Jump to content

Now, Who Do You Expect To Win?


Recommended Posts

Just wanted to add my perspective regarding financial guarantees or lack thereof and the predictability of cost overruns. I think in light of this global economic crisis, it should also give the IOC the opportunity to reformulate their requirements regarding financial guarantees. Three out of four cities' national governments have thrown themselves to the IOC touting their financial feasibility with full government support, but yet they still have to address cost overruns and the inevitability of constructing white elephants. Sure, all four cities are susceptible to costoverruns, and Chicago is no exception. But let's look at this logically with the current financial crisis in mind. Full 100% guarantees from national governments are basically blank checks. This implies that freespending is the norm. Build whatever you want, the government will support it. Now, if your finances and sources are limited and controlled, it puts pressure on the organizing committee to determine which project would have the most effect and cost the least. Every cent is accounted for and scrutinized by the public as well as the "investors" in the games; thus, minimizing the construction of white elephants. I don't think the IOC should tackle white elephants without reanalyzing financial government guarantees. Budget responsibility can be attained when we eliminate the notion that whatever it takes, whatever the cost at the end, we don't have to worry because taxpayers would save us. I wouldn't entirely eliminate Chicago from the competition because of its lack of financial guarantees. The economic crisis may be a good thing for Chicago, now that construction companies have lowered costs just to stay afloat and ride out this current recession. In this case, IF Chicago were to get the games, the committee can command very low construction costs from companies desperate for jobs.

^^^

Completely agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Very interesting! Yet, that is what makes Tokyo's bid so stunning and dominant. If they really are incorporating some of the facilities from 1964 as they seem to suggest, they have played a master stroke to prove the point of a continuum of olympic legacy straddling last century and this one, last millennium and this one. It also plays remarkaby well into the culture system of the Japanese. It is also obvious that of all the governments involved, the japanese financial guarantees are really within their reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm....barron....again your making the mistake that so many other of my fellow american countrymen make. It really isn't solely about "US" anymore in case the first decade of the millennium missed you. The IOC has, first and foremost, an obligation to the athletes to ensure that the highest possible standard of facility environments are on offer during the olympics. Such facilities can only be achieved by money plus technology which, for right now? equals Tokyo. US tv just isn't cutting it like it used to......global following is. You better catch up with the rest of the world....you r like so totally far back right now. lol.

Hmmmmmm... I wonder why the IOC postponed the sale for the 2014/16 U.S. TV rights when until AFTER the October election -- if the US TV market weren't such a factor, huh?

Could it be the less-than-ideal economic conditions would NOT bring in the highest possible bids?

Could maybe the election of Chicago (or Rio) in October, over your Tokyo and Madrid, be a difference of $250 million or more for the IOC coffers?

But between friends, who's counting a few hundred million? :(

I guess, you seem to know all... LOL!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, your hypothesis is based on SPECULATION! Next, I'm not totally dismissing the importance of US Tv rights ......I'm suggesting that there are changes going on!

P#1 - I's NOT speculation. It is fact. Why would they NOT want to lock in the amounts now? They did so in previous years. Don't you think they are getting advice from their consultants and money people? They put it off because this is NOT the most advantageous time for them.

#2 - Perhaps so...but even as OTHER markets' rights go up, still will what the US networks will bid. It's inflation across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TOKYO 2016
its great that Tokyo is using 1964 venues...so why build a 100,000 seat athletics stadium ?

Tokyo is using 1964 venues.

1964 Olympic Main Stadium : Foot ball

Yoyogi Gymnasium (Swimming) : Table tennis

Nippon Budokan (Judo) : Judo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll all come down to which city(ies) Mme. El-Moutakwel did NOT have her period while the group was visiting -- will GET the highest scores!! THe ones which timed with her period will of course suffer from lower scores.

So Baron just offended the rest of the people reading this forum.

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 reasons why Madrid will win:

Reason 1- It has the best institutional and public support:

- Institutional support:

* The Spanish Crown together with the Head of State, King Juan Carlos I of Spain strongly support the bid as well as the Government, through an

agreement approved by its Council of Ministers and the Parliament also expressed its support for the bid with unanimous approval, both in the

Congress Assembly and in the Senate Assembly.

* The Community of Madrid expressed its support for the bid with unanimous approval by its Regional Assembly. The Madrid City Council

expressed its support for the bid as well as through the consensus and participation of all political forces.

* Each of the Governments of the sub city venues and the respective Regional Governments involved in the organisation of the Games

have expressed their full backing for the bid by providing the corresponding guarantees.

* Full support from the main unions and patronal: Chamber of Commerce, Confederation of Employers and Industries of Madrid Region (CEOE-

CEIM), Madrid’s General Workers Union (UGT), Madrid’s Workers Commissions (CCOO).

* The Spanish Olympic Committee (COE) unanimously approved Madrid’s bid to host the Games through agreement at its General Assembly

Similarly, the Spanish Paralympic Committee (CPE) approved its support for the Madrid bid at a General Meeting.

- Public support:

* The support for the Madrid bid was as follows: 92.6% nationally, 90% in the Region of Madrid and 89.4% in Madrid City. This is much higher

than any other Candidate City. Tokyo: 56% (they repported 70% pretending to cheat IOC), Chicago: 74% and Río: 77%.

** No political party or social movement has expressed opposition to the Madrid 2016 project. Some social opposicion has appeared in

Tokyo and Chicago bids. The olympic proyect had an instant negative response from the opposition political local parties because they

said the games will imply a high economical cost for Tokyo inhabitants. Moreover, oppositors said that it will cause irreparable enviromental

damages. Many mass media also opposed. In Chicago opposition has been even worse. Thousands of people claimed during IOC visit

hospital, schools, housing... that will not be constructed because the huge budget of this bid. Many members of IOC heard the demonstrator

voices.

*** For me this is a key aspect. If citizens don't support much the candidature, games can turn out to be a failure.

no2016.jpg3290229344_2ac6f7a54e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Madrid is the city with the highest support rates for the bid ? A local Rio de Janeiro newspaper published that the Brazilian bid had the best rates, as I posted in other thread.

Anyway , Madrid is technically capable to host the Games, but London 2012 is a very serious problem that I doubt the Spanish capital can solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Madrid is the city with the highest support rates for the bid ? A local Rio de Janeiro newspaper published that the Brazilian bid had the best rates, as I posted in other thread.

Anyway , Madrid is technically capable to host the Games, but London 2012 is a very serious problem that I doubt the Spanish capital can solve.

Popular support is maybe 10% of the total consideration. If it's quite low, like Tokyo's, that carries a heavier weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular support is maybe 10% of the total consideration. If it's quite low, like Tokyo's, that carries a heavier weight.

I think it is totally over for Tokyo if that is indeed the last IOc survey . getting down to bellow 70 percent is one thing going into the mid 50's cripples the bid simply because the IOC could probably see a Denver occurring with that type of Polling considering we are Pre Bid Awarding . You get the Stories similar to London 2012 in Tokyo for 2016 and you might see the politicians Throw back the Games because of an angry Japan Public.

Madrid can have all the High polls they want but back to back Summer Olympics in Europe is not going to Happen in the Age to TV rights in the Billions. Also There has not been a situation of 3 European Summer Games in the space of 12 years in the TV Age and you have to go as far back as 1936 , 1948 and 1952 to have anything like that After the games came off the European continent for the Second Time with Los Angeles 1932.

Again this is the Fight of the Two Americas' Candidate Cities vying to provide American Tv with Great Staging Timezones for the Billion dollar investment by NBC or some other American Network. Question is will Chicago be a Second time awarded host and only the Second Summer Games Vote Victor from the US or will Rio 2016 Break new ground for the IOc similar to Beijing 2008 ?

October 2 Be There LOL

Jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former host cities being a bad choice except for G8 capitals is a complete fabrication, and hardly based on fact.

"Madrid much too soon for a return to Spain" Really? You mean like Atlanta was too soon after Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City was too soon after Atlanta. ??? Again, utter nonsense. If anything, Madrid is the safest option for the IOC, especially in times of a global economic meltdown. Also let's not forget that Madrid actually beat London in the second round of voting for the 2012 games.

If your assumption that Greenwich Mean Time is such a 'BAD' deal for NBC and in turn the IOC, then please explain why New York did not succeed in their bid for 2012 with or without securing a site for the Olympic stadium. If NBC's involvement with the IOC cements such a 'done-deal' for Chicago, why have a bidding process in the first place? Indeed, why would any non US city even bother to bid given the result has already been decided.

The bidding process is by no means such a 'done deal'. London proved that when up against some of the greatest world capitals. There is no doubting the vast sums of money invested by NBC. However, a sound technical bid supported by an effective lobbying campaign CAN make a difference. You make IOC members sound like NBC lap-dogs, which clearly they are not.

Let me just say that I think Chicago would stage an amazing Olympics. You only have to read their bid book to realise this. Yet, Tokyo's technical bid is superior and far more innovative in my opinion. If Chicago is to win, then it should be on it's own merits and not because a US broadcasting network sealed it's fate.

Lets Put it this way in regards to Atlanta being too soon after Los Angeles. There indeed would be no Barcelona 1992 if the US did not step in Twice in the 1980s to take hosting duties that Europe or the rest did not want . Lake Placid 1980 and Los Angeles 1984. Would that not account for Anything in the Eurocentric IOC that was on its knees ?

With Atlanta we are talking the World Headquarters of the Longest Olympic Sponsor Coca Cola. Couple that with Coke Bringing in McDonalds as a new Tops Sponsor since that with LA 84 and why wouldn't you go to the Largest Economy in the world who saved the Olympics? It certainly was not going to Europe a second consecutive Time or to Melbourne for the 40th anniversary of the 1956 games or Toronto a mere 20 years after a disastrous Montreal Games that nearly killed the Olympic Movement. Gosh Coca Cola by Bid election time for 1996 was into their 6th decade of Sponsoring the Games . Does that spell out money to You and where the IOC indeed knows where the Majority of their Revenues come from? Sydney 2000 started a practice unheard of in sports Festivals that they Ided as a huge Weakness for Australian Cities Bidding for 1992 and 1996. Sydney was the first to Commit to Paying for the Flights for Athletes , Officials and support personal. Melbourne and Australia would be at a huge disadvantage because of the extra costs of Getting to an Australian Games. Post Sydney 2000 paid air flights are standard practice for All Sports Festival bids.

Again read the Bid results and you will find no continent has had a repeat host city via two bid elections except Europe . London , Berlin and Rome all select twice Via Election . Paris Selected once via election and once appointed. Athens appointed for the first addition and then taking 108 years to return with a bid Election.

Los Angeles the only Repeat Summer Games Host City outside Europe NEVER ELECTED !!!! and they just happened to save the Games Twice. Mexico City 1968 Denver 1972 , Montreal 1976 Lake Placid 1980 , Los Angeles 1984 and Calgary 1988 . Quite the run in North America Then you get into the 1996 ,2002, 2010 olympics in North America

New York 2012 simply could not succeed with the United States of America Re-electing George W Bush in 2004 and the continuing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. April of 2004 the Abu Ghraib Prison Torture story was in Full Bloom . Any type of Sympathy Card for New York City post 911 to garner votes evaporated very quickly with American Prison Guards humiliating Iraqi Prisoners for the World to see in Photographic Evidence. Remember 2005 was the Bid Election Year for 2012 . New York could have had the best bid in the World But Geopolitics Clearly was going to Prevent them from Winning. Besides it is new world post the Salt Lake City Bribery Scandal.

Yeah returning to the 9th largest economy in the world a mere 24 years after Barcelona to have evening events like Swimming and Gymnastics staged at 4pm Eastern Standard Time for the third Olympics in 12 years is really going to have American TV and Sponsors lining up to Pay a Billion Dollars for Madrid 2016 or what the IOc wants , an increase in the revenues that will mainly come from Corporate America. Think of it how long between games for London or the UK ? 56 years , Italy 52 years between Rome 1904 that they were awarded and Rome 1960. Germany 36 years between Berlin 1936 and Munich 1972. Paris or France Still waiting and it will be 96 years between Summer Olympics for France at least if they bid and won the 2020 games.

The Influence of TV right rules and the dog with the Biggest Bone eats the most Being the US of A. The Only Chance Chicago has of Losing is if Rio Wins over them.

Jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit that it seems that Rio has momentum, but they are risking "peaking to early"

We shall see how the next five months go...

could be but you have to admit they are steady in their climb . Everyone thought they would be cut from the Shortlist and yet they seem to be the Talk of the Evaluation committee beyond the mere polite things said about all. When Asked at the Press Conference about Negatives and Positives the Head of the Evaluations Stated they saw nothing but positives with Rio 2016. I think they have a realistic estimate while the others are getting the Questioning about Finances in much harder terms . All these places could state the Same Estimate as Rio but the estimates from others only opens the IOC up to a PR counter campaign of why it will cost double or Triple the Original Estimates for Madrid , Chicago and Tokyo.

Rio has showing the Evaluation committee abilities to put the city into Games livery like I can't recall hearing another city doing.

Places put up their Banners but Decorating a Traffic Tunnel Entrance ? That takes the Cake Along with the Lite Rio 2016 in the Beach Sand viewed by the Evaluation committee from sugarloaf. Toasting Champagne over that site has to move the Evaluation Committee like nothing else this Bid election. Then there is Pele Live and in Person on the Soccer Field. That is way better then Michael Jordan on a Big Screen and a Recorded Message. Tactile that is what Rio 2016 is trying to press and it may indeed work for them. At the Same time Rio seems to be climbing others seem to be failing back .

Jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the general sentiment that Western Europe would host combined with the NYC stadium fiasco were the main reasons for NYC's loss. But I can't believe "ill will because of Iraq" was really a reason. If Iraq was really a factor, London would not be hosting 2012.

Rob your country's Troops were not stupid enough to strip naked Iraqi Prisoners and leak the Photos to the World press in 2004. As much as we can think the IOC is above politics I think the failure of that for the Americas could reflect in Punishment for the Vote that was held one year after the Reports of Abu Ghraib prison. If they can't run a prisoner of war camp without embarrassment how do they run the Olympics ? The Stadium Deals for NYC 2012 certainly did not help but also the lack of Federal Government Guarantee in America generally hurts the US for Olympic Bids really. The Iraq war and the Re Election of George W. bush probably played some Role .

jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone thought they would be cut from the Shortlist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...