Jump to content

Only 4 bidders?


deawebo

Recommended Posts

Yeah, it was unprecedented that Madrid made it to the final round. However, I would still say that 66-32 in the 2016 final vote IS a 'crushing defeat'. Akin to PyeongChang's overwhelming victory of 63-32 votes (combined) for the Munich & Annecy bids. It was quite clear for both 2016 & 2018 where the IOC wanted to go, & where they didn't. So I really wouldn't read too much into Madrid's 2016 final showing.

As for 2012, yeah they were also 1 vote behind Paris, but I'm still not convinced that Madrid has more than 1/3 solid supoort in the IOC that they had in the last 2 Summer races. Since if Madrid actually had or gained more support since the 2012 bid, the 2016 final vote would've been much closer than it actually was. Madrid just can't seem to get past that "32" number mark.

You say that but I know for a fact members of London's bid team said afterwards they'd feared meeting Madrid in the final because they were sure, under that scenario, Spain would have won.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Madrid just can't seem to get past that "32" number mark.

They've realized and they say they're already working to get more than 32 votes for 2020. If those people still vote for Madrid, they "only" need to convince around 15-20 members. The new bid will not focus on infrastructure (most of which is already built or under construction) but on international promotion of the city and lobbying.

Good analysis. Plus, the OLD MAN is gone. I don't know if those who "owed" him would be beholden to his son (again). I mean, I would think they would've already "repaid" their debt to JAS, Sr., and would move on with their careers.

Yeah, one is gone but two have arrived. And I think a sentimental JAS card will still be played somehow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, one is gone but two have arrived. And I think a sentimental JAS card will still be played somehow.

But there are still FOUR candidates, the same as for 2016 - with 3 Euro candidates this time. You don't know the strength and APPEAL of the two newcomers -- remember Italy has 4 higher-placed IOC members than Spain. So I were Spain, I would NOT assume that I would be getting 32 votes again. I would only start out with about the 25% normal odds would say I could carry from about 100 votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. For 2016, with everything against the bid, Madrid reached the final round, which is much more than what anyone could have expected. For 2012, Madrid's chances were slightly better, and even though it didn't reach the final, only one vote made the difference between Madrid and Paris. They may not be as narrow as PyeongChang's (although Madrid has always managed to win one round), but I don't think they can be considered crushing defeats either. For 2020, Spain will be more influential within the IOC, we'll see how this affects the outcome.

I understand the IOC was angry with Spain and Japan after the voting. I can also understand why Spain and Japan were unhappy with the result, as they had been beaten by a bid that had scored more than 2 points less than them. I think the Madrid 2016 team should have stayed quiet, but anyway, the project itself is almost perfect and all those people will not be there for 2020. If the IOC bears grudge to the new people leading the 2020 bid, who had nothing to do with that, it would be really unfair and against their "Olympic spirit".

BTW, did the IOC say "organizing the Olympic Games is a very serious thing, this is not the Eurovision Song Contest, and if they thought playing some really good videos and making moving speeches is enough, they're completely wrong"? :blink: It's clear they don't like the ESC and they think it's a joke, but that sentence doesn't make any sense... Do they know how the ESC host is chosen? :huh:

I don't think the majority would hold grudges but as I said in a tight race 6-10 less for your bid and 6-10 more votes for the opposing bid wo would be significant. Anyway, I'm not sure why he would threat Madrid saying to Spain to choose another city if he and other members didn't felt offended by Madrid accusations...

Btw, I'm think ESC means "eurovision" so yeh, he said that about EurovĂ­sion... I had never heard about it so I googled and it looks really big.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there are still FOUR candidates, the same as for 2016 - with 3 Euro candidates this time. You don't know the strength and APPEAL of the two newcomers -- remember Italy has 4 higher-placed IOC members than Spain. So I were Spain, I would NOT assume that I would be getting 32 votes again. I would only start out with about the 25% normal odds would say I could carry from about 100 votes.

But overall, isn't more "applicants" worthwhile? To make the bid process seem interesting? I mean yes, these 4 will get through no matter what, which would probably make the whole Applicant phase seem pointless and a waste of money, which is the main reason as to why more applicants would be wanted.

Would the IOC shift things a little and extend the deadline just to entice more applications? Or will we see proper last minute bidding?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But overall, isn't more "applicants" worthwhile? To make the bid process seem interesting? I mean yes, these 4 will get through no matter what, which would probably make the whole Applicant phase seem pointless and a waste of money, which is the main reason as to why more applicants would be wanted.

Would the IOC shift things a little and extend the deadline just to entice more applications? Or will we see proper last minute bidding?

What r u talking about? U'r not making any sense as usual.

These are GOING to be the Final FOUR candidates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've realized and they say they're already working to get more than 32 votes for 2020. If those people still vote for Madrid, they "only" need to convince around 15-20 members. The new bid will not focus on infrastructure (most of which is already built or under construction) but on international promotion of the city and lobbying.

Yeah, one is gone but two have arrived. And I think a sentimental JAS card will still be played somehow.

I don't think there was something as misleading in any bid election as what happened in the 2016 race. The result would tell you that Madrid was the runner up, but the voting pattern tells you otherwise. If they really think that they are going to start from 32 votes, I think they are out of their mind. It is likely that the whole 4 votes that Madrid got after the 1st round were more a rejection to Rio than genuine votes for Madrid. My analysis tells me that 2016 was a Rio-Chicago fight that was actually won in the first round. The 2nd and 3rd rounds were a mere formality.

The Madrid bid team should be working with an estimate between the 20 votes they've got in the 2012 opening round and the 28 they've got for 2016. Anyway, they should aim lower, since they don't have JAS anymore and there are several European contenders like in 2012. I would say that would have to start from a very low position this time.

If that's not enough, they seem to be hitting a ceiling of 32 votes (w/ JAS) the last 2 times, which leaves them around 20 votes shy of a win. It is a long way to go.

If that's not tough enough, even with 2 new IOC members from Spain, JAS will be missed. It doesn't matter if you have 10 IOC members, if none of them has much power within the group. JAS had been the IOC president for a long time and a large part of the IOC membership owed him big time. Actually many owed him their membership. He probably had too many people owing him favors. The 2 new members are probably due to repay others for their nomination. And JAS Jr. membership is probably a favor from other IOC members to JAS, which might mean that he won't be as influential as his father was. The problem with the absence of JAS is that his memory is not going to repay anyone else. Why would you commit to do something in exchange for someone who is not there to pull his strings for you in the future? Unless JAS Jr. is keeping the old man's leash over a part of the IOC, Madrid could have a worst performance this time around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one said Madrid thinks they're going to get 32 votes for sure. All they've said is that they'll focus on lobbying much more this time to try to get more votes than before, which is a different thing. Of course, if they want to win, they need more than 32 votes.

The two new Spanish IOC members are both presidents of international federations (triathlon and canoeing). They may not be the most influential people but it's not that they're not going to be able to convince some other members to vote for Madrid either. And even though JAS is gone, we also have the king. He and his family have many friends in the IOC.

Btw, I'm think ESC means "eurovision" so yeh, he said that about EurovĂ­sion... I had never heard about it so I googled and it looks really big.

Yes, ESC stands for Eurovision Song Contest. The host country is the previous year's winner, so, unlike the IOC supposedly said, it has nothing to do with moving speeches and nice videos ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that but I know for a fact members of London's bid team said afterwards they'd feared meeting Madrid in the final because they were sure, under that scenario, Spain would have won.

Yeah, I've read that theory here before. But I'm still not convinced. The London bid team could have speculated all they wanted but they're not the actual IOC members that vote. I mean what was their reasoning for this. If Paris couldn't do it (which had far more geopolitics in their favor) then why would Madrid. Prince Albert also made it a point to throw a wrench into Madrid's bid by highlighting the recent ETA attacks at the time in the city.

Spain also had just hosted the Summer Olympics in 1992 & 2012 would've meant a mere 20 years for a small country as Spain. While the U.K. hadn't hosted since right after WWII. If Madrid had that much support to begin with & could've been able to sweep the rug right underneath London, then again, their final 2016 showing against Rio should've been much stronger, & it wasn't. I actually think London would've had an even larger margin of winning had Madrid been in the 2012 final round.

Or maybe they realise they can't win. Certainly (at this point in time), I put Baku in the "they've gotta be kidding themselves" category of potential Olympic hosts - I can't see the point of discussing them as serious contenders.

I agree. But David just LOVES to continually bring them up in conversation. I think Doha has much more of a chance than Baku. And still some consider the Qatari's a long shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What r u talking about? U'r not making any sense as usual.

These are GOING to be the Final FOUR candidates.

We already know that, but I meant more Applicant cities just to make the whole bid process more interesting. After all since we already know that these will be the 4 candidates, then why not just scrap the whole Application stage and go straight to Candidate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We already know that, but I meant more Applicant cities just to make the whole bid process more interesting. After all since we already know that these will be the 4 candidates, then why not just scrap the whole Application stage and go straight to Candidate?

It's all about going through due process. Chances are all four will make it through, but that can't be assumed until they're all technically evaluated. And if one DID fall short, the IOC would have no problems going with a three city final candidate stage (like 2018).

Anyway, their task is to pick a workable host. They can do that with four pretty solid, indeed pretty good, candidates. The process isn't about making it more interesting for a bunch of fan-boys on a net forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Baku 2016 make that race any more interesting? Did Liepzig's bid fire global passions for the 2012 race? Did Seville's bid for 2008 matter much in that race? Or did San Juan 2004 capture the imaginations of the world? Nope. Not with the other competitors in those races.

There is no need to ask for any more bidders, especially if they are not big names. All of these cities are pretty top level spots - a combination of past hosts, national capitals, large cities, cultural leaders, and famed destinations. Any other lesser city is just going to find themselves cut from the list. They might as well save their time, money and effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that leaving the applicant phase on the left, all the 4 bidders go straightly to the candidate phase.

Or are 3 final candidates better than 4. Is this disturbing for example to have 4 and not 3 as for the WOG2018 bidders.

Does it have advantages/disavantages to leave the applicant phase on the left? just curious for opinions?

regards

fatih

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think applicant phase is the best thing IOC has done in recent years. It just evaluates the city if it is capable of hosting such an event and prevents the cities that have no chance spending extra money for the biddin . Candidate city means, that city is capable of hosting the event and the best among them is chosen as the winner. I really support this kind of eliminations system. If there will be an eliminated city it will be Istanbul(which is really unlikely at this point). I see 4 applicant cities going directly to the candidacy phase. We should remember that technical quality is not the only thing IOC cares about. That brings every city to the same level, e.g Istanbul's emotional and textual approach to the games may be a rival to Madrid's plerfect plan. We all know why Rio won because they managed to sell an "idea" and a "spirit" more than a perfect plan which is definitely more valuable in my eyes. London also won because of their "ideal" about the games. When you compare London and Paris they may look "perfect" in every sense, even Paris had a greater plan but London's approach to Olympic spirit made them the winners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't know for a while, but I can't think of any reason to drop any of these applicants. They all ran in previous races even though Istanbul was cut for the 2004 and 2012 races. But then again, so was Rio.

I think the IOC would like to keep some options open and four is a good number. Cutting down to two or three runs some risks in case there is a drop out (like Berne 2010) or a last minute planning disaster (like the Manhattan stadium for NYC 2012). The last time there were only three cities in the running for the Summer Olympics was for the 1976 Olympics, and the last times there were only two were for the Games of 1980 and 1988.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it may be only four (so far), but what an intriguing and strong four, IMO! I could easily see any of those declared so far as being able to host a pretty good games - and I'd probably expect them all to make the candidate list (assuming that Istanbul comes out with a good, workable plan, which I expect they will).

Anyway, maybe the IOC system is starting to work now and the likes of the Havanas, Bakus etc have learned not to bother with their dubious applicant bids that only last a few months till they're chopped anyway.

Or maybe the odd long shot will still be declared - which would only be icing on the back of what I see as four very viable bids.

I agree. Any one of the four could host very successful Games. I do think a major economic downturn could hamper any of them significantly -- especially Rome and Madrid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about going through due process. Chances are all four will make it through, but that can't be assumed until they're all technically evaluated. And if one DID fall short, the IOC would have no problems going with a three city final candidate stage (like 2018).

Anyway, their task is to pick a workable host. They can do that with four pretty solid, indeed pretty good, candidates. The process isn't about making it more interesting for a bunch of fan-boys on a net forum.

I disagree. I think the IOC would resist the idea of eliminating only one city unless it was absolutely hopeless (like Abuja or Hobart). I think they'd prefer to eliminate either two or none -- primarily for political reasons. Even though 2018 only had 3 applicants, short-listing Annecy still points this direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think the IOC would resist the idea of eliminating only one city unless it was absolutely hopeless (like Abuja or Hobart). I think they'd prefer to eliminate either two or none -- primarily for political reasons. Even though 2018 only had 3 applicants, short-listing Annecy still points this direction.

You got me wrong - I did say that chances are all four will get through, and that's what I expect will happen. Just that if they feel the need to cut and have a reason to do so, they will, and it wouldn't diminish their options that much to have a three horse candidate race instead of four.

I don't see your point that they'd more likely cut two than one. I think a two-city final field WOULD be limiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me wrong - I did say that chances are all four will get through, and that's what I expect will happen. Just that if they feel the need to cut and have a reason to do so, they will, and it wouldn't diminish their options that much to have a three horse candidate race instead of four.

I don't see your point that they'd more likely cut two than one. I think a two-city final field WOULD be limiting.

Sorry. I'm not communicating well.

I expect all 4 to get through too.

I agree that any 3 of those cities would still make a fine race (if slightly less global kerfuffle).

I don't expect to see the IOC cut two cities out of the current crop of four. I just meant that when it comes to short-listing, misery loves company. Politically, it's awkward to leave just one city out in the cold. If it has to be done, it has to be done. It probably should've happened with Annecy, but didn't due to the small field.

The only way I can imagine the IOC cutting two cities is if there's a surprise bid from an improbable city. In other words, if Istanbul is borderline, but the other 3 competitors are all short-listed, I can see the IOC letting Istanbul tag along into the candidate phase. However, if Baku jumps into the race, it would be less politically problematic to eliminate a borderline Istanbul and have just three candidate cities.

Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a limit on the number of candidate cities?

If Toronto and Durban enter the race (for the sake of this question not that they are), would it be possible to see six candidate cities?

Rome, Madrid, Tokyo, Istanbul, Toronto, Durban

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a limit on the number of candidate cities?

If Toronto and Durban enter the race (for the sake of this question not that they are), would it be possible to see six candidate cities?

Rome, Madrid, Tokyo, Istanbul, Toronto, Durban

I'm not aware of any rule that limits the number of short-listed candidates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any rule that limits the number of short-listed candidates.

LOL imagine if all these big shots are bidding for the same Summer Games and all made it through:

Rome, Madrid, Tokyo, Istanbul, Toronto, Durban, Paris, Los Angeles

This board would explode!

On the other hand, if there is a limit and the IOC would want to keep it to 4~5, what a huge ego shot that would be for any of the cities listed above not making it to the candidate round!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...