Jump to content

What Will Secure The Future Of The Commonwealth Games


  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. What are your 3 options to secure future CGs after 2014

    • Reduce the size of the games (less athletes, smaller venues)
    • Institute a technical evaluation team as per the IOC
    • Change the schedule to run the CGs out of Olympic or WC years
    • Set a maximum budget for venue construction/reuse existing structures
    • Change the focus to a youth CG format
      0
    • Invite non-Commonwealth nations to participate
    • Remove the current board and executives and begin anew
    • Change the sports line up to focus on Commonwealth sports (e.g cricket, netball)
    • Form a Commonwealth Games Broadcasting body a la the Olympic Broadcasting Organisation
    • Other


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Weightlifting had a great diversity of nations winning. It also allows some of the smaller nations such as Nauru to win medals.

People were discussing the future of the Commonwealth Games as far back as Christchurch 1974 and no doubt will be having the same discussions in 2040. As long as we don't have any more disasters like

The current bid requirements are simply ridiculous for the CWG. There needs to be drastic reductions in requirements. Athletics stadium 15-20,000 seats minimum (like for the Pan Am Games, York Uni

I think it's simple.

Firstly, codify the sports, that is rather then that list of 10 core sports and another 7 to choose from, just have say 19 sports that must be held for any city wanting to host a Commonwealth Games. Cities wanting to bid must have a plan in which to host such sports, if there is a lack of adequate indoor venues with capacity in the city currently, the use of temporary indoor venues will be looked favorably upon.

We could have like:

Athletics

Archery

Aquatics/Diving

Badminton

Basketball

Boxing

Cycling

Gymnastics

Field Hockey

Lawn Bowls

Netball

Rugby 7s

Shooting

Squash

Table Tennis

Tennis

Triathlon

Weightlifting

Wrestling

Temporary venues can be used wherever deemed necessary.

Then we'd have the minimum capacities for each sport:

Athletics: (at main stadium) 25,000

Archery: 2,000 (at either temporary or existing venue)

Aquatics/Diving: 4,000 (for combined swimming pool and diving tank)

Badminton: 2,000

Basketball:

5,000 (finals venue, can also use Gymnastics venue OR Netball finals venue (assuming the court can be swapped))

1,000 (for up to 4 existing/new indoor venues, with a minimum of 2 for preliminaries (if there is a dedicated finals venue for Basketball, i.e no other sports, then a 2 venues can be used, the preliminaries venue, and the larger venue))

Boxing: 3,000

Cycling: 2,000 (for velodrome)

Gymnastics: 5,000 (can use the same venue as Basketball finals)

Field Hockey: 5,000 (for field 1) 1,000 (for field 2)

Lawn Bowls: 1,000

Netball: 3,000 (can use an alternate venue for preliminaries, with the Basketball finals venue for Netball finals (assuming the court can be swapped))

Rugby 7s: 10,000 (can use the main stadium, as was the case with Manchester 2002)

Shooting: 500 (can use 1 or 2 venues)

Squash: 500

Table Tennis: 2,000

Tennis: 5,000 (for centre court)

Triathlon: unlimited (can use temporary outdoor venue)

Weightlifting: 2,500 (at either a new venue or existing indoor auditorium)

Wrestling: 3,000

By lowering the capacity of the main stadium to 25,000, this will allow far more cities to bid and host the Commonwealth Games using an already existing main stadium without the need to expand so dramatically to the current minimum of 40,000.

Alternatively, if a city has a larger say football stadium, it could be used for the opening/closing ceremonies.

Well I think doing something like this could work, it would definitely bring more cities into the capability of hosting, or at least mounting a bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively, if a city has a larger say football stadium, it could be used for the opening/closing ceremonies.

Glasgow is already doing this, there is no need to spend millions on a new stadium or renovating one that wont get used post games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Glasgow proposing to use Hampden Park for the closing ceremonies? With Celtic Park for the opener?

Why can't they just use Celtic Park for both? I understand Hampden Park's choosing based on capacities, and the avoidance of "ruining" the track if it were used for the opener.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very simple. Use the publicity to ask...which cities can do better?

Award 2018 to Gold Coast and open the process for 2022 and 2026 simultaneously.

i.e. make a visit to South Africa, Canada, Australia, England, and others even KL, and talk to the OC's and presidents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Mo Rush on this one. Most options listed in the poll wouldn't make the difference - and may just be changes for changes sake, but the main thing from it is that the way the CWG Federation runs needs to be changed - in many ways it's an amateur board running in professional times.

Now, we're not saying it needs to be IOC in scale - not at all, but it needs to be redefined both to ensure host cities are on track for the games, and also to ensure Commonwealth cities want to be bidding to host the games.

Downsizing the games significantly wouldn't be actually getting to the cause of the problems at all - Delhi would have been as much a shambles if it was one sport, never mind 17.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the oversight side its as simple as demanding formally or informally, an ODA, and setting public deadlines for the start and finish of all venues.

The year is 2010, and the very reason one has an ODA has been proven in Delhi. You have 19 disjoint authorities delivering projects with different objectives and a total lack of communication.

London perhaps represents an over-achiever in the formation of an ODA, but its not unachievable in other countries or cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted other. Be strict on the host OC. Have a back up plan. Threaten them with removal of the Games. Set an organizational timetable. And force them to meet deadlines!

Delhi floundered because they were given a long leash that no one yanked. The empty seats are due to poor marketing and public relations. Many people thought the games wouldn't go on. Or the price point was beyond their reach...price is a principle of marketing! All this stems back to a CGF that was reluctant and impotent to pressure the Indians into meeting deadlines. These are the 19th Commonwealth Games. Not the first. The challenges and schedules should be clear by now. So enforce them!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted other. Be strict on the host OC. Have a back up plan. Threaten them with removal of the Games. Set an organizational timetable. And force them to meet deadlines!

Delhi floundered because they were given a long leash that no one yanked. The empty seats are due to poor marketing and public relations. Many people thought the games wouldn't go on. Or the price point was beyond their reach...price is a principle of marketing! All this stems back to a CGF that was reluctant and impotent to pressure the Indians into meeting deadlines. These are the 19th Commonwealth Games. Not the first. The challenges and schedules should be clear by now. So enforce them!

Question is though, has the CGF got the political and financial power to actually pull the games off a future host city without damaging the actual CGs themselves. Let's face it; if Delhi and their organisers had been held accountable as they should have been these games would not have gone ahead. Then the question would have been which city would have been willing at short notice to accept the political and financial burden of a CGs say with a year to do so? Melbourne couldn't have (particularly in light of the replay of the AFL grand final which no one would have expected) and Glasgow couldn't. Hamilton undoubtedly would have said (quite rightly) to the CGF that they made their bed so go lie in it. Which leaves no one really up as a candidate replacement.

Therefore to say in the future that if a host city reneges on the basic principles of hosting a games the CGF then there is a system of enforceable deadlines which could lead to taking the games away at the last minute is almost utter anathema to the ability of the CGs to continue. Perhaps instead what needs to be done is set up say 5 hub host cities through which the CGs cycle (for example, Melbourne, Edinburgh, Toronto, Auckland, Cape Town) and thus never have to worry about host cities stuffing things up the week before the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With their small staff contingent, I do wonder what sort of money they make.

Well if you believe the Indian media Hooper made a motza out of the Delhi 2010 OC.

By the way we can probably strike the reference to a youth angle to the CGs...imagine my embarrassed surprise when I saw on the CGF web site that next year sees the IV Commonwealth Youth Games on the Isle Of Man. Putting aside the absolute mega-event that this will be (and can anyone shed light on how successful the 2008 Pune CYG were) can the CGF sue Jacques for ripping off their idea. Might be a way to wring a few dollars out of a way more successful IOC :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say:

-Have a consistent line-up of sports/events (i.e. the host doesn't get to chose sports), increase the focus on sports at which Comonthwealth nations don't suck (Swimming, Field Hockey, Track Cycling, Rugby, Cricket, Triathlon, Archery, Equestrian, Lawn Bowl, Squash, Badminton, etc.).

-Have a milestone system (like the IOC does), and keep the OC accountable when they fail to meet a milestone.

-Remember that you are not the IOC, and that the CG are not the Olympics. Small venues are OK, and in some cases (ie. Netball in India) a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say:

-Have a consistent line-up of sports/events (i.e. the host doesn't get to chose sports), increase the focus on sports at which Comonthwealth nations don't suck (Swimming, Field Hockey, Track Cycling, Rugby, Cricket, Triathlon, Archery, Equestrian, Lawn Bowl, Squash, Badminton, etc.).

-Have a milestone system (like the IOC does), and keep the OC accountable when they fail to meet a milestone.

-Remember that you are not the IOC, and that the CG are not the Olympics. Small venues are OK, and in some cases (ie. Netball in India) a good thing.

Not choosing sports is VERY important. It provides logical continuity, with athletes being able to defend their win from the previous games etc. It also enables the Commonwealth Games to logically grow, starting with like 18 sports then growing in future, perhaps to the scale of the Olympics when ready.

Naturally, this will only be in the number of sports, the capacities of venues should be within the region that most bid cities could make.

I'd probably scrap Cricket and Equestrian for the meantime, but who knows? It's possible.

So let the 2018 edition be the last of the classic Commonwealth Games, the 2022 will be radically changed with a dedicated sports lineup that any bid city must propose to the best of their ability. The use of small capacity venues will be considered, especially for cities in which the sports are not so popular. A smaller sized main venue should be offered by the CGF. The use of temporary venues will be looked favorably upon, especially for unpopular sports or where an existing indoor venue is unavailable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it's not attracted any votes so far what about the merits of switching the games to a non-Olympic year? If there was an agreement for the games slated for 2022 forward 1 year using a host with signficant pre-existing infrastructure that could give the games some clear air. 2019 would be too soon after Gold Coast/Hambantota plus would run into conflict with the RWC and the IAAF World Championships. 2021 would follow neatly after the 2020 SOGs giving some major Commonwealth athletes the chance for one last hurrah before retirement plus giving a usually fallow year some decent sporting activity.

Edited by eusebius65
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not choosing sports is VERY important. It provides logical continuity, with athletes being able to defend their win from the previous games etc. It also enables the Commonwealth Games to logically grow, starting with like 18 sports then growing in future, perhaps to the scale of the Olympics when ready.

Naturally, this will only be in the number of sports, the capacities of venues should be within the region that most bid cities could make.

I'd probably scrap Cricket and Equestrian for the meantime, but who knows? It's possible.

So let the 2018 edition be the last of the classic Commonwealth Games, the 2022 will be radically changed with a dedicated sports lineup that any bid city must propose to the best of their ability. The use of small capacity venues will be considered, especially for cities in which the sports are not so popular. A smaller sized main venue should be offered by the CGF. The use of temporary venues will be looked favorably upon, especially for unpopular sports or where an existing indoor venue is unavailable.

But small capacity venues are already given consideration. And in cases where capacity is below a requirement, the CWG Fed usually makes concessions...right? How much smaller should venues be? and are there real costs savings? In terms of a new venue, it should meet capacity requirements but I do understand that if there is a slightly smaller venue with capacity just under the requirements, then of course it should be used instead.

One can think of London where Excel could host a ton of sports under one roof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it's not attracted any votes so far what about the merits of switching the games to a non-Olympic year? If there was an agreement for the games slated for 2022 forward 1 year using a host with signficant pre-existing infrastructure that could give the games some clear air. 2019 would be too soon after Gold Coast/Hambantota plus would run into conflict with the RWC and the IAAF World Championships. 2021 would follow neatly after the 2020 SOGs giving some major Commonwealth athletes the chance for one last hurrah before retirement plus giving a usually fallow year some decent sporting activity.

Putting the CG the year before the Olympics would probably be a horrid idea. Olympic qualifications are in full swing in the summer before the games, and it would be virtually impossible to schedule the games so that they do not interfere with the qualifications of at least one sport. Not just that, but a lot of sports (such as Athletics and Aquatics) have there worlds the odd years, and those events are way more important that the CG (the nice thing about the CG is that it fills a gap in the Swimming calendar for Commonwealths nations).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not choosing sports is VERY important. It provides logical continuity, with athletes being able to defend their win from the previous games etc. It also enables the Commonwealth Games to logically grow, starting with like 18 sports then growing in future, perhaps to the scale of the Olympics when ready.

Naturally, this will only be in the number of sports, the capacities of venues should be within the region that most bid cities could make.

I'd probably scrap Cricket and Equestrian for the meantime, but who knows? It's possible.

So let the 2018 edition be the last of the classic Commonwealth Games, the 2022 will be radically changed with a dedicated sports lineup that any bid city must propose to the best of their ability. The use of small capacity venues will be considered, especially for cities in which the sports are not so popular. A smaller sized main venue should be offered by the CGF. The use of temporary venues will be looked favorably upon, especially for unpopular sports or where an existing indoor venue is unavailable.

Completely disagree with that - and you're forgetting one important thing, it's not the same host every year.

The ability to switch sports in and out of the games is crucial to the Commonwealth Games IMO and enables organisers to see what works and what doesn't, and also games to be tailored to local needs too. About half of the sports are compulsory anyway, and probably in reality only 2-3 sports vary from games to games anyway - and nobody particularly misses the ones that aren't there.

Whilst it's not attracted any votes so far what about the merits of switching the games to a non-Olympic year? If there was an agreement for the games slated for 2022 forward 1 year using a host with signficant pre-existing infrastructure that could give the games some clear air. 2019 would be too soon after Gold Coast/Hambantota plus would run into conflict with the RWC and the IAAF World Championships. 2021 would follow neatly after the 2020 SOGs giving some major Commonwealth athletes the chance for one last hurrah before retirement plus giving a usually fallow year some decent sporting activity.

Stupid idea - pointless to say the least, and the Winter Olympics isn't a factor at all in the Commonwealth Games. The games are pretty crucially positioned mid-Olympic cycle and generally ahead of the World championships in a pre-Olympic year for most sports, they are an important part of the Olympic cycle for many athletes and countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The current bid requirements are simply ridiculous for the CWG.

There needs to be drastic reductions in requirements.

Athletics stadium

15-20,000 seats minimum (like for the Pan Am Games, York University will be using a 10-15,000 seater athletics stadium for the 2015 Pan Am Games, after Hamilton lost the atheltics events).

Aquatics centre

2000 seats(olympic sized swimming pool), 500 seats (diving area)

A cap on the number of athletes

3,500 or 4,000 athletes at a maximum (to ensure that building an athletes village is not too expensive)

Less compact bids

At the moment, the CGF prefers compact bids with a small footprint, like with olympic bids. However this is simply not feasible for some countries which could use neighbouring cities to host some events to make it cheaper. PASO approved the large footprint plan for Toronto 2015 - the plan for Hamilton to host athletics and cycling was given the thumbs up (although now Toronto will be hosting athletics in 2015)

- Such basic bid requirments may possibly attract bids from places like Port of Spain (Capital of Trinidad and Tobago), Valetta (Capital of Malta), Halifax, Winnipeg etc. If cities like Kuala Lumpar want to build a 100,000 seater stadium, or Melbourne wants to carve an athletics track into a 100,000 seater cricket ground - then that's up to them, but smaller cities shouldn't be pressured into building huge, expensive venues which may not be used afterwards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it's not attracted any votes so far what about the merits of switching the games to a non-Olympic year? If there was an agreement for the games slated for 2022 forward 1 year using a host with signficant pre-existing infrastructure that could give the games some clear air. 2019 would be too soon after Gold Coast/Hambantota plus would run into conflict with the RWC and the IAAF World Championships. 2021 would follow neatly after the 2020 SOGs giving some major Commonwealth athletes the chance for one last hurrah before retirement plus giving a usually fallow year some decent sporting activity.

Yes- exactly. This is where other regional events such as the Asian Games are changing with the times, and therefor ehave a much better prognosis compared to the commonwealth games. After Incheon 2014, the next Asian Games will be in 2019 and 2023. The OCA know that 2014/18/22 are years with crowded sporting calendars - winter olympics, youth summer olympics, commonwealth games, and of course the FIFA World Cup (above everything else).

Asian Games in 2019 and 2023 will not clash with as many events (IAAF world athletics championships in 2019 and 2023 will last for 1 week compared to the FIFA world cup in 2018 and 2022 which will last for ~ 1 month) and also being in a pre-olympic year means that many athletes will want the practice of competing and fine tuning their performances ready for the summer olympics the next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

View Post

eusebius65, on 11 October 2010 - 12:08 PM, said:

Whilst it's not attracted any votes so far what about the merits of switching the games to a non-Olympic year? If there was an agreement for the games slated for 2022 forward 1 year using a host with signficant pre-existing infrastructure that could give the games some clear air. 2019 would be too soon after Gold Coast/Hambantota plus would run into conflict with the RWC and the IAAF World Championships. 2021 would follow neatly after the 2020 SOGs giving some major Commonwealth athletes the chance for one last hurrah before retirement plus giving a usually fallow year some decent sporting activity.

Stupid idea - pointless to say the least, and the Winter Olympics isn't a factor at all in the Commonwealth Games. The games are pretty crucially positioned mid-Olympic cycle and generally ahead of the World championships in a pre-Olympic year for most sports, they are an important part of the Olympic cycle for many athletes and countries.

The Winter Olympics are a factor in the CGs on two fronts. Firstly there is a huge drop in interest in arguably the third most important Commonwealth Games nation from the OWGs to the CGs. Canada spent tens of millions of its 'Own the podium' campaign for its winter athletes in Vancouver, and has a long and impressive record at the OWGs. On the other hand as demonstrated both in the Canadian performance at the last few iterations of the CGs as well as the current ennui that the Delhi Games engendered in Canada plus the unwillingness for Hamilton to front up for 2018, the Canadian public and sports administration see the CGs as a far lower priority than the OWGs. Canada is slowly disengaging from the CGs and the importance of the OWGs is a direct cause of this.

And then there are the Australian, British and Kiwi winter sports programs which all compete for funds with CG athletics (in Australia our OWG team for Vancouver was fully funded due to AOC & federal Government support, whereas the CG sponsored team was short of money before Delhi requiring the local CGF affiliate to dig into its own pockets to fund the team). The search for gold medals at the Olympics whether winter or summer is seen as more important in these countries than Commonwealth gold.

Secondly in a global sports marketing environment when sponsors and tourist dollars are at a premium, and when there is significant crowding of the year's schedule, it's a no brainer to understand that by the time a third tier sporting contest comes around after the two big international sporting events in the year (OWGs and FIFA World Cup) money becomes more and more a problem. Whilst the likes of Coca Cola and McDonalds can easily see the value in stumping up cash for these events they and their multinational-like businesses see less and less value in the CGs. Then there is the media interest generated by an OWGs contrasted with the CGs, showing that the latter really has a hard time getting attention as a profitable sports marketing arena for those potential sponsors. And considering the foreign sports tourists who have in the year the OWGs, then the World Cup, followed by the CGs, how many do you then would be willing and able to do the penultimate big sports event of the year?

As for the CGs being a crucial part of the build up to a SOGs why is it that more and more major athletes find less and less value in competing at them when building towards an Olympic Games. Look at the Jamaican sprinters for Delhi as a prime example. Conversely how many of the CGs athletes are either attending the games because their sport is not part of the SOG event program (i.e. squash, netball, lawn bowls, rugby 7s - until Rio 2016) or because they simply aren't good enough to go to the SOGs? For every Ian Thorpe in Kuala Lumpar who goes onto Sydney and Olympic glory there are three, four, five...who knows how many CG athletes who are at these games precisely because they are NOT the Olympics.

So much for your supposed 'pointless' hypothesis <_<

Edited by eusebius65
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand as demonstrated both in the Canadian performance at the last few iterations of the CGs as well as the current ennui that the Delhi Games engendered in Canada plus the unwillingness for Hamilton to front up for 2018, the Canadian public and sports administration see the CGs as a far lower priority than the OWGs. Canada is slowly disengaging from the CGs and the importance of the OWGs is a direct cause of this.

A view point substantiated by the fact that Canada put forward Halifax (small provincial capital of Nova Scotia) for the 2014 commonwealth games, but then withdrew the bid as it was deemed too expensive at $1.3 billion (despite this being trimmed down from 1.7 billion).

The Canadians then decided to put together a $2.4 billion bid for the 2015 Pan Am Games, ( $1 billion more expensive than the Halifax bid), this time putting forward their no.1 city: Toronto.

It’s clear where their priorities are – clearly the Canadians view the Pan Am Games to be more valuable/ more worth hosting than the commonwealth games (even though Canada recently hosted the Pan Am Games with Winnipeg in 1999, more recent that the Victoria 1994 CWG in Canada).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

CGF appoint pmplegacy to lead major strategic review of organisation

February 15 - A comprehensive and independent strategic review of the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) is to be undertaken by international management consultancy pmplegacy.

The objective is to provide a framework for the future development of the CGF and to ensure that its activities remain sustainable and relevant in the sporting landscape through to 2022 and beyond, they claimed.

It comes following the CGF General Assembly in November that saw Prince Tunku Imran of Malaysia elected as the new President of the organisation following 11 years as vice-president.

"This is a very exciting time for the CGF," said Prince Imran (pictured), who is also the President of the Olympic Council of Malaysia and an International Olympic Committee (IOC) member.

"We recognise the many challenges and opportunities' facing the Commonwealth Games movement and this review provides a critical opportunity to re-assess our long term vision and objectives and ensure our activities remain relevant and sustainable going forward."

The strategic review will also consider the organisation's vision and objectives, governance, management and funding, as well as branding and communications

It will encompass all aspects of the CGF's activities, including both the Commonwealth Games and wider development activities.

The process will include extensive stakeholder consultation with the findings set to be reported at the next CGF General Assembly in Uganda in September.

An online forum will also be established to promote wider industry and public engagement in the Review process.

"We are delighted to have secured the services of pmplegacy," said CGF chief executive Mike Hooper.

"It is a leader in its field.

"We know that the project team will do an excellent job for us, as we look to shape the future direction of the CGF."

pmplegacy, part of the London-based Chime Sports Marketing, recently worked on Hambantota's unsuccessful bid to host the 2018 Commonwealth Games.

They are currently working as lead strategic and technical advisors on the Baku 2020 Olympic and Paralympic bid while some of its other former clients include the Beijing 2008 Olympics and Paralympics, the Singapore 2010 Summer Youth Olympic Games and the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, as well as Madrid's unsuccessful bid for the 2016 Olympics.

"We are very pleased to be working with the CGF on this independent Strategic Review, at what is a critical time in the organisation's development," said Alan Pascoe, the chairman of Chime Sports Marketing.

"We look forward to engaging with the varied stakeholders and developing an effective, progressive and exciting plan of action through to 2022."

Insidethegames

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...