Jump to content

Sir Rols

Moderators
  • Posts

    20294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    283

Everything posted by Sir Rols

  1. They’re just making a deal out of the procedurals - should have been Liveris as president rather than Anna who did the deed.
  2. Paywalled, but… Premier boots Liberals off Olympics organising team Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has booted former prime minister Scott Morrison’s hand-picked representatives off Brisbane’s Olympic Games organising committee just days after his election defeat, despite questions over whether it was her place to do so. … Courier Mail
  3. I’ll give the point that, yeah, it is laudable to save money from the costs of bidding. Any such trimming is good. But there’d already been lots of tweaks to reduce bidding costs - limits on “gifts”, cutting out members’ visits, and, as Quaker mentioning, eliminating the need for bidders to go through the technical qualifications again if they re-bid for the next games after a losing bid. The new process(es) don’t make bidding “no cost”. The main savings are in promotional activities and materials. Beyond that there’s still the costs of consultants, planning, regulatory approvals, environmental, economic and community impact studies, polls and surveys, campaigns to raise awareness or boost local support etc. And, yes, while different people have different views on whether bid spendings are exorbitant or wasteful or not, personally I don’t think for the most part there were scandalous or unsupportable. While some public funds were inevitably required, a large bulk of financing came through business fundraisings, donations, sponsorships, sponsorships in kind etc. and spending was pretty well in line with the costs of any typical tender process for major contracts, projects or events by governments and businesses. The main difference in the IOC tenders was that there was far more interest and publicity - and “show biz” - both domestically and internationally.
  4. Okay, let’s look at the issues of “too many losers” and withdrawals. The Bach argument was that “too many losers” was discouraging cities from bidding, but let’s look at your list. 2000 - Beijing went on to bid again, and win, for 2008. Istanbul went on to bid again for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. After losing with Manchester, UK went on to bid again, and win, for 2012 with London. 2004 - Buenos Aires has not bid on a SOGs again, but did bid for, and win, a YOG. Capetown has not subsequently bid. Rome went on to express interest in 2016, formally bid for 2020 (but withdrew). Stockholm has not bid for a SOGs since, but has made two formal bids for the WOGs as well as expressing interest in others. 2008 - Istanbul (See above - losing has not prevented perennial interest). Osaka has not bid again, but Japan bid again wth Tokyo for 2016 and again (winning this time) for 2016. Toronto has not made a formal summer bid since, but has reportedly considered bids at various times and meanwhile Canada has continued with interest in biding for a WOGs. 2012 - Madrid bid again for 2016 and 2020 and Spain continues to muse over bids for both the SOGs and the WOGs. Russia subsequently bid and won the WOGs and has expressed interest from numerous cities for the SOGs. NYC has not bid again, but the USA subsequently bid for SOGs with Chicago, Boston and LA. Paris went on to bid for, and win, 2024. 2016 - Chicago (see 2012 above). Madrid (see above). Tokyo (see above). 2020 - Istanbul (see above). Madrid (see above) So, from this list, only ONE (Capetown, South Africa) has not bid again. Of the rest. FOUR (Buenos Aires, Stockholm, Moscow and Toronto) have bid again for different versions of the games (YOGs or WOGs). THREE countries (UK, Japan and USA) have bid again with different cities (potentially a fourth with Russia). It’s not exactly strong empirical evidence for losing putting NOCs off from bidding again. Indeed, as Dick Pound (I think) used to say: “You have to lose one to win one”. A question to you and the wider Gamesbids membership - When was the last time a city won the games without having previously lost a bid (or one by the same country) in the immediate (let’s say 2) decades before? I’m hard pressed to think of any since Melbourne, and before that maybe in the 1920s when just about every host was a “new frontier”. I’ve always believed that Bach’s “no more losers” mantra was more a excuse, and to justify his changes, rather than a serious attempt to address issues about maintaining public support for bds. As to withdrawals. Okay, I don’t want make this essay even longer by doing another empirical analysis, but it’s very questionable that cities/countries/NOCs have been up off bidding because of the bidding process. What we have seen in recent years was many bids withdrawing, many after referendums, after strong campaigns by local groups (Nolympics) questioning the costs, sustainability and benefits of hosting a games. Why has this increased in recent years? Well, there’s many theories that have come from many quarters, but my thoughts are: * The 2009 financial crisis had many countries’ general public questioning big spending projects. Plus Athens 2004 was thrown into the spotlight of the coverage of Greece’s default (unfairly, IMO. The games were a drop in the bucket of their economic probs - the were a symptom, no a cause, of Greece’s financial woes). * The perceived gargantuan and wasteful costs of staging a games, based on the examples of Athens (see above) and also Sochi and Rio (the latter two I also think a bit unfairly. In hindsight and almost a decade on, Sochi seems to have actually been a successful investment and development, while Rio’s reputation was caught up in subsequent political/economic troubles in Brazil and exacerbated on by unfair and unbalanced “gotcha” journalism). Which both fed into… * The rise of social media populism/demagogy- as we’ve seen in democratic politics and social discourse, social media has given a platform and bullhorn to all manner of interest groups out o proportion to their actual numbers. It’s encouraged social and political divisions, caused scepticism of verifiable facts and “experts”, nurtured conspiracy theories and “fake news” and generally disrupted the established order and ways of doing things. The IOC has struggled to adapt to the age of social media and refute scepticism of the Olympics. Now also, as FYI pointed out above, comparisons of the event spate of withdrawals with the “New Norm” are going to be inevitably unfair. Under the new process there’ll basically be no such thing as “withdrawal” - there’s nothing to withdraw from as the process is designed that no-one’s status is formal and the winner is designated after everything is basically signed sealed and delivered anyway.
  5. Well, true to a point. But having a choice is a better. You don’t want to be left with only one bid if that bid’s a dud. Or like 2022 when you’re left with the proverbial… what was it?… A choice between a turd and a sh!t sandwich. I’ll say one thing for the “New Norm” - it’s designed to discourage dud bidders and coax, encourage and drag along anything that’s halfway decent. Also, speaking of the infamous 2022 race. Yes, it was the one that forced the IOC’s hand when the field dropped out to leave only the problematic two at the end. But remember, it started out with a decent field of applicants, that as well as Beijing and Almaty also included Oslo, Stockholm, Krakow and Lviv. And also, courtesy of Wikipedia: Bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics, it also started with a “Crowded Field of Interested Parties”, which included: Tyrol/South Tyrol/Trentino Sarajevo Quebec City Santiago, Chile Nice, France Taiko, Koupio and Helsinki, Finland Munich Queenstown-Christchurch, NZ Brasov, Romania Barcelona Zaragosa Ostersund, Sweden Graubunden, Switzerland USA Vancouver All of which would count as “Media reports only”
  6. And that’s the crux of the issue. As you’re fond of pointing out, it’s a different game now and it’s fraught to draw direct parallels between how cities move up the bidding process now compared to how it used to happen. And the charts you’ve done don’t really correspond or show any type of equivalency in their categories. For example, the charts for the older races start from a base point of “Bid Cities” before progressing onto “Applicant Cities” and “Short List Cities”. The latter, “New Norm” charts, start from “Media Reports Only” which in no way corresponds to the previous bidding cities category. While not even then exactly the same,“Bid Cities” would more closely be analogous to “Continuous Dialogue”. You would need to add a “Media Reports Only” section to those earlier races if you wanted to make a closer comparison. There have always been a lot more cities who have mused about bidding for an Olympics - much less even making it to the point of public record - than there have been who’ve actually gone on to formally initiate a formal bid run or dialogue with the IOC. For example: I’d been following bids closely since the 1980s, especially from when Brisbane was bidding for 1992. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, when I was a journo on a major national newspaper and also excited at my home town hosting the 2000 games, I’d amassed a pretty good library on the Olympics and bidding and was closely following any news items pertaining to possible future hosts. In those days, at work I had access to raw reports from the “wire services” - news agencies such as Reuters, UPI, Agence France Presse, Kyodo, Deutsche Press Agenteur etc, from which newspapers’ foreign desks culled stories for their foreign news pages (this was before the internet gave such access to pretty well everyone). I used to scan these feeds for any mentions of potential bids and print those stories out on dot matrix sheets and keep them in a manila folder for my own interest. It was actually these searches that led me, in about 2003-2004, to discovering and eventually joining GamesBids - by that time it was one of the few sites also collating such reports. Anyway, I possibly still have that manila folder somewhere in my piles of old junk but I’m not sure where to start looking. What I do recall, though, is many reports of cities expressing “interest” in bidding the games - the likes of St Petersburg, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Budapest, India to name just those I can definitely remember because they enthused me - who never made it to the point of formal application. In the almost 20 years since I joined up here, likewise, there have been many cities who have surfaced on press reports as harbouring “interest” in the games for 2012 to 2020 who never progressed as far as bidding. Here’s just a small sample from off he top of my head - I’m sure other long time members can recall more. Let’s take the list for 2012 to start. It mentions Leipzig but not the fact it beat out formal domestic bids from Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart and Frankfurt to become the German bidder for that year. Then there’s infamous musings of politicians from the likes of Tulsa and Minneapolis, who became something of a meme here because of their slim chances. The Netherlands government in the late 2000s were reportedly working on a strategic plan to bid in the 2020s. Ditto the New Zealand government (which also at one stage apparently got to the point of the government non-commitally “investigating” the wisdom of a bid for the 2022 Winter Games before dismissing the notion). We’ve even seen the likes of radio jocks from Tasmania getting headlines for launching a Hobart “bid” - and even coming to the GamesBids board to argue they were dead serious. That’s just a sampling from direct memory. Some were serious. Some were just politicians’ or civic groups’ pipe dreams. But all of these, and more, would need to be reflected in the charts if you were to try and compare the “Crowded Field of Interested Parties” to similar fields for earlier races.
  7. You just did. And that IS rude. There is no need to force a conversation.
  8. Ah yes, stage two after “Release the Timeline/Press Releases!”. Start the “keep spamming the same response” stage.
  9. Jeezus! Not pedantic much? Okay, yeah, maybe the odd Nolympics person has wandrered onto the site at times. I didn’t think you’d identify with them - I just assumed you’d also describe yourself as having a passion for the games. Apologise for getting that wrong.
  10. No. We can accept change. No-one’s saying go back to the old system. It had flaws. But so does the “new norm”. We post because we have a passion for the Olympics and many of us believe the “new norm” has major flaws - in transparency, in it’s design to be “flexible” to the whims of the top IOC leadership. I believe those flaws make it even more potentially corruptable than the previous procedures. I’m happy to see discussion and participate in pointing out those flaws and hopefully feed a wider discussion outside this board that ultimately gets such flaws addressed. To me, that’s far more honest and important than a knee-jerk defensive position that “new norm” is perfect so stop discussing it lest it taint Brisbane’s 2032 win.
  11. It’s self-evident it was. You just can’t accept that because it doesn’t fit your narrative of “perfect” Brisbane. And, no, I won’t stop. Just as I’m sure you won’t stop with your spamming of “new norm” cheerleading PR releases and Twitter links.
  12. Oh stop being so patronising. Many of us here are very well-versed on the “new norm” and have great knowledge of how the bidding process worked in the past and works now. You’re not the only holder of the “True Word” - indeed you’ve been picked up on errors about he new norm yourself. The only tired old conspiracy theory is your reaction to any comment that doesn’t paint the selection process of Brisbane, or of Brisbane itself, as “perfect”.
  13. Again, here you go again. Your perennial answer to any uncomfortable opinions: “Release the timeline!”
  14. What utter tripe! So, selecting the 2032 host ELEVEN years in advance, before even the 2030 games to come before it, with no great urgency to do so, with at least two other hopeful bidders crying foul at the haste, and the opaque process being almost universally condemned by respected Olympics journalists and writers, was not fast-tracking????? Just about anyone with any serious knowledge of Olympic hosting decisions would know it was fast-tracked. You just don’t want to accept it because it ruins your PR spin of 2032 being sunshine, rainbows and lollipops and the greatest decision ever made in the history of the Olympics mankind.
  15. Actually, it will be even more crowded. Look at that pic and the UK and German teams look more like the usual Equatorial Guinea teams in terms of size.
  16. I was gonna call bullish!t and say Budapest already had this year’s FINA WC. Then I saw the parenthesised 25m modifier. Talk about B Finals. Do we even have 25m competition pools? Or do we have to go to ClarkRubber to get a blow up one?
  17. … unless, of course, Samaranch’s NOC needed a “little bit more time”.
  18. Pffft! We all know they “could” be ready tomorrow if Bach’s or Coates’ NOCs had a bid in that needed to be fast-tracked….
  19. Vangelis, composer of Chariots of Fire and Blade Runner soundtracks, dies aged 79 … and just for Oly2028
  20. … that doesn’t care for rugby … and while the MCG might be a spectacular cricket and AFL venue, it’s not so much for rugby
  21. Would be an utter farce. An unsuitable pitch in a city that normally wouldn’t give two sniffs at Rugby. Would be nothing but Melburnian showboating and an insult to Australia’s rugby strongholds.
×
×
  • Create New...