Jump to content

IOC Cuts International Promotion for 2020 Olympic Bids


Rob.

Recommended Posts

(ATR) Around the Rings is told that cities bidding for the 2020 Olympics will face severe restrictions on promotion during the London Games under new IOC rules meant to slash bid budgets.

IOC Olympic Games executive director Gilbert Felli confirms to ATR that the 2020 candidates will largely be prohibited from international PR at the Olympics – a first for a bidding contest in the run-up to a host city vote.

"It is not a problem [for them]. We have Olympic Games in London and the cities can be there and see what's going on and speak to people, but no international promotion," he says. "They are more than welcome to be present."

"It is good enough because cities [traditionally] spend so much money on international promotion. It is good for them," Felli adds.

Under a calendar approved at the IOC Executive Board meeting in April, the period for international promotion for 2020 candidates is not allowed to begin until January 2013. That will exclude the London Games and other international sports meetings scheduled ahead of then.

http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=37883

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on them for trying. Although slashing bid budgets would be a good thing, that doesn't mean it will happen. Restricting the dates of international promotion probably just means that certain bid cities will spend even more during the limited time they have to promote their bid. Their bid budget might not even change at all. Who knows, they might even continue to escalate. All it takes is offering a foreign superstar athlete another $15 million to promote your bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this insane or what. Is there a budget breakdown of these bids online anywhere?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/02/news/economy/chicago_olympics_rejection/index.htm

The bidding process alone cost Chicago about $100 million

quote from the website above

so these bids do cost 100 mill plus

they shoodve released this statement before september 1st maybe they coudlv'e gotten more bids

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/02/news/economy/chicago_olympics_rejection/index.htm

The bidding process alone cost Chicago about $100 million

quote from the website above

so these bids do cost 100 mill plus

they shoodve released this statement before september 1st maybe they coudlv'e gotten more bids

That's rounding it off very conveniently. Just like worldwide TV viewers are always pegged at 2 billion or 2.5 billion or 3 billion. Reports from the Chicago committee when they closed their books put their bid expenses at around $76 million only. Sochi 2018 supposedly cost $90 million. Doha 2022 cost around $155 billion -- $10 million for each of the 13 voters + $25 million for expenses on the actual bid itself. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's rounding it off very conveniently. Just like worldwide TV viewers are always pegged at 2 billion or 2.5 billion or 3 billion. Reports from the Chicago committee when they closed their books put their bid expenses at around $76 million only. Sochi 2018 supposedly cost $90 million. Doha 2022 cost around $155 billion -- $10 million for each of the 13 voters + $25 million for expenses on the actual bid itself. :lol:

theres a few different websites saying costs but still 76 million is alot for a bid

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this move is a nice gesture, but I wonder if it will really cut down much on the spending. I hope it's the first in a series of revisions to the current bid process.

Perhaps the IOC is beginning to realize that these huge pricetags for losing bids are not sustainable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC doesn't realize anything remember people this is the IOC. Somewhere in the Olympic Charter the IOC can wash their hands at any issues. The IOC needs to step up to plate and show some balls not just on the financial front but the whole aspect of the Olympics in the 21st century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC doesn't realize anything remember people this is the IOC. Somewhere in the Olympic Charter the IOC can wash their hands at any issues. The IOC needs to step up to plate and show some balls not just on the financial front but the whole aspect of the Olympics in the 21st century.

Well, it was stupid of them to suspend actual visits to the bidding cities. How can you pick something as important as an Olympic site from a brochure or slide show? I mean if you can't trust your members' integrity and ethics from visits, then HOW legitimate can their picking a site from a slide show be? :blink: That's just like buying "time-shares" from those presentations.

They have to REFORM and TRUST their members first of all -- and REMOVE members who are in corrupt-ridden organizations like FIFA, and starting with the BIG, BAD BOZO - Sepp Bladder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it was stupid of them to suspend actual visits to the bidding cities. How can you pick something as important as an Olympic site from a brochure or slide show? I mean if you can't trust your members' integrity and ethics from visits, then HOW legitimate can their picking a site from a slide show be? :blink: That's just like buying "time-shares" from those presentations.

They have to REFORM and TRUST their members first of all -- and REMOVE members who are in corrupt-ridden organizations like FIFA, and starting with the BIG, BAD BOZO - Sepp Bladder.

+1. That should be their long-term goal: to get to the point where they can trust their members to start visiting cities again.

Though I suspect that if they were allowed to visit the bid cities and see what was on the ground, Sochi wouldn't have won 2014, and Pyeongchang would've won 2018 by a way lesser margin (with Munich and especially Annecy picking up some votes).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a step in the right direction - the IOC have shown they are sensitive to the perception that the bidding costs are getting ridiculous. But we'll just have to se if it really maks much of a difference.

+1. That should be their long-term goal: to get to the point where they can trust their members to start visiting cities again.

Though I suspect that if they were allowed to visit the bid cities and see what was on the ground, Sochi wouldn't have won 2014, and Pyeongchang would've won 2018 by a way lesser margin (with Munich and especially Annecy picking up some votes).

Another great debate point, Gang! I don't think anyone's picked up on that "pattern" yet. Yeah, it's interesting that since they've banned the IOC en-masse visits, we've ended up culminating with the latest Rio-Sochi-PC "new frontiers" trend. It's an interesting notion to think if any would have won if they still had the visits. It's only gut feeling, but I'd go out on a limb and say that Rio may still have won, but not so emphatically, Sochi could have still swung it with their Roubles and the Putin factors, but PC? Hmmmm. Again, it still would have won, but I wonder if it would have been in a single round. And that would have opened up the pandora's box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another great debate point, Gang! I don't think anyone's picked up on that "pattern" yet. Yeah, it's interesting that since they've banned the IOC en-masse visits, we've ended up culminating with the latest Rio-Sochi-PC "new frontiers" trend. It's an interesting notion to think if any would have won if they still had the visits. It's only gut feeling, but I'd go out on a limb and say that Rio may still have won, but not so emphatically, Sochi could have still swung it with their Roubles and the Putin factors, but PC? Hmmmm. Again, it still would have won, but I wonder if it would have been in a single round. And that would have opened up the pandora's box.

About 2018, I think the margin of votes was so large that even visits to big cities wouldn't have resulted in 18 less votes for PC. I don't think anyone will dispute that Annecy is more ready than PC and that it looks more picturesque, and maybe that would've allowed Annecy to pick up a few more votes, but PC had too big of a buffer against the other two. I suspect that a good portion of the IOC members pick their favourite bid and then try and justify it with reasons afterward. They are human after all. "Like Munich? Well, they'll have great fan support!" "Like Pyeongchang? It's time to go to Asia!" I think those that truly have an open mind and have no pre-favourites once the candidates are announced are few. I mean, look at how many of us here on these boards already have a personal favourite for 2020, mine being Rome and then Istanbul. And for 2018, I think there were just too many IOC members that WANTED to choose PC no matter they visited the bid cities or not.

Of course, going back further, maybe PC never would have gotten the momentum to carry on after the 2010 vote if the IOC members had seen the area back in 2003! :P

Edit: Err.. that's "bid" cities, not big cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the bidding fee 10 million?

And the many international conferences are the reason for the high costs. Flights to and from the sit, hotel rooms, consultants, language translations depending on the audience, all the cost and hours of preparing the presentations and videos and the like. Its just like with anything, tenders are extremely expensive. Defense tenders can run in the 10's of millions of dollars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the many international conferences are the reason for the high costs. Flights to and from the sit, hotel rooms, consultants, language translations depending on the audience, all the cost and hours of preparing the presentations and videos and the like. Its just like with anything, tenders are extremely expensive. Defense tenders can run in the 10's of millions of dollars.

Very true. And they're going after a big prize, one of the biggest a country/city could land, so perhaps it's to be expected that the bid costs are big.

The thing is though, in private enterprise, it's easier to absorb that when you are really only having to justify it to is your board, your accountants or, at worst, your shareholders. An Olympic hosting bid is much more public, and relies on more widespread public goodwill, support and approval. And the funding is almost always a mix of public/ taxpayers' money, and private donations. That's harder to sustain repeatedly if you don't seem to be getting the return. A Grumman or a Boeing board can figure in repeat multi-million bids for lucrative contracts. A Chicago City Hall, or a sceptical Australian or French or German electorate is always likely to have a harder time lending public support for repeated bids for something its easy for opponents to paint as frivolous, and which is often hard to quantify the financial benefits even if successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also all the glossy brochures and the MOST EXPENSIVE looking bid books made only of a limited number and then air-freighting these heavy publications out to the various conferences, etc., etc. Then u have salaries of probably a dozen full-time staffers for nearly two years. All that plus consultants', lobbyists' fees, etc., etc., and as you said travel and hotel costs, all add up. Why the cities have to appear at things like SportsAccord and the various regional conferences I don't understand? They can just show up at one or 2 fully-attended IOC meets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great for economy!! I think only Doha will be abble to campaing a lot.....

Well, international promotion is very important JUST in the city of the IOC session (in this case Buenos Aires) I remember when Sochi brought here (Guaremala) a huge ice rink, and Alexander Popov gave us a swimming clinic (in tgat time i was a member of the national swimming team) and everubody in Guatemala was in favour of Sochi...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I think only Doha will be abble to campaing a lot....

2. Well, international promotion is very important JUST in the city of the IOC session (in this case Buenos Aires) I remember when Sochi brought here (Guaremala) a huge ice rink, and Alexander Popov gave us a swimming clinic (in tgat time i was a member of the national swimming team) and everubody in Guatemala was in favour of Sochi....

1. No, because they will be subject to the same rules as everyone. If they stray from the rules, then the IOC will censure them.

2. U have to ask yourself, Deawebo, does having an ice rink there automatically make Sochi a better host than PC or Salzburg?

Did they leave it behind so Guatemala can develop figure skaters? I don't think so.

What does Popov and swimming have to do with a Winter Olympics? :blink: NOTHING.

So therefore, this is exactly the sort of waste that the IOC is now looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No, because they will be subject to the same rules as everyone. If they stray from the rules, then the IOC will censure them.

2. U have to ask yourself, Deawebo, does having an ice rink there automatically make Sochi a better host than PC or Salzburg?

Did they leave it behind so Guatemala can develop figure skaters? I don't think so.

What does Popov and swimming have to do with a Winter Olympics? :blink: NOTHING.

So therefore, this is exactly the sort of waste that the IOC is now looking for.

Well, i think Guatemala hasnt more that 2 or 3 athlets in winter games, but the people was excited with Sochi, in fact a city here is named Suchi so it was the people's favorite and I think that impacted in the IOC desition, Yuna skated with kids in Durban for Pyeongchang's bid (THE SAME)..... SA does not have any winter figures I guess... Popov is IOC member, that's my point ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think Qataris follow the rules.... Aka. 2022 WC

FIFA is a different animal from the IOC. The IOC, sort of, cleaned house like a decade ago. FIFA still isn't there.

And it takes 2 to play. Those 13 FIFA votes made it known that they could be bought. I mean they will probably be dead or having Alzheimer's by the time 2022 rolls around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FIFA is a different animal from the IOC. The IOC, sort of, cleaned house like a decade ago. FIFA still isn't there.

And it takes 2 to play. Those 13 FIFA votes made it known that they could be bought. I mean they will probably be dead or having Alzheimer's by the time 2022 rolls around.

I hope so, the IOC must still clean

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that the whole issue of members visiting candidate cities hasn't gotten enough attention. I'm really glad to see it coming up here.

The members need to see the cities that they are voting on. That's just common sense. If you can't trust your members to behave ethically, then you need different membership.

I absolutely think that recent votes would have been affected if the membership had been able to experience the candidate cities firsthand for themselves. If the IOC continues their current policy, it says volumes about what they think of their own moral fiber and it makes me question the integrity of the whole organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that the whole issue of members visiting candidate cities hasn't gotten enough attention. I'm really glad to see it coming up here.

The members need to see the cities that they are voting on. That's just common sense. If you can't trust your members to behave ethically, then you need different membership.

I absolutely think that recent votes would have been affected if the membership had been able to experience the candidate cities firsthand for themselves. If the IOC continues their current policy, it says volumes about what they think of their own moral fiber and it makes me question the integrity of the whole organization.

I think it is more questioning the integrity of the bidding committees because almost all confirmed and rumored bribery was initiated by the bidder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...