Rome 2024

[FYI]

No, bcuz Almaty's going to lose for other reasons instead.

[StefanMUC]

So all this talk about Rome will get punished in the 2024 Summer Olympic Games Bid Race, is rubbish, because like @FYI stated, Almaty pulled out of the 2002 race, is there Bid deffiently going to lose because of that? No.

It's not "all this talk", but a rather isolated, individual opinion. As I said earlier when this comment was made, the IOC is not in a position to hold a grudge against a very viable potential host in times where other potentials are not keen on bidding anymore.

[FYI]

It's not "all this talk", but a rather isolated, individual opinion.

And a rather deluded one at that.

[Sir Rols]

You mean no Rome. Even if Rome bids and goes the whole way this time, like it's been said earlier, Rome will never get the games. They will be "punished" if they go ahead for 2024 and not win, simply due to of course them not going ahead with their 2020 bid.

How ridiculous - what are they being "punished" for? What promises did they go back on? What commitment did they ignore? They simply chose not to take up their opportunity to apply - which a lot of people applauded their good sense. Are you simply sore that you were denied an extra bid book for 2020?

If they put their hand in for 2024, yes, they'd probably have a tough fight against, say, the likes of Paris and Durban. If the best they're up against is perhaps Hamburg and San Diego, they'd be looking pretty strong.

[Rob2012]

Rome won't be "punished". They've done nothing wrong. London bid for an Olympics on the back of handing back an IAAF World Athletics Championships because we decided we couldn't afford the stadium after all. If Rome presents a good bid, their 2020 decision won't matter at all.

That said, 2020 does allow opponents to ask the question "what's changed in four years"? And of course, we have the words of the Governor of of Lombardy from only few months ago. He said, when trying to get Milan selected, Rome is "on the brink of bankruptcy". Well, that doesn't sound good does it?!

http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/future_bids_2016/1216136780.html

The IOC won't punish Rome for their stance on 2020, but it does give opponents an opportunity to ask big questions.

[FYI]

How ridiculous - Are you simply sore that you were denied an extra bid book for 2020?

LMFAO!! :-D That's what this "punish" Rome nonsense is really all about! Not having an extra bid book so he can diddle himself with. LOL

[intoronto]

How ridiculous - what are they being "punished" for? What promises did they go back on? What commitment did they ignore? They simply chose not to take up their opportunity to apply - which a lot of people applauded their good sense. Are you simply sore that you were denied an extra bid book for 2020?

If they put their hand in for 2024, yes, they'd probably have a tough fight against, say, the likes of Paris and Durban. If the best they're up against is perhaps Hamburg and San Diego, they'd be looking pretty strong.

I too don't think Rome will not be punished but they will carry the baggage of withdrawing from 2020. I would put Rome and Paris as the early favourites for 2024.

what I mean by withdraw is they decided to bid and had the media all over it and then later decided against it.

[Sir Rols]

I mean by withdraw is they decided to bid and had the media all over it and then later decided against it.

The NOC was planning to bid, but withdrew before they had to officially declare their bid to the IOC when it was clear the government wasn't going to support it. Exactly as South Africa did, for the same reason, and at about the same time. Where's the outrage and calls for "punishment" for South Africa's "treachery"?

And I assume by the "punishment" conspiracy theory, that means Germany and Switzerland are in the IOC's sh!t list now for daring to not proceed with 2022 plans.

Sure, as Rob said, some people will question "what's changed?" over two years ago for Rome. But looking at the coverage of Bonino's remarks, I'd assume that answer they'll put is that before it was just the wrong time politically and economically. And now the economy has improved and now it's the stage to re-badge Brand Italy to attract foreign investment.

If a Rome bid eventuates, its chances are as good as any likely bidder. It could well lose, based on such factors as the competition it faces, it's domestic support, or any boo-boos or unforeseen circumstances ahead. But the fact it decided in the end not to apply for 2020 won't be a factor one way or the other.

[breathesgelatin]

To me, Rome 2024 faces the same challenges that Madrid 2020 did... financial ones. I agree that Rome is a compelling candidate for a variety of geopolitical reasons, but I feel some on this forum are underplaying Italy's economic straits... which is curious, because Madrid was soundly drilled for theirs.

Anyway, excited to see how these 2024 stories unfold. After Sochi, I think we're going to start hearing even more.

[FYI]

Madrid was drilled bcuz of their incessant inconsistency with their narrative. One day they would say that the 2020 Games would jump start their dire economy & create jobs. Yet at the same time they would cite how very little investment would be needed bcuz everything is virtually done already. So how exactly is that spurring economic activity then. Plus, it wasn't just their economy. For a country of their relative size, they were asking for another Summer Olympics a mere 28 years later after Barcelona. It was still too much to ask for.

Their message was always skewed, & even their mayor came out saying that they were "jealous" of Barcelona. They had the Operation Puerto doping scandal hanging over them as well. Madrid just became desperate towards the end. And it looks like the IOC saw right through them, even with all of Prince Felipe's "dazzle". Rome wouldn't have any of those issues, other than maybe the financial one. But what nation doesn't have that these days. Even some of the Japanese are now questioning how exactly is the big Tokyo 2020 she-bang will be paid for, in a nation with high debt already & rising.

[baron-pierreIV]

San Marino, Fiji and the Maldives will be punished for the next 50 years for NOT having bid on anything the last 20 -- not even on an IOC Session!!

[FYI]

[Lord David]

How ridiculous - what are they being "punished" for? What promises did they go back on? What commitment did they ignore? They simply chose not to take up their opportunity to apply - which a lot of people applauded their good sense. Are you simply sore that you were denied an extra bid book for 2020?

If they put their hand in for 2024, yes, they'd probably have a tough fight against, say, the likes of Paris and Durban. If the best they're up against is perhaps Hamburg and San Diego, they'd be looking pretty strong.

Denied what extra bid book? They made an Applicant bid book, and it was leaked in the end. They will be punished in the sense that they did the work and the NOC did technically apply (without paying the fee of course) and ended up pulling out in the last moment.

As for Munich and Switzerland, well Switzerland is a maybe. We all know Berne pulled out in the bid race for 2010, so I don't know if they'll still be punished for that. As for Munich, they did their preliminary bid, that's all and it got rejected in a proper referendum. It's not like Munich and the NOC declared a bid, did the work and only to have it pulled out like Rome did.

And what difference does another bid cycle make? If Rome does bid for 2024, they'll still have essentially the same issues with their 2020 bid in terms of the economic situation in Italy. Would they back down again and be applauded again for doing so? The only difference I see is most of the bid work is done on account of their supposed Applicant book.

The NOC was planning to bid, but withdrew before they had to officially declare their bid to the IOC when it was clear the government wasn't going to support it. Exactly as South Africa did, for the same reason, and at about the same time. Where's the outrage and calls for "punishment" for South Africa's "treachery"?

Well South Africa never ended up producing any sort of bid, preliminary or otherwise from any city now did they? They weren't the first to put up their hands declaring that they WOULD bid (like Rome did). Even if it was at the last moment (I mean applicant deadline, not Applicant book deadline like Rome's situation) they decided to not go ahead, at least they didn't do all that hard work that would make them look silly for not going ahead with their bid.

[Sir Rols]

Denied what extra bid book? They made an Applicant bid book, and it was leaked in the end. They will be punished in the sense that they did the work and the NOC did technically apply (without paying the fee of course) and ended up pulling out in the last moment.

As for Munich and Switzerland, well Switzerland is a maybe. We all know Berne pulled out in the bid race for 2010, so I don't know if they'll still be punished for that. As for Munich, they did their preliminary bid, that's all and it got rejected in a proper referendum. It's not like Munich and the NOC declared a bid, did the work and only to have it pulled out like Rome did.

And what difference does another bid cycle make? If Rome does bid for 2024, they'll still have essentially the same issues with their 2020 bid in terms of the economic situation in Italy. Would they back down again and be applauded again for doing so? The only difference I see is most of the bid work is done on account of their supposed Applicant book.

Well South Africa never ended up producing any sort of bid, preliminary or otherwise from any city now did they? They weren't the first to put up their hands declaring that they WOULD bid (like Rome did). Even if it was at the last moment (I mean applicant deadline, not Applicant book deadline like Rome's situation) they decided to not go ahead, at least they didn't do all that hard work that would make them look silly for not going ahead with their bid.

What fricking difference does it make if an applicant file was produced and then not used because they chose the withdraw as was their right in any accepted sense BEFORE THE DEADLINE and BEFORE THEY PAID UP ANY FEE to make it OFFICIAL? Who did this so greatly inconvenience and offend beyond a couple of copywriters from the NOC and a graphic designer or two? All of whom would have still got paid for their work anyway. And how was the IOC embarrassed, humiliated and shamed to such an extent that large swathes of the membership are now nursing vengeful grudges against an NOC who had the vile temerity to produce an applicant file that was eventually not officially submitted? How did it reduce the workings of the IOC bureaucracy in Lausanne to chaos?

It is neither one way or the other. And by the way, I do remember you as the one at the time of the withdrawal having conniptions that ** gasp ** an applicant file had been produced and you wouldn't get to see it. And fervently hoping an praying that it would be leaked. Consider this - Munich withdrew only days before their 2022 bid deadline. They would have had an applicant file, or at least the bulk of one, ready to go as well. But that one is unlikely to be leaked, and you won't likely ever get to see it either.

Honestly, the over-egged importance you place on such trivial line items as whether an applicant file was produced before the final paper work was filled and filed, or when in a cycle a city like Istanbul releases a logo, while blithely dismissing far more higher magnitude concerns like environmental issues or political and social position and attitudes, is just bizarre. It's easier to believe you're just trolling and trying to get a rise than you could actually believe that such trivia matters beyond a raised eyebrow in a professional bid race.

[Lord David]

It makes the difference if the same city is considering to bid again for 2024. As stated earlier, they will make the candidacy, but they will be denied during the voting round, especially if there is more competent bidders. And as stated earlier, what if they bail out again? Then what?

Munich was different as I mentioned. They had a referendum, which was the reason for their bailing out prior to the application deadline. They didn't post any intention to bid and unlike Rome, have no issue with regards to bailing out later in the bid (had they chosen to go ahead with a bid). Rome simply got pulled out by the government, despite having supposed government support and guarantees in their bid file.

It should be interesting to note, that according to their bid file, a Rome bid could be forced to a Referendum before Parliament once 500,000 signatures have been obtained. The government simply pulled out without any consideration of this aspect of Italian law. Had the bid gone to a Referendum, then at least you got the legal grounds like Munich to give a proper excuse for bailing out your bid.

Page 112/113 - Government and Public Support, Chapter 10

10.2 POLITICAL STRUCTURE, LEVELS OF AUTHORITY,
OLYMPIC ENGAGMENT

Although the people of Italy have the right to bring a referendum
before the Parliament once 500,000 signatures are obtained, no
referendum is required or foreseen for hosting the 2020 Olympic
and Paralympic Games.

10.5 STRONG AND COMMITTED GOVERNMENT
SUPPORT FOR THE BID AT ALL LEVELS

The Bid for the City of Rome has developed strong support
across all major institutions at local levels and across all political
parties of the majority and opposition within the City, Province
and Region.
The City Council of Rome voted unanimously on 21 January 2010
to authorise the Mayor to put Rome forth as an applicant to host the
Olympic Games of 2020, and instructed him to create an Olympic
bid that is highly competitive at the international level. Francesco
Rutelli, the highest representative of the opposition forces and
former Mayor during Rome’s Bid for the 2004 Olympic and
Paralympic Games, joined in signing the motion. The Provincial
Council of Rome also voted for the motion on 22 January 2010.
The regional council voted on 10 February 2010 on a motion to
support the Bid.

http://www.roma2020.it/ROMA_2020_Application_File_LR.pdf

As for Istanbul's logo, I merely mentioned it being silly to release such a logo on the week where cities were to be approved as candidate cities. Especially when such a Istanbul bid was shaky anyways given it's odd concept (especially the idea about a temporary ceremonies venue in an unideal location, for pure symbolism that much of the audience wouldn't see anyways), so it wasn't necessarily a sure shot as candidate. Had Doha not won the 2022 WC or Rome had continue bidding or both, it would easily have been likely that Istanbul would not have been selected as a candidate which would have made them a bit silly for unveiling a logo which was meant for nothing. I know it's trivial, but it's a lack of professionalism on Istanbul's part in this supposed professional bid race.

[Sir Rols]

It makes the difference if the same city is considering to bid again for 2024. As stated earlier, they will make the candidacy, but they will be denied during the voting round, especially if there is more competent bidders. And as stated earlier, what if they bail out again? Then what?

Of course they might lose against more competent or appealing bidders. That's the nature of a bid race. But to claim they WILL be denied, and in earlier posts attribute that to their pulling out before their official deadline to confirm and having produced an un-used applicant file, thus sparking an IOC Vendetta against Italy, is ludicrous.

Munich was different as I mentioned. They had a referendum, which was the reason for their bailing out prior to the application deadline. They didn't post any intention to bid and unlike Rome, have no issue with regards to bailing out later in the bid (had they chosen to go ahead with a bid). Rome simply got pulled out by the government, despite having supposed government support and guarantees in their bid file.

Oh, so they didn't post their intention to bid? The fact they said they were definitely going to bid, pending their referendum, and with the full glare of the world media on the poll because of that, didn't consititute as much of a posting of an intention to bid as Rome's? So a decision by a government is not legitimate grounds for it to be given any legitimacy?

It should be interesting to note, that according to their bid file, a Rome bid could be forced to a Referendum before Parliament once 500,000 signatures have been obtained. The government simply pulled out without any consideration of this aspect of Italian law. Had the bid gone to a Referendum, then at least you got the legal grounds like Munich to give a proper excuse for bailing out your bid.

So again, by your knowledge of Italian Law, a government decision is not a legally binding reason not to proceed with a discretionary policy? Once any intention or dream is uttered, they are legally bound to proceed unless stopped by a referendum. I'm glad I've had the Italian legal foundation explained to me at last.

T

SUPPORT FOR THE BID AT ALL LEVELS

The Bid for the City of Rome has developed strong support

across all major institutions at local levels and across all political

parties of the majority and opposition within the City, Province

and Region.

The City Council of Rome voted unanimously on 21 January 2010

to authorise the Mayor to put Rome forth as an applicant to host the

Olympic Games of 2020, and instructed him to create an Olympic

bid that is highly competitive at the international level. Francesco

Rutelli, the highest representative of the opposition forces and

former Mayor during Rome’s Bid for the 2004 Olympic and

Paralympic Games, joined in signing the motion. The Provincial

Council of Rome also voted for the motion on 22 January 2010.

The regional council voted on 10 February 2010 on a motion to

support the Bid.

I see lots of mention of the City, Province and Region, which support the bid did have. But it's a bit bare in any mention of the National government.

As for Istanbul's logo, I merely mentioned it being silly to release such a logo on the week where cities were to be approved as candidate cities. Especially when such a Istanbul bid was shaky anyways given it's odd concept (especially the idea about a temporary ceremonies venue in an unideal location, for pure symbolism that much of the audience wouldn't see anyways), so it wasn't necessarily a sure shot as candidate. Had Doha not won the 2022 WC or Rome had continue bidding or both, it would easily have been likely that Istanbul would not have been selected as a candidate which would have made them a bit silly for unveiling a logo which was meant for nothing. I know it's trivial, but it's a lack of professionalism on Istanbul's part in this supposed professional bid race.

No, I remember you clearly on the day the week the final applicants list was released and the applicant files started to appear how istanbul was doomed because they hadn't released their logo - and at that time there was no mention of when they would do it - candidate list week or earlier.

[stryker]

I doubt Rome's decision to pass on a bid early in the applicant city phase will affect a future bid too much. It's not like the 2010 race where Bern was one of the four candidate and then bailed out. Even in that situation, I'm sure if the Swiss decided to bid for a future winter games it could be Bern, Zurich, or Davos and the IOC would be more than welcoming. Same thing goes for Rome especially since Europe will be a heavy favorite to land the 2024 Games (unless Durban jumps in). Rome would have more problems if they're still dealing with a sputtering economy by the time the 2024 race gets underway.

[yoshi]

Or Lausanne. Nothing like buying local in a recession

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

If Rome does Bid, do you recon the Bid will say that the Stadio Olimpico will be Renovated, or would they build a new Olympic Stadium?

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Rome is deffiently front runner for 2024, with Durban and Paris behind. Paris could host 2032, with Durban hosting 2028. Rome hosting 2024. Will Stadio Olimpico be renovated or will Rome build a new Olympic Stadium if they win the 2024 Race?

[FYI]

Paris is deffiently front runner for 2024, with Durban and Rome behind. Rome could host 2032, with Durban hosting 2028. Paris hosting 2024. Will Stade de France be renovated or will Paris build a new Olympic Stadium if they win the 2024 Race?

There, fixed that for you! :-P

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

There, fixed that for you! :-P

Please don't edit my posts. Fair enough if you support Paris 2024, but I support Rome 2024.

[FYI]

But you're doing more than just "supporting" Rome by already declaring them a "frontrunner" from the get-go for 2024 when we don't even know who's gonna officially bid in the first place.

Pus, it's also a matter of gauging the likelihood of what candidate(s) are going to have the edge. And if both Paris & Rome are indeed in the 2024 picture, then that edge goes to Paris, considering the bidding history of those two cities & their last hostings.

In the end, support who you want, IDC, but stop declaring things like who the frontrunner is gonna be long before that particular race has yet to even get started.

*Plus, not 'pus', lol

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

But you're doing more than just "supporting" Rome by already declaring them a "frontrunner" from the get-go for 2024 when we don't even know who's gonna officially bid in the first place.

Pus, it's also a matter of gauging the likelihood of what candidate(s) are going to have the edge. And if both Paris & Rome are indeed in the 2024 picture, then that edge goes to Paris, considering the bidding history of those two cities & their last hostings.

In the end, support who you want, IDC, but stop declaring things like who the frontrunner is gonna be long before that particular race has yet to even get started.

*Plus, not 'pus', lol

Fair enough, I shouldn't of going over the top by saying Rome is front runner, but what makes me believe that is that Usa is still uncertain if they want to Bid, and IMO, unless they Bid with New York City, Chicago or Los Angeles, they won't get the Games, and the others are Rome, Paris and Durban. Europe will get the 2024 Games, because they won't have 3 Summer Olympic Games in a row outside of Europe, which leaves Rome and Paris, and I believe a Rome Bid would be stronger, especially with how the French public is with Hollande.

[FYI]

At this early stage, it's still uncertain for whomever might bid, not just the U.S. And yeah, France might have its issues, but it's not like Italy wouldn't either. They'd still have their economic concerns to deal with which was the main driving force of pulling the plug on their 2020 bid. Even any U.S. bid would have issues as well. No Olympic bid is ever "perfect" anyway. And BTW, it's shouldn't *have*, NOT shouldn't "of".