Jump to content

Lula Attacks Olympic Prejudice


Recommended Posts

Some of you guys have turned this thread into racial shenanigan that is out of the topic. Although, prejudice sounds discriminatory in this context it's not racism.

I have disagreed with Lula on the time and position on which he said this. But, prejudice in hosting of Olympics can not be outrightly ruled out cos it really exist in hosting of these games.

From my own point of views, I think it will still play some part in the ongoing 2016 bid processes. I don't want Brazil to concentrate on this cos it not going to yield any positive result than chaos. Do your part well by making a consolidation on those things which will seem distorting you bid.

Brazil to me has a good chance than imagined by most of us here. WC and the Pan-Am games are testimonies and the infrastructure is getting stronger as globalization hits developing world borders of which Brazil is exceptionally attractive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Ain't gonna happen. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Ask yourself -- how many times have the Olympics (S or W) gone south of the equator? :rolleyes:

You are using geography to define which country is to host the Olympic games and, that is not likely to work out rightly with the IOC scheme of work. I don't think that has been affirmative enough to say Cape Town will not win come 2020 -- if only you said on same continent, I would have agreed with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are using geography to define which country is to host the Olympic games and, that is not likely to work out rightly with the IOC scheme of work. I don't think that has been affirmative enough to say Cape Town will not win come 2020 -- if only you said on same continent, I would have agreed with you.

OK james, since you've been around a lot longer than me and seem to know a lot, you must be right. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK james, since you've been around a lot longer than me and seem to know a lot, you must be right.

Ok

Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven´t been checkin these forums lately, but as far as I could read... every topic about Brazil/Rio became a boxing ring. I don´t remember such agitation in these forum as now.

That's because many here are feeling theatened by the possibility of Rio winning so they started to launch a campaign in order to diminish every news or comments about Rio. Isn't it Baron?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's because many here are feeling theatened by the possibility of Rio winning so they started to launch a campaign in order to diminish every news or comments about Rio. Isn't it Baron?

threatened that Rio will win? Rio is not even guaranteed to make the shortlist. They have had a lackluster PanAm hosting, still have glaring transportation and crime problems and are hosting an equally expensive event 2 years earlier, get your head screwed on right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, like Faster & I said, in another 10-15 years.

And FYI, jimmy, there already has been a city outside of Europe that has already hosted twice; Los Angeles in 1932 & 1984.

And I know that Mexico is not in South America & that the term Latin America is just that; A term. But a lot of times, some people like to lump all of the Latin American countries togetther even though they lie on 2 different continents, & all I was merely suggesting is that they are capable of maybe hosting again someday.

AH Los Angeles hosted in 1932 and 1984 when the rest of the world did not put forward bids. Tehran was up against Los Angeles and Actually withdrew.

I am saying no Non-Euorpean City has ever been awarded twice and Los Angeles has lost 9 times only hosting when they were the only option .

Do you Think LA would have hosted IF anyone else would have forwarded a bid ?

La actually lost to Moscow in 1973 for the 1980 hosting rights That says it all.

jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
threatened that Rio will win? Rio is not even guaranteed to make the shortlist. They have had a lackluster PanAm hosting, still have glaring transportation and crime problems and are hosting an equally expensive event 2 years earlier, get your head screwed on right.

So these crime problems you talk about during the Pan Am Games last year. You have any documentation or personal experience on that ? Crime actually went down during the games according to what I read in the local papers there as they had about 15000 police and Army in the streets. There were no major incidents of violent crime in Rio during the games involving Athletes , Spectators , Media or Citizens in or around the city. There was of course fears that things would happen running up to the games but Security was certainly not an issue during the games.

The usual short list is what 5 cities so Lets think about this for a second.

Prague is having huge problems with public support and even government support. What body of Water would the Sailing Venue in the Czech Republic? Show problems with support and the IOC would Think Denver 1976. Prague will not make the list .

Doha had it's share of organizational problems with transportation for the Asian Games in 2006 and actually had to hire volunteers from other countries .

All the IOC members from Asia bore witness to that . An Asian city (is there 6 stadiums in their country that can host Soccer to Fifa Specs?) What about the Mountain Biking, White Water Kayaking events ? Great Main Facilities but topography and geography have huge problems for Doha, Prague and Baku.

Baku I cannot see at all. Again does Azerbaijan have 6 soccer stadiums to host the Soccer tournament to Fifa Standards? Would a games in that country have legacy effects with Soccer stadiums in six cities like the United States , Brazil or Japan ? The Caspian Sea has that been or is it going to be a new place for world class Sailing events ?

It has been 20 years between Asian City hosting of the summer games for Seoul 1988- Beijing 2008 a return to Asia is very unlikely and especially to a city classified as "Because of choking air pollution, fetid water, spilled oil and generally bad ecological conditions, Baku was ranked as the world's dirtiest city in 2008"

Madrid right after London 2012 ? They may make the short list but considering Barcalona hosted in 1992 it seems very unlikely that they would win. No country has ever been awarded the games twice in such a short period of time even in Europe for the summer games.

The only exception to that rule to a country hosting with a shorter time then 30 years is the United States Whom hosted by default in 1984 and then where awarded the summer games for the first time in 92 years with Atlanta in 1996. Chicago 1904 - Atlanta 1996

Toyko will make the list of course but again twice to Asia in the space of 8 years ? Not likely to help the IOC renew a TV contract with NBC its biggest funder.

Games held at 3am in the morning eastern standard time do not make for great sales of ADs on NBC or any American network. Three hits from the eastern Asia region of the world in 2000 , 2008 and 2016 would certainly not do anything for American Tv especially in an internet Streaming Video Age.

Chicago will make the list of course. Economic power and the role America plays in the Games finances are without question. Chicago is certainly not a Detroit or Philadelphia it is a city with a world status. The huge amount of times The IOC has pasted over the United States for both summer and winter olympic bids is a factor and can eithr play positively or negatively on Chicago. Rio and South America have only stepped up to the bidding plate five times prior compared to 50 plus attempts with few results by American cities. America never won a hosting for the winter games until Squaw Valley in 1960 as again America was the white knight who rode into to host the 1932 Olympics with Los Angeles and Lake Placid taking those duties.

At least Four cities will make the list and they will be Rio, Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid. You might have one other as to not Asia or the Middle East but of the three I have not listed none will overtake Rio to be on the short list. The Battle will be between the Candidates from the America's .

Rio not making the shortlist for 2012 means nothing as they did not have the venues they have today. All RIO 2007 venues fully approved for their respective international federations as of last year with the exception of Sailing for the docking facilities. With the Pan Am Games Came the construction of some major pieces of the hosting puzzle and modernization of many of there existing venues to international federation standards. Gee that is better then London being sent back to the Drawing board 3 years down the road from the Games.

Transportation is the only big question mark and that is being addressed well ahead of 2016 as they will have to have that situation up to the same standard with the World Cup in 2014.

The IOC gets a very good package with Rio . A place with a main stadium existing unlike London for the next games and the Transportation infrastructure needed to host part of 3 million soccer fans that would be at the world cup in Brazil in 2014. The Time zone Advantage will certainly be in favor of Rio and Chicago over Tokyo. The IOC get a games with the roll call of bad press of underestimated budgets and screw ups generally encountered in Athens and probably London. The IOC wants to Scale back the bad press because fear of what the games cost is reducing the number of candidates and that being made up of frontier places. Cities are looking at the games and thinking this is too big for us and even 35 million for a bid is huge.

9 candidate cities for 2012 7 Candidate Cities for 2016 include Three New Comers and only two repeat bid cities in a smaller field

London, United Kingdom Chicago, USA

Paris, France Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Madrid, Spain Madrid, Spain

New York, USA Tokyo, Japan

Moscow, Russia Baku, ABZ

Leipzig, Germany Doha, Qatar

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Prague, Czech

Istanbul, Turkey

Havana, Cuba

Lackluster Pan Am Games in Rio? I wonder what London 2012 would do to match a soccer field full of Samba Dancers for the opening ceremonies?

Prancing Corgies from the Queens Stables or the telitubbies on parade? LOL

London will be probably one of the most boring olympics ever.

jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Do you Think LA would have hosted IF anyone else would have forwarded a bid ?

2. La actually lost to Moscow in 1973 for the 1980 hosting rights That says it all.

jim jones

1. We'll never know, will we? Unless they do a re-vote. :lol:

2. That's because the other Olympic power, the USSR, had never hosted before (it lost in 1970 for the '76 Games). So, by rights and by turns, it was Moscow's for the asking, whether LA was there or not. JJ, that's kinda a no-brainer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Transportation is the only big question mark and that is being addressed well ahead of 2016 as they will have to have that situation up to the same standard with the World Cup in 2014.

Nope. I told this forum before, and Puppy explained in better detail in another post re the Sponsorships issue. 2016 is TOO CLOSE to 2014; and this closeness of time between the 2 mega events will create marketing problems wherein a Rio 2016 SOG and its sponsors will get the short end of the stick vs. the 2014 sponsors.

The focus and attention leading up to that period will be dominated by the World Cup. The major companies who have signed up to be a 2014 sponsor (and whether these will be the same ones for 2014 or not, will be the big question for the Rio Organizing Committee) will, of course, be focused on the WC.

Once that's done, there will only be like 700+ days for Olympic sponsors to GET their share of exposure. This is at least a year shorter vs. previous Olympics when past OCOGs could demand top dollar for their sponsorship fees BECAUSE the Olympics would be the ONLY mega sports event on the horizon. For a company paying, say, $50 mil for a full sponsorship plate, then it had 3-1/2 to 4 years to strut its sponsorship unopposed.

Not so in Rio's case. Because there is the WC in 2014, the local Olympic sponsors CANNOT really have the spotlight for more than 2 years (FOR ALL the money they might be asked). Therefore, the value of their sponsorships would be diluted due to the shorter exposure period. (If I were a company with a choice of buying either a WC or an Olympic sponsorship for say $50 mil each, I would certainly get a WC sponsorship because I can get the most mileage out of that deal for say, 4 years, leading up to 2014; not to mention the fact that Brazilians are truly more passionate about soccer than the Olympics as a whole. But why should I pay the same amount for a 2016 sponsorship when my ads and marketing would really only stand out for the 2-year period after July/Aug '14? If it were half the price, say $25 million, then I might find that a fair price.) Such a scenario would leave a ROCOG greatly under-funded.

And a STRONG corporate support in Rio's case would be even MORE crucial (than, say the 3 other finalists) because should the Brazilian gov't overspend for 2014; and afterwards say, they cannot spend any more for 2016, then the quality of the 2016 Olympics would be in great jeopardy. Brazil/Rio is an untested market insofar as whether its gov't - corporate hierarchy can handle the compressed, competitive period of 2014-2016 or not.

I don't think the IOC will risk it; and as they've said previously, "...(we) don't like playing second fiddle."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. I told this forum before, and Puppy explained in better detail in another post re the Sponsorships issue. 2016 is TOO CLOSE to 2014; and this closeness of time between the 2 mega events will create marketing problems wherein a Rio 2016 SOG and its sponsors will get the short end of the stick vs. the 2014 sponsors.

I made mentioned of something of this nature about England sometime ago, somebody objected me and said Germany and USA hosted two big internation games of Olympic and World Cup consecutively on short period of time. Though, this is national issue there is a good tendensy that it can be possible with other nations any where and Brazil is no exemption. Sorry to say that the sponsors aren't saying anything about that.

I consider RIO's chance as one that deserve to get through if influence is not applied unecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I made mentioned of something of this nature about England sometime ago, somebody objected me and said Germany and USA hosted two big internation games of Olympic and World Cup consecutively on short period of time. Though, this is national issue there is a good tendensy that it can be possible with other nations any where and Brazil is no exemption. Sorry to say that the sponsors aren't saying anything about that.

I consider RIO's chance as one that deserve to get through if influence is not applied unecessary.

Whaddya know, james? You're only a 16-year old WITHOUT any real experience in the REAL world. And that's the kind of naivete and hallow posturing (not BACKED up by any real sound reasoning) that makes bids like Abuja's lose.

If you tell me you have at least worked 5 years in some corporate/marketing setting, then I would even give you the time of day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lackluster Pan Am Games in Rio? I wonder what London 2012 would do to match a soccer field full of Samba Dancers for the opening ceremonies?

Prancing Corgies from the Queens Stables or the telitubbies on parade? LOL

London will be probably one of the most boring olympics ever.

jim jones

Atta boy Jim..there you go again!.You start off talking about Rio and its chances to host 2016 and end up badmouthing London 2012!! :lol:

You just can't help yourself,can you?? You just can't post about anyone or anything without finishing it off with a swipe at London 2012 or indeed anything British!

Your challenge is to see if you can manage at least one single post,at least two paragraphs in length,that doesn't include a snide reference to London 2012,Glasgow 2014 or something else that is British.I'm betting you can do it,if you try really,

really,really,REALLY hard!!

You would SO make such a fascinating and amusing subject for my counselling-therapy course!!! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch some PanAm Rio 2007 videos at youtube and see how many sponsors Rio got.

Almost 30: 7 was official and others providers and partners like Atos Origin, Tissot, Samsung, Johnson & Johson's, Ernst & Young...

Never a PanAm edition got so many sponsors like 2007. Winnipeg and Santo Domingo (99 and 2003) got less sponsors.

You talk here about the 2-year lack between WC 2014 and SOG 2016 and forget the main sponsors are the same in both events: Coca-Cola, Master Card, Mc Donald's, some giant Swiss watch company, Opel/General Motors...

What is the matter if those companies always sponsors World Cups and Olympic Games each 2 years. The host country doesn't matter...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Watch some PanAm Rio 2007 videos at youtube and see how many sponsors Rio got.

Almost 30: 7 was official and others providers and partners like Atos Origin, Tissot, Samsung, Johnson & Johson's, Ernst & Young...

Never a PanAm edition got so many sponsors like 2007. Winnipeg and Santo Domingo (99 and 2003) got less sponsors.

You talk here about the 2-year lack between WC 2014 and SOG 2016 and forget the main sponsors are the same in both events: Coca-Cola, Master Card, Mc Donald's, some giant Swiss watch company, Opel/General Motors...

What is the matter if those companies always sponsors World Cups and Olympic Games each 2 years. The host country doesn't matter...

U don't get it, do you? Rio 2016 will have a harder time getting TOP sponsors to pay TOP dollars because WC 2014 is happening just 2 years before. Those sponsorships aren't going to cost US$1.7 million. Those are GLOBAL events. My guess is that WC might ask for US$35 mil for its top tier sponsors; and the Olympics would cost at least US$50 mil. The 1st tier domestic sponsors in Atlanta were assessed at US$40 mil each. And this was 1990-1993 when the upper tier sponsors were signed up. What do you think they will cost by 2010-2011?

Reread my post.

And don't you understand what certain members of the IOC has said that the IOC "...does not like to have the left-overs"? That means they KNOW that WC will swipe the major sponsors, leaving them with probably the no. 2 companies in each category.

If you still can't understand it, then forget I even mentioned it. Maybe it's just too complicated for you guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And don't you understand what certain members of the IOC has said that the IOC "...does not like to have the left-overs"? That means they KNOW that WC will swipe the major sponsors, leaving them with probably the no. 2 companies in each category.

ONE- unnamed- IOC member Baron, one...

The IOC couldn't care less of having number 1 or number 2 company as long as money is in (which I gladly will be a legitimate source of concern- although I don't think in term of domestic sponsor program the FIFA WC plays in the same league as the Olympics)

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Rio questionnaire book, page 25 ...

SPONSORSHIP/LICENSING

Although it is felt that a latent potential for a significant increase in projected marketing revenue exists, the Bid Committee has refrained from relying on any upside, recognizing that the 2014 FIFA World Cup will also be active in the market place, although not in the critical final two years of Olympic sponsorship activation.

The Rio bid committee makes a candid acknowledgement that it may not do as well as the WC; therefore, the downside (i.e, it will fall short of its projected corporate revenues). It fails to categorically state that any sponsors who sign up "... in the critical final two years of Olympic sponsorship activation." won't be paying FULL price for those sponsoships, thereby denying a ROCOG their maximum revenue potential -- due to WC being in the marketplace much earlier.

And if you can get a sponsorship cheaper, then I would wait to sign up in those final two years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The IOC couldn't care less of having number 1 or number 2 company as long as money is in (which I gladly will be a legitimate source of concern- although I don't think in term of domestic sponsor program the FIFA WC plays in the same league as the Olympics)

Yeah, but if you get #2, its pockets certainly would not be as deep as those of a #1. That was the underlying point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we'll see what the expert panel will say about it and, more importantly, should Rio proceeds to the candidate stage, we'll get to see the more detailed budget in the bid book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

President Lula launches the Infrastructure Works Program in Rio de Janeiro

Work will begin next Monday, March 10, and will mean an investment of US$ 670 million in urban infrastructure in areas of social interest for Rio de Janeiro

http://www.rio2016.org.br/en/Noticias/Noti...?idConteudo=486

RIO city is realy getting a facelift from the Lula. This proves how serious he's working toward hosting Olympic 2016 despite complaining about any form of prejudices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...