Jump to content

Recommended Posts

IMO, if Paris gets in he race with a decent bid, it will be the one to beat. It would easily wipe away Boston, Hamburg, Rome and Durban. Easily. The only competition I could see for Paris would be if Germany selects Berlin over Hamburg and the IOC allowed itself to be swept up in some kind of reunification nostalgia. (Perhaps nostalgia's not the right word).

Too presumptuous here again, especially when using the word "easily". Since the only city I can see giving Paris a good run for its money is one from South Africa. I'd dare say moreso than even Berlin could.

I wouldn't underestimate the IOC's 'desire' (which they've demonstrated within the last few years) to be able to finally take the Games to the last continent that's yet to host them. All they would need to look for is a 'credible' opportunity to finally do so.

  • Like 1
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.

So who do you think 2024 will go to that Paris is against tougher competition? That's where I have to question your mindset. 2024 is going to be tougher than 1992 when the election was all but rigged for Barcelona? Tougher than 2008 when they were up against Beijing off their close 2000 loss? Tougher than 2012 when they went up against their big European rival and, as Rob noted, lost by a very small margin?

I get the frustration and anger that come from having lost so many times and now going on a century that Paris hasn't hosted. I get the animosity towards the IOC where the Olympics are a costly endeavor and it's easy to say it's a bad decision to pursue it. But don't go so far as to say that Paris shouldn't go after 2024 becayse they're not going to get it. You don't think Paris can beat Boston? Rome? Berlin/Hamburg? Is it because of who is involved with the Paris bid and you think they're holding Paris back? Or are you legitimately concerned that any or all of those cities stand a better chance at landing the Olympics.

Will all respect, I do no really get the way you see things either (but we dont have to agree, do we).

No, I do not think that the 2024 games will return once more to Europe after the IOC already chose to return to Europe immediately after Athens 04' and Beijing 08', leaving other continents aside.

Taking heed of this fact, no, I do not think that following London 12', Rio 16', and Tokyo 22', the IOC will once more choose to get back to Europe, and once more push aside North America or Africa.

I do not think that the 2024 games will go to a city that's 200 miles away (and 2 hours by train) from the place that hosted them in 2012.

On the other hand, I do think that there's a real appeal in making the first African games and that the United States can really play their card too.

My points may not sound logical or relevant to you, but they are obvious to me.

Don't give us the line that Paris couldn't get it done in their first 3 attempts, so why should the 4th try be any different.

That's what I think though.

For all that, yes, the competition will be tougher than in 2012; and for people in our country with no memory and naive enough to use the argument "it'll be our 4th one so this time...We're finally gonna get it!!" which was something that was already said in Singapore back in 2005, is just lamentable and dispiriting.

But I can show them places in Paris selling whips and handcuffs if humiliation's really what they're into...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only tow reasons why the IOC won't pick America for their 2024 is because 1) Rio 2016 is games being held in America (the continent), and 2) Boston has a weak bid, there's too much too be built, too many temporary venues (talk about legacy!).

Africa is NOT ready for Olympic Games, but they willl be soon. If Durban hosts the Commonwealth Games (and they're they only bidders so far), they won't host 2024.

Oceania, there's not much to chose from there. It's Australia, and I don't think they're planning on bidding for 2024 (And Sydney 2000 wasn't that long ago).

Paris 2024 will be a strong and safe bid. Beijing, Sotchi, Rio were not. And it started the decaying of the Olympics image. Picking Tokyo was chosing safety, so I understand the IOC might take risks for 2024, but I really don't think they will.

Berlin will be the strongest competitor. But I hope that the IOC will remember the last time Germany and France hosted Summer Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

paris-2024-sites-ile-de-france.png?w=600

For those wondering what are the planned existing and soon to be venues.

It's important to remind how the "'Grand Paris" will have its importance in this bid: basically, this project is to increase the transportation system in and around Paris. The current problem with Paris is that it's really easy to get from the suburb to Paris, but getting from somewhere in the suburb to another part of the suburb is almost impossible without travelling through Paris. So between now and 2030, Paris will be building 4 new metro lines that will solve that major issue. Those lines you can see in orange on the map. I'm talking about his because some venues will be outside Paris. And this is why Paris 2024 will be improved upon Paris 2012.

F**** all the French pessimists, I'm excited about Paris 2024!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some reason why Paris shouldn't bid :

Firstly the economic trouble in France are against a bid, we try to reduce spending, SoG will be very expensive, more than politics expect.

Public support is low, people are angry against french government, and for french a bid from Paris will be a political bid, the opposition will be strong.

Paris Mayor is not in favor, if she says "yes" it will be after political pressure. Now she has changed only because F.Holland said he wanted SoG.

It's already a political bid and it was a mistake for Paris 2012. Since the beginning we never heard sportsmen about this bid, only political.

Paris should do a public vote like Munich.

USA payed a lot for the TV rights, USA lost with New York and Chicago, USA is the main partner for IOC and IOC can't piss off USA another time.

Everything is against a bid from Paris. Lot of people here speak without to know how is the economic and political situation in France... Paris should wait.

Hidalgo (Mayor of Paris) already said yes, she just wants a sustainable model for the games which is perfectly possible given Paris does not have a dearth of existing venues. And if everyone is against the bid then why are polls showing 60%-70% support?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will all respect, I do no really get the way you see things either (but we dont have to agree, do we).

No, I do not think that the 2024 games will return once more to Europe after the IOC already chose to return to Europe immediately after Athens 04' and Beijing 08', leaving other continents aside.

Taking heed of this fact, no, I do not think that following London 12', Rio 16', and Tokyo 22', the IOC will once more choose to get back to Europe, and once more push aside North America or Africa.

I do not think that the 2024 games will go to a city that's 200 miles away (and 2 hours by train) from the place that hosted them in 2012.

On the other hand, I do think that there's a real appeal in making the first African games and that the United States can really play their card too.

My points may not sound logical or relevant to you, but they are obvious to me.

That's what I think though.

For all that, yes, the competition will be tougher than in 2012; and for people in our country with no memory and naive enough to use the argument "it'll be our 4th one so this time...We're finally gonna get it!!" which was something that was already said in Singapore back in 2005, is just lamentable and dispiriting.

But I can show them places in Paris selling whips and handcuffs if humiliation's really what they're into...

See here's what I don't get..

I do understand your logic and the concerns you're raising. And I totally understand why you don't want to see Paris take another shot. But I think you take it a little too far where you say how another Paris bid would be incorrigible, naive, and stupid. And that they're setting themselves up for disappointment again if they bid. Yea, they might lose again. Winning a vote to host an Olympics isn't easy though. It's supposed to be hard. That shouldn't dissuade them from trying if they think they can put a good bid together. You mention the disappointment from losing the 2012 vote.. again, it's not like London was significantly better. 50 out of 104 voters picked Paris. Swing a couple of those votes over and Paris wins it. Sure that was discouraging, but contrast that to the 2 US bids, one of which was the first city eliminated, and the other might have been the first out if not for some sympathy votes. So whose country has more reason to be discouraged?

You say you don't think the Olympics will return to Europe for 2024. But this is still the Euro-centric IOC we're talking about. They've never gone more than 10 years without an Olympics in Europe. They have never gone more than 3 cycles without a Summer Olympics in Europe. 1 or both of those trends will get broken eventually, but I don't think this will be it. Boston can certainly make a decent case. South Africa maybe, although they have to bid in the first time and I said in another thread I don't think this cycle sets up well for them.

So yea, let's agree to disagree on this one. I still think you're looking at this from the standpoint from someone who has been jaded by Paris's losses and it weary of them trying again and potentially losing. But that's no reason to be afraid of bidding. If South Africa sits out this cycle and comes back with a 2028 bid, that could be a tougher one to win than this one. And especially if another European city like Rome or Berlin/Hamburg comes in and wins 2024, then Paris might really have to wait a while before they're in a position to win again. Based on that, I think they'd be wise to put forth a 2024 bid (if they think they have something they can win with) and would have more regrets about not entering a race they could have won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I do think that there's a real appeal in making the first African games and that the United States can really play their card too.

The new stadiums South Africa built for the World Cup sit nearly empty. Durban's football team averages 6,375 attendance per match in a 54,000 capacity stadium. South Africans are angry that money was diverted from education and jobs for the poor to a tournament that benefited foreign multinational corporations. It seems very unlikely that they are going to want to be gouged by the IOC after seeing FIFA do the same thing to them.

Boston's people are only in favor of hosting the Olympics if it doesn't cost them taxpayer money. Since there's a 0% chance the Olympics will be funded without government money, that means Boston will only host if 1) politicians refuse to allow a referendum or 2) people in Boston are tricked into believing the Olympics can be hosted in their city without billions of dollars in taxes.

There is never going to be a certain chance for Paris. But this is as weak a field of competition as Paris will face in a long time. If France wants the Olympics this is the time to bid.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also get the feeling after the 2022 debacle getting continental Europe back on board is a more urgent priority than giving it to the US. The TV deal is in place now so I think the US will get one of the next three Summer Games that makes up the duration of that deal, but the urgency is not there any more.

The fact that Durban is getting the 2022 CWGs means I think the IOC will feel they now have an opportunity to assess that city as it prepares for another event. If Durban bids for '24 (which would be far from certain if they're trying to host the CWGs) I think the IOC might treat it as a warm-up bid and encourage them to go again.

If preparations look like they're going swimmingly, then awarding Durban 2028 before they'e hosted the CWGs could be possible. If they struggle, maybe 2028 goes to the US and the IOC waits for Durban to actually host to decide whether to take them on for 2032.

Things are falling into place for that kind of timeline I think, IF and only IF Europe puts in a strong city for 2024.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like 2024 is for Europe because then it's going to be America (probably the US), Africa, Oceania, and Asia. So, 2024 is Europe, and next time they will host the games probably won't be before 2040.... And that's why so many European cities will be biding for 2024.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also get the feeling after the 2022 debacle getting continental Europe back on board is a more urgent priority than giving it to the US. The TV deal is in place now so I think the US will get one of the next three Summer Games that makes up the duration of that deal, but the urgency is not there any more.

The fact that Durban is getting the 2022 CWGs means I think the IOC will feel they now have an opportunity to assess that city as it prepares for another event. If Durban bids for '24 (which would be far from certain if they're trying to host the CWGs) I think the IOC might treat it as a warm-up bid and encourage them to go again.

If preparations look like they're going swimmingly, then awarding Durban 2028 before they'e hosted the CWGs could be possible. If they struggle, maybe 2028 goes to the US and the IOC waits for Durban to actually host to decide whether to take them on for 2032.

Things are falling into place for that kind of timeline I think, IF and only IF Europe puts in a strong city for 2024.

Agree with all of this. As much as we look at the 2022 situation and say it's desperate times for the IOC, really that only applies to 1 continent. Asia hasn't shied away from bidding. The USOC has jumped headfirst into the 2024 race. South America is obviously out of the mix for at least a little while. And Africa is biding there time.

So then there's Europe. Understandable that the candidate cities were few and far between for 2016 and 2020. But considering all the cities/countries that got scared away for 2022, is the IOC ready to reject them when they're in the race for 2024, particularly if there's a big name candidate in there? I'm confident the USOC will bounce back, perhaps with a new city, should they lose this one. Africa is going to be there eventually. The safe pick for them IMO (and I believe that's what they'll be looking for this time around) is to go with Europe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

F**** all the French pessimists, I'm excited about Paris 2024!!

You do a mistake when you think French are pessimists. Paris can win, of course.

But french people don't want wast public money for SoG. Everybody know that impossible to earn money with SoG, there is always a debt for the city or the country who host games.

The second point is about IOC. You said Paris bid is not very expensive, maybe.

But since a lot of years it's always the most expensive bid which is chosen. 2008 Pekin, 2012 London, 2014 Sotchi, 2016 Rio, 2018 Peyonchang, the only exception was Tokyo which was less expensive than Istanbul but more than Madrid. But it was the asian turn, Istanbul and Madrid are in Europe and it was too soon after London.

Boston will be more expensive than Paris, probably, we don't know yet. But it's not a problem for IOC, moreover France, USA, Germany or Italia are very safe host for IOC, IOC won't have trouble if they give SoG to one of these countries.

IOC will give this game to USA, I'm pretty sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do a mistake when you think French are pessimists. Paris can win, of course.

But french people don't want wast public money for SoG. Everybody know that impossible to earn money with SoG, there is always a debt for the city or the country who host games.

The second point is about IOC. You said Paris bid is not very expensive, maybe.

But since a lot of years it's always the most expensive bid which is chosen. 2008 Pekin, 2012 London, 2014 Sotchi, 2016 Rio, 2018 Peyonchang, the only exception was Tokyo which was less expensive than Istanbul but more than Madrid. But it was the asian turn, Istanbul and Madrid are in Europe and it was too soon after London.

Boston will be more expensive than Paris, probably, we don't know yet. But it's not a problem for IOC, moreover France, USA, Germany or Italia are very safe host for IOC, IOC won't have trouble if they give SoG to one of these countries.

IOC will give this game to USA, I'm pretty sure.

Do you understand that that's EXACTLY how people in Boston feel about the Olympics? And it's where their support comes into question? The folks leading Boston's committee keep saying how no public funds will be used and if they could stick to that promise, most people in Boston would be in favor of the Olympics. But if there is public money used, and there's a pretty good chance that's going to happen, then the people won't be as much behind it. So if you're going to continue to make the case for Boston over Paris, be mindful of the fact that the argument you're making that Paris either shouldn't bid for the Olympics or that they might not win could also apply to Boston.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do a mistake when you think French are pessimists. Paris can win, of course.

But french people don't want wast public money for SoG. Everybody know that impossible to earn money with SoG, there is always a debt for the city or the country who host games.

Wat. I think that is exactly what a French pessimist would sound like...
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also get the feeling after the 2022 debacle getting continental Europe back on board is a more urgent priority than giving it to the US. The TV deal is in place now so I think the US will get one of the next three Summer Games that makes up the duration of that deal, but the urgency is not there any more.

The fact that Durban is getting the 2022 CWGs means I think the IOC will feel they now have an opportunity to assess that city as it prepares for another event. If Durban bids for '24 (which would be far from certain if they're trying to host the CWGs) I think the IOC might treat it as a warm-up bid and encourage them to go again.

If preparations look like they're going swimmingly, then awarding Durban 2028 before they'e hosted the CWGs could be possible. If they struggle, maybe 2028 goes to the US and the IOC waits for Durban to actually host to decide whether to take them on for 2032.

Things are falling into place for that kind of timeline I think, IF and only IF Europe puts in a strong city for 2024.

I agree 100% (or close to it). Earlier I essentially said that 2024 was Paris' to lose and was met with skepticism. You said it better than I did.

Regardless of the lure of a Durban bid, the IOC will feel the need to shore up its base in 2024, whether that be the Europe or the US. A strong European or American bid in 2024 will be far more desirable to the IOC than anything South Africa can pull off. I am fully confident that if Paris bids, they will win and will do so by a long shot. Durban would be a speed bump on the path to Stade de France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wat. I think that is exactly what a French pessimist would sound like...

That's not pessimistic. It's a simple fact.

But London also lost money and the people don't regret it there because they had a reasonable plan for the legacy of the Olympics. Paris should be cheaper than London. And if France handles it wisely -for example, hiring the unemployed from Paris' banlieues for construction and service jobs- it could help heal some of the current social problems in France and help bring the country closer together.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not pessimistic. It's a simple fact.

But London also lost money and the people don't regret it there because they had a reasonable plan for the legacy of the Olympics. Paris should be cheaper than London. And if France handles it wisely -for example, hiring the unemployed from Paris' banlieues for construction and service jobs- it could help heal some of the current social problems in France and help bring the country closer together.

Fair enough but I'm pretty sure their definitions of "pessimist" are quite different in regards of a French bid.

Different from each other, I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the organizers may not make money from the games, but the city does. Pick up in tourism, increased international exposure, etc. It all happened in London and as far as my knowledge goes, Paris and France marketing themselves internationally would go a long way in picking your economy up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the organizers may not make money from the games, but the city does. Pick up in tourism, increased international exposure, etc. It all happened in London and as far as my knowledge goes, Paris and France marketing themselves internationally would go a long way in picking your economy up.

Paris doesn't need SoG to be the first touristic destination. It's already the first... And for the international exposure, I think it's not a problem for Paris.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris doesn't need SoG to be the first touristic destination. It's already the first... And for the international exposure, I think it's not a problem for Paris.

Kind of agree with the stereotypical pessimistic frog.. I mean french sorry.

If Paris wants the summer Olympics it would be more for self gratification than gain any type of touristic exposure. It's already heavily touristed, with such iconic landmarks like the Eiffel Tower and L'arc d'triomphe (sorry if I butchered that). And of course you have world-renowned like the Louvre and Musee d'Orsay that are jampacked with people. So on the tourism side, Paris has nothing to gain from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the organizers may not make money from the games, but the city does. Pick up in tourism, increased international exposure, etc. It all happened in London and as far as my knowledge goes, Paris and France marketing themselves internationally would go a long way in picking your economy up.

It's the other way around. Los Angeles' organizing committee made money, but it's unlikely any city has ever made money.

1) All of the last six summer Olympic hosts have lost tourists the year they hosted.

2) Olympic fans tend to spend less money than the normal tourists and business travelers they displace because they have already been gouged on inflated flight and hotel rates.

3) Most retailers in the host city experience only a moderate if any increase in sales since the Olympic fans spend their money on Olympic merchandise instead of the normal shops.

4) There's no evidence that people go to Olympic host cities simply because they hosted the Olympics. It's not like Atlanta has become a major tourist destination since they hosted. Barcelona is probably the only example of a city using the Olympics to become a tourist hotspot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barcelona is probably the only example of a city using the Olympics to become a tourist hotspot.

They've definitely benefited the most tourist-wise for being an Olympic host, so much so that I think reports are saying that Barcelona has overtaken Madrid as the most touristed city in Spain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've definitely benefited the most tourist-wise for being an Olympic host, so much so that I think reports are saying that Barcelona has overtaken Madrid as the most touristed city in Spain.

I visited Barcelona 2 summers ago. Probably my favorite city in Europe. From what I understand, many locals there don't like the fact the city has become such a tourist magnet. To them, the tourists have taken over. As a stereotypical American tourist, that's fine by me, but I see where that would bother some longtime residents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris doesn't need SoG to be the first touristic destination. It's already the first... And for the international exposure, I think it's not a problem for Paris.

Actually London is the first and one of the most powerful cities in the world. Maybe it's just coincidence, but London has consistently ranked as No. 1 since 2012. So to say Paris would not benefit would be false because they are no longer on top. Another thing, the UK has overtaken the French economy since 2012 and I'm sure the Olympics helped with that (aside from better economic policies).

The point I'm trying to make is that the Olympics are by themselves not something that makes money, but the coverage of the Olympics and of the city they are held in put the city on peoples minds. It shows that the cities are still exciting and vibrant places and if the regular, ordinary, person has Paris on their minds you can bet businesses will too. The common people come to tour and see the city they fell in love with on their TV screens, businesses come because they want to capitalize on the new exposure.

It is something that has worked for nearly every Olympic city. Whether it be Barcelona and Sydney, or Atlanta and London all cities have seen some type of economic benefit from hosting. The Olympics provide a month long exposure to 7 billion people around the world, to think that will not help the host city in the slightest way is utterly ridiculous.

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...