memorabilia Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Don't forget the 4.4 billion for the U.S. television rights.... Yes, that was my last point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Then why do the Winter Olympics get thrown in the U.S.' face when we bid for Summer Olympics? Sorry, but this sounds like double standards to say the least, now that someone else wants to host more often. An Olympic Games is an Olympic Games, no matter which way you look at it. The host nation/city still takes pride in whichever Olympics they are. Just like Vancouver did, & just PyeongChang will. But if we want to play this way now, & shouldn't use Vancouver against a hypothetical Canadian summer bid, then we can't use Turin against Rome & Nagano against Tokyo. And Japan & Italy would still have they edge over Canada, since both other nations last hosted their respective Summer Games in the early 60's versus the one that hosted last in the late 70's. And Turkey has never hosted. So they trump over the other three. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 IOC Top Sponsors from US are actually only 6 on 11 (3 from Asia & 2 from Europe). But their main interest is not the US market, but to be able to use the Olympic Brand Worldwide.... If they were just interested by the US market they will sign lower deals with the USOC. So we could not use that as an argument, saying Games should come back to the USA because of the Top Sponsors.... (the reasoning is not the same regarding broadcasting rights !) I disagree. That's what I said: 6 or 7 are US companies. I didn't say all. Still that's $600 million+ right there as IOC revenues for 4 years or so from US companies. How many non-profits rake in figures like that? I don't think the International Red Cross makes that much money -- and they provide a legitimate need for human suffering...not some artsy-farty sporting organization that glorifies egocentric 'athletes.' Just because BNP (Banque National de Paris) or Paribas conduct international business suddenly make them less French or Brazilian. Their home offices are still in Paris and Brazil, and they are primarily French and Brazilian-registered companies. Regardless of where the markets are, the point is these are U.S. companies and they have chosen to share their earnings with the IOC. They DON'T really have to pay those exorbitant fees to the IOC if they don't want to. The profits could simply be returned back to the stockholders. Alternatively, if there were Chinese or Japanese equivalents of Visa, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, GE (I don't know about Procter & Gamble or Dow Chemical), don't you think they would be right in there in place of their American rivals? The thing is, it's a mutually codependent relationship. One uses the other; but the companies still pay THAT stiff price for exclusivity. (Thank God, Johnson&Johnson and John Hancock saw the light and pulled out of what I think are ripoff sponsorships, a few years ago.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 While the 11 TOP sponsors all have a home base in one country or another, I think you have to agree that they are pretty much all international companies. Their sponsorship of the Olympic Movement is not done out of the generosity of their hearts, it is done to build and enhance their brand names around the world. And for most of them, the price of Olympic sponsorship is not as insane as you might think. I mean P&G 78.9 billion US$ last year. McDonalds made $25 billion. Coca Cola made $35 billion. The money they spend with the IOC is an investment and they obviously feel it pays off, otherwise they would drop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 While the 11 TOP sponsors all have a home base in one country or another, I think you have to agree that they are pretty much all international companies. Their sponsorship of the Olympic Movement is not done out of the generosity of their hearts, it is done to build and enhance their brand names around the world. And for most of them, the price of Olympic sponsorship is not as insane as you might think. I mean P&G 78.9 billion US$ last year. McDonalds made $25 billion. Coca Cola made $35 billion. The money they spend with the IOC is an investment and they obviously feel it pays off, otherwise they would drop it. Of course. Which is why J&J and John Hancock dropped out -- I mean their profits were down. That's why I said, it's a co-dependent relationship but again, these companies are not registered in the ether. I mean they are all "international" companies but still Samsung is a Korean company, Panasonic is Japanese, Acer is Taiwanese, that Atos-Origen is I think Swiss as is Omega, etc. etc., I just cannot see erasing their nationality just because they are international. I mean, is Air Canada suddenly less Canadian because it flies internationally?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktrojan3921 Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Again, INT. You're comparing apples to oranges. The United States is 10x's the size of Canada & is the IOC largest revenue provider. But even nowadays, I think those days of the U.S. hosting Winter & Summer Olympics so close together are long gone. That's why some Americans on these boards don't want the USOC to bid for Winter 2022, because they believe if successful, that that would just push an American Summer Olympics even futher out. And Yeah, well. Chicago never hosted either, but that didn't mean anything to the IOC. And I'm sure the fact that Toronto (nor Madrid) hasn't hosted either will mean very little to them when it still sits inside a relatively very small country that's hosted their extremely fair share of Olympic Games. The difference between Chicago and Toronto is essentially apples and oranges, but for different reasons. One of the main suspected Chicago fall flat on its face in only the first round is the pretty obvious nasty financial friction between the IOC and the USOC. A big factor in this friction is pretty much summed up on what Athensfan said: Don't forget the 4.4 billion for the U.S. television rights.... http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/david-kaplan-chicago-sports/2009/10/was-the-iocs-decision-a-slap-at-chicago-or-the-usoc.html http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/chicago_2016/1216134594.html The USOC has been wanting to make it's own Olympic Television Network, which as you would imagine pissed off the IOC, as they have been trying to make a deal on revenue sharing. I think that by making the OTN, USOC would not have to share as much revenue as the IOC wanted. COC doesn't currently have any friction with the IOC. I really can't imagine that the U.S. would be successful for the fourth straight time in a row, as it's pretty clear I think the USOC's chances are much better with the 2022 Winter Olympics and the 2024 Summer Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Toronto should not even consider bidding. The timing just is not right. Rio 2016, then Toronto 2020? I don't think so. 2020 is Europe's time unless RSA throws in a bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Toronto should not even consider bidding. The timing just is not right. Rio 2016, then Toronto 2020? I don't think so. 2020 is Europe's time unless RSA throws in a bid. You are right, but anything is possible.Europe will start favourites, just like Paris but the winner will be unknown until Rogge reads it out. One would think the financial crisis would play all into this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 1. but anything is possible 2. One would think the financial crisis would play all into this as well. 1. No; not really. A North American city will ONLY follow Rio if there are NO bidders from elsewhere in the world. But there are already at least 3 viable ones from Europe and Asia, no matter how hard you wish it, Toronto ain't gonna happen for 2020. 2. U're throwing too much into this. Only a World War stops the IOC from conducting its usual business. (That's why it's headquartered in 'fantasy' Switzerland where it's sheltered from the real world. ) Depression, recession, earthquakes, massacres, ethnic cleansing...the IOC will soldier on with its usual activities. If one's country can't afford to keep its commitments to a contract, it has no business bidding for these otherwise prestige projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 You are right, but anything is possible.Europe will start favourites, just like Paris but the winner will be unknown until Rogge reads it out. One would think the financial crisis would play all into this as well. uh no? If the financial crisis played into any thing Rome and Madrid would not be bidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 uh no? If the financial crisis played into any thing Rome and Madrid would not be bidding I meant it like this, Madrid already has strong opposition and that is because of the financial crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 I meant it like this, Madrid already has strong opposition and that is because of the financial crisis. True, but nothing has been done to stop the bid yet and I doubt any thing will be done to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 True, but nothing has been done to stop the bid yet and I doubt any thing will be done to stop it. Yes but protests already is kind of a strike against a bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangwon Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Then why do the Winter Olympics get thrown in the U.S.' face when we bid for Summer Olympics? Sorry, but this sounds like double standards to say the least, now that someone else wants to host more often. An Olympic Games is an Olympic Games, no matter which way you look at it. The host nation/city still takes pride in whichever Olympics they are. Just like Vancouver did, & just PyeongChang will. But if we want to play this way now, & shouldn't use Vancouver against a hypothetical Canadian summer bid, then we can't use Turin against Rome & Nagano against Tokyo. And Japan & Italy would still have they edge over Canada, since both other nations last hosted their respective Summer Games in the early 60's versus the one that hosted last in the late 70's. And Turkey has never hosted. So they trump over the other three. What about the other part of my post? If Canada/US/Japan don't even bother bidding for the Winter Games because they want a Summer Games more and they think a Winter Games will put them at a disadvantage, where else is there for the Winter Games to go except Europe? The IOC needs these 3 countries to have a successful Winter Games rotation. Lumping the Summer and Winter Games together means the Summer Games will always favour Europe and the Southern Hemisphere. It's very easy to say that if Canada wants a Toronto Summer Games then they shouldn't bid for a Vancouver Winter Games (same with the US/Japan), but if we put this into practice for a few cycles, let's see just how attractive the Winter Games movement is when "rotation" begins to mean taking turns between the Alps and Scandinavia. And the difference between 1960-1964 and 1976 is negligible at this point. It won't mean anything by 2020. If we kept going to the bidder that has waited longest, we would've gone to Paris for 2012 over London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 I meant it like this, Madrid already has strong opposition and that is because of the financial crisis. The bidding race hasn't even begun, and you are saying Madrid has strong opposition because a few groups have declared issues with their bid? Madrid had the highest public support in 2016 race. I don't think that will evaporate too much, but no bid is hurt badly by public support unless they have less than 60%. Madrid had support in the upper 80's to lower 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Yes but protests already is kind of a strike against a bid. Well, Toronto's 2008 bid had the "bread not circuses" opposition group that highly protested the bid. I'm sure they would come back in full force if Toronto were to place yet another bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 What about the other part of my post? If Canada/US/Japan don't even bother bidding for the Winter Games because they want a Summer Games more and they think a Winter Games will put them at a disadvantage, where else is there for the Winter Games to go except Europe? And the difference between 1960-1964 and 1976 is negligible at this point. It won't mean anything by 2020. If we kept going to the bidder that has waited longest, we would've gone to Paris for 2012 over London. You're creating too much of a "What IF" scenario, though. There will always be communities in Canada, the U.S. & Japan that will likely want to bid for a Winter Olympics. Look at Quebec. They're just so desperate (& bitter that thewy lost to Vancouver) to host a Winter Olympics that they'll probably want to try everything that they can to possibly derail any potential bids from other parts of the country. Not to mention the COC president is from Quebec. Surely the pressure will on him. And London 2012 is still 64 years apart from their last hosting of 1948, still 20 more years further away from 44 years. The U.K. is also a very prominent European country with a population almost twice the size of Canada. London is also one of the "big 3" Alpha cities of the world. So it's not "negligible". That's something only a completely bias supporter would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 You're creating too much of a "What IF" scenario, though. There will always be communities in Canada, the U.S. & Japan that will likely want to bid for a Winter Olympics. Look at Quebec. They're just so desperate (& bitter that thewy lost to Vancouver) to host a Winter Olympics that they'll probably want to try everything that they can to possibly derail any potential bids from other parts of the country. Not to mention the COC president is from Quebec. Surely the pressure will on him. And London 2012 is still 64 years apart from their last hosting of 1948, still 20 more years further away from 44 years. The U.K. is also a very prominent European country with a population almost twice the size of Canada. London is also one of the "big 3" Alpha cities of the world. So it's not "negligible". That's something only a completely bias supporter would say. There is no way Quebec hosts a Winter Olympics before Toronto hosts a summer Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 ^I'm not talking about that, though. I'm talking about the potential of Quebec trying their darnest is still there. Whether one likes it, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Of course. Which is why J&J and John Hancock dropped out -- I mean their profits were down. That's why I said, it's a co-dependent relationship but again, these companies are not registered in the ether. I mean they are all "international" companies but still Samsung is a Korean company, Panasonic is Japanese, Acer is Taiwanese, that Atos-Origen is I think Swiss as is Omega, etc. etc., I just cannot see erasing their nationality just because they are international. I mean, is Air Canada suddenly less Canadian because it flies internationally?? The global HQ for Atos are in France in a suburb of Paris. But the point is that they don't sponsor the Olympics because they are trying to build equity in the backyard of the global HQ or host the Olympics there. They are trying to build global equity. OK, so Coca Cola got their hometown Games. But do you think Cincinnati will host the Olympics because of P&G? It all depends on your business objective and markets. Air Canada supported the Vancouver 2010 Games. As did General Motors. But I don't expect either to gun for sponsorship of the Pyeongchang Games. But I'm sure that would be of interest to Korean Air and Hyundai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 The difference between Chicago and Toronto is essentially apples and oranges, but for different reasons. One of the main suspected Chicago fall flat on its face in only the first round is the pretty obvious nasty financial friction between the IOC and the USOC. A big factor in this friction is pretty much summed up on what Athensfan said: Not really. And it's precisely because of what you listed. Because there are so many intangible variables involved in this process, the fact that Chicago never hosted before meant diddly. That same reasoning can be applied to Toronto as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triffle Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 There is no way Quebec hosts a Winter Olympics before Toronto hosts a summer Olympics. Don't discount the possibility, pal. If USA is awarded the next North American Summer Olympics (lets say 2028) then that pushes Toronto's chances back until the 2040's and possibly later. Considering the lack of non-European candidates, who's to say Quebec City won't host before then in say 2030, 2034? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Don't discount the possibility, pal. If USA is awarded the next North American Summer Olympics (lets say 2028) then that pushes Toronto's chances back until the 2040's and possibly later. Considering the lack of non-European candidates, who's to say Quebec City won't host before then in say 2030, 2034? There is no mountain suitable enough, do you think the IOC will award Quebec the games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 ***Anyone please keep use updated**** Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memorabilia Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 No news, but just read this article... regarding a possible bid.... for the 2025 Expo ! http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/29/torontos-future-economy-needs-expo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.