baron-pierreIV 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. How about kidnapping and holding hostage 65 members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 How about kidnapping and holding hostage 65 members? Well, they got 18 votes, so.. Other still win... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JavelinMan Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 thanks M. and thanks juan, for the explanation !!!yes that is true - i mean that chicago had the smallest constiuency... http://www.1cast.com/l/212159 - Windy City Blow Away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I was told geographic regions stood behind their candidate cites for the first vote with Madrid getting a good portion of Euro Votes. Rio getting Latin America and part of Europe . The Asians lining up behind Tokyo and Chicago getting the majority of their 18 from Africa. Once Chicago was out the African Votes went to Rio and when Tokyo was out the Asian Votes went to RIO . My source is a man who has been in the sports admin business since 1966. Jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheal_warren Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I was told geographic regions stood behind their candidate cites for the first vote with Madrid getting a good portion of Euro Votes. Rio getting Latin America and part of Europe . The Asians lining up behind Tokyo and Chicago getting the majority of their 18 from Africa. Once Chicago was out the African Votes went to Rio and when Tokyo was out the Asian Votes went to RIO . My source is a man who has been in the sports admin business since 1966. Jim jones Interesting but not surprising really. Where did the Australian IOC members sit? New Zealand doesnt have an IOC member but I know the New Zealand Olympic Committee was behind the RIO bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. People in the US don't care . Honestly . When Chicago 2016 was booted on the first ballot Fox News had a guy on saying that the Bid was only trying to please a small group corrupt thugs from all over the World. People in the United States turn their attention to Major League Baseball and National Football League by the time the sun set in Chicago . The only daggers out with the "surprise exit " were for Obama for lowering the office of the president to something so risky. The american public would believe that 1932 , 1984 and the Winter Games of 1980 were all Bid victories . That is how unknowing even the US journalists reporting on the 121 th Olympic Congress are. Tony Harris in shock of Chicago 2016 out in the first round ? It happened twice in the 1950's to Chicago with American Avery Brundage as vice President of the IOC and then Becomeing President of the IOC. Face the facts the only thing the European members who make upa great number of the IOC like about America are the truck loads of Money and they want it all under their control. Besides that what hurt the Chicago bid ? Not the greatest Public support numbers and opposition to the games played out in the Chicago Media . The IOC is not going to land the games in a country that sent the games back when the citizens exercised democratic rights like they did with Denver 1976. Chicago would have had the same thing with a little over 240,000 signatures triggering a ballot to end Games funding from Springfield . jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. What an extremely arrogant post! America hasn't been humiliated by the IOC at all! For 2012 it would have been very strange for the IOC to vote for New York in huge numbers after their stadium plans self-destructed just two weeks before the final vote. For 2016 the sentimental pull of Rio was too much for all the other candidates - the US has hosted 8 Olympics - Brazil hasn't hosted any! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Mute point now, It's "Moot Point", not mute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Interesting but not surprising really. Where did the Australian IOC members sit?New Zealand doesnt have an IOC member but I know the New Zealand Olympic Committee was behind the RIO bid. The source has nothing to say in regards to Chicago 2016 and the Australian vote . It would make sense in some ways simply because if chicago was to pick up Canada's two votes in the first round and lets say 12 of the 15 african votes then two from Australia would allow what was witnessed with some votes from other places for Chicago. You are not always going to have a block situation . But one Aussie member seemed to plead Chicago's case and I would think that would generally be because of the Us tv rights and Commerical Largess that Sydney 2000 would have had. Sydney of course also benefited from Atlanta 1996 pushing up the US Tv rights by a couple of 100 million dollars because Atlanta provided great ratings for NBC. My source like i said is a well known Sports Admin with a long history adn his boss is actually an IOC member in the America's . Jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Interesting but not surprising really. Where did the Australian IOC members sit?New Zealand doesnt have an IOC member but I know the New Zealand Olympic Committee was behind the RIO bid. It's thought Gosper favoured Chicago, Coates was Rio, and I'd guess Coles was Rio as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's thought Gosper favoured Chicago, Coates was Rio, and I'd guess Coles was Rio as well. Gosper projected his choice to the press as much as Sepp Blatter. I really think you could dig deeper then just regional support or geopolitics. Somehow I wonder if the Temporary Stadium concept for a Main Athletics Stadium is a Bridge too far for a Lamine Diack , Frankie Frederiicks or the other in the IAAF fraternity. This I have read as been a pet pieve with Diack that a IAAF World Championships or the grand prix events can't be run in America simply because Olympic host cities like LA and Atlanta tear out the tracks right after the games. On one hand you have to be realistic about keeping an IAAF facility . On the other hand this could be a reason for not voting for America in the Case of the IAAF. The same might be the case with Fina and a temporary facility Chicago proposed. There are probably many other agendas Jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Gosper projected his choice to the press as much as Sepp Blatter. I really think you could dig deeper then just regional support or geopolitics. Somehow I wonder if the Temporary Stadium concept for a Main Athletics Stadium is a Bridge too far for a Lamine Diack , Frankie Frederiicks or the other in the IAAF fraternity. This I have read as been a pet pieve with Diack that a IAAF World Championships or the grand prix events can't be run in America simply because Olympic host cities like LA and Atlanta tear out the tracks right after the games. On one hand you have to be realistic about keeping an IAAF facility . On the other hand this could be a reason for not voting for America in the Case of the IAAF. The same might be the case with Fina and a temporary facility Chicago proposed. There are probably many other agendas Jim jones Sepp Blatter would not dare vote against Havelange's will. If he did, he would be booted from FIFA the next day. So did, the CAF president from Cameroon. Both were Rio supporters. There were also reports in the Brazilian press that Sergei Bubka was a big Rio supporter, which kind of backs the IAAF theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Interesting article. I agree the USOC should have a break from bidding for a while and get a member on the Executive Board. Michael why bother with the Olympics Bid politics ? American Avery Brundage was IOC Vice President when Chicago and Los Angeles failed to secure the games in the 1950's Brundage was President of the IOC from 1952 to the mid 70's and Detroit, Minneapolis , Los Angeles , Lake Placid all failed on multiple attempts . Some of the Bid Failures during Brundage;s rein at the top tiers of the IOC . Helsinki 1952 , Melbourne 1956, Rome 1960, Mexico 1968, Munich 1980, Montreal 1976. If getting punched in the face multiple times with multiple choices in the 1950's 60's and 70's with an American being IOc pres then it really is hopeless. Los Angeles loses to 1973 Moscow ? Come on Now . It is very apparent that the USOC is falling into the hard reality that the Europeans own the franchise and they don't like the Americans. They only love the Americans money at arms length. America's prestige is in the fact that they are by far the country that has won the most medals and they bring the largest amount of funding to the IOC coffers . The Sponsorship and Tv rights revenues are not going to decline from the US and no other country will ever overtake what the Us provides . If all that and Saving the Olympics on three occasion the embarrassment of not having a host is not good enough for the IOC then the USOC should devote their efforts exclusively to athletes performance. Maybe the NCAA Universities should take a look at what they contribute to the IOC via Student Scholarships for Athletics for Developing countries ? I don't hear of German or Japanese Universities producing a Kristy Coventry ? Jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Sepp Blatter would not dare vote against Havelange's will. If he did, he would be booted from FIFA the next day. So did, the CAF president from Cameroon. Both were Rio supporters.There were also reports in the Brazilian press that Sergei Bubka was a big Rio supporter, which kind of backs the IAAF theory. And lets face it Joao Havelange could have had a quid pro quo going on from 1973 with Moscow awarded those games . Sergei Bubka could just see with Chicago that it is a reminder of London 2012's Temporary Stadium theory . Lamine Diack certainly has had enough to say about a possible conversion away from an IAAF legacy Facility that was a big part of the 2012 bid. IF the IAAF gets nothing from Chicago 2016 towards having IAAF events in America then they have nothing to vote for . Rio has a Facility on the ground that is a IAAF Legacy of the 2007 Pan Am Games so basically in the IAAF members eyes Rio has kept a promise that the United States has never forwarded.. If there was to be any element that could help a US Summer Games bid it would be to have that Legacy Facility for the IAAF. It is pretty bad when the only -place an IAAF worlds has happened in North America is Edmonton. I would say Canada generally has more favorable grades with the IAAF for Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton and the Fact Moncton New Brunswick will host the IAAF Junior world next year with a legacy Venue being built new. The Us does not even bid on those development events . Jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure facts Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Los Angeles loses to 1973 Moscow ? Come on Now . Let's try to be honest here, for once. Los Angeles being awarded the Games over Moscow would have meant two back-to-back Games in North-America, not to mention that back then Denver was either still to host the 76 Winter Games, or had just given up the right to host them, which in both cases did not look too well on LA's bid. You are the first one whining about back-to-back Games in Europe, so your point of Los Angeles being defeated by Moscow does not make much sense. America's prestige is in the fact that they are by far the country that has won the most medals and they bring the largest amount of funding to the IOC coffers . The Sponsorship and Tv rights revenues are not going to decline from the US and no other country will ever overtake what the Us provides . If all that and Saving the Olympics on three occasion the embarrassment of not having a host is not good enough for the IOC then the USOC should devote their efforts exclusively to athletes performance. Again and again, none of the US TOP Partners nor the US broadcasters are throwing money away out of pure generosity and they should not: they purchase the Olympic Brand because they are making money out of it directly or indirectly, period. If they are not satisfied with the value for money, they will pull out, it is that simple (And Rio is acutally a rather good choice for the US broadcasters and TOP sponsors, though clearly not as good as Chicago) A US bid - as any bid from any country - will have to provide a convincing reason to be selected as a host city: let's face it, Chicago failed to do so (and it was incredibly difficult to do so when you had Rio standing in front of you). The -untold- "given the amount the US contributes to the Olympic Movement funding, it's time to get back to the US"-reason, is not sufficient. Chicago had an attractive plan but their presentation lacked passion, they were not able to provide a clear vision for legacy and the USOC shaky relationship with the IOC made the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 The -untold- "given the amount the US contributes to the Olympic Movement funding, it's time to get back to the US"-reason, is not sufficient. It is not sufficient and it is deceitful. It is a big fat bluff. The American companies that pour their money in the IOC coffers are big multi-national corporations that sponsor the Games for economic returns. NBC will still bid sky-high for US TV rights as long as the US is one of the top in the medal tally. If they don't, another network will be ready to take their spot. The other partners are even less worried, since the vast majority makes more money outside the US than inside. Coca-Cola, for instance, has a higher market share in Brazil than in the US and most of its revenue growth comes from emerging markets. So does McDonalds. So why would they pressure the IOC to host it in their home countries? If they gave money to the IOC in order to secure the US the right to host, that would be bribery, not sponsorship. And after SLC 2006, that's the kind of image the IOC wants to distance itself from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 The Us does not even bid on those development events . Not true, jj. I think Stanford was put in as a bid for 4 or 5 IAAF-thingies ago. Except of course, it was just a university track...and not quite a major metropolis. And I think the USTFA knew that it was a weak bid, but they still did put in a bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 What an extremely arrogant post! America hasn't been humiliated by the IOC at all! For 2012 it would have been very strange for the IOC to vote for New York in huge numbers after their stadium plans self-destructed just two weeks before the final vote. For 2016 the sentimental pull of Rio was too much for all the other candidates - the US has hosted 8 Olympics - Brazil hasn't hosted any! Not that it makes a difference, (or does it), but that poster is Canadian, not American. And your first part I agree with, but the second is very debatable, to say the least. Chicago's plan was by FAR more solid than New York's. But yet New York was able to get one more vote in the 1st round than Chicago did, & so New York was able to advance into the 2nd round. And New York had to survive with one extra city in the mix than Chicago did. So that alone says something of the sort right there. You're downplaying the whole situation. Better plan, less competition, more attention than last time around, but yet the U.S. bid ousted in the 1st round this time? We can handle defeat, but the way it happened is very questionable, considering the bid. I'm sure if Britain was tossed out in the first round after a solid, well thought out plan, you Brits would be asking a lot of questions, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Let's try to be honest here, for once.Los Angeles being awarded the Games over Moscow would have meant two back-to-back Games in North-America, not to mention that back then Denver was either still to host the 76 Winter Games, or had just given up the right to host them, which in both cases did not look too well on LA's bid. You are the first one whining about back-to-back Games in Europe, so your point of Los Angeles being defeated by Moscow does not make much sense. Again and again, none of the US TOP Partners nor the US broadcasters are throwing money away out of pure generosity and they should not: they purchase the Olympic Brand because they are making money out of it directly or indirectly, period. If they are not satisfied with the value for money, they will pull out, it is that simple (And Rio is acutally a rather good choice for the US broadcasters and TOP sponsors, though clearly not as good as Chicago) A US bid - as any bid from any country - will have to provide a convincing reason to be selected as a host city: let's face it, Chicago failed to do so (and it was incredibly difficult to do so when you had Rio standing in front of you). The -untold- "given the amount the US contributes to the Olympic Movement funding, it's time to get back to the US"-reason, is not sufficient. Chicago had an attractive plan but their presentation lacked passion, they were not able to provide a clear vision for legacy and the USOC shaky relationship with the IOC made the rest. So what more convincing case does the US make for Funding well over half of Top sponsorship or the Same with Worldwide TV rights Share ? What the IOC wants is everything . I certainly am not bitter about Chicago's first round defeat as it was predictable if you know history. I am fully happy that Rio 2016 won and that is very evidenced by my support for all emerging economy Bids . Like I have said the USOc should consider not bidding until 50 years after Atlanta 1996 which is in keeping with the normal return times to most nations. Every nation should think that way because it is a well established pattern. Again La lossing to Socialist 70's Montreal and then Communist Moscow with bread lines for the 1980 games ? The Us was the country that hosted two olympics in one year in 1932 not unlike Germany in 1936 but was denied on 30 occasions the games either summer or winter ? If that is not a hint that the US should forget about hosting then nothing is . Jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Not that it makes a difference, (or does it), but that poster is Canadian, not American.And your first part I agree with, but the second is very debatable, to say the least. Chicago's plan was by FAR more solid than New York's. But yet New York was able to get one more vote in the 1st round than Chicago did, & so New York was able to advance into the 2nd round. And New York had to survive with one extra city in the mix than Chicago did. So that alone says something of the sort right there. You're downplaying the whole situation. Better plan, less competition, more attention than last time around, but yet the U.S. bid ousted in the 1st round this time? We can handle defeat, but the way it happened is very questionable, considering the bid. I'm sure if Britain was tossed out in the first round after a solid, well thought out plan, you Brits would be asking a lot of questions, too. The British are on to staging Three times in London and yet they don't have a Top Sponsor or one tenth the value of TV rights payments to the IOC of the US. The UK does not even pay what Canadian Broadcasters do for the games with twice the population of Canada and a greater sized economy ? Twice London has been just given the games while on one occasion you had multiple American Cities that were told No boys there will be no vote for 1948 it is going to war torn Western Europe and London. The IOC thinks North Americans are idiots basically. Surely the laughter from Switzerland can be heard in the neighboring countries when NBC or an American Network increases the Rights Fees for something that was a ratings dog in 2006 VS American Idol . Hopefully a good kick in the head a couple of times will have America and Canada wake up to the reality . you can host the winter games as the choices are few for those. Really it is a one way street you give us your money and we will screw you over when you want to host . There was certainly no compelling case to go to London in 2012 ? The only Frontier in the Bunch was New York City or Madrid in regards to cites not hosting prior. Jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotguy Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Its weird, before the decision day people were saying that it was going to be between Chicago and Rio, now its they never sttod a chance. Hindsight is a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 It's not really hindsight. Rather it's just spouting rhetoric after the fact. So many adamant opinions change when an outcome doesn't turn out as expected (i.e. when Paris lost to London). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 It's not really hindsight. Rather it's just spouting rhetoric after the fact. So many adamant opinions change when an outcome doesn't turn out as expected (i.e. when Paris lost to London). Isn't that the definition of hindsight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 What an extremely arrogant post! America hasn't been humiliated by the IOC at all! For 2012 it would have been very strange for the IOC to vote for New York in huge numbers after their stadium plans self-destructed just two weeks before the final vote. For 2016 the sentimental pull of Rio was too much for all the other candidates - the US has hosted 8 Olympics - Brazil hasn't hosted any! You say 8 hostings but examine it . It was not until 1960 that a bonfida Bid election victory came for the US of any bid . Around 20 bids had been launched and failed before the 1960 victory. Australia hosted via a bid victory well before the US would be afforded that respect. Chicago 1904 that became St Louis 1904 was not a bid contest but rather the IOC executive of the day Saying time to go to the nation sending the largest team outside of Europe. 1932 was Abandoned by Europe for possible bidders and thus Los Angeles had to take up the mantle. The winter games went to Lake Placid with only one opponent from Europe being Oslo. Winter and Summer Games at that time were awarded to the same country so Oslo was out by virtue of the Abandoned Summer games left to LA. Squaw Valley was the first Bid win for America over 50 years into the games but over 25 years inwhich the longest sponsor of the Modern Games Coca Cola had started their relationship with the IOC. Then there was Denver 1976 . It would take another 20 years for America to return to win their forth Bid only after Lake Placid would save the winter games in 1980 and LA would do the same for the summer games in 1984. Basically you have America only awarded the games 4 times 3 of which were winter games. There would be no possible RIO 2016 , London 2012 Beijing 2008 , Athens 2004 , Sydney 2000 , Atlanta 1996 , Barcelona 1992 , Seuol 1988 without America's intervention and new business model for the games. I certainly am very happy for Rio 2016 and pulled for it totally but I also think it has to be a lesson for the US . Don't even bother until at least 2046 on the Summer side because as history has shown your wasting your time and energy on bidding . Those who don't learn from History are bound to repeat it . Jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim jones Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Not true, jj. I think Stanford was put in as a bid for 4 or 5 IAAF-thingies ago. Except of course, it was just a university track...and not quite a major metropolis. And I think the USTFA knew that it was a weak bid, but they still did put in a bid. Well Stanford must have applied a very long time ago because I found this in regards to NYC 2012. NYC NYC abbr. New York City NYC New York City . The Olympic Stadium remains in one of the three clusters and is fully consistent with New York's Games concept, including plans for transportation, security, accommodations and finance. Last week, the Revised IOC Candidature File was submitted to the IOC Executive Board. "The Olympic Stadium will also leave a great legacy for the sport of Athletics after the Games, allowing the new Icahn Stadium to be expanded to a permanent 25,000-seat outdoor track, the only Class 1 IAAF-certified track in the United States capable of hosting major national and international competitions," Doctoroff added. So basically the NYC 2012 acknowledged that IAAF legacy was an add on at the last minute holding out the carrot of an IAAF Class one Stadium which in 2005 there was none in the US. Again Edmonton Alberta's Commonwealth Stadium seems to be the only place that fits the bill for the IAAF world Championships it seems as they are the only city to have hosted them in North America. jim jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.