2016 Evaluation Report

[Rob2012]

OK, the criticisms we expected such as Chicago's lack of a full financial guarantee and Rio's spread out venue plan are all there, so I'm not going to mention them for now. The quotes I've listed below, however, are things which took me by surprise a little bit:

Chicago:

The emphasis on major temporary or scaled down venues increases the element of risk to the OCOG in regard to the planning, costing and delivery of the venues.

This isn't something I really expected to see. Do major temporary venues really increase the complexity of planning, costing and delivery?

Tokyo:

During the venue visits, it became apparent to the Commission that a number of venues listed as existing would in fact need to be built.

How sloppy is this? That's shocking, it really is. But aside from that, Tokyo seemed to get a good write-up so maybe they'll get away with it.

Rio:

The difficulty to obtain guarantees for cruise ships seven years before the Games places extra pressure on Rio 2016 to meet Games demands.

While hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup will accelerate infrastructure delivery and provide valuable organisational experience, it also represents a challenge with respect to 2016 Games marketing and communications strategies.

The first point about accommodation seems to be a real worry. I certainly expected crime to be mentioned (althogh that's been largely turned to a postive regarding falling numbers) and the spread out nature of the venues is also something I expect and it has been mentioned. Accommodation is another thing to put on the "things to do list". As for the world cup, I think that sentence sticks out like a sore thumb; I wasn't expecting the EC to put it in such blatent terms - the world cup is a concern although the infrastrcuture is of course a positive.

Madrid:

The Candidature File and supporting documentation, as well as the administrative structure proposed for a Madrid 2016 Games, did not demonstrate a full understanding of the need for clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, including financial, between different stakeholders to ensure an efficient and timely transition to the OCOG, or of the management of operations required to implement the Games vision, concept and plans. Given the current complexity and magnitude of delivering a major multi-sports event such as the Olympic Games, this could result in organisational and financial challenges.

At the time of the visit, it was unclear whether Spanish antidoping legislation complied with the WADA code. It is important that this issue is resolved.

Documentation and presentations provided to the Commission by the key organisations involved in the bid varied in quality.

A real downer of a conclusion for Madrid and a shock for me. I honestly expected Madrid to shine in this report - and doing so was really their only hope of upsetting the odds. I don't like to count my chickens, but I'm tempted to say we can rule Madrid out after reading this. How can a second bid in four years provide materials of variable quality? That's a worrying sign.

-------

So, as far as I'm concerned, having read all of the conclusions and skim-read the rest, there's not much to choose between Tokyo, Rio and Chicago. Madrid, who I really expected to shine, has a shockingly underwhelming report.

I'll read it in more detail another time. Who knows whether most IOC members will...

[Athensfan]

It seems clear that, barring some masterful lobbying, Madrid will be out in the first round.

I suspect Tokyo will be out second.

That leaves Chicago and Rio in the final.

Obama must show in Copenhagen for Chicago to have a chance.

It would definitely appear that the EC took a shine to Rio. No mention of the Opening Ceremonies and cauldron in the football stadium. Glossed over the crime issue with as much subtlety as possible. Much emphasis on "social integration" and "sport legacy" -- more Olympic catch phrases in Rio's summary than the other's. This report combined with their status as the sentimental favorite may be enough to put Rio over the top.

Chicago has to pull out all the stops -- mend bridges with everybody they possibly can. Above all, Obama must be in Copenhagen.

[Pure facts]

Chicago:

The emphasis on major temporary or scaled down venues increases the element of risk to the OCOG in regard to the planning, costing and delivery of the venues.

This isn't something I really expected to see. Do major temporary venues really increase the complexity of planning, costing and delivery?

The key word here is OCOG: putting a lot of construction work in the OCOG budget (due to the temporary nature of the venue) as opposed to the non-OCOG budget does increase the level of risk of OCOG for project, budget and delivery of the venues (most of these tasks are handled by ODA in the case of London 2012, not LOCOG).

Chicago does not plan an Olympic Delivery Agency like London have and like Rio plans. I guess to be fair, one should compare CHICOG budget to Rio + ODA budget.

To be honest I don't think it is a major issue.

I was more surprised by the rather strong criticism of some of Chicago transportation plan elements.

I agree with Rob, Madrid is the big shocker for me: it's their second back to back bid and they come out as somehow amateurish (other than that, timing issue excepted, their plan is clearly excellent).

Rio's issues were expected but the way the report is worded none of them is a fatal blow, far from it.

Stating the obvious, it is clear that it's most likely down to Rio and Chicago with Rio gaining momentum. Exciting session ahead.

[Rob2012]

The key word here is OCOG: putting a lot of construction work in the OCOG budget (due to the temporary nature of the venue) as opposed to the non-OCOG budget does increase the level of risk of OCOG for project, budget and delivery of the venues (most of these tasks are handled by ODA in the case of London 2012, not LOCOG).

Chicago does not plan an Olympic Delivery Agency like London have and like Rio plans. I guess to be fair, one should compare CHICOG budget to Rio + ODA budget.

To be honest I don't think it is a major issue.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Doesitmatter]

Like for example, there is the other HUGE event in 2014 which will possibly DEPLETE marketing and sponsorship opportunities for 2016.

Which is a huge concern and pointed out in the EC report. Money talks, does it not?

[Felipe Menegaz]

Media around the world highlighted Rio...

[Rafa]

OK, the criticisms we expected such as Chicago's lack of a full financial guarantee and Rio's spread out venue plan are all there, so I'm not going to mention them for now. The quotes I've listed below, however, are things which took me by surprise a little bit:

Chicago:

The emphasis on major temporary or scaled down venues increases the element of risk to the OCOG in regard to the planning, costing and delivery of the venues.

This isn't something I really expected to see. Do major temporary venues really increase the complexity of planning, costing and delivery?

Tokyo:

During the venue visits, it became apparent to the Commission that a number of venues listed as existing would in fact need to be built.

How sloppy is this? That's shocking, it really is. But aside from that, Tokyo seemed to get a good write-up so maybe they'll get away with it.

Rio:

The difficulty to obtain guarantees for cruise ships seven years before the Games places extra pressure on Rio 2016 to meet Games demands.

While hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup will accelerate infrastructure delivery and provide valuable organisational experience, it also represents a challenge with respect to 2016 Games marketing and communications strategies.

The first point about accommodation seems to be a real worry. I certainly expected crime to be mentioned (althogh that's been largely turned to a postive regarding falling numbers) and the spread out nature of the venues is also something I expect and it has been mentioned. Accommodation is another thing to put on the "things to do list". As for the world cup, I think that sentence sticks out like a sore thumb; I wasn't expecting the EC to put it in such blatent terms - the world cup is a concern although the infrastrcuture is of course a positive.

Madrid:

The Candidature File and supporting documentation, as well as the administrative structure proposed for a Madrid 2016 Games, did not demonstrate a full understanding of the need for clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, including financial, between different stakeholders to ensure an efficient and timely transition to the OCOG, or of the management of operations required to implement the Games vision, concept and plans. Given the current complexity and magnitude of delivering a major multi-sports event such as the Olympic Games, this could result in organisational and financial challenges.

At the time of the visit, it was unclear whether Spanish antidoping legislation complied with the WADA code. It is important that this issue is resolved.

Documentation and presentations provided to the Commission by the key organisations involved in the bid varied in quality.

A real downer of a conclusion for Madrid and a shock for me. I honestly expected Madrid to shine in this report - and doing so was really their only hope of upsetting the odds. I don't like to count my chickens, but I'm tempted to say we can rule Madrid out after reading this. How can a second bid in four years provide materials of variable quality? That's a worrying sign.

-------

So, as far as I'm concerned, having read all of the conclusions and skim-read the rest, there's not much to choose between Tokyo, Rio and Chicago. Madrid, who I really expected to shine, has a shockingly underwhelming report.

I'll read it in more detail another time. Who knows whether most IOC members will...

Chicago:

The IOC was not commenting on temporary venues. It was unhappy that these large costs are now OCOG responsibilities.

In the view of the IOC, OCOG run and operate the Games, they DO NOT fund major venue construction, IBC/MPC, or the villages. The fact that the main olympic venue, even if they are temporary are cost burdens to the OCOG, makes the IOC less happy.

Had these been covered by public funds, then they would be very happy. If the budget for venues becomes shaky (see London 2012), other critical elements e.g.banners, signage, may take a knock. The IOC do not want operational costs to be burdened because of capital costs.

Lets face it, an 80,000 seat stadium, 20,000 seat aquatic centre, 20,000 capacity tennis venue, while temporary are large high profile venues.

Tokyo:

The definition of existing varies quite a bit. They can blame it on "lost in translation"

Rio:

It is a worry BUT thats only 8,500 of the 48,000 guaranteed rooms, leaving 40,000 rooms guaranteed which is fairly acceptable. Rio meets requirements even without cruise ships.

I must say though, the IOC were very lenient! Only 13,000 hotel rooms are guaranteed.

Madrid:

As before, the Madrid weak point remains with its leadership. Mercedes is not the right person.

That said, don't you for one minute think the Samaranch's won't be pulling out the stops to get Madrid through Round 1.

Madrid remains the best bid, the IOC were just looking for things to complain about. It remains the least risk option.

[Felipe Menegaz]

Associated Press"

Exactly a month before the final vote, all four cities bidding for the 2016 Olympics received a mix of praise and criticism Monday in an IOC report assessing their technical merits.

The International Olympic Committee's evaluation report gave generally high marks to Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, but also listed concerns on various grounds.

Rio — seeking to take the Olympics to South America for the first time — may have gained the most, receiving the fewest direct criticisms in the report summary. Chicago, long considered a front-runner, took some hits, especially on the lack of financial guarantees.

The 98-page report also cited low public support in Tokyo and a lack of understanding of different roles in Madrid.

[Rob2012]

An AP report with no direct quotes. I'm not reading much into that, but thanks for posting it all the same.

[Soaring]

I am a bit surprised by the IOC raising concern for Chicago's transit especially Metra (not CTA). I don't think Chicago 2016 did a good enough job explaining it. I think the current system would be more than enough, especially if they add rail cars, and increase the frequency during off peak hours.

[Felipe Menegaz]

Well, I think that Madrid was murdered by the report. Probably will not survive the first round.

[FYI]

Well, it's virtually obvious that the IOC EC is paving the Yellow Brick road for a Rio win. This report smells a lot like the 2008 one, ala Beijing. And the most surprsing review of all was Madrid's grade in this report. Lack of understanding?? Puhleeze! Really? They had plenty of "understanding" 4 years ago, but now all of a sudden they don't get "Olympic requirements"? And Rio wasn't even in the finalist picture 4 years but they "understand" now. Whatever. Madrid is just getting sacked for the main obvious reason; London 2012. Madrid is being sacrificed, just like Osaka was in the 2008 report. What a joke.

And Rio's 4 cluster venue plan getting a fairly good pass? WTF is that all about? The IOC all along harps about compactness & convenience & then comes out with this?? Not to mention the transportation challenge within Rio's 4 clusters. I bet Tokyo feels like a fool now with their most compact plan of the 4 cities. It seems that the only subtle negative for Rio was the FIFA 2014 World Cup, but even that was pretty much glossed over, too. Whatever.

I also agree that Obama HAS to go to Copenhagen now, for Chicago to have a decent shot at winning this. Cause it seems blatantly obvious that this "report" is just shining all over Rio, despite all the clouds hovering over their bid. Insane.

[tpman]

I don´t know if Madrid was murdered by the report, but it´s a shock to read all the stuff against. I found weird the issues on Chicago´s transit. What we can say now is Rio 2016 is gaining momentum a month before the big day.

[BSTOUT1221]

After reading Chicago and Rio and lightly skimming Madrid and Tokyo, two things that jumped out at me were

#1 - the Eval Commission seemed to love Chicago's Olympic Village concept - referred to it as 'spectacular' a few times

#2 - despite all the "Rio can do it" - the sheer money in USD that the government is kicking in is mindboggling - including over $600M just to meet OCOG expenses alone - in addition to the $11+B USD the government is planning to spend in capital improvements - having been to Rio, I am doubtful that the government and security will be 'cleaned up' to Olympic standards by 2016 with only $11-12B being spent - at least $3-4B will go to waste and fraud leaving maybe $7-8B to actually do some work - that line was missing in the budget!

Agree in general with other comments that Madrid and Tokyo were shown the early exit - justified or not - the words were critical enough to give the IOC voters a convenient excuse to not vote for them - not that they were planning to anyway!

[cslopes54]

Is it confirmed that the other presidents will attend or not so required? Lula wil probly go; if Obama attend I don't think it will have a great impact,But it would be greater if he doesn't show up at all.

[Rob2012]

It would definitely appear that the EC took a shine to Rio. No mention of the Opening Ceremonies and cauldron in the football stadium.

I suppose, technically that isn't a problem; and this is a technical report after all.

But that will be something IOC members will be aware of despite this. And I can't see it being a plus point for the bid.

[FYI]

Btw, isn't that against the Olympic Charter?

[Felipe Menegaz]

Rede Globo (Owner of the 2016 Broadcast Rights in Brazil) cited GamesBids on its website: Site de apostas ressalta disputa acirrada pelos Jogos Olímpicos de 2016

[M_O_S]

The best thing about the report is that, thanks to Jacques, they've been pretty clear about what's good and what isn't. There's no middle-terms, no neutrality and not a single bid gets away with anything. In my opinion, there's quite a clear message behind the report: no bid is perfect and they all have quite a bit to work on this month. I'll only get into the main issues:

Chicago- clearly the IOC is by no means surprised nor very happy about the all-private funding system of the games. It's given the US the benefit of the doubt after Atlanta '96 but I by no means that system is perfect. If Chicago does not go with a full guarantee to Copenhagen, there will be problems I'm sure of that. Besides the fact that Chicago requiring a change in IOC procedures I'm sure hasn't been impressive to a sizeable amount of the IOC. Then there are some technical issues but nothing important, or at least not to the Committee. There's a comment about the wind, but since the venues have been approved by the relevant federations it should be fine.

Tokyo- Technically very, very good, but has an problem which is difficult to resolve: the city is just huge. And big cities have transportation problems. Apart from that, I've found the comment on Hotel rooms quite interesting, since they only guarantee the places between the Opening and Closing dates but obviously everyone will arrive before and leave after that. In any case the worst problem for Tokyo is support: the IOC is not willing to take the games to a place where they aren't wanted by a sizeable amount of the population. I think that's Tokyo's biggest issue. Plus Beijing '08.

Rio- Now everyone is talking about Rio and I agree that it has grown up to a full, well-managed bid. However, technically it's inferior to the other three. It's not as developed as the remaining bidding cities and that causes problems with transportation and comfort in general. It's topography, as beautiful as it is, doesn't help much either. Plus they have the World Cup two years before, which has been explicitly pointed out as a marketing problem (read: less advertising benefits).Nevertheless Rio has what it wanted: the Committee's confidence in organising the games with guarantees but it's still far from being the best bid. How confident IOC members are on that, is yet to see.

Madrid- it has surely become the ugly duck of the race, at least apparently. I say apparently because I believe the problems that the IOC has spotted on the bid are Micky-Mouse issues taken out so that there was some substantial criticism as with the other three. No security issues, no funding, no low support figures...Both the WADA issue and the "organisational" problems will be solved way on time because they're more an issue of how they've been presented and explained rather than being problematic themselves. Technically the only real criticism has been to the improvement of some of the venues (such as the Olympic Stadium) that could carry some financial and organisational risk: minor bull**** if you ask me. Likewise in my view the rowing canal bridge comment is very, very minor issue and I'm sure nobody is going to look at it more than once. A more serious problem is that of the weather- Madrid is hot, very hot during the summer, similar to Athens- which it's expressly mentioned could "involve changes in the schedule of the competitions". I see that as a warning to try and celebrate most of the competitions either late in the afternoon-night or early in the morning. And that's a piss-off for most sportspeople, even with low humidity. And, of course, there's London 2012.

What's my opinion? Chicago needs to get the funding and drive Obama there, Tokyo might as well boost it's support up-although it's difficult to do at this stage, Rio should boost it's momentum so that it's inferior technical aspects are ignored and Madrid's greatest challenge is to explain fully those two or three minor issues in the presentation and, once and for all, do a proper presentation! I think they're by no means ruled out, and with given they're the last city to pull out the video and that they have a very good PR team (Royal Family, the Samaranch's and prominent Spanish sportspeople) it is achievable. Any city has the same chances to be be ruled out in the first voting as any other.

As with all IOC reports, this is just an orientation. However I insist in not trying to drive out definite conclusions from this because I see this report's intention clearly aimed at getting the bids moving and trying to keep the cities perfecting their bids until the end. If voting was right now, Rio would probably win given that it drove with Chicago to the final. What happens in one month's time is pretty unclear. But do not rule out any city because you could well get a surprise. It's going to be tight, very tight.

[M_O_S]

PS. My bet is for Rio if Chicago gets to the final round. If for some odd reason, one of the American cities gets wiped out in the first or second votation, my bet is that either Tokyo or Madrid (whoever is there) will get the games.

[Pure facts]

Btw, isn't that against the Olympic Charter?

No.

The Olympic Charter -available on the IOC Web Site BTW so you could do your homework- states that the Olympic Flame has to burn at the Olympic Stadium but nowhere is the Olympic Stadium defined as the Track & Field Stadium.

[FYI]

Thank you, I appreciate it. But you don't have to be snide about it.

[aluz]

I believe that most people here have missed an important point here. I even saw a comment disregarding explicit signs of this important clue of the report issues this afternoon.

The way the bid was presented played a major role!

In this matter, I would say, by reading the report that the Rio OC probably was far beyond the others in selling its proposal. Madrid's, on the other hand, was sloppy.

The fact that for every negative point there was a positive statement in Rio's evaluation means that either Rio anticipated those questions and included them in the docs or they were promptly and firmly answered when asked. I believe that's why they mentioned the very high quality of the presentation. On the top of that, issues presented as Rio's challenges like OCs out of the Athletics stadium was a pro, came out as actual bonuses. The 4 cluster plan has much more positive than negative remarks. I don't think it is only a love affair with Rio, it's the OC work behind the bid.

Madrid, on the other hand, exposed a huge weakness. Apparently, they felt that some of docs and presentations did not address the points they were expecting to assess. They probably did not get good and immediate answers to some questions. That might have been the root cause of such a bad evaluation report for Madrid, despite the denial of some people in this forum. As you can see in this bulletin form MSNBC, the Madrid OC felt the hit rather badly.

http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32638689/ns/sports/

Let's not forget that a good bid is also about the people who are going to deliver this event and, since it would not be very polite to criticize the committees individually, their assessment must be shown in some way to the IOC members. I don't know if this is something that will be significant to swing votes, but I have learned how to read between the lines in such a situation. And that's how I felt.

By the way, I think Tokyo and Chicago made very good presentations as well, but probably there was something lacking. Maybe it was the enthusiasm that we have seen in the Sports Accord presentations from Rio. Whoever has done presentations and sales - after all this is about selling a project - before knows that for people to believe in you, they must feel that you believe even more. Emotion is key on good speakers, just look at Obama.

[M_O_S]

I believe that most people here have missed an important point here. I even saw a comment disregarding explicit signs of this important clue of the report issues this afternoon.

The way the bid was presented played a major role!

In this matter, I would say, by reading the report that the Rio OC probably was far beyond the others in selling its proposal. Madrid's, on the other hand, was sloppy.

The fact that for every negative point there was a positive statement in Rio's evaluation means that either Rio anticipated those questions and included them in the docs or they were promptly and firmly answered when asked. I believe that's why they mentioned the very high quality of the presentation. On the top of that, issues presented as Rio's challenges like OCs out of the Athletics stadium was a pro, came out as actual bonuses. The 4 cluster plan has much more positive than negative remarks. I don't think it is only a love affair with Rio, it's the OC work behind the bid.

Madrid, on the other hand, exposed a huge weakness. Apparently, they felt that some of docs and presentations did not address the points they were expecting to assess. They probably did not get good and immediate answers to some questions. That might have been the root cause of such a bad evaluation report for Madrid, despite the denial of some people in this forum. As you can see in this bulletin form MSNBC, the Madrid OC felt the hit rather badly.

http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32638689/ns/sports/

Let's not forget that a good bid is also about the people who are going to deliver this event and, since it would not be very polite to criticize the committees individually, their assessment must be shown in some way to the IOC members. I don't know if this is something that will be significant to swing votes, but I have learned how to read between the lines in such a situation. And that's how I felt.

By the way, I think Tokyo and Chicago made very good presentations as well, but probably there was something lacking. Maybe it was the enthusiasm that we have seen in the Sports Accord presentations from Rio. Whoever has done presentations and sales - after all this is about selling a project - before knows that for people to believe in you, they must feel that you believe even more. Emotion is key on good speakers, just look at Obama.

As I've said, it will be tight and whilst I think Rio is on a momentum (and they should make the most out of this), the "huge weaknesses" from Madrid aren't other than communicative and WADA-related. Communicative can be solved with a good presentation and good PR. The WADA issue has full backing since days before the IOC came to Madrid a new law regulating doping in Spain was passed through Congress. This does not leave MAdrid without problems, since London is still there and so are other issues. What I'm trying to say is that Madrid's problems have been magnified and, at least those referred to in the media, are minor and of easy fixing.

Either way I'm not surprised Chicago got so run over on financing nor Tokyo on support.

[Pure facts]

Well, it's virtually obvious that the IOC EC is paving the Yellow Brick road for a Rio win. This report smells a lot like the 2008 one, ala Beijing. And the most surprsing review of all was Madrid's grade in this report. Lack of understanding?? Puhleeze! Really? They had plenty of "understanding" 4 years ago, but now all of a sudden they don't get "Olympic requirements"? And Rio wasn't even in the finalist picture 4 years but they "understand" now. Whatever. Madrid is just getting sacked for the main obvious reason; London 2012. Madrid is being sacrificed, just like Osaka was in the 2008 report. What a joke.

And Rio's 4 cluster venue plan getting a fairly good pass? WTF is that all about? The IOC all along harps about compactness & convenience & then comes out with this?? Not to mention the transportation challenge within Rio's 4 clusters. I bet Tokyo feels like a fool now with their most compact plan of the 4 cities. It seems that the only subtle negative for Rio was the FIFA 2014 World Cup, but even that was pretty much glossed over, too. Whatever.

No need to overreact the way you do. Clearly the report is different from what you were hoping for but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is biased as you imply.

Never has the Evaluation Commission mission been to elect the best technical bid but to carry out a risk assessment. And that is pretty much what it does (in a still very diplomatic).

Rio's plan is clearly identified as weaker as the other three. There is no covering up of the fact that Rio is less compact than the other three (the table summarising the distances from OV illustrates that fact). In particular it is explicitly stated that Rio's plan is aimed at "maximizing use of existing venues", is "aligned with the transport infrastructure" whereas for some other cities, the EC report clearly states that on of the guiding principles for venue selection has been to minimize travel time for the athletes.

As I already told you compactness is an asset but it shouldn't be overrated. And the IOC has always been clear on the fact that the ideal bid should balance compactness with legacy, should fit in the city urban development plan, should be coherent with existing and planned transport infrastructure... The plan presented by Rio is not great with respect to athletes travel time but still acceptable and more importantly, it makes sense in Rio's context

.

IOC members putting athletes comfort above every other things probably won't vote for Rio period.

FIFA World Cup, as was obvious from the beginning, is mentioned as both an opportunity (investment made for WC will benefit the Olympics) and as a challenge (domestic marketing programme). Honestly, what else would you expect?

The only surprising part is Madrid and that is indeed strange (although I suppose it is possible that Madrid's presentation to be of lower level than the others), although, if you read the whole Madrid section, the bid is still rated rather highly.

For once, I find it is a more balanced report than usual. At least it clearly points out the weaknesses of each bid which was not the case for the 2014 one.