Roma 2020 Bid

[Sir Rols]

Well, first we have to see if the U.S. bids for 2022 or 2026. And second, then see if it wins.

And I certainly don't contest that the IOC mainly comes to the U.S. when they need money & that going to Canada would provide access to U.S. audiences & money without giving the U.S. a Games.

But frankly, that's the only advantage I see in the IOC going to Canada over the U.S. considering all the tangibles involved. And I don't believe that component alone would be incentive enough to do so.

In a head to head race, assuming a good bid plan and good timing, I don't think Toronto would be at any disadvantage against a rival US bidder.

But it's all moot unless they have they will and intention. I really haven't seen any serious indications beyond a bit of wishful-thinking speculation from some here that about a Toronto bid. And I was just looking at the list of the attendees at the Olympic Cities conference - it's telling that Toronto isn't there, while a busload of US cities are.

[FYI]

while a busload of US cities are.

I haven't looked. Anything juicy? Or is Tulsa, Minne & Birmingham at the top of the wishful-thinking heap.

[Sir Rols]

I haven't looked. Anything juicy? Or is Tulsa, Minne & Birmingham at the top of the wishful-thinking heap.

The link was in one of the 2022 threads. But San Francisco, Dallas, Denver, Reno ... and Tulsa!

http://www.olympiccities.org./Participating-cities

[FYI]

... and Tulsa!

Oh goody! I can hardly wait too see their whimsical plans!

And what about Hobart?! Where they there, too.

[Sir Rols]

And what about Hobart?! Where they there, too.

Shockingly, No!

[FYI]

Just looked at the list. What? No Hobart?? ...

[FYI]

Shockingly, No!

Sense must've finally sunken in, lol. Now, if only Tulsa can indulge in some (not to mention the one on these boards from the big "A" ).

I'm surprised that Los Angeles wasn't there, though. Since they're always looking to be up the IOC's a$s & be at their beckoning call.

[Sir Rols]

Sao Paolo stumps me. And Kazan? Surely Russia's Tulsa?

Now a San Francisco versus St Petersburg race would be interesting!

[FYI]

I thought the same of Sao Paulo, but maybe they're there since they'll maybe host some Olympic soccer matches? Or maybe they are just dumb, lol. And Kazan maybe a Winter wannabe? And whatever happened to good'ole Minneapolis. And yes, a San Francisco vs. St. Petersburg would be interesting.

The lack of any compelling U.S. cities from the list surely must be making the USOC ponder. Only San Francisco is there that's of the top 4, & they've had big red tape before. Dallas would have to be the USOC's last ditch effort of that list if no one else wanted to try. Looks like Winter 2022 might be the direction the USOC could be inclined to go, afterall.

[Sir Rols]

I thought the same of Sao Paulo, but maybe they're there since they'll maybe host some Olympic soccer matches?

From what I read in the Brazilian WC threads, they're struggling to get anything decent in order for the WC matches.

[Athensfan]

The odd inclusions (Tulsa, Kazan, Gothenburg, Sao Paulo) and glaring absences (Tokyo, Paris, Madrid, Doha, Dubai, Toronto, Chicago, New York) suggest we shouldn't attach to much significance to the list of attendees.

[Sir Rols]

glaring absences (Tokyo, Paris, Madrid, Doha, Dubai, Toronto, Chicago, New York) suggest we shouldn't attach to much significance to the list of attendees.

It's not like they'd have much to learn about how to mount a bid.

Sao Paolo and Kazan, I suppose, must be related to how they can maximise gains from their WCs. And Gothenberg has done the winter bid thing before. I just shudder to think they didn't learn from that plan.

[baron-pierreIV]

The odd inclusions (Tulsa, Kazan, Gothenburg, Sao Paulo) and glaring absences (Tokyo, Paris, Madrid, Doha, Dubai, Toronto, Chicago, New York) suggest we shouldn't attach to much significance to the list of attendees.

Hmmmmmmmm... or r u seeing thru your SOG-rose-colored glasses? Obviously, the USOC sent Tulsa and Dallas so they can better understand where they REALLY stand in all this.

Sao Paulo to me, is like a Milan, New York and Frankfurt. Hosting an Olympics is really 2ndary; being a business capital is more important to them.

[intoronto]

Invalid point. If Rio struggles with WC prep, that has nothing to do with SA. South Africa has just proven itself with one of the most successful World Cups yet.

The Rio-SA connection, South Africa is developing so with the struggles faced in Rio, it will put thoughts in the heads of voting members.

Secondly, to the point of the USA having 10X the population, why did Canada smoke them in Vancouver?, and why doesn't the USA win 10X the medals at the Summer Olympics? (when they have way more finding available)

[baron-pierreIV]

1. The Rio-SA connection, South Africa is developing so with the struggles faced in Rio, it will put thoughts in the heads of voting members.

2. Secondly, to the point of the USA having 10X the population, why did Canada smoke them in Vancouver?, and why doesn't the USA win 10X the medals at the Summer Olympics? (when they have way more finding available)

1. Huh? The RSA put in a smashing good show with last year's WOrld Cup. It came in on schedule...on budget I believe...and except for a boring finals...a good time was had by all. Brazil is realizing that a 2-year gap between the 2 LARGEST sporting events on earth might be a little too much...altho the 2016 construction scheudle does NOT seem to be too much in jeopardy as the World Cup venues are lagging.

How does that fit into the IOC voter's mind? The RSA put on a smashing good party; it's something they cna point towith pride. 2020 is NINE years up the road with only 1 city really in contention. When they gather in that city--of ALL PLACES in 45 days -- do you think the South Africans will be showing a dirty, decrepit, decaying society?

2. Again...geese to anthills. THe 10x population is something looked at in terms of TV marketing figures...not in terms of medals. If anything, CANADA had to PROVE something this time...that in the last 2 Canadian-Olympics, u were the only Olympic host in history until last winter NOT to have won any Gold medals on home soil. And that is a sobering fact because if you will LOOK at Olympic history, and correlate hosting duties with MEDALS won, hosting at home always provide that home-field advantage which somehow didn't work in 1976 or 1988.

The US does NOT have to prove anything in terms of winning medals. Overall, since 1896, the U.S. has won over 2,500 GOLD MEDALS in history...give back or take a few home and ONE boycott notwithestanding.

Again, the population size AND medal haul do NOT figure in assessing hosting chances. China certainly did NOT win 4x the medals it should've in Beijing over the USA going by your thinking. What about India and Indonesia (#s 2 and 4 in terms of population)?

The thing is, intoronto, 6 or 7 of the IOC's TOP sponsors (Coke, Visa, McDonald's, Dow-Jones, Proctor & Gamble--just off the top of my head) who pay about $100 million each to HELP subsidize these Olympic Games are US-based. The U.S. pays the lion's share of the IOC's TV broadcast income...those are the statistics one keeps in mind when weighing say, a U.S. vs. Canada equation's Olympic-hosting values.

[FYI]

Secondly, to the point of the USA having 10X the population, why did Canada smoke them in Vancouver?, and why doesn't the USA win 10X the medals at the Summer Olympics? (when they have way more finding available)

Population is not exclusively nor necessarily about the medal haul, but mainly moreso a geopolitical one. Why do you think that China constantly touted that they were "the most populated nation on earth that's yet to host the Olympics" when they were bidding for the Games.

For a country the small size of Canada, they've had a very big chunk of the Olympic limelight. Three Olympic Games for a nation with less than 35 million people is not too shabby. Just like Australia, for a nation of less than 25 million people that's hosted 2 Summer Olympic Games already, the IOC is not gonna be running back there anytime soon.

And to your Vancouver comment, again it just illustrates how Canada is that much better at the Winter Games than at the Summer Olympics. No one is denying Canada's prowess at the Winter Olympics.

[OneTimeOnly]

Only San Francisco is there that's of the top 4, & they've had big red tape before.

That's not the only San Francisco hurdle. Too many special interest kooks in that city as well. It's a crying shame. Not that it couldn't be done, but....hard.

[intoronto]

1. Huh? The RSA put in a smashing good show with last year's WOrld Cup. It came in on schedule...on budget I believe...and except for a boring finals...a good time was had by all. Brazil is realizing that a 2-year gap between the 2 LARGEST sporting events on earth might be a little too much...altho the 2016 construction scheudle does NOT seem to be too much in jeopardy as the World Cup venues are lagging.

How does that fit into the IOC voter's mind? The RSA put on a smashing good party; it's something they cna point towith pride. 2020 is NINE years up the road with only 1 city really in contention. When they gather in that city--of ALL PLACES in 45 days -- do you think the South Africans will be showing a dirty, decrepit, decaying society?

2. Again...geese to anthills. THe 10x population is something looked at in terms of TV marketing figures...not in terms of medals. If anything, CANADA had to PROVE something this time...that in the last 2 Canadian-Olympics, u were the only Olympic host in history until last winter NOT to have won any Gold medals on home soil. And that is a sobering fact because if you will LOOK at Olympic history, and correlate hosting duties with MEDALS won, hosting at home always provide that home-field advantage which somehow didn't work in 1976 or 1988.

The US does NOT have to prove anything in terms of winning medals. Overall, since 1896, the U.S. has won over 2,500 GOLD MEDALS in history...give back or take a few home and ONE boycott notwithestanding.

Again, the population size AND medal haul do NOT figure in assessing hosting chances. China certainly did NOT win 4x the medals it should've in Beijing over the USA going by your thinking. What about India and Indonesia (#s 2 and 4 in terms of population)?

The thing is, intoronto, 6 or 7 of the IOC's TOP sponsors (Coke, Visa, McDonald's, Dow-Jones, Proctor & Gamble--just off the top of my head) who pay about $100 million each to HELP subsidize these Olympic Games are US-based. The U.S. pays the lion's share of the IOC's TV broadcast income...those are the statistics one keeps in mind when weighing say, a U.S. vs. Canada equation's Olympic-hosting values.

I am not against South Africa's bid, but considering RIO is having troubles it can hurt South Africa's bid.

[CanisMinor]

I am not against South Africa's bid, but considering RIO is having troubles it can hurt South Africa's bid.

You're simply ignoring the fact that South Africa has a PROVEN track-record in the World Cup. Troubles in Brazil will only make it MORE likely that the IOC will favor SA, as it has shown the political will, economic might and social interest to host and deliver successful mega-events.

[baron-pierreIV]

I really don't get the thinking/evaluative process of some of our (younger) posters here.

[Rob2012]

I am not against South Africa's bid, but considering RIO is having troubles it can hurt South Africa's bid.

I don't think Rio is having trouble with their Olympic preparations. As I understand it, those are going pretty smoothly. It's the World Cup that's giving them problems.

But I do sort of see what you're getting at, if only hypothetically.

If Rio was having problems with 2016, and those problems were sufficiently major to be on IOC members' minds come the 2013 vote, then they may veer towards safer/known ground.

That may be entirely unfair on, say, South Africa, but it's only natural. Of course a confident IOC with good experiences of new territories is more likely to keep pushing into new territories. Conversely, the CWGF must be looking at a couple of safe hosts after the shambles of Delhi. Whether that's fair on Hambantota and their bid or not is beside the point.

That's my feeling about these things anyway. But as I say, for the 2020 race that's entirely hypothetical since Rio's doing just fine.

[intoronto]

I really don't get the thinking/evaluative process of some of our (younger) posters here.

Cocky much? I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST South Africa, in fact I think they will host a great Olympics when they get there chance (I hope its 2020), but I am playing the devil's advocate here by saying South Africa does not have nearly the resources that Brazil has to begin. South Africa has no history in staging an event with 10000+ athletes in one city ever, Rio has. The second straight event in the Southern Hemisphere could possibly sway some voters. If you are not an IOC member you really can't say I am wrong, because at the end of the day they are the ones voting not you. Although these points are relatively minor, they could pose some points against voting for South Africa.

I like to think I am young, how young do you think I am?

[Athensfan]

I'm surprised that Los Angeles wasn't there, though.

L.A. is attending. It's not an aspiring city. It's an Olympic city since its already hosted twice. Read the list again.

[FYI]

If you are not an IOC member you really can't say I am wrong, because at the end of the day they are the ones voting not you.

No, Baron is not an IOC member, you're right about that. But at the same time, niether are you, nor I, nor any of the other main members here. However, a lot of us here that have been around a long time to see how these races have come about throughout the years, has given us insight on how the IOC more or less works, & therefore how some of us can give a more informed opionon. Afterall, that's what these forums are about anyway. To discuss.

Your points could be plausible with SOME of the IOC members. But then again, Baron's points could also be plausible with OTHER IOC members. Since you have to remember, that the IOC doesn't vote in one bloc, but rather individually by 100+ members which will all have their individual agendas, bias & preferences. If at the at of the day a South African candidate makes it to the short-list process, it won't matter if Rio, or whomever, is having problems, since by this point, any South African candidate would have passed any preliminary technical assessment. That's all South Africa needs to do, is to get all that short-list. Once they've done that (which they have before), it's a free-for-all on the votes.

[baron-pierreIV]

South Africa has no history in staging an event with 10000+ athletes in one city ever, Rio has.

When was that? The PanAms? Only 5,633 athletes were hosted in Rio 2007. How could that be 10,000?

Frankly, NO CITIES before Atlanta 1996 ever hosted 10,000 athletes. So, therefore, Athens 1896 up to Barcelona 1992 would have had a hard time winning the Olympic right to host because they had never hosted an event with 10,000 attendees?

Also, my earlier comment was a general one including some other posters.