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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT