Jump to content

Now, Who Do You Expect To Win?


Recommended Posts

jj, I never thought Rio would be cut from the shortlist. I felt Doha had a good chance of not making the cut, but never Rio. I would not sayl Rio has had a "steady climb" but they really busted out as a contender when they stole the show at Sport Accord. I do think this is becoming more of a race between Chicago and Rio, but I will admit that Rio is looking good right now. We shall see if they get a rude awakening when the evaluations come out, but for now lets give them their time in the sun.

I would have no problem with Rio hosting if crime and infrastructure issues did not consume their weaknesses, but I just think Chicago can put on a better Games. Rio can in the near be ready to host, I just think they need a little more time to get things ready. I know many of you do not agree with me on this, but it is just my personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply
It doesn't work that way period.

You have about 110 IOC members who, for the most part, will vote for individual reasons. For example, I highly doubt that the French IOC members will vote for the same city.

Historically Latin America and Africa have voted as a block in the past (and to a lesser extent Asia) but the trend is changing.

The other thing: secret ballot, we'll never know.

RIO or CHICAGO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing too is Rio is supposedly VERY open about its costs. So, something to the tunof $14.2 billion supposedly (but that includes a lot of infrastructure costs). That is going to backfire. Add the World Cup 2014 costs -- and that certainly won't disappear from the IOC's minds -- and the IOC would've added another 14.2 to what? FIFA's $15 billion or so bill? So the IOC would've been party to a $30 billion plus party for the citizens of Brazil and the state of Rio. Uh-huh. I would like to think that the IOC would have more of a conscience than that.

No, the 2014 World Cup expenses dedicated to Rio are already included in the $14 billion.

And look carefully at the IOC questionnary and all the bid books. Rio is the only one to answer correctly to the IOC regarding the Non-OCOG budget.

IOC asked to be budgeted all projects that will participate (and improve your city) to the games : ongoing projects, planned projects and specific projects.

Rio answered well, honestly. All the other bids just mentionned the "specific costs".... Not sure that IOC will like to see cities not answering their questions...

If you want to compare the budget, the specific NON OCOG rio's budget is $3.7 billions

Sorry, but Rio is still in the Race..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I always predicted they would be in there so that in this race, the IOC has 4 candidates from 4 continents. (HINT, HINT to a certain Spanish city -- it's not always going to be in Europe).

The other thing too is Rio is supposedly VERY open about its costs. So, something to the tunof $14.2 billion supposedly (but that includes a lot of infrastructure costs). That is going to backfire. Add the World Cup 2014 costs -- and that certainly won't disappear from the IOC's minds -- and the IOC would've added another 14.2 to what? FIFA's $15 billion or so bill? So the IOC would've been party to a $30 billion plus party for the citizens of Brazil and the state of Rio. Uh-huh. I would like to think that the IOC would have more of a conscience than that.

Brazil can't have its cake and eat it too. Rio I think will have to wait for 2028.

Well Realism can of course have that down side if the IOC wants to continue to have Bid Committees basically lie to the Citizens of a Host country soft pedaling the costs . It is odd on one hand that all Three first world places are sticking to a Status Quo of not presenting Transportation Infrastructure costs in their bids while Rio essentially does . The other three Candidate Cities have this Cost Under estimating as the wedge for anti olympic groups to seize onto while Rio from what we can see does not have an anti games movement. Madrid I don't know if they have one either but the Spanish are out of their minds anyways bidding on 2016 . People in Brazil are not batting an eye at the 14 billion plus figure because indeed they are in a similar situation to China when they successfully bid . Plenty of reserves in the Government Accounts because they are a rapidly growing economy producing goods and wealth.

The only Summer Games not costing 10 billion dollars minimum in the last 30 years are Atlanta and Los Angeles and maybe Sydney. If not 10 billion now wheres close the amount advertised in the Three Northern Hemisphere bids for 2016.

14 billion dollars I think would probably include the improvements that will have to be made anyways for the WC 2014. It is only realistic that you start with the costs of the games under construction as opposed to being in the Long line of Idiotic Politicians in the Mayor Jean Drapeau Mode.

If the IOC goes with Rio they are less likely to have a repeat of the constant drone of London 2012 cost under estimates and overruns for the next 7 years .

They indeed may have to do that to have a future with these games and Rio 2016 might have a great Surprize actually going under budget.

Jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting in perspective what Nawal said during the press conference :

She suggested the World Cup, which Brazil will host in 2014, could have a positive impact on Rio's bid, because it could "serve as a test."

Ok, so Rio get the Games , the 2014 WC turns out to have some big problems and the IOC starts to freak out ? My perception is that first Rio needs to be tested (and no, the PanAms are not a real test ) with a really important and global event like the WC. So , the IOC will wait for the WC and then if everything goes O.K , give the games to Rio in 2024 or 2028 .

Rio is showing right now that in the future is completely able to host the SOG and that's why this process is being important for the city. But I don't think the IOC is ready right now to take such a risk. Chicago most likely will have the last laugh in October.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so Rio get the Games , the 2014 WC turns out to have some big problems and the IOC starts to freak out ? My perception is that first Rio needs to be tested (and no, the PanAms are not a real test ) with a really important and global event like the WC. So , the IOC will wait for the WC and then if everything goes O.K , give the games to Rio in 2024 or 2028 .

Rio is showing right now that in the future is completely able to host the SOG and that's why this process is being important for the city. But I don't think the IOC is ready right now to take such a risk. Chicago most likely will have the last laugh in October.

Absolutely. I understand that NOT everything went smoothly with the PanAms.

And this is going to be like RSA/Capetown going for 2020. By the time the 2020 host is picked in 2013, RSA/Capetown will have shown that it either can or could NOT host something as big with next year's WC. Rio/Brazil, unfortunately, is an unproven entity in this regard because it won't have is World Cup until 2014, a year after the 2020 election. So, Rio's big chance may really be in 2028 (when Paris will have had 2024 and there won't be two back-to-back southern hemisphere Olympics if Capetown gets 2020.)

I mean, at this point, Rio seems a little too greedy to want to have its cake and eat it too. It has to perform well for 2014 if it wants an Olympics in the future. It was just thrown in there this year so that there would be candidates from FOUR continents; that's all.

The other issue nobody has spoken about is BURN-OUT. OK, so Brazil/Rio will host the World Cup in 2014. Then to get its venues ready for 2016 (if Rio gets the nod), it will have to hold a WHOLE SERIES of warm-up, test events in 2015. And then the big show in 2016. No country/host city has ever been put through such pressures within a 3-year period. I think it will lead to BURN-OUT not only for sponsors but for sports personnel and Games management staff as well. I hope this is something the IOC sees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My perception is that first Rio needs to be tested (and no, the PanAms are not a real test ) with a really important and global event like the WC

Sorry, but I am not sure you are aware what's involved to organise international sports' events !

Multisport events (like the PanAms Games) are much more difficult to organize than a Soccer World Cup (regarding security, transport, accomodation, catering, multievents at the same time, ....)

So no FIFA WC will not be a test. Rio will just get the benefit of some of the Infrastructures investments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Panams in Rio were a mix of what happened in Montreal and Athens - venues not getting ready until the last second, some of them were not totally ready for the event - the Delamari aquatic park couldn't have a roof ready for the event after several delays during construction , so the swimming competitions took place in an open space. The cauldron in the Maracana stadium had to stay on the field since the BOC ran out of money and the cauldron could not be mechanically raised to the top of the stadium . Baseball competitions took place in the middle of the mud ...many thing worked perfectly during the games , but not everything was perfect. Besides , the legacy is very questionable : the beautiful "Engenhão" stadium is considered an white elephant in Rio de Janeiro - since there's not an efficient public transportation to this stadium area, the football games there are usually played in half empty arenas. When Brazil played last year in Engenhão this became evident, since the stadium was not crowded, and we are talking about our nation's beloved team...the most pratical way to get there is by car , and most of the people who goes in Brazil to stadiums to watch football games don't have a car...so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue nobody has spoken about is BURN-OUT. OK, so Brazil/Rio will host the World Cup in 2014. Then to get its venues ready for 2016 (if Rio gets the nod), it will have to hold a WHOLE SERIES of warm-up, test events in 2015. And then the big show in 2016. No country/host city has ever been put through such pressures within a 3-year period. I think it will lead to BURN-OUT not only for sponsors but for sports personnel and Games management staff as well. I hope this is something the IOC sees.

So first of all, you apparently forgot that Atlanta 96 was just 2 years after the Soccer World Cup USA 1994... so same configuration !

Test events do not need as much involvement as the events at games time.

Sponsor market is big enough to support the 2 events. You have main sponsors in a same category that could be involved each in only one of the 2 events

And Games Management staff is normaly able to deal with such pressures... if not they just have to change of job... (and do not say i do not know from what i am talking about, i am (non stop) in this business since 15 years now).

So FIFA World Cup 2014 is not a negative point. It is a positive one as it will help to improve infrastructures and to train some volunteers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I am not sure you are aware what's involved to organise international sports' events !

Multisport events (like the PanAms Games) are much more difficult to organize than a Soccer World Cup (regarding security, transport, accomodation, catering, multievents at the same time, ....)

So no FIFA WC will not be a test. Rio will just get the benefit of some of the Infrastructures investments.

I disagree with you . First, the Panams weren't able to test our hosting ability to the world, since very few tourists, even from Brazil, went to Rio to watch the Games . During the Olympics, thousands of tourists arrive in the same city in a very short period of time and Rio was never tested for that . Is very known that Rio lacks in number of rooms comparing with any other city in the contend . This issue will be most likely be tested just in 2014 ,when Rio hosts the final match of the WC. So, accommodation was not truly tested . Second, the Panams are very low profile compared to the SOG. It's a worldwide known event and a potential target for terrorists , foreigners or local drug dealers who literally 'owns' favelas and communities living in the favelas. Again, the only event that has the same characteristics of global attention to one country or city in case of the final match, is the WC .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So first of all, you apparently forgot that Atlanta 96 was just 2 years after the Soccer World Cup USA 1994... so same configuration !

Atlanta was not a host of the WC . Rio will be a host , and one of the most important, along with Sao Paulo . And Brazil is not the USA. We don't have experience in hosting these large events . The U.S at the time had already a history of a reliable hosting .

I understand why most people here want the games in Rio - yes, the city is amazing, warm people, hot girls , a new frontier . But is still a risk for the IOC and we shall see in October if they're willing to take it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So first of all, you apparently forgot that Atlanta 96 was just 2 years after the Soccer World Cup USA 1994... so same configuration !

Well, 1996 host city Atlanta was NOT a 1994 World Cup venue -- so not EXACTLY the same configuration. In this case, Rio will be a major player in both WC 2104 and 2016.

It's easy for you to say Burn-out (and big turnover) is no problem. Just work in a pressure-cooker environment for 3 years, then tell me it isn't. But maybe it's possible that you can get a good 3 years' dedication from the same staff. I know I would be looking over my shoulder for work before that because where else do you find all this Big, Special Event employment but in a World Cup or in an Olympics -- and where is it applied in the course of everyday, normal life??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living in a FIFA host city, I can assure you that the World Cup does not imply that a city can host the Olympic Games.

It provides key infrastructural improvements e.g. airports, transport and so forth, but the amounts of investment in the host city compared to the Olympic Games are not comparable.

In Cape Town our 2010 investment is likely around $1.7 billion but for the Olympic Games you're looking at $6 billion as very conservative estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 reasons why Madrid will win

Reason 2- It has the best and most emotive marketing campaign:

* Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón, mayor of the city of Madrid, is the only mayor of the candidate cities that has visited all the places where the IOC authorise to

present the bid: Acapulco (Mexico), Bali (Indonesia), Istambul (Turkey), 'SportAccord' in Denver (Colorado) and New Zeeland. He will shortly be also in

Abuja (Nigeria) and Lausanne (Switzerland). Now everybody know better the candidature because Madrid has done a higher effort and so is valued by IOC

members.

* Spanish sport is clerly in the best moment of the history. The support for our sportmen is outstanding and the results are impressive. That could also be

another point in favour for Madrid 2016. For mentioning a few victories (both collective and individual) last year: Nacional Selection champions of football

Eurocup; tennis Davis Cup, Rafael Nadal won both in Roland Garros and Winbledon as well as gold medal in Beijinn Olympics; in cyclism Alberto Contador

won Giro and Vuelta while Carlos Sastre won the Tour de France and Samuel Sánchez gold medal in Beijinn 2008 race; silver medal in basketball

olympics, Pau Gasol was the sensation at Los Angeles Lakers reaching the final, DKV Joventud won ULEB Cup against Akasvayu Girona; in swimming Mireia

Belmonte won 200m. style final in Eindoven Europeans and in short pool in Croacia 400m. styles with a new World Record, Aschwin Wildeboer obteined as

well gold medal in Croacia and European Record; in handball Ciudad Real won the Champions league, Javier Gómez Noya won the Triatlon championship;

European Championship in Roller Hockey; Toni Bou was the Trial champion; Gisela Pulido in Kitesurf...

* Madrid 2016 will be the games of the people because of the great importance of the Madrid citizens in the project, is going to bring an intense and powerful

social regeneration. In the bid book it ha been a brilliant idea from Madrid to have put all faces on its chapter cover that gives a very warm human touch.

As well this humanity and hospitality is shown in the motto: 'Hola everyone' and in the logo: an open hand with the olympic colurs and the M of Madrid in

white elected by Madrid citizens by voting, that wants to show the hospitality of a city where 190 nationalities live in harmony.

* Madrid 2016 has also produced the most emotive videos of all candidatures: in the first one many hands welcome visitors with a very well known song of

Madrid. In the second one, many famous spanish sportmen and common people tell a year later of having held the games (in 2017) how where their

feelings in that time. In the third one and old women voluntary says all thing she had saw in her live but she haven't seen an Olympics in Madrid and want

to live some years more because she have a hunch (corazonada in spanish).

-

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTEjKScGyoI

-

* For the IOC visit Madrid has displayed 50.000 flags on the streets and the biggest logo ever made with a surface of 40.000 square metres in the place

where the mass media will be located.

610x.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIVE REASONS WHY MADRID WILL NOT WIN (not in any specific order):

1.) London is hosting in 2012

2.) Sochi is hosting in 2014

3.) TV rights would take a hit because of time zone (directly related to #1 & #2)

4.) Barcelona 1992 is seen as too soon for a smaller European country to host again

5.) Rates #2 in concerns over security

***** If there were no Barcelona 1992 or European host in 2012, I would say that Madrid would be the front runner in this field, but this is not the case *****

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, Nawal el Moutawakel kind of left the 2014 WC factor as a grey area... she said that it "could" serve as a positive, as it would be a test. This "test" would be a little too late for the IOC to gamble on.

Yes, I would love it if Rio hosted, but I think it is too soon. 2028 seems more appropriate, as it gives them time to make their infrastructure improvements, and work on getting better mass transit in place. Also, the economy should continue to strengthen, only to solidify their resources to host such an event. Why should Rio be overly eager to host a colossal event, when the Pan Ams received mixed reaction by many? Do they want to be reviewed like Athens?

I understand that they want to be viewed as a big player on the global stage, but do it in a responsible manner. I am not convinced that this will be done to that effect.

In my perfect world of future host cities...

2016 - Chicago

2020 - Cape Town

2024 - Paris

2028 - Tokyo or Rio

2032 - Rio or Tokyo

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not confuse an "emotive" campaign with an "effective" campaign.

I actually think Madrid need to remind voters of how fabulous Barcelona was. That and Samaranch should get them 30

votes.

The reality though is that Madrid as a city is doing just fine without the Games. Aquatic Centre almost complete...new tennis centre complete...excellent transport including airport...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly so, Madrid's main negatives are simply geopolitics/unofficial rotation. If any of the other three cities had their venues in order like Madrid, and a supporter like Samaranch, they would surely win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly so, Madrid's main negatives are simply geopolitics/unofficial rotation. If any of the other three cities had their venues in order like Madrid, and a supporter like Samaranch, they would surely win.

But the one thing you CAN'T IGNORE about Madrid in July-August is that it is AWFULLY, AWFULLY HOT. The plains of Castille are parchingly dry in the high days of summer. Daytime temps go as high as 104 - 105F. Barcelona wasn't too bad because it is by the sea. (But even then, the few days I was in Barcelona in 1992, there were hardly any sea breezes at all.)

So I don't know which is worse...dry, dry heat or high humidity (Chicago)??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...