Jump to content

Reasons for Madrid's 3rd loss..


Recommended Posts

Well, the IOC is still in a "competition" mode, i.e., let's pit one city against another to find ourself the next suck....errrr, HOST!! But that is really such a devastating, truly wasteful process! Unlike what the USOC did (and they polled only some 60+ members I understand), this would be an early IOC poll. And almost exactly like what the USOC is now doing domestically, only do it internationally; really finesse the search so that you can arrive at the best result without the bruising extravagant way it has turned out to be. If the mindset of the IOC can be changed into a "what's good for one, is good for all" rather than a Europe vs. Asia vs. North America one, I am sure you can arrive at the same results. Of course, GamesBids.com will lose its raison d'etre, but there are ... worse things in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, any such system would need to be incredibly transparent, unless you want spurned bidders crying to high heaven that they've been corruptly overlooked (and to reassure others that any decisions they made on hosts wasn't influenced by unfair factors).

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I whole-heartedly disagree. I think any change of a final rigid analysis of a potential hos t is going to lead to another Montreal or Athens and the Olympic Movement cannot withstand another blow like that.

I would:

Introduce a consultive phase that would be a year of conference calls with the federations and the IOC to cultivate plans that are best suited to a potential host. Thus using the federations and the IOC's experience and knowledge to tailor venue plans to a hosts post-games needs and popularity of sports within the host. When this phase is over, send in the mini bid books and than make the first round of cuts/withdrawels.

Cut the fat off the Olympic program. Despite my personal dislike of removing certain sports or events, I think that removing dressage, eventing, rhythmic gymnastics, slalom canoe/kayak, greco-roman wrestling, sailing, modern penthatlon, synchronized swimming and one of weightlighting or shooting would greatly decrease venue requirements, costs and total athletes. Further to this I think a further reduction to a set of between 18 and 21 sports and allowing hosts to pick a set of 4 to 9 additional sports/events, taking into account existing venues, would also allow for a more localized product and help to differentiate between each edition.

Include a spending cap on bids. Make the bid teams become more creative with less. Tendering will always cost money and ensuring that all tenders are viable is necessary.

But in the end, this will only save the likes of Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc money. It will likely not lead to Amsterdam, Brussels, Stockholm, etc. winning a bid anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, any such system would need to be incredibly transparent, unless you want spurned bidders crying to high heaven that they've been corruptly overlooked (and to reassure others that any decisions they made on hosts wasn't influenced by unfair factors).

But how 'transparent' is an electronic, secret ballot? I mean there aren't even paper ballots to physically audit? One only accepts that the electronic ballots were delivered honestly? WHo's to say that the system wasn't hacked and that they don't reflect the actual votes?? I'd like to see some city challenge those 'electronic ballots.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I whole-heartedly disagree. I think any change of a final rigid analysis of a potential hos t is going to lead to another Montreal or Athens and the Olympic Movement cannot withstand another blow like that.

I would:

Introduce a consultive phase that would be a year of conference calls with the federations and the IOC to cultivate plans that are best suited to a potential host. Thus using the federations and the IOC's experience and knowledge to tailor venue plans to a hosts post-games needs and popularity of sports within the host. When this phase is over, send in the mini bid books and than make the first round of cuts/withdrawels.

Cut the fat off the Olympic program. Despite my personal dislike of removing certain sports or events, I think that removing dressage, eventing, rhythmic gymnastics, slalom canoe/kayak, greco-roman wrestling, sailing, modern penthatlon, synchronized swimming and one of weightlighting or shooting would greatly decrease venue requirements, costs and total athletes. Further to this I think a further reduction to a set of between 18 and 21 sports and allowing hosts to pick a set of 4 to 9 additional sports/events, taking into account existing venues, would also allow for a more localized product and help to differentiate between each edition.

Include a spending cap on bids. Make the bid teams become more creative with less. Tendering will always cost money and ensuring that all tenders are viable is necessary.

But in the end, this will only save the likes of Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc money. It will likely not lead to Amsterdam, Brussels, Stockholm, etc. winning a bid anytime soon.

I would drop those marginal 'sports' like Team Handball, Field Hockey, Taekwondo or Judo (just one hands-on, defensive sport). I'd go even one better -- pick up something that the CWG does. Have 3 guest sports-spots open. These would be open to the other sports that have never been on other, are trying to get in, are different from all the 'core 17 sports' and probably those on the World Games list. Have them present programs on how they would be staged if included. And then let the finalist cities pick 3 and show how they would stage their chosen 3. That would allow a differentiation of the various bids -- so that the chosen 3 + the remainder of the package of the traditional 17 would make each finalist bid more distinct than the others. If I had my way, that's how I would stage it. The total reverse of what the IOC is doing by picking a host city and then sometime after, adding another sport or 2, saddling the 'chosen' sucker city with ANOTHER sport/venue yet and not giving it any say whether they would like to stage the later, added-on sport or not. Thomas Bach, are you reading this???

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I whole-heartedly disagree. I think any change of a final rigid analysis of a potential hos t is going to lead to another Montreal or Athens and the Olympic Movement cannot withstand another blow like that.

I would:

Introduce a consultive phase that would be a year of conference calls with the federations and the IOC to cultivate plans that are best suited to a potential host. Thus using the federations and the IOC's experience and knowledge to tailor venue plans to a hosts post-games needs and popularity of sports within the host. When this phase is over, send in the mini bid books and than make the first round of cuts/withdrawels.

Cut the fat off the Olympic program. Despite my personal dislike of removing certain sports or events, I think that removing dressage, eventing, rhythmic gymnastics, slalom canoe/kayak, greco-roman wrestling, sailing, modern penthatlon, synchronized swimming and one of weightlighting or shooting would greatly decrease venue requirements, costs and total athletes. Further to this I think a further reduction to a set of between 18 and 21 sports and allowing hosts to pick a set of 4 to 9 additional sports/events, taking into account existing venues, would also allow for a more localized product and help to differentiate between each edition.

Include a spending cap on bids. Make the bid teams become more creative with less. Tendering will always cost money and ensuring that all tenders are viable is necessary.

But in the end, this will only save the likes of Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc money. It will likely not lead to Amsterdam, Brussels, Stockholm, etc. winning a bid anytime soon.

I think Baron is absolutely on the right track. I believe it's very possible to do an early reconnaissance poll and still require concrete, detailed bids. (incidentally, Athens did supply one.)

Of course no one wants a wishy-washy process that ignores technicality in favor of who "feels good" at a given moment. But nor does it make sense for a city to invest tons of time and energy into creating a detailed bid when there's next to no chance that the IOC will seriously consider it.

There's got to be some way to get a temperature reading earlier.

As Rols says, though, they've got to find a way to do it that isn't vulnerable to abuse. While certainly tricky, I don't think that's impossible. A great deal depends on how the questions are framed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Quite a reasonable, and honest, post-mortem by Juanito:

It's fair Tokyo was awarded 2020 Olympic Games - Samaranch Jr.

Spanish IOC member, Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr. said this Tuesday that although Madrid would no doubt still feel hurt at the failure to be chosen as the host city for the 2020 Olympic Games, the decision to give the Games to Tokyo was "reasonable."

In its third consecutive attempt to host the Games, Madrid lost in the first round of voting held in Buenos Aires on Sept. 7 to decide the host city.

Perhaps the fact Madrid was not chosen was not a surprise, but the fact Madrid fell at the first hurdle against unfancied Istanbul was a shock to most Spaniards and initially provoked reactions with some of the country's more nationalistic newspapers even suggesting the vote was rigged.

With the passage of time, however, the weakness in the Spanish candidacy and presentation have become increasingly apparent and Samaranch Jr., the son of former IOC President, who bore the same name, admits it is time to be realistic.

"When you lose by such a lot of votes, you shouldn't look at the details, but at the foundations of the project. I think a lot of IOC members looked at the economic situation in our country before they pressed their buttons. They saw our unemployment rate and we didn't give the guarantees they needed," he said, adding that "If Tokyo and Istanbul began from zero in the race, we started from much further back because of the economy."

Samaranch Jr. admitted he was taken aback by the huge distance in votes between Tokyo and Madrid (42-26).

"It was 16 votes difference and after speaking to people, I think that we could have maybe got three or four more if we had got through the first round, but on more. I always thought it was difficult, but not that the gap was so wide," he admitted, adding that it was a fair decision.

"They didn't rob the Games from us, they were never ours in the first place and the decision to give the Games to Tokyo was very reasonable, although we should have been able to have got past Istanbul," accepted Samaranch Jr..

Spain also gave a poor presentation on the day of the vote, failing to address issues of doping effectively when asked about the Operation Puerto doping scandal. Meanwhile the Mayor of Madrid, Ana Botella has come in for strong criticism and ridicule in her homeland for a poor speech given in classroom English.

Botella's phrase "you can enjoy a relaxing cup of cafe con leche in the Plaza Major," has become almost iconic in Spain and there are countless parodies of her speech on the internet and in social media.

Samaranch Jr., however, says the speech was not all Botella's fault.

"We all saw and practiced our speeches at least five or six times and we all thought they were good. So when they criticize the Mayor, I feel just as criticized as she is," he said.

Finally, Samaranch Jr. said he agreed it was time for Madrid to step out of the Olympic race for 2024 and commented that unless something was done, the failure to be granted the 2020 Games would provoke a financial crisis in many sectors of Spanish sport, which would have a negative effect on the country's results and future Olympics.

Global Times

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites

^Samaranch Sr even advised them not to bid for 2016 either. Yeah, the struggling economy was a big factor, but the timing is still off. It's still too soon after Barcelona. Not to mention that their narrative was consistently contradictory & very weak.

And what's this that they can "understand" why Tokyo won, but still can't get over the fact that Istanbul surpassed them in the vote. That's still not being totally honest with themselves. "Someone had to go out first", & it's still fair to say that the vote went down how it was objectively expected. I think it was lucky for them to even get the run-off ballot in the first place. Quit while your ahead, as the saying goes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or behind, In Madrid's case.

It seems they're only willing to learn the hard way. Frankly, they still sound a bit stubborn. Samaranch Jr. did not acknowledge 1992 in any way and I still believe that's the biggest problem for Madrid, even bigger than the economy.

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...