of the IOC to decrease costs immediately. There is a difference between a bid and the hosting of OG´s. In future the IOC has to decide for cities with a well structured infrastructure. That´s the only way to decrease the costs. Don´t look at Beijing where millions of people working for nearly nothing. In the rest of the world this effort costs an unbelievable high amount of money.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

As we now can see the budget for London maybe rise to 1,7 billion USD. That´s an incredible high amount and an increase of 100%. This may work with such big cities like London but in the next 20 years OG´s will be no longer to be financed. So the costs have to decrease very soon. The reduction should be initiated by all involved parties, the IOC, the city and the government of the country. Such a high amount of costs will be invested in a lot of projects like infrastructure etc. But the sport should be possible to be financed not only by the rich. At the end there should be not only bankrupt host cities. They should also have a look at what happens after the Games. I.e. see Athens: the venues are used by gypsies and the city is completely bankrupt. Theses venues have to be used for a longer period of time to amortisize the costs and to make sure that the public can use it, that the venues are no memorials. So the IOC has to push the decrease of costs, together with the host organisations, to set new limits. This should go in accordance with a restructuring and reorganisation of the IOC.

This is a big challenge for the IOC for the next future. Jacques Rogge should use the rest of his presidency to initiate the necessary reforms, if necessary to do hard cuts, to show initiative and flexibility to find new decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

z, what this all means is that unless the IOC decides to pay for the Games --    :wwww:  -- only the RICH countries can host the Games.  No 2 ways about it.

ANd everybody here wants to add more countries, and include such peripheral sports as cricket, and golf, etc., etc.  HA!!

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the olympic games are big...who ever chooses to host it makes this choice willingly....big or small poor or rich city...they should get a chance but realise that dropping two sports or more from necessarily reduce the magnitude of the games as a unimaginable oraganizational task....african cities want the games and they must then plan carefully and learn to cope with their choice to bid...the games shouldnt be too small either...if cities want to be glamorous thats there decision and they will bear the costs...MORE IOC intervention and funds should be awarded to the host city as well as expertise and a closer working relationship so that costs and so forth are naturally minimized....the city is hosting the games on behalf of the IOC and the IOC should not lost sight of this...
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, More Rush. It´s not the only job og the IOC to get only the profit without any risk, they also have to have a part on the expenses the host cities spend for the OG´s. Working hand in hand and a much closer cooperation between the host cities and the IOC are absolutely necessary to prevent situations like in Montreal or Athens. The IOC also has to bear a part of the, not only, financial risk. To think, I´m the IOC, everything is well, who cares about the host cities, is the wrong way. Also on the post olympic period IOC should try to have a look that the venues are used permanently in a proper way, this is not only the part of the host city. IOC is a worldwide organisation which should deal with this. This should be one of the jobs for IOC after the OG´s. So all participiants have fun with the Games, not only the IOC who collect the proceeds.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We have to know where is the borderline between professional an d amateur sport. Olympic Games are in general amateur games where also pros can take part. But for the first three places they got a medal - no money. So IOC and the host cities have to work together and share what they got, the profits and the losses. Extravaganza is in F1, golf etc. and should not be part of the OG´s where also athlets take part from Third World countries which have to work very hard. That´s why the OG´s have to go back to it´s roots - and with this also the costs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We have to know where is the borderline between professional an d amateur sport. Olympic Games are in general amateur games where also pros can take part. But for the first three places they got a medal - no money. So IOC and the host cities have to work together and share what they got, the profits and the losses. Extravaganza is in F1, golf etc. and should not be part of the OG´s where also athlets take part from Third World countries which have to work very hard. That´s why the OG´s have to go back to it´s roots - and with this also the costs.

The gamnes ceased being amateur a long time ago. Officially only in the 80s (is that right) but unofficially olong before. The individual federations are now encouraged to send the best of the best from their respective professional leagues. If individual sports don't, it is because of their own internal politics.

And while the first three placegetters don't get monetary prizes from the IOC, they have LOTS and LOTS of other compensations. For a start, various National Olympic Committees DO offer cash rewards for medal success. Then there is the mere fact that Olympic Glory is probably one of the most valuable commodities that can be traded on the sponsorship/endoresement market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
It is the question where is the last limit for the sponsors when costs for OG´s are exploding. Sponsors alos have a limit in money what the can spend. To extend this limit is possible but not without a border. That´s why Jacques Rogge and IOC have to understand that they have to start saving money and decrease the costs for Games immediately. That´s the only way it works. Although they have a lot of high potential sponsors, these companies have to look at their own business ( firing personal because of revenue decrease, costs increase). This is a very bad perspective as costs mostly rise and do not decrease. With an emergency-brake now IOC will have success with a cost-optimized  course and will hold the track.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Latest news from London: Coe denied that the costs for the OG 2012 will double. I think the truth is not far away from double. 10 to 20% would be ok but nearly double costs are incredible. That´s why IOC has to decrease costs for all involved parties. The Games have to go back to the roots like it was mentioned from Pierre de Coubertin. The Games should come back to a normal level. But what is normal? In a company where the costs are exploding they have to find ways to bring back the costs to a level which doesn´t  bare a risk for the company. That´s exactly the way IOC should do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Latest news from London: Coe denied that the costs for the OG 2012 will double. I think the truth is not far away from double. 10 to 20% would be ok but nearly double costs are incredible. That´s why IOC has to decrease costs for all involved parties. The Games have to go back to the roots like it was mentioned from Pierre de Coubertin. The Games should come back to a normal level. But what is normal? In a company where the costs are exploding they have to find ways to bring back the costs to a level which doesn´t  bare a risk for the company. That´s exactly the way IOC should do.

To reduce the cost, they should build more temporary venues. Athens showed that a lot of venues are not used after the games.

Build smaller venues and increase the capcity during the games with temporary seats.

An other issue are the cost for the infrastructure, like roads and the metro. It can be solved when you build more central zones like in Sydney. Than you have to build not so many metrolines as when you spread the venues.

The cost for security can be reduced when you get help from organisations as the NATO and UN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...