Durban 2024/28?

[Athensfan]

Yep, times change. The power of the Africa card may have grown stronger since the past two bids. Or for all we know, it may have grown weaker. Until the IOC voters actually *do* something - not say something, but do something - we have no way to know how strong that card is.

I've never dismissed an African bid out of hand. But I've never said all they have to do is bid and they win either.

Show me evidence that suggests Africa is less desirable to the IOC now than it was in 2004 or 2008.

I mean what was so different about their 2016 campaign than in 2004 and 2012 when they weren't even shortlisted? Did they not play a South America card in those votes (and remember, there was another South American city for the 2004 election)? That's why I don't like the "they played the South American card" concept. That they won IMO is more about the IOC finally wanting South America, not simply that Rio stood up and said "hey, we're in South America, pick us!"

3 big differences from 2004 and 2012:

1.) 2007 PanAms

2.) Lula

3.) Favorable geopolitics (too soon for Europe and Asia and still too soon for the US).

[yoshi]

4) A map.

[FYI]

4) A map.

Lmfao! :-D

[Athensfan]

4) A map.

That's my number three.

[Quaker2001]

3 big differences from 2004 and 2012:

1.) 2007 PanAms

2.) Lula

3.) Favorable geopolitics (too soon for Europe and Asia and still too soon for the US).

Thank you for answering the rhetorical question. Yes, a lot of things changed from 2005 to 2009 that contributed heavily to Rio's win

[Athensfan]

Thank you for answering the rhetorical question. Yes, a lot of things changed from 2005 to 2009 that contributed heavily to Rio's win

Yeah . It didn't sound very "rhetorical" when you asked it. It sounded like you were saying that there was no substantive difference between the bids when there was.

[FYI]

I think you might be right, but again, remember that with those other cities, those landslide victories didn't come on their first try.

Again, though, with Beijing they nearly clenched it with their first bid. The Chinese were winning every 2000 ballot, except for the last one, which they lost by only two votes. So there was already strong desire then by the IOC to go to China.

With PyeongChang, it's fair to say that such a newcomer wasn't going to win 2010, especially right on the heels of another Asian Games - Beijing 2008. And despite those obstacles, the South Koreans nearly got it then. Same thing with 2014. But then in both instances when the Chinese & South Koreans actually won, it's was very clear by their respective winning votes where the IOC wanted to go.

The South Africans aren't exactly strangers to the IOC. They've submitted a bid once before. Even if it was back for the 2004 Olympics. They've recently hosted an IOC session in the city that we're talking about here. The South Africans hosted a succesful 2010 FIFA World Cup. One of their IOC members is on the ExCo. Many senior IOC members (& other sport officials) advocate to take the Games to the continent sooner than later. So all of those things combined should be a good indicator how the IOC would react to a credible African bid.

And if Beijing & Pyeongchang's landslide wins could show us anything, is if the IOC is really serious, then they better go after it right from the get go, instead of wheeling & dealing votes ie "sympathy votes, second option votes", etc, cuz then, they probably coulda gotten it on their first tries. And they wouldn't leave their first option to the wayside bcuz of such things.

[Quaker2001]

Yeah . It didn't sound very "rhetorical" when you asked it. It sounded like you were saying that there was no substantive difference between the bids when there was.

Give me a little credit here. These are 2 of my posts following the one you quoted..

Yes, now we're on the same page! A lot changed from the 2012 vote to the 2016 vote. That's what won it for Rio. I know a lot is made about them breaking out the map for their 2016 campaign. I don't look at that as some sort of card they played. More than the IOC was more receptive to selecting them. Just like the 1/5 of humanity argument got Beijing close to winning 2000.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that Rio was in South America when the shortlist was made for 2012. Just like they were still in South America when the vote for 2016 came along. Yes, a lot was different with Rio with respect to those bids. That Rio was/is in South America is not 1 of them. In 2009, the IOC was more receptive towards a South American candidate than they ever had been before, moreso than in 2005 when they had a strong field of candidates to pick from, and certainly more than for the `04 vote when Athens was at the top of the list. So yes, that Rio is in South America had a lot to do with them winning. But it worked out that way because of the circumstances of that bid and that field of candidates.

[Quaker2001]

Again, though, with Beijing they nearly clenched it with their first bid. The Chinese were winning every 2000 ballot, except for the last one, which they lost by only two votes. So there was already strong desire then by the IOC to go to China.

With PyeongChang, it's fair to say that such a newcomer wasn't going to win 2010, especially right on the heels of another Asian Games - Beijing 2008. And despite those obstacles, the South Koreans nearly got it then. Same thing with 2014. But then in both instances when the Chinese & South Koreans actually won, it's was very clear by their respective winning votes where the IOC wanted to go.

The South Africans aren't exactly strangers to the IOC. They've submitted a bid once before. Even if it was back for the 2004 Olympics. They've recently hosted an IOC session in the city that we're talking about here. The South Africans hosted a succesful 2010 FIFA World Cup. One of their IOC members is on the ExCo. Many senior IOC members (& other sport officials) advocate to take the Games to the continent sooner than later. So all of those things combined should be a good indicator how the IOC would react to a credible African bid.

And if Beijing & Pyeongchang's landslide wins could show us anything, is if the IOC is really serious, then they better go after it right from the get go, instead of wheeling & dealing votes ie "sympathy votes, second option votes", etc, cuz then, they probably coulda gotten it on their first tries. And they wouldn't leave their first option to the wayside bcuz of such things.

That's the $20 billion question (or whatever a 2024 Olympics might wind up costing). Just how much support will Durban have when it really matters. Like you said, indications were that Beijing would win the 2000 bid, but they came up just short. So while Durban probably has a good deal of support (I don't put much stock in the 2004 bid since it was 2 IOC presidents ago when that vote was held, not to mention being in a different city.. I do think hosting the IOC session will give them a boost though), what happens when that support is put to the test on the only ballot that actually means anything?

It's been brought up here before.. if Paris bids, would the IOC reject them for a 4th time? Would they say no to the United States for a 3rd time after NBC just signed a $7.75 extension to their rights deal? A case could be made (maybe moreso for Paris than an US bid) that they wouldn't leave them by the wayside either and put them off another 4 years, even in a field that includes Durban.

So that we don't go in circles again.. there are certainly stories behind Beijing and Rio and PC winning their respective Olympics. I know there are certain similarities that can be drawn with Durban. I'm all for looking at Durban and what they may offer and sizing up what a vote might look like, I'm just wary of trying to predict the future based on past precedent.

[FYI]

It's been brought up here before.. if Paris bids, would the IOC reject them for a 4th time? Would they say no to the United States for a 3rd time after NBC just signed a $7.75 extension to their rights deal? A case could be made (maybe moreso for Paris than an US bid) that they wouldn't leave them by the wayside either and put them off another 4 years, even in a field that includes Durban.

Well, that would fall into what I said earlier, 'would a Durban bid be unbeatable?' And my response was, no. I've also acknowledged before, probably even in this thread, in the past that I could envision Paris as being the most likely European opponent in pulling the rug right underneath the South Africans. But at the same time, the IOC doesn't owe anything to French despite their previous losses. And the same could be said of the U.S. Especially when the USOC would be coming back for that third time with a "different" city (which is what you cite against South Africa when they had for 2004 with a different city).

The IOC doesn't need to feel obligated to give the U.S. the Games simply bcuz they signed yet another muti-billion dollar deal with NBC. Besides, that's already a done deal. And it's not like it could be used as leverage by the USOC if the deal was still to be made after the vote. Not to mention, that deal is 'til 2032 anyway. So that's still three summer spots available if the IOC felt compelled enough to award the U.S. one of those slots bcuz of said deal. But one things for sure, none of those aspects that you're citing could be part of the bid campaign for any of the parties mentioked anyway. Cuz if it did become a game of "you owe us" cuz of lucrative TV rights deal, &/or you've rejected us three times already, I'd be willing to still give the edge to the South Africans on that one.

I'm all for looking at Durban and what they may offer and sizing up what a vote might look like, I'm just wary of trying to predict the future based on past precedent.

But isn't that what you're doing by citing the U.S.' & Paris' previous losses. You're trying to create "what ifs" arguments with past precedent. I think the real trick is which of those past precedents has the most weight when it comes down to the bigger picture.

[Quaker2001]

Well, that would fall into what I said earlier, 'would a Durban bid be unbeatable?' And my response was, no. I've also acknowledged before, probably even in this thread, in the past that I could envision Paris as being the most likely European opponent in pulling the rug right underneath the South Africans. But at the same time, the IOC doesn't owe anything to French despite their previous losses. And the same could be said of the U.S. Especially when the USOC would be coming back for that third time with a "different" city (which is what you cite against South Africa when they had for 2004 with a different city).

The IOC doesn't need to feel obligated to give the U.S. the Games simply bcuz they signed yet another muti-billion dollar deal with NBC. Besides, that's already a done deal. And it's not like it could be used as leverage by the USOC if the deal was still to be made after the vote. Not to mention, that deal is 'til 2032 anyway. So that's still three summer spots available if the IOC felt compelled enough to award the U.S. one of those slots bcuz of said deal. But one things for sure, none of those aspects that you're citing could be part of the bid campaign for any of the parties mentioked anyway. Cuz if it did become a game of "you owe us" cuz of lucrative TV rights deal, &/or you've rejected us three times already, I'd be willing to still give the edge to the South Africans on that one.

This is where we need to avoid this becoming another matter of semantics because I know you're not actually advocating for South Africa anymore than I'm advocating against them. I think we know where we each stand, it's just getting lost in translation a bit.

Here's what I think we can both agree on.. when the day of decision comes (and for all the lead up that gets us to that day, it's the only one that matters), all of the IOC members are going to make their picks based on whatever criteria they want to use, whether it's what furthers the Olympic movement or (perhaps more likely) whatever agrees with their personal agenda. The case for a South African bid practically makes itself much as it did for Beijing and Rio (maybe not so much with PC). It just needs some substance. Where we start to drift apart is where you're looking at past precedent and trying to apply it to the present. Beijing 2008, Rio 2016, and PC 2018 turned out the way they did because of the circumstances of those particular bids. So for you to say "I see South Africa as being no different".. well, it all depends on the dynamics of whatever race they enter. The case needs to be made for them and their circumstances rather than to say this is what happened before and I can see it happening again.

[FYI]

Where we start to drift apart is where you're looking at past precedent and trying to apply it to the present. Beijing 2008, Rio 2016, and PC 2018 turned out the way they did because of the circumstances of those particular bids./quote]

Again, it's no different than you citing past losses for certain cities (Paris, the USOC [which then in their case, doesn't warrant it since they've bid with different cities each time altoghter]), in order to apply it to the present & build your argument on. So it's okay there, but I can't cite past circumstances. Okay, I see how this works now.

So for you to say "I see South Africa as being no different".. well, it all depends on the dynamics of whatever race they enter. The case needs to be made for them and their circumstances rather than to say this is what happened before and I can see it happening again.

I think this goes without saying. And I really never advocated anything different. I'm going to quote a certain you-know-who now & say that you're clearly misrepresenting my POV here.

Of course it depends on the dynamics of whatever race they're in & that the South Africans would have to make a case for themselves (I've never dictated otherwise). And now, to quote someone else from earlier in this thread; "doncha think I know this already", geez.

Regardless, even with the above in mind, I still stand by my conviction. That with the right amount of "circumstances" based on what we've seen before, knowing how the IOC can be, & other information that can be put into the equation, etc, that it can play out like it has before. Whether you want to see it differently, then fine. Kudos to you.

But as with other issues that are 'discussed' here on GB's, I'm not sitting on the fence with this one simply bcuz of the plausibility that it may play out differently. But I'm definitely done with this one now, since the merry-go-round is starting once again.

Where we start to drift apart is where you're looking at past precedent and trying to apply it to the present. Beijing 2008, Rio 2016, and PC 2018 turned out the way they did because of the circumstances of those particular bids.

Again, it's no different than you citing past losses for certain cities (Paris, the USOC [which then in their case, doesn't warrant it since they've bid with different cities each time altoghter]), in order to apply it to the present & build your argument on. So it's okay there, but I can't cite past circumstances. Okay, I see how this works now.

So for you to say "I see South Africa as being no different".. well, it all depends on the dynamics of whatever race they enter. The case needs to be made for them and their circumstances rather than to say this is what happened before and I can see it happening again.

I think this goes without saying. And I really never advocated anything different. I'm going to quote a certain you-know-who now & say that you're clearly misrepresenting my POV here.

Of course it depends on the dynamics of whatever race they're in & that the South Africans would have to make a case for themselves (I've never dictated otherwise). And now, to quote someone else from earlier in this thread; "doncha think I know this already", geez.

Regardless, even with the above in mind, I still stand by my conviction. That with the right amount of "circumstances" based on what we've seen before, knowing how the IOC can be, & other information that can be put into the equation, etc, that it can play out like it has before. Whether you want to see it differently, then fine. Kudos to you.

But as with other issues that are 'discussed' here on GB's, I'm not sitting on the fence with this one simply bcuz of the plausibility that it may play out differently. But I'm definitely done with this one now, since the merry-go-round is starting once again.

[Quaker2001]

Again, it's no different than you citing past losses for certain cities (Paris, the USOC [which then in their case, doesn't warrant it since they've bid with different cities each time altoghter]), in order to apply it to the present & build your argument on. So it's okay there, but I can't cite past circumstances. Okay, I see how this works now.

Yea, it's actually pretty different. I'm citing what happened to Paris to look at what might happen to Paris. And I'm not even looking at precedent because I'm not trying to compare the situation to anything else. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the "the IOC rejected Paris 3 times, they wouldn't reject them a 4th time" line anyway, because if it's them versus Durban versus a United States bid, that's 2 cities that are going to get rejected. Your line from earlier was "I believe it's quite naive to think that if South Africa does get all their pieces to the puzzle in check, that the IOC is simply going to pass up that opportunity simply bcuz there could be that possibility that they could." Again, someone would have to lose that head to head. Why is it so out of line to suggest Paris could win that head-to-head? Maybe it's pointing out the obvious, but since I seem to be misrepresenting your position, it still sounds like in that scenario, Durban isn't going to lose that.

Regardless, even with the above in mind, I still stand by my conviction. That with the right amount of "circumstances" based on what we've seen before, knowing how the IOC can be, & other information that can be put into the equation, etc, that it can play out like it has before. Whether you want to see it differently, then fine. Kudos to you.

But as with other issues that are 'discussed' here on GB's, I'm not sitting on the fence with this one simply bcuz of the plausibility that it may play out differently. But I'm definitely done with this one now, since the merry-go-round is starting once again.

That conviction seems to be based on a lot of if's though. As if "this is what I see happening IF all of these things happen." It's a hypothetical built on a hypothetical. The problem is I don't know what all your "circumstances" and "other information" are that allow your scenario to play out. So how could I even make a case for or against when I don't even know what it is that you see?

Look, here's my thing and then let's both end this.. Where you say if all these things happen, that it can play out like it has before, I'm not arguing with that. Absolutely it can. If everything breaks right for Durban, no question they can win the 2024 vote. If you want to look at similarities to past elections and draw parallels with this one and make a prediction based on that, I think that's a slippery slope, but who am I to stop you. But 2 things I want to point out.. if Durban does win, it's not because things played out like it did before. We know the IOC too well to build a cause-and-effect out of that. 1 does not directly correlate with the other. More than that, if Durban does bid for 2024 and wins, then by default they are not like Beijing (who came close on their first try, but lost and then waited 8 years for the win) or Rio (who didn't win until after they had hosted another major event and waited for the competition to clear out) or PC (who also came close, not once but twice, and then won it on the 3rd shot).

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Yea, it's actually pretty different. I'm citing what happened to Paris to look at what might happen to Paris. And I'm not even looking at precedent because I'm not trying to compare the situation to anything else. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the "the IOC rejected Paris 3 times, they wouldn't reject them a 4th time" line anyway, because if it's them versus Durban versus a United States bid, that's 2 cities that are going to get rejected. Your line from earlier was "I believe it's quite naive to think that if South Africa does get all their pieces to the puzzle in check, that the IOC is simply going to pass up that opportunity simply bcuz there could be that possibility that they could." Again, someone would have to lose that head to head. Why is it so out of line to suggest Paris could win that head-to-head? Maybe it's pointing out the obvious, but since I seem to be misrepresenting your position, it still sounds like in that scenario, Durban isn't going to lose that.

That conviction seems to be based on a lot of if's though. As if "this is what I see happening IF all of these things happen." It's a hypothetical built on a hypothetical. The problem is I don't know what all your "circumstances" and "other information" are that allow your scenario to play out. So how could I even make a case for or against when I don't even know what it is that you see?

Look, here's my thing and then let's both end this.. Where you say if all these things happen, that it can play out like it has before, I'm not arguing with that. Absolutely it can. If everything breaks right for Durban, no question they can win the 2024 vote. If you want to look at similarities to past elections and draw parallels with this one and make a prediction based on that, I think that's a slippery slope, but who am I to stop you. But 2 things I want to point out.. if Durban does win, it's not because things played out like it did before. We know the IOC too well to build a cause-and-effect out of that. 1 does not directly correlate with the other. More than that, if Durban does bid for 2024 and wins, then by default they are not like Beijing (who came close on their first try, but lost and then waited 8 years for the win) or Rio (who didn't win until after they had hosted another major event and waited for the competition to clear out) or PC (who also came close, not once but twice, and then won it on the 3rd shot).

I can still see Durban having the knowledge that they know that they won't Host 2024. They know alot of European Cities will probably Bid and 2028 is a more realistic Time for Durban. Durban can use 2024 as a 'Warm Up Bid'. I can't see there being 3 Summer Olympics and Paralympics in a row outside of Europe. Unless something drastic happens, 2024 is coming to Europe. I'm quite certain that in the Future though, probably 2028, the International Olympic Committee and International Paralympic Committee will want to take the Summer Olympics and Paralympics to Africa.

[zekekelso]

Psst - Tony - save yourself some time. No need to type "and paralymics"

[dysan1]

Of their 4 big cities, Durban is RSA's playground.

#1 - It has the most diverse population of RSA's big 4.

#2 - It has the most appropriate climate,

#3 - has an OLYMPIC stadium already ,

#4 - a lot of open land nearby for additional venues;

#5 - is poised for big growth;

#6 - the IOC knows it first-hand;

#7 - has TWO revolving restaurants; and

#8 - is RSA's biggest port -- thus providing for good berths for the many cruise ships that will be required to provide additional rooms.

Does Jo'burg or Cape Town have all of those combined? NO.

Left out that it has the 2nd largest Economy after Johannesburg. For many that may come as a surprise.

[Sir Rols]

Well, for those who still don't like the idea of Durbs, there's always... Gauteng!

South Africa's Gauteng Province set to make 2024 Olympic bid if IOC change rules

South Africa's Gauteng Province will bid for the 2024 Olympic Games if the International Olympic Committee (IOC) allows regions, as oppose to just cities, to host the event as part of changes under the Agenda 2020 reform.

The IOC is expected to announce numerous alterations to its processes at its Extraordinary Session in Monaco on December 8 and 9.

Gauteng's Minister for Sport, Arts, Culture and Recreation, Molebatsi Bopape, revealed the Province's plans during a press briefing at the SportAccord IF Forum here.

Bopape, who is being advised by the Lausanne-based TSE Consulting on Gauteng's bidding strategy, is attending the IF Forum, and the Smart Cities & Sport Summit event tomorrow in the Olympic capital, to talk to international sports federations about other potential events to bid for.

"If the IOC's going to be looking at changing the rules, they need to be accommodating Gauteng as a competitor for 2024," said Bopape.

"I want to convince the Conference that I have taken all the effort to come here and give what we have.

"Gauteng would be more than ready with the infrastructure, the airport [the O. R. Tambo International Airport near Johannesburg], and it's not only an airport, it's the main airport in the whole of Africa."

Gauteng, South Africa's most populous Province and the economic hub of the country, has demonstrated its strength as a sport event and conference host and its commitment to hosting international events over the last few years, not least of which through its staging of matches during the 2010 FIFA World Cup in its capital Johannesburg.

The Province also contains Pretoria, South Africa's administrative capital, and has a population of more than 12 million, the biggest in the country.

"There won't be any competition by virtue of the infrastructure development that we have in place," said Bopape, when asked about a potential rival bid from Durban.

South Africa's only previous bid for the Olympics and Paralympics came from Cape Town, who were in the race for the 2004 Games.

But Cape Town made it through to the last three, before the event was awarded to Athens ahead of Rome.

TSE Consulting will assist Gauteng in continuing to strengthen its relationships with the international sports community and to further position it as a leader in regards to knowledge and experience in sports event hosting in South Africa and the surrounding region.

Lars Haue-Pedersen, managing director of TSE Consulting, said: "We look forward to working with Gauteng Province as they refocus their efforts as a sport event and conference destination.

"South Africa marked its presence in the industry through the hosting of the FIFA World Cup, and the role that Gauteng Province will play in the coming years will certainly continue to increase."

Insidethegames

[Rob2012]

Everything I've heard about Jo'burg makes me hope SA doesn't go down this route. Any city where you're advised not to stop your car at traffic lights because of the crime rate, isn't somewhere I'd want to see an Olympics or Commonweaths.

[baron-pierreIV]

Can't wait for Miriam Makeba and Zinidane Zidane to sing at the Gauteng Opening with the All-Zulu Highland Guards Choir!!

[zekekelso]

Everything I've heard about Jo'burg makes me hope SA doesn't go down this route. Any city where you're advised not to stop your car at traffic lights because of the crime rate, isn't somewhere I'd want to see an Olympics or Commonweaths.

They had three of the venues for the World Cup with no problems. It's possible some of the crime warnings are a bit exaggerated.

But just wait for the anti-altitude folks to blast this possible bid.

[baron-pierreIV]

Is it time to bring this out again?

Of their 4 big cities, Durban is RSA's playground.

#1 - It has the most diverse population of RSA's big 4.

#2 - 2nd largest economy after the Johannesburg area

#3 - It has the most appropriate climate,

#4 - has an OLYMPIC-ready stadium already ,

#5 - a lot of open land nearby for additional venues;

#6 - is poised for big growth;

#7 - the IOC knows it first-hand;

#8 - has TWO revolving restaurants; and

#9 - is RSA's biggest port -- thus providing for good berths for the many cruise ships that will be required to provide additional rooms.

[gromit]

Is it time to bring this out again?

Of their 4 big cities, Durban is RSA's playground.

#1 - It has the most diverse population of RSA's big 4.

#2 - 2nd largest economy after the Johannesburg area

#3 - It has the most appropriate climate,

#4 - has an OLYMPIC-ready stadium already ,

#5 - a lot of open land nearby for additional venues;

#6 - is poised for big growth;

#7 - the IOC knows it first-hand;

#8 - has TWO revolving restaurants; and

#9 - is RSA's biggest port -- thus providing for good berths for the many cruise ships that will be required to provide additional rooms.

Last time I saw images of the Moses Mabhida Stadium, I must have missed the athletics track

[baron-pierreIV]

Last time I saw images of the Moses Mabhida Stadium, I must have missed the athletics track

Whether or not it's presently there is beside the point. It was MADE to accommodate a 400m track. So it's not like they have to tear anything out or install some platform to put it in. It's a very simple process.

[Rob2012]

I thought it was under grass or green matting now.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Durban most probably will be South Africa's Bidding City for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, if South Africa Bid. If not, Cape Town will be.