baron-pierreIV Posted August 21, 2009 Report Posted August 21, 2009 I think it's a stronger argument that a Rio 2016-Capetown 2020 is unlikely to happen because obviously, as Soaring said, people cannot help but draw comparisons between the IOC and FIFA (with the IOC not looking good in that comparison). And the IOC is very touchy about their image. (I just got a letter from their Legal Dept. giving me the go-ahead on some issues; and not on the other.) So I doubt that a Rio 2016 will likely spell the way for a Capetown 2020.
ken Posted August 21, 2009 Report Posted August 21, 2009 Ok, SA will prove itself next year but Brazi already hosted an WC, so... do they need to prove anything? Yes, they have to prove Rio 2016 will be safe basically. Maybe Rio 2007 can be used as a proof too. In my opinion, if Chicago gets 2016, then 2020 will be perfect for Istambul: somewhere new, more reachable, safer, not so poor (?), islamic. Actually Fifa 2010 could be bad for S.A. because people will have already seen it... spoils a bit, uh? I reaffirm my feelings that the IOC won't give games to southern Africa before S.America because the region as whole is more unstable. Even if Rio doesnt get, there are so many options there for the future (Santiago, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, or other Brazilian cities). I am definitely going to Cape Town soon, which is a long standing dream and I think they deserve it for the same reasons as Rio - and I will be supporting them. But I suspect I will have more hassle to sell Cape Town here (because of the social problems). I believe Rio 2016 could be used by me in the future in defence of C.T. I still think Africa could in principle profit from S.America. Unless they want to compete to see who gets it first, but as a long term strategy seems less risky to me. To sum up, , I wouldn't say African won't vote for Rio.
Felipe Menegaz Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Posted August 22, 2009 Many opinions, many theories, many "if"s, many "but"s, many... And that is most exciting thing, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!
Felipe Menegaz Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Posted August 22, 2009 Many opinions, many theories, many "if"s, many "but"s, many... And that is the most exciting thing, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN! P.S. - I will watch October 2 with a defibrillator nearby.
Pure facts Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 South-Africa bidding for 2020 is not even sure and having a decent shot is a whole another story. Just because South-Africa will most likely host a great World Cup next year won't automatically make it a favourite for 2020 should they bid: Even with the WC, South Africa has limited experience in hosting sports events (in particular large multi-sports events - and yeah, Rio 2007, though not perfect, brought the PanAm Games to a new level and is a considerable asset in Rio's bid) Those doubting about Brasil financial resources to host the Games in 2016 cannot seriously think that South-Africa would be in a better situation to host 2020 (they are not playing in the same league) Social and security issues are as present in South-Africa as they are in Brasil Transport and accommodation will be issues just as they are for Rio I am not saying that a South-African bid wouldn't stand a chance for 2020 but that it would certainly be very far from the shoe-in some of you seem to think it would be. We'll see what the Evaluation Commission report will say about Rio but I would think that, should no major risk be identified, for IOC members wanting to award the Games to new territory passing over a decent Brazilian bid in hope of awarding the Games to Africa four years later is a huge gamble.
Rob2012 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 Ok, SA will prove itself next year but Brazi already hosted an WC, so... do they need to prove anything? Difference being Brazil's world cup is four years off, and the IOC will know for most of their preparations for 2016, Brazil will have to be juggling two huge events. South Africa's will have been three years before the 2020 vote. It'll be a fond memory and proof of SA capabilities.
Kenadian Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 The IOC, like a pick up artist at a bar or a pick pocket in the park, makes its call based on the opportunity present, not on what could potentially be around the next corner. Any potential 2020 bidders are as relevant to the 2016 decision as the pack of 2016 bidders were to the 2012 decision.
Rob2012 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 Maybe you're right, but the potential damage to a Cape Town bid that Rio 2016 could do seems so obvious that I think it will be in African delegates minds, even if they are likely to vote for the Brazilian City.
ken Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 Wise words, Pure facts! That's exactly what I think. Rob, I wasn't talking about WC 2014 but the one with Maracanan hosting the final.
Felipe Menegaz Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Posted August 22, 2009 Wise words, Pure facts!That's exactly what I think. Rob, I wasn't talking about WC 2014 but the one with Maracanan hosting the final. The 1950 FIFA World Cup, held in Brazil.
Felipe Menegaz Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Posted August 22, 2009 Will Cape Town realy bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics? Everyone talks as it is already confirmed... And the rest of Africa realy want only South Africa to enjoy all the pleasures of hosting a big event?
Rafa Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 All I'm gonna say is that Cape Town shortlisted back in 1997 as an infant city. That was before it was a top 10 tourist destination. Rio only shortlisted in 2008. Cape Town's venues would also not be as spread out as Rio 2016's plan. Most of them have existing road and rail links.
Pure facts Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 All I'm gonna say is that Cape Town shortlisted back in 1997 as an infant city. That was before it was a top 10 tourist destination.Rio only shortlisted in 2008. Cape Town's venues would also not be as spread out as Rio 2016's plan. Most of them have existing road and rail links. You can't really compare as the process is completely different. The shortlisting process for 2004 was much more political and less technical than it is now: it was based on the Evaluation Commission report not on a technical report by experts. I honestly doubt that, had the applicant city stage been in place for 2004, Cape Town would have been shortlisted but will never know. My point was not to say that South Africa wouldn't stand a chance for 2020. Just that it won't be a shoe in and that it will have to address pretty much the same issues as Rio currently does (and yeah, Cape Town could probably came up with a more compact plan than Rio but compactness is overrated: Madrid and Paris had more compact plans than London, Tokyo and Madrid are more compact than Chicago or Rio).
Soaring Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 I by no means feel that Cape Town would be a shoe in for 2020, just as none of the four bidding cities this time are a shoe in. Many of us were just saying is that some African IOC members might not choose Rio, because South Africa has expressed significant interest in placing a bid for 2020, and many see that the World Cup could be a positive attribute to a bid if everything goes well.
baron-pierreIV Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 Without Rio 2016, Capetown would be a shoo-in for 2020.
Felipe Menegaz Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Posted August 22, 2009 I by no means feel that Cape Town would be a shoe in for 2020, just as none of the four bidding cities this time are a shoe in. Many of us were just saying is that some African IOC members might not choose Rio, because South Africa has expressed significant interest in placing a bid for 2020, and many see that the World Cup could be a positive attribute to a bid if everything goes well. Nice new picture Soaring!
DannyelBrazil Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 Without Rio 2016, Capetown would be a shoo-in for 2020. South Africa votes for Chicago, no doubts...
ken Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 I'd guess Kenya will also vote for Chicago. Does anyone think historical ties with Africa could play an important role in the votes? I mean, is there any tendency of northern countries go for Spain and central/southern countires spliting between Chicago and Rio? By the way, which country has more African influences, the US or Brazil?? It seems to be about the same, doesn't it? In my opinion, though, this is not a key point.
jim jones Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 With President Obama there, CHicago of course. Why should they vote Rio? That'll kill a CapeTown 2020. Why should they vote Madrid? They know that Spaniards have harrassed black football players. Why Tokyo? They hate sushi!! Well Obama shunning Kenya and other African countries on his first Visit as president will not do Chicago 2016 any good. Many members have said they are upset with the decision to have Golf as one of the added sports. Golf did not have any type of presence of Lobbying in Abuja for the ANOCA conference while Softball , Baseball , Squash , Karate , Rugby Sevens took the African Delegates very seriously . Put on top that a game that excluded African Americans from golf courses for much of the 20th century does not come to Lobby African IOC members to be included in the Olympics and you have a legitimate Gripe. what would be on the Agenda for 2016 with golf no black's from Africa ? If an American Headquartered International Federation of Golf does not wish to acknowledge Africa IOC members then perhaps the African IOC members may not acknowledge America's bid for the Chicago 2016 games instead placing their votes with the Candidate most likely to beat Chicago 2016 being Rio 2016. It seems ironic that a Nigeria IOC member Dr. Henry Adefope would lobby hugely for the Atlanta 1996 to become America's only bid victory for the summer games and that bid was lead by Billy Payne an executive for the Augusta National Golf Course which is the home of the Masters. Dr Henry Adefope did not get behind the Atlanta bid because the US was denied hosting rights via Elections he got behind it because of the Civil rights work of Martin Luther King and Dr Andrew Young both from Atlanta. As to Capetown 2020 what benefit does the rest of Africa get by forwarding South Africa again ? People have this thought of Africa just being South Africa and that it is the only place able to do a sports festival . Why would it be in the best interest of a Kip Keino to support that when a couple of years ago Dr Rogge Encouraged a bid from Kenya for the summer Games? Generally the fastest way to get the games to Africa is Actually Via Rio because if South America can't host then the wisdom is that Africa can't host either . South America I am sure in most IOc minds would first have to be tackled as tey have hosted how many World Cup Finals before doing the Olympics while Africa will only have done one by 2010. Again like Roltel says thinking their will be a block vote maybe misplaced but the old saying here about elections is we don't vote governments in we vote them out could apply with Chicago 2016 , The New Jersey Headquartered International Golf Federation and the African delegates who feel they were slapped in the face by Golf which is primarily a game that most of your pro's come from America. You think of what is going on between the USOC and IOC with the Cable Olympic Network thing and that a point of no return was crossed against Chicago 2016 with that move . Then you compound the snub by Obama, No Athlete Legends from America coming to Abuja like Pele did for Rio 2016 and it becomes pretty clear Chicago 2016 feels they can win without an effort in Africa, Win without Africa or just take the membership for Granted. While Rugby sevens, Squash, Softball , Baseball , Karate are actually on the same page as Rio 2016 with regards to a very important event on the ANOCA Calender which included the laying of the corner stone of the New Headquarters in Abuja. The Golf Federation and no Legend America Athletes to the Abuja conference . It does not spell that Americans are very interested in the African IOC when they need the support that a Dr Henry Adefope provided for the one and only Bid Election Victory the USOC had for the Summer Games. If anything the membership of the USOC should know who helped them to win Atlanta 1996 but I guess that get left in the shuffle of the revolving Executive of the USOC. Jim Jones
baron-pierreIV Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 /\ OK, whatever. Charles Battle who was in charge of the orignal Atlanta bid's int'l relations, has been a behind-the-scenes consultant to Chicago 2016. I don't think this topic has gone undiscussed, jj.
Rafa Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 You can't really compare as the process is completely different.The shortlisting process for 2004 was much more political and less technical than it is now: it was based on the Evaluation Commission report not on a technical report by experts. I honestly doubt that, had the applicant city stage been in place for 2004, Cape Town would have been shortlisted but will never know. To be honest until I had a full copy of the Cape Town 2004 bid book, I was convinced the bid was shortlisted purely because of sentiment/politics BUT. Post bid book review, it was clear, that Cape Town pulled off a bid of class, with a clear and detailed technical plan which pretty much surprised the IOC and on technical terms it would have been part of the final 5 anyway. In terms of compact, you really can't compare Madrid, Tokyo to London. Rio's bid is not compact due to the nature/situation of its city, which means travelling to other clusters will take at least 20 minutes and in some cases 40 minutes. Try moving 10,000 athletes from the village in Barra, via Deodoro, to the Maracana cluster..thats gonna take 30 minutes. This is very different to a Madrid or Tokyo which may save 5-10 mins when compared to other bids. Overall, IMO, Cape Town would have had a better chance of shortlisting than Rio, if it had gone head to head with Rio, Doha, chicago, baku, madrid and tokyo in the 2016 race.
Pure facts Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 I never meant to say that Cape Town was shortlisted solely because politics/sentiment: if the bid had been crap, it wouldn't have made the shortlist. And I am not saying that a 2016 bid wouldn't have been shortlisted. However, based on the bid book and the EC report, I stand by my assessment that the bid for 2004 would have been seen as risky back in early 2007: lack of accommodation, transportation infrastructures, questions about private finance for certain venues, lack of experience in hosting major sports events. Though the plan by itself was sounded, I believe that the uncertainty linked to quite a few elements would have made the bid straddling over the benchmark at best (and for the record, I think Buenos Aires and possibly Athens would also straddle over the benchmark). As for compactness, I agree with your assessment of Rio but I truly believe that it doesn't matter: the IOC members have absolutely no idea what the distance represent for the athletes or spectators. As long as the Evaluation Commission report does not state something like "Transporting the athletes from Barra to Maracana will be a major challenge", it won't be an issue.
jim jones Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 Copied from another thread, but here are my thoughts on this.I'd generally agree with Rols, they won't vote as a bloc and may have a multitude of reasons. But, that said, I think a lot of their votes could go to Chicago. And Obama is not my reason for thinking this, Cape Town 2020 is: 1) If Chicago wins it removes the USA from the 2020 race. This would be a huge boost to Cape Town 2020 as a Chicago failure for 2016 would make America the hot favourite for 2020, especially if Tokyo or Madrid are the eventual 2016 victors. 2) Voting Chicago is the most likely way of preventing Rio winning 2016. The IOC won't risk two developing nations in a row, especially if by the IOC session in 2013 it looks like Rio is struggling with its preparations. So African members hoping Cape Town has a chance in 2020 won't want to see Rio win 2016; it would all but kill off their continent's chances. 3) A Chicago victory would weaken a repeat Rio bid in 2020 more than a Tokyo or Madrid victory would. This is purely because of timezones. Cape Town won't want to bid against a strong "new frontier" such as a second Rio bid; but if they have to they'll want that bid to be out of sync with the IOC's unwritten rotation cycles. The USA, because of its power and money, could follow South America but I can't see it happening the other way around. I'd suggest a sensible and fruitful strategy for Chicago would be to subtly point out what Africa has to lose by voting Rio, and what it has to gain by voting Chicago. Cape Town 2020 isn't unrealistic if Chicago wins (esecially if, as looks likely, South Africa pulls off a good world cup). It is unrealistic if Rio wins. I don't think it'll take much persuasion, and I think Chicago could pick up most of the African votes because of this simple fact. 53 nations in Africa . about 17 IOc members . about half of those are from Saharan Africa as opposed to sub Saharan Africa. are you that grouip of Members from Africa would not be in the Thinking of Dubai 2020 ? supporting their fellow Muslims/ Arabic Brothers ? OF course it is not a block but like the saying goes with election here in Canada we don't vote governments in we vote them out. The Government to be voted out could be Chicago , Madrid and Tokyo which represent the Status Quo . Generally the Conduct of two parties from America did not impress the African IOC membership at the Anoca AGM in Abuja. A. No legendary Athletes from America supporting the Chicago 2016 bid in person unlike Rio with Pele. Video tapes are insincere B. The International Golf Federation is Based in America did not send anyone to present their case to the Anoca Conference yet Golf was granted possible inclusion by the IOC. THe membership has voiced strong opinions on that boarding on the arrogance of Americans . This is a very sore spot for blacks in regards to being excluded in America to join golf clubs for much of the 20th century having their role maybe restricted to Ground keepers and Caddies. There are enough African Diaspora in America in High positions who know the stories of the Whites only country clubs. The ICF no show in Abuja only reminds the IOC membership from Africa . Ironically Chicago 2016 probably could have stolen all the African votes and had the ICF look much better light by doing one simple Thing. Getting Tiger Woods to Abuja during that conference. He actually was probably available that week as the next weekend was the Us open . You would think with a great golf course in Abuja they would have taken advantage of that. But again the Americans generally think the Africans will vote for the Nation lead by Obama it seems. No one in Africa I am sure is thinking we have to vote Rio 2016 off the island to host in Capetown in 2020. The Thinking probably is that South America successfully staging the games shores up Africa staging and that South America will probably have to host the games first before Africa does. South American Quid Pro Quo with Africa will be there in the future I am sure. Why exactly would Kip Keino or the Kenyans cede to South Africa when a couple of years ago they were encouraged to go for the games on the advice of Dr Rogge ? conventional thinking is South Ameria will stage the games before Africa. Jim Jones
jim jones Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 I'd guess Kenya will also vote for Chicago.Does anyone think historical ties with Africa could play an important role in the votes? I mean, is there any tendency of northern countries go for Spain and central/southern countires spliting between Chicago and Rio? By the way, which country has more African influences, the US or Brazil?? It seems to be about the same, doesn't it? In my opinion, though, this is not a key point. Problem is this thinking African voters are a monolithic block . 15 voters Egypt 2 Morocco 2 , Senegal 1 Gambia 1 . Guinea 1, Algeria 1 . Tunisia 1 making 9 from Saharan Africa. South Africa 1 , Namibia 1, Zambia 1, Cote dIvorie 1, Cameroun 1, Uganda 1 Making 6 for Sub Saharan Africa. All universally P O ed at the inclusion of golf without an rep from the IGF coming to press their case in Abuja in in July while all other applicate sports had strong lobbying efforts in Abuja . what is to say the african membership could not be divided into two camps sub saharan supporting Capetown 2020 and Saharan supporting Dubai 2020 ? The USOC, Chicago 2016 and the American Based IGF did not make any friends in Abuja with the Membership as the Americans showed up with Video Tapes but no Sports Legands. The Brazilian President sat in on the African Union meeting the month before. There are stronger ties between Brazil and Africa then Africa and the Us. Jim jones
baron-pierreIV Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 uhmmm, jj... is your prognosis now the same as your predictions for Abuja? Remember your credibility/prediction factor here on GB is, I think, lower than Tokyo's chances.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.