Jump to content

Bid Index Update - 3/22/09


Recommended Posts

Once again, the word 'best' becomes a synonym for 'technically safest'. I happen to think the best bid in the true sense of the word did win in 2012. :) BUt it's hardly worth going over the 2012 arguments again.

Sure you do <_<

"Best" is subjective and means something different for everyone.

Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not any worse than Seoul did. And everything is consensual. You can't have copulation without 2 bodies.

The bad apples in the IOC gladly partook of what was being offered -- and some ACTUALLY ASKED!!

Well I think Baron Seoul Won 52 to 27 over Japan as their only opponent. The mindset in 1981 was probably that of Montreal 1976s disastrous cost overruns and that Moscow was a diplomatic disaster and then you have Los Angeles being the only city interested in hosting the 1984 games. I think it was pretty clear with Seoul having been awarded the 1986 Asian Games and already in the capital phase process for venues for those games that Seoul would be least likely to provide any surprises . Considering the Games at that point had never been hosted on the mainland of Asian Seoul would also have that advantage over Nagoya Japan as Japan had hosted the Summer Games a mere 16 years prior to the 1988 election and the Winter games a mere 9 years prior.

I see some bad news coming from the USOC/IOC commercial sharing agreements for Chicago 2016 Seems the Dutch Man is raving again . Yeah it is so unfair of the Americans to get a 20 percent cut on Sponsorship. JEEESSSSEEE could someone take the wooden shoes off that man and bonk him on the HEAD and sad NBC, GE , MacDonald's, Coca Cola and Visa own the Lions share of the Games revenue SHUT UP .

From the NEw york Times

“The greed of this organization is unlimited. Totally unlimited,” Hein Verbruggen, the former chief of the International Cycling Union and an honorary I.O.C. member, said to the Associated Press. “It infuriates everybody and especially me.”

The international federations are meeting this week in Denver at a gathering called Sportaccord. Verbruggen is its chairman.“The way they treat us, there’s no respect, no respect at all,” Verbruggen said. “It’s infuriating. I have no other words.”

The U.S.O.C., however, has emphasized that the United States generates a big chunk of the I.O.C. revenuesand that U.S.-based companies provide most of the sponsorship money. The United States television contract is also far more lucrative than in any other country. To televise last year’s Beijing Games, NBC paid about $894 million. The European Broadcasting Union paid about $443.5 million. Chinese television networks paid about $7 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/sports/o...html?ref=sports

Yeah that looks like trouble for Chicago 2016

Jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think Baron Seoul Won 52 to 27 over Japan as their only opponent. The mindset in 1981 was probably that of Montreal 1976s disastrous cost overruns and that Moscow was a diplomatic disaster and then you have Los Angeles being the only city interested in hosting the 1984 games. I think it was pretty clear with Seoul having been awarded the 1986 Asian Games and already in the capital phase process for venues for those games that Seoul would be least likely to provide any surprises . Considering the Games at that point had never been hosted on the mainland of Asian Seoul would also have that advantage over Nagoya Japan as Japan had hosted the Summer Games a mere 16 years prior to the 1988 election and the Winter games a mere 9 years prior.

I see some bad news coming from the USOC/IOC commercial sharing agreements for Chicago 2016 Seems the Dutch Man is raving again . Yeah it is so unfair of the Americans to get a 20 percent cut on Sponsorship. JEEESSSSEEE could someone take the wooden shoes off that man and bonk him on the HEAD and sad NBC, GE , MacDonald's, Coca Cola and Visa own the Lions share of the Games revenue SHUT UP .

From the NEw york Times

“The greed of this organization is unlimited. Totally unlimited,” Hein Verbruggen, the former chief of the International Cycling Union and an honorary I.O.C. member, said to the Associated Press. “It infuriates everybody and especially me.”

The international federations are meeting this week in Denver at a gathering called Sportaccord. Verbruggen is its chairman.“The way they treat us, there’s no respect, no respect at all,” Verbruggen said. “It’s infuriating. I have no other words.”

The U.S.O.C., however, has emphasized that the United States generates a big chunk of the I.O.C. revenuesand that U.S.-based companies provide most of the sponsorship money. The United States television contract is also far more lucrative than in any other country. To televise last year’s Beijing Games, NBC paid about $894 million. The European Broadcasting Union paid about $443.5 million. Chinese television networks paid about $7 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/sports/o...html?ref=sports

Yeah that looks like trouble for Chicago 2016

Jim Jones

Although Verbruggen (who is no longer an IOC member) is excessive, the fact is that, although the US companies still provide the majority of the TOP and TV rights revenues the balance has considerably shifted in the last 10 years (half of the TOP companies are now from outside the US, the EBU paid half of what NBC did for Beijing whereas in the past it was less than 20%).

Does USOC still need to get a special treatment? Yes.

Is USOC still entitled to the same special treatment as in the mid 90s? Most likely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even with half of the TOP companies are from outside the US, that's still half from the US. NBC paid more than $2-billion for the 2010 and 2012 Games. EBU may be paying more, but its vastly smaller on a per-viewer basis. Thats a whole lot of money being thrown at the IOC that I dare think they can't afford to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even with half of the TOP companies are from outside the US, that's still half from the US. NBC paid more than $2-billion for the 2010 and 2012 Games. EBU may be paying more, but its vastly smaller on a per-viewer basis. Thats a whole lot of money being thrown at the IOC that I dare think they can't afford to lose.

Have I said otherwise? No.

I have just stated the facts: the distribution of revenue provider has changed in the past 10 years and it is fair to state that the distribution of this revenue to the recipients should change too (and again, it would be fair for USOC to get more than others, no problem with that).

And also let's not get confused: USOC has its own agenda, the IOC has its own and so do the TOP sponsors and the broadcasters. One could say the TOP partners couldn't care less whether USOC get 10%, 20 or 50% of what they pay the IOC as long as their marketing rights remain the same. Since we don't know what's going on backstage, it is very difficult to assess the balance of power between the various stakeholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so funny. Anyone I talk to about the bid here in Chicago says "Their now in last place you know..." I gave up trying to explain that it is just a website, and that all of the cities were very close.

Thanks GamesBids!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so funny. Anyone I talk to about the bid here in Chicago says "Their now in last place you know..." I gave up trying to explain that it is just a website, and that all of the cities were very close.

Thanks GamesBids!

Find or make up a great analogy....didja know _________(fill in a filly...Seabiscuit or Seattle Slew) came in from behind to win the fabled ___ Runf of the Roses? That'll impress them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so funny. Anyone I talk to about the bid here in Chicago says "Their now in last place you know..." I gave up trying to explain that it is just a website, and that all of the cities were very close.

Thanks GamesBids!

Well, you should rather thanks the lazy media reporting only fragment of info: just the ranking of GB without any context, without stating how close the bids are and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Verbruggen (who is no longer an IOC member) is excessive, the fact is that, although the US companies still provide the majority of the TOP and TV rights revenues the balance has considerably shifted in the last 10 years (half of the TOP companies are now from outside the US, the EBU paid half of what NBC did for Beijing whereas in the past it was less than 20%).

Does USOC still need to get a special treatment? Yes.

Is USOC still entitled to the same special treatment as in the mid 90s? Most likely not.

and what type of Special Treatment is the Country that saved the 1932 summer games , the 1980 winter games and the 1984 summer games from being without hosts getting that isn't both earned and deserved? Holland or any other country certainly did not step forward to save the games ever. If indeed the United States decided tomorrow to turn their backs on the Olympics from the supply of revenue standpoint there would indeed not be an Olympics . I would say the new Asian Tops sponsors probably themselves provide much more in actual hard cash then the European top sponsors which with Omega probably is very much a goods in kind deal . With the Chinese finally agreeing to a fee of 100 million euros for the TV rights for Vancouver and London maybe it is time for the European broadcasters to step up to the plate as well and actually break the 50 percent mark of what the US pays. 20 percent for a country with the overwhelming share of revenues for the games which would be gone if it wasn't for that same country's intervention three times

is a very fair deal. Of course Hey Verbruggen certainly felt entitled to moneys from the Japanese to try to get a cycling event from Japan in the Olympics . Funny thing is without the very -place he hates for their revenue share he would not have that opportunity in the the 1990's to have 3 million from the promoters of Keirin to forward the event to the Sydney 2000 olympics. Ironic HUH on one hand taking money and jumping into the rafters for an obscure sport from Japan while complaining about the money the USOC gets for delivering a games that would not exist with US money from their global businesses. I wonder how come Mr. Verbruggen hasn't secured tops money from Shell or Phillips Electronics for the Olympic Movement? Maybe some of his rich countrymen don't think his words are that sincere?

Jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even with half of the TOP companies are from outside the US, that's still half from the US. NBC paid more than $2-billion for the 2010 and 2012 Games. EBU may be paying more, but its vastly smaller on a per-viewer basis. Thats a whole lot of money being thrown at the IOC that I dare think they can't afford to lose.

downtown Blue NBC pays more then 2 dollars to every single dollar the EBU does . NBC also comes along with General Electric as a tops sponsor does Coca Cola and Mcdonalds. What we are talking about here is the USOC taking 20 percent of the Revenues generated from Us broadcasting rights and Us based Tops Sponsors not the entire Tops or World Broadcasting Right Revenues. In other Words the IOC gets 80 percent of the American Revenues to do with what they like including how much a host city gets . Considering on three occasions it was only the US bidding to host the games 1932 summer , 1980 winter and 1984 summer the factions that push this from the IOC should really think of quiting this while they are ahead LOL.

Coca Cola has been a sponsor since 1928 and is the longest sponsor. McDonalds has been a sponsor since 1984 , Kodak 1988, American Tv by far has been paying more then the rest of the world combined for a very long time. Until the rest of the world starts paying dollar for dollar what the US does then there should not be any complaints about taking 80 percent of all US revenues from the Olympics back to Switzerland LOL. The problem is for this man in Holland is that his fellow Europeans are tight with the wallets in comparison to the Americans. Why is that? Perhaps they are preventing Capital flight to the Athletes of the World?

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You conveniently ignore the fact that I have posted which is that the trend is for companies and broadcasters from outside the US to pay an increasing share of the Olympic Movement revenues...

What's the fact that the US has saved the Games three times's got to do with that? When do you estimate the Olympic Movement will have paid its debt to the US?

What are you making about London saving the Games twice?

The US companies supporting the Olympic Movement do it because it is in their own interest (and rightly so!): everyone knows it, the IOC, the USOC... The current negotiation is focused on trying to adjust the revenue sharing to reflect the shift of balance between the sources of revenue whilst protecting the interest of every stake-holder: that's business as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When do you estimate the Olympic Movement will have paid its debt to the US?.

So every "Americas" turn, US will win?

Last two "Americas" turns: Los Angeles 1984 and Atlanta 1996.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dannyelbrazil, now you could say that Brazil saved the Soccer World Cup by being the only bidder for the 2014! :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW, I'm sure that in Brazil there would be a wonderful atmosphere during the Olympics because the people are sooooo passioned for the sports.

It would be a one big, colourful party! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dannyelbrazil, now you could say that Brazil saved the Soccer World Cup by being the only bidder for the 2014! :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW, I'm sure that in Brazil there would be a wonderful atmosphere during the Olympics because the people are sooooo passioned for the sports.

It would be a one big, colourful party! :)

But in World Cup, when it was "Americas" turn:

Brazil - 1950

Chile - 1962

Mexico - 1970

Argentina - 1978

Colombia (because a Earthquake it was changed to Mexico) - 1986

United States - 1994

Brazil - 2014

More interesting rotation in Americas turn...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the other bids Colombia and Chile/Argentina pulled out.

Argentina and Chile never intended to host the 2014 WC. Those reports were just silly rumors .

Colombia took part on the bidding process , but FIFA wasn't thrilled about it and they made the smart move to give up. All signs since the beginning were clear from FIFA - the 2014 WC would be held in Brazil no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was discussed between Chilean and Argentine officials but in the end they thought it would be too complicated and decided instead to support Brazil.

I am happy Brazil is hosting in 2014, I firmly believe events should go to were they will be supported and Brazil will definitely do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in World Cup, when it was "Americas" turn:

Brazil - 1950

Chile - 1962

Mexico - 1970

Argentina - 1978

Colombia (because a Earthquake it was changed to Mexico) - 1986

United States - 1994

Brazil - 2014

More interesting rotation in Americas turn...

You forgot about 1930 - Uruguay

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...