Inside dope on Rio 2016

[Tom_Doak]

There is a golf channel employee that has seen all of the interviews as he filmed them.  Think he might have scoop?

Mike:

The Golf Channel guys had to sign their own non-disclosure agreement.  None of what they've filmed will see the light of day until 2016.  And, in the time between presentations when the jury discussed what they had just seen, the film crew had to shut off the cameras and leave the room so that the deliberations would be strictly private ... so I don't think they have much of a scoop to share.  Wish I'd had the same chance to see the other presentations, though, it would have been fascinating.

P.S.  Jeff is also correct, the proceedings had to be filmed for the city by law, since this is a public project.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good luck, Tom.

My guess is that the consensus being sought is for public consumption only, indicative of the panelists' shared desire to have no one person take the blame/flack in event of a problem.  Inside the room, on the other hand, I assume there is a clear heirarchy, i.e. that one panelist/decision-maker is the key; and the delay, I think, is because that one key decision-maker failed to reach out beforehand to all the many other stakeholders and play nice, i.e. make them think that their views/opinions were being factored into the decision.  

[JMEvensky]

Good luck, Tom.

My guess is that the consensus being sought is for public consumption only, indicative of the panelists' shared desire to have no one person take the blame/flack in event of a problem.  Inside the room, on the other hand, I assume there is a clear heirarchy, i.e. that one panelist/decision-maker is the key; and the delay, I think, is because that one key decision-maker failed to reach out beforehand to all the many other stakeholders and play nice, i.e. make them think that their views/opinions were being factored into the decision.  

Peter,I thought the same thing.Cynicism is a bitch,no?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I would think the cameraman could discern a difference between the presentations - that would be hard to cover by a non-disclosure.
And there are still others that got to see the footage - for a number of technical reasons - insure footage, archiving properly....

Why weren't the cameras on during their deliberation - isn't that would the public should see?

Good luck

[Kalen Braley]

I would think the cameraman could discern a difference between the presentations - that would be hard to cover by a non-disclosure.
And there are still others that got to see the footage - for a number of technical reasons - insure footage, archiving properly....

Why weren't the cameras on during their deliberation - isn't that would the public should see?

Good luck

Mike,

I suspect its like any other gov't entity/corporation/committee, etc.

Frank discussion behind closed doors and then the sanatized synopsis of what happened after the fact for the press.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

My guess is that the public should see if any participants offered any unusual inducements.  With that, it would be obvious if the committee went with XX after being offered a "bazillion dollars."

Of course, that is only a small part of the reason.  If there are any legitimate offers or concerns, those would be caught on tape for future inclusion in a final contract.

It seems interesting to me that Brad says there are some concerns on the project managment side, with fees, and what not, that were not spelled out early.  Of course, it could be that the "on site" guys like TD and Gil gave them a different take on what CM would mean and/or cost, and that is something to consider.

Well, it is what it is.  I know the feeling of uncertainty (and certainly of defeat, which is even worse than uncertainty) and feel for the gca's.  However, in defense of the committee, its a hard process for them, too.  They went worldwide, got some great proposals and now have to pick one.  I don't feel any real cyncism towards them, even if there are some glitches.

[David Kelly]

NBCUniversal owns the Golf Channel and holds the rights to the 2016 Olympics. Presumably they would cover the golf competition in 2016 on the Golf Channel.  In other words don't expect the resulting documentary that will eventually air to show much of anything that would be controversial or negative about the process and I doubt they would show us much from the designs that were not chosen.

[Adam Clayman]

Bradley, Since we are speculating, Do you think it's possible that there was either too much media anticipation, for the results, or not enough? If too much, they might figure holding off would create even greater buzz, or, if there wasn't enough, by delaying, they could create more buzz?

Tom, Do you think you are the only finalist who thinks seeing the other presentations would be cool? In other words....Is Gil as geeky as you? 

[Michael George]

<sub>Mike:

The Golf Channel guys had to sign their own non-disclosure agreement.  None of what they've filmed will see the light of day until 2016.  And, in the time between presentations when the jury discussed what they had just seen, the film crew had to shut off the cameras and leave the room so that the deliberations would be strictly private ... so I don't think they have much of a scoop to share.  Wish I'd had the same chance to see the other presentations, though, it would have been fascinating.

P.S.  Jeff is also correct, the proceedings had to be filmed for the city by law, since this is a public project.</sub>

Not released until 2016.  Is this the Warren Commission?

[JC Urbina]

I wonder if they will also document the building process much like Golf Channel covered Trump when he was building his course in Scotland?

Creating Golf's Olympic Dream. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Probably not releasing it until 2016 to have some original Oly related programming on NBC or whatever.  Does it really matter to most how they came to whatever decision they make?  No, but it will matter during and just prior to the olympics when they can have the gca explaining stuff.

[Michael George]

I wonder if they will also document the building process much like Golf Channel covered Trump when he was building his course in Scotland?

Creating Golf's Olympic Dream.  

Didn't Jack say he wanted to build "the Nicklaus Olympic Golf Course"    That would be "Creating the Nicklaus Olympic Golf Course".

Also, Jeff, I agree that was the reasoning.  The quote just reminded me of the movie JFK where Kevin Costner says that he hopes his kids are around to see the day when the records are released.  I thought it was funny, but not the first time that others didn't.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Michael,

Hey I live in DFW, surrounded by Kennedy conspiracy types.  I can already see a 40 year controversy erupt over the gca selection, at least here on gca.com.......and, surprised there weren't any odds on this choice in Vegas, although Geoff Shac did have a poll.

[Scott Stearns]

"The Announcement"

Jim Gray wasn't avail until March...

[Brad Klein]

Adam,

I really doubt the delay has anything to do with building media attention or anticipation. They are stuck, this committee, with different agendas of evaluation. The Brazilians have to pay for it and surely are concerned about cost, management and what to do with the place "the morning after." Some might be looking for a stern championship test, but that's got to be less of a local issue than an international-golf one, and that side of things isn't paying a penny for the golf course or its design.

I would not discount the management personalities of the four principals. I also suspect that they were very surprised to see the different ways the site issues were addressed, and that a bold, unconventional approach might have impressed at least a few of them -- enough to force a reassessment and to cause a reshuffling of the deck.

Brad

[Bill Brightly]

Adam,


I would not discount the management personalities of the four principals. I also suspect that they were very surprised to see the different ways the site issues were addressed, and that a bold, unconventional approach might have impressed at least a few of them -- enough to force a reassessment and to cause a reshuffling of the deck.

Brad

This is exactly what I thought might have happened when we first heard about the delay. And if one or two of the committee members went into the process expecting to pick a "name" but were given reason to pause by the presentations, isn't this a good thing? In the long run, isn't this worth a 30-day review?

[Kalen Braley]

Or perhaps they fell in love with the footage from the Phoenix Open going on that week and seeing all that "stadium-style seating" all over the course...

....and then were disappointed when no-one's proposal included something like that?  Although I'm guessing at least 1 or 2 of them included a fair amount of containment mounding in their plan which is better than nothing right?   

[Howard Riefs]

Brad -

Were you (and the finalists, if you heard) surprised that the decision is by consensus and not majority?  To Peter's below point, is there one panelist who holds the most sway/influence in the decision-making process?

My guess is that the consensus being sought is for public consumption only, indicative of the panelists' shared desire to have no one person take the blame/flack in event of a problem.  Inside the room, on the other hand, I assume there is a clear heirarchy, i.e. that one panelist/decision-maker is the key; and the delay, I think, is because that one key decision-maker failed to reach out beforehand to all the many other stakeholders and play nice, i.e. make them think that their views/opinions were being factored into the decision.  

[Jerry Kluger]

I will be very impressed if they actually give a well-reasoned explanation of exactly what made the winner's presentation worthy of selection over the others.

[Tim Nugent]

While the delay does not surprise me in the least, what does is the fact that they didn't allow more time for review of the presentations and proposals. They should have allowed for at least a week to go over the proposals and come to a consensus.  A day just doesn't cut it, especially if not all parties are very experienced in golf development.

 You can sometimes get a sense of who the frontrunner is going in by the order of the presentations. The frontrunner is scheduled last so that he can respond to any issues brought up by the predecessors. Does anyone know what the order was?

[Brad Klein]

Howard,

"Surprise" is a fair characterization of the responses I have detected.

As for the question of whether one selector is more influential, I am certain that one is convinced he is. It is not yet clear if others share that view. I suspect that's about half of what is going on here.

The other half is just good old fashioned difficulty reaching a complex decision when you are dealing with eight really smart, sophisticated design teams. Nobody ad libbed this one. They were all polished, well-thought out and creative, though probably not equally so.

By the way, the order was alphabetical by first letter of design team.

[Randy Thompson]

Pure specualtion but I see two in favor of the biggest, best, well re-known, approach with no thought to cost and the city and the investor, the real owners looking towards something more realistic that insures a profit before and after and allows space for the local middle class to have excess. Fifteen million dollar construction budgets will require 100 plus greens fees for a positive irr, and that prohibits the little local guy access, which ainīt gonna go over big in a socialist country. And  it doesnīt send a good message world wide with more courses closing every day and less people playing.

[Adam Lawrence]

While the delay does not surprise me in the least, what does is the fact that they didn't allow more time for review of the presentations and proposals. They should have allowed for at least a week to go over the proposals and come to a consensus.  A day just doesn't cut it, especially if not all parties are very experienced in golf development.

 You can sometimes get a sense of who the frontrunner is going in by the order of the presentations. The frontrunner is scheduled last so that he can respond to any issues brought up by the predecessors. Does anyone know what the order was?

The order was alphabetical. Thomson Perrett were last. It is hard to conceive that they were the front runners.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am guessing that IF the decision hasn't been made, then its bad news for whatever underdog wowed them in the presentation.  The wow factor and details and good feelings may start to disappear and "logic" - i.e. - the top ranked firm or a consensus firm that no one really objects to - might come back to the forefront.  In other words, the impulse buy factor goes away, and the power of the presentation is null and void, to a degree.

But, I also suspect that the decision has been made, if not last Friday, then a few days later after they sat down again, and one firm is sending in contracts and other fee proposals and conditions, while the others are in the dark, and will be told with the rest of the world.  At least, that is the way it often happens in city jobs.

As to who interviewed first, there is always a lot of talk among firms as to whether its best to go first, last or middle.  To the degree that the presentation and design sell the project more than any pre proposal politicking, it doesn't really matter.  If TD goes first, the second presenter is compared to him and one is essentially out.  That "winner" is then compared to the third guy, so two are out, and so on.  The last guy only needs to beat whoever beat everyone else, in essence.  Only in a few occaisons - and this may be one - does a committee get bowled over by more than one firm, and no matter how good, at some point, they have to like one above the others.

As to evaluating the proposals, Brad brings up a point - they are all evaluating from different perspectives.  Probably most cannot evaluate a routing without fly throughs and the like, and maybe not even then.  Besides, unlike here, they are probably inclined to believe any of the firms, with their worldwide reputations, can design a great golf course.  Their preference should be and is based on who hit their "hot button" list the hardest.

Lastly, I still don't see the big whup about sending a future message.  If the course is too tough, just fill in some of the bunkers and back tees and show a plan for wider fw cuts, to make it more playable.  The only real design issue I see is that if the greens are really tough, those would be more expensive to rebuild, so I see flatter greens than you might expect for a championship venue.  At the same time, the design wouldn't likely be aimed at the Tiger and Phil crowd, because I don't think they are really wanting to embarass whoever the equivalent of the Jamacian Bobsled Team might be.

Overall, there will certainly be some costs associated with the tournament that don't send any particular message to the golfing world.  All the one time extra costs add up, but I doubt that any of the gca's design styles is going to adversely affect the cost as much as infrastructure, etc.  And all may have to move a lot of earth because of the spectator requirements, etc.

In the end we have to remember that we may be the 1500 most interested bystanders out there.....  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Couldn't any of the judges have gone either way - wanting a big name or a practical/smart/great design?
I can see the city wanting Norman/Nicklaus or Gil/Tom
I can see the IGF wanting Nicklaus/Norman or Tom/Gil

One of the presentations blowing away the others could have caused the delay.

Depending on how or if they score(d) can have a big impact.
Was everyone picking a favorite or were they doing it like the olympics based on points.
If they used points they would see something similar to how the Russian judged the Americans in gymnastics..
i.e. one judge gave Nicklaus a 10 and Doak a 9 and the other judge gave Doak a 10 and Nicklaus a 0 (if the judge was Tommy N.)
They may have added up the points and realized who the big fish was in the room and didn't like it.

OSSS!