Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can't imagine IOC say "No" to USA after NY 2012 and Chicago 2016. Moreover NBC payed 7,65 billions to IOC for TV broadcast right, IOC doesn't have the choice.

I think it will be 2024 USA and 2028 Europe and later for South Africa if they bid.

IOC did too much mistake with WoG, they can't do the same for SoG or if not we will have only Dictature or Asian countries who will want bid in the futur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This thread is now unreadable.

Rendering of the Olympic stadium (stade de France) and the aquatic center. 

Because Baron.

I can't imagine IOC say "No" to USA after NY 2012 and Chicago 2016. Moreover NBC payed 7,65 billions to IOC for TV broadcast right, IOC doesn't have the choice.

I think it will be 2024 USA and 2028 Europe and later for South Africa if they bid.

IOC did too much mistake with WoG, they can't do the same for SoG or if not we will have only Dictature or Asian countries who will want bid in the futur.

I can't imagine them saying No to Paris again either. Someone's gotta get burnt again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine them saying No to Paris again either. Someone's gotta get burnt again.

If you have a strong bid maybe, you could win. But Paris is already down, because mayor of Paris doesn't want this bid, because Parisians don't want to host SOG and because lot of people think than SoG are too expensive. If your team is not strong since the beginning, you can't win and Paris is not strong enough for this battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a strong bid maybe, you could win. But Paris is already down, because mayor of Paris doesn't want this bid, because Parisians don't want to host SOG and because lot of people think than SoG are too expensive. If your team is not strong since the beginning, you can't win and Paris is not strong enough for this battle.

Kinda like Boston, no? Bostonians aren't exactly thrilled right now. They're asking for a referendum and even has a formal opposition already set up and running. I see no reason why Paris would even submit a "not-strong" bid. It would be a waste of time and resources. Somehow, I feel like a centennial Paris Olympiad with bland support would be much more appealing than a Boston one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Hosted SOG Asia 2020 Americas 2016 Europe 2012 Australia 2000

There, fixed that for you (and yes, totally doing that to perpetuate that myth.. even though there is a lot of truth to it)

Cool story bro, about the continents. Probably not going to do much for them if the United States (hosts of the `96 Olympics) are up against any European countries that have gone much longer without hosting. To say it's the United States' time pretty much implies they're 1 of the favorites in this regardless of who the competition is. In no way do I believe that to be accurate and I'm pretty sure you don't either. So yes Rob, you read that correctly. Boston may well win this, but if they do, it's not because it's their "time" to host an Olympics.

He's absolutely right actually. London already got it in 2012 when Athens had hosted in 2004. After a round of London-Rio-Tokyo, and if there's the choice between going back to Europe or finally go to the US 28 years after Atlanta 96, it's not excessive to say the US has an advantage.

At least, it's definitely not worth a facepalm...Or maybe the idea of Boston winning thrills you so much, you don't even want to believe in it. I hardly believe that such a seemingly expert eye on olympism like yours doesn't see how big your chances are.

(now, there's Africa, they'll probably give you a much tougher time than Europeans but that's another thing).

So the French here have no faith in their own city/country? It's funny to hear this when there are some here who still make the argument the United States has hosted too much. So how could it be their "time" in 2024? Yes, it's worth a facepalm when someone says Boston will be the host as if it's a done deal and the dynamics of the vote are pointing in that direction. I don't buy that for a sec. And trust me, I'm from New York, so the idea of Boston winning is not thrilling, nor do I see their plan as something the IOC will be interested in. But aside from that, look at what the 2024 race might be. We'll be coming off 3 straight Asian hosts. We had European countries dropping like flies in the previous race. If it's a continent's time in 2024, I believe it's Europe. I know some here have said (and I've been one of them) that eventually a stretch this long without a European host is inevitable. However, given the opportunity to have a traditional European city host the Olympics, I think they'll jump all over it, regardless of what the United States has out there for them

I can't imagine IOC say "No" to USA after NY 2012 and Chicago 2016. Moreover NBC payed 7,65 billions to IOC for TV broadcast right, IOC doesn't have the choice.

I think it will be 2024 USA and 2028 Europe and later for South Africa if they bid.

IOC did too much mistake with WoG, they can't do the same for SoG or if not we will have only Dictature or Asian countries who will want bid in the futur.

Oh bullshit the IOC doesn't have a choice. Between the United States and Europe, they're going to have to say no to 1 of them, particularly if there's a Paris bid out there. You cite the NBC money.. that's a signed contact the IOC has. As in that's guaranteed money for them that won't increase or decrease based on who hosts the 2024 Olympics. If that contract wasn't signed yet, you could easily make the case the IOC would pick Boston because it would mean bigger rights fees. But that's not the case anymore.

And if we're talking about the IOC making mistakes, clearly 2022 is a mistake for them. So when you say they can't do the same for the Summer Olympics, why does that point to the United States? I would think it points more towards Europe, the continent where interest in hosting the Olympics is fading. That's why they need to restore their reputation there, not here.

If you have a strong bid maybe, you could win. But Paris is already down, because mayor of Paris doesn't want this bid, because Parisians don't want to host SOG and because lot of people think than SoG are too expensive. If your team is not strong since the beginning, you can't win and Paris is not strong enough for this battle.

Like woohoo said.. that sounds an awful lot like the mindset in Boston

..at least as far as a lot of citizens are concerned, even if the mayor is on board

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rome, Berlin or Hamburg or Paris have a really good bid, I think the IOC would say no to America. Istanbul and Doha just shouldn't bother bidding, because they are not hosting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rome, Berlin or Hamburg or Paris have a really good bid, I think the IOC would say no to America. Istanbul and Doha just shouldn't bother bidding, because they are not hosting.

Here are my two cents - for the purposes of full disclosure, I support the Hamburg bid. Nonetheless, I'd like to think that I can evaluate the merits of each potential bid quite objectively.

ROME: I know there's always talk of Rome being a viable Olympic City. It's not, despite the Coliseum, St Peter's, the beautiful piazzas and its rich history. Italy's citizens have much bigger worries to fight with right now, including a weak and inflexible economy which could tip into disaster at any stage. Italy's debt is catastrophically high (whilst having an economy eight times the size of Greece's), there are doubts about its ability to retain the Euro (and conversely, debates about the return of the lira), its economy projected to contract (instead of growing), its long-term credit rating cut and unemployment at 13% (youth unemployment being 43%).

After the last Olympic Games in a Mediterranean country (Greece), in which it is now established consensus that Athens 2004 accelerated the country's debt burden and economic decline (and subsequent de facto fiscal administration from Brussels), would the IOC once again wish to risk a financially doubtful and irresponsible bid? The Rome City Council had to be bailed out by the central government. Talking of which, given Italy's volatile climate, it's far from assured that Prime Minister Renzi will not crash and burn politically - and be forced to abandon the Rome bid by the resurgent Five-Star movement of comedian Beppe Grillo. Expect more discussions about how the IOC is detached from reality, letting hard-working Italians pick up the tab for the Rome elite's little party and populists to get increasingly stronger. And an image loss in Europe, where bids are already declining.

In an opinion poll, 60% of Italians stated that the country cannot pull off the Olympic Games.

Finally, the IOC has tended to favour politically economically resurgent countries for the Summer Olympics:

  • Seoul 1988: politically stable (military dictatorship) and great economic performance
  • Barcelona 1992: successful transition to democracy with a stable government and fresh entry into the European Community and influx of cash
  • Atlanta 1996: The Bush recession hadn't begun yet, America at height of its international recognition after the end of the Cold War, a big TV market
  • Sydney 2000: Prime Minister Keating had just been re-elected for an unprecedented fourth term for the ALP and was an avowed supporter of the Sydney bid. Plus, major concerns about China's human rights record (Tienamen Square etc), with the Australian economy emerging from recession
  • Athens 2004: The notable exception. Why? Because Greece underreported its debt figures; Plus, the country was "owed" the Olympic Games after the Centennial Games ended up in Atlanta's camp
  • Beijing 2008: Politically very stable (nothing more stable than an autocratic dictatorship), on the ascent (Hong Kong and Macau returned, world forgetting about Tienamen) and economically rising
  • London 2012: Despite the Iraq War, Blair's name still had a "pull" with the IOC, the UK economy was doing rather well, a strong pound sterling, plus better economic performance than EU; combine that with Chirac's comments and Paris' technically perfect, but soulless management of its bid, and you got London 2012
  • Rio 2016: Brazil one of the BRICS countries; young population; economy and social inequality were less of an issue than they are today;
  • Tokyo 2020: Whatever you might say about the whole Fukushima thing, within a weak field (a disastrously positioned Istanbul bid and a financially untenable Madrid one), Tokyo still had the strongest cards to play

No financial stability, no political stability and no image gain - there are more reliable candidates, in Europe and elsewhere. Bach would have to be seriously desperate to seriously (beyond politeness for the cameras) entertain the idea of Rome 2024. Considering the IOC's emphasis on sustainability (re: Agenda 2020), Rome should be completely, utterly dead-on-arrival.

PARIS: Won't bid, according to Mayor Hidalgo. I take her at her word, especially as President Hollande's popularity was in the toilet prior to Charlie Hebdo (granted, there has been an upswing to 40% after the attacks - but the numbers are likely to drop off after the period of national mourning is over) and his support of the bid looks like a desperate attempt to distract from disastrously high unemployment rate, a major economic crisis and the country's growing debt. France has no narrative of aspiration or growth to offer to the IOC.

DOHA: Two words: Qatar 2022. Three more words: FIFA World Cup. One more word. Corruption. The atrocious climate aside, the horrific reputation of Qatar in regard to treatment of its guest workers, its location on the perennially unstable Arabian peninsula and issues with things like beverages, dietary requirements, dress codes and the like (can you imagine the Qataris standing for beach volleyball played in the type of skimpy attire regularly featured in the Olympics?) make Qatar a no-go. Forget it. Plus, the Middle East isn't exactly a growth market right now.

ISTANBUL: Syria's proximity kills any chances of the IOC contemplating another bid. Oh, and Prime Minister Erdogan - apart from being a religious zealot, a historical revisionist and authoritarian who refers to protestors as "terrorists", the kind of country he is turning Turkey is about to hand over its greatest unique selling point: being a bridge between West and East.

GERMANY: Strong and best-performing economy in the Eurozone; scheduled to balance its budget this year (ahead of schedule), inflation relatively low; unemployment at a low 5%; strong Olympic tradition (to be fair, just like France and Italy); Minus points: Mass media tends to focus on risks of projects; white elephants of Athens and Beijing have been registered; plus, TV channels adopted a rather moralizing (and frankly, annoying) social commentary on Sochi and Beijing; every small decision (like Games Lanes) etc would be dissected into oblivion; Count on populist movements from right and left to condemn any Olympics bid as being part of a major plot by corporatists to consolidate their evil power (I know, I'm exaggerating - but you get the drift)

BERLIN: The population there doesn't really back the bid (47% are already against it, and that's prior to any discussion). The city is structurally left-wing in its politics, which makes a bid even less likely (that's a fact of life; Germany's Greens are naturally opposed to anything that smells of "international corporations" or "big business" - as is the country's Left Party); no real industry or commerce of note (most corporate headquarters are in Munich, Frankfurt or Hamburg); massive public debt, huge welfare rolls, structurally high unemployment; scepticism towards new construction projects after the city government bungled the construction of the international airport; plus guaranteed resentment against the capital from the rest of the country; given that the mayor has already announced that a public referendum will take place, Berlin (despite its technical strengths) is dead on arrival. The last time Berlin ran a bid, the federal government only lukewarmly supported it. I wrote about the Berlin v Hamburg issue almost three years ago - and I believe it's still valid.

HAMBURG: Strong middle class, prosperous city (with one of the highest per capita GDPs in Germany) where Social Democrats might as well be conservatives. Broad support exceeding 70%; drawback: those guys bungled the construction of their Philharmonic; here too, a referendum might derail the bid - but based on opinion poll has a better chance at winning. Intriguing idea of Games by the sea.

BOSTON: I firmly believe that it's not the best foot America could have put forward...

One more strong point about Germany: Its infrastructure (roads, railways, airports) is first-class...Rome's - not so much, if you believe Romans

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a strong bid maybe, you could win. If your team is not strong since the beginning, you can't win and Paris is not strong enough for this battle.

Right, you mean like Annecy's 2018 bid? Yet you were all over that one. Go figure.

Paris in any given bid race would be in a much better position than Annecy could've ever hoped for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BOSTON: I firmly believe that it's not the best foot America could have put forward...

From an outside, international non-bias viewpoint, many would say that about Hamburg as well. In a race without Paris & South Africa, & the big candidates left (from a NOC standpoint) are Boston, Hamburg & a relatively weak Rome bid, I would then liken Boston chances a lot more.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my two cents - for the purposes of full disclosure, I support the Hamburg bid. Nonetheless, I'd like to think that I can evaluate the merits of each potential bid quite objectively.

ROME: I know there's always talk of Rome being a viable Olympic City. It's not, despite the Coliseum, St Peter's, the beautiful piazzas and its rich history. Italy's citizens have much bigger worries to fight with right now, including a weak and inflexible economy which could tip into disaster at any stage. Italy's debt is catastrophically high (whilst having an economy eight times the size of Greece's), there are doubts about its ability to retain the Euro (and conversely, debates about the return of the lira), its economy projected to contract (instead of growing), its long-term credit rating cut and unemployment at 13% (youth unemployment being 43%).

After the last Olympic Games in a Mediterranean country (Greece), in which it is now established consensus that Athens 2004 accelerated the country's debt burden and economic decline (and subsequent de facto fiscal administration from Brussels), would the IOC once again wish to risk a financially doubtful and irresponsible bid? The Rome City Council had to be bailed out by the central government. Talking of which, given Italy's volatile climate, it's far from assured that Prime Minister Renzi will not crash and burn politically - and be forced to abandon the Rome bid by the resurgent Five-Star movement of comedian Beppe Grillo. Expect more discussions about how the IOC is detached from reality, letting hard-working Italians pick up the tab for the Rome elite's little party and populists to get increasingly stronger. And an image loss in Europe, where bids are already declining.

In an opinion poll, 60% of Italians stated that the country cannot pull off the Olympic Games.

Finally, the IOC has tended to favour politically economically resurgent countries for the Summer Olympics:

  • Seoul 1988: politically stable (military dictatorship) and great economic performance
  • Barcelona 1992: successful transition to democracy with a stable government and fresh entry into the European Community and influx of cash
  • Atlanta 1996: The Bush recession hadn't begun yet, America at height of its international recognition after the end of the Cold War, a big TV market
  • Sydney 2000: Prime Minister Keating had just been re-elected for an unprecedented fourth term for the ALP and was an avowed supporter of the Sydney bid. Plus, major concerns about China's human rights record (Tienamen Square etc), with the Australian economy emerging from recession
  • Athens 2004: The notable exception. Why? Because Greece underreported its debt figures; Plus, the country was "owed" the Olympic Games after the Centennial Games ended up in Atlanta's camp
  • Beijing 2008: Politically very stable (nothing more stable than an autocratic dictatorship), on the ascent (Hong Kong and Macau returned, world forgetting about Tienamen) and economically rising
  • London 2012: Despite the Iraq War, Blair's name still had a "pull" with the IOC, the UK economy was doing rather well, a strong pound sterling, plus better economic performance than EU; combine that with Chirac's comments and Paris' technically perfect, but soulless management of its bid, and you got London 2012
  • Rio 2016: Brazil one of the BRICS countries; young population; economy and social inequality were less of an issue than they are today;
  • Tokyo 2020: Whatever you might say about the whole Fukushima thing, within a weak field (a disastrously positioned Istanbul bid and a financially untenable Madrid one), Tokyo still had the strongest cards to play
No financial stability, no political stability and no image gain - there are more reliable candidates, in Europe and elsewhere. Bach would have to be seriously desperate to seriously (beyond politeness for the cameras) entertain the idea of Rome 2024. Considering the IOC's emphasis on sustainability (re: Agenda 2020), Rome should be completely, utterly dead-on-arrival.

PARIS: Won't bid, according to Mayor Hidalgo. I take her at her word, especially as President Hollande's popularity was in the toilet prior to Charlie Hebdo (granted, there has been an upswing to 40% after the attacks - but the numbers are likely to drop off after the period of national mourning is over) and his support of the bid looks like a desperate attempt to distract from disastrously high unemployment rate, a major economic crisis and the country's growing debt. France has no narrative of aspiration or growth to offer to the IOC.

DOHA: Two words: Qatar 2022. Three more words: FIFA World Cup. One more word. Corruption. The atrocious climate aside, the horrific reputation of Qatar in regard to treatment of its guest workers, its location on the perennially unstable Arabian peninsula and issues with things like beverages, dietary requirements, dress codes and the like (can you imagine the Qataris standing for beach volleyball played in the type of skimpy attire regularly featured in the Olympics?) make Qatar a no-go. Forget it. Plus, the Middle East isn't exactly a growth market right now.

ISTANBUL: Syria's proximity kills any chances of the IOC contemplating another bid. Oh, and Prime Minister Erdogan - apart from being a religious zealot, a historical revisionist and authoritarian who refers to protestors as "terrorists", the kind of country he is turning Turkey is about to hand over its greatest unique selling point: being a bridge between West and East.

GERMANY: Strong and best-performing economy in the Eurozone; scheduled to balance its budget this year (ahead of schedule), inflation relatively low; unemployment at a low 5%; strong Olympic tradition (to be fair, just like France and Italy); Minus points: Mass media tends to focus on risks of projects; white elephants of Athens and Beijing have been registered; plus, TV channels adopted a rather moralizing (and frankly, annoying) social commentary on Sochi and Beijing; every small decision (like Games Lanes) etc would be dissected into oblivion; Count on populist movements from right and left to condemn any Olympics bid as being part of a major plot by corporatists to consolidate their evil power (I know, I'm exaggerating - but you get the drift)

BERLIN: The population there doesn't really back the bid (47% are already against it, and that's prior to any discussion). The city is structurally left-wing in its politics, which makes a bid even less likely (that's a fact of life; Germany's Greens are naturally opposed to anything that smells of "international corporations" or "big business" - as is the country's Left Party); no real industry or commerce of note (most corporate headquarters are in Munich, Frankfurt or Hamburg); massive public debt, huge welfare rolls, structurally high unemployment; scepticism towards new construction projects after the city government bungled the construction of the international airport; plus guaranteed resentment against the capital from the rest of the country; given that the mayor has already announced that a public referendum will take place, Berlin (despite its technical strengths) is dead on arrival. The last time Berlin ran a bid, the federal government only lukewarmly supported it. I wrote about the Berlin v Hamburg issue almost three years ago - and I believe it's still valid.

HAMBURG: Strong middle class, prosperous city (with one of the highest per capita GDPs in Germany) where Social Democrats might as well be conservatives. Broad support exceeding 70%; drawback: those guys bungled the construction of their Philharmonic; here too, a referendum might derail the bid - but based on opinion poll has a better chance at winning. Intriguing idea of Games by the sea.

BOSTON: I firmly believe that it's not the best foot America could have put forward...

One more strong point about Germany: Its infrastructure (roads, railways, airports) is first-class...Rome's - not so much, if you believe Romans

Pretty much agree about Rome, but think you underestimate the possibility of Paris bidding - I'm not counting it out yet, and while it would be an obvious sentimental fave, it would have its own economic/political problems too. As for Germany, I think I replied to another message of yours recently, so you know that I don't share your Hamburg enthusiasm, but we'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm too lazy to write a long posts full of linky facts...

Well, I didn't want to be accused of just making statements without backing them up...no need to get all snarky about it.

...the Olympic movement is a heck of a lot of trouble.

Not exactly. The Olympic Movement still has a decent range of choices, including authoritarian dictatorships and stable democracies with a stronger economic record ready to take up the baton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better get use to it. Snarky is that posters middle name.

Then "Details" quite clearly is mine... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't want to be accused of just making statements without backing them up...no need to get all snarky about it.

Not exactly. The Olympic Movement still has a decent range of choices, including authoritarian dictatorships and stable democracies with a stronger economic record ready to take up the baton.

True. Remember, since 2000, only 3 Olympics have been held in non-democratic Countries.

London 2012 = Democratic Country.

Sydney 2000 = Democratic Country.

Salt Lake City 2002 = Democratic Country.

Athens 2004 = Democratic Country.

Turin 2006 = Democratic Country.

Vancouver 2010 = Democratic Country.

Rio 2016 = Democratic Country.

PyeongChang 2018 = Democratic Country.

Tokyo 2020 = Democratic Country.

Only Beijing 2008, Sochi 2014 and probably Beijing 2022 are non-democracies. Almaty is a non-democracy too.

So the IOC has a majority of democratic hosts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, you mean like Annecy's 2018 bid? Yet you were all over that one. Go figure.

Paris in any given bid race would be in a much better position than Annecy could've ever hoped for.

Annecy remains a better choice than PC. PC will be the biggest fail in the IOC history. Mark my words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Annecy remains a better choice than PC. PC will be the biggest fail in the IOC history. Mark my words.

Considering the level to which past predictions and opinions are held against posters here, you're going to look really ridiculous if PC is anything but the biggest fail in the history of the IOC.

Just out of curiousity, what is currently the biggest fail in IOC history? What's the benchmark that you believe PC will pass?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the level to which past predictions and opinions are held against posters here, you're going to look really ridiculous if PC is anything but the biggest fail in the history of the IOC.

Just out of curiousity, what is currently the biggest fail in IOC history? What's the benchmark that you believe PC will pass?

As I said, my vote is for the '40 WOG. Cutting and pasting from wikipedia:

Sapporo was selected to be the host of the fifth edition of the Winter Olympics, scheduled February 3–12, 1940, but Japan gave the Games back to the IOC in July 1938, after the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. The IOC then decided to give the Winter Olympics to St Moritz, Switzerland, which had hosted it in 1928. However, due to controversies between the Swiss organizing team and the IOC, the Games were withdrawn again.In the spring of 1939, the IOC gave the 1940 Winter Olympics, now scheduled for February 2–11, to Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, where the previous 1936 Games had been held. Three months later, Germany invaded Poland, on September 1, to ignite World War II and the Winter Games were cancelled in November.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, my vote is for the '40 WOG. Cutting and pasting from wikipedia:

Sapporo was selected to be the host of the fifth edition of the Winter Olympics, scheduled February 3–12, 1940, but Japan gave the Games back to the IOC in July 1938, after the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. The IOC then decided to give the Winter Olympics to St Moritz, Switzerland, which had hosted it in 1928. However, due to controversies between the Swiss organizing team and the IOC, the Games were withdrawn again.In the spring of 1939, the IOC gave the 1940 Winter Olympics, now scheduled for February 2–11, to Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, where the previous 1936 Games had been held. Three months later, Germany invaded Poland, on September 1, to ignite World War II and the Winter Games were cancelled in November.

Giving the games to Germany as a replacement would have been FAR worse, especially since the Nazi regime has been in full effect and active for years since then.

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...