Jump to content

2020 Olympics short list


Triffle

Recommended Posts

As for your allusion to the 2004 vote (I assume that's what you mean for the reference to Italy and South Africa dipping out) the elephant in the room way back in 1997 was Gianna Angelopoulos and the Athens bid. Rome 2004 couldn't match the charm of Gianna's bid team, plus there was a significant guilt trip laid on the then IOC after the failure of Athens to win the 1996 rights (which were awarded to Atlanta who arguably went on to disappoint the IOC).

We really had a difficult time picking between two cities where half the landscape are those useless RUINS!! I was way tempted to vote CapeTown all the way to the end then!!

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

Baron you may be joking but you do raise a legitamite point but the difficulties of Rome. There could be just as many un-expected headaches with the construction in Rome as there was with Athens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here's another question that might deserve some pondering re a Rome 2020 bid.

As it stands now the Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi is also probably the single most important media magnate in Italy with the ability to use his newspapers, magazines and TV networks to at best shape public opinion, at worst manipulate it. Also these same media outlets would be potentially significant players in any sponsorship/rights negotiations with CONI and the Rome 2020 team (plus perhaps even the IOC if Rome 2020 is successful). Is it possible that there will be a conflict of interest for Berlusconi to be looking to possibly minimise national investment in a Rome 2020 bid by drawing on private sector industry and media support whilst at the same time he won't want to negotiate premium prices for sponsorship or broadcast rights as it would have an impact on his personal wealth?

We all recall how vital Agnelli and Fiat were to the Torino bid and OWG build up; where/who is the Rome 2020 equivalent?

Also where are our Italian posters to voice their support for Roma Aeterna?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Well, there's no way of firing him for the moment, they have tried it hard unsuccessfully, and there's no much time left until the bid process begins :unsure:

Well considering that CONI has slated Rome as the Italian bid for 2020 since May 19th 2010 then the bid process is well and truly underway. It's the early stages for sure (or in language Berlusconi might understand we're in the foreplay and thinking about the price phase of the IOC seduction) but whilst all those other wannabes we've poured thousands of words over Rome's up and ready to race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the biggest problems facing 2018/2020 is that 2014 went to the wrong city in terms of a cohesive rotation. Having another Europe-Europe after 1992-1994 and 2004-2006 is making many scenario's hard to imagine. Add into this the ambiguity of the Russian position, rumours of loyalty to the Japanese, combined with known affiliations with the Italians. If the Russians support the Japanese, their considerable weight will go behind Munich, if it is the Italians, behind Pyeonchang.

The Italians are strong but CONI is still not well liked by all accounts. There could be a very big backlash against the Italians like in 2004, just like when the Swiss were at the hit of their power and lost in 2006. Obviously the Swiss ending the party had an impact but resentment over that many IOC members can be palpable.

In the end, any discussion about 2020 is contingent on 3 things. First is who wins 2018, Munich would keep many European bidders in the gates, while Pyeonchang winning might get Madrid, Paris, Rome and Berlin out of the woodwork, add in a Tokyo and Durban could be hard pressed to make a shortlist. The depth of the field will have a huge impact, if major cities from 5 or more major countries bid, Durban could be left on the cutting room floor just like Rio was in 2012. Finally Durban’s plan: it has to be feasible, realistic and most of all address the considerable issues facing Durban.

Unlike what some think, the IOC is in no rush to go anywhere. The constant loses of Paris should give you that hint. The IOC will go where they want, when they want. And I will still maintain, the IOC went to Rio de Janeiro, they didn’t go to Brasilia or Belo Horizonte. And the same people here that are talking about Durban as a shoe-in were also the same people saying Brazil could only win with Rio and no Sao Paolo.

I am really behind this argument. That's exactly my sentiment. Besides, cities from new continents need to offer something more, especially when it comes to legacy. By the way, that was the main aspect that the IOC highlighted when it considered the risks associated with Rio's plans. It means that if they decide to try something with a developing nation, they want to show that the SOG has improved the city in the long run. This avoids the discussion of spending too much for a party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering that CONI has slated Rome as the Italian bid for 2020 since May 19th 2010 then the bid process is well and truly underway. It's the early stages for sure (or in language Berlusconi might understand we're in the foreplay and thinking about the price phase of the IOC seduction) but whilst all those other wannabes we've poured thousands of words over Rome's up and ready to race.

Well, Durban launched its Olympic master plan 7 years ago in 2004. So while Rome might have the circa 1960s stadia, Durban is much farther ahead in terms of newer blueprints and a cleaner slate to draw its Olympic scheme rather than the older Rome blueprint and facilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the idea of the Games in Durban has just come on the rebound...

Huh? Nope, there was a rather credible article which outlined Durban's Olympic dreams when WC 2010 was awarded to RSA. Someone put up the link somewhere here...but I can't find it right now.

That is why in 2005-06 when the WC stadia were being planned, of all the new stadia, Durban opted for the stadium that could also hold a track whereas all the others, including Cape Town, only went with soccer-dedicated stadia.

Then in 2007-08, they decided to shoot for the 2011 IOC Session.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Nope, there was a rather credible article which outlined Durban's Olympic dreams when WC 2010 was awarded to RSA. Someone put up the link somewhere here...but I can't find it right now.

That is why in 2005-06 when the WC stadia were being planned, of all the new stadia, Durban opted for the stadium that could also hold a track whereas all the others, including Cape Town, only went with soccer-dedicated stadia.

OK, don't worry, I believe you. It was only a thought of mine. It's just that I always thought it was going to be another South African city bidding. It's true the design of the stadia could give as a clue, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Durban launched its Olympic master plan 7 years ago in 2004. So while Rome might have the circa 1960s stadia, Durban is much farther ahead in terms of newer blueprints and a cleaner slate to draw its Olympic scheme rather than the older Rome blueprint and facilities.

But Baron, its well and good to have more developed tech specs for a prospective bid but right now SASCOC haven't actually given the green light to it. Yes, they almost certainly will but right now there is only one real concrete bid which has official NOC authorisation to be submitted when the IOC opens the books. Until SASCOC, the JOC and any of the other relevant NOCs give the word it's all speculation about whose got what and can offer this and that etc etc.

Gotta love speculation though :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Baron, its well and good to have more developed tech specs for a prospective bid but right now SASCOC haven't actually given the green light to it. Yes, they almost certainly will but right now there is only one real concrete bid which has official NOC authorisation to be submitted when the IOC opens the books. Until SASCOC, the JOC and any of the other relevant NOCs give the word it's all speculation about whose got what and can offer this and that etc etc.

Gotta love speculation though :P

yeah, maybe I'm extending myself too much out there. I guess at this juncture I'd say that they are all going to sit 2020 out and see who will make the first move for 2024. Capisce?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Durban launched its Olympic master plan 7 years ago in 2004. So while Rome might have the circa 1960s stadia, Durban is much farther ahead in terms of newer blueprints and a cleaner slate to draw its Olympic scheme rather than the older Rome blueprint and facilities.

:D Do you think Rome's organizers are so unthinking to just bring a dull replica of 1960?

Time to re-look at their plan maybe? This is going to configure itself as sensibly less historical-centric, more riveresque, more peripheral, no Naples, new-dedicated-fancy complex and, fingers crossed :D , more subways.

So, ok, it's still Rome but by a new inedited angle.

As for reused ForoItalico, I wouldn't dismiss it only because its age. Despite the time passing, it's still iconic and perfectly fit with today's sport events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D Do you think Rome's organizers are so unthinking to just bring a dull replica of 1960?

Time to re-look at their plan maybe? This is going to configure itself as sensibly less historical-centric, more riveresque, more peripheral, no Naples, new-dedicated-fancy complex and, fingers crossed :D , more subways.

So, ok, it's still Rome but by a new inedited angle.

As for reused ForoItalico, I wouldn't dismiss it only because its age. Despite the time passing, it's still iconic and perfectly fit with today's sport events.

Yeah, but while there may be new sites, the Games for 2020 will probably be 50% bigger than 1960, so many of the old sites will still be used; maybe refurbished and upgraded. Plus, Godknows how many more undiscovered ruins will pop up once massive digging, rebuilding of foundations, etc., will start...then Rome will still be in a very constrained position to try to fulfill the requirements of a MUCH LARGER SOGs than they were in 1960. (Would they use Caracalla which is historic but really an UGLY building anyway? It just looked so massive and ungainly in the Three Tenors concert.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but while there may be new sites, the Games for 2020 will probably be 65% bigger than 1960, so many of the old sites will still be used; maybe refurbished and upgraded. Plus, Godknows how many more undiscovered ruins will pop up once massive rebuilding of foundations, etc., will start...then Rome will still be in a very constrained position to try to fulfill the requirements of a MUCH LARGER SOGs than they were in 1960. (Would they use Caracalla which is historic but really an UGLY building anyway? It just looked so massive and ungainly in the Three Tenors concert.)

Well your point would be valid if Rome would have remained the same as in the 60's. :huh:

Meanwhile the city changed, renewed and expanded itself constantly.

As for the constrictions you mentioned I reckon that might be a sensible issue talking about Rome.

Anyway all the main clusters are planned to be outside the old city and near fast ways of transport. The only sports expected to take seat in its historical core are beach volley and the equestrians.

Caracalla? Still never heard it mentioned and that's good because it's so reminescent of the '60 games.. but calling it ugly.. seriously?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your point would be valid if Rome would have remained the same as in the 60's. :huh:

Meanwhile the city changed, renewed and expanded itself constantly.

As for the constrictions you mentioned I reckon that might be a sensible issue talking about Rome.

Anyway all the main clusters are planned to be outside the old city and near fast ways of transport. The only sports expected to take seat in its historical core are beach volley and the equestrians.

Caracalla? Still never heard it mentioned and that's good because it's so reminescent of the '60 games.. but calling it ugly.. seriously?

Va bene.

Are the new Roman outskirts as far away as Friuli Venezia? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your point would be valid if Rome would have remained the same as in the 60's. :huh:

Meanwhile the city changed, renewed and expanded itself constantly.

As for the constrictions you mentioned I reckon that might be a sensible issue talking about Rome.

Anyway all the main clusters are planned to be outside the old city and near fast ways of transport. The only sports expected to take seat in its historical core are beach volley and the equestrians.

Caracalla? Still never heard it mentioned and that's good because it's so reminescent of the '60 games.. but calling it ugly.. seriously?

That's going to be an interesting balancing act from the Rome bid team...trying to project new and highly efficient venues that tie into Rome's historical endowment, whether that be ancient Roman or recent Olympic. Plus as has been demonstrated in most successful Olympic bids since 1984 the importance of a new dazzling Olympic complex seems to fit in with the IOC vision of what they want from a bidding city when making the decision. Atlanta, Sydney, Athens and Beijing have all done it and London and Rio have been working towards that too.

Rei, regarding beach volleyball any reason why that is in the old city? Is it because there is a suitable location on the Tiber banks? Ditto equestrian.

As for the Caracallan Baths, why not use them again? If Athens could use the Panathenaion for archery then the Baths seem just as viable for wrestling (both disciplines). Plus as a fan of Marcus Aurelius's son (and as Caracalla was a bit of a arena sports addict himself) seems fitting to give at least one of the imperatores Romani a bit of billing in a future Rome Olympics (unless there is plans for a Gaius Caligula equestrian centre). :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's going to be an interesting balancing act from the Rome bid team...trying to project new and highly efficient venues that tie into Rome's historical endowment, whether that be ancient Roman or recent Olympic. Plus as has been demonstrated in most successful Olympic bids since 1984 the importance of a new dazzling Olympic complex seems to fit in with the IOC vision of what they want from a bidding city when making the decision. Atlanta, Sydney, Athens and Beijing have all done it and London and Rio have been working towards that too.

Rei, regarding beach volleyball any reason why that is in the old city? Is it because there is a suitable location on the Tiber banks? Ditto equestrian.

As for the Caracallan Baths, why not use them again? If Athens could use the Panathenaion for archery then the Baths seem just as viable for wrestling (both disciplines). Plus as a fan of Marcus Aurelius's son (and as Caracalla was a bit of a arena sports addict himself) seems fitting to give at least one of the imperatores Romani a bit of billing in a future Rome Olympics (unless there is plans for a Gaius Caligula equestrian centre). :lol:

I definitely think there is a risk of over heating it. Holding every, or a lot of events in historic locations would really take away from purpose and intent of doing so in the first place. Like you say, it will be a difficult balancing act but they should avoid saturation as much as possible. Sydney almost over cooked it with holding so many of the outdoor events in and around the Opera House. It will be interesting to see how London does having a number of venues in and around the Westminster area.

In any event, Rome would be foolish only to try and sell it's historical image. It's one that many tourists of the world have already experienced. Rome will need something new to appeal to the IOC. London was faced with a similar predicament with 2012. Yes its an amazing city but a lot of the obvious features they could have sold to the IOC have been combed over time after time already. Selling a new message to the IOC, while being respectful of its amazing history will be the real challenge of a Roman bid.

Play to a NEW strength not to the same old stereotypes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think there is a risk of over heating it. Holding every, or a lot of events in historic locations would really take away from purpose and intent of doing so in the first place. Like you say, it will be a difficult balancing act but they should avoid saturation as much as possible. Sydney almost over cooked it with holding so many of the outdoor events in and around the Opera House. It will be interesting to see how London does having a number of venues in and around the Westminster area.

I agree with the overall point if your post Aronious but one point needs correction. During Sydney 2000 no events were held in the Sydney Opera House whilst only triathlon and road cycling (possibly the marathon as well) ventured near the East Circular Quay precinct. If anything Sydney failed to take advantage of the SOH insofar as not placing events such as weightlifting or fencing in the Symphony or Opera Halls.

It will be very interesting to see how London integrates venues such as Lords into the Olympic sporting programme, and to some extent we already know the furore over the use of the Maracana in Rio; iconic and historical buildings can add a texture or atmosphere to the games experience but turning an Olympics into a museum/tourism exercise would distract from what the IOC love...full houses in gleaming new edifices to the Olympic movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when the sponsors show up. It would seem they could so easily give away those premium tickets.

Well on that point who will be most likely for 2020 to attract significant domestic sponsors who can guarantee big dollars and not as many unused premium seats. Or for that matter would Rome or Durban or another bid city be more appealing to the TOP sponsors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the 2012 vote almost panned-out to a tee except the final round. Moscow was the one predicted to go out first (which it was), followed by New York, then Madrid. And 2016 is much more complicated than just saying "but remember everyone here yada, yada, yada".

And thinking in black-&-white again? So Italy bid for 2004 & lost. Okay, however, they lost to Athens which was it's second bid in 8 years & was already the sentimental favorite. The Italians also soured-up their chances by being extremely arrogant & presumptutious during the bid process which didn't bode well with the IOC. And I can't recall how many Italian IOC members there were in back in 1997, but it probably wasn't as many as there are today.

Italy had 4 IOC members back in 1997: Carraro, Nebiolo, Pescante, Cinquanta.

The influence of the Italian IOC members is declining lately but they are still a large group.

People here have always under-estimated Madrid.

The Spanish bid has suffered from bad timing and bad management in the past but remains a technical master piece.

With a good management in place, I think Madrid could easily give Rome a ride.

As for Durban, without knowing the bid plan it's difficult to judge.

I still think that for Durban, the challenge will be to pass the initial cut. No one doubtsbSouth-Africa organisational capacity, the question remains, is the basic infrastructure in place or will the college of expert be convinced that it will be by 2020 with a reasonable amount of risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the overall point if your post Aronious but one point needs correction. During Sydney 2000 no events were held in the Sydney Opera House whilst only triathlon and road cycling (possibly the marathon as well) ventured near the East Circular Quay precinct. If anything Sydney failed to take advantage of the SOH insofar as not placing events such as weightlifting or fencing in the Symphony or Opera Halls.

It will be very interesting to see how London integrates venues such as Lords into the Olympic sporting programme, and to some extent we already know the furore over the use of the Maracana in Rio; iconic and historical buildings can add a texture or atmosphere to the games experience but turning an Olympics into a museum/tourism exercise would distract from what the IOC love...full houses in gleaming new edifices to the Olympic movement.

By "in and around" I mean either at the Opera has (plazas) or within TV shot of the Opera House and the bridge. Could we throw in sailing as well (I can't recall the exact location).

Either way, my point remains the same. Having more than a handful of events in parts of the ancient city, inside ancient venues and amongst ruins simply degrades the whole purpose of having events in those locations in the first place. I'd like to see full use made of the existing Olympic precinct, one or two different "ancient" or landmark sites and the rest in purpose built clusters (or cluster) somewhere else in the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...