Athensfan Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 After spending the last year arguing in favor of Chicago, I want to take stock of the deficiencies. 1. U.S. has hosted eight times, most recently Atlanta in 1996 and Salt Lake City in 2002. 2. Chicago is not recognized as an international tourist destination. Most people don't know what the city can offer. The bid failed to sufficiently highlight Chicago's many assets. 3. The USOC is not on good terms with the IOC due to the Salt Lake City bribery scandal, revenue disputes, and the Olympic network debacle. 4. The USOC leadership is in a state of prolonged turmoil and doesn't seem reliable. 5. The bid failed to clearly articulate a strong legacy. When asked why Chicago wants the Games and what Chicago can offer, there was no clear, concise message. It was a chaotic, unfocused hodge-podge of reasons. 6. Apart from the Obamas, the final presentation was an amateurish failure. It was disorganized, wooden and unconvincing. 7. The bid team focused on flash rather than relationships. It tried to lobby IOC members by bowling them over rather than taking the time to build relationships. Relationships are not built in weeks, months , but over an extended period of time. The USOC has failed to do this with the IOC. Havelange and Nuzman have been working at those relationships for decades. 8. The bid was not sufficiently "other" focused. It wasn't about serving, celebrating, blessing others -- at least not as much as it needed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 2. Chicago is not recognized as an international tourist destination. Most people don't know what the city can offer. The bid failed to sufficiently highlight Chicago's many assets. How did Atlanta, of all places, win for 1996? 3. The USOC is not on good terms with the IOC due to the Salt Lake City bribery scandal, revenue disputes, and the Olympic network debacle. I think this was huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 I could't see Rio's "it's ABOUT time to finally give us the Games" attitude anymore convincing. This marks the first time that BRAZEN arguments won over the IOC. I'm also surprised that all of Tokyo's votes when to Rio. For a moment I thought Madrid could win since the 2 of the top technical bids were eliminated in the first 2 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Atlanta was the only viable alternative to Athens' woefully unprepared centennial bid. The IOC was fresh off the success of LA 84. Atlanta seemed like the safe and smart choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinderella Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 I presume No Games Chicago has been noisy enough, also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Yes, I agree with these points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka_Ray Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Atlanta 1996 is the Coca cola games, they have the money to do the games... And one more factor why Chicago failed this time, based on the yahoo : - When Obama try to come it's boost Chicago chance, but when He just appear a second, give a speech, then flight back to US even when the result not come yet, that's make IOC member felt like Obama it's too busy, and the IOC s just not very important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympian Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Atlanta was the only viable alternative to Athens' woefully unprepared centennial bid. The IOC was fresh off the success of LA 84. Atlanta seemed like the safe and smart choice.the bids of Melbourne together with Atlanta and Toronto were the front runners for 1996. I recall reading from Andrew Jennings' The Great Olympic Swindle that Samaranch wanted the games in Athens but when the initial reports were listed Samaranch ordered the wording rephrased to just excellent and good. Excellent bids were Toronto, Atlanta and Melbourne while the cities of Athens, Belgrade and Manchester were rated as good. Samaranch tried arm his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Atlanta 1996 is the Coca cola games, they have the money to do the games... And one more factor why Chicago failed this time, based on the yahoo : - When Obama try to come it's boost Chicago chance, but when He just appear a second, give a speech, then flight back to US even when the result not come yet, that's make IOC member felt like Obama it's too busy, and the IOC s just not very important... In retrospect, Obama really couldn't do more than he did. It would have cost him too much politically. Also, I think that some IOC members wanted to put the "world leaders must come here" to rest. Blair and Putin were enough. Now Lula will be credited, but Obama would have been seen as the sole reason for Chicago's victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Stop this. It's over. Rio won. Let's hope we will have wonderful games in 2016. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Stop this. It's over. Rio won. Let's hope we will have wonderful games in 2016. That's all. So we should just talk about Rio 2016 now? This 3-year race has only been over a couple of hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stir.ts Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Here a simplistic answer to your more informed hypotheses. The ICO wants flash and big projects, not conservatism. (though it's in vogue and required to deny that). Chicago is amazing but it exists now = no credit for IOC. They didn't plan anything the IOC could take credit for-no tangible legacy. (and then of course went on to F-UP the intangible legacy opportunity) Rios has somewhat unsophisticated existing structures, but the local and the DUMP of government money (4-times Chicago ...right??) is the flash that satisfied, and they can claim to have built the city after. Of course new frontier is convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis-The-Dentist Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 After spending the last year arguing in favor of Chicago, I want to take stock of the deficiencies. 1. U.S. has hosted eight times, most recently Atlanta in 1996 and Salt Lake City in 2002. 2. Chicago is not recognized as an international tourist destination. Most people don't know what the city can offer. The bid failed to sufficiently highlight Chicago's many assets. 3. The USOC is not on good terms with the IOC due to the Salt Lake City bribery scandal, revenue disputes, and the Olympic network debacle. 4. The USOC leadership is in a state of prolonged turmoil and doesn't seem reliable. 5. The bid failed to clearly articulate a strong legacy. When asked why Chicago wants the Games and what Chicago can offer, there was no clear, concise message. It was a chaotic, unfocused hodge-podge of reasons. 6. Apart from the Obamas, the final presentation was an amateurish failure. It was disorganized, wooden and unconvincing. 7. The bid team focused on flash rather than relationships. It tried to lobby IOC members by bowling them over rather than taking the time to build relationships. Relationships are not built in weeks, months , but over an extended period of time. The USOC has failed to do this with the IOC. Havelange and Nuzman have been working at those relationships for decades. 8. The bid was not sufficiently "other" focused. It wasn't about serving, celebrating, blessing others -- at least not as much as it needed to be. The Obama`s went nice, but Michelle went WAY BETTER. I agree with almost everything you said. But not all. IMO, Chicago is always seen as a primary tourist destinations by Brazilians. The thing is, for a long time, people of the world had to be a `certain type` to get a US Visa, if u know what i mean. I tried three times to get a visa to visit NYC and Chicago, two of the cities I`d have to see befire I die. But it took three times for me to be granted one! People at the US Consulate here, would look at me and not understand that I could pay my trip to the US and that I actually wanted to visit the country as a tourist. I had always with me my income tax eceipt, proof tat I had residence in Brazil, proof that I had a profession but they chose to say no for three times. All they could see was `possible illegal immigrant`written on my forehead. I got tired of trying, and if I wasn`t granted on the third time, I would have just given up. This happened to a lot of Brazilians and probably to other nations too. This wasnt long ago, people! It was the Bush years! He did a terrible thing to the United States reputation. Don`t blame on the bid! Obama is doing a great job! The image of the US before the world is already changing. Obama has changed a lot already. Not almost everyine applying for US visa here in Brazil, if providing the documents they need, will be granted a visa, because that wll make no harm to the US. But Bush years were long and there is a long way to erase that from most minds in the world. And more than that you were competing with three other great cities, and two other great bids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympian Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 I think the stigma of George W. Bush's 8 years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is still too much for some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Catherine Zeta-Jones would've made the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Excuse me, U.S. has hosted 8 times -- not 12. I like your signature, Denis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympian Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 I think it was supposed to be North American hosting. Which is indeed 12 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis-The-Dentist Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Excuse me, U.S. has hosted 8 times -- not 12. I like your signature, Denis. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cove44 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 How did Atlanta get the Games?...hmmm... Coca-Cola Company Global HQ 1 Coca Cola Plz Nw Atlanta, GA 30313 (404) 676-2121 Coca-Cola has been a top sponsor of the Games for 80 years. One should not be naive to think that the major corporate sponsors of the Games don't have something to say about who gets what. Of course, the elixir of youth, Coke, is a picture of elite atheticism and health as is McDonalds. Unfortunately, Oprah, the major industry in Chicago these days doesn't mean a hill of beans to the majority world nor is she is top sponsor of the Games. For 2020 Oprah needs to buy a share in the IOC franchise by beginning today to be a sponsor of the Rio 2016 Games. It is interesting to note that in the second round Rio added 18 votes which is the same number of votes Chicago got in the first round. Wonder why? Could it be that the time zone in Rio is more favourable to yet another corporate sponsor of the Games, one very important sponsor, US media giant, NBC. I just hope Rio doesn't fall into the same trap most Host cities do and hire those travelling leaches who bring their 'expertise' to the host city and turn the Games into mediocrity. Rio be yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 How did Atlanta get the Games?...hmmm...Coca-Cola Company Global HQ 1 Coca Cola Plz Nw Atlanta, GA 30313 (404) 676-2121 Coca-Cola has been a top sponsor of the Games for 80 years. One should not be naive to think that the major corporate sponsors of the Games don't have something to say about who gets what. Of course, the elixir of youth, Coke, is a picture of elite atheticism and health as is McDonalds. Unfortunately, Oprah, the major industry in Chicago these days doesn't mean a hill of beans to the majority world nor is she is top sponsor of the Games. For 2020 Oprah needs to buy a share in the IOC franchise by beginning today to be a sponsor of the Rio 2016 Games. It is interesting to note that in the second round Rio added 18 votes which is the same number of votes Chicago got in the first round. Wonder why? Could it be that the time zone in Rio is more favourable to yet another corporate sponsor of the Games, one very important sponsor, US media giant, NBC. I just hope Rio doesn't fall into the same trap most Host cities do and hire those travelling leaches who bring their 'expertise' to the host city and turn the Games into mediocrity. Rio be yourself. Boy, are you cynical. Yes, there's some truth in what you say, but all 18 votes went to Rio because of NBC? Are you kidding? I'm not going to deny that it's a better time zone, but jeez give those IOC members a little more credit. Rio had more than a time zone going for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSTOUT1221 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 True - Rio had $12B reasons going for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roux Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 It is interesting to note that in the second round Rio added 18 votes which is the same number of votes Chicago got in the first round. Wonder why? Could it be that the time zone in Rio is more favourable to yet another corporate sponsor of the Games, one very important sponsor, US media giant, NBC.I just hope Rio doesn't fall into the same trap most Host cities do and hire those travelling leaches who bring their 'expertise' to the host city and turn the Games into mediocrity. Rio be yourself. Well, the Olympics just got out of east Asia last year, and are going to Europe in 2012. The last games in the western hemisphere since 1996, so after twenty years I think it's safe to say the Americas are do. The time zone thing could also be a factor, but then again by that logic Toronto would have beaten out Beijing eight years ago, not vice-versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cove44 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 How bad has this franchise got? Well Rio is using Christ to sell its Games? Is nothing sacred? Hopefully there are some journalists to dig up the land and real estate conflicts of interest associated with the Games...stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stir.ts Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 True - Rio had $12B reasons going for it! Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cove44 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Coming from a host city and having witnessed seven years of deceit makes one wonder where the virtue is in continuing this facade called the Olympic Games...its days are numbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.