# 2016 Summer Olympics: Round 3



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Select your choice for the host city of the 2016 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games.


----------



## lunarCarpet (Feb 8, 2008)

GOOOO CHICAGO!!!!!!


----------



## aleochi (Jun 16, 2008)

RIO RIO RIO!


----------



## Wey (Jul 8, 2008)

Rio!!! :banana::banana::banana:


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Chicago :banana:


----------



## ~MELVINDONESIA~ (Dec 12, 2008)

Where is Tokyo?
Is it eliminated?

Waw....GO CHICAGO!


----------



## Kaiser (Oct 16, 2005)

MADRID!


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I dunno. I'm watching the costs of Canada hosting a Winter Olympics the junior of the Summer Olympics) skyrocket through the roof (mostly due to exhorbitant security costs) and I have to re-consider whether I would ever want the real Summer Olympics in my town. The cost now is mind boggling.


----------



## Luk's (Sep 16, 2008)

GO GO RIO!!! m))


----------



## snow is red (May 7, 2007)

Round 3 already ?

May I ask how did these 2 make it to the final ? Were they selected by the Olympic committee ?
Thanks.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

02tonyl said:


> Round 3 already ?
> 
> May I ask how did these 2 make it to the final ? Were they selected by the Olympic committee ?
> Thanks.


dude this is an online poll at SSC. Nothing to do with the IOC.
After the polls for Round 1 and 2, the city with the least votes is eliminated.


----------



## Waldenstrom (Dec 13, 2006)

Rio for me.


----------



## Jase Calvin (Sep 16, 2002)

I like Chicago, but I'm going with Rio since the U.S. just had the Summer Olympics in '96.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I've checked the news wires and found no word of Tokyo being eliminated. Could someone provide a link?


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

isaidso said:


> I've checked the news wires and found no word of Tokyo being eliminated. Could someone provide a link?


The reason is that its widely considered that Rio and Chicago are the only two cities that have a real chance of hosting 2016. Madrid and Tokyo simply wont cut it. 

Similar to London and Paris for 2012 and Beijing, Toronto and Paris for 2008.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Alphaville said:


> The reason is that its *widely considered* that Rio and Chicago are the only two cities that have a real chance of hosting 2016. Madrid and Tokyo simply wont cut it.


Chicago and Rio are widely considered the only cities with a real chance according to who? *The last major report that was published had Tokyo as the front runner.* I'd still need some credible links, otherwise this is all just some random person's perception. This is all smelling like some grade school debate. Links please!


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

isaidso said:


> Chicago and Rio are widely considered the only cities with a real chance according to who? *The last major report that was published had Tokyo as the front runner.* I'd still need some credible links, otherwise this is all just some random person's perception. This is all smelling like some grade school debate. Links please!


Chicago has the lure of US broadcasting money, and Obama mania will only contribute further. 

Rio has the lure of being the first South American city to host, and only the third in the southern hemisphere (after Melbourne 1956 and Sydney 2000 - the first non-Australian host). 

Tokyo is just slightly below the two, as some could say its too soon after Beijing 2008 to be heading back to Asia, and generally the IOC seems extremely enthusiastic about the 2018 Winter Olympics being held in South Korea. 

Madrid is just not going to happen. Too soon for Europe after London 2012 and too soon for Spain after Barcelona 1992. 

Check out GamesBids.com and the sentiment there is pretty much the same.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

^^ Sentiment? As I expected. No credible sources, just the opinions of some members of the public that have absolutely no political influence on the IOC. GamesBids.com is an interesting site, but that is all it is: interesting. They have no voting power, connections, or influence on IOC voting delegates. Thank you for clearing that up. This thread may be fun, but it's not anything more than that. It's fluff and not based on anything relevant to the actual outcome.

I'll move on to a more credible thread.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

isaidso said:


> I've checked the news wires and found no word of Tokyo being eliminated. Could someone provide a link?


A link is not available since this is only a mock poll. In this section you will find Round 1 and 2 where Madrid and Tokyo received the least amount of votes and were subsequently eliminated from our mock online SSC poll.

I do hope this answers your question.

Visit www.gamesbids.com for all your Olympic needs.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> i give up. some people are just slow


Slow? Why because I haven't found a credible link as fast as you have. OK then mister. Please could you provide a current research study based on IOC selection criteria and IOC delegate voting politics that points to Chicago and Rio being the only credible contenders. Pretty please! There, I even asked nicely. I guess I'm just not as quick as you at being able to find this report that's supposedly being zoomed over the world news wires.

*Let's see who's slow. OK, I'm waiting...............*

And a side note: people with university degrees, people who have written business plans for Canadian Business 500 companies, and people with 140+ IQ aren't what you call 'slow'. Try again. Seems like you just insult people that aren't gullible enough to listen to a bunch of hot air.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

He called you slow - a bit harsh to be honest - because you seemed to have missed the entire point of this thread!

This is clearly an online poll treating SSC members as if they were the IOC. Rounds 1 and 2 of this virtual vote have already eliminated Tokyo and Madrid. This is the final.

It has nothing to do with the real voting or the real bidding process, it's just a game. Blimey, it didn't take much figuring out and I didn't see Rounds 1 and 2!!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Oh, and I voted for Chicago.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

RobH said:


> He called you slow - a bit harsh to be honest - because you seemed to have missed the entire point of this thread!


All I was doing was asking for clarification as to whether this was based on anything credible or whether this was just a fun thread for SSC people to speculate on. That's a fair thing to want clarification on. Someone logging on for the first time, and clicking on this thread is not going to be clear on this point even if they read from post #1 on ward. I did make an effort to read through most of the posts, but didn't find what I was looking for, so I asked. I must have skipped post #11.

I don't have any issue with people wanting to engage in this, but people should be allowed to ask that question without being insulted.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Since you posted in the Round Two thread, I'd have thought you might have got the jist of it by now!


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

OK. I've also posted about 40 times since then, and don't read every single post as I'm usually doing 3 or 4 things on the computer at the same time. I should have read it more closely.

I thought it was actually following the actual selection process. I'm also used to a higher level of civility and politeness, but it's to be expected in an open forum, I suppose. You, at least, are respectful and courteous.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

You're not slow. Its just people have been asking that question and have not realized this is just for fun. I get edgy at times. Just ignore me. I am usually reasonably polite and apologize for any disrespect.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Ok. No hard feelings. I should have read more carefully. Enjoy your thread.


----------



## zazo (Dec 5, 2005)

This is a joke... what are you doing?? chosing a candidate city?? jjjjjjj your cracy!! it will happen in October and will be selected by a small number of people, not a group of nationalists wich only look at their city not considering many thigs. This has no validity in no point of view jjjj lol


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Then don't bother posting in it! Christ, it's just a game, nobody said it had any validity!


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

Chicago, for sure. Not that Rio wouldn't be great, but Chicago may never get another opportunity again. The world is becoming increasing competitive to hold this event, Rio’s going to get its chance in the future. Tokyo doesn’t make any sense at all since it’s already held the Olympics once, and was awarded it in 1940 before that, but because of Japan's stupidity was forced to forfeit the event.


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

Onn said:


> Chicago, for sure. Not that Rio wouldn't be great, but *Chicago may never get another opportunity again.* *The world is becoming increasing competitive to hold this event, Rio’s going to get its chance in the future. T*okyo doesn’t make any sense at all since it’s already held the Olympics once, and was awarded it in 1940 before that, but because of Japan's stupidity was forced to forfeit the event.


And this can't be applied to the United States as a whole, in reverse? South America (an entire continent) has NEVER hosted the Olympics, while the US has hosted a total of EIGHT times (winter and summer), the last in 1996 and 2002 respectively. 

There are alot of cities that may never get a chance, Chicago is getting its chance, and it can always bid again. I believe its the best chance the US has, along with San Francisco, and to a lesser extent, New York. No more Atlanta's...

PS; Tokyo hosting 1964 is no reason for it to never host again. Los Angeles hosted 1984 after 1932, and London's 2012 Olympics will be the THIRD time the Olympics have been held there. If anything, its a good thing for Tokyo's 2016 bid, as it will draw the "nostalgic vote".


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

Alphaville said:


> And this can't be applied to the United States as a whole, in reverse? South America (an entire continent) has NEVER hosted the Olympics, while the US has hosted a total of EIGHT times (winter and summer), the last in 1996 and 2002 respectively.


Yes, and if Chicago doesn’t get the Olympics this time the event is not coming back here for a long time. The world will be too competitive for the next Olympics after that, with Rio, Cape Town, Doha, and anyone else that's throws their hat into the ring. By next time those cities will be ready to hold the event, and since only one city can hold it at a time, there's going to be a long waiting list. The Olympics may not come back to North America for 40 years. It's now or 40 years.



> There are alot of cities that may never get a chance, Chicago is getting its chance, and it can always bid again. I believe its the best chance the US has, along with San Francisco, and to a lesser extent, New York. No more Atlanta's...


The problem is Chicago is only going to bid again if the right people are in control of the city. The mayor that's heading this effort won't be around to bid next time. Chicago is not a center of economic activity either, it's not a city that gets a whole lot of international attention. It could bid again, but it will be lost in a sea of other proposals. New York will probably hold an Olympics sometime this century, maybe San Francisco. Personally I think Philadelphia will be a leading contender at some point.



> PS; Tokyo hosting 1964 is no reason for it to never host again. Los Angeles hosted 1984 after 1932, and London's 2012 Olympics will be the THIRD time the Olympics have been held there. If anything, its a good thing for Tokyo's 2016 bid, as it will draw the "nostalgic vote".


Well, it's not a reason for them to not hold the event, no. Nothing says that Tokyo can't again, or London can't for a third time. I'm not sure that's fair though to the other city's out there that haven't hosted an Olympics at all. I don't care if Britain gets it again or Japan gets the Olympics for a second or third time, but they should pick another city. If Tokyo gets it again, the same people who went in 1964 to the Olympics could be going again in 2016! The only reason Los Angeles was picked twice is because no one else seriously wanted to hold the Olympics in 1984.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

A few more hours to vote.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

Rio 2016!!


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

Onn said:


> Yes, and if Chicago doesn’t get the Olympics this time the event is not coming back here for a long time.


I'd argue the longer the US waits for the Olympics, the more its chances increases. The IOC gets huge profits from the American television broadcast rights.



> The world will be too competitive for the next Olympics after that, with Rio, Cape Town, Doha, and anyone else that's throws their hat into the ring.


Not especially. More places are opening up, but 2016 is clearly less competitive than the 2012 or 2008 race.



> The Olympics may not come back to North America for 40 years. It's now or 40 years.


Rubbish. 



> The problem is Chicago is only going to bid again if the right people are in control of the city.


This is the case for any city.



> Chicago is not a center of economic activity either, it's not a city that gets a whole lot of international attention.


Are you kidding? Chicago is one of the most recognisable American cities. From an Australian perspective, anyway. It's an extremely important city.



> It could bid again, but it will be lost in a sea of other proposals. New York will probably hold an Olympics sometime this century, maybe San Francisco. Personally I think Philadelphia will be a leading contender at some point.


SF, yes. Philadelphia, I doubt.



> Nothing says that Tokyo can't again, or London can't for a third time.


London IS for a third time.


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

Alphaville said:


> I'd argue the longer the US waits for the Olympics, the more its chances increases. The IOC gets huge profits from the American television broadcast rights.


True, but we have to have a serious proposal togther. I don't expect to win on the first shot, but maybe. That's one thing we have going for us, the funding for the games, yeah. 40 years might be an overstatment.



> Are you kidding? Chicago is one of the most recognisable American cities. From an Australian perspective, anyway. It's an extremely important city.


Depends where you’re from. Australia’s like Canada to the US, we’re kind of like cousins. I'm familiar with some of the Canadian and Australian cities more than ones in Europe, because in some ways there more like my own cities. But if you’re from Europe you would probably not think Chicago at all, but New York or Las Vegas. And if you’re in Asia you would think Los Angeles (or maybe San Francisco). Chicago’s problem is that it is smack dab in the middle of the country.



> SF, yes. Philadelphia, I doubt.


Depends, Philadelphia is one of the most rapid growing cities here. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they wanted an Olympics to put them on the map, especially being in close proximity to New York. San Francisco might be a good place to hold them also, if everything goes smoothly in the city's development, they could be in a strong position. New York will probably hold one this century, simply because they haven't yet. :lol:



> London IS for a third time.


I know, I'm just pointing out that there is no rule against this from happening.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Onn said:


> Chicago is not a center of economic activity either...


??? A little more education is called for. Even a cursory look at wikipedia would make the above statement appear nonsensical. What planet do you live in??

_Chicago has the third largest gross metropolitan product in the nation — approximately $440 billion according to 2007 estimates.[33] The city has also been rated as having the most balanced economy in the United States, due to its high level of diversification.[34] Chicago was named the fourth most important business center in the world in the MasterCard Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index.[35] Additionally, the Chicago metropolitan area recorded the greatest number of new or expanded corporate facilities in the United States for six of the past seven years.[36] In 2008, Chicago placed 16th on the UBS list of the world's richest cities.[37]

Chicago is a major financial center with the second largest central business district in the U.S. The city is the headquarters of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (the Seventh District of the Federal Reserve). The city is also home to three major financial and futures exchanges, including the Chicago Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the "Merc"), which includes the former Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT). Perhaps due to the influence of the Chicago school of economics, the city also has markets trading unusual contracts such as emissions (on the Chicago Climate Exchange) and equity style indices (on the US Futures Exchange).

In addition to the exchanges, Chicago and the surrounding areas house many major brokerage firms and insurance companies, such as Allstate and Zurich North America. The city and its surrounding metropolitan area are home to the second largest labor pool in the United States with approximately 4.25 million workers.[38] Chicago has the largest high-technology and information-technology industry employment in the United States.[39]

Manufacturing, printing, publishing, and food processing also play major roles in the city's economy. Several medical products and services companies are headquartered in the Chicago area, including Baxter International, Abbott Laboratories, and the Healthcare Financial Services division of General Electric. Moreover, the construction of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, which helped move goods from the Great Lakes south on the Mississippi River, and of the railroads in the 19th century made the city a major transportation center in the United States. In the 1840s, Chicago became a major grain port, and in the 1850s and 1860s Chicago's pork and beef industry expanded. As the major meat companies grew in Chicago many, such as Armour and Company, created global enterprises. Though the meatpacking industry currently plays a lesser role in the city's economy, Chicago continues to be a major transportation and distribution center.

Late in the 19th Century, Chicago was part of the bicycle craze, as home to Western Wheel Company, which introduced stamping to the production process and significantly reduced costs,[40] while early in the 20th Century, the city was part of the automobile revolution, hosting the brass era car builder Bugmobile, which was founded there in 1907.[41]

Chicago is also a major convention destination. The city's main convention center is McCormick Place. With its four interconnected buildings, it is the third largest convention center in the world. Chicago also ranks third in the U.S. (behind Las Vegas and Orlando) in number of conventions hosted annually.[42] In addition, Chicago is home to eleven Fortune 500 companies, while the metropolitan area hosts an additional 21 Fortune 500 companies.[43] The state of Illinois is home to 66 Fortune 1000 companies.[44] Chicago also hosts 12 Fortune Global 500 companies and 17 Financial Times 500 companies. The city claims one Dow 30 company as well: aerospace giant Boeing, which moved its headquarters from Seattle to the Chicago Loop in 2001..._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago


----------



## Wey (Jul 8, 2008)

So... I guess Rio won in this make-belief, right??


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

tpe said:


> ??? A little more education is called for. Even a cursory look at wikipedia would make the above statement appear nonsensical. What planet do you live in??
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago


Why are we talking about the late 18th and 19th century and you're trusting Wikipedia for your information? Yeah Chicago’s large in American terms, but on world terms that's not so. Forget statistics, few large international institution's American wing are based in Chicago! It’s an American city! When I said a financial center, I didn’t mean 1st or 2nd, I was talking about known on a global scale. A center of commerce!


----------



## briker (Aug 21, 2008)

This tread is pointless as the other cities are still in the race as well.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

briker said:


> This tread is pointless as the other cities are still in the race as well.


eish.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Onn said:


> Why are we talking about the late 18th and 19th century and you're trusting Wikipedia for your information? Yeah Chicago’s large in American terms, but on world terms that's not so. Forget statistics, few large international institution's American wing are based in Chicago! It’s an American city! When I met a financial center, I didn’t mean 1st or 2nd, I was talking about known on a global scale. A center of commerce!


Do you know how old the Chicago futures exchanges are? Can you tell me which is the oldest Futures exchange in the world? Do you know where Futures trading first flourished? And pray tell which city was the center of American meatpacking at that time? And did you know that Chicago was the fastest growing city in the world in the 19th century?

Take a look at the history of Futures Trading:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Santos.futures

As for meat-packing:

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/804.html

And I quote:

_"From the Civil War until the 1920s Chicago was the country's largest meatpacking center and the acknowledged headquarters of the industry. "_

There must have been a reason why Chicago was called "pork butcher to the world", correct?

So please check your facts before you spout out such uinmitigated rubbish. Don't mistake ignorance for knowledge. The nerve of these people... Do you even know an iota of Business and Finance?


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

I like to see Rio win it all.


----------



## 3521usa (Dec 23, 2007)

I'm cool with Rio winning this one. Chicago is going for the Oct. 2nd win.. :cheers:


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Chicago, so the world can experience our weather!


----------



## nordisk celt83 (Dec 2, 2008)

Chicago, it's time to see it back in the states!


----------



## nordisk celt83 (Dec 2, 2008)

Double post, but Rio would be pretty slick too!


----------



## BOL (Apr 1, 2008)

¡Madrid!


----------



## Onn (Oct 11, 2008)

tpe said:


> Do you know how old the Chicago futures exchanges are? Can you tell me which is the oldest Futures exchange in the world? Do you know where Futures trading first flourished? And pray tell which city was the center of American meatpacking at that time? And did you know that Chicago was the fastest growing city in the world in the 19th century?
> 
> Take a look at the history of Futures Trading:
> 
> ...


I apologize, you're right that I know little of business and finance.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Rio de Janeiro beats Chicago 33 - 31 and is selected as the:
*SSC host city choice for the 2016 Olympic games.*


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Onn said:


> W*hy are we talking about the late 18th and 19th century *and you're trusting Wikipedia for your information? Yeah Chicago’s large in American terms,* but on world terms that's not so*. Forget statistics, few large international institution's American wing are based in Chicago! It’s an American city! When I said a financial center, I didn’t mean 1st or 2nd, I was talking about known on a global scale. A center of commerce!


:lol::lol::nuts: :crazy:


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

If Madrid keeps persisiting they're a shoe-in for 2020.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Onn said:


> I apologize, you're right that I know little of business and finance.


Well, I also apologize for having spoken too harshly. Patience is sometimes not my strong point, and I regret not having more of it in my last post.

Chicago or Rio will do fine, IMO.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

gonzo said:


> If Madrid keeps persisiting they're a shoe-in for 2020.


if you say so.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> if you say so.


Thanks, I do.

It's very credible, just like this poll.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

gonzo said:


> Thanks, I do.
> 
> It's very credible, just like this poll.


Just like Paris. Keep bidding and you'll be a shoe-in. 

This poll has nothing to do with it. Its a mock online poll. Bidding persistently and eventually winning is not the reality.


----------



## pedro_sousa (Dec 17, 2008)

Chicago!


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> Just like Paris...


..and Paris would be the heavy favourite for 2016 if it weren't for the continental shift. :yes:

Provided Madrid maintains its competitive product the stars will be aligned for 2020. :banana:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

gonzo said:


> ..and Paris would be the heavy favourite for 2016 if it weren't for the continental shift. :yes:
> 
> Provided Madrid maintains its competitive product the stars will be aligned for 2020. :banana:


Paris a heavy favorite after London 2012, also from the EU?
Which world do you live in? You certainly have some very original ideas.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^ I can't help you if you don't know how to read.

I obviously don't know without a shadow of a doubt that it will be Madrid. Others have been assertive about a city like me and yet you single me out. 

Oh I get it...._Cape Town_ 2020. :|


----------

