COC To Back Possible Toronto 2024 Bid

[runningrings]

But why wouldn't they? They are a complex organisation capable of multitasking. It is true that Rio, Istanbul and Durban all have a slight element of the untried and unknown (unlike an option like Toronto), but to say it won't happen due to the relative untested status of "neighbouring" host cities that come before/after isn't convincing to me.

I think if the bid is strong *enough* and the compelling argument is there without any clear obstructions to delivery of the plan - then I think, geo politics permitting, the new frontier option is all systems go.

Frankly, I think a Rio/Istanbul/Durban cycle would be a remarkable and iconic chapter in Olympic history, much like Rome/Tokyo/Mexico City.

[Sir Rols]

There's no doubt it would be a remarkable and iconic sequence, but there's still going to be many who'd feel it could be a leap if faith too far for comfort. Personally, I'll reserve judgement till 2020 is settled and we know the 2024 field, but let's just say I still don't think Rio would have done Durban any favours if it'd entered 2020.

On the other see of the coin, it's nice to go for the exotic, but the IOC can't always knock back the most capable candidates. There's always going to have to be slots for the London's and Paris's and their like.

[FYI]

Especially if Istanbul wins, then Durban is definitely a no go.

How do u know. Are you one of those that thinks that they have an Olympic crystal ball. :-P

The Istanbul factor, I'll give you, is a point worth debate. Should they win, the question of whether the IOC would risk three leap of faith new frontiers in a row will definitely get a working out here.

I think that's neither here nor there. The 2024 vote is in 2017, though. One year after Rio 2016. The Brazilians would have to totally screw up on order for them to be turned off by further new frontiers. Even if Rio is mediocre, I don't think that'll still be enough to keep the IOC away from Africa.

[FYI]

On the other see of the coin, it's nice to go for the exotic, but the IOC can't always knock back the most capable candidates. There's always going to have to be slots for the London's and Paris's and their like.

Who says that the IOC will always knock back the most capable candidates. They only need to do it for only a couple of cycles.

Plus, if that's the case, this why Tokyo 2020 still has a good chance. It'll be the safest choice outta the 3 candidates right now, a buffer between Rio & perhaps a Durban Games. The IOC might want to save their new frontier card for now.

And besides, how many times has it been mentioned here, that once South Africa mentions a bid & it's credible, that those tried & true candidates would recoil anyway. And even if its not Durban, a Paris, Rome &/or Berlin candidacies would give anybody else a good run for their money nontheless.

[Rob2012]

I think that's neither here nor there. The 2024 vote is in 2017, though. One year after Rio 2016. The Brazilians would have to totally screw up on order for them to be turned off by further new frontiers.

It depends. If Rio is an average Games that had some difficulties, and Istanbul 2020 is proving problematic for the IOC three years from their Games, I could certainly see Durban having more difficulty convincing the IOC. I still think an African Games is only a matter of time, and certainly, Athens early preparations aside the IOC hasn't recently been put in a position where it's not had confidence in a city's ability. I'd be amazed if this changes. But if it does, then Durban could suddenly look less appealing or, to put it another way, an African city could find itself needing to be much more convincing in terms of its bid plan that might otherwise have been the case. And that could be the difference between Durban 2024 and Toronto 2024. All extremely hypothetical, but I don't think Rio would have to be a complete screw up for new new frontiers to be pushed back.

[FYI]

It depends. If Rio is an average Games that had some difficulties, and Istanbul 2020 is proving problematic for the IOC three years from their Games, I could certainly see Durban having more difficulty convincing the IOC.

Yes, that's plausible, & I've even mentioned that scenario before, probably earlier in this thread, too. Which again, why Tokyo could still win this. And in this case, even a mediocre Rio Games wouldn't be the end of an African candidacy since Tokyo 2020 would be the buffer. Plus, while still new frontiers, Brazil & South Africa are still very different countries & South Africa provided an excellent World Cup. And even without Africa, any North American candidate would still have to contend with the likes of the formidabe Western Europeans.

[baron-pierreIV]

And in this period that South Africa has recused itself from 2020, that doesn't mean they are clearing their memory banks of all bidding/hosting experience. I mean was it Ramsamy (or the other RSA football honcho) who dreamt of bringing either the WC or Olympics to Africa after experiencing LA 1984?

* Surely, the cumulative experience of Capetown coming in #3 in 1997, the All-Africa Games in 1999 in Jo'burg, the 2010 World Cup, the IOC Session, the UN Climate Change Conference in 2011, is something to build on, no?

* Lord D, do you really think the sports powers that be in RSA are just sitting on their duffs all this time, are totally ignorant of the moves of their fellow Olympic wanna-be cities?

* Do you really think they have no access to the international technical consultants and the Mike Lees who work with all the bidding cities?

* Do you really think they are not getting inside info and encouragement from the IOC chiefs in how to package a sure-fire, 1st-time bid?

My feeling is what's holding RSA-Durban back at this time are: legacy issues, signing up more 4-star hotels for Durban in order to reach that 45,000-hotel room criterion, and overhauling their port facilities massively in order to accommodate half-a dozen cruise ships and at the same time, attract continuing harbor business for their investment AFTER the Games year whenever that will be. Once Durban can have viable solutions for those, they are probably good to go.

[Athensfan]

Personally, I suspect Rio will be more troubled than Istanbul would.

As for the "three new frontiers in a row" debate, while there may be those on these boards who have serious misgivings, I doubt the IOC will let anything get in the way of African Games. Certainly both Rogge and Ng (that's his surname, yes?) are on the bandwagon and I suspect they have the backing of many members as well or they wouldn't be so vocal.

I think the bigger question is whether South Africa will bid for 2024.

[runningrings]

There's no doubt it would be a remarkable and iconic sequence, but there's still going to be many who'd feel it could be a leap if faith too far for comfort. Personally, I'll reserve judgement till 2020 is settled and we know the 2024 field, but let's just say I still don't think Rio would have done Durban any favours if it'd entered 2020.

On the other see of the coin, it's nice to go for the exotic, but the IOC can't always knock back the most capable candidates. There's always going to have to be slots for the London's and Paris's and their like.

Sure, but I think in this instance, at the expense of offending our Canadian friends, Toronto is not Paris or London. In light of 2010, I don't think it has that kind of power, or even the pulling power that a solid NYC bid, under the same set of circumstances - no matter how capable Toronto presents itself as. That is the crux of my point in this thread.

And to be fair, I think that if Sydney 2000 had never happened, and we were going for 2024 after 68 years since Melbourne - I still think we'd have a bloody hard time, and would be an outside chance against the likes of Tokyo, Istanbul, Durban, NYC, Paris, etc... and we don't have the spanner in works that is the '2010 *Brisbane* Winter Olympics' (lol).

[intoronto]

Sure, but I think in this instance, at the expense of offending our Canadian friends, Toronto is not Paris or London. In light of 2010, I don't think it has that kind of power, or even the pulling power that a solid NYC bid, under the same set of circumstances - no matter how capable Toronto presents itself as. That is the crux of my point in this thread.

And to be fair, I think that if Sydney 2000 had never happened, and we were going for 2024 after 68 years since Melbourne - I still think we'd have a bloody hard time, and would be an outside chance against the likes of Tokyo, Istanbul, Durban, NYC, Paris, etc... and we don't have the spanner in works that is the '2010 *Brisbane* Winter Olympics' (lol).

This is why Toronto beat Paris in 2008 anyways that's not the point.

Australia likely would have gotten one of 2000 or 2008. So yea 2024 wouldn't be in Melbourne/Sydney/Birdsville where ever lol

[Sir Rols]

This is why Toronto beat Paris in 2008 anyways that's not the point.

To be fair, though, 2008 was one hosting Paris was NOT going to win, just four years after Athens. And you can't read too much into the place getters behind the winner - sheesh, Madrid came second for 2016, and that was so bloody unlikely for them to win after London 2012.

[FYI]

^Exactly! Toronto "beating Paris" for 2008 had more to do with Athens hosting 2004 than it had to do with Toronto being better than Paris. IDK why some people keep bringing up that trivial point all the time, geez. Each race is different with their own set of dynamics.

[runningrings]

I'd put Toronto's 2008 placing down to three key areas:

-Athens 2004/Turin 2006 making Paris 2008 seem a little too much as the IOC was looking to branch out.

-It was hands down the best technical plan for 2008. No doubt. It wasn't proposing a frenzied Olympic Park like Beijing, but it was offering a sensible, Sydney style park appropriate for a western city.

-Beijing itself. If you were an IOC member, and you didn't like Beijing, and saw the above two points, you'd naturally vote Toronto.

Besides, it was still WELL under Beijing in votes, and closer to Paris, et al. than anything else. Vancouver lurking in the background no doubt handicapped Toronto.

[zekekelso]

To be fair, though, 2008 was one hosting Paris was NOT going to win, just four years after Athens. And you can't read too much into the place getters behind the winner - sheesh, Madrid came second for 2016, and that was so bloody unlikely for them to win after London 2012.

Or maybe IOC voters like Paris less, and Madrid more than gamesbids posters think.

[runningrings]

Well, they must really hate Paris like the burning depths of hell - because they've rejected Madrid twice so far, and look quite likely to do it again.

[Sir Rols]

Or maybe IOC voters like Paris less, and Madrid more than gamesbids posters think.

I guess we'll see in a few months time if they get hot over Madrid's "austerity" bid.

[ofan]

Well, they must really hate Paris like the burning depths of hell - because they've rejected Madrid twice so far, and look quite likely to do it again.

Well they've rejected Paris 3 times too.

[runningrings]

Well they've rejected Paris 3 times too.

1992 - Was jilted under shady circumstances to make way for Barcelona. France got Albertville as consolation. This is the Olympics that I believe Paris probably most deserved, and lost.

2008 - Like Toronto, it was always second fiddle to Beijing. Coming hot off the tails of 2004 and 2006 in Europe, Paris' chances were further diminished.

2012 - Lost VERY marginally to London. This was the one that legitimately got away.

If it weren't for Albertville, I think Paris could have probably nailed 2000 if it went for it, or even 2004. I think it would have done a better job at challenging Athens then Rome did.

[ofan]

1992 - Was jilted under shady circumstances to make way for Barcelona. France got Albertville as consolation. This is the Olympics that I believe Paris probably most deserved, and lost.

2008 - Like Toronto, it was always second fiddle to Beijing. Coming hot off the tails of 2004 and 2006 in Europe, Paris' chances were further diminished.

2012 - Lost VERY marginally to London. This was the one that legitimately got away.

If it weren't for Albertville, I think Paris could have probably nailed 2000 if it went for it, or even 2004. I think it would have done a better job at challenging Athens then Rome did.

Ya who was the genius to put forth Lille for 2004 anyways?

[runningrings]

Ya who was the genius to put forth Lille for 2004 anyways?

Who knows. Its more absurd than Leipzig. It would be on par with the COC putting Winnipeg forward for 2024 instead of Toronto.

[intoronto]

Who knows. Its more absurd than Leipzig. It would be on par with the COC putting Winnipeg forward for 2024 instead of Toronto.

More like Regina which has a comparable population to Lille.

[FYI]

Or maybe IOC voters like Paris less, and Madrid more than gamesbids posters think.

Yeah, sure. That's why Paris lost 2012 by a mere 4 votes, yet Madrid has never been able to muster more than a 1/3 of the votes.

[FYI]

Lmfao, Jay Leno just made a joke about Rob Ford & Toronto on the Tonight show. And Jimmy Fallon did one on Friday night on his show, lol.

[ofan]

Lmfao, Jay Leno just made a joke about Rob Ford & Toronto on the Tonight show. And Jimmy Fallon did one on Friday night on his show, lol.

Good. Rob Ford is a joke in general.

[FYI]

Good. Rob Ford is a joke in general.

Yeah, but in Jay Leno's joke, the punchline was about Toronto, not Rob. "Can't say I blame the mayor, since there's not a whole lot to do in Toronto".