Jump to content

Will there be a late bidder in the 2020 race?


Soaring

  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think there will be a late bidder in the 2020 race?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      17


Recommended Posts

Qatar only needed to secure about 11 or 12 votes to win the World Cup. For the Olympics, Doha needs to win 50 to 60 votes. That isn't going to be all that easy given that the other four applicants are large, well known global cities with comprehensive infrastructure and experience with large scale international events. And none of them have the burden of having to host the World Cup just two years later. I don't see any of these cities being cut from the list given the low number, but I think Doha will be in the fight of its life to get out of the first round and if it does, it could be at Istanbul's expense. I think Doha's entry eases the pressure on Tokyo and Madrid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What really confuses me in this thread is how there are more "no" votes than "yes," with votes coming in AFTER Doha's intentions were made clear.

I guess there's still a few days for the fashionably last-minute and late entrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite honstly, I think this is a very evenly matched race at this stage. I can't see any obvious standout. Istanbul seems to have popular imagination at the moment, but I think that's the novelty factor still (especially with the ever-popular Sth African dream not an option). But I can't imagine that Rome's campaigning, lobbying and support will be anything but strong. Madrid? Well, on the one hand there's still the Barcelona factor and I wonder if they're support topped out last time - on the other, I've learned too often not to under-estimate Spain and at 28 years, maybe the statute of limitations on a Spanish bid is running out finally.

Maybe only Tokyo (timing) and Doha (the 2022 WC blow-back) would I count out.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on financial crisis fallout. A games might be expensive, but they're still a drop in a bucket when you are talking about hundreds of billions in a national economy. At most, it might hinder the likes of Rome's and Madrid's ability to build local support and enthusiasm, but I can't see it having much concrete effect beyond that.

Agreed. Nobody screams favorite to me either -- though I'd say Doha is unlikely -- almost certain to be shortlisted though.

The economy is probably more of a factor with public support than it is with actually funding the Games. People perceive the Games as an unnecessary expense in difficult times. The financial crisis may also affect the voting. Would the Germans vote for Rome or Madrid, knowing they'd have to help bankroll the Games (and knowing that most likely the Italians (and maybe the Spaniards as well) helped orchestrate Munich's loss.... Come to think of it, I guess Rome and Madrid should look elsewhere for votes...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's the way to view it, though. The Rome and Madrid committees (as well as the other bidders) will be trying to win the votes of Mr. Bach and Ms. Bokel who are German members of the IOC. But they are no more Germany than Dick Pound is Canada or Anita de Frantz is the USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok lets make st strange and mytsical and a bir fortune telling..

here are the tarot answers of every cities chance to win 2020 summer games

Rome - the pope / the hierophant means The Pope card when upright commonly suggest to seek guidance, to follow a positive advice endorsed to the querant, to do the right thing, to have faith, to keep on the right side of God, to be a positive role model, to be disciplined in your approach to matters and to clear off negative karma

Madrid - death means it is unlikely that this card actually represents a physical death. Typically it implies an end, possibly of a relationship or interest, and therefore implies an increased sense of self-awareness—not to be confused with self-consciousness or any kind of self-diminishment

tokyo - the hermit The Hermit's stride is slow but sure. He takes each step with a deliberate, conscious approach - knowing that each step of the journey is a small imprint upon the larger picture of his path. By purposefully choosing to remove himself from society he also runs the risk of being misunderstood and labeled inappropriate

istanbul - judgment means the card symbolizes resurrection, it can also be interpreted to herald the return of individuals from the past The card also represents God's promise of life after death. In a reading suggesting a new beginning and clearing out of the past.

doha - 5 of cups means Here it indicates hopes that have been dashed, or mourning over something that is lost

lol its a bit suprising... istanbul to clear the past and go on, rome to pope... etc what can i say from this beware of tokyo :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some early reaction...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/globetrotting/chi-ioc-green-light-for-qatar-olympic-bid-smacks-of-hypocrisy-20110826,0,6063476.column

The tone of the article is going to wrankle with some members here, and obviously we'll have accustations of sour grapes given its source, but the questions as to WHY the IOC has had a change of heart on the issue of dates is still pretty much unanswered isn't it?

IOC green light for Qatar Olympic bid smacks of hypocrisy

During the McCarthy era witch hunts of the 1950s, when Lillian Hellman was asked by Congress to name fellow artists and writers as communists or communist sympathizers, the playwright answered, "I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions."

If only there were someone in the International Olympic Committee leadership who thought that way.

Of course, that would demand having a conscience rather than the amoral attitudes that lead the IOC to take whatever stand is fashionable for the situation.

Such attitudes lead to hypocrisy like the one the IOC executive board showed in its Friday decision to allow Doha, Qatar to stage a Summer Games between Sept. 20 and Oct. 20 to avoid the intense heat of the desert summer.

A few minutes later, I received a statement from the Qatar Olympic Committee announcing it would bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics, joining Tokyo, Madrid, Rome and Istanbul. The bid deadline is Thursday.

"I wish to personally thank (IOC President) Jacques Rogge and the IOC for guiding us through and supporting the (Qatar Olympic Committee) in entering the bidding race without the disadvantage of dates," said Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamid Al-Thani, the Qatar Olympic Committee president, in the statement.

That is quite a change from the IOC's convenient reason for eliminating Doha from the 2016 Summer Games competition.

When an IOC working group evaluated the original seven bidders for 2016, the results ranked Tokyo first, followed by Madrid, Chicago and Doha.

When the IOC executive board chose the four 2016 finalists in June, 2008, Doha was out and fifth-ranked Rio was in, even though the IOC said Doha "had the potential to host the 2016 Olympic Games."

The rationale was Doha had proposed Games from Oct. 14-30, but the IOC specified July 15-Aug. 31 as the period for the Summer Games, mainly because broadcasters want it that way.

U.S. broadcasters do not want conflicts with college and pro football, which now fill prime time several nights per week and all afternoon and evening on the weekend; the baseball post-season; and the start of the fall season of entertainment programming. European and South American broadcasters do not want conflicts with soccer, which now also includes games several nights per week. With such conflicts, the OIympics would play to a fractured TV audience, making it harder to get big advertising revenues.

So what was in June, 2008 still a very weak Rio bid survived. It would be dramatically improved by the Oct. 2009 vote for the 2016 host, with some of the improvement owing to sub-rosa help from IOC officials. The IOC would argue such help was only in its self-interest, to have a solid Rio plan should the IOC members favor it despite (ongoing) serious issues related to crime and transportation.

Could the reason really have been that Rogge wanted his legacy to include being the person who announced the first Olympics in South America? Was IOC leadership worried what might have happened to Rio had Doha been one of five finalists?

For the answer to the second question, one need only look at the voting for the 2022 men's soccer World Cup.

Amidst allegations of vote trading and vote buying, the international soccer federation picked Doha even though it will stage the event in June and July with the promise of a cooling system in all the stadiums when a dome over the country is what really is needed.

That the natural gas-rich Qataris could afford such a dome goes without saying.

That the IOC has a history of being corrupted by money also goes without saying, no matter how much alleged reform followed the 1999 bid scandal revelations implicating one-third of IOC members at the time.

That the IOC's stated ideals often are empty blather - or full of hypocrisy -- also is evident.

*The IOC insists on no discrimination based on gender, race or religion, yet still allows countries to keep women from their Olympic teams. Among those countries that never have had a female Olympian: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and. . .Qatar.

*The IOC lets Irani athletes fake injuries to avoid competing against Israelis.

*The IOC claims to subscribe to the World Anti-Doping Code, yet makes up holier-than-thou rules about banning dopers from the Olympics that can effectively double the suspensions mandated by the code and lead to a system where punishment is more highly valued than prevention.

*The IOC talks about not letting Olympic hosts build white elephant arenas, yet criticizes Atlanta for avoiding such a costly mess by turning its 1996 Olympic Stadium into Turner Field. The alternative is a moldering 2008 Olympic Stadium in Beijing and several 2004 Olympic venues in Athens going to rot.

*The IOC insisted giving China the Olympics would advance the cause of human rights in that country, then sat idly by during the Games as the Chinese stifled protest and restricted free access of information to journalists.

And now the IOC has done an about-face that gives Doha a chance to host the 2020 Olympics in the fall.

One can only wonder what Comcast / NBC boss Brian Roberts thinks of that, having just agreed to pay the IOC $4.38 billion for U.S. broadcast rights to four Olympic Games through 2020. One would hope Rogge ran the Doha idea by him.

It's more likely the IOC, at its high-handed best (worst?), simply made the decision because it could. Maybe it just was a sop to the Qataris, with the IOC having no intention of allowing them to slake their Olympic host hunger.

Either is unconscionable.

And befitting the IOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I admit I didn't read 2018 as closely as 2016, but to my eyes it seemed like all three were very close. I didn't think PC was favored over Munich. It felt like a dead heat to me. Annecy was bringing up the rear, but they certainly didn't get slammed. I felt that the report placed them behind by a fairly slim margin -- which seems accurate.

There was nothing as glaring as the marginalization of Rio's crime issues and travel times or the attack on Chicago's transportation.

Well, it must be in the eye of the beholder then. Since again, neige would've highly disagreed with you, which I would've agreed with him. Another good example of this is Danny. He doesn't view Rio's final evaluation as a "glaring marginalization" over the other bids, while you do, & I would agree with you on that one.

Even after Annecy's revamped plan, a large winter sport tourist destination was still criticized in their logisitics in the F.E.R., over still yet to be tried new Alpine resort in the middle of a non-traditional winter sport part of the world. That would seem marginalizing to me.

As for Munich, I think the sense of feeling like a "dead heat" was mainly on these boards by pro-Munich 2018 supporters. Just like for 2016, it seemed like a dead heat on here between Rio & Chicago when in the end, it obviously wasn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This particular journalist (Philip Hersh) has already expressed an interest in seeing the 2024 Games in Chicago. Obviously he cares about the Games and is disappointed by the IOC's decision. I would think that 2016 did throw some fuel on the fire that drives this article.

Still, he makes some pretty valid points.

Personally, I don't think Qatar has a chance at winning. I think their proposal was only accepted for political reasons. The IOC doesn't want to give offense -- particularly after selecting a city to host the 2016 Games that ranked BELOW Doha in the 2016 initial evaluation. Plus, the IOC doesn't want to alienate the Arab world. Allowing Doha to participate is a way to keep them happy, all the while knowing they are all but guaranteed to lose.

Hersh's point about NBC is really interesting though. Would they have paid the hefty price they did if they knew there was a chance 2020 would happen in the fall in Doha?! I think they would be pretty ticked-off if Doha 2020 became a reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it must be in the eye of the beholder then. Since again, neige would've highly disagreed with you, which I would've agreed with him. Another good example of this is Danny. He doesn't view Rio's final evaluation as a "glaring marginalization" over the other bids, while you do, & I would agree with you on that one.

Even after Annecy's revamped plan, a large winter sport tourist destination was still criticized in their logisitics in the F.E.R., over still yet to be tried new Alpine resort in the middle of a non-traditional winter sport part of the world. That would seem marginalizing to me.

As for Munich, I think the sense of feeling like a "dead heat" was mainly on these boards by pro-Munich 2018 supporters. Just like for 2016, it seemed like a dead heat on here between Rio & Chicago when in the end, it obviously wasn't.

The difference is that I had no vested interest in 2018 and would have been fine with any of the three (although it does seem soon for another French Winter Games), whereas Danny had a Rio bias and I had a Chicago bias for 2016.

I agree that the boards talked as if it was a dead heat between PC and Munich. I always felt PC had the edge considering geopolitics, third consecutive bid, coming in second twice by a narrow margin and high public support.

I just didn't get a sense of a strong 1,2,3 in the report. Like I said, though, I didn't spend as much time with it as I did in 2016, so perhaps I missed something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some early reaction...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/globetrotting/chi-ioc-green-light-for-qatar-olympic-bid-smacks-of-hypocrisy-20110826,0,6063476.column

The tone of the article is going to wrankle with some members here, and obviously we'll have accustations of sour grapes given its source, but the questions as to WHY the IOC has had a change of heart on the issue of dates is still pretty much unanswered isn't it?

This article accuses the IOC of hypocrisy and corruption... It ' s funny, because the 2 biggest cases of corruption (if not scandals...) were Atlanta 1996 and SLC 2002.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This article accuses the IOC of hypocrisy and corruption... It ' s funny, because the 2 biggest cases of corruption (if not scandals...) were Atlanta 1996 and SLC 2002.

The IOC is no doubt a group of hypocrites, but corrupt? I think that is taking it a bit too far.

Atlanta and SLC were not anything out of the ordinary from what happened with other Olympic cities, but they were simply the breaking point in what had been a long history of the IOC rubbing shoulders with the Olympic cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Exactly. Salt Lake merely got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. But it was no different than what other bidding cities had done in the past as well, like Nagano, Sydney & even Beijing for 2000.

So simply singling out the U.S. in this aspect is also only highlighting the hypocrisy & double standards, & simply overlooking the other countries which also partaked in the "corruption".

The difference is that I had no vested interest in 2018 and would have been fine with any of the three (although it does seem soon for another French Winter Games), whereas Danny had a Rio bias and I had a Chicago bias for 2016.

Precisely what causes the 'marginalization' in the reports, & this was the aspect that neige didn't fully comprehend. The IOC simply viewed France as too soon for yet a 4th Winter Olympic Games for 2018. Just like the IOC most likely viewed that is was probably too soon for the U.S., Spain & even Japan for the 2016 Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This article accuses the IOC of hypocrisy and corruption... It ' s funny, because the 2 biggest cases of corruption (if not scandals...) were Atlanta 1996

Excuse me. Show me where there were proven charges of corruption AND bribery in Atlanta winning 1996 and I will let you live down that unproven accusation.

Salt Lake? Just FYI, the CHARGES made by the Attornry General's office were dismissed by the Justice Dept/Supreme Court because they happened outside the realm of US jurisdiction...so in effect THERE WAS NO BRIBERY involved; but it caused the IOC to clean house!!

So watch what you say here...because we are going to nail you down for any untruths or slander.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me. Show me where there were proven charges of corruption AND bribery in Atlanta winning 1996

If Atlanta won was because it was a safer choice against Athens. It wasnt corruption or bribery...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Atlanta won was because it was a safer choice against Athens. It wasnt corruption or bribery...

EXACTLY. And how could it have been corruption when the lead man, Billy Payne, had to mortgage his house to pay for the team's bills? If you mortgage your OWN house to meet the bills, there is no room to pay bribes!! If Louis will read the right accounts, he will find that even Coca-Cola was very afraid to give extra money to Payne's team for fear of offending their overseas bottlers based in the other rival cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrites yes, but I wouldn't say they are corrupt.

Doha was kept out of the list of the candidate cities because they could not meet the required dates set for the 2016 bid. The rules were clear.

This time, the rules are also clear that they need to inform the IOC if they want to set the dates outside of the time frame which Doha did and approved to go on to the application phase. Doha is following the rules and there was no reason for the IOC to turn them away yet.

It's not like Doha is going to win anyways.

Phil Hersch from what I read of his past editorials, is a sensational tool fishing for controversy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to do with sponsor influence.

No it wasn't. Read "And They Call Them Games" (An Inside Story of the 1996 Olympics) by C. Richard Yarborough, Mercer Univesity Press, 2000. You should also read the Official Report of those Games.

The so-called Atlanta Ten (original circle of volunteers/Billy Payne's friends) ponied up $50,000 each of their own money to build the first $500,000 war chest of the Atlanta Bid Committee (page 39 of the book). As a matter of fact, they were hesitant to approach Coca-Cola because indeed it put Coca-Cola in a pickle.

It was the Atlanta Ten who walked out the Olympic flag at Closing Ceremony very fittingly because they were finally putting their baby to bed.

I wish people here would get their facts straight before they speak out. How would you like people to have mouth falsehoods about your own family or your own town?? <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my memory of following a race where Oz (Melbourne) was a bidder, Coca-Cola went to great pains to be even-handed (as McDonalds did for 2016). 1996 was basically a choice between Athens, or anybody but Athens. And Atlanta campaigned rings around the other two main non-Greek bidders (Toronto and M'bourne) and was the last bid standing to prevent an almost impossible task for Athens to be ready on time. And IMO, it was Billy Paine who made the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so defensive... I completely undestand that this issue hurts americans that trully love sports and Olympics. But by threatening other members or by bullying you don 't convince people from other countries. I thought that this was a free-speaking forum... BTW is it ok when we accuse constantly and intensively the Qataris of corruption, but we are not allowed to "touch" the US bids? Please let me know if these are the "rules" in this forum!

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my memory of following a race where Oz (Melbourne) was a bidder, Coca-Cola went to great pains to be even-handed (as McDonalds did for 2016). 1996 was basically a choice between Athens, or anybody but Athens. And Atlanta campaigned rings around the other two main non-Greek bidders (Toronto and M'bourne) and was the last bid standing to prevent an almost impossible task for Athens to be ready on time. And IMO, it was Billy Paine who made the difference.

Yes, Coca-Cola Amatil was a bid sponsor of the 1996 Melbourne Olympic bid, having contributed at least 100,000 dollars. I'm sure the sub companies of Coca-Cola operating in other bidding cities would have sponsored such bids as well.

McDonalds also sponsored the Melbourne bid, I'm sure they would have also done the same with regards to the other bids, as should all multi-national companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...