Jump to content

Toronto Star on the withering short list for 2022


jawnbc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thank you AthensFan. I apologize for calling you a prick. I was just angry. I don't really feel that way towards you.

As for the issue at hand, I think we also have to realize that the leaders shouldn't be above the Olympics. If the country wants to go to all the trouble of an Olympic bid, it should be a presidential duty of the president to support the country on the world stage, like he would at any other summit or meeting. Obama meets with the NCAA Fencing Champions and the Miami Heat for crying out loud. That doesn't seem all that important to me. The presence of a government official also allows for relationships to be built between the IOC members and the host government.

Thanks for the apology.

I totally disagree with you on this issue. If the president meets with a sports team, it's because he chooses to. No one requires him to. And it only happens if he's already in the area (more often people come to HIM) or if it fits easily into his schedule.

I think you regard the Olympics as being a lot more important than they actually are. I don't want the president of the US spending a moment of his time planning Olympic Games. I think it was silly that Putin did.

Demanding that world leaders fly around the world to beg before the IOC is just idiotic IMO.

The advertising is only forbidden in the FOPs...not in supplementary material.

Sure. The point is that LA staged successful Games using solely private funds and they weren't overly commercialized. In fact they were LESS commercialized than the Games we've become accustomed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the apology.

I totally disagree with you on this issue. If the president meets with a sports team, it's because he chooses to. No one requires him to. And it only happens if he's already in the area (more often people come to HIM) or if it fits easily into his schedule.

I think you regard the Olympics as being a lot more important than they actually are. I don't want the president of the US spending a moment of his time planning Olympic Games. I think it was silly that Putin did.

Demanding that world leaders fly around the world to beg before the IOC is just idiotic IMO.

Sure. The point is that LA staged successful Games using solely private funds and they weren't overly commercialized. In fact they were LESS commercialized than the Games we've become accustomed to.

I agree with you 100% that the idea in theory is idiotic. The IOC are a bunch of unqualified weasels, and this does a bring more self-importance. However, I thought the issue at hand here was how to win an Olympics. Maybe "required" was the wrong word, but in this day and age, would you not agree that having the president there is a big advantage for the bid, and therefore something every bid team should do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's time for the NOCs to start dictating policy to the IOC rather than the other way around. Norway wasn't willing to play the IOC's game. Why should anyone else? The IOC has been banking on the idea that bidders would be willing to do anything to win. Clearly that has changed. Now the IOC must either revise their approach or work exclusively with authoritarian countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....LA will never go modest with this thing....if they get a chance it gonna be BIG.

It will FEEL big -- like 84 felt big. There's a difference. The PR, the atmosphere, the marketing -- all of that would sing. But you're not going to see LA gilding the lily with unnecessary Olympics-only glamour projects. Major legacy works? Probably. But I think the rest would be tightly reined in.

I'm more concerned about the USOC than LA. They've already given the IOC the moon with the revenue deal. I hope they don't promise them the world in the 2024 bid process too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....well you know they want it bad.....it's been a while. Unless there is obvious internal reform and apology from the IOC for missteps then the USOC has no other option but try to work writhing the current framework of presence/pomp and self importance by trying to throw anything the IOC wants at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....well you know they want it bad.....it's been a while. Unless there is obvious internal reform and apology from the IOC for missteps then the USOC has no other option but try to work writhing the current framework of presence/pomp and self importance by trying to throw anything the IOC wants at them.

But the US has some leverage now. American Games would be the very best antidote to this mess and I think the IOC will figure that out. I can see the US being the Norway of 2024, but perhaps staying in the race and forcing the IOC to make some changes. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of the entertainment industry Los Angeles' economy is in serious trouble, with job growth in particular being very poor.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2014/09/11/17281/los-angeles-job-growth-falling-behind-other-cities/

Well, if anything, LA's economic base is even more diverse today that it was 30 years ago. They have a new subway; new industries, etc., etc., So, what's the problem??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read this report then ask taxpayers the Olympic are great?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2238053

yes, but LA is different. It will be a privately funded venture for the most part. LA has done it twice; and both times they have made a profit. It's the same organization helming the bid. And do you suddenly think they will get amnesia and forget their no-imposition-on-the-taxpayers heritage?? Montreal wasn't guided by such a legacy. The last 3 Olympics held in the USA - LA84, Atlanta and SLC -- all made significant profits. Don't forget that.

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

The issue is not that everyone in the USA would go bankrupt, but rather that the organizing committee itself. Let's say that Los Angeles gets the games and then the sponsor revenue turns out to be insufficient to cover total costs. Who pays for the remaining debt?

Consider what would have happened in Montreal in 1976 if the government were not responsible for cost overruns. There would have been dozens of lawsuits.

If there was/is proper planning and communication on the committee's behalf then the situation may be avoided entirely, if not mostly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT&T was the main sponsor, and had its logo on runner's uniforms provided by Levi's. GMC provided vehicles and had "GMC Trucks" displayed prominently on them. It's true that there's no logo on the actual torch, though. But there wasn't one in Atlanta either.

but in contrast to more recent Olympic commercialization, LA's doesn't seem too rampant. I don't see a truck plastered with a large AT&T logo, nor do I see a bold, red GMC-themed truck. It all seemed more passive, though that could also probably be due in part because of the "bland"er logos of the day (I think).

Outside of the entertainment industry Los Angeles' economy is in serious trouble, with job growth in particular being very poor.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2014/09/11/17281/los-angeles-job-growth-falling-behind-other-cities/

I feel like the need to create an analogy between school and that.

First Quarter is almost over and gradebooks are closing in a few weeks. Let's say I'm about to fail a class. Do I A:Not do anything or B:Start begging for extra credit and actually do work and study. I most likely would go with B. Although I can directly control the situation, and LA cannot, that doesn't mean they aren't trying. You can't instantly feel the effects of everything.

that was probably a bad analogy. sigh. At least I tried?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was/is proper planning and communication on the committee's behalf then the situation may be avoided entirely, if not mostly.

Except that, as is shown in the link posted by Olympikfan, every single Olympics has seen massive cost overruns. Even Los Angeles went 30% over the final budget in 1984 despite the fact that they didn't build a single venue.

Meanwhile the average Olympics goes 150-200% over budget. London was very well managed and it cost 232% above the initial budget. Without government guarantees to cover cost overruns the Olympics would not be viable.

but in contrast to more recent Olympic commercialization, LA's doesn't seem too rampant. I don't see a truck plastered with a large AT&T logo, nor do I see a bold, red GMC-themed truck. It all seemed more passive, though that could also probably be due in part because of the "bland"er logos of the day (I think).

In fact both of those are in the first image. I don't really have a problem with the sponsorship, though. Without sponsor money the Olympics would been even more difficult to host.

yes, but LA is different. It will be a privately funded venture for the most part. LA has done it twice; and both times they have made a profit. It's the same organization helming the bid. And do you suddenly think they will get amnesia and forget their no-imposition-on-the-taxpayers heritage?? Montreal wasn't guided by such a history. The last 3 Olympics held in the USA - LA84, Atlanta and SLC -- all made significant profits. Don't forget that.

They had a profit for the organizing committee, but not when you include the capital costs for places like SLC. And those were all before the explosion in security costs around the time of Athens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had a profit for the organizing committee, but not when you include the capital costs for places like SLC. And those were all before the explosion in security costs around the time of Athens.

The security budget for SLC was set by Congress. It had to be upped because of 9/11. There was no bucking that and the bean-counters were't counting security costs (which were/are confidential) in the mix. In other words, security costs are off the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree: if the site visits come back with really problematic reports, the IOC has a responsibility to have a viable plan B. I expect this will almost certainly be true with Almaty (since it ranked so poorly in so many categories) and is arguably true of Beijing's plans, to a lesser extent.

Are they really trying though? I'll believe it when I have evidence, not just some big Agenda 2020 PR bla bla which then turns out to be rather cosmetic changes probably...

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...