Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'd say it's pretty unlikely that Oakland will give Al Davis money considering he's no longer alive.

The reason for the 1 year extension is to kick the proverbial can down the road. There have been rumblings the Raiders might consider moving to LA, but the NFL shot that down. So this just pushes the decision til next year. You know the Bay Area better than I do, so not sure if this is just a stay of execution to get some sort of deal done regarding the Coliseum. For better or worse, it probably just means we'll be right back here next year.

Yeah. If another city offers the Raiders a slightly better deal, I think they'll jump ship. The A's seem to be the more reliable pro team insofar as staying. That's how I read this now. So a new Raiders' stadium will probably never happen.

Insofar as impacting a SF bid logistically, the Brisbane location would work better in the Athletics-Main Stadium-Village dynamic. So unless the first brick is in the ground, SF 2024 shouldn't hold its breath for Coliseum City.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

See Tony, this is an example of what pisses everybody off about you. It's just so rich and hypocritical from Young Master "I don't care what you think, it's my opinion and I'm allowed to say it again

Don't stress guys. At least we only have to deal with a daily 20 minute Tony troll fest. It's much better than the way it used to be when we had to listen to this little arsehole all day.

"T" is for Tony and Troll.

Very happy with San Fran right now. A couple months ago I wouldn't even consider them for the 2024 games. But now they've stepped their game up and are starting to take this seriously.

But they still have what I consider major domestic hurdles. Justifying $350 million for a temporary stadium (yes, they purposely placed it outside SF borders so the social activists have less reason to b*tch; except how can anyone really justify that? If they can sell that to the City's restless activists and anarchists, then they're as good as home. But considering the money SF lost with the America's Cup, bidding to host the Olympics is a big sell for SF. If they take a vote of the 4 counties involved (SF, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo), I think they will get positive support...but if they're just depending on SF support, that is going to be, what I would consider, a monumental job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

your link doesn't work but I'm familiar with the project....just not sure crazy about the Howard street changes....I'm sure the building massing north and south is one of few alternatives they had but it really crowds Howard street and is so boxy...........what's gonna happen to the Philip Stark swivel streetlights....hate his work but those things are cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By 2024, if funding goes well, BART may extend all the way to San Jose. Plus having 3 sports in SJ kinda lessens the lodging crush in SF, i.e., like officials and devotees of Volleyball, Taekwondo, wrestling and football could find their accommodations in the San Jose area & environs. So that's actually a wise move.

...well you know how long it took just to get that short extension to the airport.

...anything lessening the lodging crush in SF is a good thing...hotel prices are ridiculous almost all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moscone. With only 2 sports assigned to Moscone, I think the remaining space will be the IBC. Thus no need to build another large cavern thing for 1-time use. (Altho of course, there is the San Mateo Convention Center which was the Media Center in the 2016 plan.)

By 2024, if funding goes well, BART may extend all the way to San Jose. Plus having 3 sports in SJ kinda lessens the lodging crush in SF, i.e., like officials and devotees of Volleyball, Taekwondo, wrestling and football could find their accommodations in the San Jose area & environs. So that's actually a wise move.

Strange too that there is nothing for Oakland, altho they have the Kaiser Convention center (interior below) there for one of the box sports. It's a 5,400+ seat arena which could easily host wrestling or even Table Tennis. (Just a little hard to get to -- but walkable from the Lake Merritt BART station.)

Jenny_Craig_Pavilion_479799_i0.jpg

But it could be on reserve for one of those sports if things need changing around.

Having the IBC in Moscone would make sense, since it's in downtown SF i assume that's where all the hotels are as well.

Thank you for that pic of Kaiser Center i've been trying to find decent one of the inside for a while but i couldn't. I know the venue has been closed for a few years but renovating it and reopening it for a small indoor sport would make sense. Maybe Oakland could make a legacy plan similar to that of London's Copper Box work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I think the key to the SF bid is private financing. The local committee has made it clear that their funding model is all private for costs directly related to the Olympics (venues, and also I presume security and other event costs), with at most a small backstop from the State (not the City). Public money, which would include Federal funds for transit improvements, would only be used for durable infrastructure. If they pursue this strategy, then I like SF's chances. The venue plan is sensible, and the legacy parks will be appealing to locals. A referendum or revolt would likely only threaten the games if public money is at stake for event costs, and I think the SF organizers are savvy to this. There is enough private money in the bay area to do it, so I think that means it just depends on the ability of the SF committee to harness that. There's probably no better place to try to do that right now than the bay area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key to the SF bid is private financing. The local committee has made it clear that their funding model is all private for costs directly related to the Olympics (venues, and also I presume security and other event costs), with at most a small backstop from the State (not the City). Public money, which would include Federal funds for transit improvements, would only be used for durable infrastructure. If they pursue this strategy, then I like SF's chances. The venue plan is sensible, and the legacy parks will be appealing to locals. A referendum or revolt would likely only threaten the games if public money is at stake for event costs, and I think the SF organizers are savvy to this. There is enough private money in the bay area to do it, so I think that means it just depends on the ability of the SF committee to harness that. There's probably no better place to try to do that right now than the bay area.

Of course, it would have to be private $$ + I don't know what the formula for 2024 will be, but they are counting on at least $900 million from the IOC. Finances aren't the problem; it's the perception that the event is a money-sucker and will displace social programs. That is the biggest PR hurdle an Org Committee will have to overcome. And the example of the $13.5 million-losing 2013 America;s Cup hosting will NOT help either. There's a very vocal anti-growth/progress sector in SF.

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

Of course, it would have to be private $$ + I don't know what the formula for 2024 will be, but they are counting on at least $900 million from the IOC. Finances aren't the problem; it's the perception that the event is a money-sucker and will displace social programs. That is the biggest PR hurdle an Org Committee will have to overcome. And the example of the $13.5 million-losing 2013 America;s Cup hosting will NOT help either. There's a very vocal anti-growth/progress sector in SF.

Yes, but the people who lead these opposition movements pay attention to the details and are generally rational. They just drive tough bargains, as they should. We have seen, time after time, how they can be won over just by doing the right things, getting support of neighborhoods through jobs, housing, and other local benefits, and then things go through: e.g. Art Agnos endorsing the increase in height limits for Pier 70; Chris Daily supporting the Transbay Tower and investments in Harding Park; the building of AT&T Park; the referendum on the football stadium and development (which of course didn't get built); Lowe's on Bayshore. I think the America's Cup actually illustrates my point. After the 2013 America's Cup, the City was willing to deal with Ellison again despite all the broken promises, tragedy, and general nonsense from round 1. It was Ellison who backed out for the next one because he thought he could get more of what he wanted elsewhere. Similarly with York - it wasn't SF that turned him down, he just wanted what he could get in Santa Clara. In this case, though, I don't think the people in the bay area with the purse strings are going to be pitting other cities against SF, which is the mechanism that creates these tensions. Baer and the people on the committee are aware of all the history. They know what to do with the politicians and the voters. It's the bigwigs who have the power and money who will determine whether this happens or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. It's the bigwigs who have the power and money who will determine whether this happens or not.

Well, it's the 15/16 members of the USOC board who will decide. The other big SF bid problem is how to fix the failed funding of the Transbay Terminal of more than $1 billion. That apparently has fallen through -- as could any major cobbled deals relative to bidding and hosting an OG.

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

Newest renderings for SF's proposed Golden Gate Warriors arena just released. It looks nice.

ee8712e0-80d0-11e4-87f1-4b0dbad7f99f_sf-

http://www.nba.com/warriors/sf

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/new-warriors-arena-designs-no-longer-look-like-a-toilet-010417753.html

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooooooooooooooooooo......that looks nice. Internationally SF seems like the best US chance to win...you know it'll be there someday......not a fan of temporary stadiums but it's better than Chicago's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here we go Today on the 6 o'clock news a report taking with a fmr Supervisor who is part of the Anti-SF Olympics Committee and he wants the voters to decide if public money should be used :(. Ah just give it to LA I'll still go regardless

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here we go Today on the 6 o'clock news a report taking with a fmr Supervisor who is part of the Anti-SF Olympics Committee and he wants the voters to decide if public money should be used :(. Ah just give it to LA I'll still go regardless

It's that idiot and retard Chris Daly. Here's the dimwit's Facebook page...

https://www.facebook.com/chris.daly.336?fref=ts

Also, it's starting already...

https://www.facebook.com/NoOlympicsInSanFrancisco?pnref=lhc.recent

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

Well here we go Today on the 6 o'clock news a report taking with a fmr Supervisor who is part of the Anti-SF Olympics Committee and he wants the voters to decide if public money should be used :(. Ah just give it to LA I'll still go regardless

Letting voters decide how public money is spent? What a ridiculous idea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Letting voters decide how public money is spent? What a ridiculous idea.

It is a novel concept, isn't it.

I know we're on an Olympic bid site here, but sometimes we need to be less than stunned when there is opposition to hosting the Olympics and some folks out there aren't convinced it's such a good idea. An Olympics bid is going to have its detractors, some more than others (I do find it amusing that this anti-SF group seems to be drawing some of their inspiration from Boston). Not everyone is going to be so gung ho about it as we tend to be. And yes, where public monies and tax dollars are concerned, there will be people out there opposed to the effort since that spending is often more likely to benefit only a certain segment of the population. Just like when a city spends money on building a new/stadium arena.. if tax dollars are used for that, it's not like you, as a citizen, are getting a return on that investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The opposition was completely expected and has, for the most part, materialized in a productive way. If you read their letter and press announcements, you'll see that the language is "If you want the Olympics in San Francisco, we will go to the voters to propose that no public money be spent on them." But the SF 2024 Committee anticipated this and has consistently said there will be no public money spent on costs of the event, only on public infrastructure that will have lasting benefit, such as transit improvements. If they stick to this, they will be able to make the case, I think. I have watched Daly and Art Agnos for years, as well as the movements they have led, and the pattern is consistent: Be firm, drive a hard bargain, but don't stand in the way if the city will genuinely benefit. All of this is helping to move to a new paradigm for the Olympics which I think the IOC is going to have to accept eventually. Whether it will happen with 2024 remains to be seen, but I think that might be the year based on history. In 1976 you get the financial distster of Montreal, but in '84 LA works it out with commercial endorsements. In 2004 the disaster of Athens, but in 2012, London cuts costs with temporary venues. So far 2016 is being interpreted as evidence that the Olympics are risky for politicians. Any government that is really accountable to voters (and that includes every country in Europe) is going to face opposition and potential long-term problems if it tries to spend large amounts of public money on the transient costs of the Olympics. In a small country like Greece it can mean ruin, and even in a large country it can be a focal point for frustrations when the economy stagnates, a la Brazil. This is why we are not seeing european cities in the running for 2022. The people have awoken.

In the bay area, it's crystal clear. Most of the money is going to have to come from private sources or there will be no Olympcs here. It's going to have to appeal to the vanity and local pride of our billionaires, as well as the bottom lines of corporate funders without a huge public subsidy. Even the guarantee may have to be private insurance instead of a government-backed one. The only way I see that changing is if the Federal Government makes having the Olympics in the U.S. a priority and commits Federal money to competing with foreign governments. But if other countries are moving in the opposite direction, I don't see them doing that, especially since we don't have just one city that is a symbol of national pride. What we can hope is that this will mean strategic public investment geared toward leveraging Olympics for public infrastructure, which does not include t&f or aquatics stadiums or more militarized police departments.

If this is the paradigm outside of countries like China, then the bay area is in good position. If there is one thing we know how to grow here these days, it is billionaires.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is the paradigm outside of countries like China, then the bay area is in good position. If there is one thing we know how to grow here these days, it is billionaires.

Well, yeah, but so what? Ellison, one of the 6 richest men in the country, took SF to the cleaners to the tune of some $13 million, for the America's Cup. So I don't think you should exactly be throwing around the idea of 'charitable billionaires' because there aren't any. They'll always want something in return. The best that can be hoped for -- and if SF gets selected and the SFCOG can sell it to the Bay Area that these Games will pay for themselves and at least break even. I don't agree with your counting on the high-tech billionaires. They may contribute a couple of millions (as private parties have done in the past) but there's really no tax incentives for them...unless the USOC can get the IRS to allow big conttributions to staging the OGs as tax-deductible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see how SF can break even though with a $4.5 - 5 billion budget.

Even with highly liberal estimates on the revenue side, I don't see how the ff. can bypass the $5 billion cost:

Share from NBC sale - $1.675 billion

Share from other broadcast sales - another $550 mil

Ticket sales - $900 million

Royalties from souvenirs, mascots, etc, - $85 million

Other licensing rights - a very wild $95 million

Maybe another handout from the IOC - $500 mil

(I don't know what other major revenue stream I'm missing.)

So very roughly, that's really only $3.8 billion (est). Where will the remaining $1.2 billion come from??

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

Well, yeah, but so what? Ellison, one of the 6 richest men in the country, took SF to the cleaners to the tune of some $13 million, for the America's Cup. So I don't think you should exactly be throwing around the idea of 'charitable billionaires' because there aren't any. They'll always want something in return. The best that can be hoped for -- and if SF gets selected and the SFCOG can sell it to the Bay Area that these Games will pay for themselves and at least break even. I don't agree with your counting on the high-tech billionaires. They may contribute a couple of millions (as private parties have done in the past) but there's really no tax incentives for them...unless the USOC can get the IRS to allow big conttributions to staging the OGs as tax-deductible.

The tax issue is easy, I think. The local games should be (are generally?) a nonprofit, 501c3 organization. They are not political advocacy, so that shouldn't be hard. The other option is to make them a profitable corporation. If that makes economic sense, the investment capital will certainly be there.

I agree that the donations route has not been big in the past for Olympics, but I think it's viable. That's how we get opera houses and most university buildings. We will see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax issue is easy, I think. The local games should be (are generally?) a nonprofit, 501c3 organization. They are not political advocacy, so that shouldn't be hard. The other option is to make them a profitable corporation. If that makes economic sense, the investment capital will certainly be there.

I agree that the donations route has not been big in the past for Olympics, but I think it's viable. That's how we get opera houses and most university buildings. We will see.

If it becomes a "for profit" operation -- then any surplus would have to be taxed as well. Pay scale for the staff will have to be market-comparable. Why would anyone want to donate anything to a 'for profit' operation? NOT A VIABLE OPTION at all!.

Oh, and those budgets submitted to the USOC I don't think include even scaled-down campaign costs for the int'l phase which can probably be brought down to $20 - $25 million; certainly big savings from Chicago's lost $76 million or Sochi's $100 million campaign cost, but still a big chunk of change.

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

In the bay area, it's crystal clear. Most of the money is going to have to come from private sources or there will be no Olympcs here. It's going to have to appeal to the vanity and local pride of our billionaires, as well as the bottom lines of corporate funders without a huge public subsidy. Even the guarantee may have to be private insurance instead of a government-backed one. The only way I see that changing is if the Federal Government makes having the Olympics in the U.S. a priority and commits Federal money to competing with foreign governments. But if other countries are moving in the opposite direction, I don't see them doing that, especially since we don't have just one city that is a symbol of national pride. What we can hope is that this will mean strategic public investment geared toward leveraging Olympics for public infrastructure, which does not include t&f or aquatics stadiums or more militarized police departments.

If this is the paradigm outside of countries like China, then the bay area is in good position. If there is one thing we know how to grow here these days, it is billionaires.

Billionaires don't get to be billionaires by making bad business decisions though. Just because they have money is not to say they're going to spend it on an event like the Olympics. baron hit the nail on the head.. the SF organizers have to sell it to them that it's a smart investment. If that doesn't happen, they're not going to contribute money.

I really don't see how SF can break even though with a $4.5 - 5 billion budget.

The fears are always going to be about cost overruns because we know the actual cost of the games is almost always going to exceed the initial budget. So that's always going to be a fear, particularly if it's public money that might need to be relied on to cover the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it becomes a "for profit" operation -- then any surplus would have to be taxed as well. Pay scale for the staff will have to be market-comparable. Why would anyone want to donate anything to a 'for profit' operation? NOT A VIABLE OPTION at all!.

You misunderstood, Baron. I was saying that it could be a NONprofit organization, so people could donate tax free. A for profit company is the other alternative, but if that is the model, it will mean, ex hypothesi, that investors will put money into it in order to share in the profit. It has to be one or the other, is what I am saying.

A lot of things that used to be either for profit or government funded eventually became nonprofits that people donate to. That's the paradigm shift I think we might see. Opera companies are a good example. Originally they were just a business, then cities funded them, but that didn't suffice and wasn't popular with the public. So rich people give money to opera because it is the only way they can be funded. The wealthy people of the bay area give to SF Opera because they want to hear Anna Netrebko sing La Traviata for the first time in north america (I was THERE, man, and it was AWESOME!). And more pointedly they want SF to have a better opera company than LA (which is does, BTW ;) ). If governments won't fund Olympics and they can't turn a profit purely as a business, that doesn't mean they will go away. It might just mean that havinig a great Olympics in your city will become a new status symbol for a city's elite, and that the Olympics will be honoring their donors in the "Dress Circle" just like the opera does. Maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of things that used to be either for profit or government funded eventually became nonprofits that people donate to. That's the paradigm shift I think we might see. Opera companies are a good example. Originally they were just a business, then cities funded them, but that didn't suffice and wasn't popular with the public. So rich people give money to opera because it is the only way they can be funded. The wealthy people of the bay area give to SF Opera because they want to hear Anna Netrebko sing La Traviata for the first time in north america (I was THERE, man, and it was AWESOME!). And more pointedly they want SF to have a better opera company than LA (which is does, BTW ;) ). If governments won't fund Olympics and they can't turn a profit purely as a business, that doesn't mean they will go away. It might just mean that havinig a great Olympics in your city will become a new status symbol for a city's elite, and that the Olympics will be honoring their donors in the "Dress Circle" just like the opera does. Maybe.

OK,let me ask you a question: who were the 2 prominent families who donated to Lake Placid 1980 and Salt Lake 2002?

If you can't answer that within the next ten minutes after you read this question; then that answers my question as to why giving to the Opera/Ballet/Symphony/PBS/Museums is different from giving to an ephemeral "sports" thing like the Olympics where you don't attend the Opening Ceremony in a Carolina Herrera gown; where you don't see your image splattered on the society pages the next day...and where you won't HAVE a permanent Donors Wall since nearly everything will be temporary and be torn down the minute the circus leaves town. In an Olympics, the athletes and the IOC are the stars of the show -- not the Donors.

So unless SFOCOG has found a new way to attract that kind of money, I really don't see that business model working. I could be wrong though.

BTW, I am going to the Ballet opening in 3 weeks...but I am only doing so because I am treating myself to that event and crossing it off my bucket list. For no other reason.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
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...