Ilya Bronsky. Clean-up by Dirty Methods. Dick Pound. Part.1
The flames of the doping scandal are being fanned, with the media relentlessly bringing it up. All this does not remain unnoticed, enticing to try to analyze what has happened and to bring to light certain common factors. The things to begin with are to single out the names and organizations most often mentioned in the media. And here is what we end up with – the World Anti-Doping Agency, International Association of Athletics Federations, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the 2016 Rio Olympics, Canadian Dick Pound (Richard William Duncan “Dick” Pound), Craig Reedie from Britain, the WADA President, New Zealander David Howman, Director General of the WADA who currently resides in Canada, British Sebastian Newbold Coe, Baron Coe, CH KBE (Lord Coe), American Travis Tygart, USADA’s CEO, Canadian Richard McLaren, a member of the special committee to investigate the allegations of doping use in Russian sports, and Puerto-Rican Richard Carrión.
Also, it is worth reviewing what is known from the open sources about these individuals’ doings and what were the possible motives that urged them to partake in the seminal events.
We’ll take a look at who are the people on the frontline of bringing money to the IOC and combating doping. We begin with the IOC member, the first WADA President Dick Pound.
Canadian Dick Pound (Richard William Duncan “Dick” Pound)
To understand better the chain of events that would happen in the life of the talented Canadian, it makes sense to turn to Dick Pound’s biography. The man has been involved in various scandals around the investigation of the corruption during the selection of the Olympics host city, as well as in public accusations of doping by some athletes; therefore his biography must be absolutely transparent and utmost open.
Pound’s official biography is available on the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) website, but on the website of the WADA, the organization he was the founder of and was its first President, Pound’s biography couldn’t be found at all.
In Russia, to avoid conflict of interests, the high-ranking officials must declare information about the property they own, income, business deals, investments in stocks and securities, as well as about their families, children and close relatives. At this point, one begins thinking highly of such approach. The sketchy biographies of the top level members of the International Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency go against the declared principles of openness and business transparency declared by both the IOC and the WADA. The risk of hiding information about business relations is high and that could or can influence the independence of opinions and decision making. All this circumstances can lead to the conflict of interests which is unacceptable for the officials of such high ranking. The fact that information about the dealings in the past and the connections is not open to public and is being covered in every way, makes one think inthe most pessimistic way about the goals these actions have been taken to pursue. We know a lot about the corruption scandals linked to the selection of the Olympics host cities, but it is impossible to learn from the biographies about the role and opinion of a certain IOC member when the time to select the next host city comes. For that reason we’ll take a note of the versions of Dick Pound’s biography published on the IOC’s website and Wikipedia.
https://www.olympic.org/mr-richard-w-pound-q-c-ad-e
Mr Richard W. POUND, Q.C., AD. E. (official biography)
ENTRY IN THE IOC 1978
BORN 22 MARCH 1942
EDUCATION
McGill University (Canada) (Commerce 1962 and Law 1967) and Sir George Williams University (Canada) (Arts 1963); chartered accountant (1964); lawyer (1968)
CAREER
Lawyer (Queen's Counsel); Fellow Chartered Professional Accountant (FCPA); author
SPORTS ADMINISTRATION
Secretary General (1968-1976) then President (1977-1982) of the Canadian Olympic Committee; Deputy Chef de Mission of the Canadian Olympic delegation in Munich (1972); former Secretary of the Canadian Squash Rackets Association; former member of the Pan-American Sports Organisation (PASO) Executive Commission and Legislative Commission; Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) (1999-2007); International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) (2007-); IOC Representative on the WADA Foundation Board (2008-)
IOC HISTORY
Member of the Executive Board (1983-1987, 1992-1996); Vice-President of the IOC (1987-1991, 1996-2000); Chairman of the following Commissions: Protection of the Olympic Games (1981-1983), Television Rights Negotiations (1983-2001), Marketing (1988-2001), Coordination for the Games of the XXVI Olympiad in Atlanta in 1996 (1991-1997), Olympic Games Study (2002-2003); Vice-Chairman of the Eligibility Commission (1990-1991); member of the following Commissions: Preparation of the XII Olympic Congress (1988-1989), Protection of the Emblems (1974-1977), Eligibility (1984-1987), Olympic Movement (1983-1991, 1992-1999), Programme (1985-1987), Juridical (1993-2015), Study of the Centennial Olympic Congress – Congress of Unity (1994-1996), Sport and Law (1995-2001 and 2014-2015), “IOC 2000” (Executive Committee, 1999), Marketing (2005-), Olympic Philately, Numismatic and Memorabilia (2014-2015), Legal Affairs (2015-2018), Communications (2018-); Chair of the boards of directors of Olympic Broadcasting Services S.A., Switzerland and S.L., Spain (2014-); Member of the Board of directors of Olympic Channel Services S.L., Spain (2015-)
Now, let’s look up Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Pound
Dick Pound Richard William Duncan "Dick" Pound
In 1978, Pound was elected to the International Olympic Committee and put in charge of negotiating television and sponsorship deals. He was on the IOC executive committee for 16 years… Pound revolutionized the Olympic movement using such deals to transform the IOC into a multibillion-dollar enterprise. He became known as an outspoken critic of corruption within the IOC, while at the same time supporting the leadership of IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch. His criticisms were given a wide airing after the scandals surrounding the Salt Lake City Olympics broke, and he was then appointed head of the inquiry into the corruption.
He is a partner in the law firm of Stikeman Elliott LLP in Montreal. He practices tax law. He is also the author of several books on legal history. He edits Pound’s Tax Case Notes, a review of tax-law court cases for lawyers.
None of Dick Pound’s biographies, even the one published on the website of the law firm Stikeman Ellion LLP (https://www.stikeman.com/en-ca/people/richard-w-pound), in which he is a partner, do not allow understanding when he started working for the firm and which deals he oversaw. Also, it can’t help noticing that his biography on the IOC’s website does not mention his jobs, investments, family or his financial interests. This is even more surprising given his public anti-corruption and anti-doping championing, involvement in signing multi-billion deals, as well as in founding and managing the WADA.
Let’s take note of some facts of his biography published on the website of Stikeman Elliott LLP.
He is member of the International Olympic Committee and has held the position of vice president twice: from 1987 to 1991 and from 1996 to 2000. He was Chairman of the Olympic Games Study Commission. He was Chairman of the IOC’s Coordination Commission for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta and, from 1984 to 2001, directed, inter alia, all Olympic television negotiations, marketing and sponsorships.
He was the founding Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency (1999-2007) and remains a member of its Foundation Board.
He was Honorary Consul General of Norway in Montréal for more than two decades.
He is a member of the Advisory Committee to the Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council.
He has served as a member of the Federal Court Bench and Bar Liaison Committee from 1999-2002 and from 2003 to 2007.
He was a director of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games throughout the existence of that organization.
Since 2007, he is a member of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport.
He is president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Now, let’s study the description of his educational background. The best place to look it up is the McGill University’s website.
He earned a commerce degree from McGill in 1962, followed by a bachelor's degree in arts from Sir George Williams University in 1963, where he made the Dean's Honour List. He returned to McGill to complete a law degree in 1967…
https://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/olympian-richard-pound-inducted-mcgill-sports-hall-fame-164032
His work history after graduation begins with the social activism. As Pound said in an interview, “I was appointed the Director and Treasurer of the Olympic Association of Canada in Quebec from 1965 to 1970.” In 1968, Richard was elected the Secretary of the Olympic Association of Canada.
His legal practice began at Stikeman Elliott (one of Canadian leading law firms, specializing in corporate law – author’s note) where he fulfilled himself and found a good use of his expertise in commerce and law and became an expert in tax law…https://www.stikeman.com/en-ca/firm
It is necessary to note that Stikeman Elliott on its website introduces itself and the main areas of business as being “… one of leading Canadian law firms in business law providing top level service in all main areas such as corporate finances, M&A (mergers and acquisitions), real estate, corporate and commercial law, banking sector, finance structuring, taxation, bankruptcy, competition and foreign investments, labor and business disputes. We regularly work with the domestic and international clients in the wide range of industries, including financial services, insurance technologies, telecommunication, transportation, manufacturing, mining, energy, infrastructure and retail…”((http://www.stikeman.com/cps/rde/xchg/se-en/hs.xsl/1111.htm)
That means that approximately since 1968 Dick Pound has been practicing law with Stikeman Elliott LLP. And now, in 2016, on his personal page (https://www.stikeman.com/en-ca/people/richard-w-pound) one can find information about his work as a practicing attorney who is a Counsel in the Montréal office of Stikeman Elliott and a member of the firm's Tax Group. The main areas of his work include tax litigations and negotiations with tax authorities on behalf of the clients, in addition to the general tax consulting and commercial arbitrage.
In the account of the 2011 interview with Pound themontrealeronline.com wrote:
Richard was asked to join the International Olympic Committee in 1978, where he served with distinction for several decades. In 1983, the IOC Chairman Juan Antonio Samaranch asked Richard to Chair the new Television Committee. “I told Mr. Samaranch that I didn’t know much about television, but he simply said; ‘Well then Dick, it’s a good time to learn about it.” It was during his (Pound’s – author’s note) tenure as Chair that the Television Committee was successful in negotiating huge multi-year and mega-million television contracts. Samaranch later tapped Richard to lead the IOC Marketing Committee. At home in Canada, Richard Pound served as Chair of the Canadian Olympic Committee.
http://web.archive.org/web/20141020061546/http://www.themontrealeronline...
We should take note of the following dates – “…In 1978, Pound was elected to the International Olympic Committee and put in charge of negotiating television and sponsorship deals… (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Pound). Though it somewhat contradicts to his biography on the IOC’s website where it says that Pound was “…Chairman of the following Commissions: Protection of the Olympic Games (1981-1983), Television Rights Negotiations (1983-2001), Marketing (1988-2001), …Marketing (2005-)...”
It will be appropriate now to cross-reference the dates and jobs with information about the other people. In 1995, Pound was joined by another lawyer and financial consultant in the area of investing – Craig Reedie, who becomes a member of the following Commissions: Marketing (1995-2014), Ethics (2007-2014). That is, in the Commission where, as admitted by many, Pound was an indisputable leader, in 1995 appears Reedie whom, according to their biographies from that moment on, the Canadian takes under his wing. Also, in 1997 in the Marketing Commission Pound is joined by a very remarkable person, formally a Puerto-Rican, Richard L. Carrión who is a memberof the IOC’s Marketing Commission (1997 - ) and the Commission for TV and New Media Rights (2002-2014), according to lexpert,ca (Business of Law), a subsidiary of THOMSON REUTERS Canada Limited.
http://www.lexpert.ca/directory/lawyer-profile/stikeman-elliott-llp-601/richard-w-pound-3345/
Pound was “…Member of the International Olympic Committee, Chairman of the IOC’s Coordination Commission for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta and oversaw all Olympic television negotiations, marketing and sponsorships (1983–2001).”
So, from 1978 a 36-year-old Pound was made responsible in the International Olympic Committee for negotiating television and sponsorship contracts. Right at the starting point of his career happens the first major commercial success of the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, and the emergence of the global partners represented by the multinational corporations with the worldwide global interests. As the IOC’s curator of all Olympic television negotiations, marketing and sponsorships, Pound began making personal contacts with the Chair of the Olympic Games Organizational Committee, 84-year-old Peter Ueberroth (Peter Victor Ueberroth) and the top management of sponsoring companies; he also ensured that both the companies’ executives and, of course, the owners’ families attend all important events.
https://fd.ru/articles/67333-ekonomika-olimpiyskih-igr
Economics of the Olympic Games
By Kim Anna
… After the financial disaster in Montreal, simply nobody was willing to host the 1984 Olympic Games. The brave were found only in one of the biggest cities in the world – Los Angeles. Business is business. The 1984 Olympic Organizing Committee was headed by Peter Ueberroth, a successful businessman at that time who was working in the tourism industry. He can be named the author of the concept of financing the Olympic movement which, slightly modified, is being used to this day. But more correct would be to recognize his achievements in a different way – Peter Ueberroth in essence created a new business, an industry of the sports marketing. Of course, the “Olympians” were taking money from the private companies before as well. Even the Montreal Olympic Games managed to attract over 600 sponsors. However, Peter Ueberroth succeeded in persuading the executives of the major corporation that Olympics sponsorships should be considered not as charity “generously” given from the leftovers, but as a tangible investment capable of bringing sizable returns. Peter Ueberroth was holding personal meetings with the business executives, “besieging” for months the most stubborn ones. The Coca-Cola’s president was the first who got convinced by Peter Ueberroth’s negotiating talent. In 1980, the company made a $12 million payment to the budget of the Olympic Games – the amount unheard of for that time. Then, several dozens of companies followed suit and their combined contributions in cash or kind reached $132 million. Sponsors were divided into three categories – official sponsors (34 companies, mostly multi-national), Olympic Games suppliers (64 companies) and license holders (65 companies). As per category, corporations for the first time were granted exclusive sponsorship rights, for example, the right to be named “Olympics official beverage” fell to Coca-Cola. Sponsors’ trademarks along with the Olympic symbols appeared on the athletes’ uniforms and souvenirs. A separate revenue item became the sale of TV rights to broadcast the competitions – the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) paid $225 million to televise the Games in the United States (four years earlier its competitor NBC forked out for the same just $87 million). Altogether, 154 countries were given broadcasting rights. In spite of all these achievements, the organizers didn’t neglect to look after expenses as well, implementing the policy of the ultimate austerity. It was decided not to spend large amounts on building new venues and, if possible, to go with what was already available. As a result, construction expenses amounted to just $26 million – almost nothing compared to the similar costs in Montreal. The Los Angeles Olympic Games earned its organizers profit exceeding $200 million. No wonder, that Peter Ueberroth’s business methods, one way or another, were put to work by organizers of all following Olympics…
… Now, the funding from the Olympic Partners (TOP) program for 20 years since its inception has shown over sixfold increase. A real Klondike for the Olympic movement have become the partnership agreements with the TV companies. Each and every time they pay increasingly more for the right to televise competitions (the only exception became the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville that collected less “TV money” that the 1988 Olympics in Calgary). NBC, who purchased the rights to televise the Games in the US from 2000 to 2008, paid for this goodie $3.5 billion. Broadcasting of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics cost NBC $545 million and earned it a profit of $75 million. Sure it did – according to some estimates, the price to show a 30-second commercial during the broadcast of the Games opening ceremony would go to $600,000.00. The upcoming Games in Athens would cost NBC $793 million. As far as slicing of the Olympic pie’s biggest part is concerned, until recently the lion share of the broadcasting revenues (60%) had been falling to the Games organizers, with the rest going to support of the Olympic movement. From 2004, the organizers would have to settle down with 49%. The IOC’s financial dependency from television began becoming the subject of criticism as back as ten years ago. In 1994, in Lillehammer TV rights revenues accounted for 68% of the total budget of the Organizing Committee. These days, this share is slightly smaller, but hundreds of millions of dollars invested by a TV company are always a temptation to make out the Olympics something more “appetizing” for the viewers than just a large-scale sporting event. Just the scandals of the last Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, involving the judges and doping, suffice to mention. They were covered in tiny little detail (even blown out) which no doubts helped bring ratings of the same NBC to the unseen high levels…
It is worth noting, that at the same time on the IOC’s behalf the negotiations are joined by a very energetic businessman who owns one of the world’s biggest and rapidly growing companies specializing in sports marketing, media relations and talent management (star-making). This was Mark McCormack, a graduate of the most prestigious law school of the Yale University – the school graduated by a number of the U.S. Presidents, Attorneys General, Senators and other top officials. His company, IMG, sells TV rights to the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics to ABC for $309 million – more than triple what the IOC had received for the 1984 Winter Games in Sarajevo.
Mark McCormack (as of 2004)
1954 — Graduates from Yale University Law School
1986 — IMG creates the Stars on Ice tour. Today's figure skating clients include Scott Hamilton, Tara Lipinski, Kristi Yamaguchi, Kurt Browning and Todd Eldredge. IMG also owns numerous skating events.
1986 — IMG sells TV rights to the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics to ABC for $309 million, more than triple what the International Olympic Committee had received for the 1984 Winter Games in Sarajevo.
1987 — IMG acquires from the famous Nick Bollettieri his Tennis Academy and transforms it into IMG Academies, which becomes the world's largest multisport training facility for the top ranking athletes.
1990 — McCormack is described by Sports Illustrated as the most powerful man in sports.
1994 — IMG acquires marketing rights to the English Football Association, FA Cup and Wembley Stadium.
1999 — McCormack is named one of the century's 10 "Most Influential People in the Business of Sport" by ESPN.
1999 — Philips Electronics retains IMG Consulting to manage its worldwide sports marketing. Other corporate clients today include Texaco, AT&T Broadband, HP Invent, Cisco Systems and Merrill Lynch.
2000 — IMG opens the $75 million Indian Wells Tennis Garden in Palm Desert, Calif., and acquires the Ericsson Open. Other IMG-owned tennis events include the Bank of the West Classic, Open Gaz de France in Paris, State Farm Women's Classic, Franklin Templeton Tennis Classic and Gold Flake Open in India.
2001 — IMG acquires the sports marketing business of Stephen Disson Disson Furst.
2001 — IMG acquires Horizon Sports, giving it the largest client portfolio in the NHL.
2002 — IMG Baseball client Derek Jeter signs a $189 million contract with the New York Yankees, the second-largest player contract in sports history.
All the most popular media write about McCormack enthusiastic reviews paying tribute to his professionalism and talent.
http://www.cmgpartners.ca/mccormack-family/
Mark McCormack and IMG
Article | March 2015 | by Amal Masri
Sports Illustrated called Mark McCormack ‘’the most powerful man in sports.” He was also Golf Magazine’s “most powerful man in golf” and Tennis Magazine’s “most powerful man in tennis.” The Times of London said “he was one of the most influential people in the 20th century.”
McCormack’s IMG went on to handle licensing, merchandising and television contracts for organizations such as Wimbledon, the Grammys, the United States Olympic Committee, the Smithsonian Institution, the United States Golf Association, and The Nobel Foundation.
By 1990, IMG was the world’s largest sports management company and the world leader with the professional expertise in all areas of managing TV rights, TV and video programming, PR management, management of the mass sporting and cultural events, as well as talent management (star-making). All this was the reason why IMG was invited to promote Pope John Paul II’s 1982 tour of Britain.
All was well at IMG…
It is true – IMG was in a groove with all its ventures.
SLOC (Salt Lake Organizing Committee – author’s note) President Mitt Romney announced Wednesday (April 21, 1999 – author’s note) that SLOC and the U.S. Olympic Committee have entered into a partnership with the world's premier sports marketing company – International Management Group.
Mark H. McCormack, chairman and CEO of IMG said, “IMG has a long history with the Olympics. The company has represented the International Olympic Committee in negotiating television rights to past Games, and it handled sponsorship sales and hospitality programs for Olympics in Albertville, France; Barcelona, Spain; and Lillehammer, Norway…”
“…Efforts to sell 2002 Games sponsorships will be directed by IMG senior vice president Robert Prazmark from the company's New York offices. Prazmark has sold and negotiated more than $1 billion on Olympic deals in the past…”
That means that since around 1984, IMG and McCormack had been actively assisting Dick Pound in establishing contacts and bringing money to the marketing budgets. In 1986, IMG sells TV rights to the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics to ABC for $309 million, more than triple what the International Olympic Committee had received for the 1984 Winter Games in Sarajevo. Thanks to the Yale graduate McCormack, attorney Pound, a graduate from a “second class” university, was granted access to the top class club of contacts with the global financial and political elites, as well as demonstrated phenomenal results in raising funds. The cooperation lasted for quite long. As McCormack remarked, it can be said with confidence that till 1994 for sure. In addition, IMG had been providing the IOC with television and video programming, and was subcontracted to make such a sophisticated TV product, as Host Broadcaster. Being the Host Broadcaster, IMG was in charge of making the international imagery for all accredited TV companies (from all Olympic facilities during a number of the Summer and Winter Games). To this day, IMG solely manages the Olympic Television Archive Bureau (OTAB) on behalf of the International Olympic Committee. OTAB is the exclusive license provider for the use of all historic footage of the Olympic Games…
http://img.com/services/video-archive/olympics.aspx
Also, presently IMG announces that it provides services to the prospective sponsors to capitalize on the Olympics marketing opportunities as well as hospitality services during the IOC’s events. IMG’s Broadcasting Division is the world’s largest producer of sports television programming, and the largest seller of the sporting TV rights.
At the same period, in the USA and across the globe consolidation of assets is going on, global shifts are taking place, including in control over the mass media and the largest advertising agencies of the networks. If in 1983 the overwhelming majority of mass media outlets in the United States were controlled by fifty corporations, then presently they are owned just by six media corporations – Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, News Corporation, CBS Corporation, COMCAST NBCUniversal (COMCAST CORPORATION).
At the same time, the consolidation of the advertising market was going on in full swing which resulted in actual monopolizing of the global advertising budgets by just a few players. As of 2015, the global major advertising holdings concentrated control over two thirds of the worldwide advertising sales volumes in monetary terms, which in return allows keeping mass media businesses (TV, radio, print media, internet) completely under thumb.
The leading four of the global network-based advertising agencies are WPP PLC (WPP) (annual sales $17.95 B), OMNICOM GROUP INC. (OMC) ($15.3 B), PUBLICIS GROUPE (PUB) ($8.95 B), INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES INC (IPG) ($7.54 B). What the multi-national advertising holdings and world’s six largest media-corporations have in common is the names of their key shareholders. Among them is either investment fund Vanguard itself, or the companies it fully controls, which means extending a total control over election of board members and the company’s development strategy. To understand what these groups of investor look like let’s go to the publication.
http://pravosudija.net/article/scofield-predvybornaya-kampaniya-v-ssha
Now, let’s take a brief look at AT&T. The first ten of its institutional investors look as follows: The Vanguard Group, Inc., State Street Corporation, Evercore Trust Company, N.A., Black Rock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Black Rock Fund Advisors, Northern Trust Corporation, Dimensional Fund Advisors LP, Capital Research Global Investors and Black Rock Group Limited. In this ten, I haven’t been able to trace the owners of Evercore Trust Company, N.A. The remaining nine’s is Vanguard.
The first ten of its institutional investors among investment funds are: Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, Vanguard 500 Index Fund, SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, Vanguard Institutional Index Fund-Institutional Index Fund, Capital Income Builder, Inc., Franklin Custodian Funds-Income Fund, Spartan 500 Index Fund, iShares Core S&P 500 ETF, DFA U.S. Large Cap Value Series and Vanguard Index-Value Index Fund. In this list it is not clear for now who owns iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and DFA U.S. Large Cap Value Series. The remaining eight of ten belong to Vanguard.https://de.finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=T%2C+&ql=1
Besides, these funds control the biggest players among the private military companies (PMC) and in the banking sector behind them are the first four of the five world’s largest banks – JP Morgan Chase, 1st place with the total assets of $2.39 trillion, Bank of America, 2nd place, $2.17 trillion, Citigroup, 3rd place, $1.88 trillion, Wells Fargo, 4th place, $1,44 trillion in assets and $1.01 trillion in deposits – and almost the whole MIC and multi-national corporations. Taking that into account gives a better understanding of this investors’ level of capabilities. Through cross ownership of the shares by the largest investment funds and the “big four” banks, and if to take a closer look – by Vanguard corporation itself – control is being asserted over the largest companies in different industries, i.e. Alcoa Inc. Altria Group Inc., American International Group Inc., AT&T Inc., Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., Coca-Cola Co., DuPont & Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., General Electric Co., General Motors Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Co., Home Depot Inc., Honeywell International Inc., Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp., Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan Chase & Co., McDonald's Corp., Merck & Co. Inc., Microsoft Corp., 3M Co., Pfizer Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., United Technologies Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, CBS Corporation, NBCUniversal, etc.
Those who would like to know more, can study Form F13 of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published September 30, 2013. According to this document, Vanguard reports 9,905 transactions totaling $1,019,093,671,149 and discloses information about 200 companies it had investements in. http://www.4-traders.com/SILVER-16221/news/The-Vanguard-Group-3Q-13F-Holdings-As-Of-Sep-30-17462390/
This information about the global shifts on the market will be interesting in relation to Dick Pound’s achievements in marketing and sales of TV rights to the Olympic Games.
To assess the scale of work and the money Dick Pound helped the IOC make, it is enough to take a look at the phenomenal growth of the International Olympic Committee’s revenues. Here are the results of his work published in July of 2001 in the Olympic Marketing Newsletter “Marketing Matters,” Olympic Marketing 1980-2001 right before election of new President of the IOC. Also, we need to be reminded that Dick Pound began working on bringing money to the IOC in 1978.
“Over twenty years at the helm of any major world organization is a remarkable achievement, but in that time to have transformed the affairs of the IOC and to have reinvigorated the Olympic Games is an astonishing legacy that will be remembered for as long as sport is played.”
— Mark H. McCormack, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, IMG
The only thing that we won’t see in these charts is ratios of the payments by the countries that are members of the USA and Great Britain group on the roles of junior partners and the rest of the world. That would have made this data more useful for analysis of the power they assert over the IOC.
Now we take a look at the results of bringing sponsors and the IOC’s partners to hold the Olympics, i.e. the sponsorships which are the IOC’s own responsibility to secure.
http://info.hktdc.com/olympics/saltlake.htm (September, 2001)
TOP Partners signed to date for 2000-2004 with global Olympic marketing rights:
|
Company |
Product Category |
|
Coca-Cola |
Non-Alcoholic Beverages |
|
John Hancock |
Life Insurance/Annuities |
|
Kodak |
Film/Photographics & Imaging |
|
McDonald's |
Retail Food Services |
|
Sema Group |
Information Technology |
|
Sports Illustrated/Time |
Periodicals/Newspapers/Magazines |
|
Visa |
Consumer Payment Systems |
|
Xerox |
Document Publishing & Supplies |
…Source: The Olympic Marketing Fact File, International Olympic Committee
Now we’ll take a note of the sponsors’ owners. To make search easier we’ll make analysis as of 2016.
|
THE COCA-COLA CO (KO) |
|
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
187 757 ($187,757 bn) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.4-traders.com/THE-COCA-COLA-CO-4819/company/
|
Shareholders |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/MANULIFE-FINANCIAL-CORP-1410781/company/
|
MANULIFEFINANCIALCORP. (MFC) John Hancock was 2002 Olympics sponsor under the brand name of Manulife Financial Corporation which operates in the United States |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
(date as of 28.07.2016) |
|
|||
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
27 036 ($27,036 bn) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding companies John Hancock and Manulife
John Hancock Financial is a subsidiary of Manulife Financial Corporation, a leading international financial group mostly operating in Asia, Canada and the United States. Operating in Canada and Asia as Manulife, and first and foremost in the United States as John Hancock, the group offers its clients a wide range of financial products and asset protection services with the use of vast network of officers, agents and distribution partners. As of December 31, 2015, the estimated assets under Manulife’s and its subsidiaries’ management are valued at $935 billion (US$ 676 billion). Manulife Financial Corporation is listed as “MFC” on TSX, NYSE and PSA, and as “0945” in SEHK.
|
Shareholders |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/EASTMAN-KODAK-COMPANY-14805550/company/
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY (KODK)
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
716 ($716 bn) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/MCDONALD-S-CORPORATION-4833/company/
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION (MCD)
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
104 886 ($104,886 bn) |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
SemaGroup (former Sema Group until 2004, was owned by Schlumberger. Subsequently was acquired by ATOS(ATO) that was a sponsor at the recent Olympics) |
|
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
9 960 ($9 960 bn) |
http://www.4-traders.com/ATOS-4612/company/
About Atos (based on company press release and http://atos.netwebsite)
"...Atos SE (Societas Еуропеа) is a global leader in digital services with approximately 100,000 employees in 73 countries and annual revenue of around € 12 billion. Serving a global client base, the Group provides consulting services in the field of System integration, Managed services &Business Process Outsourcing, Cloud services, Big data as well as transactional services through Worldline, the European leader in the payment industry. With its cutting edge technology expertise and industry knowledge, the Group supports the digital transformation of its clients across different business sectors: protection, financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, media, utilities, public sector, retail, telecommunications and transport....
Managed Services - a new service which involves not only telecommunication services, but also sales and lease services for equipment, its installation, configuration, management and support, including cloud computing. Managed Service concept refers to transfer of service delivery management "on a turn-key basis" to an operator in order to reduce the overall cost for the client. Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) is a type of outsourcing in which a company outsources non-core business processes to another company. Outsourcing of industrial manufacturing (essentially a type of BPO) is often broken out into a separate type of manufacturing (or industrial) outsourcing. Most often, BPO refers to outsourcing of high-level processes, typically related to finance, personnel, marketing, or legal support. IT and corporate information systems are often included as part of business process outsourcing. - See more at: http://www.ucmsgroup.ru/ru/resources/surveys/what-is-business-process-outsourcing-definition-advantages-and-disadvantages/#sthash.eY7UOF2w.dpuf
...Atos is focused on vigorously developing business technologies building confidence in the transfer of authority for outsourcing and helping organizations create a competitive platform for the development of the company in the future. The Group is the Worldwide Information Technology Partner for the Olympic & Paralympic Games. its shares are listed on the Euronext Paris market. Atos operates under the brands Atos, Atos Consulting, Atos Worldgrid, Bull, Canopy, Unify and Worldline.
Atoswas formed from the merger in 1997 of two French IT services companies – Axime and Sligos - each of which had been established out of earlier mergers. By 2000, Atos employed 11,000 staff and generated annual revenues of approximately € 1.1 billion. Origin was a subsidiary of Royal Philips Electronics, which had been formed in 1996 from merger of BSO/Origin and Philips Communications. At the time of the merger with Atos in October 2000 Origin employed more than 16,000 staff in 30 countries worldwide and generated annual revenues of approximately €1.6 billion. KPMG Consulting businesses in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands were acquired in August 2002 to establish Atos Consulting. This transaction provided the Group with a major presence in the Consulting segment of the IT services market. Sema Group was acquired from SCHlumberger in January 2004, thereby creating one of thr leading European IT services companies. At the time of the acquisition Sema Group employed 20,000 staff and generated annual revenues of approximately €2.4 billion. Atos Origin employed 26,000 staff generating annual revenues of more than € 3 billion. On July 1, 2011, Atos announced that it has completed the acquisition of Siemens IT Solutions and Services - to become a new IT champion. The deal created a new pro forma 2011 annual revenues of €8.5 billion and 74,000 employees across 48 countries. Thanks to mergers the company was ranked in the top ten global IT services providers; number five in managed services worldwide and the number one European player in Europe. As a result the new company became a powerful combination of two highly complementary organizations. Operating under the brand Atos, companies create a leader in basic and highly important business and IT services allowing partner companies to accelerate their growth. On August 11, 2014, Atos announced the successful completion of the tender offer launched by Atos for all the issued and outstanding shares in the capital of Bull. The transaction represented a key milestone in the creation in Europe of a world leader in cloud, Cyber security, and Big Data. The deal created new company annual revenue of circa € 10 billion and 86,000 employees in 66 countries. On July 1, 2015, Atos announced that it has completed the acquisition ofXerox ITO, of which the business is mainly in the United States. As a result, Atos totals now 93,000 employees across 72 countries. As of November 2015 Atos announced its plans or the acquisition of Unify, the number 3 worldwide of unified communications, allowing Atos to create a global offer for unified communications and real time processing, optimizing social collaboration, digital transformation and enhancing sales performances of its clients. (Company's history (Atos - http://atos.net/en-us/home/we-are/company-profile/company-history.html)
To understand from whom Atos was buying a share in business, let’s consider the key stockholders of SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED where we can discover practically a total control by Vanguard.
|
http://www.4-traders.com/SCHLUMBERGER-LIMITED-14411/company/
SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED. (SLB) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Capitalization (M$) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
111 066 ($111,066 bn) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sponsor - Sports Illustrated/Time
http://www.4-traders.com/TIME-INC-16529374/company/
|
TIME INC (TIME) |
|
|||
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
1 679 ($1,679 bn) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
About Time Inc. (Sports Illustrated). From 1991 to 2014 it was a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX)
Time Inc. (NYSE: TIME)is one of the leading global media companies, with a monthly worldwide readership of over 120 million, as well as more than 150 million users reading the content including more than 60 websites on digital devices. Our influential brands include People, Sports Illustrated, InStyle, Time, Real Simple and Southern Living, as well as over 50 different titles in the United Kingdom.
Time Warner was formed in the result of merger of Warner Communications Inc. and Time Inc. in 1990 and the following merger with the Internet giant AOL Inc. in 2001; in 2009 AOL became independent again leaving Time Warner media holding. The AOL split was officially finalized on December, 9. In June 2014, Time Inc. was spun off from Time Warner and became a separate public company. Currently, Corporation’s shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For the complete picture, we’ll take a look at the shareholders of the Time Warner Inc., from which Time Inc. was spun off in 2014.
In factual terms, we see business restructuring as the key shareholders in both organizations are practically the same and are under control by Vanguard group.
http://www.4-traders.com/TIME-WARNER-INC-11661/company/
TIME WARNER INC (TWX)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
61 040 ($61,040 bn) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/VISA-INC-2277468/company/
|
VISA INC (V) (as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.4-traders.com/XEROX-CORP-14979/company/
XEROXCORP (XRX)
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
10 039 ($10,039 bn) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let’s consider a couple of things. In 1995, NBC announced striking two historic deals at once valued at $1.27 billion and $2.3 billion for TV rights to several Olympics. And during a press-conference the IOC’s chief negotiator on TV rights Dick Pound said, “…that NBC would have no input on site selection at all…,” which in the publisher’s opinion is naïve. Later, we will revise the facts of corruption during selection of Salt Lake City as the Winter Olympics host city and the committee to investigate those, which was headed by Pound himself.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-12-13/news/9512130286_1_olympic-tv-rights-ioc-member-nbc
NBC MAKES $2.3 BILLION BET ON OLYMPIC TV RIGHTS
December 13, 1995
“… NBC announced Tuesday it had struck a historic $2.3 billion deal to obtain the U.S. broadcast and cable TV rights for the 2004 and 2008 Summer Olympics and the 2006 Winter Olympics, even though the host cities for those Games have yet to be selected.
It is the first time Olympic TV rights have been bought from the International Olympic Committee before the host cities were named.
It also is the richest deal in TV sports history, topping the $1.27 billion NBC agreed in August to pay for the same rights to the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia and the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Montreal lawyer Dick Pound, an official TV negotiator for the International Olympic committee, said at a Tuesday news conference in New York that NBC would have "no input on site selection at all." Although that statement seems ingenuous, the IOC's 107 members guard voting for host cities as their most important right.
"NBC has made this commitment knowing none of the Games involved is likely to be in the United States," said Pound, also an IOC member.
"I think NBC should and will have some influence (on the host city selection), but it won't be decisive," said John Krimsky, the U.S. Olympic Committee's deputy general.
Therefore, in August 1995 NBC struck a TV rights deal with the IOC which included the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics (USA), and a month before the deal was signed at the IOC’s session in Budapest in 1995 (104th IOC’s session, July 15-18, 1995 – author’ note) this very American city had been selected. Among the bidding cities were Ostersund (Sweden), Quebec (Canada) and Sion (Switzerland). But Salt Lake City won at first round, as was given an absolute majority of votes. So much for no influence, when the condition to be paid $3.5 billion is selection of an American city.
In 2006, an IOC member Vitaly Smirnov said too about the total pressure from the IOC’s marketing and television partners over the sport politics, and also competitions start time, not naming Pound as the main agent of these companies’ key shareholders.
https://lenta.ru/news/2006/02/13/tv/
19:51, February 13, 2006
American sponsors of the IOC forced their schedule on the whole world
NBC, one of the IOC’s major sponsors
TV companies who purchased the Olympics TV rights and the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) sponsors have the decisive say in designing a program and schedule of the Olympics. This is what an IOC member, Honorary President of the Russian Olympic Committee Vitaly Smirnov said to sports news agency All Sport.
“The late hour start time of many competitions which, as I know, causes some discontent in Russia, is the result of requests from the American TV companies who purchased the Olympics TV rights and the IOC’s sponsors who are mainly American as well,” explained Vitaly Smirnov.
“Nothing can be done – the IOC has to consider the opinion of its partners who are paying big money. NBC, for example, paid $1.281 billion for TV rights to two Olympics – the Winter and Summer Games. And it insisted that interests of and convenience to first of all American sponsors, advertisers and viewers be respected. By the way, changes in the program of both Summer and Winter Olympics since the 90s of the last century have been made on the pressing requests and recommendations from the sponsors and television,” added Smirnov…”
To comprehend the level of the IOC’s dependency from the American TV rights holders, one needs to take another look at the diagram published in July 2001 in the Olympic Marketing Newsletter «Marketing Matters», Olympic Marketing1980 – 2001. If to take into account that, as outlined in the documents by the National Security Agency, the zone of the iron clad Anglo-Saxon influence is made of the countries under the absolute protection of the United States - "...(S // REL USA. AUS.CAN, GBR.NZL), i.e., USA, Australia, Canada, UK, New Zealand, then the combined financing from the bloc with the common political and military objectives is even bigger.
In fact, we can see a deliberate marketing policy pursuing to make a group of the global sponsors and TV right holders united by the common key shareholders. Bringing their share above the critical levels results in complete dependence from their preferences. It is possible that the difficult times of empty pockets and financial losses numbed down the IOC’s sense of danger. In addition, the tons of money coming from sponsors and TV companies and rosy outlook prevented from assessing the risks of getting into dependence from practically one player – investment fund Vanguard.
Vanguard is notorious for its aggressive takeovers of the competitors on the market, and given that an assumption can be made that being almost one and only donor for the IOC, the group of financial raiders has made its best to fill in the Olympic key positions as much as possible with the people who are tied by serious obligations to the investors (Vanguard). There are several factors indicating that Vanguard investors have a strategic interest in establishing control over the International Olympic Committee and precisely implemented tactics. These are long term partnership with the IOC, rapid price ramp-up for TV rights and global sponsorship with not so apparently weak competition on the market at this time, as well as the further increasing of the payments. Vanguard’s strong groups of influence for a long time have been operating within the US Armed Forces and, in particular, in its special operations forces (SOF USAF), and also in the US President’s administration, which, in combination with the capabilities of impacting the IOC, have been many times used to influence Russia. In this regard, the US administration has an intention to continue playing hard ball with Russia in order to make her abandon the idea of active resistance to the Washington’s policy pursuing to break down the existing system of international security and to establish the new “unipolar” world order.
In this case, very interesting are the people who work in the key IOC’s structures overseeing raising of billions of dollars, such as Marketing Commission and TV and New Media Rights Commission. But to find information even on the internet has turned out to be an uneasy task. Here are members of the IOC’s Commission as presented by Michael Payne on October 4, 2003.
“…IOC Presentation to Asia - Pacific Broadcasting Union 33rd Sports Group Conference Istanbul, 4 October 2003 Photo : ©Allsport Michael Payne, IOC Marketing Director…
… IOC Rights Negotiation Policy IOC TV and Internet Rights Commission
Chairman
Jacques Rogge, IOC President
Members:
Dr Thomas Bach, Chairman – IOC Juridical Commission
Richard L. Carrión, Chairman – IOC Finance Commission
Ottavio Cinquanta, President – International Skating Union
Gerhard Heiberg, Chairman - IOC Marketing Commission
Un Yong Kim, Chairman – IOC Radio and Television Commission Director
Director
Michael Payne, IOC Marketing Director…»
Let’s turn to Richard L. Carrión’s interesting biography, his career and check against the lines of business he supervises in the IOC.
https://imga.ch/en/governor/22
Richard L. Carrion
…Career
Chief Executive Officer (1989) and Chairman (1993) of Popular Inc. and Banco Popular de Puerto Rico; member of the Board of Directors of Verizon; Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Chairman of the Board of Banco Popular Foundation.
Here our interest is drawn by the ownership details of the companies he worked for, and what really stands out is his position as Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
“… four of nine Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had offices on 120 Broadway and two at the time had connections with American International Corporation. Each US Federal Reserve Bank has its own Board, made of nine Directors and divided into classes A, B and 3, the people in each. The Class A Directors are elected by the banks, members of the US Federal Reserve, from the pool of their own representatives (one from the major banks, one from the medium banks, one from the small banks).
Class A
|
Name * |
Post |
Termof office |
|
Jamie Dimon |
Chairman and CEO JPMorgan Chase New York |
2012 |
|
Richard Carrión |
Chairman, President and CEO of Popular. Inc. San Juan. Puerto Rico |
2013 |
|
Paul P. Mello |
President and CEO Solvay Bank Syracuse. New York |
2014 |
ForexAW.com
Class A Directors of the Reserve Bank of New York
According to the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as of March 15, 2013
https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/aboutthefed/2013/oa130315
Richard L. Carrión Elected as a Class A Director to New York Fed Board of Directors
March 15, 2013
New York: The Federal Reserve Bank of New York today announced that Richard L. Carrión has been elected a Class A director for a three-year term representing Group 1 which consists of banks with capital and surplus of more than $1 billion.
Mr. Carrión previously served as a Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the year 1999.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 requires each of the Reserve Banks to operate under the supervision of a board of directors. Each Reserve Bank has nine directors who represent the interests of their Reserve District and whose experience provides the Reserve Banks with a wider range of expertise that helps them fulfill their policy and operational responsibilities. The nine directors of each Reserve Bank are divided evenly by classification: Class A directors represent the member banks in the District; Class B directors and Class C directors represent the interests of the public. The directors of the Reserve Banks act as an important link between the Federal Reserve and the private sector, ensuring that the Fed’s decisions on monetary policy are informed by actual economic conditions.
Bloomberg clarifies, “ 1997 – present…”
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=253662&privcapId=253660
Independent Director, Chair of Finance Committee, a member of corporate department of policy of the Committee and a member of HR Committee
1997-present
Director, a member of HR Committee and a member of PR Committee
http://www.4-traders.com/POPULAR-INC-10686498/company/
|
POPULAR INC (BPOP) |
|
as of July 28, 2016
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
3 476 ($3,476 bn) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Also, quite remarkable is the position held by Richard L. Carrion, an IOC member, a member of Marketing Commission, as well as TV Rights and TV and New Media Commissions, in POPULAR INC.
|
||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/VERIZON-COMMUNICATIONS-IN-4830/company/
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. (VZ)
as of July 28, 2016
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
223 625 ($223,625bn) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Where Richard L. Carrion, an IOC member, a member of Marketing Commission, as well as TV Rights and TV and New Media Commissions, serves as Independent Director from 1997...
|
||||||||
|
Also, a closer look should be taken at Richard L. Carrion’s another position as a Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
“…The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important bank of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks of the United States. The Bank’s President and CEO since January 27, 2009 has been William C. Dudley. It is located at 33 Liberty Street, New York, NY. It is responsible for the Second District of the Federal Reserve System, which encompasses New York State, the 12 northern counties of New Jersey, Fairfield County in Connecticut, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Working within the Federal Reserve System, the New York Federal Reserve Bank implements monetary policy, supervises and regulates financial institutions and helps maintain the nation's payment systems.
The Bank’s President has permanent vote on the Federal Open Market Committee overseeing US Treasuries interest rates. The remaining 11 banks receive the voting right on a rotational basis.
Largest regional Federal Reserve Bank
Since the founding of the Federal Reserve banking system, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in Manhattan's Financial District has been the place where monetary policy in the United States is implemented, although policy is decided in Washington, D.C. by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The New York Fed is the largest in terms of assets of the twelve regional banks. Operating in the financial capital of the U.S., the New York Fed is responsible for conducting open market operations, the buying and selling of outstanding U.S. Treasury securities. The Trading Desk is the office at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that manages the FOMC Directive to sell or buy bonds. The responsibility for issuing new U.S. Treasury securities lies with the Bureau of the Public Debt. In 2003, Fedwire, the Federal Reserve's system for transferring balances between it and other banks, transferred $1.8 trillion a day in funds, of which about $1.1 trillion originated in the Second District. It transferred an additional $1.3 trillion a day in securities, of which $1.2 trillion originated in the Second District. The New York Fed is also responsible for carrying out exchange rate policy by buying and selling dollars at the discretion of the United States Treasury Department. The New York Federal Reserve is the only regional bank with a permanent vote on the Federal Open Market Committee and its president is traditionally selected as the Committee's vice chairman. The current President of the Federal Bank of New York is William Dudley…”
It is strange that Ethics Commission, as well as offices of Attorney General of the United States, Russia, Switzerland, Canada and other countries didn’t notice these strange circumstances directly pointing out the conflict of interests and quite falling under the definition of corruption. An IOC member and its Marketing Commission participates in the selection, negotiations and signing agreements with the IOC’s sponsors. And in the roster of the key stakeholders are the same names as in the companies he has been working for since 1990 as Board Chairman at Popular Inc. and a Director at Verizon. It is certainly difficult for now to say who on behalf of Vanguard’s shareholders recommended such a high ranking manager, but even information we have is enough to demand that all IOC members declare all information about their incomes and expenses, work, children, wives, properties, stock portfolios, options, etc.
Vanguard had all reasons to continue its painstaking work with the IOC’s personnel after the first failure during the election of President of the IOC. In 2013, another attempt to appoint its own man to this office by sending Richard L. Carrión to the battle, was yet again unsuccessful, like it was in the case of Dick Pound (was nominated in 2001).
http://ria.ru/resume/20130913/842640639.html
“… On September 10, Thomas Bach from Germany, as expected, was elected new President of the IOC. The 71-year-old Belgian Jacque Rogge resigned from his office after the 125th session was over. There were six candidates to this office – Thomas Bach (Germany), Sergey Bubka (Ukraine), Ching-kuo Wu (Chinese Taipei), Richard Carrion (Puerto Rico), Ser Miang Ng (Singapore), and Denis Oswald (Switzerland).
Bach won in the second round with 49 votes (second was Puerto-Rican Richard Carrion with 29 votes). Richard Bach was short four votes to win in the first round. Sergey Bubka from Ukraine received eight votes in the first round and four (least of all) in the second…”
After this victory, now as the head of the IOC, Thomas Bach continuing cleansing the legacy Pound had left behind him in the teams of the key Commissions overseeing raising money from sponsors and TV rights – that process had been already started by Jacque Rogge who had appointed Pound the key negotiator of TV and other similar rights, but it was Carrion who continued to hold the key negotiations with the major contributors – the American TV companies. In addition to Norwegian Heiberg, the head of TV and New Media Rights Commission, in 2014 Richard L. Carrion (2002 – 2014) resigned from the Commission as well, yet he stayed on in the Marketing Commission.
Let’s look up Richard L. Carrion’s biography onhttps://imga.ch/en/governor/22. What draws attention is the fact that he joined the Marketing Commission in 1997 when it was headed by Dick Pound who had been working there for almost twenty years, almost at the same time as Craig Reedie who was a member of the Marketing Commission (1995 – 2014) and the Ethics Commission (2007 – 2014) – before Bach made his key decisions.
As to Pound, he continues working in the IOC’s Marketing Commission from 2005 to present, which means that he has been toiling in the vineyards of liaising with the key sponsors since 1978 with one short break between 2001 and 2005. Bach began making new appointments.
http://in.reuters.com/article/olympics-ioc-commissions-idINL5N0MT4VZ20140401
Wed, April 2, 2014 12:54
Olympics-Japan's Takeda is new IOC marketing chief
The 66-year-old, who has led the Japan Olympic Committee since 2001, replaces experienced Norwegian businessman Heiberg who was praised for his successful running of the commission for 13 years (the time of Dick Pound resignation in 2001 – author’s note).
Although the IOC does not reveal the financial terms of its deals, the total sponsorship package for the 2013-16 period is estimated to generate about $1 billion, up from $663 million a decade ago.
The fresh compositions of all the various commissions, announced on Tuesday, were the first under new IOC president Thomas Bach who was elected in September (September 2013 – Thomas Bach is elected president of the IOC – author’s note).
Bach has kept the TV and new media rights commission under his auspices and he himself will head the eight-member group.
The German (Thomas Bach – author’s note) was a senior negotiator for TV rights contracts under his predecessor Jacques Rogge.
Among the changes implemented by Thomas Bach in the key commissions were the following:
“… Ng, who ran unsuccessfully against Bach for president, takes over the powerful IOC finance commission from Richard Carrion. The Puerto Rican banking executive resigned from the post after also losing to Bach in the Sept. 10 presidential vote in Buenos Aires.
Carrion oversaw the growth of the IOC's financial reserves from $100 million to $900 million over the past decade. He also served as the lead negotiator on television rights deals outside of Europe, securing the record $4.38 billion deal with NBC for the U.S. rights through the 2020 Olympics.
The influence level over the IOC’s decisions and its reliance on financing from sponsors and TV companies is shown by the deals made in 2011 when Jacque Rogge was president.
http://sochi-news.net/sport/2014/01/02/856.html
“… We would like to remind that NBC purchased exclusive TV rights to the 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 Olympics fro the IOC in 2011. According to the agreement, NBC paid for the right $4.38 billion…”
May 7, 2014, when Thomas Bach was already president of IOC, NBCUniversal, a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation, acquired the broadcast rights across all media platforms, including free-to-air television, subscription television, internet and mobile. The agreement from 2021 to 2032 is valued at USD 7.65 billion, plus an additional USD 100 million signing bonus.
Given the lengthy process of preparing such deals, it can be assumed that the leading negotiator was Richard Carrion as well. That is by 2003, when Dick Pound resigned from his positions, he had practically fine tuned the strategy for Marketing Commission overseeing the global sponsorship and TV rights sales, when the IOC in its many decisions had become enslaved by the global investor’s money. Even after he had left from these positions at the IOC, not only did the situation not improve due to emergence of new sponsors with different key shareholders to create a system of checks and balances, but also it worsened even more. Thus, to verify these assumptions once again, we’ll take a look at the list of the global sponsors for the Sochi Olympics, where Vanguard just strengthened its positions. We’ll also reconfirm who are the key shareholders.
http://www.advertology.ru/article120690.htm
The XXII Olympic Winter Games (Sochi, 2014)
The IOC’s global partners who signed agreements for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi are the following companies:
- Coca-Cola,
- Atos (IT partner)
- Dow Chemical
- General Electric
- McDonald’s
- OMEGA (THE SWATCH GROUP SA (UHR))
- Panasonic
- Procter & Gamble,
- Samsung
- Visa.
|
THE COCA-COLA CO (KO) |
|
( as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
187 757 ($187,757bn) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.4-traders.com/THE-COCA-COLA-CO-4819/company/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
ATOS (ATO) (former Sema Group) |
|
(data as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
9 960 ($9 960bn) |
http://www.4-traders.com/ATOS-4612/company/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About Atos (based on press release)
"...Atos SE (Societas Еуропеа) is a global leader in digital services with approximately 100,000 employees in 73 countries and annual revenue of around € 12 billion. Serving a global client base, the Group provides consulting services in the field of System integration, Managed services &Business Process Outsourcing, Cloud services, Big data as well as transactional services through Worldline, the European leader in the payment industry. With its cutting edge technology expertise and industry knowledge, the Group supports the digital transformation of its clients across different business sectors: protection, financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, media, utilities, public sector, retail, telecommunications and transport....
Managed Services - a new service which involves not only telecommunication services, but also sales and lease services for equipment, its installation, configuration, management and support, including cloud computing. Managed Service concept refers to transfer of service delivery management "on a turn-key basis" to an operator in order to reduce the overall cost for the client. Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) is a type of outsourcing in which a company outsources non-core business processes to another company. Outsourcing of industrial manufacturing (essentially a type of BPO) is often broken out into a separate type of manufacturing (or industrial) outsourcing. Most often, BPO refers to outsourcing of high-level processes, typically related to finance, personnel, marketing, or legal support. IT and corporate information systems are often included as part of business process outsourcing. - See more at: http://www.ucmsgroup.ru/ru/resources/surveys/what-is-business-process-outsourcing-definition-advantages-and-disadvantages/#sthash.eY7UOF2w.dpuf
...Atos is focused on vigorously developing business technologies building confidence in the transfer of authority for outsourcing and helping organizations create a competitive platform for the development of the company in the future. The Group is the Worldwide Information Technology Partner for the Olympic & Paralympic Games. its shares are listed on the Euronext Paris market. Atos operates under the brands Atos, Atos Consulting, Atos Worldgrid, Bull, Canopy, Unify and Worldline.
Atoswas formed from the merger in 1997 of two French IT services companies – Axime and Sligos - each of which had been established out of earlier mergers. By 2000, Atos employed 11,000 staff and generated annual revenues of approximately € 1.1 billion. Origin was a subsidiary of Royal Philips Electronics, which had been formed in 1996 from merger of BSO/Origin and Philips Communications. At the time of the merger with Atos in October 2000 Origin employed more than 16,000 staff in 30 countries worldwide and generated annual revenues of approximately €1.6 billion. KPMG Consulting businesses in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands were acquired in August 2002 to establish Atos Consulting. This transaction provided the Group with a major presence in the Consulting segment of the IT services market. Sema Group was acquired from SCHlumberger in January 2004, thereby creating one of thr leading European IT services companies. At the time of the acquisition Sema Group employed 20,000 staff and generated annual revenues of approximately €2.4 billion. Atos Origin employed 26,000 staff generating annual revenues of more than € 3 billion. On July 1, 2011, Atos announced that it has completed the acquisition of Siemens IT Solutions and Services - to become a new IT champion. The deal created a new pro forma 2011 annual revenues of €8.5 billion and 74,000 employees across 48 countries. Thanks to mergers the company was ranked in the top ten global IT services providers; number five in managed services worldwide and the number one European player in Europe. As a result the new company became a powerful combination of two highly complementary organizations. Operating under the brand Atos, companies create a leader in basic and highly important business and IT services allowing partner companies to accelerate their growth. On August 11, 2014, Atos announced the successful completion of the tender offer launched by Atos for all the issued and outstanding shares in the capital of Bull. The transaction represented a key milestone in the creation in Europe of a world leader in cloud, Cyber security, and Big Data. The deal created new company annual revenue of circa € 10 billion and 86,000 employees in 66 countries. On July 1, 2015, Atos announced that it has completed the acquisition ofXerox ITO, of which the business is mainly in the United States. As a result, Atos totals now 93,000 employees across 72 countries. As of November 2015 Atos announced its plans or the acquisition of Unify, the number 3 worldwide of unified communications, allowing Atos to create a global offer for unified communications and real time processing, optimizing social collaboration, digital transformation and enhancing sales performances of its clients. (Company's history (Atos - http://atos.net/en-us/home/we-are/company-profile/company-history.html)
http://www.4-traders.com/DOW-CHEMICAL-CO-12332/company/
DOW CHEMICAL CO (DOW)
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
60 262 ($60,262bn) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.4-traders.com/GENERAL-ELECTRIC-COMPANY-4823/company/
|
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
287 364 ($287,364bn.) |
|
Shareholders |
|
|
Name |
Equities |
% |
|
The Vanguard Group, Inc. |
571,817,462 |
6.22% |
|
SSgA Funds Management, Inc. |
352,099,954 |
3.83% |
|
BlackRock Fund Advisors |
349,365,395 |
3.80% |
|
Fidelity Management & Research Co. |
166,789,942 |
1.81% |
|
Capital Research & Management Co. (World Investors) |
163,208,771 |
1.77% |
|
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. |
129,594,392 |
1.41% |
|
Northern Trust Investments, Inc. |
121,000,326 |
1.32% |
|
Capital Research & Management Co. (Global Investors) |
92,486,585 |
1.01% |
|
Geode Capital Management LLC |
78,153,367 |
0.85% |
|
Trian Fund Management LP |
74,245,255 |
0.81% |
http://www.4-traders.com/MCDONALD-S-CORPORATION-4833/company/
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION (MCD)
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
104 886 ($104,886 bn) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/THE-SWATCH-GROUP-SA-9364976/?type_recherche=rapide&mots=THE_SWATCH_GROUP
THE SWATCH GROUP SA (UHR). Omega was the 2014 Olympics sponsor as a susidiary of Swatch Group |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
-Capitalization (M$) |
14 251 ($14,251 billion) |
About the Swatch Group company brands where Omega is present as well.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/swatch-group
Discover the Swatch Group brands… Breguet, Harry Winston, Blancpain, Glashütte Original, Jaquet Droz, Léon Hatot, Omega, Longines, Rado, Union Glashütte, Tissot, Balmain, Certina, Mido, Hamilton, Calvin Klein watches, jewelry, Swatch and Flik Flak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/PANASONIC-CORPORATION-6492473/company/
|
PANASONIC CORPORATION (6752) (as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.4-traders.com/PROCTER-GAMBLE-CO-4838/company/
|
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO (PG) |
|
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
225 752 ($225,752bn) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/SAMSUNG-ELECTRONICS-CO-LT-6494906/company/
|
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD (005930) |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/VISA-INC-2277468/company/
|
· VISA INC (V) (as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Given the fact that the 2014 Sochi Olympics TV rights for North America were bought by NBCUniversal, the whole situation around the IOC’s marketing policy seems even more interesting. Here are the key shareholders of Comcast Corporation, including NBCUniversal and Comcast Cable.
http://www.4-traders.com/COMCAST-CORPORATION-4864/?type_recherche=rapide&mots=COMCAST
|
COMCAST CORPORATION (CMCSA) (NBCUniversal) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(data as of 28.07.2016) We will estimate the TV companies market capitalization in order to analyze their state
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
About Comcast Corporation
Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA) is a global player in the field of media and high technology, represented on the market by two major enterprises: Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal. Comcast Cable is one of the country's largest video operators, high-speed Internet access and telephone providers for private clients under the brand name Xfinity that also provides same services for business. NBCUniversal works in the field of TV news, entertainment and sports cable networks, NBC and Telemundo broadcasting networks, television production management, television station groups, Universal Pictures and Universal entertainment parks and resorts.
|
Shareholders |
|
|
Name |
Equities |
% |
|
The Vanguard Group, Inc. |
144,317,042 |
5.97% |
|
Capital Research & Management Co. (World Investors) |
130,459,039 |
5.40% |
|
SSgA Funds Management, Inc. |
95,217,121 |
3.94% |
|
BlackRock Fund Advisors |
94,546,192 |
3.91% |
|
Wellington Management Co. LLP |
54,138,081 |
2.24% |
|
ClearBridge Investments LLC |
51,599,315 |
2.13% |
|
Dodge & Cox |
43,741,144 |
1.81% |
|
Fidelity Management & Research Co. |
38,958,600 |
1.61% |
|
Norges Bank Investment Management |
35,269,375 |
1.46% |
|
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. |
32,825,090 |
1.36% |
In order to completely defeat all opponents in the IOC, Vanguard strikes at the only consolidated group - the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), who was trying to resist the pressure of the Americans. The system built by Dick Pound in the International Olympic Committee’s structure continued to work even in his absence in the management of the key IOC’s commission on TV and New Media Rights. Open confrontation broke out during the Beijing 2008 Olympics when the EBU tried to take the last fight...
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/720733
“EBU broadcasters just furious with IOC’s actions”
The 2008 Olympics scandal (10.11.2006)
"...The international Olympic Committee (IOC) might find itself in the middle of the litigation the European broadcasting Union (EBU), which unites 74 TV companies, is about to launch. The EBU has been unhappy that at the request of the American NBC, the IOC has changed the time for several competitions during the Beijing Olympics so that broadcast in the US be viewed in prime time. Thus, the European TV companies are losing viewership as they will have to broadcast competitions at five o’clock in the morning.
The start time for the finals in swimming and gymnastics became a stumbling block in the relation between EBU and the IOC. Traditionally, all important Olympic competitions are held in the afternoon. But the IOC complied with the NBC’s demands and moved the start time. The position of the IOC management can be easily explained. The thing is that NBC is the largest buyer of the Olympics TV rights. NBC pays billions of dollars for exclusive rights to broadcast the Games in the USA. Under the current contract for the period between 2000 and 2008, the IOC will receive $3.55 billion. In addition, a new contract has been already signed which stipulates a $2.2 billion payment for the right to broadcast the 2010 and 2012 Olympics. To compare – the EBU’s TV companies are ready to pay for the 2010 and 2012 Olympics only $755 million.
The EBU leaders understand that money is the most important factor, but, as the head of the organization Fritz Pleitgen noted, it does not mean that the Union would put up with violation of its rights. "Our legal department has already been told to look into the matter. The lawyers will go through all contracts with the IOC to understand whether the moving the start dates of the competitions breaches the contract,” said Mr. Pleitgen. “We are still hopeful that litigation can be avoided. But I want everybody to know: the EBU’s TV companies are furious with what the IOC is doing".
In fact, it is not only Europeans who are furious, but broadcasters from Asian countries as well and also those from Australia and Oceania who got hurt from moving of the competitions start time. They are especially outraged at the fact that in pursuit of profit the IOC ignored the interests of approximately 2.2 billion viewers in Europe, Asia and Oceania in favor of 560 million potential viewers in North America..."
Thus, the Americans’ punishment of their European counterparts cost the latter quite serious money – being prevented from broadcasting most popular competitions in the timeslots that would be most convenient for the viewers, the TV companies all across Europe were short on advertising revenues. To build on this success, a number of expected measures by investors followed, which led to a replacement of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), uniting 75 broadcasters, with which the IOC had been in partnership since 1956, by a private French media group Lagardere (Sportfive agency). Surely, the Vanguard Fund which controls NBCUniversal group (subsidiary of Comcast Corp) – the long-time partner which has been acquiring the exclusive TV rights for the United States – and all IOC’s sponsors could find the arguments to force EBU to get out of the way… That also included doubling down until the opponent blinks... And the EBU’s competitor lacks no financial interest as well.
Also, the apparent inaccuracy of the article’s author in his calculations needs to be noted: "...In comparison: the EBU TV companies are ready to pay only $755 million for the 2010 and 2012 Olympics..." To cross-reference, we'll go to another article from the same Kommersant newspaper saying that the IOC awarded the French marketing agency SPORTFIVE the TV rights to the 2014 Sochi Olympics to be distributed across 40 European countries, including Russia. The contract value is estimated at about €1 billion...What a difference – $755 million for two Olympic Games and €1 billion for only one, especially if to take into account euro to dollar exchange rate at the time of the transaction, i.e. for 2009...
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1124683?themeid=312
"...The French bought the Sochi Olympics rights
Sportfive to be in control of the 2014 Olympics TV broadcast.
21.02.2009
The IOC has awarded French sports marketing agency Sportfive the TV rights to the 2014 Sochi Olympics to be distributed in 40 countries in Europe including Russia. The contract price is estimated at about €1 billion...
...The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Sportfive agency, a part of the French media group Lagardere, have signed a contract according to which the agency received the Olympic broadcast rights to the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics and the 2016 Summer Olympics (the host country to be determined). Sportfive will be distributing the broadcast rights across all media platforms, including free-to-air television, satellite and cablesubscription television, internet and mobile devices. The Agency will represent the IOC's interests in 40 European countries including Russia...
...Sportfive will be acting as a TV rights distributor generating revenue through the commissions as per agreement with the IOC...
As TV broadcasting rights distributer, Sportfive has replaced the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) uniting 75 media companies. The IOC and EBU partnership lasted since 1956; however, the parties were unable to reach an agreement over the sale of TV rights for the 2014 and 2016 Olympics. The EBU President Fritz Pleitgen admitted in December 2008 that the negotiations failed because the IOC’s financial demands were too high. It was reported earlier that on the sale of TV rights to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver and the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, the IOC would earn over $4 billion, including $700 million paid by the TV companies, members the EBU…"
Comparing the price the European countries pay for the rights using as an example those to the Sochi Olympics, makes it possible to assess the arguments to deny the European Broadcasting Union equal rights to set the competitions schedule and start time as dubious. If, as noted earlier, Lagardere media group (Sportfive agency) for further distribution to the European broadcasters paid to the IOC for the TV rights nearly 1 billion Euros, than experts believe NBC bought the rights for significantly less money.
http://vse-o-sochi.ru/olympic-games-2014/1341-facebook-i-nbc-sovmestnoe-osveschenie-olimpiady.html
Facebook and NBC: Olympics’ joint broadcast
"...NBC owns the exclusive TV rights to 2014 Olympics. For the deal the company paid approximately eight hundred million dollars ($800 million - author's emphasis) planning to recover the costs through advertising revenue..."We can do the math to make a comparison taking into account the exchange rate at the time of the purchase in 2009. The average US dollar – Euro exchange rate in 2009 was 1.3952. So the price of the rights for the European broadcasters in US dollars can be estimated at $1.3952 billion, which is clearly more than $800 million. So, it's not about money, or not only about money.
https://finance.rambler.ru/currencies/kross-kurs/
|
Рамблер/финансы |
Rambler/Finance |
|
Главная |
Home |
|
Новости |
News |
|
Рынки |
Markets |
|
Валюты |
Currency |
|
Сервисы |
Services |
|
Деньги |
Money |
|
Добавить валюту |
Add currency |
|
Все время |
All the time |
|
Год |
Year |
|
Полгода |
Half a year |
|
Квартал |
Quarter |
|
Месяц |
Month |
|
Неделя |
Week |
|
3 дня |
3 days |
|
Сегодня |
Today |
|
Период от 01.01.2009 до 31.12.2009 |
Period from 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 |
|
Янв |
Jan |
|
Фев |
Feb |
|
Мар |
Mar |
|
Май |
May |
|
Июн |
Jun |
|
Авг |
Aug |
|
Сен |
Sep |
|
Окт |
Oct |
|
Дек |
Dec |
|
Данные предоставлены: Forex Club. Предлагаемые к заключению договоры или финансовые инструменты являются высоко рискованными и могут привести к потере внесенных денежных средств в полном объеме. До совершения сделок следует ознакомиться с рисками, с которыми они связаны. |
Data provided by: Forex Club. Offered contracts or financial instruments are highly risky and can lead to full-scale loss of money. It is necessary to familiarize with the connected ricks before transaction. |
If you take a look at who are the key shareholders of Lagardère SCA, you will see several funds, who control NBCUniversal - the exclusive U.S broadcaster of 2014 Olympic Games – as well and all the IOC’s global sponsors.
|
LAGARDÈRE (MMB) |
|
Lagardère SCA is a holding company, which engages in the media business.
It operates through its subsidiary, Lagardère Media SAS, which is further subdivided into the following business segments: Lagardère Publishing, Lagardère Active, Lagardère Services, and Lagardère Unlimited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Now would be a perfect time to recall the corruption scandal that broke out in 2001 just before the Games and continued throughout 2002. As we remember, it was caused by selection of the Olympic host cities, and not just one but several.
Corruption: the international Olympic Committee. Part1
Author Nanotony- May 19, 2011
"...As a result, to investigate the circumstances of the case, a working group was formed headed by Canadian Richard Pound (currently the WADA President) ...
...And on top of that, another veteran of the International Olympic movement, Mark Hodler from Switzerland, made a statement for the media saying that there's nothing surprising about the corruption in the IOC, namely taking bribes “to be sympathetic" to one or another city when choosing a place to host the Olympic Games.. And he stressed that the cities bidding to host the Olympic Games are prepared to do a lot. According to Hodler, 5-7 percent of the 115 IOC members were regularly taking bribes. As examples of the Olympic host cities chosen mostly due to corruption of the IOC’s officials, Holder cited Atlanta (1996), Nagano (1998), Sydney (2000) and Salt Lake City (2002).
In the USA, a criminal investigation was launched over the allegations that the IOC’s members took bribes from the organizers of the Olympic Games in the American cities Atlanta (1996) and Salt Lake City (2002). According to a patriarch of the Olympic movement, there was an official agents’ team that concluded contracts with the cities bidding to host the Games; and for amount of 500 thousand dollars to a million dollars it was negotiating with the IOC members, trying to persuade them to support their protégés. In case the city wins, extra 3-5 million dollars were supposed to be shelled out. Usually, it was 15-20 people who would go into the deal, thus a vote costing 50-200 thousand dollars..."
It is also worth mentioning that Atlanta (1996), Nagano (1998), Sydney (2000) and Salt Lake City (2002), Marc Hodler brought up in his allegations about the corrupted IOC’s members, have one thing in common – they all belong to the zone of a very strong Anglo-Saxon influence. The document by the National Security Agency about Olympic Games security identifies the countries under the absolute protection of the United States - "...(S // REL USA. AUS.CAN, GBR.NZL), i.e., USA, Australia, Canada, UK, New Zealand. Only Japan not quite follows the pattern. We should take a look at the time when selection of the 2002 Winter Olympics host city was held, as a result awarding this right to the American Salt Lake City.
http://www.calend.ru/event/7008/
«... XIX Winter Olympic Games took place in Salt Lake City (USA) from 8 to 24 February 2002. This American city was chosen as the host for the Winter Olympics – the first in the 21st century – during the IOC session in Budapest in 1995 (104th session of the IOC , July15-18, 1995 – author’s emphsis). Among the bidding cities were Ostersund (Sweden), Quebec (Canada) and Sion (Switzerland). But Salt Lake City won in the first round of voting as it received an overwhelming supermajority of the votes..."
It is worth noting these amounts of $50 000 – 200 000, that are cited as the bribes to the IOC members to vote in favor of the bidding cities. If we compare the deals that went through the key IOC commissions – those for marketing, and TV and new media rights – then it would be reasonable to look for the wrongful influence on the Olympics host cities selection process first of all in these commissions, and also in the evaluation committees; and the pressure they subjected the opinion of the IOC members during the voting. To reiterate the earlier mentioned information that the voting to select Salt Lake City took place in July 1995, and already in August (one month later) of the same year, NBC announced the signing of a historic agreement over the sale of TV rights which became, at that time, the most expensive one in sports history, exceeding $1.27 billion. And in December of 1995, NBC set a new record, making a deal with the IOC to buy the same TV rights for the 2004 and 2008 Summer Olympics, as well as the 2006 Winter Olympics for $ 2.3 billion. Yeah right, no pressure, when receiving $ 3.5 billion payment is subject to selecting an American city.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD,_%D0%91%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB
Bill Clinton 42nd President of the United States
20 Jan 1993 — 20 Jan 2001
http://matveychev-oleg.livejournal.com/196372.html
On October 24, 1995, U.S. President Bill Clinton made the following statement at the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting:
For the last ten years, our policy toward the USSR and its allies has convincingly proven that our course to eliminate one of the world’s most powerful nations and one of the strongest military blocs was correct.
Using failures of the Soviet diplomacy, extreme arrogance of Gorbachev and his advisors and ministers, including those who openly took the American side, we have achieved what President Truman was going to do to the Soviets using the atomic bomb. Yes, with one significant difference – we have gained a resource colony instead of a state destroyed by the atomic bomb.
Yes, we spent for that many billion dollars, and already now we are close to what Russians call cost recovery. In four years, we and our allies have received various strategic materials valued at fifteen billion dollars, hundreds of tons of silver, gems, etc. For non-existent projects we have received over twenty thousand tons of aluminum, two thousand tons of cesium, beryllium, strontium, etc. paying laughably small price. Many of our military and business people didn’t believe the success of the upcoming operation. Too bad for them. By weakening the USSR’s ideological foundation, we succeeded in taking out from the war for the global domination a nation that has been America’s main adversary. Our goal and objective is to continue providing assistance to all who wants to see in us the model of the Western freedom and democracy.
When in early 1991 the CIA operatives gave fifty million dollars to the East and then more of similar amounts to carry out our plans, many politicians and military officials did not believe in success of our efforts. Now, four years later, it is clear that our plans have begun bringing results. However, this does not mean that there is nothing we should think about. In Russia, where the American influence is not strong yet, it is necessary to achieve several goals simultaneously by any means necessary:
To try to prevent the Communists from getting into power.
To pay special attention to the presidential elections.
We are completely satisfied with the current leadership of the country, and therefore no expenses should be spared. They will bring positive results.
By organizing Yeltsin’s second presidential term, we will create a stronghold we will never leave.
To accomplish two important political tasks, it is necessary to take steps that those who discredited themselves leave the Yeltsin's presidential entourage.
If we solve these two problems, then in the next decade we will have to solve the following issues:
Breaking up Russia into small states through regional wars, similar to those we organized in Yugoslavia;
The final collapse of the Russia’s military-industrial complex and its army;
Regime change in the republics of our interest that broke away from Russia
Yes, we allow Russia to be a nation, but there will be only one empire – the USA..."
http://matveychev-oleg.livejournal.com/196372.html
Clinton's speech is quoted as written in the report "The main directions for development of science and technology in the sector" - Moscow: Research Institute for power engineering of the Ministry of Nuclear Energy of the Russian Federation. - 1999. – 46 p. The report's author is V. P. Smetannikov, a chief engineer and scientific director for the conversion programs ..."
To fasten and build on the success, the US administration really needed an event with the maximum media coverage and impact on the target audiences, so that it allows demonstrating America’s new status – the winner in the Cold War. The USA needed to continue to put tough pressure on all countries, and first of all Russia, in order to force her to abandon its active counteractions against Washington's course to destroy the existing international security system and impose the new "unipolar" world order. The money that ended up in the US after looting the Soviet reserves and the assets of the Warsaw Pact countries was abundant. The missing thing was a major event with the maximum audience. Only the Olympic Games broadcasting meets such criteria.
That’s why it is hard to believe the presented theory that it was managers of the Organizing Committee, let it be senior ones, who were involved in the corruption scheme and were paying bribes to the IOC representatives. Their status wasn’t up to the level and complexity of the task. It looks like the approach to achieving the goal was formulated by the concerned shareholders of the major corporations at the meeting with the State Department.
Participation of the USA in the Olympics on its own territory, under such initial conditions, calls for the use of the full spectrum of influence and power to achieve the desired result. Given that such events fall under the category of the information and psychological operations of the US Armed Forces, it is most likely that the top military command overseeing the planning of these operations was in direct coordination with the US President. To achieve the desired goal, all working channels within the IOC, National Olympic Committees, International Federations and media were engaged. After being selected the 2002 Olympics host country, the remaining questions to answer were how to solve the super task of making certain the team’s victory as a symbol of the US supremacy over the rest of the world. Tasks like this cannot be solved with the methods that do not guarantee the result. Therefore, the resources allocated to ”taking care of business” in Salt Lake City were supposed to be serious, and the level of planning and coordination was the highest, therefore that was the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces. Participation of the USA in the Olympics itself falls more into the format of information and psychological operations carried out within the framework of non-traditional warfare.
That is why it would be naive to suggest that Dick Pound would be seriously looking within the IOC for the corrupted officials and their clients; as search for the scapegoats without naming the clients was just pointless. The level and closeness of contacts, the amounts of money that for 20 years before the Salk Lake City Olympics had been coming to the IOC’s treasury (and not only IOC’s) from various US companies... indicate that the unofficial influence of the owners of multinational companies was enormous. . Those of the IOC members who unknowingly bought into the promises of “the glass beads and the firewater” were sacrificed on altar of the fight against corruption, while the real but hidden levers of influence keep being at work even now. . It was the very situation when the well-established connections of Dick Pound within the IOC and his absolute authority of the organization’s marketing genius got really handy. The threat of losing cornucopia was scaring the IOC way more than small handouts to the IOC members not privy to the secret mechanisms of financial and personal connections of the organization.
This is what was happening less than a year before the Olympics in Salt Lake City. The act was unfolding in Moscow on the occasion of resignation of the seemingly everlasting Samaranch and the elections of the new IOC head in the summer of 2001. Before the meeting, it was not just an advantage Dick Pound had – he had the winning hand to ensure victory for himself and his "partners" from Vanguard.
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/274713
Olympic movement to have at the helm a surgeon or a lawyer at worst 16.07.2001
The author about Dick Pound's as a candidate for the IOC president before the vote:
"...For a person not experienced enough in the IOC intricacies, it may seem obvious, that it is Dick Pound who deserves more to win. In fact, it was Mr. Pound who was in charge of all important areas of the Commission’s business in recent years. And his leadership was extremely spectacular.
Dick Pound is sometimes referred to as Mr. Marketing, hinting that due to his efforts the Olympic movement has become a commercially profitable enterprise. The Canadian lawyer responsible for the IOC marketing policy has indeed achieved a sharp increase of the Commission’s revenues by means of the rise of the TV rights prices and new money injections from the sponsors . That alone makes him pretty much the most outstanding figure of the movement in the eyes of the public…
...Dick Pound is reproached that he cannot speak the language of diplomacy the majority of the IOC members usually use, that he is often careless, harsh in his statements and even allows himself to use slang expressions. To the criticism he answers with a smile, “You yourself try to be a diplomat and pump out billions of dollars from the TV broadcasters"..."
Can you imagine - plain and simplejust like that, - "to pump out billions of dollars from the TV broadcasters…" Having such results, and therefore the support from the IOC’s global sponsors, and also as well as from the leading TV companies that had brought phenomenal money to the budget – the relationships with those had been nurtured for over 20 years – the victory in the fight for president’s chair of the IOC was supposed to be in the bag. Everything would have gone fine, hadn’t the Russians interfered, who broke this pre-lobbied scenario, and as a result it was Jacques Rogge who became the President of the IOC. To say that Pound was upset is to say nothing. He was a huge stake, as the goal his partners had was the same one pursued y on the regular market –: privatization and consolidation under their control of all the most attractive assets, with the Summer and Winter Olympics undoubtedly being the one. Pound's reaction the media was able to obtain was quite indicative – it indirectly bore evidence that the main objective of the team was the very President's chair - Pound tried to blackmail the IOC with destruction of its financial stability. For Jacques Rogge the situation clearly was not an easy one, otherwise he wouldn't have ended up talking Pound into staying, even in spite of the guaranteed numerous clashes down the road and publicly demonstrated pushback against him.
http://www.games2002.ru/articles/article_olympics_157.shtml
New appointment for #2 post in the IOC (December 21, 2001)
"Canadian Dick Pound, the head of the marketing Commission, who turned the Olympic Games from practically a bankrupt to a multi-billionaire, didn’t suit Jacques Rogge, the current IOC President. ".
That is why yesterday his resignation notice from his post was accepted ..."
"... In July, Pound sent a letter to the sponsors of the Salt Lake City Olympics where he called them to review their obligations before the IOC in connection with election of Rogge the new President, which angered Rogge himself and many the IOC members. In response to that, in September Rogge announced that he had suspended the financial activities of the law firm that had been working under Pound’s direction and while conducting its business had received from the IOC for no good reason more than $ 3 million... "
What was this mysterious firm that had received from the IOC such a significant money, we'll try to find out later, but something is telling that the entity in question is one of the leading Canadian law firms - Stikeman Elliott - where he (Pound) is a partner and a practicing lawyer. Since the Western law is the case-based, it is worth recalling how the first wave of attack against Russia was attempted in order to take away her right to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup and what steps were taken against the sports officials.
http://www.rbc.ru/politics/21/12/2015/5677bbf69a7947b54a049cce
Blatter and Platini banned from football for eight years
Dec 21, 2015, Maria Leyva
"...In early October, FIFA Ethics Committee removed Blatter and Platini from office and football management for 90 days. The reason was the proceedings initiated by the Swiss Federal Department of Justice late September.
There was a suspicion that Blatter had made in 2011 an ‘illegal payment’ to Michel Platini – UEFA President and FIFA Vice-President – of two million Swiss francs for the work he carried out between 1999 and 2002 (since 2002 Platini was a member of the Executive Committee of UEFA and FIFA)..."
One strange fact that after so many years Dick Pound still stays with the law firm Stikeman Elliot and continues to remain there both as a partner and practicing attorney, gives us a new direction for investigation. Here is what we have found.
Stikeman Elliott represents Coca-Cola’s interests (business or legal consulting in tax disputes, negotiations with tax authorities on behalf of the client and also general tax consulting)
http://www.sedar.com/DisplayProfile.do?lang=EN&issuerType=03&issuerNo=00011614
Coca-Cola Enterprises (Canada) Bottling Finance Company
|
Date of Formation: |
Sep 22 1998 |
|
Size of Issuer (Assets): |
Over $1,000,000,000 |
On the news website for legal practice we can find the following information
Coca-Cola Enterprise (Canada) Bottling Finance resumes MTN programs
Closing Date: April 4, 2001
On April 4, 2001, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. had its MTN program renewed by its finance subsidiary, Coca-Cola Enterprises (Canada) Bottling Finance Ltd the value of the transaction is approximately $2 billion. Acting for Coca-Cola Enterprises from Stikeman Elliott were Robert W.A. Nicholls, Maurice Swan and Greg Hogan. Coca-Cola Enterprises was also represented in the transaction on US law matters by its Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel, E. Liston Bishop.
Lawyer(s):
Maurice J. Swan,Robert W.A. Nicholls,Gregory J. Hogan
Firm(s):
Now, let’s find out what MTN programs are. It turns out law firm Stikeman Elliott LLP, where Dick Pound works and is a partner, the company he negotiates with, signs contracts and is in charge of representing its interests at the Olympics, is entrusted by Coca-Cola with very confidential business of significant amounts of money. In a way everything falls into place and looks like giving work-orders to pay for other services. And at the same time we keep in mind the list of the key shareholders who are practically all from Vanguard.
http://legionfg.ru/o-nas/publikaczii/2014/04/10/kapital/
Global capital: brief description of a high profit market
… Repeal of the need to back up a deal with the assets in possession made significantly easier to carry out the banking transactions. By conducting the off-balance-sheet transactions using such financial instruments as MTN and SLC, the banks gained an opportunity not only to consistently increase their profits, but to manipulate the money supply on the global market.
...A brief description of the market
Despite keeping it strictly confidential, the fact of existence of the short term bank notes (MTN), as well as the reasons for their emergence, are becoming information more available to the general public.
The majority of the organizations interested in buying MTNs are not allowed purchasing these banking instruments on the primary market. They are forced to depend on the secondary market, where the prices are higher and profitability is lower. So called programs run between the primary and the secondary markets. With the use of investments, these companies buy MTNs and then right away re-sell them to the trader.
The program’s profit depends on the speed the capital is invested and re-invested. The MTN buy-sell system is designed in such way that eliminates any chance for a loss or risk. Thus, the programs and the participating investors are guaranteed high profits…
… The METHOD: All participating banks have AA or AAA ratings. They put on sale bank notes called MTN (Medium Term Notes). As a rule, they have 10 year maturity and annual return of 7.5%. It is something that presently has become known to a degree. What remains very much unknown is the fact that every MTN issued by these banks (Ausstellerbank = AB) is guaranteed with T-bonds by the Feds.
Due to this high, double reliability with high profitability at the same time, MTNs are in high demand. After paying the commission fees, ABs transfer revenues through the Feds to the US Treasury. MTNs are recorded internally along with T-bonds and for that reason are shown in ABs financial reports.
These notes are traded at discounted price which is determined by such factors like the market revenue, the quality of the trade participant and, first of all, by their buying capacities and pace of sale. MTNs have Cusip and registration number which makes them completely liquid.
DEMAND: Due to MTNs’ high quality and profitability, the organizations interested in their purchase the most are banks, insurance companies and pension funds, then follow trusts, government agencies, societies, etc. Pension funds represent the largest sector, first of all American and Japanese. Nonetheless, to protect the publicly vital sectors of economy, banks, insurance companies, pension funds are excluded from the direct purchase of MTNs on the primary market. The reason is obvious – had they been able to buy these notes, then they wouldn’t have seen any reason to supply the economy with loans. That is why banks, insurance companies and pension funds depend on the secondary market and can buy MTNs only there, where the prices, of course, are much higher and, consequently, the revenues are significantly lower.
Among the achievements of the law firm Stikeman Elliott we can also find involvement in the merger and acquisition deals in the interest of such companies, like BHP Billiton; Ticketmaster, LiveNation, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Continental.
http://globalcompetitionreview.com/surveys/article/31316/stikeman-elliott-llp/
Stikeman Elliot LLP
Monday, January 30, 2012
On the merger side, the team (Stikeman Elliott — author’s note) has been just as busy – handling three of the five deals to require a bureau consent order in 2010. The team (Stikeman Elliott — author's note) has acted for Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan in its potential takeover by BHP Billiton as well as for Ticketmaster in its international tie-up with rival Live Nation; Coca-Cola Enterprises in the sale of its bottling operations to Coca-Cola; United in its high-profile merger with Continental; and Canadian Tire Corporation’s purchase of Forzani Group, among many others..."
This strange circumstance brings us to the companies linked to Vanguard.
http://www.4-traders.com/BHP-BILLITON-PLC-4001096/company/
|
BHP BILLITON PLC (BLT) |
|
|
|
Capitalization (M$) |
73 261($73,261 bn) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.4-traders.com/LIVE-NATION-ENTERTAINMENT-13449/company/
|
LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (LYV) Live Nation Entertainment (NYSE: LYV ) is a leading live entertainment company consisting of global market leaders: Ticketmaster, Live Nation Concerts, Live Nation Media & Sponsorship and Artist Nation Management. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now let’s review information about the much talked-about merger of the United and Continental Airlines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Continental_Holdings
United Continental Holdings, Inc.(formerly UAL Corporation) is a publicly traded airline holding companyheadquartered in the Willis Towerin Chicago.[4]UCH owns and operates United Airlines, Inc. The company is the successor of UAL Corporation, which agreed to change its name to United Continental Holdings in May 2010, when a merger agreement was reached between United and Continental Airlines. Its stock trades under the UAL symbol.
http://www.4-traders.com/UNITED-CONTINENTAL-HOLDIN-13094239/company/
|
|
|
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
|
Capitalization (M $) |
15 118 ($15,118 bn) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Now is the time to take a look at acquisition of the Forzani Group by Canadian Tire Corporation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Tire
"Canadian Tire Corporation, Limitedis a Canadian retail company which sells a wide range of automotive, sports and leisure, and home products...
...In May 2011, Canadian Tire announced the purchase of Forzani Group, a Canadian sporting goods retailer. "The deal represents Canadian Tire's first major acquisition..."
http://www.4-traders.com/CANADIAN-TIRE-CORPORATION-1409621/company/
|
|
|
(as of 28.07.2016)
|
||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Everything seems to be somewhat funny - whichever way you put it together, in the result you end up with Vanguard… Or are we just seeing things?
http://izvestia.ru/news/250064
August 6, 2001, Denis BYSTROV
MORTAL SIN, GOOD MONEY
“… During the meeting with the leadership of the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) in the Canadian city of Edmonton, the newly appointed leader of the Olympic movement Jacques Rogge from Belgium, who a month ago had replaced Juan Antonio Samaranch, made an interesting remark – Dick Pound, an ardent campaigner against corruption and Samaranch’s rival to the IOC’s presidency, after much persuasion agreed to re-consider his decisions to resign as the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) President. Pound promised to keep his post at least until the 2002 Winter Olympics, and in addition, this Canadian lawyer must decide before September 1 whether or not he will continue leading the IOC’s marketing…”
It is no one other but Pound who was overseeing the IOC’s marketing policies which made the organization, in essence, dependent of the only key group of stockholders controlling all global sponsors of the Olympic Games and the largest buyer of the TV rights. Of course, he had secured many billion dollars coming from the TV companies and sponsors, and everybody are grateful to him for that, but to appoint someone – who himself should have been the No.1 suspect – the head of the IOC’s commission to investigate the facts of corruption is an outrage.
It was all due to the influence the mighty shareholders of the corporations, the Olympics sponsors, had been able to gain and that enabled them to solve even such uneasy task.
To think that a person operating on such level will be accepting small tokens of gratitude is a serious mistake. This scheme is for those who have been traditionally yielding to the persuasion by the Anglo-Saxon businessmen to trade something of value, like their vote to support a bidding city, for the “fire water and glass beads.” Those who will succumb to temptation while being recorded by hidden cameras and microphones, later on will be accused of the street corruption.
But it is worth going back to 1995 when the USA obtained the coveted right to hold the 2002 Olympics on their own soil, in Salt Lake City. Political and business objectives set the high level for these goals to be achieved. Because to get a successful bid to hold the Olympics was just a part of the task for the USA, and the easiest one, it must be said. Now it was necessary to solve a more difficult problem – to guarantee the team’s victory over Russian and Europe, and also the public demonstration of the “uncivilized” and “savage” nature of Russia by all means available. The connections in the IOC and Federations, as well as using the referees, were not suitable for this task, because of the complexity to carry out and high risk. If voting while keeping their own countries oblivious was sort of possible, then it was very unlikely that someone would have courage to award unfair victories when being watched by TV cameras or to make the corrupt sport official persuade their athletes to give their victory to the USA. It was necessary to find an universal weapon to fight the unwanted. As some kind of stiletto, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), was established, which happened at the same time as the 2002 Winter Olympics were awarded to Salt Lake City in 1995.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82
A stiletto (Italian: stilettofrom latin stilus — "writing stick", "spit") is a piercing bladed weapon, italiandaggerwith a straight crossbar and a thin and narrow blade...
...The small size of the stiletto allowed hiding it under clothing or to conceal in different a subject, that’s why it was popular among assassins, conspirators as well as women. In military affairs stiletto was used as an additional weapon or self-defense weapon against the enemy wearing armor...
Assessing the results of carrying out the idea presented in 1998, to work on the project “WADA stiletto” was invited the talented and proven “in the battles” Dick Pound, as the work ahead was meticulous and those uninvolved were not supposed to know its goals. Three years passed since Salt Lake City’s successful bid to work the details and launch the project. WADA – the lethal weapon – according to its creators’ vision, should be available to the “white gods” only, providing an opportunity to execute the rest of the world by the unknown and invisible weapon, while the client and the hitman are smiling looking their victim into the eyes and offering to repent for the “sins”.
http://web.archive.org/web/20141020061546/http://www.themontrealeronline.com/2011/08/richard-pound/
"...In 1998 Richard was selected to be the first Chair of the World Anti-Doping Agency, which subsequently established its world headquarters in Montreal..."
The project has turned out to be successful. And now Pound is being awarded his share of glory from his own business partners and employers… Who knows?!
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1972656_1972712_1974261,00.html
"... In 2005 TIME Magazine names Richard Pound one of the 100 most influential people in the world...," noting his progress in fight against doping.
Vanguard is not a greedy organization when it comes to its loyal workers. Only one thing – the company employs people with an ample and very particular experience to manage people in the crisis situation, including those who have been involved in the special operations by the US Army special operations forces, PMCs where anything may happen – both recruitment and liquidation – and during operation anything can be expected… That’s why the business partners for sure decided not to take any risk paying cash to the bank accounts of their faithful man, and offered the usual scheme of remuneration through stocks and options they themselves actively trade on the market. This way it is more advantageous to avoid inheritance taxes; besides, it is more difficult for the revenue and controlling agencies to track them down, and most importantly, the documents are stored in a secure place, as a token of loyalty and friendship and just in case, so that this faithful man have nowhere to run, or do not think to start talking.
The situation Dick Pound is currently in is something you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy, the chances that everything will get unearthed are plenty, because the folks are doing their business like there is no tomorrow, but won’t let get out of the game. Well, one comrade, Christophe de Margery from the “French” Total Company, gave it a shot…
I would like to conclude the first part of the story about the IOC marketing genius Dick Pound with a quote that immediately came to my mind when I was making first drafts of the article.
“… Well, tell me, American, what makes power? Is it really money? Even my brother says that it is money. You have a lot of money, and what? As to me, I think what makes power is the truth. Those who have the truth are those who more powerful. Here you have fooled someone, made a lot of dough. And what, have you become more powerful? No, you haven’t. Because you have no truth behind you. But those you fooled, they have the truth behind them, therefore they are more powerful…” (quoted from the Brother 2 movie, “What makes power? It is the truth!)
(To be continued)
The Vanguard Group 3Q 13F: Holdings As Of Sep 30
11/14/2013 | 07:05am EDT
DJ CFA SOURCE: SEC 13F-HR
FILER: The Vanguard Group, Inc.
QUARTER ENDED: 09/30/2013
SEC RECEIVED: 11/07/2013
http://www.4-traders.com/SILVER-16221/news/The-Vanguard-Group-3Q-13F-Holdings-As-Of-Sep-30-17462390/
The Vanguard Group 3Q 13F: Holdings As Of Sep 3
The following sets forth up to 200 of the largest holdings of The Vanguard Group, Inc. as of Sep. 30, according to a Form 13F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
As of Sep. 30, The Vanguard Group, Inc. held 9,905 positions valued at $1,019,093,671,149.
Up to 200 of the largest holdings of The Vanguard Group, Inc. are listed below in order of dollar value as of Sep. 30.
Company Name Value Holdings Change
APPLE INC COM $20,962.062M 43,968,668 (535,667)
EXXON MOBIL CORP COM $19,347.346M 224,864,557 2,725,853
CHEVRON CORP COM $12,346.818M 101,619,899 1,804,167
MICROSOFT CORP COM $12,200.229M 366,593,433 8,647,366
JOHNSON & JOHNSON COM $11,861.150M 136,822,586 4,225,966
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO COM $11,730.264M 491,011,461 4,428,947
GOOGLE INC CL A $11,715.053M 13,374,722 552,318
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO COM $10,814.403M 143,066,586 2,906,020
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE $10,204.159M 55,104,002 495,201
WELLS FARGO & CO COM $10,102.070M 244,483,782 3,430,298
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO INC COM $9,409,140,366 182,030,187 3,117,657
PFIZER INC COM $9,237,382,484 321,579,895 3,864,740
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B $8,707,197,045 76,708,634 2,788,415
AT&T INC COM $8,686,611,569 256,848,361 2,165,976
COCA COLA CO COM $8,169,435,391 215,666,193 3,339,641
BANK OF AMERICA CORP COM $6,844,562,060 495,982,758 9,271,521
PEPSICO INC COM $6,818,694,410 85,769,741 1,858,507
PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL IN $6,807,386,369 78,616,311 360,464
MERCK & CO INC COM $6,730,210,626 141,364,251 (1,576,036)
CITIGROUP INC COM $6,649,327,259 137,071,269 2,505,118
WAL MART STORES INC COM $6,637,001,327 89,737,714 1,602,960
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC CO $6,471,978,091 138,660,484 3,278,020
CISCO SYSTEMS INC COM $6,077,984,155 259,399,264 4,555,382
SCHLUMBERGER NV COM $5,724,029,809 64,780,781 1,099,740
INTEL CORP COM $5,696,743,280 248,538,165 5,340,277
ORACLE CORP COM $5,659,465,135 170,619,992 (1,478,394)
QUALCOMM INC COM $5,570,994,972 82,753,936 979,067
MCDONALDS CORP COM $5,460,287,331 56,753,844 1,064,143
AMAZON.COM INC COM $5,452,952,141 17,441,633 459,810
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC COM $5,431,177,439 36,640,204 (167,119)
HOME DEPOT INC COM $5,240,568,582 69,091,214 (119,320)
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP COM $5,239,151,703 48,591,650 1,216,026
COMCAST CORP CL A $5,162,192,968 114,422,985 1,434,729
WALT DISNEY CO COM $5,032,207,840 78,030,824 (2,132,655)
VISA INC CL A $4,755,172,067 24,883,161 570,574
GILEAD SCIENCES INC COM $4,620,138,881 73,487,178 1,437,584
3M CO COM $4,517,950,310 37,835,611 1,045,233
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP COM $4,218,542,407 45,098,807 1,128,045
CONOCOPHILLIPS COM $4,216,063,989 60,654,064 1,504,123
BOEING CO COM $4,213,298,433 35,857,859 983,119
AMGEN INC COM $4,071,882,314 36,380,454 755,914
BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO COM $3,642,442,825 78,704,469 1,855,562
ABBVIE INC COM $3,604,347,649 80,580,095 3,060,527
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO COM $3,598,839,067 47,654,119 (284,718)
UNION PACIFIC CORP COM $3,452,881,054 22,227,894 190,378
MASTERCARD INC CL A $3,423,689,959 5,088,870 58,189
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC COM $3,371,278,638 47,078,322 794,935
ALTRIA GROUP INC COM $3,330,376,907 96,954,204 1,955,029
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP $3,313,429,025 68,135,493 1,375,922
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC CL $3,304,470,334 36,165,813 919,283
CVS CAREMARK CORP COM $3,247,821,909 57,230,342 1,471,543
ABBOTT LABS COM $3,151,783,735 94,961,848 1,825,769
FORD MOTOR CO COM $3,132,497,616 185,684,506 1,491,877
EBAY INC COM $3,132,433,405 56,141,830 898,359
MONSANTO CO COM $3,096,456,570 29,668,071 314,683
CELGENE CORP COM $3,085,408,111 20,017,310 68,289
US BANCORP/DE COM $3,084,612,634 84,325,113 1,240,247
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY FOX INC $3,018,374,110 90,073,832 1,182,869
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC COM $3,018,327,532 19,077,982 (114,060)
COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO COM $3,001,635,006 50,617,791 967,033
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC C $3,000,324,551 36,131,076 417,770
FACEBOOK INC CL A $2,949,460,343 58,719,099 12,558,990
NIKE INC CL B $2,933,247,510 40,380,610 1,326,464
MEDTRONIC INC COM $2,874,291,119 53,977,298 551,848
CATERPILLAR INC COM $2,848,813,145 34,158,431 168,122
PUBLIC STORAGE INC COM $2,780,082,997 17,315,995 23,854
BIOGEN IDEC INC COM $2,773,045,270 11,517,882 169,709
TIME WARNER INC COM $2,731,951,511 41,512,711 315,760
LOWES COS INC COM $2,721,732,344 57,167,241 460,118
STARBUCKS CORP COM $2,687,196,190 34,912,254 693,038
EOG RESOURCES INC COM $2,623,786,508 15,499,684 378,470
DU PONT E I DE NEMOURS & CO C $2,622,520,003 44,783,470 491,556
WALGREEN CO COM $2,590,249,366 48,145,899 1,204,618
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL INC CL $2,566,629,569 81,685,165 1,411,650
EMC CORP/MA COM $2,563,641,136 100,298,949 936,100
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO COM $2,525,583,975 39,035,301 596,158
ELI LILLY & CO COM $2,486,586,415 49,405,651 1,065,947
PRICELINE COM INC COM $2,465,012,527 2,438,313 42,088
EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING CO CO $2,445,795,873 39,575,985 1,023,781
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP COM $2,442,632,583 21,208,931 327,201
HEALTH CARE REIT INC COM $2,401,282,731 38,494,433 237,305
DUKE ENERGY CORP COM $2,343,024,782 35,085,726 628,629
ACCENTURE PLC CL A $2,329,028,996 31,627,227 270,692
ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP COM $2,326,248,906 25,016,119 851,295
DOW CHEMICAL CO COM $2,296,143,475 59,795,403 2,506,394
PROLOGIS INC COM $2,209,775,626 58,739,384 112,994
TJX COMPANIES INC COM $2,203,276,114 39,072,107 476,327
HCP INC COM $2,189,671,561 53,471,833 (319,166)
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED $2,180,045,123 54,108,839 661,341
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL SBI $2,175,723,854 40,614,595 576,276
TARGET CORP COM $2,165,337,457 33,843,974 313,910
METLIFE INC COM $2,138,592,172 45,550,419 1,444,699
VENTAS INC COM $2,134,440,710 34,706,353 (59,595)
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC COM $2,119,900,725 16,680,311 (371)
HALLIBURTON CO COM $2,003,625,071 41,612,151 (929,327)
PRAXAIR INC COM $1,998,736,118 16,627,037 323,545
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC $1,993,888,701 27,547,509 566,667
DANAHER CORP COM $1,955,115,976 28,204,212 948,228
BOSTON PROPERTIES INC COM $1,918,302,220 17,944,829 (33,629)
HEWLETT PACKARD CO COM $1,903,730,660 90,697,030 1,814,236
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP $1,868,737,626 25,793,480 1,252,162
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP COM $1,845,200,034 14,466,484 398,869
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP CO $1,835,832,856 26,706,908 585,147
KIMBERLY CLARK CORP COM $1,799,480,833 19,098,714 371,648
SOUTHERN CO COM $1,785,066,398 43,347,897 939,834
DOMINION RESOURCES INC/VA COM $1,777,265,468 28,445,350 565,099
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC COM $1,768,514,591 23,187,552 497,439
VIACOM INC CL B $1,762,128,256 21,083,133 277,695
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC COM $1,704,368,700 21,856,485 388,719
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC COM $1,695,782,358 25,814,924 (183,336)
MORGAN STANLEY COM $1,693,891,530 62,853,118 456,851
NEXTERA ENERGY INC COM $1,680,079,292 20,959,073 369,642
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP COM $1,678,496,281 19,178,431 1,249,813
VORNADO REALTY TRUST SBI $1,673,574,665 19,909,287 12,731
PHILLIPS 66 COM $1,668,320,876 28,853,699 (11,961)
LYONDELLBASELL INDUSTRIES ORD $1,655,146,730 22,602,031 3,143,364
AFLAC INC COM $1,651,249,017 26,637,345 674,348
FREEPORT MCMORAN COPPER CL B $1,647,503,683 49,803,618 1,199,178
NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO INC CO $1,621,937,591 20,764,788 394,694
ACE LTD ORD $1,621,173,998 17,327,640 389,947
APACHE CORP COM $1,588,879,445 18,661,962 653,867
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP $1,586,689,279 52,556,783 703,717
BLACKROCK INC CL A $1,586,301,914 5,861,732 161,447
HOST HOTELS & RESORTS (MARRIOT $1,584,034,359 89,645,408 1,228,073
(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
11-14-13 0704ET
August 2, 2016 - 11:24