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

Actually, you just picked up and propagated a totally false and erroneous post about me. So much for your credibility, emre. And what about the millions of Armenians and Kurds your ANkara has decimated and still has refused to own up to, huh? :rolleyes:

just two answers... The ottomans didnt make a genoside to armenians.. just because of the war between russia and ottomans they dont want the armenians to help russians. so that they change the location where they used to live with a hard voyage in this vaoyage lots of armenians died not in the hands of ottoman soldiers. and the east always look from one side.there are lots of documantation that armenians killed turks and azeris & destroy villiages. ( for you to all a historic lesson: in ottoman empire all clerics architehtcs and even viziers were armenians.) but if u still want to beleive in such genoside tales sory but beleive the indians you destroy and the mayas aztecs incas spanish destroy.or france in algeria ...there are loots of examples about this that documentat.

and for the kurds... u just attack two countries miles and miles away from your country just for a suspicion. dude we are at war with the kurdish terrosits whom want to take all south west of our counrty.. and we just have a problem with them. there are 10 million kurds living in Turkiye and we had kurd prime ministers and lots of burocrats in the republic history. :)

what ever ı just one to say my opinions no harm feelings for you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

BARON DO NOT LIKE TO LISTEN THE TRUTH. LET HIM KEEP LIVING IN A FAIRYTALE WORLD NAMED USA. :lol:

THE RACE FOR 2016 IS DEFINED

TOKYO

CHICAGO

MADRID

THE IOC MONEYMAKERS...AND POSSIBLE SHORTLIST

RIO DE JANEIRO( THE BRAZILIANS ARE DREAMERS..)

DOHA (TOO MUCH MUSLIM FOR AMERICANS)

BAKU(WHERE IS IT?)

THE SILLY CITIES

HEHEHEHEHE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I AM BRAZILIAN BUT I DO NOT THINK RIO HAVE CHANCES

'COZ CHICAGO, MADRID AND TOKYO ARE BIDS FROM RICH COUNTRIES.

THE ''THIRD WORLD'' NATIONS MUST NOT TO BID COZ IT MAKES THE FROM THESE COUNTRIES ARE ELIMINATED

'COZ THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT IS A "CLUB" Of THE RICH COUNTRIES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm, I think if rio fail to be host in 2016, it's not because she is come from the third world country, but because IOC do not want the games just become the puding after the meal.. do you know what i mean ? mmh... the ioc member say that ioc do not want the games in the same host just 2 years after the world cup, and about the chicago, hmm, the truth is USA is the biggest sponsor for the IOC, and the last summer games in the US is in 1996, so, maybe this time they need the games to be back to the USA... although i'm very boring too with the fact that USA is too often to be the host.. but IOC still need their money... I hope rio if they not win in 2016, rio'll come back in 2020, when their chance getting bigger...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

although i'm very boring too with the fact that USA is too often to be the host

The thing is though that it's the city that is chosen, not the country. Chicago 2016 will be nothing like Atlanta 1996. The USA's a big country with many different and differing cities of which only one can be shown at each Olympics, so them having an Olympics every 20/24 years doesn't worry me when you consider that nearly every other country in the world only has 1 or 2 cities that could host. Many people on here say America has hosted many times before, I say fair enough but Chicago has never hosted and it's the city we see, not the country as a whole.

This is why an Olympics is so very different to a World Cup and why I can say I support Chicago 2016 wholeheartedly but do not support the USA getting another World Cup any time soon. A World Cup shows off a nation, an Olympics shows off a city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is though that it's the city that is chosen, not the country. Chicago 2016 will be nothing like Atlanta 1996. The USA's a big country with many different and differing cities of which only one can be shown at each Olympics, so them having an Olympics every 20/24 years doesn't worry me when you consider that nearly every other country in the world only has 1 or 2 cities that could host. Many people on here say America has hosted many times before, I say fair enough but Chicago has never hosted and it's the city we see, not the country as a whole.

This is why an Olympics is so very different to a World Cup and why I can say I support Chicago 2016 wholeheartedly but do not support the USA getting another World Cup any time soon. A World Cup shows off a nation, an Olympics shows off a city.

Hm, I think is not just about city choosen, but it's also a celebrate to a whole country where the city was choosen, you can see in every city which host the games, whole country also participating in that event, so is not just the city, but also the whole country thing. But i'm agreed with you that if chicago win 2016, they won't be the same like atlanta 96, or LA 84, but i feel there is another country which can host the games that never be the host, like umh... maybe brazil, or some country in africa like south africa, so I still don't agree if USA get another games in 2016, maybe they can get their games in 2032 ? :lol: , but the fact is I feel they'll get the games in 2016...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the truth is cities bids but countries win in olympics.its so pity but the truth is İstanbul Rio Buenos Aries cannot win this race when developed 8 countries bid. although the real olympic spirit realy lives in this cities and some other... whats the speciality of chicago or atlanta even london who had choosen for 3 times...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that the US are capable of providing a really successful Games but I don't want them to host 2016 either - I don't agree with you Rob, I think the Olympics are as much a national event as they are a city one - otherwise there would still be multi-bids from anyone country and support on here would not be so much on national lines.

I'm just not excited at the moment by another American Olympics - I remember two already (three if you count Salt Lake City). I'm not really excited about another Spanish Games either - despite the fact Madrid is even more different from Barcelona in language, culture, etc.. than Chicago is to Atlanta.

It's been many years since Tokyo held the Olympics - only a few here will be old enough to remember it - so I don't have any problem with a Games there (or obviously Rio as Brazil has never held the Games).

I think Chicago may succeed - but they have to try and make people believe that they will provide a very different experience - whether they will manage to convince people of this I'm not sure. Until then many will just regard the 2016 Games as the US#3 Summer Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, do you think that the IOC would have to implement temporarily some version of a "continental rotation deal", like what FIFA "had to do" with its Men's World Cup? The situation of deciding the Olympic Games' host cities is not really going to get any better, if only "wealthy countries with wealthy and/or advanced cities" has the only real chance to bid, never mind host, for future Games.

If anything, we already seen what occurred for the 2012 Olympic Games: 4 capital cities of "world powers" and the biggest city from "the only existing superpower" going head-to-head for the honor then. To me, in the back of my mind, that sent the wrong signal to those not in these so-called world-leading categories about how "impartial" the IOC is. I bet Rogge was thinking the same way, but in his own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the thing is with the short list evaluation, it's hard to cull it down while at the same time leaving open any spots for an up-and-coming city.

Cities from rich countries are always going to be able to come up with bid plans and support infrastructure that are technically better than what can be offered at such an early stage by a new frontiers city. Take 2016 _ it's inevitable that Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid will make the short list, because technically they should have few if no problems staging a games (never mind that Madrid probably won't win through in the vote). Similarly, Doha could well make it through as well purely on its technical capabilities, even though it's unlikely to be able to win at the end.

The thing is, the short list evaluation is impartial _ it measures the technical and easily assessed aspects of the bids. Its purpose is to make sure that any city that reaches the short list can be reasonably guaranteed to be able to stage the games. It does not bring in all the emotional and sentimental aspects that play a large part in the final vote. But it means it will always favour the better prepared bids from richer nations. It leaves a dilemma for the IOC's exec board _ do they widen the short list to include the likes of a Rio, Capetown, Baku etc even if their plans may not be as assured as the richer nations?

I remember a few years ago, Dick Pound mooted a "one-off" bid cycle for new frontiers, saying that was the only way they could possibly do it, they could never win against a richer, better-prepared bid. I don't think hs proposal got very far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, do you think that the IOC would have to implement temporarily some version of a "continental rotation deal", like what FIFA "had to do" with its Men's World Cup? The situation of deciding the Olympic Games' host cities is not really going to get any better, if only "wealthy countries with wealthy and/or advanced cities" has the only real chance to bid, never mind host, for future Games.

If anything, we already seen what occurred for the 2012 Olympic Games: 4 capital cities of "world powers" and the biggest city from "the only existing superpower" going head-to-head for the honor then. To me, in the back of my mind, that sent the wrong signal to those not in these so-called world-leading categories about how "impartial" the IOC is. I bet Rogge was thinking the same way, but in his own way.

I really don't agree with a set continental rotation as has happened with Fifa - it is unworkable after a while anyway (as someone posted before somewhere) - I like the IOC's way of trying to avoid the same continent for successive Games while not counting it out completely - if Madrid does come up with a phenomenal bid while Tokyo and Chicago do a "New York" then the IOC would be silly not to choose Madrid.

I don't believe the IOC should have an Africa or Latin America only shortlist - there are some cities in both those regions that are capable of winning on their own merits anyway without being patronised. Cape Town's bid for 2004 was okay and they're bound to improve the next time they bid.

I would have thought that the IOC loved the 2012 competition - never will they have had such a choice of premier cities to choose from and never would they have had so much media attention for a bidding campaign. A problem is that 2016 could be an anti-climax in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought that the IOC loved the 2012 competition - never will they have had such a choice of premier cities to choose from and never would they have had so much media attention for a bidding campaign. A problem is that 2016 could be an anti-climax in comparison.

Exactly. Is the fact that South America or Africa hasn't hosted a crisis for anyone other than a few people here who'd like to see the games move to exotic locales? If the IOC REALLY wanted to send games to those areas, they'd find a way to do it. Instead they have a line-up of some of the biggest and most glamorous cities in the world all fighting to get the chance to host. Compared to the situation in the late 1970s, they'e probably overjoyed at the level of interest in hosting and high calibre of contenders now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought that the IOC loved the 2012 competition - never will they have had such a choice of premier cities to choose from and never would they have had so much media attention for a bidding campaign. A problem is that 2016 could be an anti-climax in comparison.

Well, all they got were ashtrays.

2016 will be great in Chi...errrr TOKYO! Absolutely brilliant Games in Disneyland Tokyo!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all they got were ashtrays.

2016 will be great in Chi...errrr TOKYO! Absolutely brilliant Games in Disneyland Tokyo!!

Which is going to celebrate its 25th anniversary next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a few years ago, Dick Pound mooted a "one-off" bid cycle for new frontiers, saying that was the only way they could possibly do it, they could never win against a richer, better-prepared bid. I don't think his proposal got very far.

I don't even think I seen it come out in the open at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even think I seen it come out in the open at all.

Here's the original GamesBids news item from 2004:

Friday, October 01, 2004

An Olympic Games Without Cities Bidding?

Posted 1:32 pm ET (GamesBids.com)

International Olympic Committee (IOC) member Dick Pound told a Speakers Forum corporate breakfast session Thursday in Toronto that the IOC will one day set aside its process of cities bidding to host the Olympic Games and simply declare it’s time to fast-track the Games to Africa or South America.

Pound said, “we’ll have to negotiate at one point that it’s time to go. It will be a policy matter that we want to go to Africa, that we want to go to South America”, places where there have never been an Olympic Games.

Pound added, the Games could be sent to one of them as early as 2016, "but more likely 2020”,

He said Cape Town had a strong 2004 bid and outlasted Stockholm and Buenos Aires to make it to the third ballot before Athens won out over Rome.

He said the soccer World Cup will be a good test run for would-be Games organizers, but that a 28-sport Olympics “is still beyond reach at this moment….you have to balance the risk and reward of going to a place that hasn’t hosted before”.

As for the 2012 Summer Olympic bid, Pound said the 2012 candidates are already vying for votes at next July’s IOC meeting in Singapore, and some failed candidates might want to run again in 2016, making it harder to fast-track an African or South American host “but 2020 could be seen as ‘the time’”.

For the 2008 bid IOC members decided the time had come to send the Games to the world’s most populous country and it was a market IOC sponsors coveted. Pound said Toronto’s failed 2008 bid was technically better than Beijing’s but there was no holding back the tide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, it is now less than a week for all interested NOCs to INFORM the IOC their intentions to submit their applications for their city choice for the 2016 Olympic Games. After that, we will get to see the "real applicant list" on January 14th, 2008, compliments of handing their real submissions and guarantee letters to the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we must wait until January 14th, to see which cities are submit to IOC for 2016 ? Or we can know earlier than that ?

It is January 14th, Tanaka_Ray. However, we do get to see/know on or after September 13th which NOCs will "tell the IOC" they will intend to bid for 2016. Once we all know that first list, then it will be interesting after that if all of them do send in their formal papers to become official APPLICANT cities on January 14th or not. I forgot what is the "application fee" for putting their city's names down for this part 1 of 4 stages in this FIRST PHASE of the whole 2016 bidding process. Part 2 of 4 is the formal submission to the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is January 14th, Tanaka_Ray. However, we do get to see/know on or after September 13th which NOCs will "tell the IOC" they will intend to bid for 2016. Once we all know that first list, then it will be interesting after that if all of them do send in their formal papers to become official APPLICANT cities on January 14th or not. I forgot what is the "application fee" for putting their city's names down for this part 1 of 4 stages in this FIRST PHASE of the whole 2016 bidding process. Part 2 of 4 is the formal submission to the IOC.

Thank you, err, Guardian , until now, which cities are intending to bid 2016 ? As far as I know, there are : Tokyo, Madrid, Prague, and Chicago... Are there any other cities ? How about Doha, Baku and Monterrey ? Are they make official bid too ? Or not ? thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The applicant cities will be known after September 13th.

January 14th is the deadline for submission of the Questionnaires but as soon as a city has been formally submitted by its NOC and the applicant city fee has been paid (deadline in October 1st I think) it is indeed an applicant city.

Since there is an applicant city fees (race for 2008 and onward), there has been a case of an applicant city not turning in its questionnaire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3. Rio is blocked by Brazil's unproven performance record for 2014 which comes 5 years after the 2009 vote!

Excuse me, but may I ask what are you saying? This makes no sense to me.

There is no such thing as RIO being blocked. The IOC was very impressed with the RIO Pan American Games in August, the greatest ever in history, and its board director made his wonder intentionally public.

The Pan American Para-Olympic Games, just after the Pan American, were also the biggest and most succesful in history, and Rio made sure that all the Olympic standards were followed up to the mark. Many athletes commented that its infrastructure and organization was superior than the Para-Olympics in Athens 2004.

Brazil is about to receive the confirmation from FIFA for the World Cup in 2014, as the only remaining candidate. The committee comments after the visit were very positive as well. Let's wait and see the result.

From now up to 2016 there are 9 years for improvement and development in RIO. I don't know from where you took this comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Chicago and Tokyo mess up their respective bids (highly unlikely, but it's a rather nice thought), which city do you think the IOC will pick?

RIO de Janeiro has chances even if Chicago and Tokyo do not mess up. Olympics is not only about high tech cities and economic giants. The touristic potential, natural beauty, hospitality and open-heartedness of the people make a huge impact in anyone's visit of a country -- and in these aspects RIO is the front runner.

The fact that it will be the FIRST Olympics in South America ever after more than 100 years of modern Olympic history is also a great confirmation of its strong chances. This is the third bid for RIO in the last decades and by far the most realistic.

The Pan American and Para-Olympic Pan American Games in 2007 were the biggest and most successful ever. 2014 Brazil Fifa World Cup is to be confirmed soon.

Rio successfully hosted one of the most important international conferences ever, the ECO 92, considering the aspect of the highest participation of chiefs of state and socio-environmental NGO's.

Taking all the aspects at stake, there is no doubt that it will be difficult to defeat RIO 2016 for any candidate in the world today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...