Brisbane 2032 Venues/Stadiums Thread

[baron-pierreIV]

8 hours ago, FYI said:

So in other words, Rio 2016 was kinda/sorta the first rectangular then.

I have reviewed some of the Rio OC and CC.  Nope, they used an oval performance space.  (Sorry, Rols.)  I don't know why, but GB won't let me post UTube links.  It's just nto letting me.  

Edited February 17, 2024 by baron-pierreIV

[Rob2012]

Errr...you're both right, kind of @baron-pierreIV@Sir Rols

The rebuilt Maracana is a rectangle with ovular ends. It's not the big oval it was before the 2014 world cup.

For the purposes of this thread and comparison, I'd count it as a Summer Ceremony in a rectangular stadium, regardless of what shape the stage was that they fitted inside it. It's certainly closer to that end of the spectrum than to a traditional ceremony in an athletics stadium anyway.

And of course we'll have LA28 at SoFi which will be narrow compared with anything previously.

Edited February 17, 2024 by Rob2012

[Sir Rols]

10 hours ago, Rob2012 said:

Errr...you're both right, kind of @baron-pierreIV@Sir Rols

The rebuilt Maracana is a rectangle with ovular ends. It's not the big oval it was before the 2014 world cup.

For the purposes of this thread and comparison, I'd count it as a Summer Ceremony in a rectangular stadium, regardless of what shape the stage was that they fitted inside it. It's certainly closer to that end of the spectrum than to a traditional ceremony in an athletics stadium anyway.

And of course we'll have LA28 at SoFi which will be narrow compared with anything previously.

Thanks Rob. Yeah, those areas behind the goal posts add an oval shape geometrically, but otherwise, the dimensions were more of a rectangular pitch - there’s a reason they didn’t stage athletics there (and that various posters here lost their minds that they didn’t).

Of course, Suncorp would present no such ambiguity.

I always thought it was strange that Brsbane’s biggest existing stadium didn’t have a bigger role in the 2032 plans.

Edited February 17, 2024 by Sir Rols

[Sir Rols]

21 hours ago, FYI said:

If that (article) was sweet, have to wonder what not-so-sweet would be then. 

LOL! Queenslanders always get their backs up if anyone else, ESPECIALLY from NSW or Victoria, tell them what to do. Almost makes me think there is something in the newspaper suggestion that @Gonzo posted:

Quote

John Coates playing a superb 4D chess game. Once people realise how stupid the idea of having QEII & Suncorp is, the people will be asking to go back and revisit the Gabba option and presto the government comes back with a new proposal at a slightly reduced cost

That this is all some reverse psychology on Coates’ part to get them to back the Gabba.

[FYI]

On 2/10/2024 at 11:40 PM, Sir Rols said:

To be fair, though, that’s also how they were sold - as a SE Queensland regional games making use of the legacy of Gold Coast 2018. In which case it should have been more focussed on transport to make Carrara work, for example, rather than leap at the opportunity later to make the Gabba the showpiece instead.

But isn't that something that should've been known already by the political leaders? Just how it's been said that the main venues should've been figured out first prior to the IOC anointing Brisbane, wasn't it clear that the transport network in SE Queensland needed to be improved first to make a "regional Games" work that much more efficiently? This also seems like putting the cart before the horse in that aspect, too. And it still getting lost in all the Gabba shuffle, cause the transport issues are still not getting properly addressed.

On 2/10/2024 at 11:40 PM, Sir Rols said:

I’m all for opening up opportunities for the games to go to new, lesser-tier cities. I like new faces more than a tired roster of repeat hosts. I think the games should still be something for new nations and cities to strive for. Our best legacy could have been, and still could be, showing how that can be done. But you don’t do that by saying: “Yes, it’s possible, but it'll cost you $10 billion or more".

But isn't that the reality for cities like Brisbane, though? You have to spend the cash first for an event as mega as the Olympics. In the U.S. cities wouldn't benefit from tax dollars from the federal gov't to help subsidize for an Olympics. It would be totally dependent on the city & state. So 'showing how that can be done' would still remain to be seen when the Brisbane formula wouldn't necessarily translate into a template for other similar size cities, especially in the U.S. 

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

That this is all some reverse psychology on Coates’ part to get them to back the Gabba.

One would think. Cause I'd really like to know what Bach & Co. really "think" about the whole Lang Park/QSAC idea. They can't be thrilled (especially about the latter), I'm sure.

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

But isn't that the reality for cities like Brisbane, though? You have to spend the cash first for an event as mega as the Olympics. In the U.S. cities wouldn't benefit from tax dollars from the federal gov't to help subsidize for an Olympics. It would be totally dependent on the city & state. So 'showing how that can be done' would still remain to be seen when the Brisbane formula wouldn't necessarily translate into a template for other similar size cities, especially in the U.S. 

The thing is, Brisbane CAN do it cheaply. It’s just a matter how cheap is acceptable when it comes to Qld/national pride and Olympic expectations. There ARE two existing alternatives to the Gabba, both workable in a pinch. Brisbane Live isn’t strictly needed - Chandler or Gold Coast Aquatic Centre would work as well for swimming. We know Redlands is a wasteful un-needed proposition. That’s the idea that was initially pitched to the IOC and the public. It’s the ambition that changed after the win and caused the cost to soar and he current crisis of confidence.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

One would think. Cause I'd really like to know what Bach & Co. really "think" about the whole Lang Park/QSAC idea. They can't be thrilled (especially about the latter), I'm sure.

We know what they think - it’s Coates himself who suggested QE2/Suncorp. And you can be pretty sure this was endorsed by Lausanne and considered the official IOC intervention into the review. They’re not thrilled the Gabba saga has put the Olympics “on the nose”. They were never thrilled having the Gabba idea sprung on them at the last moment in the first place. QSAC/Carrara s what they originally signed off on. Coates’ intervention IS the official IOC response, policy and attempt at circuit breaking. Coates was probably sent because Bach told him when they all got back in the office after Gangwon: “You got us into this mess, John. You go there and sort it out.They’ll listen to you.”

Edited February 18, 2024 by Sir Rols

[Gonzo]

"Brisbane 2032 - Good, Different"

[Gonzo]

I'm not sure John Coates is all there up top these days. In today's newspaper he is suggesting Townsville to be part of the Opening Ceremony with Johnathan Thurston playing a major role

[Gonzo]

And also interestingly, Natalie Cook who is on the Brisbane 2032 organising board has called for the Gabba rebuild to go ahead

[FYI]

17 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

That’s the idea that was initially pitched to the IOC and the public.

Yeah, but how many times has it been said that a lot of the public there didn't even know about Brisbane's Olympic plans until it was already handed to them on a silver-platter. And by then, what could many of the public do besides complain after the fact.

18 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

The thing is, Brisbane CAN do it cheaply. It’s just a matter how cheap is acceptable when it comes to Qld/national pride and Olympic expectations.

Like this cheap, perhaps?!

16 hours ago, Gonzo said:

"Brisbane 2032 - Good, Different"

18 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

We know what they think - it’s Coates himself who suggested QE2/Suncorp. And you can be pretty sure this was endorsed by Lausanne and considered the official IOC intervention into the review. 

Yes, I know it was JC himself who made that call. Still doesn't mean that everyone in Lausaunne is happy about it, though. Since I see that you made an edit later on which states what I exactly meant:

18 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Coates was probably sent because Bach told him when they all got back in the office after Gangwon: “You got us into this mess, John. You go there and sort it out. They’ll listen to you.”

It's like a bad marriage. What else are you going to do at that point but grin & bare it, unless you want to wrestle around with a very costly, messy divorce.

[Sir Rols]

On 2/19/2024 at 5:38 AM, FYI said:

Like this cheap, perhaps?!

On 2/19/2024 at 5:38 AM, FYI said:

Brisbane 2032 - Good, Different"

Expand  

 

Would that be such a bad thing?

I’m going to go off on a bit of a rant, and play devil’s advocate, here. But I do see a lot of contradictory, even hypocritical, attitudes about the issue here (and I certainly don’t exclude myself from that).

I’d guess if you asked most people here, and in general, what the biggest problem facing the games is and what’s driving bidders away, the most popular answer would be cost. Many, if not most, people would surely agree that the games have got too expensive for even major league cities to want to host, and costs and scale need to come down.

Yet, when you get some concrete steps to reduce those costs, people fling their arms up in horror. Rio got ripped because its decorations looked “cheap and tacky”. National honour won’t let PyeongChang or Milano-Cortina consider cheaper, overseas options for sliding. Major cities like Madrid get scratched for consideration as future hosts because their grand showpiece stadiums aren’t suited for hosting athletics in the style Olympic viewers expect. And now the thought of Brisbane presenting a cheap “Aldi” games is considered ridiculous or humiliating.

Something’s gotta give. And I think the IOC even recognise that. We’re long past the days where the public are all too obliging to wave through grandiose Olympic projects in the name of national honour and prestige. Commercial realities now dictate we can’t anymore expect the likes of athletics to demand big 80k+ legacy venues that handicap any other future uses for them. Or that every new host must provide an expensive spanking new, closely located sliding track, whitewater course, velodrome etc. 

I get it - and sympathise - that a lot of the appeal of the Olympics traditionally has been its grand spectacle. And that hosts are proud and like to make a big statement and impression on the world. But surely you don’t always, or ever, need glittering edifices to do that.

I concede there’s a good case to be made that maybe the Olympics should rotate between about half-a-dozen ready-equipped metroplises - say, LA, Paris, Tokyo, London, Beijing etc. Or even the Athens-Olympia option - one permanent host site for all time. Such proposals still have their issues and difficulties though IMO, and at the end of the day, I wouldn’t be in favour. It would hugely lessen what enthrals me about the Olympics - their universality. I still want them to move around to new locations and let new populations have the joy and honour of hosting them.

I, maybe only grudgingly, accept that to achieve that I can’t always have my cake and eat it too. To get new hosts, compromises need to be made and grandiosity for spectacle’s or national pride’s sake needs to be discouraged. I’m ambivalent on the Gabba for Brisbane - I still think there’s a good case legacy and Olympics-wise for it. But not at the dollar cost floated. If going cheap - to QE2 or Carrara or whatever - is what it takes to make Brisbane work and be palatable, so be it. And if presenting an “Aldi” games is what Brisbane needs to do (and the IOC wants it to do) to show the Olympics can be affordable and sustainable for future prospective new hosts, so be it.   

 

Edited February 21, 2024 by Sir Rols

[Bear]

honestly as someone from outside Australia who enjoys the Games, if Brisbane were to use Carrara or an updated QEII for athletics, i legitimately couldn't care less. It would certainly not diminish my view of Brisbane, Queensland, or Australia and their capability to host an Olympic and Paralympic Games. If anything, they're being resourceful and genuinely applying the expectations set by "the new norm" and Olympic Agenda 2020 (whatever that means these days).

I think many of you guys on here are being overly critical of Brisbane, comparing it to what you consider are not-ideal-cities. Even the way the comparison with Atlanta is done here doesn't make sense, because Atlanta legitimately put on a good Games with a healthy profit. Even if they weren't the best Games like Barcelona or Sydney, why would it be a bad thing for Brisbane to be another Atlanta?

Sure it's not great that the last 3 years have been essentially wasted by focusing on a project no one really wanted, but you guys still have over 8 years to go. There is plenty of time to fix the stadium issue. There is still time to do things the right way. I'm confident that in the end, Brisbane will pull off a great Games. Whether or not they are on the same level as Sydney or other editions, who knows? But I'm sure it wont be a disaster.

[Nacre]

1 hour ago, Bear said:

honestly as someone from outside Australia who enjoys the Games, if Brisbane were to use Carrara or an updated QEII for athletics, i legitimately couldn't care less. 

Of course the "losers" with smaller venues are the locals and traveling international fans rather than the television audience. And it's really the sponsor and TV money that the IOC cares about, so I think they would ultimately be fine with Carrara too.

I also think that we need to note that the ticket revenue is potentially a LOT of money for the actual host, though. Consider the revenue for the London 2012 organizing committee.

• 2012 Ticket Revenue: 659 million GBP / 1,042 million USD (@ 1.58 conversion rate in 2012)
• 2012 Sponsor Revenue (local): ~700 million GBP / 1,106 million USD for the London organizing committee
• 2012 Sponsor Revenue (int'l): ~350 million GBP / 553 million USD sponsor revenue shared by IOC
• 2012 Television Revenue: ~350 million GBP / 553 million USD television revenue shared by IOC

The ticket revenue for London in 2012 ultimately amounted to about the same as the entire contribution from the IOC to the organizing committee. An Olympics with small venues and weak ticket revenue is probably doomed to lose a ton of money on the organizational cost. (And that's before getting to the security and capital costs.)

EDIT: This is also why football/soccer is still in the Olympics despite the fact that nobody really cares much about Olympic football. It's an easy way for the host/organizers to sell a lot of tickets without having to build new venues.

Edited February 22, 2024 by Nacre

[FYI]

3 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Would that be such a bad thing?

I’m going to go off on a bit of a rant, and play devil’s advocate, here. But I do see a lot of contradictory, even hypocritical, attitudes about the issue here (and I certainly don’t exclude myself from that).

I’d guess if you asked most people here, and in general, what the biggest problem facing the games is and what’s driving bidders away, the most popular answer would be cost. Many, if not most, people would surely agree that the games have got too expensive for even major league cities to want to host, and costs and scale need to come down.

Yet, when you get some concrete steps to reduce those costs, people fling their arms up in horror. Rio got ripped because its decorations looked “cheap and tacky”. National honour won’t let PyeongChang or Milano-Cortina consider cheaper, overseas options for sliding. Major cities like Madrid get scratched for consideration as future hosts because their grand showpiece stadiums aren’t suited for hosting athletics in the style Olympic viewers expect. And now the thought of Brisbane presenting a cheap “Aldi” games is considered ridiculous or humiliating.

Something’s gotta give. And I think the IOC even recognise that. We’re long past the days where the public are all too obliging to wave through grandiose Olympic projects in the name of national honour and prestige. Commercial realities now dictate we can’t anymore expect the likes of athletics to demand big 80k+ legacy venues that handicap any other future uses for them. Or that every new host must provide an expensive spanking new, closely located sliding track, whitewater course, velodrome etc. 

I get it - and sympathise - that a lot of the appeal of the Olympics traditionally has been its grand spectacle. And that hosts are proud and like to make a big statement and impression on the world. But surely you don’t always, or ever, need glittering edifices to do that.

I concede there’s a good case to be made that maybe the Olympics should rotate between about half-a-dozen ready-equipped metroplises - say, LA, Paris, Tokyo, London, Beijing etc. Or even the Athens-Olympia option - one permanent host site for all time. Such proposals still have their issues and difficulties though IMO, and at the end of the day, I wouldn’t be in favour. It would hugely lessen what enthrals me about the Olympics - their universality. I still want them to move around to new locations and let new populations have the joy and honour of hosting them.

I, maybe only grudgingly, accept that to achieve that I can’t always have my cake and eat it too. To get new hosts, compromises need to be made and grandiosity for spectacle’s or national pride’s sake needs to be discouraged. I’m ambivalent on the Gabba for Brisbane - I still think there’s a good case legacy and Olympics-wise for it. But not at the dollar cost floated. If going cheap - to QE2 or Carrara or whatever - is what it takes to make Brisbane work and be palatable, so be it. And if presenting an “Aldi” games is what Brisbane needs to do (and the IOC wants it to do) to show the Olympics can be affordable and sustainable for future prospective new hosts, so be it.   

Sure, I get where you're coming from, Rols. The whole thing is really a catch-22, though, since I think your "rant"  I must say, is also a bit disingenuous, sorry to say. I mean, let's be honest here, if it wasn't for JC moving heaven & earth to make Brisbane 2032 happen (much like JAS with Barcelona 1992), none of us would be having this discussion right now. Coming off the high's of Paris & L.A., Brisbane just seems off entirely (& that's still without addressing their transport issues to make their 'regional' plan work well). The IOC ultimately choosing Brisbane had less to do about "sustainability" & much more to do about JC.

Yes, the Olympics should be as cost-effective as possible going forward, but Paris & L.A. are doing just that in two of the world's most global cities. And Australia could've just as easily done the same with Melbourne (not Brisbane). But of course, it was conveninently shoved aside (which would've been a perfect *agenda 2020*, "new-norm" host), because of the time-frame issue. That's what gets me the most. 

 What's also interesting is when Atlanta hosted the 1996 Olympics, I'm sure you remembered the ridicules of how cheap & "county fair"-like it appeared to the international community (it's "profit" margin aside for a moment). And then we had Sydney 2000, which was arguably one of the best Olympics to date. And now, we have the exact opposite. The U.S. is hosting 2028 in one it's most glamorous cities (albeit, even if it's a more recent Olympic host, relatively speaking), but then followed by "Brisbane". A complete role-reversal 32 years later. 

Would it really have made more sense (when the USOC sent out "invitations" to 35 U.S. cities when they were looking for the 2024 bidder at the time) to have the 2028 Olympics, in lets say, Kansas City, Pittsburgh (Brisbane's U.S. sister city lol) or Cincinnati, all U.S. metro areas similar in size to Brisbane, just for the sake of "newer" hosts, but the only way they could do it is the "Aldi" way? (I think these boards would've been flooded with international "horror" & dismay if that had been the case instead). Well, in the end, the USOC went with "been there, done that" L.A. Because it was the best U.S. city not only from an international perspective, but also from a sustainability aspect.

Australia already had the same solution, too, but with Melbourne, without the need of going "Aldi". And 76 years from it's last hosting in 1956, would've been perfectly acceptable as a repeat host. Certainly a much wider window from L.A. '84 to L.A. 2028. But instead of working so hard to just hand-deliver Brisbane the 2032 Games during a global pandemic, maybe the IOC should've worked on how to work around that dreaded time-frame rule of theirs if "sustainability" (without sacrificing too much splash at the same time) really was the name of their "Game'. 

[Bear]

52 minutes ago, Nacre said:

The ticket revenue for London in 2012 ultimately amounted to about the same as the entire contribution from the IOC to the organizing committee. An Olympics with small venues and weak ticket revenue is probably doomed to lose a ton of money on the organizational cost. (And that's before getting to the security and capital costs.)

Compared to the cost of working with a larger venue (or in this case, recreating one entirely) vs using a smaller venue, wouldn't that balance it out to a degree?

And considering the IOC is recommending the use of Carrara over the larger Gabba, I'm inclined to believe that they probably looked at this issue and believe the benefits outweigh the risks.

[Nacre]

9 minutes ago, Bear said:

Compared to the cost of working with a larger venue (or in this case, recreating one entirely) vs using a smaller venue, wouldn't that balance it out to a degree?

Not entirely.

The number of volunteer ushers, concessionaires, and so on would be reduced partially. But the majority of the volunteers for the games are doing the work behind the scenes cleaning the village, transporting everyone around, etc. And the number of athletes, judges, media and international broadcasting center, VIP's, et al are the same regardless of the number of tickets sold.

Moreover the volunteers are, well, unpaid volunteers, so cutting down the number of unpaid people working at the venues isn't going to reduce the total cost all that much compared to all the stuff the Olympic organizers have to pay for.

[Sir Rols]

52 minutes ago, FYI said:

Sure, I get where you're coming from, Rols. The whole thing is really a catch-22, though, since I think your "rant"  I must say, is also a bit disingenuous, sorry to say. I mean, let's be honest here, if it wasn't for JC moving heaven & earth to make Brisbane 2032 happen (much like JAS with Barcelona 1992), none of us would be having this discussion right now. Coming off the high's of Paris & L.A., Brisbane just seems off entirely (& that's still without addressing their transport issues to make their 'regional' plan work well). The IOC ultimately choosing Brisbane had less to do about "sustainability" & much more to do about JC.

 

I’m certainly not claiming consistency - I’m sure anyone could pick out contradictions in thoughts I’ve posted on the issue and I accept that. My thoughts are still very much trying to work may way through competing issues and they can change as new thoughts or new issues arise.

Yes, of course Coates “curated” the win. But that doesn’t change the fact that he managed to curate it through the EB by it using the low-cost sustainability card. And let’s not claim they’re following two high-spend Olympics. Paris and LA offer glamour by location, but their plans were very much predicated on minimal spend and build. The IOC were prepared to move heaven and earth and bend their rules to secure those two together. I’m as primed to criticise the IOC as the next man - I’m sure no AF IOC Fanboy - but they have at least in recent years demonstrated they’re ready to walk the walk to match their talk on looking for host sustainability.

52 minutes ago, FYI said:

 What's also interesting is when Atlanta hosted the 1996 Olympics, I'm sure you remembered the ridicules of how cheap & "county fair"-like it appeared to the international community (it's "profit" margin aside for a moment). And then we had Sydney 2000, which was arguably one of the best Olympics to date. And now, we have the exact opposite. The U.S. is hosting 2028 in one it's most glamorous cities (albeit, even if it's a more recent Olympic host, relatively speaking), but then followed by "Brisbane". A complete role-reversal 32 years later. 

Which comes to my point of the disconnect between wanting lower-cost games and costs, but then crying foul when that’s actually done. Similar, as I mentioned, to the ridicules when Rio had to cut costs on its look and ceremonies. As you know, I went to Atlanta’s games - had a great time and thought they were done well. Many of the criticisms were over-hyped, typical Olympic perfectionist nitpicking and, dare I say, a splash of anti-Americanism. I’m glad another US city, and the South region, had a chance to host before LA again. Just as I’m glad Rio had a chance to host despite any shortcomings. People, especially here, are always going to rate and handicap particular games on their particular tastes and preferences

52 minutes ago, FYI said:

Australia already had the same solution, too, but with Melbourne, without the need of going "Aldi". And 76 years from it's last hosting in 1956, would've been perfectly acceptable as a repeat host. Certainly a much wider window from L.A. '84 to L.A. 2028. But instead of working so hard to just hand-deliver Brisbane the 2032 Games during a global pandemic, maybe the IOC should've worked on how to work around that dreaded time-frame rule of theirs if "sustainability" (without sacrificing too much splash at the same time) really was the name of their "Game'. 

We all know why Melbourne was out of the picture. It’s all very well to say it would have been a better pick, but it wasn’t an option. And it won’t be an option as long as NBC feel they’re getting value-for-money and a return-on-investment on their broadcast deal. Or that the entire broadcasting model changes so much that it’s no longer viable. That may happen - I live in hope that such a development could open up more hosting possibilities, but it doesn’t appear we’re close to that yet.

Edited February 22, 2024 by Sir Rols

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, Nacre said:

Of course the "losers" with smaller venues are the locals and traveling international fans rather than the television audience. And it's really the sponsor and TV money that the IOC cares about, so I think they would ultimately be fine with Carrara too.

I also think that we need to note that the ticket revenue is potentially a LOT of money for the actual host, though. Consider the revenue for the London 2012 organizing committee.

• 2012 Ticket Revenue: 659 million GBP / 1,042 million USD (@ 1.58 conversion rate in 2012)
• 2012 Sponsor Revenue (local): ~700 million GBP / 1,106 million USD for the London organizing committee
• 2012 Sponsor Revenue (int'l): ~350 million GBP / 553 million USD sponsor revenue shared by IOC
• 2012 Television Revenue: ~350 million GBP / 553 million USD television revenue shared by IOC

The ticket revenue for London in 2012 ultimately amounted to about the same as the entire contribution from the IOC to the organizing committee. An Olympics with small venues and weak ticket revenue is probably doomed to lose a ton of money on the organizational cost. (And that's before getting to the security and capital costs.)

EDIT: This is also why football/soccer is still in the Olympics despite the fact that nobody really cares much about Olympic football. It's an easy way for the host/organizers to sell a lot of tickets without having to build new venues.

I’m with Bear on this. If you could do the arithmetic that higher ticket sales would cover the cost of spending huge on a new venue, as well as the lounger term maintenance and business case for that venue… good! But I’m not convinced it would.

Anyway, talking specifically about Brisbane, there’s not so much difference between the options. The Gabba was only being planned for 50k capacity. We know Carrara can be decked out to seat at least 40k - probably plus. QE2 I’m not an expert on the technical possibilities, and of course it would require temporary seating, but I’m pretty sure would be able to be decked out in the same vicinity or more. I’m not sure the cost equations would add up at all to make the Gabba more cost-effective and revenue generating than the alternatives.

[Bear]

3 minutes ago, Nacre said:

Not entirely.

The number of volunteer ushers, concessionaires, and so on would be reduced partially. But the majority of the volunteers for the games are doing the work behind the scenes cleaning the village, transporting everyone around, etc. And the number of athletes, judges, media and international broadcasting center, VIP's, et al are the same regardless of the number of tickets sold.

Moreover the volunteers are, well, unpaid volunteers, so cutting down the number of unpaid people working at the venues isn't going to reduce the total cost all that much compared to all the stuff the Olympic organizers have to pay for.

I'm more so referring to things like temporary overlays, seating changes, decorations (like Look of the Games banners and stuff), etc.

I know when the postponement for 2020 was first announced the Tokyo Organizing Committee said that things would be simplified in this regard in order to bring down costs. "Venues, see where outside of the field of play we can simplify. Can we have less resources?" With a smaller venue, it would be easier to keep things simple in order to reduce costs that could help offset the lower revenue from ticketing. Simplify other things as well and you could bring down costs by a few hundred million dollars, like Tokyo did, if you're really worried about the lost ticketing revenue from using less seats. But going to these lengths probably isn't necessary.

3 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I’m with Bear on this. If you could do the arithmetic that higher ticket sales would cover the cost of spending huge on a new venue, as well as the lounger term maintenance and business case for that venue… good! But I’m not convinced it would.

Anyway, talking specifically about Brisbane, there’s not so much difference between the options. The Gabba was only being planned for 50k capacity. We know Carrara can be decked out to seat at least 40k - probably plus. QE2 I’m not an expert on the technical possibilities, and of course it would require temporary seating, but I’m pretty sure would be able to be decked out in the same vicinity or more. I’m not sure the cost equations would add up at all to make the Gabba more cost-effective and revenue generating than the alternatives.

I'm assuming any plans for QE2 would involve doing what Birmingham did with Alexander Stadium, so we'd probably see a capacity of around ~40k as well. Possibly 50k since that's close to the current capacity, but likely 40k.

Considering the capacities, what i mentioned above regarding simplification, and that a QE2 upgrade (or a Carrara temporary overlay) would likely be cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding the Gabba, I don't think either of those two options would have a major negative impact on the overall revenue.

[Nacre]

25 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I’m with Bear on this. If you could do the arithmetic that higher ticket sales would cover the cost of spending huge on a new venue, as well as the lounger term maintenance and business case for that venue… good! But I’m not convinced it would.

That's not what I am arguing.

I am arguing that the cost of holding the sporting tournaments, operating the athletes village, transporting the athletes and officials, accommodating the corporate sponsors, et al is mostly a set price. And to recoup that money the organizers need to sell tickets.

So a city like Los Angeles that already has two large baseball stadiums in its greater metro area would be well served by selling 750,000 tickets to a baseball tournament as part of the Olympics. Meanwhile Brisbane would lose money if it tried to host baseball as part of the Olympics either with a tiny existing baseball stadium (having to house, feed, transport and clean up after the same number of athletes and officials as Los Angeles) OR an expensive new baseball stadium built from scratch.

• using large existing venue to sell lots of tickets = good idea
• using tiny existing venue and selling few tickets = neutral to bad idea
• building large expensive new venue = neutral to really, awfully, horribly bad idea

Edited February 22, 2024 by Nacre

[Sir Rols]

14 minutes ago, Nacre said:

That's not what I am arguing.

I am arguing that the cost of holding the sporting tournaments, operating the athletes village, transporting the athletes and officials, accommodating the corporate sponsors, et al is mostly a set price. And to recoup that money the organizers need to sell tickets.

So a city like Los Angeles that already has two large baseball stadiums in its greater metro area would be well served by selling 750,000 tickets to a baseball tournament as part of the Olympics. Meanwhile Brisbane would lose money if it tried to host baseball as part of the Olympics either with a tiny existing baseball stadium (having to house, feed, transport and clean up after the same number of athletes and officials as Los Angeles) OR an expensive new baseball stadium built from scratch.

Well, then I’d be pretty sure the OCOG would try to devise a sports plan to maximise their ticketing revenues - cricket rather than baseball, for example. 

I have doubts and concerns about various aspects of Brisbane - but not selling tix isn’t one of them.

[FYI]

31 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

And let’s not claim they’re following two high-spend Olympics. Paris and LA offer glamour by location, but their plans were very much predicated on minimal spend and build. The IOC were prepared to move heaven and earth and bend their rules to secure those two together. I’m as primed to criticise the IOC as the next man - I’m sure no AF IOC Fanboy - but they have at least in recent years demonstrated they’re ready to walk the walk to match their talk on looking for host sustainability.

I'm *not* claiming that. What I meant by the "high's" of Paris & L.A. IS the glamour locale aspect of it, something which obviously will be missing from Brisbane. 

37 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Which comes to my point of the disconnect between wanting lower-cost games and costs, but then crying foul when that’s actually done. Similar, as I mentioned, to the ridicules when Rio had to cut costs on its look and ceremonies. As you know, I went to Atlanta’s games - had a great time and thought they were done well. Many of the criticisms were over-hyped, typical Olympic perfectionist nitpicking and, dare I say, a splash of anti-Americanism. I’m glad another US city, and the South region, had a chance to host before LA again. Just as I’m glad Rio had a chance to host despite any shortcomings. People, especially here, are always going to rate and handicap particular games on their particular tastes and preferences

So Brisbane falls well in-line then with previous Olympic host city critiques. I really had no qualms with Rio, though. I certainly wasn't one of those that GASPED when athletics & the ceremonies weren't going to be in the "same" stadium for the first time. I'm not that hardcore about the venues (but they weren't bargain basement, either). For me, it was the *location* of those 2016 Games that was far more appealing. The first Games ever in South America.

If we're going to want to desire new locations for the Games going forward i.e. (South) Africa, India, etc. I think certain concessions are going to have to be made in order to make it happen. Not all of these developing nations can splurge the way China & Russia did for their respective Games. But at the same time, countries that have already hosted multiple times like the U.S. & Australia have, the bar should really be set a little higher, not lower. 

47 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

We all know why Melbourne was out of the picture. It’s all very well to say it would have been a better pick, but it wasn’t an option. And it won’t be an option as long as NBC feel they’re getting value-for-money and a return-on-investment on their broadcast deal. Or that the entire broadcasting model changes so much that it’s no longer viable. That may happen - I live in hope that such a development could open up more hosting possibilities, but it doesn’t appear we’re close to that yet.

 Right, I get that Melbourne wasn't an option.  But some sort of work around couldn't have been found to have made it an option, especially if again, sustainability was the goal here? Because especially by 2032, I can't see traditional broadcasting still being the be-all, end-all of TV watching. 

[Sir Rols]

19 minutes ago, FYI said:

I'm *not* claiming that. What I meant by the "high's" of Paris & L.A. IS the glamour locale aspect of it, something which obviously will be missing from Brisbane. 

And if we want new hosts, some are not going to be as glamorous as others. I’ve got no problem with that. I prefer Brisbane to Beijing, London or even Sydney so soon again.

21 minutes ago, FYI said:

If we're going to want to desire new locations for the Games going forward i.e. (South) Africa, India, etc. I think certain concessions are going to have to be made in order to make it happen. Not all of these developing nations can splurge the way China & Russia did for their respective Games. But at the same time, countries that have already hosted multiple times like the U.S. & Australia have, the bar should really be set a little higher, not lower. 

Exactly. And one of those concessions is to make them cheaper, more sustainable and not only something that can only be done by a megalopolis. I don’t believe repeat nations, like the US or Australia, should have the bar set higher. They can be an example. I’d have been more beguiled by Boston, for example, than LA. I’d prefer a scaled down or more distributed northern English games than London again. I don’t think the Ruhr is glamorous, but think it would be a great hosting option and prefer it to Berlin or Munich.

27 minutes ago, FYI said:

 Right, I get that Melbourne wasn't an option.  But some sort of work around couldn't have been found to have made it an option, especially if again, sustainability was the goal here? 

Not with NBC already having signed up to 2032 it couldn’t.

[FYI]

22 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

And if we want new hosts, some are not going to be as glamorous as others. I’ve got no problem with that. I prefer Brisbane to Beijing, London or even Sydney so soon again.

I guess, as usual, it just comes down to a matter of perspective then. Cause of the next three slated Summer Olympics, I'm most excited about Paris, & least excited about Brisbane (even moreso now with the latest revelations coming from there). And L.A. falls somewhere in-between on my list. Sydney I'd agree that would've been too soon again. That's why Melbourne would've been the perfect fit in both cases (new-ish with more appeal).

28 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Exactly. And one of those concessions is to make them cheaper, more sustainable and not only something that can only be done by a megalopolis. I don’t believe repeat nations, like the US or Australia, should have the bar set higher. They can be an example. I’d have been more beguiled by Boston, for example, than LA. I’d prefer a scaled down or more distributed northern English games than London again. I don’t think the Ruhr is glamorous, but think it would be a great hosting option and prefer it to Berlin or Munich.

How can the U.S. & Australia be the example when both approach Olympic hostings differently, though? The Feds in the U.S. aren't going to subsidize 1/2 the Olympics to any city (like Australia is doing with Brisbane). It just doesn't work that way here. The city & state are all on their own, barring security costs. That's why the whole pitch that Brisbane can be the "model" for other lesser-tier cities is a farce. I agree about Boston, though. Would've been a better alternative to L.A. again, & nicer locale than Atlanta. But the Bostonians just didn't want them. 

I remember the whole South Africa debates on here from back in the day, when some were adamant that for them it had to be scenic Cape Town or their biggest city Johannesburg. Never mind that Durban was the one with the all-ready Olympic stadium & a sports venue precinct. Not to mention, Durban also would've been the most conducive (much like Brisbane) to the all important time-frame dates. But none of that matter to that crowd lol. I still think that if the Games ever make it to South Africa, that less-glamorous Durban still trumps Cape Town & Johannesburg because it would still make the most cost-effective sense.

45 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Not with NBC already having signed up to 2032 it couldn’t.

I was thinking more inline with, the IOC just cutting some sort of deal with NBC in order to shift the dates for a "preferred candidate". Much like FIFA did with FOX (or whoever the U.S. broadcast channel was for 2022), that they gave them some sort of good deal for 2026 in order to make up for a Nov/Dec 2022 WC.

But if that wasn't possible, there was always 2036 for Australia (which NBC doesn't have right now). It's not like 2032 was that short-supplied with other  "interested parties" (yes, many of them were subpar, but there was still plenty of time to see what else came about, unlike 2030 which they jumped over altogether, like pole vaulters).