Jump to content

Durban 2020


Rafa

Recommended Posts

Well, I don't think you consider that cities from the developing world have to work harder to prove themselves capable than cities from the developed countries.

Actually, for Tokyo and Madrid, they are probably going to present something very close to what was presented for 2016, which should ensure them a pass to the short list. Rome has made the cut not so long ago and has a lot of existing venues and a vast tourist infrastructure to support the event. Anyway, traffic will be an issue. Regarding Berlin, I don't know if they are planning to bid, but a German backed bid would also benefit from the credibility of the German organization, not mention all the infrastructure it holds.

I can point Durban pretty well in a map. Well enough to look for the birds eye view through Google Earth and look for sports arenas, available space, rail road lines and so on. By the way, the photos of Durban are quite recent, since they already feature the Moses Mabhida Stadium ready with the grass and all.

I also used something called Google to research their Transport Plan for the metro area and to understand how the city is distributed and where the people live and work. I have looked thoroughly for their main sports venues and it all turns out that they don't have much. I could only find the ICC Arena which takes part of the ICC complex, including the exhibition center. The airport capacity is very low (7 million) and it is not connected to the main international airports (only Doha has a direct flight).

I am not convinced for a very good reasons:

1. The city is well below the benchmark for hotel rooms.

2. The airport is smaller than all recent Olympic hosts.

3. I can see the vast open land in the Kings Park precinct and I do recognize the existing big stadia (Abbsa and Moses Mabhida), but I don't see where they are going to fit all the indoor sports and IBC/MPC, since there is only one Arena which is part of the main Convention Center of the city and does not have enough capacity to host either Artistic Gymnastics or Basketball. Are they going to build temporary venues? Normally this is not a problem because most of the recent Olympic hosts already had arenas and big convention centers.

4. Most of the residential areas seem to be made of houses, so I wonder how the legacy plan for an OV would be worked out. Are they going to sell the apartments? How are they going to build them? Besides, where the OV would be placed? For the plan to be really compact, the OV would also have to be built close to Kings Park.

5. If they are going to resort to the existing infrastructure and maybe temporary for their bid, what kind of legacy they are planning to pitch to the IOC?

There was political maneuvering on all sides. The German did what they had to do to win. However, RSA finally got the WC only after FIFA ruled that 2010 would be in Africa, preventing bidders from other continents to present themselves. As a result of this policy, FIFA has awarded the WC with very low requirements in the bid phase and has put forward quite high requirements during the preparations. This is true both for RSA 2010 and for Brazil 2014.

When i actually have the time i will take you through everything your googling skills have not shown you on the net

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There is just one big problem with this story. The WC was a result of political maneuvering more than anything. Blatter and his crew organized everything for RSA to get the WC in 2006. In the last moment, though, an Oceania ExCom member did not cast his vote, giving the victory to Germany. To make sure that this wouldn't be repeated, FIFA created the continental rotation rule that lived only enough for it to pay its debt to the main operators of the 2006 vote (AFC and Conmebol/CBF).

Neither Brazil or RSA would be likely to be elected to host the WC if FIFA used the same approach as does the IOC, with continental rotation being just an unwritten rule and with a rather open bid process and a diverse electorate.

But I am NOT talking about HOW they got there. Right now, and even going into the 2020 race, I think Durban holds the best cards. What I'm saying is that for a medium-sized country (vs. the giants of Russia, Brazil, India and the insect country of Qatar), RSA/Durban has had the luxury of hosting the 2 biggest events in the world tne years apart. Brazil will only have a 2-year respite; Russia will have a 4-year rest time; and who knows what will happen with insignificant little Qatar?? :blink:

I have looked thoroughly for their main sports venues and it all turns out that they don't have much.

Neither did Lillehammer, Beijing, Sochi and Qatar. The IOC and FIFA like vast, comprehensive plans. It gives them (and the selected host city) a LOT of new stuff! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think you consider that cities from the developing world have to work harder to prove themselves capable than cities from the developed countries.

Actually, I think it is quite the opposite. You see, for a developing country this is a once in a century opportunity - the entire country gets behind it and supports it, and the politicians make sure it is a success. For example, say Chicago got 2016 - there is no way in heck their citizens would approve funding a billion dollar express train between O'Hare and the Loop. Yet, SA had no problem doing what was needed for the WC and got the Gautrain done. If Durban gets the SOGs, make no mistake, a high-speed train WILL be built between Jozi and Durbs.

You really completely and utterly underestimate the will of a developing nation.

Actually, for Tokyo and Madrid, they are probably going to present something very close to what was presented for 2016, which should ensure them a pass to the short list. Rome has made the cut not so long ago and has a lot of existing venues and a vast tourist infrastructure to support the event.

Personally, I have more faith in the ability of Durban to execute than Rome or Madrid. Right now, South Africa's finances are far more solvent than either Spain or Italy's. A Games in either of those countries is likely to only happen if they get a bit of bailout help from their German buddies. But, that's another topic...

I am not convinced for a very good reasons:

1. The city is well below the benchmark for hotel rooms.

2. The airport is smaller than all recent Olympic hosts.

3. I can see the vast open land in the Kings Park precinct and I do recognize the existing big stadia (Abbsa and Moses Mabhida), but I don't see where they are going to fit all the indoor sports and IBC/MPC, since there is only one Arena which is part of the main Convention Center of the city and does not have enough capacity to host either Artistic Gymnastics or Basketball. Are they going to build temporary venues? Normally this is not a problem because most of the recent Olympic hosts already had arenas and big convention centers.

4. Most of the residential areas seem to be made of houses, so I wonder how the legacy plan for an OV would be worked out. Are they going to sell the apartments? How are they going to build them? Besides, where the OV would be placed? For the plan to be really compact, the OV would also have to be built close to Kings Park.

5. If they are going to resort to the existing infrastructure and maybe temporary for their bid, what kind of legacy they are planning to pitch to the IOC?

All addressed with hard facts, multiple times, by multiple posters.

As a result of this policy, FIFA has awarded the WC with very low requirements in the bid phase and has put forward quite high requirements during the preparations. This is true both for RSA 2010 and for Brazil 2014.

But again, SA came within ONE vote of securing 2006 before the rotational system - which speaks volumes of the quality of the 2006 bid. So, to follow your logic, the 2010 bid was far inferior to the 2006 one due to the lower requirements.

At the end of the day, the 2010 World Cup is considered to be highly successful. Attendance was the third highest ever. Seems to me the bid for '06, for '10 and the execution were all stellar. And guess what? The country's economy is better off afterwards. Wow. Imagine that? An African success story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so lets start with all the areas raised one by one, firstly - city layout and accomodation clusters

This first picture shows where the city is in relation to the massive accomodation options north and south of the city. These accomodate about 2 million visitors in December alone, so there is a massive supply of accomodation here. yes not all hotels 3-5 as south africans generally prefer not to stay in hotels.

gdbn2020-nscoasts.jpg

Next we will specifically look at the Durban city region. It is a massive area home to over 4million people. The north of the city is home to the coast between Umhlanga and Ballito. This is a 20km strip of holiday homes and apartments, beach hotels and resorts.

Ballito is home to over 2000 3-5 rooms including those deemed self catering hotels. It is also home to beach resort hotels with two Fairmonts. Current developments and confirmed projects will bring a further 650 rooms onto the market by 2012 in this area.

Umhlanga itself is the fastest growing area in Durban and is where the vast majority of international corporates are basing themselves. It has always been a holiday type area but its population has quadrupled in the past 15 years. Umhlanga is home to nearly 2600 rooms currently with a further 1000 self-catering units available. Additionally another 750 rooms are confirmed for completion by 2012. As this is a growing node from both a business and tourist perspective, expect natural hotel room growth to be an additional 1500 by 2020.

Amanzimtoti to the south is another tourist hub. This area is however vastly holiday homes/apartments and self catering units.

gdbn2020region.jpg

And now into Durban central

gdbn2020-centralview.jpg

If we specifically look at the inner city area in terms of new hotel nodes, those circled in yellow, purple and red are the sites available for and likely to be developed to enhance the existing beachfront hotel product over the coming 10 years.

gdbn2020-centralnewrooms.jpg

The area in the yellow circle is where the Suncoast Casino currently stands. It's casino license will come up for renewal in he next few years and to retain it will have to offer more amenities. With it falling into the priority sports node it will more than likely need to provide a large indoor space and new hotel facilties to get more gambling space. A site next to it, which is owned by the city and turned into parking for the World Cup, is likely to be developed as a mixed use hotel and sports site in addition to the casino developments. Taj Hotels have also secured a beachfront site in the precinct for a 5 star beach hotel. This node currently has only 400 rooms, but this is likely to reach 1000...200m from the Moses Mabhida Stadium

The purple node is the centre of the durban beachfront hub and here lies a large site that used to previously host the Durban Miliatary musuem. This site is part of a city lead hotel roll out proposal and the site is earmarked for 3 hotels, two ocean facing and one back of beach. Expect 30F+ hotels with in the region of 1000 rooms in total. This is a prime site.

The red node is the most ambitious of all the city lead tourist developments, the rejuvenation of the Durban Point Waterfront. This is a massive project that has lead to the creation of a canal system through the area and a number of completed developments. The next phase involves the development of a large retail quarter and ocean facing resort hotels and a new small craft harbour. In addition plans have recently been announced for a new passenger cruise terminal, which is going through feasibility as a mixed use development which will also house the headquarters of SA Ports. This will be a landmark development that is comign at just the right time as Durban is developing into the main cruise hub of the growing Indian ocean region.

New Hotels in the point will add about 1500 rooms.

The Point beach area.

DSC03853.jpg

Looking along the coast from the point area to the Moses Mabhida stadium showing the length of the beachfront which was massively rejuvenated for the World Cup and is a constant hive of people cycling, running, walking or just chilling out.

DSC03860.jpg

DSC03864.jpg

Poor photo of some of the sketch plans on display in the point of the beach resort node about to commence

DSC04361.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airport Issues

I will not delve back into the number of areas that i and others have already covered, if you refuse to read them, stop talking about the same issues unless you realy just aim to troll.

The below image is the design plan of the airport for opening phase. Note the 7,5million capacity.

projectstages001.jpg

When the next expansion trigger is hit, work will begin on the phase two of the airport development. This is currently planned to kickstart in about 2014/15. This will take capacity to 15million with the layout shown in the image below.

projectstages002.jpg

As this was a new airport built from scratch they have had the foresight and ability to carefully plan every expansion phase up to maximum capacity of 60million.

projectstages005.jpg

All in all, yes the airport currently only offers international flights to Dubai, Mauritus, Maputo and Inhambane. This is likely to be added to with services to Doha this year. Johannesburg is the major hub for SAA and other airlines in SA, this is not going to change any time soon. Durban will grow its international destinations alot by 2020, as will Joburg and i really see this airport thing as a total non issue.

I will go into the other issues of:

1) Venues - current and needed

2) Olympic Village and legacy

3) Why being so compact is a massive drawcard with the world going Green... and Durban possibly being at the forefront of that and the worlds attention with COP17 this year

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airport Issues

I will not delve back into the number of areas that i and others have already covered, if you refuse to read them, stop talking about the same issues unless you realy just aim to troll.

The below image is the design plan of the airport for opening phase. Note the 7,5million capacity.

projectstages001.jpg

When the next expansion trigger is hit, work will begin on the phase two of the airport development. This is currently planned to kickstart in about 2014/15. This will take capacity to 15million with the layout shown in the image below.

projectstages002.jpg

As this was a new airport built from scratch they have had the foresight and ability to carefully plan every expansion phase up to maximum capacity of 60million.

projectstages005.jpg

All in all, yes the airport currently only offers international flights to Dubai, Mauritus, Maputo and Inhambane. This is likely to be added to with services to Doha this year. Johannesburg is the major hub for SAA and other airlines in SA, this is not going to change any time soon. Durban will grow its international destinations alot by 2020, as will Joburg and i really see this airport thing as a total non issue.

I will go into the other issues of:

1) Venues - current and needed

2) Olympic Village and legacy

3) Why being so compact is a massive drawcard with the world going Green... and Durban possibly being at the forefront of that and the worlds attention with COP17 this year

Ceremonies!! Ceremonies, Dysan!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think you consider that cities from the developing world have to work harder to prove themselves capable than cities from the developed countries.

Actually, for Tokyo and Madrid, they are probably going to present something very close to what was presented for 2016, which should ensure them a pass to the short list.

And yet the IOC deemed Madrid in the 2016 Final Evaluation Report, that their plan was "unclear & lacked 'understanding' of the full Olympic aspect". And that Tokyo "didn't have everything in place that they said they did". Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

both of which were minor issues in a report tailored to favour Rio or at least buffer the great risk differential between Rio and its competing candidates.

A lack of understanding around the OCOG structure does not compare to a lack of a transport link between two clusters, crucial to the delivery of reasonable travel times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet the IOC deemed Madrid in the 2016 Final Evaluation Report, that their plan was "unclear & lacked 'understanding' of the full Olympic aspect". And that Tokyo "didn't have everything in place that they said they did". Go figure.

Well, they have criticized Madrid's bid team responsibility matrix. Their main criticism was regarding their lack of understanding of who should be responsible for what. This was very difficult to change in the last month of the last campaign, but it would be easy to fix for 2020. Replacing the heads of BCOG would be a start. This wouldn't reflect on their score on the applicant file, though. The only thing that may affect Madrid is the economic outlook.

Regarding Tokyo, 2 of the venues presented as ready, actually required permanent work to be done. This would require them to provide the application file with this correction this time, which would produce a slight reduction in the final score. Replacing BCOG members linked to the design of the venue plan would also be recommended.

both of which were minor issues in a report tailored to favour Rio or at least buffer the great risk differential between Rio and its competing candidates.

A lack of understanding around the OCOG structure does not compare to a lack of a transport link between two clusters, crucial to the delivery of reasonable travel times.

Actually the report did not state which was the worst problem, but considered Rio plan's achievable for transport, but also considered it risky in other parts such as accommodation.

However, I disagree with you regarding them as minor issues.

The preparation for an SOG is a huge program management effort. It involves several projects being conducted by several different parties, including the OCOG, the several government agencies and even private institutions. So, if a prospective OCOG does not understand how to properly define its structure and assign the tasks to the correct people and institutions, even with a less risky project it has very little chance to succeed.

Regarding Tokyo, the issue found depicted an attempt to mislead the IOC. This is not very good, if you wish to establish a credibility relationship with the IOC. Again is a matter of establishing credibility that the people behind the plan understand it and can deliver it. In this case, however the concerns would be different that Madrid's.

Either way, this was depicted only after the cities were shortlisted. The application file report is much more critical over Rio than with Madrid or Tokyo. However, the applicant file report was not weighed by presentations and interviews with the bid teams, which does not allow to have a proper understanding and explanation about the risks that are being raised and how they are planning to be mitigated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Actually I was wrong. The venues proposed by Tokyo were set to be existing with permanent work required whereas they need to have been reconstructed for the SOG. Here is the text from the Evaluation Report.

"The swimming, archery, hockey and Youth Plaza venues for badminton, modern pentathlon – fencing, basketball and gymnastics are listed as “existing venues, permanent works required” by Tokyo 2016 in the Candidature File. However, following visits to the proposed venues, the Commission deemed these to be new venues, with major construction necessary to provide the buildings and facilities required for the Games."

Durban would probably face a similar issue if it submits the Kings Park Aquatic Center for swimming or the Cyril Geoghegan Velodrome for track cycling as existing venues. Both venues would have to be rebuilt to actually be used.

Regarding Madrid's comment, you can read below how clear they state that they did not feel that their bid team was ready to be in charge of such an event.

"However, the Candidature File and supporting documentation, as well as the administrative structure proposed for a Madrid 2016 Games, did not demonstrate a full understanding of the need for clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, including financial, between different stakeholders to ensure efficient and timely transition to the OCOG, or of the management of operations required to implement the Games vision, concept and plans."

See how the text in bold details that they are questioning the Madrid bid team's ability to execute. The rest of the text is pretty positive about the overall concept and plan, but the EC demonstrates that them Madrid bid team failed to explain how they were going to implement it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Actually I was wrong. The venues proposed by Tokyo were set to be existing with permanent work required whereas they need to have been reconstructed for the SOG. Here is the text from the Evaluation Report.

"The swimming, archery, hockey and Youth Plaza venues for badminton, modern pentathlon – fencing, basketball and gymnastics are listed as "existing venues, permanent works required" by Tokyo 2016 in the Candidature File. However, following visits to the proposed venues, the Commission deemed these to be new venues, with major construction necessary to provide the buildings and facilities required for the Games."

Durban would probably face a similar issue if it submits the Kings Park Aquatic Center for swimming or the Cyril Geoghegan Velodrome for track cycling as existing venues. Both venues would have to be rebuilt to actually be used.

Not at all.

Tokyo suggested venues that were mere "sites" were "existing arenas". The IOC had an issue that there was no venue or structure at all, not that they had to be rebuilt.

Durban would propose using existing venues where an actual structure already exists and a suitable budget would be allocated.

What Tokyo did was a big mistake.

the games roles are vital, but this is something which can be fixed and understood in a week.

very different to a non-existing BRT route on which basic Games operations would depend.

on top of this consider that Spain has already hosted the Olympic Games, which in effect means the roles and responsibilities, can be delivered even without IOC interference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.

Tokyo suggested venues that were mere "sites" were "existing arenas". The IOC had an issue that there was no venue or structure at all, not that they had to be rebuilt.

Durban would propose using existing venues where an actual structure already exists and a suitable budget would be allocated.

What Tokyo did was a big mistake.

Indeed. I just raised the risks for Durban here because I found past discussions where the use of these venues was suggested. Actually, a new Aquatic Center is needed and a new Velodrome as well. Even if they are going to leverage the current location, they will have to be rebuilt.

the games roles are vital, but this is something which can be fixed and understood in a week.

Not really. They highlight that the roles and responsibilities were wrongly set even financially. That means that bills were being sent to the wrong people. They were not open about it, but for this to be brought up, I believe that the Madrid team probably put stuff in the OCOG budget that shouldn't be there. Depending on the size of the bill that is moving from one hand to the other, the new payer might not be able to cope with the extra money.

Even if the matter is strictly a task assignment issue, it is not so simple. It might involve the need to expand budgets to hire people that were not initially planned by one of the parties. I don't know how many projects you have managed, but whenever there is an initial mistake on the roles and responsibilities assignment, it requires long negotiations to agree on a new responsibility matrix and, especially, to agree on the how this will affect the budget of these stakeholders.

very different to a non-existing BRT route on which basic Games operations would depend.

This is a matter of the complexity and the cost to build such an infrastructure. Normally BRT routes can easily be constructed within a 7-year time frame and are not technically challenging projects. Besides, the infrastructure investments needed for Rio 2016 were definitely affordable.

The risk regarding this project would be linked to the ability to execute this project by the party responsible for it. This only highlights how management as a whole is much more important than technical planning.

on top of this consider that Spain has already hosted the Olympic Games, which in effect means the roles and responsibilities, can be delivered even without IOC interference.

Really? Are we talking about the same people handling the 2 games? Are the projects similar? Spain is not a project team. It all comes down to the actual people in front of the bid. If I am not mistaken, Madrid did not have a lot of people who worked for Barcelona '92. Even if they had, it wouldn't surprise me if the complexity of organizing the SOG increased in the last 17 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think more credits should be given to Tokyo. No one could be naive enough to think that they would fool the Evaluation Commission during its sites inspection about the status of those sites. Tokyo listed the site as "existing with permanent construction work" because strictly speaking, those sites were currently used to practice sport. But, when you look at associated construction costs and timeline, Tokyo was transparent about the amount of work needed...

The governance problem is important, much more than some seem to believe here.

Having a lack of clear role & responsibility matrix can lead to serious delay in delivering the project especially considering that sometimes clarifying this means passing new laws. You can end up in a legal deadlock for a few weeks, months. Athens 2004 anyone?

A strength of London 2012 is how fast LOCOG and ODA were established. This is the difference between delivering "on time, on budget" and delivering "last minute, way over budget"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think more credits should be given to Tokyo. No one could be naive enough to think that they would fool the Evaluation Commission during its sites inspection about the status of those sites. Tokyo listed the site as "existing with permanent construction work" because strictly speaking, those sites were currently used to practice sport. But, when you look at associated construction costs and timeline, Tokyo was transparent about the amount of work needed...

The governance problem is important, much more than some seem to believe here.

Having a lack of clear role & responsibility matrix can lead to serious delay in delivering the project especially considering that sometimes clarifying this means passing new laws. You can end up in a legal deadlock for a few weeks, months. Athens 2004 anyone?

A strength of London 2012 is how fast LOCOG and ODA were established. This is the difference between delivering "on time, on budget" and delivering "last minute, way over budget"...

But arent London already over budget??

Link to post
Share on other sites

The governance "structure" is important but consider the context.

It is not a final body, it is simply a proposal, which with consultation with the IOC post Copenhagen, is refined and formed, about 1 year after the Games are awarded.

Some movements around an organogram to determine reponsibilities and thats it. If you need laws changed you do what is needed, even then I highly doubt that laws in Spain would go against Madrid hosting, given Barcelona 1992.

This is vastly different to a proposal to build 25,000 rooms, or deliver several crucial BRT links which cannot simply be resolved in an organogram.

Once again, both are crucial but lets not be fooled by the massive bias or "buffer" created by the IOC in that report, nearly eliminating the vast risk differential between the Rio proposal and its counterparts.

The mere suggestion that Madrid or Spain are incapable of delivering or organizing their personnel and authorities to accommodate the complexities of a modern Games is absolutely ludicrous.

I remain baffled by the comparison or attempted comparison of the risk between the Madrid 2016 and Rio 2016 proposals.

I think more credits should be given to Tokyo. No one could be naive enough to think that they would fool the Evaluation Commission during its sites inspection about the status of those sites. Tokyo listed the site as "existing with permanent construction work" because strictly speaking, those sites were currently used to practice sport. But, when you look at associated construction costs and timeline, Tokyo was transparent about the amount of work needed...

The governance problem is important, much more than some seem to believe here.

Having a lack of clear role & responsibility matrix can lead to serious delay in delivering the project especially considering that sometimes clarifying this means passing new laws. You can end up in a legal deadlock for a few weeks, months. Athens 2004 anyone?

A strength of London 2012 is how fast LOCOG and ODA were established. This is the difference between delivering "on time, on budget" and delivering "last minute, way over budget"...

I don't think all the sites were used to "practice sport." Some were just vacant land.

But arent London already over budget??

Nope. They have a large contingency.

If you are referring to the Candidature file budgets, they are not real budgets, simply indicative of current estimated costs. A necessary evil of the applicant/candidate stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be your Hong Kong.

If Durban does win the bid, it seems as if Cape Town will put up its hands to host Equestrian, in addition to football.

"These opportunities, as well as hosting all equestrian events during a South African hosted Olympic games are possible due to Cape Town being the only African Horse Sickness free zone in South Africa".

The Soccer World Cup lifted the spirits of the nation and potentially laid the foundation for the 2020 Olympic Games. Just as Hong Kong provided China with a solution for the Equestrian Games away from the host city, Beijing, so South Africa’s African horse sickness (AHS) Controlled Area in the Western Cape will do the same for South Africa’s bid.

http://www.ameinfo.com/251785.html

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

Now that our Durban logo compo is over, they're getting cocky.

Durban confident of hosting 2020 Olympic Games

Durban is confident of its chances of hosting the 2020 Olympic Games ahead of other South African cities.

It will be the first African city to host an International Olympic Committee (IOC) gathering,in June this year.

Logie Naidoo, Ethekwini’s deputy mayor, believes that this will give Durban the opportunity to showcase itself and boost its chances of hosting the 2020 Olympics.

The four-day conference in June is expected to decide the host city for the 2018 Winter Olympics and delegates are also expected to take drastic resolutions against doping. But Durban intends to use the opportunity to press its case for the Summer Olympics.

“We will roll out the red carpet and convince the IOC board and conference members that Durban is capable of hosting the Olympics.

“We believe that we are on the right track and are fairly confident that we will pip the other cities and win the right to bid,” Naidoo said.

The deputy mayor pointed out that Durban is ahead of other cities because all its world class sporting facilities are located close together. These include the Moses Mabhida Stadium, the Kings Park’s Absa Stadium, an Olympic-size swimming pool and a stadium for the track and field athletics.

“Durban also has the perfect weather which is suitable for the Olympic Games’ climate,” he said.

But there is still a long way to go before the host city is selected. The selection will take place on September 7 2013 at the IOC headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Durban revealed its Olympics ambitions soon after the 2010 World Cup finals and was rewarded by support from Fifa president, Sepp Blatter.

Durban’s chances were further boosted last weekend when Gideon Sam, head of South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee, said that the city was likely to get government and sporting bodies’ support for the hosting bid. Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town have also shown interest in bidding for the global showpiece.

Rome, which held the Olympics in 1960, is also reportedly keen to bid.

Next month the IOC will send out invitations for bids.

The New Age

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, two tidbits of wrong information in that article.

First, the 2018 session is in July, not June. And the 2020 session is in Buenos Aires, not Lausanne. Where are these people getting their 'info' from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, two tidbits of wrong information in that article.

First, the 2018 session is in July, not June. And the 2020 session is in Buenos Aires, not Lausanne. Where are these people getting their 'info' from.

I didn't even notice that - for Durban's sake I hope that was the journo's error, and not the Durban communication team's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
South Africa still looking ahead to launch 2020 Olympic Games bid

TAMPA, May 04: South Africa is revving up its hopes for an Olympic bid as the countdown continues with less than 60 days to the start of the IOC session which will decide the fate of the 2018 winter Games host.

Durban will host the IOC session and will be pulling out all the stops to showcase the city in the event of a 2020 bid.

The new logo and website were launched today for the 123rd session to promote the meeting.

Gideon Sam, South African NOC president, spoke to the press and said how pleased he was that the city will be able to greet the IOC. He said that South Africa plans at some point to launch a bid but they are not certain of the time frame. In the mean time they need to put their best foot forward.

South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup last summer and is looking to bring bigger and more engaging events to the region.

The 2020 cities have until September 1st to submit candidates but already Rome, Italy is on the front line.

Other cities that appear to be considering a bid are Istanbul, Doha, Dubai, Madrid and Tokyo has expressed interest but given the recent earthquake and tsunami it is debatable if they will join the group for this round.

Much will depend on how the 2018 vote winds up and which continent wins.

Sportsfeatures.com

iocdurba.jpg

Mo/Rafa - you're slacking. You should be keeping us up-to-date. Especially with any new logo! I think the session sho0uld have gone with one of our Durban bid comp designs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Could that mean that South Africa might not bid for 2020? :blink:

After all their chaotic national bid campaign, that would be a real surprise!

That's kind of how it sounded to me too. We might not know until the day the applicant files are due....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...