Montreal's 'Big Owe' almost paid off.

Forums: Sports
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Attention all wide-eyed Olympic supporters. Up to now, there has been one or none Olympics that did not have a debt to pay off. This one is the most outrageous because the Montreal Olympics were guaranteed to be debt free.
...................................
Montreal's 'Big Owe' almost paid off
Tue, 23 May 2006
.
After 30 years, Quebecers are months away from paying off the mortgage on Montreal's Olympic Stadium ?- a landmark neither the city nor the province say they want to own.
.
Built for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 58,500-seat stadium cost an estimated $1.5 billion.
Provincial officials believe it will be fully paid off this year.
.
"We think we'll be finished with the last payment most probably during the end of the summer," said Sylvie Bastien, with the Olympic Installations Board, which oversees the stadium.
.
But paying off the debt has triggered heated negotiations between the province and the city of Montreal.

The city is supposed to take ownership of the stadium when it's paid off.
Municipal officials say they don't want it.
.
"We don't want to be the owner of the stadium," said Francine Senecal, the city's executive committee member responsible for sports and leisure.
.
Senecal, who says the stadium runs a deficit of millions of dollars each year, says it belongs to all Quebecers.
Provincial officials are tight-lipped about their plans.
Tourism Minister Francoise Gauthier says the issue won't be resolved in the short-term.
.
The longtime home of the Montreal Expos until the team was sold to Washington, D.C., the stadium was nicknamed the Big O, or, because of its cost, the Big Owe.

It opened for baseball in 1977 without a roof, which was added about 10 years later. In 1991, a 55-tonne chunk of the roof fell after support beams snapped. No one was injured.
.
A second section of the roof collapsed in the winter of 1999 as workers were setting up for the auto show.
.
Officials were considering installing another new roof in 2006.
.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/23/olympic-stadium.htmla

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 933 • Replies: 13

No top replies

In sporting circles the Montreal Olympics is renowned as being the least financially viable.

In LA the AAFLA library is still run off the profits of the 1984 games - I'm not aware of anything like the Montreal situation happening in Seoul, Barcelona, Atlanta (not a well run Olympics) or Sydney - perhaps in Athens there are some issues - but Olympics bring many benefits that are directly related to the specific time and place of the event. There is little doubt that putting the spotlight on the cities I mentioned (excluding Atlanta) benefitted the countries those cities are in, and not just in the obvious areas like tourism. The ability to manage a project like hosting an Olympics says volumes about administrative and technical expertise, social cohesiveness, and infrastructure.

It's almost a form of branding or advertising for a nation (or a boy scout badge). I don't think any other host city thinks it was a bad idea - debt or no.

The sad thing about the Canadian situation is the trashing of government support for sport. A nation with a proud sporting heritage now finds itself in the situation of Australia back in the 1970s - an also ran.

0 Replies

The urban myth of the lucrative games is not going to die out soon. The gullible taxpayer is the one who loses a lot. Business and politicians pocket handsome sums.
The whole Olympic movement has become completely corrupt, ever since Samaranch was in charge.
..........................
Greeks hope increased tourism will help them pay the $9 to $12 billion pricetag for bringing the Olympics to Athens.
.
Excluding such expenditures from the bottom line is nothing more than Enron-style accounting that hides the true cost of hosting the Olympics.

Here are some numbers from past Games:

MONTREAL, 1976: Debt: >1 billion (globe and mail; abcnews.com)
LAKE PLACID, 1980: Debt: $11 million
CALGARY, 1988: Debt: $910 million
BARCELONA, 1992: Debt: US$1.4 billion
SYDNEY, 2000: Games billed as self-financing by politicians were a $2.3-billion loss (Auditor General New South Wales Report on Sydney (2000) Olympics)
EXPO '86: Debt: $311 million (paid by provincial lottery)

0 Replies

But Detano you're complaining that one sort of debt is excluded but you're not including all the tangible economic benefits.

Try and think how you felt about the Spanish before Barcelona, beerswilling aussies before Sydney, the greeks and Greece before Athens.

I reiterate that hosting an Olympics in modern times is like getting a boy scout badge in nationhood, and means a heck of a lot in terms of international business perception and has a direct influence on trade and economic relations - you have to be involved in one to see the cross border networks and relationships that are formed. I think they're a power for good.

Besides I hate accrual accounting models.

0 Replies

You seem like a nice chap, but your posts would make great ads for the rotten Games. I remember those same Games when they were clean and honorable. (Brundage)... Today they are full of millionaire pros, steroid users and cheaters.
.
The poor amateurs who work like dogs for years to make the team are all but forgotten. Money and profit are driving the Games now.
.
No prestige in that circus left, sorry.

0 Replies

My views on the Vancouver B.C. Canada Winter Olympics in 2010.

I was born here, I am 50 years old, I do not need nor want more people. more crime. more pollution. more condos. more traffic jams. more noise, more lineups, more shopping malls, more banks, more hotels, more overcrowding, more police, more roads, more forests destroyed, less fresh air, less free space, less wilderness, less amphibians, less wolves, less bears, less eagles, less hummingbirds, less clean water, less fish, less shellfish, less marine mammals, less wetlands, less forests, less freedoms.

To view it all in terms of short term money is myopic. When the Lower Mainland (which contains Vancouver, Whistler etc.) is fully an overcrowded, environmentally septic stink hole, remember hingehead's words about "tangible economic benefits".

If you were to infer I was racist / prejudiced you would be incorrect, it's only that Canada has a very liberal and open arms immigration policy and as such the Lower Mainland has become very polluted and overcrowded.

The Lower Mainland's rapid and massive population increase is fueled by immigration, and as mentioned, some of the net negatives are: more people. more crime. more pollution. more condos. more traffic jams. more noise, more lineups, more shopping malls, more banks, more hotels, more overcrowding, more police, more roads, more forests destroyed, less fresh air, less free space, less wilderness, less amphibians, less wolves, less bears, less eagles, less hummingbirds, less clean water, less fish, less shellfish, less marine mammals, less wetlands, less forests, less freedoms.

The facts of the matter remain very clear, and 2010 is part of the problem not part of the solution. The short term precept as per hingehead's "tangible economic benefits" ideology will help ensure the Lower Mainland (which contains Vancouver, Whistler etc.) becomes an immigration driven, overcrowded, environmentally septic stink hole just like many other overcrowded and polluted major areas of the world.

0 Replies

Some businessmen will make a handsome profit. The taxpayer who will eventually foot the final bill will not be able to afford the expensive tickets to see the events.

0 Replies

detano inipo wrote:

You seem like a nice chap

Up until then I respected your opinion!:wink:

detano inipo wrote:

I remember those same Games when they were clean and honorable. (Brundage)... Today they are full of millionaire pros, steroid users and cheaters.

Actually, you remember when you thought the games were clean - they never were - olympic athletes have died from doping since the first decade of the 20th Century.

Steroid use is almost impossible these days WADA are doing a good job but it's always a catch up game - ultimately it comes down to the athlete's attitude - not the games administrators.

'Millionaire pros'? I know a lot of Australian Olympians who would like to be in that situation - the vast majority of participants are not in that category.

'Cheaters' - you'll have to clarify that one for me - cheating is pretty tough when every event is televised, and video'd from a multitude of angles, and because of the national pride at stake there is no shortage of protestation if 'cheating' is suspected.

detano inipo wrote:

The poor amateurs who work like dogs for years to make the team are all but forgotten.

Well that's the nature of sport - precious few become historical figures - and if the reason they are participating is for fame then they need to look at their motivation.

detano inipo wrote:

Money and profit are driving the Games now.

Now? I'd argue that they've been a large part of the games momentum since inception. And in this capitalist world we've created it has to be or there are no games.

detano inipo wrote:

No prestige in that circus left, sorry.

Spoken like a Canadian who's given up on sport having any value at all. And with the history of the Canadian sports system I'm sure you've got a plenty of company.

I believe sport has tremendous value (non-monetary value). And that it is in the nature of sport to seek the best competition, and that the Olympics offer that. I have never spoken to an athlete that didn't cherish the memories of being at an Olympic or Paralympic Games - damn, they all tattoo themselves with the respective symbols to show they competed.

The Olympic movement has greatly cleaned up it's act since the days of Juan. Host selection committee members don't get schmoozed any more, the IOC is a prime driver of WADA. The Olympic movement is well aware of the perception of their organisation in the general public, and as the general public funds the movement they are responding accordingly.

Sorry if I sound like an apologist - the IOC has always been racked by politics and self serving, but what organisation hasn't? At least the constant focus means that the more blatant abuses are jumped on with glee by the media.

I guess what I'm saying, on the whole, is that sport is a good thing, and that the Olympics is a good thing - and that most people in cities that have had them do not regret it. Certainly when I was in Sydney it was a blast - and the city has not suffered since.

0 Replies

detano inipo wrote:

Some businessmen will make a handsome profit. The taxpayer who will eventually foot the final bill will not be able to afford the expensive tickets to see the events.

Looking at it from purely a socio-economic perspective (as I suggest you have just done here) the considerations at hand are nowhere near as clear cut as the socio-environmental perspectives (at least to me at this moment).

However if you want to make your arguments clearer as to the logistics of the inequity of the profit opportunities, and the logistics of the inequity of local's unequal access, and how you could effectively level the playing field vis-a-vis risk capital and the physical constraints of the Olympic audience's size limitations, etc. please do.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

I believe sport has tremendous value (non-monetary value).

Please qualify, quantify and rationalize your pretext against my above post above which starts off with

Quote:

My views on the Vancouver B.C. Canada Winter Olympics in 2010.......

0 Replies

Hi Chumly

Well, the case for sport:

Health benefits of participation - exercise, mental health, nutrition flow ons, bone strengthening, active lifestyle for the aging blah blah

Social benefits of participation - being with people, common cause, teamwork, dealing with conflict, empathy. Community building, all the benefits associated with being involved in nonprofit orgs.

Employment benefits of sport - like it or not it's an industry and it employs marketers, administrators, trainers, clothing industry workers, bar workers, greenkeepers etc...

Nation building - certainly for Australia and New Zealand sport provides a sense that at least on one level where can play with the big boys.

Civillizing/Foreign Relations benefits of sport - well there are stacks of examples of this but I'll give two - the sport ban on apartheid South Africa and the inclusion of an East Timorese team to the Sydney Olympics.

I could keep going - there are education benefits, sports people as role models for youth (the Australian swimmers leap to mind, as opposed to the excesses of professional football players), international cooperation in the sciences, yadda yadda yadda. If you're not deeply involved you don't really see the interplay.

0 Replies

Hiya hingehead,

I understand the benefits of staying fit, but staying fit clearly does not require the Olympics.

I understand the social benefits of participation, but the social benefits of participation clearly do not require the Olympics.

I understand the employment benefits of sport, but the employment benefits of sport do not require the Olympics, these goals can be met without the Olympics.

I disagree with the precept of nation building, as I consider nationalism to be a net negative and one of the pivotal basis' for war and bigotry.
I consider nationalism to be similar to the net negatives of certain popular religions such as Christianity and Islam.

I understand the benefits of civilizing/foreign relations, but the benefits of civilizing/foreign relations do not require the Olympics, these goals can be met without the Olympics.

Also very much to the point, you have not qualified, quantified and rationalized any of your arguments against my below post as I requested and of which I restate. IOW you have in no way shown that your short term socio-economic arguments are a net positive against my long term socio-environmental arguments.

Quote:

My views on the Vancouver B.C. Canada Winter Olympics in 2010.

I was born here, I am 50 years old, I do not need nor want more people. more crime. more pollution. more condos. more traffic jams. more noise, more lineups, more shopping malls, more banks, more hotels, more overcrowding, more police, more roads, more forests destroyed, less fresh air, less free space, less wilderness, less amphibians, less wolves, less bears, less eagles, less hummingbirds, less clean water, less fish, less shellfish, less marine mammals, less wetlands, less forests, less freedoms.

To view it all in terms of short term money is myopic. When the Lower Mainland (which contains Vancouver, Whistler etc.) is fully an overcrowded, environmentally septic stink hole, remember hingehead's words about "tangible economic benefits".

If you were to infer I was racist / prejudiced you would be incorrect, it's only that Canada has a very liberal and open arms immigration policy and as such the Lower Mainland has become very polluted and overcrowded.

The Lower Mainland's rapid and massive population increase is fueled by immigration, and as mentioned, some of the net negatives are: more people. more crime. more pollution. more condos. more traffic jams. more noise, more lineups, more shopping malls, more banks, more hotels, more overcrowding, more police, more roads, more forests destroyed, less fresh air, less free space, less wilderness, less amphibians, less wolves, less bears, less eagles, less hummingbirds, less clean water, less fish, less shellfish, less marine mammals, less wetlands, less forests, less freedoms.

The facts of the matter remain very clear, and 2010 is part of the problem not part of the solution. The short term precept as per hingehead's "tangible economic benefits" ideology will help ensure the Lower Mainland (which contains Vancouver, Whistler etc.) becomes an immigration driven, overcrowded, environmentally septic stink hole just like many other overcrowded and polluted major areas of the world.

0 Replies

Actually Chumly I was replying to Detano's post in the first instance - you bandwagoned.

I agree with you re: nationalism - but I don't think nation building is the same as nationalism. The former builds a sense of community the latter proposes that your community is manifestly better than other communities.

I don't want to sell you why Vancouver should have any events at all. I'm happy for you to live out your days in comfortable quietude in the place of your birth.

But I do think sport needs the Olympics - so many of the events would be hidden from millions of potential participants without it. How many kids are inspired by the pole vault - without the olympics they wouldn't even know it existed, at least here in Oz.

I think your putting on your cranky old hermit hat a bit too tightly - Vancouver isn't that tiny, and the Olympics don't last forever. But you are completely entitled to your opinion, as are your fellow residents who look forward to the event. It really is of no concern to me.

My original point was that, on the whole, the Olympics have done more good than bad for their host cities and nations. I stand by it.

0 Replies

PS

It's a source of argument in sporting policy circles the influence elite sport (eg the Olympics) has on the level of, and commitment to, participation in sport at the grass roots.

But there is no argument that it does influence it.

0 Replies

Montreal's 'Big Owe' almost paid off.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know