Jump to content

A Minneapolis 2024/2008 bid?


kernowboy

Recommended Posts

No, I have not. But I've been to many cities throughout North America & several in other parts of Europe that I'm sure I can base an opinion on. Just like Quaker did with Belgium.

And quite frankly, I think any U.S. bid that would make itself to be "too American" would most likely be a turn-off to most of the IOC, especially after Atlanta. A more diverse & open American bid would more than likely be more attractive to them.

Its just that Birmingham is not very nice (being polite) and Manchester and Glasgow are not much better and not very easy on the eye to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't think the IOC needs the US, as much as you think. Countries like China, India, Turkey etc where there government is prepared to underwrite the costs are far more attractive. The Games won't die if NBC doesn't show up - that's 300million viewers in 7billion. Its a bit like the FIFA World Cup - if the US didn't qualify no-one would bat an eyelid.

Oh really? And how much is China, with nearly 4 times the population of the United States, paying to the IOC in television rights? The issue is that NBComcast has fueled the idea that the Olympics are worth the same amount to them no matter where they're held. That's why the Olympics don't need to be held in the United States, but I think you're being very naive if you think the IOC would be okay without that television money from the United States. They're not getting that from anywhere else. And you can't use FIFA as a basis of comparison (speaking of sports federations that rely heavily on television rights) because the US doesn't account for the same percentage of rights fees that they do to the IOC.

The Games won't die if NBC doesn't show up, you say? I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't know where the IOC thinks they could make up a billion dollars from another country if they didn't have that windfall from the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really? And how much is China, with nearly 4 times the population of the United States, paying to the IOC in television rights? The issue is that NBComcast has fueled the idea that the Olympics are worth the same amount to them no matter where they're held. That's why the Olympics don't need to be held in the United States, but I think you're being very naive if you think the IOC would be okay without that television money from the United States. They're not getting that from anywhere else. And you can't use FIFA as a basis of comparison (speaking of sports federations that rely heavily on television rights) because the US doesn't account for the same percentage of rights fees that they do to the IOC.

The Games won't die if NBC doesn't show up, you say? I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't know where the IOC thinks they could make up a billion dollars from another country if they didn't have that windfall from the United States.

The money will replaced from elsewhere you can be assured of that - the Chinese regard a billion dollars as lose change, and I am also sure we could see an Olympics in Doha and/or Dubai and all of a sudden Al-Jarzeera becoming a major TV provider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The money will replaced from elsewhere you can be assured of that - the Chinese regard a billion dollars as lose change, and I am also sure we could see an Olympics in Doha and/or Dubai and all of a sudden Al-Jarzeera becoming a major TV provider.

I feel no reassurance by that. Why would worldwide teleivision fees outside the United States increase if the money from the United States decreases? If there's money to be made from China or from Al-Jazeera, why aren't they making it now? The IOC is getting a billion dollars per Olympics from NBC. If that money isn't there, you can't tell me the rest of the world is suddenly going to get charitable and pick up the slack when they have no reason to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel no reassurance by that. Why would worldwide teleivision fees outside the United States increase if the money from the United States decreases? If there's money to be made from China or from Al-Jazeera, why aren't they making it now? The IOC is getting a billion dollars per Olympics from NBC. If that money isn't there, you can't tell me the rest of the world is suddenly going to get charitable and pick up the slack when they have no reason to.

I give up

How do you delete articles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up

Awww, you're giving up already? Because I had a lot more numbers I could have thrown out there to show the disparity in television rights fees between the United States and everyone else. I think you're under-estimating just how much of that NBC money goes to the IOC and to the host cities. That's part of what has caused the rift between the USOC and the IOC (which has yet to be resolved).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awww, you're giving up already? Because I had a lot more numbers I could have thrown out there to show the disparity in television rights fees between the United States and everyone else. I think you're under-estimating just how much of that NBC money goes to the IOC and to the host cities. That's part of what has caused the rift between the USOC and the IOC (which has yet to be resolved).

Giving up as in giving up with this Gamesbids forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmfao! Come on, KB. Stop throwing a "temper-tantrum" simply bcuz a lot of us here challenge your distorted views on there things.

After all, that's the intent N purposes of these boards TBW. To discuss N challenge all POV's. But if that's how you really feel, then like the old saying goes - "if ya can't take the heat, then get outta the kitchen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmfao! Come on, KB. Stop throwing a "temper-tantrum" simply bcuz a lot of us here challenge your distorted views on there things.

After all, that's the intent N purposes of these boards TBW. To discuss N challenge all POV's. But if that's how you really feel, then like the old saying goes - "if ya can't take the heat, then get outta the kitchen".

Why stay in the kitchen if you don't like what's being cooked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why stay in the kitchen if you don't like what's being cooked?

Well if we're going to use food analogies.. who bought the groceries!? :D

You were the one who brought up Minneapolis. You continue to sell us on it even though the consensus here is that it falls somewhere between unlikely and not a chance. If you don't like our opinions, feel free to continue to discuss it with us, but I think you need more than "I was in Minneapolis once, it's a really nice city, I'd like to see them bid for the Olympics."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving up as in giving up with this Gamesbids forum

You talk about sparing the world another American Olympics. If the US is so awful, why take such an interest in our cities? So far you've championed Minneapolis, Seattle and Miami. Why work so hard to find second-tier American candidates if you can't stand the country?

The US is deeply grateful to the Olympics for much wonderful history and we are glad to have been able to help revitalize the Olympic movement in the 80's. Whenever we are blessed with another opportunity to host, we will receive it as a great privilege and an honor. We will do our best to create a magical celebration for the world.

If you have a low opinion of that, then perhaps you are right and these boards are not the right place for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when looking at USA bids, there is an over reliance on immediate global recognition. I think the US don't give the rest of the world enough credit in knowing your geography.

No bid is ever 100% perfect .... if Paris didn't bid, and Minneapolis for example was up against Durban, I don't think it should be considered a slam dunk because it is Africa in the same way that Athens thought they had 1996 in the bag and just needed to turn up. While Durban can offer in 'Wow, a new continent and location etc' they suffer because of concerns of crime, social issues etc and you wonder if they might struggle in certain areas such as accommodation themselves.

By accident, it seems that Minneapolis offers a range of venues in close proximity which even in 2028 will be less than 40years old and when you how many stadiums and venues in the US are still excellent despite being built in the early 20th century, I don't think its an issue - its good to show something physical to inspectors than merely a series of artist impressions. Cluster always seems to be an IOC buzz word.

As for the NBC deal which a poster mentions, this ends I think in 2020, and the way the Middle East and elsewhere are throwing around money, will NBC be able to compete when new rights come up? Clearly a sop was thrown them when Rio was selected as it is in the same time zone but clearly offering up the big global cities of the US in New York and Chicago has not worked.

Would Minneapolis win? Who knows. But like many other US cities, if they were interested, then this should be encouraged.

Looking at why Chicago lost, there seemed to be a lack of public support, and also some say the restrictive visa and passport controls was a deterence as well as the ongoing USOC-IOC dispute - I think there is no point in offering a city if only 47% of public opinion is in favour according to a poll done by NBC Sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when looking at USA bids, there is an over reliance on immediate global recognition. I think the US don't give the rest of the world enough credit in knowing your geography.

Yep, you're right. We know about it. And are generally indifferent - at best.

If MSP is ever looking to become Olympic electable, it should look at it as the end point if a long term hosting strategy, not the jumping off point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when looking at USA bids, there is an over reliance on immediate global recognition. I think the US don't give the rest of the world enough credit in knowing your geography.

I agree the foreigners are generally more aware of our geography than we are of theirs (an embarrassment). But I absolutely do not agree that the IOC turns a blind eye to global status.

Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo, Minneapolis? Which one of these does not belong?

The only justification for Minneapolis is Atlanta which was a serious anomaly and ultimately a disappointing host.

The Olympic movement is so strong and prestigious now that I don't expect to see a field as weak as 1996 for quite a while. I think the races will continue to be dominated by heavy-hitters for quite some time, but I can imagine the number of bidders decreasing. I can imagine 3 or even 2 bidders for future contests. The process is so expensive and the Games are so big that many second-tiers will be scared away. In my opinion, this includes the likes of Minneapolis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when looking at USA bids, there is an over reliance on immediate global recognition. I think the US don't give the rest of the world enough credit in knowing your geography.

I agree with Athens.. I think global status is somewhat important to the IOC. Especially with regard to the United States, there are so many grand cities this country has to offer. I don't see Minneapolis as being 1 of them, especially in the context of hosting the world's largest sporting event. The USOC needs to put their best foot forward, that's why they're hoping for New York or Chicago to re-emerge or maybe for Los Angeles to offer up something worthy of a bid. I know a lot of foreigners here seem to think that's a mistake and that they should look into offering a Minneapolis or something other less-than-alpha city. There's a level of cities between the alphas and Minneapolis (notably San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Houston) so that should be the next priority. If none of those emerge, then what's next? After 2 consecutive slaps in the face (1 which was probably a lot more deserved than the other), why should the USOC push forward with a city they're not confident with? And I'm sorry, but offering Minneapolis doesn't exactly inspire the type of confidence that could beat the competition.

As for the NBC deal which a poster mentions, this ends I think in 2020, and the way the Middle East and elsewhere are throwing around money, will NBC be able to compete when new rights come up? Clearly a sop was thrown them when Rio was selected as it is in the same time zone but clearly offering up the big global cities of the US in New York and Chicago has not worked.

Assuming that poster was me.. the point I was making is that NBC seemed to offer their bid to the IOC completely irregardless of where future Olympics would be held (at the time the deal was consummated, the sites of the 2018 and 2020 had not been determined yet). Not that the IOC necessarily owes the United States a debt of gratitude in that respect, but if it ever came to the point that the television money from NBC or whoever bid for the Olympics here started to dry up from the lack of a US host, the IOC would award a games here so quick, it wouldn't matter who the bidder was! Here are some numbers to think about..

For the 2010-2012 cycle, NBC paid $2 billion for Olympic television rights (and over-bid for sure, but in a better economy, it wouldn't have looked so bad). Compare that to $760 million from the EBU, $362.5 million from Japan and even $153 million from Canada. China's contribution?.. $99.5 million. The world's most populous country paid LESS for the Olympics than a country with about 1 citizen for every 38 in China. And the Arab States union, their contribution?.. $21.2 million for the 2010-12 cycle.

Now again, the message seems to be that NBC can offer up billions of dollars in Olympic TV rights and make that money back (well, not all of it lately) whether or not the United States hosts an Olympics. But again, if it ever got to the point that those rights fees started to go down as a result of not having an Olympics on US soil, how much more money do you think they'd be able to extract from China or the Arab States? You say they have money to throw around, but they're certainly not offering it up in terms of television rights. And we know how much an organization like the IOC relies on that, which has been 1 of the sticking points in the USOC-IOC revenue deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately if someone like a smaller Arab TV company owned by a Sultan or Emir bought the major rights they could sell these on to the likes of Fox or one of the others. The advertising revenues would mean it would be worth it for them. It has already been happening for some of the football leagues in Euro with people buying up rights to show live games. It may well happen with the Olympics too.

This is especially the case with newer markets like China and India and Brazil etc with booming economies prove attractive to advertisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately if someone like a smaller Arab TV company owned by a Sultan or Emir bought the major rights they could sell these on to the likes of Fox or one of the others. The advertising revenues would mean it would be worth it for them. It has already been happening for some of the football leagues in Euro with people buying up rights to show live games. It may well happen with the Olympics too.

This is especially the case with newer markets like China and India and Brazil etc with booming economies prove attractive to advertisers.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.PrintContent&action=Print&contentID=0000000041294

Just came across this. The Arab States are paying $32 million for the 2014-2016 cycle, an increase of around 50% more than what they paid for 2010-2012. NBC is paying $1.226 billion for the 2016 Rio Olympics. That means they're paying more than double PER DAY what a total of 20 Arab States are paying TOTAL for rights to TWO Olympics. So what does that tell you about the marketplace? You can't use European football leagues as a comparison. That would be a broadcaster adding a new product that maybe advertisers would be interested in. This is what the Olympics are worth to them, so why do you assume that someone would come in and pay more when the market doesn't dictate what it's worth? Yes, NBC over-paid for the next 4 Olympics, but you still had ESPN offering around $1.5 billion for the 2014-2016 cycle in the United States. That's close to 50 times greater than the Arab States deal. The numbers aren't even close to being in the same ballpark and I don't see why that would change anytime soon, regardless of how much money China and the Arab States have to throw around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUTSTANDING points, Quaker. The American networks really need to align themselves with the USOC.

Try this on for size:

The USOC holds an internal bid process first. Whichever network offers the most money to the US Olympic team becomes the United States sole bidder to the IOC. That way most of the money stays here and the IOC will only get what the Games are actually worth to the Olympic movement.

The IOC would hate it, but it would be great for the athletes.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUTSTANDING points, Quaker. The American networks really need to align themselves with the USOC.

Try this on for size:

The USOC holds an internal bid process first. Whichever network offers the most money to the US Olympic team becomes the United States sole bidder to the IOC. That way most of the money stays here and the IOC will only get what the Games are actually worth to the Olympic movement.

The IOC would hate it, but it would be great for the athletes.....

Great for the American athletes .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bid is ever 100% perfect .... if Paris didn't bid, and Minneapolis for example was up against Durban, I don't think it should be considered a slam dunk because it is Africa in the same way that Athens thought they had 1996 in the bag and just needed to turn up. While Durban can offer in 'Wow, a new continent and location etc' they suffer because of concerns of crime, social issues etc and you wonder if they might struggle in certain areas such as accommodation themselves.

Ummm, those very concerning points though, didn't stop the IOC whatsoever in awarding Rio over much more reliable & safer bids from Tokyo, Madrid or even Chicago.

While Durban itself is not a global metropolis, neither is Minneapolis, however. I'm sure the IOC would overwhelmingly chose Durban in that round-up (if the bid was a least viable. Doesn't need to be perfect).

One only has to look at Rio & PyeongChang's final voting numbers to see that the IOC wants to extend the movement to new reaches, & Minneapolis doesn't fit that bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC holds an internal bid process first. Whichever network offers the most money to the US Olympic team becomes the United States sole bidder to the IOC. That way most of the money stays here and the IOC will only get what the Games are actually worth to the Olympic movement.

The IOC would hate it, but it would be great for the athletes.....

Sounds good in theory, but that has collusion written all over it. I don't think it would work because what prevents another network from going to the IOC and offering up more if they think they can profit from it.

I brought it up around the time the new deal was negotiated.. a lot of signs were pointing to the IOC not getting the $4 billion they were looking for and given the NYC and Chicago losses than the networks should low-ball the IOC. Obviously that didn't happen, NBC over-shot by about a billion dollars, and USOC-IOC relations haven't exactly improved in the past few years. Again, the message that NBC sent to the IOC is that the location of the Olympics isn't important to them and that there's may or may not be more value in selecting a U.S. city as host.

As we've speculated about, it's unlikely the USOC is going to be seriously considering putting forth a bid until the revenue issue is settled. And clearly, they don't seem to be in a real hurry to rush that through. So like we've been saying.. the USOC needs to get their affairs in order before they push ahead with a bid. It certainly doesn't mean that a city like Minneapolis plan and prepare for a future bid. The more time that passes, the stronger the competition domestically is going to get, but in no way should the USOC count on having the stars align. Rather, they probably need to have the most technically superior and intriguing bid, not just to assume that years of funding a big portion of the IOC's bank accounts is going to do it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize my idea is unlikely to happen. It's pie-in-the-sky. I do think that more American money should support American athletes rather than subsidizing the rest of the world.

The only way my idea would work would be if all the networks signed a contract pledging to abide by the USOC's decision and stay out of the IOC bid in the event that they are not the USOC's top-bidder. I don't know if the networks could be persuaded to do that or not. It certainly would be better for American athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF... very big if... IF Minneapolis/St. Paul were ever to try for an Olympics, they sorely need credibility first. Start small, maybe national championships for Olympic sporting events. If word of mouth is good and the populace recepetive, try for a world championship. Think of this as a checklist, raising the profile of the city, spreading word of mouth and getting much needed experience at hosting big events.

Do I think Minneapolis/St. Paul COULD host an Olympics? I'd love to see it, but not for a LONG time, probably not even in my lifespan. Sorry, but that is just how it breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...