Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

London Olympics budget: now with 3 times extra flavor!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by DanS
    LA made $200 million. Atlanta also is said to have made money as well, although I do wonder...
    LA did do well. Although there have been financial success stories they are not the norm, particularly when funding from different levels of government is combined. Vancouver is preparing for an olympic games. We'll see how they do.

    I agree with the poster that said it is the prestige factor.
    "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
    "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #32
      As stated, there are a number of factors that are weighted differently by each host city. It seems that those cities that have a clear idea of their objectives are the ones that put on a good Olympics.
      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DinoDoc
        £9.35bn seems to be kinda expensive for a collection of white elephants though.
        Well yeah, but I suppose Versailles and the Pyramids were also white elephants. How to quantify a durable ego-boost?

        Originally posted by DanS
        LA made $200 million. Atlanta also is said to have made money as well, although I do wonder...
        Though it would seem a lot of the costs got frontloaded in LA if most of the infrastructure was already place. It's nice some make an immediate profit, but I think it makes more sense to see the Olympics as a feel-good consumption rather than a financial investment.

        Originally posted by DanS
        It appears that the central government is leading and funding London in order to revitalize parts of the city. In this respect, the cost and frequency of use for big crowds in the future is a paramount consideration and white elephants are the exact opposite of what is intended.
        Holding the Olympics as a matter of urban renewal or upgrading transport infrastructure doesn't make sense regardless. If such investments are justified on their own merits there's no need to accompany it with a huge sports event.
        Asher stated the infrastructure built for Calgary '88 is still beneficial to the city. If it's so beneficial then why need the Olympics as an excuse for the investment?
        DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
          How to quantify a durable ego-boost?
          Money pit? Boondoggle?
          I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
          For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

          Comment


          • #35
            This is the reason why Ken lost my vote...the lunacy that is the Olympic games...what an utter waste of money - and many hundreds, if not thousands of pounds of my own money will be squandered. And what benefit do I derive from it? Even more f**ling tourists for a fortnight? Well thanks!
            Speaking of Erith:

            "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
              Holding the Olympics as a matter of urban renewal or upgrading transport infrastructure doesn't make sense regardless. If such investments are justified on their own merits there's no need to accompany it with a huge sports event.
              Asher stated the infrastructure built for Calgary '88 is still beneficial to the city. If it's so beneficial then why need the Olympics as an excuse for the investment?
              Unfortunately, political inertia often requires a kick in the ass like the Olympics to get infrastructure improvement going. I have no doubt the Vancouver Games are going to lose money, but I have serious doubts whether many of the road and transit improvements that are accompanying the Olympics (and are desperately needed) would have been undertaken without them. It doesn't necessarily make it a good or rational reason, though, I'll give you that.
              "The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
              "you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
              "I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
                Holding the Olympics as a matter of urban renewal or upgrading transport infrastructure doesn't make sense regardless. If such investments are justified on their own merits there's no need to accompany it with a huge sports event.
                Asher stated the infrastructure built for Calgary '88 is still beneficial to the city. If it's so beneficial then why need the Olympics as an excuse for the investment?
                What's wrong with sponsors paying for a little bit of infrastructure or redevelopment?
                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                Comment


                • #38
                  sponsors probably cover only part of the additional millions demanded by contractors in order to finish the works before that start of the games, and not any of the actual costs...
                  Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
                  Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
                  giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    This aquatic centre sounds like it could be a rival to the Scottish Parliament...

                    ...what is an aquatics centre? Is it New Labour managementspeak for 'swimming pool'?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Now that Scotland has been mentioned, they're apparently planning to build a 2km cable stayed bridge that'll cost between £3.2 and £4.2 billion. At least that was the estimate late 2007. I think the insanity-factor of that is still easily beating the Olympics.

                      DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        If they want it they can pay it, I sure as hell won't bank role it for them.
                        You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Indeed, that bridge cost is impressive. And it will only be two-lanes each way. Do they just make these numbers up or is there a particular reason for this high cost?
                          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Probably all the union labor. One pollock to do the work and four Scots to watch him.
                            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DanS
                              Indeed, that bridge cost is impressive. And it will only be two-lanes each way. Do they just make these numbers up or is there a particular reason for this high cost?
                              Knowledge economy.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                The East of London is and has been a complete dump for a long time. Whilst there may be no quantifiable cost benefit I do think that the Olympic redevelopment is a good thing.

                                Doing the redevelopment without the pretense would have been better and cheaper, but then that would have had no political mileage.
                                One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X