Jump to content

2020 Olympics short list


Triffle

Recommended Posts

It's impossible to CIO to refuse Annecy like Bid... It's like refuse England, Italia or Spain to a football world cup.

France is one of the 3 more important winter nation about economy or capacity to host... And the level of infrastructure is very high... If Annecy have been some difficult it's only because in first time they purpose to many sites, not because they can't host winter games...

It's not 'impossible'. It's quite probable had the list of 2018 applicants been at least 7 or 8 cities (like it was for 2010 & 2014) I'd bet any amount of money that the IOC would nixed Annecy.

For the Summer Olympics though, you could very well have a point, but not in this particular case. The very stern warning that the IOC gave Annecy (France) in the preliminary evaluation suggests to me had there been other serious European bidders (&/or another good compelling candidate) Annecy would've been handed a Doha 2016-style early exit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The fact is there has never been more than 5 candidate cities and in the last race the IOC has cut it to 4, even though 5 of them met the benchmark.

Durban has a very compact plan, but misses important infrastructure to host, so I wouldn't bet it to score high. The IOC is probably going to score it quite close to the benchmark.

Okay, well, considering that there were only 7 applicants for 2016, I wasn't surprised at all that there were only 4 candidates in the end. And since 2020 looks like thats all the number of applicants that it's going to muster, too, that just gives Durban more of an edge than being seen as a hindrance like you're trying to paint it.

And the IOC scoring Durban close to the benchmark is all it takes (just like Rio). You just have to get in the door, then all bets are off. Again, just look at Rio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the IOC scoring Durban close to the benchmark is all it takes (just like Rio). You just have to get in the door, then all bets are off. Again, just look at Rio.

Fair enough. Except Rio didn't have the disadvantage of another "new frontiers" city already named host for the Summer Olympiad immediately preceding it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your continued insistence of "Africa is crap" in the face of multiple posters refuting your points with facts makes you sound a bit like Michelle. Oh, wait, I see you're from France too... hmmm...

It's actually more of a case of a Brazilian living/working in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not 'impossible'. It's quite probable had the list of 2018 applicants been at least 7 or 8 cities (like it was for 2010 & 2014) I'd bet any amount of money that the IOC would nixed Annecy.

For the Summer Olympics though, you could very well have a point, but not in this particular case. The very stern warning that the IOC gave Annecy (France) in the preliminary evaluation suggests to me had there been other serious European bidders (&/or another good compelling candidate) Annecy would've been handed a Doha 2016-style early exit.

Ok I stop here, I think you can understand my point of view... WoG and Sog are very different and you can refuse some country even their bid isn't perfect... Because if you look now annecy have certainily the best bid if you compare with Munich or PC... But it's very difficult to show why I think that because I think you don't know Europe or Annecy Region.

I invit you to come to see why I tell that. I'm sure you understand after.

About Salt Lake, I'm agree it's a great geographic region, but about politic isn't a good choice, but I hope to see a great bid in the future with Denver or Anchorage or other USA city... To Wog USA is an amazing country.

About corruption, every body seem forget that... I see, there are lot of american and you have a, american point of view...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Sure. Bookmark this. In 3 years time you can come back and see how wrong you were.

Your continued insistence of "Africa is crap" in the face of multiple posters refuting your points with facts makes you sound a bit like Michelle. Oh, wait, I see you're from France too... hmmm...

I don't think Africa or Durban are crap, but I don't think it is as great as you say. I just think that they have a huge mountain to climb and that won't have continental rotation working on its side in the same way that Rio did. By the way, I do think Durban or any South African bid is strong, but it won't run unopposed of the European and Asian contenders like Rio did.

The fact that Rio is hosting now does not help too much. The fact that 2020 will be 8 years after London and 12 years after Beijing doesn't help either. To make it more difficult, the list of candidates is not closed and Durban has just a few existing venues and infrastructure gaps. If we don't have new bidders, it will probably make the cut, but it should find it more difficult than Rio to win it.

I think the main problem with you and other American participants in this forum is to assume that Rio won just because it was a new frontier. Rio won because of many different things, in which being a new frontier had a major part, but also did the legacy proposal, the circumstances regarding continental rotation and the work done by the bid team to demonstrate that they raised the risks of their proposal and planned ahead to mitigate them.

If you assume that Rio won solely due to being a new frontier, you would assume that the next host would most likely be a new frontier as well. However, if you realize that it actually took more than that, you might look at it in a different way and realize that things might go in a different direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course Rio didn't win solely by being a "new-frontier". And it's very rude to suggest that all the Americans on this forum assume otherwise, simply because some of them support a South African candidate.

Rio obviously had to prove themselves in order to make it through & surely Durban would have to do the same. I don't think anyone here (that's at least coherent about the bid process) thinks that the IOC would just "hand it over" to Africa just because it would be a new frontier. However, to not recognize that Durban could present & execute a well thought out plan (which is very apparent that they could) is also simplifying their case in the opposite aspect. If all it took was just being a "new frontier", like you seem to think all of us here simply think (except for you), then Rio would've won a long time ago.

And again, continental rotation could be a issue for Durban depending on what other candidates from other continents are bidding. Again, if it turns out that Hiroshima bids instead of Tokyo, then Asia is pretty much done for. Because the IOC is not going to the Middle East nor recent host (by Olympic standards) South Korea. China is not bidding & India is basically out after Delhi, too. So who else is there in Asia besides no one.

And for Europe again, it's only Rome that's gonna be the serious main contender. Not Spain, not Russia, & Germany & France are not forseen, especially since they're both really preoccupied with 2018 at the moment. So in theory, yes, continental rotation could be an issue, but in practicality, no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course Rio didn't win solely by being a "new-frontier". And it's very rude to suggest that all the Americans on this forum assume otherwise, simply because some of them support a South African candidate.

Rio obviously had to prove themselves in order to make it through & surely Durban would have to do the same. I don't think anyone here (that's at least coherent about the bid process) thinks that the IOC would just "hand it over" to Africa just because it would be a new frontier. However, to not recognize that Durban could present & execute a well thought out plan (which is very apparent that they could) is also simplifying their case in the opposite aspect. If all it took was just being a "new frontier", like you seem to think all of us here simply think (except for you), then Rio would've won a long time ago.

And again, continental rotation could be a issue for Durban depending on what other candidates from other continents are bidding. Again, if it turns out that Hiroshima bids instead of Tokyo, then Asia is pretty much done for. Because the IOC is not going to the Middle East nor recent host (by Olympic standards) South Korea. China is not bidding & India is basically out after Delhi, too. So who else is there in Asia besides no one.

And for Europe again, it's only Rome that's gonna be the serious main contender. Not Spain, not Russia, & Germany & France are not forseen, especially since they're both really preoccupied with 2018 at the moment. So in theory, yes, continental rotation could be an issue, but in practicality, no.

Well, Istanbul is making some sort of noises about 2020--but how will they be classed? Asia or Europe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course Rio didn't win solely by being a "new-frontier". And it's very rude to suggest that all the Americans on this forum assume otherwise, simply because some of them support a South African candidate.

Rio obviously had to prove themselves in order to make it through & surely Durban would have to do the same. I don't think anyone here (that's at least coherent about the bid process) thinks that the IOC would just "hand it over" to Africa just because it would be a new frontier. However, to not recognize that Durban could present & execute a well thought out plan (which is very apparent that they could) is also simplifying their case in the opposite aspect. If all it took was just being a "new frontier", like you seem to think all of us here simply think (except for you), then Rio would've won a long time ago.

I would like to see Durban present a well though out plan, but I still think that they will struggle to do so. Their plan is likely to be very compact, due to the available space in the Kings Park Sports Precinct, but they will have trouble since they will have to build much more than Rio did. The hotel capacity is a major problem to solve and cannot be resolved by simply throwing public money at it.

Besides, I am concerned about the ability of Durban proposing a good legacy plan, which will be crucial to offset the amount of money to be spent on hosting the SOG. Usually, you have a better return if the capital projects are focused at infrastructure rather than venues. The legacy was the core of the Rio bid and that's why it was spread out. It was possible to conceive a more compact concept to Rio, but it wouldn't pay off in terms of benefits to the population. This was the main point sold to the IOC - a Barcelona-style urban regeneration project.

And again, continental rotation could be a issue for Durban depending on what other candidates from other continents are bidding. Again, if it turns out that Hiroshima bids instead of Tokyo, then Asia is pretty much done for. Because the IOC is not going to the Middle East nor recent host (by Olympic standards) South Korea. China is not bidding & India is basically out after Delhi, too. So who else is there in Asia besides no one.

And for Europe again, it's only Rome that's gonna be the serious main contender. Not Spain, not Russia, & Germany & France are not forseen, especially since they're both really preoccupied with 2018 at the moment. So in theory, yes, continental rotation could be an issue, but in practicality, no.

I think you must analyze the risks to Durban's plans in two steps. First, to be shortlisted, then to be elected. Continental rotation usually plays no role during the application phase. So, even a Seoul, a Madrid or a Hiroshima could kick Durban out of the race, if their technical plan is good enough. At this moment though, we don't know who is going to bid. The key here for Durban will be to avoid having too many cities that they can't prove to be better prepared. If we had the same competition in 2016 as we had in 2012, even with a better plan, I wouldn't bet on Rio being shortlisted.

Currently, it is only Rome and Tokyo that seem to be strong enough to defeat Durban, but this list might grow. Let's wait the result of the 2018 WOGs. The main question is whether those cities are going to face Durban in the election or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't Istanbul fall into the "new frontier" category. So that automatically rules them out anyway. <_<

They are part of the EOC, so they are Europe and they would be a good compromise in terms of expanding the Olympcis to new places, without messing up with continental rotation. For the people who like to compare the IOC to FIFA, it would serve the same purpose as Russia did for FIFA.

The main question is not the new-frontier concept, but the new continent one. If you think about it, Turkey, being a muslin country could actually split even the African votes, by drawing the several North African muslin members to vote for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia, there are 15 African members, but only 14 would vote if Durban manages to be shortlisted. 5 of them are from these Muslim countries: 1 from Algeria, 2 from Morocco and 2 from Egypt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

This would make a potential 9-5 to Durban in their own continental block.

I love all this insane vote speculation when we have not the slightest idea of anything at all yet from any of the potential bidders.

Aluz the more ou write, the more i tend to get the feeling that you are glad your own country got the Olympics, but that "new frontiers" like Durban really have no chance. You speak freely on Durban yet readily admit you know basically nothing about it? Why speak when you know nothing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

This would make a potential 9-5 to Durban in their own continental block.

But that's assuming ALL 5 would vote based on their sect. I'd predict, if Istanbul also gets short-listed, the 2 Moroccans and 2 Egyptians would split their votes.

Dysan, you KNOW we here at GB are FAR AHEAD of anyone else in vote prognostication!! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see Durban present a well though out plan, but I still think that they will struggle to do so. Their plan is likely to be very compact, due to the available space in the Kings Park Sports Precinct, but they will have trouble since they will have to build much more than Rio did. The hotel capacity is a major problem to solve and cannot be resolved by simply throwing public money at it.

Besides, I am concerned about the ability of Durban proposing a good legacy plan, which will be crucial to offset the amount of money to be spent on hosting the SOG. Usually, you have a better return if the capital projects are focused at infrastructure rather than venues. The legacy was the core of the Rio bid and that's why it was spread out. It was possible to conceive a more compact concept to Rio, but it wouldn't pay off in terms of benefits to the population. This was the main point sold to the IOC - a Barcelona-style urban regeneration project.

I think you must analyze the risks to Durban's plans in two steps. First, to be shortlisted, then to be elected. Continental rotation usually plays no role during the application phase. So, even a Seoul, a Madrid or a Hiroshima could kick Durban out of the race, if their technical plan is good enough. At this moment though, we don't know who is going to bid. The key here for Durban will be to avoid having too many cities that they can't prove to be better prepared. If we had the same competition in 2016 as we had in 2012, even with a better plan, I wouldn't bet on Rio being shortlisted.

Currently, it is only Rome and Tokyo that seem to be strong enough to defeat Durban, but this list might grow. Let's wait the result of the 2018 WOGs. The main question is whether those cities are going to face Durban in the election or not.

Your posts are like a trampoline. Up and down and up and down.

Your points re hotel rooms are valid but you fail to mention Rio is basically building 26,000 rooms to meet the 40,000 mark.

You also fail to mention that a Durban plan faces significantly fewer Games operations and logistical risks due to the compact nature, good weather, and having already hosted part of a major event.

Legacy will always be an issue since Durban simply does not need or have the demand for any more arenas than it currently has but this simply means Modular!

The compact nature of the City to Kings Park precinct mean that the airport being further away and other sub venue in Cape Town for equestrian and football etc. becomes a "decongestion tool", in what I suspect will become an overcongested Kings Park precinct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Except Rio didn't have the disadvantage of another "new frontiers" city already named host for the Summer Olympiad immediately preceding it.

It also didn't have a successful WC in the bag or the entire IOC party hanging out in the city before the bidding kicks off .

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Plus, this "no back-to-back new frontier hosts" attitude is basically opinion. It's not something grounded-in like some like to potray (although at the same time, some tout Istanbul in this case while dissing Durban. Go figure). The IOC has done it B4; Tokyo 64 & Mexcico 68. And to a lesser degree; Seoul 88 & Barcelona 92.

Granted, Barcelona is in Europe but it certainly was a riskier choice at the time than any of the other 1992 bidders, except for Belgrade, & was a 'new' area for Europe (ala Istanbul) to host the Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you must analyze the risks to Durban's plans in two steps. First, to be shortlisted, then to be elected. Continental rotation usually plays no role during the application phase. So, even a Seoul, a Madrid or a Hiroshima could kick Durban out of the race, if their technical plan is good enough. At this moment though, we don't know who is going to bid. The key here for Durban will be to avoid having too many cities that they can't prove to be better prepared. If we had the same competition in 2016 as we had in 2012, even with a better plan, I wouldn't bet on Rio being shortlisted.

Currently, it is only Rome and Tokyo that seem to be strong enough to defeat Durban, but this list might grow. Let's wait the result of the 2018 WOGs. The main question is whether those cities are going to face Durban in the election or not.

Again, considering that 2020 is most likely only going to have the same small number of applicants, like 2016 (& not something like we had for 2004, 2008 or even 2012), Durban has a good shot of making it on to the short-list.

And yes, the list "might grow", but the IOC 2020 deadline is on Sept 1, 2011 (less then 9 months away) & other than the small number of cities that we already know of that are more than likely to bid (& the other smaller number that are still picking at their a$s wondering if they should bid or not), no one else has made any strong interest. Time is running out, so if there's anyone else, then they bidder hurry B4 the Olympic bus leaves the bidding depot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. And right now other than Rome & MAYBE Tokyo, there are no other potentials for this since every other nation that could give South Africa a good run for their money are either busy with other mega projects/events &/or have no interest whatsoever in the 2020 Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also didn't have a successful WC in the bag or the entire IOC party hanging out in the city before the bidding kicks off .

But it did have a successful PanAms in the bag, with many of the IOC and the IF chiefs in attendance.

I'm not dismissing Durban. I'm a bit more upbeat for it than I was this time last year. And the IOC session there this year is an unprecedented advantage. But i still don't see it as a slam dunk or even as a favourite at this stage. I still think Rio immediately before it counts more against it than for it, and i still can't see where there's any urgency for the IOC to "tick off Africa".

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it did have a successful PanAms in the bag, with many of the IOC and the IF chiefs in attendance.

I'm not dismissing Durban. I'm a bit more upbeat for it than I was this time last year. And the IOC session there this year is an unprecedented advantage. But i still don't see it as a slam dunk or even as a favourite at this stage. I still think Rio immediately before it counts more against it than for it, and i still can't see where there's any urgency for the IOC to "tick off Africa".

Agreed Rols.

I'm not sure there was a great deal of expectation Rio would win 2016 as "easily" as it did; a city with a stronger record in hosting events, greater economic capacity, profile and dare I say it, relationship with the IOC.

I agree that the IOC may have no clear agenda or reason to go to Africa, but by the same taken, all other continents will have hosted a SOG's in the past 24 years in the context of 2020. Of course, this would be for the first time in the history of the IOC. Bar Athens/London, all other continents will have hosted the Games once since Atlanta. It's almost as if they are developing some kind of rotation policy. Why not complete it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...