AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
This just in: Boston isn't bidding.
|
|
|
Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)
- Thread starter Southcore
- Start date
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Not quite. It's only a letter of intent that has to be in by September. The actual bid is due later - sometime in 2016, I think.
animatronic
Senior Member
And that's why the letter of intent is pretty much a given - the only cost to submit is a US$150k deposit and the price of a stamp. Tory will approve the letter saying that it gives time for a full assessment.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
In January - letters of guarantees and all that. I think the actual candidature files are due in 2017.
AoD
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
Hahahaha... you mean, like the great job we did with the G8/G20? When did my fellow French citizens get a bad rap on security at sports stadiums?
CodeMonkey
Active Member
Well Boston isn't our competitors any more.
One thing we would still have going for us is we're still in North America, next door to the largest market for sports viewers that can bolster our bid. The "sentimental thing" of it being 100 years since Paris last Olympics is nice and all, but the IOC isn't in it for the sentimental business, it's in it to make money. Having it in Paris means another hack job by NBC airing pre-recorded events, which means less viewers, and less eyes watching thoes high price advertisement placements.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
http://metronews.ca/voices/torys-to...-the-games-toronto-should-host-a-fakelympics/
Big fan of Matt Elliott's plan -- I'd be happy to volunteer for the fake Rugby 7s...
Big fan of Matt Elliott's plan -- I'd be happy to volunteer for the fake Rugby 7s...
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Well Boston isn't our competitors any more.
One thing we would still have going for us is we're still in North America, next door to the largest market for sports viewers that can bolster our bid. The "sentimental thing" of it being 100 years since Paris last Olympics is nice and all, but the IOC isn't in it for the sentimental business, it's in it to make money. Having it in Paris means another hack job by NBC airing pre-recorded events, which means less viewers, and less eyes watching thoes high price advertisement placements.
Oh, they will still pre record everything, but they will be happy to have it an hour from New York, in an English speaking country and in the Eastern Time Zone. And NBC's money is very influential.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Sure, if you want to compare our G8/20 to the Paris riots, where people actually died and the underlying BS continues. Funnily enough, the Parisians would probably laugh at our handwringing over the former.
I can't wait to see how it will manage to raise the funding from senior levels of government. Perhaps we can pay for a paper maiche stadium and transit with monopoly money.
AoD
Last edited:
TOperson
Active Member
"Hey P23, why pollute this discussion with actual facts?? Paranoid conjecture and propaganda is so much more expedient."
You mean like research by actual economists and urban planners who studied what happened in other host cities?
"I'd like you to please note the 'could' in your own hypothetical musings. The fact is we don't have to muse!! Waterfront development did proceed, and in large part thanks to these games. No fallacy about it."
That's... not how logical fallacies work. What did happen tells us nothing about what could have happened and even less about the possibilities for a totally different event/development.
"No, the logical fallacy in the debate is this false understanding of an opportunity cost to the games, that funding these games will directly result in a hemorrhaging of funding for social programs or potential transit/infrastructure spending in the city ... let's call it the Sophie's Choice delusion, a false 'either/or' choice that is misleading for two reasons: 1. government funding doesn't work in this way across jurisdictions. The vast bulk of the funding for these games must come in the form of stimulus/injection spending from higher levels of government, levels of government that have underfunded Toronto in this way for decades. This has the net effect of removing the opportunity cost from Toronto's purview and spreading it far wider. 2. there is no opportunity cost to injection funding that is earmarked or targeted in this way. If you take away the 'earmark' - the olympics in this case - there is no funding. Simple. So from a Toronto-centric perspective it is completely irrelevant to claim potential loss to what are essentially fictional funding alternatives (transit or social programs). Again, the opportunity cost exists beyond the city's jurisdiction."
Too many logical fallacies to count in that, but anyway, it's all just your opinion. YOU think it's worth it to host the Olympics to get all this other stuff. OTHER people - whose money is also at stake, if they pay taxes in this country - disagree. They think it's a bad bargain and want to pass on it, as more and more cities are doing.
You mean like research by actual economists and urban planners who studied what happened in other host cities?
"I'd like you to please note the 'could' in your own hypothetical musings. The fact is we don't have to muse!! Waterfront development did proceed, and in large part thanks to these games. No fallacy about it."
That's... not how logical fallacies work. What did happen tells us nothing about what could have happened and even less about the possibilities for a totally different event/development.
"No, the logical fallacy in the debate is this false understanding of an opportunity cost to the games, that funding these games will directly result in a hemorrhaging of funding for social programs or potential transit/infrastructure spending in the city ... let's call it the Sophie's Choice delusion, a false 'either/or' choice that is misleading for two reasons: 1. government funding doesn't work in this way across jurisdictions. The vast bulk of the funding for these games must come in the form of stimulus/injection spending from higher levels of government, levels of government that have underfunded Toronto in this way for decades. This has the net effect of removing the opportunity cost from Toronto's purview and spreading it far wider. 2. there is no opportunity cost to injection funding that is earmarked or targeted in this way. If you take away the 'earmark' - the olympics in this case - there is no funding. Simple. So from a Toronto-centric perspective it is completely irrelevant to claim potential loss to what are essentially fictional funding alternatives (transit or social programs). Again, the opportunity cost exists beyond the city's jurisdiction."
Too many logical fallacies to count in that, but anyway, it's all just your opinion. YOU think it's worth it to host the Olympics to get all this other stuff. OTHER people - whose money is also at stake, if they pay taxes in this country - disagree. They think it's a bad bargain and want to pass on it, as more and more cities are doing.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
I think the interesting thing about an Olympic bid is that the IOC provides the winning city with $1.5 Billion.
It's something that nobody seems to mention when discussing the cost of hosting the Olympics. Yes, the costs are quite large, however, $1.5 Billion is also quite a large amount of money. Assuming that a majority of the cost of a bid goes towards infrastructure like transit, athletes village, and sprucing up the city, that $1.5 Billion can almost make hosting these games worth it. Especially since we will likely be re-using existing facilities for the most part.
The total cost of the London Olympics for the taxpayers was only $4.4 billion. Toronto's games can definitely come in under that if done right.
It's something that nobody seems to mention when discussing the cost of hosting the Olympics. Yes, the costs are quite large, however, $1.5 Billion is also quite a large amount of money. Assuming that a majority of the cost of a bid goes towards infrastructure like transit, athletes village, and sprucing up the city, that $1.5 Billion can almost make hosting these games worth it. Especially since we will likely be re-using existing facilities for the most part.
The total cost of the London Olympics for the taxpayers was only $4.4 billion. Toronto's games can definitely come in under that if done right.
TOperson
Active Member
Ask people in London if they think that $1.5B really sweetened the deal.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Though that probably covers only operation costs with change for capital. That's why I said we need to separate out the elements and look at the revenues as well. The OV we can probably sell and recover the cost; transit probably not, but we are building them anyways, ditto some of the waterfront work.
AoD
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Sure:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/olympics/23434844
It's certainly not this disaster it was made out to be.
AoD
Last edited:
TOperson
Active Member
LOL - research commissioned by the same government that rammed the thing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23370270
Note:
But sports economist Stefan Szymanski said it was impossible to tell how much of the economic activity could be put down to the Games.
"It's almost like a bit of creative accounting. There's no way of testing whether what they're saying is really true."
Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, said attributing the economic benefits to the Olympics was "a little far-fetched to say the least".
To make even a rough guess of the extra business generated, you need to have a sense of what would have happened anyway; what academics would call "the counterfactual".
They never really provide that in today's glossy report. The implicit assumption seems to be that - had it not been for the Olympics - that £9bn would simply not have been spent.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23370270
Note:
But sports economist Stefan Szymanski said it was impossible to tell how much of the economic activity could be put down to the Games.
"It's almost like a bit of creative accounting. There's no way of testing whether what they're saying is really true."
Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, said attributing the economic benefits to the Olympics was "a little far-fetched to say the least".
To make even a rough guess of the extra business generated, you need to have a sense of what would have happened anyway; what academics would call "the counterfactual".
They never really provide that in today's glossy report. The implicit assumption seems to be that - had it not been for the Olympics - that £9bn would simply not have been spent.