Jump to content

cost explosion


ghost1

Recommended Posts

Regarding Sofia´s budget for the bid: 7,336 million USD seems not to be enough. Salzburg has spend about 7 million EUR for 2010 -  and failed. To be on top you have to spend about 10 to 12 million EUR. The 7 million will not be enough. This will be enough for the shortlist, but that´s all.

But this is how Berne 2010 was going to spend on the bid and it failed not because it was a weak bid or PR, but because its own people

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Swiss people are very frustrated as they failed six times. I think they don´t trust in their own ability to get the Games. That´s the same with the people in Salzburg which failed twice. People don´t trust the officials any longer. Not to talk about Sweden which failed nine times. Will they ever get the Games? The money the bid organisations will spend are an important prerequisition to get into the final round.
Link to post
Share on other sites
From whom did you get this number. As I know PyoengChang spend billions of USD during several years into their venues and infrastructure. PC also was favorite for 2010. After Salt Lake City and Torino the candidate should have been PC and not Vancouver. But Vancouver got it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here are the 2010 Candidature budgets:

Andorra - 3,25 mil $

Berne - 7,50 mil $

Harbin - 9,80 mil $

Jaca - 2,9 mil $

Pyeongchang - 2,4 mil $

Salzburg - 6,5 mil $

Sarajevo - 5,4 mil $

Vancouver - 21,5 mil $

Source: Mini bid books

Seems that only Vancouver and Harbid had bigger budget tha Sofia's for 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now it´s clear why Vancouver won. So the budget shoudl go into this direction to win 2014.

Yes, but see Pc and Salzburg and Berns budgets - they got into the final and had good chances to win, so 5-7 mil $ seems to be enough, of course the more the better

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, let´s see. Budget seems to be important but htere are also other points that will count at the end.

Of course.

Another thing - what do you think about the Games budgets? Sofia plans to spend 1,3 billion$

Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all Sofia has to spend a lot of the 1.3 billion for infrastructure et and not for useless things. It´s good for Sofia, that never had anything comparable to the Games. This will push the whole region. It doesn´t matter if they win or not, they surely will have a big benefit of the bid.
Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all Sofia has to spend a lot of the 1.3 billion for infrastructure et and not for useless things. It´s good for Sofia, that never had anything comparable to the Games. This will push the whole region. It doesn´t matter if they win or not, they surely will have a big benefit of the bid.

What budget had Sarajevo 1984?

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the report of the Nagano Prefucture Investigation Group regarding Nagano´s bid for 1998, they have spent 4.4 million USD only to entertain IOC members. That´s the way they got the Games. In total Nagano spent 24 million USD that´s twice of Salt Lake City´s budget. This shows us the unconscionable behaviour of some IOC members, which soon should take their hat and leave IOC. Accepting a huge amount of gifts is not acceptable for a member of IOC. It´s no surprise that several IOC members had a lot of problems during the last time with corruption etc. This is not in accordance with the Olympic charta, the movement etc. What shall we think about the decisions in the last year? Did there happened the same? IOC have to be reorganised with a lot of new, non corruptable people. This is also the case for the other big organisations like FIFA and UEFA.

What do you think about people that accept gifts and entertainment cost of more than 50,000 USD? Actions like this will bring bankruptcy to a lot of bid cities, as seen in the past. That´s not acceptable. There have to be reforms from the base to have a better IOC and sport. Things like Nagano have to be prevented for the future. Have a look at the GamesBids report.

When these IOC members don´t want to go, IOC should eliminate them from the board. IOC has to show resoluteness for a clear and clean organisation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They offeren Juan S. a Samurai sword, worth 13.000 USD. When he got it as president of IOC, that´s ok. So the sword should be somewhere in Lausanne. But when he has taken it home to open his letters ...That´s a big difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites
They offeren Juan S. a Samurai sword, worth 13.000 USD. When he got it as president of IOC, that´s ok. So the sword should be somewhere in Lausanne. But when he has taken it home to open his letters ...That´s a big difference.

As was mentioned on the thread on Nagano in the past bids forum, this was just standard practice in bidding at the time (late 1980s-early 1990s). It may not have been right, but it was the way anybody bidding knew it had to be done. And it wasn't just the IOC _even in my job, the period was one of lots of corporate "gifts", tickets for overseas travel, free dinners and lunches etc. It took the recession of the 1990s to cut such things back in the business world, and it took the whistle-blowing scandals of the late 1990s for the IOC to be brought to heel.

Sure things aren't perfect now, but they're a LOT better. Could you imagine the largesse that would have been spent on the 2012 race under the old (lack of) rules!

Link to post
Share on other sites
They offeren Juan S. a Samurai sword, worth 13.000 USD. When he got it as president of IOC, that´s ok. So the sword should be somewhere in Lausanne. But when he has taken it home to open his letters ...That´s a big difference.

Wherever is this Sword (Olympic Museum or Samaranch personal Kitchen), the amount is outrageous.... Why candidate city would have to offer gift of this amount ?????

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not only a problem of the president, as we have seen a lot of other IOC members still get gifts etc. When the gifts would be used for the museums or for public use, this would be ok. But it seems they all got these things for private use.
Link to post
Share on other sites
IOC named Nagano "history". The fact is that most f the same people that were there in 1998 are also sitting in IOC today. To say this is history is easy doing, as IOC don´t want to investigate in this issue. The IOC speaker also was talking about reforms the IOC has made regarding the bidding process. What reforms does she mean? I´m not surprised that IOC has no interest in this issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites

IOC named Nagano "history". The fact is that most f the same people that were there in 1998 are also sitting in IOC today. To say this is history is easy doing, as IOC don´t want to investigate in this issue. The IOC speaker also was talking about reforms the IOC has made regarding the bidding process. What reforms does she mean? I´m not surprised that IOC has no interest in this issue.

Zenica, I see you need a bit of an update _ maybe you are too young to know of what happened within the IOC in the past 10 years.

Yes, the IOC DID enact reforms after the whole bidding bribery scandals came out into the open when the Swiss member Hodler spilled the beans in the late 1990s. The so-called "Salt Lake City" scandal (and before any of my American friends take umbrage, let me reassure you, OF COURSE most other bid cities at the time were doing similar things _ I'm the last to say that ANY bidding city in the 1990s, Sydney included, was clean).

This resulted in about five or six IOC members being expelled, inquiries by both the IOC and the US Government, and changes to bidding rules such as the present bans on travel to bidding cities by IOC members, limits on value of "gifts", curtailment of lobbying and hospitality.

In fact, when it came to the 2012 race, many of the bid committees complained that many of these new rules were too restrictive and that the balance had shifted too far the other way.

Nagano won its bid more than 15 years ago now _ it  IS history! The bid campaigns operate under different rules now. No system is ever likely to be perfect, but the IOC well and truly got their arses kicked in 1999 about their past corruption and are VERY sensitive to be perceived now as more fair. Whether or not they are is another question, but at least they recognised the problem and are trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, but they have eliminated only a very few. Most of the members are sitting in IOC since several decades. That means most of them were there during the Nagano times(...).

Rogge should reform his IOC instead of hailing host cities like Beijing today.

By the way: FIFA has cancelled the opening ceremony for football world cup 2006 in Berlin. This will reduce the costs (about 25 million Euro). Another lack besides the problems with the stadiums, but on the other hand not so bad. Also the other big sport organisations should reform their etablishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough zenica, for once I agree with you. Reforms should be ongoing. The IOC can't really just think everything is solved right now. But the point I made is, that they DID do reforms, they DID get rid of some of the most corrupt members from the time and they at least realise that they have to appear a bit more honest.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Like FIFA now has cancelled the very expensive opening ceremony for World Cup 2006 in Germany, the other organisations like IOC or UEFA also should think about something similar. This would reduce the costs of the events.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Except when it comes to the Olympics, the Opening Ceremony is one of the most popular events. It's also by far the highest rating event of the Olympics when it comes to television coverage. For this reason alone, the IOC would NEVER get rid of the OC.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...