plusbrilliantsexploits

It might be useful for the unions to avoid striking during the visit of the Evaluation Commission - unlike in 2005... Oh yeah, Roland Garros is an iconic venue and perfectly suitable for Olympic tennis!

Well yes, to my knowledge of the French constitution, only the President is authorized to call a referendum anyway...not aware of the precise rules on consultative referendums on the municipal level, though.

Somewhat split about the Federation's decision to bypass the usual bidding process, without a prior discussion (no matter how superficial) of the merits of competing bids. In my view, it also helps the eventual winner sharpen their message and improve on their plans. Apparently, Gothenburg was quite interested in the championships as well and would certainly have been a competitive applicant, if nothing else. Then again, However, I find the idea of going to the home of track-and-field in the United States intriguing and refreshing: a big market of enthusiastic Athletics fans, a city eager to host it and a long overdue hosting by the United States make it an inspired move - especially after the megalomaniac Qatar mishap.

You could always upload a picture from your laptop to a site like imageshack - and then post the link here!

Well, unless FIFA screws them - as it is right now. What benefit do they derive from the Blatter regime?

Well, as long the flame for the European Games isn't lit in Baku before every edition!

Is it true that Estanguet will be leading the bid? If so, that'd be one smart move! Paris 2024 is clearly doing its homework...now if we Germans could do that...!

Except that the TV contracts will be worth very little once UEFA & its allies walk away... Indeed. Kinda like Israel being in UEFA, except that Israel was forced to apply as a UEFA member because of inherent Arab racist resentment...

Ah well, Berlin 1936 all over again!

Exactly: To assume that the Games will somehow pay for themselves or barely make a dent into Parisian finances is, respectfully, naive. Security, infrastructure upgrades, beautification measures (anyone who has some knowledge of the Saint-Denis area will agree that it's, politely phrased, a fairly challenging part of the Île-de-France, with skyrocketing crime and community relations being tense)...so yes, Paris 2024 will be anything other than a free ride.

So, you dispute their point that there have been cost overruns in all Olympics in recent memory, even once we exclude Beijing as an outlier?

Maybe, but they do make legitimate points regarding the costing of the Games...

Just reading Le Monde: a budget of €6 billion looks, well, like a low estimate. I'm not quite convinced that infrastructure upgrades will only be €1.3 billion and Le Monde appears quite sceptical, too. Again, all I'm saying is that Hidalgo and her colleagues on the city council/bid committee need to be straight with Parisians (the statement equally applies for German politicians and the Hamburg bid) - otherwise, it's an unnecessary opening for Olympics opponents. I think the people are sufficiently grown-up to understand the costs of an Olympics, provided it's justified and given to them straight... Here's that Le Monde article, for those who can speak French.

A US bid is only compelling with the right city. If USOC wishes to present the IOC with another Atlanta-style comedy of errors, then I'm sure Bach & Co will just say: "Nah, we'll pass". Boston looks like it is devolving into just such a comedy of errors right now... That's all well and good in democratic theory, but the reality is that these representatives never campaigned on "We'll bring the Olympic Games to this city in 2024". So, it appears a bit sneering and easy to dismiss the voters in between elections - after all, the award of the Games would necessitate major investments in infrastructure (and the resulting inconvenience for commuters and other residents), spending on security, draconian intellectual property rules, inevitable spending on training facilities for the French team and so on...So, a legitimate case can be made for a referendum. If the Paris 2024 bid makes its case well, the naysayers will shut up and remain confined to an ever-grumbling minority. However, if the bid leaders manage to f... a good thing up (and with respect, all it takes is one stupid statement or incident to alienate an entire bloc of IOC delegates), well, then the calls for a referendum might become more vociferous. I applaud Paris for not walking down the referendum path, but I'm uncertain that (right before a presidential and parliamentary election year) this is the politically most savvy approach to take. No, I think USOC probably figured that the NBC broadcasting rights and the pull it has within the wider Olympic Movement would leave them in a prime spot to secure the Games. The problem is that they presented the IOC with a sub-par choice. I maintain my stance that a city like LA with instant name recognition, magnificent vistas, pop cultural influence and a solid sports tradition would have been better. Agreed - except that Paris needs to seriously upgrade the RER network and deal with their labour relations...the air traffic control strike reminds us once more that without the backing of the trade unions (and therefore their silence and acquiescence), the IOC could run the risk of repeated delays because of "spontaneous strikes" and all the stuff we know from France (no offence to the French posters here). I absolutely agree with you on the capacity of a bid like Paris to host Olympic Games in a grand, memorable and sustainable manner.

Again, repeating an unproven assertion doesn't make it more true, Darcy. You've essentially been saying in the 2022 thread that the Eval Commission and/or China must have conspired on the environmental figures - without any evidence to back your assertion up. It really does no credit to your credibility when you keep restating baseless accusations without anything to prove them with.

The only scenario in such a complex undertaking in which a referendum makes sense is if the voters are asked a concrete question that goes beyond giving a blank cheque to the bid committee. Instead it could be something like: "Are you willing for the city of X to provide a guarantee of x amount of money, with the proviso that any additional revenue will have to be approved by another referendum?". Or stage referendums on specific venue designs: "Do you want the Olympic Stadium to have a capacity of 75,000 or 50,000?" etc. A general "Do you want the Olympic Games?" opens any bid up to attack from ignorant and populist opponents without a clue of how complex such an endeavour is. That's why I'm not too enthusiastic about the Hamburg referendum - I'll only believe my country is applying when Hamburgers finally say "Yes" later this year...

It's also the best way to give legitimacy to naysayers, NIMBYs and antagonists who would hate the Olympic Games - no matter how many concessions were made. That said, the Paris mayoralty needs to be straight with voters about the costs, the fact that the Olympic Games never will generate permanent jobs or fix the economy. Provided they do so, and the plan from Le Parisien is for real (with the Stade de France as the anchor stadium to the Games), then the bid has a great chance to win. It's definitely my second choice after Hamburg!

Essentially, they're going for the regeneratiion of the St Denis neighbourhood...interesting approach! Their existing sites will definitely be a boost re: Agenda 2020!

I think that reforming the Commonwealth Games has to start with both structure and aesthetics. For instance, why not change that dreadfully basic Commonwealth Games Federation Flag and actually have a real anthem like the Olympic Movement? Instead of the Queen's Baton Relay, which is essentially just one long giant prelude to a speech given by a member of the Royal Family, the Commonwealth Games could have a Commonwealth Flame, complete with a cauldron in the main stadium. Ah yes, the speeches: It'd be nice to cut down on those as well. Just look at the Delhi 2010 CWG opening ceremony and you'll know what I mean. Absolutely, all sports should be mandatory throughout and be a close approximation of those on the Olympic level - no gerrymandering by Commonwealth hosts permitted whatsoever. I disagree that the Commonwealth Games should only be a show for the second-tier cities. In fact, I'd be quite excited to see cities like London, Sydney, Melbourne, Cape Town, Singapore, Toronto, Vancouver and Auckland bid for the Commonwealth Games. There should be tight supervision by the Evaluation Commission à la IOC, with the power to withdraw the Games in case of debilitating delays. One of Delhi 2010's issues was that the city should have started to get its move on in 2003, but waited until 2008 to get moving. That's not good enough, and had there been an Eval Commission with frequent visits and considerable influence (and maybe even supervisory authority vis-à-vis the local organizing committee) would have exposed the shambolic non-planning by Messrs Kalmadi and Bhanot. In fact, the CGF should introduce an Applicant and Candidate City Phase and score on the same roster of criteria (accommodation, venues, climate etc) as its bigger brother, the IOC. Venue, accommodation and infrastructure requirements should be tightened for Applicant Cities - and financial controllers and auditors assigned to winning bid committees to avoid convenient "creative accounting". Commercialization is a must for the CWG, and will be the only way you'll get big ticket stars to come to the Commonwealth Games. After all, every competition is an injury risk - and it better be made worth it. Next, the CWG need to move away from political correctness - if a smaller island nation like Niue or Tuvalu doesn't make the cut, it doesn't....no need to, ahem, water down the standards here. I'm not against developing countries hosting the CWG ever again. In fact, I'm known around these parts as the nigh-only advocate of Delhi's capacity to host an Olympics sometime in the 2030s and onwards. That said, I think that in terms of bidding, you get what you ask for. If the requirements are tighter and aimed at a city's overall development and capacity to deliver a great, seamless Games, then you're actually doing developing nations like India a massive favour: if they really want to put on a show for the world, they'll know what they need to do - AND accept supervision. If not, there's a bevy of developed Commonwealth members ready to take charge. But yeah, for the foreseeable future, I think developing countries have no business hosting the Games. In other words, the CGF needs two things: a Moscow 1980 moment when they realize that this is the end of the road - and a Samaranch-style figure to really make a pact with the monetary devil and commercialize the Games. After all, if Hambantota was a serious contender for your Games, you must be doing something wrong...

In terms of the future of the Commonwealth Games, there are three elements that will secure the future: Strengthening the commercial aspect of the Games, improving marketing and exercising stricter control over Host Cities After the disaster that was Delhi 2010, I think it's inevitable that the requirements for Host Cities need to be tightened - realistically, that means that the Commonwealth Games should (for the foreseeable future) no longer be held in developing nations. In other words, we're looking at the traditional Anglophone nations: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada; possibly, one might want to add Singapore and Malaysia to the list. So, if nations like India ever want to host the CWG again, they'd have to demonstrate that they are up for playing on a much steeper (and realistic field). Finally, a much tougher evaluation process needs to be brought in; overall, the CWG could benefit from professionalising its operations and no longer seeing itself as an extension of the Commonwealth of Nations, but rather the umbrella organization of an international multi-sports event instead. Also, the whole idea of pick-and-mix sporting programmes looks laughable. The Olympics only have mandatory sports. Why should host nations be able to gerrymander events according to their liking? The Commonwealth Games need to become a real warm-up for the bigger challenge of the Olympics, both from the vantage point of the Host City AND the athletes and federations involved. It will take much more than warm words to revive the Commonwealth Games movement. Glasgow was a welcome respite, but it's no long-term fix for a declining idea suffering from an excess of political correctness and failing to just accept the fact that some nations need more time before they can seriously be considered as hosts.

The guys over at the DSOB need to have a serious word with Niersbach about that purported German Euro bid: It's foolish to sacrifice the Olympic Games for yet another football tournament. It's like the United States saying "Nah, the Superbowl is quite enough, thank you". Just stupid, especially as we have already hosted two World Cups and one European Championship in the past 40 years alone...enough already with the Euro crap, let's give it to Italy or Turkey instead.

Ditto for me! Olympic Games in Paris are the next-best thing to having them in Hamburg!

I think most economists would disagree with your assessment and tell you that Germany isn't just doing well "on the surface": Why do you think the victims of the Mediterranean debt crises are flocking here. Whether it's vocational training, a balanced budget, relatively decent labour relations, low inflation, world-class infrastructure or our organizational skill, no one seriously doubts the ability of Germans to successfully host the world when the Olympic Games finally return to our shores. No one (myself included) seriously doubts the capacity of Parisians to do the same, so no need for you to take it as an attack on France as a country or Paris as a prospective host. I'd love to see Olympic Games in Paris, whether Hamburg survives its own referendum or not. But: Public opinion during a pronounced economic crisis is a b...ch, and France is in a rut. That's a fact. And during such crises, people are receptive for populist arguments against "the elites, their pet projects, their power" and all that tired BS that purveyors of populism from the political extremes always trot out. We have also contained the far-right quite nicely: In France, there is a solid 25-30% delighted to vote for Marine Le Pen and that number has increased to the point where there little doubt that she will feature in next year's presidential run-off and score a far more respectable score than her father could have ever dreamt of. But I digress, the FN's rise is a separate topic. By the way, whilst I don't doubt my own country's capacity to pull off the Olympic Games extremely well (just look at the 2006 World Cup, as well as many European and World Championships of the various IFs that have already been hosted by Germany), I do doubt the German population's general capacity to see beyond themselves and their immediate benefit. Since the Olympic Games don't net a profit margin for the common man, it's easy to launch diatribes against them...that's how Berlin blew its chance to hst the 2000 Summer Olympics and Munich destroyed its excellent position by agreeing to a public referendum. It was a dumb move, and given today's weak field (Beijing? Almaty? Oh please...), Munich would be an easy favourite to secure the Winter Games. I'm all for involving the public in serious consultations regarding the scope of venues and construction work. But referendums? Not so much. Imagine we had held referenda in every proposed FIFA World Cup location for Germany 2006: It would have been moved to South Africa instead.

Precisely! And you bet the FN will happily use the bid and any cost estimates as evidence of more "wasteful spending" by the "Paris elite"..

They are going all-out with the venues, it seems - doing a test run for a future Olympic bid perhaps? Agreed, the Azeri regime is just one giant sham...they're essentially Central Asia's answer to Qatar, except with 100% more megalomania... Right, so basically in most Western European nations (and even Turkey), none of the major channels really care about the European Games...like, you know, at all!