Further to my Eurovision piece yesterday, BBC News has an article about the costs of hosting the contest. Funding changes now mean that the host broadcaster doesn’t have to pay the full cost, with over 50% or more being paid for by the EBU, but Estonia spent it’s entire tourism budget for 2002 – $26million – hosting the contest.
However, the best part of the story is RTE’s seeming denial that their repeated hosting of the contest in the 90s threatened to bankrupt them:
These are wonderful stories, and they’re apocryphal at this point, but for the most part they’re completely untrue
‘Apocryphal at this point‘? So, at what point will they not be apocryphal?
‘For the most part they’re completely untrue’? So what part of them is true?