Jump to content

Toronto Considers 2024 Olympic Bid


GBModerator

Recommended Posts

Can't resist. /\/\ Ain't gonna happen.

2020 - Tokyo or Istanbul

2024 - Durban

2028 - loser of 2020

Durban will on its first attempt? Not gonna happen... At least on its second attemp... where do you leave the european cities?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Durban will on its first attempt? Not gonna happen... At least on its second attemp...

uhmmmm....Athens 1896? Melbourne? Squaw Valley? Seoul? Atlanta? Nagano 1998? London 2012? Sochi? Rio? (That's NINE 1st-timers who won (10 actually if you count that dumb Denver!) So why shouldn't Durban? There will be 53 NOCs backing up that bid.

Huh? Where did I say Lillehammer? London, Atlanta, Sochi and Rio won all theirs on the FIRST TIME they were allowed and wanted to bid on THEIR OWN. As I said before, I don't count London 1908 and 1948 because they were ASKED TO...they did not SEEK IT OUT!! So 2012 is the first one wherein it had to go thru a competition process...so that is a FIRST TIME for them. See above post for other disqualifications.

And that's that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

uhmmmm....Athens 1896? Melbourne? Squaw Valley? Seoul? Lillehammer? Atlanta? (I think Nagano.) London 2012? Sochi? Rio? (That's NINE 1st-timers who won (10 actually if you count that dumb Denver!) So why shouldn't Durban? There will be 53 NOCs backing up that bid.

Lillehammer bid in 1992, won in 1994

London is a repeat host, so they have bid before

Sochi bid in 2002, didn't make the shortlist

Rio bid in for 2004 and 2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lillehammer bid in 1992, won in 1994

London is a repeat host, so they have bid before

Sochi bid in 2002, didn't make the shortlist

Rio bid in for 2004 and 2012

Exactlly that was I talking about!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeap! In RECENT bid process, for example Rio in 2012 was seen by many as a candidate at least for being the "exotic choice" and it wasnt shortlisted. With Nagano, for example, Sapporo was already host so it was kind of a "safe choice" the trouble with Durban is many wouldnt seen it too safe and problably their first bid will make them win the second one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lillehammer bid in 1992, won in 1994

London is a repeat host, so they have bid before

Sochi bid in 2002, didn't make the shortlist

Rio bid in for 2004 and 2012

So, it's still Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904,

No, London 2012 is a 1st time bid. They were ASKED to host in 1908 and 1948--they did NOT seek it out. So that's a first time bid.

So that still leaves NINE 1st-time bidders making it: Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904, Melbourne, Squaw Valley, Denver 1976, Atlanta (DID NOT bid with the IOC in 1920--don't be ridiculous). For me, if you did NOT get to the IOC level, you did NOT bid.

The fact that Sochi and Rio did NOT make the shortlist is NOT their fault. Their bids for 2014 and 2016 are still TECHNICALLY their first, as accepted by the IOC.

Anway, Daewebo, I'll make a bet with you that Durban will get it in 2024!! I totally reject you have to have a first time. Not for certain cities. Uh-aaah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it's still Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904,

No, London 2012 is a 1st time bid. They were ASKED to host in 1908 and 1948--they did NOT see it out. So that's a first time bid.

So that still leaves NINE 1st-time bidders making it: Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904, Melbourne, Squaw Valley, Denver 1976, Atlanta (DID NOT bid with the IOC in 1920--don't be ridiculous). For me, if you did NOT get to the IOC level, you did NOT bid.

The fact that Sochi and Rio did NOT make the shortlist is NOT their fault. Their bids for 2014 and 2016 are still TECHNICALLY their first, as accepted by the IOC.

Anway, Daewebo, I'll make a bet with you that Durban will get it in 2024!! I totally reject you have to have a first time. Not for certain cities. Uh-aaah.

We shall see in four years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

uhmmmm....Athens 1896? Melbourne? Squaw Valley? Seoul? Atlanta? Nagano 1998? London 2012? Sochi? Rio? (That's NINE 1st-timers who won (10 actually if you count that dumb Denver!) So why shouldn't Durban? There will be 53 NOCs backing up that bid.

Huh? Where did I say Lillehammer? London, Atlanta, Sochi and Rio won all theirs on the FIRST TIME they were allowed and wanted to bid on THEIR OWN. As I said before, I don't count London 1908 and 1948 because they were ASKED TO...they did not SEEK IT OUT!! So 2012 is the first one wherein it had to go thru a competition process...so that is a FIRST TIME for them. See above post for other disqualifications.

And that's that.

X.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Where did I say Lillehammer? London, Atlanta, Sochi and Rio won all theirs on the FIRST TIME they were allowed and wanted to bid on THEIR OWN. As I said before, I don't count London 1908 and 1948 because they were ASKED TO...they did not SEEK IT OUT!! So 2012 is the first one wherein it had to go thru a competition process...so that is a FIRST TIME for them. See above post for other disqualifications.

And that's that.

X.

Do you think Reno can win on its first try? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the moment and for some time into the future, I don't think the USA is slotted as the IOC 'savior' like it was in 1984. There is a lot of backlash against massive public spending on things like the Olympics and that is something the IOC has come to expect and demand. It won't be as easy a job as it was in 1978.

Also many of the US-originated firms in the TOP program are global brands looking to entrench themselves in new and growing markets. Between 2008 and 2016, three of the growing and coveted BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) markets will have hosted the Olympics (Beijing, Sochi, and Rio). Those markets mean a lot to P&G, McDonalds, Visa, GE and Coca-Cola as they represent some 2.5+ billion people - markets that will be ripe with opportunities for selling household products, fast food, financial services, electronics and soft drinks. After all, TOP is a marketing program. Not a national showcase. And those markets represent growth, which is what investors want to see.

If the IOC gets in a bind again like in 1978, there are more options than just one now. Thanks to the American-style model employed for Los Angeles 1984, an American-style Olympics isn't the only 'savior' now. Shanghai, Doha, Dubai - all of them have the money and the craving for prestige that make the IOC drool.

Anyway, as for Toronto 2024, this is early, but some things are lined up for them, and against them. But if they do plan to bid, now is the time for them to start the discussion. A commitment like this from a country like Canada requires time to study, consult, discuss and build a bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it's still Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904,

No, London 2012 is a 1st time bid. They were ASKED to host in 1908 and 1948--they did NOT seek it out. They obliged the IOC!! So that's a first time bid.

So that still leaves NINE 1st-time bidders making it: Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904, Melbourne, Squaw Valley, Denver 1976, Atlanta (DID NOT bid with the IOC in 1920--don't be ridiculous). For me, if you did NOT get to the IOC level, you did NOT bid.

The fact that Sochi and Rio did NOT make the shortlist is NOT their fault. Their bids for 2014 and 2016 are still TECHNICALLY their first, as accepted by the IOC.

So EIGHT first-time winners for Summer :(Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904, Stockholm 1912, Antwerp 1920, Melbourne 1956, Atlanta 1996 and Sydney 2000); and

and NINE for the Winters: Chamonix, St. Moritz, Squaw Valley, Grenoble, Denver, Albertville, Nagano, Torino and Sochi!!

So Daewoo and Intoron, how can you say that Durban and Reno cannot win on their FIRST attempts? :blink:

Here's the most complete IOC vote tally board: http://www.aldaver.com/votes.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to count Denver 1976, then you should count Chicago 1904, Rome 1908, Berlin 1916, Sapporo 1940 and Tokyo 1940 and delete Saint Louis 1904. None of those Games happened and the Saint Louis Games only happened (barely) because the Worlds Fair people put pressure on the powers that be. Although the bid process in those early years was nothing like what it is today, Saint Louis really didn't submit much of a bid anyway...they just bullied their way in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, TOP sponsors continue to line up to be associated with the IOC with or without the games in the USA and the IOC has the richest American TV contract in history for 4 games that will almost certainly not be in the USA. Go figure. If the IOC needs a host that can pull off a spectacular games to give the movement a lift, they will go to China.

Disagree. More Chinese Games are not going to increase interest in the Olympic Movement and income the way that US Games would. If American interest wanes, if the new frontier Games don't attract audiences, the TOP sponsors and tv rights will not yield the same windfall for the IOC. If that happens, they'll come to the US -- not China.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the IOC gets in a bind again like in 1978, there are more options than just one now. Thanks to the American-style model employed for Los Angeles 1984, an American-style Olympics isn't the only 'savior' now. Shanghai, Doha, Dubai - all of them have the money and the craving for prestige that make the IOC drool.

I agree with some of your points. While Shanghai, Doha and Dubai would be eager to host in the event that no one else wants to, I don't think any of them are capable of breathing new life into the Olympic Movement like LA 84 did. They can host the Games in spectacular fashion, but I don't see any of them increasing worldwide audiences or turning a nice profit for the IOC. The US can do both those things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So EIGHT first-time winners for Summer :(Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904, Stockholm 1912, Antwerp 1920, Melbourne 1956, Atlanta 1996 and Sydney 2000); and

and NINE for the Winters: Chamonix, St. Moritz, Squaw Valley, Grenoble, Denver, Albertville, Nagano, Torino and Sochi!!

So Daewoo and Intoron, how can you say that Durban and Reno cannot win on their FIRST attempts? :blink:

Here's the most complete IOC vote tally board:

http://www.aldaver.com/votes.html

Unfortunatly we cant bet money :( lol! Still, Durban will win in 2028 at least! Well, its more possible Durban winning on first attemp than Reno, cuz 2022 is gonna be more european race. Well, 2026 almost says USA... Durban depends a lot on Rio's sucess, if Rio is a mess then... Auf wiederssen Durban 2024.

Sydney 2000 is not really the first bid, since there were 2 australlian previous bids... So Australia it wasnt to *mysterious* for the IOC, as an African bid maybe...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with some of your points. While Shanghai, Doha and Dubai would be eager to host in the event that no one else wants to, I don't think any of them are capable of breathing new life into the Olympic Movement like LA 84 did. They can host the Games in spectacular fashion, but I don't see any of them increasing worldwide audiences or turning a nice profit for the IOC. The US can do both those things.

Again you as missing the point.

TOP sponsors are in the TOP program to get world-wide attention. Not American attention. If a company wants to advertise to the local audience, they would sponsor the NOC (like RBC, Petro Canada, Air Canada and others have done with the COC). TOP Sponsors want the global exposure. That is way so many companies competed for the TOP program for Beijing. Because China is a huge market. Companies that are interested in the local market moreso then the international market sign short-term contracts that don't get renewed (John Hancock and Lenovo). There is more middle-class people in China then there are in the entire USA. So for companies that want growth, going to markets that allow Asia-Pacific exposure are much more important.

And don't kid yourself, LA84 may of gotten things going, but it was Carrion, Pound, Samaranch and Barcelona that turned the IOC into the circulatory system of international sport. The IOC as a body is neither here nor there when it comes to money. The entire financial profile of the IOC is take money in, give it to the IFs and the OCOGs. If the IOC is low on funds, it means they need a host that can handle a larger share of the financial burden. China, UAE, Qatar fit that profile a lot more then the USA and you seem to be under the impression the IOC didn't take in record amounts of money for Beijing. They did. Hell Beijing brought it a lot of money for NBC too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sydney 2000 is not really the first bid, since there were 2 australlian previous bids... So Australia it wasnt to *mysterious* for the IOC, as an African bid maybe...

Well, it's the city that's bidding...NOT the country. (The UK ran a parallel course with its earlier Birmingham, Manchester bids before London 2012 got it.) We are just talking about the cities that bid AND won the first time here.

If you are going to count Denver 1976, then you should count Chicago 1904, Rome 1908, Berlin 1916, Sapporo 1940 and Tokyo 1940 and delete Saint Louis 1904. None of those Games happened and the Saint Louis Games only happened (barely) because the Worlds Fair people put pressure on the powers that be. Although the bid process in those early years was nothing like what it is today, Saint Louis really didn't submit much of a bid anyway...they just bullied their way in.

I thought of that, but my differentiation is that Chicago 1904, Rome 1908, Berlin 1916 Sapporo-Tokyo 1940, were all displaced due to EVENTS beyond their control. They had to yield them or some other outside event aborted those years. Denver 1976 was something changed by the people of the winning city itself -- NOT some outside event beyond their control. Thus, I do not put them on the same category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's the city that's bidding...NOT the country. (The UK ran a parallel course with its earlier Birmingham, Manchester bids before London 2012 got it.) We are just talking about the cities that bid AND won the first time .

Well but the UK was known to be a safe choice, I think the only way Durban wins in 2024, is a really succesfull Rio games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well but the UK was known to be a safe choice, I think the only way Durban wins in 2024, is a really succesfull Rio games.

Noooooooo! South Africa, w/o any previous int'l hosting, just hosted the MOST SUCCESSFUL World Cup last year...even before Brazil 2014...so they have NOTHING else to prove. They have earned their stripes. My God, all the African NOCs (about the same number as Europe) were READY to back up an RSA bid. So what r u talking about? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Noooooooo! South Africa, w/o any previous int'l hosting, just hosted the MOST SUCCESSFUL World Cup last year...even before Brazil 2014...so they have NOTHING else to prove. They have earned their stripes. My God, all the African NOCs (about the same number as Europe) were READY to back up an RSA bid. So what r u talking about? :blink:

Most successful? Hardly. France and Germany hosted better tournaments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...