And Shortlisted Are...

[baron-pierreIV]

I think we'll all have to wait until Celine weighs in with her choices.

[jawnbc]

This is a very interesting "leak", eh?

I think Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo are all "locks" to make the short list. I expect Rio to be there too, and after having staged the Asia Games successfully (with a lot of ex-Olympic staffers), Doha's got a very good shot at the list too.

How will it shake down after that? Well, Madrid's toast (Athens, Torino, London, Sochi) as a European candidate city. Tokyo's prospects aren't as rosy either: they've hosted before, and Beijing will have been only 8 years (and 2 OSG) ago.

Rio has done enough to make their bid plausible, if not the best. Chicago's bid will probably be the strongest. Doha's technical aspects will be top-notch, but the climate and accommodation issues might derail them.

Most pundits saw Paris 2012 as the best bid and almost a lock at winning. Then London pipped them at the post, by working their arses off (on the bid and the votes) and a note-perfect final presentation that emphasized 3 important Olympism themes: youth, sport, and legacies. Many also think Putin's presentation--in ENGLISH--put them over the top (unfairly IMHO).

There's the "can do the Games" question. And the "can do the best Games" question. And the geopolitics question. With a new US President, anti-Americanism will probably wane.

But the first OG in South America? Pretty compelling stuff.

[baron-pierreIV]

But the first OG in South America? Pretty compelling stuff.

Pretty risky stuff. Too soon after 2014.

[Tatsh]

and the shortlist when will be announced?

[Sir Rols]

and the shortlist when will be announced?

June 4

[Rafa]

This is the technical shortlist in order of IOC ranking

1. Madrid - if u dnt agree with me on this then u are stupid

2. Tokyo - im thinking it will only surpass chicago by a few points based on its good base of venues and slightly better gov support

3. Chicago- high scores in most areas..

BIG GAP in scores goes here

4. Doha - its a technical evaluation. thats it. doha getting the nod ahead of Rio is not unrealistic. also consider the feasibility factor might be high for most new /proposed project considering the rate of development. those feasibility weightings change things.

5. Prague - regardless of the commitment..its a European city with a plan..if i told u leipzig would beat Rio in the 2012 race you would have laughed in my face. are u so sure its transport system is worse than Rio?

6. Rio - go ahead and tell me im crazy...

7. Baku - ba bye

Madrid. Tokyo. Chicago. Doha. Rio (strategic decision by IOC after hanging over the benchmark). Prague.

6 city shortlist..ha..what if?

[Aronious]

Madrids plans are nothing improved on 2012, if anything they're backwards of 2012. I dont see them top scoring in the shortlist by any means, though will still be there and could be the cause of a major voting upset come the final election.

[Rafa]

the reality is that it has actually been true to its promises in the 2012 book

1. its olympic stadium is undergoing its upgrade

2. the aquatic centre is in advanced stages of construction

3. the tennis centre is also in advanced stages of construction

so in terms of venues..the IOC should score madrid higher on venues in 2016 than 2012

its transport system has only improved with planned projects actually being realised. def higher than 2012. quite honestly i dont think any other applicant will outscore madrid on transport....can its airport get any better?

accommodation would improve slightly, and the inclusion of a media village or 2 even boost this compared to 2012.

in areas that receive a lower weighting, lessons from 2012 would improve these if possible.

through hosting major sports events since the last bid, fulfilling promises in the 2012 bid book with regards to venues planned and improving its already excellent transport system, madrid will breeze into the top spot of the technical evaluation.

there is no way madrid will score lower if the evaluation criteria remain the same.

[Faster]

This is the technical shortlist in order of IOC ranking

1. Madrid - if u dnt agree with me on this then u are stupid

2. Tokyo - im thinking it will only surpass chicago by a few points based on its good base of venues and slightly better gov support

3. Chicago- high scores in most areas..

BIG GAP in scores goes here

4. Doha - its a technical evaluation. thats it. doha getting the nod ahead of Rio is not unrealistic. also consider the feasibility factor might be high for most new /proposed project considering the rate of development. those feasibility weightings change things.

5. Prague - regardless of the commitment..its a European city with a plan..if i told u leipzig would beat Rio in the 2012 race you would have laughed in my face. are u so sure its transport system is worse than Rio?

6. Rio - go ahead and tell me im crazy...

7. Baku - ba bye

Madrid. Tokyo. Chicago. Doha. Rio (strategic decision by IOC after hanging over the benchmark). Prague.

6 city shortlist..ha..what if?

Very much agree. But if Prague were to be in the final round, I would put money on them not being the first ones out.

[FYI]

C'mon, a 6-city short-list? Why not just have all 7 cities on it then. I doubt we'll even have 5. We'll at least have 3, 4 at the most. The IOC Executive Board is most likely gonna be more scrutinizing this time around.

[Faster]

C'mon, a 6-city short-list? Why not just have all 7 cities on it then. I doubt we'll even have 5. We'll at least have 3, 4 at the most. The IOC Executive Board is most likely gonna be more scrutinizing this time around.

When it comes to the IOC anything is possible. I think the best thing is to have just Madrid, Chicago and Tokyo as the finalist. All are highly capable.

[Rafa]

the 6 city suggestion is just to move the debate forward. we can get stuck in our ways. lets just think back to leipzig beating Rio in the 2012 evaluation and remind ourselves that this is a 90%(i do believe that the ioc plays some strategic role in some of the scores) technical evaluation proposed to the IOC who then decide based on that study which cities to put forward.

[cfm Jeremie]

the 6 city suggestion is just to move the debate forward. we can get stuck in our ways. lets just think back to leipzig beating Rio in the 2012 evaluation and remind ourselves that this is a 90%(i do believe that the ioc plays some strategic role in some of the scores) technical evaluation proposed to the IOC who then decide based on that study which cities to put forward.

I agree.

In theory, all cities could be shortlisted if they all met the threshold (which won't happen here).

I do think that indeed there is a small margin for the EB to make a political/strategical move (hence Istanbul 2008, Moscow 2012).

In the particular case of 2016, I just cannot see Pragues going further with the lack of political/financial support.

I would stay on 3 minimum, 5 max.

[Soaring]

I have to go with the four -

Chicago

Madrid

Rio

Tokyo

To me it seems short, simple and fairly safe. We can have the debate about Rio and Doha all day, but it won't accomplish anything.

[baron-pierreIV]

3 would make for a very short election session. With 4 at least there'll be some drama. And you know what hogs those IOC'ers for drama and intrigue.

[Rafa]

it will be 5. the ioc wants money. full stop.

[Faster]

it will be 5. the ioc wants money. full stop.

The bid application fee is a drop in the bucket compared to the money they get from everything else.

[Aronious]

The bid application fee is a drop in the bucket compared to the money they get from everything else.

What is it anyway...like $500,000? Wont make any difference especially considering the travel and communication expenses the IOC will incur for each successive city they nominate.

I HOPE there is a 5 city short list like 2012 in this order.

Tokyo

Madrid

Doha

Chicago

Rio

Though as we've been discussing recently, Rio's chances are certainly slipping away.

[Faster]

What is it anyway...like $500,000? Wont make any difference especially considering the travel and communication expenses the IOC will incur for each successive city they nominate.

I HOPE there is a 5 city short list like 2012 in this order.

Tokyo

Madrid

Doha

Chicago

Rio

Though as we've been discussing recently, Rio's chances are certainly slipping away.

Your hopes are pretty screwy, I think the IOC would be stupid to allow the slightest chance of the games being in Doha.

[Sir Rols]

Your hopes are pretty screwy, I think the IOC would be stupid to allow the slightest chance of the games being in Doha.

I don't think there's the slightest chance of them winning, even if they made the short list. Getting them on the list, though, could be seen as giving the region some encouragement, throwing them a bone if you like, much as they did for Capetown's 2004 bid.

[Aronious]

Your hopes are pretty screwy, I think the IOC would be stupid to allow the slightest chance of the games being in Doha.

The shortlist is based on technical "capabilities". On paper Doha will certainly have the ability by 2016...although its probably not sustainable...

I dont think i'm to far off in terms of the shortlist order, though the actual voting is lkely to go in complete reverse of what i've put as the shortlist (excepting Rio).

There is no doubt in my mind Rio and Doha will make the short list. Though both will go in the first 3 rounds...i dont think anyone will doubt that.

[cfm Jeremie]

it will be 5. the ioc wants money. full stop.

I agree with Faster on that. The candidate city fee is nothing to the IOC.

Assuming that two cities (probably Rio and Doha) straddle the benchmark, the reason why the Executive Board could make the political move to include them in the shortlist would be "universality of the Games" so that many regions of the world are present in the race.

But that would be a risky move. Sympathy votes in the early rounds could kick out one of the safe solutions (unless the Executive Board take the unprecedented move of further shortening the list after the Evaluation Commission report is published).

[Faster]

Doha's greatest weakness is their population and reliance on foreign labour. This will be the downfall of their bid and I do not think they will make the shortlist.

In 2002 the IOC included Pyeongchang, a bid that straddled the lines of criteria, it was shortlisted and the Koreans went to work almost winning it in the first round. The IOC should have learned a valuable lesson from this and the exclusion of Almaty in 2006, to me, signifies this and the IOC will not take the risk of giving the games to Doha or going through another Athens with Rio. If the IOC even considers it they are morons because both of them could oust a stronger bid, as Istanbul did to Osaka.

[Aronious]

Doha's greatest weakness is their population and reliance on foreign labour. This will be the downfall of their bid and I do not think they will make the shortlist.

In 2002 the IOC included Pyeongchang, a bid that straddled the lines of criteria, it was shortlisted and the Koreans went to work almost winning it in the first round. The IOC should have learned a valuable lesson from this and the exclusion of Almaty in 2006, to me, signifies this and the IOC will not take the risk of giving the games to Doha or going through another Athens with Rio. If the IOC even considers it they are morons because both of them could oust a stronger bid, as Istanbul did to Osaka.

I agree with you there except on the foreign labour. Qatar is a mass of cheap local labour. I've even met a few Qatari's that work on construction sites here in Australia. South Africa employs a lot of cheap labour and Beijing is pretty much built from slaves....I dont think the IOC minds so long as it gets built.

[baron-pierreIV]

Doha's greatest weakness is their population and reliance on foreign labour. This will be the downfall of their bid and I do not think they will make the shortlist.

Not only that, but in equal parts: 1. a very small state; 2. timing of the Games (too far out in December); 3. still not a safe region; 4. reliance on foreign labour; and 5. a weak, almost non-existent sporting tradition. All those are pretty major factors.

If they go 5, it will, as jeremie said and I have held all along, for the universality of participation. However, from the looks of it, it doesn't look like they will be lacking for applicants for 2020 -- so it doesn't matter if they just go with 3 finalists. Won't harm the slate for 2020.

BTW, doesn't the half-mil application fee go back to the applicant -- except for the eventual host city? Or is it non-refiundable once you've made the Final list?