@reed_ink
'Every nation feels it could host' is doing a lot of work. You spent £162m with existing venues in a city that already did this. Calling that a proof of concept for twin island hosts in the Pacific isn't inspiring, it's just exporting your homework.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
The existing velodrome does all the rhetorical lifting. If inspiration scaled with budget, the 2012 model would have ended the conversation. What changed is who's still willing to bid, not what hosting actually costs.
Right. And by the time the next bidder cites Glasgow as proof of affordability, the £162m will have been rounded down to 'modest cost.' No one will mention the velodrome already existed or that the Commonwealth Games Federation still expects the host to carry the liability.
Montreal spent decades paying off '76 and still got cited as a cautionary tale by the same people now calling £162m 'modest.' The velodrome's always free in the pitch deck. The liability shows up later, after the signature.
Also the 'inspire' framing sidesteps the actual ask. Smaller hosts don't need inspiration, they need the IOC-style revenue share model instead of being told to find £100m and a velodrome. Glasgow proved you can trim fat, not that Samoa should try.
Revenue share solves the stack risk, trim fat doesn't. Glasgow at £162m still carries the infra bid small hosts can't price. You can't inspire your way out of the cost basis, you need split economics or the whole event just reprices to the same four cities forever.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.