Too Many Olympic Bid Losers, IOC Chief Says; Vows Further Changes To Come

[TeamBlakeUSA]

It Could Get Expensive For The Prices on The Cost For The Games of The XXXIII Olympiad.

[Sir Rols]

51 minutes ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 1 & 2

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 3 & 4

Momos, cubanos and hamburgers are not so expensive.

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Comp

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Sir Rols

[thatsnotmypuppy]

On 12/10/2016 at 7:42 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

Well, I think Budapest is honest with itself, in that this ia a mere exercise for them.  Toronto was probably going to go whole hog; and I think the IOC would rather see a Calgary bid for 2026 so that if Innsbruck or Suisse fall through, there's another viable town who's done it before. 

I think this point has considerable merit.

There is no way - no way - the IOC won't give the next viable Summer Games in North America to the USA after the IOC gained billions via the sponsorship redistribution a few years back.  Bottom line - the USOC was never going to be banned from a Games if they refused to renegotiate but they would also probably never host again (bar maybe a Winter Games if they were the only option).  Everything with the IOC has a back room pay off.  More often than not it is the IOC who get's the spoils however there is no way the USOC gave up billions for nothing.  Come on now.  You all know something was promised/offered...

I wouldn't be surprised if Toronto (and the COC) were informally told this and thus they backed down.  Of course if Paris wins 2024 then who knows if the Canadians will stay away again?  Or maybe they've been told to bid for 2026 instead as they will get those (the IOC probably knows the European bids will be unlikely to get up in any referendums so they need a "proper" bid)...  so many variables and unknowns...

[thatsnotmypuppy]

On 12/10/2016 at 7:42 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

 

duplicate lol

Edited December 13, 2016 by thatsnotmypuppy

[thatsnotmypuppy]

On 12/10/2016 at 7:42 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

 

and again

Edited December 13, 2016 by thatsnotmypuppy

[JMarkSnow2012]

5 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

There is no way - no way - the IOC won't give the next viable Summer Games in North America to the USA after the IOC gained billions via the sponsorship redistribution a few years back.  Bottom line - the USOC was never going to be banned from a Games if they refused to renegotiate but they would also probably never host again (bar maybe a Winter Games if they were the only option).  Everything with the IOC has a back room pay off.  More often than not it is the IOC who get's the spoils however there is no way the USOC gave up billions for nothing.  Come on now.  You all know something was promised/offered...

I wouldn't be surprised if Toronto (and the COC) were informally told this and thus they backed down.  Of course if Paris wins 2024 then who knows if the Canadians will stay away again?  Or maybe they've been told to bid for 2026 instead as they will get those (the IOC probably knows the European bids will be unlikely to get up in any referendums so they need a "proper" bid)...  so many variables and unknowns...

Yes, as luck would have it, the Summer Games are actually in better health for host availability than the Winter ones, and in some senses that's a permanent situation because very few nations with large snowy hills have large populations. Maybe low-population-high-wealth countries like Norway can be coaxed back, but until then, making sure Canada never becomes a sore bid loser is a really really good idea.

[Sir Rols]

Quote

 

IOC members opposed to Bach plan to award 2024 and 2028 Olympics together

Several influential members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have expressed their concern over potential plans to award the 2024 and 2028 Summer Games at the same time.

Those who have either expressed reservations or outright opposition when contacted by insidethegames include three vice-presidents and other members of the Executive Board.

Rumours have grown over recent months that IOC President Thomas Bach is in favour of such a plan in order to avoid disappointing either Los Angeles or Paris.

The American and French cities are the two frontrunners in a 2024 race.

Balázs Furjes, bid chairman of third candidate Budapest, today admitted that they are close to conceding defeat, opening the door for Bach to award the 2024 Olympics to Paris and 2028 to Los Angeles at the IOC Session due to take place in Lima on September 13. 

Bach has repeatedly claimed the IOC are considering reforming the process to avoid a situation where there are "too many losers".

He has resisted opportunities to categorically rule out both events being awarded this year.

But there appears a distinct lack of enthusiasm from IOC colleagues, including those usually seen as Bach's close allies.

A joint decision would mean the IOC members effectively lose their power to vote for host cities for the next two cycles.

Of the three IOC vice-presidents to respond, Australia's John Coates told insidethegames he "hasn't worked out how it would be done".

Another vice-president, Turkey's Uğur Erdener, said that, in his opinion, "it is not feasible at this time".

Erdener, also President of World Archery, added that "first, it does not seem available according to the present rules and regulations, secondly, some potential applicant cities for 2028 lose their rights and it will be another problem".

China's Yu Zaiqing, a third vice-president, appeared slightly more reserved but said that it "would need to be discussed at an IOC Session" because the Olympic Charter would require changing.

Many others warned it would be a risk to award the 2028 Olympics 11 years beforehand and would also be unfair on other cities considering launching a bid.

Coates' own Australia is among possible contenders, along with the likes of Azerbaijan, Qatar and Russia.

"To do something I think you would have to let the first vote take its course," Coates, currently attending the Asian Winter Games here, told insidethegames.

"You couldn’t say ‘whoever comes second is going to get something else’ until after the event. 

"You know, three cities are bidding on the basis that there is one prize only. 

"It could put a different spin and impact on the way they [members] vote.

"I am thinking aloud here, I haven’t thought it through legally.

"I think it would have to get accepted at an Olympic Session."

Taiwan's International Boxing Federation President and IOC Executive Board member C K Wu said that it would not be possible to have the 2028 Games vote more than 10 years before the event could take place. 

"Also, who are [the] candidate cities for 2028?" he told insidethegames.

"Where is [the] evaluation visit and report? 

"So my answer to your question is [that it is] impossible to prepare 2028 bidding in such [a] short time, therefore to decide two Games this year is not feasible."

He was backed by Norway's Gerhard Heiberg.

"I am sceptical to award the Games of 2024 and 2028 at the same time in September this year," he told insidethegames.

"There may be cities preparing for applying for the Games in 2028, and, suddenly, they could find that it is not possible, without any pre-warning. 

"If we should award the Games for two different years, we should have told that from the beginning, not towards the end of the race.

"There will always be losers unhappy about that, but losing is part of the competition, and it has always been like that! 

"Every city applying for the Games knows the risk."

Rule 33.2 of the Olympic Charter states: "Save in exceptional circumstances, such election takes place seven years before the celebration of the Olympic Games".

There have been two bidders for the Olympics in the past.

For the 1980 Games only Moscow and Los Angeles bid and the event was awarded to the Soviet capital.

Then for the 1988 Olympics the bid was a contest between Seoul and Nagoya, the South Korean capital comfortably beating its Japanese rival.

There were also only two bidders for the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, which were awarded to Beijing after they narrowly defeated Almaty by four votes. 

...

A more nuanced analysis was given by St Lucia's Richard Peterkin.

"There are pros and cons," he told insidethegames.

In addition to views also expressed by others, risks highlighted included that Budapest remains in the race and fears that the sports programme would be effectively locked until 2028.

...

Full version at Insidethegames

 

 

[Sir Rols]

Also, another interesting angle on it:

Are the 2024/2028 joint bid rumours provoking an IOC Civil War?

Gotta say, I've been following Nick Butler since he shines insidethegames - he's really blossomed. He was a bit wet behind the ears at first, but he's doing some good Oly and IOC reporting now.

 

[FYI]

Like I just said in the L.A. thread, some of these members that oppose must be ones from countries perhaps wanting to launch bids for 2028. I don't agree with the author of one of the articles that these aren't "exceptional circumstances". 1980, 1988 & even 2022 aren't good examples to try to give them meaning here. While all those other races did also have two candidates, none of them, though, had the second candidate that wound up to be the loser as strong as both of the candidates for 2024. I mean, if the IOC is really interested in the likes of Baku-koo, Doha-hah or Putin-ville again (which is what caused a lot of the IOC's headaches as of late), then go right ahead.

But what I'd really like to know, who does Bach think might not return for 2028 if they don't win 2024? I'm starting to think this is what's really fueling the double-award concept moreso than anything else now, bcuz they are indeed two very strong & desirable candidates, especially Paris & Europe (where referendum galore is taking place against the Olympics, & bids are flashing & disappearing right before the IOC's eyes). 

[FYI]

*with Budapest 2024 right on the edge to be next on the bow out list.

[krow]

you guys, i'll just be so old by the time 2028 comes around. 

i'll be dyeing my hair and lying and telling people i'm only 36. that sounds so desperate  

it's unhealthy to think so far into the future unless you're like 15.

[budse]

the remaining candidate cities, Paris and LA, both are strong, however I don't think this year IOC session should choose both 2024 and 2028 host city. As there are still many cities/countries interested to host 2028 edition. 

Same as any-kind of competitions, there will have winner and loser. And the loser side rather than becomes wound-up loser, they should strengthen their bid instead to compete again in future edition. I thought this that they deem to see from all the athletes.

[baron-pierreIV]

41 minutes ago, budse said:

the remaining candidate cities, Paris and LA, both are strong, however I don't think this year IOC session should choose both 2024 and 2028 host city. As there are still many cities/countries interested to host 2028 edition. 

Same as any-kind of competitions, there will have winner and loser. And the loser side rather than becomes wound-up loser, they should strengthen their bid instead to compete again in future edition. I thought this that they deem to see from all the athletes.

 

Uh-huh.     How old are you, budse?  

[budse]

52 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Uh-huh.     How old are you, budse?  

not young anymore but not too old.. 

[Sir Rols]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

Like I just said in the L.A. thread, some of these members that oppose must be ones from countries perhaps wanting to launch bids for 2028. I don't agree with the author of one of the articles that these aren't "exceptional circumstances". 1980, 1988 & even 2022 aren't good examples to try to give them meaning here. While all those other races did also have two candidates, none of them, though, had the second candidate that wound up to be the loser as strong as both of the candidates for 2024. I mean, if the IOC is really interested in the likes of Baku-koo, Doha-hah or Putin-ville again (which is what caused a lot of the IOC's headaches as of late), then go right ahead.

But what I'd really like to know, who does Bach think might not return for 2028 if they don't win 2024? I'm starting to think this is what's really fueling the double-award concept moreso than anything else now, bcuz they are indeed two very strong & desirable candidates, especially Paris & Europe (where referendum galore is taking place against the Olympics, & bids are flashing & disappearing right before the IOC's eyes). 

And as I also said in the LA thread:

Well, actually, they're the only two mentioned that might stand to lose out (and at this stage, I haven't seen Turkey mentioned in any lists of likewise or hopefuls for bidding 2028). The others are from China, Taiwan and Heiberg from Norway (I don't know where Roger87 got Azerbaijan from), all Executive Board members or very influential in the IOC. I don't think you can dismiss them as having something to lose, or negative nancies. It certainly shows that Bach doesn't have the exec board fully behind him on the proposal. 

Also to consider is one thing the membership at large has always been very keen to protect from erosion is their precious vote for the host cities. With many of their other privileges stripped over the years, the hosting vote is their one real big power they have. They could well see this as an attempt by the President or the EB to strip them, or sideline them, of that role. If, as a number of those quoted say, it would be the type of move that could only be implemented by a vote at a full session, I think it would be a strong doubt such a vote would go Bach's way. Not even Samaranch could get a lot of his proposals through, and Bach, as much as he might think he is, isn't yet a Samaranch in terms of his hold on power or sway.

[baron-pierreIV]

16 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

And as I also said in the LA thread:

Well, actually, they're the only two mentioned that might stand to lose out (and at this stage, I haven't seen Turkey mentioned in any lists of likewise or hopefuls for bidding 2028). The others are from China, Taiwan and Heiberg from Norway (I don't know where Roger87 got Azerbaijan from), all Executive Board members or very influential in the IOC. I don't think you can dismiss them as having something to lose, or negative nancies. It certainly shows that Bach doesn't have the exec board fully behind him on the proposal. 

Also to consider is one thing the membership at large has always been very keen to protect from erosion is their precious vote for the host cities. With many of their other privileges stripped over the years, the hosting vote is their one real big power they have. They could well see this as an attempt by the President or the EB to strip them, or sideline them, of that role. If, as a number of those quoted say, it would be the type of move that could only be implemented by a vote at a full session, I think it would be a strong doubt such a vote would go Bach's way. Not even Samaranch could get a lot of his proposals through, and Bach, as much as he might think he is, isn't yet a Samaranch in terms of his hold on power or sway.

 

 

But Rols, I think times and circumstances have changed so that it must be considered.  There is NO other animal in the world quite like an Olympic Games, so ingenious solutions and approaches must be tried when that animal is nearing extinction.  What cities would realistically be viable candidates for 2028, that the IOC in general can take seriously?  I see only Toronto and Madrid, if they are even thinking about it.  If the COC decides to go for a Winter Games instead, then that eliminates Toronto. Madrid?  What? Europe again for 2028?  That;s an EVEN worse message to send to interested cities.  Desperate times call for desperate measures -- and I think this double awarding to 2 highly qualified cities, preserves/kills the (goodwill of) the proverbial two birds with one stone!! 

Edited February 21, 2017 by baron-pierreIV

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

But Rols, I think times and circumstances have changed so that it must be considered.  There is NO other animal in the world quite like an Olympic Games, so ingenious solutions and approaches must be tried when that animal is nearing extinction.  What cities would realistically be viable candidates for 2028, that the IOC in general can take seriously?  I see only Toronto and Madrid, if they are even thinking about it.  If the COC decides to go for a Winter Games instead, then that eliminates Toronto. Madrid?  What? Europe again for 2028?  That;s an EVEN worse message to send to interested cities.  Desperate times call for desperate measures -- and I think this double awarding to 2 highly qualified cities, preserves (the goodwill of) two birds with one stone!! 

I know you and the likes of FYI are gung-ho for the double award (I've seen your comments over at insidethegames), and yeah, there's no disputing the attractiveness and desirability of a Paris-LA sequence, but IMO the double awarding is not the way to go about it, or at least not the way of going about it at this stage of the campaign. It might have been fine if this had been floated and/or implemented right at the start of the process - everyone with a stake would have known where they stood, it might/probably would have put a few more hopefuls into the mix (anyone with a desire for 2028 for a start. Not to mention the IOC probably wouldn't have "advised" Toronto and Doha to hold fire - see that's problematic for a start). It would have gone through due process (approval and vote by the IOC membership) and the legal niceties would have ben examined and smoothed out. It would have minimised the risk of bad blood and betrayal of faith. Add it is, it's a case of changing the rules ad-hoc mid-race, cut out the IOC membership at large from a say, opened a legal can of worms (as much as I'm sure Bach is looking for ways to circumvent any inconvenient obstacles like that), strayed from the IOC charter and left a raft of burgs from Toronto to Brisbane/Melbourne to Doha to Madrid left hanging with no recourse to put their names back in. And its all very well to say that it's okay to piss off people we don't like (like Russkis and Arabs) as long as it benefits people we do (like western democracies), but when a vast bulk of the IOC members represent areas that fall into the former category, it isn't good politics - not to say it's downright offensive and unfair and pretty well against the globalism and inclusiveness the Olympics stand for. The trouble is with all this "Dual awarding is the way to go" infatuation is it's looking at the end result but failing to consider the process.

I don't accept that the IOC or host city pool is much in "desperate" times, at least as the summer games go, as is made out. But for IOC "advice", we might have had at least two others in the mix still at this stage. If as so many of us say, that Paris should be awarded because LA is more likely to come back anyway, well, let's see that happen if LA is so gung-ho. And if they don't, that's their (and the USA's) loss - blind Freddie could tell you they'd go into that race as an almost insurmountable favourite (not to mention that it would fly in the face of one of the chief arguments of many of us arguing on Paris' behalf). The likes of Doha (or Dubai) might have been an obscene choice for a World Cup, but as an Olympic city it's not anywhere near so unattractive - it would have the money and resources to do it and is one of the more liberal and acceptable locations to bring a city-based games to the middle east. Oz is certainly interested, though no certainty. Just like Canada. I wouldn't be so quick to write off some of the Euro candidates to step in to place if Paris lost out.  I doubt the field would be bereft of candidates. And if you're asking: "What cities would realistically be viable candidates for 2028, that the IOC in general can take seriously?" then that poses the problem with what happens after 2028 then? Why suddenly for 2032 will a raft of cities suddenly become viable and able to be taken seriously if not four years before? If you're suggesting there's not many to choose from any more and unlikely to be many in the future, aren't you then just delaying the inevitable extinction rather than preventing it?

There's many things the IOC could and should be doing to rebuilt their reputation, relationships and shattered trust. I just don't see fudging their own rules mid course for a short term reprieve that leaves some out in the cold is the way to do it. And I don't expect it to happen in the end - as I said, it's too late in the game to achieve it or do it properly. One of the better suggestions I've seen is one by Quaker a few weeks back - just go with the due process as it's been running and established, and whoever the runner-up in Lima is, quietly tell them they should go again for 2028 as their chances would be incredibly great (as I'm sure would happen anyway) and maybe also sweeten the deal with a carrot, like saying they'd already have pre-selection through to the final stage of candidature, without having to go through all the early nitty gritty. Probably get the same result, without rule tweaking/breaking, bad blood and skullduggery.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

21 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I know you and the likes of FYI are gung-ho for the double award.

It's not that I'm "gung-ho" about it. But rather inclined to see how the IOC handles their own suggestions when they're really going through some rough waters right now. I could care less if L.A. gets 2024 or 2028 for that matter.

27 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Not to mention the IOC probably wouldn't have "advised" Toronto and Doha to hold fire - see that's problematic for a start). 

It was actually Baku, not Doha. But the IOC could already have a hidden agenda by telling both Toronto & Baku not to have bothered with 2028. That in itself is already problematic & shows how the IOC will change it's tune regardless of formalities & 'niceties'.

34 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I don't accept that the IOC or host city pool is much in "desperate" times, at least as the summer games go, as is made out. 

What do you call the withdrawals of Rome (twice now), Boston, Hamburg & soon to be Budapest, then? Just a bump in the road? It's starting to become a trend now in the summer category just as it already is in the winter segment.

42 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

The likes of Doha (or Dubai) might have been an obscene choice for a World Cup, but as an Olympic city it's not anywhere near so unattractive - it would have the money and resources to do it and is one of the more liberal and acceptable locations to bring a city-based games to the middle east. 

That maybe so, but I still think that the IOC wouldn't want to touch Qatar until after they see first-hand how they handle the 2022 World Cup. And that means 2032 at the earliest, since the 2028 vote would take place in 2021. 

47 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Oz is certainly interested, though no certainty. Just like Canada. I wouldn't be so quick to write off some of the Euro candidates to step in to place if Paris lost out.  I doubt the field would be bereft of candidates. And if your asking: "What cities would realistically be viable candidates for 2028, that the IOC in general can take seriously?" then that poses the problem with happens after 2028 then?

You've already argued that Melbourne is out due to the July-Sept preferred time frame. So then that only leaves Brisbane. Can they be a serious candidate? Do they have a lot to build or upgrade? Is the population there REALLY interested? Could they also succomb to a referendum of their own? And for as much as many of you Aussies attribute Brisbane (including yourself) as a "big town backwater", IDK if I'd rate them high on the list anyway. 

Canada again may be on the backburner, from the IOC's POV, as their Winter Olympic savior if the Europeans again baulk at 2026 (which is already starting with Graubunden). And again, with Italy having bailed twice already, & the Germans also having a couple of bailed referendums on their belt, & Budapest ready to jump off the 2024 bandwagon, a 2028 bid is going to be the last thing on the Hungarian agenda. And besides. as nice as some of those cities are, they're not the creme-de-la-creme of European glamor capitals as Paris (& London). Madrid I think is like Toronto, as far as the interest of the IOC goes of wanting to go there. And Russia? Sure, let the IOC keep getting in bed with Putin (which is where a lot of their mess started TBW). 

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Why suddenly for 2032 will a raft of cities suddenly become viable and able to be taken seriously if not four years before" If you're suggesting there's not many to choose from any more and unlikely to be many in the future, aren't you then just delaying the inevitable extinction rather than preventing it?

There's no guarantee of course, but a double-award now would give the IOC more time to try & entice more bidders. If anything, you still have all those cities that you noted that would still come out to play for 2032 anyway. Not to mention the one big elephant in the room that's still left, South Africa, that said they're waiting 'til 2032 at least to place another bid.

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

One of the better suggestions I've seen is one by Quaker a few weeks back - just go with the due process as it's been running and established, and whoever the runner-up in Lima is, quietly tell them they should go again for 2028 as their chances would be incredibly great (as I'm sure would happen anyway) and maybe also sweeten the deal with a carrot, like saying they'd already have pre-selection through to the final stage of candidature, without having to go through all the early nitty gritty.

Actually his suggestion was more along the lines of, telling the 2024 runner up, that if no credible bidders turned out for 2028, that those Games would then automatically be theirs without a campaign. And then telling those other undesirables to "piss off". Even by your logic, that still wouldn't be an acceptable tact.

[Sir Rols]

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

It's not that I'm "gung-ho" about it. But rather inclined to see how the IOC handles their own suggestions when they're really going through some rough waters right now. I could care less if L.A. gets 2024 or 2028 for that matter.

Good you clarified that - just that you do seem extremely dismissive of arguments against it or comments that some IOC members may be against it.

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

It was actually Baku, not Doha. But the IOC could already have a hidden agenda by telling both Toronto & Baku not to have bothered with 2028. That in itself is already problematic & shows how the IOC will change it's tune regardless of formalities & 'niceties'.

Ot it may just be they were already re-assured by having Paris and a US bidder in, and quite truthfully told them they'd have little chance against either. Either way, it was informal and up to the respective cities to take the advice or not.

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

What do you call the withdrawals of Rome (twice now), Boston, Hamburg & soon to be Budapest, then? Just a bump in the road? It's starting to become a trend now in the summer category just as it already is in the winter segment.

Of course that's problematic. The IOC should be dealing with their image problem though, not compounding it by changing rules ad-hoc without consultation to suit a short term aim. Yeah, that's really going to help their image for forthrightness and level-playing fields, isn't it?

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

That maybe so, but I still think that the IOC wouldn't want to touch Qatar until after they see first-hand how they handle the 2022 World Cup. And that means 2032 at the earliest, since the 2028 vote would take place in 2021. 

 That's far from saying they're untouchable. The problem there would mainly be political and perceptual. I doubt anyone could argue that they couldn't stage a well executed, even lavish show. Like their Asiad.

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

You've already argued that Melbourne is out due to the July-Sept preferred time frame. So then that only leaves Brisbane. Can they be a serious candidate? Do they have a lot to build or upgrade? Is the population there REALLY interested? Could they also succomb to a referendum of their own? And for as much as many of you Aussies attribute Brisbane (including yourself) as a "big town backwater", IDK if I'd rate them high on the list anyway. 

I wouldn't rate them highly either. I think an Oz bid is questionable. But Queensland is and has been for some time well advanced in a process of investigating a specific 2028 bid. Melbourne only comes up because there's been the odd comment from them saying "What about us? We may be interested too" (though not much more than that). But, yes, formal proceedings are well underway in Queensland about a Brisbane/SE Queensland bid. Whether it reaches fruition is another matter. If 2028 is so bereft of likely candidates as many make out, this may be their golden, best opportunity and do a Beijing/Almaty (or as we say in Oz, doing a Bradbury).

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

Canada again may be on the backburner, from the IOC's POV, as their Winter Olympic savior if the Europeans again baulk at 2026 (which is already starting with Graubunden). And again, with Italy having bailed twice already, & the Germans also having a couple of bailed referendums on their belt, & Budapest ready to jump off the 2024 bandwagon, a 2028 bid is going to be the last thing on the Hungarian agenda. And besides. as nice as some of those cities are, they're not the creme-de-la-creme of European glamor capitals as Paris (& London). Madrid I think is like Toronto, as far as the interest of the IOC goes of wanting to go there. And Russia? Sure, let the IOC keep getting in bed with Putin (which is where a lot of their mess started TBW). 

Well, that's our bread and butter - scoping, identifying, dismissing likely candidates, and handicapping those who do emerge from that field or arise from left of field. You know as well as anyone that it's foolhardy to rule anybody out, or rule them definitely in even when they've launched the process. You seem to be taking th glass half empty approach to it in this particular debate.

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

There's no guarantee of course, but a double-award now would give the IOC more time to try & entice more bidders. If anything, you still have all those cities that you noted that would still come out to play for 2032 anyway. Not to mention the one big elephant in the room that's still left, South Africa, that said they're waiting 'til 2032 at least to place another bid.

Enticing bidders would probably work best if they repaired their reputation a bit more. That's vital. Yes, maybe four more years will give them a bit more breathing room to do that. Still, what makes the four years increase the pool of "viable and able to be taken seriously" candidates, which was my particular point?

On the topic of South Africa - Durban 2022 CWG (likely soon to be spoken of in the past tense as a doomed, stripped games) may have put their chances and willingness back way beyond 2032. I hope not, but can't serioulsly even sugar coat it as anything but a huge setback for any South African Olympic chances.

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

Actually his suggestion was more along the lines of, telling the 2024 runner up, that if no credible bidders turned out for 2028, that those Games would then automatically be theirs without a campaign. And then telling those other undesirables to "piss off". Even by your logic, that still wouldn't be an acceptable tact.

No, the suggestion of Quaker's I referred to specifically suggested a pass mark through to the final candidature round. I'm not going to hunt it down, but that stuck quite specifically in memory as sensible and achievable.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Sir Rols

[zekekelso]

If Budapest drops out, that means there will be at most one loser. Is "one" too many? 

Anyway, I'd be more in favor of the pick two hosts at once if I didn't think it originally came up because some IOC voters were thinking, "Hey, FIFA recently picked two host cities at once. If it's good enough for them, we should do it."

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, zekekelso said:

If Budapest drops out, that means there will be at most one loser. Is "one" too many? 

Anyway, I'd be more in favor of the pick two hosts at once if I didn't think it originally came up because some IOC voters were thinking, "Hey, FIFA recently picked two host cities at once. If it's good enough for them, we should do it."

Do you honestly think the IOC is looking at FIFA and thinking "gee, that worked out so well for them, let's do the same thing"?  I doubt it.

Yes, in the IOC's eyes, 1 loser may be too many if they think that city won't come back.  This is about having 2 very solid candidates and trying to figure out how to make them both winners and not losers.  So the idea is to hedge their bets a little and give both cities an Olympics.  I don't think that's going to happen because it's not in the IOC's nature to do something like that and I think if they pick Paris for 2024, they'll take their chances with LA coming back for 2028 (which I believe they will). 

[Quaker2001]

To Rols/FYI, without quoting your whole posts, but I did want to highlight 1 point

4 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Of course that's problematic. The IOC should be dealing with their image problem though, not compounding it by changing rules ad-hoc without consultation to suit a short term aim. Yeah, that's really going to help their image for forthrightness and level-playing fields, isn't it?

This is still the crux of the issue here.  You said earlier you don't think this is desperate times for the IOC.  I agree, but they're teetering on the edge of that one.  We saw it with 2022.  Who's to say that doesn't happen again?

The question for the IOC is how do they move forward and regain the trust of a new wave of cities they'd want to work with.  Even if Paris and LA gave them Olympics that were everything they could hope for, will that encourage other cities to pursue the Olympics?  Or is this just a temporary fix where afterwards their pool of viable host cities behind less than ideal locations dwindles down to nothing.  Again, I don't think they're at that point yet, but they're trending in that direction if they don't take a good long look in the mirror and figure out what the problem is.  Agenda 2020 has been worthless.  Anti-Olympic movements are springing up all over the place, mostly concentrated in Europe of course.  At some point, they need to take notice and acknowledge there's a problem rather than chastising cities like Oslo because they realize they're better off without the Olympics.

To baron's point, I don't think desperate measures are necessarily called for here, especially given how that could backfire on them.  The IOC still needs to assess what's out there before they make a decision on 2028.  And it's a catch-22 of whether not they have a free and open field of bidders and welcome everyone.  Or if LA is out there, they tell everyone else not to bother if they think LA is the clear winner.  Not sure which helps their cause more on that one.  Which is to say I don't know what the IOC should be rooting for when it comes to 2028.  They've made it clear they'll string along whichever bid cities they want and they'll dump whoever they want.

1 thing I think we can all agree on here.. the IOC really needs to get their $hit together.  Everyone needs to be on the same page or else it's going to add fuel to the fire that they're an organization not to be trusted and who knows what they'll wind up with then.

[zekekelso]

57 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Do you honestly think the IOC is looking at FIFA and thinking "gee, that worked out so well for them, let's do the same thing"?  I doubt it.

 

I'm mostly joking. But can't you just see Mayor Quimby as an IOC voter:

Now wait just a minute! We are twice as smart as the people of FIFA. You just tell us your idea and we'll vote for it. 

[Quaker2001]

31 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

I'm mostly joking. But can't you just see Mayor Quimby as an IOC voter:

Now wait just a minute! We are twice as smart as the people of FIFA. You just tell us your idea and we'll vote for it. 

[budse]

Perhaps it's time to separate Olympics and Paralympics bid. Since these two games governed by different organization and maybe can reduce the cost of host city to host two games in the same year. 

Or perhaps another idea is staging these two games in different year but in the same bid.