Jump to content
yukke14

TOKYO 2020 Venue Plan

Recommended Posts

Oh, quite a few...

-for 1948, to keep on their leap-year schedule, as there were NO forthcoming hosts, they had to ask London AND St. Moritz to host 1948.

- Winter 1980, Lake Placid was the ONLY bidder

- Summer 1984 - well, we all know how that went..

- (Summer 1988 - ONLY 2 cities bidding - Seoul and Nagoya; just as for Winter 2006, only Torino and Sion; and now TWO Communist winter cities...)

- Asian Games 2019 - Hanoi bailed out. And the Asians wanted to reset the calendar so that the AG could be an Olympic qualifier in many sports. Indonesia was the only sub to step forward...but they wanted to stage it on their terms - so it will be 2018 instead of the more practical 2019...because the OCA is stuck with ONLY ONE bidder/sucka city.

- For Euro 2019 (to have been the 2nd edition of the new European Games), Holland was the only bidder for 2019; now, they apparently have just pulled out.

- Commonwealth 2022, down to only ONE bidder, Durban.

They have (understandably) just postponed the bidding for World Cup 2026.

You spout those themes as if the Olympic movement were built on them. Put the horse before the cart. Not the other way around. You wouldn't have those high-faluting-sounding themes if you don't have the sucka cities to host them.

Who's to say this will not be the trend of the future?

We are dealing specifically with the Olympic Galaxy NOT the whole International Sporting Event Universe - which makes this list tragically invalid.

For the 2004 Olympics, 11 cities offered bids. For 2008, it was 10 cities. For 2012, it was 9 cities. For 2016, 7 cities. And for 2020, 6 cities bid, which became 5 once Rome withdrew.
Similarly on the Winter side, there were 8 bidders for 2010. 7 bidders for 2014. 3 bidders for 2018. And we see what we're left with for 2022 (and that's to say nothing of cities that were interested, but dropped out)
Those are pretty damning trends right there. You wax poetic about Olympic ideals, but the trend is that fewer and fewer cities are lining up to bid because it's damn expensive to host an Olympics and to generate a return on that investment. Granted, the IOC had this trouble once and managed to emerge successfully from it (thank you LA 1984), but it's not just 2022 that offers up this trend.
Don't know exactly what truth it is we're supposed to be facing. Here's some truth for you though.. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You keep talking about legal implications, but fail (and not just fail, but fail quite miserably) to put that into context or to offer up a specific example of how that would work. The IOC has enough issues to deal with (many of their own creation) without the threat of legal action against the cities they are trying to entice to bid for the Olympics. The last thing that needs to happen would be for them to be empowered to take legal action against the host cities they agreed to work with (at the expense of others who they rejected). I could see those other cities take issue, but ONLY if they had specific grounds to make a case for why they lost. That's going to be next to impossible to prove unless you're Qatar 2022, who changed the calendar on FIFA after they had promised a Summer World Cup. THAT, my friend, is a substantial deviation for which legal implications are in play. Not for the details of an Olympic bid which rarely would be considered "substantial."

So you obviously exist in a bubble where trends do not change? As the new world capitals emerge they will use the Olympics to assert their arrival. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are dealing specifically with the Olympic Galaxy NOT the whole International Sporting Event Universe - which makes this list tragically invalid.

So you obviously exist in a bubble where trends do not change? As the new world capitals emerge they will use the Olympics to assert their arrival. Simple.

And you think this is a good thing that cities (whether from established democracies or from NEE newly emerging economies) should be so slavish in their initial commitments to NON-essential bodies like the IOC? That is why you have rotten. corrupt organizations like FIFA (and the IOC up to Salt Lake 2002) when their 'partners' cannot also hold their Swiss gnome-partners accountable to more sensible and responsible mgmt of these mega-events which do not help the poor, do not feed the hungry or cure cancer.

At least that strange IAAF has come to its senses in agreeing to stage the 2021 T&F world Championships in a less-than-grandiose setting of Eugene, Oregon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I submit rather emphatically that even when the global economy was at its strongest, the poor were still among us. The IOC has contributed to the elevation of living standards across the world. This cannot be denied. It has contributed to the elevation of the quality of urban life and health. Just consider London. Even Montreal...where the facilities of 1976 are still actively used. You cannot hold the IOC responsible for countries that fall through on their promised post Olympic legacies which, when thinking about it, strengths my initial argument that the IOC would have a strong legal case against cities which do no deliver what was agreed to in awarding them the games. It would be a stroke of genius on the part of the IOC to hold cities accountable when they do not follow up on promised legacies. Thereby ensuring that the Olympic effect filters down the average citizen LONG after the Olympics have moved on from the host city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the IOC take a host city to court over venues changes? Possibly.

Would it suit anyone to do so given that - as you point out so often in the Toronto threads - pre-event publicity is so vital? No.

Legal action would be a real last resort. Besides which, as I pointed out last time you raised this about a month ago Throne - the IOC is trying to show it's capable of fitting its plans around what cities need. I mean, it was the IOC which tried to get Korea to move its sliding venue to Japan!

Most of the disgruntlement will come from IFs, not the IOC. And they're not going to want to step-out of line and risk their Olympic futures by dragging host cities through court.

So....what I'm saying is; the question you're asking is entirely hypothetical. I can't see it ever beomcing a reality.

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you obviously exist in a bubble where trends do not change? As the new world capitals emerge they will use the Olympics to assert their arrival. Simple.

Oh, so now it is a trend. I thought it was just 2022 that saw a paucity of bidders. Thanks for clearing up that trajectory of thinking for us.

I submit rather emphatically that even when the global economy was at its strongest, the poor were still among us. The IOC has contributed to the elevation of living standards across the world. This cannot be denied. It has contributed to the elevation of the quality of urban life and health. Just consider London. Even Montreal...where the facilities of 1976 are still actively used. You cannot hold the IOC responsible for countries that fall through on their promised post Olympic legacies which, when thinking about it, strengths my initial argument that the IOC would have a strong legal case against cities which do no deliver what was agreed to in awarding them the games. It would be a stroke of genius on the part of the IOC to hold cities accountable when they do not follow up on promised legacies. Thereby ensuring that the Olympic effect filters down the average citizen LONG after the Olympics have moved on from the host city.

I've said before about Athens that the Olympics did help transform that city and bring it forward into the 21st Century. So you are correct on that point. But still, that transformation comes at a steep price that, in retrospect, they would have been better off not having to deal with, particularly all the white elephant venues littered throughout the city.

As for Montreal, they spent 3 decades paying off the cost of their Olympics (after they were convinced the Olympics could not lose them money). The centerpiece venue of their Olympics has long since lost its primary tenant and there has been no replacement. So I don't know that I'd necessarily use Montreal as an example of the good an Olympics can do for a city.

A solid legacy plan is supposed to be a factor in host city selection. You say it's not the IOC's fault when a city can't come through on those promises. Well, when the IOC (and the International Federations, as Rob noted) make their demands that don't work in concert with the city's needs or what's in their best interests, then yes you absolutely can hold the IOC responsible. And that's precisely why fewer and fewer cities are bidding for the Olympics and trying to "use the Olympics to assert their arrival." The cost of that has become too great for some of those cities that might otherwise be interested.

The IOC can't ask a city to spend tens of billions of dollars and then hold them responsible if they fail to come through on a long laundry list of demands. That's not a stroke of genius. That's an act of lunacy for an organization trying to curry favor with the world. Again, this is the whole point of Agenda 2020. It's designed for the IOC and the host cities to work together to accomplish a common goal. To ask a host city to live up to what the IOC has made out to be almost impossible standards and then hold that city accountable if they fail to do so is making the problem much worse. Threatening a host city (or a potential host city) is just going to scare them off. And that's the exact opposite of what the IOC needs to be doing these days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, it is clear that you think all the events related to Montreal were held in the iconic Montreal Olympic Stadium. I shall research this and get back to you :blink:

Next, the IOC NEVER asked cities to spend billion of dollars. Ego and good old "I'm better than you could ever wish to be" did that for bidding cities. The IOC just rode the wave. By forewarning bidding cities that excessive deviation from Olympic plans could result in legal action on the IOC's part, will condition bidders to be very careful in their planning and will make the process a bit more fair. For sure it would be an innovative way to stamp out corruption. From that move alone, cities will be challenged to move towards more eco-friendly games and will be forced to ensure that legacy is not abandoned after the games leave. I submit this idea - entirely mine own - with the view that it is subject to refinement but I think it proposes a very worthwhile paradigm shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lavishness of your faux-intellectual language doesn't hide the fact that you have simple, ill informed opinions.

It's a truth universally acknowledged that our would-be Jane Austen copy editor is down on any event hosting that doesn't happen to be in Rio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lavishness of your faux-intellectual language doesn't hide the fact that you have simple, ill informed opinions.

0o0o0o0o.....that explains it. YOU are the tragically ill wind that so quietly - and lethally - passed from the sulphurically putrid bowels of Sir Rols......I offer you my heartfelt congratulations on that achievement :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, it is clear that you think all the events related to Montreal were held in the iconic Montreal Olympic Stadium. I shall research this and get back to you :blink:

No, that's not clear to anyone except for you, who only sees what he likes to see. And yes, Montreal's Olympic Stadium is quite iconic. Often referred to as "The Big O." Or as some refer to it, "The Big Owe," an icon representing Montreal's financial woes, not to mention the building's history of structural issues and it's current lack of a major tenant. I could have also referenced the Montreal Forum, which has since been demolished. Or the Paul Sauvé Arena, also since demolished. You are correct that many of the 1976 venues are still in use. But still, probably not the best example of a well organized Olympics. But I digress..

Next, the IOC NEVER asked cities to spend billion of dollars. Ego and good old "I'm better than you could ever wish to be" did that for bidding cities. The IOC just rode the wave. By forewarning bidding cities that excessive deviation from Olympic plans could result in legal action on the IOC's part, will condition bidders to be very careful in their planning and will make the process a bit more fair. For sure it would be an innovative way to stamp out corruption. From that move alone, cities will be challenged to move towards more eco-friendly games and will be forced to ensure that legacy is not abandoned after the games leave. I submit this idea - entirely mine own - with the view that it is subject to refinement but I think it proposes a very worthwhile paradigm shift.

No they don't, but they also do ask (more like strictly demand) that if they are interested in bidding for the Olympics, they have to play by the IOC's rules. You're right that the IOC rode that wave, but look at where that has landed them? And again, it's not just 2022 where the field of bidders is thin. This is a trend that has been going on for a while now. It's clear from those cities that were interested in the 2022 Olympics that it's not just the costs that are scaring them off, but a lack of desire to work with the IOC. So where you're suggesting that the IOC could threaten legal action against these cities for not kowtowing to the IOC's demands is just counter-productive, but it's downright ludicrous. The IOC shouldn't be challenged cities to conform their ideals. They should be doing everything they can to making bidding for the Olympics (and eventually hosting, should they be chosen) a more amenable process whereby everyone benefits. Talking about theats and "forced to ensure" is not going to improve the process. It's going to scare off potential bidders at a time where many cities are already weary of bidding in the first Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not clear to anyone except for you, who only sees what he likes to see. And yes, Montreal's Olympic Stadium is quite iconic. Often referred to as "The Big O." Or as some refer to it, "The Big Owe," an icon representing Montreal's financial woes, not to mention the building's history of structural issues and it's current lack of a major tenant. I could have also referenced the Montreal Forum, which has since been demolished. Or the Paul Sauvé Arena, also since demolished. You are correct that many of the 1976 venues are still in use. But still, probably not the best example of a well organized Olympics. But I digress..

No they don't, but they also do ask (more like strictly demand) that if they are interested in bidding for the Olympics, they have to play by the IOC's rules. You're right that the IOC rode that wave, but look at where that has landed them? And again, it's not just 2022 where the field of bidders is thin. This is a trend that has been going on for a while now. It's clear from those cities that were interested in the 2022 Olympics that it's not just the costs that are scaring them off, but a lack of desire to work with the IOC. So where you're suggesting that the IOC could threaten legal action against these cities for not kowtowing to the IOC's demands is just counter-productive, but it's downright ludicrous. The IOC shouldn't be challenged cities to conform their ideals. They should be doing everything they can to making bidding for the Olympics (and eventually hosting, should they be chosen) a more amenable process whereby everyone benefits. Talking about theats and "forced to ensure" is not going to improve the process. It's going to scare off potential bidders at a time where many cities are already weary of bidding in the first Olympics.

You have not considered my initial position that my suggestion is OPEN TO REFINEMENT. Are the laws of the US constitution DEMANDS? I did not frame the suggested RULES as DEMANDS...you did. One might say that both are different sides of the same coin but I do not subscribe to that view in this context. The IOC can actually refine its existing bidding code in several ways to ensure that bidding cities do not exceed a certain limit of expenditure. That move alone while FORCE (figuratively speaking) cities to plan very carefully and to have reached a certain level of infrastructural development before bidding for the games. Another refinement is not to leave legacy as an afterthought but to foreground it. For example, The IOC could demand of bidding cities to have a component of their legacy functioning BEFORE actually submitting a bid. The success of this proposed first phase of the legacy which could span two years before bidding, will also be used to determine the appropriateness of awarding a city the games. simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not considered my initial position that my suggestion is OPEN TO REFINEMENT. Are the laws of the US constitution DEMANDS? I did not frame the suggested RULES as DEMANDS...you did. One might say that both are different sides of the same coin but I do not subscribe to that view in this context. The IOC can actually refine its existing bidding code in several ways to ensure that bidding cities do not exceed a certain limit of expenditure. That move alone while FORCE (figuratively speaking) cities to plan very carefully and to have reached a certain level of infrastructural development before bidding for the games. Another refinement is not to leave legacy as an afterthought but to foreground it. For example, The IOC could demand of bidding cities to have a component of their legacy functioning BEFORE actually submitting a bid. The success of this proposed first phase of the legacy which could span two years before bidding, will also be used to determine the appropriateness of awarding a city the games. simple.

What you're suggesting there, may require advancing the selection timetable to 8 or 9 years, if one were to see immediate legacy benefits (from the new structures). I don't know how feasible that is for budgets, change of city administrations or national regimes. That timeframe is too long. And one regime may NOT honor the commitments of its predecessor. So what happens? :blink: Then, you're stuck. And the whole thing will just stall.

(Just look at Berlin 1936. Despite the IOC's admonitions to the Germans to lay off from installing very obvious Nazi Party members in the COJO, those 1936 Games still came out looking like Nazi-sponsored Games. What could the IOC do? Nada.)

No; the IOC has to start paying for some of their extravagant demands...and bend to changes with their chosen partner. That's the way to run a mega-event like an OG.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're suggesting there, may require advancing the selection timetable to 8 or 9 years, if one were to see immediate legacy benefits (from the new structures). I don't know how feasible that is for budgets, change of city administrations or national regimes. That timeframe is too long. And one regime may NOT honor the commitments of its predecessor. So what happens? :blink: Then, you're stuck. And the whole thing will just stall.

(Just look at Berlin 1936. Despite the IOC's admonitions to the Germans to lay off from installing very obvious Nazi Party members in the COJO, those 1936 Games still came out looking like Nazi-sponsored Games. What could the IOC do? Nada.)

No; the IOC has to start paying for some of their extravagant demands...and bend to changes with their chosen partner. That's the way to run a mega-event like an OG.

I see what you mean Baron but do note carefully what I mean. Should the two (2) suggestions become standardized, then cities who want to bid for the Olympics, but who have less than 60% of the infrastructure in place PLUS a non-existent legacy plan up and running, would know automatically that these are the areas they would need to work on IF they before bidding for the games. All eligible cities, then, would have met the aforementioned criteria. Those "losers" in the race, would then - if they are serious in bidding a second time - focus their attention on demonstrating the development of their legacy programme and that would be a plus to their next bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not considered my initial position that my suggestion is OPEN TO REFINEMENT. Are the laws of the US constitution DEMANDS? I did not frame the suggested RULES as DEMANDS...you did. One might say that both are different sides of the same coin but I do not subscribe to that view in this context. The IOC can actually refine its existing bidding code in several ways to ensure that bidding cities do not exceed a certain limit of expenditure. That move alone while FORCE (figuratively speaking) cities to plan very carefully and to have reached a certain level of infrastructural development before bidding for the games. Another refinement is not to leave legacy as an afterthought but to foreground it. For example, The IOC could demand of bidding cities to have a component of their legacy functioning BEFORE actually submitting a bid. The success of this proposed first phase of the legacy which could span two years before bidding, will also be used to determine the appropriateness of awarding a city the games. simple.

I considered that your initial position is extremely flawed and I don't believe that any amount of refinement will fix that. I still don't think you understand what type of organization the IOC is. Consider..

So if we're talking about rules and demands, that's what I'm referring to. This is the problem the IOC has right now. You're 100% right that they need to refine the bidding process (and perhaps Agenda 2020 was a good step), but these cities are already planning carefully. Although it certainly hasn't stopped certain cities that have no business bidding for the Olympics to make the attempt. Legacy is not an after-thought to these cities. It's something that is laid out and considered and that the IOC most certainly does take into account. But it becomes difficult for those cities to have an effective legacy if the IOC is making these demands that impose a greater burden on the host city. Asking these cities to go even further in that regard (let alone with the threat of legal repercussions), serves no one's interests.
What history will say about the bidding for the 2022 Olympics is that the IOC was left with 2 undesirable bidders because they scared off other interested cities. And that lists includes the most prominent cities in Sweden and Norway. Norway, as in the country that hosted 1 of the most revered Olympics of all time. They didn't bow out because they didn't believe they had a winning bid. They dropped out because they refused to engage with the IOC. That needs to be the jumping off point for any refinements in the bid process. Not that the cities haven't done a good enough job of taking care of themselves and that the IOC has suffered because of the cities' failings. That's simply not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I considered that your initial position is extremely flawed and I don't believe that any amount of refinement will fix that. I still don't think you understand what type of organization the IOC is. Consider..

So if we're talking about rules and demands, that's what I'm referring to. This is the problem the IOC has right now. You're 100% right that they need to refine the bidding process (and perhaps Agenda 2020 was a good step), but these cities are already planning carefully. Although it certainly hasn't stopped certain cities that have no business bidding for the Olympics to make the attempt. Legacy is not an after-thought to these cities. It's something that is laid out and considered and that the IOC most certainly does take into account. But it becomes difficult for those cities to have an effective legacy if the IOC is making these demands that impose a greater burden on the host city. Asking these cities to go even further in that regard (let alone with the threat of legal repercussions), serves no one's interests.
What history will say about the bidding for the 2022 Olympics is that the IOC was left with 2 undesirable bidders because they scared off other interested cities. And that lists includes the most prominent cities in Sweden and Norway. Norway, as in the country that hosted 1 of the most revered Olympics of all time. They didn't bow out because they didn't believe they had a winning bid. They dropped out because they refused to engage with the IOC. That needs to be the jumping off point for any refinements in the bid process. Not that the cities haven't done a good enough job of taking care of themselves and that the IOC has suffered because of the cities' failings. That's simply not the case.

The evidence you claim to provide i.e. the article titles are CLEARLY subjective and not fairly balanced. Also, they refer only to the winter games edition of 2022 and NOT to the constellation of aspects that embody the OLYMPIC MOVEMENT: both summer and winter games. I hereby urge (explicit verb) you to find objective sources and resubmit for review.

"Legacy is not an after-thought to these cities. It's something that is laid out and considered and that the IOC most certainly does take into account."...... I am quite sure that the first part of this submission does not conform to reality.... Look at the Athens facilities, Seoul, Beijing's to some degree. London and to a lesser degree Vancouver appear to be the only ones on track with their legacies. I think to some degree Calgary? Will have to research.

Your point about the IOC asking cities to go further is considered but actually justifies my initial idea for further refinement of the bidding process. Agenda 2020 must remain in an evolutionary phase and not be solidified in stone.

The evidence you claim to provide i.e. the article titles are CLEARLY subjective and not fairly balanced. Also, they refer only to the winter games edition of 2022 and NOT to the constellation of aspects that embody the OLYMPIC MOVEMENT: both summer and winter games. I hereby urge (explicit verb) you to find objective sources and resubmit for review.

"Legacy is not an after-thought to these cities. It's something that is laid out and considered and that the IOC most certainly does take into account."...... I am quite sure that the first part of this submission does not conform to reality.... Look at the Athens facilities, Seoul, Beijing's to some degree. London and to a lesser degree Vancouver appear to be the only ones on track with their legacies. I think to some degree Calgary? Will have to research.

Your point about the IOC asking cities to go further is considered but actually justifies my initial idea for further refinement of the bidding process. Agenda 2020 must remain in an evolutionary phase and not be solidified in stone.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the Norwegians dropped out only for the reasons you stated. There are obvious reasons too - moreso, the fact that Beijing was bidding and are typically the most aggressive of all bidders, typically sparing no expense to win....another justification for the suggestion that I made: - putting a cap of expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence you claim to provide i.e. the article titles are CLEARLY subjective and not fairly balanced. Also, they refer only to the winter games edition of 2022 and NOT to the constellation of aspects that embody the OLYMPIC MOVEMENT: both summer and winter games. I hereby urge (explicit verb) you to find objective sources and resubmit for review.

I'm aware what they refer to. But, like you said, the words "rules" and "demands" may or may not be interchangeable, even if you don't view them the same way in this context. Nevertheless, this illustrates what type of organization the IOC is. There was a paucity of bidders for 2018, again in 2020, and we're left with the dumpster fire that is 2022. To me, that seems more like a trend than an isolated incident.

If we're talking about refining the bid process, in my opinion it needs to start with shortening that list of rules/demands, not adding to it. The IOC needs to demonstrate there are willing to work with these cities in everyone's best interests. Again, Agenda 2020 seems like a good step in the right direction on that front. If Paris bids for 2024, that's a good thing for them. What's not a good thing is that Boston (speaking of cities looking for a coming out party) has a populace that seems very opposed to hosting an Olympics. So what does it say that the United States picked a city they thought best suited to make an Olympic bid and it seems like it's very close to come crashing down on them.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the Norwegians dropped out only for the reasons you stated. There are obvious reasons too - moreso, the fact that Beijing was bidding and are typically the most aggressive of all bidders, typically sparing no expense to win....another justification for the suggestion that I made: - putting a cap of expenditure.

If you think for a moment that Oslo dropped out because Beijing was bidding, then you need a serious reality check. Beijing hosted an Olympics less than 7 years ago. Asia will have hosted the previous 2 Olympics before 2022, including the prior Winter Olympics. If Oslo was in this race, it is a near certainty that Beijing would not have bid. That's why I tried to illustrate the Norweigans' dissatisfaction with the IOC and their lack of willingness to play ball with them. They weren't scared off because they thought China would spare no expense and that would win them the vote. As foolish as the IOC has been with some of their host city selections, especially the ones that has spent large amounts of money, I'm confident they would have bucked that trend by picking Norway over China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally! An EPIC moment in Gamesbids history "If we're talking about refining the bid process, in my opinion it needs to start with shortening that list of rules/demands, not adding to it." - I couldn't agree with you more. However, refinement of the bidding process need not mean adding rules. It could mean weeding out the useless ones and refining the ones that are already there to reflect a paradigm shift.

I still am not impressed with the reasons you gave for Oslo's withdrawal. That does not mean those reasons were NOT apart of the whole, but I insist that the reason I specified was the greatest part of the whole reason Oslo and other cities withdrew. Face it. The IOC follows the money. I think however, that they may use the 2022 race to show those who withdrew that their suspicions might be incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally! An EPIC moment in Gamesbids history "If we're talking about refining the bid process, in my opinion it needs to start with shortening that list of rules/demands, not adding to it." - I couldn't agree with you more. However, refinement of the bidding process need not mean adding rules. It could mean weeding out the useless ones and refining the ones that are already there to reflect a paradigm shift.

I still am not impressed with the reasons you gave for Oslo's withdrawal. That does not mean those reasons were NOT apart of the whole, but I insist that the reason I specified was the greatest part of the whole reason Oslo and other cities withdrew. Face it. The IOC follows the money. I think however, that they may use the 2022 race to show those who withdrew that their suspicions might be incorrect.

You can insist all you want. Oslo was clearly the IOC's preferred option. Sochi 2014, not Beijing 2022, had a bigger impact on them not bidding. Quaker is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally! An EPIC moment in Gamesbids history "If we're talking about refining the bid process, in my opinion it needs to start with shortening that list of rules/demands, not adding to it." - I couldn't agree with you more. However, refinement of the bidding process need not mean adding rules. It could mean weeding out the useless ones and refining the ones that are already there to reflect a paradigm shift.

See, we're not so different, you and I..

different1-640x351.png

But seriously.. yes, I think we are in agreement on this. Our trajectories have converged! I just didn't believe it was the right line on thinking to approach this from the standpoint of legal grounds. As we've noted, Agenda 2020 is at the very least, the start of a realization that the IOC needs to reform their bid process. Clearly they are aware they need to make some changes, although let's see how serious they are. And the point you made earlier is another one I agree with that the IOC needs to work WITH the bid cities, not against them.

I still am not impressed with the reasons you gave for Oslo's withdrawal. That does not mean those reasons were NOT apart of the whole, but I insist that the reason I specified was the greatest part of the whole reason Oslo and other cities withdrew. Face it. The IOC follows the money. I think however, that they may use the 2022 race to show those who withdrew that their suspicions might be incorrect.

However, here we disagree again. Wasn't trying to impress you, just sharing was written in the aftermath of that decision. As much as the IOC is known to follow the money (Agenda 2020 notwithstanding), I still think they would have selected Oslo over Beijing and it wouldn't have been a close contest. Plus, in reference to the other cities.. when Stockholm withdrew, Oslo was still the odds on favorite. Ditto for when Krakow withdrew. Not to mention a couple of other European cities that had shown some interest.

The problem with Oslo was a lack of public support and the recency of Sochi with their massive spending didn't hurt matters. You could argue the citizens there were looking at Beijing and thinking they would have to match that effort, but I think the IOC would have happily chosen the more sensible plan from Oslo without them resorting to opulence and over-spending. It goes back to the point where if the IOC were more willing to work with a bid city, they wouldn't be scaring them off.

I don't quite get your last point though. The IOC is left with 2 less than appealing bids, both of which are probably going to throw a lot of money out there. Those who dropped out were not necessarily incorrect to do so if they were still obligated to play by the IOC's rules. Agenda 2020 is a nice first step, but I think we need to see where that goes first. But if it is indeed a step in the right direction, hopefully that means more cities will begin to re-enter the fray to bid for the Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, in the same way that Salt lake 2002 impacted Vancouver 2010 I suppose. Or Montreal 1976 impacted Los Angeles 1984. Or Turin 2006 impacted Sochi 2014. Do make sure you are fully informed before rushing to defend.


The aforementioned statement ^^^^^^ goes for you too Quaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, in the same way that Salt lake 2002 impacted Vancouver 2010 I suppose. Or Montreal 1976 impacted Los Angeles 1984. Or Turin 2006 impacted Sochi 2014. Do make sure you are fully informed before rushing to defend.

The aforementioned statement ^^^^^^ goes for you too Quaker.

What comparison are you trying to make here? Sochi 2014, Vancouver 2010, and Los Angeles 1984 were all winning bids, albeit with the caveat that LA won by default since there was no other official bids. What do they have to do with Oslo 2022 who submitted a bid but then withdrew it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem with Oslo was a lack of public support and the recency of Sochi with their massive spending didn't hurt matters."

I refer explicitly to your submission here. However, did you really mean "hurt" or "help"? I perceived that hurt was a typo. So do clarify. If it was, then I gather that you believe that Sochi 2014 also put a dent into Oslo's bid given that the "host too soon hypothesis" continues to be entertained even though the evidence suggests that a region/continent can host two editions of the Olympics in less than 15 years. So if you were pointing to Sochi 2014 to strengthen your argument about Oslo, then I submit, rather emphatically, that the argument was flawed. But I would need you to clarify your use of Hurt.

HOWEVER, if you really meant that Sochi did NOT have an impact on Oslo pulling out.....it STILL is a non argument because, Oslo was NOT in competition with Sochi.....it was in competition with Beijing (the real money capital). That is enough to make anybody pull out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oslo was competing with Beijing on paper only.

If they had stayed until the vote, the IOC would have given Oslo 2022 in a split second, Chinese money or not. This was very clear by the snubbed lover reaction they gave after the pull out.

This, BTW, is the Tokyo venues thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...