A Future Melbourne Olympic Bid?

[FYI]

Leipzig was easy. Given the high number of European bidders, Leipzig was at the bottom of the list and had to be dropped. Even if barely passing the benchmark.

Of course Leipzig was "easy". That's the whole point. Cuz it wasn't Berlin or even Frankfurt. Had it been the German administrative or financial capital, the IOC would've been much more hard-pressed to reject one of those. The DOSB made a foolish choice with that one. Look at Seville, rejected twice in a row for 2004 & 2008. But Madrid has been allowed on the short-list for the 3rd consecutive time. Go figure. Same respective scenario with Paris & Lille.

[Lord David]

Well at least the DOSB had it's reasoning, in the unlikely chance Leipzig did get the games, it would have certainly been a boost in the economy, a much needed boost the East German economy needed (and still needs) after reunification.

Atlanta didn't "steal" anything. Perhaps Sydney was the one that "stole" 2000 from Beijing. N I actually think that had the AOC put up Melbourne again for 2000, that Beijing probably would've wound up with it then.

I think Sydney's higher profile helped, coupled with few members that had the "anywhere but Beijing" mentality, that swung it the Aussie way in the end.

Sydney stole what from Beijing? It was a first time bidder, only returning in the Olympics after just 3 editions. It's arrogance after they lost was also a negative point. If Melbourne would have been our bid for 2000, we'd be boasting the same things Sydney ended up boasting, a single village, sailing in the city itself, free economy flights for all NOCs. It would have been just as large as Sydney's bid (overall) and would have been a force to reckon with.

[Sir Rols]

You can't argue that Sydney won over Brisbane and Melbourne simply because it's a global city. It was partly 3rd time lucky and a good Olympic plan.

Brisbane failed most likely in their too spread out venue concept, whilst Melbourne failed over a games "stolen" by Atlanta (and more-so poor choice of hosting dates), a choice the IOC probably regretted, a factor in deciding that Sydney should get the next one.

If Melbourne put it's hand up for 2000, we might have gotten it (assuming any proposed bid was stronger than 1996), or been declined due to a "democratic" bidding process of allowing other Australian cities to bid and not the same one.

Melbourne wasn't given a chance to put its hand up for 2000. In the immediate aftermath of the 1996 loss, Coates and Phil Coles ruled against Gosper about putting up Melbourne, insisting it would have to be Sydney and not putting it to a vote. They basically said it was our only chance and consciously played the glamour and scenery card. Like Britain with London over Manchester and Birminham, they insisted we had to put up our "best shot" to win. There was a lot of bitterness over that decision, with Ron Walker even accusing Coles of sabotaging Melbourne by talking a lot to the Atlanta team.

And FYI is right in pointing out that even then, it was a close call - though I still think it was a more likely outcome than Beijing. I think we did go into the vote favorites.

Brisbane was an over-eager bid made in the flush of the 1982 Commies and the 1988 World Expo. I think it surprised even us it went as far as it did, but it sewed the seeds of our serious bids. Realistically, it couldn't really front a bid anytime soon. It's got a bit of ground to make up in the global attraction stakes. Campbell did the right thing, saying it was an aspiration, but " some time" in the future. It's up to Queensland now, whether with the Commies coming up, and a bit of growth, they can build the global factor needed to ever win. Coates seems to take the IOCs scheduling guidelines seriously enough to say it's our only real climatically suited city now in the time span allowed. I think that sucks, but at least we got our two global cities one each already in time.

Melbourne's 1996 bid was a valiant attempt, and it would have been a deserving winner. But familiarity ruled against it. And the US got the numbers right in the real battle, who would be the " anywhere but Athens" candidate.

[intoronto]

All right then, we'll let Kyrgyzstan and Burkina Faso host them first, and we'll let Canada build up another massive debt before we consider bidding again. *eyeroll*

Melbourne's certainly the most likely Australian city to get the games next, even if it's not the most likely next bid. Brisbane's a great city, but it just doesn't have the infrastructure.

Besides, it's not too soon after Sydney -- the earliest possible win is 2024, which is farther apart than Los Angeles to Atlanta (or even Los Angeles to Salt Lake City).

Winter is different then summer. Canada shouldn't be punished for being able to host the WOG. Canada at the earliest would host 2024 if anything that is 48 years after the last SOG on Canadian soil. 2024 would be 24 years after from a Sydney games. I think after Tokyo hosts in 2020/2028 Melbourne but just have what it takes in 2040 to host.

[olympian]

i was in perth recently and the city has lots of potential. sailing will be in fremantle for sure.

[AK30]

Atlanta didn't "steal" anything. Perhaps Sydney was the one that "stole" 2000 from Beijing. N I actually think that had the AOC put up Melbourne again for 2000, that Beijing probably would've wound up with it then.

I think Sydney's higher profile helped, coupled with few members that had the "anywhere but Beijing" mentality, that swung it the Aussie way in the end.

Atlanta did "steal" the games...if it wasnt for pressure from the then US president Bush, Atlanta wouldnt have had those games. Atlanta has no global profile at all next to Melbourne..When are the world's eyes ever on Atlanta? We only know the city because of the games. Melbourne has been host of 1 of the 4 major tennis grand slams for decades..plus everything else...maybe not a New York or London..but global profile? yes...in the end it became a USA v AUS bid..USA was always going to win..I agree with Lord David, IOC regretted not giving the games to Melbourne and unfortunately for Melbourne made up for it in 2000, by giving it to Sydney.

[FYI]

R u even reading ALL the posts in this thread? I don't understand where this silly notion that Atlanta "stole the Games" & that it was a "USA vs AUS bid" is coming from. It's quite clear that if Atlanta had not won that Athens was the IOC's *second* choice, NOT Melbourne. Heck, Melbourne wasn't even their 3rd choice, it was Toronto. So I don't get where this "stole" stuff is coming from. Sounds more like sour apples if ya ask me, since it's mainly coming from the Melbourne group in here.

N the IOC didn't "make it up" to Australia for 2000, either. Like I said in an earlier post, I think Sydney's highher profile helped them edge out the favorite Beijing. JAS, then president of the IOC, wanted really bad for China to host the Games, & they almost did. The IOC doesn't "make up" anything to anyone. Just ask Paris, Madrid, Istanbul, Detroit, Salzburg & Ostersund. It's just the luck of the draw a lot of the time, & how compelling your case is to the IOC.

[Lord David]

Toronto 2008? Moscow 2012?

Ok so it wasn't for all bidders, but there has been that notion of making it up for previous bidders by giving them the Winter Games, for countries who have failed in a Summer bid then go ahead with a Winter one. Not all of them obviously, but the IOC did it for the ones I mentioned. I guess they're just taking a break now, it'll be back once things quiet down. They don't want to seem predictable I guess.

[FYI]

Yeah, but that's for the WINTER Games that the IOC had given "consolation prizes" to the countries that had preceding Summer bid loses. :-P Like Turin 2006, Vancouver 2010 N Sochi 2014.

U guys R trying to argue that "Summer" Games was awarded bcuz of a failed preceding "Summer" bid, which is far from the case!

[Lord David]

But it was. Or at least a huge factor. After all, this is Australia we're talking about, doing bids with different cities that became stronger and stronger each attempt. Why else would Sydney have gotten it if not for a very good bid and the fact of Australia's commitment to the Olympic Movement through consecutive bidding?

If we found that bidding was a waste of money (for one that wouldn't win anyways) then we'd probably have skipped a bidding cycle (like Athens) refined a bid and put forward something superior in the next one.. But we didn't, we stayed put and put forward stronger bids each time, until we ended up winning.

Lets assume that there wasn't any Brisbane or Melbourne and Sydney just put their hands up for 2000? Without any prior bidding experience (and past bids being fresh in IOC member minds), could we have won against the might of the Chinese? Who's putting everything on the table? Who's economy (even back then) could easily crush whatever we had to offer? Perhaps not.

[FYI]

A lot of bidding countries can say that, though. Their bids get stronger each time, but that's when going with the SAME city N bidding consecutively like PyeongChang did. N like Madrid & Istanbul R doing now.

Even if there were no Melbourne N Brisbane preceding Sydney, I think the 2000 outcome would've been the same. Even you've mentioned that the 1992 Brisbane bid wasn't anything to speak N Melbourne prob also suffered from having hosted in 1956. So what strengths did Sydney have to gain from Brisbane & Melbourne, other than maybe having the AOC on their side who were familiar with the IOC from the past two failed bids.

Look at the U.K. They had 3 failed bids for '92, '96 N 2000, with different cities. They took a long break N came back wiith London only to win it on their very first attempt.

[Lord David]

The Brisbane bid would have worked if it was compact, I think a preliminary bid for the 1992 Olympics had such a compact plan.

This bid related book (on ebay some while ago) showed such a compact bid:

Then for some reason I guess the Queensland government decided to spread the games around or maximize use of existing venues throughout South Eastern Queensland. A poor move.

[AK30]

R u even reading ALL the posts in this thread? I don't understand where this silly notion that Atlanta "stole the Games" & that it was a "USA vs AUS bid" is coming from. It's quite clear that if Atlanta had not won that Athens was the IOC's *second* choice, NOT Melbourne. Heck, Melbourne wasn't even their 3rd choice, it was Toronto. So I don't get where this "stole" stuff is coming from. Sounds more like sour apples if ya ask me, since it's mainly coming from the Melbourne group in here.

N the IOC didn't "make it up" to Australia for 2000, either. Like I said in an earlier post, I think Sydney's highher profile helped them edge out the favorite Beijing. JAS, then president of the IOC, wanted really bad for China to host the Games, & they almost did. The IOC doesn't "make up" anything to anyone. Just ask Paris, Madrid, Istanbul, Detroit, Salzburg & Ostersund. It's just the luck of the draw a lot of the time, & how compelling your case is to the IOC.

If its wasn't a political decision..how is it that Atlanta got the games over Melbourne? Lets think about this one...Melbourne a city which is constantly voted in the top 5 most liveable cities in the world...world class sporting infrastructure...what does Atlanta have or ever had over Melbourne..? If it was Los Angeles or New York...you could say global profile and id accept that..but Atlanta?..no way..the only thing Atlanta had over Melbourne was that it was an American city...you mention Athens...i mean the only reason Athens would have got close in 1996 is because the 100th anniversary. Which only proves that there are votes based on politics, sympathy, etc...Otherwise Athens shouldn't have got close..we all know Athens was light years away from Melbourne in terms of infrastructure back in 1996.

With 2000 though Sydney won it just the way Athens got 2004, Beijing 2008, Rio 2016, Istanbul maybe 2020...There is the sympathy, political vote...However the difference between Sydney and the others is that Sydney is one of the most livable cities in the world and has one of the most iconic harbours on the planet...but i feel the 1996 loss would have got them over the line over Beijing.

[FYI]

Who says the decision wasn't political.This isn't anything new. Politics always dictate the winner. It was the case for Beijing winning 2008, Rio 2016, "stealing" it (to use your word) from Chicago, the 3rd largest metropolis in the U.S. Sochi for 2014 - PyeongChang over Munich for 2018, & yeah Atlanta over Athens for '96. N just like Barcelona was for '92, being JAS' hometown. It's seems like we're on the same page here in the bigger picture, but you're letting your bias take over bcuz Melbourne happens to be your home city. Nothing wrong with that, but don't let your hometown love blind you form the political ('stealing') realities that rule the IOC.

Atlanta may not have been the decision that many wanted, but it was what the IOC wanted at the time. Surely Melbourne having already hosted ihe Games in the past didn't do it too many favors either. Atlanta was an anomaly, that happened to be at the right place at the right time. Going off the huge success of L.A. 1984 is what the IOC was banking on. They had very high expectations & were somewhat disappointed when they didn't experience the L.A. high again. Can't really fault Atlanta for that one, though. They delivered & that's what counts.

N I still disagree about the 2000 vote. Beijing was always seen upon as the favorite for those Games. Just like Athens was for 2004 & Beijing again for 2008. Again, what swung it the Sydney way in the end for 2000, was more of the "anywhere but Beijing" voters rather than the "let's give it to Sydney cuz those poor Aussies lost Melbourne".

[Guardian]

Isn't "continental rotation" some sort of international sport politics anyway?

[FYI]

You'd think so, wouldn't u. Every time the IOC sits down & votes for a host city, there's always some kind of political angle/agenda when they're pushing their ballot button.

[AK30]

Who says the decision wasn't political.This isn't anything new. Politics always dictate the winner. It was the case for Beijing winning 2008, Rio 2016, "stealing" it (to use your word) from Chicago, the 3rd largest metropolis in the U.S. Sochi for 2014 - PyeongChang over Munich for 2018, & yeah Atlanta over Athens for '96. N just like Barcelona was for '92, being JAS' hometown. It's seems like we're on the same page here in the bigger picture, but you're letting your bias take over bcuz Melbourne happens to be your home city. Nothing wrong with that, but don't let your hometown love blind you form the political ('stealing') realities that rule the IOC.

Atlanta may not have been the decision that many wanted, but it was what the IOC wanted at the time. Surely Melbourne having already hosted ihe Games in the past didn't do it too many favors either. Atlanta was an anomaly, that happened to be at the right place at the right time. Going off the huge success of L.A. 1984 is what the IOC was banking on. They had very high expectations & were somewhat disappointed when they didn't experience the L.A. high again. Can't really fault Atlanta for that one, though. They delivered & that's what counts.

N I still disagree about the 2000 vote. Beijing was always seen upon as the favorite for those Games. Just like Athens was for 2004 & Beijing again for 2008. Again, what swung it the Sydney way in the end for 2000, was more of the "anywhere but Beijing" voters rather than the "let's give it to Sydney cuz those poor Aussies lost Melbourne".

Yes there may be some bias, however Melbourne was voted the world's most liveable city on numerous occasions..this year was voted number 1 again by The Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Survey 2012. and is known to host world-class sporting events..these are facts which do not lie, and i base my argument based on that..things werent much different then...Melbourne v Atlanta...i just do not see how it could compare...thats why I point it to being purely political..here we refer to it being "stolen" because we felt it was in the bag until there was last minute heavy lobbing by powerful Americans officials back in 1996.

[FYI]

I still fail to C how Melbourne "had it in the bag" when they weren't runners up in the 1996 vote. Again, Melbourne didn't even finish 3rd! It's clear in the voting ballots, that had Atlanta not won, Athens was the IOC's 2nd choice.

I also fail to see how being "the world's most liveable city" has anything to do with winning a city the Olympics. Is Beijing the most liveable? Is Rio? Is Sochi? Is PyeongChang? Is London?

I know London has been voted 'most expensive city in the word' before, but that little trivia tidbit didn't have anything to do with them winning the Olympics.

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

1996 was a weird voting round IMO. Manchester losing 6 votes from round 1 and Belgrade being knocked out with only 7 votes. That leaves 13 votes. Atlanta got 1, Toronto 3 but Melbourne got 9. Putting them 3rd. But after Manchester gets knocked out with only 5 votes, Melbourne also loses 5 votes having 10 votes. Toronto gets 1, Athens 3 but Atlanta pull 6. Melbourne is out with only 16 votes and the majority of voters go towards Atlanta. But what's weird to me is when Toronto gets knocked out (22 votes) 17 of those go to Atlanta. Why would people who want Canada to host the games then go and vote for America basically ruling out chances of having 2 a 1996 USA games and 2000 Canada games?

[AK30]

I still fail to C how Melbourne "had it in the bag" when they weren't runners up in the 1996 vote. Again, Melbourne didn't even finish 3rd! It's clear in the voting ballots, that had Atlanta not won, Athens was the IOC's 2nd choice.

I also fail to see how being "the world's most liveable city" has anything to do with winning a city the Olympics. Is Beijing the most liveable? Is Rio? Is Sochi? Is PyeongChang? Is London?

I know London has been voted 'most expensive city in the word' before, but that little trivia tidbit didn't have anything to do with them winning the Olympics.

The point isnt that being liveable should award you the games. The point is that Melbourne would have been a better city then Atlanta in every regard...and please correct me if there is an area where it wouldnt...except of course of it being American.. Sorry if im sounding arrogant about my home town, but of course that was then when we thought cities were voted based on merit...now i guess we know..

[Athensfan]

1996 was a weird voting round IMO. Manchester losing 6 votes from round 1 and Belgrade being knocked out with only 7 votes. That leaves 13 votes. Atlanta got 1, Toronto 3 but Melbourne got 9. Putting them 3rd. But after Manchester gets knocked out with only 5 votes, Melbourne also loses 5 votes having 10 votes. Toronto gets 1, Athens 3 but Atlanta pull 6. Melbourne is out with only 16 votes and the majority of voters go towards Atlanta. But what's weird to me is when Toronto gets knocked out (22 votes) 17 of those go to Atlanta. Why would people who want Canada to host the games then go and vote for America basically ruling out chances of having 2 a 1996 USA games and 2000 Canada games?

Simple. Continental preference is not the only reason for casting a vote. There's nothing fishy about this.

Just because somebody liked Toronto's bid doesn't mean they liked it so much that they were willing to risk an unprepared Athens solely as a way of keeping Toronto in play for 2000 on the off-chance that they would bid again.

The IOC members picked the host they thought would stage the best Games in 1996. It's really only CANADIANS (who weren't eligible to vote in the early rounds anyway) that would want to keep Toronto's votes from going to Atlanta anyway.

[Barcelona_'92]

The IOC members picked the host they thought would stage the best Games in 1996. It's really only CANADIANS (who weren't eligible to vote in the early rounds anyway) that would want to keep Toronto's votes from going to Atlanta anyway.

And in the end, even Canadian member Dick Pound voted for Atlanta after Toronto was eliminated. In his book, Pound said that he believed Toronto had the best technical bid, but once Toronto was eliminated, the race became an "anyone but Athens" vote for him. The bottom line for him was that he knew Atlanta was capable of hosting the Games, whereas he didn't think there would have been a 1996 Games had Athens been selected.

[FYI]

.Sorry if im sounding arrogant about my home town, but of course that was then when we thought cities were voted based on merit...now i guess we know..

Since when has a city been voted upon purely based on 'merit'. This is a highly subjective based on who you ask & what they perceive is the best candidate, & in the case that's the IOC members. I'm sure that there R some that vote this way, but not all of them. Some believed, even here on these boards, that Atlanta was the best choice. Some say that it was Toronto, & some say, like u, that it was Melbourne. N finally, there R even some that still would argue that Athens would've been the best choice.

Same with the 2008. There R many that would still argue that based on merit, Toronto & Paris were the better candidates. But to the IOC, it was obviously Beijing. Same scenario with Munich & PyeongChang. There's more to a bid, than having many venues or being an "alpha sports city" or most liveable N what have u, that could make a bid 'the best' in the eye of the beholder. N that's been the case surely since the IOC has been awarding the Games.