Jump to content

Only 4 bidders?


deawebo

Recommended Posts

There is no official rule, but I think the IOC would prefer to keep their short list no bigger than five. Although if all of the cities you listed entered the race, I think the IOC would have a tough time eliminating the field unless Istanbul just reused the same plans from their past failed bids. I think Istanbul would cry foul if Durban was left in, and they were eliminated.

I don't think this scenario is likely to happen any time soon though, but it would be a fun and interesting race...

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

I'm not so sure about that--I think a lot of Paris votes would have gone to Madrid. I do think Madrid would have won in the final round against Paris.

Yeah, I think it was Mike Lee in his book who said it was a close call for London that it was Paris who got through to the end - nearly all on the London bid team thought Madrid would have been the tougher final round opponent than Paris. And of course he was also quite candid about the fact that London and Madrid had an "understanding" - or at least a recognition of mutual interests and challenges.

Whatever - it's now one of the great, unprovable "what-ifs" of Olympic campaigns. But what if it had gone the other way - if Paris and London had squared up in a tie-breaker to take on Madrid in the final round, would the bulk of London's support have gone to Madrid if it had been knocked out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think it was Mike Lee in his book who said it was a close call for London that it was Paris who got through to the end - nearly all on the London bid team thought Madrid would have been the tougher final round opponent than Paris.

I still fail to see what's the *reasoning* for this. All I hear is that some in the London bid camp thought this but it never really gets explained as to why they thought that, other than a "mutual understanding", which is quite vague. Why would Madrid have been the "tougher opponent" than Paris in the final round. There never is an answer to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still fail to see what's the *reasoning* for this. All I hear is that some in the London bid camp thought this but it never really gets explained as to why they thought that, other than a "mutual understanding", which is quite vague. Why would Madrid have been the "tougher opponent" than Paris in the final round. There never is an answer to that.

The assumption was that more Paris supporters would line up to support Madrid as their 2nd preference than London if it'd been eliminated.

The thing is, it's all speculation. As fun as "what-ifs" can be, ultimately they're useless and unprovable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about that--I think a lot of Paris votes would have gone to Madrid. I do think Madrid would have won in the final round against Paris.

I also fail to see this as well. Why would the IOC choose to go to a country that they were just in 20 years prior over another country (France) that hasn't seen the Summer Olympics in almost a century.

Since Sydney, the IOC has chosen to take the Summer Games to new places or to countries that the IOC hasn't been to in a very long time, & 20 years isn't very long to return to a small country like Spain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Agreed. Cutting just one would be politically akward. Especially when the IOC snubbed Doha for 2016 & then the Qatari's still accused the IOC of being "against the Arab World". So I can't see them just eliminating Istanbul if they only "straddle" the benchmark. But add a Baku-koo (or a Tulsa :lol: ), then you have more of an excuse to get rid of the "straddler" along with the no chance in hel! applicant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As we all found out in the 2012 and 2016 votes - NEVER underestimate Spain (and I've been as guilty of that as any).

That's all coincidental, really. The bad relations between the IOC & USOC only knudged Tokyo's & Madrid's chances, & you can see that in all 3-2016 voting rounds. JAS also making his "final plea" in the final presentation also probably gave them another couple of votes.

Again, if Spain were that much of a match, the 2016 final vote would've been much closer than it was. And now with 2020 having Rome & Istanbul in there, they'll have just as much of a tough time yet again.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then, cuz I'm still not convinced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also fail to see this as well. Why would the IOC choose to go to a country that they were just in 20 years prior over another country (France) that hasn't seen the Summer Olympics in almost a century.

Since Sydney, the IOC has chosen to take the Summer Games to new places or to countries that the IOC hasn't been to in a very long time, & 20 years isn't very long to return to a small country like Spain.

Mike Lee probably did not say everything he new because he might give away part of his secrets. But such a statement might be linked to the people that according to his prediction were voting for Paris. He might know that these people would more easily line up with Madrid than with London. He definitely knew more than he told.

It would not be a matter of the IOC going to Spain 20 years after, but of groups within the IOC voting according to motives that would make Madrid better than London. It could be IOC internal politics or the magic of JAS strings being pulled or something else.

Anyway, I don't think he will tell us the real reason for such a statement before he retires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

To state the obvious, they obviously felt Madrid would get more of the second preference votes from Paris dropping out than London. I'm sure I remember reading there was a big sense of relief that Madrid went out when it did. I'm sure the London team knew their calculations.

It's annoying me, I can't find the article or quote anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all coincidental, really. The bad relations between the IOC & USOC only knudged Tokyo's & Madrid's chances, & you can see that in all 3-2016 voting rounds. JAS also making his "final plea" in the final presentation also probably gave them another couple of votes.

Again, if Spain were that much of a match, the 2016 final vote would've been much closer than it was. And now with 2020 having Rome & Istanbul in there, they'll have just as much of a tough time yet again.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then, cuz I'm still not convinced.

That's right. People tend to forget that Madrid won the first round but failed to get momentum to continue on the race. The truth is that its 1st round votes carried the Spanish all the way through to the final round. The decision fell only 3 votes short of finishing on the 2nd round.

And, as we all know, first round voting is really difficult to understand. It has a lot to do with pledged alliances and sympathy. What carried the 2016 race to the final round was the combined voting of Madrid and Tokyo which was barely the 50% mark. The funny part is that the Tokyo and Madrid combined voting in the second round was 1 vote below the 1st round which was still enough to keep Rio from taking an early victory.

Looking at the evolution of the voting through the rounds, what becomes clear is that the IOC members who voted for Tokyo and Chicago were not really thinking about voting for Madrid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found here: http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/other-sports/196752-lee-pinpoints-chicagos-olympics-2016-failure this. The date of the article is 19th October 2009. Mike Lee explaines here the G20/Brazil's economic ssue played a big role.

The title of the article says; "MIKE Lee, the mastermind behind both London and Rio's victorious Olympic bids, believes Chicago's brittle budget was the reason for their spectacular failure to win the 2016 Games."

But the votes of all those IOC members are MORE than only the economical-aspect I suppose. It's obvious that strategy will play an everlasting role in voting rounds. Voting for Rio was the best option for a de facto Italian lobbying against Madrid. So it is a hard game. Is Lobbying the keyword here .. in this case Istanbul doesn't make any chance .. perhaps the only strong side of an Istanbul bid is the last visual presentation that will (hopefully) influence a lot minds.

But I have a feeling that CONI the Italian Lobbying will play on a dirty way towards Madrid AND istanbul. As Tokyo is the weakest link because of 2 reasons .. 1) the tsunami disaster 2) 2108 WOG in PyeongChang.

OH .. it's a big game. Playing it with the rules is ultimately not possible maybe. But I have to say 1 thing. If Rome delivers a splendid Bid that will bring a PLUS-value in the Olympic SOG history than my vote will also go for Rome .. BUT, i'm not saying it has to be Thé extravaganza that Beijing delivered. The only Card that favors Istanbul are the economicle crack-down of the Italian economy.

We will see .. 2 years to go til 7 september 2013 in BA ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Cutting just one would be politically akward. Especially when the IOC snubbed Doha for 2016 & then the Qatari's still accused the IOC of being "against the Arab World". So I can't see them just eliminating Istanbul if they only "straddle" the benchmark. But add a Baku-koo (or a Tulsa :lol: ), then you have more of an excuse to get rid of the "straddler" along with the no chance in hel! applicant.

I don't think so. The cut can be technical (score below the 6.0 benchmark) or by another objective or subjective reason. For 2016, Doha was cut officially due to the dates, even though they were above the benchmark and even above Rio's score. Anyway, the IOC has done cuts based on more political motives such as in 2004, when part of the shortlist was considered to be chosen to have representatives from several continents. However, we all know the IOC won't shortlist more than 4 or 5 countries to avoid driving up costs and clogging the time frame with too many visits from the Evaluation Committee.

The 4 confirmed bidders for now are probably going to be shortlisted. Not only because there are only 4 bid cities, but also because they have been shortlisted before, which indicates that they will make the benchmark. If Durban comes up, it will have the most potential of not making the benchmark, since it is lags behind in infrastructure and experience in relation to the competition and 4 candidates seem a good number.

Anyway, I agree that Annecy was pushed through the candidate phase in 2018 because there were not enough competitors. But, IMO, the IOC only did it because they knew that Annecy could change their proposal to meet the benchmark, which ended up being done. I believe that if the race remais with this 4 cities, if any of them comes up with a bad applicant file, the IOC will proceed in the same way as it did for Annecy: "not good enough, but we know you can do better".

Link to post
Share on other sites

To state the obvious, they obviously felt Madrid would get more of the second preference votes from Paris dropping out than London. I'm sure I remember reading there was a big sense of relief that Madrid went out when it did. I'm sure the London team knew their calculations.

It's annoying me, I can't find the article or quote anywhere.

Well, this would make all the talk about London mainly winning because of good lobbying, Tony Blair, a more compelling & adventurous project than any of the other bids, more focus on the youth in sports, etc all moot then. If in the end, Madrid could've simply toppled London in the final instead of Paris simply due to "2nd preferences".

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the surface, it would seem as though Paris would have been a bigger threat than Madrid in the final round.

The voting rounds are an interesting dynamic. For example, in the 2012 voting, Moscow's elimination in the first round led to Madrid picking up 12 votes, London picking up 5 votes, Paris picking up 4 votes, and NYC losing 3 votes.

NYC's elimination in the second round gave more to London, with them picking up 12 votes, while Paris received 8 more votes and Madrid lost 1 vote.

Madrid's elimination slightly benefited Paris in the final round, giving them 17 votes, while London received 15 votes.

So based on that, we can assume Paris' support past the first round was from those who voted for Moscow, or voted for Madrid as their first pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this would make all the talk about London mainly winning because of good lobbying, Tony Blair, a more compelling & adventurous project than any of the other bids, more focus on the youth in sports, etc all moot then. If in the end, Madrid could've simply toppled London in the final instead of Paris simply due to "2nd preferences".

Well, a combination of both I would think. Bids which aren't compelling can't win, but bids which are compelling can certainly lose.

The lobbying, the Olympic Park in the heart of the city, the stunning presentation etc may have gained London 2nd preference votes which they otherwise may not have got, who knows? And whilst those 2nd preferences might not have been good enough to beat Madrid in the final round, they were good enough to beat off Paris.

It's difficult to say what "won" it for London i.e. what pushed the London bid over the line "first". These things are always complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the surface, it would seem as though Paris would have been a bigger threat than Madrid in the final round.

If anything, & if that theory holds any bearing, perhaps Madrid may have gotten as many votes (or close to it) as Paris did in the final, but I would still say that they would not have won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to tell, but you're right, the reason WHY London was so nervous of Madrid (simple maths obviously isn't an explanation) is one of the intruiging unanswered questions of the 2012 process. It does, on the face of it, seem to be slightly odd. But I don't doubt it's true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Madrid will be a stronger competior to Istanbul, I can see Rome as the "Chicago"...

Aside from early frontrunner status, what sort of things in common do you think Rome will have with Chicago's bid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...