Forecasting financial disaster Olympics 2012

April 6, 2006 10:49 AM

Government error in contemporary British history is the stuff of legend and when it comes to the 2012 Olympics can I be on my own in forecasting financial disaster? This morning's announcement that "little can be built until the site's 50 electric pylons are removed" in 2008 comes hot on the heels of an understated Olympics budget which, four days ago, is revealed to be 'short by £2bn.' I am v.fortunate to live in the UK and there is no doubt this government is v.good at bookkeeping; but grandstanding a world event? Not a chance. Discussed in these parts last year, Britain is not good at world class marketing or brand .. management; Britain is not good at capital projects, and Politicians, bureaucrats ... milking the Olympic Games, says London's mayor. I understand but two Olypics have seen modest profit and Britain badly needs Hollywood or Coca-Cola^® to make a success of this.
posted by Schroder (28 comments total)

I do not work for the soft drinks company that is mentioned.
posted by Schroder at 10:51 AM on April 6, 2006

"The Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:04 AM on April 6, 2006

v.good? my old modem was v.everything, you got ripped off man.
posted by wakko at 11:11 AM on April 6, 2006

Short by $2 billion and you're already predicting disaster?

*Are you talking 2 British billion (20x10^12) aka two American Trillions? If so, nevermind.*
posted by Pollomacho at 11:13 AM on April 6, 2006

We (London) are going to drop the ball on this on an epic scale. Should be funny to watch though. But not so funny when we get the bill I suppose.
posted by influx at 11:19 AM on April 6, 2006

The pylons thing isn't an announcement, it was part of the plan all along. The prediction that The Olympics might cost more than expected is hardly news, and the quote you attribute to the Mayor Of London comes from a blog called The Mayor Of London that has nothing to do with Ken.

What a shitty post.
posted by cillit bang at 11:20 AM on April 6, 2006

Well if the Olympics are as well planned and executed as the Millennium Dome . . . .oh shit, you guys are in trouble.
posted by MasonDixon at 11:22 AM on April 6, 2006

Your point being?

There's a lot of interesting things that can be said about the London Olympics. If you're looking for soulless, money-grubbing capitalism at work, you could make a good scare story out of the anti-ambush marketing provisions in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which recieved Royal Assent the other week (or, you could say that's exactly what's needed to attract private sector investment to relieve the burden on the taxpayer). If you wanted to predict financial disaster you could highlight the fact that costs in the contruction industry are currently running at about three times the rate of inflation. But then, Beijing is currently using a very large percentage of the world's steel supplies to build their Olympic venues, so might those costs decrease after 2008?

Then there's questions about the sustainability of regeneration through prestige projects with high short-term capital investment, as opposed to the natural regenerative effects of infrastructure improvements. It worked for Barcelona - but will it work for the Lower Lea Valley, where the problems are far more deep-rooted?

Hell, you could even have written about toilets.

Anyway, those would have been interesting questions. This, very much less so.
posted by flashboy at 11:34 AM on April 6, 2006

This chap's not taking any chances - This would be (self-/charity funding) Olympic Competitor's offering his skills to other countries, and not troubling his local country with further resource drains they can ill afford.
posted by Dub at 11:34 AM on April 6, 2006

He's also a MeFi member, and has posted it to Projects.
posted by matthewr at 11:40 AM on April 6, 2006

Thanks matthewr, I didn't know that.
posted by Dub at 11:50 AM on April 6, 2006

I'm with flashboy and cillit. This post is worthless. What's the brand management point? As flashboy says, the most extraordinarily severe olympic brand protection laws have recently been passed and you come up with the only-marginally-dodgy logo of the EU presidency?

But you're right, of course, that there are no well marketed brands from Britain like, say, Vodafone or Virgin. And of course the Sydney and Barcelona olympics were total failures because of the lack of Hollywood or Coke magic. Grrrr.
posted by patricio at 11:58 AM on April 6, 2006

Bovril - Proud Sponsor of London 2012!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:07 PM on April 6, 2006

I v.much like this v.good post. Nice use of the r-circle thingy too.
posted by AspectRatio at 1:25 PM on April 6, 2006

When they were trying to pick the host city for the 2012 Olympics, I kept rooting for Paris. The French deserve what would have happened.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:50 PM on April 6, 2006

The 1984 Olympics are said to have been financially stable at least partly because of the use of existing venues. Some had to be refurbished, but a lot of demolition and construction was avoided - and time and money saved.
Much credit goes to organizing president Peter Ueberroth who introduced private financing, i.e. corporate sponsorship. The Los Angeles Olympics made a profit of $215 million.
posted by Cranberry at 1:58 PM on April 6, 2006

Not all UK infrastructure projects screw up - the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is currently on time and (I think) under budget. Also, Emirates Stadium is doing much better than Wemberlee.

The Dome was way overbudget, but then they could hardly delay the Millennium for it, could they? During its year of operation, though, it was the 2nd most popular visitor attraction in Europe, from a standing start, and received very high visitor approval ratings from its 6m+ visitors. Shouldn't have closed it, if you ask me.

But the Daily Mail said it was shit so - hey - it must be, right?
posted by athenian at 2:06 PM on April 6, 2006

What is this v.shit? Is this some new v.British thing? I say you should stop using it v.quickly, it makes you look v.stupid.
posted by nlindstrom at 2:09 PM on April 6, 2006

flashboy, cillit bang, patricio and others beat me to it. What a whiny post. I seem to remember Euro '96 did OK. And those Commonwealth Games in Manc were alright too.
posted by MrMustard at 3:01 PM on April 6, 2006

athenian: v. may be v.stupid, but it helped make Helen Fielding v.rich.
posted by StephenB at 3:26 PM on April 6, 2006

In fact, the presence of Hollywood and Coke doesn't necessarily make for a great Games; the 1996 summer games, hosted by the hometown of Coca-Cola itself, had the dubious honor of being damned with faint praise by the president of the International Olympic Committee.

"In his closing speech, Juan Antonio Samaranch, head of the IOC, for the first time did not describe the games as the best ever." (he did say they were "most exceptional," though. The current president, Jacques Rogge, has dropped the practice of proclaiming every game "the best ever.")

This came amidst criticisms of overcommercialization, an attack that has plagued more than one American Olympics (Los Angeles 1984 was the first privately-funded games), but not so much SLC 2002. Interestingly, Los Angeles 1984 was only the second Olympics to turn a profit—the first being the first Los Angeles games in 1932. Guess who else turned a profit? Atlanta. So perhaps corporate involvement, if perhaps distasteful, at least allows the Games to pay for itself.

Or does it? "True costs for L.A., ATLANTA and SALT LAKE CITY are difficult to obtain, as local and state funds and giveaways of property have been omitted." Would corporate sponsors really serve as the white knight in London's case? Far more likely is government assistance; after all, the nation has a vested interest in putting on a good show.
posted by chrominance at 3:45 PM on April 6, 2006

I thought Crossrail was a major part of the transport plans for the Olympics - should we not maybe be starting to dig or something?
posted by influx at 4:01 PM on April 6, 2006

IIRC, Crossrail was mentioned early on as something that could be useful for 2012, but the transport plans now depend on shuttle trains using the Channel Tunnel Rail Link tunnels from St Pancras to Stratford. I think CTRL won't be finished by 2012 under any plan at present.

(Incidentally, StephenB, your comment was addressed to nlindstrom, not me.)
posted by athenian at 1:40 AM on April 7, 2006

IIRC, Crossrail was mentioned early on as something that could be useful for 2012, but the transport plans now depend on shuttle trains using the Channel Tunnel Rail Link tunnels from St Pancras to Stratford. I think CTRL won't be finished by 2012 under any plan at present.

(Incidentally, StephenB, your comment was addressed to nlindstrom, not me.)
posted by athenian at 1:40 AM on April 7, 2006

Not all UK infrastructure projects screw up - the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is currently on time and (I think) under budget.

Interesting example, the Rail link may be on time, but the Channel Tunnel itself is still a financial disaster.

Another topic for the post could have been the way in which everyone outside London is going to be screwed on public spending in sport, the arts and culture as it all gets sucked into London. Perhaps we can put something together closer to the games.
posted by biffa at 2:38 AM on April 7, 2006

I'm simply worried about the public transport logistics of it all.

With the exception of Christmas day, August sees the lowest level of commuters, with up to 1/3 on holiday. (via)

This is apparently what the city is relying on. That 1/3 of the people normally using the public transport system will not actually be there, and that the visiting tourists will fill up the gaps. I find that somewhat hard to believe. Surely a large percentage who normally would leave for holiday are now going to stay in London to watch the games? It's a great system, don't get me wrong, but the potential of total and utter chaos is distinctly present.

Anyone have any better informed opinions on this matter? I've only been living in London for a year, so I'm hardly an expert.
posted by slimepuppy at 4:09 AM on April 7, 2006

can I be on my own in forecasting financial disaster?

No, you and Associated Newspapers, who will make up an Olympics doom story every three minutes from now until 2012.

slimepuppy - the potential of total and utter chaos is distinctly present, but we have 5 years to work on that. The transport system is outdated but this will provide cash for new investment. Also, London is a good city for walking...
posted by Blip at 4:44 AM on April 7, 2006

athenian: you're right. Apologies to you and nlindstrom.
posted by StephenB at 10:16 AM on April 7, 2006