Jump to content

Short List


Faster

Recommended Posts

Ok, so now Rogge has come out and told Turkey that they can't have cake and pie together. We are down to 2 legitamite contenders.

Wouldn't it be simpler for the ExCo to just issue a report saying that upon review of all application files, the ExCo believes that only Tokyo is capable of hosting the Olympics and pending approval by the IOC in September 2013 we will be moving forward with Tokyo as host of the 2020 Olympics?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ok, so now Rogge has come out and told Turkey that they can't have cake and pie together. We are down to 2 legitamite contenders.

Wouldn't it be simpler for the ExCo to just issue a report saying that upon review of all application files, the ExCo believes that only Tokyo is capable of hosting the Olympics and pending approval by the IOC in September 2013 we will be moving forward with Tokyo as host of the 2020 Olympics?

They wont do that. The others would cry foul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all now that eouldn't be competitive... Not always the "most capable" city wins... ;) Aka: Beijing, Rio, Sochi, PyeonchChang when you had Toronto/Paris, Chicago/Tokyo, Salzburg, Munich as better technical options...

If Istambul is out, 4 candidate cities... I don't see the IOC leaving only 3 or 2 candidates...

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I cannot see the IOC running the risk of the games going to Baku or Doha. I remember around the time Qatar bought the World Cup, there was numerous conflicting reports that he was for and against Qatar winning. But the strongest indications afterwards, and against bin Hamman were that he was actively trying to prevent Qatar from winning. And I cannot see the ExCo of the IOC being any different. The Middle East is not a pool the IOC wants to dive into, but accidents happen. Money changes hands.

The ExCo's primary responsibility is to protect the integrity of the brand and of the Movement. Baku and Doha pose a risk-reward scenario that is not beneficial to the IOC in any way. So we are now down to Madrid vs. Tokyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is if Doha wins everyone is going to jump to foul play. Look even people think Baku might because their an oil rch coutnry which is a shame because if they ever win accusations will be thrown out, even with the new rules in place from the 2002 slc scandal it'll still happen but i would love to see a new area have the games hence why i was going for istanbul but now that they stupidly made a mistake i'm for baku and doha

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's wreck less thinking to say that one is for a "new area" to host the Games simply bcuz they haven't hosted the Olympics before. Doha N Baku R NOT Beijing N Rio. The former two do not, in the least, represent what the latter two had in the potential to expand the movement for IOC. Istanbul certainly had/has the potential, but Baku nor Doha do not. Not yet anyway.

And when Seoul got the Olympics, it's only other sole competitor was Nagoya, Japan's 3rd largest city. N the Japanese had already hosted at the time. So then IOC felt compelled enough with Seoul.

Barcelona was the Hometown of then IOC president JAS. N he pushed heavily so he could have his city host the Games. Without JAS, Barcelona most likely never would have gotten the Olympics.

Athens is the BIRTHPLACE of the Olympic Games N the IOC did feel that for 2004 that the Greeks were "prepapred". Notice that the IOC did not award Athens 1996 bcuz the IOC didn't think that they were prepared back then.

As for Sochi, it's a WINTER Games, that R a third of the size as the Summer Olympics. N plus, like the Chinese, the Russians will throw every Ruble that they have at the Games. Not to mention, that Russia is a great winter sports powerhouse that had yet to host a Winter Games. So all of those comparisons R apples n oranges, to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Athens is the BIRTHPLACE of the Olympic Games N the IOC did feel that for 2004 that the Greeks were "prepapred". Notice that the IOC did not award Athens 1996 bcuz the IOC didn't think that they were prepared back then.

Altho if one were to be strict about it, ancient Athens NEVER hosted the Olympic Games of old. It was rival Ellis.' OK, it's splitting hairs, but... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am changing my opinion on this. Before, I thought Doha and Baku would not be shortlisted, but now I think that all of the cities will be shortlisted, simply because Rome dropped out, and there is the potential for Istanbul to drop out. Madrid hasn't looked as strong as one would like either.

The IOC will want at least four candidate cities competing. The last time the number of candidate cities were under five was in 1981.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am changing my opinion on this. Before, I thought Doha and Baku would not be shortlisted, but now I think that all of the cities will be shortlisted, simply because Rome dropped out, and there is the potential for Istanbul to drop out. Madrid hasn't looked as strong as one would like either.

My view exactly. I now expect it to be a five-city final field. Though Istanbul is sure now adding more uncertainty to all this than I felt even just a few weeks ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y waste someone's time & money if they really have no chance. Isn't that what the short-list is suppose to be about anyway. What if Turkey just drops the Euro bid. Would the IOC really care at this point, considering their options this time around R fairly small, as long as Istanbul & Turkey give their full-pledged committments to them instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y waste someone's time & money if they really have no chance. Isn't that what the short-list is suppose to be about anyway. What if Turkey just drops the Euro bid. Would the IOC really care at this point, considering their options this time around R fairly small, as long as Istanbul & Turkey give their full-pledged committments to them instead.

I think the IOC would accept that, though Turkey would have to go to great lengths to demonstrate more foresight and thoughtfulness than they have so far.

I also think Rogge was trying to help Turkey by making his statement. He's trying to warn them that they will be throwing their money away by persisting with both or by failing to make the Olympic bid the only sporting priority.

It's not the IOC's job to forcibly save Turkey from themselves by cutting them. It's the IOC's job to weed out the bids that lack sufficient technical merit.

If Turkey chooses to throw their money away, that's their choice. They can't say they haven't clearly been warned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC will want at least four candidate cities competing. The last time the number of candidate cities were under five was in 1981.

May be I understood wrongly, but number of candidate cities proposed to the vote of the IOC sessions for the Summer Olympics under 5 cities was the case last election in 2009 (for 2016) with only 4 cities.

2016 : 4

2012 : 5

2008 : 5

2004 : 5

2000 : 5

1996 : 6

1992 : 6

1988 : 2

More : http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/past.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

May be I understood wrongly, but number of candidate cities proposed to the vote of the IOC sessions for the Summer Olympics under 5 cities was the case last election in 2009 (for 2016) with only 4 cities.

2016 : 4

2012 : 5

2008 : 5

2004 : 5

2000 : 5

1996 : 6

1992 : 6

1988 : 2

More : http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/past.html

That's the number of shortlisted cities. Not the number of initial bidders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the number of shortlisted cities. Not the number of initial bidders.

Using IOC vocabulary... a bidding city before the Short List is an "Applicant City" and after is a "Candidate City'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's what SwissO is referring to. She's right.

Right. I think the three of us are all saying the same thing here. 4 is not a new low in terms of shortlisted cities, but it is the lowest number of total bids for a SOG in some time.

I do wonder if the IOC will cut it down further. If they really believe a bid is not competent, I think they will cut it. Azerbaijan with Baku is not the same as France with Annecy. These are the bigger SOGs. Azerbaijan lacks the political and sporting respect that the French have in the IOC. I dunno. It will be interesting. For that matter, I'm not totally convinced Doha is a lock for the short list.

I do expect Doha to be there, but I think there's a 10-15% chance they won't be.

Using IOC vocabulary... a bidding city before the Short List is an "Applicant City" and after is a "Candidate City'

Right. Are you saying you prefer I use that terminology? Wasn't my post still clear?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking with 6 applicant cities that IOC, forced to cut as difficult to evaluate properly 6 cities, would have only keep 4 !

But, I don't know why, now I think they will keep the 5 cities... (probably because of the risks around Madrid & Istanbul !)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can't say "short-listed", we must say "candidate cities"? Why in the world does it matter?

I'm not a native english speaker...

I don't like to use a "short-listed" city... as for me it is not clear !!!!

"The short-list" is clear. This is the list of the candidate cities

But what is exactly a "short-listed" city.... Is this the city that will not attend the candidate phase, so that will be shorten from the list... or the one that will made it and so will be added to the list !!!!!

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic, I am now leaning toward all the applicant cities making candidate status.

Understand, I am NOT saying all the cities are ready for the show. But at the same time, I cannot honestly think of a concrete reason to disqualify the two bubble cities, Baku and Doha. Personally, I think it's too soon for Baku and Doha would stink to high heaven if they won, especially after the WC fiasco. Plus, October?

The real interesting case is Istanbul. I cannot help but wonder if Rogge may have tipped the IOC's hand just a bit by reminding Istanbul it cannot do both. I do not think Rogge would politic the IOC the way JAS did for his preferences, but perhaps, just perhaps, the IOC would honestly prefer going to Turkey for the first time than return trips to either Spain or Japan.

I am not sure of anything, but am considering everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's wreck less thinking to say that one is for a "new area" to host the Games simply bcuz they haven't hosted the Olympics before. Doha N Baku R NOT Beijing N Rio. The former two do not, in the least, represent what the latter two had in the potential to expand the movement for IOC. Istanbul certainly had/has the potential, but Baku nor Doha do not. Not yet anyway.

And when Seoul got the Olympics, it's only other sole competitor was Nagoya, Japan's 3rd largest city. N the Japanese had already hosted at the time. So then IOC felt compelled enough with Seoul.

Barcelona was the Hometown of then IOC president JAS. N he pushed heavily so he could have his city host the Games. Without JAS, Barcelona most likely never would have gotten the Olympics.

Athens is the BIRTHPLACE of the Olympic Games N the IOC did feel that for 2004 that the Greeks were "prepapred". Notice that the IOC did not award Athens 1996 bcuz the IOC didn't think that they were prepared back then.

As for Sochi, it's a WINTER Games, that R a third of the size as the Summer Olympics. N plus, like the Chinese, the Russians will throw every Ruble that they have at the Games. Not to mention, that Russia is a great winter sports powerhouse that had yet to host a Winter Games. So all of those comparisons R apples n oranges, to say the least.

I think this is the first post I liked of urs. There is a first for everything :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...