Jump to content

Durban 2020


Rafa

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's always sounded more likely to me than 2020.

Bear in mind that it will be highly unlikely, if 2020 fails, that South Africa will chose a different city for a 2024 bid. Also with the possible new timeline guidelines for the Olympics excluding September, a Cape Town Olympics is more and more unlikely.

Well if this is true, that CT have finally backed down and finished "thinking about it". We can hopefully stop moving forward internally on a SA bid for launch after the IOC Durban meet in July, and planning can also begin to show the best possible face to the IOC during the event which will fall in the hosting period that Durban is most likely to propose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CT 2024 anyone? :P

You have it all written in my signature! :lol:

Bear in mind that it will be highly unlikely, if 2020 fails, that South Africa will chose a different city for a 2024 bid. Also with the possible new timeline guidelines for the Olympics excluding September, a Cape Town Olympics is more and more unlikely.

Not necessarily. If 2020 fails, which is possible, the South African Olympic Committee might think the IOC prefers a better known city - which means Cape Town. It also depends on how Durban fails, though. A loss in the first round with a few votes is quite different from being the runner up.

PS: And both defeats are different from not being shortlisted, which is another option and I think would rule out Durban for 2024.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: And both defeats are different from not being shortlisted, which is another option and I think would rule out Durban for 2024.

Interesting scenario - I think most of us would be in shock if Durban didn't at least short list. But, yeah, in the unlikely event that happened, there'd probably be some strong arm-twisting to get CT on board for the 2024 race.

BTW Mo - what's your source that CT has has pulled out? I haven't seen any official word.

Anyway, onto the real important things - when are we gonna see a Durban logo?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. If 2020 fails, which is possible, the South African Olympic Committee might think the IOC prefers a better known city - which means Cape Town. It also depends on how Durban fails, though. A loss in the first round with a few votes is quite different from being the runner up.

This hypothesis doesn't necessarily highlight anything, either. Chicago went out in the 1st round for 2016, but it's been widely viewed now (even by the IOC themselves) that their fast exit had far more to do with the USOC than about Chicago itself.

Yet on the other hand, Madrid was runner-up to Rio, but Madrid never managed to gain more than 1/3 of IOC member votes in any of the 2016 voting rounds (that goes for 2012, too). And Madrid being runner-up for 2016 doesn't necessarily translate that their chances for 2020 would be that much better considering the non-movement of 1/3 of the votes from one race to the next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet on the other hand, Madrid was runner-up to Rio, but Madrid never managed to gain more than 1/3 of IOC member votes in any of the 2016 voting rounds (that goes for 2012, too). And Madrid being runner-up for 2016 doesn't necessarily translate that their chances for 2020 would be that much better considering the non-movement of 1/3 of the votes from one race to the next.

Plus a number of those ex-Soviet bloc appartchiks who owed their appt to the IOC to the Old Falangist and thus voted for Madrid in 2012 and 2016, may not be around in 2013 to vote for Madrid again, should Madrid insist on being added to the Perennial Bridesmaids' list of Detroit, Istanbul and Paris.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, we're not discussing here how Madrid won its votes... And Madrid may have not gained more than 1/3 of the votes, but neither did Chicago nor NYC nor Tokyo nor Moscow... and they still can be strong contenders the next time they bid.

Anyway, Chicago being eliminated is important for future bids - note how the way Chicago lost annoyed the USOC, they say they don't want to bid, at least for 2020. If Durban loses in the first round, something similar might happen to the South African NOC, but instead of giving up, they may choose another city, the one that had already ended up third in an Olympic race: Cape Town. Of course, as I said, this would be different if Durban almost got the Games. That's my point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UN selects Durban for talks on climate

November 12, 2010 Edition 2

MELANIE GOSLING Environment Writer

DURBAN has won the bid for the UN's climate change talks next November, beating Cape Town and Johannesburg.

The negotiations, which were held in Copenhagen last year and in Cancun this year, are one of the biggest UN gatherings. About 35 000 to 40 000 people attended the talks in Denmark last year.

Having the climate talks was hotly contested as the gathering is likely to inject about R1 billion of spending into the host city.

The host city also enjoys a high profile for the duration of the two-week talks.

The purpose of the talks is to thrash out a global, binding agreement to tackle climate change after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. The talks failed in Copenhagen, and if the talks in Cancun later this month also fail to deliver, the negotiations in South Africa next year are likely to become "the big one" when the pressure will be on to reach consensus.

Some eyebrows have been raised by the choice of Durban, as the city has only one five-star hotel in a 15km radius of the city's conference venue. Cape Town has 18.

Questions have also been asked as to why the planned site-visit by UN staff was cancelled earlier this month at short notice without explanation. Some suggest this points to the fact that the decision was a political one, rather than one based on the city best able to host the event.

However, Joanne Yawitch, a deputy director-general at the Department of Environment Affairs, said yesterday that the decision had been based purely on the fact that Durban had the best facilities, adding that there was "nothing sinister" in the UN officials cancelling their visit.

"They were very involved with (the negotiations) in Mexico, and they could not come when we wanted them to. They agreed that we could go ahead," Yawitch said.

City of Cape Town officials were not available to comment.

melanie.gosling@inl.co.za

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we're NOT discussing on "how" Madrid won it's votes. But you're trying to make a PARALLEL on whether if a city (i.e. Durban, in this case) were to get tossed in the 1st round or if they were to be runner-up, how that might be viewed for another bid by SASOC. And again, as I said, whether a city gets tossed 1st or is runner-up doesn't mean a thing.

Every race is DIFFERENT, & simply because city X or Y finishes last or is runner-up doesn't automatically dictate how they're gonna finish in the next race next time whatever city bids. Just like you pointed out with Chicago, New York, Tokyo & Moscow.

If being runner-up were that easy, then why didn't Paris try again for 2016 since they were so close for 2012. And who would've thought that Rio would've snagged 2016 when they were totally dissed from the 2012 short-list. Madrid was just an example, just like Paris, Rio, etc are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we're NOT discussing on "how" Madrid won it's votes. But you're trying to make a PARALLEL on whether if a city (i.e. Durban, in this case) were to get tossed in the 1st round or if they were to be runner-up, how that might be viewed for another bid by SASOC. And again, as I said, whether a city gets tossed 1st or is runner-up doesn't mean a thing.

Every race is DIFFERENT, & simply because city X or Y finishes last or is runner-up doesn't automatically dictate how they're gonna finish in the next race next time whatever city bids. Just like you pointed out with Chicago, New York, Tokyo & Moscow.

If being runner-up were that easy, then why didn't Paris try again for 2016 since they were so close for 2012. And who would've thought that Rio would've snagged 2016 when they were totally dissed from the 2012 short-list. Madrid was just an example, just like Paris, Rio, etc are.

Totally agree ;)

I actually think Rome will top Madrid if it went head to head.

Disagree. I know I'm partial here but I've been to both Rome and Madrid and I think Madrid is better in terms of the technical things the IOC asks for (especially public transport). Also, Spain hosted the Summer Olympics in 1992 while Italy did it in 1960 but Italy hosted not so long ago, in 2006. And maybe we should also keep in mind that Rome has already hosted the Olympics while Madrid hasn't. Could be kind of a "new frontier" inside Europe. You know, for politicians in Madrid it's frustating that the city is one of the most important European capitals not to have hosted the Games yet.

But now, let's talk about Durban :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree. I know I'm partial here but I've been to both Rome and Madrid and I think Madrid is better in terms of the technical things the IOC asks for (especially public transport). Also, Spain hosted the Summer Olympics in 1992 while Italy did it in 1960 but Italy hosted not so long ago, in 2006. And maybe we should also keep in mind that Rome has already hosted the Olympics while Madrid hasn't. Could be kind of a "new frontier" inside Europe. You know, for politicians in Madrid it's frustating that the city is one of the most important European capitals not to have hosted the Games yet.

Not yet. I'm not ready to give up on the topic yet.

See, Rome really has a more historic/romantic appeal to it. Plus, there is the Vatican being there. You just know a number of the IOC members would just like to have that special audience with the Pope sometime in their IOC careers -- and what better way than to give the Games to Rome. (Besides Dan Brown has written a novel set in Rome...not yet in Madrid, so... ;) )

Also, Italy has a stronger sporting tradition than Spain. And to those in the IOC who were NOT beholden to JAS, I bet they feel that Spain already got its due with Barcelona '92 when the voting was rigged for that city to win. So Spain has really had its share for the current 50 years.

I just think Madrid is NOT fated to host the Games. I mean it came in 2nd in 1966 for the 1972 Games, right? Perhaps if JAS had not pushed his weight in 1986 to rig the vote for Barcelona over Paris then, then perhaps Madrid might have won on its own merit in 2005 or last year? But who knows? I think Madrid is just trying too hard. Sometimes, it's just not a city's fate to host. Uhmmmm...Detroit?

(Torino was NOT a real special concession to Italy. Who was the only other bidder? Sion? And for those vindictive IOC members, it was MORE to deny Switzerland a Games rather than to overwhelmingly award Italy a Games.)

Moving on to Durban, yeah, that UN Environmental Summit is a BIG DEAL. Another feather in Durban's hat and I think the march is on!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think Madrid is NOT fated to host the Games. I mean it came in 2nd in 1966 for the 1972 Games, right? Perhaps if JAS had not pushed his weight in 1986 to rig the vote for Barcelona over Paris then, then perhaps Madrid might have won on its own merit in 2005 or last year? But who knows? I think Madrid is just trying too hard. Sometimes, it's just not a city's fate to host. Uhmmmm...Detroit?

(Torino was NOT a real special concession to Italy. Who was the only other bidder? Sion? And for those vindictive IOC members, it was MORE to deny Switzerland a Games rather than to overwhelmingly award Italy a Games.)

Moving on to Durban, yeah, that UN Environmental Summit is a BIG DEAL. Another feather in Durban's hat and I think the march is on!!

I totally agree with this assertion. Barcelona is mainly, I think, what's standing in Madrid's way. Whether or not the politians in Madrid are frustrated (like Athan says) because Madrid is the only major European Capital that hasn't hosted the Games is neither here nor there.

Those Castillian politians need to realize the reality of IOC politics & that the members don't make their decisions based on trivial circumstances on which capitals have or have not hosted. And also for a country as small as Spain, located in a continent where it's other more prominent neighbors haven't hosted the Games in literally DECADES, is yet another big obstacle for Madrid & Spain. The Spanish need to realize these aspects, but they're being too stubborn if they're being "frustrated" with the results.

Italy last hosted a Winter Games, so that's not really comparable. Maybe Spain should just keep trying for those with Zaragosa. I think their case would be stronger than a Summer bid since Spain would be a newcomer in the Winter category.

NOW we can go back to Durban. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, let's go back to Durban.

PS: But I hope you understand it's logical I prefer Madrid over Rome. I already said I was being partial, anyway. And let's not go back to what is wishful, likely or unlikely or fates or whatever, please, who could have imagined back in 2006 that Rio would host in ten years' time? There are always surprises in Olympic races...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there are sometimes surprises in the races, but Rio had a huge, compelling case working in it's favor. A city, country & CONTINENT that never hosted the Games before (Just like Durban would have all those attributes in a bid, too). You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...