Did the Olympics leave Salt Lake City in debt?

[nuraman00]

They said on the radio that host cities incur a lot of debt, and that the IOC is worse than even FIBA.

They said it was probably good that Boston pulled itself out of the 2024 Olympics.

This article agrees. It also says SLC economic activity fell during the olympics.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/do-olympic-host-cities-ever-win/?_r=0

For example, while Salt Lake City’s hotels and restaurants were packed during the 2002 Winter Games, other businesses not directly related the event, like department stores, suffered significant losses in sales. Overall, economic activity the region actually fell during the Olympics.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++


This article mentions both positives and negatives in general (not just to SLC, but for the Olympics in general).

When It Comes to the Money, Are the Olympics Worth It?

 

[MHSL82]

Kind of related, but the Chiefs agreed to having one of their home games be played in London because of the requirement for a Super Bowl hosting team to play in London. I think the requirement included giving up a home game, but they are doing it in the reverse fashion. They are giving it up first to hope that'll help them get the Super Bowl hosting privilege and then get credit afterwards for volunteering. it's screws them over this year for now guarantee. The NFL may still say they don't want Kansas City to Houston until they have a stadium that can close the roof. They did that one called stadium Super Bowl New York. That doesn't mean they're going to do another one in somewhere other than New York.

 

[nuraman00]

Kind of related, but the Chiefs agreed to having one of their home games be played in London because of the requirement for a Super Bowl hosting team to play in London. I think the requirement included giving up a home game, but they are doing it in the reverse fashion. They are giving it up first to hope that'll help them get the Super Bowl hosting privilege and then get credit afterwards for volunteering. it's screws them over this year for now guarantee. The NFL may still say they don't want Kansas City to Houston until they have a stadium that can close the roof. They did that one called stadium Super Bowl New York. That doesn't mean they're going to do another one in somewhere other than New York.

What does this mean, "Kansas City to Houston"? The Chiefs might be relocated?

 

[nuraman00]

Kind of related, but the Chiefs agreed to having one of their home games be played in London because of the requirement for a Super Bowl hosting team to play in London. I think the requirement included giving up a home game, but they are doing it in the reverse fashion. They are giving it up first to hope that'll help them get the Super Bowl hosting privilege and then get credit afterwards for volunteering. it's screws them over this year for now guarantee. The NFL may still say they don't want Kansas City to Houston until they have a stadium that can close the roof. They did that one called stadium Super Bowl New York. That doesn't mean they're going to do another one in somewhere other than New York.

That assumes the Chiefs will lose the game, or that the travel will affect their performance. I'm not that big in using travel as an excuse, even if it's internationally.

Every fan complains about it preemptively before the game is even played.

 

[nuraman00]

There was supposed to be a joint stadium for the Royals and Chiefs that had a roof, but then they decided on two stadiums.

Kauffman Stadium turns 40 - Royals Review

 

[nuraman00]

In 2006, voters rejected a bond that would have put a rolling roof on Arrowhead Stadium.

ARROWHEAD STADIUM

 

[MHSL82]

That assumes the Chiefs will lose the game, or that the travel will affect their performance. I'm not that big in using travel as an excuse, even if it's internationally.

Every fan complains about it preemptively before the game is even played.

No, because if the other team was "home," the Chiefs would have 8 home games and 8 away games, with only 7 of them being in hostile territory. A road win. Getting a home win in London somewhat neutralizes the negative effect of being away, but you would have 8 hostile territory games left and only 7 favorable places.

Yes, I am taking a black and white approach to favorable/hostile environments, I know that some places don't carry the home field advantage as others. The thing is, the team the Chiefs are playing played twice as the "road team" in London. London's a travel, but if it beats playing on the opponent's field and you have the bye week following and it makes money and you get in the good graces of the NFL, great. But lose a home game, it might be a bit negative if you miss the playoffs by one game in a 16 game season. The playoff teams are so close to the just missed in the NFL, when one team has the disadvantage and 31 don't and they miss by one, I don't see that as, well, if that one team were just better. And I don't see it as saying "well if that team couldn't make it just because of that, they had no shot at the Super Bowl." Again, the NFL is just so close, only 6 teams in your conference make it, and the hottest team wins, as it isn't a best of 7. Only 4 wins gets you there, maybe three (but someone making the cut by one game or a tie-breaker would have to win 4).

 

[ATL96Steeler]

They said on the radio that host cities incur a lot of debt, and that the IOC is worse than even FIBA.

They said it was probably good that Boston pulled itself out of the 2024 Olympics.

This article agrees. It also says SLC economic activity fell during the olympics.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/do-olympic-host-cities-ever-win/?_r=0



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++


This article mentions both positives and negatives in general (not just to SLC, but for the Olympics in general).

When It Comes to the Money, Are the Olympics Worth It?

ATL came out of the '96 Summer games in decent shape financially. While it was not crowned as being one of the better venues...I think the local investment was a little over a billion and they reportedly took in about dbl that amount for the city in hotel/travel/food/parking taxes, and overall impact on the local economy was near $5 billion.

 

[nuraman00]

No, because if the other team was "home," the Chiefs would have 8 home games and 8 away games, with only 7 of them being in hostile territory. A road win. Getting a home win in London somewhat neutralizes the negative effect of being away, but you would have 8 hostile territory games left and only 7 favorable places.

Yes, I am taking a black and white approach to favorable/hostile environments, I know that some places don't carry the home field advantage as others. The thing is, the team the Chiefs are playing played twice as the "road team" in London. London's a travel, but if it beats playing on the opponent's field and you have the bye week following and it makes money and you get in the good graces of the NFL, great. But lose a home game, it might be a bit negative if you miss the playoffs by one game in a 16 game season. The playoff teams are so close to the just missed in the NFL, when one team has the disadvantage and 31 don't and they miss by one, I don't see that as, well, if that one team were just better. And I don't see it as saying "well if that team couldn't make it just because of that, they had no shot at the Super Bowl." Again, the NFL is just so close, only 6 teams in your conference make it, and the hottest team wins, as it isn't a best of 7. Only 4 wins gets you there, maybe three (but someone making the cut by one game or a tie-breaker would have to win 4).

That's why the NFL has to have a schedule that's more meaningful. A schedule where a team only plays 13/32 teams in the league, is meaningless.

What's good about the NBA schedule is that every team plays every other team, twice even. The more games that are played in the regular season, the more meaningful it becomes.

The NFL could still play intra-division teams 2x, and everyone else once. 34 game schedule. Start in June. 1 game preseason.

 

[nuraman00]

ATL came out of the '96 Summer games in decent shape financially. While it was not crowned as being one of the better venues...I think the local investment was a little over a billion and they reportedly took in about dbl that amount for the city in hotel/travel/food/parking taxes, and overall impact on the local economy was near $5 billion.

Thanks, I didn't know where to find such info.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

That's why the NFL has to have a schedule that's more meaningful. A schedule where a team only plays 13/32 teams in the league, is meaningless.

What's good about the NBA schedule is that every team plays every other team, twice even. The more games that are played in the regular season, the more meaningful it becomes.

The NFL could still play intra-division teams 2x, and everyone else once. 34 game schedule. Start in June. 1 game preseason.

Better have 100 men rosters...lol.

 

[MHSL82]

That's why the NFL has to have a schedule that's more meaningful. A schedule where a team only plays 13/32 teams in the league, is meaningless.

What's good about the NBA schedule is that every team plays every other team, twice even. The more games that are played in the regular season, the more meaningful it becomes.

The NFL could still play intra-division teams 2x, and everyone else once. 34 game schedule. Start in June. 1 game preseason.

I wouldn't like that at all. Some people have troubles with Duncan resting a couple games a year, people would really have problems with quarterbacks taking games off because it simply is too much of a toll on one's body. Then extrapolate that to players to play more physical games and quarterbacks.

They could just decide to play everyone in their own conference. And then the other three teams in their division a second time. That would be an 18 game season, like the NFL wants.

 

[nuraman00]

I wouldn't like that at all. Some people have troubles with Duncan resting a couple games a year, people would really have problems with quarterbacks taking games off because it simply is too much of a toll on one's body. Then extrapolate that to players to play more physical games and quarterbacks.

They could just decide to play everyone in their own conference. And then the other three teams in their division a second time. That would be an 18 game season, like the NFL wants.

That's a fair compromise.

If I think about it like MLB players, catchers either take a 5th day off, or move to another IF position.

QBs could do the same. Although I think 1 week in between games might still be enough of a break. Some play anyways after having a Thursday-->Sunday game.

Have a 2nd bye week, if you have my proposed schedule.

As for Duncan resting, it's the road fans that suffer. Popovich only rests his players for road games, not home. So the road fans that wanted to see the Spurs stars against their team, they suffer. But the same could happen at any time. Anyone can have an injury, no one is guaranteed to play on any day.

I sympathize with the fans that went to the game wanting healthy players on both sides, but I'd also rather a team do what it feels is best.

 

[nuraman00]

Better have 100 men rosters...lol.

More games played = more money for owners to spend on larger rosters?

 

[ATL96Steeler]

More games played = more money for owners to spend on larger rosters?

Quality of play would go to shit...teams are having a tough time with depth quality as it is.

jmho...if the NFL started playing 20-25 games a year...the sport would phase out in 20 yrs.