Jump to content

Why Chicago Needs To Win


Augie4040

Recommended Posts

In 2016 it will have been 20 years since Atlanta and 14 since Salt Lake.

I believe the IOC is on the cusp of adopting a New Frontier mindset, Looking forward to giving the games to South America, Africa, and SE Asia.

If Rio doesn't win it will surely get 2020 or 2024. Cape Town, Rio, and Mumbai, will be on the short list well into the 2030s.

Chicago on the other hand wont be on anyones shortlist ever again. The very rumor that Tulsa, Oklahoma is bidding for 2020 shows how little faith the USIOC has in getting another summer olympics in the next 20 years.

I would love for Rio to win the 2016 games, and I don't want to be a snotty American, but America is DUE. We put soo much money into the Olympics and the IOC gets most of its revenue from the US, and if that means Chicago beating out a cooler Rio games than I think thats how it should be, AMerica needs 1 more olympics before the IOC starts giving games to the more obscure parts of the world(WHICH I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF),

The Games should be used to break new grounds, but if Chicago doesnt get 2016 it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME until Unite States or even Chicago ever have a prayer of winning the Games.

it very well could be:

2016 Rio

2020 Cape Town

sure they could give Amsterdam 2024 but 2028 will be Cairo or Bangkok or something odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
In 2016 it will have been 20 years since Atlanta and 14 since Salt Lake.

I believe the IOC is on the cusp of adopting a New Frontier mindset, Looking forward to giving the games to South America, Africa, and SE Asia.

If Rio doesn't win it will surely get 2020 or 2024. Cape Town, Rio, and Mumbai, will be on the short list well into the 2030s.

Chicago on the other hand wont be on anyones shortlist ever again. The very rumor that Tulsa, Oklahoma is bidding for 2020 shows how little faith the USIOC has in getting another summer olympics in the next 20 years.

I would love for Rio to win the 2016 games, and I don't want to be a snotty American, but America is DUE. We put soo much money into the Olympics and the IOC gets most of its revenue from the US, and if that means Chicago beating out a cooler Rio games than I think thats how it should be, AMerica needs 1 more olympics before the IOC starts giving games to the more obscure parts of the world(WHICH I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF),

The Games should be used to break new grounds, but if Chicago doesnt get 2016 it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME until Unite States or even Chicago ever have a prayer of winning the Games.

it very well could be:

2016 Rio

2020 Cape Town

sure they could give Amsterdam 2024 but 2028 will be Cairo or Bangkok or something odd.

Don't panic. The IOC is not about to suddenly have a rush of blood to its collective heads and start handing out hostings upon hostings to the latest exotic far flung corner willy nilly. One hosting, IF or when they get round to taking the plunge, will do them for a good while - at the very least until whichever new frontier gets it proves itself in operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Augie4040, I don't think the IOC is going to vote for consecutive new frontiers anytime soon, but I do agree that this could very well be Chicago's only shot at hosting in the next 20-30 years. The mayor is the driving force behind the bid here, and he will not be in office forever.

I am sure Rio, Madrid and even Tokyo will be putting forth another bid in the near future if they loose, but I am very doubtful Chicago will.

The USOC scoffed at Tulsa, and they are not supporting a third tier city. Surely San Fran or Boston could hold future prospects, but Chicago is by far the most "doable" U.S. bid at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Chicago falters in its quest for the 2016 Olympics, the U.S. won't go through too long of a dry spell before an Olympics returns. Simply put: the money factor is simply too great to resist. If Rio is successful next month and I'm beginning to believe they will, any U.S. city like Los Angeles, New York, or Philly will be a big favorite for 2020. The reason? I think a win by Rio kills any chances for Cape Town or New Delhi since I doubt the IOC will go the New Frontiers route for two consecutive Olympics not to mention 24 years will have passed since the Centennial Olympics in Atlanta.

Don't read too much into interest from cities like Tulsa or Birmingham. They'd have no shot against heavyweights like Tokyo, Rome, St. Petersburg, or even Kuala Lumpur and the USOC knows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tulsa & Birmingham are pipedreams anyway. Don't know what city officials are smoking there, but obviously something to make them delusional. The infrastructure is simply not there in those very small cities to support something as gigantic as the Olympics. It's insane that they even made a silly peep about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tulsa & Birmingham are pipedreams anyway. Don't know what city officials are smoking there, but obviously something to make them delusional. The infrastructure is simply not there in those very small cities to support something as gigantic as the Olympics. It's insane that they even made a silly peep about it.

I wonder if they actually said that Atlanta was a pipe dream vs. Athens for 1996 ? If there was ever going to be a consecutive European Hosting in the Age of Bid America TV rights Deals it was going to be Barcelona 92 followed by Athens 96. Remember Atlanta is the Only place in the United States elected to host the Summer Games and that includes 9 attempts by LA. Many Attempts by Detroit ,Minneapolis ,

Philadelphia and two by Chicago in the 1950s. All Rejected in the early rounds of voting. Hardly a US candidate any year has gotten pass the first round of voting. and only if the final round is a one round contest has an American City ever been in that final round .

Atlanta pulled off a monumental Win for America in 1996 and it wasn't there first attempt .

It could be the southern charm that plays for a Birmingham like Atlanta.

jim Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Tulsa and Birmingham are not going to happen. Ever.

In my opinion, Atlanta was a strange anomaly and possibly a mistake (not that Athens '96 wouldn't have been problematic as well). I had the strong impression that the IOC saw Atlanta as the safe, reliable choice -- especially after the monumental success of LA '84. Frankly, Atlanta was way too close to LA and should never have happened in the first place. Plus, the organization and logistics left a great deal to be desired. The overt commercialism was a disappointment as well.

The truth is that all U.S. Olympics are not created equal. I think that after Atlanta, this principle is ingrained in the IOC's memories. In the wake of LA, they expected an unqualified success and were let down. So much depends on the leadership of the organizing committee and the attitude of the civic government. I knew that in the wake of Atlanta's less than stellar Games, it would be a while before the U.S. was honored with another SOG.

I still strongly believe that Chicago is the BEST U.S. candidate -- better than LA, NYC, SF, or Miami. I hope they will have the opportunity to welcome the world.

The truth is Chicago 2016's biggest handicap is --- ATLANTA. Without Atlanta, Chicago just might be a runaway favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^Exactly.

What is it with this crazy obscession with some people by painting everything with the same brush. Not everything is as simple as a black-&-white comparison.

For starters, Atlanta's metro area population, even back in the '90's, was still FAR bigger than what Birmingham's & Tulsa's metro areas are today, COMBINED. Plus the Games were a bit smaller then. Atlanta, even though, still somewhat "backwoods" back then, still had a lot more going for it than little Tulsa & Birmingham have going for them nowadays.

Atlanta was also competeing with other mid-tier cities from around the world, so the election of the Georgia capital was relative to that respective race. It's not like Belgrade or Manchester were much better in the "locale" category. And Melbourne & Toronto had their own handicaps to contend with. And then there was Athens; the Greek bid was pretty much selling itself on "it's our creation, it's the centennial, we have entitlement to it" attitude. So much of it, that the IOC just grew tired of hearing it. Plus the fact that Athens was evaluated as just not being ready.

Atlanta's bid was also sold as an "African American Olympics, home of MLK, the Olympics of racial harmony, etc". And as the above post states as well, another of the bids selling point was the success of the Los Angeles 1984 Games, the Games that virtually saved the IOC. So there's so many variables on why Atlanta was successful that it just can't be singled out by saying; "well, if Atlanta did it, anyone can", because that is simply just naive thinking, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that Atlanta is the home of Coca-Cola, the IOC oldest sponsor. It holds a hub airport for Delta Airlines and some other big multi-national HQs.

But I also get the impression that Atlanta was a bit of a turn off for the IOC. They expected something better.

On the top of that, such commercialism brought some concerns about the election process, with America's economic powers bending the IOC, which was increased with the SLC election issues. So, I don't think the US is very popular with some IOC members...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the top of that, such commercialism brought some concerns about the election process, with America's economic powers bending the IOC, which was increased with the SLC election issues. So, I don't think the US is very popular with some IOC members...

Uhmmm...yeah...but where do they go to get funds for their projects? Uncle Sam and the generous Americans.

Kinda hypocrticial and really petty attitidues from the IOC, doncha think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmmm...yeah...but where do they go to get funds for their projects? Uncle Sam and the generous Americans.

Would you name some projects, values and source of the information, please? It would be an interesting piece of information to understand how IOC politics work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmmm...yeah...but where do they go to get funds for their projects? Uncle Sam and the generous Americans.

Kinda hypocrticial and really petty attitidues from the IOC, doncha think?

It might be hypocritical. People often bite the hand that feed them. I am not questioning that. I am just saying something about who their behaviour without any judgement. It all comes down to the image they want to show. The members didn't like the comments that were made after Atlanta's organization issues and SLC election problems, even though they were involved.

By the way, not giving the SOG to the US may not have an impact in getting the funds anyway and they would be expanding a prospective marketing by going to Brazil. Every decision involves a trade-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you name some projects, values and source of the information, please? It would be an interesting piece of information to understand how IOC politics work...

Uhmmm....the multibillion purchases of TV rights by NBC? I'd say within the last 2 decades, the IOC has received more than $3 billion from NBC's purchases of their Games.

Of the ten or so (it keeps changing) TOP Partners who pay anywhere from $45 to $65 million for 2 Games, the following are American companies: Coca-Cola, Visa, McDonalds, GE have stayed true to the IOC. In the past, Johnson & Johnson, ManufacturersLife, John Hancock, Kodak were also TOP Parttners.

I've provided you with the macro info; look up the details online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmmm....the multibillion purchases of TV rights by NBC? I'd say within the last 2 decades, the IOC has received more than $3 billion from NBC's purchases of their Games.

Of the ten or so (it keeps changing) TOP Partners who pay anywhere from $45 to $65 million for 2 Games, the following are American companies: Coca-Cola, Visa, McDonalds, GE have stayed true to the IOC. In the past, Johnson & Johnson, ManufacturersLife, John Hancock, Kodak were also TOP Parttners.

I've provided you with the macro info; look up the details online.

I have looked the details at http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1216.pdf

You are right, all the revenues of IOC come from TV rights and TOP Partners (Sponsorship).

Of course, most of this money comes from american companies. It is the biggest economy of the world...

I understood that you implied, in your post, that american public money was funding IOC projects (Uncle Sam and the generous Americans.). I guess I misunderstood what you mean...

Anyway, nobody is forcing NBC to pay for the TV rights of the Olympic events. There is a demand from american people, who want to watch it on TV. If the value of the rights is very high for USA broadcasters, comparing with other zones, is because of the local particularities of the american market. The high inflation of the values are caused by the high internal competivity in USA

The IOC can't be "hijacked" by the american private corporations because of the particularities of the american market.

About the actual TOP partners, they are all global companies with global revenues. Coca-Cola, Visa, McDonalds, GE and Acer are not intersted only with the american market. Same with the non-american actual partners and their "home grounds": Atos Origin, Omega, Panasonic and Sansung.

I dislike, but I agree that all of this (especially the TV rights) play a significant part in the IOC choices. However I don't think it is determinant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\ /\ No; but if the IOC or its members have too much pride to at least acknowledge the hand that feeds them, then they shouldn't even court getting money from those sources. A bribe/"dirty money" becomes a "dirty deal" when there is a receiving party on the other end.

So I can't go by your reasoning that NBC and the American companies DON'T have to do it. No they don't; and similarly, if the IOC can stand on its own two feet, then it shouldn't "sleep with the devil," so to speak; but it does so anyway AND WILLINGLY. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron,

The American companies don't throw this money to the IOC as a gesture of good will. They do it because they expect some profit out of it. The fact that they have been giving this money whether the US hosts or not, shows that the IOC members should expect this cash to keep flowing regardless of the host city. They don't have to be so thankful as you believe, since the American companies are doing no favor. They are just investing in their own businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\ /\ No; but if the IOC or its members have too much pride to at least acknowledge the hand that feeds them, then they shouldn't even court getting money from those sources. A bribe/"dirty money" becomes a "dirty deal" when there is a receiving party on the other end.

So I can't go by your reasoning that NBC and the American companies DON'T have to do it. No they don't; and similarly, if the IOC can stand on its own two feet, then it shouldn't "sleep with the devil," so to speak; but it does so anyway AND WILLINGLY. ;)

I'm not saying this money is dirty or that these american companies are evil (sleep with the devil). I'm only saying that IOC shouldn't make decisions based on the source of the founds, since the values are regulated by the market.

Of course, IOC, the way it is today, couldn't stand on its own feet without the money from american companies. If in a hypothetical world, USA was wiped out of the map from day to night, Olympics Games would continue to exist in a more modest way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron,

The American companies don't throw this money to the IOC as a gesture of good will. They do it because they expect some profit out of it. The fact that they have been giving this money whether the US hosts or not, shows that the IOC members should expect this cash to keep flowing regardless of the host city. They don't have to be so thankful as you believe, since the American companies are doing no favor. They are just investing in their own businesses.

Of course, understandly. But they also survived very well w/o the Olympics. They just seem to fit each other's need...and all I'm saying is that if you are a person or entity with some integrity, you would certainly acknolwedge and give a little slack to our benefactors, wouldn't you?

That's the way I would do business...maybe you guys do it another way?? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the other way? If Lausanne were wiped out from the map today, would the Olympic Games continue? I doubt it. But let me know...I wanna get the torches collection there first!! :lol:

Well... I don't know, but I guess another committee would be organized to continue the tradition (and businness).

No way! The torches are mine! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, understandly. But they also survived very well w/o the Olympics. They just seem to fit each other's need...and all I'm saying is that if you are a person or entity with some integrity, you would certainly acknolwedge and give a little slack to our benefactors, wouldn't you?

That's the way I would do business...maybe you guys do it another way?? :blink:

Lets say I decide to auction at the sime time two identical bricks (don't ask me why! :P ), one in London an the other in NY. In the NY auction there was more competition and the brick was sold for U$100,00 (a very good brick!) and in London, with less competition, for £10,00. Should I benefit the american buyer in some way because he paid more for the same product?

I think you noticed, but the brick represents the TV rights... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say I decide to auction at the sime time two identical bricks (don't ask me why! :P ), one in London an the other in NY. In the NY auction there was more competition and the brick was sold for U$100,00 (a very good brick!) and in London, with less competition, for £10,00. Should I benefit the american buyer in some way because he paid more for the same product?

I think you noticed, but the brick represents the TV rights... :P

Money talks and people walk!

A United States Olympic bid will always be attractive as it's TV revenues, corporate sponsor sector etc provides more money than any other nation on earth.

The United States does not get prefferential treatment but rather, due to it's ability, it does host the Olympic alot - which is rightfully so.

Imagine if you were paying more for a product and investing more into a business than anyone else. You wouldn't expect other people to get given the same power as you.

Regarding the Olympics, it is obvious that the United States will earn them alot as it does more for the Olympic movement than anyone else!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say I decide to auction at the sime time two identical bricks (don't ask me why! :P ), one in London an the other in NY. In the NY auction there was more competition and the brick was sold for U$100,00 (a very good brick!) and in London, with less competition, for £10,00. Should I benefit the american buyer in some way because he paid more for the same product?

I think you noticed, but the brick represents the TV rights... :P

Yes. Like I would throw in free freight...or maybe preferntial treatment in the next auction; a free trip to Vegas or MOnte Carlo. I mean frequent fliers get more free miles because they bring more business to the airline than that casual flyer; repeat cruise passengers get good upgrades, all sorts of discounts, special places at the Captain's table for sending a lot of business the shipping company's way, so...why shouldn't the IOC's biggest moneybags??

It's just good business practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...