Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[TOperson]

TOperson's argument is dangerously like Ford's, in the 'I don't like it so it shouldn't be funded' vein. People who don't like gays don't want to fund Pride either, and they can point out all the reasons why we shouldn't be 'wasting' money it, and why the gays should fund themselves. It's so unbelievably myopic, not to mention ego-centric...

... and time and again his 'evidence' has been debunked yet he continues to saturate the thread with more and more of his biased and bogus links. He is hoping that if he slings enough mud some of it will stick.

Except that Pride has to do with human rights and equality, and the Olympics is just sports. And it's WAY cheaper. Anyway, again, I never said other events/festivals/whatevers should not be funded. And I never said the Olympics shouldn't be funded because I don't like them. It's because they are costly, run roughshod over the development process and local residents, and don't deliver on the promised benefits.

Re: my biased and bogus links. Just today I posted research from the LSE and Oxford. Yesterday it was research from NYU. Are those researchers "bogus"? I mean, these are hardly shadowy, fringey, anything-goes organizations.

Re: debunking my arguments. Actually no one has done that yet, because no one has linked to any solid research, hardly any research at all really, that refutes the research that I have posted. In fact, I've posted more research on this thread than anyone else by a long shot. Just saying "that's not true!" isn't debunking. Debunking requires EVIDENCE. Where's your evidence, Tewder?

 

[TOareaFan]

Except that Pride has to do with human rights and equality, and the Olympics is just sports. And it's WAY cheaper. Anyway, again, I never said other events/festivals/whatevers should not be funded. And I never said the Olympics shouldn't be funded because I don't like them. It's because they are costly, run roughshod over the development process and local residents, and don't deliver on the promised benefits.

Re: my biased and bogus links. Just today I posted research from the LSE and Oxford. Yesterday it was research from NYU. Are those researchers "bogus"? I mean, these are hardly shadowy, fringey, anything-goes organizations.

Re: debunking my arguments. Actually no one has done that yet, because no one has linked to any solid research, hardly any research at all really, that refutes the research that I have posted. In fact, I've posted more research on this thread than anyone else by a long shot. Just saying "that's not true!" isn't debunking. Debunking requires EVIDENCE. Where's your evidence, Tewder?

You want evidence that the Olympics are not self-funding? No one suggests they are. Some are suggesting that they are ok with this and see the benefits of sporting infrastructure, national pride, youth inspiration, etc., as "worth it".

I will give myself a pat on the back for debunking your "90% of the money comes from taxes myth"...but that is not the point. Some, knowing the Olympics cost money, support the expenditure of public money on them.

 

[TOperson]

You want evidence that the Olympics are not self-funding? No one suggests they are. Some are suggesting that they are ok with this and see the benefits of sporting infrastructure, national pride, youth inspiration, etc., as "worth it".

I will give myself a pat on the back for debunking your "90% of the money comes from taxes myth"...but that is not the point. Some, knowing the Olympics cost money, support the expenditure of public money on them.

I never asked for evidence that the Olympics are not self-funding. It's pretty obvious from the mountain of research on the topic and the public outcry over costs that they aren't. And I never said that ALL people are opposed to publicly funding the Olympics. Sure, the games have some supporters.

Actually you didn't debunk the 90% figure, you merely questioned it. To debunk it, you would have to provide a full accounting of the Olympic costs, which as the Oxford researchers pointed out, isn't available. I suspect, however, that if the Olympics were substantially self-funding, proponents would shout it from the rooftops. Instead, it's all a bit murky, which is a red flag in itself.

 

[TOperson]

OK, found this:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fools-gold-british-taxpayer-is-olympics-biggest-loser

check out this excerpt (emphasis added):

With the UK National Audit Office revealing that private-sector funding now constitutes less than two percent of the Olympic budget, the UK parliamentary Public Accounts Committee has predicted total costs around $18 billion. Worse still, an analysis by the Sky Sports TV network, which included the costs of upgrading public transportation, now puts the cost of the Olympics at a staggering $38.5 billion!

Since this is the Cato Institute, of course they are opposed to big government spending. But YIKES! Two percent! I hope it's better than that!

 

[Tewder]

Except that Pride has to do with human rights and equality, and the Olympics is just sports.

Again with the Ford-like logic: Olympics is just sports, in the same way that Pride is just a lewd party for gays that he doesn't want his tax money funding. I mean, don't gay people in Canada already have their human rights? What else do they want??

And it's WAY cheaper.

So you don't like the Olympics because they are a 'big' event? I got news for you TIFF is pretty 'big' too as far film events go. It's because these events are big and have international stature that governments commit the funding for the development and infrastructure legacy required, and this is a big part of why people support the Olympics. Just the way it goes.

 

[TOperson]

Again with the Ford-like logic: Olympics is just sports, in the same way that Pride is just a lewd party for gays that he doesn't want his tax money funding. I mean, don't gay people in Canada already have their human rights? What else do they want??



So you don't like the Olympics because they are a 'big' event? I got news for you TIFF is pretty 'big' too as far film events go. It's because these events are big and have international stature that governments commit the funding for the development and infrastructure legacy required, and this is a big part of why people support the Olympics. Just the way it goes.

How about doing some actual debunking? Maybe explain why the LSE, Oxford, and NYU research is no good?

 

[TOareaFan]

OK, found this:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fools-gold-british-taxpayer-is-olympics-biggest-loser

check out this excerpt (emphasis added):

With the UK National Audit Office revealing that private-sector funding now constitutes less than two percent of the Olympic budget, the UK parliamentary Public Accounts Committee has predicted total costs around $18 billion. Worse still, an analysis by the Sky Sports TV network, which included the costs of upgrading public transportation, now puts the cost of the Olympics at a staggering $38.5 billion!

Since this is the Cato Institute, of course they are opposed to big government spending. But YIKES! Two percent! I hope it's better than that!

The problem with accounting for the Olympics (or any other big event...sporting or otherwise) is that people can manipulate the numbers anyway they like depending on the position (anti or pro) they already have.

So the article you quote states the UK Public Accounts Committee has predicted total costs around $18 billion....since they (likely) actually quoted a figure in pounds....what conversion rate did the writer use? The organizing committee's final budget (which they claim to have come in just under) was 9.35 billion pounds.....so is the writer stating the same number but in dollars and using an inflated exchange rate for "effect"? I don't know but 18 billion is a more shocking number than 9 billion.

So $18 billion versus the non-taxation revenues of 2.9 billion pounds (not including post games revenue like the sale/lease of the Olympic Stadium - likely to West Ham United) how is that "less than 2%?".......likely because, for effect, the lottery contribution (which amounts to a voluntary contribution from the public) is not included and therefore the writer's negative view allows him to not include that as private-sector funding and makes their point.

The level of cost recovery also is impacted by what is counted. So SkySports (for whatever reason) includes the transit improvements. Transit improvements that have been on the books/plans for decades to serve the underserved East End....but the Olympics provided an impetus to get them done. If you are pro Olympics, you view this as a benefit of having the Olympics....if you want to paint a negative picture you include the cost of transit (which is available now to the public for the future) and note the Olympics don't contribute to those costs. Similarly, for PanAm 2015, the "anti" folks will include the ARL and the housing created in the West Don....but the "pro" folks won't.

Actually you didn't debunk the 90% figure, you merely questioned it. To debunk it, you would have to provide a full accounting of the Olympic costs, which as the Oxford researchers pointed out, isn't available. I suspect, however, that if the Olympics were substantially self-funding, proponents would shout it from the rooftops. Instead, it's all a bit murky, which is a red flag in itself.

Proving my point above. Since the numbers I showed, and the report I linked, don't support your "anti" argument I am expected to provide a full accounting of the Olympic costs.....the article you linked, does support your argument, though, so no need for full accounting just present an obviously questionable number (ie. a number in $ attributed to a UK government office) and a vague reference to SkySports.

This is why these arguments are, ultimately, fruitless and pointless. We who support events like this know that there is a large public cost and are willing to accept that for the benefits we perceive....those who don't support the events couldn't possibly receive enough data/counter points to move their opinion.

EDIT....it also explains why I won't be particiapting in further back and forth with you....you have your opinion and I have mine.

 

[TOperson]

The problem with accounting for the Olympics (or any other big event...sporting or otherwise) is that people can manipulate the numbers anyway they like depending on the position (anti or pro) they already have.

So the article you quote states the UK Public Accounts Committee has predicted total costs around $18 billion....since they (likely) actually quoted a figure in pounds....what conversion rate did the writer use? The organizing committee's final budget (which they claim to have come in just under) was 9.35 billion pounds.....so is the writer stating the same number but in dollars and using an inflated exchange rate for "effect"? I don't know but 18 billion is a more shocking number than 9 billion.

So $18 billion versus the non-taxation revenues of 2.9 billion pounds (not including post games revenue like the sale/lease of the Olympic Stadium - likely to West Ham United) how is that "less than 2%?".......likely because, for effect, the lottery contribution (which amounts to a voluntary contribution from the public) is not included and therefore the writer's negative view allows him to not include that as private-sector funding and makes their point.

The level of cost recovery also is impacted by what is counted. So SkySports (for whatever reason) includes the transit improvements. Transit improvements that have been on the books/plans for decades to serve the underserved East End....but the Olympics provided an impetus to get them done. If you are pro Olympics, you view this as a benefit of having the Olympics....if you want to paint a negative picture you include the cost of transit (which is available now to the public for the future) and note the Olympics don't contribute to those costs. Similarly, for PanAm 2015, the "anti" folks will include the ARL and the housing created in the West Don....but the "pro" folks won't.



Proving my point above. Since the numbers I showed, and the report I linked, don't support your "anti" argument I am expected to provide a full accounting of the Olympic costs.....the article you linked, does support your argument, though, so no need for full accounting just present an obviously questionable number (ie. a number in $ attributed to a UK government office) and a vague reference to SkySports.

This is why these arguments are, ultimately, fruitless and pointless. We who support events like this know that there is a large public cost and are willing to accept that for the benefits we perceive....those who don't support the events couldn't possibly receive enough data/counter points to move their opinion.

EDIT....it also explains why I won't be particiapting in further back and forth with you....you have your opinion and I have mine.

You mean: you're scurrying away because you haven't got anything to put up against Oxford and the UK National Audit Office.

I took a look at some of the UK NAO's Olympics documents and it's very interesting reading, actually. Back in December 2011 they came right out and said there are all kinds of risks re: costs and over-runs and government liability. Given the pressure I'm sure they were under to present a rosy picture, it's all the more striking that they didn't.

I agree with you that numbers can be manipulated and costs hidden. I think that is yet another reason to stay away from the whole thing. IF serious attempts were made to really track the costs of the games, that would be one thing. But that's not what happens, so the public never really knows what it cost them. Do you think that state of affairs exists because everything is A-OK with Olympic budgets?

And do you really think it is responsible to enter into such a huge undertaking knowing that you'll probably never get a full, proper accounting? Would you dream of doing the equivalent with your personal finances?

EDIT: LOL. Mate, I looked up that WPI study you linked to. The front page says:

An Interactive Qualifying Project submitted to the faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science

So it was done by STUDENTS. Undergraduates at that. And it was only about the London Borough of Hounslow, not the whole Olympics. And it was completed in June 2011. And the figures you cited from their report are from 2005. Do you know if they got an A?

Um, yeah, I think research done by Oxford, the LSE, the UK NAO, and the other academics I've cited definitely trumps an undergraduate group-work project. Thanks for the laugh though.

 

[adma]

I know a perfect Toronto Olympic sport: the Charles Comfort Walk

 

[TOareaFan]

You mean: you're scurrying away because you haven't got anything to put up against Oxford and the UK National Audit Office.

I took a look at some of the UK NAO's Olympics documents and it's very interesting reading, actually. Back in December 2011 they came right out and said there are all kinds of risks re: costs and over-runs and government liability. Given the pressure I'm sure they were under to present a rosy picture, it's all the more striking that they didn't.

I agree with you that numbers can be manipulated and costs hidden. I think that is yet another reason to stay away from the whole thing. IF serious attempts were made to really track the costs of the games, that would be one thing. But that's not what happens, so the public never really knows what it cost them. Do you think that state of affairs exists because everything is A-OK with Olympic budgets?

And do you really think it is responsible to enter into such a huge undertaking knowing that you'll probably never get a full, proper accounting? Would you dream of doing the equivalent with your personal finances?

EDIT: LOL. Mate, I looked up that WPI study you linked to. The front page says:

An Interactive Qualifying Project submitted to the faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science

So it was done by STUDENTS. Undergraduates at that. And it was only about the London Borough of Hounslow, not the whole Olympics. And it was completed in June 2011. And the figures you cited from their report are from 2005. Do you know if they got an A?

Um, yeah, I think research done by Oxford, the LSE, the UK NAO, and the other academics I've cited definitely trumps an undergraduate group-work project. Thanks for the laugh though.

You have a particularly annoying posting style of ignoring / mis-stating what other people say.....or did you just miss the part where the original source of the graphics/figures in the student paper was the Guardian.......or is SkySports the only media that can be relied on?

Here is an idea.....find some evidence that there is/was nowhere near the over £2billion in non-tax revenue to the games....then we can have a rational discussion about your 90% claim......till then, we're done.

 

[TOperson]

You have a particularly annoying posting style of ignoring / mis-stating what other people say.....or did you just miss the part where the original source of the graphics/figures in the student paper was the Guardian.......or is SkySports the only media that can be relied on?

Here is an idea.....find some evidence that there is/was nowhere near the over £2billion in non-tax revenue to the games....then we can have a rational discussion about your 90% claim......till then, we're done.

Wow, you really missed the point of my post, didn't you?

The point about the paper being conducted by students is that they would not have the training or experience to conduct an economic analysis of the Olympics. And their paper didn't intend to do that anyway. But you cited it as a piece of heavy-duty research.

The point about the 2005 figures, even if they came from the Guardian, is that they are OLD, quite old, and therefore irrelevant to an analysis of the final cost of the London games. And you didn't spot that.

So it's on you that you chose such a weak piece of research to make your point.

I never said SkySports was the final authority on Olympic costs. I've posted multiple other sources, including the ones from Oxford, LSE, NYU, etc etc etc. I notice you don't acknowledge those at all, which is really funny given your choice re: the undergrad paper.

I've already acknowledged that I don't have a link to the 90% figure because it's something I heard on TV news. So, I'll withdraw it. I don't know if it's 90% or what. No one does, as the links I've posted indicate. I think that's even worse. I'd rather know it was 90% of a definite figure than an unknowable amount of an incalculable but very very large figure. I really doubt that the obfuscation is happening because the London games turned out cheaper than expected and the taxpayers got a great bargain on them.

How about trying to answer some of my questions? Like the one about the responsibility of undertaking the Olympics in Toronto when we wouldn't even know what it's really going to cost?

As for mis-stating what people say, mate, have you read this thread? I spend half my time reminding people that I never said the stuff they accuse me of saying (and they can check my posts to verify that), and Tewder is trying to paint me as a homophobe. I don't have time to misrepresent other people's statements, and I didn't do so with yours. What I did do is call out your poor choice of evidence.

 

[TOperson]

Links time!


This recent report from the UK Dept of Culture, Media & Sport is one of the sources of the 9.3B (pounds) total cost figure:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/DCMS_GOE_QR_JUNE-2012.pdf


This UK NAO 2007 Olympics budget shows that the private sector contribution anticipated at the time of the bid was 738M pounds but by 2007 was reduced to 165M. Also, the total cost increased.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0607/olympics_2012_budget.aspx


So, 165M/9.325B = 0.017 x 100 = 1.7%

I'm guessing that's where the "private sector funding is 2%" comes from.

This 2010 article sums it up pretty well:

http://www.aboutolympics.co.uk/funding-2012-games.html


This article talks about how the re-directing of lottery money is hurting charities:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...-wont-see-their-money-for-another-decade.html

 

[Tewder]

How about doing some actual debunking? Maybe explain why the LSE, Oxford, and NYU research is no good?

You've already been debunked, handily... and we've already pointed out the fundamental hypocrisy in your perspective. The debate is over and you have been drubbed.

Not to say that I don't respect your right to oppose the Olympics. You just need to focus your objection and keep it reasonable. Otherwise it taints your position.

In the end I agree with TOareafan that we can go back and forth ad nauseum here but your mind is clearly made up and this is no longer a constructive debate, it is a pointless exercise. Most of us would prefer and wait to see the plan and assess it once we know the details.

 

[TOperson]

You've already been debunked, handily... and we've already pointed out the fundamental hypocrisy in your perspective. The debate is over and you have been drubbed.

Not to say that I don't respect your right to oppose the Olympics. You just need to focus your objection and keep it reasonable. Otherwise it taints your position.

In the end I agree with TOareafan that we can go back and forth ad nauseum here but your mind is clearly made up and this is no longer a constructive debate, it is a pointless exercise. Most of us would prefer and wait to see the plan and assess it once we know the details.

Taking your ball and going home are you? Finally ran out of steam with your inabililty to read carefully, gather and assess evidence, and marshal your argument?

I don't think you know debunking means. It's not like a hex that you just blurt out at someone, you have to show the evidence that disproves the "bunk".

You haven't provided ONE piece of evidence to support your assertions whereas I have provided MANY to support mine. Good ones, too, unless you don't consider the UK government a reliable source of info either? Who DO you consider reliable?

C'mon, cough up ONE source you approve of, other than yourself.

 

[TOperson]

Interesting analysis on sport here:

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/a-critical-perspective-on-the-olympic-enterprise/

I like this part:

Sport does offer a kind of escape, an alternative, exterior focus (like Shakespeare, a Twilight movie, or a game show). But it is not a vacation from critical thought.