baron-pierreIV Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Recommendation – Find cost savings in the opening and closing ceremonies. (Sorry Baron) Not gonna happen. Each country will still put their best foot forward. The OCOG may not spend for it but they will get donations from other sources to put on spectacular shows. It was only the skinflinty Scots who put on the cheap-skate Ceremonies for Glasgow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 The IOC won't get rid of the Summer and Winter Youth Olympics. They are New, they help the Future Athletes and they won't get rid of it. Also, Football, Golf, Tennis, Athletics, Aquatics, Track and BMX Cycling, Wrestling, Boxing, Gymnastics, Volleyball, Beach Volleyball, Archery, Badminton, Rowing, Rugby, Weightlifting, Triathlon, Shooting, Table Tennis, Basketball and Equestrian will stay as Summer Olympic Sports IMO. (By the way, that's most of the Summer Olympic Sports, not all of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympiaki-agones Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Not gonna happen. Each country will still put their best foot forward. The OCOG may not spend for it but they will get donations from other sources to put on spectacular shows. It was only the skinflinty Scots who put on the cheap-skate Ceremonies for Glasgow. I enjoyed Glasgow 2014 ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 I enjoyed Glasgow 2014 ceremony. I semi-enjoyed it. But it could've been grander and more awe-inspiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 It's a bit amusing to me that people don't view using multiple cities as acceptable because it requires a bit of a sacrifice from the fans (and to a degree from the athletes) when we also criticize the sports federations for not being willing to make a far greater sacrifice. Cutting an entire sport from the Olympics is a far bigger sacrifice for those people who have been training four years to compete than having to take a train or bus for an hour or two to get between venues. I still don't see why it isn't feasible to allow to cities a couple hundred km away to host. The World Cup uses stadiums all over a country -in some cases thousands of miles/kilometers apart- and it hasn't hurt the event much at all. Rome and Naples co-hosting should be perfectly fine. Not optimal, maybe. But dual-city bids ought to be given fair consideration if the IOC is serious about reducing waste for the host cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 It's a bit amusing to me that people don't view using multiple cities as acceptable because it requires a bit of a sacrifice from the fans (and to a degree from the athletes) when we also criticize the sports federations for not being willing to make a far greater sacrifice. Cutting an entire sport from the Olympics is a far bigger sacrifice for those people who have been training four years to compete than having to take a train or bus for an hour or two to get between venues. I still don't see why it isn't feasible to allow to cities a couple hundred km away to host. The World Cup uses stadiums all over a country -in some cases thousands of miles/kilometers apart- and it hasn't hurt the event much at all. Rome and Naples co-hosting should be perfectly fine. Not optimal, maybe. But dual-city bids ought to be given fair consideration if the IOC is serious about reducing waste for the host cities. You can't compare the Fifa World Cup using 1 or 2 Countries to Host, with the Summer Olympics and Paralympics using 1 City to Host. With the Fifa World Cup, 10 or 12 Stadiums with 40,000 or higher Capacity are being used. You can't have 10 or 12 Stadiums with 40,000 or higher Capacity being used in 1 City. With the Summer Olympics and Paralympics, You would have an 80,000 Seater Olympic Stadium, 17,500 Seater Aquatics Centre, 6,000 Seater Velodrome, 20,000 Seater Indoor Arena etc. The Fifa World Cup is a Bigger Tournament, with Bigger Stadiums. Having Multiple Cities Hosting a Summer Olympics and Paralympics is not a Good idea IMO. Yes, some of the Events are held outside the Host City, but only the Football Matches during the Summer Olympics and Paralympics and even then, some of the Football Matches are still held in the Host City (Wembley Stadium during London 2012, Bird's Nest and Workers Stadium during Beijing 2008, Maracana Stadium during Rio De Janeiro 2016, Athens Olympic Stadium during Athens 2004 and Australia Stadium during Sydney 2000). Maybe Sailing etc are held outside the Host City, but most of the Events are held in the Host City during the Summer Olympics and Paralympics. Plus, most of the recent Olympic Games have been Hosted with no issues, with the exception of Beijing 2008, Sochi 2014, Rio 2016 (With it's Preparations) and Athens 2004 (With it's Preparations). London 2012 was Successful with nearly no problems, same maybe goes for Sydney 2000, Vancouver 2010 and maybe Turin 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 Point Tony's Head Tony: You can't make your point just by listing what has been done in the past. We actually know that stuff here. You have to give actual *reasons* for your point. Why can't the Olympics be spread over various cities? The World Cup spreads things out, and it's still an amazing event (hint... that's the point you missed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 It's a bit amusing to me that people don't view using multiple cities as acceptable because it requires a bit of a sacrifice from the fans (and to a degree from the athletes) when we also criticize the sports federations for not being willing to make a far greater sacrifice. Cutting an entire sport from the Olympics is a far bigger sacrifice for those people who have been training four years to compete than having to take a train or bus for an hour or two to get between venues. I still don't see why it isn't feasible to allow to cities a couple hundred km away to host. The World Cup uses stadiums all over a country -in some cases thousands of miles/kilometers apart- and it hasn't hurt the event much at all. Rome and Naples co-hosting should be perfectly fine. Not optimal, maybe. But dual-city bids ought to be given fair consideration if the IOC is serious about reducing waste for the host cities. You hit on both points in that 2nd paragraph. It is most definitely feasible to allow other cities into the mix. But 'optimal' is in the eye of the beholder and the IOC voter who chooses the host city. The question is given the option between, say, a Paris bid where almost everything is concentrated in the metro area of the city, and a Rome-Naples bid where it is not. It's a matter of choice. It's one thing to talk about, in theory, how the IOC should give consideration to such a thing. It would be another entirely for them to make that choice in practice. And let's be fair about something here.. setting up a sport (or more than 1 sport) in another city is not without costs and other logistical hurdles. If the idea is to reduce the overall costs of the Olympics rather than simply lessen the burden on the host city, this may not be it. Again, let's put it to practice. We missed a chance to see what would have happened if the Stockholm bid had gone through. The difference there though is that their issue is one out of geography and natural resources that is specifically outlined in the IOC's policies. As opposed to something where the host city simply can't (or chooses not to) handle it. So will Agenda 2020 change the narrative there? Time will tell, but I remain skeptical. This is still the IOC we're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted December 6, 2014 Report Share Posted December 6, 2014 If Stockholm didn't withdraw, they said they would Build a High Speed Rail between Stockholm and Are, so the distance wasn't a problem. With the Summer Olympics and Paralympics though, most of the Sports should be Hosted in 1 City IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted December 6, 2014 Report Share Posted December 6, 2014 If Stockholm didn't withdraw, they said they would Build a High Speed Rail between Stockholm and Are, so the distance wasn't a problem. With the Summer Olympics and Paralympics though, most of the Sports should be Hosted in 1 City IMO. Tony, ask the question.. if the distance wasn't a problem, then why did Stockholm withdraw? We all know there's a bunch of other factors involved in that decision, but I don't think you can give us the "well, they said they were going to do this, and therefore it wasn't an issue" logic. Really naive to assume that the distance didn't at least contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 800 km is a LONG trip even with high speed rail. With a service speed of 200 km that's a four hour trip. So if you were going to a 10 AM event and planned on getting there 30 minutes early you would need to catch the train by 5:30 AM at the absolute latest. So you would probably need to get up by 4:30 AM. On the other hand it means leaving an event that ends at 9:00 PM and getting back to your hotel around 1:30 or 2:00 AM. 200 km between clusters is inconvenient but should be OK. (Whistler was 125km and people complained about the distance.) 800 km is crazy even with high speed rail. By comparison London to Edinburgh is only a 660 km drive, Tony. I want the IOC to vote for multiple city bids, but I meant something like Glasgow + Edinburgh, not Glasgow + Cardiff. Even I would vote against an 800 km distance between the main event groups. If I had a vote, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 Tony, ask the question.. if the distance wasn't a problem, then why did Stockholm withdraw? We all know there's a bunch of other factors involved in that decision, but I don't think you can give us the "well, they said they were going to do this, and therefore it wasn't an issue" logic. Really naive to assume that the distance didn't at least contribute. ...or the costs involved covering that distance with a high-speed train connection through some of the least populated parts of Sweden... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memorabilia Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 800 km is a LONG trip even with high speed rail. With a service speed of 200 km that's a four hour trip. So if you were going to a 10 AM event and planned on getting there 30 minutes early you would need to catch the train by 5:30 AM at the absolute latest. So you would probably need to get up by 4:30 AM. On the other hand it means leaving an event that ends at 9:00 PM and getting back to your hotel around 1:30 or 2:00 AM. 200 km between clusters is inconvenient but should be OK. (Whistler was 125km and people complained about the distance.) 800 km is crazy even with high speed rail. By comparison London to Edinburgh is only a 660 km drive, Tony. I want the IOC to vote for multiple city bids, but I meant something like Glasgow + Edinburgh, not Glasgow + Cardiff. Even I would vote against an 800 km distance between the main event groups. If I had a vote, that is. Wih high speed train, this is around 3 hours, like the time to go From Paris to Marseille in TGV (780 km). For a Paris bid, we could imagine Paris having the main sports but Marseille hosting Sailing, Beach-Volley, Volley-Ball and some other events where it is nice to be outside near the sea and with sun : Marathon, Road Cycling and Mountain Bike ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 Note: Building high speed train is incredibly expensive. There no way Sweden would have built one for the Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 It's a bit amusing to me that people don't view using multiple cities as acceptable because it requires a bit of a sacrifice from the fans (and to a degree from the athletes). I still don't see why it isn't feasible to allow to cities a couple hundred km away to host. The World Cup uses stadiums all over a country -in some cases thousands of miles/kilometers apart- and it hasn't hurt the event much at all. What's actually amusing, is that you keep bringing the World Cup up every time this point gets brought up. And yet it's still doesn't change the fact that (unless you're Doha-ha) the World Cup uses stadiums hundreds/thousands of miles apart because NO one city is going to have a dozen or so soccer-capable stadiums within their borders. As far as that not hurting the World Cup; again, as the tournament starts dwindling down, that means less spectators & media following the event. Not to mention that most soccer fans are complete fanatics & will follow their beloved teams 'til the end of the earth to watch them at a final match at the "World Cup". Gymnastics or sycronized swimming spectators gonna have such a following? Not so much. And as already noted, simply having two host cities won't necessarily reduce overall costs &/or make it logistically feasible. You have to look at the overall case-by-case picture first to see if it actually would make *complete* sense in the end. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 Wih high speed train, this is around 3 hours, like the time to go From Paris to Marseille in TGV (780 km). Isn't TGV the fastest high speed rail in Europe, though? I can't see Sweden putting the same requirements for high speed on a rail line into sparsely populated areas. To reach 200 kph with stops means something like 225 kph, which is pretty normal for high speed rail. And as already noted, simply having two host cities won't necessarily reduce overall costs &/or make it logistically feasible. You have to look at the overall case-by-case picture first to see if it actually would make *complete* sense in the end. It wouldn't necessarily, but it should in the vast majority of cases. With two cities there would be more hotels, more existing venues, more convention centers, etc. Security costs would only be higher if security established a perimeter like at Sochi or if something like martial law was established; if security checks happened at the venues then costs should at least theoretically be reduced. The only way it would work out worse for the host is if they did a Sochi style build from scratch and built up two new areas instead of one. What's actually amusing, is that you keep bringing the World Cup up every time this point gets brought up. And yet it's still doesn't change the fact that (unless you're Doha-ha) the World Cup uses stadiums hundreds/thousands of miles apart because NO one city is going to have a dozen or so soccer-capable stadiums within their borders. I'm not suggesting that they scatter the various sports around the country like at the World Cup. I'm suggesting that the idea that fans will find it too hard to understand that events will be located in two cities or have trouble moving between the two doesn't seem accurate since they manage the same task for the World Cup. If fans can find their way to twelve different cities for the World Cup without being confused or lost, then two cities for the Olympics should not result in mass confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympikfan Posted December 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 Recommendation All future IOC sessions and Congress will be held in pervious Olympics cities. No more Monte Carlo and being wine and dine. If the IOC boasts about legacy then then should see first-hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 I guess I'm not the only one who finds it ironic that all these recommendations are being debated by the IOC in Monaco, the very epitome of tax evasion, flaunting of extreme wealth, & general over-the-top excess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 I guess I'm not the only one who finds it ironic that all these recommendations are being debated by the IOC in Monaco, the very epitome of tax evasion, flaunting of extreme wealth, & general over-the-top excess? It is an Extraordinary Session and it happened in Monte Carlo because I think Prince Albert offered the IOC very agreeable terms on such short notice. Besides, the last time the IOC met in Monaco was in 1993 when they picked Sydney. So that's almost 21 years since the IOC met in Monaco. The fact that it happened in Monaco shouldn't be any more alarming than the IOC, FIFA, FIVB, the EUro UN, etc., having their headquarters in Switzerland, another dodgy tax-evading nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Uhm, what "EUro" has its HQ in Switzerland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 I think these chances are short-sited, ill-advised, prone to abuse and will ultimately fail because there still seems to be no real desire for change. The first thing I instantly think is that without reasonable limits, what is to stop another Sochi or Beijing going gonzo on adding sports to the point of it becoming an even more massive spectacle? If Sochi was 51 billion, and the IOC didn't have reasonable limits, what would have stopped Sochi for requesting and getting an additional 20 events? Going even bigger? Same with Beijing. This system is going to get abused and it will turn off even more people from wanting their city and country from hosting the Games. With members already saying that many of the changes, like using satellite cities and venues for the Summer Games, being only in extraordinary circumstances, what really has changed? I would love to see a bid from the French or Germans where it would be Paris/Berlin with the majority of the sports Lyon/Hamburg or Munich with venues for football, basketball, volleyball and hosting wrestling, boxing, taekwondo, judo and weightlifting. Lowering the intensity of the Games on one city would be hugely beneficial. It would lessen the need for major infrastructure upgrades, hotel constraints and general impact on the cities themselves. It would also allow for the use of existing venues and infrastructure instead of creating unnecessary duplicates. Something Brazil would have benefited from if Sao Paolo was allowed to host preliminaries for basketball and volleyball as well as football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Uhm, what "EUro" has its HQ in Switzerland? The UN branch in Europe, Duh!! THe main HQRTs is NY but there is a UN presence in Geneva. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympikfan Posted December 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 The IOC did nothing! One day vote next day have cocktails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markun Posted December 10, 2014 Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 The UN branch in Europe, Duh!! THe main HQRTs is NY but there is a UN presence in Geneva. Why is the UN branch in Europe an 'EUro'? What even is an 'EUro'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Mata Posted December 10, 2014 Report Share Posted December 10, 2014 This system is going to get abused and it will turn off even more people from wanting their city and country from hosting the Games. I agree with your statement but maybe this is the 'natural course' of things. We're currently under a template that was succesful in 1984 and got bloated after a few decades. Agenda 2020 tries to make the Olympic Games make sense to 21st century cities. That's great, but eventually the update will get saturated in the future, which doesn't mean the adjustments aren't positive for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.