Olympic head: Secret bid chapters to be released tomorrow

Boston 2024 head Steve Pagliuca opened an Olympic debate tonight by saying the group would release the financial and political parts of the initial bid tomorrow, rather than next week.

Neighborhoods: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

You obviously don't understand

By on

How many large RFPs are constructed and marketed. I'm negotiating an RFP right now were I can't even disclose the purchasers name.

No, I don't, but that's not the issue

By on

Boston 2024 announced yesterday they would release the secret chapters - this coming Tuesday. So the issue was why they were going to wait six days to release them.

Yesterday wow

By on

Yesterday, and what, you expect that within hours.

By being a member of any board you open yourself to lawsuits against your personal assets. That why any organization with members purchases executive risk insurance. Than you have the issue of multiple law firms negotiating the change of a prior non disclosure (or additional filings such as a non disparagement agreement). And lawyers are paid by the hour.

This is in fact a fast turn around by industry standards.

Six days is VERY fast, most changes to a legal contract; take for example an acquisition is typically measured by months not days, if not financial quarters.

Then you have the issue of their insurance covering theit fiduciary responsibility to the city/states taxpayers.

What most people probably missed is the fact they not only purchased a large liability coverage tower, (multi carrier liability program with a multi million dollar deductible). But they purchased a deductible buy back policy most likely from a secondary market in London.

A deductible buy back means for example, you have a $200m structure with a $1m deductible. Another insurer (or reinsurer) with buys say $900 of that deductible for x premium leaving you with a $100 ded.

This is very typical of most large entities. Because insurance, particularly being purchased for a single event in a single geographic area increased your financial loss ratio you have to purchase coverage in blocks.

Not saying if I support this yet. But they have purchased the proper financial vehicle to cover the city.

However what they are covering does not include the OT from public servants that would be required. You cant purchase such financial coverage on behalf of a third party employer, it just doesn't exist.

And excuse my brevity, I typed this on a Iphone 5.

And protected by a legal agreement

By on

Which requires a group of overpaid lawyer in order to release.

Ever been divorced or know some who has? Did that take a day? No, and I bet they didn't have the same level off assets as Boston2024.

So

This is a bid predicated on public money.

The public needs to see it.

On public money

By on

Is an opinion at this stage not a fact. Currently from a business point of view its a private/non profit entity looking to purchase public and private land for sale while looking for public approval.

And the 85% tax break is not the first. If I recall correctly; and Adam I'm SURE you blogged about this. But mumbles basically gave the Red Sox Yawkey way for free.

The same tax debate could be argued regarding colleges in Boston.

Again

They are putting together a bid that will have to involve some level of public financing.

We have a right to know what they are expecting us to pay for, so that it may be properly negotiated.

They do not have an approved budget from a democratically elected body to work with. They are expecting to just send us a bill of an unknown amount.

That is not how public funding works. That is not how democracy works.

What does some equal

By on

You can't say because it not know.

It's your opinion not a fact.

So let us determine

By on

what the facts are by releasing the full documents to the public. And if Boston 2024 is correct and accurate in their "no public money" statements, then why have they been so afraid to release the full documents up until now?

That is THE PROBLEM

We do not know what SOME equals. The whole "don't know" is EXACTLY what makes this whole thing unacceptable in a democracy.

That is not how public funding works. Too bad there isn't a Schoolhouse Rock for people like you to understand it ... hmmm ... just substitute "appropriation" for "bill" in that most famous one and you will be on the right track.

Elected bodies with budgetary authority make a fixed dollar amount (or range) as an "appropriation", and THEN they issue a request for proposal (RFP) based on that appropriated amount.

If this is an "RFP" then it is completely and totally ass-backwards for the RFP to come before the appropriation.

Swirly

By on

"Too bad there isn't a Schoolhouse Rock for people like you to understand it" is a shoo-in to be nominated for my 2015 Insult of the Year Award

To be honest?

It would be very helpful if people knew how governments decide how to spend tax money. It varies by state, but the basic process is that of our friend "Bill", with $$$$ amounts attached.

a private/non profit entity

By on

a private/non profit entity looking to purchase public and private land for sale while looking for public approval

Which is exactly WHY the PUBLIC needs to see the full bid documents. Even if there were no public money involved (har har har), having the Olympics in Boston will involve the use of public resources and create considerable inconvenice for members of the public. To face that without knowing exactly what will be going on, the details of which are presumably contained in those "super secret you can't have them" documents, is just plain unacceptable.

And shame on Marty for not releasing his copy of the documents immediately, instead of wussing out and asking for "mother may I permission" from Boston 2024 and the USOC.

Globe stream better than Fox

By on

I switched to the Globe site because Fox stream kept getting interrupted by commercials, and finally it was only commercials. Globe stream is working fine for me.

The No Boston 2024s

By on

Closing argument was about as strong as a Doug Bennett speech.

OK, will go out on a limb here and just come out and say:

By on

That debate sucked.

The first 15 minutes wasn't a debate at all: It was two angry reporters grilling people at an interview. Nothing wrong with angry reporters Uncovering the Truth, but they have all the time in the world to do that, now, just shut up and let the two sides, you know, debate. Grr. And just when Maria Stephanos did finally run out of carefully crafted questions to prove what a good interviewer she is, and the two sides did start debating, she announced a commercial break.

And then, once the debate got started in earnest, the two reporters failed in their role as moderators, because they basically let Pagliuca and Mr. Smug Obnoxious New Yorker Guy Who Met Every Last Stereotype We Have about New Yorkers (except the accent, thank God) walk all over Dempsey and the Professor from the Berkshires. Bravo, Pags and New Yorker: You have louder voices, you win! It got really, really annoying to hear Pagliuca respond to the three or four things that Dempsey or Zimbalist did manage to say by telling them to stop being inflammatory.

it really wasn't

By on

It really wasn't a debate.. it was more a talk/bitch/shout fest. I love Maria but she's a horrible moderator.

They needed a real moderator and really should have kept a real debate format instead of this talkovermatchthing they were doing. They could have talked about several real issues and talked THRU them to finish, rather then circling back over and over again. (i.e. finance/funding issues)

I felt bad for Zimbalist, he was making some great points but kept getting cut off (and he was getting visibly angry over it too AND maria did nothing to stop the other two guys) At least Dempsey was more assertive and kept going (which Zimbalist figured out he had to do to get any word in edgewise toward the end).

Pags was just a broken record. And Mr DoctorJerkoff.. really? he got real arrogant toward the end. They really didn't help their case at all. And considering how much the Fox25 stream kept cutting out, I'm sure MANY were watching.

And then of course Dempsey's on-point, on camera speech at the end. I swear it seemed like he was doing a commercial at how direct it was (compared to Pags)

It's

By on

It's Dan Doctoroff

I'm not far off.. he really came off like a jerk

Thankfully, it won't matter.

By on

2024 is doomed. The presence of Fox in some unholy alliance with the Globe is hardly a mark of quality. It was another Potemkin fabrication.

Someone, maybe Bob Ryan, mentioned that a media circus like this on a warm July night was unlikely to do viewer numbers.

Nor will it do much to goose the dismal polling numbers. And the inability to nail down real site locations in many key areas chokes it out of the gate.

And beyond that lies the power of the purse held by Baker and DeLeo who have made it pretty clear that no such largess is likely.

That is one of the encouraging signs. More politicians are seeing advantages to opposing this thing at municipal levels and elsewhere. Or they damn it with faint praise if they are risk averse.

Your stamina and dedication is impressive anyway and the community owes you some love for wading through these swamps.Thanks!

Agreed

Precisely my impression. I cannot think of a more poorly moderated debate in history--shame on these journalists.

We learned nothing new. Absolutely nothing. The fact that the Boston 2024 reps constantly interrupted any attempt to challenge their assumptions in order to sell their bellicose puffery--and that the moderators consistently allowed it--suggests that a real debate--one that is moderated by competent and knowledgeable journalists-- and that fairly allows both sides to present real data/info is still an elusive dream for most of us. All the more reason why the South End--which will be more directly impacted by the monster footprint stadium and its successor development than any other neighborhood--needs to have a public meeting--to talk about neighborhood impact. But if it's a repeat of the responsiveness that we saw tonight, we are all in serious trouble.

To be fair, I'm not sure why

To be fair, I'm not sure why we ever expect journalists to be good debate moderators. That's an entirely different skill set.

Some political debates I've seen have a panel of journalists or experts who ask questions, but there's also a moderator who acts as a go-between with the candidates. That might be the best format.

What I'd really like to see is the city-sponsored meetings have both sides up on the stage, with questions from the public that both sides have a chance to answer.

Mr. Smug Obnoxious New Yorker

Mr. Smug Obnoxious New Yorker Guy Who Met Every Last Stereotype We Have about New Yorkers (except the accent, thank God)

Mrs Wiffleball described him as the dictionary definition of "mansplain." For a guy whose only Olympic experience was with a single, failed bid for NYC, he was condescending and cocky. Shrunken and flaccid, but still cocky.

oh yes

It is a truth universally acknowledged that most of the cockiest guys are indeed shrunken and flaccid.

Need analysis

By on

There needs to be an analysis of the current bid no. 2, not the first bid which has been replaced by bid no. 2. What's the point is analyzing something that won't be used now?

Any RFP no matter what industry

By on

Is never finalized on its first draft. It's a draft!

As someone who reads RFP on a routine basis, they don't want to release mistakes they made on a deft proposal. It's very standard.

Yes, yes, yes

You are not the only person around here who has ever dealt with RFPs.

However, you are not making a convincing case given that we are expected to write a blank check to fund the RFP, and we have no idea what is in it.

We have not given them a budget for this RFP. They are expecting to send us a bill for this RFP.

It does not work that way, and you should understand that.

What if the "mistake"...

... is simply letting cats out of the bag -- cats which one wants to stuff back into the bag in subsequent drafts (while not really changing the substance of what is being planned)?

thieves and conmen

By on

If we find an instance in which the secret document said one thing at the same time they were publicly saying something contradictory, does anyone face criminal charges?

Here's Daniel Doctoroff... yikes!

By on

It's obnoxious New YorkGuy.

He's evidently addressing a bunch of business leaders in Dublin while making a hash of Gaelic.

He's kind of like Michael Bloomberg's henchman.

Here's some interesting double talk he provided tonight.

Boston Olympics proponents attempted again to quash rumors that U.S. Olympic officials were eyeing Los Angeles as a potential back-up plan if the Boston bid doesn't turn around public opinion. Doctoroff said the rumors were "never true." "Boston is our city," he said, while acknowledging that support for the Boston Olympics needs to get to over 50 percent in Massachusetts "sooner rather than later."

http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2015/07/6_highlights_from_...

Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/6vHmQb70_Ok