Jump to content

BID EVALUATION REPORTS


!VamosSochi!

Recommended Posts

There bound to be several losing sides... :rolleyes:

y.

Yes, but will ALL of them, sue? Not necessarily. Have you heard of any beauty pageants where the other 79 losers all filed suit? Some may complain; but they have very little ground to stand upon to complain.

And insofar as the ever-changing rules, if it's applicable to everyone and they all tacitly agree, then it's legit. I mean if you don't like the rules halfway through, you can always quit...like Mexico and Indonesia did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not wanting to drag this off topic too much, but the courts would be a last resort. If a country like England or Spain, or Russia for that matter given its growing power in the game, felt they were treated unfairly and FIFA didn't act on this, they'd just need to pull the money they give to FIFA and their development programmes; cut off all ties. FIFA would quickly act then. The more vociferous sections of the press in this country would also make FIFA's life very uncomfortable if there is a general feeling FIFA hasn't been playing it straight.

FIFA has more to lose than either Spain or England, the countries with the two biggest leagues in world football. If such countries choose to no longer recognise the governing body or its activities, then where does that leave it?

Anyway, that's all very much hypothetical. We're nowhere near that stage yet, and if FIFA are wise they won't let it get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like matters Olympic, such a matter would only be heard in the CAS (the Court of Arbitration in Sport) since it would be an administrative or procedural matter rather than a civil or penal matter. (Well, actually, even matters like Marion Jones' case or the doping allegations of the Tour de France; all of those go before the CAS. Also, I believe someone on the FIFA ExecBoard is also on the CAS, so I don't think that's going to get very far.)

Plus, how much one spends on one's bid is entirely at the bidder's discretion. I don't think FIFA sets a minimum on how much they have to spend on the bidding process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full reports for each bid finally on line

A new version of the summaries ducument is also published.

It now includes the color-coded risk tables aggregated for all bidders.

The operational one makes Russia look much inferior.

However if you read the detailed texts, there is significant praise for Russia's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The text of the report clearly does not lead to the "conclusions" in the risk tables.

For example, how can Russia be evaluated as a higher operational risk than the other European bidders when we see the following?

4.2. Hosting Concept

Russia

Russia has submitted a comprehensive and well-structured hosting concept.

England

England has submitted a comprehensive hosting concept.

Spain & Portugal

In order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation of the hosting concept further key operational details would be required, especially in view of the administrative, logistical and financial challenges of co-hosting.

Holland & Belgium

In order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation of the hosting concept further key operational details would be required, especially in view of the administrative, logistical and financial challenges of co-hosting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah ! Go Russia GO !!!!!

The text of the report clearly does not lead to the "conclusions" in the risk tables.

For example, how can Russia be evaluated as a higher operational risk than the other European bidders when we see the following?

4.2. Hosting Concept

Russia

Russia has submitted a comprehensive and well-structured hosting concept.

England

England has submitted a comprehensive hosting concept.

Spain & Portugal

In order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation of the hosting concept further key operational details would be required, especially in view of the administrative, logistical and financial challenges of co-hosting.

Holland & Belgium

In order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation of the hosting concept further key operational details would be required, especially in view of the administrative, logistical and financial challenges of co-hosting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The text of the report clearly does not lead to the "conclusions" in the risk tables.

For example, how can Russia be evaluated as a higher operational risk than the other European bidders when we see the following?

Operational risk is not the same as quality of the hosting concept. They apparently liked Russias concept, but especially concerning the transport infrastructure, they have some concerns if it will play out the way Russias OC plans. And if it doesn't, it will have a major impact on the quality of the tournament. The way I read it, they were less smitten with the Dutch bid, but they didn't see any reason why it wouldn't work out the way planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Operational risk is not the same as quality of the hosting concept. They apparently liked Russias concept, but especially concerning the transport infrastructure, they have some concerns if it will play out the way Russias OC plans. And if it doesn't, it will have a major impact on the quality of the tournament. The way I read it, they were less smitten with the Dutch bid, but they didn't see any reason why it wouldn't work out the way planned.

I understand it is not the same, but still very much related. Just look again at what they say about both Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium plans - FIFA cannot even evaluate them fully, because "further key operational details would be required, especially in view of the administrative, logistical and financial challenges of co-hosting."

Does it make sense to say that you cannot evaluate smth properly, but still believe it to be low-risk? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand it is not the same, but still very much related. Just look again at what they say about both Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium plans - FIFA cannot even evaluate them fully, because "further key operational details would be required, especially in view of the administrative, logistical and financial challenges of co-hosting."

Does it make sense to say that you cannot evaluate smth properly, but still believe it to be low-risk? :blink:

What they apparently can't evaluate properly (or they feel they can't) is co-hosting. Truth to be told, I don't really understand what their deal is, there are no seperate currencies involved, no border controls, the transportation network is given and both have single OCs for the tournament, I don't see where the problems for co-hosting should be...

Anyway, look at the risks. For Russia, if the transportation plan doesn't work, you'll get half-empty stadiums, angry fans and a horrible press. If there are problems with co-hosting, it might get a bit more expensive than expected and the organisation might get a bit more difficult... but it's obvious that they don't expect it'll really have a significant impact on the tournament itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they apparently can't evaluate properly (or they feel they can't) is co-hosting.

What they say is they cannot evaluate the hosting concept of the joint bids.

Anyway, look at the risks. For Russia, if the transportation plan doesn't work

There is always a risk that something does not work with any project.

The proper risk analysis (which FIFA's is not) deals in particular with the probability of the risks materialising.

Here, the probability is clearly low, because in Russia hundreds of thousands of passengers travel between the proposed host cities every day already. By the time of the World Cup the airport capacity will more than double and $42 billion have been budgeted for that regardless of the bid.

The World Cup load is a relatively small percentage of that capacity.

Furthermore, for about half of the cities an overnight train is possible. It is a more convenient and economical (guaranteed free for ticket-holders and can save on a hotel!) option than flying.

If there are problems with co-hosting, it might get a bit more expensive than expected and the organisation might get a bit more difficult

FIFA's experience with Korea-Japan tells them that it's quite a big bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they say is they cannot evaluate the hosting concept of the joint bids.

No. They say for a more complete evaluation, they need more data. They don't say they can't evaluate at all.

There is always a risk that something does not work with any project.

The proper risk analysis (which FIFA's is not) deals in particular with the probability of the risks materialising.

Here, the probability is clearly low, because in Russia hundreds of thousands of passengers travel between the proposed host cities every day already. By the time of the World Cup the airport capacity will more than double and $42 billion have been budgeted for that regardless of the bid.

The World Cup load is a relatively small percentage of that capacity.

Furthermore, for about half of the cities an overnight train is possible. It is a more convenient and economical (guaranteed free for ticket-holders and can save on a hotel!) option than flying.

I agree that FIFA's assessment is not a proper risk analysis. But they do state that some airports will not meet FIFA requirements even with proposed expansions. And what you say about the World Cup load being a low percentage is simply not true about the majority of host cities. According to wikipedia, Samara international airport handled 1.2 mio passengers in 2006. That's around 3500 per day. Round that up to 5000, for 2018 double it to 10.000 - for a high profile World Cup match, you can expect 10-15k visitors arriving within 2 or 3 days at most, possibly even more, and very few of them will want to come by rail or road. The World Cup will be a very significant percentage of air traffic.

FIFA's experience with Korea-Japan tells them that it's quite a big bit

Like I mentioned, most of the reasons for the Japorea problems simply don't apply to the European joint bids (single OC instead of 2 seperate, no seperate currencies, no border control, no ocean between the hosts...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what you say about the World Cup load being a low percentage is simply not true about the majority of host cities. According to wikipedia, Samara international airport handled 1.2 mio passengers in 2006. That's around 3500 per day. Round that up to 5000, for 2018 double it to 10.000 - for a high profile World Cup match, you can expect 10-15k visitors arriving within 2 or 3 days at most, possibly even more, and very few of them will want to come by rail or road. The World Cup will be a very significant percentage of air traffic.

It is true :)

You clearly do not see a difference between load (i.e. normal) and capacity (i.e. maximum).

In terms of Samara, since you took it as an example, the airport (outgoing or incoming) capacity in 2018 submitted to FIFA was 20,800 in 10 hours. That will easily handle all the 44,000 capacity of the stadium, even if all the non-local visitors come by air. That is not really necessary, because the convenient overnight trains exist to several host cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...