Jump to content

2016 Bids Debriefing Meeting


Recommended Posts

2016 Olympic Bids Head Back to Lausanne

4/10/2010

(ATR) For one last time, leaders of the bids for the 2016 Olympics head back to Lausanne to meet with the IOC and make suggestions on how to improve the bidding process.

Representatives of Tokyo were the first to meet Thursday with IOC staff in two-hour sessions, followed by Chicago, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro.

IOC Olympic Games Executive Director Gilbert Felli led the debriefings, which always take place some months after the campaign for the Games is over. The meetings at IOC headquarters are the first time the 2016 cities have been together since Oct. 2 when Rio was voted the winner at the IOC Session in Copenhagen.

“We received the 2016 Candidate Cities as part of normal operating procedures, and all four provided us with good information that will help us with future candidate procedures. We will now present this information to our Executive Board,” said Felli in a statement to Around the Rings.

So far only the team from Tokyo has gone public their ideas for change. At the top of the list: allowing IOC members to visit bid cities.

Once the rule for the IOC, bid city visits were the first casualty of the Salt Lake City vote-buying scandal of the late 1990’s. IOC President Jacques Rogge has steadfastly refused to go along with a return to bid city visits.

Japanese Olympic Committee international chief Yasuhiro Nakamori tells Around the Rings that in the case of Tokyo, “IOC members could see that it is not just a concrete jungle. They could receive a correct impression of the city,” he said.

Nakamori says Tokyo also suggested a shorter international campaign, a move he says will reduce costs for bid cities.

Tokyo, as well as the other bids, have said they support the briefing for IOC members that debuted last June in Lausanne. The two-day briefing allowed the 2016 bids to present the technical aspects of their bids to nearly 90 IOC members four months before the vote. The presentations for the IOC members grew out of suggestions made at past bid city debriefings like the one held in Lausanne today.

Along with Nakamori, bid CEO Ichiro Kono, JOC board member and businessman Masato Mizuno and a representative from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government took part in the briefing for Japan.

The team of four from Chicago included USOC staffers Robert Fasulo and Chris Sullivan and Chicago 2016 executives Dave Bolger and John Murray.

CEO Mercedes Coghen brought a team from Madrid that also included managing director Antonio Fernandez and Spanish Olympic Committee secretary general Victor Sanchez.

Rio 2016 President Carlos Nuzman and marketing director Leonardo Gryner represented the Rio de Janeiro bid.

http://aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=34610

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the Chicago team did not have CEO Pat Ryan there, and USOC "staffers". All of the other bid teams had more important people attend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the Chicago team did not have CEO Pat Ryan there, and USOC "staffers". All of the other bid teams had more important people attend.

I think the money (Pat Ryan) behind Chicago 2016 has moved on. Pat is unlikely to even be alive the next time the games come to the US, so I think he could care less about the IOC at this juncture. It's just the "workers", like John, who are still around. For them, this is important - cordial relations with the IOC means they might land a plumb management job, similar to what Doug Arnot got.

As to the USOC, also a bit surprised that they sent staffers, not execs. To me it says there is probably not much progress yet in mending the relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a post-mortem meeting....so I guess Pat Ryan and Daley aren't really necessary. As for sending USOC staffers, maybe that's all the IOC deserves at this point.

Canis, what positions did Dave Bolger and Murray have in the Chicago 2016 structure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the money (Pat Ryan) behind Chicago 2016 has moved on. Pat is unlikely to even be alive the next time the games come to the US, so I think he could care less about the IOC at this juncture.

Well, he was working for "free" while leading Chicago 2016. He has since launched a new company at the ripe age of 72.

Yes, Madrid and Tokyo's actions for this meeting seem to point at future bids. Madrid can't use their "Latin" argument for 2020 though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canis, what positions did Dave Bolger and Murray have in the Chicago 2016 structure?

Dave Bolger was Chief Operating Officer of bid operations and came across from AON where he was CFO. So, he is actually a pretty senior guy.

John Murray was Chief Bid Officer. He joined the original bid as the manager of the consulting team that supported the initial domestic bid, and then moved full-time to the bid. Frankly, John is really the guy that wrote the bid. He put in 16 hour days, day after day, while the USOC folks where drinking lattes and debating airy fairy colors. John led every part of the bid on a day to day basis, with the only exception being venues which were under Doug Arnot.

I have a huge respect for what John did, and I am a little disquieted whenever I read in the media and it would mostly be someone else's name mentioned. I hope he gets a great position coming out of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The fact that major USOC members did not attend does not help to change the image that the Americans want to run an Olympic Movement of their own.

Considering that Chicago main issue was to secure pledged votes to pass the 1st round, this seems like a big mistake. It is clear that the US lacks a proper network of contacts in the IOC, which was the main cause behind the early elimination.

I think the USOc should participate on this kind of event out of respect. They need to show their appreciation for the IOC as an institution and build strong relationships with the members. Otherwise, the US will find it difficult to host the SOG competing against good alternatives, i.e. other cities from the Americas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the USOc should participate on this kind of event out of respect. They need to show their appreciation for the IOC as an institution and build strong relationships with the members. Otherwise, the US will find it difficult to host the SOG competing against good alternatives, i.e. other cities from the Americas.

Conversely, it can be argued that the IOC should treat the USOC with more respect. Remember, the CEO of the USOC is an unpaid job. Unlike many other NOCs, where the CEO is a highly paid political appointment, the USOC CEO's generally serve for free out of love for sport. Isn't this what the Olympic movement is supposed to embody?

Regardless, since a SOG in the US is decades away, there is no need for the USOC to waste their own resources to cosy up to the current IOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversely, it can be argued that the IOC should treat the USOC with more respect. Remember, the CEO of the USOC is an unpaid job. Unlike many other NOCs, where the CEO is a highly paid political appointment, the USOC CEO's generally serve for free out of love for sport. Isn't this what the Olympic movement is supposed to embody?

Regardless, since a SOG in the US is decades away, there is no need for the USOC to waste their own resources to cosy up to the current IOC.

Exactly. There is no need to lick IOC ass. They get enough $$ from the U.S. anyway. And we'll just take the gold and the silver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that major USOC members did not attend does not help to change the image that the Americans want to run an Olympic Movement of their own.

Considering that Chicago main issue was to secure pledged votes to pass the 1st round, this seems like a big mistake. It is clear that the US lacks a proper network of contacts in the IOC, which was the main cause behind the early elimination.

I think the USOc should participate on this kind of event out of respect. They need to show their appreciation for the IOC as an institution and build strong relationships with the members. Otherwise, the US will find it difficult to host the SOG competing against good alternatives, i.e. other cities from the Americas.

what's the point? Whatever comes out of these meetings, whether they include so called "preliminary reviews" or what have you, analysis reports won't matter much if the IOC already has a specific city in mind--whether they fare well in the preliminary reports or not. Chicago went back and forth with the IOC before during and after the bid book came out making sure they were in line with policies and properly played by the rules, not realizing no matter how hard they tried, the IOC have chosen Rio after eliminating Doha.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the point? Whatever comes out of these meetings, whether they include so called "preliminary reviews" or what have you, analysis reports won't matter much if the IOC already has a specific city in mind--whether they fare well in the preliminary reports or not. Chicago went back and forth with the IOC before during and after the bid book came out making sure they were in line with policies and properly played by the rules, not realizing no matter how hard they tried, the IOC have chosen Rio after eliminating Doha.

Don't buy the bs that Rio was chosen because Doha was kicked out. This is a sore-looser excuse. There are several reasons why Doha would be eliminated, which the IOC doesn't want to make public because it would look bad to arab countries, such as the status of women. Even after being shortlisted Rio had a huge mountain to climb, since it is about convincing the majority of the IOC members and not only the leadership.

Maybe a defeat was really inevitable, but that was probably due to a bad marketing campaign. Chicago did not sell very well why it should host the games. Its proposals were usually plain. The communication did not create a message of stunning games, great legacy and so on. Apparently, the bid team focused in creating a good technical proposal. Once you go through the application phase, it is more about marketing and public relations than about an excellent technical proposal.

As I have said before, they thought continental rotation would through the games at them. They underestimated the power of a Rio bid, when it came to voting. The Rio committee was better positioned in terms of IOC relationship and the bid had some unmatched assets, such as South America's premiere, great natural beauty and a legacy plan which reminded that of Barcelona.

The USOC must understand that it needs to be in close contacts with the IOC. And I don't mean only the EB and Gilbert Felli. I mean the 100 people who actually vote. Its leaders must understand better what they need to present to win. If they keep ignoring the IOC, the trend is to promote the feeling within the IOC that the Americans are arrogant and feel like they don't need the IOC. By snobbing the IOC, the only thing the USOC is going to get is another defeat, probably to a Canadian city, when continental rotation brings it back to the Americas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a defeat was really inevitable, but that was probably due to a bad marketing campaign. Chicago did not sell very well why it should host the games. Its proposals were usually plain. The communication did not create a message of stunning games, great legacy and so on. Apparently, the bid team focused in creating a good technical proposal. Once you go through the application phase, it is more about marketing and public relations than about an excellent technical proposal.

That's what I thought. And its lakeside views were really no match for Rio's bay and hills. That's where Chicago should NOT have focused on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought. And its lakeside views were really no match for Rio's bay and hills. That's where Chicago should NOT have focused on.

As said in the games bids article (or it was some around the rings one??? I don't remember) after the presentations in Copenhagen.

"Chicago was not serious to say they'd have a beach in Lake Michigan during a competition with Rio" (something like that)

Don't buy the bs that Rio was chosen because Doha was kicked out. This is a sore-looser excuse.

Indeed, because every single election IOC selects those cities with more than 6.0. Rio was 6.4, so Rio was in, with or without Doha...

Doha elimination has nothing to do with Rio approval on the final list...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...