CWGs to end - a "What if?"

[Alexjc]

We all hope for Glasgow to pull off what will need to be an incrediable miracle...and see that Gold Coast can hang in there to ensure a safe pair of hands in 2018. (considering that bid may not be as robust as first thought)

Considering the low point the 2010 games has left the entire movement in. The ridiculous costs, lack of international competitive credibility and the fact that the glamour events no longer attract the 'BIG' names...(Micheal Johnson's comments pretty much proves it)...If the Games just become to unviable, how would the Commonwealth Games Federation begin the process of winding up the movement...

What are you takes on this fellow GB forum participants?

[Rafa]

what ridiculous costs?

[LuigiVercotti]

what ridiculous costs?

Approximately $6.8 billion dollars US as cited by the Indian financial magazine Business Today does sound amazingly inflated and ridiculous considering the shambolic state of Delhi's preparations and the inability of this wealth of public investment to filter through to the most needy of locals who worked on the delivery of the games, or failed to receive the supposed boost in tourism the games failed to deliver.

Obviously Glasgow wont need to spend this kind of money but Hamnbantota threatens to have a similar huge impost on the Sri Lankan economy thanks to the paucity of infrastructure in this backwater port.

[Detroit]

Make it youth oriented. Only way that this thing goes on managebly.

[Sir Rols]

Why limit it to the Commies? If we're gonna go up this path, what about also asking when such equal, or even lesser, profile events like the Pan-Ams, Asiads and All-Africans should end?

[baron-pierreIV]

The problem with the Commies grabbing more world attention is that it does NOT include 5 of the world's 6 top sporting nations: the USA, Russia, China, Germany and Brazil. Only Australia is in there. But it's still a good. x-continental mix during the off-Olympic Summer year.

[Sir Rols]

The problem with the Commies grabbing more world attention is that it does NOT include 5 of the world's 6 top sporting nations: the USA, Russia, China, Germany and Brazil. Only Australia is in there. But it's still a good. x-continental mix during the off-Olympic Summer year.

But none of the others attract more than one of them either (and actually, I think it's a bit ambitious to put Brazil in the top six list just yet - not even top 10 yet IMO, apart from football). Pan-Ams have the US and then ...? The Asiads China and then daylight. All-Africans have ... well, nobody among the sports powers.

All of them are second-tier games. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's only one Olympics, and the rest are just appetisers.

[Texas]

The problem with the Commies grabbing more world attention is that it does NOT include 5 of the world's 6 top sporting nations: the USA, Russia, China, Germany and Brazil. Only Australia is in there. But it's still a good. x-continental mix during the off-Olympic Summer year.

I don't know about Brazil, but I know that the United States doesn't send their best athletes to the Pan Ams. They would not send their best to the Commies either had USA been a member.

[LuigiVercotti]

The problem with the Commies grabbing more world attention is that it does NOT include 5 of the world's 6 top sporting nations: the USA, Russia, China, Germany and Brazil. Only Australia is in there. But it's still a good. x-continental mix during the off-Olympic Summer year.

It might be relatively unscientific but I suspect if any regional/second tier games had the right to be retained purely on the sporting success/capabilities of the competing nations the Asiads are the most important relevant. Basing the results from Beijing, China (1st in Beijing), South Korea (7th) and Japan (9th) each participate in the Asiads and whilst it's hard to correlate athlete participation across the two major events it would be expected that having 3 top 10 nations at your regional games makes it more significant than the rivals. The Commonwealth Games would come second thanks to Britain (4th in Beijing), Australia (6th) and then outside the top 10 Jamaica (13th) and Kenya (15th). Canada's involvement in either the Pan Ams nor the Commonwealth Games would merit boosting the prestige of either event (19th in Beijing) whilst the US is far and away the only major top team in the Pan Ams from Beijing (2nd). Aside from Jamaica, Brazil was 23rd in Beijing then Argentina and Mexico each in 34th.

So with the absence of a European regional games it must be said that on these stats the Commonwealth Games are not as strong as the Asiads but stronger than the Pan Ams. Question is how many of the Beijing medallists have or will turn up at the relevant regional games...

[Rafa]

Approximately $6.8 billion dollars US as cited by the Indian financial magazine Business Today does sound amazingly inflated and ridiculous considering the shambolic state of Delhi's preparations and the inability of this wealth of public investment to filter through to the most needy of locals who worked on the delivery of the games, or failed to receive the supposed boost in tourism the games failed to deliver.

Obviously Glasgow wont need to spend this kind of money but Hamnbantota threatens to have a similar huge impost on the Sri Lankan economy thanks to the paucity of infrastructure in this backwater port.

Beijing also cost a lot but that was a choice.

Build what you need. If you overspend on lavish venues, well then thats up to you.

Most cities have basic CWG venues in place already and simply require temporary seats. Use your convention centres/exhibition centres.

This "blame the Games" for the cost excuse has passed its expiry date.

[LuigiVercotti]

It is entirely appropriate to pause and ponder the ridiculous costs of hosting a CGs (and they are ridiculous whether you are talking about Delhi or Melbourne or Manchester, or looking forward to possibly the Gold Coast or Hambantota) because unlike Beijing (which whilst no doubt a huge sink hole for Chinese investment) the recent and future host cities are holding an event which ultimately has less relevance and less reason for continuing than the Olympics. Plus, unlike the Olympics which have the whole world to draw upon (hence making the economic cost of hosting such an event more equitably distributed) the CGs are effectively limited to 5 or 6 first world nations and the rest of the countries are third world economies/polities.

If the CGs were of a standard in terms of financial returns and international sporting prestige, and could be less of an impost on the hosting city/nation in terms of the overall wealth of the local economy then the issue of cost would go away. Plus there is also the inbuilt attitudinal approach from recent past hosts as well as potential future ones (yes, both Hambantota and the Gold Coats are guilty of this) of not necessarily following the the temporary austere models of venue delivery but instead being lavish. Yes, you can blame the hosts for spending that much but when it has been de rigeur to splash the cash who will be the first to actually tell the CGF "No, we won't build or renovate the 40,000 capacity stadium for athletics; we'll put in a temporary 20,000 stadium." Additionally considering self-replicating issues of hosting any major international sporting event (such as the Olympics, CGs or FIFA World Cup) you can't simply reduce the capacity of the venues or limit expenditure without hurting the actual games infrastructure and prestige.

Right now the CGs have a questionable present and a questionable future and like the chicken and the egg argument whether the expense comes with the games or the games come with the expense it doesn't really matter about creating hypothetical models of fiscal restraint. For their influence on world sport, Commonwealth relations and most importantly the ability for Commonwealth nations to continue to host such a diminishing event the cost is now a vital concern. Delhi was the CG's Montreal...sad to say I don't see any LA's or Barcelona's out there to revive them.

[Rafa]

Why are the costs ridiculous? Build what you need. What you don't need...well that's your own fault.

If you're building your first hockey venue, velodrome, indoor arena, medium sized athletics venue, and other venues you actually need, add them up and you end up with a huge figure but remove the Games and your city may not have provided these facilities in such a short time frame.

We can ponder and debate the costs all we like, but cities make the decisions as to how large and extravagant venues should be. Yes, Melbourne, and even Manchester spent quite a bit, but that happens when you are simultaneously building venues you actually need, and the cost is high when you add everything up but if it offers a real legacy well then the cost is really just mathematics...new college residendes, a well used velodrome, a well used Manchester City Stadium, innovative use of indoor spaces, appropriate use of aquatic and other small scale indoor venues etc etc.

Yes, the CWG have a questionable future, but you still should only build what you need, and negotiate where venue capacities dip below the CWG requirements.

If you don't want a 40,000 seat athletics stadium, build a 20,000 seat stadium and get Nussli to put the remaining 20,000 temporary seats up for the duration of the Games. Now you see it, now you don't.

Modular technology and the efficiency of those providing both venue and general Games overlay structures, has reached a point where, cities can essentially deliver almost entirely temporary Games or "choose" venues capaciites that suit their needs.

[LuigiVercotti]

Why are the costs ridiculous? Build what you need. What you don't need...well that's your own fault.

If you're building your first hockey venue, velodrome, indoor arena, medium sized athletics venue, and other venues you actually need, add them up and you end up with a huge figure but remove the Games and your city may not have provided these facilities in such a short time frame.

We can ponder and debate the costs all we like, but cities make the decisions as to how large and extravagant venues should be. Yes, Melbourne, and even Manchester spent quite a bit, but that happens when you are simultaneously building venues you actually need, and the cost is high when you add everything up but if it offers a real legacy well then the cost is really just mathematics...new college residendes, a well used velodrome, a well used Manchester City Stadium, innovative use of indoor spaces, appropriate use of aquatic and other small scale indoor venues etc etc.

Yes, the CWG have a questionable future, but you still should only build what you need, and negotiate where venue capacities dip below the CWG requirements.

If you don't want a 40,000 seat athletics stadium, build a 20,000 seat stadium and get Nussli to put the remaining 20,000 temporary seats up for the duration of the Games. Now you see it, now you don't.

Modular technology and the efficiency of those providing both venue and general Games overlay structures, has reached a point where, cities can essentially deliver almost entirely temporary Games or "choose" venues capaciites that suit their needs.

Mo, surely your recent experience with the World Cup in South Africa would give you the insight to understand that what may sound like a reasonable hypothesis of using more and more temporary venues is the way to deliver a more cost effective major international sporting event is just a specious wish in the realpolitik of international sporting festivals. And considering both the disparate strength in economic and sporting power that FIFA can summon up contrasted with the CGs, the imbalance is even more pronounced against the costs of hosting a CGs. The strange bedfellows that make up international sporting bodies like the CGF, municipal and state and national governments, and local businessmen and lobbyists all prefer to drive the games (whether they be Olympic, CG or WC etc) towards the 'bigger is better' model.

Throw in the cost of an athlete's village (which is where Delhi particularly had issues and considering the potential modelling of Hambantota also a problem there) and the problems inherent with the limited appeal and access to potential CG hosts and the costs are becoming unsupportable. And that's putting aside the social cost (which again as demonstrated in Delhi) of an event whose relevance is in far more question than the Olympics or the World Cup.

[Rafa]

Mo, surely your recent experience with the World Cup in South Africa would give you the insight to understand that what may sound like a reasonable hypothesis of using more and more temporary venues is the way to deliver a more cost effective major international sporting event is just a specious wish in the realpolitik of international sporting festivals. And considering both the disparate strength in economic and sporting power that FIFA can summon up contrasted with the CGs, the imbalance is even more pronounced against the costs of hosting a CGs. The strange bedfellows that make up international sporting bodies like the CGF, municipal and state and national governments, and local businessmen and lobbyists all prefer to drive the games (whether they be Olympic, CG or WC etc) towards the 'bigger is better' model.

Throw in the cost of an athlete's village (which is where Delhi particularly had issues and considering the potential modelling of Hambantota also a problem there) and the problems inherent with the limited appeal and access to potential CG hosts and the costs are becoming unsupportable. And that's putting aside the social cost (which again as demonstrated in Delhi) of an event whose relevance is in far more question than the Olympics or the World Cup.

Its not a wish at all. FIFA would have none of it, when the it was first mentioned that Durban and Cape Town would use temporary seating, the scaffolding type. With time, South Africa eventually got it right, which will now open the doors for future hosts, to deliver FIFA WC venues that meet WC capacity and have a sizeable temporary element e.g. 12,000 in Cape Town and about the same in Durban.

Given the extensive use of temporary seating at multi-sport events, the case for using these in even more creative ways has been explored and will likely get more support from the CWG Federation.

Without a doubt many will drive the Games towards "bigger is better", but there is no reason why you can't market your bid as "bigger is better", and then build appropriately sized venues after the Games.

The athlete's village is definitely a cost, and a giant project, but in cities where housing is needed, its a major legacy. Throw in a social component or an affordable element and you're gone some way to meeting the housing demand of a particular city. The risk of such a large project are there for all to see but the fixed deadline of a CWG games or Olympic Games means good quality apartments/homes can be delivered. While the Rio 2016 concept is extremely risk in terms of delivering about 25,000 rooms in villages, this couldbe one of the single largest legacies of the Rio Games, by providing what Rio actually needs...i.e more homes, not more hotels.

In an ideal world, cities would build the facilities they need, build homes they need, and deliver infrastructure they need within the 7 year time frame a major event usually offers, but in reality these deadlines are key for many cities or countries,

I'm certainly not about to propose hosting the CW Games or FIFA WC as a means to ending all social ills or as THE event to target to get a new hockey field, but this may be the case for several cities. For cities like Melbourne, with most venues in place, the focus turns towards the athletes village and modifications to existing venues, generally deriving maximum benefit from what should be a "lower cost" Games.

For other cities, its a 7 year deadline to start major BRT projects, complete airport rail links, start new high speed train projects. Not always Games essential but feeding off the Games deadline to get things done. How far cities align their city visions with what the Games requires will differ greatly, but those who do build what they need, and see a major event as accelerating both sports and non-sports infrastructure, can turn a huge "games cost" into a huge city investment.

[LuigiVercotti]

Mo, your points all have merit but you are straying from your original concern (i.e. the ridiculous cost of the CGs) and also you yourself point out the biggest flaw in your argument when you refer to CGs not being used as a means to ending all social ills in a bidding city for a CGs. Whilst the extent would vary from city to city the likes of Manchester, Melbourne, Delhi, Glasgow and future bids from the Gold Coast and Hambantota are actually citing this approach as part of their raison d'etre for hosting or wanting the CGs. Putting aside the World Cup and the Olympics as they are utterly separate sporting constructs with differing levels on international support and exposure, the cost in revamping or rebuilding or indeed creating the basic infrastructure (as in both Delhi's and Hambantota's respective cases) is often sold to the CGF and to the local public/investors/government as a means to addrssing perceived social ills such as insufficent housing, bad transport, better telecommunications, tourism infrastructure etc etc. Now in the case of a Melbourne of a Glasgow that has or will be done reasonably well without too much of a burden on the local economy and society. Plus the relevance and interest in the CGs has been or will be more potent as a factor in making the games viable. However with Delhi, potentially Hambantota and other third world Commonwealth future hosts this isn't a given. Even with the benefit of more creative temporary venue structures (which are yet to economically and socially prove their worth in the CG context) the Federation can't go back to the same first world cities without prejudicing interest in the games, nor can the agreement between host and federation guarantee a financially and socially successful games in poorer less capable cities such as Delhi etc. The Commonwealth Games are an overpriced luxury with declining relevance no matter whether the venues are temporary or not, within a diminishing circle of interested potential hosts (as demonstrated by the unwillngness of South Africa to bid) who can justify the cost benefit to their local populace whilst providing a successful, socially responsible games.

To put it another way, there is no chance for the CGF to match the success of Vancouver 2010 or Sydney 2000 in terms of cost benefit related to infrastructure and social benefits because ultimately the Commonwealth Games are an overpriced sporting commodity with marginal interest in a far more limited market. There is no compact between the CGF and future hosts to guarantee either costs will diminish or relevance, interest and marketability will improve. And all the while those responsible for selling the CGs as a sporting event are relying on the same methodlogy and the same ideas that have contributed to the potentially fatally flawed lead up to Delhi. There has to be a conscious and committed agreement between the CGF and all interested parties to reduce the size and expense of all aspects of the games whilst improving the size and profitability of the appropriate market for the event, and this all has to be done without selling out the supposed soul of 'the Friendly Games'. Methinks it's mission impossible...

[Rafa]

I will reply with more detail later, but whether you use the Olympic Games or the CWG or the Youth Olympic Games, the benefit of a fixed deadline for building infrastructure you actually need remains the same. An airport rail-link built with a CWG or OG or Youth Olympics deadline remains a beneficial airport rail link. An athletes village built under the CWG or under the OG will offer the same legacy, the CWG perhaps even reducing the cost of this housing project due to the lower profile of these Games, meaning contractors include a lower risk contingency reserve in the tender quote/price.

If you want to factor in glamour and marketing, then obviously do not use the CWG as your deadline, but a hockey venue of an appropriate size built for any multi-sport event leaves the same legacy if build according to what the city needs.

I couldn't care less if CT uses a World Champs or OG or CWG to get the "planned" aquatic centre completed.

The Games becomes a luxury when you build what you don't need. In an ideal world, as I've said above many cities would not need these luxuries and Cape Town would not need the WC to get the first phase of its BRT project underway, but its due to the WC that its even underway with funding secured, and naive to believe otherwise.

My main interest remains the legacy of sports and non-sports venues, and using an event to get things done is justified.