Jump to content
yoshi

What needs to be done?

Recommended Posts

Throughout the last few years, everyone’s been saying that the IOC needs to make ‘reforms’ & changes to the current bid process & the games themselves, in order to bring bidders back. But it’s generally been vague - just what are those changes, just what do the IOC have to do? What will it take to save the Olympics (especially the winter ones) & what would you do if you were President?

Personally, if I could make just one change (that hasn’t been suggested AFAIK) I’d say the IOC should fund 100% of security costs - as these are a complete black hole with no legacy possible, it would be a strong gesture & guarantee a level of quality each time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, yoshi said:

Throughout the last few years, everyone’s been saying that the IOC needs to make ‘reforms’ & changes to the current bid process & the games themselves, in order to bring bidders back. But it’s generally been vague - just what are those changes, just what do the IOC have to do? What will it take to save the Olympics (especially the winter ones) & what would you do if you were President?

Personally, if I could make just one change (that hasn’t been suggested AFAIK) I’d say the IOC should fund 100% of security costs - as these are a complete black hole with no legacy possible, it would be a strong gesture & guarantee a level of quality each time. 

I don't know that's a smart idea.  Security is an unfortunate necessity of an Olympics and the host city/country should be leading that effort, not the IOC.

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

The IOC needs to stop the sweepstakes bidding process and only approach by invitation cities and regions that align to compliment the Olympic Games. It also needs to be open to multiple cities on the host city contract and financial guarantee. This would allow bids like in Italy, Calgary, and Stockholm to share the risk AND the reward with cities in their respective bids. It would also calm taxpayer fears, which by far is the greatest obstacle the IOC faces in hooking a single city to the guarantee which in turn drives them to make excessive infrastructure spending. 

They're already dealing with NOC's, so that's on them if they want to present something that involves multiple cities/region.  We're seeing that already with Italy.  Stockholm is proposing their Alpine venue a distance away and a sliding track in Latvia. And we know about Calgary's plans, even though that was centered more around a city.

There still needs to be a group responsible for the bid and often that's going to be centered in a particular city rather than multiple cities signing on the dotted line.  Even if the NOC takes the lead, they'll still need to engage with cities and their local government.  Either way, bids that involve multiple cities/region are more than acceptable.  But this goes back to what has been discussed here before.. do bids such as those make sense for those cities?  In Calgary, the answer is not so much, although there are plenty of reasons beyond the potential inclusion of Vancouver and Edmonton that led to the bid's demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Security is an unfortunate necessity of an Olympics and the host city/country should be leading that effort, not the IOC.

I don't think it's worth the martial law level of spending that goes on now, though.

The Super Bowl has only $1.5-2 million in security costs and brings in about 75,000 extra visitors to the host city: about $20-25 per visitor added. That's a drop in the ocean compared to Super Bowl ticket prices of $2,000-$7,000, and can easily be recouped by the host city with the extra taxes local governments will collect on the added economic activity. The winter Olympics bring in about 200,00-300,000 visitors and have a total security cost of about $750 million: about $3,000 per visitor added. That's flat out madness.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nacre said:

I don't think it's worth the martial law level of spending that goes on now, though.

The Super Bowl has only $1.5-2 million in security costs and brings in about 75,000 extra visitors to the host city: about $20-25 per visitor added. That's a drop in the ocean compared to Super Bowl ticket prices of $2,000-$7,000, and can easily be recouped by the host city with the extra taxes local governments will collect on the added economic activity. The winter Olympics bring in about 200,00-300,000 visitors and have a total security cost of about $750 million: about $3,000 per visitor added. That's flat out madness.

Uhmmm... only one Venue and perhaps 2 or 3 hotels, and for ONE afternoon,  need the vigorous security for a SuperBowl.  A Summer Olympics has like 2 dozen venues, 2 or 3 Villages, at least 15 hotels would need A-1 Security ....for at least 20 days!  They lock-down hotels and venues a few days before Opening Day.  Beijing attracted what? 61 Heads of State?  The US president doesn't even attend the Super Bowl.  How can you even compare the two??   :wacko:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, yoshi said:

Personally, if I could make just one change (that hasn’t been suggested AFAIK) I’d say the IOC should fund 100% of security costs - as these are a complete black hole with no legacy possible, it would be a strong gesture & guarantee a level of quality each time. 

As Quaker said, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  Hosts and Interpol will NOT let that happen.  The IOC is merely the "mother" umbrella stager of the Games.  It cannot micro-manage something like Security.  That is not something you fool around with.  It''s best left to the experts and there is reason for sums for Security purposely being ambiguous.  Any self-respecting sovereign nation will want total control of its borders and ANYTHING and EVERYTHING happening in it.  They will NOT let a "guest" organization take over that portfolio. Just not going to happen, yoshi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Uhmmm... only one Venue and perhaps 2 or 3 hotels, and for ONE afternoon,  need the vigorous security for a SuperBowl.  A Summer Olympics has like 2 dozen venues, 2 or 3 Villages, at least 15 hotels would need A-1 Security ....for at least 20 days!  They lock-down hotels and venues a few days before Opening Day.  Beijing attracted what? 61 Heads of State?  The US president doesn't even attend the Super Bowl.  How can you even compare the two??   :wacko:

My point is that it simply isn't practical to expect the host city to be providing security for almost a hundred heads of state and to provide "A-1 Security" for dozens of sites. I don't believe that even Los Angeles is capable of operating in the black under the modern format when security costs are considered.

For a start there's no need for heads of state to be present. For the Los Angeles games in 2028 the president could appear during the ceremonies in a pre-recorded video, for example, and save the taxpayer the expense of AF1 flying out to LA along with the presidential retinue.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nacre said:

I don't think it's worth the martial law level of spending that goes on now, though.

The Super Bowl has only $1.5-2 million in security costs and brings in about 75,000 extra visitors to the host city: about $20-25 per visitor added. That's a drop in the ocean compared to Super Bowl ticket prices of $2,000-$7,000, and can easily be recouped by the host city with the extra taxes local governments will collect on the added economic activity. The winter Olympics bring in about 200,00-300,000 visitors and have a total security cost of about $750 million: about $3,000 per visitor added. That's flat out madness.

3 hours ago, Nacre said:

My point is that it simply isn't practical to expect the host city to be providing security for almost a hundred heads of state and to provide "A-1 Security" for dozens of sites. I don't believe that even Los Angeles is capable of operating in the black under the modern format when security costs are considered.

For a start there's no need for heads of state to be present. For the Los Angeles games in 2028 the president could appear during the ceremonies in a pre-recorded video, for example, and save the taxpayer the expense of AF1 flying out to LA along with the presidential retinue.

Was going to reply to the first post, but baron literally said almost exactly what I would have.  You can't compare the Super Bowl to the Olympics.  They are absolutely nothing alike, so the math is pointless.

Providing steak sauce security is a necessity and cutting corners can lead to disaster.  Less we need to be reminded of what happened in Munich when they got lax about securing the Olympic village.  Unfortunately, given the state of the world, the Olympics are always going to be a high profile target, particularly since they're a worldwide event (in comparison to the Super Bowl which is not).  Heads of state don't *need* to be present, but does anyone want to tell, say, the king of Norway that he's not welcome at the Olympics because it might cost a few more bucks in security?  The president should pre-record a message so that he doesn't have to travel to/from LA?  What kind of bullshit is that?  Where else would the president be then, as if flying elsewhere wouldn't come at taxpayer expense?

Think about the 2018 Olympics.  There were very legitimate concerns about the safety of athletes and officials which led to speculation about certain countries not sending their athletes.  In hindsight it was a non-story and we'll never know if the security measures they had in place prevented any incidents.  But what we do know is that an Olympics in 1 of the most volatile regions in the world at a time where North Korea was doing more chirping than anyone would like went off without a hitch.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even mentioning Munch 1972, how about:

- the intruder at the PyeongChang 2018 OC  (luckily, he was harmless)

- the attack on runner VanderLima @ the Athens 2004 marathon race (and almost surely causing him to lose the race)? 

- the bombing @ Centennial Park, Atlanta 1996? 

- Nancy Kerrigan being clubbed backstage in Detroit?

- Monica Seles being stabbed in the back in Germany?

- Eddie the Eagle being heckled in Calgary 1988?  ;)

NO or VOLUNTEER SECURITY?  Right.  :blink:   I'm glad I'm not competing in any event you guys could be in charge of.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading through this, nobody seems to have suggested no or volunteer security?

It’s just who pays the bill for the party? I agree with yoshi that the IOC could easily do that. Of course, security itself would still remain in professional hands as before.

There’s actually a discussion going on in Germany, where some federal states are no longer willing to fund security for football matches and are threatening to send the bill to the league that after all organises them (and makes a lot of money while the public pockets aren’t that full and should be spent on schools, infrastructure etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, RuFF said:

The IOC needs to .. only approach by invitation cities and regions that align to compliment the Olympic Games.

I assume you mean 'complement', but instead you've unwittingly given us a brilliant insight into what the IOC's current leadership probably thinks should be happening. :lol:

Edited by Rob.
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

NO or VOLUNTEER SECURITY?  Right.  :blink:   I'm glad I'm not competing in any event you guys could be in charge of.  

I am not suggesting NO security. I am suggesting that the current numbers seem astronomically high even for a high profile event.

Vancouver 2010 sold roughly 1,058,000 tickets and had a security budget of about $720 million USD. That is $680 per ticket sold. For that amount of money the organizers could provide every single ticketed guest and athlete with a bodyguard for the day. I simply don't understand where all of this money is going. They should be able to secure the venues and the Olympic village(s) for a small fraction of that cost.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nacre said:

I am not suggesting NO security. I am suggesting that the current numbers seem astronomically high even for a high profile event.

Vancouver 2010 sold roughly 1,058,000 tickets and had a security budget of about $720 million USD. That is $680 per ticket sold. For that amount of money the organizers could provide every single ticketed guest and athlete with a bodyguard for the day. I simply don't understand where all of this money is going. They should be able to secure the venues and the Olympic village(s) for a small fraction of that cost.

Perhaps, you might write the IOC and share your thoughts?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nacre said:

I am not suggesting NO security. I am suggesting that the current numbers seem astronomically high even for a high profile event.

Vancouver 2010 sold roughly 1,058,000 tickets and had a security budget of about $720 million USD. That is $680 per ticket sold. For that amount of money the organizers could provide every single ticketed guest and athlete with a bodyguard for the day. I simply don't understand where all of this money is going. They should be able to secure the venues and the Olympic village(s) for a small fraction of that cost.

`Lets see, perimeter security, security sweeps, guards almost everywhere, security infrastructure (scanners etc.), salaries etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhmm. . . we (my HOA) just got a quote for some mesh chain link fence to install in a part of our complex.  I hereby attach part of the quote for est. 370 lineal feet,  See the cost. :

#1. Install approximately 370 lineal feet of chain link fence identical to the type installed behind buildings 665, 669, 677, 675, 681 & 673 back in March of this year.

#2. Remove several obstacles and prune or remove a few shrubs as needed.

#3. Terminate existing irrigation extending into "right of way" area.

Total Labor & Materials..........................$13,270.00   (And this for WITHOUT barbed wire on top. )

To need, I dunno? 2.5 km of fencing alone? would be what?  $2.5 million??   Add another $750K (a wild guess)  for removal of some of those . . .   

That's just for starters.   :blink: :blink:  :blink: 

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nacre said:

I am not suggesting NO security. I am suggesting that the current numbers seem astronomically high even for a high profile event.

Vancouver 2010 sold roughly 1,058,000 tickets and had a security budget of about $720 million USD. That is $680 per ticket sold. For that amount of money the organizers could provide every single ticketed guest and athlete with a bodyguard for the day. I simply don't understand where all of this money is going. They should be able to secure the venues and the Olympic village(s) for a small fraction of that cost.

Maybe this will give you some insight..

Olympics security bill: how it soared to more than £1bn

Athens goes 'sci-fi' for Olympics security

I don't claim to know how all that money is spent.  What I do know is that it's a little more complicated than providing everyone a bodyguard each day.  Securing an event on a scale of the Olympics starts long before the Opening Ceremony.  It means training personnel to know how to do their jobs.  It means taking care of venues and other sites around the city long before the athletes and media or any of the spectators should it.  As noted, it means getting equipment to the venues and making sure it is operational through the duration of the Olympics.  Not to mention transporting it elsewhere after the Olympics.

Security costs also skyrocketed after 9/11.  Sydney spent about $250 million on security.  For Athens, the tab was over $1.5 billion.  Again, it's an unavoidable expense of putting on the Olympics.  It's prohibitively expensive and perhaps it could be done on the cheap.  But if you're a visiting athlete or a media member or a spectator - let alone an international dignitary - would you want them to cut corners on security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, in NoKor, Russia, and China, you can probably get the best Security Manpower for what- I dunno?  $85 million?  :lol:  But it would probably be the crudest, MOST THUGGISH security ever! 

Yoshi, Nacre, you get what you pay for in these events. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Dr Brakish Okun tours the president's party over Area 51's workspace]
President Whitmore: I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?
Julius: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Uhmm. . . we (my HOA) just got a quote for some mesh chain link fence to install in a part of our complex.  I hereby attach part of the quote for est. 370 lineal feet,  See the cost. :

(. . .)

Total Labor & Materials..........................$13,270.00   (And this for WITHOUT barbed wire on top. )

Prorating your numbers, they should be able to build a fence around the perimeter of the Olympic Stadium for $180,000. So it should cost around $20-25 million to build fences around all of the Olympic venues and the village for the summer games with the exception of outdoor facilities like the mountain biking, sailing and rowing venues. (And the scrap metal fees collected should be able to pay for the teardown work, especially if they use volunteer workers.) That is an acceptable number, and again a very small fraction of the billions of dollars currently spent on security.

11 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Security costs also skyrocketed after 9/11.  Sydney spent about $250 million on security.  For Athens, the tab was over $1.5 billion.  Again, it's an unavoidable expense of putting on the Olympics.  It's prohibitively expensive and perhaps it could be done on the cheap.  But if you're a visiting athlete or a media member or a spectator - let alone an international dignitary - would you want them to cut corners on security?

Of course the IOC and the athletes want the kind of martial law level security that Sochi had. (For example, I've heard that Boston's massive police response to the marathon bombing was one of the things that made them appealing to the USOC and the IOC.) But the current security costs alone are going to kill the Olympics irrespective of whether they can get the infrastructure costs down. If Los Angeles has to spend $3 billion on security in 2028 there's no way they will be able to operate in the black even if they don't build a single new venue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nacre said:

But the current security costs alone are going to kill the Olympics irrespective of whether they can get the infrastructure costs down. If Los Angeles has to spend $3 billion on security in 2028 there's no way they will be able to operate in the black even if they don't build a single new venue.

Lol - I’ve said $2 Billion before. But maybe that figure could very well be a possibility when it’s all said in done. L.A.’28 is still ten years away & who knows what kind of security threats can emerge by that time. As a good example that Quaker brought up - Sydney 2000 was only $250 million, but that number grew six times over, four years later in Athens. All mainly due bcuz of 9/11.

London 2012 had a battleship stationed on the Thames River & ground-to-air rockets on rooftops. What could L.A. 2028 implement? It’s more than likely going to be big, & in all honesty, it’s going to be needed in the unfortunate way the world is today, & will probably be even worse by 2028. In addition to chain-linked fences, the cost of new technology, as it comes out, also goes up. I mentioned the other day, in another thread, that Tokyo 2020 will be using facial recognition at their Games. The first-time ever at an Olympic Games. One may argue is that really necessary, but in this day & age of global terrorism & security risks at a global event like the Olympics, the answer is a resounded yes.

The U.S. Federal Gov’t will cover most of the security costs at a Games here anyway. So all of us U.S. taxpayers will unfortunately be flipping that bill. But with something like security at the Olympics, I just don’t see how it can be done on the cheap with the type of global threats that are out there today, & will continue to be ten years from now at Los Angeles 2028.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never suggesting the IOC actually provide the security themselves, take over borders etc. Just that there could be an arrangement where the city/country hosting can invoice the IOC for the security cost at the end. Also, I was hoping to hear about what else you think ‘needs to be done’ to save the games, not just a thread about security :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Nacre said:

Of course the IOC and the athletes want the kind of martial law level security that Sochi had. (For example, I've heard that Boston's massive police response to the marathon bombing was one of the things that made them appealing to the USOC and the IOC.) But the current security costs alone are going to kill the Olympics irrespective of whether they can get the infrastructure costs down. If Los Angeles has to spend $3 billion on security in 2028 there's no way they will be able to operate in the black even if they don't build a single new venue.

Dude, stop fear-mongering.  Martial law?  Who's talking about $3 billion on security?  I have seen this which I'm sure will be of interest to you..

Security Costs to Protect 2028 Olympic Games Could Surpass $2B

Paris and LA didn't seem to be overly concerned about security costs.  For all the cities that have dropped Olympic bids in recent years, which of them have cited security costs as 1 of their primary reasons?

The point of Olympic security is not to respond to an incident (as is your example of the Boston Marathon bombing).  It's to prevent those incidents from happening in the first place, like the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta.  A perimeter fence is just the start.  They need to screen everyone as they enter the venues (that's true of most sporting events already in the United States).  And to be on the lookout for anyone in the city who might want to cause an incident.  That's why we're hearing now about technology as it relates to security.  Like FYI said.. yes, it is really necessary.  Any sort of terrorist incident at an Olympics will reflect poorly on the host city and host country.  Yes, it can be absurdly expensive to prevent that with an event on the scale of the Olympics.  But it needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA 1984 did hire their own security forces as the first ring around the Villages and venues; and LAPD patrolled areas outside the venues.  There was only one known instance of a recruit selling his uniform after the first day.  But they found out rather quickly.  That was post-1972 and pre-9/11.  So based on that, plus LA has a very concerned and involved citizenry, so I think LA 2028 will do well in their security operations.  It's the doggone Torch relays and Olympic marathons (as exemplified by Van der lima and Boston) that are among the hardest to monitor and secure.  Those are where you need as many boots on the ground as you can provide.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of doing a host city just simply do a hoist country like the World Cup. That way it maximizes a country’s ability to use existing facilities in different regions so they don’t need to build things. Sure the parade of nations might need to be reworked due to the fact that the athletes would have been spread out in preparations for their event but it sounds like the games have gotten to large for just one city to host. I haven’t been here in awhile so forgive me if that suggestion was already made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×