Olympics Finance

[agavi...@gmail.com]

Has a city in the modern era actually profited from the olympics?


http://www.businessinsider.com/rio-olympics-financial-disaster-2017-6

[plai...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Has a city in the modern era actually profited from the olympics?
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/rio-olympics-financial-disaster-2017-6

While I enjoy the Olympics and watch as much of it as I can, I would actively fight against having it in any city I happen to be living in. The obscene amount of money spent on a 3 week event is beyond ridiculous. Rio is the latest example.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 04:39:47 -0700 (PDT), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
<agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Has a city in the modern era actually profited from the olympics?

Is there a record of merchants complaining?

Hugh


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

I don't know how LA did. I would think that if you could use existing venues,
as they mostly did, it wouldn't be too bad. But hundreds of millions
in capital expenditure would seem to make it stupid to hold one.

--
The U.S. Senate -- white male millionaires working for YOU! -- Dave Barry

[xyzzy]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 8:45:48 AM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-06-19, plai...@gmail.com <plai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 4:39:49 AM UTC-7, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Has a city in the modern era actually profited from the olympics?
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.businessinsider.com/rio-olympics-financial-disaster-2017-6
> >
> > While I enjoy the Olympics and watch as much of it as I can, I would
> > actively fight against having it in any city I happen to be living in. The
> > obscene amount of money spent on a 3 week event is beyond ridiculous. Rio
> > is the latest example.
>
> I don't know how LA did. I would think that if you could use existing venues,
> as they mostly did, it wouldn't be too bad.

That's supposedly LA's advantage, that they don't really need to build much so can actually afford it.

[Michael Press]

In article <acaa96d6-07db-48ee...@googlegroups.com>,

"the_andr...@yahoo.com" <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Has a city in the modern era actually profited from the olympics?
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/rio-olympics-financial-disaster-2017-6

Los Angeles, as I heard it.

--
Michael Press

[xyzzy]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 7:39:49 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Has a city in the modern era actually profited from the olympics?
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/rio-olympics-financial-disaster-2017-6

Surprised this article didn't mention a story I heard on the radio last week that the IOC is thinking of awarding 2024 to Paris and then going ahead and giving 2028 to LA now. The worry is that with so many cities dropping out and losing interest, no one else will be interested after this and they want to lock in those two cities while they are willing.

The reason Paris would go first, from what I remember, is that they had financing in place that was less flexible, while LA can do either year fine.

[JGibson]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 7:39:49 AM UTC-4, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Has a city in the modern era actually profited from the olympics?
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/rio-olympics-financial-disaster-2017-6

Guess they should have increased Ryan Lochte's fine.

[Marty McMahone]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 8:56:33 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 8:45:48 AM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated

> > I don't know how LA did. I would think that if you could use existing venues,
> > as they mostly did, it wouldn't be too bad.
>
> That's supposedly LA's advantage, that they don't really need to build much so can actually afford it.

Didn't Atlanta do pretty well financially? They had some things already existing and they did a lot of selling of advertising (making the IOC unhappy).