Jump to content

Madrid 2016 Official: Rio Has Worst Olympics Bid


Anne Marie

Recommended Posts

If its all about quoting Oaky, then you should get your data straight (and not a 3-year-old evaluation) before grounding your opinions. The most recent summaries put Rio over Madri.

Rio's bid is grounded on developing the city enconomically and socially, and as you could see, ICO is actually unsure of Madri's ability to be able to get along with what they planned either on organization or finances, while Rio's approach is ALREADY showing positive results, regardless the odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If its all about quoting Oaky, then you should get your data straight (and not a 3-year-old evaluation) before grounding your opinions. The most recent summaries put Rio over Madri.

Rio's bid is grounded on developing the city enconomically and socially, and as you could see, ICO is actually unsure of Madri's ability to be able to get along with what they planned either on organization or finances, while Rio's approach is ALREADY showing positive results, regardless the odds.

Patsy,

Oaky broke its vinyl in 2008 (not 3 years)... Since then... Rio Weakest bid... Madrid have 80% done...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its all about quoting Oaky, then you should get your data straight (and not a 3-year-old evaluation) before grounding your opinions. The most recent summaries put Rio over Madri.

Rio's bid is grounded on developing the city enconomically and socially, and as you could see, ICO is actually unsure of Madri's ability to be able to get along with what they planned either on organization or finances, while Rio's approach is ALREADY showing positive results, regardless the odds.

Actually, Madrid's 77% venues built/underway is not 3 year old news but is very much relevant to the discussion.

Further, I wasn't talking about the EC report specifically - if you could actually read you would see I emphasized how I was talking about the technical capacity of the bids. Madrid has a technically superior bid to the Rio. Fact!

Patsy sweetheart, you may not like that but that is the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Brazil we use to say "Não se chuta cachorro morto" which means in some ways: "People don't kick dead dogs"

That's exactly, if Rio hasn't any chances they wouldn't be talking about Rio 2016.

That's a FACT!

The dog isn't dead, he's got a very strong bark, bite......not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Oaky! So, if a city have 100% of venues built, we don't need a vote to decide, because that city already win. The other things doesn't matter...

A few points:

1. Cities don't need 100% of venues to be built but in this race Madrid does have that as an advantage over the other bids.

2. Cities emphasize their strong points in comparison to other bids - Madrid's 77% of venues built/under construction is one of their strong points.

3. My points have been made regarding technical issues specifically. Of course Madrid, like all the bids, have weaknesses which the EC report highlighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patsy melts under the sweetheart nickname... NOT!

You like numbers, right? Rio has 56% of the venues ready. Not that far from 77% , as I see? And no issues about dopping legislation, just to start with.

But tell me oaky, what technical aspects are you referring to? It's quite comfortable grounding opinions on this beautiful 'techincal capacity' concept, without digging deeper on the subject. The IOC report is even concerned about the challange that will be for Madrid to make the necessary changes on the Oplympic Stadium itself, on construction, operational and financial aspects!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It annoys me how few Rio supporters understand this point - and I'm going to defend Oaky here despite not supporting Madrid myself.

It is a widely accepted fact that Madrid's is technically the safest bid, and whilst a few small things like anti-doping laws, organisational structure etc. need to be sorted out, its bid is technically safer than Rio's. You only have to look at what's on the ground in terms of infrastrcuture and venues to realise this. They have one of the most technically brilliant bids seen from an Olympic candidate city.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN, however, their bid is the best and NOR DOES IT MEAN Rio's is the "worst". There's far more than technical excellence at play here. Madrid is out of line deriding Rio's bid, but for Rio supporters to get annoyed about this not because it's against the bidding rules, but because they believe their bid is technically superior to Madrid's is laughable.

Rio has a lot going for it but it isn't technically better than Madrid. It just isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patsy melts under the sweetheart nickname... NOT!

You like numbers, right? Rio has 56% of the venues ready. Not that far from 77% , as I see? And no issues about dopping legislation, just to start with.

But tell me oaky, what technical aspects are you referring to? It's quite comfortable grounding opinions on this beautiful 'techincal capacity' concept, without digging deeper on the subject. The IOC report is even concerned about the challange that will be for Madrid to make the necessary changes on the Oplympic Stadium itself, on construction, operational and financial aspects!

Rio has approximately 22% less venue infrastructure and you say that is not far behind? Erm, if you say so............

Madrid also doesn't have doping issues - that issue has been resolved.

When I talk about technical capacity I am talking about exactly what you know it to mean. Madrid's infrastructure in terms of venues, rail, roads, hotels etc is extremely advanced. Further, in a global recession like we are experiencing, Madrid offers the safest bid.

Anyway, you support Rio and won't acknowledge anyone's opinions of it if it doesn't met you own. I am only stating facts. I didn't make them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madrid have better transportation infrastructure better than Rio... No doubts

Madrid and Rio have a great part of its venues ready (Madrid ahead, of course)

But Rio plans (organizational) are better than Madrid's one - IOC said it.

But people tend to not trust Brazil because we're not Europe, then all plans (that were considered by IOC high quality) become risky... While european Spain (deep in the economic crisis, 19% unemployment, with recession, with lots of organisational issues and doubts (IOC said) become safer.

Madrid is better than Rio, it can be. But the difference (aggregating everything) is not too big as people likes to say here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It annoys me how few Rio supporters understand this point - and I'm going to defend Oaky here despite not supporting Madrid myself.

It is a widely accepted fact that Madrid's is technically the safest bid, and whilst a few small things like anti-doping laws, organisational structure etc. need to be sorted out, its bid is technically safer than Rio's. You only have to look at what's on the ground in terms of infrastrcuture and venues to realise this. They have one of the most technically brilliant bids seen from an Olympic candidate city.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN, however, their bid is the best and NOR DOES IT MEAN Rio's is the "worst". There's far more than technical excellence at play here. Madrid is out of line deriding Rio's bid, but for Rio supporters to get annoyed about this not because it's against the bidding rules, but because they believe their bid is technically superior to Madrid's is laughable.

Rio has a lot going for it but it isn't technically better than Madrid. It just isn't.

THANK YOU!!!!!

Now do you understand my point people? Several people on these threads are arguing with my point just because I am the one making them and they totally ignore the facts I am saying.

This thread is about a Madrid official making a remark about Rio.

The thread has meandered off course a little but the point I was making is this: whilst it is against the rules to attack other bids like has been done etc, Madrid does have the safest bid and the most technically accomplished!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madrid have better transportation infrastructure better than Rio... No doubts

Madrid and Rio have a great part of its venues ready (Madrid ahead, of course)

But Rio plans (organizational) are better than Madrid's one - IOC said it.

But people tend to not trust Brazil because we're not Europe, then all plans (that were considered by IOC high quality) become risky... While european Spain (deep in the economic crisis, 19% unemployment, with recession, with lots of organisational issues and doubts (IOC said) become safer.

Madrid is better than Rio, it can be. But the difference (aggregating everything) is not too big as people likes to say here.

Fair enough Danny!

But why do you get annoyed when I state facts about Madrid and Rio? This is what these forums are for - discussion.

Several forum members are trying to make out I am lying when I point out how Madrid's bid is the most technically accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough Danny!

But why do you get annoyed when I state facts about Madrid and Rio? This is what these forums are for - discussion.

Several forum members are trying to make out I am lying when I point out how Madrid's bid is the most technically accomplished.

Madrid have great advantages in some things that undeniable...

As the other bids have their advantages too.

But "Safer choice", "best bid" stuff seems arrogance... And it will seem arrogance forever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say Madrid is the safer bid at all.

How is the economy in Spain now-a-days?

How much time will they need to recover their economy???

Madrid NOW is economically the riskiest bid.

No it isn't.

-Madrid' venues are nearly built - they could host the 2012 games(that's how ready they are).

-Madrid and Spain has less social woes than Rio which has an appalling crime rate. Madrid is safer in this sense too.

-Madrid's financial status is guaranteed by the government and over 60% sponsorship money is secured too.

Danny, Madrid has the safest bid out of all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...