Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No, but when you have LA proposing and 90,000 - 100,000 historic stadium as the main stadium then these little nit picky things do matter. If Boston can come up with a brilliant plan and make up somewhere else then so be it, but until then this little things will add up.

Or maybe the IOC and USOC start to ask themselves why a 90k seat arena is better than a 60k seat one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Boston, Massachusetts is taking the first big steps towards looking into the feasibility of a Summer Games bid for the earliest year 2024. On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the MA State Senate file a Re

Oslo was an abortion - Boston is a miscarriage.

We prefer "Masshole" to "total douche".

Or maybe the IOC and USOC start to ask themselves why a 90k seat arena is better than a 60k seat one.

I don't disagree with this, but in terms of money a 90k arena equals more tickets sold which means more money. Short term they are not always the best, but it all depends on the host and how they use it. I can think of many stadiums above 60k that are still in use today and not white elephants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with this, but in terms of money a 90k arena equals more tickets sold which means more money. Short term they are not always the best, but it all depends on the host and how they use it. I can think of many stadiums above 60k that are still in use today and not white elephants.

Bernham, an 80,000 T&F stadium usually only sells out at the OC, and the finals for like the 100m run and like the 4x400 relay races. During the Paralympics, I doubt that it even ever sells out. At least with a 30,000 seater, then can always say that nearly every event was a SELL-OUT!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernham, an 80,000 T&F stadium usually only sells out at the OC, and the finals for like the 100m run and like the 4x400 relay races. During the Paralympics, I doubt that it even ever sells out. At least with a 30,000 seater, then can always say that nearly every event was a SELL-OUT!!!

Every session in London was sold out. Every session in a US Olympics would be sold out, I can guarantee that. T&F is a top 3 Olympic sport in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every session in London was sold out. Every session in a US Olympics would be sold out, I can guarantee that. T&F is a top 3 Olympic sport in the US.

Yeah, but NOT every Olympics will be held in the US or the UK -- even if TELA had his way which is NOT going to be the case. And now for London, what are they doing to do with that Stadium? It's another white elephant no one really loves...and like the cauldron, it wasn't built to hang around for the next 100 years. So even this idea of temporary stadia is kinda stupid and economically foolish. If you can spend under $50 mil for a temp T&F stadium, then it makes sense...but not if it's more than that.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every session in London was sold out. Every session in a US Olympics would be sold out, I can guarantee that. T&F is a top 3 Olympic sport in the US.

Huh who told you that!? media. They made some huge mistakes with the way they did ticketing.

The only actual sellouts were Track cycling, triathlon, rhythmic gymnastics, modern pentathlon, equestrian cross country most swimming, tennis, Volleyball and both the opening and closing ceremonies.

There were THOUSANDS of visable empty seats at all the biggest events including the ones listed above and more then one fith to HALF of those events are reserved free for "family" and sponsors not sold to the public so those free empty seats lay empry with no show and the public gets to stand outside wondering why they can't buy those tickets.

Opening and Closing are the only time you need that kind of capacity and they can also supplement with temporary seating.

plus why not for the people who can't afford it you charge half for a viewing area with huge screens and sound in another stadium or outdoors like they did in Rio for the world cup?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but NOT every Olympics will be held in the US or the UK -- even if TELA had his way which is NOT going to be the case. And now for London, what are they doing to do with that Stadium? It's another white elephant no one really loves...and like the cauldron, it wasn't built to hang around for the next 100 years. So even this idea of temporary stadia is kinda stupid and economically foolish. If you can spend under $50 mil for a temp T&F stadium, then it makes sense...but not if it's more than that.

London's stadium will be converted into the new home for West Ham United or some soccer team, I don't really know or care which one. And the 80,000 guideline is only for the US. 60,000 isn't terribly unreasonable for all host countries.

Huh who told you that!? media. They made some huge mistakes with the way they did ticketing.

The only actual sellouts were Track cycling, triathlon, rhythmic gymnastics, modern pentathlon, equestrian cross country most swimming, tennis, Volleyball and both the opening and closing ceremonies.

There were THOUSANDS of visable empty seats at all the biggest events including the ones listed above and more then one fith to HALF of those events are reserved free for "family" and sponsors not sold to the public so those free empty seats lay empry with no show and the public gets to stand outside wondering why they can't buy those tickets.

Opening and Closing are the only time you need that kind of capacity and they can also supplement with temporary seating.

plus why not for the people who can't afford it you charge half for a viewing area with huge screens and sound in another stadium or outdoors like they did in Rio for the world cup?

You're right about most of that, but Athletics was one of the few where all seats were filled. I do agree, however, that London 2012 was an utter disaster in terms of ticketing.

Edited by ofan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with this, but in terms of money a 90k arena equals more tickets sold which means more money. Short term they are not always the best, but it all depends on the host and how they use it. I can think of many stadiums above 60k that are still in use today and not white elephants.

You have to balance two weeks of ticket sales vs the cost of construction, maintenance, deconstruction, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh who told you that!? media. They made some huge mistakes with the way they did ticketing.

The only actual sellouts were Track cycling, triathlon, rhythmic gymnastics, modern pentathlon, equestrian cross country most swimming, tennis, Volleyball and both the opening and closing ceremonies.

There were THOUSANDS of visable empty seats at all the biggest events including the ones listed above and more then one fith to HALF of those events are reserved free for "family" and sponsors not sold to the public so those free empty seats lay empry with no show and the public gets to stand outside wondering why they can't buy those tickets.

Opening and Closing are the only time you need that kind of capacity and they can also supplement with temporary seating.

plus why not for the people who can't afford it you charge half for a viewing area with huge screens and sound in another stadium or outdoors like they did in Rio for the world cup?

http://www.olympic.org/Documents/IOC_Marketing/London_2012/LR_IOC_MarketingReport_medium_res1.pdf

The success of the London 2012 ticketing programme, which was the largest and most complex
ticketing operation ever undertaken in the UK, saw 97% of all Games tickets sold, raising £659 million
for LOCOG’s operating budget. In total, approximately 8.2 million tickets were sold for the Olympic
Games – out of a possible 8.5 million.
For the fi rst time in the history of the Games, 33 consecutive morning and evening athletics sessions
were sold out, while the 1.9 million football tickets that were sold made the London 2012 competition
the biggest football tournament ever held in the UK, eclipsing the 1966 World Cup and the 1996
European Championships.
Not disagreeing about the empty seats part because not all of those tickets sold actually get used. I can tell you this from first hand experience.. when the Olympics were in Salt Lake, I moved down to the first row for a session of short track. No question those seats had been sold, but whatever corporate sponsor or Olympic family members had those tickets either decided not to use them, were hiding out in some sponsor hospitality area, or just decided to get there real late.

I don't disagree with this, but in terms of money a 90k arena equals more tickets sold which means more money. Short term they are not always the best, but it all depends on the host and how they use it. I can think of many stadiums above 60k that are still in use today and not white elephants.

You have to balance two weeks of ticket sales vs the cost of construction, maintenance, deconstruction, etc.

What zeke said. We know that 90,000 seats can be more beneficial than 60,000 seats (although again, when there are large empty swaths of seats for morning track & field sessions that people aren't compelled to attend, that doesn't look so good on TV), but that's only a part of the equation. So yea, the USOC is looking for 80,000. I think the lesson to be learned is that the IOC and the USOC may not get what they're looking for and might need to learn to accept less.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

London was largely a success in terms of ticketing. We didn't see empty morning sessions in athletics like in previous Games and whilst there were visible blocks of empty seats at some events, they were mostly seats for sports federations and their families and entourages which went unused. These were tickets London had to reserve as a certain number have to be set aside for this purpose.

The IOC has promised to change things for future Games in terms of these allocations....We'll see if they manage to.

Of course, some less popular events didn't sell out, but overall the picture was better than most previous Games.

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

London was largely a success in terms of ticketing. We didn't see empty morning sessions in athletics like in previous Games and whilst there were visible blocks of empty seats at some events, they were mostly seats for sports federations and their families and entourages which went unused. These were tickets London had to reserve as a certain number have to be set aside for this purpose.

The IOC has promised to change things for future Games in terms of these allocations....We'll see if they manage to.

Of course, some less popular events didn't sell out, but overall the picture was better than most previous Games.

Yes Yes Yes I totally agree with everyone but it should be noted that all the events were not sold out and the empty seats were free and in very large blocks.

but that document is an IOC marketing overview, and is made for every games with not a negative word to be found.

The ticketing situation is being investigated by the IOC and a private firm and until the final London report comes out we won't know the truth behind it all and they put the things that went wrong and that they learned from what happened until then everything will be "it was the best games ever"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I've said it before but this is not the same as past bids. The USOC has people working with each city everyday.

They don't want 1 great bid and 3 duds they want the 4 best possible applicants they have had.

Boston is a very smart city with a very smart committee they're not sitting there risking a dud bid with a 60,000 seat stadium unless they were already given approval on this. The other cities have 80k because they're using existing stadiums or are building one for someone other than just the Olympics.

Chicago was the front runner and destroyed their bid by giving the IOC an ultimatum that if they had to pay for overruns that they would only pay up to 750m and anything more was on the iOC. That is not something that Is ever going to happen here again all of the bids will be carefully put together with all parties working together NOC + USOC + IOC with or without the very popular 2020 Agenda going through or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

there were visible blocks of empty seats at some events, they were mostly seats for sports federations and their families and entourages which went unused. These were tickets London had to reserve as a certain number have to be set aside for this purpose.

The IOC has promised to change things for future Games in terms of these allocations....We'll see if they manage to.

Empty vip/federsation/corporate seats have been an issue at every Olympics, at least back to Barcelona. The IOC always promises to do something about it. And to date they have done exactly Jack and **** about it. Keep that in mind anytime you hear the IOC promise anything.

Since the Olmypics are largely a made-for-TV event, not a lot of attention is paid to how they deal with live tickets. But there is no better example of their corruption.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reseller situation is a far bigger problem than the issue with some blocks of empty empty seats. I had to deal with CoSport to get some tickets I couldn't get in 2012....god what a farce. Feel sorry for those who had no choice in the matter for all their tickets.

But I doubt they're looking into changing that. They ought to.

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Boston switched to a Temporary Stadium:

http://m.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/10/heres-why-local-olympics-organizers-switched-to-a.html?r=full

It also says the IOC has agreed to lower the requirements from 80k to 60k stadiums but we all know they already require only 60k so I wonder if they meant to write the USOC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article about some creative ideas from high school students

even includes a nice, graphical venue map based on the venue locations released thus far.

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/10/21/boston-2024-olympic-bid-as-imagined-by-nuvu-studio-students/

Forget all the transportation troubles, argue five students from Beaver Country Day School and six others currently enrolled in NuVu. Rather than force everyone to take the T, duck boats could shuttle athletes and spectators to events, bypassing traffic. Or, why not turn the iconic Zakim Bridge into a rollercoaster that would connect the group's proposed velodrome to TD Garden?

Current playgrounds could be modified to accommodate athletes in Olympic Village, according to the students, subway stations could be upgraded to include more public art and, if the Charles River was cleaned up for the Olympics, the Esplanade could become Boston's best beach.

John Fitzgerald, a senior project manager from the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the liaison between the city and the Boston 2024 Organizing Committee, attended students' final presentation and provided feedback.

"He was very excited that the students had engaged in the project," Arida said.

And you'll be excited, too, once you see what the high schoolers came up with. Let's just say, their ideas look a bit different from the initial details of the more formal bid. Here's their presentation:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC has nixed boat transportation for the Olympics before.

The issue that Boston boosters need to understand is that Boston would not be building a plan that makes sense for Boston. In order to actually win the race, the bidder needs to create a plan that meets the IOC's wish list. They have said that they will change this, but there are constraints on their ability to actually make changes because other organizations such as the sports federations, sponsors and broadcasters have a big impact in what happens behind the scenes.

No one has ever used a temporary stadium before. There's no knowing whether the IOC voters will ultimately be willing to accept one.

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC has nixed boat transportation for the Olympics before.

The issue that Boston boosters need to understand is that Boston would not be building a plan that makes sense for Boston. In order to actually win the race, the bidder needs to create a plan that meets the IOC's wish list. They have said that they will change this, but there are constraints on their ability to actually make changes because other organizations such as the sports federations, sponsors and broadcasters have a big impact in what happens behind the scenes.

No one has ever used a temporary stadium before. There's no knowing whether the IOC voters will ultimately be willing to accept one.

I don't think they were overly enamoured with Chicago's plan to reduce the stadium to 5k were they?

I'm glad we've got an idea what the stadium plans are now. Speculating about how you turn a 60k+ athletics stadium into a 20k soccer stadium was hurting my head!

But as you say, it'll be interesting to see how USOC and then, if it gets that far, the IOC will react.

I also question the notion that this can come out of the revenue stream from tickets etc. Unless the model is going to be radically different, this money won't be available for venue budgets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.olympic.org/Documents/IOC_Marketing/London_2012/LR_IOC_MarketingReport_medium_res1.pdf

Not disagreeing about the empty seats part because not all of those tickets sold actually get used. I can tell you this from first hand experience.. when the Olympics were in Salt Lake, I moved down to the first row for a session of short track. No question those seats had been sold, but whatever corporate sponsor or Olympic family members had those tickets either decided not to use them, were hiding out in some sponsor hospitality area, or just decided to get there real late.

What zeke said. We know that 90,000 seats can be more beneficial than 60,000 seats (although again, when there are large empty swaths of seats for morning track & field sessions that people aren't compelled to attend, that doesn't look so good on TV), but that's only a part of the equation. So yea, the USOC is looking for 80,000. I think the lesson to be learned is that the IOC and the USOC may not get what they're looking for and might need to learn to accept less.

But LA is giving them what they want in terms of stadium size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...