Sir Rols Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 So we are a democratic country and we got the 2012 games. But it was never a cert, indeed it looked unlikely at some points, that London would get the political backing to proceed. Public Service Strongly Advised Against 2012 Bid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 A democracy can still get the games, but after Sochi's cost, I don't think you will ever get an Olympic bid through a referendum again. Sadly, I do think the IOC have, at worst, let the Games get too big for their own good, or at best, sent the message that they'll just go for biggest & flashiest, regardless of where it comes from. I don't know what solution there is, if there is one, Tokyo is a step in the right direction, but I fear Bach & co are going to have to work hard to stop the Olympics becoming another dictator's plaything as time goes on. To finish on a positive, as I say, Tokyo is a good start, & I do trust Bach, when he says about change & making it easier & cheaper to bid, he seems to mean it. Hopefully it's not too late, & he can make the changes before the democracies are lost for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Ooops. As predicted, Sweden 2022 bites the dust!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 A democracy can still get the games, but after Sochi's cost, I don't think you will ever get an Olympic bid through a referendum again. Sadly, I do think the IOC have, at worst, let the Games get too big for their own good, or at best, sent the message that they'll just go for biggest & flashiest, regardless of where it comes from. I don't know what solution there is, if there is one, Tokyo is a step in the right direction, but I fear Bach & co are going to have to work hard to stop the Olympics becoming another dictator's plaything as time goes on. To finish on a positive, as I say, Tokyo is a good start, & I do trust Bach, when he says about change & making it easier & cheaper to bid, he seems to mean it. Hopefully it's not too late, & he can make the changes before the democracies are lost for good. Of course a democracy can still get the games. In fact, I think the priority now is for the IOC to get some good, modest, politically palatable games hosts under it's belt. The bind it's in at the moment is that instead of basking in the glow of two pretty successful and generally acceptably received games in Vancouver and London, they're instead just getting negative coverage after bad vote after disappointing political setback because all the attention is focusing on the obscene costs and unpalatable political backdrop of Sochi and the social responsibility and fraught preparations questions of Rio. Not to mention FIFA hardly doing much to burnish the reputation of big events hosting in general. It's scaring off reliably-regarded bidders, and most of those who are staying are hardly the type who are going to turn such negative perceptions around that easily. I think the IOC is going to have to take a bit of heed now and try to have a couple more modest or politically acceptable hostings to follow on from PC and Tokyo to restore a bit of its store of goodwill. And, yeah, I think Bach is aware of this and I hope he goes the distance on his plans. I think we could very well be seeing the tide turning against new frontiers for the sake of them in the favour of some, maybe less adventurous, but "cleaner" bids. All of which goes to say I think Stockholm's bailing out most helps Oslo now. I think it's between Oslo and Krakow now with my heart slightly favouring the Poles but my head expecting the Norwegians to triumph. And I'd expect the IOC are crossing fingers and holding thumbs that neither, or even worse, both, don't drop out lest they be faced with the highly difficult to sell and unpalatable fallback of Beijing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Beijing might be hanging on by a fingernail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 OK, let me put it here. Here's the rub of the 2022 choices for me: What can each of the 2 frontrunners now bring to the Olympic Games and the IOC?? Oslo - a safe, tried-and-true setting in an already saturated market of 5 million people. Norway is already a winter sports power who has hosted the Winter Games twice. New legacy? None; they already got it all. What new frontiers can it bring to Olympism? Not much that I see. Krakow - opens up a whole new area of Europe and the winter world that's never had the chance to host the Games before. Brings the Olympic Games to 48 million people in 2/3 countries that are NOT major winter sports powers...but certainly not minnows either. Can show the world and the sports organizing world how a joint bid can be staged with a minimum of fuss and instead be a great example of regional cooperation. Legacy is miles ahead of safe, old Norway. Now you, dear reader (and an occasional IOC member, if you are reading this....) , decide what pushes the idea of Olympism farther and takes in more people under the Olympic fold than ever before. That after all, is the larger objective of an Olympic Games--not just running an efficient set of physical competitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Ohhh, if it were only that simple as you're trying to describe it. But there's much more at stake here than just "pushing the idea of Olympism farther & taking in more people under the Olympic fold than ever before". If that's all it took, then why did it take Beijing two tries to finally grab it. Why didn't Istanbul (in a new country of 77 million) finally take it for 2020. And why hasn't India hosted by now already. With all the criticism surrounding Sochi's 2014 obscene expense, & all these great cities literally running away i.e. St. Moritz, Munich & now Stockholm, the IOC needs to take a long, hard look at what's really important, at least for now, that is. Had Munich stayed in, virtually everyone was already coronating them with 2022, despite them being a repeat host city in a repeat country. Go figure. The IOC is most likely again, looking for a safe haven for this winter edition before pushing the envelope yet again. If there are major problems with Sochi 2014, it's certainly not gonna bode well for the aspiring 2022 newbies. Either way, though, the IOC might want to send the message that you don't have to spend mega-Billions & build a bunch of white elephants to host the Olympics. That they could still embrace practical & finally put some money where their mouth is. This 2022 race has unfolded now just like 2020: Oslo is Tokyo - 'the safest pair of hands' Krakow is Istanbul - the potential dark horse, but they still need to convince Beijing - the 2022 insurance policy Almaty & Lviv - the Doha & Baku of this race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 It's not all about dollars-and-cents. The IOC always hopes that the Olympic ideals transcend such mundane things as $$ and cents. Besides, what Russia has thrown at these Games is not the IOC's fault. That's Russia's. It should have no bearing on other bids if they are wisely put together and with common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Sochi's obscene spending is not necessarily the IOC's fault, but the IOC did, however, vote for the most expensive 2014 bid. They already knew that Russia was going to have to build everything from scratch in Sochi, & that very likely, Sochi's budget was going to balloon, like the Olympic budgets usually do. They probably didn't foresee the $50 Billion+ mark, but $15-$25 Billion was most likely still foreseeable. Not to mention that perception is everything. It may not be the IOC's fault, but that's the perception that most of the people in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden & others seem to view it, hence their rejections to bid. So the IOC is also the only one now that could reverse that perception by voting much more practical next time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 So the IOC is also the only one now that could reverse that perception by voting much more practical next time around. Yes and no. Why deny improvements and legacy benefits to other deserving parts of the world just becuz one host went trigger happy with costs. Uhmmm...That's exactly what Spain tried to sell -- but did the IOC bite? No; they still went with the most bombastic 2020 bid (and Tokyo was the right choice). But parading a moderately cost Winter Games is really a very poor and weak excuse to pick an Olympic host when greater benefits could be attained with a new region. So, again, I find that 'cost-cutting' excuse for Oslo quite specious and somewhat disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic Fan Darcy Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Ohhh, if it were only that simple as you're trying to describe it. But there's much more at stake here than just "pushing the idea of Olympism farther & taking in more people under the Olympic fold than ever before". If that's all it took, then why did it take Beijing two tries to finally grab it. Why didn't Istanbul (in a new country of 77 million) finally take it for 2020. And why hasn't India hosted by now already. With all the criticism surrounding Sochi's 2014 obscene expense, & all these great cities literally running away i.e. St. Moritz, Munich & now Stockholm, the IOC needs to take a long, hard look at what's really important, at least for now, that is. Had Munich stayed in, virtually everyone was already coronating them with 2022, despite them being a repeat host city in a repeat country. Go figure. The IOC is most likely again, looking for a safe haven for this winter edition before pushing the envelope yet again. If there are major problems with Sochi 2014, it's certainly not gonna bode well for the aspiring 2022 newbies. Either way, though, the IOC might want to send the message that you don't have to spend mega-Billions & build a bunch of white elephants to host the Olympics. That they could still embrace practical & finally put some money where their mouth is. This 2022 race has unfolded now just like 2020: Oslo is Tokyo - 'the safest pair of hands' Krakow is Istanbul - the potential dark horse, but they still need to convince Beijing - the 2022 insurance policy Almaty & Lviv - the Doha & Baku of this race. I'm interested in hearing other thoughts on Almaty. How come Almaty is Doha? They ranked pretty well in 2014. They ranked lowest in past sport events and since have been awarded the winter universiade. It is also the largest city in the country and has the second largest population of all the bidding cities. Lviv may as well just pull out right now with these Ukranian riots killing people. Beijing? I get that China is a major superpower but they hosted in 2008. I don't see them as a chance. I can't see them sneaking in and taking the first summer and winter host hosting the games within 14 years of eachother.... Krakow multi-national bid.. Which leaves Oslo which is not yet a sure thing. If Oslo pulls out the IOC will have a tough choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 That whole 2022 discussion is going round in circles...fresh input is needed, not just always the same arguments by the same people. So, time for the bid books and the short list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Well, it doesn't help when people don't read, or what to read what is argued. I've stated countless times why Almaty is a no-go & is similar to Doha in that regard, but then there's someone asking me why I think that. And then we have Baron who really is the one being 'disingenuous' (bcuz I know he knows better) by comparing Oslo to Madrid & saying that Tokyo 2020 was the most "bombastic" bid. I mean come on! But I digress & agree that it's become a vicious circle now. Can't wait 'til the 2022 short-list so we can move on from this monotony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Why is Almaty a no go? Simply because it's too soon to Sochi? Well that's just one point, but it shouldn't be why they're not a no go. They have the venues already in place, minus the sliding center and perhaps a major arena. They have the experience and will prove themselves ready when they host the 2017 Universiade. I don't see why they are a no go. They may not win, but they could come close. They will be shortlisted for sure. It's no where near Doha or Baku. Yes, we can't wait until the shortlist, where Almaty is ranked as high or close to Oslo. Where there's no real faulting their bid, with mostly everything in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Ohhh, if it were only that simple as you're trying to describe it. But there's much more at stake here than just "pushing the idea of Olympism farther & taking in more people under the Olympic fold than ever before". If that's all it took, then why did it take Beijing two tries to finally grab it. Why didn't Istanbul (in a new country of 77 million) finally take it for 2020. And why hasn't India hosted by now already. With all the criticism surrounding Sochi's 2014 obscene expense, & all these great cities literally running away i.e. St. Moritz, Munich & now Stockholm, the IOC needs to take a long, hard look at what's really important, at least for now, that is. Had Munich stayed in, virtually everyone was already coronating them with 2022, despite them being a repeat host city in a repeat country. Go figure. The IOC is most likely again, looking for a safe haven for this winter edition before pushing the envelope yet again. If there are major problems with Sochi 2014, it's certainly not gonna bode well for the aspiring 2022 newbies. Either way, though, the IOC might want to send the message that you don't have to spend mega-Billions & build a bunch of white elephants to host the Olympics. That they could still embrace practical & finally put some money where their mouth is. This 2022 race has unfolded now just like 2020: Oslo is Tokyo - 'the safest pair of hands' Krakow is Istanbul - the potential dark horse, but they still need to convince Beijing - the 2022 insurance policy Almaty & Lviv - the Doha & Baku of this race. 100 Per Cent agree @Lord David. 100 Per Cent agree @Lord David. I meant @FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphacarter Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 100 Per Cent agree @Lord David. I meant @FYI. That's what the like button is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 . Can't wait 'til the 2022 short-list so we can move on from this monotony. Wow, it becomes a "monotony" when you can't counter the arguments I've put forth that nothing new of boundary-moving is offered by an Oslo bid where everything's already in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Wow, it becomes a "monotony" when you can't counter the arguments I've put forth that nothing new of boundary-moving is offered by an Oslo bid where everything's already in place. We have had Sochi and Pyeongchang as new host destinations. It's time for a well known Winter Host now, in Oslo. Krakow will only win if Oslo withdraws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 We have had Sochi and Pyeongchang as new host destinations. It's time for a well known Winter Host now, in Oslo. Krakow will only win if Oslo withdraws. Don't be so predictable. Coming from you; I just know the outcome - sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Don't be so predictable. Coming from you; I just know the outcome - sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. I'm not even going to feed your argument. You are 1 of a few that can't see what most can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I'm not even going to feed your argument. You are 1 of a few that can't see what most can see. Precisely. There was only one Sir Isaac Newton; one Galileo, one Thomas Edison; one Albert Einstein; and dare I say it -- one Baron Pierre de Coubertin??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Precisely. There was only one Sir Isaac Newton; one Galileo, one Thomas Edison; one Albert Einstein; and dare I say it -- one Baron Pierre de Coubertin??? Fair point, but all of us can keep debating, but we might both be wrong. Almaty might win. Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Precisely. There was only one Sir Isaac Newton; one Galileo, one Thomas Edison; one Albert Einstein; and dare I say it -- one Baron Pierre de Coubertin??? The more I'm on here, the more I think you and Tony are basically the two sides of the same medal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 The more I'm on here, the more I think you and Tony are basically the two sides of the same medal... Oh, please, couldn't you be more imaginative??? Anyway, see here: http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/23493-new-documentary-on-the-2012-flame/#entry423115 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Precisely. There was only one Sir Isaac Newton; one Galileo, one Thomas Edison; one Albert Einstein; and dare I say it -- one Baron Pierre de Coubertin??? And yet you're trying to be baron Pierre the 4th. So you're saying there were another 2? Wow, it becomes a "monotony" when you can't counter the arguments I've put forth that nothing new of boundary-moving is offered by an Oslo bid where everything's already in place. We've countered the arguments. You're so set on Krakow, you don't want hear any counter-arguments on them. In your mind, it's a done deal so you don't really want to entertain the notion that you may eventually be proven wrong. After a Winter Olympics where the spending has reached historic levels of absurdity and another where a lot is being built from scratch, it's not inconceivable that the IOC might choose to be back to a location where a lot is in place and the populace, while small, we know will embrace the Olympics like almost no other nation will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.