Author Topic: Olympics are USUALLY profitable?  (Read 942 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Olympics are USUALLY profitable?
« on: October 02, 2009, 07:52:47 AM »
Actually, the only Olympics since 1984 to record a loss were the Athens Games of 2004, which were a financial failure because of the fact that they minimized commercial advertising.  They turned away several sponsors, because they wanted their Games to be about the spirit of the Olympics, rather than the spirit of commercialism.  LA, Seoul, Barcelona, Atlanta, Sydney, and Beijing all recorded a profit. 


Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Olympics are USUALLY profitable?
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2009, 08:50:20 AM »
Athens were a cluster fuck of ancient buildings that kept being discovered while the Olympic village was built thus increasing the cost enormously.
Plus, the Greeks sucks when it comes to infrastructures. You can't find a decent road in all of Greece pretty much. That's Turks and Greeks for you.

A city like Chicago would have to build almost nothing as far as highways or visitor hotels are concerned.
The sole costs would be in the arenas and the Olympic village.So really, could be Record profit
As empty as paradise

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Olympics are USUALLY profitable?
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2009, 06:33:48 PM »
So what were the net gains for these other cities that posted a profit? Was there higher employment? Was there a better transportation system?  Was there higher property values?

Don't the people pay for any upgrades of transportation systems or the beautification of the host city? What happens to renters that see the rents go up? Do the jobs stay long term after the Oylmpics leave? What do people that have to work but can't due to traffic restrictions, do they get reimbursed for lost wages during the 2 -3 weeks?


Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Olympics are USUALLY profitable?
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2009, 03:10:17 AM »
The amount of commerce not just during but leading up to the Olympics are unreal. And the Summer Olympics are in a different league than are the Winter Games.
Tourism revenues increases.
The value of being an Olympic city.. There is no price tag on that. Invaluable. Look at a shit hole like Albertville in France. It used to be a small dirty industry city. Now there is actually a bit of biz tourism and businesses there.
Don't drink all the haterade that's served on shit places like Drudge.
As empty as paradise

regmac

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4304
Re: Olympics are USUALLY profitable?
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2009, 03:28:24 AM »

Well as long as you continue in the Special Olympics, I'll keep donating my 20 bucks a year.  Good luck   go for the gold!!!!!  ::)
((-::

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: Olympics are USUALLY profitable?
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2009, 05:36:29 PM »


I don't know where you got this hairbrained lie from. The host cities for the Olympics ALWAYS end up BILLIONS of dollars in debt afterward



http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/08/host-city-olympics_cx_tvr_0208olympiccity.html

Does it pay to host the world's biggest party? It depends on whether your house is already big enough, or if you need to scramble and spend to add on.

When it comes to the Olympics, host cities around the world typically spend billions on venues, infrastructure, security and other assorted necessities for the privilege of bringing in tens of thousands of guests for 17 days.

Beijing is set to smash the spending record for the 2008 games by budgeting $23 billion, nearly twice what Athens laid out two years ago.

For many host cities, the curse has overshadowed the blessing. At least four (Sydney, Montreal, Barcelona and Athens) are still paying off debt taken on to finance the games, due mainly to splurging on sports venues that don't have much after life. While Atlanta's Turner Field is now home to baseball's Braves, Sydney's SuperDome, has plunged into receivership.

Sydney taxpayers shell out $100 million annually for upkeep on a new rail system that hasn't been heavily used since the 2000 Olympics, while Barcelona is populated with a host of arenas left over from 1992 that now sit mostly empty. Athens, meanwhile, laid out $12 billion to bring the Games "back to their roots" in 2004, a whopping 5% of Greece's GDP. Upkeep on venues built for baseball, basketball and other sports carries a $100 million annual price tag, and a $144 million sailing facility now goes mostly unused.
C

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41756
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Olympics are USUALLY profitable?
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2009, 05:49:48 AM »
I don't know where you got this hairbrained lie from. The host cities for the Olympics ALWAYS end up BILLIONS of dollars in debt afterward



http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/08/host-city-olympics_cx_tvr_0208olympiccity.html

Does it pay to host the world's biggest party? It depends on whether your house is already big enough, or if you need to scramble and spend to add on.

When it comes to the Olympics, host cities around the world typically spend billions on venues, infrastructure, security and other assorted necessities for the privilege of bringing in tens of thousands of guests for 17 days.

Beijing is set to smash the spending record for the 2008 games by budgeting $23 billion, nearly twice what Athens laid out two years ago.

For many host cities, the curse has overshadowed the blessing. At least four (Sydney, Montreal, Barcelona and Athens) are still paying off debt taken on to finance the games, due mainly to splurging on sports venues that don't have much after life. While Atlanta's Turner Field is now home to baseball's Braves, Sydney's SuperDome, has plunged into receivership.

Sydney taxpayers shell out $100 million annually for upkeep on a new rail system that hasn't been heavily used since the 2000 Olympics, while Barcelona is populated with a host of arenas left over from 1992 that now sit mostly empty. Athens, meanwhile, laid out $12 billion to bring the Games "back to their roots" in 2004, a whopping 5% of Greece's GDP. Upkeep on venues built for baseball, basketball and other sports carries a $100 million annual price tag, and a $144 million sailing facility now goes mostly unused.


________________________ __________________

for someone with an MBA - 240 really needs to brush up on alot of issues. 

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Olympics are USUALLY profitable?
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2009, 04:44:16 PM »
Samson, I tried to do a little fact check on one of your claims. The Sydney rail road system. It seems to be an eternal hot issue down under. but there seems to be quite a demand for it.
So if they needed to make it bigger. why not do it prior to the Olympics.
As empty as paradise