TV rights worth less because Rio won: IOC official (CBC)

[Drew Wilson]

The cost of Chicago's defeat in its bid to host the 2016 Olympics will be felt in the value of the next U.S. broadcast deal.

The International Olympic Committee's top negotiator said the U.S. rights are worth less after the 2016 Games were awarded to Rio de Janeiro.

"Obviously, the domestic Games would be more valuable," IOC finance commission chairman Richard Carrion said.

And a deal for U.S. broadcast rights — the most lucrative in the IOC's portfolio — might not be done for another three years if the economy doesn't improve.

More... (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2009/10/04/olympics-television.html)

*rolls eyes*

[don webb]

.

Oh boy, Chicago has lost the Olympic Bid, now everybody can start the finger pointing and guessing at what went wrong and blaming anyone they want.

I read a couple places it was Boooooooooosh and other places have accused Sarah Palin..........:Eyecrazy:


But, these people said no to Oprah. Nobody does that, much less the Obama’s,


I got curious so I did a bit of checking around, here’s some basics of what I have found!


First, the Chicago Committee made all kinds of financial and architectural guarantees, “spending $50 Million on the bid for the Olympics alone.” Not too shabby for the economy being as it is huh?

The main issues with the IOC the International Olympic Committee I found appears are money, go figure.

The US Olympic Committee USOC had gone forward for some time with plans it had to build a U.S. Olympic TV Network, this against the wishes of the IOC rather than join forces with the officially designated Olympic network in the United States, hey, competition right?

Now this network NBC, the officially designated network provides more than half of the IOC’s global broadcast revenues over the term of its current deal. The IOC stood to loose money and lots of it.

NBC has U.S. rights for many of the Olympics for which NBC paid $5.7 Billion. Lots of Dough involved here.

Also, mention of their incomprehension over compensation of “one new member” which when disclosed was $560,000 in salary with bonuses that could add another $1 Million. This, being more then 3 times that of the previous member whom she replaced was a big concern.

That salary and that of the USOC’s CEO whose total compensation in 2008 was $663,000 is more than 50 percent of their entire quadrennial operating budget. Very interesting.

Neither of the two new members had any relationship to Olympic affairs the “newest member” joined just last fall, neither attended a pivotal International Olympic Committee meeting this June in Switzerland, a first-ever technical presentation to the full IOC and many in the IOC had ever even met them until the final run-up to Friday's vote. Hmmmmm?

Blah Blah Blah a bunch of filler but the USOC shelved the plans for they’re TV network but evidently not soon enough, Chicago was the very first City eliminated in the voting.

Maybe more is involved here but I’ve always said, “Follow the Money!”

Now, the U.S. Olympic Committee leaders are on their best behavior and made nice with International Olympic Committee members who think they're hogging the piggy bank....:hail:


Blame the IOC for this one nobody else I say........:aargh4:


Many sources were used, but most of this comes from:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/sports_globetrotting/2009/10/nbcs-ebersol-us-olympic-committee-needs-real-leaders.html#

And here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/sports/04usoc.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[mountain_rage]

.
But, these people said no to Oprah. Nobody does that, much less the Obama’s,



I'm waiting for Kanye's public outcry.

" The Olympics hate black people!"

[Hath]

I'm kind of glad Chicago didn't get the Olympics because it would be a serious financial strain on our already struggling economy. That money should be better spend on the citizens of America.

[Signa]

I'm kind of glad Chicago didn't get the Olympics because it would be a serious financial strain on our already struggling economy. That money should be better spend on the citizens of America.
On the other hand, I'm told that cities that host the Olympics usually thrive from the economy boost. They will put down some money to accommodate the event, and then afterwords, they have extra money after everything has been paid back. I would think that more out of country money coming into the country would be good for everyone.

[mountain_rage]

On the other hand, I'm told that cities that host the Olympics usually thrive from the economy boost. They will put down some money to accommodate the event, and then afterwords, they have extra money after everything has been paid back. I would think that more out of country money coming into the country would be good for everyone.

The problem is that many cities go overboard on their spending for the Olympics, so they end up spending more than is made back from the economic boost. Although the stigma attached to it has never taken into consideration the equity that is created from the money spent, so in the end its not as bad as people are making it out to be, its just dept on concrete investments.

[Drew Wilson]

I was actually told on a couple of occasions that the cost of the last time the Olympics came to Canada, that the economic boost as a result didn't really pay for the economic strain it put on the city. In fact, it was only a couple years ago that all the debts related to it were fully paid off. I can't cite any sources on this immediately, but that was my knowledge on it (could be wrong).

[Signa]

Maybe my info was wrong then. I just remember some one bragging about going to Atlanta, and things were pretty nice there because of hosting the Olympics. I remember specifically they had widened the roads for the event, so the city didn't have traffic problems at all as a result of them hosting it.

[Drew Wilson]

Maybe my info was wrong then. I just remember some one bragging about going to Atlanta, and things were pretty nice there because of hosting the Olympics. I remember specifically they had widened the roads for the event, so the city didn't have traffic problems at all as a result of them hosting it.

Yeah, I'm sure the infrastructure benefits greatly from the Olympics (re: light a fire under beurocrats asses) but it otherwise leaves bad deficits from what I understand.

I think there was a plan for 2010 to have WiFi under every lampost courtesy of Google, but the plans sorta fell through and since vanished off of the face of the media in every form I've noticed. :frown:

[don webb]

.

Obama's Copenhagen trip wasn't cheap


WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.

Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 Million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.

A 2006 congressional study pegged the cost of flying Air Force One at $56,518 an hour.

The Pentagon recently said it cost $100,219 an hour to fly the huge, reconfigured Boeing 747 without Obama aboard. The Pentagon estimate included more costs for support needs, such as maintenance.

At those rates, the president's 14-hour trip to Copenhagen and back cost about $790,000 to $1.4 Million.

However, presidential travel requires additional spending, especially for security personnel and equipment.

Also lets not forget, first lady Michelle Obama and some administration officials who also traveled to Copenhagen at public expense ahead of the president.

The Copenhagen trip was not devoted entirely to the Olympics bid. Obama spent 25 minutes conferring with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top Afghan war commander. McChrystal had been in London for a speech, and he made the relatively short trip to Denmark to meet with Obama.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gKopv4rOyL--qalIdljPlVyBFEIwD9B37CGO0