Jump to content

"Bridemaids Turn"


SINGATA

Recommended Posts

Really, it's up to them to decide if they want to bid and if they still have the stomach to go through a campaign. There's plenty of cities lining up enthusiastically for the chance, so it's not like the IOC is desperate to tap past runners-up to boost the numbers.

The reason for this topic is the painfull announcement that your city is not good enough over and over again. I saw Parisian cried, when it was announced that London will host 2012, for me it was Cape Town 2004 & FIFA 2006, its hurts but over time you realize that there were worst casualities than us, Rome, Salzburg and Toronto were once speculated as favorites, but lost.

I realy think the IOC should encourage cities who have made counteless efforts, because realy its humas dreams, and vision that shatters when the announcement are made. The only way to do it, is to award the last remaining continent the games, and then we go for the wounded cities, Paris, Instabul, Sion, Ostersund, Madrid and etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, cuz where's Detroit on that 2nd list after being on that initial one. <_< Certainly Detroit is THE most 'wounded' city than all of those European ones combined.

But seriously, no city is "guaranteed" an Olympic Games, no matter how many times they bid, & Detroit is the epitome of such. Doesn't matter if a city bids, one, two or ten times. It's the IOC's party & they vote how they see fit.

And besides, even losing just once can be devastated & be 'shattering visions & dreams'. Just because you're not a multiple bidder doesn't mean that it wasn't just as 'painful' when you lose & that you didn't put all your heart & soul & hard work behind the bid. Since every candidate is in it to WIN.

Plus, lets also look at things in perspective. Toroto has only bid twice & the last time they bid, they were also bidding against a 2nd bidder, Beijing (and Beijing wasn't going to be rejected, twice). Same with Madrid. Rio has made several attempts in the past (more than Madrid's 2 bids), but the IOC past the Brazilians up. In addition, Madrid was also going against continental rotation on their part for 2016 (i.e. London 2012). And Rome, can we really count Rome right now? They only bid once since they hosted last in 1960 & that was for 2004, going against Athens, which it was the Greeks 2nd attempt anyway after losing their 1996 'Centennial' Olympic bid.

So in hindsight really, timing has quite a bit to do with it. It's not as easy as just saying "the IOC should encorage cities who have made countless efforts", cuz that's just embellishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC should not have any responsibility to "encourage" past losing bids to bid again. Just like what others have said, it is up to the bidding city to weigh the risks and rewards.

However, I do feel that the IOC should not lead potential bid cities on. I also think the bidding process has become way too expensive (Chicago being a good example of spending too much with not much to show for it). I think the IOC should put parameters in place to bring the costs down. Maybe they can tell cities that they cannot spend more than $50 million on their bid, but the IOC must not expect the moon and stars from bid cities either.

If we continue down this path, the process is going to become too expensive, and the risk too great for cities to handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, the IOC isn't going to fix anything until it's broke. And as it is now, the Olympic machine is well-lubed & oiled that they ain't gonna care how much cities spend regardless.

Just like the economy, for example. When things were sittin' pretty, Americans were spending like fiends, not thinking about tomorrow. Well, tomorrow is here, & now we're all trying to penny pinch where ever we can. Not until the IOC gets another wake-up call, like they got in the late 70's/early 80's, are they gonna change their mostly frivolous ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No More Winter Olympic Games Bids For Salzburg" GB NEWSLINE. Surely the is a good reason for this headline, more cities are quiting this unfair process of selecting host cities.

Cape Town uneasyness with diving into another disappointment, even Durban may became another Instabul, the city in two continents broke its promise to bid until they get it. Beunos Aries has resolved in hosting IOC Session, Sion, Paris, and the whole of Sweden were crushed and soon PeongChang 2018 will learn the hard way that the IOC's minds are flushed easly.

Statements like these: [burgstaller also openly criticized the process of applying to host the Games, reports the Salzburg Times, saying Salzburg won't seek to host the Olympics again during her political reign and while the rules of competition continue to be so vague.]

I alway favoured an Adjusted Rotational System, it is flexible gauratees everbody a fair fun fair. This is how it works, the IOC will have Three spheres to rotate the Olympics:

WESTERN TIME OLYMPICS = North & South America (on a given period, these two regions will alternate, on who is given a first option then the other acts as a back-up if the is no satisfiying bid from the first option. these procedure is reverse in the next Western Time Olympics.)

CENTRAL TIME OLYMPICS = Africa & Europe (This applies here too, CTO)

EASTERN TIME OLYMPICS = Asia & Oceana (This applies here too, ETO)

These will apply to both SOG & WOG, this will mean the status qou will almost remain, as the winter games will almost certainly remain in the Northern hemishere. This will gaurantee Africa, South. America and Oceana a spot as they will have first option status in their TIME OLYPICS, untill they fail to produce a sastifactory bids, then step in the traditional host regions.

This will mean cities will no longer have to make countless and unnecessary bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one city can win. Dems da rulz. There are far worse things than losing an Olympic bid...like maybe winning an Olympic bid!

I missed the mysery associated with hosting the biggest fair on earth, even Montreal have a good legacy. One winner I get, but careless planning I don't get. Why involve emotions of your citizen in a clear failing and unfair process. I still believe in my Adjusted Rotational System, from my previous post, at least it offers a realistic chance to cities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The danger with any rotational system is what FIFA found when they decided 2014 was to be a race between South America countries. In the end there was only one serious bid and it went to Brazil by default. That's a hell of a risk to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The danger with any rotational system is what FIFA found when they decided 2014 was to be a race between South America countries. In the end there was only one serious bid and it went to Brazil by default. That's a hell of a risk to take.

Good point, but the different here is, the are more cities than countries to host, FIFA vs IOC. In this propered adjusted system both cities of the north and south will be involved, as we know the rich cities will back-up the not developed cities of the south, at the end we are having a focused win win scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying, for example:

2028. North America

2032. Europe

2036. Asia

2040. South America but North America if no South American bids are suitable

2044. Africa but Europe if no African bids are suitable

2048. Oceania but Asia if no Oceania bids are suitable.

So, in other words, you expect half the bidding races over a period to include cities whose only hopes of winning are if their competitors from the same timezone are not up to snuff.

So, in the hypothetical 2040 race, you expect American and Canadian cities to fork out the millions needed for a bid just in case none of their competitors from South America are capable. Ditto European cities for Africa? Call me cynical, but I can't see the cities from more developed nations taking that risk.

Your rotational system isn't bad in itself, but no American or Canadian city would bid if the IOC said "we'd prefer 2040 to be in South America, but we're opening the bidding process to the whole of the Americas just in case".

The rotational system could only work if there was no bias within individual races to go to a particular sub-region. It would then loop around:

1. The Americas.

2. Europe and Africa.

3. Asia and Oceania.

...with the IOC not stating a preference as to which of the two options they'd rather see in any given race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying, for example:

2028. North America

2032. Europe

2036. Asia

2040. South America but North America if no South American bids are suitable

2044. Africa but Europe if no African bids are suitable

2048. Oceania but Asia if no Oceania bids are suitable.

So, in other words, you expect half the bidding races over a period to include cities whose only hopes of winning are if their competitors from the same timezone are not up to snuff.

So, in the hypothetical 2040 race, you expect American and Canadian cities to fork out the millions needed for a bid just in case none of their competitors from South America are capable. Ditto European cities for Africa? Call me cynical, but I can't see the cities from more developed nations taking that risk.

Your rotational system isn't bad in itself, but no American or Canadian city would bid if the IOC said "we'd prefer 2040 to be in South America, but we're opening the bidding process to the whole of the Americas just in case".

The rotational system could only work if there was no bias within individual races to go to a particular sub-region. It would then loop around:

1. The Americas.

2. Europe and Africa.

3. Asia and Oceania.

...with the IOC not stating a preference as to which of the two options they'd rather see in any given race.

The are no complex stractures here, anyway CWG Ceremony is about to start, I suspect you will interested in that, but I promise to clarify after the ceremonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how the Adjusted Rotational System will work

2018_ ETO Assuming PyeongChang wins

2020_CTO 1st Africa /2nd Europe (Cape/ Durban, Rome)

2022 _WTO 1st S. America/2nd N. America (Ashuaia, Punta, Reno, Quebec)

2024_ETO 1st Oceana/2nd Asia (Brisbane, Auckland, Tokyo, Delhi)

2026_CTO 1st Europe/2nd Africa ( Munich, Annecy, Sarajevo)

2028_WTO 1st N. America/2nd S. America (Toronto, San Francisco, Bogota)

2030_ETO 1st Asia/ 2nd Oceana (Harbin, Almaty, Queentown)

2032_CTO 1st Europe/ 2nd Africa (Paris, Stockholm, Cairo)

2034_WTO 1st N.America/ 2nd S.America (Calgary, Denver, Punta, Ashuaia)

2036_ETO 1st Asia/ 2nd Oceana (Bangkok, Shanghai, Perth)

2038_CTO 1st Africa/2nd Europe (Europe by Default)

2040_WTO 1st S.America/2nd N.America (Santiago, Beunos Aries, Chicago)

2042_ETO 1st Oceana/2nd Asia (Queenton/Christchurch, Sapporo)

2044_CTO 1st Africa/2nd Europe (Nairobi, Cairo, Madrid, Brussels)

• This eliminate the long waiting period for continents to host again, as each continent will have guaranteed alocation of the games.

• Traditional stronghold will continue to host by default as other regions will fail to meet certain criterias (the winter games in Africa, Oceana).

• All time zones spectrum will be taken care off.

• This will eliminate regionalism in terms of voting blocks in the IOC

• Fairness and the ideas of the IOC will be restored

• Continental bodies ANOCA, PASO, Asiad, EOC can play an important part, as they can negotiate the best candidates.

• Regions which never thought they will organize the event can be gauranteed a shot.

• Even if PyoengChang doesn’t win the process can be applied as from 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no point to an official rotation policy. Maybe we should also rotate the results of the sports. Say, in 2012, a European wins the men's 100 m. Or maybe an Asian or Australian. Been too many North Americans winning that title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no point to an official rotation policy. Maybe we should also rotate the results of the sports. Say, in 2012, a European wins the men's 100 m. Or maybe an Asian or Australian. Been too many North Americans winning that title.

What in the village r u smoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, though I don't think the IOC needs to introduce a rotation system, remove the "weightings" (the problems with which I've already outlined) and SINGATA's system is one of the best suggestions I've seen for how one could work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think te IOC has done a pretty good job in rotating the Games without instilling a "rotation policy". One also has to remember, that countries & continents have to bid in order for them to host. So how is it the IOC's fault if there hasn't been many bids from these not-hosted-so-often regions.

Since the Games expanded right after WWII, the IOC has done a very good job of going from continent to continent without such a policy. So I don't see the need to start one now. The IOC jumped at the chance in going to South America, when they knew that they could, for the 1st time. So the current process works just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think te IOC has done a pretty good job in rotating the Games without instilling a "rotation policy". One also has to remember, that countries & continents have to bid in order for them to host. So how is it the IOC's fault if there hasn't been many bids from these not-hosted-so-often regions.

Since the Games expanded right after WWII, the IOC has done a very good job of going from continent to continent without such a policy. So I don't see the need to start one now. The IOC jumped at the chance in going to South America, when they knew that they could, for the 1st time. So the current process works just fine.

An irony is that your NOC was accusing the IOC of having an agenda, by not awarding the last two powerful bids from USOC the games. If I remember well statements like, "The IOC has made it clear, they don't want the OLYMPICS in US.

You are right the IOC has done well rotating the games between ussual tried and tested suspects. Until recently S.America has join that list, while the whole africa is waiting.

I get your point of these regions not presenting bids, but get real, who wants to compete against European cities, who have the number in terms of vote, and their bedfellow North America excl Mexico, Ask Beunos Aries, Cape Town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cape Town was on its first bid (and the first true bid ever from Africa so kinda hard to say Africa is waiting). And we are all very fortunate that Buenos Aires lost its bids for 1956 and 2004. Argentina suffered a violent coup in 1955 and an economic meltdown in 1999. And in 1956, the Games did go to a New Frontier. Perhaps even two! Australia and the Southern Hemisphere.

Your argument doesn't hold so much water, though. Beijing knocked out strong bids from North America and Europe. And Rio knocked out strong bids from Asian, American, and European cities.

The United States has only ever won one Olympiad as a result of competitive bidding - Atlanta 1996, Los Angeles won in unopposed bids and St. Louis was chosen in a non-bid situation - yet they have placed well over 25 bids to host the Olympic Games.

I don't feel that the New Frontiers are being neglected. In some cases, they are given a lot of support from very high places. They just don't bid as often. This is a competitive process and you can't win if you don't run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...