Durban 2024/28?

[baron-pierreIV]

It would be great if some of the people here had actually been to my country before making pronouncements

Told ya...

[dysan1]

And funny thing, the delayed construction and strikes did not happen in our world cup prep.

[FYI]

The picture you posted on the other hand shows a much nicer side of the city, still needs a bit more development before they are Olympic ready. i just think a good number of people here are too excited about the prospect of Africa hosting their first games and overlooking the fact that Durban is simply not ready.

Considering how you like to tout Louisiana (of all places) on here, I'd take this with a grain of salt. How different is this really than some of the people here "too excited" about the prospect of Kazakhstan hosting their first Games & overlooking the fact of their issues. It's not. At least with (South) Africa's case, there's MUCH more of a narrative there.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Sorry Mr.Bernham, but how can you say South Africa isn't ready, but Kazakhstan is? South Africa is by far more capable then Kazakhstan is. Durban is ready as far as I am concerned.

[woohooitsme83]

It would be great if some of the people here had actually been to my country before making pronouncements

Well every city/country has it's good sides and bad sides. Take LA for example. Step over that bridge to the east and you'll question whether you're still in LA territory. Visit NYC and then tour around Detroit, there'll be a significant difference.

The remark from "Mr. Bernham" is spoken with all the experience and wisdom of a 15-year old. So, consider the source...

Yeahhhhhh... you should really stop generalizing teens. You're making it sound like we're all the same -.-

(I didn't write the letter in the picture BTW)

[reindeer]

And funny thing, the delayed construction and strikes did not happen in our world cup prep.

As far as I can remember and unless the news I saw were complete lies, there were delays and strikes, although they didn't matter in the end and the tournament went off smoothly. Especially in a developing country like South Africa I can easily see how the workers would try to take advantage of being in the global limelight. Not that I necessarily see anything wrong about it cause I far prefer a society where strikes are possible instead of a Chinese/Qatari system as I don't agree with teenagers who are smitten with dictator states' organizational ability. If it causes headache to the kleptocrats of FIFA/IOC, that's even better.

[Alexjc]

Industrial strife is always a focus for the media when it comes to preparations for these mega global events. Any little hint of strife and it get blown out of proportion.

In saying that, Unions love to stir as well and in most cases costs blow out simply because unions get their way and force over inflated wages onto already struggling organizers.

[mr.bernham]

Considering how you like to tout Louisiana (of all places) on here, I'd take this with a grain of salt. How different is this really than some of the people here "too excited" about the prospect of Kazakhstan hosting their first Games & overlooking the fact of their issues. It's not. At least with (South) Africa's case, there's MUCH more of a narrative there.

Yeah, there is a ton more of a narrative for South Africa. I also have never said that people are excited to go to Kazakhstan, i hold the opinion that if the IOC wants to stay alive they are going to have to play it safe, not go and select China which will spend billions and billions of dollars resulting in another Sochi.

Sure I 'tout' Louisiana, a state I am very familiar with. Also keep in mind I am not proposing the state hosts the Olympics, instead I am supporting an organization that wants to bring the much smaller Pan-American games to an emerging economic center of the American South. A city with both a rich history and exciting culture, a city that the games would fit fantastically in, a city that has hosted almost 10 super-bowls and is the preferred sporting event city for many people in the US, a city that knows how to throw a good party. And regardless of what happened in 1984, I'm sure people will overlook the fact that the Fair redeveloped run-down warehouses and a dying waterfront and is now home to the nations sixth largest convention center and the cities most vibrant and culturally rich neighborhoods.

Sorry Mr.Bernham, but how can you say South Africa isn't ready, but Kazakhstan is? South Africa is by far more capable then Kazakhstan is. Durban is ready as far as I am concerned.

Well for starters Almaty has many venues already constructed, that's more than Durban can say at this point. I'm not going to turn this into an Almaty VS the people of Gamesbids thread it is not needed.

It would be great if some of the people here had actually been to my country before making pronouncements

It's not as much as make pronouncements as it as being realistic. South Africa is a developing country and will experience more hiccups than an already developed country would. Look at Brazil, a nation whose GDP exceeds that of South Africa and in terms of developments is ahead of South Africa. They are having "The worst preparations I have seen" as John Coates has now infamously said. In that train of thought it is dafe to reason that the IOC will be very hessitant to go to South Africa, especially in the mess they are in now.

And funny thing, the delayed construction and strikes did not happen in our world cup prep.

Trust me, you will see some strikes or delays, maybe even both when you get the Olympics.

Told ya...

Yes, because you of all people has been to every nation that bids for the games and can make educated arguments as to why they are or are not fit for the games?

To add to my New Orleans rant, the city has a much stronger narrative than any other American city to host the Pan-Ams. The city has experienced an amazing rebirth after Hurricane Katrina and has rebuilt itself as an international destination.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Yeah, there is a ton more of a narrative for South Africa. I also have never said that people are excited to go to Kazakhstan, i hold the opinion that if the IOC wants to stay alive they are going to have to play it safe, not go and select China which will spend billions and billions of dollars resulting in another Sochi.

Sure I 'tout' Louisiana, a state I am very familiar with. Also keep in mind I am not proposing the state hosts the Olympics, instead I am supporting an organization that wants to bring the much smaller Pan-American games to an emerging economic center of the American South. A city with both a rich history and exciting culture, a city that the games would fit fantastically in, a city that has hosted almost 10 super-bowls and is the preferred sporting event city for many people in the US, a city that knows how to throw a good party. And regardless of what happened in 1984, I'm sure people will overlook the fact that the Fair redeveloped run-down warehouses and a dying waterfront and is now home to the nations sixth largest convention center and the cities most vibrant and culturally rich neighborhoods.

Well for starters Almaty has many venues already constructed, that's more than Durban can say at this point. I'm not going to turn this into an Almaty VS the people of Gamesbids thread it is not needed.

It's not as much as make pronouncements as it as being realistic. South Africa is a developing country and will experience more hiccups than an already developed country would. Look at Brazil, a nation whose GDP exceeds that of South Africa and in terms of developments is ahead of South Africa. They are having "The worst preparations I have seen" as John Coates has now infamously said. In that train of thought it is dafe to reason that the IOC will be very hessitant to go to South Africa, especially in the mess they are in now.

Trust me, you will see some strikes or delays, maybe even both when you get the Olympics.

Yes, because you of all people has been to every nation that bids for the games and can make educated arguments as to why they are or are not fit for the games?

To add to my New Orleans rant, the city has a much stronger narrative than any other American city to host the Pan-Ams. The city has experienced an amazing rebirth after Hurricane Katrina and has rebuilt itself as an international destination.

You must be the only person who rates Kazakhstan higher then South Africa. Durban has by far more chance of landing the much larger Summer Olympics, then Almaty does of landing the smaller Winter Olympics. Almaty had to CO-Host with Astana on a far smaller scale competition of the Winter Asian Games.

[FYI]

1. i hold the opinion that if the IOC wants to stay alive they are going to have to play it safe, not go and select China which will spend billions and billions of dollars resulting in another Sochi.

2. Well for starters Almaty has many venues already constructed, that's more than Durban can say at this point.

3. It's not as much as make pronouncements as it as being realistic. South Africa is a developing country and will experience more hiccups than an already developed country would. Look at Brazil, a nation whose GDP exceeds that of South Africa and in terms of developments is ahead of South Africa. They are having "The worst preparations I have seen" as John Coates has now infamously said. In that train of thought it is dafe to reason that the IOC will be very hessitant to go to South Africa, especially in the mess they are in now.

1. And why wouldn't it be "playing it safe" for the IOC to select China? Considering how outta touch they are ATM, especially Bach, I'd say China spending more Billions on them would only be nothing but comforting to them. As someone around here likes to say, "all the IOC 'needs' is just one good bid, & 'all will be well' ".

And it's not like Kazahkstan would do some austerity Games either. They'd spend billions, too. So you're just kidding yourself if you think some attention-hungry, oil-rich country, governed by a virtual dictator. is going to do it on the cheap.

2. That's not true whatsoever. Durban has the Kings Park Sports Precinct (go & look it up), which houses many venues that would be used for a Summer Olympic Games. Including the all-important, main Olympic Stadium.

3. John Coates should hardly be criticising other nations preps, IMHO. Must he be reminded how close Melbounre 1956 came to being stripped of the Games by back then IOC president Avery Brundage. But in the end, Melbourne 1956 went off without too many glitches, & were dubbed "the friendly Games". And actually started some innovations, too, like the way we see the closing ceremonies today, where it's more of a party-like atmosphere instead of the more uniform that we see at the opening, like with the parade of nations.

I also think that people like to convienently forget that Brazil wanted a BIG piece of the pie all at once, by going after the WC & the Olympics. The two mega-events back-to-back were too much for Brazil to handle smoothly. They shoulda only went for one or the other, but not both (or at the very least, the Olympics shoulda came first). It was a point of concern during the 2016 bidding campaign, but the IOC obviously chose to overlook it. So now they have no choice but to meneauver through the turbulence. And once through, I'm sure Rio 2016 will be one spectacular Samba party.

[Athensfan]

The Kings Park Sports Precinct will be great feature for Olympic Games someday, but it is not ready yet. For example, the aquatics center is not up to Olympic standards. Capacity is less than 5,000. Capacity in London was 17,500 -- more than triple the size. Moses Mabhida Stadium is truly spectacular, but it is not "all-important." Stadiums are big issues for American cities whereas the other venues and organization of the Games are not. The same is not true elsewhere in the world. SA still has a whole lot to sort out besides a stadium.

It is not correct to lay all the Olympic problems at the feet of the World Cup. No, the World Cup didn't help, but it can't be blamed for everything either. Brazil came to the Olympics with far more experience and a much bigger economy than SA, so the fact that they're having so much trouble is quite relevant. Frankly, I don't think that hosting CWG and Olympics within 2 years of each other is much better than Brazil's predicament. Yes, there's some venue crossover, but venues alone do not make an Olympics. So much rides on the organization and the human resources. South Africa will have even fewer than Brazil and with only 2 years turnaround, I just don't think it's enough time. If they waited another 4 years (and preferably 8) they could stage the Games with a much surer hand.

[mr.bernham]

You must be the only person who rates Kazakhstan higher then South Africa. Durban has by far more chance of landing the much larger Summer Olympics, then Almaty does of landing the smaller Winter Olympics. Almaty had to CO-Host with Astana on a far smaller scale competition of the Winter Asian Games.

Tony you must be the only person here that say's London is the best city in the world. In this bid cycle Almaty has a much higher chance to win the games than a city that is not even bidding. Sure Almaty had to co-host, but that does not mean the city which has many more venues in place than Beijing and Oslo can not host the games.

1. And why wouldn't it be "playing it safe" for the IOC to select China? Considering how outta touch they are ATM, especially Bach, I'd say China spending more Billions on them would only be nothing but comforting to them. As someone around here likes to say, "all the IOC 'needs' is just one good bid, & 'all will be well' ".

And it's not like Kazahkstan would do some austerity Games either. They'd spend billions, too. So you're just kidding yourself if you think some attention-hungry, oil-rich country, governed by a virtual dictator. is going to do it on the cheap.

Because if China hosts then you can expect all the games from Sochi to Beijing to be will into the ten billions. That will sure as hell turn off many European and possibly even American cities. The IOC can not afford that scenario, then again your right the IOC will probably be ignorant dumb-arses come July 2015.

Sure Almaty will spend big money, but your not going to see a Beijing or Sochi. They are proposing to use all existing venues, and if my memory serves me right only two venues will be built specifically for the games. Most of Almatys cash will be spent on organization, branding, infrastructure, and the 'all important' ceremonies.

[FYI]

1. Moses Mabhida Stadium is truly spectacular, but it is not "all-important." Stadiums are big issues for American cities whereas the other venues and organization of the Games are not. The same is not true elsewhere in the world. SA still has a whole lot to sort out besides a stadium.

2. It is not correct to lay all the Olympic problems at the feet of the World Cup. No, the World Cup didn't help, but it can't be blamed for everything either. Brazil came to the Olympics with far more experience and a much bigger economy than SA, so the fact that they're having so much trouble is quite relevant.

1. Really? The Olympic Stadium is the main centerpiece of the Games. Durban doesn't have to build it. It's already there. That's a big piece of the puzzle right there. The fact that you're trying to trivialize it is quite amusing, to say the least. But I guess anything to downplay a potential South African bid, & everything to trumpet a possible L.A. 2024.

I think it's no secret around here that you desperately would like to see U.S. Summer Games sooner rather later, but I think your extreme partiality is really showing on this one now, especially when your view now that long ago was that "the USOC should just sit this one out". And you're virtually on every other thread now around here beating your anti-South African drum, & how France may not get their act together.

Yeah, a few things have changed in the last few months, but not to the extent where an L.A. coronation is certain. Far from it. Especially when there's also the European factor to calculate into all of this (issues or not). One or both may still not wind up bidding after all, which is why I'll take the 'wait & see' approach 'until more data becomes available'.

2. I'm not laying "all" the Olympic problems at the feet of the World Cup. So please stop "misrepresenting my position" here. Obviously even without the World Cup, there woulda been delays of some sort (as there usually are). But I also think it's not correct not to cast quite a bit of the blame on Brazil's over-reaching. The Brazilians intentionally increased the number of World Cup stadia when FIFA told them that less would suffice. The Brazilians didn't care. They went on & built those extra unnecessary stadiums anyway. Those were resources that coulda been prioritized to Olympic preps instead. Especially when after a while, the Brazilian public balked at all the spending for these two mega-events & started protesting. Bottom line, no, not everything can be blamed on the World Cup (never said that TBW). But let's not sit here & pretend that it didn't take it's toll on the Olympics, either.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Tony you must be the only person here that say's London is the best city in the world. In this bid cycle Almaty has a much higher chance to win the games than a city that is not even bidding. Sure Almaty had to co-host, but that does not mean the city which has many more venues in place than Beijing and Oslo can not host the games.

Because if China hosts then you can expect all the games from Sochi to Beijing to be will into the ten billions. That will sure as hell turn off many European and possibly even American cities. The IOC can not afford that scenario, then again your right the IOC will probably be ignorant dumb-arses come July 2015.

Sure Almaty will spend big money, but your not going to see a Beijing or Sochi. They are proposing to use all existing venues, and if my memory serves me right only two venues will be built specifically for the games. Most of Almatys cash will be spent on organization, branding, infrastructure, and the 'all important' ceremonies.

Nice. To try and underestimate my point and to try and make yourself feel better, you bring up old arguments. Almaty is overrated as far as I am concerned. To be quite honest, it's hard to compare a Summer Olympic Candidate with a Winter Olympic Candidate, because there's different requirements, different needs for different Sports, different infrastructure needs, different circumstances and different surroundings. Saying that, I still believe that Durban has by far more chance of landing the Summer Olympics then Almaty has of landing the Winter Olympics. I believe this because, Durban can hold the 'First Olympic Games in Africa', like Rio de Janeiro held the 'First Olympic Games in South America' in 2016. What's Almaty got to offer. A few shiny Venues? What's against them? Stronger Candidates, Ex Soviet Union and had to Co-Host a much smaller Asian Winter Games with Astana. If Oslo withdraws, I'm 99.9 per cent sure the IOC would prefer Beijing over Almaty.

[Athensfan]

1. Really? The Olympic Stadium is the main centerpiece of the Games. Durban doesn't have to build it. It's already there. That's a big piece of the puzzle right there. The fact that you're trying to trivialize it is quite amusing, to say the least. But I guess anything to downplay a potential South African bid, & everything to trumpet a possible L.A. 2024.

I think it's no secret around here that you desperately would like to see U.S. Summer Games sooner rather later, but I think your extreme partiality is really showing on this one now, especially when your view now that long ago was that "the USOC should just sit this one out". And you're virtually on every other thread now around here beating your anti-South African drum, & how France may not get their act together.

Yeah, a few things have changed in the last few months, but not to the extent where an L.A. coronation is certain. Far from it. Especially when there's also the European factor to calculate into all of this (issues or not). One or both may still not wind up bidding after all, which is why I'll take the 'wait & see' approach 'until more data becomes available'.

2. I'm not laying "all" the Olympic problems at the feet of the World Cup. So please stop "misrepresenting my position" here. Obviously even without the World Cup, there woulda been delays of some sort (as there usually are). But I also think it's not correct not to cast quite a bit of the blame on Brazil's over-reaching. The Brazilians intentionally increased the number of World Cup stadia when FIFA told them that less would suffice. The Brazilians didn't care. They went on & built those extra unnecessary stadiums anyway. Those were resources that coulda been prioritized to Olympic preps instead. Especially when after a while, the Brazilian public balked at all the spending for these two mega-events & started protesting. Bottom line, no, not everything can be blamed on the World Cup (never said that TBW). But let's not sit here & pretend that it didn't take it's toll on the Olympics, either.

For starters, you quoted very selectively. Durban's stadium is great and in much better shape than either the Coliseum or Stade de France -- at least for the time being. I'm glad Durban doesn't have to deal with it. But it is a fact that a stadium is not "all important" and a stadium alone does not make any Olympics. You ignored, for example, the inadequacy of the aquatics center. You act as though Durban has a complete Olympic Park that is ready for competition. That is not true. The US has to deal with the stadium issue. Durban has to deal with the whole lack of experience/organization issue.

Since you are misrepresenting my position in typical fashion, let me set the record straight: I certainly don't believe "an LA coronation is certain." I did like the preliminary plan that was released and of course would like to see the Games return to my hometown. Until recently , that seemed quite improbable, but now I do think there's a fighting chance.

I am not desperate for the US to host the Olympics. In fact, I have said I don't think the US should be bidding for 2024 and that it would make more sense to wait until 2032. However, the IOC's current tailspin where 2022 is concerned, coupled with problems in Rio and a tide of anti-Olympic sentiment may be tipping the scales. I do think a 2024 bid would still be a gamble for the US, but the odds aren't looking as long to me as they once did.

Paris and Durban are the big question marks. I do think Rio will impact Durban's chances for a variety of reasons -- both objective and subjective. I do believe that Durban would be much better off hosting CWG in 2022 and targeting either 2028 or 2032. I believe they would be setting themselves up for success. I am making that argument because I believe it and not in service of an ulterior motive.

I never said the World Cup had no impact on the Olympic preparations -- though you never seem to tire of making that accusation. I do think Brazil probably would have struggled even without it, albeit less so. The reality is that developing nations are generally not reliable judges of their own capabilities. They don't have enough experience. Brazil will get through this and we hope it will be a success, but the same problems should not be replicated in a far smaller country with far less experience and far fewer resources who is still trying to host two big events just 2 years apart. Every city you bring up to explain why Durban can succeed in 2024 (Rio, Sochi, Athens) is a perfect example of why Durban should not host until they have more experience and more sports infrastructure.

The most successful and solid Games of the millennium (in terms of the overall financial picture and legacy) have been Sydney, Salt Lake, Beijing, Vancouver and London. Those are the cities and countries that have managed to deliver strong Games within the IOC's chosen format. Durban does not share many of their characteristics. Giving the Games to Durban in 2024 would be asking for another Athens/Rio situation, but probably worse.

As for Paris, the problems surrounding 2022 may or may not spill over into their attitude about 2024. It's too early to tell.

If everything broke just the right way, I can easily imagine Paris 2024, Durban 2028 and perhaps US 2032 -- that's assuming the US is still willing to bid a fifth time after 4 losses despite being by far the largest financial contributor to the Games.

You can disagree with this stuff if you like, but please pay me the respect of accepting my opinions at face value and not misrepresenting my position.

[FYI]

1. For starters, you quoted very selectively. Durban's stadium is great and in much better shape than either the Coliseum or Stade de France -- at least for the time being. I'm glad Durban doesn't have to deal with it. But it is a fact that a stadium is not "all important" and a stadium alone does not make any Olympics. You ignored, for example, the inadequacy of the aquatics center. You act as though Durban has a complete Olympic Park that is ready for competition. That is not true. The US has to deal with the stadium issue. Durban has to deal with the whole lack of experience/organization issue.

2. Since you are misrepresenting my position in typical fashion, let me set the record straight: I certainly don't believe "an LA coronation is certain." I did like the preliminary plan that was released and of course would like to see the Games return to my hometown. Until recently , that seemed quite improbable, but now I do think there's a fighting chance.

I am not desperate for the US to host the Olympics. In fact, I have said I don't think the US should be bidding for 2024 and that it would make more sense to wait until 2032. However, the IOC's current tailspin where 2022 is concerned, coupled with problems in Rio and a tide of anti-Olympic sentiment may be tipping the scales. I do think a 2024 bid would still be a gamble for the US, but the odds aren't looking as long to me as they once did.

3. I never said the World Cup had no impact on the Olympic preparations -- though you never seem to tire of making that accusation. I do think Brazil probably would have struggled even without it, albeit less so. The reality is that developing nations are generally not reliable judges of their own capabilities. They don't have enough experience. Brazil will get through this and we hope it will be a success, but the same problems should not be replicated in a far smaller country with far less experience and far fewer resources who is still trying to host two big events just 2 years apart. Every city you bring up to explain why Durban can succeed in 2024 (Rio, Sochi, Athens) is a perfect example of why Durban should not host until they have more experience and more sports infrastructure.

The most successful and solid Games of the millennium (in terms of the overall financial picture and legacy) have been Sydney, Salt Lake, Beijing, Vancouver and London. Those are the cities and countries that have managed to deliver strong Games within the IOC's chosen format. Durban does not share many of their characteristics. Giving the Games to Durban in 2024 would be asking for another Athens/Rio situation, but probably worse.

4. You can disagree with this stuff if you like, but please pay me the respect of accepting my opinions at face value and not misrepresenting my position.

1. I'm not quoting selectively at at all. I didn't mention the aquatics center cuz it would go without saying that it would be improved upon if they were to host the Olympics. Just like L.A. would need to improve the Coliseum. And obviously they would do that. It's not like the Kings Sports Precinct is going to remain stagnant over the years. It was built for the intial purpose of hosting events, & eventually the Olympics someday. So I'm not "acting" like anything.

I never said that the Olympic Stadium was the end-all, be-all. But it IS an all-important piece of the Games. Disagree if you want, though, IDC. But without it, there would be no ceremonies, no track & field, nothing to showcase. If the main stadium isn't really that important, then L.A. should really cut out revamping the Coliseum & save themselves a ton of money.

2. I'm not misrepresenting your position in "typical fashion" anymore than you are mine. You've argued all along on these boards that the USOC should stay focused & bid for Summer Games & not be tempted to go for the 'less than stellar' Winter Games when others have argued for them instead. So I fail to see, exactly, how that is misrepresenting your view. I know that you've said before that the U.S. should perhaps refrain from bidding for 2024 (I even mentioned that in my last post), & I do agree in the aspect that L.A. seems to appear to able to have more of a chance now with their new plan. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's "tipping the scale" (at least now yet anyway) & that's why your outlook is totally changing now. That's why I still want to take the "wait & see" approach.

3. I never said that World Cup was totally to blame, either. Yet you also "never seem to tire of making that accusation". The Games have now become so expensive & demanding, that it's not gonna necessarily be a walk in the park even for a city like L.A., either. So I don't necessarily buy that it's only developing countries that generally aren't good judges of their own abilities. Beijing is in a developing country, & Atlanta is in a developed country, but which one of those two were more "successful".

It's also not like California is in the best of financial shape these days, either, & if the IOC is unwilling to at least start curtailing some of the gargantuan expenses, then no one is going to be able to "successfully" stage an Olympics again. Even a 2024 L.A. Games would cost anywhere from $15-20 Billion. That's not cheap. And certainly many, many times more than what L.A. spent on the 1984 Summer Games.

4. IDK whether to laugh, balk or both at this. It's obvious that we both mostly disagree on this topic, & agree on very few points. So no need to keep going around in circles here. So I'm done. But please practice what you preach, Athensfan.

[Athensfan]

I don't think you understand the meaning of "all-important." "All-important" means "the be all and end all." What you meant was that the stadium was an "important" piece to have in place -- which seems like stating the obvious.

Yes, I think the US should host Summer Games before Winter Games. That does not make me "desperate" (your word) for the US to host. You also accused me of minimizing the other possible bids to help American efforts, which is garbage. It's early days and we know more about US prospects than others, plain and simple.

The Olympics are a challenge for everyone because they've become so immense. You say they'll be a struggle for LA (who is already incredibly prepared), but keep insisting on Durban's viability. That just doesn't make sense.

Durban has serious issues to address before they can be trusted with the Games. I don't see 2024 as their time and I stand by that. I'd like to see them succeed with 2022 CWG first so that the IOC doesn't end up with another Rio/Athens or worse.

As for LA costing 15-20 billion, that's a number you pulled out of thin air. That certainly wouldn't be the Olympic-specific budget as the big ticket items (river, metro expansion) would happen anyway and shouldn't be included in the Olympic budget figures.

I do think it's interesting that you, an American, would poke holes on American hopes, while glossing over Durban's real challenges. I don't understand why you are picking this fight.

[FYI]

1. I don't think you understand the meaning of "all-important."

You also accused me of minimizing the other possible bids to help American efforts, which is garbage. It's early days and we know more about US prospects than others, plain and simple.

2. As for LA costing 15-20 billion, that's a number you pulled out of thin air. That certainly wouldn't be the Olympic-specific budget as the big ticket items (river, metro expansion) would happen anyway and shouldn't be included in the Olympic budget figures.

3. I do think it's interesting that you, an American, would poke holes on American hopes, while glossing over Durban's real challenges. I don't understand why you are picking this fight.

1. I'm not getting into the hair-spilting of 'all-important'. Point is, the main stadium is a very important puzzle to all of this. You claim it's stating the obvious, but apparently not when it seems like you just want to minimize that element of Durban's plan. But whatever.

Precisely bcuz it's early days is why I want to 'wait & see'. Simply bcuz we know more about U.S. cities at this point (which is debatable anyway, since there are a couple of other international cities out there right now also doing preliminary studies) is not any "evidence" of anything. Dynamics change from month-to-month, week-to-week & sometimes day-to-day. Which is why I ain't jumping to any concrete conclusions or even seeming hypotheticals at this early point. It's still over 15-months away 'til the IOC 2024 interested deadline, & a lot can change between now & then.

2. Not really. The London 2012 Olympics cost over $15 Billion. The Boston 2024 skeptics cite that their efforts could cost anywhere from $10-20 Billion. And they're a city that has many facilities & infrastructure already in place. Although they do need a couple of the big-ticket venues items, but that's quite a variation of a budget.

Even if a much smaller Winter Games in well-equipped Oslo is projected to cost somewhere around $8 Billion, let's not kid ourselves over the much more expensive Summer Olympics, especially by 2024 Olympic dollars. Those projects that you're talking about that won't be part of the Olympic budget will still be associated by the critics of an Olympic bid. Especially when you've even said yourself that the Olympics is a good way to 'expedite' these needed projects in L.A.

3. Yeah, I'm an American. And I would love to see another U.S. Summer Olympics in 2024 just as much as you, or any other American on these boards would. But I'm also a realist & try to have an objective POV without having nationalism get in the way of that (which is more than I can say for many on here).

The IOC is also made up of about 110 or so members. With only about 3 or 4 of them from the U.S. So the remaining 100+ individuals are the ones that are likely to "poke holes on American hopes". So I'm not 'picking any fights' here, other than trying to be objective. Which is why I still want to 'wait & see'. It's a long road ahead yet.

[Athensfan]

There are no hairs to split with "all-important." It's cut and dried.

As you know, I'm the king of "wait and see." I don't think Durban's readiness is going to change much, but Paris is a real unknown. Although the recent mayor's statement does not sound encouraging.

LA isn't proposing anything even remotely on the scale of London. They don't need to. That's what's positive about the plan. When people start saying "the government's going to block all this," I think that's looking for trouble. These aren't white elephant projects. Not a single one. They're all needed urban development.

Every bid has it's detractors. Unavoidable. You seem to have an appetite for going after American bids. I've never heard you express anything resembling hope that the US might host.

You seem quite keen on Durban, however. All that "realism" goes out the window where they're concerned. Bit of a double-standard?

[FYI]

Whatever, I'm not arguing semantics. And If I have double-standards, then I most likely picked them up from these boards. Go figure. I just love it how you can use the "wait & see" approach whenever you see fit, but if others use it, it's not condusive. And for the record, I never said "the govement's going to block all of this". That was completely somebody else.

And yeah, the Paris mayor is not quite on board yet, but mayors' have changed their minds before. She hasn't totally said no, either. Things can change. So let's just "wait & see" on that one, too, shall we. There's also the possibility of other Euro bids coming forth. We don't know that yet.

Also, an L.A. 2024 Games would still cost at least $10 Billion. Thinking that it would cost anything less would completely be unrealistic. That doesn't mean though, that I would be against it. Just citing it, since you seeminly think they're gonna be somehow inexpensive.

Again, I've acknowledged that Durban may not even bid in the end. But I also wouldn't reckon their chances going automatically 'out the window' as you seem to be hellbent on arguing, if they do. I also totally resent your implication that I have "an appetite" against American bids (& whatever else you're trying to imply with that comment). I certainly was all onboard for Chicago 2016, so your accusation has no merit. I would certainly love it if the U.S. got 2024, but I'm not gonna have any blinders on, either (like the Spaniards that were on here for 2020, for example). Unless Baku & Doha are the only ones bidding, an L.A. 2024 bid (where the city is also asking to host for a third time, & last time as recent as 1984) is not going to just come in & automatically sweep the day.

[Athensfan]

Whatever, I'm not arguing semantics. And If I have double-standards, then I most likely picked them up from these boards. Go figure. I just love it how you can use the "wait & see" approach whenever you see fit, but if others use it, it's not condusive. And for the record, I never said "the govement's going to block all of this". That was completely somebody else.

And yeah, the Paris mayor is not quite on board yet, but mayors' have changed their minds before. She hasn't totally said no, either. Things can change. So let's just "wait & see" on that one, too, shall we. There's also the possibility of other Euro bids coming forth. We don't know that yet.

Also, an L.A. 2024 Games would still cost at least $10 Billion. Thinking that it would cost anything less would completely be unrealistic. That doesn't mean though, that I would be against it. Just citing it, since you seeminly think they're gonna be somehow inexpensive.

Again, I've acknowledged that Durban may not even bid in the end. But I also wouldn't reckon their chances going automatically 'out the window' as you seem to be hellbent on arguing, if they do. I also totally resent your implication that I have "an appetite" against American bids (& whatever else you're trying to imply with that comment). I certainly was all onboard for Chicago 2016, so your accusation has no merit. I would certainly love it if the U.S. got 2024, but I'm not gonna have any blinders on, either (like the Spaniards that were on here for 2020, for example). Unless Baku & Doha are the only ones bidding, an L.A. 2024 bid (where the city is also asking to host for a third time, & last time as recent as 1984) is not going to just come in & automatically sweep the day.

Did I say Durban was "out the window"? Am I "hell bent" on proclaiming this?

Hardly. My posts speak for themselves and I'm not going to repeat myself just because your reading comprehension is failing you.

You say Hidalgo's just "not on board yet." How optimistic for someone who seems to find nothing but fault with his own country's candidates. If that were a US city you'd pronounce them dead on the spot.

Clearly it's pointless trying to have a conversation with someone who believes the phrase "all important" is open to interpretation. Semantics! Are you kidding?!

[Athensfan]

For the record, just because I think 2024 is too soon for Durban, that doesn't mean the IOC will agree. They may be won over by the global map with a big blank spot for Africa and choose to ignore the cautionary tales of Athens and Rio. They may say "it's no big deal for Durban to host the CWG within two years of the Olympics."

I want to see Olympics in Africa, but I want them to succeed. That's why I'm arguing it would be best for all concerned if Durban targeted 2028 or 2032. I would hold that view irrespective of the identities of the other bidders.

[gotosy]

Rule change could favour African Olympic bid - IOC chief

(Reuters) - African countries stand a higher chance of staging future Olympic Games if proposed changes to bidding procedures are adopted by the ruling body, International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach said.

Bach, who made a whistle-stop tour on Sunday of three African countries - South Africa, Kenya and Ethiopia - after attending the African Youth Games in Gaberone, Botswana, said his wish was to see the continent stage the world's most prestigious sports competition.

"Africa has produced excellent athletes and yet has not staged the Olympic games. We (at the IOC) would be happy to see a feasibly bid from the continent," Bach told Reuters in Eldoret, a city famed for producing world class runners some 350 kilometres north west of Kenyan capital Nairobi where he visited fellow IOC member and Kenyan athletics great Kipchoge Keino.

"As you know, since my election as IOC president, we are already discussing changes to bidding procedure under the framework of Olympic Agenda 2020 where we want to open doors to more cities and more countries to bid to organise the Games," Bach said.

He did not give specifics of the changes to bidding and organisation of the games, but there have been murmurs of discontent, especially from the African countries, over the idea of staging some 28 disciplines in a single city as opposed to FIFA World Cup, which takes place across several cities of one country.

...

Reuters

[Athensfan]

Hm. So they're thinking about spreading the Games all over? I can see letting go of compactness to a certain extent, but if they start getting into multiple villages, the Games will lose a lot of atmosphere.

[StefanMUC]

Hm. So they're thinking about spreading the Games all over? I can see letting go of compactness to a certain extent, but if they start getting into multiple villages, the Games will lose a lot of atmosphere.

...and it won't reduce costs either, I guess...