FYI Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 It couldn't have been all about the money. Even the IOC said that if it was JUST about the money, Chicago would've won. I think any Olympics staged in the U.S. would make the IOC money. The only difference I would see is if the IOC was DESPERATE for money. In that sense I would agree with CM. Otherwise, if the IOC is fine in all it's bank accounts at the moment, they ain't gonna look the U.S.' until they NEED to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 The only thing I don't like is that always the discussion is about how and why Chicago lost, never about how and why Rio won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 The only thing I don't like is that always the discussion is about how and why Chicago lost, never about how and why Rio won. Well, Danny, Rio won...what's there to discuss? And there are more regular North American-Oz-Euro posters here than Brazilians, so of course, discussions would tend to lean to what's relevant to our regions. But u and the other South Americans take care of that angle already. The way I see it, they HAVE to rotate the SOGs, especially after FIFA has already beaten them to it (except for Oceania); and once they tick Africa off the list, then the IOC would really have another continent (and generation) hooked onto its brand. So, indeed...regardless of what anybody says, the SOGs are going to be on a continental rotation, and the WOGs are the consolation prize for the important northern countries that get bypassed in their SOG bids. Then the "B" and "C" cities that would have hocked their first-born to stage an OGs, would get the crumbs, i.e., the YOGs, the IOC Session, or the World Games (those sports that can't get into the Olympic slate). So, there's a piece of the pie for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted October 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 Obama couldn't commit earlier because there was a very real possibility the Health Bill would be going through the Senate on the very same as the day of the vote. The Olympics are important, but not that important. That's true and totally logical and health was by far a greater priority for him to focus on. But nevertheless, it still meant that the entire home run stretch of the campaign for Chicago was dominated almost exclusively with the "Will He or Won't He?" speculation. The focus became one man and whether his charisma could swing it for the USA, rather than on what Chicago the city could offer the Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 The only thing I don't like is that always the discussion is about how and why Chicago lost, never about how and why Rio won. I guess the reason for that is because Rio's win did not really come as a surprise to most of us.It had established itself as the sentimental favourite from the start and once it cleared the hurdle of the evaluation report,it seemed to be on course for victory.Only some kind of last minute hitch (like the stadium fiasco that scuppered New York's chances for 2012) would have cast doubt on Rio's win. The only question seemed to be how close a race would Chicago make it because most of us saw Chicago as Rio's closest competitor and expected to see it in the final ballot against Rio.That it fell in the 1st ballot was a stunning surprise to pretty nearly everybody including many IOC members hence the ongoing discussion about the reasons for its collapse! Much of the discussion on the 2012 vote centred on the reasons for Paris's surprising failure to clinch victory when it had been the overwhelming favourite virtually from the start.Of course the reasons for London's victory had an obvious bearing on that and the two were discussed in tandem.But the understandable cries of pain and outrage from many Paris supporters inevitably dominated most of the discussion which I recall became very heated indeed! Similarly,Chicago supporters have been venting similar pain,outrage and genuine bafflement as to why their city,touted as Rio's chief rival,instead fell so quickly and unexpectedly.It was just so much more surprising and controversial than the fact that Rio won! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 The only thing I don't like is that always the discussion is about how and why Chicago lost, never about how and why Rio won. Because it always cut & dry for the winner, plain & simple. "How" did Rio win? By being able to come up with a plan that the IOC was finally comfortable with (& the Pan Ams were a big boost to the bid, too). "Why" did Rio win? Because it was the most compelling candidate to the IOC (i.e. First Games in South America). Not much more to discuss. Unlike the losing cities & it's supporters (like some of the other posters already have explained) that in their minds, have to disect & analize every angle that there possibly is as to "why" & "how" they lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 Danny, rest assured that you have a whole section in the forum devoted to Rio 2016. We will be discussing the lead up to the Games for months and years to come, so there will be plenty of time to focus on Rio and Brazil. Let's not forget that Obama talked to many IOC members on the phone... that has to count for something. I don't believe past presidents ever did what Obama did, and they probably won't any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 yes and we'll be talking about it if venues are behind schedule! I don't want them to change the concept of the Olympic Training Centre. That building is so simple yet so awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 I loved all opinions you guys made about Rio's victory. Good points made by great posters, as always. Maybe my point was lost in translation again. But, whatever, I read your points here and many I agree totally. And I agreed also with GB article who point Chicago loss as #1 fact in bids world in 2009 over Rio' victory. It was really a shock how Chicago lose and how IOC voted even under "obama-mania" in Copenhagen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 I loved all opinions you guys made about Rio's victory. Good points made by great posters, as always. Maybe my point was lost in translation again. But, whatever, I read your points here and many I agree totally. And I agreed also with GB article who point Chicago loss as #1 fact in bids world in 2009 over Rio' victory. It was really a shock how Chicago lose and how IOC voted even under "obama-mania" in Copenhagen. Danny, your always wanting to stick Rio in every story sort of betrays a certain insecurity. NOT every story's going to be about Rio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 Danny, your always wanting to stick Rio in every story sort of betrays a certain insecurity. About what? We will be discussing the lead up to the Games for months and years to come, so there will be plenty of time to focus on Rio and Brazil. True enough! Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 About what? That you can't give others with a loss time and space to heal their wounds w/o someone having to stick their neck in... Rio... Rio... Rio. What if the situation were reversed, Danny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 That you can't give others with a loss time and space to heal their wounds w/o someone having to stick their neck in... Rio... Rio... Rio. What if the situation were reversed, Danny? Baron, let's not continue this discussion, pretty useless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 Baron, let's not continue this discussion, pretty useless... How convenient of you to feel that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 One thing I never understood about 2016 race is why Tokyo was no considered a frontrunner. I thought that Tokyo could be the strongest contende. I have a great image of Japan and japanese organization. Timing is one reason, but timing is not everything. What went wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted October 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 One thing I never understood about 2016 race is why Tokyo was no considered a frontrunner. I thought that Tokyo could be the strongest contende. I have a great image of Japan and japanese organization. Timing is one reason, but timing is not everything. What went wrong? That's a really good question. I think a lot of people probably expected Tokyo to be a hugely strong contender - just as many also do for 2020. I think what struck me was that its campaign seemed very low-key and low profile. And, of course, there was never much action abound it here. I just put that down to cultural differences - the Japanese don't participate that much on foreign forums on the net and such, and I guess there's the whole language barrier. But even accounting for that, there really didn't seem to be a lot of visible high-profile campaigning compared to Rio or Chicago, or even Madrid. It almost seems to me that, like China, they go in more for private, behind-the-scenes lobbying and campaigning. As for what went wrong - probably nothing. They weren't going to beat Rio unless something went really wrong with Brazil's campaign, and indeed were many people's picks to exit in the first round. I guess making it through to the second round of votes was aleady better than many predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 Tokyo was never really considered a front-runner for 2016 because like Madrid (i.e. too soon for Europe after London), it was just seen as "too soon" to go back to Asia only 8 years after Beijing. Nothing was wrong with their bid other than their timing. If they decide to go for 2020, their chances will be much, much better, especially if Munich or Annecy land the 2018 Winter Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 If timing was the only problem, why don't they get better results than Madrid? Well, if we see the final results, IOC hidden politics seems still to be the major factor when choosing a host city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 Precisely Y Tokyo didn't do better than Madrid. Because of the IOC politics. The Olympic pundits (including us here on GB) totally underestimated (N I think it was actually more of a case of *dismissing*) the still strong influence of J.A.S. If it wasn't for him, Madrid would've been the 1st to go, or at least go before Tokyo did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 Precisely Y Tokyo didn't do better than Madrid. Because of the IOC politics. The Olympic pundits (including us here on GB) totally underestimated (N I think it was actually more of a case of *dismissing*) the still strong influence of J.A.S. If it wasn't for him, Madrid would've been the 1st to go, or at least go before Tokyo did. Good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Tokyo was never really considered a front-runner for 2016 because like Madrid (i.e. too soon for Europe after London), it was just seen as "too soon" to go back to Asia only 8 years after Beijing. Nothing was wrong with their bid other than their timing. If they decide to go for 2020, their chances will be much, much better, especially if Munich or Annecy land the 2018 Winter Games. I would say that Munich or Annecy MUST land 2018 if Tokyo is going to have a shot at 2020. The IOC might do European WOG/SOG back to back, but not Asian ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.