Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/24/olympic-organizers-acknowledge-mixed-message-transportation-projects/cTNpYRGRSgAoyqdmlr7EsL/story.html

I always hate reading the comments for these globe articles. They're full of people saying over and over again that the taxpayers will pay for everything.

If any of these people bothered to go to the Citizens Advisory Group meetings and look at what they're actually saying and not what the biased Globe is, and to that point going up to ask questions instead of stating them online where no one will hear them, then they could be possibly reassured that (little to) no taxpayer money from the city itself or the state itself will be used.

Everyone in Boston know full well the message of the organizing committee, and they think they're full of ****. Given the cost overruns in past olympics, even the better planned ones like vancouver and london, there is a logical reason to assume that the same applies for Boston. And since Boston's plan centers around temporary facilities-which are actually fairly expensive when construction, deconstruction, operation, paying for the land they're on, and wages are taken into account-there is very little actual legacy, which makes it hard to justify spending any money whatsoever. Furthermore, security costs have been stated as coming from the gov which means the taxpayers are picking it up, the absolute opposite of what they've been saying. Then you got all the infrastucture plans that are coming anyways, and that always leads to your prototypical bereaucratic clusterfuck. Also, that leads to another question, if boston can scrape together public money for an olympics, then why can't they do that for things that are an actual necessity for a city?

Plus you've got the way Boston is planning to finance the whole thing, and it's largely based on ticket revenue, tv deals, private investment (is that one correct I cant remember), the IOC, plus any other miscellaneous crap. What happens when one of those things doesn't meet the minimum capital? Then it's pretty likely the taxpayer picks up the slack.

Thats what you need to recognize, that this isn't an ideal world, and that there isn't always a cut and dry answer. People aren't stupid, the globe is biased towards reality, and when you are in the spotlight, you are going to be scrutinized by the public. And if the Boston Organizing Committee has the same attitude as you , then they're as good as dead.

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".

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/24/olympic-organizers-acknowledge-mixed-message-transportation-projects/cTNpYRGRSgAoyqdmlr7EsL/story.html

I always hate reading the comments for these globe articles. They're full of people saying over and over again that the taxpayers will pay for everything.

If any of these people bothered to go to the Citizens Advisory Group meetings and look at what they're actually saying and not what the biased Globe is, and to that point going up to ask questions instead of stating them online where no one will hear them, then they could be possibly reassured that (little to) no taxpayer money from the city itself or the state itself will be used.

The problem is that the numbers given by the organizing committee are obviously inaccurate. There's simply no way that Boston can host with a budget $4.7 billion when it cost London about four times that in 2012 and London had far more venues and mass transit already in place. The organizers have already admitted that the $4.7 billion figure only refers to the cost of the show and not any of the security, venue and infrastructure costs.

So who will end up paying the excess $15+ billion when the budget inevitably explodes? The government, because the IOC requires that the government guarantee any cost overruns.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/24/olympic-organizers-acknowledge-mixed-message-transportation-projects/cTNpYRGRSgAoyqdmlr7EsL/story.html

I always hate reading the comments for these globe articles. They're full of people saying over and over again that the taxpayers will pay for everything.

If any of these people bothered to go to the Citizens Advisory Group meetings and look at what they're actually saying and not what the biased Globe is, and to that point going up to ask questions instead of stating them online where no one will hear them, then they could be possibly reassured that (little to) no taxpayer money from the city itself or the state itself will be used.

Reassured? Good luck with that one. The Boston organizers have offered a very conservative budget. Pretty good chance that's going to be far less than the actual cost of an Olympics. Rarely does an Olympics even come close to coming in on budget. Like binary said, they're counting on revenue sources to largely take care of themselves, but what happens if that's not the case? Who picks up the slack? That's what scares a lot of cities off from the Olympics. It's because even the best laid plans of mice and men don't often get the job done.

Commenters on articles like this (and I've heard the Globe is notorious for it) tend not to be the wisest people out there. So I wouldn't put much stock into their comments. That said.. doesn't mean they're completely off base with what they're worried about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...if boston can scrape together public money for an olympics, then why can't they do that for things that are an actual necessity for a city?

It's really since they are relying on TV sponsorship and other sponsorships. I don't think NBC wants to spend their money sponsoring subways, and Coca Cola doesn't want to invest in snow plows.

I can see how the budget is going to definitely go over if they host, as it always does. Even though the total budget (including security and whatever else) is 9.1 Billion with the only public funds coming from the Federal level, and with their supposed cushion for overruns, they can't be sure that sponsorships and ticket sales will evolve the way they want. Maybe it's because I want Boston to win or the way the committee speaks is reassuring enough for me to believe them, but I still have some faith they'll be able to pull it off and return a profit to the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how the budget is going to definitely go over if they host, as it always does. Even though the total budget (including security and whatever else) is 9.1 Billion with the only public funds coming from the Federal level, and with their supposed cushion for overruns, they can't be sure that sponsorships and ticket sales will evolve the way they want. Maybe it's because I want Boston to win or the way the committee speaks is reassuring enough for me to believe them, but I still have some faith they'll be able to pull it off and return a profit to the city.

The numbers just don't add up, though. Americans who are viewing it this way seem to think of the Olympics in terms of what happened in Los Angeles. Well, every host now uses the sponsorship model. And it still doesn't come close to covering the costs.

London 2012 sponsor spreadsheet

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFlPNzJWRG1JSFpZYTUxUTljb0xuZnc#gid=1

London 2012's total sponsor revenue: $2.18 billion

LA 1984's sponsor revenue: roughly $450 million (in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars)

London had much more sponsorship revenue, yet still ended up with a massive budgetary shortfall. The Olympics have grown exponentially since the 1980's, and the idea that we can host using the LA 84 model of completely privately funding the games is simply not viable.

Does this mean that the Olympics is never worth it? Of course not. If the government decides that it is worth spending billions to host the games then that's fine. But the organizing committee and local government shouldn't simply lie to the public so they can pull a bait and switch on them and saddle the taxpayers with multi-generational debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

London 2012 broke even on the show (actually a small profit). Boston 2024 won't get any more in tickets sales or broadcast revenue, merchandise might be more. I guess if they want to make a big profit it'll be relying on big US sponsorships to eclipse what LOCOG managed in the smaller domestic market of the UK. Whether it's realistic to expect such a huge leap in sponsorship just because it's in the US - so big a leap that little public money is needed - is indeed questionable.

Are they effectively saying that a huge portion of what is tradtionally the OCOG budget will cover venue costs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they effectively saying that a huge portion of what is tradtionally the OCOG budget will cover venue costs?

It's tough sometimes to figure how they're allocating the budget, but it seems like that's the implication, that virtually all of their budget will be covered by ticket sales, sponsorships, TV revenues, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

London 2012 broke even on the show (actually a small profit). Boston 2024 won't get any more in tickets sales or broadcast revenue, merchandise might be more. I guess if they want to make a big profit it'll be relying on big US sponsorships to eclipse what LOCOG managed in the smaller domestic market of the UK. Whether it's realistic to expect such a huge leap in sponsorship just because it's in the US - so big a leap that little public money is needed - is indeed questionable.

Are they effectively saying that a huge portion of what is tradtionally the OCOG budget will cover venue costs?

London broke even on the tournament itself, but obviously not on the capital costs. Boston's committee is (deliberately, in my opinion) obfuscating on what exactly private funding will cover. It is at least implied that the taxpayer will not be obliged to pay any of the Olympic costs.

Boston is a great city, and if the Olympics are going to be in the USA again I would rather have it be Boston or San Francisco rather than Los Angeles yet again, or a city that international visitors will dislike. But I don't like the way things are going thus far.

1) They are deliberately misleading the public about what they will or will not have to pay in order to host.

2) They have tried to gag public servants to suppress dissent and don't want to allow a referendum.

3) The people running Boston's organizing committee have ties to the industries that will receive public contracts if Boston hosts.

4) Most of the venues will be temporary, and it's hard to see how the Olympics will leave a positive long term legacy.

I really wanted to be won over by Boston, but thus far things are going in the wrong direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston is playing games with the budget. There are taking a ton of stuff and, effetively, saying it doesn't count. IIRC, this is explicitly part of Agenda 2020

The problem for me is that they're talking about all these infrastructure projects that are going on whether they get the Olympics or not. That's great.. that's exactly what a city should be doing. The problem is that your city is now spending all this money for things it needs and then you're saying let's spend a lot more money (for which the proceeds will all just magically appear) for something you don't need. And unlike some past Olympic hosts, I still don't look at a Boston Olympics as something that's going to further the city's development. It just seems like all this is going on and the show they'll put on for the rest of the world is that all these things will have happened because of the Olympics, when the reality of that is not the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for me is that they're talking about all these infrastructure projects that are going on whether they get the Olympics or not. That's great.. that's exactly what a city should be doing. The problem is that your city is now spending all this money for things it needs and then you're saying let's spend a lot more money (for which the proceeds will all just magically appear) for something you don't need. And unlike some past Olympic hosts, I still don't look at a Boston Olympics as something that's going to further the city's development. It just seems like all this is going on and the show they'll put on for the rest of the world is that all these things will have happened because of the Olympics, when the reality of that is not the same.

I think you have perfectly described exactly why Boston should not have been our bid or should not host: Boston does not offer anything to the Olympics and the Olympics do not offer anything for Boston.

If they want to win they need to change it and I have hope they can, but maybe that's just wishful thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have perfectly described exactly why Boston should not have been our bid or should not host: Boston does not offer anything to the Olympics and the Olympics do not offer anything for Boston.

If they want to win they need to change it and I have hope they can, but maybe that's just wishful thing.

That's why I continue to question the legacy of a Boston Olympics. If all these projects are going to happen regardless of the Olympics, what does Boston get after the games that provides a legacy to the city. I know that London's legacy in terms of what the Olympics was supposed to do for the East End isn't quite what it seemed back in 2012, but at least that was something. I'm not sure Boston has that something. I don't know how much they can point to where they'll be able to say that their city is better for having hosted the Olympics.

Maybe San Francisco didn't have that either. Maybe Los Angeles did suffer from a "been there, done that" mentality. The USOC was cited as favoring Boston because they're a big population center in the Northeast and offer a location they've never had before for a Summer Olympics. There's just so much of all this that isn't even remotely reassuring about convincing the IOC to select Boston. Hopefully for their sake the support will pick up once the weather gets better and the snow melts away. But if not, this could end really badly for the USOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe San Francisco didn't have that either. Maybe Los Angeles did suffer from a "been there, done that" mentality. The USOC was cited as favoring Boston because they're a big population center in the Northeast and offer a location they've never had before for a Summer Olympics. There's just so much of all this that isn't even remotely reassuring about convincing the IOC to select Boston. Hopefully for their sake the support will pick up once the weather gets better and the snow melts away. But if not, this could end really badly for the USOC.

Well, altho I haven't studied the Boston plan in detail (since it will be evolving anyway), the main legacy would be: 9,000 new bed spaces for U of Mass; new, improved arenas for the other colleges; and I am sure, as in LA and Atlanta, new basketball courts and little gyms for the various communities in and around Boston. That's about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the legacy of the Pedestrian Boulevard along Fort Point Channel as well as the new permanent stadium for the Revolution that will go into the footprint of the temporary Olympic one.

Yeah, but that Pedestrian thing is really NOT a 'real' legacy. I mean it doesn't take an Olympics to create that. They can still do it w/o an OG. Using the OG as an excuse to create something so peripheral is quite flimsy.

And an Olympic stadium redo into a football stadium is quite problematic, isn't it? I mean, look at London's woes in converting to a soccer stadium and then look at the new very intimate Avaya stadium of the SJ Earthquakes opening in a few weeks. I don't know that the conversion of a temporary O stadium into a much desired soccer venue is quite convincing.

Nobody really wants a T&F stadium anymore. I don't know why the IOC insists on it.

http://www.centerlinesoccer.com/2014/12/19/7422273/earthquakes-to-open-avaya-stadium-sunday-march-22-against-chicago-fire

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

Nobody really wants a T&F stadium anymore. I don't know why the IOC insists on it.

Well, what's the alternative? No track and field events in the Olympics? The IOC might as well scrap the Olympics entirely then.

I know people hate the idea, but I really think it would fix at least half of the issues facing the IOC if the Olympics split into a separate team sports Olympics and individual sports Olympics. Including the issue of building stadiums with tracks in countries with highly capitalized sports leagues. Boston could host a smaller team sport Olympiad in the summer while Melbourne hosted the athletics, swimming, etc in the spring. The host cities would lose less money and the IOC would make more money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody wants a *big* athletics stadium. If the IOC stops requiring/favoring 60k/80k+ stadiums, it becomes a much smaller issue.

Countries with highly capitalized leagues -such as the USA and England- don't want a track in their stadiums because the teams can extract high value for seats near the field. For Boston, single match Patriots sideline ticket costs around $1250 each. Premier League teams have ridiculously expensive tickets too, so a football club in London would lose a LOT of money giving up those premium seats and playing in a stadium with a track.

Conversely there are a lot of countries that have a lot of support for their national football team, but people are unwilling to pay astronomical prices for seats. So a 60,000 to 80,000 capacity national stadium with a track makes sense for them since they are mostly going to offer cheap tickets anyway.

But in any case it should be pretty easy to build a stadium with a permanent lower bowl of 20,000-30,000 and a temporary upper bowl that would be removed after the games. The size isn't the issue; it's having a track at all that requires a remodel before handing an Olympic Stadium over to a major football club.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the legacy the IOC wants? It basically means that liberal democracies wroth developed economies can only host Olympics in cities that have hosted before. It means the Olympics will never come to the second most populous megapolis in the Western World. A nation as large and diverse as the USA surely must have more to offer the Olympics than LA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And an Olympic stadium redo into a football stadium is quite problematic, isn't it? I mean, look at London's woes in converting to a soccer stadium and then look at the new very intimate Avaya stadium of the SJ Earthquakes opening in a few weeks. I don't know that the conversion of a temporary O stadium into a much desired soccer venue is quite convincing.

Nobody really wants a T&F stadium anymore. I don't know why the IOC insists on it.

Who is "nobody"? We all know how you feel about track & field, but don't project that onto the IOC where you make it sound like the sport and the venue is as worthless as you think it is. And besides, aside from Rio who broke the trend, that's also the venue for the ceremonies. Should the IOC not insist on that either?

Nobody wants a *big* athletics stadium. If the IOC stops requiring/favoring 60k/80k+ stadiums, it becomes a much smaller issue.

Stops favoring? Yea, good luck with that. They'll stop requiring/favoring it when they don't get it anymore.

Take a look at the last 10 Olympic hosts (including Rio and Tokyo). Los Angeles, Barcelona, and Athens all used an existing venue as their centerpiece stadium for track & field. Rio and Tokyo both have venues that were either planned or built before they won their respective Olympic bids. Sydney has gotten plenty of use out of their stadium. Atlanta found a somewhat inelegant solution for their stadium, which wouldn't look as bad if the Braves didn't make plans to pack up and head to the suburbs. London, we know about their issues but they're finding a way to make it work, and this when they had Wembley as a large scale venue built around the same time they got the Olympics.

So that's 8 out of 10 that made it work. Paris has Stade de France, so they are in a position to give the IOC exactly what they want. Yea it sucks if you're a city or a country that might have trouble fulfilling that requirement desire on the part of the IOC. But that's how the game is played. It's not as big of an issue as we're making it out to be here. If a city can't figure out a way to make it work in a manner that the IOC doesn't like, then I guess maybe they're not getting the Olympics. Boo hoo for them

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...