Jump to content

Toronto?


LuigiVercotti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe it is a bit premature of myself to make such early predictions for the 2024 race, but this is how I'm thinking things are going to playout.

For starters I think that if Toronto does submit a bid in September, their bid team is going to have to work at double the pace of other cities to catch up to their progress. While it certainly helps that Toronto has submitted two recently failed bids and hosted the Pan-Ams, they will still need to catch up to the other cities in terms of overall preperation and public support. Though I think Toronto can do it, I do not think they will ultimately bid. Toronto should save their star power to go head to head against the US in either 2028 or 2032. They are too good of a city to risk loosing in an already very Euro-centric feild.

Now as for predictions, if the cities already anounced and highly expected to bid do indeed submit to the IOC here's how I see the next few years:

September 15th, 2015; the following cities formally submit bids to the IOC

- Paris

- Hamburg

- Rome

- Budapest

- Boston

- Baku

- Doha

May 2016; The following cities are shortlisted by the IOC and become official candidate cities (my drawing of lots prediction):

- Boston

- Paris

- Hamburg

- Rome

- Budapest

September 2017; The following is a prediction of the voting rounds and the votes given to each city.

Round One:

Boston - 15

Paris - 33

Hamburg - 27

Rome - 18

Budapest - 5

- Budapest will not participate in the second round of voting.

Round Two:

Boston - 16

Paris - 37

Hamburg - 31

Rome - 16

- The cities of Boston and Rome will enter a tie breaker in round three.

Tie Breaker - Round Three:

Boston - 51

Rome - 49

- Rome will not participate in the fourth round of voting.

Round Four:

Boston - 18

Paris - 44

Hamburg - 41

- Boston will not participate in the fifth round of voting

Round Five:

Paris - 61

Hamburg - 46

- The honor of hosting the 2024 Olympic Games is awarded to the city of Paris

Probably not too far off the money- but I think Baku would be mightily p^$$ed off if not shortlisted after hosting the European Games in spanky new facilities.

I think Paris would be further in front of Hamburg through out the voting procedure, as said before, I think it will be a 'Beijing' style landslide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not too far off the money- but I think Baku would be mightily p^$$ed off if not shortlisted after hosting the European Games in spanky new facilities.

Do you really think that the entitled-minded IOC would care about that if they already have a full crop of much more suitable cities to choose from? Seriously doubt it. Not to mention, it's already been noted that those facilities that hosted the European games still don't meet Olympic capacities.

This is the same IOC that told Doha 2020 that they could submit October dates with their proposal, only to in the end tell them that their proposed dates are still outta whack & snubbed them again anyway.

I think Paris would be further in front of Hamburg through out the voting procedure, as said before, I think it will be a 'Beijing' style landslide.

Agreed. I don't think it's gonna be that close this time, either. I think that it could be all over in only a couple of ballots myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it:

If Toronto doesn't enter. it will be between Rome + Paris.

If Toronto enters, a strong North American opponent, it will be Toronto vs. either Rome/Paris on final ballot. I just can't see both European cities going up against each other on a final ballot when there is a strong NA city in this race.

I wouldn't say Paris is unbeatable but they're definitely a mammoth of an opponent to go up against. We beat them on the ballot for 2008 but the circumstances are much different now.

As of right now, I don't see any other candidate or potential applicant posing any kind of threat to the current order of favourties for this race besides Toronto.

Can we get some international members perspectives here?

Besides Paris being this beautiful picturesque city with tremendous amount of history and appeal, the 100 year anniversary since it's last Olympics may really help its cause. Add to this its close heartbreaking loss to London for 2012. What will Paris do if they lose by a close vote again for 2024? Will IOC members be torn with the possibility of denying Paris again? So many questions and unknowns at this point.

I disagree that Toronto's entry will be that much of a 2024 game changer. This is not 2008- in fact I'd say Toronto would be more like Paris in that scenario. At any rate Toronto would kill the morale of Boston lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that Toronto's entry will be that much of a 2024 game changer. This is not 2008- in fact I'd say Toronto would be more like Paris in that scenario. At any rate Toronto would kill the morale of Boston lol

Never said it was a game changer. What I was trying to convey was with the current selection of candidates and other potential cities in the wing waiting to enter, Toronto would be the best candidate to challenge Paris.

As for Boston, I hope things work out for them. The bid will probably be pulled. With the potential of Toronto entering the race, it will ultimately be disheartening for the Boston team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said it was a game changer. What I was trying to convey was with the current selection of candidates and other potential cities in the wing waiting to enter, Toronto would be the best candidate to challenge Paris.

As for Boston, I hope things work out for them. The bid will probably be pulled. With the potential of Toronto entering the race, it will ultimately be disheartening for the Boston team.

Best challenger to Paris is Rome, and perhaps Hamburg, not Toronto. You're kidding yourself if you think it is. It's a different competition to 2008 - with the weight of 2010 thrown in too. Again, Toronto would be to the 2024 race what Paris was for 2008. A substantial and capable bid that will be just shy of front runner status.

Bach only wants a Toronto bid because it makes his presidency look good having an array of world class cities - but he knows this is for Europe with the likes of Germany, France and Italy in the race. Remember this is the same guy who said Brisbane and Auckland have decent shots for 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people here are JUST NOT THINKING. Toronto 2024 is an impossibility. period. Deal with this fact. Take it with a glass of water.

This is EXACTLY WHY it is sooooooooooooooo important to get things right the first time. If public support is not strong for these Pan Ams, can we be sure that it will be better for the Olympics? There was simply too much sloppiness on show with the preparations for these games so far. There is a real need to make sure that everything else is perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said it was a game changer. What I was trying to convey was with the current selection of candidates and other potential cities in the wing waiting to enter, Toronto would be the best candidate to challenge Paris.

As for Boston, I hope things work out for them. The bid will probably be pulled. With the potential of Toronto entering the race, it will ultimately be disheartening for the Boston team.

Which again begs the question.. is Toronto's status in this competition affected at all by Boston? Hypothetical question of course, but a good case can be made that they're related.

That aside, I don't think Toronto entering a bid would necessarily change the race all that much, but if they were to enter, at least it would diversify the field a little. To me, the IOC wants Europe for 2024. They need an acceptable choice for that to be an option, but it looks like they're going to have it. If Toronto wins to bid, they have to be head and shoulders above the competition, and I don't think that's going to happen. After all, it's only been 5 years since Vancouver (7 1/2 once the vote happens), so I don't feel like this is the right opportunity for them. So no, I don't think they can pose a strong challenge to a good Paris bid. I think the IOC would sooner look for another city in Europe before they returned to North America. And this could easily turn out like the 2012 vote where the 1 non-European city on the shortlist isn't all that competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the IOC could make a meaningful change. Instead of the president going to Toronto saying 'yes, you should bid, you'd have a chance at 2024' when it's quite clear that it's Europe's turn (barring catastrophe), they should say 'yes, you are a world-class city & should bid, but the circumstances right now mean that Europe is the place we're looking at for 2024. Don't waste your money now, wait your turn & go for 2028 when your continent will have a better chance & you would be a strong candidate'. Would save a lot of time, money, effort, & grief that would be spent on a Toronto bid against Paris for 24, & give Toronto 4 years to create a killer bid to take on whoever else wants 28.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a really nice idea there Yoshi. It would be great if the IOC could tell which continent they want the Olympics to go to. It would then save a lot of money and time to cities who shoudn't be bidding (Madrid 2016 for instance). And there would be a lot more candidates I think. For instance, if it was officially Europe's time for the 2024 Games, there would be a lot more European cities bidding. If 2024 was America's time, it could be nice to have several American cities competing against each other, plus Canada, Mexico, etc. Though to me, South America and North America (and Central America) are still ONE continent, one ring on the Olympic flag, so you'd have to count on all the cities from South America willing to bid as well, and after Rio 2016, 2024 would be


Oops.

Would be a bit too soon for America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really don't think that change is necessary. Bach is doing his job by encouraging cities to at least think about bidding. Toronto doesn't have to jump just because he wants them to. And if Toronto bids it will do so with its eyes open. It knows how hard it will be to beat cities like Paris.

Imagine if the IOC decided 2022 was for Europe. Where would they be now? Nah...this is an unecessary step.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the IOC could make a meaningful change. Instead of the president going to Toronto saying 'yes, you should bid, you'd have a chance at 2024' when it's quite clear that it's Europe's turn (barring catastrophe), they should say 'yes, you are a world-class city & should bid, but the circumstances right now mean that Europe is the place we're looking at for 2024. Don't waste your money now, wait your turn & go for 2028 when your continent will have a better chance & you would be a strong candidate'. Would save a lot of time, money, effort, & grief that would be spent on a Toronto bid against Paris for 24, & give Toronto 4 years to create a killer bid to take on whoever else wants 28.

That's not what Bach said, though. He basically said that one must closely analyze their situation first & then determine whether or not they should go after the Olympics full steam.

Did you see the interview he had that someone posted earlier in the thread? The lady doing the interview was basically pushing for answers that Bach didn't want to/or necessarily have the answers to. Like the one that made me chuckle was the one where she asked point blank "does Boston's debacle put Toronto in a better position for 2024", since she's the one saying that some people out there are under the impression that 2024 is somehow "North America's turn". Then Bach came back to counter that there's "no formal rotation policy, & that IOC members vote accordingly to the respective circumstances of any given race". So what did he do wrong there besides nothing? Where did he give false hope. (Even for 2028, would be too premature to say that Notth America would have a better chance when we don't know even the slightest of the dynamics of that race yet).

On the contrary, he was being as honest as he could while being diplomatic at the same time. What else could he have said? Literally spell it out for her? Can't people read between the lines. Sometimes I just think that some people are just glutton for punishment when they can't or are unwilling to make an objective decision. If they want to waste their time & money, then that's their preragotive. Bcuz they have enough insight as it stands now that they odd would not be greatly in their favor ATM.

Though to me, South America and North America (and Central America) are still ONE continent, one ring on the Olympic flag, so you'd have to count on all the cities from South America willing to bid as well, and after Rio 2016, 2024 would be

Oops.

Would be a bit too soon for America.

Interesting European observation. Bcuz thats always been a point of contention around here. Bcuz technically, North & South America are two different continents. But it seems to the eyes of the IOC & other international perspectives, they are one in the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting European observation. Bcuz thats always been a point of contention around here. Bcuz technically, North & South America are two different continents. But it seems to the eyes of the IOC & other international perspectives, they are one in the same.

Well, it has been a debate before. I can see why for must of Americans South America and North America are two different continents. But in Europe, they are not, and that's why they are North and South AMERICA. It's like East and Western Europe. It's still Europe. It's like North Africa (the non-black Africa, Maghreb) and the rest of Africa. And I agree, it's difficult to determine where is the frontier between Europe and Asia. In the end, the number of continents in the world depends on where you're from, and in France, we tend to consider there are 5 continents (just like there are 5 Olympic rings on the official flag): America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually interesting how some would consider Afro-Eurasia as ONE continent (Africa, Europe and Asia) since they are not disconnected, but they would still consider South and North America as two separate continents. They only thing thing that separate those continents is the Canal of Panama, which is not a natural separation (just like the Canal of Suez, which separates Africa from...Asia/Europe).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm well aware of all those types of arguments concerning North & South America, because we've had them here plenty of times before.

However, I still find it interesting, because in the schools here, they've always taught that there are actually seven continents (because Antartica is also also a continent). Whether the differences between here & over "across the pond" are merely old world vs new world, right or wrong is beside the point, & since the IOC is such a Eurocentric organization, I just can't help but wonder that any North American effort for 2024 is really futile, considering Rio 2016 & a strong looking European cast thus far. And the IOC is the one that actually votes on these things afterall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they Eurocentric, really? Which country got to host the most Olympic Games (winter and Summer) since 1896? Which country hosted in 1984, 1996 and 2002 (that is 3 times in 18 years). No wonder the US didn't get to host since 2002. Oh my, it's been 13 years since they last hosted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have to understand that the US is ONE country. The Europe is not. When London or Athens is hosting, it's 2 very different countries hosting. To me it's not France, so it might as well be in Asia or in Australia, it's pretty much the same! It's abroad. All this to say that, the US don't have to host every 12, 16 or 20 years like Europe has. It's not fair to compare the US with Europe, though they're similar in terms of size. Asia has been (and will be) hosting quite fairly, and continents like Oceania and Africa haven't been quite able to host. So yes, to me, Rio, as AMERICAN Games (Pan Am Games, anyone?), is a nice change for once!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not comparing the U.S. to Europe. I'm not even endorsing anything of the sort. I'm well aware how many different countries there are in Europe & everywhere else. So I don't need the geography lesson, nor the excessive exclamation points.

As a voting body, the IOC is made up of mostly European members than any other continent, which is merely stating a fact & which is all I meant by that.

If you haven't noticed already, I've been mainly advocation Paris' great chances in this (& Europe as a whole), & by no means think that the U.S. is somehow not being well represented in the Olympic Movement. Read the context of the thread, because all you've done here is go off on a tangent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, please, don't take this personnaly. I was being saracstic (like I'm kind of always being). I'm not stating the holy truth. It's just my point of view here, and I'm not attacking anyone if not the IOC. Yes they are mostly made up of European members, and yet they voted for US Olympics in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. YES, they didn't vote for NY 2012 and Chicago 2016. But I think it's only fair after 3 Olympics within 18 years.

And I'm not saying all this because of Paris 2024. Yes, I'm definitely supporting this bid and hoping that it could win, but knowing the IOC, I'm still pretty positive that Paris won't get those Games this time either. Because it would have been 22 years since the US didn't get Olympics (OH MY!!!!!! (being sarcastic here, again). And that going for a new kind of smallish city would be nice to show that the Olympics don't have to go to a big international city (yes, we could go back to the time when smallish cities like Barcelone, Helsinki, Atlanta, Antwerp, Saint Louis, were allowed to host). Giving the 2024 Games to Paris to a big city like Paris after Beijing, London, Rio and Tokyo wouldn't send a good signal. It would contradict what the Agenda 2020 was all about, somehow (allowing not so big cities to host).

Anyway, as you said, back on topic! Good luck Toronto, I hope that you will bid! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the IOC could make a meaningful change. Instead of the president going to Toronto saying 'yes, you should bid, you'd have a chance at 2024' when it's quite clear that it's Europe's turn (barring catastrophe), they should say 'yes, you are a world-class city & should bid, but the circumstances right now mean that Europe is the place we're looking at for 2024. Don't waste your money now, wait your turn & go for 2028 when your continent will have a better chance & you would be a strong candidate'. Would save a lot of time, money, effort, & grief that would be spent on a Toronto bid against Paris for 24, & give Toronto 4 years to create a killer bid to take on whoever else wants 28.

Interesting thought, but weigh this for a sec.. if you want the IOC to make a meaningful change and discourage bidders who have little chance at winning, why are we talking about Toronto? Why are we not talking about Doha and Baku and other cities/countries that really have no business bidding for an Olympics, as opposed to Toronto, a city that has bid twice before and in a country that has hosted 3 Olympics. Does the IOC really want to shut the door on them and hope they'll come back 4 years from now? If they want to trim the fat, tell the cities that really have no shot at winning (as opposed to those for whom the timing isn't right) not to bother, particularly when they're probably not going to make the short-list anyway.

As history tells us about the `92 Summer bid, JAS essentially rigged it for Barcelona, but he told other cities to bid to give the appearance of neutrality. I can't fault Bach for encouraging bidders. They can bid or not bid based on their own free will. I'd rather see him do that than trying to dictate who should or shouldn't bid. It's easy for everyone to look at Paris and think it would be foolish to challenge them. Let the cities and NOCs decide that. Just because all signs are pointing to Europe does not mean the other continents shouldn't bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't take these things personally. Again, I have no vested interest in this race whatsoever. Although, at times, it's hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic on the interest, especially when they go on to give a geography lesson as to why the U.S. shouldn't expect to win a Games every 20 years. The conversation looks it took the way it did when we got talking about the continents, but I digress on that point.

But to be fair, the IOC didn't exactly "vote" for the U.S. for 1980 & 1984. They did so by default because no one else wanted those Games. If the IOC actually had a line-up of viable host cities at that time, I seriously doubt they would've voted for L.A. Especially with their new private sector approach to finance the Games. The IOC wouldn't have gone for it if they had other nations willing to give them a federal bankroll.

Now, as far as the IOC sending the "wrong message" by selecting another large city like Paris for 2024 & going against agenda 2020, let's keep in mind though, which city would have to build the least. In that aspect, Paris falls right in line with Agenda 2020. I don't believe agenda 2020 was envisioned so that the IOC stay away from large cities. But rather embrace more the cities needs as well. On the contrary, smaller cities St. Louis, Antwerp & Helsinki etc would actually require more work & construction since they wouldn't have all of the necessary, key infrastructures that large cities like Paris, London, Beijing, Rio & Tokyo already have.

^

Oh god, please, don't take this personnaly. I was being saracstic (like I'm kind of always being). I'm not stating the holy truth. It's just my point of view here, and I'm not attacking anyone if not the IOC. Yes they are mostly made up of European members, and yet they voted for US Olympics in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. YES, they didn't vote for NY 2012 and Chicago 2016. But I think it's only fair after 3 Olympics within 18 years.

And I'm not saying all this because of Paris 2024. Yes, I'm definitely supporting this bid and hoping that it could win, but knowing the IOC, I'm still pretty positive that Paris won't get those Games this time either. Because it would have been 22 years since the US didn't get Olympics (OH MY!!!!!! (being sarcastic here, again). And that going for a new kind of smallish city would be nice to show that the Olympics don't have to go to a big international city (yes, we could go back to the time when smallish cities like Barcelone, Helsinki, Atlanta, Antwerp, Saint Louis, were allowed to host). Giving the 2024 Games to Paris to a big city like Paris after Beijing, London, Rio and Tokyo wouldn't send a good signal. It would contradict what the Agenda 2020 was all about, somehow (allowing not so big cities to host).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they Eurocentric, really? Which country got to host the most Olympic Games (winter and Summer) since 1896? Which country hosted in 1984, 1996 and 2002 (that is 3 times in 18 years). No wonder the US didn't get to host since 2002. Oh my, it's been 13 years since they last hosted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is almost entirely because the USA has bid so many times.

China will probably win the right to host the 2022 Winter Olympics, but no one thinks the IOC prefers China to Europe. China will likely win 2022 instead of Norway because Oslo dropped out of the race. Similarly Los Angeles has hosted twice because it was the only city that bid for those games.

I don't think there should really be any disagreement that the IOC loves Western Europe. So do a large majority of fans and athletes, though, so I don't see that as a problem.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that going for a new kind of smallish city would be nice to show that the Olympics don't have to go to a big international city (yes, we could go back to the time when smallish cities like Barcelone, Helsinki, Atlanta, Antwerp, Saint Louis, were allowed to host).

Barcelona & Atlanta are no longer "smallish". But that's besides the point.

However, one more thing. How does not going to a "big international city" like Paris, New York or Berlin coincide with a lot of the arguments by so many of our other international members here that the Olympics "must" go to the most iconic city of any given nation bidding for the Games?

Many cite how Boston is a mistake & that the U.S. should come back when New York is ready to try again. The days of the "smallish" Olympics are over. Even with agenda 2020, the Games have gotten so big now, that there's only so much that the IOC could trim.

It's an oxymoron to think that the IOC would send a wrong message by continuing to select large, renowned international cities, when so many still argue that those are the only type of cities "in this day & age" (to quote someone from just the other day) that should get to host the Summer Olympic Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, please, don't take this personnaly. I was being saracstic (like I'm kind of always being). I'm not stating the holy truth. It's just my point of view here, and I'm not attacking anyone if not the IOC. Yes they are mostly made up of European members, and yet they voted for US Olympics in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. YES, they didn't vote for NY 2012 and Chicago 2016. But I think it's only fair after 3 Olympics within 18 years.

And I'm not saying all this because of Paris 2024. Yes, I'm definitely supporting this bid and hoping that it could win, but knowing the IOC, I'm still pretty positive that Paris won't get those Games this time either. Because it would have been 22 years since the US didn't get Olympics (OH MY!!!!!! (being sarcastic here, again). And that going for a new kind of smallish city would be nice to show that the Olympics don't have to go to a big international city (yes, we could go back to the time when smallish cities like Barcelone, Helsinki, Atlanta, Antwerp, Saint Louis, were allowed to host). Giving the 2024 Games to Paris to a big city like Paris after Beijing, London, Rio and Tokyo wouldn't send a good signal. It would contradict what the Agenda 2020 was all about, somehow (allowing not so big cities to host).

For being sarcastic, the message would be funny, otherwise it lost the meaning of sarcasm. Also, I keep hearing you "I'm still pretty positive that Paris won't get those Games this time either", but still you don't give any reasonable argument for that thought, is the clear pessimist in you or you are being annoying? Because, considering the stage of the race, the situation said otherwise, unless you're Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost.

Anyway

First point: Because it would have been 22 years since the US didn't get Olympics

And?? Considering two of the four SOG in USA happened when there wasn't any other bid and Atlanta happened in weak race with lack of proper options. And between 1932 and 1984 happened 52 years (With 6 failed Detroit bids among others). Between 1932 and 1984 we had (From 13 SOG), 7 European cities. And even with only 2 European cities since 1996 we had two Asian, one Australian and one South American cities.

Second point: And that going for a new kind of smallish city would be nice to show that the Olympics don't have to go to a big international city (yes, we could go back to the time when smallish cities like Barcelone, Helsinki, Atlanta, Antwerp, Saint Louis, were allowed to host).

  • Saint Louis, Antwerp and Helsinki happened before 1960s (The first two in the first years of the Olympics previous II World War), when the SOG were a smaller event and we had less countries around the world (If you remember history, the process of decolonization of Africa, Asia and Oceania happen from 1954, two years after Helsinki).
  • It's true we can start a debate of Barcelona, but let's remind Barcelona was (And still is) the second largest city of Spain. A capital widely known for the arts and philosphy since the beginning of XX century. Residence of widely known figure of Spain like Picasso, Dali, Gaudi and others. Also, Barcelona played a big role in history being the first adapted city of Napoleonic influence outside France and being the refuge of the Republican cause during the Civil War.
  • Atlanta, as mentioned before, was an exception than perhaps won't happen again in many years (If it wasn't for the sturborness of the Greeks). Beside if it was for the results of Atlanta, that would be enough reason to not vote for USA or any small city (At difference of your first thought) - Full logistic nightmare.
  • Let's check the cities hosts after 1960s: Rome, Tokyo, Mexico, Munich, Montreal, Moscow, LA, Seoul, Barcelona, Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo. Any resemblances? With the exception of Atlanta, all these cities scream: BIG. These cities are usually the first/second largest cities of their countries (Most of them capitals). With a long history, recognizable known around the world, tourisme destinations and, with the exception of Greece (Which it's the crane of the Olympics and the Western Civilization), all these countries are big or regional powers in international relations and sporting countries. Saying it will return to choose smaller cities, it's clearly a non sense and ignorance of the IOC and Olympics nature.
  • 2020 Agenda isn't exactly as a defense of the small cities. Like the FYI said, it's just an advice to avoid overruling exagerate costs of construction and adapt some necessities to the city host. You have city A and city B to host the events. City A is a global city, which has global recognition but also it has most of the venues and just need budget for security, expand the public transport and adapt some of the venues as Olympic capacity. City B is smaller city, but it doesn't have many of the venues and need to translate many of the security team from the largest city and create more hotels and public transport. Which city is better adapted to the 2020 Agenda? People keep dreaming the Olympics as a small regional event, but they need to see some numbers. London received 10.700 athletes from 207 countries (And that's not including staff -Trainers, doctors, chefs-. which can easily duplicate that number). Then you need to include international press (From the biggest chains of television to newspapers and even independent journalists and magazines), tourists, VIP people, representative of the institutions and others. That means a lot of people (Even a small city in representation) and that's include hotels, transport, translators, police and especially security to avoid a potential thread like terrorist attack. Just for that reason small cities (And perhaps small countries) couldn't receive this type of event. That's the reason big cities were chosed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...