Beijing/Zhangjiakou 2022

[mr.bernham]

That's not what the Olympic Rings represents, otherwise there would be more then 5 Rings. The IOC classifies Almaty as Asia.

Bottom line is, Almaty isn't Hosting for the reasons I said above.

Even then there are different regions of Asia like there are for Europe, Africa, Australia, and the Americas.

Heck, many US guys here want the games to go to a different domestic region as we have already had the games in the south and west. The games are all about exploring new cultures while building up international friendships through sport. That is what those rings represent.

[woohooitsme83]

That's not what the Olympic Rings represents, otherwise there would be more then 5 Rings. The IOC classifies Almaty as Asia.

Bottom line is, Almaty isn't Hosting for the reasons I said above.

Yes, the rings divide the continents, BUT there are subdivisions based on culture, geographic area, language etc. Might as well organize Europe and Asia and Africa in to Afro-Eurasia since they are all connected. Would a Korean Games have the same style as an Iranian Games? No. Are they both Asia? Yes.

[FYI]

Almaty has a lot of oil cash and is probably more desperately wanting it than Beijing.

...i should have said a LOT of oil cash.

...not that Beijing doesn't have loads of cash but who is more desperate to host, who is more desperate to climb onto the world stage, who has the most to prove?

But according to our wise one here, GCL (& a couple of others), Almaty would be a frugal games. That goes against "desperately wanting to climb onto the world stage". So what difference would it make then if they have A LOT of money to burn away, if that were the case.

[zekekelso]

Bernham: it's far from obvious that LA, or any US city, will bid for 2024

[mr.bernham]

Bernham: it's far from obvious that LA, or any US city, will bid for 2024

I said it is obvious LA will put up a strong bid, something they have done already.

[zekekelso]

LA has leaked a PDF for a plan. That is many steps removed from making a strong bid.

[Athensfan]

Then again, only a short time ago the notion of China 2022 would've been laughed at.

Depends how desperate the circumstances are, but you're right that nobody should expect to get the Games that often anymore. It shouldn't be in people's minds that a US Winter Games could shortly be followed by a US Summer Games. It would take exceptional circumstances for that to happen.

Fair enough. Never say never.

I still think that planning on and expecting to host Winter and Summer Games any less than 20 years apart is foolhardy.

LA has leaked a PDF for a plan. That is many steps removed from making a strong bid.

It was a good plan. That is not so far removed, particularly when you consider the high level of support from business, local government, etc.

[Athensfan]

Even then there are different regions of Asia like there are for Europe, Africa, Australia, and the Americas.

Heck, many US guys here want the games to go to a different domestic region as we have already had the games in the south and west. The games are all about exploring new cultures while building up international friendships through sport. That is what those rings represent.

The Games are not about "exploring new cultures." This is not National Geographic. There are only so many cultures to explore. Many are not capable of hosting. Plus, we're moving rapidly towards a global culture anyway.

The Games are a global celebration of sport. Cultural variety is valued as a way of preserving and reinforcing the global character of the event. But valuing variety and diversity is not the same thing as saying that the purpose of the Games is exploring new cultures. If that were true, the Games would look totally different.

[zekekelso]

Athens, call me a cynic, but I'll believe in that high level of support from local business and government when they start putting up money, not when the sign a piece of paper

[TorchbearerSydney]

The Games are partly about exploring new cultures- that is why nations spend 100 million plus on ceremonies that have nothing to do with sport! And why the Games rotate between different regions of the world, and are not just held in Athens every year.

Central Asia is a new region, like the middle East or South East Asia. They are all a part of Asia, but are all very different and important. I would love a Kazakh Games, it is one of the 10 largest countries on earth, with incredible people and history. Stranger things are happening at the moment in the Olympic movement than Almaty getting the Olympic Games. But I agree it is a long shot.

[paul]

i'm going with giant douche

Edited September 2, 2014 by paul

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

The thing is GCL and Olympic Fan Darcy, Your both obsessed with Almaty. Both of You supporting and giving false information in favour of Almaty 2022 is irrelevant, because the IOC has made it absolutely clear they don't want to go to Almaty. Neither do most of us. Let's look at some facts with the arguments about Venues. When Rio Bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, what did Rio have to Build:

- An additional Aquatics Centre.

- Rebuild a Velodrome.

- About 4 New Indoor Halls.

- Expand the Existing Athletics Stadium.

- Renovate the Existing Aquatics Centre.

- Build an Athletes Village.

- Build a new Golf Course.

I could go on.

Despite the fact that Tokyo had more existing Venues (Indoor Arena, Aquatics Centre and some Venues from the 1964 Summer Olympics and Paralympics), they chose Rio De Janeiro. So the argument about Almaty having more Existing Venues is irrelevant in the argument and because the IOC has made it clear that they don't want Almaty 2022. Yes, I know we are talking about Winter Olympics and Paralympics, but the argument is still similar on a smaller scale. In all fairness Olympic Fan Darcy, @FYI has a fair point when He says You agree with most of GCL's ridiculous claims. Also, by looks of it, You didn't read the evaluation report from the IOC. Almaty got the lowest score out of Oslo, Beijing and Almaty. Almaty needs to withdraw, to keep a bit of dignity IMO. Beijing is going no where. Also, @FYI is not 'Obsessed with Beijing', he like Me, can see the reality that Beijing is the Best of a very bad situation, which is the the IOC's own fault. Also, Almaty only got some of their Hosting because no one else Bidded and Almaty is only a Candidate City because of a small number of options. They won't Win. Real and Simple.

Ummm.. I'm not giving false information. Almaty has the most venues in place that don't need to be renovated. I don't even know what the hell your random argument about Rio's venues is about and how that is even relevant. I didn't say Almaty will win because they have more venues in place, I said it would contribute to a lower budget and saying that it wouldn't is utter nonsense. Perhaps you should learn to read..

Wow - this is extremely RICH coming from you. Especially when I've mentioned the FACT that the preliminary evaluation obviously doesn't share your 'ignorant' view. You just continually choose to conveniently "ignore" it. As if by doing so, it gives your argument some merit, when it clearly doesn't.


I've NEVER said that Beijing is the best thing to happen to the IOC. Now you're just blantantly making stuff up. But much like GCL, it's virtually impossible to have any form of discussion with you, since you always have your 'obnoxious, hypersensitive' (as krow put it's) Almaty blinders on. So I'm done. Can't continuing arguing with 'ignorant chidren' who conveniently 'ignore facts' of their own.

I love how you compare me to GCL. When you are literally liking Tony's idiotic posts.

What you and Tony seem to forget is that I have referenced the IOC report frequently and along with other forumers have discussed how the IOC gave Beijing scores way beyond what they deserved and gave Almaty lower scores then they deserved. They clearly did this to push Beijing in front of Almaty.

I don't have my blinders on when it comes to Almaty. I don't even want them to host the freaking games. You just can't admit the faults in Beijing's bid and make bold statements about how Almaty will have a blowout budget yet you won't recognize that Beijing has already had a blowout budget and will again.

But according to our wise one here, GCL (& a couple of others), Almaty would be a frugal games. That goes against "desperately wanting to climb onto the world stage". So what difference would it make then if they have A LOT of money to burn away, if that were the case.

Also not what I have said. You sure love manipulating what I say don't you? I said that having venues in place would contribute somewhat to having a lower budget. Of course having venues in place would be better then building freaking everything from scratch. Yet when I asked you if having venues would lower the budget somewhat you ignored it.

[FYI]

I love how you compare me to GCL. When you are literally liking Tony's idiotic posts.

I liked Tonys post bcuz if even he can see that I'm not endorsing, nor saying that Beijjng "is the best thing that's ever happened to the IOC", then why can't you. It's merely a choice between bad from worse. Instead, you choose to "manipulate" everything I say & make false accusations.

You just can't admit the faults in Beijing's bid and make bold statements about how Almaty will have a blowout budget yet you won't recognize that Beijing has already had a blowout budget and will again.

There you go again. "Manipulating" what I say. You sure love to do that, don't you! :-P

I never said that Almaty would have a "blowout" budget. Nor did I say that Beijing would be cheap. Only refuting the ridiculous claims by a couple of you that somehow they'd be "inexpensive" bcuz they have some fricken venues in place.

Also not what I have said. You sure love manipulating what I say don't you? I said that having venues in place would contribute somewhat to having a lower budget. Of course having venues in place would be better then building freaking everything from scratch. Yet when I asked you if having venues would lower the budget somewhat you ignored it.

How does it feel! You do it to me ALL the time! I "ignored" your question bcuz I have said time & again that it's NOT only about the "venues". But also about *infrastructure* that they'd also have to upgrade/add. But of course, you choose to 'ignore' that aspect yourself.

You can gripe & moan how the report was unfair or whatever, but considering how the IOC's up sh!t's creek without a paddle in the this race, why would they do that then. If Almaty was really as attractive as all of GCL's delusional claims, then their grade would've been much higher. It's not to the IOC's benefit to do that in this dismal of a race.

They scrapped the bottom of the barrel with Almaty. If Munich, St. Moritz, Stockholm, krakow, etc all remained in the 2022 race, we wouldn't even be talking about Almaty anymore. What I don't get, is if you really don't wanna see them get the "fricken" games anyway, then why you get your panties in a bind every time this crap comes up.

[mr.bernham]

Kinda odd we are fighting about this when a few months ago we all said that Oslo's collection of existing venues would mean a lower budget. Now when we point out the fact that Almaty has the most existing venues everyone says that it means the budget will be massive.

[FYI]

Obviously not everyone is saying that. But I guess that would mean something if Oslo & Almaty were on equal footing in every single aspect.

What I don't get is why just the focus on the venues. When it's not just the "venues" that host the Olympics.

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

How does it feel! You do it to me ALL the time! I "ignored" your question bcuz I have said time & again that it's NOT only about the "venues". But also about *infrastructure* that they'd also have to upgrade/add. But of course, you choose to 'ignore' that aspect yourself.

You can gripe & moan how the report was unfair or whatever, but considering how the IOC's up sh!t's creek without a paddle in the this race, why would they do that then. If Almaty was really as attractive as all of GCL's delusional claims, then their grade would've been much higher. It's not to the IOC's benefit to do that in this dismal of a race.

They scrapped the bottom of the barrel with Almaty. If Munich, St. Moritz, Stockholm, krakow, etc all remained in the 2022 race, we wouldn't even be talking about Almaty anymore. What I don't get, is if you really don't wanna see them get the "fricken" games anyway, then why you get your panties in a bind every time this crap comes up.

I know it's not all about venues. Cities may want to upgrade airports, train services, accomodation etc. However, you have to admit that having some venues in place would lower the budget!

Exactly! The IOC is up sh!t creek. And with Oslo looking less and less likely the IOC had to make one of the 2 bad options (Beijing or Almaty) look decent. And so they pushed Beijing forward.

We also wouldn't be talking about Beijing either in this race. Because the way you act about Almaty is as if Baghdad is bidding for the games.

[Quaker2001]

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Ummm.. I'm not giving false information. Almaty has the most venues in place that don't need to be renovated. I don't even know what the hell your random argument about Rio's venues is about and how that is even relevant. I didn't say Almaty will win because they have more venues in place, I said it would contribute to a lower budget and saying that it wouldn't is utter nonsense. Perhaps you should learn to read..

I love how you compare me to GCL. When you are literally liking Tony's idiotic posts.

What you and Tony seem to forget is that I have referenced the IOC report frequently and along with other forumers have discussed how the IOC gave Beijing scores way beyond what they deserved and gave Almaty lower scores then they deserved. They clearly did this to push Beijing in front of Almaty.

I don't have my blinders on when it comes to Almaty. I don't even want them to host the freaking games. You just can't admit the faults in Beijing's bid and make bold statements about how Almaty will have a blowout budget yet you won't recognize that Beijing has already had a blowout budget and will again.

Also not what I have said. You sure love manipulating what I say don't you? I said that having venues in place would contribute somewhat to having a lower budget. Of course having venues in place would be better then building freaking everything from scratch. Yet when I asked you if having venues would lower the budget somewhat you ignored it.

Nice and mature. You can't back up Your arguments, so You insult Me and FYI. I can read, just with difficulty.

The IOC gave a fair evaluation. Especially in these desperate Times for the IOC, what Good would the IOC get if they deliberately gave Almaty lower scores? None. They gave a fair evaluation, Almaty is the worst Bid. Like stated before, Venues aren't everything about the Games. It's also budget, infrastructure, public support, experience etc. The IOC doesn't want to go to Almaty, so Yours and GCL's obsession is irrelevant. My Posts aren't idiotic just because You can't see reality and You disagree. Learn to give a proper argument with facts instead of insulting us and calling me idiotic.

[Athensfan]

Athens, call me a cynic, but I'll believe in that high level of support from local business and government when they start putting up money, not when the sign a piece of paper

Well, that's not going to happen until the USOC chooses a candidate and that candidate has a chance to actually campaign. There's no reason for them to make big financial contributions now.

Why put your name on a piece of paper if you have no intention of actually supporting the effort? Even if a few are flakes, they aren't ALL. I think you're borrowing trouble here.

[FYI]

Athens, call me a cynic, but..

You, a cynic? Nahhhhhh :-/

[woohooitsme83]

Athens, call me a cynic, but I'll believe in that high level of support from local business and government when they start putting up money, not when the sign a piece of paper

Why would they put in money of they don't know whether or not the USOC will choose them, and only them. Don't think this is the same as betting. If they have some sort of opposition, then they had/have from last year to next year to speak up.

[Quaker2001]

Athens, call me a cynic, but I'll believe in that high level of support from local business and government when they start putting up money, not when the sign a piece of paper

Well, that's not going to happen until the USOC chooses a candidate and that candidate has a chance to actually campaign. There's no reason for them to make big financial contributions now.

Why put your name on a piece of paper if you have no intention of actually supporting the effort? Even if a few are flakes, they aren't ALL. I think you're borrowing trouble here.

Scary as this sounds, I'm inclined to agreed with zeke on this one. I think that the financial and political entities in LA will come through, but a certain deal of skepticism isn't unreasonable. I'm sure most of the folks involved here know what they're getting into, but it wouldn't surprise me for there to be a little sticker shock that might concern them. We've seen enough cities balk at the Olympics. Los Angeles, being as perpetually excited about the Olympics as they are, probably won't fall into that category. But still, it's a giant step from saying you're going to back something to actually backing it to the tune of millions of dollars. What LA pulled off in 1984 seems easy in retrospect, even though it certainly wasn't. Could be a lot tougher this time.

[Quaker2001]

Why would they put in money of they don't know whether or not the USOC will choose them, and only them. Don't think this is the same as betting. If they have some sort of opposition, then they had/have from last year to next year to speak up.

It's not just about opposition. It costs billions of dollars to host an Olympics. Again, it's easy to say you're on board with that. It's another entirely to actually put up the money. I don't doubt that they can get the financial and political backing they need, but I don't think it's a given simply because they have a workable plan. That plan gives them a good chance to succeed, but just because we're impressed here doesn't make it automatic they can execute it.

[Athensfan]

Scary as this sounds, I'm inclined to agreed with zeke on this one. I think that the financial and political entities in LA will come through, but a certain deal of skepticism isn't unreasonable. I'm sure most of the folks involved here know what they're getting into, but it wouldn't surprise me for there to be a little sticker shock that might concern them. We've seen enough cities balk at the Olympics. Los Angeles, being as perpetually excited about the Olympics as they are, probably won't fall into that category. But still, it's a giant step from saying you're going to back something to actually backing it to the tune of millions of dollars. What LA pulled off in 1984 seems easy in retrospect, even though it certainly wasn't. Could be a lot tougher this time.

Sure, but does that derail the bid or mean it's weak? I don't think so.

The proof is in the pudding and until you're in the thick of it, you don't know for certain if people will pony up or not. That's true of ANY bid. The longer and more impressive your list of supporters is, the more likely there will be worthy, able parties ready to pitch in when the time comes. LA's list is long.

I don't see zeke's "worry" as a valid reason to question the bid. I still think it's borrowing trouble since we're not even at a point where those monies are needed.

It's not just about opposition. It costs billions of dollars to host an Olympics. Again, it's easy to say you're on board with that. It's another entirely to actually put up the money. I don't doubt that they can get the financial and political backing they need, but I don't think it's a given simply because they have a workable plan. That plan gives them a good chance to succeed, but just because we're impressed here doesn't make it automatic they can execute it.

Of course the execution isn't automatically guaranteed, but presumably that's what the USOC is currently in the process of vetting. If LA's plan only had a handful of names on it, I'd have more questions. But they had a lot of major players willing to put their names to that document. While not a guarantee, that suggests to me that there is quite a lot of will, muscle and money to make LA Games happen. That's more evidence than we've got from any other city right now, American or otherwise.

[Quaker2001]

Sure, but does that derail the bid or mean it's weak? I don't think so.

The proof is in the pudding and until you're in the thick of it, you don't know for certain if people will pony up or not. That's true of ANY bid. The longer and more impressive your list of supporters is, the more likely there will be worthy, able parties ready to pitch in when the time comes. LA's list is long.

I don't see zeke's "worry" as a valid reason to question the bid. I still think it's borrowing trouble since we're not even at a point where those monies are needed.

Of course the execution isn't automatically guaranteed, but presumably that's what the USOC is currently in the process of vetting. If LA's plan only had a handful of names on it, I'd have more questions. But they had a lot of major players willing to put their names to that document. While not a guarantee, that suggests to me that there is quite a lot of will, muscle and money to make LA Games happen. That's more evidence than we've got from any other city right now, American or otherwise.

Never said it weakens the bid. I'm not quite to zeke's level of "all they have is a plan they leaked by accident, what's so impressive about that." Which is to say, zekeyla is not impressed..

I believe in the convictions of the LA folks that they're serious about this. but there is some natural skepticism that comes along with any endeavor of this size, particularly when they've gotten scared off by the prospect of it. It's not a feeling that's specific towards LA. Like you said, this is true of any bid. That said, if the whole point of this process on the part of the USOC is to vet out these candidates and determine who is serious, I don't think it's unfair to question their seriousness. After all, as we've said so many times before, the end result of this need not be that a city is put up for bid, so the USOC better make sure they're in this to win it. I still believe that the USOC will put forth a bid and that bid will come from Los Angeles. Everything we've seen so far points in that direction. But what you're saying is still educated guesswork. You're making assumptions. While I believe that your assumptions will wind up being correct, don't put the cart before the horse quite yet. The nearly 3 years we have to go before the vote makes the day of reckoning a long ways off.