what if 5 top european cities bid for 2016?

[cube]

i really don´t know if this is stupid or possible but what if....

5 euroepan major cities bring up top bids for 2016

lets say

Madrid

Rome

Berlin

Paris

Moscow

and then we have bids from a US City and from southamerican cities like Buenos Aires and Rio

then the shortlist is done by quality and not geographical reasons

so we could have back to back games in europe, or?

would the IOC change his rules?

[Rob2012]

More likely the list will be:

Berlin

Moscow

Istanbul

Rome - are you sure?

Madrid - I thought they were going to wait until 2020?

Paris won't bid for 2016! In any case, the US city will reach the final stage, and 2016 looks like it's the USA's to lose. If their bid is solid the combination of unofficial rotation and huge TV revenues from a US games will swing it for them IMHO. There's always a small possibilty of a European games, but for that to happen the US city would have to have a disasterous campaign.

If a South American city like Rio bids, I wouldn't be surprised to see them on the shortlist ahead of the likes of Moscow and Istanbul.

[cube]

i just said what would be IF

most likley Paris will not bid, and Madrid too

but what would happen if there are 5 strong bids from europe

how would it influence the shortlist?

would they change the rules for the shortlist, or what?

[SOlympiadsW]

change what rules? the IOC can shortlist as many or as little cities as they want...

but in the end, as others have already said 2016 won't be going to Europe most likely....

[Suit U Sir !!!]

There's always a small possibilty of a European games, but for that to happen the US city would have to have a disasterous campaign.

It depends upon which city the USA put forward for 2016.

If they put NYC or Chicago, then the USA will be poised to win 2016, despite strong European bids.

However if they put forward a non-appealing, non-iconic city like Nashville, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Portland, Charlotte, then the USA will lose.

I mean who would reject cities like Berlin and Rome for somewhere like Portland, Oregon?

[Mikel]

Yeah, I agree with you...

[SOlympiadsW]

There's always a small possibilty of a European games, but for that to happen the US city would have to have a disasterous campaign.

It depends upon which city the USA put forward for 2016.

If they put NYC or Chicago, then the USA will be poised to win 2016, despite strong European bids.

However if they put forward a non-appealing, non-iconic city like Nashville, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Portland, Charlotte, then the USA will lose.

I mean who would reject cities like Berlin and Rome for somewhere like Portland, Oregon?

I agree if the USOC in fact goes with a city liek the ones you listed (with the exception of a strong Philly bid) it would be completely stupid of them, and honestly if they lost 2016 because if it to lets say Europe I personally wouldn't care because they shouldn't be playing with fire when they have the big world class cities the IOC wants willing to host like NYC, Chicago, etc.

[Sir Rols]

There's always a small possibilty of a European games, but for that to happen the US city would have to have a disasterous campaign.

It depends upon which city the USA put forward for 2016.

If they put NYC or Chicago, then the USA will be poised to win 2016, despite strong European bids.

However if they put forward a non-appealing, non-iconic city like Nashville, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Portland, Charlotte, then the USA will lose.

I mean who would reject cities like Berlin and Rome for somewhere like Portland, Oregon?

I agree if the USOC in fact goes with a city liek the ones you listed (with the exception of a strong Philly bid) it would be completely stupid of them, and honestly if they lost 2016 because if it to lets say Europe I personally wouldn't care because they shouldn't be playing with fire when they have the big world class cities the IOC wants willing to host like NYC, Chicago, etc.

Just like the Germans learnt their lesson with Leipzig 2012.

Even if the USOC tried to win with the likes of a Cincinatti, Cleveland or (sorry Joseph) Minneapolis-St Paul against the likes of Rome, Paris or Berlin, I still reckon that rather than going back to Europe, 2016 would end up in somewhere like Osaka, Toronto or Rio.

Any European bid for 2016 is just going to be more of a trial run for 2020 or 2024.

[Kenadian]

See, this is the trick to the geopolitics question.  What if something funny happened at the USOC and Chicago and NYC imploded or cancelled each others bids out and Nashville became the US candidate?  Then Stockholm, Rome, Berlin and Paris all launched bids.  Can the IOC really pick a city like Nashville over these great European capitals just because London is hosting 4 years earlier?  Just because it has never happened before does not mean it cannot happen.  And this is the main reason the USOC must pick the right choice for 2016.  They do have a geopolitical advantage right now, but it is not a sure thing.  They can't afford to squander this opportunity on a city that doesn't offer much excitement or on a city that does not really feel passionate about hosting the Games.

A love of sport won the Games for Sydney, history won the Games for Athens, untapped potential won the Games for Beijing, and passion won the Games for London.  The city that offers all these things for 2016 will win.

[Suit U Sir !!!]

Can the IOC really pick a city like Nashville over these great European capitals just because London is hosting 4 years earlier?  

Also, another thing to remember is that the IOC have already done this once in the past when they picked Atlanta (which prior to 1996, was largely unknown outside of North America)over Athens, a world famous European capital, and the international media wrote a lot of bad/ negative things about Atlanta 1996 games.

This means that the chances of something like that happening again, ie. Nashville being chosen over Berlin or Rome is unlikely to happen again.

[Rob2012]

Can the IOC really pick a city like Nashville over these great European capitals just because London is hosting 4 years earlier?  

Also, another thing to remember is that the IOC have already done this once in the past when they picked Atlanta (which prior to 1996, was largely unknown outside of North America)over Athens, a world famous European capital, and the international media wrote a lot of bad/ negative things about Atlanta 1996 games.

This means that the chances of something like that happening again, ie. Nashville being chosen over Berlin or Rome is unlikely to happen again.

Oh feck, you've done it now Suit U!

Fingers crossed Baron doesn't read this thread.

[Mikel]

Can the IOC really pick a city like Nashville over these great European capitals just because London is hosting 4 years earlier?  

Also, another thing to remember is that the IOC have already done this once in the past when they picked Atlanta (which prior to 1996, was largely unknown outside of North America)over Athens, a world famous European capital, and the international media wrote a lot of bad/ negative things about Atlanta 1996 games.

This means that the chances of something like that happening again, ie. Nashville being chosen over Berlin or Rome is unlikely to happen again.

Oh feck, you've done it now Suit U!

Fingers crossed Baron doesn't read this thread.

Atlanta was a #### and baron can't change it... :upside:

Athens 1996 and then Rome 2004 would have been much better!!! :suspect:

[Suit U Sir !!!]

Oh feck, you've done it now Suit U!

Fingers crossed Baron doesn't read this thread.

I don't see myself as being scared or intimidated by  individuals typing posts over the internet.

The fact remains that regardless of what individuals think about the 1996 Atlanta games, whether they were a success (which is what BPIV has stated) or failure, the international media did not say nice things with regards to the job that Atlanta did of hosting the 1996 olympics. Whether this is fair or unfair is another discussion altogether.

As a result, this makes it less likely that less well-known US cities (like Atlanta prior to 1996), will be successful at beating established, major world cites like Rome, Berlin, Tokyo.

With regards to olympic bids, world perception/ reputation is more important than individual opinions. Is the world interested in a Kansas City olympics? No. Are they interested in NYC? Yes

[Rob2012]

Oh feck, you've done it now Suit U!

Fingers crossed Baron doesn't read this thread.

I don't see myself as being scared or intimidated by  individuals typing posts over the internet.

The fact remains that regardless of what individuals think about the 1996 Atlanta games, whether they were a success (which is what BPIV has stated) or failure, the international media did not say nice things with regards to the job that Atlanta did of hosting the 1996 olympics. Whether this is fair or unfair is another discussion altogether.

As a result, this makes it less likely that less well-known US cities (like Atlanta prior to 1996), will be successful at beating established, major world cites like Rome, Berlin, Tokyo.

With regards to olympic bids, world perception/ reputation is more important than individual opinions. Is the world interested in a Kansas City olympics? No. Are they interested in NYC? Yes

OK, that post is very true.

[baron-pierreIV]

Can the IOC really pick a city like Nashville over these great European capitals just because London is hosting 4 years earlier?  

Also, another thing to remember is that the IOC have already done this once in the past when they picked Atlanta (which prior to 1996, was largely unknown outside of North America)over Athens, a world famous European capital, and the international media wrote a lot of bad/ negative things about Atlanta 1996 games.

This means that the chances of something like that happening again, ie. Nashville being chosen over Berlin or Rome is unlikely to happen again.

Oh feck, you've done it now Suit U!

Fingers crossed Baron doesn't read this thread.

He-he, Rob.  Actually, I've just read this.  

In answer to the original question:  then it's time to put an Olympic Bid Consultancy agency since there are so many fool...err, prospective clients lining up at the door.

As for unknown US cities, yes, when we know which other European capitals will bid, then I will definitely back Kewanee, ILL against them.  

That would put things on an even par.  

:unclesam:

[Suit U Sir !!!]

As for unknown US cities, yes, when we know which other European capitals will bid, then I will definitely back Nashville

Yes of course - people would would most definetly prefer to go and see things like The Bell South building in downtown Nashville rather than stuff like the Colliseum and The Vatican in Rome, or things like Notredame, Arc De Triomphe, Eiffel Tower in Paris.

[baron-pierreIV]

As for unknown US cities, yes, when we know which other European capitals will bid, then I will definitely back Nashville

Yes of course - people would would most definetly prefer to go and see things like The Bell South building in downtown Nashville rather than stuff like the Colliseum and The Vatican in Rome, or things like Notredame, Arc De Triomphe, Eiffel Tower in Paris.

Kewanee, Ill, is actually a much better competitor against the likes of the old monuments.  Kewanee is the Hog Capital of the World!!  They know a thing or two about competition there.   :wink:

[JDPinstripes]

Oh feck, you've done it now Suit U!

Fingers crossed Baron doesn't read this thread.

I don't see myself as being scared or intimidated by  individuals typing posts over the internet.

The fact remains that regardless of what individuals think about the 1996 Atlanta games, whether they were a success (which is what BPIV has stated) or failure, the international media did not say nice things with regards to the job that Atlanta did of hosting the 1996 olympics. Whether this is fair or unfair is another discussion altogether.

As a result, this makes it less likely that less well-known US cities (like Atlanta prior to 1996), will be successful at beating established, major world cites like Rome, Berlin, Tokyo.

With regards to olympic bids, world perception/ reputation is more important than individual opinions. Is the world interested in a Kansas City olympics? No. Are they interested in NYC? Yes

Is New York going to build a gigantic beautiful Olympic Park like London and Beijing are?

If this is about the bid...Philly and Chicago are the best cities on the board and Houston slightly behind.....If this is about untapped potential, it's New York City and nowhere else.

Any American bid put forth for the most part has far better infastructure, and in place venues then any Leipzig, or Moscow bid. And will be a safer bet, and less expensive then both Athens and Beijing.

Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Philly, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, Minneapolis, Detroit.....any of them...

[Suit U Sir !!!]

If this is about the bid...Philly and Chicago are the best cities on the board and Houston slightly behind.....

I  know what you're trying to say and I do agree with you. I'm sure that perhaps cities like Houston, Philadelphia can produce a bid that is superior to an American alpha city like New York.

But you have to remember that sometimes the best bid/ winner of domestic competitions don't always stand the best chance in the international field. There are many examples:

2000- Manchester beat London to be chosen as the UK's candidate city. The city ended up getting only 11 votes in what was a 2 way battle between Sydney and beijing.

2012- Leipzig beat off cities like Hamburg (Germany's 2nd largest city) to be selected as Germany's candidate, yet was not shortlisted.

Domestic city battles are a whole differnet ball game to international competition. NYC would stand a far better chance of being awarded thesummer olympics with a bid that is technically inferior to that of cities like Houston and Philadelphia.

[MercifulZeus!]

Of course, one of the perennial problems with the US is its size. Local associations on one coast are often not too bothered about which city from the other coast gets chosen for the bid. I imagine many upstate New Yorkers and New Englanders would rather see the Games in Toronto than Los Angeles, San Francisco or Seattle, or at the very least don't care either way.

[ribtickle]

I don't think it matters too much about being the big city of a location (re NYC or Chicago). Interesting that Barcelona is Spain's second city and won.

Wouldit have been different if Shanghai had bid and not Beijing?

Yes the USOC city choice is important, but there are a number of well known US cities that could easily host, as there are across Europe, consider St Petersburg, Milan, Hamburgetc. However, I think that if the USOC candidate implodes, its more likely to go to Canada choice, or an Asian candidate before coming back to Europe. The cities probably know that and wouldn't muster such a grand bid.

[Mikel]

The IOC will prefer Rome, Madrid or other European cities than Houston, Philadelphia, Cincinnati or Tampa...

[Faster]

Philadelphia is actually a really nice city, with far better infrastruture for a games than NYC because of the limits NYC and the lack thereof in Philadelphia.

In truth i would perfer a Philadelphia, Boston or Chicago Olympics over a NYC. Logistics in NYC is extremely complicated and there is the potencial for delays because of lawsuits like for Athens

[SOlympiadsW]

Philadelphia is actually a really nice city, with far better infrastruture for a games than NYC because of the limits NYC and the lack thereof in Philadelphia.

In truth i would perfer a Philadelphia, Boston or Chicago Olympics over a NYC. Logistics in NYC is extremely complicated and there is the potencial for delays because of lawsuits like for Athens

ummmm Faster....first of all a statement like taht can not be made at this time because we just don't know or have any clue what bids from Philly, Chicago, or Boston would be....all could host....but to say that their infrastructure and politics would be better is just a random statement that can not be backed at this time....in fact the political situation would be worse in most of those cities....and there is nothing complicated logistaically about NYC's bid....

as for Philly, I love the city and have a lot of family there....but I just don't see it.....

[baron-pierreIV]

The IOC will prefer Rome, Madrid or other European cities than Houston, Philadelphia, Cincinnati or Tampa...

This is really one of the most implausible suppositions.  5 Euro cities bidding again after an 80% European shootout last July?  

Anyway, Mikel, in September 1990, the IOC picked a certain Southern US city over Athens, Manchester, Melbourne and Belgrade -- a solid 51 in favor of Atlanta over a mere 35 for Athens.  And Su Palpatinidad, Samaranch, was in power then -- so you can't make such absolute, sweeping statements like that.  Don't think every person in the IOC is as thrilled about Europe.  History has a way of repeating itself.