Jump to content

2016 Surprise Bids...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's inevitable that the 2016 race will be more low profile than 2012, because there are not the number of major world cities bidding this time.

More candidates are bound to come into the race, but I struggle to see what the serious competition to Chicago is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say Chicago may not win, but I really don't see where the serious competition is. Any Asian bids are going to be seriously compromised by Beijing 2008, so I can't logically see Tokyo, Busan, Kuala Lumpur (if they bid), etc, winning. Similarly, any European city which goes into the race has no logical chance because of London 2012 and is surely just either jockeying for position for themselves or another city in their country for what promises to be a wide open 2020 race.

Istanbul appears to be taking stock at the moment, perhaps with a view to coming again, so they could sneak into the fray, but perhaps another shot in 2020 is more realistic.

If we look towards Africa, South Africa surely has too much on making sure the 2010 football World Cup goes without hitch to think about an Olympic bid (although I would expect them to bid for 2020 if all goes well), and is any other African city in a position to even think about it? Abuja, possibly, longer-term and only if they win 2014 and do that well, which is far from guaranteed.

It's probably too early for another serious Australian bid and New Zealand appear to be focusing on either a Winter Olympics or a Commonwealth Games bid in the near future.

So that just leaves the Americas. Can Rio come in? Not yet, I don't think. They've got the Pan-Ams next month and that will be a big test for them. Not just that, but there's the small matter of the 2014 World Cup to think about. And in North America, Monterray? I can't see it. Barring calamities, this is Chicago's to lose for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say Chicago may not win, but I really don't see where the serious competition is. Any Asian bids are going to be seriously compromised by Beijing 2008, so I can't logically see Tokyo, Busan, Kuala Lumpur (if they bid), etc, winning. Similarly, any European city which goes into the race has no logical chance because of London 2012 and is surely just either jockeying for position for themselves or another city in their country for what promises to be a wide open 2020 race.

Istanbul appears to be taking stock at the moment, perhaps with a view to coming again, so they could sneak into the fray, but perhaps another shot in 2020 is more realistic.

If we look towards Africa, South Africa surely has too much on making sure the 2010 football World Cup goes without hitch to think about an Olympic bid (although I would expect them to bid for 2020 if all goes well), and is any other African city in a position to even think about it? Abuja, possibly, longer-term and only if they win 2014 and do that well, which is far from guaranteed.

It's probably too early for another serious Australian bid and New Zealand appear to be focusing on either a Winter Olympics or a Commonwealth Games bid in the near future.

So that just leaves the Americas. Can Rio come in? Not yet, I don't think. They've got the Pan-Ams next month and that will be a big test for them. Not just that, but there's the small matter of the 2014 World Cup to think about. And in North America, Monterray? I can't see it. Barring calamities, this is Chicago's to lose for me.

I feel the same way, but I'm not jinxing it for Chicago. We are going to be against some pretty high profile and well done bid cities, even if they aren't as profile as the 2012 race cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Tokyo's bid is seriously harmed by Beijing 2008. People are making too much out of something small. If Pyeongchang wins the Winter Games, then the stock on Tokyo's bid will definitely plummet. If this is the case then we can still use the "USA gets too many Olympics" card, which I also doubt will have much of a negative effect anyways since it would have been 20 years since Atlanta and 14 since Salt Lake, but others may think differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember , Asia gets a summer olympics about once every 20 years .

1964 -> 1988 (24 Years)

1988 -> 2008 (20 Years)

2008 -> ?

It's difficult to build any statistics or to see any pattern.

There was no Asian bid for 1992, 1996 and 2004 and only one bid for 2000.

Not saying Beijing 2008 won't hurt Tokyo but that's just one parameter in the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what is being said at all. The 2016 race isn't going to be as high-profile, in my view, primarily because most of the contenders (barring Chicago) are in continents which have had recent hostings or hostings forthcoming. The European cities that do bid should accept that and realise that, in reality, they are probably doing little more than jockeying for position ahead of 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it at the moment is Chicago a good length in front of Tokyo, with perhaps a Rio or a Monterey the only ones in the trailing pack that could spring an upset with a good bid and campaign. The rest long outsiders at the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's inevitable that the 2016 race will be more low profile than 2012, because there are not the number of major world cities bidding this time.

Well,Tokyo,Madrid,Rome, Rio and Chicago are not exactly unknown cities on the world scene.I think interest will largely depend on how much enthusiasm and excitement is generated by the bidding cities themselves as in the 2012 race.

More candidates are bound to come into the race, but I struggle to see what the serious competition to Chicago is.

I don't.I think Tokyo at least will give Chicago a serious run for its money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I don't think Beijing, or even Pyeongchang for that matter, would hinder a Tokyo bid that much (if at all). The notion that some people say that Asia gets the Olympics every 20 years or so, is just purely coincidental. It's just a matter of time when we'll see a summer/winter combo Games in Asia or North America. The voting numbers speak for themselves:

Since the Summer & Winter Games were split-up from being held in the same year, a Summer/Winter-combo on the same continent (with the exception of Europe) has almost happened 3 times. Most recently, the 2010 race; where Pyeongchang lost by a mere 3 votes, despite Beijing hosting 2008. The second, when Beijing nearly won the 2000 Games (had it just gotten 2 more votes), despite Nagano hosting 1998. That would've been a 12-year gap for Asia for the Summer Games, 1988-2000. And the most intriguing one was, when Salt Lake nearly beat-out Nagano for '98 by being 4 votes short, despite Atlanta hosting '96. Not only would that have been the same continent, but the same country to boot.

So, with those numbers, unfortunately, I think too much emphasis is put on continental rotation in the Winter/Summer cycles. Summer-to-Summer or Winter-to-Winter has more bearings. It's just a matter of time before we see a summer & winter combo in Asia or N.A., & breaking the 20-year "turn" for an Asian Summer Olympics. If the IOC really wants a Tokyo Games, they'll vote for it, no matter what. Beijing or Pyeongchang, unfortunately, won't make that much of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with FYI that too much emphasis is put on the Continent Rotation factor.

Although I do think that Winter / Summer cycle are somewhat related, it is only one of the factors. Beijing 2008 won't help Tokyo 2016 but it won't kill it either. As FYI mentionned, if comes October 2nd 2009, the majority of IOC members want to go in Tokyo then Tokyo will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kuala Lumpur to bid? no way... i think our government now would like to emphasize and concentrate more on developing the country rather to compete and bid for Olympics which is such alot of money wasted and chances to win are very slim according to pattern to win the Games. Alot of investition have to make for bidding and i think Malaysia will not bid, would not bid forever... I think. I appreciate it that some of you mentioned KL, it's true, hosting an Olympiad will be very nice but the prospect is not there, unless then our government will make a shocking statement, but i think no way that they will bid now... like i said, would not forever!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously most people concentrate on who can/will win an Olympics, but there are also many advantages that a city can benefit from even if it doesn't win.

Bidding cities, particularly if they reach the shortlist, will create a lot of interest. The 2012 campaign is perhaps a bad example for this as all the five finalists were well-known cities anyway. But cities like Manchester have benefited hugely from failed Olympic bids. Without the Olympic bid there would not have been the confidence to bid for the Commonwealth Games, a Velodrome was built in the city despite the 2000 loss, many regeneration projects and cultural ventures were achieved only because of the renewed confidence in the city - Manchester has become so use to bidding for things that it even wins things that it doesn't really need (the super-casino). Cities also bid for many other sporting events while they are candidates - this also increases the profile of the place.

There are many advantages to be gained in places like Doha and Prague even if they may have little chance of ultimate success in the Olympic campaign itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I don't think Beijing, or even Pyeongchang for that matter, would hinder a Tokyo bid that much (if at all). The notion that some people say that Asia gets the Olympics every 20 years or so, is just purely coincidental. It's just a matter of time when we'll see a summer/winter combo Games in Asia or North America. The voting numbers speak for themselves:

Since the Summer & Winter Games were split-up from being held in the same year, a Summer/Winter-combo on the same continent (with the exception of Europe) has almost happened 3 times. Most recently, the 2010 race; where Pyeongchang lost by a mere 3 votes, despite Beijing hosting 2008. The second, when Beijing nearly won the 2000 Games (had it just gotten 2 more votes), despite Nagano hosting 1998. That would've been a 12-year gap for Asia for the Summer Games, 1988-2000. And the most intriguing one was, when Salt Lake nearly beat-out Nagano for '98 by being 4 votes short, despite Atlanta hosting '96. Not only would that have been the same continent, but the same country to boot.

So, with those numbers, unfortunately, I think too much emphasis is put on continental rotation in the Winter/Summer cycles. Summer-to-Summer or Winter-to-Winter has more bearings. It's just a matter of time before we see a summer & winter combo in Asia or N.A., & breaking the 20-year "turn" for an Asian Summer Olympics. If the IOC really wants a Tokyo Games, they'll vote for it, no matter what. Beijing or Pyeongchang, unfortunately, won't make that much of a difference.

Won't it? Surely the fact that it hasn't happened very often at all means that it is in the minds of IOC members.

Not just that, but aren't the Summer and Winter Games separate cycles entirely? When SLC lost 1998, wasn't Nagano favoured by the fact that the USA and North America had hosted more recently (Lake Placid 1980 and Calgary 1988) than Asia and Japan (Sapporo 1972)?

When Beijing lost 2000, didn't Sydney gain an advantage from Australia and Oceania's last hosting being Melbourne 1956 compared to Seoul 1988 for Asia, rather than Nagano 1998?

The only one of the occasions you cite where the theory may just work would be for Pyeongchang losing out for 2010. On the other two, I'm not convinced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Won't it? Surely the fact that it hasn't happened very often at all means that it is in the minds of the IOC members. Not just that, but aren't the Summer and Winter Games 'separate cycles entirely'?"

That's exactly what I said in my post. That many on here put too much emphasis on "continental rotation" because the Summer & Winter Games are 'separate cycles entirely' (i.e. Beijing 2008 Summer/Pyeongchang 2010 Winter). That's why I used the term 'Summer/Winter combo'.

"When SLC lost 1998, wasn't Nagano favored by the fact that the USA and North America had hosted more recently (Lake Placid 1980 and Calgary 1988) than Asia and Japan (Sapporo 1972)?"

Again, the voting numbers speak for themselves. SLC lost 1998 by a mere 4 votes, out of 88 voting IOC members, despite Atlanta slated for '96. Again, it's more of a reference of the 'Summer/Winter combo' issue consecutively on the same continent (i.e. Atlanta '96/SLC '98) rather than which continent most recently hosted (in this case Asia & N.A.) the Winter Olympics (Lake Placid/Calgary vs. Sapporo). This is where some confusion is coming in.

"When Beijing lost 2000, didn't Sydney gain an advantage from Australia and Oceania's last hosting being Melbourne 1956 compared to Seoul 1988 for Asia, rather than Nagano 1998?"

Not particularly. If that was the case, then why didn't Australia fair well in the '92 & '96 races if it was several decades, at these points, too, since Australia/Oceania last hosted. Beijing was actually the favorite to win the 2000 Games. Beijing lead every round of voting, except for the 4th & final ballot, when they lost by the hair of their chinny, chin, chin, by 2 votes. That's why that race was such an upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When Beijing lost 2000, didn't Sydney gain an advantage from Australia and Oceania's last hosting being Melbourne 1956 compared to Seoul 1988 for Asia, rather than Nagano 1998?"

Not particularly. If that was the case, then why didn't Australia fair well in the '92 & '96 races if it was several decades, at these points, too, since Australia/Oceania last hosted. Beijing was actually the favorite to win the 2000 Games. Beijing lead every round of voting, except for the 4th & final ballot, when they lost by the hair of their chinny, chin, chin, by 2 votes. That's why that race was such an upset.

Beijing had begun to open up a clear lead over Sydney in the second round but Sydney narrowed the gap again in the third when it picked up most of Berlin's 9 votes.Then,after Manchester dropped out in the third round,8 of its 11 votes went to Sydney and only 3 to Beijing.That pushed Sydney over the finishing line ahead of Beijing.A major shock and annoyance to then IOC president Samaranch who had wanted China to have the honour of hosting the millennium Games.

I've heard that the knock-on effect of the Tiananmen Square massacre only 4 years earlier deterred many IOC members who would otherwise have voted for Beijing which may account for why it did not pick up Berlin's votes in the third round.That plus an element of Commonwealth solidarity from Manchester in the fourth round,gave Sydney the victory over Beijing.

Then again,I read that it was discovered,some time later,that two businessmen associated with the Sydney bid had admitted secretly meeting and offering inducements to two of the African IOC members the night before the vote which may have accounted for that final 2 vote victory! But I don't know whether this was ever confirmed or not!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find those claims were not followed up on as a number of African IOC members were later reprimanded for approaching bid cities for scholarships and bribes. Also Berlin bid members later confirmed they were asked repeatedly for "gifts", as were Atlanta, SLC, Nagano, Falun, Ostersund, Stockholm, Rome, Manchester, Birmingham, Athens, Toronto, Melbourne, Belgrade, Aosta... Pretty much any bid prior to 2008 and after 1970 have had these claims levelled at them, however the IOC members usually ask first, demand next and crucify later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...