Alan in Montréal Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Very interesting article: Chicago's loss shows bitter rivalry between USOC and IOC From the Chicago Tribune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Wow that is really an interesting article - it gives a kind of insight out of the IOC I have one question about english - what means the word constiuency in this context: Chicago was the only candidate without a significant regional constituency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 What really stings here is NOT so much the actual loss but...how could the USOC have really miscalculated and by so much? This was supposed to have been a perfectly timed, thoroughly and scientifically placed bid...when odds were with all the money the US throws into the Games, would send it back the USA's way. And then emotion and new 'hoods won the day. I'd say let the USOC sit on that TV contract since it won't be bidding anyway for the next few rounds; let the IOC taste the bitter wine as well...and just put in cheap bids next time. Maybe send in Tulsa and Birmingham, knowing they will lose, just to spite the IOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I have one question about english - what means the word constiuency in this context: Chicago was the only candidate without a significant regional constituency M, what that means is that the indigenous voting bloc that Chicago could've counted on (North America and some Caribbean votes) was the smallest vs. Asian votes for Tokyo (so it got 22 votes), many Euro votes (probably the ex-Socialist bloc voters too who were indebted to Samaranch) for Madrid, and Rio got a whole mix (since there were really only 5 South American IOC votes, minus the 2 from Brazil). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan in Montréal Posted October 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I have one question about english - what means the word constiuency in this context: Chicago was the only candidate without a significant regional constituency It means that Chicago could not count on a block of votes from the Western hemisphere. For example, it's assumed that Tokyo survived the first round because many IOC votes from Asia went Tokyo's way in that round. Similarly, it's a safe assumption that many European votes went to Madrid, and of course most of South America's votes went to Rio. The only votes that Chicago could count on for sure in this hemisphere were Canada's two votes. No one is certain how Mexico voted (with its Latin American cousins or with its next door neighbour), nor how much of the Carribean voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I'd say let the USOC sit on that TV contract since it won't be bidding anyway for the next few rounds; let the IOC taste the bitter wine as well...and just put in cheap bids next time. Maybe send in Tulsa and Birmingham, knowing they will lose, just to spite the IOC. Add MSP to that list too. Those podunk places wouldn't even get short-listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidm Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Add MSP to that list too. Those podunk places wouldn't even get short-listed. Chicago = "one and done". What an embarassment to the United States! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan in Montréal Posted October 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I'd say let the USOC sit on that TV contract since it won't be bidding anyway for the next few rounds; let the IOC taste the bitter wine as well...and just put in cheap bids next time.In the end, the USOC relented and gave in to the IOC and decided not to proceed with the Olympic TV channel they wanted to produce. Mute point now, but it seems that the IOC continues to have a thing against the USOC and spanked them very hard and very publicly by making sure they got kicked-out of the race on the first round.This is just one of the things I detest about the IOC. Chicago should have been told somehow that they were wasting their time and energy and money MONTHS ago, instead of this charade of technical evaluations, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 thanks M. and thanks juan, for the explanation !!! yes that is true - i mean that chicago had the smallest constiuency... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 In the end, the USOC relented and gave in to the IOC and decided not to proceed with the Olympic TV channel they wanted to produce. Mute point now, but it seems that the IOC continues to have a thing against the USOC and spanked them very hard and very publicly by making sure they got kicked-out of the race on the first round.This is just one of the things I detest about the IOC. Chicago should have been told somehow that they were wasting their time and energy and money MONTHS ago, instead of this charade of technical evaluations, etc. ja, the TV network thing is one thing...but the larger issue of contention which was shelved in April is the longer-term contract of revenue sharing of the USOC from the TV contracts and the TOP sponsorship deals with the IOC. I believe it was a 20 or 30-year contract wherein the USOC got 15% of any network deal that broadcast the Olympics (and/or like the $60 million fees that a TOP sponsor pays to the IOC). The IOC wanted to abrogate that contract and ask the USOC to drop their share to like the standrad 10%...but the USOC has refused to negotiate since it will mean a loss of revenue for the USOC inamsuch as they do NOT get funds from the US gov't. That is the long-standing stickler in USOC-IOC relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan in Montréal Posted October 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 ja, the TV network thing is one thing...but the larger issue of contention which was shelved in April is the longer-term contract of revenue sharing of the USOC from the TV contracts and the TOP sponsorship deals with the IOC.OK - thanks for the update.And I think at some time in the not too distant future, the USOC and the American public and political machine is going to rebel strongly against the IOC brass. I don't think that getting publicly humiliated for two bids in a row will go over very well with the Americans. Apparently, the Chicago bid team is still totally furious about what happened in Copenhagen. America doesn't like to lose, and losing twice, and losing badly twice won't sit well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Apparently, the Chicago bid team is still totally furious about what happened in Copenhagen. well, some of the comments from the "elders' of the IOC membership were also aghast at the outcome. So other than to express shock and disbelief, I don't know what those"elders" are going to do to try and remedy the situation. Well, they can't exactly "fire" Samaranch for still being Manipulator #1. Another failing of the both the 2012 and 2016 US bids is that the USOC does not have anybody as highly placed WITHIN the IOC as say Princess Anne for 2012 and Havelange and Samaranch for 2016. The bid has to be worked from the inside as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Totally agree, Baron. If I were the USOC, I would quit bidding for a while and try to figure out how to get somebody onto the executive board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 If I were the USOC, I would quit bidding for a while and try to figure out how to get somebody onto the executive board. Exactly. Then you would have eyes and ears as to what's happening in the innermost sanctum...which would be reflective of the general members' pulse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Wouldn't hurt to work on an additional American IOC member either. Or even another Canadian.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 well, some of the comments from the "elders' of the IOC membership were also aghast at the outcome. So other than to express shock and disbelief, I don't know what those"elders" are going to do to try and remedy the situation. Well, they can't exactly "fire" Samaranch for still being Manipulator #1.Another failing of the both the 2012 and 2016 US bids is that the USOC does not have anybody as highly placed WITHIN the IOC as say Princess Anne for 2012 and Havelange and Samaranch for 2016. The bid has to be worked from the inside as well. Baron, I will add some pure speculation to that! Maybe the Chicago team was overconfident. They might have given the idea for some IOC members that they had secured their first round and encouraged some sympathy voting. Let's not forget that 2 Chicago votes stayed home and that Tokyo had 2 sympathy votes which they lost in the 2nd round. If Chicago had those votes, it would reach the seconfd round and things would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Wouldn't hurt to work on an additional American IOC member either. Or even another Canadian.... well, I think the best we can do is write NBC, Visa, McDonald's, Coke and tell them to re-evaluate their Olympic sponsorships. Then Rogge (who seems like an open-minded fellow) and tell him the Eurocentric nature of the IOC works against the other regions of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Baron,I will add some pure speculation to that! Maybe the Chicago team was overconfident. They might have given the idea for some IOC members that they had secured their first round and encouraged some sympathy voting. Let's not forget that 2 Chicago votes stayed home and that Tokyo had 2 sympathy votes which they lost in the 2nd round. If Chicago had those votes, it would reach the seconfd round and things would be different. Yeah. I don't know how Chicago/USOC (or the other cities) went about counting their chickens. I mean it's a secret ballot...who do you really trust? WHo will say "Yes" I will vote for you in Round one and assures you that that this is the case? It was so much easier when you could give a scholarship to Samarlange, Jr. or a mink coat to Mrs. Havalanch!! Oh for the good old days!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 The USOC also needs a CEO who sticks around for more than 60 seconds -- preferably somebody with sports experience and charisma to spare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 The USOC also needs a CEO who sticks around for more than 60 seconds -- preferably somebody with sports experience and charisma to spare. I can do it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 well, I think the best we can do is write NBC, Visa, McDonald's, Coke and tell them to re-evaluate their Olympic sponsorships. Then Rogge (who seems like an open-minded fellow) and tell him the Eurocentric nature of the IOC works against the other regions of the world. It will be a bad time to do it. Nuzman said that he met secretly with NBC a couple of months ago to secure them. The other 3 are big in Brazil and their business has more potential to grow there than in the USA. As we Brazilians said before, this would not be decisive this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiTown16 Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 ja, the TV network thing is one thing...but the larger issue of contention which was shelved in April is the longer-term contract of revenue sharing of the USOC from the TV contracts and the TOP sponsorship deals with the IOC. I believe it was a 20 or 30-year contract wherein the USOC got 15% of any network deal that broadcast the Olympics (and/or like the $60 million fees that a TOP sponsor pays to the IOC). The IOC wanted to abrogate that contract and ask the USOC to drop their share to like the standrad 10%...but the USOC has refused to negotiate since it will mean a loss of revenue for the USOC inamsuch as they do NOT get funds from the US gov't. That is the long-standing stickler in USOC-IOC relations. I say the USOC should walk in and drops 35% retention as their initial offer. And drops a finalized USOC TV Network contract with confirmed advertisers on the table at the same time. Really? 1st Round? Chicago 2016/USOC We've already tried fair and respectful. Now it's time for something else. TULSA 2020!!! WASILLA 2022!!! CHEYENNE 2024!!!! CHItown '16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 I say the USOC should walk in and drops 35% retention as their initial offer. And drops a finalized USOC TV Network contract with confirmed advertisers on the table at the same time. Really? 1st Round? Chicago 2016/USOC We've already tried fair and respectful. Now it's time for something else. TULSA 2020!!! WASILLA 2022!!! CHEYENNE 2024!!!! I LOVE IT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 This is hilarious ChiTown. Much as I share your sentiments, vengeance is not going to get the USOC anywhere. All it's going to do is hurt American bids, audiences and athletes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheal_warren Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Interesting article. I agree the USOC should have a break from bidding for a while and get a member on the Executive Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.