Say again? Olympic fantasy camp

Think about this. I am old. You're not supposed to say that but this comment needs context of actual witness.
... Bid for the Olympics is an okay move. Just avoid winning. Honorable mention is great.
... A sidebar. This observation applies to the huge Summer Games not to the Winter Games.
... Since Montreal's Olympics, those cities that succeeded in getting the
games aren't doing as well economically. Its sort of an economic
hangover. Gargantuan economic resources and human effort goes into holding the
modern games. Such a demand to the exclusion of any other thing on that city's agenda impairs the city's future economic vitality.
The city is burdened with the weight of enormous debt. Municipal
taxation rates remain high to pay off the burden.
... Every supporter says Legacy this. Legacy that. That is total horseshit
and a complete fabrication of reality. If your city, especially a city
the size of Toronto, supports sport, build an arena, build an Olympic
pool, or build a cycling velodrome. Its definitely worth the investment.
These facilities promote active healthy lifestyles and a preferred focus for youth.
... Building them because of a specific sporting event such as the Olympics
is a sample of utter foolishness. Construction schedules are sped up.
Construction quality usually is good, but more often than not, there is a
high percentage of facilities with poor construction. Rushing a facility construction on a specific deadline generates construction short cuts. Any shortcut in any construction never portends to any quantity or quality of good. The descriptive term is "White Elephant". The prime example of that description is definitely the Montreal Stadium. It was never completed to the original design and the construction turned out to be poor.
... Getting the Olympics hurt Montreal, and they were stuck paying off for
their facilities for decades. At the time they got their bid, Montreal
was the biggest world class city in Canada. After Toronto and other Canadian cities have economically thrived.
... Perhaps Toronto lost out in its bid to Atlanta but simply observe that
after Toronto bids on the games for the next decade foreign investment
into the city is stimulated. Now without getting the summer games,
Toronto benefits from the advertising efforts that went into making an
Olympic bid, without being burdened by actually winning the games.
... Indeed one indirect result of making the bid is that the city's
name is put out there. People are aware of its emergence. And every time
that Toronto made a bid, subsequently the local economy surged. Almost
every time that Toronto made a bid, it wound up in the ideal short list. That is good.
... Why is this? Making a bid, necessitates the city to promote itself on
the international stage. The members of the International Olympic are
chosen because they are influential.
... Suppose you had a plan for a major project and was
looking for a host city, would you want to proceed into a city where the
commercial activities are solely focused on a singular goal set of
economic priorities to the exclusion of you project? Or put that project
into a city with all the capabilities to hold an Olympics but would be
focused on your project. And you the investor is going to consult with professional and influential people who are familiar with the feature of each city. IOC members visit those cities. A venture capitalist will consult that source often.
... A major cause leading to the very serious recent Greek economic problems was their successful winning bid. People warned that Greece could not afford to hold the games. But the IOC got all traditional and shwarmy over the Athens bid. Those who tendered the warning have been proven right.
... Presenting the moral to all this. Making an Olympic bid is a very good idea. It seems absurd but the $10M to &20M spent on the bid promotion targets the international elite. Winning the Olympic bid... an economic disaster. Every city on the Olympic short list that didn't win the bid, did commercially better in thepost bid era compared to the winner. The winning city, not so much as what they hoped.
... Make the bid. But because winning it is actually losing and losing is actually winning. Just don't win the bid.



http://www.torontosun.com/poll/should-toronto-make-a-bid-for-the-2024-olympic-games

The Big Elephant

FIFA fell on its own twisted arrogance. In some ways, this scandal was good not just for football/soccer but brings a framework for scrutiny for all professional and amateur sports. The message it sends is fatigue over the escalating costs of major international and national sports events.


Wrapped in total angst, the observer must ask whether bribery in this case truly effected the outcome of the choice of event venue(s). The Republic of South Africa(RSA) was chosen. When the investigation proved that FIFA officials allegedly received bribes and kickbacks the decision was criticized albeit encased in the convenience of hindsight. Here lies the problem. Before the decision to have RSA hold the World Cup of Football, FIFA was under considerable pressure to have the cup sited on the African Continent. Of all the nations on the African continent, RSA was the most capable from an economic, political and social aspect. Its the number one pick if one wanted to hold any major sports event in Africa.

The same goes for the World Cup choices of Russia and Qatar. Bribery seems totally pointless because both those nations can and will comfortably host successful tournaments. They would have been the best choices on that cycle. This fact which sustains those choices despite the rapacious challenges of the bribery scandal. And that is the problem with bribery in these cases. The payments were quite unnecessary.

One must also question the selectivity of American justice. The massive arm of the United States Justice system goes after FIFA for very two very strange reasons. When the choice process took place the nation in second place was the United States. But it was a second place that wasn't even close in voting. The last round Qatar had 14 votes to the United States 8.

The American prosecution seems a major case of the sour grapes of being the poor loser. Their prosecution seems very legitimate because FIFA officials carelessly used US based banks and financial firms. The allegations include money laundering and this is illegal in the USA. This single fact opened the door for the USA government to undertake legal action against FIFA officials.

Whether these officials will be successfully convicted seems likely since the modern US court system smells a lot like the kangaroo. The United States does seem very selective in its choice. The reason for this assessment emerges as the righteous weight of the US comes down on FIFA, other professional organizations continue on unscathed. The big one, the big international fish is the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Some time ago, some Olympic Committee members were accused of the very same thing. One prominent point of strangeness was when the City of Athens magically lost its bid to the much weaker Atlanta bid. Up to the final vote, the contention by rumor that some votes were enhanced by money offers. Indeed, the wining and dining of Olympic officials seems to point to the use of financial or perk incentives. It comes to the single question, the big elephant. Does the IOC stand up the to the same scrutiny as FIFA experienced?