Jump to content

Toronto City Council Overwhelming Votes On 2024 Summer Olympic Bid


GBModerator

Recommended Posts

We're not talking about 2020, though. We're talking about 2024, which is what the article is about.

I would trust what the Star says ... thats like trusting Fox News to offer unbiased political commentary

I wouldn't trust what the Star says ... thats like trusting Fox News to offer unbiased political commentary

Correction - I wouldn't

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Y not? U take any negative media light about the U.S. like it's sacred or something.

Well considering the article was on 8 June and referenced a Quebec City 2022 bid which was in fact abandoned months ago

And all it said was the Canadian Olympic Committee felt it was premature to comment on the City Councils vote. Hardly opposition or a lack of support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not talking about 2020, though. We're talking about 2024, which is what the article is about.

Both governments will be in power come 2015 + COC supports any bid that comes along lol so most likely only Municipal is the question mark. However considering the mayor okayed it... you draw the conclusion.

Considering 2011 was of worse economic conditions as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bid Index

Istanbul 60.20

Tokyo 59.92

Madrid 55.10

Doha 53.08

Baku 43.08

Power Index

Tokyo 67

Instanbul 65

Madrid 65

Doha 63

Baku 61

The conversation was clearly about the IOC's working group report which evaluates Technical capability. In that report the IOC ranked Istanbul 4th.

You can change the conversation to talk about Bid Index instead, but Bid Index does not measure technical strength -- it measures the similarity of bids to previous winners -- many of which have been weaker technically in comparison to their competitors.

Technically, Istanbul is easily the weakest of the three remaining candidates. That, I believe, is the point you were originally disputing. Bid Ibdex does not support your argument.

I don't know if Canada will bid or not. The race is quite a long way from even beginning. A lot can happen. I think it's way too soi to regard a bid as a certainty. I also think it would be foolish to dismiss one. Let's just wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the IOC however place greater emphasis on certain elements than others and whilst the IOC marginally gave Doha an advantage, it was exactly that - marginal - and other elements not as quantifiable also come into play.

Doha's points were falsely inflated in such areas as 'Energy' and 'Finance' but in areas such as environment like fell behind and only had a max of 6 - clearly environment for Athletes and Spectators is vital and holds a value far greater than other areas evaluated.

It should be noted that the difference between Min and Max in a number of elements for Doha are quite big - for examples venues it was MIN 5 MAX 8.5 ........... in all of the criteria, the Istanbul bid never had more than 2pts between MIN and MAX evaluation

Even the Tokyo bid had two criteria (Support and Energy) where the difference was 3pts.

So in fact the Istanbul bid is not risky because the IOC are far better placed to know exactly what they are getting.

After all Madrid had the best overall evaluation and no-one rates them as better than 3rd favourites.

Which is why the unofficially indexes are more representative as they tend to be more reflective of those qualities which are not measurable. Lets not forget that neither London nor Rio were in the top 2 of the initial technical evaluations.

I was merely quoting and showing you that Doha was ranked higher and Istanbul was lower then most.

I didn't expect Doha to win and I expect Istanbul to win even though they had lower rankings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And sorry but Istanbul is riskier then tokyo or Madrid. Both got shortlisted for 2016. Madrid made 2012 whereas Istanbul didn't and ranked higher than London. Istanbul made 2008 but got 4th. They also failed to make the 2004 shortlist and made he shortlist in 2000 but got last. So i do see that the IOC finds Istanbul a bit risky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rio didn't make the shortlist for 2012. Yet, it won the bid for 2016. It could be Istanbul's turn to do the same for 2020, after a few tries at it.

Besides, you can get a city that came in second or third in the IOC voting for an Olympic Games and still not get that elusive chance afterwards. Ask about all those Swedish bids for the Winter Olympics in the past. Specifically, how about Detroit? How about Paris for a couple of times? Madrid seems to be in the same boat now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both governments will be in power come 2015 + COC supports any bid that comes along lol so most likely only Municipal is the question mark. However considering the mayor okayed it... you draw the conclusion.

Considering 2011 was of worse economic conditions as well.

The cons may very well be gone in 2015, and we could see the NDP form government. I wonder how that would effect federal support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rio didn't make the shortlist for 2012. Yet, it won the bid for 2016. It could be Istanbul's turn to do the same for 2020, after a few tries at it.

Besides, you can get a city that came in second or third in the IOC voting for an Olympic Games and still not get that elusive chance afterwards. Ask about all those Swedish bids for the Winter Olympics in the past. Specifically, how about Detroit? How about Paris for a couple of times? Madrid seems to be in the same boat now.

I agree Detroit obviously got sick of it.

I agree Istanbul has a big chance at 2020 but what i'm saying is they are riskier then Madrid or Tokyo, well Madrid may be a bit risky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Detroit obviously got sick of it.

I agree Istanbul has a big chance at 2020 but what i'm saying is they are riskier then Madrid or Tokyo, well Madrid may be a bit risky.

Again, you fail to understand.

Tokyo is risky because there are risks about public support, and also the government commitment to finance it especially the horrific prices of building in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Thats not taking into account environmental risks such as earthquakes, tsunami etc and the horrendous costs of any future clean up. And when they are saying the main stadium will cost upwards of $1bn, then that is a considerable risk.

Compare that to Istanbul where most of the main facilities beyond the Olympic Village have already been built or Spain where the Madrid bid has been ring fenced by the government and where they already have a tennant for the Olympic stadium who will move in before the games even occurs.

Tokyo actually had a slightly lower score than Madrid. And as I've mentioned when looking at all of the criteria, Istanbul had consistently the lowest gap between the Min and Max scores even if the Max scores were not quite as high as the other two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you fail to understand.

Tokyo is risky because there are risks about public support, and also the government commitment to finance it especially the horrific prices of building in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Thats not taking into account environmental risks such as earthquakes, tsunami etc and the horrendous costs of any future clean up. And when they are saying the main stadium will cost upwards of $1bn, then that is a considerable risk.

Compare that to Istanbul where most of the main facilities beyond the Olympic Village have already been built or Spain where the Madrid bid has been ring fenced by the government and where they already have a tennant for the Olympic stadium who will move in before the games even occurs.

Tokyo actually had a slightly lower score than Madrid. And as I've mentioned when looking at all of the criteria, Istanbul had consistently the lowest gap between the Min and Max scores even if the Max scores were not quite as high as the other two.

Your not listening in the past Istanbul has always ranked low and 2020 is the same yes the gap may have been smaller but Tokyo is a much bigger world city than Istanbul.

Actually don't worry i'm not even going to bother arguing, i've already said Istanbul has a high chance of winning but if we are basing it on scores or the cities which pose less of a risk

then i would go with Tokyo or Madrid, however Istanbul has the new region which definitely gave Rio an edge and will give them an edge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tokyo is risky because there are risks about public support, and also the government commitment to finance it especially the horrific prices of building in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Thats not taking into account environmental risks such as earthquakes, tsunami etc and the horrendous costs of any future clean up. And when they are saying the main stadium will cost upwards of $1bn, then that is a considerable risk.

N don't forget BS, your 'pathetic & ridiculous' notion of the "risk" of North Korea sending nukes Tokyo's way! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare that to Istanbul where most of the main facilities beyond the Olympic Village have already been built or Spain where the Madrid bid has been ring fenced by the government and where they already have a tennant for the Olympic stadium who will move in before the games even occurs.

What have you been reading?

Quote from 2020 Working Group Report for Istanbul:

Istanbul's sports venue concept is weighted towrds new facilities, with 11 existing venues (31%) and 25 new venues to be built (69%).

With 25 of 36 competition venues (69%) to be built, the construction programme is significant and will need to be managed in terms of cost, time and resources.

Quote for Tokyo:

Tokyo's sports venue concept is fairly evenly split between the use of 15 existing venues (43%) and 20 new venues to be built (57%).

With 20 out of 35 competition venues to be built, the construction programme will need to be carefully managed in terms of cost, time and resources.

Quote for Madrid:

Madrid's sports venue concept is heavily weighted towards the use of 26 existing venues (72%) with only 10 new venues to be built (28%).

With only 10 venues to be built, the construction programme should not be too demanding.

Istanbul is the city with the greatest number of venues to be built.

Granted, they have the Olympic Stadium but Istanbul still need to build a large number of venues not to mention the very significant investment to be done for transport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What have you been reading?

Quote from 2020 Working Group Report for Istanbul:

Istanbul's sports venue concept is weighted towrds new facilities, with 11 existing venues (31%) and 25 new venues to be built (69%).

With 25 of 36 competition venues (69%) to be built, the construction programme is significant and will need to be managed in terms of cost, time and resources.

Quote for Tokyo:

Tokyo's sports venue concept is fairly evenly split between the use of 15 existing venues (43%) and 20 new venues to be built (57%).

With 20 out of 35 competition venues to be built, the construction programme will need to be carefully managed in terms of cost, time and resources.

Quote for Madrid:

Madrid's sports venue concept is heavily weighted towards the use of 26 existing venues (72%) with only 10 new venues to be built (28%).

With only 10 venues to be built, the construction programme should not be too demanding.

Istanbul is the city with the greatest number of venues to be built.

Granted, they have the Olympic Stadium but Istanbul still need to build a large number of venues not to mention the very significant investment to be done for transport.

I knew Madrid wouldn't have been less prepared then Istanbul thank you for posting the pure facts (hehe) and showing the truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...