What The F***

[Jimmy_041]

In fairness costs were going to blow out to 3 times the original budget.
That's ridiculous.

Which makes you look at what the original budget was and who set it / audited it / approved it

Putting some context around it: here's a quote from Indaily

(Andrews) “Frankly, $6-7 billion for a sporting event – we are not doing that. That does not represent value for money, that is all cost and no benefit,” he said.

A Malinauskas Government spokesman today ruled out SA making a bid to host the 2026 Games.

“While this decision will be deeply disappointing for athletes and supporters of the Commonwealth Games, the South Australian Government has no intention of stepping in to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games,” the spokesman said.

“Successive governments, both Liberal and Labor, have considered hosting the games and determined the cost would outweigh the economic benefit.

“The previous State Government conducted independent financial analysis on hosting the multi-sport competition, it was determined the event would cost $3.5 billion, with the economic benefit only amounting to $1.2 billion.

Andrews is saying it would cost 2x what SA think it would cost and there are plenty of people, who would know, calling BS on the $6B - $7B
But it was done 6 months before an election - prime time to give the voters a colesseum moment

So, basically, all round financial incompetence in Victoria - who would have thought it
They've probably paid a $B not to host it

[Booney]

Would depend on the infrastructure, would it not?

Victoria had planned it as the "Regional" ( Ballarat, Geelong ) games, as such not using existing infrastructure right from the start, yes?

[mighty_tiger_79]

Would depend on the infrastructure, would it not?

Victoria had planned it as the "Regional" ( Ballarat, Geelong ) games, as such not using existing infrastructure right from the start, yes?

Correct, but they are still using a large portion of the money already allocated towards building the stadiums and upgrades etc

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

[Jimmy_041]

Would depend on the infrastructure, would it not?

Victoria had planned it as the "Regional" ( Ballarat, Geelong ) games, as such not using existing infrastructure right from the start, yes?

yes - and their budget was $2.6B based upon that.

[Wedgie]

Either way it's a poisoned chalice that virtually nowhere in the world wants.
Forking out tens of mill for gather round, SoO, motor racing and the latest rumour of a Wallabies v British Lions game is a different kettle of fish as these events bring in more cash than they cost.

[Jimmy_041]

Either way it's a poisoned chalice that virtually nowhere in the world wants.
Forking out tens of mill for gather round, SoO, motor racing and the latest rumour of a Wallabies v British Lions game is a different kettle of fish as these events bring in more cash than they cost.

Agree. I've never been to the Cwth games anywhere and wouldn't pay to go to anything if in Adelaide

British & Irish Lions tours are fantastic
Apart from Oz, I've been to 2 in NZ and 1 in South Africa
The Brits & Irish are fantastic tourists. May as well shut Wales down for the entire tour

[Jim05]

Would depend on the infrastructure, would it not?

Victoria had planned it as the "Regional" ( Ballarat, Geelong ) games, as such not using existing infrastructure right from the start, yes?

Yes but Andrews was advised early on to have the majority in Melbourne and use existing infrastructure. Quite a few votes in those regional seats though so I guess it becomes political.

[Jimmy_041]

Opinion

Patrick Durkin
Daniel Andrews’ Commonwealth Games folly stupid from start


Patrick Durkin
BOSS Deputy editor
Jul 18, 2023 – 12.15pm

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ bid for the 2026 Commonwealth Games was a monumental folly from the very outset, but Andrews has now made a bad decision much worse.

In the midst of the pandemic, in early 2022, as the state was already hurtling toward record debt, Andrews calculated that hosting the Games that no one else wanted, might help get him over the November 2022 election line.

Andrews revealed his political colours at that time, spending on everything from $1 billion to bringing back the State Electricity Commission, $15 million to bailout Netball Australia to fishing rods for school kids across the state.

That is before touching on the elephant in Melbourne, Andrews’ $125 billion Suburban Rail Loop - which independent experts say never stacked up – but Andrews refuses to put on the table, despite pausing the Airport Rail.

Cancelling the Games 18 months on after such a bad error of judgment is now an unmitigated disaster.

It’s a disaster for Victoria’s reputation as the host of major events and the supposed sporting capital of the world.

The story is already making headlines across the world.

It’s a disaster for the regions which were set to benefit from tourism and infrastructure even though Andrews says much of the infrastructure will eventually go ahead.

It’s another disaster for taxpayers. Andrews on Tuesday refused to speculate on a possible massive damages bill which legal experts have said Brisbane would face if the Olympics were cancelled.

Andrews is well aware of that risk after being hit with costs after scrapping the Formula One F1 GP in 2020 and as the Premier who spent $1.1 billion not to build the East West Link road.

It’s also a disaster for the future of the Commonwealth Games which now faces an existential crisis. Will any other city want to host them at this stage? If not, is their future even secure?

Perhaps most heartbreaking, it’s a disaster for hundreds of young Australian athletes aspiring to represent their country and use it as a stepping stone to the 2032 Olympics.

President of Volleyball Australia Craig Carracher AM is among those to call it “a disgrace”.

Andrews says the costs have tripled from $2.6 billion committed in the 2022 budget to as much as $7 billion and it would be irresponsible to proceed.

But that was obvious from the very start. Melbourne spent $2.9 billion on the Commonwealth Games in 2006. Allowing an average of 5 per cent a year for inflation, it was obvious the event would have cost more than $6 billion.

It’s also symptomatic of a government which makes big announcements by press release. The $1 billion announced for the SEC or $11 billion for the SRL are all going to cost much more than originally promised. But the political sugar hit comes with the announcement.

Budget was first sign of trouble
Political insiders smelt a rat when there was no new money for the Games in the May state budget. It most likely became doomed when the PM refused to give Andrews any money in the federal budget for the Games.

The PM knows there is no political capital in bailing out Victoria.

The political question is how much damage will be done to Andrews by the decision. Polling showed that Victorians were never very impressed by the Games to begin with, especially with Brisbane hosting the Olympics.

Amidst a cost of living crisis, Andrews’ mastery of a political message means that he will convince many it is the right decision and his government may only take a short-term, direct political hit.

But it does feel like the longer-term follies of his government are finally coming home to roost. Andrews’ words - he is not here to apologise but takes full responsibility - are starting to wear thin even with supporters.

Andrews’ popular legacy of a big build, progressive social policy and getting the state through COVID-19, now increasingly risk being tainted by leaving the state with crippling debt.

It is increasingly hard to see the state Labor government being granted a fourth term in 2026 but by that time Andrews will be long gone with his successor Jacinta Allan or the Liberals left to clean up the mess. And of course, the Victorian people who will suffer.


Patrick Durkin is Melbourne bureau chief and BOSS deputy editor. He writes on news, business and leadership. Connect with Patrick on Twitter. Email Patrick at pdurkin@afr.com

[Jim05]

It’s always the danger when you have a insipid basket case opposition and why in any government you always need a strong and viable opposition to keep them accountable.
Dan has basically had free run to do as he pleases without any checks or threat of him losing power

[Jimmy_041]

Chanticleer
Games fiasco will leave business shaking its head at Victorian farce

Instead of saving the $2 billion budgeted for the Commonwealth Games, Daniel Andrews will splurge it on the regions, in a move that makes a farce of the decision.

Updated Jul 18, 2023 – 12.13pm,
first published at 11.43am


Daniel Andrews’ decision to cancel the 2026 Commonwealth Games is a reminder of one of the golden rules of investing: when you decide to take up an opportunity that everyone else has passed on, you better make sure you understand all the risks and get yourself a real bargain.

The Victorian Premier did neither when he announced in April 2022 that Victoria would host the event after the organising committee had failed to find another city or state willing to take on the cost and responsibilities of hosting.

Andrews positioned Victoria as the white knight of the Commonwealth, declaring Victoria could host a discount version of the games in rural and regional areas for $2.6 billion that would provide “a massive boost to growth”.

But on Tuesday, he was forced to accept that he had bought a lemon. The best estimate is that the games will cost between $6 billion and $7 billion, but Andrews doubts if even that upper estimate is realistic.

While inflation has been running as high as 8 per cent in the intervening 15 months, the sheer scale of the cost blowout is extraordinary. Andrews says he’s not keen to apportion blame (no surprise there) but, apparently, those early estimates have proven woefully inadequate.

“The reason we are not proceeding is because when all the work has been done – not the estimates, the actual work, the market soundings and all the other work – the cost of this is at least $6 billion, and potentially substantially more than that. And I simply will not spend that on a 12-day sporting event,” he says.

To be fair to the Premier, another golden rule of investing is to ruthlessly cut your losses. Andrews portrayed this as a decision rooted in financial responsibility; he simply wasn’t prepared to take money from schools and hospitals to fund a sporting event, particularly when Victoria’s debt is headed towards $171.4 billion by June 2027.

But instead of saving the $2 billion left over from the original Commonwealth Games pot, Andrews quickly moved into spending mode. In a move that suggests he is worried that cancelling the games will cost him votes in the regions, he has promised 1300 new social and affordable homes (which presumably will require a hell of a lot more funding), regional sporting facilities and infrastructure, and a boost to regional tourism and events.

Andrews has taken the right decision to cancel the games, but this farce will leave the business community shaking its head at the farcical decision to take the event on in the first place.

The relationship between big business and Victoria has become increasingly strained. Last week, ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott neatly summed up the sector’s concerns when he labelled Victoria “one of the toughest places” in Australia to do business after a series of tax hits.

In May, the Victorian budget announced $4 billion of payroll tax increases, on top of a staggering 42 per cent rise in WorkCover premiums. In 2021, a $3 billion levy to fund a big increase to spending on mental health was also announced for large companies.

“Unfortunately, Victoria, at the moment, is claiming the crown of one of the most expensive places to do business,” Elliott said.

At least business won’t be asked to wear another hit to fund the Commonwealth Games. But this fiasco will hardly instil confidence among corporate leaders in the state government’s planning and risk management capabilities.

Daniel Andrews has scrapped the 2026 Commonwealth Games.

James Thomson is senior Chanticleer columnist based in Melbourne. He was the Companies editor and editor of BRW Magazine. Connect with James on Twitter. Email James at j.thomson@afr.com

[Booney]

It’s always the danger when you have a insipid basket case opposition and why in any government you always need a strong and viable opposition to keep them accountable.
Dan has basically had free run to do as he pleases without any checks or threat of him losing power

It's as funny as it is funny.

[Jim05]

It’s always the danger when you have a insipid basket case opposition and why in any government you always need a strong and viable opposition to keep them accountable.
Dan has basically had free run to do as he pleases without any checks or threat of him losing power

It's as funny as it is funny.

It’s true though. In reality Victoria don’t have an opposition party. The Libs are totally irrelevant and a basket case that have no show of getting back in anytime soon. WA is the same if not worse and the SA Libs have headed down the path of obscurity and it’s a long way back for them.
It’s not good for any government to basically run unopposed

[Corona Man]

It’s always the danger when you have a insipid basket case opposition and why in any government you always need a strong and viable opposition to keep them accountable.
Dan has basically had free run to do as he pleases without any checks or threat of him losing power

It's as funny as it is funny.

It’s true though. In reality Victoria don’t have an opposition party. The Libs are totally irrelevant and a basket case that have no show of getting back in anytime soon. WA is the same if not worse and the SA Libs have headed down the path of obscurity and it’s a long way back for them.
It’s not good for any government to basically run unopposed

The opposition & protest votes have gone the way of the "teals", at both a state and federal level. The sooner the voters wake up to the facts you point out the better. The Libs have lost huge ground, and appear clueless of how to claw it back.

[Booney]

It’s always the danger when you have a insipid basket case opposition and why in any government you always need a strong and viable opposition to keep them accountable.
Dan has basically had free run to do as he pleases without any checks or threat of him losing power

It's as funny as it is funny.

It’s true though. In reality Victoria don’t have an opposition party. The Libs are totally irrelevant and a basket case that have no show of getting back in anytime soon. WA is the same if not worse and the SA Libs have headed down the path of obscurity and it’s a long way back for them.
It’s not good for any government to basically run unopposed

The opposition & protest votes have gone the way of the "teals", at both a state and federal level. The sooner the voters wake up to the facts you point out the better. The Libs have lost huge ground, and appear clueless of how to claw it back.

They won't. Their conservative inner city backers are literally a dying breed and the protest vote, as you note, won't ever go to them again.

[Jimmy_041]

It's as funny as it is funny.

It’s true though. In reality Victoria don’t have an opposition party. The Libs are totally irrelevant and a basket case that have no show of getting back in anytime soon. WA is the same if not worse and the SA Libs have headed down the path of obscurity and it’s a long way back for them.
It’s not good for any government to basically run unopposed

The opposition & protest votes have gone the way of the "teals", at both a state and federal level. The sooner the voters wake up to the facts you point out the better. The Libs have lost huge ground, and appear clueless of how to claw it back.

They won't. Their conservative inner city backers are literally a dying breed and the protest vote, as you note, won't ever go to them again.

Load of shite

They were saying the same thing when Whitlam, Hawke and Rudd got in.
What is the basis of being "conservative"? It is a misnomer - As people get older they ask why something should be changed instead of "just because".
The comment that they will never go back to them again just epitomises it

Same people laughed when Abbott was made LOO. He tore the Labor Party a new one.
They should have got rid of him once he succeeded in doing what you lefties all said would never happen - he won

[Booney]

What is the basis of being "conservative"? It is a misnomer - As people get older they ask why something should be changed instead of "just because".

My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it.

[Jimmy_041]

What is the basis of being "conservative"? It is a misnomer - As people get older they ask why something should be changed instead of "just because".

My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it.

Am I "denying change"? I dont remember denying change. I said I'll question why. If someone cant elucidate why then why should I agree to it? I would only deny change if the reasoning was either a lie, non-existent or insufficient to support the change (we should eat beef sandwiches now because we've eaten ham sandwiches all week)

Actually, when you look at the polls your generation is more "conservative" than the next generations proving my point. A broad statement - I know, but as broad as "My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it."

Its why Labor and the Greens want the voting age to drop to 16.
(I'll support that if they are also treated as adults under the laws they vote for (ie) adult jail for 16+. See how enthusiastic they are when there are consequences)

[mighty_tiger_79]

What is the basis of being "conservative"? It is a misnomer - As people get older they ask why something should be changed instead of "just because".

My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it.

Am I "denying change"? I dont remember denying change. I said I'll question why. If someone cant elucidate why then why should I agree to it? I would only deny change if the reasoning was either a lie, non-existent or insufficient to support the change (we should eat beef sandwiches now because we've eaten ham sandwiches all week)

Actually, when you look at the polls your generation is more "conservative" than the next generations proving my point. A broad statement - I know, but as broad as "My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it."

Its why Labor and the Greens want the voting age to drop to 16.
(I'll support that if they are also treated as adults under the laws they vote for (ie) adult jail for 16+. See how enthusiastic they are when there are consequences)

Yep it's the newer generations that are likely to stay Labor than become conservative
I don't see the 65-80 bracket driving change

[Wedgie]

Either way it's a poisoned chalice that virtually nowhere in the world wants.
Forking out tens of mill for gather round, SoO, motor racing and the latest rumour of a Wallabies v British Lions game is a different kettle of fish as these events bring in more cash than they cost.

Agree. I've never been to the Cwth games anywhere and wouldn't pay to go to anything if in Adelaide

British & Irish Lions tours are fantastic
Apart from Oz, I've been to 2 in NZ and 1 in South Africa
The Brits & Irish are fantastic tourists. May as well shut Wales down for the entire tour

Bugger, not a Wallabies game, just an invitational NZ & Aus side against the Lions. Shame as I'd go if it was a Wallabies games.

[Vamos]

What is the basis of being "conservative"? It is a misnomer - As people get older they ask why something should be changed instead of "just because".

My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it.

Am I "denying change"? I dont remember denying change. I said I'll question why. If someone cant elucidate why then why should I agree to it? I would only deny change if the reasoning was either a lie, non-existent or insufficient to support the change (we should eat beef sandwiches now because we've eaten ham sandwiches all week)

Actually, when you look at the polls your generation is more "conservative" than the next generations proving my point. A broad statement - I know, but as broad as "My generation ( 1965-1980 ) is driving change, not denying it."

Its why Labor and the Greens want the voting age to drop to 16.
(I'll support that if they are also treated as adults under the laws they vote for (ie) adult jail for 16+. See how enthusiastic they are when there are consequences)

Yep it's the newer generations that are likely to stay Labor than become conservative
I don't see the 65-80 bracket driving change

They're too busy driving onto the O-Bahn track