Find content
Male
Display name history
Posts I've Made
In Topic: Rio de Janeiro 2016 Ceremonies
16 November 2011 - 10:42 AM
Victor Mata, on 11 November 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:
Not a olympian. Plus, football has too much attention in Brazil already and I'm sure other athletes would protest if a football player stole their thunder. Let Ronaldo light the cauldron of the World Cup...Oh Wait!
He played in the national team in 1996 Games in Atlanta and left with a bronze medal. Not only he is an olympic athlete, but also an olympic medalist.
In Topic: Guadalajara 2024
31 October 2011 - 11:28 AM
deawebo, on 31 October 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:
As Emilio said... "iremos por mas olimpiadas!!" do you think Guadalajara will be ready for the olympics?
The only reason why Raña said it was the best PanAm ever was because he is Mexican and was behinf the Games the whole time.
In Topic: USA 2024
21 October 2011 - 05:04 AM
Quaker2001, on 21 October 2011 - 01:11 AM, said:
I think the big issue, and you alluded to it, is that these cities are mostly in it for themselves. Getting the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996 didn't do much for other cities. Likewise, how many people outside of New York cared whether they won or lost (Chicago was practically rooting for New York to lose to take their own shot at 2016). And then the other problem, and I brought this up earlier, is that sometimes these cities seem to be in it for 1 shot and 1 shot alone. NYC 2012 was never going to survive through to another cycle of bidding, and that would have been the case even without the West Side Stadium.
Yes, exactly! And the best example of that issue is that the leader of the bid is usually somoeone from outside the Olympic movement, whereas in Rio it was Nuzman and in London Seb Coe.
As Baron said, the USOC has been behind the last bids. What I mean is that they should be in front of them.
Quaker2001, on 21 October 2011 - 01:11 AM, said:
I agree that there needs to be a more long-term plan in place, but I don't know how you accomplish that. This isn't like the 1980s when Anchorage was positioned as the Winter candidate for the United States and was essentially given the green light to be the USOC's candidate until they won. Then when they lost interest, Salt Lake got a similar deal that they'd get 1998 and 2002 at the very least.
It is a matter of setting the rules in that way. Mainly the USOC has to commit ti such a strategy and stay with it. The rest will end up aligning with it naturally.
After all, as you've said yourself, there were people in Chicago rooting for NYC to lose. This probably has kept NYC away from some potential investors, which had already been hooked to Chicago.
Quaker2001, on 21 October 2011 - 01:11 AM, said:
I don't know what the solution is for the USOC because how do you choose between a city like New York which is your best shot for that particular bid or another city with less of a chance but who may be in it for the long haul. Part of the issue with New York was that the bid was based around a new stadium for the New York Jets (and later using the Mets' plans for a stadium), so when they lost 2012, the Jets and Mets both moved ahead with their own plans. So it's a contradiction of asking a city to use an Olympics to spur development and construction versus a city not wanting to wait around for an Olympics to come. And of course the flip side of all that is a city like Los Angeles with the large majority of Olympic-related facilities already in place, but then where's the legacy in that the IOC is always looking for.
In short.. aluz, I agree with your assessment of what SHOULD happen in order to benefit the USOC's hopes at landing an Olympics, but the way the USOC and these bid cities approach the Olympics, I don't know that it can happen. It's different when you have a country like Italy or Japan or Turkey where there's really only 1 city legitimately trying for the Olympics and an NOC that's going to be there to fund them. The USOC is never going to be able to take that lead role with a bid unless they find a way to fund it (I know using NBC has been mentioned.. not sure that's going to work so well because we saw how the IOC reacted the last time NBC and the USOC tried to partner on something) and we know that's going to be a hard sell.
In short.. aluz, I agree with your assessment of what SHOULD happen in order to benefit the USOC's hopes at landing an Olympics, but the way the USOC and these bid cities approach the Olympics, I don't know that it can happen. It's different when you have a country like Italy or Japan or Turkey where there's really only 1 city legitimately trying for the Olympics and an NOC that's going to be there to fund them. The USOC is never going to be able to take that lead role with a bid unless they find a way to fund it (I know using NBC has been mentioned.. not sure that's going to work so well because we saw how the IOC reacted the last time NBC and the USOC tried to partner on something) and we know that's going to be a hard sell.
It's not entirelly true that the last countries which nailed the SOGs had a clear prominent city. China could have easily chosen Shanghai or Guagzhou, Brazil could have chosen São Paulo and has a few other options once you consider that Durban is viable, Australia has hosted with Melbourne and Sydney and both remain viable candidates. Italy can choose between Rome and Milan as Spain has hosted with Barcelona and is attempting now with Madrid. Soth Africa can also choose from, at least, 3 options. Either way, those countries chose a preferred city to bid and the NOC committed to it.
The reality is that chosing a city in advance makes it easier to build a well thought bid, to adapt the bid after successive losses and to design a proposal that is aligned to the city long-term plans, with the legacy that the IOC likes to see. London could have bid again with a similar proposal and even could have started the development of its Olympic Park even if they didn't win the SOGs. That's basically what Istanbul did.
I will come back later and write a thorough explanation about why I think that committing to a city will arrange the issues you see in an easier way than you think. Everything, from the technical plan to the financial aspects would adapt to the new reality producing better results in future bidding cycles.
In Topic: USA 2024
20 October 2011 - 04:51 AM
CanisMinor, on 13 October 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:
I disagree, sometimes this works, but more often than not it doesn't. I think the evidence doesn't necessarily support a repeat bid strategy. For example:
- London 2012 was preceded by UK bids from Manchester and Birmingham.
- Sydney was preceded by bids from Melbourne and Brisbane
- Barcelona was preceded by a bid from Madrid
- Atlanta last bid in 1920
- Seoul had no precedent
On the other hand, many repeat bidders like Detroit, Paris and Madrid remain unsuccessful.
I believe the key is bidding when geopolitical factors look likely to favor your country, and then put forward the best candidate you can at the time. When the IOC needs money, they will come back to the US. They won't care whether it is New York, LA or Seattle. As long as the bid is robust, they will take it.
- London 2012 was preceded by UK bids from Manchester and Birmingham.
- Sydney was preceded by bids from Melbourne and Brisbane
- Barcelona was preceded by a bid from Madrid
- Atlanta last bid in 1920
- Seoul had no precedent
On the other hand, many repeat bidders like Detroit, Paris and Madrid remain unsuccessful.
I believe the key is bidding when geopolitical factors look likely to favor your country, and then put forward the best candidate you can at the time. When the IOC needs money, they will come back to the US. They won't care whether it is New York, LA or Seattle. As long as the bid is robust, they will take it.
Well, you have really misrepresented me in this one. You have taken the sentence when I mention a possible solution for the US to encourage cities to bid repetitively and presents it as a statement about the US chances to win. Really bad interpretation.
As my first sentence mentioned, the best (not the only) way to win is to have repetitive bids. The problem is how to finance it.
Then you make bad comparisons which indeed strengthen rather than weaken my arguments. Except for London, the remaining bidders were running agaist lame ducks or other non repeting bidders.
- Barcelona faced Paris, which was not bidding time after time.
- Sydney ran against Beijing (first-timer) and 3 European cities which were weaker in terms of continental rotation.
- Atlanta main competition was Athens, who was not a repetitive bidder as well.
- Seoul ran against Nagoya, which was also a first-timer.
London was the only first-timer which has beaten by a very narrow margin a repetitive bidder. Besides, recent campaigns have shown that repetitive bids help the city get momentum to evetually win.
But returning to the main point in my post, what you don't seem to grasp is that the way the American bids are structured makes it difficult for building up strength from the lost bids. The NY 2012 experience didn't seem to have added anything to the Chicago bid. Running against weaker competitors, it actually did worse. That happens mainly because the city seems to be the one really pushing the bid, instead of the NOC.
Mainly, what needs to change in the way the Americans run olympic campaigns is to understand that the USOC must have a leading role in the process, raher than just choose a city and support the bid during the campaign. When I say the USOC should lead the campaign it means mostly going after money to finance the enterprise and building relationship with the IOC to influence the votes. We are living a time when a successful bid campaign is a long term effort, not a single-cycle attempt.
Besides, there are also other aspects of the technical part of the process that can benefit a prospective olympic city which plans to bid time after time.
