Jump to content

Bid For 2016...two Years To Go!


Your choice as of now!  

105 members have voted

  1. 1. The REAL contenders

    • Chicago, USA
      42
    • Madrid, Spain
      12
    • Tokyo, Japan
      14
    • Rio, Brazil
      37


Recommended Posts

this is very true. The Brazilian economy is in the top 10 largest economies in the world. Your country has seen tremendous strides, and things will most likely continue to improve.

sorry, I should have posted "political instability in times past"

But a reality in the decision making process is not whether a city/country can be seen as becoming better by 2016, it's whether they are currently capable of hosting a Games. The short list a.k.a. official candidate list pretty much only takes into account a city's "current capability" of hosting the Olympics. It does not take into account a plethora of other factors such as rotation.

I am cautious in my interpretation of seeing Chicago as the victor. I know Paris was the front runner in the 2012 bid, and there is still a lot of time for Chicago to screw up a bid, and another city to dramatically improve theirs. Rio has a whole lot of advantages over Chi town, but we will have to wait and see how things play out in the months ahead.

One thing I know for sure is that Rio is stepping up to the plate, and if Chicago wants to win, they need to make some serious changes in their bid to make it more appealing for the world to "want" to come to Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply
this is very true. The Brazilian economy is in the top 10 largest economies in the world. Your country has seen tremendous strides, and things will most likely continue to improve.

sorry, I should have posted "political instability in times past"

But a reality in the decision making process is not whether a city/country can be seen as becoming better by 2016, it's whether they are currently capable of hosting a Games. The short list a.k.a. official candidate list pretty much only takes into account a city's "current capability" of hosting the Olympics. It does not take into account a plethora of other factors such as rotation.

I am cautious in my interpretation of seeing Chicago as the victor. I know Paris was the front runner in the 2012 bid, and there is still a lot of time for Chicago to screw up a bid, and another city to dramatically improve theirs. Rio has a whole lot of advantages over Chi town, but we will have to wait and see how things play out in the months ahead.

One thing I know for sure is that Rio is stepping up to the plate, and if Chicago wants to win, they need to make some serious changes in their bid to make it more appealing for the world to "want" to come to Chicago.

Ok, but what political instability in times past has to do with that............? if we consider this, can we say that games cannot be hosted in Chicago because u have terrorism problems? because u would make diffucult for people to get their visa to come in? Just can't get it..... but ok. Sorry about the answer... but I was trying to show that Brazil is not what people generally thinks....... speacially because almost everybody here comes from rich countries and have some kinda of prejudice against the others... not in a bad way, just because people tend to think developing countries as an unique thing, with the same problems...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but what political instability in times past has to do with that............? if we consider this, can we say that games cannot be hosted in Chicago because u have terrorism problems? because u would make diffucult for people to get their visa to come in? Just can't get it..... but ok. Sorry about the answer... but I was trying to show that Brazil is not what people generally thinks....... speacially because almost everybody here comes from rich countries and have some kinda of prejudice against the others... not in a bad way, just because people tend to think developing countries as an unique thing, with the same problems...

Sorry, but just one more thing.... our "political instability in the past" was a military government that we had from 64 to 84, with american support... as many others in latin america had.... but since 84 we live in a stable democracy.... so I still can't get ur point....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

besided that, we don't have terrorist attacks... people simple don't have anything against us as they have against other bidding cities...

That may well be the case and that's certainly a good thing. But any city that is awarded the games should be seen as potentially at risk from terrorists whether they've had attacks before or not. The question isn't so much how security is now, but how it will be during the fortnight of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

besided that, we don't have terrorist attacks... people simple don't have anything against us as they have against other bidding cities...

No; you're not important enough to bother with. That's why you don't attract 'terrorist attacks.' Nothing of world importance happens or is decided in Brazil -- that's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haahahahahahahaha

YOU DID MAKE SMILE AGAIN!

YOU'RE A GOOD CLOWN"!

BRAZIL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA. IT WILL BE A POTENCE IN A NEAR FUTURE.AND YOU SAY THAT BRAZIL IS NOT IMPORTANT?

WELL, YOUR PRESIDENT MR BUSH DID COME HERE LAST YEAR TO TAKE SUPPORT FROM OUR PRESIDENT LULA TO STOP THE VENEZUELA'S PLANS IN SOUTH AMERICA.

BRAZIL IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD, SÃO PAULO AND RIO DE JANEIRO ARE WORLD'S TOP CITIES.

MERCOSUL IS A IMPORTANT POLITICAL AND ECONOMY GROUP AND BRAZIL LEADS IT.

LET'S DISCUSS WITH GOOD ARGUMENTS.

YOU ARE A PREJUDICED ONE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haahahahahahahaha

YOU DID MAKE SMILE AGAIN!

YOU'RE A GOOD CLOWN"!

BRAZIL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA. IT WILL BE A POTENCE IN A NEAR FUTURE.AND YOU SAY THAT BRAZIL IS NOT IMPORTANT?

WELL, YOUR PRESIDENT MR BUSH DID COME HERE LAST YEAR TO TAKE SUPPORT FROM OUR PRESIDENT LULA TO STOP THE VENEZUELA'S PLANS IN SOUTH AMERICA.

BRAZIL IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD, SÃO PAULO AND RIO DE JANEIRO ARE WORLD'S TOP CITIES.

MERCOSUL IS A IMPORTANT POLITICAL AND ECONOMY GROUP AND BRAZIL LEADS IT.

LET'S DISCUSS WITH GOOD ARGUMENTS.

YOU ARE A PREJUDICED ONE!

[/quote

Rioman, don't bother. He doesn't deserve it. If we wanted, no, if anybody in the world wanted, we could tell him so many awful things about his country that he would have to stay quiet. But I won't do this, and suggest you not to do the same, cause I know there are many others americans that don't deserve to listen to this. As you said, he is just one more ignorant guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but just one more thing.... our "political instability in the past" was a military government that we had from 64 to 84, with american support... as many others in latin america had.... but since 84 we live in a stable democracy.... so I still can't get ur point....

Not to poke fun, but the U.S. currently supports the Iraqi and Afghan governments, and we all know there is really no stability there yet. We have our history for not always backing the best governments before. I do know that there were some fairly repressive socialistic aspects to the Brazilian government thirty or so years ago, but that is not the case today.

I will admit, I am not an expert on politics for Brazil or even Rio for that matter, and its important to note that local politics are just as important as national for an Olympics. I know there was a big issue this past July when a judge ruled that the LIVE Earth Event could not move forward in Rio, because of a lack of police/security to manage the expected crowds. That of course did not stop the concert, but it definitely caused a stir. Now in Chicago, I could not see a judge saying "this event can't go forward, because there is not enough police." They would be laughed at.

So lets settle this. Brazil does not have a government stability issue, and I apologize if my opinion offended anyone The main force comes down to economics, and readiness for a Games. London is spending an estimated 15 billion dollars (US), and Beijing is spending three times as much as that. Will Rio be able to come up with that kind of loot to prepare for an Olympics with the World Cup eating up funds as well? They probably could, but is it enough to make the IOC feel confident? I don't know.

Anyway, the most important thing when it comes down to an IOC vote is "perception." So whatever is in the IOC's mind about Rio/Brazil right now or in times past, definitely has a weight in their decision two years from now. It really doesn't matter where Brazil will be in 2016, it matters where Brazil is presently through October 2, 2009.

Oh, and Chicago has never had a terrorist attack. We have a terrorism "control center" though, and the U.S. hasn't had an attack since 9/11 (not saying it won't happen). Many terrorists view the Olympics as a Western event that can make their statement to the world - whether it's in China, London, Sydney, Athens, Cape Town, Los Angeles, Tokyo or Rio for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haahahahahahahaha

YOU DID MAKE SMILE AGAIN!

YOU'RE A GOOD CLOWN"!

BRAZIL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA. IT WILL BE A POTENCE IN A NEAR FUTURE.AND YOU SAY THAT BRAZIL IS NOT IMPORTANT?

WELL, YOUR PRESIDENT MR BUSH DID COME HERE LAST YEAR TO TAKE SUPPORT FROM OUR PRESIDENT LULA TO STOP THE VENEZUELA'S PLANS IN SOUTH AMERICA.

BRAZIL IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD, SÃO PAULO AND RIO DE JANEIRO ARE WORLD'S TOP CITIES.

MERCOSUL IS A IMPORTANT POLITICAL AND ECONOMY GROUP AND BRAZIL LEADS IT.

LET'S DISCUSS WITH GOOD ARGUMENTS.

YOU ARE A PREJUDICED ONE!

I didn't say you had a small economy, dummy! All I said -- in reply to your ignorant remark about terrorist attacks -- is that you're not quite on top of the world's pecking order so the bad guys don't go after you. Capisce, dummy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say you had a small economy, dummy! All I said -- in reply to your ignorant remark about terrorist attacks -- is that you're not quite on top of the world's pecking order so the bad guys don't go after you. Capisce, dummy?

Are u sure he is the ignorant one? Io capisco that you are the one here...... and besides that, u are really prejudicial. It's ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit, I am not an expert on politics for Brazil or even Rio for that matter, and its important to note that local politics are just as important as national for an Olympics. I know there was a big issue this past July when a judge ruled that the LIVE Earth Event could not move forward in Rio, because of a lack of police/security to manage the expected crowds. That of course did not stop the concert, but it definitely caused a stir. Now in Chicago, I could not see a judge saying "this event can't go forward, because there is not enough police." They would be laughed at.

So lets settle this. Brazil does not have a government stability issue, and I apologize if my opinion offended anyone

Man, the Live Earth event just went really well, as many other big events have here. This situation was just a concern from justice... because we had the police attention to the Pan Am Games by that time. It is just one more prove that our government isn't instable, and that our governmental instances work. It was just a concern, and it was soon dealed with, as they had police there in the event AND in the Pan Am Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends, PEACE!!!

We're in a topic about Olympic Games seeding a war USA against Brazil for what? Nothing!!!

By the way, Brazil and USA are military, economic and political allies...

Let's discuss bids and not disturbed visions of these countries...

USA is wonderfull country, I visited USA for 4 times and loved to stay there. Brazil has a lot of good thing that, unfortunately most people in the world doesn't know... Ask an american that visited Rio if he liked or not...

And, finally, there are some dumb people in USA just like we have dumb people in Brazil...

Let's try to talk about points of Olympic bids, please...

Peacefully and without stupid visions of the world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to talk about points of Olympic bids, please...

Peacefully and without stupid visions of the world...

You are absolutely right! Lets stop talking about perceptions, and get down to firm facts as they come forth between ALL bids, not just Chicago and Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An intertesting summing up of the bids by the Chicago leader, Patrick Ryan. A bit diplomatic, bhut not bad all the same:

Ryan sizes up Chicago's Olympic rivals

By Kathy Bergen | Tribune staff reporter

3:09 PM CDT, September 27, 2007

Chicago's Olympic bid leader Patrick Ryan sized up rival cities publicly for the first time Thursday, telling business and civic leaders the city faces "very strong competition" in the fight to host the 2016 Summer Games.

The insurance titan weighed in on each of the six rival cities during a luncheon speech to the City Club of Chicago, where he faced an audience clearly behind Chicago's bid.

"They are world-class cities and in fact, each one each brings something of real value, as obviously we do," he said, before doffing his hat to each:

Baku, Azerbaijan: "The former Soviet Republic [is] rich in natural gas, and it's very likely they are going to use this bid to come out on the international stage."

Doha, Qatar: "Here's one that's a dark horse. Lots of oil, lots of gas, lots of money. They'll build a lot of facilities . . . They want it to be all about peace in the Middle East."

Prague, Czech Republic: "It's a great city. Some say it's a trial run for 2020. It's a beautiful city, many of you have been there. Central Europe, a lot to offer."

Madrid, Spain: "Could have won 2012. It had the best technical bid for 2012. Madrid will be a very, very tough competitor."

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: "We were down there for the Pan Am Games. They did a really good job. It's a beautiful city. And the Olympic games have never been in South America, so there's a real sympathy vote in that. South America ought to be able to host the Olympics someday. We agree with that. Someday after 2016." That remark drew big laughs.

Tokyo, Japan: "They hosted the '64 Olympic Games. They have the infrastructure and they have the will. As a matter of fact, they want to use it to modernize Tokyo. . . . And you all know about the tremendous private-public partnership that government has with industry. So they will not be easy."

"But," he told the audience, "that's what competition is all about. Olympics are all about competition."

kbergen@tribune.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't understand why people say the 2016 Olympic MUST be in the USA because the last games there were in 1996 (being 20 years a lot of time without the Olympics in the USA :mellow: ).

But that's not all: they also say Tokyo WON'T host the Games because of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and the 1964 Games in Tokyo (52 years before!!!) and Madrid is unable to host them because of the 2012 Games in Europe and because Spain last hosted the Games in 1992 (24 years before 2016).

So the USA want to get the Games just 20 years after 1996 and they think they can get them saying both Spain and Japan have already hosted the Games

Now, let's think about it:

- It's not easy for Madrid to get the Games but it's not impossible. London hosted the Games in 1908, then, in 1912 they were again in Europe (Stockholm). In 1948, London hosted again, with the 1952 Games being in Europe (Helsinki). So, with London hosting the Games in 2012, an European city can host them in 2016.

- If Tokyo has a great bid, it will be able to host the Games with or without 2008 Olympics in Asia.

- Chicago is also a great city but I don't like hearing people saying the Games have to return to the USA just because the last time they were hosts was in 1996. Both Spain and Japan hosted the Games before Atlanta 1996 ;)

- I didn't forget Rio de Janeiro, but I think the IOC won't like the Olympics just two years after the FIFA World Cup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago is also a great city but I don't like hearing people saying the Games have to return to the USA just because the last time they were hosts was in 1996.

Nobody is saying the USA have to be given the games. But if they are that's a stupid attitude to have

Having said that, the USA has so many more cities that can host than any other country so I think it's perfectly ok if they get a games every 20 or 24 years or so. If that's what the IOC decides of course.

The games don't have to go anywhere but Atlanta handicaips Chicago a lot less than London does Madrid or Beijing does Tokyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying the USA have to be given the games. But if they are that's a stupid attitude to have

Nobody here, but I've heard it and read it on the Internet

The games don't have to go anywhere but Atlanta handicaips Chicago a lot less than London does Madrid or Beijing does Tokyo.

Sadly, I agree ^_^

I think the best bid should get the Games, if it is Chicago, I will accept it. But I really think Tokyo and, probably, Madrid bids will be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- It's not easy for Madrid to get the Games but it's not impossible. London hosted the Games in 1908, then, in 1912 they were again in Europe (Stockholm). In 1948, London hosted again, with the 1952 Games being in Europe (Helsinki). So, with London hosting the Games in 2012, an European city can host them in 2016.

After 1952, there is two games back to back in the same continent... :D 2016, 90% will go to America... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 1952, there is two games back to back in the same continent... :D 2016, 90% will go to America... :D

The last two consecutive Olympics in Europe were the Albertville 1992 - Lillehammer 1994 Winter Games, and with them Barcelona 1992, so three Games in Europe in just two years.

And, of course, I think Chicago or Tokyo are going to win, but the statistics say that if London hosts the Olympics (1908 & 1948), the next Olympics will be also in Europe (1912 & 1952) :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last two consecutive Olympics in Europe were the Albertville 1992 - Lillehammer 1994 Winter Games, and with them Barcelona 1992, so three Games in Europe in just two years.

And, of course, I think Chicago or Tokyo are going to win, but the statistics say that if London hosts the Olympics (1908 & 1948), the next Olympics will be also in Europe (1912 & 1952) :P

Mmh.. sorry I don't say about WOG, because in fact there is just 3 continents that can be host for WOG. but in SOG, after 1952, there is no 2 country in the same continent become the host back to back. But anyway, let just see in the 2009 who become the host for 2016 :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmh.. sorry I don't say about WOG, because in fact there is just 3 continents that can be host for WOG. but in SOG, after 1952, there is no 2 country in the same continent become the host back to back. But anyway, let just see in the 2009 who become the host for 2016 :D

If we forget about the WOG, Madrid 2016 has just one big problem: London 2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The last two consecutive Olympics in Europe were the Albertville 1992 - Lillehammer 1994 Winter Games, and with them Barcelona 1992, so three Games in Europe in just two years.

2. And, of course, I think Chicago or Tokyo are going to win, but the statistics say that if London hosts the Olympics (1908 & 1948), the next Olympics will be also in Europe (1912 & 1952) :P

1. Then how do you explain Montreal 1976, Lake Placid 1980, Los Angeles 1984, Calgary 1988? Why wasn't 1992 in North America?

Summer and Winter Games run on different cycles -- including the geopolitical considerations that surround the choices made. Occasionally, the choice of one impacts the other (Albertville, Barcelona). And of course you will say, Athens - Torino. Duh! Giving the Games to Athens in 2004 was purely a sentimental choice (and a make-up for 1996). If the Games originated in say, Tuvalu, rather than Europe (and say Tuvalu was not ready in 1996), then the Games would've somehow found their way back to Tuvalu. That Greece is in Europe is purely coincidental.

As for Torino 2006, well, there were only 2 viable candidates (Torino and Sion). I guess a North American city could've bid, but at least the North American cities aren't that stupid and greedy to be bidding all the time. They can wait and give others a chance. It's stupid cities like Madrid and Istanbul that are so desperate, that they are bidding blindly and foolishly. At least, Istanbul showing a little more discretion this year.

2. :blink: Uh-huh. That's kinda of an...odd and NOT realistic analogy. In 1908 and 1912, only a handful of nations (e.g., US, Australia, Brazil and Chile) were the more active non-European nations who were sending teams to the Summer Games. Some 100 years later, you can get anywhere to any spot in the world in a matter of hours. The IOC has a more inclusionary policy and pays the poorer countries to participate. So the Olympics are truly a global affair now; and that includes spreading out the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...