Yay!!! Chicago and Illinois taxpayers rescued!!!
Revtom
Donald Munro
> No boondoggle Olympics in Chicago!!!!
Kindly follow rbr convention and post podium in the header.
Scott
> No boondoggle Olympics in Chicago!!!!
Geez, think of all the missed opportunity for Chicago-style corruption
on such a grand scale!
derf...@gmail.com
And the cursing by Wisconsinites as all the FIBs flee northward to
escape the traffic.
Paul G.
Pretty insignificant compared with the Republican-style corruption in
Iraq. If only we could have avoided THAT boondoggle.
-Paul
SLAVE of THE STATE
Matt Chambers
developing world class skills for a new Olympic event that
would have brought back the spirit of the Ancient Olympics.
"Arena Gang Violence"
Yet another extreme sport ignored by the IOC.
mower man
A narrow escape! No Olympiad since 1948 has delivered a profit to the
host nation.
I'm English and was sooooo pissed that this country got 2012.
--
Chris
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
KG
Dumbass -
Chicago is bad, but Rio is even worse.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 9:13 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 9:43 am, Revtom <smip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No boondoggle Olympics in Chicago!!!!
>>> Geez, think of all the missed opportunity for Chicago-style corruption
>>> on such a grand scale!
>>
>> IOC ARE RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>A narrow escape! No Olympiad since 1948 has delivered a profit to the
>host nation.
>
>I'm English and was sooooo pissed that this country got 2012.
Is it even possible to turn a profit? I thought the Olympics are
nonprofit endeavors so they cannot, by definition, turn a profit. The
question is -- is the return, in terms of jobs or improved local
infrastructure, worth the expense?
z
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 9:13 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 9:43 am, Revtom <smip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No boondoggle Olympics in Chicago!!!!
>>> Geez, think of all the missed opportunity for Chicago-style corruption
>>> on such a grand scale!
>>
>> IOC ARE RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> A narrow escape! No Olympiad since 1948 has delivered a profit to the
> host nation.
>
> I'm English and was sooooo pissed that this country got 2012.
>
The LA '84 games did. They were able to create and fund the AAF / LA84
Foundation with profits.
http://www.aafla.org/who/who_frmst.htm
Of course, they were the also the creators of the commercially sponsored
Olympics that Brundage never would have permitted.
It only took Montreal 30 years to pay off their debt.
z
Los Angeles, 1984
If one Olympiad can be credited with changing the shape of the modern
Games, it is that of Los Angeles. The city's leaders had to get it
right: the previous time the Olympic flame had burned in North America,
in Montr�al in 1976, it left a gaping hole in the city's finances. "The
Montr�al Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a
baby," declared Montr�al's then mayor, Jean Drapeau, a prediction that
haunts him to this day. The city's residents only finished paying off
more than �600m of Olympic debt in 2006.
To stop history repeating itself, Los Angeles created a new model for
the Olympics. First, rather than build prestigious venues that would
look great for the cameras but send budgets through the roof (and which
might not be completed in time anyway, as in Montr�al), existing
facilities were improved. Los Angeles was at an advantage, being a big
city that already had good sports venues � indeed, it was the only city
willing or able to host the Games after the financial failure of
Montr�al and the political upheaval in Moscow in 1980. Only the
velodrome and the aquatics centre needed to be built specially for the
Olympics.
The Games still cost hundreds of millions of dollars to stage, but
taxpayers bore none of the burden � Peter Ueberroth, the head of the LA
organising committee, turned the Olympics into a business. He raised
$150m in corporate sponsorships (that cycling venue was the "7-Eleven
Velodrome", while the pool was sponsored by McDonald's), $286.8m in
television rights and another $150m in ticket sales. It emerged after
the Games that Los Angeles had made a healthy profit of more than $200m
� the first Games to make money since 1932. The wider economic impact of
the Games on Southern California has been put at $3.3bn, while 40 per
cent of the profits were channelled into youth sports organisations.
Partly as a result of the way LA financed its Games, and the size of the
city before the torch arrived, it is probably the host city with the
smallest Olympic footprint. There are no bus tours of redundant stadiums
or abandoned Olympic parks. Rather than use the Games to score political
points or put a city on the map, or get swallowed up by the enormous
expectations that hosting the Games brings, LA played it cool. It showed
that, for big cities at least, there is a third way � use the Olympics
to make some cash and show off some sport, and then move on.
Bob Schwartz
> Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:02:28 +0100, mower man <nos...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>>> On Oct 2, 9:13 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 2, 9:43 am, Revtom <smip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No boondoggle Olympics in Chicago!!!!
>>>>> Geez, think of all the missed opportunity for Chicago-style corruption
>>>>> on such a grand scale!
>>>> IOC ARE RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> A narrow escape! No Olympiad since 1948 has delivered a profit to the
>>> host nation.
>>>
>>> I'm English and was sooooo pissed that this country got 2012.
>>
>> Is it even possible to turn a profit? I thought the Olympics are
>> nonprofit endeavors so they cannot, by definition, turn a profit. The
>> question is -- is the return, in terms of jobs or improved local
>> infrastructure, worth the expense?
>>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/after-the-party-what-happens-when-the-olympics-leave-town-901629.html
>
>
> Los Angeles, 1984
>
> If one Olympiad can be credited with changing the shape of the modern
> Games, it is that of Los Angeles.
David Prouty wrote in his book about how the agreement was reached
before the game to split profits equally across sports, with the
small and insignificant sports getting a share equal to the large
wealthy sports like track & field. People agreed to this because
no one imagined that the games would ever earn a profit so the
whole idea was seen as silly.
In the end it was a bonanza for sports like cycling, which came out
very well. The USCF was in pretty good shape financially for many
years as a result. It's all gone now though, Mike Plant pissed it
all away when he ran the USCF.
Bob Schwartz
Scott
Who said anything about Democrat or Republican??? Oh, wait... you
did.
Paul G.
Yes, I did. Republicans pissed a trillion dollars down the drain in
Iraq- and the lives of thousands of Americans.
Damn right I did.
-Paul
Scott
Aside from the fact that there were plenty of folks on both sides of
the aisle who voted to support the war in Iraq, and who still vote to
support the war in Iraq, WTF has that got to do with the rampant
corruption that Chicago politics is famous for?
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<hendric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Aside from the fact that there were plenty of folks on both sides of
>the aisle who voted to support the war in Iraq, and who still vote to
>support the war in Iraq, WTF has that got to do with the rampant
>corruption that Chicago politics is famous for?
HAhahahaha. Yes, the Democrats were duped into supporting the war in
Iraq, so let's keep it bipartisan since it's such a fiasco.
For sure.
PS - did you support the war in Iraq at the start? Do you still think
it was the right move? That'll speak a lot to your ability to comment
credibly on politics.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
JFT <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>Is it even possible to turn a profit? I thought the Olympics are
>nonprofit endeavors so they cannot, by definition, turn a profit. The
>question is -- is the return, in terms of jobs or improved local
>infrastructure, worth the expense?
You can have a surplus, to be used appropriately per the charter or
articles of incorporation. The evaluation of a 'loss' is hugely
difficult, as the various major contributors may have reasons enough
for areas that may be called losses. A city has every reason to book a
loss on as many areas of an Olympiad that they can get away with, even
if it represents projects they had on the books to do Olympics or no.
Still, almost every neutral accounting and financial analysis done on
ALL major sports venue investments show that they lose money, not make
money, when done more for civic reasons than financial. At both the
collegiate and professional level, the best argument is that they
should be sized to be self-supporting, without specious arguments that
they 'bring money to the city'.
Of course, that will not be sized to fit the average ego associated
with both collegiate and professional sports.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Uncle Dave
A surprising number of people around the world supported the war on
Iraq but that just goes to prove how unsurprising it is that
politicans can start wars on a premise such as "my Daddy doesn't like
that man and my buddies want some more oil". Even 50% of my fellow
Brits believed the obvious (and really quite pathetic) lies that 1)
there were WOMD in Iraq (yes, of course, all those UN inspectors were
crap at their jobs all those years) and 2) that Iraq had a hand in
9/11. Most people are either too dumb to think about it or simply
don't care. It's hardly surprising the IOC voted against Chicago with
America seemingly prepared to declare war on anybody over anything
nowadays, though it's somewhat courageous too.
Honestly, I really like Americans, but get two or three hundred
million of them together and you have a problem ;-))
UD
Scott
Not answering either of your questions, but I have one of my own
regarding your last sentence. Are you suggesting that only folks who
agree with you are credible, and those that don't aren't?
Tom Kunich
news:38f23e87-6701-4431...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes, I did. Republicans pissed a trillion dollars down the drain in
> Iraq- and the lives of thousands of Americans.
The really comical thing is that you don't even understand why.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>Still, almost every neutral accounting and financial analysis done on
>ALL major sports venue investments show that they lose money, not make
>money,
Where does the lost money go?
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
<david...@t-online.de> wrote:
>On Oct 3, 12:19�pm, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
><usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Scott
>>
>> <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Aside from the fact that there were plenty of folks on both sides of
>> >the aisle who voted to support the war in Iraq, and who still vote to
>> >support the war in Iraq, WTF has that got to do with the rampant
>> >corruption that Chicago politics is famous for?
>>
>> HAhahahaha. �Yes, the Democrats were duped into supporting the war in
>> Iraq, so let's keep it bipartisan since it's such a fiasco.
>>
>> For sure.
>>
>> PS - did you support the war in Iraq at the start? �Do you still think
>> it was the right move? �That'll speak a lot to your ability to comment
>> credibly on politics.
>
>A surprising number of people around the world supported the war on
>Iraq
I didn't.
Donald Munro
> Honestly, I really like Americans, but get two or three hundred million of
> them together and you have a problem ;-))
Never mind the millions, if you get 2 or 3 rednecks together you have a
problem.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
Not in general -- lots of people who don't agree with me are credible
on politics. But on this specicifc topic -- the major screw up that
is the Iraq war, I'd say that anyone who still thinks it was a good
idea has little credibility on national politics and international
security.
Now can you answer my question, and if you won't, why not?
Uncle Dave
Me neither. In fact I got quite mad about it, telling my wife "they
won't win that war, they won't find any weapons of mass destruction
and they won't find Sadaam Hussein". I got the last one wrong, but he
did his best to prove me right ;-) Two days after it started I saw
the face of a young sergeant from my old regiment staring out at me
from the cover of the newspaper, one of the first casualties...
UD
Paul G.
> On Oct 3, 5:19 am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>
> > it was the right move? That'll speak a lot to your ability to comment
> > credibly on politics.
>
> Not answering either of your questions
Pussy.
I'm not afraid to answer those questions. I opposed the Iraq war and
I was proven right, it was a very, very wrong move. As I predicted,
Iran was the big winner in all that, with bin Laden coming in second
and the Taliban third. There's your podium.
-Paul
Uncle Dave
Yeah, I remember how astomished I was when, by the power of the
internet, I was able to communicate with cyclists across the planet
and heard the horror stories from the US. It seemed that chucking
beer cans and other projectiles at cyclists was quite usual and at
least one person had been shot at...
UD
Susan Walker
> On Oct 3, 5:04 pm, Donald Munro wrote:
>> Never mind the millions, if you get 2 or 3 rednecks together you have a
>> problem.
>
> Yeah, I remember how astomished I was when, by the power of the
> internet, I was able to communicate with cyclists across the planet
> and heard the horror stories from the US. It seemed that chucking
> beer cans and other projectiles at cyclists was quite usual and at
> least one person had been shot at...
I had the same experience.
Uncle Dave
Nah, the Taliban would have tested positive or sure.
UD
Uncle Dave
The mind boggles.
UD
Susan Walker
> On Oct 3, 6:48 pm, Susan Walker wrote:
>> Uncle Dave wrote:
>>> Yeah, I remember how astomished I was when, by the power of the
>>> internet, I was able to communicate with cyclists across the planet
>>> and heard the horror stories from the US. It seemed that chucking
>>> beer cans and other projectiles at cyclists was quite usual and at
>>> least one person had been shot at...
>> I had the same experience.
>
> The mind boggles.
No, I mean, of hearing those stories.
Uncle Dave
Ooh, you had me going there...
UD
Paul G.
I've never been shot at, but there was that incident with the carload
of trailer trash, the tire iron, and the hatchet...
-Paul
Anton Berlin
> No boondoggle Olympics in Chicago!!!!
And I was looking forward to the boondoggle competition almost as much
as mumblypeg.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
POTM
Howard Kveck
Seconded.
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
It goes to businesses that don't necessarily lose money. The issue
goes to the impact of using taxpayer money and taxpayer supported bond
issues. The argument of making money is that the facility brings in
enough money to public coffers - tourism, taxation, purchases - to
more than offset the outlay in direct and indirect taxpayer dollars.
That is not generally true and has not been true at all for the larger
facilities.
No doubt there are construction firms that make out quite well from
the money spent, but until they return 100% or so of their profits to
the local and state government, that doesn't do the taxpayer much
good.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
What about employees of those firms? And suppliers of those firms,
and their employees?
Or do we only look at things in terms of taxpayers?
cur...@the-md-russells.org
Then you are talking about looking at it as a job program, giving
taxpayer money as a gift to those that build the stadiums. That may be
legitimate, and was used in the past for public monuments. It does not
support the 'spending of tax payer money' as a neutral or positive for
the public coffers. They do look at the result of tertiary tax
streams, such as employment taxes. They also look at what would have
taken place if the money had not been spent, which the less honest
studies produced by boosters do not - such as what happens when an
event displaces available spaces for normal tourism.
Again, if the boosters want to argue that putting in a major stadium
will provide jobs and work for local businesses and can prove that
there would not be other work available offsetting that work, then
they should make that argument. Instead they often argue that the
stadium will not cost the taxpayers anything, which is extremely
rarely true for large stadiums.
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:34:03 -0400, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by
>JFT <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>What about employees of those firms? And suppliers of those firms,
>>and their employees?
>>
>>Or do we only look at things in terms of taxpayers?
>
>Then you are talking about looking at it as a job program, giving
>taxpayer money as a gift to those that build the stadiums.
I've asked a question in response to simplistic "arguments." It's
interesting that I haven't gotten a simple "no" to that question.
>That may be
>legitimate, and was used in the past for public monuments. It does not
>support the 'spending of tax payer money' as a neutral or positive for
>the public coffers. They do look at the result of tertiary tax
>streams, such as employment taxes. They also look at what would have
>taken place if the money had not been spent, which the less honest
>studies produced by boosters do not - such as what happens when an
>event displaces available spaces for normal tourism.
>
>Again, if the boosters want to argue that putting in a major stadium
>will provide jobs and work for local businesses
That's what I heard. And I hurt opponents saying things like "no
profit" and other nonsense.
> and can prove that
>there would not be other work available offsetting that work, We
Well that's harder but I heard Robert Reich make that argument
explicitly..
then
>they should make that argument. Instead they often argue that the
>stadium will not cost the taxpayers anything, which is extremely
>rarely true for large stadiums.
And opponents say nonsense that could just as well be used to dismiss
lots of things that are societal goods.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
JFT <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>I've asked a question in response to simplistic "arguments." It's
>interesting that I haven't gotten a simple "no" to that question.
http://nogames.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/mega_events-matheson.pdf
http://www.blueroom.com/nostadiumarticles.htm with additional cites.
Do the rest of the work yourself. I won't bother with cites from
printed literature - no doubt you would want it reproduced on line. I
won't pretend to killfile you, but I won't be replying to your
comments in the future,as I have no time to figure out what your
underlying problem is. I'm done with this nonsense.
Henry
ROTFLMAO.
Did you see our PM (John Key) on the Letterman Show (I think it's on
youtube), he had 10 reasons to visit New Zealand. Number 1 was "unlike
the rest of the world, we like Americans".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2905243/John-Keys-Letterman-appearance-coup
Henry
> On Oct 2, 12:32 pm, "Matt Chambers" <mattchamb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Hundreds of Chicago youth have been training hard and
> > developing world class skills for a new Olympic event that
> > would have brought back the spirit of the Ancient Olympics.
>
> > "Arena Gang Violence"
>
> > Yet another extreme sport ignored by the IOC.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Chicago is bad, but Rio is even worse.
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
at what exactly ? crime or corruption. I'd say they're pretty equal.
Rio has better beaches and food
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
Hahahaha
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
>http://www.blueroom.com/nostadiumarticles.htm with additional cites.
This is about the Olympics or other large, wide-spread non-profit
sports initiatives?
I don't see that. It seems to be about arenas for pro sports teams.
> I won't pretend to killfile you, but I won't be replying to your
> comments in the future,
Hahahaha.
Donald Munro
> ROTFLMAO.
> Did you see our PM (John Key) on the Letterman Show (I think it's on
> youtube), he had 10 reasons to visit New Zealand. Number 1 was "unlike
> the rest of the world, we like Americans".
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2905243/John-Keys-Letterman-appearance-coup
Perhaps they employ comely ewes in NZ.
Uncle Dave
This is my favouerite NZ PM clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe-1j9tCMnM
UD