baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Oops, I wanted to say "He didn't SPECIFY if Rome is going to bid for 2020 or later."Sorry! I got that because he probably has more sense than his colleagues across the Med. You can tell him "2020 is not an opportune time to bid. " 2020 - Capetown 2024 - probably Paris 2028 - Rio 2032 - an Asian city 2036 - perhaps back to Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinderella Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Grazie, Cenerentola. Siempre estoy correcto en muchas veces. But let's go down the list of cities you just mentioned: Prague - well, didn't make it this time. Doubtful about yachting venues Lisbon, Valencia - after Barcelona and Madrid Milan -- they're more intereste in fashion than sports. Youshould know, the CONI never takes them seriously. Warsaw, Budapest, Brussels -- maybe in 3026 Nice - if Paris can't even win, more so Nice? Copenhagen and Dublin - too small; not a snowball's chance in hell. That's why they're getting the IOC Sessions, as a 'consuelo.' Hamburg - after their disaster with Leipzig, the German Olympic Committee will only put forward Berlin. If there are Alpha cities (London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow in Europe), the IOC will go with those. It is a known fact (and Rogge has already said those (for those of you who follow every breath and comma of the IOC officials), a city has to at least have a metro population of 2.5 million to make a serious summer Olympic bid. It only makes sense. There has to be a critical mass to put on something so large and which will have a profound impact on its citizens lives afterwards, good or bad. So then we can already list down the next 15 future SOG: London, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Chicago, Shanghai, Berlin, Los Angeles, Busan, Madrid, Toronto, Istanbul... and then again London, New York and so on?? Maybe we won't see Nice hosting (i'm quite old already, hahaha!) but I'm sure Games will change and we'll see new frontier cities hosting further more than Cape Town and Istambul. The most of them in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloxley Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Only 4th? Therefore, why should it carry more weight than Tokyo, Rio and Chicago?? Maybe because the famous consulting company EUROMONITOR, said that in the year 2006 Madrid tops Tokyo, Chicago and Rio in the number of tourists received: Top 150 City Destinations 2006 City Ranking '000 tourist arrivals Madrid 17 3,921 Rio De Janeiro 35 2,185 Tokyo 51 1,467 Chicago 64 1,062 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 So then we can already list down the next 15 future SOG: London, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Chicago, Shanghai, Berlin, Los Angeles, Busan, Madrid, Toronto, Istanbul... and then again London, New York and so on?? Maybe we won't see Nice hosting (i'm quite old already, hahaha!) but I'm sure Games will change and we'll see new frontier cities hosting further more than Cape Town and Istambul. The most of them in Europe. okey...si lo dices. I'm betting on Madrid right now with the bookies!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lehari Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I got that because he probably has more sense than his colleagues across the Med. You can tell him "2020 is not an opportune time to bid. "2020 - Capetown 2024 - probably Paris 2028 - Rio 2032 - an Asian city 2036 - perhaps back to Europe. I can see that you are quite busy here with the Spaniards! Wanted to ask if it's sure that Cape Town is bidding for 2020? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad about MAD Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 okey...si lo dices. I'm betting on Madrid right now with the bookies!! Really, i think that the marketing department of the Rio bid has employed you to buzz everywhere against its biggest rival: Madrid. Are we sure this guy is not one of those idians or philippines who work for buzzmarketing campaigns? An just in case somebody tells me this is racist. Please, that people exist, they are everywhere but especially in India (english) or Argentina (spanish). Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloxley Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Really, i think that the marketing department of the Rio bid has employed you to buzz everywhere against its biggest rival: Madrid. Are we sure this guy is not one of those idians or philippines who work for buzzmarketing campaigns? An just in case somebody tells me this is racist. Please, that people exist, they are everywhere but especially in India (english) or Argentina (spanish). Regards, If he is, after 20.000 posts he must be rich by now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad about MAD Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 If he is, after 20.000 posts he must be rich by now.... LOL. That means he really know how to do his job eficiently. But i don't think a marketing action in the Social Web had success for an olympic bid election, where normal people don't vote but IOC members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloxley Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 LOL. That means he really know how to do his job eficiently. But i don't think a marketing action in the Social Web had success for an olympic bid election, where normal people don't vote but IOC members. OMG, you have already posted over 15.000 messages... are you one of "them" too? hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloxley Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 OMG, you have already posted over 15.000 messages... are you one of "them" too? hahaha Sorry! I got confused!! you are a poor Madrileño tax payer just like me... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad about MAD Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Sorry! I got confused!! you are a poor Madrileño tax payer just like me... :lol: Gallardón's taxes for everything... I also have to suffer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Maybe because the famous consulting company EUROMONITOR, said that in the year 2006 Madrid tops Tokyo, Chicago and Rio in the number of tourists received:Top 150 City Destinations 2006 City Ranking '000 tourist arrivals Madrid 17 3,921 Rio De Janeiro 35 2,185 Tokyo 51 1,467 Chicago 64 1,062 But you just said Madrid is the 4th most visited in Europe? So why are you now citing the other non-European cities' visitors rankings ...which means nothing in terms of Olympci selection because: - if there are already too MANY year-round visitors, therefore having an Olympics is superfluous. It would disrupt an already thriving industry. - Having an Olympics normally SCARES off the people who do NOT wnat to be anywhere near an Olympics. - Therefore it should go to the city with the least active tourism industry...in order that it might help them. This is just like Mad's argument about Madrid having the most built of the 4...therefore it needs to benefit the most? Yeah, like a hole in the head!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Wanted to ask if it's sure that Cape Town is bidding for 2020? Ask Mo Rush. He's their expert. One hint: World Cup 2010 will be behind RSA when the selection for 2020 happens in 2013, therefore... And, unlike another southern hemishere country which shall remain namelss, and wants to go for the Big O even before it is known whether they can deliver the goods for 2014 or not. See what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloxley Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 But you just said Madrid is the 4th most visited in Europe? So why are you now citing the other non-European cities' visitors rankings ...which means nothing in terms of Olympci selection because:- if there are already too MANY year-round visitors, therefore having an Olympics is superfluous. It would disrupt an already thriving industry. - Having an Olympics normally SCARES off the people who do NOT wnat to be anywhere near an Olympics. - Therefore it should go to the city with the least active tourism industry...in order that it might help them. This is just like Mad's argument about Madrid having the most built of the 4...therefore it needs to benefit the most? Yeah, like a hole in the head!! Im worried about you contradicting yourself all the time. I guess you dont care if the final objective is to attack Madrid. Before you said that "why Madrid should weight more than the other cities if they are only 4th". Well, 4th in Europe, which means a lot more tourists that any of the other cities can get. Now that Madrid is on top of that list, you say that that´s not something good for Madrid because the Olympics will scare tourists and so on.... Im sorry, but Statistics are facts. And given Madrid's role in today's world I can´t think on another city of its status that didnt get the Olympics yet. So it´s Madrid turn, in 2016 or later, but they will come sooner than later, Im sure of that. Madrid only needs to host an event like the Olympics so it can have the same global marketing campaign other cities had in the past. It´s airport is among the busiests in the world; according to the magazine Fortune, Madrid is in the top 10 cities with more global companies (only Tokyo is up there with Madrid); one of the highest per capita income cities in Europe; and a very long etc.... just to give a few statistics. and well, you talk a lot about money and the weight of the American TV rights ... well, Im sure Madrid will also use the weight we have in the world to get the olympics, but Im happy you are not aware of the importance of Madrid because actually it´s good for us that we appear as the bid with less possibilities to get the games.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Im worried about you contradicting yourself all the time. I guess you dont care if the final objective is to attack Madrid.Before you said that "why Madrid should weight more than the other cities if they are only 4th". Well, 4th in Europe, which means a lot more tourists that any of the other cities can get. Now that Madrid is on top of that list, you say that that´s not something good for Madrid because the Olympics will scare tourists and so on.... Im sorry, but Statistics are facts. And given Madrid's role in today's world I can´t think on another city of its status that didnt get the Olympics yet. So it´s Madrid turn, in 2016 or later, but they will come sooner than later, Im sure of that. Madrid only needs to host an event like the Olympics so it can have the same global marketing campaign other cities had in the past. It´s airport is among the busiests in the world; according to the magazine Fortune, Madrid is in the top 10 cities with more global companies (only Tokyo is up there with Madrid); one of the highest per capita income cities in Europe; and a very long etc.... just to give a few statistics. and well, you talk a lot about money and the weight of the American TV rights ... well, Im sure Madrid will also use the weight we have in the world to get the olympics, but Im happy you are not aware of the importance of Madrid because actually it´s good for us that we appear as the bid with less possibilities to get the games.... OK, foxley...NO ARGUMENT from me!! I really hope Madrid wins because I just put money on her with the bookies!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Im sorry, but Statistics are facts. And given Madrid's role in today's world I can´t think on another city of its status that didnt get the Olympics yet. You bid against one of them in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Only 4th? Therefore, why should it carry more weight than Tokyo, Rio and Chicago?? It was a QUESTION?? And you said "...Well, 4th in Europe, which means..."... not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lehari Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Ask Mo Rush. He's their expert.One hint: World Cup 2010 will be behind RSA when the selection for 2020 happens in 2013, therefore... And, unlike another southern hemishere country which shall remain namelss, and wants to go for the Big O even before it is known whether they can deliver the goods for 2014 or not. See what I mean? Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloxley Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 You bid against one of them in 2012. Im sorry, but Paris organized the Olympics twice, London will get two Olympics too and Moscow one time back in 1980... So no, no many cities at the same level of Madrid in Europe or anywhere else have not organized Olympics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm speaking of New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinderella Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 But you just said Madrid is the 4th most visited in Europe? So why are you now citing the other non-European cities' visitors rankings ...which means nothing in terms of Olympci selection because:- if there are already too MANY year-round visitors, therefore having an Olympics is superfluous. It would disrupt an already thriving industry. - Having an Olympics normally SCARES off the people who do NOT wnat to be anywhere near an Olympics. - Therefore it should go to the city with the least active tourism industry...in order that it might help them. This is just like Mad's argument about Madrid having the most built of the 4...therefore it needs to benefit the most? Yeah, like a hole in the head!! In 2005 I would have loved read some posts like this from you, Baron, my old friend... Madrid was the last in tourism incomes within the 5 short-listed and you never said anything similar to this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloxley Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm speaking of New York. That's why you need some other things to win the bid, not just the fact that you never organized the games, and that´s why is presenting this amazing bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 In 2005 I would have loved read some posts like this from you, Baron, my old friend... Madrid was the last in tourism incomes within the 5 short-listed and you never said anything similar to this well, I never knew that because I think it is a non-factor. I mean sort-of 'ugly, over-crowded, polluted' cities (let's say, Mumbai, Calcutta, Jakarta, Manila, etc.) wouldn't even make the first cut. And even a previous host like Mexico City today...even the Mexican OC will not enter it in the race knowing it will be thrown out. They were thinking of entering Monterrey in the last round. My point is...if you are a major tourist destination, then certainly you have something going for you. And the 4 finalists this year are major tourist magnets and all have their qualities of beauty (or at least to their supporters). So whether you attract 2.5 mi or 1.5 mil tourists a year shouldn't really matter in the selection. But certainly, if you already have a thriving tourist trade, why tinker with success? (I have a cousin in Chicago who is a very generous woman but she is against having the Games there. Out of courtesy's sake and because she had done some nice things for me in the past, I haven't exactly told her to go get her head examined. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_O_S Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm afraid that's wrong. The US pays at least double what Europe does.NBC paid $2.2 billion for the 2010 and 2012 Olympics. The EBU bought rights for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics and 2012 Summer Games in London for $746 million in 2004. http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/155060/i...-3bn-tv-bonanza I somehow thought that wasn't true, but it seems like the EBU lobbies quite well and gets a really good price. TV rights:1. Unless the US nationalizes its TV industry and puts into law ONLY One network, it will always be way ahead of even the EBU rights. Uhmmm, just like the selection of the host city, there are always at least 3 serious bidders for the US TV rights -- and this is what keeps the pulse of the IOC racing. Which will be the sucker American TV network this time? Most of EUrope is covered by one bidding body, the EBU. Therefore how can you compare those 2 scenarios?? Even China with over a billion people, still buys the Olympics CHEAP, CHEAP - muy baratissimo -- because they have only the state-run network bidding...and the IOC takes it or leaves it. (India might be the same.) 2. INFLATION is a factor all around. If European TV rights will go up ...so will US TV rights correspondingly. Why should the rate inflation be limited to one continent? 3. Private finance -- you forget that the last 3 Games held in the US all made money: LA - $223 million; Atlanta - $10 mil; and Salt Lake - $56 mil. The citizens of those cities and counties are NOT in hock for the next few generations unlike the Montrealers and Mexico City residents -- or even the Chinese who of course can't open their mouths vis-a-vis the $40 billion spent by their overseers. So how can that be a bad thing? If you are privately financed, you can also pretty much issue certain rules and regulations of how you want the Games run...which you would not otherwise be able to do if you were using public monies. Look at the thread on the suit of the women ski jumpers in Vancouver in that folder. About TV rights, I've answered above. Inflation, I regard that as a minor issue. I was talking more in terms of demand and supply. Private finance can be very good or awfully bad. The profits made in Atlanta (especially considering the size and revenues) and Salt Lake City are ridiculous if compared to the investment (and risk) taken. In any case, I guess the problem is if any of the investors falls through during the years running to the Olympics (and thus putting the whole thing at stake) rather than the profits made at the end. By 2016 there will be no recession. However, work is to start now and the recession won't be gone until mid-2010 (and even that nobody really knows for sure). The problem with private financing is that if a sponsor or donor falls short there is no guarantee that the money will be on the table. In any case, Europe has always gone differently to the US in that matter, and it's neither better nor worse: just different. The point being that government backed-up spending is a plus in times of economic uncertainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 The point being that government backed-up spending is a plus in times of economic uncertainty. Uhmm...yes and no. Montreal and Mexico did NOT have enough funds to pay for their parties -- and their citizens were still paying a special tax until 30 years later when those bonds were paid off and retired. I believe the Greek national budget went into the negative starting in 2005. Did it have something to do with a big party in 2004?? At least the privately-financed US Games do not impose on anyone who does not believe in the Games and that their tax money be spent on that. In that regard, the USOC is most sensitive to the individual taxpayer and recognizes that the Games are NOT for everyone -- compared to ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES where you have to still pay your taxes whether you believe in spending for the 2-week sports party or not. I'd rather do it our way...where we have a choice to support it or not. And look...who still ended up with a surplus?? (Also, like sponsors are asked for a big part of commitment upfront like 60% down within the first 2 years; and the remainder as the Games got closer. Also, you approach the blue-chip companies...not the fly-by-night, Johnny-come-latelys.) Why do you say what Atlanta and Salt Lake ended up with was ridiculous. The Games are NOT MEANT to make money. They are registered as non-profit enterprises. Therefore, their main goal in the US is to at least just break even. If there is even one cent profit, then that's GREAT!! Anything above and beyond that is gravy. But it still didn't cost the taxpayer a single dime. (Now, security costs are another issue.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.