Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cube

Beijing/Zhangjiakou 2022

Recommended Posts

Almaty is NOT getting the 2022 WOG's. Even in the event that both Oslo & Stockholm don't get goverment backing (which could happen with one of them, but both seems unlikely), there's still Krakow & Beijing. While the IOC's relationship with Beijing 2008 wasn't a picture perfect one, at least they'll know that the Chinese would be a reliable partner & will deliver what is promised. Not to mention that either Beijing or Almaty would still mark three consecutive Games in Asia. So it push came to shove, geopolitically, the Chinese would triumph in that aspect. And with all the controversy surrounding Sochi 2014, I don't see Almaty getting any points in that area, no matter how "pro-Western" their goverment may seem to be. Many said the same about Erdogan, & look how that one turned out. Almaty, like Lviv, is a no-go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference I see between Almaty and Lviv is preparedness and experience. Geopolitics aside, I think Almaty could stage successful Winter Games. I can't say the same for Lviv.

As for Almaty vs. Beijing, Beijing has more political force behind it and for that reason is more assured of making the short list. I'm not convinced, however, that Beijing is more electable than Almaty. Although the Chinese could be relied on to stage solid Games, the geopolitics are far worse for Beijing than Almaty. Three consecutive Asian Games. Not only the same country hosting twice in 14 years, BUT THE SAME CITY. It's too much to swallow.

Almaty is not as sure fire as Beijing, but they do have a very solid résumé. Central Asia is a bit better than more of the Far East. Plus, Kazakhstan would be the first Muslim host nation.

On balance I'd say Beijing is a safer bet for the short list, but Almaty could be more electable.

HOWEVER, if there is another big non-Asian favorite in the race (i.e. Oslo), I can see the IOC voting Beijing into the final round rather than Almaty for political reasons, knowing full well they will ultimately elect Oslo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference I see between Almaty and Lviv is preparedness and experience. Geopolitics aside, I think Almaty could stage successful Winter Games. I can't say the same for Lviv.

Of course. But geopolitics IS part of the Game, & that's why (even if it is for different reasons) Almaty is right there with Lviv. I mean if the Ukrainian wanted to, they could probably go all out, Sochi 2014-style. But I doubt theat the IOC would still have the same amount of confidence with them like they did with the Russian's (which that hasn't been smooth sailing either). The same analogy applies to Almaty.

As for Almaty vs. Beijing, Beijing has more political force behind it and for that reason is more assured of making the short list. I'm not convinced, however, that Beijing is more electable than Almaty. Although the Chinese could be relied on to stage solid Games, the geopolitics are far worse for Beijing than Almaty. Three consecutive Asian Games. Not only the same country hosting twice in 14 years, BUT THE SAME CITY. It's too much to swallow.

That's why like I've been saying all along, the Chinese are merely an insurance policy if all else fails. Yeah, the IOC knows that the Chinese would be a reliable partner & would deliver. The same can't be for untested Almaty & the Kazahks.

Almaty is not as sure fire as Beijing, but they do have a very solid résumé. Central Asia is a bit better than more of the Far East. Plus, Kazakhstan would be the first Muslim host nation.

On balance I'd say Beijing is a safer bet for the short list, but Almaty could be more electable.

I don't think so. If the IOC turned down a much more compelling & appealing package with Istanbul (in a very large & young Muslim nation, & seemingly more democratic), then what more can less desireable, not as compelling, more suppressing Almaty & Kazakhstan hope for. Doesn't seem like much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harbin I think should bid because it will be a perfect chance for them to show off their ice and snow sculptures. As for the Beijing bid, I think this is a practice for upcoming games, but still, China can host the 2022 games because Nanjing [host of summer YOG] and Tokyo [host of SOG] are both hosting summer games so why not Beijing??? I mean Pyeongchang have the Winter games in 2018 and both Tokyo and Nanjing have summer games which puts us in a 3v1 situation so if Beijing does win then it would be fair, but not on other countries though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. But geopolitics IS part of the Game, & that's why (even if it is for different reasons) Almaty is right there with Lviv. I mean if the Ukrainian wanted to, they could probably go all out, Sochi 2014-style. But I doubt theat the IOC would still have the same amount of confidence with them like they did with the Russian's (which that hasn't been smooth sailing either). The same analogy applies to Almaty.

That's why like I've been saying all along, the Chinese are merely an insurance policy if all else fails. Yeah, the IOC knows that the Chinese would be a reliable partner & would deliver. The same can't be for untested Almaty & the Kazahks.

I don't think so. If the IOC turned down a much more compelling & appealing package with Istanbul (in a very large & young Muslim nation, & seemingly more democratic), then what more can less desireable, not as compelling, more suppressing Almaty & Kazakhstan hope for. Doesn't seem like much.

I'm not arguing about who will win. I'm saying I think Almaty will probably deserve (and receive) a spot on the short list. I believe negative geopolitics weigh into the final vote, but not the shortlist. POSITIVE geopolitics however (i.e. Rio) DO influence the shortlist (meaning a desirable, but borderline applicant makes the cut).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that you're arguing who will win. Bcuz you've said yourself, you think that Oslo is gonna win, not Almaty. I'm just not agreeing that Almaty "deserves & will probably receive a spot on the short-list". And I also don't agree that negative geopolitics don't effect the short-list, either. Otherwise, we would've seen Doha on the short-list for both 2016 & 2020, since they obviously scored higher than both Rio & Istanbul, respectively. We also would've seen Istanbul for the 2012 short-list, instead of being cut, when they were good enough to be on the 2008 short-list. So what was the case there.

Geopolitics is also about perception, & considering the fiasco drama that Sochi 2014 has become, & the problems in the Ukraine right now, aren't gonna do Almaty any favors, not to mention other elements as well. The IOC makes exceptions whenever they see fit, & I believe now that the short-list process is no different in that aspect. Like I said in another thread, it looks the Executive Board doesn't like to take any chances on cities that they're not to keen on. Especially when it's even been debated here, that what really are the consequences of including a city just for the sake of it or sympathy, if you can run the risk of eliminating a real credible & desirable option. Doesn't look good for Almaty, IMHO. Not when we much better option on the table. I think that their "resume" is quite overblown by some on here anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that you're arguing who will win. Bcuz you've said yourself, you think that Oslo is gonna win, not Almaty. I'm just not agreeing that Almaty "deserves & will probably receive a spot on the short-list". And I also don't agree that negative geopolitics don't effect the short-list, either. Otherwise, we would've seen Doha on the short-list for both 2016 & 2020, since they obviously scored higher than both Rio & Istanbul, respectively. We also would've seen Istanbul for the 2012 short-list, instead of being cut, when they were good enough to be on the 2008 short-list. So what was the case there.

Geopolitics is also about perception, & considering the fiasco drama that Sochi 2014 has become, & the problems in the Ukraine right now, aren't gonna do Almaty any favors, not to mention other elements as well. The IOC makes exceptions whenever they see fit, & I believe now that the short-list process is no different in that aspect. Like I said in another thread, it looks the Executive Board doesn't like to take any chances on cities that they're not to keen on. Especially when it's even been debated here, that what really are the consequences of including a city just for the sake of it or sympathy, if you can run the risk of eliminating a real credible & desirable option. Doesn't look good for Almaty, IMHO. Not when we much better option on the table. I think that their "resume" is quite overblown by some on here anyway.

Doha was excluded due to temperature/calendar issues -- not because of continental rotation.

Istanbul was excluded because the race was already too crowded with high-quality competitors and in contrast their bid WAS technically weaker. They weren't excluded because of continental rotation either, but because they couldn't keep pace with an incredibly strong and large field of competitors.

We''ll see what Almaty offers and what the IOC decides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doha was excluded due to temperature/calendar issues -- not because of continental rotation.

Istanbul was excluded because the race was already too crowded with high-quality competitors and in contrast their bid WAS technically weaker. They weren't excluded because of continental rotation either, but because they couldn't keep pace with an incredibly strong and large field of competitors.

We''ll see what Almaty offers and what the IOC decides.

Yes Doha was excluded because they couldn't host in the months that everyone else agrees to. Fifa have double standards because at the start of bidding process they give a time frame then when Qatar wrongly buys hosting rights they give permission for winter world cup even though it will disrupt the whole world football calendar. Thankfully, the IOC keep to their regulations regardless of who is host. If you can't host it in the time period given then don't bid. Back to topic, I am personally supporting Lviv 2022 but I can see why people would support other bid delegations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Doha, might they have also wanted to stop the 'Qatar bribery machine' getting into the IOC before a final vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Doha, might they have also wanted to stop the 'Qatar bribery machine' getting into the IOC before a final vote?

Until Doha agrees to use Cooling Technologies and host the Games in the Time Frame given then they won't even make it to the Final Vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doha was excluded due to temperature/calendar issues -- not because of continental rotation.

Who said anything about continental rotation. Doha was excluded for several factors, not just the dates & the heat. Even IOC Executive Director Gilbert Felli said as much. And besides, the IOC said it was "okay" for Doha to present a bid with October dates prior to the Qatari's presenting their proposal. So the IOC could just use that smokescreen excuse a consecutive time.

Istanbul was excluded because the race was already too crowded with high-quality competitors and in contrast their bid WAS technically weaker. They weren't excluded because of continental rotation either, but because they couldn't keep pace with an incredibly strong and large field of competitors.

Not that I'm saying that I disagree with you here, but you're trying to argue both sides here. What does this rationale have to do with a "technical" evaluation, though. What does it matter if there's only three or ten cities on any given applicant roster, if in theory, the short-list process is suppose to be ONLY of a technical assessment. Doesn't matter if in "contrast" Istanbul's 2012 bid was technically weaker. If they made it four years prior, they should made it four years later. If anything, their bid should've improved four years later to be included.

We''ll see what Almaty offers and what the IOC decides.

The same thing that they decided with Baku & Doha, & Istanbul 2012: "Thanks, Almaty 2022. But maybe some other time".

With Doha, might they have also wanted to stop the 'Qatar bribery machine' getting into the IOC before a final vote?

Precisely. The Working Group that did the evaluation for the 2020 short-list highly recommended that Tokyo, Istanbul & Madrid go through. And that Baku just couldn't cut it, & that while Doha did meet several technical factors, they'd leave it to the Executive Board to determine whether or not to include Doha. Well, they didn't. So anyone who thinks that Doha was excluded merely for the dates is just fooling themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of cooling technologies can make a marathon course, an equestrian venue or a rowing basin safe and comfortable in 40 degree weather and blistering sun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of cooling technologies can make a marathon course, an equestrian venue or a rowing basin safe and comfortable in 40 degree weather and blistering sun?

Well you cannot please everybody. If you notice any Successful Bidding City will always have something for the Media and Public to moan about. But most Venues can have cooling Technologies. Plus I will never be in support for Qatar because there will always be an allegation of bribery and buying Tournaments. I was just saying what IOC are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about continental rotation. Doha was excluded for several factors, not just the dates & the heat. Even IOC Executive Director Gilbert Felli said as much. And besides, the IOC said it was "okay" for Doha to present a bid with October dates prior to the Qatari's presenting their proposal. So the IOC could just use that smokescreen excuse a consecutive time.

Not that I'm saying that I disagree with you here, but you're trying to argue both sides here. What does this rationale have to do with a "technical" evaluation, though. What does it matter if there's only three or ten cities on any given applicant roster, if in theory, the short-list process is suppose to be ONLY of a technical assessment. Doesn't matter if in "contrast" Istanbul's 2012 bid was technically weaker. If they made it four years prior, they should made it four years later. If anything, their bid should've improved four years later to be included.

The same thing that they decided with Baku & Doha, & Istanbul 2012: "Thanks, Almaty 2022. But maybe some other time".

Precisely. The Working Group that did the evaluation for the 2020 short-list highly recommended that Tokyo, Istanbul & Madrid go through. And that Baku just couldn't cut it, & that while Doha did meet several technical factors, they'd leave it to the Executive Board to determine whether or not to include Doha. Well, they didn't. So anyone who thinks that Doha was excluded merely for the dates is just fooling themselves.

Nothing you've said proves that a bid will be excluded from the short list solely for geopolitical reasons (I.e. unofficial continental rotation, cultural juxtaposition, etc.). That was the premise I challenged. .

If Almaty or Beijing is excluded, it won't be because they are in Asia, but because there's a technical problem with logistics, funding or government support.

Unless Bach invents a totally new procedure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look guys the IOC has already said that because Pyeongchang (Asian City) will host the previous Games in 2018, Asian Bids won't win hence why Busan in South Korea pulled out of 2024 Summer Olympics race because Asia will host previous one in 2020 Tokyo (Asian City) but Summer and Winter don't clash hence asian host 2018 asian host 2020 not an asian host in 2024. The IOC has confirmed this what's the argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing you've said proves that a bid will be excluded from the short list solely for geopolitical reasons (I.e. unofficial continental rotation, cultural juxtaposition, etc.). That was the premise I challenged. .

I never said "solely" for geopolitics reasons. But it's certainly factored in there like everything else. Again, I'll take Gilbert Felli's word for it instead.

If Almaty or Beijing is excluded, it won't be because they are in Asia, but because there's a technical problem with logistics, funding or government support.

First of all, I never said that Beijing would be excluded. I've always argued that they're in bcuz it's the Chinese. And secondly, I've also never said that either of them would be excluded simply bcuz they're in Asia. "As usual, you're 'misrepresenting' my position here".

Unless Bach invents a totally new procedure....

You've said yourself, though, that such a move would benefit Stockholm & Krakow. Not Almaty.

*never said 'solely' for geopolitical reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said "solely" for geopolitics reasons. But it's certainly factored in there like everything else. Again, I'll take Gilbert Felli's word for it instead.

First of all, I never said that Beijing would be excluded. I've always argued that they're in bcuz it's the Chinese. And secondly, I've also never said that either of them would be excluded simply bcuz they're in Asia. "As usual, you're 'misrepresenting' my position here".

You've said yourself, though, that such a move would benefit Stockholm & Krakow. Not Almaty.

i have to agree with you in some aspects but some of the reasons is down to geographical reasons. If Bach changes rules it would benefit Almaty yes.

When did the IOC say that?

Well for starters before Bach was elected, they said to give African Continent more chance of hosting 1st Olympics they would do rotation hence Busan pulling out of 2024 summer bid race because tokyo won 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have to agree with you in some aspects but some of the reasons is down to geographical reasons. If Bach changes rules it would benefit Almaty yes.

I actually would have to agree with Athensfan on that one. It would benefit Stockholm & Krakow the most, since in the current bidding climate, technically speaking (which is being overrated, IMHO anyway) Almaty appears to need no help in that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually would have to agree with Athensfan on that one. It would benefit Stockholm & Krakow the most, since in the current bidding climate, technically speaking (which is being overrated, IMHO anyway) Almaty appears to need no help in that category.

Oh yes you are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said "solely" for geopolitics reasons. But it's certainly factored in there like everything else. Again, I'll take Gilbert Felli's word for it instead.

First of all, I never said that Beijing would be excluded. I've always argued that they're in bcuz it's the Chinese. And secondly, I've also never said that either of them would be excluded simply bcuz they're in Asia. "As usual, you're 'misrepresenting' my position here".

You've said yourself, though, that such a move would benefit Stockholm & Krakow. Not Almaty.

*never said 'solely' for geopolitical reasons.

Ok, how about "primarily" for geopolitical reasons? As near as I can tell, the short list is really all about capability. The cities that don't make the cut are cities that can't hack it as well technically. I can't recall a single example of a strong technical bid that was eliminated from the shortlist. Your examples of Istanbul 2012 and Doha 2016 both fit in that category of being technically weaker in comparison to their competitors. And yes, I remember Doha outscored Rio, but the calendar issue was insurmountable and that was a technical problem.

As for Bach's changes, a lot depends on what they are. For all we know he might scrap the short list altogether. I do agree that by encouraging bidders to "think creatively" and in ways that "benefit their communities," Bach seems to be opening the door to the possibility of Stockholm and/or Krakow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think having 2 phases should be kept, otherwise they will take rubbish bidders all the way to the final day of announcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, I remember Doha outscored Rio, but the calendar issue was insurmountable and that was a technical problem.

Again, then why would the IOC say "it's okay" for Doha 2020 to submit the October dates with their applicant files if those dates are "insurmountable"? So why beat around the bush & play the Qatari's as fools. Yet again, I'll take Felli's word for it that Doha's 2020 exclusion was more than just about "the dates". As director of the Executive Board I would think that he would know.

As for Bach's changes, a lot depends on what they are. For all we know he might scrap the short list altogether. I do agree that by encouraging bidders to "think creatively" and in ways that "benefit their communities," Bach seems to be opening the door to the possibility of Stockholm and/or Krakow.

I can't see them doing away with the short-list. The purpose of its introduction was to curtail long, tedious applicant rosters & only including those bids that are technically far superior, like you just argued in your last paragraph of this post. Doing so would defeat that purpose entirely.

I think having 2 phases should be kept, otherwise they will take rubbish bidders all the way to the final day of announcement.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until Doha agrees to use Cooling Technologies and host the Games in the Time Frame given then they won't even make it to the Final Vote.

Cooling technology? And get the environmentalists in an uproar? Absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooling technology? And get the environmentalists in an uproar? Absurd.

Well you can't please everybody and in the 21st Century they need to realise that Technology is Important.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...