Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:35 pm



Quoting CPH-R (Reply 82):
Chicago: President & First Lady Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Morten Andersen (former NFL kicker from Denmark).
Tokyo: Prince Naruhito (isn't he Crown Prince?) & Prime Minister Hatoyama
Rio: President Lula
Madrid: King Juan Carlos I & Queen Sofía of Spain (incidently, former Princess of Denmark)

Plus:
Rio - Pele (shall i say something ?), Central Bank Governor, Gustavo Kurteen, Bernard (Voley player).

Quoting N104UA (Reply 84):
These three will guarantee the African Vote, once MAD is taken out I think that most of Europe will vote for CHI then, but if RIO goes out first then that vote could go the MAD and knock out Tokyo, either way I see Chicago making it to final round of voting then it will be close with whomever they are up against

The votes of Africa are a big quotation mark.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
N104UA
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:36 pm



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 85):
IMO, Obama has no business being there, unless he really had official business with politicans in that area that has nothing to do with the Olympic bids.

It has a lot to do with politics, at home and abroad, at home it will boost his poll numbers if he brings the games here in the short run and in 2016 the ENTIRE world will be watching the USA for 3 weeks and it is a great way too show off the country (i.e. boost tourism) plus all of the US revenue that comes into the states if you just think about the CBP tax for entering the country that will be millions of dollars.

Quoting Luftfahrer (Reply 87):
It's either Chicago or Tokyo, with a tendency to Japan! Brazil is already hosting the FIFA world cup in 2014 though I don't know if that really plays a role in the voting. Madrid would be the second city on the European continent in a row to host the Olympic Games (after London in 2012).

If it is MAD it will be 3/4 Olympics in Europe so I do not see that happening, and if it is Tokyo it will be 2/3 for Tokyo so I do not see Tokyo or Madrid Happening and since Obama is going to CPH I see it leaning Chicago

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 89):
Quote:
On Monday, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the Washington Times that Obama's personal appearance is "likely to ensure the city lands the games."

"I think his presence makes it almost certain that Chicago will win the bid," he added.

Romney is no stranger to Olympic negotiations. In 2002, Romney was in charge of the Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Olympics.

Romney said he believes that while the president may risk some political capital, the trip is in the country's best interest.

Thank God that Romney is finally putting politics aside and endorsing the President for something and as always is in politics common ground is usually started with sports so who know what could happen politically after this happens.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 90):
. It is much better if the politics were left out of it all, period.

The Olympics are very political as much as they try to say they are not.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 90):
With the U.S. hosting the Olympics 8 times already, I think it is time for someone else to have the chance to be able to host them.

But with a Country the size of Europe and Europe hosting 33 1/2 games (1/2 is Stockholm for equestrian races in 1956) so the U.S. is has only 24% of the amount of games that Europe has had

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 90):
If Chicago does not land the 2016 Games, then Obama can pay for the costs of transporting himself and the use of SAM29000/AF1 to the meeting instead of the U.S. taxpayers paying for it. The trip is/was unnecessary and had nothing to do with foreign relations.

Yes it does, he is meeting the Queen and PM of Denmark. Plus as I said before for three weeks the entire world is watching the US and brings in money. Plus as I said before sports is always an area where people with different ideologies find common ground

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 95):
When is that final decision supposed to take place again, now that the votes were tallied?

Voting 1500 UTC/11am EST and announce at 1630 UTC/12:30pm EST
You can watch here starting at 0230 EST/0630UTC on Friday
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7031309
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
N104UA
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:42 pm



Quoting Us330 (Reply 98):
Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 68):
I just hope Fox Network does not land US rights!

It will probably be ESPN--even though I actually liked NBC's coverage, and thought they did a good job by using the Universal family of networks to ensure lots of live coverage. Given how populated ESPN's airwaves are, I can't imagine the same level of attention could be given to the Olympics (although, to be fair, both the Winter and Summer games occur in relative "dead zones" for U.S. sports--mid-february (if in the northern hemisphere) when both college and the nfl seasons are over, baseball hasn't started--and august, when it's just the MLB, some golf and tennis tournaments, and NFL training camp).

NBC makes a lot of money off of the games and I think that they will try as hard as they can to keep it, and ESPN is cable and I could see an issue with that because in almost all countries they have a broadcast channel having it, but ABC could get it and put parts of it on ESPN, and even Disney Channel  Smile. But FOX does not have enough channels IMO to show all of the events that ABC or NBC could show.
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6166
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:11 am



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 100):
Plus:
Rio - Pele (shall i say something ?), Central Bank Governor, Gustavo Kurteen, Bernard (Voley player).

Damn, I knew I had forgot someone. Pele was also mentioned in todays papers  Sad
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:02 am



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 99):
But we, U.S. taxpayers, are still footing that bill, no matter what. $1M could have been used for infrastructure on our nations freeway repairs. That's why I think the trip was pointless!

Well how much did we spend on Iraq? That wasnt pointless?
Step into my office, baby
 
us330
Posts: 3506
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 7:00 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:32 am



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 99):
But we, U.S. taxpayers, are still footing that bill, no matter what. $1M could have been used for infrastructure on our nations freeway repairs. That's why I think the trip was pointless!

I agree with you. Read the rest of my post. I really wish there was a font for sarcasm...

Quoting N104UA (Reply 102):
NBC makes a lot of money off of the games and I think that they will try as hard as they can to keep it, and ESPN is cable and I could see an issue with that because in almost all countries they have a broadcast channel having it, but ABC could get it and put parts of it on ESPN, and even Disney Channel . But FOX does not have enough channels IMO to show all of the events that ABC or NBC could show.

ESPN/ABC are essentially one when it comes to sports (Look at all the cross-promotional activities that occur with college football, for example--and they use the same announcers). If public broadcasting was an issue with the bid, ESPN could always guarantee a set number of hours to be broadcast on ABC. And I wouldn't be surprised if they used the Disney Channel--NBC used channels as diverse as CNBC, USA, and the Universal Movie Channel to display live coverage.
And with Fox--I'd never discount the ability of Murdoch to find a way.
 
Adam T.
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 7:01 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:40 am

I believe it is between Chicago and Rio and after months of following it and seeing some comments on here I have to say that I think Chicago will inch out for the win.  Smile
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:55 am



Quoting CPH-R (Reply 103):
Damn, I knew I had forgot someone. Pele was also mentioned in todays papers

Not a problem. Good to know that Pele is still a very respected person and one (i can even say the most) famous soccer player ever.
I'm sure he helps, specially with Africa and Europe.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9877
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:49 am



Quoting Us330 (Reply 105):
I really wish there was a font for sarcasm...

This doesn't work?:  sarcastic 
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
Elite
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:31 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:51 pm

So Rio seems to be a popular pick on Airliners.net, but not according to a Madrid 2016 official... this official singled Rio out and labeled it the worst city possible for the 2016 Olympics, mainly because of the poor development and infrastructure there, and also apparently because Brazil is last economically and in many other categories when compared to the three remaining countries (all 3 other countries, USA, Japan, and Spain are highly developed).

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-09-30-4216501805_x.htm
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14028
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:58 pm



Quoting Elite (Reply 109):
mainly because of the poor development and infrastructure there, and also apparently because Brazil is last economically and in many other categories when compared to the three remaining countries

All the more reason it should get the bid - to restore what little vestiges of legitimacy the Olympics still retain and to provide the opportunity for Rio to show off what its people can do given the chance.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:27 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 110):
All the more reason it should get the bid - to restore what little vestiges of legitimacy the Olympics still retain and to provide the opportunity for Rio to show off what its people can do given the chance.

The problem is at what cost? How much money will have to be invested in order to host an Olympic game? Can a country like Brazil give itself the luxury of investing so much money? Especially after the investement for the 2014 WC.
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
Adam T.
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 7:01 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:28 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 110):
All the more reason it should get the bid - to restore what little vestiges of legitimacy the Olympics still retain and to provide the opportunity for Rio to show off what its people can do given the chance.

I do agree with you to a certain point - the Olympics gives developing countries a chance to help improve their infastructure and prove themselves to the world - Mexico City and Beijing's games are a good example but at this day and time the IOC, lets face it, is all about having a profitable and successful games that makes them look good. For this reason - the USA, Japan, and Spain have a stronger proven record than Brazil in hosting such large events and as EZEIZA said, they really need to focus their investment on the 2014 World Cup - once Brazil hosts an outstanding World Cup (which I am confident they will) then they can focus their attention on trying to win the Olympics.

But the IOC is weird and can surprise everyone - no one thought that Atlanta would win the 1996 Olympics and Pyeongchang, South Korea was the favorite to win the 2014 Winter Games that went to Sochi.
 
AM744
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 11:05 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:54 pm



Quoting Elite (Reply 109):
So Rio seems to be a popular pick on Airliners.net, but not according to a Madrid 2016 official... this official singled Rio out and labeled it the worst city possible for the 2016 Olympics, mainly because of the poor development and infrastructure there, and also apparently because Brazil is last economically and in many other categories when compared to the three remaining countries (all 3 other countries, USA, Japan, and Spain are highly developed).

Unfortunate and demeaning declaration. A little humility is in order, specially from someone whose own motherland was rather third worldlish less than a generation ago.

Fact is, Spain's economy today is roughly the size of Brazil's, so I don't see an advantage there. The US and Japan could play that card, though.
 
User avatar
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:07 pm



Quoting AM744 (Reply 114):
Fact is, Spain's economy today is roughly the size of Brazil's, so I don't see an advantage there. The US and Japan could play that card, though.

The advantage of Madrid is that they were candidates for the 2012 games too, so they already have a developed plan in terms of much of the infrastructure.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 114):
Unfortunate and demeaning declaration.

Yes, but with some truth in it, with all due respect. And I remember thinking the same when Buenos Aires presented itself to host the games in the past (I think it was for the 2008 games, but I'm not sure). What more could I have wanted than having the games a few blocks from where I live? But the fact was, and still is, that Buenos Aires is not ready to host an event of that magnitude. And the cost of making the infrastructure good enough for the olympics is too high. I fear that Rio faces the same problem, plus the extra cost of hosting the WC in 2014.
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
aznmadsci
Posts: 1646
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:02 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:24 pm



Quoting Adam T. (Reply 112):
they really need to focus their investment on the 2014 World Cup - once Brazil hosts an outstanding World Cup (which I am confident they will) then they can focus their attention on trying to win the Olympics.

That's a similar path South Africa is hoping to take with them when they try to bid for another games. With next year's WC, it will be interesting to see if we see a Cape Town, Durban, or Johannesburg 2020 bid!

If you're online, you can watch the whole bid presentation on the IOC website olympic.org starting with Chicago's bid presentation at 01:30 AM Central Time.
The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
 
IBERIA747
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:43 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:29 pm

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 115):
Unfortunate and demeaning declaration.

Yes, but with some truth in it, with all due respect. And I remember thinking the same when Buenos Aires presented itself to host the games in the past (I think it was for the 2008 games, but I'm not sure). What more could I have wanted than having the games a few blocks from where I live? But the fact was, and still is, that Buenos Aires is not ready to host an event of that magnitude. And the cost of making the infrastructure good enough for the olympics is too high. I fear that Rio faces the same problem, plus the extra cost of hosting the WC in 2014.

  

I know that Madrid has no chance to get the games, although I'm quite sure our bid may be one of the best, if not the best. In fact, I don't think any European city would stand a chance to host the 2016 olympics.

That said, my preferred candidate would be Tokyo.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 114):
Fact is, Spain's economy today is roughly the size of Brazil's

Fact is, Spain's economy is slightly bigger with a population of just 45 million, compared to the more or less 190 million people living on Brazil so the distance between the two countries is quite big and Spain is miles ahead of Brazil...the numbers speak for themselves.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 114):
A little humility is in order, specially from someone whose own motherland was rather third worldlish less than a generation ago.

While I agree with the humility part, I think the rest is "inaccurate".

A generation ago (and we're talking about at least 30 years), Spain was probably more developed than countries such as Brazil or your own country, Mexico, are right now. Yeah, the years after the civil war were tough, but that's about it. However, we currently see, and will continue to see for the years to come, much worse levels of poverty and undevelopment in Brazil or Mexico (than Spain has ever seen even in its darkest years), which are supposed to be the biggest economies in Latin America. And that is not intended to be an offence. I am just stating a fact.

Brazil's economy is big? Sure it is. So is India's, for example.

Saludos.

[Edited 2009-09-30 16:02:06]
¡¡VIVA ESPAÑA!!
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:25 am



Quoting Luftfahrer (Reply 87):
My guess: It's either Chicago or Tokyo, with a tendency to Japan! Brazil is already hosting the FIFA world cup in 2014 though I don't know if that really plays a role in the voting

That's the best way to reply:

USA World Cup 1994 , Atlanta 1996
Mexico City Olympics 1968, World Cup 1970
Munich Olympich 1972, World Cup 1974

Quoting Elite (Reply 109):
this official singled Rio out and labeled it the worst city possible for the 2016 Olympics, mainly because of the poor development and infrastructure there, and also apparently because Brazil is last economically and in many other categories when compared to the three remaining countries (all 3 other countries, USA, Japan, and Spain are highly developed

The same Madrid that apologizes for making such a non-ethical comment. Rio is not making comments (bad) about the other bid cities, but both Chicago and Madrid made it.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 111):
The problem is at what cost? How much money will have to be invested in order to host an Olympic game? Can a country like Brazil give itself the luxury of investing so much money? Especially after the investement for the 2014 WC.

Yes we can, because it's a kind of investment that can bring more future revenue to the city(Rio) and to the country. A good Olympics would mean more 3 million visitors per year, and this would create 100,000 jobs in new hotels, bars, restaurants, shops, museums, etc...
100,000 jobs means up to 400,000 people with a better future.

That's all about.

Rio and Brazil don't want the game to show they are just able to handle it, but to begin a major transformation.

Money is not a problem, neither to Brazil, neither to the State of Rio de Janeiro neither to the City of Rio de Janeiro. And for investment looking for the future, it's cheap !
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
tsaord
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:46 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:00 am

I just remembered something. Some folks above mentioned the "African" vote could sway toward Chicago because of Obama showing up. Brazil has the highest population of Blacks outside of Africa. That could be something to think about to.


I have never even cared about this process until now lol. I guess since I'm from Chicago I care a little but I pray Rio gets it!
there are icons, then there are legends, then there is rick flair
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:36 am

If Obama was looking to secure the votes to swing the decision in favor of Chicago by bringing people from Chicago, he should have brought Daley to turn up the dead vote.  rotfl 
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
Elite
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:31 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:53 am



Quoting AM744 (Reply 113):
Unfortunate and demeaning declaration. A little humility is in order, specially from someone whose own motherland was rather third worldlish less than a generation ago.

I hope this message was directed at the Madrid Olympic official, who made the comment, rather than me, who just reported it.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 114):
Yes, but with some truth in it, with all due respect.

That is probably what most people believe - including the officials who will be making the decision, so I think that will ultimately hurt Brazil. I would be interested to see what Brazil can do for the 2016 Olympics, but I don't think that it can pull it off. They would rather go with a "safe" bid in Chicago or Tokyo.
 
N104UA
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:27 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:10 am



Quoting Tsaord (Reply 118):
Brazil has the highest population of Blacks outside of Africa. That could be something to think about to.

But the president is not of African decent he is of Portuguese decent
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
 
User avatar
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:25 am



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 117):
Yes we can, because it's a kind of investment that can bring more future revenue to the city(Rio) and to the country. A good Olympics would mean more 3 million visitors per year, and this would create 100,000 jobs in new hotels, bars, restaurants, shops, museums, etc...
100,000 jobs means up to 400,000 people with a better future.

I would agree if this is exactly what happens after an olympiad, but it is my understanding that the amount of money invested takes a looong time to cover. Yes, during the games you'd have probably million of short-term jobs created, which is always a positive thing, but what about in the long run? We're talking about Rio here, a city that is a hue tourist destination already, so how much increase in tourism would we see because of the games? Why would a good olympics mean 3 million more visitors per year?
I think that countries like Brazil or Argentina risk way too much in hosting something of this magnitude. A Football WC is fine, since the stadiums are there (especially Brazil), but the games involve much more infrastructure that just the stadium. I am all for Rio .. I'd love to have the games at 3 hs away from home, but I think in the long run it's just not worth it. No need to say that I hope I'm wrong  Smile

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 117):
Rio and Brazil don't want the game to show they are just able to handle it, but to begin a major transformation.

No doubt they are able to handle it, and I'm sure it would be a great Olympiad.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 117):
Money is not a problem, neither to Brazil, neither to the State of Rio de Janeiro neither to the City of Rio de Janeiro

Sorry Lipe but money is not a problem? In Brazil? I love Brazil, always have, and I was even happy when they beat Argentina a few weeks ago (I hate Maradona!), but saying that money is not a problem means that several million people live in poverty for no reason?
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:31 am



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 122):
I would agree if this is exactly what happens after an olympiad, but it is my understanding that the amount of money invested takes a looong time to cover. Yes, during the games you'd have probably million of short-term jobs created, which is always a positive thing, but what about in the long run? We're talking about Rio here, a city that is a hue tourist destination already, so how much increase in tourism would we see because of the games? Why would a good olympics mean 3 million more visitors per year?

I just raised a number that represents about 100% of increase from the current number of foreign visitors that Rio receives.
We shall increase in Rio if people got the general impression that issues like security and poverty, improved. In a normal scenario it takes years for that, but the Olympics are also a fast track for this. And the jobs will be created in new hotels and new commerce.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 122):
Sorry Lipe but money is not a problem? In Brazil? I love Brazil, always have, and I was even happy when they beat Argentina a few weeks ago (I hate Maradona!), but saying that money is not a problem means that several million people live in poverty for no reason?

That happens even here in the United States, Ezeiza.
The point i tried to raise is that for such an investment that would bring dividends to the people, yes, money should not be a problem.

In my view you can't give fish to all people. You should give the fishing rod and teach how to fishing.
I'm against given a minimum wage, but this is for another thread or better, for a bar discussion with beer.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6299
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:03 pm



Quoting Adam T. (Reply 112):
the Olympics gives developing countries a chance to help improve their infastructure and prove themselves to the world - Mexico City and Beijing's games are a good example

Prove themselves to the world? Anyone can prove to the rest of the world that they can spend like mad building things they do not really need just to please the IOC.
I don't think Beijing is a good example of anything. How many people were forcibly displaced because the government needed their place to build Potemkin village?
I don't think any other country has the means to shut down half of the country's industrial production and car traffic so the sportsmen don't choke themselves to death from toxic air.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 117):
Yes we can, because it's a kind of investment that can bring more future revenue to the city(Rio) and to the country. A good Olympics would mean more 3 million visitors per year, and this would create 100,000 jobs in new hotels, bars, restaurants, shops, museums, etc...
100,000 jobs means up to 400,000 people with a better future.

What if the Olympic will not be executed in a "good" way? Ask in Montreal whether they think their Olympics were worth it.
How many REAL jobs (not the part time ones for 3 weeks during the games) Olympics will create? How many additional vistors it will bring it? Will the games bring any net profit?
It's all about juggling with numbers and including/excluding certain items from the total bill.
That said, Rio is certainly not some "godforsaken" tiny village previously unknown to a wider public (as it has been the case e.g. with Lake Placid, Lillehammer or Albertville) but a top tourist destination in South America.
There is no need to boost world's awareness of Rio's existence though Olympics.
Perhaps spending the money wisely on battling crime and public safety instead of wasting it on "3 weeks of dubious, momentary fame" would bring more tourists in the long run.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 123):
an investment that would bring dividends to the people

I doubt that Olympics bring any such dividend. It's a small miracle if you break even.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 123):
I just raised a number that represents about 100% of increase from the current number of foreign visitors that Rio receives.

You really believe Olympics can double the number of regular visitors that come AFTER the games? 10-20% would be a huge success.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 123):
And the jobs will be created in new hotels and new commerce.

I think that's where the flaw in your reasoning lies - the hotels are built to cope with the number of visitiors/sportsmen/officials who will come during the game, but is there enough business to keep 'em running afterwards? That's the whole problem of modern hypercommercial Olympics - what to do with the infrastrature once the games are over.
 
User avatar
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:28 pm



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 123):
We shall increase in Rio if people got the general impression that issues like security and poverty, improved. In a normal scenario it takes years for that, but the Olympics are also a fast track for this. And the jobs will be created in new hotels and new commerce.

Honestly, I doubt a city like Rio, which is already a well known destination, will be able to increase by 100% (!!) the number of visitors. The new hotels and all the extra jobs that come with the games will slowly dissapear. You have Carnival every year, and it's always full of visitors, yet there isn't an incresse in tourism after every year.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 123):
That happens even here in the United States, Ezeiza.
The point i tried to raise is that for such an investment that would bring dividends to the people, yes, money should not be a problem.

Yes, in the long run (assuming you are right) some dividends might come back, but a country like Brazil has more important priorities. Like in Argentina, there are millions that live like rats in shanty towns, there is a huge amount of unemployment, infrastructure in many cities is a mess, education ... and I could go on with a long list of things. If the games were to take place in Rio, the advantage for Rio would probably be better infrastructure, better roads, etc., but the rest of the country? And even if Rio would gain some benefit, we are talking about 2016, so that's another 7 years before anything gets done, yet in the meantime Brazil has to deal with the current problems.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 124):
I think that's where the flaw in your reasoning lies - the hotels are built to cope with the number of visitiors/sportsmen/officials who will come during the game, but is there enough business to keep 'em running afterwards? That's the whole problem of modern hypercommercial Olympics - what to do with the infrastrature once the games are over.

I have to agree with this. Apart from a few long run infrastructure benefits, like roads for example, most of the left overs of an olympic game become unused usually.
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:42 pm



Quoting N104UA (Reply 121):
Quoting Tsaord (Reply 118):
Brazil has the highest population of Blacks outside of Africa. That could be something to think about to.

But the president is not of African decent he is of Portuguese decent

If Obama's popularity was intended to overwhelm the Committee and get the win, think again. I heard that Brazil brought Pele to Copenhagen, and he's probably more popular than Obama.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:42 pm



Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 124):
Ask in Montreal whether they think their Olympics were worth it.

Why not ask Barcelona or Sydney?
Step into my office, baby
 
Derico
Posts: 4467
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:53 pm



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 125):
Like in Argentina, there are millions that live like rats in shanty towns, there is a huge amount of unemployment, infrastructure in many cities is a mess, education ...

Two things. Brazil or Mexico can host the Olympic games. It's a matter of will, not how many people have access to microwaves in their homes. The reason there might be doubts is because of the infamous latin bureaucracy that tends to delay and put into question if things will get done in time. If Brazil (Rio), really does things well they surely can host. They have development banks, they have private companies, and ultimately 200 billion in reserves... what's 3 or 4 billion off that if need be.

Of course the question is priorities. But then again, I keep hearing Chicago is broke and can't fix it's potholes or pay it's teachers and keep libraries open. Sounds a lot like home!

That said, in spite of recent good governance in Brazil, you can't compare the poverty of Argentina with that of Brazil, or education levels overall, and many other areas. There's a reason Argentina's HDI is 20 to 30 places higher.

I really don't understand this Argentine obsession which claiming everything is THE worst here. Europeans and North Americans visit after sometimes hearing all the dire warnings (by Argentines), and the vast majority in the end are like ''it's just like home really''. And the statistics back it up. No worse than the USA, a bit worse than Europe as a whole but not much worse than the average European large city. Let's not even compare Argentina to almost all other Latin American crime rates.

There are many problems, but this national sport of exagerating every single little problem... Most Argentines don't seem to know anything about how REALLY hard it is most of the rest of the world.  splat 
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14211
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:19 pm



Quoting N104UA (Reply 79):
With Pres. Obama going to CPH to talk to them it looks like he might have a chance

Why just because of his presence?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 104):
Well how much did we spend on Iraq? That wasnt pointless?

No we got all that oil!  sarcastic 

Can we please keep the CNN sound bytes out of this thread please?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 126):
If Obama's popularity was intended to overwhelm the Committee and get the win, think again. I heard that Brazil brought Pele to Copenhagen, and he's probably more popular than Obama.

Yes, Michelle Obama is really pushing the elitism here brining Oprah too. It's really circus like and I hope for her sake the US gets it because if they lose it will be a huge embarrassment. As for Pele you may have a point. In the sporting world yes he is way more important than Obama.
90 Day Fiancé has taught me that Russian woman are excellent.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:57 pm



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 129):

Can we please keep the CNN sound bytes out of this thread please?

Only if we can keep the Fox News sound bites out:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 129):
es, Michelle Obama is really pushing the elitism here brining Oprah too. I

Deal?
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:01 pm



Quoting Derico (Reply 128):
There are many problems, but this national sport of exagerating every single little problem... Most Argentines don't seem to know anything about how REALLY hard it is most of the rest of the world. splat

it's not exagerating. There are major problems here, as in the rest of the world, yes, but I don't see how hosting an olympic game can be a priority in Argentina or Brazil in this case. There are greater concerns of where to invest eather than buildong facilities that will be used for one month alone. The Olympics are not only about an olympic stadium. You have so many different things to build that won't be used after. What's the point? I'd rather see the tons of millions put elsewhere, such as schools. Or stop having black outs during the summer because the energy is not enough.

Quoting Derico (Reply 128):
Two things. Brazil or Mexico can host the Olympic games. It's a matter of will

Of course they can. Anyone can. The point is that for some places it's just not worth the cost.

Quoting Derico (Reply 128):
I really don't understand this Argentine obsession which claiming everything is THE worst here. Europeans and North Americans visit after sometimes hearing all the dire warnings (by Argentines), and the vast majority in the end are like ''it's just like home really''.

I am a foreigner. I am a European, and I love living in Argentina. i am here by choice, and it is home. But the reality is that there many things that are not right, that need to improve .. a lot. And I also lived in Brazil (SP) and Madrid (among other places), so it's not like I'm talking about places I have only seen in pictures  Smile
The point is that the profit from hosting an olympic game is usually null, many times it produces a loss that takes years to regain. The idea that after the games millions of people will discover the place is not valid anymore in this day and age. Everyone knows Buenos Aires or Rio, and if they come to visit it won't be because of a sporting event.
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
AM744
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 11:05 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:02 pm



Quoting Elite (Reply 120):
I hope this message was directed at the Madrid Olympic official, who made the comment, rather than me, who just reported it.

Absolutely. The Spanish Olympic official.

Quoting IBERIA747 (Reply 116):
Fact is, Spain's economy is slightly bigger with a population of just 45 million, compared to the more or less 190 million people living on Brazil so the distance between the two countries is quite big and Spain is miles ahead of Brazil...the numbers speak for themselves.

I aggree. But couldn't it be that when it comes to large events, macroeconomic numbers matter the most? China does not have good per capita indicators, yet the government had access to enough resources to pull the 2008 Olympics because of the mere size of the economy. Brazil could do that, too, even if most of its population does not enjoy a high standard of living. At the end of the day it's a top 10 GDP country of continental dimensions that has weathered the global recession pretty decently. That has to count for something.

Quoting IBERIA747 (Reply 116):
While I agree with the humility part, I think the rest is "inaccurate".

Coming to think about it, it is inaccurate.
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6299
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:51 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 127):
Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 124):
Ask in Montreal whether they think their Olympics were worth it.

Why not ask Barcelona or Sydney?

Since LipeGIG obviously already jumped in the Olympic hype bandwagon there is no point of arguing with BCN or SYD.
I was only trying show an example where the "three weeks of (dubious) fame" have negative consequences even thirty years later.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 132):
China does not have good per capita indicators, yet the government had access to enough resources to pull the 2008 Olympics because of the mere size of the economy.Brazil could do that, too, even if most of its population does not enjoy a high standard of living.

I don't think anyone disputes Brazil's ability to host the games. The question is whether it is responsible and/or sensible thing to do.
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:56 pm

Very good but it seems there's a general concern about if Brazil is able to run the Olympics. I just ask to my self if we could do a lot recently, if we do not are capable to do something like the Olympics. We research deep (very) waters, we build E-Jets, we build and operate transport systems... we organize huge meeting and events.
I don't believe this know how is exclusive of "rich" countries, and why a "poor" country is not able to study, copy and manage the games that will happen 7 years ahead.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 124):
What if the Olympic will not be executed in a "good" way? Ask in Montreal whether they think their Olympics were worth it

The PanAm were executed in a good way. And the city already got a 25% increase in the number of visitors. Rio is in fact one of a few places in the world where the number of passengers have grow more than 10% even during the crisis. Thanks also to business, of course.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 124):
How many REAL jobs (not the part time ones for 3 weeks during the games) Olympics will create? How many additional vistors it will bring it? Will the games bring any net profit?

See below

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 124):
It's all about juggling with numbers and including/excluding certain items from the total bill.
That said, Rio is certainly not some "godforsaken" tiny village previously unknown to a wider public (as it has been the case e.g. with Lake Placid, Lillehammer or Albertville) but a top tourist destination in South America.
There is no need to boost world's awareness of Rio's existence though Olympics.
Perhaps spending the money wisely on battling crime and public safety instead of wasting it on "3 weeks of dubious, momentary fame" would bring more tourists in the long run.



Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 124):
doubt that Olympics bring any such dividend. It's a small miracle if you break even.

That's easy. The main investment will be made in transportation and the dividends for the people are clear.
What many people does not pay attention is that, the investment in venues is little. The big one is on mass transportation system and includes new subway lines. Mostly of the installations build for the PanAm games will be used for the Olympics with minor investments. Maracana (Main Stadium) will be another stadium for the World Cup, and will be ready 2 years before.
This kind of investments are for the people. Will pay dividend easily.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 124):
I think that's where the flaw in your reasoning lies - the hotels are built to cope with the number of visitiors/sportsmen/officials who will come during the game, but is there enough business to keep 'em running afterwards? That's the whole problem of modern hypercommercial Olympics - what to do with the infrastrature once the games are over

L410, Rio has not experienced Hotel Booms, and still, holds the biggest RevPar for Latin America with at least 50% more expensive room rates than Mexico City, the second one.
Why ? Capacity Constrain in the South Zone.
And why the games could help ? Because it will create entire new areas (2) for hotels.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 125):
but the rest of the country? And even if Rio would gain some benefit, we are talking about 2016, so that's another 7 years before anything gets done, yet in the meantime Brazil has to deal with the current problems.

There's another interesting article published today by Valor, the main business newspaper in Brazil, made out of a study from University of Sao Paulo that the Olympics will bring US$ 51 bi in investments for Brazil (around 53.6% in Rio). They expect the games to generate 251,800 new jobs (here they say about permanent jobs)
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
Arcano
Posts: 2301
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:34 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:10 pm

Though I think the games will go to Chicago, despite all comments above I'm sure Rio, as one of the most amazing cities of the world, would host wonderful games. Brazil is ready...

Best wishes to Rio 2016, bring the games down here!
in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773, 380, 73G, 788, 789, 346
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6299
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:20 pm



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 134):
Very good but it seems there's a general concern about if Brazil is able to run the Olympics.

My concern is whether hosting Olympics in its present megalomaniac format is financially & socially responsible thing - regardless of location.
 
User avatar
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:29 pm



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 134):
Very good but it seems there's a general concern about if Brazil is able to run the Olympics

Lipe, I think you got it all wrong. No one doubts Rio is able to host. I't more than capable of hosting wonderful olympics, and whi in their sane mind can say Rios isn't an amazing city!? What I am saying is that the cost of hosting is too high when there so many other basic needs that should be dealt with above a sporting event.

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 134):
There's another interesting article published today by Valor, the main business newspaper in Brazil, made out of a study from University of Sao Paulo that the Olympics will bring US$ 51 bi in investments for Brazil (around 53.6% in Rio). They expect the games to generate 251,800 new jobs (here they say about permanent jobs)

and how exactly can they plan that? Will these permanent jobs continue after the olympic hype ends? What exactly are these jobs?
I understand that there is always optimism around these events, but they hardly ever leave a (financial) benefit.
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13725
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:38 pm

To me, it seems that the bidding process will come down to how much any of the host cities is willing to dish out in cash. The Olympics have become a source for greed and über-commercialisation, the fascist Samaranch and the greedy surgeon Rogge consolidated the Olympic Games as such. If the Olympics were about the Olympic ideals, like when the modern Olympics were created in 1896, then there would have been no way in hell that China would have hosted last year's games, similarly even in the past when Berlin hosted the Olympics a year after introducing the Nürnberg Laws, and for Mexico City when the regime cracked down on student protests in 68.

Then there's politics that gets involved, e.g. the 36 Olympics, which became a propaganda play for Hitler's pleasure, Beijing 08, which displayed a happy people while thousands of Tibetans were slaughtered, and now Obama pleading for Chicago as host city. Bottom line, the IOC only cares about money, and the highest bidder will win. Personally, while I'm disillusioned of the Olympics, still hope that Tokyo will take advantage of its remote chance.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
aircatalonia
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:50 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:28 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 127):
Why not ask Barcelona

The games were definitely worth it. They provided the necessary infrastructures and facilities which the city needed. Unfortunately this would not be the case for Madrid this time, as Madrid already has perfectly suitable infrastructures and facitilites (oversized even) for a city of its size. In my opinion, it would be wasted money.
 
Derico
Posts: 4467
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:28 pm

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 131):
are greater concerns of where to invest eather than buildong facilities that will be used for one month alone.

I agree which is why I'm glad Buenos Aires (although I'm not from there) dropped it's pretentions which it had in the olympics prior to this one.

However, eventually, the case can be made that there will ALWAYS be other priorities, and that using that as an excuse is just a way of excusing mediocrity and never shooting for something just beyond the horizon. It's like waiting to buy the best TV set that will ever exist... you will wait forever, there will always be a better one right around the corner.

I know those sound like cliches, but... While I think right now Argentina is doing well not bidding for things like the Olympics, SOME DAY it might be a good idea as a form of making the country work towards a common goal. One thing I really dislike about Argentina is that there is no dreams like that anymore. I mean, the only reason we got the Copa America in 2011 was by mere rotation of the countries, otherwise Argentina woudn't have even been interested. Look at how Perú, Colombia, Venezuela were so excited, even how México wants to host.

And we got the cup and it's like bah, whatever. That mentality needs to change. I think Argnetina should host a world cup in the next 20 years, personally. Look at how CHILE was pushing to host 2010, and it had to DRAG Argentina along because they knew that they coudn't alone. Look at Uruguay begging Argentina for 2030 (100 years of World Cup). That's what is sad about Argentina, we don't have aspirations like that even as most other countries in the world do... there is something wrong with us in that sense.

[Edited 2009-10-01 14:33:26]
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14211
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:49 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 130):
Only if we can keep the Fox News sound bites out:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 129):
es, Michelle Obama is really pushing the elitism here brining Oprah too. I

Deal?

Huh? I made a direct reference to the fact that Michelle Obama brought Oprah over there which is clearly a power grab and revelant to this discussion nothing to di with Fox News who couldn't care less about it in fact they are only making reference to Obama going there. You drudged up some far left talking point about the war in Iraq. Again if you can't stay on topic and have to keep using old CNN material it's best you didn't post.

Quoting Arcano (Reply 135):
Though I think the games will go to Chicago, despite all comments above I'm sure Rio, as one of the most amazing cities of the world, would host wonderful games. Brazil is ready...

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think Rio has a good chance. In fact I think It would be a great venue for the games.
90 Day Fiancé has taught me that Russian woman are excellent.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:58 pm



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 141):
ou drudged up some far left talking point about the war in Iraq. Again if you can't stay on topic and have to keep using old CNN material it's best you didn't post.

What are you in gods name talking about? My original reply 104 had nothing to do with CNN. The CNN reference came straight from your *ss.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 141):

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think Rio has a good chance. In fact I think It would be a great venue for the games

You just want Rio to win because you dislike Obama. Be a man (or whatever) and just accept it.
Step into my office, baby
 
slider
Posts: 7694
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:06 pm

 
NIKV69
Posts: 14211
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:46 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 142):
My original reply 104 had nothing to do with CNN. The CNN reference came straight from your *ss.

"how much did we spend on Iraq" ? Your realize CNN said that every night during the campaign don't you?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 142):
You just want Rio to win because you dislike Obama. Be a man (or whatever) and just accept it.

No I just would like to see something like this process be decided without the constant power grab. Which is what we have here. I sure hope the US gets it because if they give it to Rio your boy will look pretty foolish.
90 Day Fiancé has taught me that Russian woman are excellent.
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2597
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:50 pm



Quoting AmricanShamrok (Thread starter):
With just 7 days to go before the announcement of which city will host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, lets hear your predictions and thoughts on which is most likely to get it/unlikely to get it etc. The 4 candidate cities are:

Chicago
Madrid
Rio de Janeiro
Tokyo

People question Rio's ability to 'pull it off'. Well Atlanta, in the then 'richest country in the world', failed badly due to a mean, 'bean counter' driven approach: verdict: anti-spectator, anti-athlete: the 'mean games'.

Rio's problems are both economic and, above all, security / crime. I have been there, however, and I still favour Rio, who need to use the opportunity to transform their city. I would be willing to risk it as a spectator; wouldn't you?

The US have had it to often for one country. Spain had Barcelona not that long ago. Tokyo have already hosted. So Rio!!!
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:05 pm



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 144):
"how much did we spend on Iraq" ? Your realize CNN said that every night during the campaign don't you?

how many times did fox say "elitist"?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 144):
I sure hope the US gets it because if they give it to Rio your boy will look pretty foolish

and you would just hate that for no other reason than to put Obama down. just admit it, nothjng would please you more. there is nothing wrong with it. just say it
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14028
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:11 am



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 145):
Tokyo have already hosted.

Another reason for Tokyo not to get it - their unapologetically racist Metropolitan Governor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintar%C5%8D_Ishihara

If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:24 am



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 137):
Lipe, I think you got it all wrong. No one doubts Rio is able to host. I't more than capable of hosting wonderful olympics, and whi in their sane mind can say Rios isn't an amazing city!? What I am saying is that the cost of hosting is too high when there so many other basic needs that should be dealt with above a sporting event.

Yes, but it includes improvements that otherwise would happen only in 10-15 years. Rio budget is not all about venues, but as i mentioned, mostly due to big mass transportation improvements.
Lets say R$ 5.6 billion is the games oriented budget (31% COI, 24% Government, 45% Private
R$ 23.2 billion are investments, 34% of that, already being spent (Maracana, GIG, SeaPort area improvement, Subway expansion, RailRoad improvements...)

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 136):
My concern is whether hosting Olympics in its present megalomaniac format is financially & socially responsible thing - regardless of location.

But there's people willing to pay US$ 300 for a ticket.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 137):
Lipe, I think you got it all wrong. No one doubts Rio is able to host. I't more than capable of hosting wonderful olympics, and whi in their sane mind can say Rios isn't an amazing city!? What I am saying is that the cost of hosting is too high when there so many other basic needs that should be dealt with above a sporting event.

Yes i agree with you, but as i mentioned, it's a chance to do something together with the basic needs in order to create mass for a general improvement.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 137):
and how exactly can they plan that? Will these permanent jobs continue after the olympic hype ends? What exactly are these jobs?
I understand that there is always optimism around these events, but they hardly ever leave a (financial) benefit.

I'm trying to get full details on that, i don't have it yet.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 145):
Rio's problems are both economic and, above all, security / crime. I have been there, however, and I still favour Rio, who need to use the opportunity to transform their city. I would be willing to risk it as a spectator; wouldn't you?

The only major issue in Rio is the security. But it's due to the limited size of the Police. New York is almost the size of Rio and have just 3 times more Police officers. It's a problem from the past, that could be solved in the future. The new police in the "favelas" is doing a very good job and proved that it's possible to solve the situation. Santa Marta Hill is now a Touristic destination, scene for movies, soap operas, and a lot of NGO programs.

But in general i agree with you, not because i'm from Rio, but because Rio is probably among the four bids, the one that would got more legacy.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: 2016 Olympics: The Decision

Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:37 am



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 147):
Another reason for Tokyo not to get it - their unapologetically racist Metropolitan Governor:

Far worse things did not stop the IOC from awarding the Olympics to Russia and China.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 910A, AABusDrvr, Aaron747, c933103, Dutchy, JJJ and 45 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos