Anatomy of a Super vote

May 22, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
If you’re wondering how the voting action went behind closed doors for the 2012 Super Bowl site Tuesday in Atlanta, this is what several team owners and executives told IBJ.

Indianapolis, followed by Phoenix, then Houston made separate 15-minute pitches. Only four members of the local community were allowed in the room, and only two were allowed to speak. No mayors or governors were permitted in the room.

After each team made its presentation before the 32 owners, its representatives were taken to a separate room, away from the owners and away from each other. They would stay there until notified of a decision by an ominous-looking league representative.

With all three cities in the running, the owners took a first vote. Since no city obtained 75 percent of the vote, a second vote was taken to allow owners to reconsider their decision and throw their weight behind another candidate city and the NFL team that lives there.

Since 75 percent of the vote was not obtained on the second ballot, the third place finisher on the second ballot was eliminated. Goodbye Houston.

With two teams remaining, a third vote was taken, with a 75 percent majority required to win. Since neither Indianapolis nor Phoenix had the three-fourths majority, it went to a fourth vote, where a simple majority would win.

But after the third vote, sources inside the room said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell almost called Indy the winner, but then was informed the city was short of the 75 percent.

On the fourth vote, Indianapolis beat Phoenix by grabbing at least the 17 votes required to win. The Arizona Republic reported Indianapolis beat Phoenix by a 17-15 vote. But sources inside the room said it was closer to a 19-13 or 20-12 vote.

“Indianapolis almost had the three-fourths majority, from what I take from it,” said one owner, who asked not to be identified. “That’s why Roger [Goodell] initially thought they won on the third ballot.”
ADVERTISEMENT
  • editing: The word is allowed, not aloud, when you are talking about permission.

    Use it's as a contraction for it is. The possessive of it is its
  • Interesting insider info.. but I think you mean allowed.. not aloud in the second paragraph.

    C
  • Sounds like either the Phoenix newspaper lied to their readers, or their source lied, or a team owner wanted them to feel better about their loss.

    A win is a win, but it was strange how we supposedly were one vote short of a super majority (24 votes) in the third round and then only won 17-15 in the fourth. A final vote of 19 or 20 makes a little more sense.
  • I can't remember where I heard it, whether it was on TV or radio, but I remember hearing yesterday that it was a 23-9 vote on the fourth ballot. That sounds even more reasonable to me. Maybe this was even the vote on the third ballot, Indy falling just one vote short of the 24 (75 percent) needed, and so Goodell might have thought we had won then.
  • Thanks to Riley (and CDH) for pointing out the errors of my ways. I must have been blinded by lack of sleep. All fixed now. Thanks again.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT