Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think that's the case with many countries which mainly has one central city, ie Toronto/Canada - Oslo/Norway, etc. Eventually though, the bigger picture should prevail.

I can understand the line of thinking where those in France outside of Paris might not have the highest opinion of Paris and perhaps don't want to see an effort on behalf of the country focus solely on the city. But they need to get over it. If France is going to win a Summer Olympics bid, it needs to focus on Paris. Outside perceptions aside, there is no #2 city in France that likely to stand a chance in a serious competition like there might be in other countries.

  • 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.

It's also the best way to give legitimacy to naysayers, NIMBYs and antagonists who would hate the Olympic Games - no matter how many concessions were made.

That said, the Paris mayoralty needs to be straight with voters about the costs, the fact that the Olympic Games never will generate permanent jobs or fix the economy. Provided they do so, and the plan from Le Parisien is for real (with the Stade de France as the anchor stadium to the Games), then the bid has a great chance to win. It's definitely my second choice after Hamburg!

The only scenario in such a complex undertaking in which a referendum makes sense is if the voters are asked a concrete question that goes beyond giving a blank cheque to the bid committee. Instead it could be something like: "Are you willing for the city of X to provide a guarantee of x amount of money, with the proviso that any additional revenue will have to be approved by another referendum?". Or stage referendums on specific venue designs: "Do you want the Olympic Stadium to have a capacity of 75,000 or 50,000?" etc.

A general "Do you want the Olympic Games?" opens any bid up to attack from ignorant and populist opponents without a clue of how complex such an endeavour is. That's why I'm not too enthusiastic about the Hamburg referendum - I'll only believe my country is applying when Hamburgers finally say "Yes" later this year...

I think that's exactly what we're seeing in Boston, too. The naysayers are bringing up specific questions and the Boston organizers aren't necessarily answering them. As much as you want to give voters a say, what helps the matters is expressing a strong message in the first place and what it is you're trying to accomplish. I think Paris can do that effectively without scaring people off. They need to talk about the benefits of hosting an Olympics (and there are benefits, even in spite of the costs and the risks) that will benefit your citizens, even if only indirectly. If they can sell that message, they'll be able to get people on board I think

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in a democratic country, if you want to bid without a public support it will be a big mistake.

There's a difference between having public support and holding a referendum that may not be a true reflection of what the public thinks. Because it's a lot easier to say you're against the Olympics because you're concerned with the risks and the costs than it is to say you're for the Olympics knowing the risks and the costs. To not have a referendum to gauge public support is not to assume that support isn't there

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the distance between the two furthest venues (the Saint-Quentin velodrome and the Tremblay en France colisée) is roughly 42 km. Not the most compact bid (but pretty much as compact as the 2012 bid), but it's not like it's massively spread out.

Exactly,,,in the supposed Agenda 2020 era of 'regional bids' and some are even talking of cross city and cross country bids, 42KMs is no longer a big distance. especially with the good metro/ rail network of Paris.

Really think if Paris ever wants the Games this is the one being handed to them on a Lois XlV Gold Platter....They have great sustainable Games like London, Sydney and Vancouver now as well to show them how a democracy can stage the Games in a Grand, memorable and affordable way.

A Paris Games would be FANTASTIQUE!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so excited by this development! I'll be there with tricolours on my cheeks and a slab of Brie in my baguette!

Can't help but feel Paris 2024 will compliment London 2012. Those cities have always been at parity in their greatness it only seems right to have Paris follow soon after. Enviable opportunity for Londoners to have the Olympics back on their doorstep.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The people of Paris have said yes, the President himself has said yes, surely it is but a mere formality for the CNOSF to now say yes and submit a bid to the IOC for what would be Paris' centennial Olympics!

Exciting times ahead! :)

Edited by Mainad
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in a democratic country, if you want to bid without a public support it will be a big mistake.

It does have public support. The opinion polls put support at 63% and isn't the whole entire point of having elected officials is so they can vote according to their constituents opinions so the public does not have to be consultative for everything? The representatives of the people of Paris have spoken, their vote is to bid.

I wonder if the USOC was holding on to the idea that Paris may not even bid...

Otherwise, OMG YAAAAAAS PARIS 2024 FTWWWWWW!!!1!1!1!!11

Okay, I'm done.

Or they are using Boston to test the waters and see if their relationship with the IOC has actually changed since 2009.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does have public support. The opinion polls put support at 63% and isn't the whole entire point of having elected officials is so they can vote according to their constituents opinions so the public does not have to be consultative for everything? The representatives of the people of Paris have spoken, their vote is to bid.

Or they are using Boston to test the waters and see if their relationship with the IOC has actually changed since 2009.

Boston can't complain with third place if its up against the likes of Rome, Paris or a South African city. A US bid is extremely compelling - but 2024 might just be (again) too early.

To be honest - The US should have bidded fro 2020. We knew early on that Durban or Paris were bidding, it was an open door. Sad, because we may be waiting on Chicago 2020 instead of Tokyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest - The US should have bidded fro 2020. We knew early on that Durban or Paris were bidding, it was an open door. Sad, because we may be waiting on Chicago 2020 instead of Tokyo.

If Chicago said "hell no" to 2024, what makes you think that they would've said yes to 2020 when the scars of 2016 were even more fresh. Not only that, we may have known that Paris & South Africa weren't gonna go after 2020 afterall, but the USOC still had the revenue deals hanging over their heads to work out with the IOC yet. I think a U.S. 2020 bid would've been in the same boat as this 2024 one but under more or less different circumstances.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If only they could do what China did and fake the results with 2022. B)

Again, repeating an unproven assertion doesn't make it more true, Darcy. You've essentially been saying in the 2022 thread that the Eval Commission and/or China must have conspired on the environmental figures - without any evidence to back your assertion up.

It really does no credit to your credibility when you keep restating baseless accusations without anything to prove them with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A US bid is extremely compelling - but 2024 might just be (again) too early.

A US bid is only compelling with the right city. If USOC wishes to present the IOC with another Atlanta-style comedy of errors, then I'm sure Bach & Co will just say: "Nah, we'll pass". Boston looks like it is devolving into just such a comedy of errors right now...

It does have public support. The opinion polls put support at 63% and isn't the whole entire point of having elected officials is so they can vote according to their constituents opinions so the public does not have to be consultative for everything? The representatives of the people of Paris have spoken, their vote is to bid.

That's all well and good in democratic theory, but the reality is that these representatives never campaigned on "We'll bring the Olympic Games to this city in 2024". So, it appears a bit sneering and easy to dismiss the voters in between elections - after all, the award of the Games would necessitate major investments in infrastructure (and the resulting inconvenience for commuters and other residents), spending on security, draconian intellectual property rules, inevitable spending on training facilities for the French team and so on...So, a legitimate case can be made for a referendum.

If the Paris 2024 bid makes its case well, the naysayers will shut up and remain confined to an ever-grumbling minority. However, if the bid leaders manage to f... a good thing up (and with respect, all it takes is one stupid statement or incident to alienate an entire bloc of IOC delegates), well, then the calls for a referendum might become more vociferous. I applaud Paris for not walking down the referendum path, but I'm uncertain that (right before a presidential and parliamentary election year) this is the politically most savvy approach to take.

I wonder if the USOC was holding on to the idea that Paris may not even bid...

No, I think USOC probably figured that the NBC broadcasting rights and the pull it has within the wider Olympic Movement would leave them in a prime spot to secure the Games. The problem is that they presented the IOC with a sub-par choice. I maintain my stance that a city like LA with instant name recognition, magnificent vistas, pop cultural influence and a solid sports tradition would have been better.

Exactly,,,in the supposed Agenda 2020 era of 'regional bids' and some are even talking of cross city and cross country bids, 42KMs is no longer a big distance. especially with the good metro/ rail network of Paris.

Really think if Paris ever wants the Games this is the one being handed to them on a Lois XlV Gold Platter....They have great sustainable Games like London, Sydney and Vancouver now as well to show them how a democracy can stage the Games in a Grand, memorable and affordable way.

A Paris Games would be FANTASTIQUE!

Agreed - except that Paris needs to seriously upgrade the RER network and deal with their labour relations...the air traffic control strike reminds us once more that without the backing of the trade unions (and therefore their silence and acquiescence), the IOC could run the risk of repeated delays because of "spontaneous strikes" and all the stuff we know from France (no offence to the French posters here). I absolutely agree with you on the capacity of a bid like Paris to host Olympic Games in a grand, memorable and sustainable manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading Le Monde: a budget of €6 billion looks, well, like a low estimate. I'm not quite convinced that infrastructure upgrades will only be €1.3 billion and Le Monde appears quite sceptical, too. Again, all I'm saying is that Hidalgo and her colleagues on the city council/bid committee need to be straight with Parisians (the statement equally applies for German politicians and the Hamburg bid) - otherwise, it's an unnecessary opening for Olympics opponents. I think the people are sufficiently grown-up to understand the costs of an Olympics, provided it's justified and given to them straight...


Here's that Le Monde article, for those who can speak French.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The non existing venues that will be built for the Games are the Aquatic Center. It will be built, whether Paris get the Games or not. What's also missing is small venues for indoor sports, the ones you have in general in "hall 1, hall 2, hall 3, etc." But since Paris has two massive Exhib Centers that could most definitely host those sports, basically there isn't much that needs to be built for those Games. Even the Grand Paris Express transportation system is planned regardless of the Games. The Games would simply boost the project and accelerate the construction.

Of course, the Athlete Village is what costs the most, but as they have planned it will be great to have it in the Saint Denis region. It's a great project to rehabilitate this area of Saint Denis and the north of Paris. When you arrive from the Charles De Gaulle airport and have to travel to Paris through this region it doesn't give quite a good impression. Time to change that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Le Monde has been against a bid since day 1 and remains so. They generally are against the IOC and the OG as a whole.

Maybe, but they do make legitimate points regarding the costing of the Games...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston can't complain with third place if its up against the likes of Rome, Paris or a South African city. A US bid is extremely compelling - but 2024 might just be (again) too early.

To be honest - The US should have bidded fro 2020. We knew early on that Durban or Paris were bidding, it was an open door. Sad, because we may be waiting on Chicago 2020 instead of Tokyo.

If 2024 is too early, why would 2020 have fared any better, particularly coming off of Rio 2016? Add to that the revenue deal issues as FYI brought up and it wasn't the right time. If we're talking about an open door, that's the 2022 Olympics. Hindsight being 20/20, who knew that all the European cities would have dropped out, but that's the Olympics the USOC could have landed. Then they could have sat out 2024 and 2028 and by 2032, they'd be in pretty decent position to jump back into the fray, difficult as it is to land a Summer Olympics so soon after a Winter Olympics

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but they do make legitimate points regarding the costing of the Games...

They are as legitimate to talk about the Games and the Olympic Movement as the Rodong Sinmum is to talk about the works of Adam Smith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are as legitimate to talk about the Games and the Olympic Movement as the Rodong Sinmum is to talk about the works of Adam Smith.

So, you dispute their point that there have been cost overruns in all Olympics in recent memory, even once we exclude Beijing as an outlier?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not disputing the fact that there has been cost overruns. I am disputing the fact that the comparison is valid. Paris has been preparing for the Games since 1986 (first bid) and most of the venues and facilities are already there. So a comparison with Athens or even London is not relevant. The potential cost overruns for the adaptation of existing facilities are far less important that for brand new venues.

As a thought exercise, let's assume that a classical cost overrun for the Games is 100 %, worst case, and that the cost overun risk on existing facilities is zero. If 3/4 of the venues are there, the 100 % applies only on 1/4 of the cost of the Games. So the real cost overrun risk would be 25%.

Edited by hektor
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a thought exercise, let's assume that a classical cost overrun for the Games is 100 %, worst case

In reality the average is 175%. The worst case has been 470% above budget (Montreal) and then 420% above budget (Sochi).

the cost overun risk on existing facilities is zero. If 3/4 of the venues are there, the 100 % applies only on 1/4 of the cost of the Games. So the real cost overrun risk would be 25%.

That would be true if the only cost of hosting the games were sporting venues. But billions of euros will also be spent on security, the village, international broadcast center, etc. And those are even more likely to go over budget than the stadiums and arenas.

Paris is likely to have much less money wasted than other cities. And I think it would probably be worth it to France for Paris to host. But the Olympics would still likely go 50% over budget and be very expensive even in Paris.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly: To assume that the Games will somehow pay for themselves or barely make a dent into Parisian finances is, respectfully, naive. Security, infrastructure upgrades, beautification measures (anyone who has some knowledge of the Saint-Denis area will agree that it's, politely phrased, a fairly challenging part of the Île-de-France, with skyrocketing crime and community relations being tense)...so yes, Paris 2024 will be anything other than a free ride.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question should be how much would Paris be willing to spend on these things to get them sorted without the Games.

Security is of course the unavoidable black hole but if regeneration of St Denis is needed and planned anyway, and if the instrastrcuture plans had been mooted before the Olympic bid, then the Olympics should be seen as an incentive to push these things forward, not seen as the cause of unwanted spending.

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...