Holy shit.Marconius wrote:
Olympics = economy boost for the area hosting the games along with quite a bit of job creation, plus gives a modicum of national identity and morale when held in your own country. Definitely a worthy cause, especially for our economy this day in age.
It is these days.Yeah because the Olympics is all about tv ratings... lmao
The old world aristocracy of the IOC is a real piss off... they are the vestiges of the old world that revolutionary guillotines missed. You only have to look at the 5 star++ treatment of the IOC members as they are wined and dined and have their collective dicks sucked to realize that the Olympics is a pile of shit. And the Olympics are not much more than as celebration of "star athletes" playing mediocre or failed sports, which if there were real money involved in those sports would attract really talented people and that would mean that these athletes would not even be competitive. I guess the biggest pile of crap about the Olympics was the whole amateur athlete thing, athletes can't make money but everyone else involved, including the host city and the IOC members make big bucks... its real BS IMO.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yep. Even if it doesn't happen, it's far better than wasting millions of dollars just to get your foot in the door at the IOC.AussieReaper wrote:
Which according to you would lead the IOC to come begging to the US to host a game. I really can't see that happening.JohnG@lt wrote:
I said it would happen on a long enough time scale, not overnight, and not because we didn't get 2016. Go 20 years without us hosting an Olympic event and you'll see a drastic difference in the ratings, trust me.
yeah okAnd the Olympics are not much more than as celebration of "star athletes" playing mediocre or failed sports, which if there were real money involved in those sports would attract really talented people and that would mean that these athletes would not even be competitive. I guess the biggest pile of crap about the Olympics was the whole amateur athlete thing, athletes can't make money but everyone else involved, including the host city and the IOC members make big bucks... its real BS IMO.
Yes, but you can't include the cost of building infrastructure. After the olympics are gone, the infrastructure remains. Another way to look at it is that the olympics helps to subsize infrastrucutre improvements. Not to mention that hosting the games brings in money from other levels of govt so it does provide a boom to the city.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
The Olympics actually are very costly to the country/city that hosts them
http://www.time.com/time/business/artic … 05,00.html
Then Americans must be a bunch of fickle stuck up arrogant selfish pricks. There are countries that haven't seen the Olympics in their home country for 60, 80 100 plus years or even ever yet still manage to watch their athletes perform.JohnG@lt wrote:
I said it would happen on a long enough time scale, not overnight, and not because we didn't get 2016. Go 20 years without us hosting an Olympic event and you'll see a drastic difference in the ratings, trust me.
Trust you?? Lol no thanks. This absurd statement is based on what, exactly, except your own ridiculous prejudices.JohnG@lt wrote:
I said it would happen on a long enough time scale, not overnight, and not because we didn't get 2016. Go 20 years without us hosting an Olympic event and you'll see a drastic difference in the ratings, trust me.
Last edited by Red Forman (2009-10-03 04:00:05)
