News   Apr 25, 2024
GTA 2024 BILD Award Finalists Announced — and You Can Vote!
 396     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Brightwater Resubmission Proposes Increased Density and Height in Port Credit
 1.1K     4 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 1.1K     0 

Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

Euphoria said:
As for costs vs. benefits, I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum. The basic math is that private money more than pays for the security and stadium that you loath. It also provides some private funds for city amenities that most of us have wanted for years. It also fast tracks expenditures on needed infrastructure from all three levels of government. I've already told you what those benefits are, and that's without even getting into the inspirational, athletic capacity building, and tourism/international profile considerations.
Click to expand...
This sounds a bit like when Rob Ford promised that the private sector would pay for the Sheppard subway. Turns out he couldn't even find one private backer. I find it hard to believe that private money will pay for a whole lot more than a short subway extension just because it's the Olympics.
 
animatronic said:
They take half the global sponsorship fees and half the broadcast fees. That gets split began the ioc and the nocs. The ioc gets 7.5% of all ticket sales, 3% of commemorative coins, up to 15% of commemorative stamps and about 5% of all other games revenue. If the operating budget ends in a surplus the ioc and noc take 40% and the rest goes to sports. If there is a loss the host picks up the tab. The IOC literally makes billions of dollars off the host city every four years.
Click to expand...

So you're not going to sell your house for equity one day because you don't want to pay a real estate fee, land transfer tax, legal fees etc? You don't make these decisions focusing only on the cost... and the IOC takes 3% of sales on commemorative coins you say?? The horror.

Look, I could care less what the IOC gets, it's agreed to up front. Guess what Toronto gets if we don't host? Nada. I'd rather have 93% of sales on commemorative sales than 100% of zero. Sheesh.

pman said:
That's something of a misrepresentation of the views of many people who are skeptical about hosting the Games. A lot of the opposition has nothing to do with whether a Toronto Games would be considered a poorly organized flop by the rest of the world.
[...]
And since you seem to want to be pretty free with our tax dollars, you owe us a precise statement of the exact revenue by source, operating costs and capital spending if you expect me to support what so far has been presented as nothing more than pie in the sky boosterism.
Click to expand...

I would agree Pman. I don't believe the issue is capability, which is why I find Hume's article rather depressing. Given the resources I believe Toronto would do an amazing job, the venues/waterfront site would be spectacular and the global message of diversity, tolerance and human rights we would celebrate would be incredibly uplifting. It would all come together very nicely, no doubt.

As for a statement of costs, well let's see a bid then right? Then, let's understand that the costs will in all likelihood run over, as others have argued here (and rightfully so)... but then let's look at what opportunities it offers the city, let's assess what's in it for infrastructure, revitalization, development, transit, beautification etc, etc. Heck, if a bid is to be funded privately, in large part at least, don't we at least owe it to ourselves to take this look?
 
Tewder said:
So you're not going to sell your house for equity one day because you don't want to pay a real estate fee, land transfer tax, legal fees etc? You don't make these decisions focusing only on the cost... and the IOC takes 3% of sales on commemorative coins you say?? The horror.

Look, I could care less what the IOC gets, it's agreed to up front. Guess what Toronto gets if we don't host? Nada. I'd rather have 93% of sales on commemorative sales than 100% of zero. Sheesh.



I would agree Pman. I don't believe the issue is capability, which is why I find Hume's article rather depressing. Given the resources I believe Toronto would do an amazing job, the venues/waterfront site would be spectacular and the global message of diversity, tolerance and human rights we would celebrate would be incredibly uplifting. It would all come together very nicely, no doubt.

As for a statement of costs, well let's see a bid then right? Then, let's understand that the costs will in all likelihood run over, as others have argued here (and rightfully so)... but then let's look at what opportunities it offers the city, let's assess what's in it for infrastructure, revitalization, development, transit, beautification etc, etc. Heck, if a bid is to be funded privately, in large part at least, don't we at least owe it to ourselves to take this look?
Click to expand...
By your analogy we are paying commission fees to sell the house at a massive loss.
 
There is no 'loss' in the examples you cited... and you can't gloss over the intangibles when looking at the profits.
 
Those 'billions' from international sponsorship and rights go largely to sending athletes from countries around the globe to the games and the costs of hosting the Games, not to elite suits. 10% of this money goes to the operational and administrative costs of the IOC. Stop selling snake oil.
 
Euphoria said:
Those 'billions' from international sponsorship and rights go largely to sending athletes from countries around the globe to the games and the costs of hosting the Games, not to elite suits. 10% of this money goes to the operational and administrative costs of the IOC. Stop selling snake oil.
Click to expand...
Still can't figure out if you are a sock puppet, trolling or mind-blowingly ignorant. I think I've settled on sock puppet.
 
Maybe someone could answer this question for me.

What is the harm in the city issuing/writing the expression of interest letter that is due by mid September? That does not commit or spend any money at all. Other than the cost of a staffer typing it and a stamp on the envelope. It is an expression of interest.

After that, sure money gets spent on a bid.....but that bid would have its own deadline and if council felt that, either, the cost of bidding or the cost of winning was something that was untenable they could just, you know, not follow through with a bid at all.

It would seem that writing a letter expressing interest is a small step that does not close any other paths......is that wrong?
 
TOareaFan said:
Maybe someone could answer this question for me.

What is the harm in the city issuing/writing the expression of interest letter that is due by mid September? That does not commit or spend any money at all. Other than the cost of a staffer typing it and a stamp on the envelope. It is an expression of interest.

After that, sure money gets spent on a bid.....but that bid would have its own deadline and if council felt that, either, the cost of bidding or the cost of winning was something that was untenable they could just, you know, not follow through with a bid at all.

It would seem that writing a letter expressing interest is a small step that does not close any other paths......is that wrong?
Click to expand...
Because they are boiling the frog. When each step is incremental they can justify skipping the democratic process and build more of the bid. The day after that letter goes in we are an official candidate city with a logo, a website, a team of privately paid consultants, ioc support and an implicit guarantee from multiple levels of government. All without a single vote by council. We will be under tremendous pressure not to abandon the bid. It's much harder to stop something once it has started moving. By the time they come to us for $50m in funding it will be too late.

We will be the only candidate city that hasn't committed to submit a bid, and the only one without anything for the public to review.
 
animatronic said:
Because they are boiling the frog. When each step is incremental they can justify skipping the democratic process and build more of the bid. The day after that letter goes in we are an official candidate city with a logo, a website, a team of privately paid consultants, ioc support and an implicit guarantee from multiple levels of government. All without a single vote by council. We will be under tremendous pressure not to abandon the bid. It's much harder to stop something once it has started moving. By the time they come to us for $50m in funding it will be too late.
Click to expand...

I guess I have no idea what the expression of interest would (or needs to say)....and that is why I asked the question. It would seem to me that Toronto (any city) could "express interest" in bidding without any of the bolded things. If, after the letter is sent and after appropriate debate/discussion, the city proceeded with a bid then yes those things would be needed....but for an expression of interest?
 
TOareaFan said:
I guess I have no idea what the expression of interest would (or needs to say)....and that is why I asked the question. It would seem to me that Toronto (any city) could "express interest" in bidding without any of the bolded things. If, after the letter is sent and after appropriate debate/discussion, the city proceeded with a bid then yes those things would be needed....but for an expression of interest?
Click to expand...
It's partly semantics and partly more serious. The IOC considers this the expression interest phase, which ends on the 15. To move forward they want a "firm commitment to bid". Tory is purposely downplaying the significance. You can still back away but all of our competitors are at a more advanced stage. Plus, Paris and LA have public bids for review and the filing deadlines to the IOC come pretty fast. Our ability to influence the process will be limited.

The more serious concern is that the public will think it's still kicking the tires, while the bid co will be on full speed ahead. They are going to leapfrog the democratic process using all the new tools at their disposal.

As urbanists this should be a huge red flag for UT readers. Instead of figuring out what Toronto needs and seeing if the Olympics would help, the bid will be run by individuals and organizations who stand to profit from a bid. Any civic benefits will be incidental.
 
animatronic said:
It's partly semantics and partly more serious. The IOC considers this the expression interest phase, which ends on the 15. To move forward they want a "firm commitment to bid". Tory is purposely downplaying the significance. You can still back away but all of our competitors are at a more advanced stage. Plus, Paris and LA have public bids for review and the filing deadlines to the IOC come pretty fast. Our ability to influence the process will be limited.

The more serious concern is that the public will think it's still kicking the tires, while the bid co will be on full speed ahead. They are going to leapfrog the democratic process using all the new tools at their disposal.

As urbanists this should be a huge red flag for UT readers. Instead of figuring out what Toronto needs and seeing if the Olympics would help, the bid will be run by individuals and organizations who stand to profit from a bid. Any civic benefits will be incidental.
Click to expand...
When you put the words I have bolded in quotes...where are you quoting from? Because this might move me closer to the answer to my question.

This is how wiki describes the process:

upload_2015-9-2_16-53-9.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-9-2_16-53-9.png
    upload_2015-9-2_16-53-9.png
    304.6 KB · Views: 499
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top