Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
large amounts of sponsorship money = less public spend
that the corporations are taking to ensure their stranglehold over the event.
McDonalds, Coke, VISA, Panasonic, Samsung, Acer, Omega, Procter & Gamble (and a couple of others) are all IOC partners who have long term contracts. In those cases, by bidding for the games you're effectively signing up to be a party to whatever their agreements already state.
Some of the other sponsorship deals such as Sainsburys, Cadbury, Adidas, BP, BMW, UPS and British Airways are down to LOCOG.
does money from the IOC deals filter down to the host organisations?
£5 on the door / £4 NUS
that most of the sponsors think measures such as this are good PR for them
and McDonalds don't even sell chips, they're fries
I read somewhere a few years back that the new head of Coke had to return a huge profit on their current returns and was being given almost that exact amount of money in advertising spend to do so.
Now, I'm no maths genius, but why not keep that cash instead and stop advertising Coke for a few months of the year. I know they say you have to speculate to accumulate but if Coke didn't advertise for 6 months, I doubt anybody would notice. And then when they did again, they sure as hell would do.
But for 20 years now have just realised that's the way it is. Two things I'm more recently baffled by:
1) Energy companies sponsoring the Games. Thanks EDF. I wonder where that cost will get passed down to...
2) Got told an outstanding story the other day. A mate who works in the general parks around the site said a guy had been going around with an Angle Grinder removing all the Thames Water type from man hole covers as the Olympic Association claimed it was free advertising. Quite something...
We will act swiftly and decisively to clamp down on chip avoidance schemes
When it's impossible for businesses to do anything that links them in any way to the games? Same for the world cup, just seems like FIFA sucker some country in to spending loads on stadia and then rake all the money in themselves from sponsorship/ ticket sales. Seems like a pretty bizarre setup.
increased global exposure
general feature of games in the past few decades is to link them into some kind of wider "regeneration" scheme - Barcelona's old port, the site in east London that was mostly derelict railway lands etc
essentially they act like a massive PR campaign for the city they're hosted in. given that we lived in a globalised world now where cities fight each other for private sector investment, you can sorta see why they'd like them.
the only one that doesn't really fit this idea in recent times was Beijing, that was mostly a case of China flexing its newfound muscles.
The event is always a massive loss making exercise (with the exception of Los Angeles, who didn't spend any money on it).
The idea is more that it regenerates the city and makes it appealing to tourists. Which has worked well in the case of Barcelona as it was previously a bit of a run down old port town (see also: Liverpool pre-Albert Docks, etc). Not sure it'll do quite so much for London though as: a) it is already a very popular tourist destination and b) people still won't want to visit the bits where the Olympic Park is.
At a lecture on the (draconian) Olympic rights with respect to the various trade marks and associated rights (and hence all the sponsorship stuff) I was told that most of the games since LA had turned a profit - because of the sponsorship side of things. Which is precisely why the IOC and LOCOG pursue their "association right" so incredibly vigorously.
as I don't really see what there big outlay is. But surely the host country must make a huge loss on it.
But since it really went commercial with the Montreal games they've all haemmoraged money, apart from Los Angeles which only made a modest profit as they largely utilise existing infrastructure instead of building anything.
The aim is more to provide some sort of lasting legacy through regeneration, which also doesn't usually happen except in Barca, which has also helped to put it forward as a global city having previously been a bit of a dive. Basically, Olympics = bad, excepting the exceptions mentioned. Regeneration with a bit of very pricey willy waving is essentially what they are.
for increased tourist spend/ fdi in the host city compared to the outlay to put them on? And I get that the money wouldn't have been spent on the area without the games but surely there are more cost efficient ways of regenerating areas than this.
it's also likely to do with political savvy. Sport is popular. People like it. I doubt any government c/would've passed a £9bn construction package to build new homes and parks for poor people. A sad reality but there you go?
tbh I think the elements of the left who are offended over the corporate/sponsorship issues and how those relate to public money really need to back off just a little bit. put it in perspective and you have a vast investment of Government money on a poor area that is ALSO being Government-led, not private sector led, as the vast amount of big development projects have been since the 1980s. you let the private sector lead these things and you end up with the Docklands.
much (albeit not all) of the cost is spent within the UK - therefore the cash is recycled around the British economy. For example - the construction industry will have had a multi-billion pound boost, with the associated increase in tax revenues, reduction in unemployment etc.
The budget may be around £9bn, but that's not a net spend.
(from contractors to manufacturers to suppliers etc) are now just subsidiaries of larger European firms, and in the case of specialist manufacturing, a lot of that's done on the continent now too.
but correct me if I'm wrong, they still employ labour within this country and pay a certain amount of tax (allowing for financial fiddling to reduce bills).
I recall a big deal being made of the "Britishness" of a large proportion of the contracts awarded at the time, but wouldn't be able to find a source or anything on it now. In anycase, the point remains - while £9bn is set to be the gross cost, a fair proportion of that money will have been beneficial to the economy already.
a genuine International Socialist. Nice to see someone actually writing that kinda stuff intelligently and not just as bin-lining fodder in the Morning Star.
They've done quite the binliner-and-sellotape job over all the signs.
Including the names of the stands and the name of the casino, etc incorporated into the ground.
I'm surprised that the Pizza Hut and, in particular, the Burger King across the road haven't caught fire or something along those lines.
What's gonna happen to the non-sponsor businesses there?
If there happened to be a venue called, for example, the McDonald's Stadium, would that keep its name for the tournament?
is amazing :D
This falls under Hamburglar's remit.
not abusively to the staff, but enough so that it gets reported upwards, then maybe their management might get the message.
Hmm that sounds quite unfeasible, doesnt it? but that is the only way that we are meant to protest really......which is probably why some people resort to more extreme protest measures, like bumbs
doesn't how many times I visit sites like this and it hasn't affected me. Right, I'm off to watch Marley. I reckon it'll be epic AND uplifting.
obviously you'll need to have some sort of interest in the product to begin with.
but for it to be such a massive industry it still fascinates me. perhaps it's that i think people should make their own minds up. or that everyone already knows what a mcdonalds or a coke tastes like. idk i just find it mad
which apparently is very powerful.
They aren't even chips, they are french fries.
curly fries. Better than normal chips anyway