I’ve rewritten this reply several times because I don’t want to cause offence, I’m sure what you’re saying is the case because economics has never been my strong point, but the whole subject still doesn’t sit well with me.
I doubt anyone seriously believed the initial budget for the games - it’s rare for such a major long-term project to actually be anywhere near the original estimates.
It wasn’t 2003 that London won the Olympics, but 2005. The economy was already dipping back then, and one of the major arguments against the games was that we couldn’t afford it. One of the major arguments for it was that (according to then-Mayor Ken Livingstone) it was one of the ways to persuade the government to regenerate poor areas of London and improve their transport links. This does actually seem to be happening.
I actually remembered the exact date because it was the day before the Al Qaeda bombings in London. Terrorism will have added significantly to the costs in a way that couldn’t reasonably have been predicted - they will have always know that there was a risk, but that attack the day after the announcement did increase the risk a lot.
I’m no fan of the Olympics coming to London, but I don’t think cost is the biggest issue. The govt is wasting money on a lot worse things than the Olympics.
The Dome seems to be doing OK now, too. It’s in private hands and was sold for peanuts, so it’s not like the public has recouped the cost directly, but it’s a very busy venue for concerts, exhibitions and the like. The predictions of it lying empty for years never came true.
Yes, the Dome (now the O2) is now doing OK.
As you say, we never got the money back for it.
However it laid empty for years:
The Dome closed in 2000 and cost over £1 million per month to maintain.
It opened twice for one month each time for one-off events, then closed again.
It finally reopened properly in June 2007.
Love the Olympics…but would only have them in Toronto if some of the money went to improving the city. We could use another highway N/S through the city and a few more subway/light rapid transit lines (the only person in toronto who really doesn’t care which one, apparently). Neither of which we will ever get unless we are forced to by an olympics.
Of course they are over budget. I can’t imagine the type of person that would be surprised by this. We recently (four or five years ago) built our cottage and the result was about 1.5 times the original budget. Everyone I’ve talked to seems okay with that number. If a cottage can’t be built for anywhere near the proposed budget, what hopes do something as massive as the olympics have?
3b to 24b is a bit silly, however. I wonder what their ACTUAL initial estimate was.
Is this a joke? It’s already the most visited city in the world (or second, depending on how Paris does in any given year). There is nothing that the Olympics can do to “freshen up” London’s image- except, perhaps, to the sort of Americans who think it’s a city full of tea shoppes.
All-android opening ceremony, maybe.
I wonder if the economics of the Olympics will keep getting better and better every time because the global consumption class keeps getting bigger. I doubt Chinese TV rights were worth much 20 years back but they will keep getting more and more valuable as their middle class expands. Chinese/Indian/Brazilian companies will also pay more for sponsorship rights and those consumers will buy more and more Olympic themed merchandise. Meanwhile there is no particular reason for the cost side to grow that quickly. The event schedule is near saturated anyway and certainly there is no necessity to add any really expensive sports which require major facilities.
Not getting it at all.
England is not some totalitarian hellhole where the lowly peons get bled dry and stomped into the dirt. Yeah, they tried that once…didn’t work out so good. If you’re going to squeeze the taxpayers for over 10 billion, there’d damn well better be some return on investment or there will be major consequences. Atlanta worked because from beginning to end it was planned and run by savvy American capitalists who never took their eyes off of the bottom line. I’m not very confident the same will happen here.
On a related note, I don’t see why they’re even bothering. I noticed that once the Beijing Olympics started, all the pollution and human rights issues got completely swept under the rug. I don’t a single commentator spending a second discussing them, and as far as I can tell, not one damn thing has changed. That’s the power of a grand global spectacle; it can turn black into white. I don’t see that England has any such albatrosses that need purging. (Yeah, okay, Tony Blair sending troops to Iraq was pretty dumb, but they learned their lesson years ago.)
And finally, I can’t even imagine why anyone would want to spend so much money on…c’mon, you knew this was coming…the most nakedly corrupt sporting event in the world. (The World Cup isn’t in the same galaxy; at least the right team eventually wins.) What happens when a British boxer beats 20 kinds of hell out of his opponent and is declared the loser? A British sprinter gets disqualified because the officials think he couldn’t possibly have timed his start that precisely? A British gymnast gets knocked out of contention because a bolt on the high bar wasn’t tightened or one of the judges has some bizarre grudge against fish & chips? Will they still think it’s worth it?
That stuff usually happens to the advantage of the home side.
Ooo, yes. Especially if either Alan Rickman or Brent Spiner - or both! - provide the voices.