Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As far as I'm concerned, I would love to see Africa be awarded its first games...It's Africa's time and they're very capable of doing it.

I don't agree with that. Africa is very much ready to host. South Africa hosted the WC in 2010 with great success. Sure a Commonwealth Games would help, but SA could bid right now and still have a great shot. It is very much Africa's time, and the only reason they won't make waves in 2024 is because it's been so long since the IOC has gone to Europe. And even then I'm not convinced that they won't be a contender. Africa does not have to wait until 2032.

Ugh, once again, this is why I dislike the arguments based on who's "time" it is. If Africa bids and wins, then yes, it's their time. If they don't win (or if they don't bid), then obviously it's not their time. How many people thought 2020 was their time and that it set up perfectly after the 2010 World Cup. Didn't happen because South Africa wasn't ready.

In order for Africa to get an Olympics, another African city has to bid for an Olympics. And that's not going to happen until (as Pixie put it) there is a will and a thirst for the Games. That doesn't appear to be the case at this point. So we can discuss hypothetically whether or not a city in Africa is capable of hosting the Olympics. But until such a city (and obviously they need the country's backing) is ready to make the effort, it's a moot point and it's all coulda, shoulda, woulda.

And to ofan's point.. I agree that if the geopolitics of this bid are pointing towards any continent, it's Europe. Even though a case can be made for Africa (assuming they bid, otherwise they have no case) or for North America (where there's a very clear bidder).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This thread is now unreadable.

Rendering of the Olympic stadium (stade de France) and the aquatic center. 

Because Baron.

Again though, if this is about what your media believed and expressed to their audience, then that's their fault for giving a false perception of Paris's chances in what turned out to be an extremely close final vote against London.

Exactly, it's only the media perception. About Paris 2012, French medias were arrogant with the other bids.

For me, I was disappointed, but it wasn't an humiliation. We lost, nothing else. London was better. It's the sport law.

Annecy was more an humiliation because they got only 7 votes, but medias said since a long time than Annecy would lose and for public it was logical.

When you lose with 50 votes it isn't an humiliation but with only 7 votes it is moreover against Korea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, it's only the media perception. About Paris 2012, French medias were arrogant with the other bids.

For me, I was disappointed, but it wasn't an humiliation. We lost, nothing else. London was better. It's the sport law.

Annecy was more an humiliation because they got only 7 votes, but medias said since a long time than Annecy would lose and for public it was logical.

When you lose with 50 votes it isn't an humiliation but with only 7 votes it is moreover against Korea.

This is the first time I have really agreed with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite right either. The French media might have been a bit too gung-ho and over-confident (and that probably goes for a lot of home media in most bidding cities), but the bid itself was anything but. In fact, if the bid team had a problem it was that (in hindsight) they could have been a bit MORE forceful. Early on, and after considering their '92 and '08 defeats, they had private discussions with the IOC about what they should do and how they should approach it. They were told by the IOC that, as perceived front runners, their best approach would be to NOT to appear arrogant and to adopt a lower key approach to the bid so as not to appear too over-confident and expectant. Which they did, only to be overhauled in the end by a London bid that was able to be (indeed, had to be to beat Paris) more emotional and hard sell, while the French presentations were criticised in hindsight as too bland, boring, technocratic and presented by bureaucrats in grey suits. London tugged the heart strings, but the French were hamstrung by not being able to pull the emotional card lest they be seen as too arrogant, as per the Greeks for 1996 or the Chinese for 2000.

And @ the other posters here, the arrogance factor strong goes a long way back. The Japanese-Nagoyans were too "lordly" and high-falutin over their former submissives, the Koreans, so much so Seoul walked away with that one in 1981. And they learned their lesson for Nagano 1998.

Melina Mercouri and the presumptive Athenians lost it for their own cause to the smarmy Atlantans in...Tokyo in 1990.

Since then, most everyone seems to have learned to play the 'lowkey' card well.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone say about Paris 2012 arrogant bid but none for New York 2012...

I have no recollection of New York being arrogant in its bid and US media sure as hell didn't boast that NYC's bid was the best and would win without a doubt. In fact New York's bid went relatively unnoticed in the US (as did Chicago and Boston will probably suffer the same fate).

The only recent US bid I would say was arrogant would be Chicago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where in the heck do you even get that Chicago's bid was "arrogant". Especially when the majority in the city didn't even want the damn Games towards the end of the campaign. Plus, most Midwestern people are very conservative & low-key.

And yeah, New York didn't appear to be arrogant either cause most in the city probably didn't even care about the bid in the first place. But how would you have any recollection of that anyway, when you were probably what, six years old back in 2005?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone say about Paris 2012 arrogant bid but none for New York 2012...

What's the point of this? You're upset people aren't talking about New York 2012? Okay.. so how about you start talking about New York 2012 instead of asking others to do it for you. But I'll take that cue..

NYC 2012 was not arrogant. I could see how they would be perceived that way after watching their presentation in Singapore. It was all style and very little substance. They thought the city could sell itself and glossed over all of the major technical deficiencies in the bid, many of which of course came about because of the West Side Stadium deal. So in the end, it was a bad message on the part of the organizers. But arrogant isn't the word I'd use to describe it. And we hear less about them because they did not fall short of winning by a handful of votes. Paris did. So their actions will be far more scrutinized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought US media was arrogant with Chicago's bid...let this CNN video elaborate my point:

I think the reporting on Chicago's bid was very arrogant because the knowledge on how the Olympics bidding works is not something news agencies bothered with, and there were little things that were discussed as to why Chicago was a fail until after the selection. I didn't even hear of the dispute between the USOC and the IOC over percentages of global sponsorship and U.S. TV rights until Chicago had their asses handed to them. This is one of the things that was totally ignored by the USOC and it did cost us a huge chance to be a host. Sure it more than likely would have made no difference since all eyes were pointing towards Rio, but we would have placed far better had we had that situated before this. Hell if we had it situated in time for the 2020 bidding to begin, we probably would have had 2020 in the bags!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reporting on Chicago's bid was very arrogant because the knowledge on how the Olympics bidding works is not something news agencies bothered with, and there were little things that were discussed as to why Chicago was a fail until after the selection. I didn't even hear of the dispute between the USOC and the IOC over percentages of global sponsorship and U.S. TV rights until Chicago had their asses handed to them. This is one of the things that was totally ignored by the USOC and it did cost us a huge chance to be a host. Sure it more than likely would have made no difference since all eyes were pointing towards Rio, but we would have placed far better had we had that situated before this. Hell if we had it situated in time for the 2020 bidding to begin, we probably would have had 2020 in the bags!

You DON'T understand the stakes involved there. As I understood it, the USOC was standing by a contract/agmt they had ironed out with the IOC sometime after LA 1984 when the US delivered a fiscally sound and sensible Games. The 13.something% that the USOC got from any broadcast sales is its LIFEBLOOD since it receives no subsidies from the gov't UNLIKE all the other NOCs. Why should they have given that up so easily? There was a contract and the parties should abide by it. Whose fault is it that the IOC got impatient and greedier in wanting to cut down the USOC's share sooner than the contract terms? The IOC's. Would they compensate the USOC for the loss of the USOC's anticipated income and its LEGAL share of revenues? Of course not.

Easy for you to condemn the USOC when you don't know all the facts. The IOC got greedy and wanted to have its cake and eat it too before the agreed-upon time was up; and was using its impatience as blackmail in denying hosting rights to a bidding city even if the candidature was fully qualified and worthwhile. There were certain, very envious, resentful old-guard IOC Euro members who just couldn't stand the idea that. once again, the US was responsible for saving their sorry organization's useless butt.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought US media was arrogant with Chicago's bid...let this CNN video elaborate my point:

Somewhat to Latin's point, this is an example of what the 24-hour instant news cycle does to us. In the past, we may or may not have had running commentary on something like that and an immediate reaction to the first round of voting results. The story would have been "Rio gets the Olympics, Chicago doesn't." Instant, we're getting a reporter live on the air freaking out in the moment rather than the Monday morning quarterback analysis. And that's why it came off as "arrogant," because the story became that Chicago went out early rather than to pay attention to the rest of the vote. If there hasn't been a running play-by-play, the first round loss wouldn't have been as visible and it probably wouldn't have been that much different if they made it to the next round or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why this talk of arrogance matters a bit. You want arrogance... look at Beijing's bid for 2000. Riots in the streets when they didn't win. Threats to boycot, etc. etc. etc. Then they turn around and won with their next bid. Go figure.

Just about any city with the ability to host the Olympics is going to be arrogant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why this talk of arrogance matters a bit. You want arrogance... look at Beijing's bid for 2000. Riots in the streets when they didn't win. Threats to boycot, etc. etc. etc. Then they turn around and won with their next bid. Go figure.

Just about any city with the ability to host the Olympics is going to be arrogant.

How'd that work out for Paris 2012?

If you're an Olympic bidder, it's your job to say why your city and your bid is better than others. So yes, there's always going to be an element of arrogance there. But if you give off the wrong vibe, it's not going to help. And if you're going to cite Beijing 2000, they lost by 2 votes. Maybe their arrogance hurt them a bit and that's why they had to wait another 8 years to try it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You DON'T understand the stakes involved there. As I understood it, the USOC was standing by a contract/agmt they had ironed out with the IOC sometime after LA 1984 when the US delivered a fiscally sound and sensible Games. The 13.something% that the USOC got from any broadcast sales is its LIFEBLOOD since it receives no subsidies from the gov't UNLIKE all the other NOCs. Why should they have given that up so easily? There was a contract and the parties should abide by it. Whose fault is it that the IOC got impatient and greedier in wanting to cut down the USOC's share sooner than the contract terms? The IOC's. Would they compensate the USOC for the loss of the USOC's anticipated income and its LEGAL share of revenues? Of course not.

Easy for you to condemn the USOC when you don't know all the facts. The IOC got greedy and wanted to have its cake and eat it too before the agreed-upon time was up; and was using its impatience as blackmail in denying hosting rights to a bidding city even if the candidature was fully qualified and worthwhile. There were certain, very envious, resentful old-guard IOC Euro members who just couldn't stand the idea that. once again, the US was responsible for saving their sorry organization's useless butt.

If what you said is true, then the USOC has themselves to blame for bowing down to such demands AND for not publicly blow this up and try and weaken an already tarnished IOC reputation. I wouldn't stand this kind of blackmail and if it means we don't get to host a few more times, then that's fine by me let the IOC continue to make terrible mistakes and have them crawling back to the US, NOT the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ Here's how the NY Times reported the deal re-fashioned to both (read IOC's) satisfaction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/sports/olympics/international-and-us-olympic-leaders-agree-on-revenue-sharing-plan.html?_r=0

Also, I correct myself in that the current rate the USOC is getting is 12.75% (not the 13.26% I thought it was) and 20% from the TOP sponsorship deals of US companies (Visa, Coke, McD;s, etc.) -- and the agmt was good until 2020. So that includes 12.75% for the USOC from $4.38 billion NBC negotiated in 2011 (for up to Tokyo 2020); quite a bit of chunk change from US companies anyway, going to the US effort.

As for the 2014 deal of $7.75 billion (going up to 2032), that would probably be under the new rate. However, it's not stipulated what the new rates are; but it's probably 10.5% for the broadcast rights (in line with all the other countries); and I don't know what from the marketing rights.

The United States put itself in position to once again win a bid to host an Olympic Games after Olympic leaders this week ended their longstanding, contentious debate about how to divvy some of the Games’ revenue, two people close to the discussions said Wednesday.

International and United States Olympic officials reached an agreement on how to share television and marketing money, said two Olympic officials who asked to remain anonymous because the agreement had not been completed.

Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but the revenue-sharing deal will not start until 2020 and will last until 2040. The arrangement will include the United States’ promise to raise millions of dollars to help stage future Olympics, the officials said. The end of the revenue-sharing impasse was first reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday.

An announcement of the agreement was expected as early as Thursday, after a vote by executives from the United States Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee. Once that happens, the U.S.O.C. will consider supporting a bid for the Games, said Patrick Sandusky, a committee spokesman.

“We’ve been pretty adamant in saying we’re not bidding for the Olympics until this agreement is done,” Sandusky said in a telephone interview Wednesday from Quebec, where he was attending a meeting of international sports federations. “But a deal with the I.O.C. could certainly change that.”

The last time the United States hosted an Olympics was in 2002, when Salt Lake City was the site of the Winter Games. The last Summer Olympics in the United States were the 1996 Atlanta Games.

The prospect for bringing the Olympics back to American soil looked bleak during the negotiations about revenue sharing, which dragged on for more than two years.

The debate focused on the size of the financial slice the United States Olympic Committee should receive from the Games. Some international officials bristled that the United States committee had been receiving too much. One official even called the United States’ portion immoral.

Based on an open-ended contract from 1996, the United States was receiving 12.75 percent of United States broadcasting deals — a large sum, considering NBC last year paid $4.38 billion for the rights to televise four Olympics, from 2014 through 2020.

The U.S.O.C. — which, unlike other major national Olympic committees, does not receive any direct government funding — also receives 20 percent of I.O.C. global marketing revenues, which run in the billions.

Although the 204 other national Olympic committees receive the same percentage of money from top-level sponsors as the U.S.O.C. does, they have to share it. Because of that disparity, the United States committee’s unwillingness to rejigger those percentages stirred up ill will and hampered its efforts to bid for the Games.

The former U.S.O.C. chairman Peter Ueberroth failed to win friends at the I.O.C. when he said in 2008 that the revenue allocation should remain the same because the United States generated most of the revenue for the Olympics.

“Who pays the bill for the world Olympic movement?” Ueberroth said. “Make no mistake about it. Starting in 1988, U.S. corporations have paid 60 percent of all the money, period.”

The United States committee felt the repercussions of that hard-line stance during its recent efforts to win an Olympic bid.

In 2009, amid revenue talks, the United States was handed an embarrassing loss when Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Summer Games finished last in I.O.C. voting. President Obama and his wife, Michelle, flew to Copenhagen for the vote, giving impassioned speeches to the international committee about why Chicago, their home city, would be the perfect host. Even that did not help the American endeavor.

That failure came not long after New York lost its bid to host the 2012 Olympics. It was voted out of the running in the second round, dealing the United States committee a humiliating blow.

Soon after, United States officials said that they would suspend bidding for future Olympics until the revenue-sharing situation was worked out.

Chicago, New York, Dallas and Las Vegas had shown interest in hosting the 2020 Summer Games, but the United States committee refused to support their bids. Las Vegas sent the I.O.C. a bid proposal anyway, but was rebuked because it had no support from its own Olympic committee.

Now Istanbul, Tokyo and Madrid are in the running to host those Games. Doha, Qatar, and Azerbaijan were eliminated by the I.O.C. on Wednesday.

The next Olympics that could be held in the United States would be the 2022 Winter Games. Cities that have shown interest include Salt Lake City; Denver; Reno-Lake Tahoe, Nev.; and Bozeman, Mont. If the United States committee wants to support a bid, it will have to choose its proposed host city by next year.

If it does not get that proposal ready in time, the U.S.O.C. will have to wait to bid for the 2024 Summer Games, meaning there would be a 22-year span between Olympics in the United States.

Only twice before has the United States gone more than 20 years between Olympics on American soil — between the 1904 St. Louis Games and the 1932 Lake Placid and Los Angeles Games, and between those 1932 Games and the 1960 Squaw Valley Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought US media was arrogant with Chicago's bid...let this CNN video elaborate my point:

Why did I just know that this is what you were gonna come up with, cuz I remember him going on & on when Chicago got curbed in round one.

But there's no "point" to elaborate here. He was ONE newsanchor man from CNN (of all places) who WASN'T part of bid committee, nor the mayor's office, nor representing the people of Chicago, nor was he even part of the LOCAL news media.

If anything, it could be construed as typical "American arrogance", but certainly not from Chicago's part. But if that's what you think from this little clip, then you're extremely impressionable. But then again, in 2009 you were only 4 years older than in 2005. So 9,10? So to be taken with a grain of salt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol can you imagine if Don Lemon was the one to report on Chicago losing in the first round of votes??? The quotes would be hilarious! here he is for those that don't know him.

He is sooooooo DUMB!! In the Presidents' Day quiz where he and partner Cris Cuomo were the bottom team, Cuomo opined that Minnesota was the answer to the Walter Mondale question. Dumb Lemon insisted it was New York and Cuomo let him run with it. Well, sure enough, Lemon as a lemon and Cuomo was right if he listened to Cuomo. Lemon is the perfect example that Affirmative Action doesn't always make for the most credible results. He is sooooooo mediocre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep grasping at straws there. :rolleyes:

No I'm not. It is a given fact that the people of Chicago were sore losers and during the bid ignored the problems of the bid, ignored the other cities threats, and saw their only challenger as Rio and even then never expected Rio to win. They went beyond a typical cities pride during a bid, they honestly saw themselves as the only city capable in that race of ever hosting the games and the only city worthy.

Now I do think Chicago is the best US city for any future bid and feel it was a damn shame that they did not domestically bid for 2024. Even in their 2016 bid they were an embodiment of the Agenda 2020 goals and I thought they accomplished them better than Boston did. The only weakness venue plan wise was the legacy of the main stadium and venues in Madison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're obviously confusing those "interviews" about Chicago 2016 with the ones for Madrid 2020 over there. Which IIRC, you were such a supporter of. Where some Spainards harped on "how the IOC could do this to us & that they don't 'respect' us after trying so hard", yada yada yada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...