Hosting gay sports, doesn't pay

[geoffrey]

Personally, I'd be more concerned about the almost $600 million being spent on infrastructure for the 2010 Olympics. That sounds like a bigger waste of money than 5 million. Who cares if the atheltes are gay or not?

Yah but a lot of that infrastructure will help out Vancouver and area after the Olympics plus with all the tourists about to come, the games should pay for themselves. That sounds like a wise investment.

Careful. Calgary was the only games ever to pay for themself... kind of like Calgary in the big scheme too...

The $600 million will do alot more good than catering to a discriminatory event like the gay games. I can't particpate in them no matter how good I am, but gays can participate in the olympics if they have the skill.

I doubt if the government would support the straight only games...

[gc1765]

Yah but a lot of that infrastructure will help out Vancouver and area after the Olympics plus with all the tourists about to come, the games should pay for themselves. That sounds like a wise investment.

The games will only pay for the operating costs of the olympics. Things like building olympic sized arenas & venues are extra costs that are paid for by taxpayers. I don't see how having a bobsled track or an olympic sized skating oval will benefit Vancouver, unless of course they pay for themselves through rentals, but if that's the case why weren't they built before. Is a bobsled track really profitable? I dunno.

As for tourism, yes the olympics will attract tourists, but so did the outgames, so I don't see much of a difference there Link

The first World Outgames were a big financial success for Montreal, according to the city's board of trade.

It's estimated about half a million people were in town for the event, the first international games for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered athletes.

Visitors and athletes spent about $100 million in the city during the games, said Isabelle Hudon, head of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal.

[gc1765]

The $600 million will do alot more good than catering to a discriminatory event like the gay games. I can't particpate in them no matter how good I am, but gays can participate in the olympics if they have the skill.

I doubt if the government would support the straight only games...

You don't have to be gay to participate in the Outgames. It's a matter of convention, not an actual rule.

So, how does the $600 million do more good than the outgames? I see a waste of money either way, but one wastes $600 million while the other only wastes $5 million.

[geoffrey]

The olympics is a world class sporting event with the best in the world. The Outgames is an elaborate protest with second rate athletes.

[Riverwind]

The olympics is a world class sporting event with the best in the world. The Outgames is an elaborate protest with second rate athletes.

Do we provide gov't funding when the Shriner's convention comes to town? The 'Gay Games' is just another privately organized gathering that does not deserve the status that it was given.

[MightyAC]

It makes me laugh when people bash any Olympic games that doesn't turn a profit. Even if the event falls a few hundred million short of breaking even the games are a bonus. An area receives a few billion in new facilities and infrastructure then sees a big increase in tourism for years and years to come...all for a few hundred million. Yeah sounds like a real waste of money to me.

[gc1765]

The olympics is a world class sporting event with the best in the world. The Outgames is an elaborate protest with second rate athletes.

Ok, let's say the olympics are 100 times better, the athletes are 100 times better and it brings in 100 times the tourists...it also costs 100 times the amount.

It makes me laugh when people bash any Olympic games that doesn't turn a profit. Even if the event falls a few hundred million short of breaking even the games are a bonus. An area receives a few billion in new facilities and infrastructure then sees a big increase in tourism for years and years to come...all for a few hundred million. Yeah sounds like a real waste of money to me.

The same could be said of the Outgames, just on a smaller scale. That hasn't stopped people on this forum from bashing them.

[Riverwind]

Ok, let's say the Olympics are 100 times better, the athletes are 100 times better and it brings in 100 times the tourists...it also costs 100 times the amount.

I disagree with Olympic funding too but one can at least argue that the Olympics is a unique world event. The Gay Games are no different from any other privately run convention and raises the question about where the gov't should draw the line. Should the gov't pay for a Shriner's convention? How about the International Society for the Study of Pork?

[MightyAC]

It makes me laugh when people bash any Olympic games that doesn't turn a profit. Even if the event falls a few hundred million short of breaking even the games are a bonus. An area receives a few billion in new facilities and infrastructure then sees a big increase in tourism for years and years to come...all for a few hundred million. Yeah sounds like a real waste of money to me.

The same could be said of the Outgames, just on a smaller scale. That hasn't stopped people on this forum from bashing them.

I suppose it's possible that the Outgames will increase Mtl tourism for years to come but I doubt it. The Montreal region also didn't receive and discounted atheletics, housing and administration facilites or any infrastructure upgrades out of this. I see what you're saying though..maybe the tourism generated makes the 5 mill worth it.

The Ontario government tried the same thing when they ponied up 3 mill to bring the Lord Of The Rings musical to Toronto. Initially it seemed like a good move as the tourism dollars would likely pay off the investment 100 times over. However, the play bombed and the peasants were angry. In both cases governments made a calculated risk to generate tourism and it didn't pay off. Later armchair QBs slam them for it.

[gc1765]

I disagree with Olympic funding too but one can at least argue that the Olympics is a unique world event. The Gay Games are no different from any other privately run convention and raises the question about where the gov't should draw the line. Should the gov't pay for a Shriner's convention? How about the International Society for the Study of Pork?

No, and no. Personally, I'd draw the line at none of the above. Then again, I don't work in the tourism industry This does bring up a whole different debate though...should the government pay for something that will increase tourism revenue? If so, what kind of return would be required? Would it be Ok to pay 5 million if it increased tourism by 100 million? 1 billion? 10 billion? etc.

I suppose it's possible that the Outgames will increase Mtl tourism for years to come but I doubt it. The Montreal region also didn't receive and discounted atheletics, housing and administration facilites or any infrastructure upgrades out of this. I see what you're saying though..maybe the tourism generated makes the 5 mill worth it.

I can't say how the Outgames will increase tourism in the years to come, but apparently it's already increased tourism dollars by $100 million.

The first World Outgames were a big financial success for Montreal, according to the city's board of trade.

It's estimated about half a million people were in town for the event, the first international games for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered athletes.

Visitors and athletes spent about $100 million in the city during the games, said Isabelle Hudon, head of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal.

Link

Not sure what kind of money the Olympic games brings in. Assuming the same return on investment, perhaps $10 billion (100 times $100 million)??

[Borg]

Should the government pay?

Well, it is MY MONEY and I do not believe it is appropriate.

I want a damned refund!

Borg