Jump to content

Will a Munich 2022 bid be favourite?


gromit
 Share

Recommended Posts

The IOC takes on other issues such as doping, the environment, and limit the number of athletes. But the true issue will be cost. Sochi is now the most expenses winter games, I guess the German did not want that financial burden. Cost will be the cancer of the Olympics.

By the time this is done, Sochi may end up being more costly than Beijing, which is just insane. We'll never know for sure how much was spent on both Games, but with all of the corruption and graft in Russia, this is surely costing them upwards of $50 billion.

With the Winter Games, it's hard to separate size and cost IMO. There are almost twice as many events in the Winter Games now as there were 20 years ago. Host cities now need 8 ice rinks (2 for hockey, 1 for figure skating, 1 for long-track, 1 for curling, and 3 practice rinks), most of which have absolutely no use after the Games. This is in addition to the traditional white elephants like the ski jumping park and sliding track. Obviously, no one will be expected to match Sochi in the future, but I don't see how the cost of the Winter Games can be reduced considerably for normal hosts without removing some events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be honest: Sochi is so expensive because because the Russian government wanted it to be this expensive. The IOC had nothing to do with it.

I disagree. The IOC surely knew this was going to be blowout when it awarded the Games to a city that had no existing facilities. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted the massive cost overruns given the corruption of the Russian government. Did the IOC expect Sochi to spend $50 billion? Probably not, but they had to have known at the time that there was no way that Sochi could stage the Games without spending billions and billons of dollars. If the IOC had cared about managing costs, they would have chosen Salzburg, or even PyeongChang. They didn't, so now they get to deal with the fallout from this corrupt blowout.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! 50 Billion dollars that is an incredible amount of money! Many in Anti-Olympic movement and there are many, just use this information to their advantage. Does the IOC care about corruption, no not really? The new IOC president will have to deal with the cost of the games. Like I said before “the cost will be the cancer of the Olympics”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. The IOC surely knew this was going to be blowout when it awarded the Games to a city that had no existing facilities. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted the massive cost overruns given the corruption of the Russian government. Did the IOC expect Sochi to spend $50 billion? Probably not, but they had to have known at the time that there was no way that Sochi could stage the Games without spending billions and billons of dollars. If the IOC had cared about managing costs, they would have chosen Salzburg, or even PyeongChang. They didn't, so now they get to deal with the fallout from this corrupt blowout.

But that was Sochi's choice. Yeah, they presented themselves as the bid with carte blanche. Y should the blame fall on the IOC? Whatever corruption there is in the preparations is for Sochi and the Russians to sort out; not the IOC. The IOC/IPC is merely borrowing the venues for 4 weeks. They're NOT taking the venues away with them after that time. :blink:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be honest: Sochi is so expensive because because the Russian government wanted it to be this expensive. The IOC had nothing to do with it.

I don't agree. The IOC knew full well that the Russians would spare no expense and they endorsed that approach by voting for them. Any bid that flies an ice rink to the IOC session where the vote is taking place is CLEARLY going to go overboard. That's what the IOC wanted. Otherwise, they would've picked Pyeongchang.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree. The IOC knew full well that the Russians would spare no expense and they endorsed that approach by voting for them. Any bid that flies an ice rink to the IOC session where the vote is taking place is CLEARLY going to go overboard. That's what the IOC wanted. Otherwise, they would've picked Pyeongchang.

Exactly. The IOC voted for and sanctioned this mess in Sochi. They could have easily made a different choice. Now they can deal with the fallout of other countries believing that the Games are too expensive to host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. The IOC surely knew this was going to be blowout when it awarded the Games to a city that had no existing facilities. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted the massive cost overruns given the corruption of the Russian government. Did the IOC expect Sochi to spend $50 billion? Probably not, but they had to have known at the time that there was no way that Sochi could stage the Games without spending billions and billons of dollars. If the IOC had cared about managing costs, they would have chosen Salzburg, or even PyeongChang. They didn't, so now they get to deal with the fallout from this corrupt blowout.

That's right. I started lurking on the GamesBid site and forums around the time of the Sochi election. My recollection is that most members at that time were pretty surprised Sochi was picked, given the fact that they basically had no venues ready to go and it was seen as the most expensive bid, after the IOC had been paying lip service at that time to more modest bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC stopped having clean hands in that when they knew of the plans and didn't curb them, either before, or still after the election. Putin put on the show in Guatemala and they were too easily swayed by it/him.

If they had been serious about more modest Games, they would have given 2014 to Salzburg. Austrians quickly realised that it would make no sense to come back again after that, given the double standards so obviously on display. And in that sense, the Munich failure is entirely down to Sochi too, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC stopped having clean hands in that when they knew of the plans and didn't curb them, either before, or still after the election. Putin put on the show in Guatemala and they were too easily swayed by it/him.

If they had been serious about more modest Games, they would have given 2014 to Salzburg. Austrians quickly realised that it would make no sense to come back again after that, given the double standards so obviously on display. And in that sense, the Munich failure is entirely down to Sochi too, yes.

No. They want to move the Games around to make them universal -- esp the Winter Games which, if they just stayed in the Alps, or the occasional No. AMerican setting, would just reinforce that this is rich, white man's toy. So, regardless of what Sochi has/will spend, they want to move the Games around...which is why I think the Krakow, Lviv bids (really in terms of practicality as well) will be the strongest. The WOGs don't need to return to Norway, Sweden, Austria or France again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hamburg gives up 2024 Olympic Bid

Hamburg (dpa) - Following a clear "no" from residents to Munich‘s bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics, sports officials in Hamburg on Tuesday decided to pull back on a possible bid for the 2024 summer Olympic Games.

"It would be careless to go forward with this now," Guenter Ploss, president of the Hamburg sports federation HSB, told the Hamburger Abendblatt daily.

Ploss said local officials must first analyse what went wrong in Munich before considering submitting a bid.

On Sunday, all four of the communities that would have hosted the sporting events for the Munich 2022 Olympics rejected the bid in a referendum.

"Applying for the Olympics is a marathon, not a sprint," said Michael Neumann, a spokesman for the local politician responsible for sport.

"Hamburg has the potential to host any major event. We want to be ready by at least the end of the decade to successfully bid for national and international events."

Neumann had said in May that any Olympics bid should be first approved by a referendum.

Ploss added that important questions must be answered. There has to be a realistic chance for the bid to succeed; politicians and residents should support the bid; and the costs of the spectacle should be clarified ahead of time.

"The Games in London cost 12 billion euros (16 billion dollars). You have to say beforehand who will pay that in the end," said Ploss.

Hamburg bid to become Germany‘s applicant city for the 2012 Olympics but lost to Leipzig, which then lost out to London back in 2005.
DPA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, regardless of what Sochi has/will spend, they want to move the Games around...which is why I think the Krakow, Lviv bids (really in terms of practicality as well) will be the strongest.

But what's so "practical" about the Ukraine bid. The western part of the country is really underdeveloped, as far as winter infrastructure is concerned. And the Ukranians aren't going to have all those endless bucketloads of cash to throw at the 2022 Games like the Russians are doing with Sochi.

Plus, does the IOC REALLY want to continue sending that message of "spend all you want. It's not our money. Just put on a good show & the hell with the rest, since it's not real our problem", when they're seeing first hand viable cities literally running away now. Yeah, the IOC likes to move the Games around. But they never do it just for the sake of it. The bid has to at least be viable enough to a certain degree. Something that the Lviv bid is not. And Krakow's would still remain to be seen.

The WOGs don't need to return to Norway, Sweden, Austria or France again.

Uhh, but Sweden has never had the WOG's, TBW.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. They want to move the Games around to make them universal -- esp the Winter Games which, if they just stayed in the Alps, or the occasional No. AMerican setting, would just reinforce that this is rich, white man's toy. So, regardless of what Sochi has/will spend, they want to move the Games around...which is why I think the Krakow, Lviv bids (really in terms of practicality as well) will be the strongest. The WOGs don't need to return to Norway, Sweden, Austria or France again.

So to prove the games aren't a "rich, white man's toy" they gave them to Putin, assuming he would spend tens of billions on unneeded vunues and development. Right.

But there's a reason for that. Sweden cannot present a 'compact' Winter bid when there are others that do.

The insistence on "compact" games is one of those arbitrary rules the IOC puts in place that greatly drives up costs and limits the number of possible hosts.

Never listen to what IOC members say.... watch what they do. When they get rid of compactness, that's when you know they actually mean what they say about cost worries and wanted to make the games more universal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ostersund & Are being right next to each other wasn't "compact" enough, 20-25 years ago? And Ostersund was even the favorite for the 1994 Games, but as usual, geopolitics squandered their chances. It's more complex than just saying that the Swedes have never present a compact plan, bcuz that's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\

So to prove the games aren't a "rich, white man's toy" they gave them to Putin, assuming he would spend tens of billions on unneeded vunues and development. Right.


The insistence on "compact" games is one of those arbitrary rules the IOC puts in place that greatly drives up costs and limits the number of possible hosts.

Never listen to what IOC members say.... watch what they do. When they get rid of compactness, that's when you know they actually mean what they say about cost worries and wanted to make the games more universal.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Not worth my effort...


So Ostersund & Are being right next to each other wasn't "compact" enough, 20-25 years ago? And Ostersund was even the favorite for the 1994 Games, but as usual, geopolitics squandered their chances. It's more complex than just saying that the Swedes have never present a compact plan, bcuz that's not the case.

So what if they were close to each other?? Doesn't mean it was a viable bid. And as they have realized now, Ostersund is NOT big enough to be the anchor city. Reality demands a larger anchor city -- at least 300,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if they were close to each other?? Doesn't mean it was a viable bid. And as they have realized now, Ostersund is NOT big enough to be the anchor city. Reality demands a larger anchor city -- at least 300,000.

And yet Ostersund lost to the even smaller village of Lillehammer, that had to build almost everything from the ground up.

Like I said, Ostersund was the favorite for the '94 Games, & even the Norwegian themselves were shocked at their own win. But you know as well as I do that geopolitics torpedo'd the Swedes when their own IOC member was elected to the Executive Board earlier that day instead of one of the African members that supposedly was favorite. Not to mention the rift (which can't remember the details ATM) between the ex-soviet blocks & Sweden at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet Ostersund lost to the even smaller village of Lillehammer, that had to build almost everything from the ground up.

Like I said, Ostersund was the favorite for the '94 Games, & even the Norwegian themselves were shocked at their own win. But you know as well as I do that geopolitics torpedo'd the Swedes when their own IOC member was elected to the Executive Board earlier that day instead of one of the African members that supposedly was favorite. Not to mention the rift (which can't remember the details ATM) between the ex-soviet blocks & Sweden at the time.

Well, exactly. There ya go! If Sweden wants a piece of the Winter Games, Are should team up with Trondheim. At most, they'd still get a "No."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to prove the games aren't a "rich, white man's toy" they gave them to Putin, assuming he would spend tens of billions on unneeded vunues and development. Right.

Stop being obsessed with Putin. The money's something....Spreading the games and giving them to the Russian people is another thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The insistence on "compact" games is one of those arbitrary rules the IOC puts in place that greatly drives up costs and limits the number of possible hosts.

The notion of "compact games" is a myth - the IOC don't insist on them. It's bidders who try to make it a selling point in their pitches as if it's something new they've just come up with to distinguish themselves against past hosts. Then they just do what always happens. Just about every games is spread out far and wide across a city... and further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion of "compact games" is a myth - the IOC don't insist on them. It's bidders who try to make it a selling point in their pitches as if it's something new they've just come up with to distinguish themselves against past hosts. Then they just do what always happens. Just about every games is spread out far and wide across a city... and further.

It's an interesting point you bring up..., so, Well, I think there's a difference here between summer and winter games. Frankly, summer games have always been compact, haven't they? I wouldn't look at compactness as the complete lack of a distance between two given events, as for instance the football stadias will likely be spread out. Rather, I'd say it's more natural with a positive definition, where compactness is simply "many (the large majority) events in the same place". So what I'm trying to say:-), is that compactness as an interesting problem is not something that I would usually relate to a summer games, since most of the events do take place in the hosting city.

If the events are within one city (albeit in different parts), that would be compact for a winter games nowadays. And I think this notion has increasingly taken hold as the WG has adopted more of an urban feel, perhaps out of necessity because of the "ever-growing" nature of the games. A consequence of this - most of the times -, is that the outdoor venues will be spread around in the outland of whichever city we're talking about. Talking maybe distances between 30-150 km. So for the visitors of the games, that isn't very compact.

So when someone can present urban games, which now seems to be a requirement ("at least 300 000" - someone mentioned here), where the large majority of the events, including outdoor, take place within city limits, there might be some sense in promoting them as compact, even though you'll hardly find a big enough city with the required mountain drop for the downhill/alpine events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

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...