Jump to content

Is Durban too Ugly to be the 2024 host?


Recommended Posts

When though is up for discussion.

I'd venture to guess when the gov't thinks that there is enuf balance-of-payments surplus to cover the extravaganza w/o taking away from basic social services. I think by the 20s, the television revenues should be such that a lot the infrastructure expenses would be covered from that source.

If it were up to me, I would ask the IOC to ante up an even greater portion of their profits to help finance the/their first African Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't get into ATR; but if that's how their heading...then it's very prudent. That was my original design for them. No; they don't have to wait for 2032 or 2036. They can go as early as 2024 -- becuz of the Village situation. They can have half a Village ready for CWG 2022; then finish the other half for 2024. The first half of the Village doesn't have to sit empty too long. It can be occupied by say, troops, for those 2 yrs in between 2022 and 2024; and then they're all set to go for 2024. And with a CWG 2022 and a 2024 SOG; they can keep the experienced staffers on payroll for 3 yrs: 2022; Olympic test events in 2023; and the actual Games in 2024 -- so there is great continuity in Games mgmt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATR reports SOuth Africa is focused on the 2022 CWG as its target in the next 17 years of bidding. Which likely means the earliest they would bid for the Olympics would be for 2032, or 2036.

Well, if that's true, North America's chances are better. Of course, so are Europe's.

I wouldn't be totally shocked if neither Durban nor Paris bid for 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if that's true, North America's chances are better. Of course, so are Europe's.

I wouldn't be totally shocked if neither Durban nor Paris bid for 2024.

If Durban, or even Paris, doesn't bid, then this could be good for Istanbul or even Rome. The City of Rome hasn't officially come out that they won't bid. It was only the mayor of Milan (due to his interest to maybe bid) that said that Rome shouldn't bid due to their current economic situation. Either way, I still don't see North America's 2024 chances being that dramatically increased.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is the case, Toronto should go for 2024. Try to take advantage of Durban being out, a possible US no-show, & a possible weak field from Europe. If the main choice ends up being Toronto, Milan, or Istanbul, Toronto would have a very good chance. The next big decision is from Paris, will they bid for 2024 or not? If they do, then any non-Euro cities should probably stay away from 2024, & 2028 would be for North America.

Also, if Catalonia declares independence, might Barcelona want 2024/28 to show off to the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Durban, or even Paris, doesn't bid, then this could be good for Istanbul or even Rome. The City of Rome hasn't officially come out that they won't bid. It was only the mayor of Milan (due to his interest to maybe bid) that said that Rome shouldn't bid due to their current economic situation. Either way, I still don't see North America's 2024 chances being that dramatically increased.

And cities really have ANOTHER 2.5 years before they need to declare their intentions. So there's all this time even for RSA to STILL bid for 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were up to me, I would ask the IOC to ante up an even greater portion of their profits to help finance the/their first African Games.

That's when you know the IOC is serious about really wanting to go to Africa. When they offer up finacinging help, when they change rules and requirements to make hosting less costly. So far, the IOC has taking zero action on such things. Which tells you that all their talk is just that, talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is the case, Toronto should go for 2024. Try to take advantage of Durban being out, a possible US no-show, & a possible weak field from Europe. If the main choice ends up being Toronto, Milan, or Istanbul, Toronto would have a very good chance. The next big decision is from Paris, will they bid for 2024 or not? If they do, then any non-Euro cities should probably stay away from 2024, & 2028 would be for North America.

That's just it. South Africa's absence from 2024 could also make other NOC's more inclined to make a bid themselves, not just the COC. So I could still see the 2024 field being just as competitive, if not moreso, without South Africa.

I'm sure those who might be interested TBW have taken into account a possible South African bid. Take them out of the equation & I'm sure NOC's like the USOC & France would be more up to speed to bid without having to deal with the last big sentimental appeal as an opponent. IMHO the one city that would benefit the most from a South African no-show is Istanbul. And I doubt Milan would be the Italian city if they bid. CONI I'm sure would be more partial to Rome than Milan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's when you know the IOC is serious about really wanting to go to Africa. When they offer up finacinging help, when they change rules and requirements to make hosting less costly. So far, the IOC has taking zero action on such things. Which tells you that all their talk is just that, talk.

Well, maybe South Africa perhaps getting cold feet could make the IOC think twice about such an approach.

Ya know, many people talk about how South Africa should go after the Commonweatlth Games first before an Olympics, but from I've been reading, it's not like the Commonwealth Games are cheap to host either. That logic from many seems like such an oxymoron in the first place. Why not just spend your money wisely TBW where it counts, the Olympics, instead of spending even more on something that wouldn't necessarily be money well spent, the Commonwealth's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe South Africa perhaps getting cold feet could make the IOC think twice about such an approach.

Ya know, many people talk about how South Africa should go after the Commonweatlth Games first before an Olympics, but from I've been reading, it's not like the Commonwealth Games are cheap to host either. That logic from many seems like such an oxymoron in the first place. Why not just spend your money wisely TBW where it counts, the Olympics, instead of spending even more on something that wouldn't necessarily be money well spent, the Commonwealth's.

But having something like the CWG first would amortize the costs a little more. It wouldn't be having like a complete shock to the system that an Olympix gives once the IV is pulled out.

I think RSA is probably getting a lot of negative, domestic feedback on the little use that their 2010 stadia have gotten. So, to cushion the shock for another 1x extravaganza, go for a smaller one at first...then go for the Big One; and when the last volunteer has left and the last banner has been swiped, they can say, "Look, it was used for at least 3 big tournaments (the CWG, the OGs and the Paras...). Not just one." (I'm guessing there is something of that dialogue going on.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't get into ATR; but if that's how their heading...then it's very prudent. That was my original design for them. No; they don't have to wait for 2032 or 2036. They can go as early as 2024 -- becuz of the Village situation. They can have half a Village ready for CWG 2022; then finish the other half for 2024. The first half of the Village doesn't have to sit empty too long. It can be occupied by say, troops, for those 2 yrs in between 2022 and 2024; and then they're all set to go for 2024. And with a CWG 2022 and a 2024 SOG; they can keep the experienced staffers on payroll for 3 yrs: 2022; Olympic test events in 2023; and the actual Games in 2024 -- so there is great continuity in Games mgmt.

As much as that makes sense in theory, is the IOC going to award a city and a country the Olympics (particularly a city and a country that has never hosted an event of this scale before) while they're concurrently working on a Commonwealth Games? What happens if that CWG doesn't go well and there are problems that can't be solved within 2 years? Remember Rio had the 2007 Pan Ams and then failed to make the 2012 shortlist. Granted that was mostly because of incredibly strong competition, but that's 5 years apart and I'm still not sure the IOC would have done it for such an untested country. And to FYI's point, both events are extremely expensive. Sure you're saving some money by reusing facilities for both, but hosting a CWG and an Olympics is still going to more expensive than just hosting an Olympics, so at the end of it all, what's really the point?

That's just it. South Africa's absence from 2024 could also make other NOC's more inclined to make a bid themselves, not just the COC. So I could still see the 2024 field being just as competitive, if not moreso, without South Africa.

I'm sure those who might be interested TBW have taken into account a possible South African bid. Take them out of the equation & I'm sure NOC's like the USOC & France would be more up to speed to bid without having to deal with the last big sentimental appeal as an opponent. IMHO the one city that would benefit the most from a South African no-show is Istanbul. And I doubt Milan would be the Italian city if they bid. CONI I'm sure would be more partial to Rome than Milan.

If South Africa is potentially out of the mix for both 2024 and 2028, I think that leaves 2024 wide open for European candidates to pour in. Paris, Istanbul, possibly Rome.. all would make strong candidates. I don't know how much I'd like the chances of a bid from North America. But if Europe gets 2024 and South Africa isn't in the running for 2028, I think maybe there would be a United States vs. Toronto showdown. Can only imagine what that would be like here in this forum!

But having something like the CWG first would amortize the costs a little more. It wouldn't be having like a complete shock to the system that an Olympix gives once the IV is pulled out.

I think RSA is probably getting a lot of negative, domestic feedback on the little use that their 2010 stadia have gotten. So, to cushion the shock for another 1x extravaganza, go for a smaller one at first...then go for the Big One; and when the last volunteer has left and the last banner has been swiped, they can say, "Look, it was used for at least 3 big tournaments (the CWG, the OGs and the Paras...). Not just one." (I'm guessing there is something of that dialogue going on.)

So in other words.. after spending a ton of money on a sports festival, in order to sell your citizens on going after a 2nd one, let's just spend on a 3rd one in there first. I don't know how well that would fly in a country with the economic disparities that South Africa has. If RSA needs to bid and host a Commonwealth Games to justify hosting an Olympics, maybe the whole thing is more trouble than it's worth, especially if the legacy of 2010 is under-used stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words.. after spending a ton of money on a sports festival, in order to sell your citizens on going after a 2nd one, let's just spend on a 3rd one in there first. I don't know how well that would fly in a country with the economic disparities that South Africa has. If RSA needs to bid and host a Commonwealth Games to justify hosting an Olympics, maybe the whole thing is more trouble than it's worth, especially if the legacy of 2010 is under-used stadiums.

If played right, you recoup your investment and MORE afterwards.

/Uhmmm....also, you forget that once you've hosted one of these mega-events, u've been bitten and there is no backing out It's a curse and the affliction can only fester until you get the Big One. And even after that, bidding/hosting-itis doesn't leave your system so easily. Dare I point out a few of the more incurable, hopeless examples?? :blink:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDK, but it looks like Quaker & I are both on the same page on this one. It may seem like a good idea for South Africa to go after both, but how practical is it really in a country that many point out shouldn't be spending so extravagantly on these mega events when they have more social issues than other countries looking to bid.

It's like you're looking to get a new car, but some are saying that you really can't afford it. But at the same time they're telling you that you go out & get a pricey used one instead. :-/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If played right, you recoup your investment and MORE afterwards.

/Uhmmm....also, you forget that once you've hosted one of these mega-events, u've been bitten and there is no backing out It's a curse and the affliction can only fester until you get the Big One. And even after that, bidding/hosting-itis doesn't leave your system so easily. Dare I point out a few of the more incurable, hopeless examples?? :blink:

Come on baron.. how many people here were waiting for RSA to declare their intentions for the 2020 race and it didn't happen. Now it sounds like they may pass on 2024 as well and who knows what else. South Africa clearly wants to host an Olympics and the Olympics clearly want South Africa, but this isn't drug addiction here. If it was a scenario like you describe, they would have bid for 2020 and failing that come right back for 2024. Just because you have the Madrids and Istanbuls of the world that keep coming back cycle after cycle doesn't mean you can or should project that on South Africa who clearly is taking a more careful and calculated approach to landing an event they've never had before.

As for their investment.. your keep floating the logic that says if you spend on a CWG that it'll soften the blow for the Olympics. Well, look at it in reverse now. You're not spending any less on the Olympics than you would have without the CWG. You're still spending more because you hosted not 1, but 2 of these mega-events. It's not like you can sell that to South Africans by saying you got better value for you money when all people will see is that more money got spent. Again, I get the logic that says you use facilities more than once, but if the goal here is to land an Olympics, the only reason to bid for a CWG is to help your chances to land an Olympics, not to say you're spreading the expenses over 2 events instead of 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Durban, or even Paris, doesn't bid, then this could be good for Istanbul or even Rome. The City of Rome hasn't officially come out that they won't bid. It was only the mayor of Milan (due to his interest to maybe bid) that said that Rome shouldn't bid due to their current economic situation. Either way, I still don't see North America's 2024 chances being that dramatically increased.

You don't think the absence of Paris and Durban would increase the odds of success for the rest of the field, including North Americans who won't have hosted Summer Games in 28 years?

I suppose the last nail isn't in Rome's coffin yet, but it's not looking good.

Well, maybe South Africa perhaps getting cold feet could make the IOC think twice about such an approach.

Ya know, many people talk about how South Africa should go after the Commonweatlth Games first before an Olympics, but from I've been reading, it's not like the Commonwealth Games are cheap to host either. That logic from many seems like such an oxymoron in the first place. Why not just spend your money wisely TBW where it counts, the Olympics, instead of spending even more on something that wouldn't necessarily be money well spent, the Commonwealth's.

There is something to that. Of course the question is whether SA can only land the Olympics by proving itself with a lesser multi-sport event first. The answer to that is unclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think the absence of Paris and Durban would increase the odds of success for the rest of the field, including North Americans who won't have hosted Summer Games in 28 years?

But I don't think that both will refrain, though. If Durban doesn't bid, I could easily see Paris being more receptive to a bid. And it's not just Rome, but like I said earlier, a Durban abscense would benefit Istanbul the most, IMHO.

And I think that without Durban the Eurocentric IOC would look at it more that Europe would be without a Summer Games for more than 12 years than North America having not hosted for 28 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think the absence of Paris and Durban would increase the odds of success for the rest of the field, including North Americans who won't have hosted Summer Games in 28 years?

I suppose the last nail isn't in Rome's coffin yet, but it's not looking good.

Here's the thing about that though.. how many times have we said here that the USOC and probably other NOCs might take a cautious approach to 2024 for fear of Paris and/or Durban entering the race and being formidable opponents. Well now, if 1 or both of them drop out, perhaps that encourages other cities to now enter the fray and create for even more competition. Especially if those same cities and countries don't want to risk going up against a Durban or a Paris should they enter the 2028 field. I know this logic could somewhat be applied to 2020 when South Africa didn't declare their intentions until late in the game, but still.

So would this bode well for North America? It might, but my gut tells me it would be a European city for 2024, and then the North American cities could duel it out in 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for their investment.. your keep floating the logic that says if you spend on a CWG that it'll soften the blow for the Olympics. Well, look at it in reverse now. You're not spending any less on the Olympics than you would have without the CWG. You're still spending more because you hosted not 1, but 2 of these mega-events. It's not like you can sell that to South Africans by saying you got better value for you money when all people will see is that more money got spent. Again, I get the logic that says you use facilities more than once, but if the goal here is to land an Olympics, the only reason to bid for a CWG is to help your chances to land an Olympics, not to say you're spreading the expenses over 2 events instead of 1.

No. In the accounting books, you can amortize the same venues (including temporary ones) FOR and over 3 (including the Paras) events. That looks better. And besides, TV revenues will proportionately cover the expenses whether for the CWGs and/or the Olympics. Besides, RSA has never hosted the CWGs, so what's to stop them from also hoping for a CWG's?

I just think it makes more sense to host 2 for however long they stretch it--or at least it gives the appearance that you're getting more for your money. But hey, in the final analysis, do I care how they do it? No. It's not my $$$ anyway.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing about that though.. how many times have we said here that the USOC and probably other NOCs might take a cautious approach to 2024 for fear of Paris and/or Durban entering the race and being formidable opponents. Well now, if 1 or both of them drop out, perhaps that encourages other cities to now enter the fray and create for even more competition. Especially if those same cities and countries don't want to risk going up against a Durban or a Paris should they enter the 2028 field. I know this logic could somewhat be applied to 2020 when South Africa didn't declare their intentions until late in the game, but still.

So would this bode well for North America? It might, but my gut tells me it would be a European city for 2024, and then the North American cities could duel it out in 2028.

Perhaps. Or maybe SA will claim 2028. The thing is that until we know who the candidates are it's extremely difficult to prognosticate.

I can envision a scenario with both Paris and Durban, just Durban, just Paris or neither.

I can envision everybody and their mother-in-law bidding against both, one or neither.

I can envision next to no one bidding against both, one or neither.

I can see the IOC going to Europe, Africa or North America in 2024 depending on the options they're presented with.

I sure as heck won't hazard a guess now because there are just way too many variables.

I am willing to say that I think Istanbul's got long odds for the next few cycles and I don't expect them to be competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps. Or maybe SA will claim 2028. The thing is that until we know who the candidates are it's extremely difficult to prognosticate.

I can envision a scenario with both Paris and Durban, just Durban, just Paris or neither.

I can envision everybody and their mother-in-law bidding against both, one or neither.

I can envision next to no one bidding against both, one or neither.

I can see the IOC going to Europe, Africa or North America in 2024 depending on the options they're presented with.

I sure as heck won't hazard a guess now because there are just way too many variables.

I am willing to say that I think Istanbul's got long odds for the next few cycles and I don't expect them to be competitive.

What about the one where Gerald Ford is mauled senselessly by a circus lion in a convenience store?..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkhwiuRbOEE

Thank you for laying out every single scenario for us. You're right there's a lot of variables. I'm not guessing at this one either. All I was saying is that if Paris and Durban don't bid (which was the scenario of yours I'm replying to), I think there's a good chance that a lot of other candidates COULD (key word there) come out of the woodwork and still make it a tough go for North American candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't lay out every possibility just to be tedious. I listed them because, if you take the time to consider each one, ALL of them are quite possible. At this time, it's very difficult to say that one or two are more likely.

My gut says we won't have a repeat of 2012. I suspect 2024 may be closer to 2020 with multiple heavy-hitters stepping aside and a smallish field.

Of course 2024 could be even crazier than 2012, but it just feels to me like many parties are gunshy and cautious, including Paris, Rome, Durban and the US. The bidding processes (not to mention the Games themselves) require enormous investment and enormous risk, particularly in the context of a global economy that still isn't great. All that works against larger fields of candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am willing to say that I think Istanbul's got long odds for the next few cycles and I don't expect them to be competitive.

The bidding processes (not to mention the Games themselves) require enormous investment and enormous risk, particularly in the context of a global economy that still isn't great. All that works against larger fields of candidates.

Then in a scenario like this that you're outlying, it would benefit an Istanbul bid the most. And especially in a small field without Durban in it.

Especially if the Turks are willing to heavily invest in the Games, which they would be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all we can basically agree on is:

1) 2024, 28, & 32 are going to Europe, Africa & N America in some order.

2) When Durban bids, they will win.

3) If Paris bids, they will take the Europe slot, as long as they don't wait too long & somewhere like Milan or Istanbul takes it.

4) If Durban doesn't go for 2024, North America has a very good chance, unless Paris get involved.

5) Everything ultimately depends on when Durban want to bid.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...