Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Precisely why I support a Toronto bid. While I don't want to bring Canadian politics into this, but it's the only time the feds in Ottawa would ever help build something in Toronto. Politicians want the city to look completely awesome for the Olympics and will care so much to make it look better. Vancouver got a brand new rapid transit line which goes to the airport, the aptly named Canada Line (paid for by the Feds no less). Toronto has one of the worst commuting times in the develeoped world, but as I am going on a tangent I'll stop. But it's kinda sad that we have to look at hosting a 2 week event, where people from around the world will show up and compete, we must make our infrastructure top notch. But to hell with the citizens who actually live and pay taxes in the city.

As the dark side of the Olympic Games are being discussed here, it is a wonder, are there still many cities who want to chase the Olympics, or do many nowadays see it as a curse. I mean Sochi must be a lesson and fewer cities probably won't even want to host the Olympics. The citizenry of southern Ontario especially overwhelming vehemently opposed an Olympic Bid. As many here see the Pan American Games as being a financial boondoggle, which it kinda is. Someone here said that SLC needed a bailout, is this true? We are especially in times, in North America at least, where people are very critical of government spending, citizens when they hear about the downfalls of many Olympics won't even want to touch the games at all.

It's the 70's all over again...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

But the question is, what is the long-term investment? Ok, so people won't recover every dime by the time the Games end, but what is the long-term payoff? Happy memories?

There is no long-term payoff. Infrastructure improvements would be undertaken with or without the Games, the Olympics just influence the timing of them. I don't believe there is a long-term benefit for the host and that's why the Games need to be modified so to that the host can at least break even.

That can happen in the US without a devastating drop in quality. IF the IOC were to come to the US in 2024, that would be a sensible reason to do so. That said, I'm not at all sure it's in the US' best interests to host in 2024.

It depends a lot on the city. In New York, a lot of the infrastructure improvements proposed by the Olympics did in fact get done in the years following the Olympics. In addition, since 2005, the NYC area has seen 2 new baseball stadiums built, a new football stadium, a soccer stadium, 2 new arenas, and a major renovation to the city's main arena. So yea, that all happened in spite of the Olympics not coming here. As opposed to Chicago.. they renovated their stadium before the Olympic bid and I'm not so sure what has or hasn't happened in the city since 2009.

Then there's Atlanta. The Georgia Dome probably gets built regardless of the Olympics. But does Olympic Stadium/Turner Field get built? Does Georgia Tech get its aquatic center turned recreation center? And what about LA which gave us the swim stadium? The additions/improvements to the airport that came as a direct result of the Olympics?

I'm sure every city has its fair share of projects that came about because of the Olympics and did leave a legacy that benefited the city after the Games. It's true that stadiums and arenas are rarely a moneymaker for a city, but the alternative is for that team to pick up and leave town to move elsewhere. Happened in Los Angeles. Happened in Atlanta as well. And then you have college and universities who use those facilities to benefit themselves. On the winter side, the need for training facilities that don't get built without the Olympics. How many times have we said here how eventually, the IOC probably needs to hold an Olympics in the United States or else interest might wane in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the dark side of the Olympic Games are being discussed here, it is a wonder, are there still many cities who want to chase the Olympics, or do many nowadays see it as a curse. I mean Sochi must be a lesson and fewer cities probably won't even want to host the Olympics. The citizenry of southern Ontario especially overwhelming vehemently opposed an Olympic Bid. As many here see the Pan American Games as being a financial boondoggle, which it kinda is. Someone here said that SLC needed a bailout, is this true? We are especially in times, in North America at least, where people are very critical of government spending, citizens when they hear about the downfalls of many Olympics won't even want to touch the games at all.

Sochi isn't really a lesson for anything other than to remind the rest of the world that, like Beijing, what they're doing couldn't and probably shouldn't be duplicated. That's what, in part, I fear would scare off other countries. The thought that they might be up against competition like that and may not be able to compete is a daunting proposition.

And what you said doesn't just apply to North America.. we're seeing it all over Europe that governments are exercising caution not to spend large amounts of money on the Olympics. These are tough economic times over a lot of the world, so it remains a tough sell as to how to make it work for them, as opposed to a China or a Russia with seemingly endless amounts of money to put on their Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy that interest will wane in the Olympics in the US if it doesn't host. Many countries go without hosting and still have huge interest in the Olympics - look at France.

I've always said it could, we just haven't seen it play out yet. But that you mention a country like France, they don't have a half dozen very prominent sports leagues (not to mention college sports) competing for attention like we do here. Frankly, it amazes me sometimes how the Olympics can still draw the audiences it does. The interest in the Olympics has a tendency to ebb and flow, but we've only gone 12 years since the last Olympics here. It's going to be at least 10 more (and probably more than that) before the next Olympics here. We are seeing a trend in this country of embracing international sport which certainly bodes well for the Olympics, but if the US starts to slide down the medal table, that could reduce some interest in the games. Again, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but there may not always be NBC and Comcast there with their wallet wide open to line the IOC's pockets with television money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mr. bernham, I don't know where you got that article from, but I do question the logic where Sydney was not a huge international city, but that Atlanta was an established and well-developed international city. That's a load of crap. Now I can tell you from experience of having been in Barcelona recently (and Athens alluded to it earlier) that their revitalization and transformation began long before the Olympics were there. It has as much to do with the end of the Franco regime as anything, The Olympics were merely the icing on the cake where the entire world got to see the new Barcelona, and I'd probably call it my favorite city I've visited in Europe.

I wrote the 'article' on word during a study skills class. Sydney was a global city but in '93 it was not a global city like NYC, Paris, etc. The Olympics really made it an even larger city in the short term. Atlanta was an overly commercialized city when they held their games. And while Barcelona was a major city, it was not top notch or the first place you would think of to host the games; alas the games greatly changed that. Even leaders in the Sydney Bid Committee said that about Barcelona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote the 'article' on word during a study skills class. Sydney was a global city but in '93 it was not a global city like NYC, Paris, etc. The Olympics really made it an even larger city in the short term. Atlanta was an overly commercialized city when they held their games. And while Barcelona was a major city, it was not top notch or the first place you would think of to host the games; alas the games greatly changed that. Even leaders in the Sydney Bid Committee said that about Barcelona.

Had a suspicion that was written by a high school student. No, Sydney is not a global city on the scale of New York or Paris. Doesn't mean they're not a global city though. The big 4.. New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo are in a class of their own. Yes, Atlanta was an overly commercialized city, but we only saw that in full force BECAUSE of the Olympics. And again, Barcelona wasn't top notch 15-20 years before their Olympics because of Generalisimo Franco. The Olympics helped that transformation, but to compare the post-1992 Barcelona to what was there in the before the 1980s isn't being fair to what truly drove the transformation of that city.

Look, I'm with you that the Olympics do great things for some cities and that Barcelona is the prime example of this. But if you're gonna compare that to an Atlanta or a Beijing, try to put into context where the starting point is if that's your basis of comparison for past or future Olympic cities. You did a little too much to try and frame your argument to suit your conclusions. Should be the other way around if you want to make your point a little better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

, as opposed to a China or a Russia with seemingly endless amounts of money to put on their Olympics.

I'd rather Russia and China spend their billions on Olympics-type facilities and infrastructure rather than on building up theirs militaries once again...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit of the Olympics is that it enables you to establish a ton of infrastructure and urban planning improvements in a single campaign. It also provides a lot of publicity politicians and planners can use to sell a plan to the citizens. If Barcelona had not hosted the Olympics it's unlikely it would have gotten the infrastructure improvements it did. An Olympiad held in a blighted city like Baltimore could be used to push through a lot of necessary changes the public might not have the stomach for otherwise.

I can accept that to a degree. I'm not sure about "a ton," but "more than normal" I can agree with. I just don't think the public is going to be totally bamboozled into a total overhaul just because the Olympics are coming to town. Not in an American city.

I think our federal (sports) interests might also be occupied at that time by World Cup 2026.

Ugh. In bed with FIFA? I hope not.

I don't buy that interest will wane in the Olympics in the US if it doesn't host. Many countries go without hosting and still have huge interest in the Olympics - look at France.

Well, the only way to know for sure is to wait and see. I think interest will gradually fall off. It's a different era. I used to think it would be catastrophic if the US audience waned, but I'm not so sure. I can envision a scenario where the Olympics become so bloated that they basically die of obesity. There's a season for everything. I doubt even the modern Olympics will go on forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the only way to know for sure is to wait and see. I think interest will gradually fall off. It's a different era. I used to think it would be catastrophic if the US audience waned, but I'm not so sure. I can envision a scenario where the Olympics become so bloated that they basically die of obesity. There's a season for everything. I doubt even the modern Olympics will go on forever.

Relative to how sharply television ratings have fallen off for some events like the World Series, it still amazes me the Olympics can draw the type of attention they do, particularly in a sports culture like we have in this country where even when sports leagues are not in season, they're still grabbing headlines. And I think the Olympics is a great event for the digital world.. social media brings us together for something going on halfway around the world, and there are so many events and sports being contested, there's something for everyone's taste. There will always be those that don't give a rats ass about the Olympics, especially since they only come around for a couple of weeks every other year. But I think so long as a network like NBC is there (for all their faults) to treat it like it's the biggest thing out there, there will be interest. Whether or not the Olympics will (or have already) become too big for their britches is another story entirely, of course

Link to post
Share on other sites

Relative to how sharply television ratings have fallen off for some events like the World Series, it still amazes me the Olympics can draw the type of attention they do, particularly in a sports culture like we have in this country where even when sports leagues are not in season, they're still grabbing headlines. And I think the Olympics is a great event for the digital world.. social media brings us together for something going on halfway around the world, and there are so many events and sports being contested, there's something for everyone's taste. There will always be those that don't give a rats ass about the Olympics, especially since they only come around for a couple of weeks every other year. But I think so long as a network like NBC is there (for all their faults) to treat it like it's the biggest thing out there, there will be interest. Whether or not the Olympics will (or have already) become too big for their britches is another story entirely, of course

The Olympics may be big in the US, and this is only a hypothesis from me. Think of those great performing "stars" that win many gold medals. Like Phelps or Lochte in the pool. Or the dominance that happened (although not so recently) in the track events. Check out how many of the gold sprinters in the 100m were from the US, considering as we all know that is the most popular event in the Olympics. Consider other popular people, even in the winter olympics, like Shaun White.

Conversely, I'm not sure on Olympic ratings in Canada, but it seems most people in Canada don't care much for the Summer Olympics, (although I enjoy it WAY more) this can be attributed to the relative poor performance of athletes in Canada. Last time around in London, Only one gold medal was won from Canada.

But what you say about medal performance of the US will directly correllate into ratings, think of F1, no Americans in it, and practically no one gives a crap about it in North America to be honest. Does NBC ever cover a handball event in the Olympics, I wouldn't think so.

As for the World Series, it is what it is, still a fallout from the 1994 Strike. As we know, that killed baseball and it still has not fully recovered since then. Compare that to the Super Bowl, that has relatively remained stable in ratings and has had a small upswing in recent years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything kills the Olympics, it won't be American TV, it'll be the bid cycle where no cities want them.

There will always be the likes of Baku or Doha around, leaving the IOC no choice but to hand it to them if they don't want to skip the Games entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the US they can afford to, and have the power to, do both.

Which is why I expressed that wish -- and which you so graciously like remind us. (Some ally you are.) And actually, the US could still afford to do so, if it chose to do so and were mad and insecure enough as those 2 totalitarian states to go down that path again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I expressed that wish -- and which you so graciously like remind us. (Some ally you are.) And actually, the US could still afford to do so, if it chose to do so and were mad and insecure enough as those 2 totalitarian states to go down that path again.

The problem is convincing the officials with a US bid with the price. They don't realize that for example a 3.6 billion dollar bid isn't that expensive compared to previous olympics like london or in 2 weeks sochi.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is convincing the officials with a US bid with the price. They don't realize that for example a 3.6 billion dollar bid isn't that expensive compared to previous olympics like london or in 2 weeks sochi.

A*bid* of that size would be slightly overpriced...

And good luck with trying to really *host* the Summer Games of current times with a price tag of 3.6 bn USD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A*bid* of that size would be slightly overpriced...

And good luck with trying to really *host* the Summer Games of current times with a price tag of 3.6 bn USD.

I would say that 10.5 bn USD with a predicted 5.5 bn USD over-budget is certainly feasible and is what the IOC needs to get people interested in the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A*bid* of that size would be slightly overpriced...

And good luck with trying to really *host* the Summer Games of current times with a price tag of 3.6 bn USD.

I said for example

I would say that 10.5 bn USD with a predicted 5.5 bn USD over-budget is certainly feasible and is what the IOC needs to get people interested in the games.

Depends on the security and venue situation the city has.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...