Jump to content

Hamburg 2024


Recommended Posts

London doesn't need to be introduced to the world either, yet the 2012 Olympics were one of the most watched Olympics ever. So somehow, I don't see the arguement that a Hamburg Olympics would somehow be more watched than a Paris Olympics would. I actually believe the opposite would be true.

I did not say they would have higher TV ratings. I said it would be more beneficial to the host city.

I am sure the IOC sees things differently, and may not care if the games trash the host as long as they can move their circus on to another city in four years. In the long run, though, the model of gigantism and indifference to the benefit or ruin of the host city will kill the Olympics. For the "Olympic movement" to remain healthy they need to pick second tier cities if they really are the best bid.

Atlanta was a disaster because they were terribly organized and had a poor venue plan, not because they were a less prestigious city.

I doubt Hamburg can develop a bid superior to that of Paris. But if they do I hope the IOC selects Hamburg.

The catch-22 is also that a city with more in place and a better international reputation is better prepared to host the Olympics than a city that has to build more from the ground up.

Except that sports and international reputation are two different things. New York is far larger and more famous than Indianapolis, yet Indy did a far better job with their Super Bowl because Indianapolis is a sports-focused city with a downtown stadium and arena. I would choose Indy over far more prestigious cities for the next US World Cup, for example.

Hong Kong is probably the fifth best city on earth, yet it will never host the Olympics.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say they would have higher TV ratings. I said it would be more beneficial to the host city..

I knew what you meant. That is why I brought up Atlanta. Besides, what makes you so sure that an Olympics in Paris or L.A wouldn't be as beneficial to them as one in Hamburg would be. To bring up London 2012 again, their Games were very beneficial to them. So I really am not getting this line of argument, cuz that really can't be determined as a generalization, but rather on a case-by-case basis. Especially when it comes to something as complex as the Olympics.

I am sure the IOC sees things differently, and may not care if the games trash the host as long as they can move their circus on to another city in four years. In the long run, though, the model of gigantism and indifference to the benefit or ruin of the host city will kill the Olympics. For the "Olympic movement" to remain healthy they need to pick second tier cities if they really are the best bid.

Ummm, & how exactly would the Games "trash" or "ruin" Paris or L.A. & not Hamburg, especially when they're the ones that would have to build the most 'gigantisism' in order to put on the big 'circus'.

How is the answer "second-tier" cities in order "for the Olympic movement to remain healthy". Even the most premier cities on earth still would have lots of work to do in order to comfortably handle the gargantuan task of hosting the Olympics, let alone B-class cities. So that sounds very contradictory, especially when second-tier cities would have less use for all the stuff left behind than Alpha cities would & really already have, in the end.

Atlanta was a disaster because they were terribly organized and had a poor venue plan, not because they were a less prestigious city.

That has nothing to do though with what you're arguing. Many would say that the Olympics did benefit Atlanta afterwords. But really, the Olympics didn't do much at all in the bigger picture as far as they were concerned.

Except that sports and international reputation are two different things. New York is far larger and more famous than Indianapolis, yet Indy did a far better job with their Super Bowl because Indianapolis is a sports-focused city with a downtown stadium and arena. I would choose Indy over far more prestigious cities for the next US World Cup, for example.

Last time I checked, the Super Bowl or the U.S. World Cup aren't the Grand-scale Olympics. So Indianapolis would never qualify.

Hong Kong is probably the fifth best city on earth, yet it will never host the Olympics.

Well, that also mainly has to do that Hong Kong resides now in a country that has at least two other prominent cities that are better suited for the task anyway. And one of those has already hosted & is going to host again, but this time the winter version. So China is off the table for the time being anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that sports and international reputation are two different things. New York is far larger and more famous than Indianapolis, yet Indy did a far better job with their Super Bowl because Indianapolis is a sports-focused city with a downtown stadium and arena. I would choose Indy over far more prestigious cities for the next US World Cup, for example.

Did Indianapolis really do better? Sports-focused city? What does that even mean? The argument for them over New York is that because there are fewer people in Indy and because the downtown core is a lot more compact that the event touched more people in the area than it did in New York. That sounds all nice, exception the metro population of Indianapolis is 1/10th of what New York is. Based on economic impact, Super Bowl XLVIII did more for the NYC area than Super Bowl XLVI did for Indy. Relative to the city size it's Indy, but that's not the argument here. And the Super Bowl is not the Olympics. Indy is a great spot for things like auto racing and Final Fours. But they're not making the jump to hosting an Olympics because they're somehow a sports-focused city, which I'm pretty sure is not actually a thing.

Atlanta was a disaster because they were terribly organized and had a poor venue plan, not because they were a less prestigious city.

I doubt Hamburg can develop a bid superior to that of Paris. But if they do I hope the IOC selects Hamburg.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps Atlanta was terribly organized and had a poor venue plan because they're a less prestigious city and they were in over their heads.

As for Hamburg, let's say their plan isn't superior to Paris. What's the argument to vote for them? I get the thinking that says maybe Hamburg will become a bigger tourist destination than it already is, as opposed to Paris which probably wouldn't get that boost. The question is will the IOC want to take that chance that they can get some return from that investment in Hamburg rather than putting the Olympics in a larger and potentially better equipped city in Paris? Again, once every 4 years. I'm betting most IOC members will want the bright lights of Paris if the alternative is maybe bringing Hamburg to the forefront of European tourist destinations. I just don't see that happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, what makes you so sure that an Olympics in Paris or L.A wouldn't be as beneficial to them as one in Hamburg would be.

It seems I am not getting my point across. I am not saying the IOC should not choose top tier cities. I am saying that the IOC should choose the city with the most beneficial plan. If Paris has the best proposal then they should choose Paris. If Hamburg has the best proposal then they should choose Hamburg. I think the IOC ought to select host cities on the merits of the proposal rather than simply choosing the most prestigious city.

Personally I doubt that Hamburg can put together a bid as strong as that of Paris, in which case the IOC ought to pick the French bid.

Last time I checked, the Super Bowl or the U.S. World Cup aren't the Grand-scale Olympics. So Indianapolis would never qualify.

I am not saying that Indianapolis will ever host the Olympics. I am using Indianapolis and Manhattan as examples of the distinction between a city suited to host sporting events and a great city in a general sense. Manhattan is the best city in the new world. And its very success means there is no land available for stadiums. Meanwhile Indianapolis, by virtue of the relative weakness of its real estate market, can afford to buy up land downtown for stadiums and arenas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Indianapolis really do better? Sports-focused city? What does that even mean?

Indianapolis is the Dubai of the USA, bidding for all kinds of domestic sports events. They have annual events like Indianapolis 500, March Madness almost every year, etc. They have also hosted a lot of one-time events like the Pan-American Games, FIBA Championships, Super Bowl, etc. For a city of its size (only the 33rd biggest city in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas) it has a very large share of sports teams and events.

The media who attended certainly thought Indianapolis did a better job. http://vigilantsports.com/2012/01/29/national-media-react-to-indys-super-bowl/ The problem is not New York, but rather that the stadium for the Giants/Jets is out in New Jersey, which is the problem for any New York sports event. Manhattan > every other city in America. But when "New York" is actually Hoboken or East Rutherford then Indianapolis starts to look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems I am not getting my point across. I am not saying the IOC should not choose top tier cities. I am saying that the IOC should choose the city with the most beneficial plan. If Paris has the best proposal then they should choose Paris. If Hamburg has the best proposal then they should choose Hamburg. I think the IOC ought to select host cities on the merits of the proposal rather than simply choosing the most prestigious city.

Like I said earlier, "the most beneficial plan" can mean different things to an *international* organization that has over 100+ members from all around the world. You may think that way, & perhaps there would be some IOC members with that same type of thinking, but then there are likely even more members that would think differently. That wouldn't make them wrong though, because their vision is totally different than your own.

Besides, you keep saying that personally you can't see Hamburg putting together a stronger bid than Paris anyway, but yet you say something like "in order for the Olympic movement to remaln healthy, the answer is second-tier cities", is quite a contradiction on your part. I don't see it as being such a simple answer for the points that have already been illustrated in the last few posts.

I am not saying that Indianapolis will ever host the Olympics. I am using Indianapolis and Manhattan as examples of the distinction between a city suited to host sporting events and a great city in a general sense. Manhattan is the best city in the new world. And its very success means there is no land available for stadiums. Meanwhile Indianapolis, by virtue of the relative weakness of its real estate market, can afford to buy up land downtown for stadiums and arenas.

Since when do the Olympics take place right at the "center" of a city's downtown anyway. London's sure wasn't (it was in their borough of East Stratford). Neither was Sydney's or Athens'. So I don't see why the need to fixate on Manhattan as far as New York would be concerned, since certainly more of its boroughs would be included in any future NYC effort, particularly Queens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city that I live in is not greatly known, but it could easily host the Olympics. Already much used Olympic stadium would be forefront of the bid, with a whole sporting precint already developed independently from the Olympics.

On an unrelated note: anyone wanna guess my city?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I sig this?

Also, for those unfamiliar with McDonalds sense it's not a well known company here is a picture of the menu:

7983181340_6feda8b595_b.jpg

Munich by no means was or is a small city. Munich has been a global city and the capital of Southern Germany for quite a long time, even more so in 1972.

Those aren't the menu items you're looking for. THIS is a Hamburger:

s-mcdonalds-Hamburger.png

PS: The Hamburg metropolitan region has a population of nearly 5 million, which puts it into the normal Olympic range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today the current financial plan was published - the Olympic Games in Hamburg would cost 11,2 billions - the German taxpayers have to pay 7,4 billions - the Hamburg taxpayers have to pay 1,2 billions

http://www.ndr.de/sport/olympia/Olympia-Hamburg-praesentiert-Zahlen,olympia3942.html

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yahzaw, that's in Euro dollars. So in U.S. dollars it's actually a $12.7 Billion "estimate"! That's PRICEY no matter what, & you know that it's gonna go over as Olympic budgets usually do. And I don't see how that figure (& at this early stage) goes in-line with "agenda 2020" whatsoever. The nein-campaigners are likely to have a field day with this, just in time for the referendum next month too.

That, coupled with this current refugee crises over there, trying to sell this is going to be a very tough sell. Let's spend even more money! And last polls showed 64% support, & that's a very modest number to begin with. Let's see if that still holds up after this news.

The Hamburg metropolitan region has a population of nearly 5 million, which puts it into the normal Olympic range.

Actually, the "normal" Olympic range is much more in the tens of millions range these days with metro pops.

Beijing 25 million

London 14 million

Rio 12 million

Tokyo 38 million

Paris & Los Angeles fall much, much more in line with that at 12 & 18 million respectively. We have to go all the way back to Athens to find a city with a metro pop of under five million. And we all know why Athens got the nod there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the "normal" Olympic range is much more in the tens of millions range these days with metro pops.

Beijing 25 million

London 14 million

Rio 12 million

Tokyo 38 million

Paris & Los Angeles fall much, much more in line with that at 12 & 18 million respectively. We have to go all the way back to Athens to find a city with a metro pop of under five million. And we all know why Athens got the nod there.

Good point. Athens was way too small for comfort, and that may have encouraged the IOC to stick with megacities after Beijing, though Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona are all round the 5 million mark for metro populations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nein-campaigners are likely to have a field day with this, just in time for the referendum next month too.

That, coupled with this current refugee crises over there, trying to sell this is going to be a very tough sell. Let's spend even more money! And last polls showed 64% support, & that's a very modest number to begin with. Let's see if that still holds up after this news.

I think you don't know Hamburg. Hamburg is a very traditional merchant city and the people know their finances, but its people have a heart, too - you should have come here to see how the refugees are welcomed here...

The "Nein-campaigners" would have had a field day, if the senate of Hamburg had downplayed the costs - it was said that it is expensive and it is a current financial plan, but the people are aware too, what chance the Olympic Games offer Hamburg (the gate to the world of Germany) and Germany as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. Athens was way too small for comfort, and that may have encouraged the IOC to stick with megacities after Beijing,

I'm sure Atlanta was another reason.

though Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona are all round the 5 million mark for metro populations.

Let's take a closer look at all those though. We all know how Barcelona got the Games. Not because they were a "smaller" city, but because JAS was from there & did everything in his power to make it happen. Otherwise, Paris most likely would've gotten those Games. And besides, it's not like any of the other cities in the '92 race were megacities. Certainly not Brisbane, Belgrade Birmingham nor even Amsterdam. Same thing for 1996, there were no true megacities on the bid roster. And Athens was barely ready for 2004, let alone for 1996.

And while Sydney ultimately took 2000, let's remember who the clear favorite for those Games was; Beijing. The Chinese led every ballot only to lose the last one by a mere two votes. The extreme politicking of that race, the "anywhere but China" mantra is what really led to Sydney's win. And if we were to still at the other remaining cities, the two largest cities on the 2000 ballot were the ones that were actually dueling it out. Berlin & Manchester were barely even on the rader. But Berlin's case was more likely handicapped by dismal support & protest. Istanbul I'm not even counting cuz the IOC wasn't going there at all at that time. Not to mention the Games were a bit smaller back then.

So it's still quite clear, when given the choice, the IOC prefers very large urban areas for their party. Even the Winter Olympics have taken to that direction. Doubtful will see another Albertville, Lillehammer-type (same era as Barcelona & Atlanta) winter Games anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Nein-campaigners" would have had a field day, if the senate of Hamburg had downplayed the costs - it was said that it is expensive and it is a current financial plan, but the people are aware too, what chance the Olympic Games offer Hamburg (the gate to the world of Germany) and Germany as well.

Martin, leaving that argument aside for now, you know that perception a lot of the time means everything, whether justified or not. The people of Hamburg might be 'aware' of the costs, but how will it look to people elsewhere if the IOC were to continue to choose the flashiest, newest bid possible.

"Oh look. The IOC hasn't learned a darn thing & they aren't "reforming" at all. Still allowing all these new stadiums & arenas to be built all over the world just so they can have them for an Olympics."

At a time when the IOC doesn't need anymore bad publicity & wants to reverse the "overindulgence" & wasteful spending that the Olympics have become, I don't see how chosing the most expensive bid (yet again) would help them with that. And yeah, you say it's a 'current' financial plan, but these always have a tendency to go over-budget. So I don't see Hamburg being an exception to that rule.

*but these things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin, leaving that argument aside for now, you know that perception a lot of the time means everything, whether justified or not. The people of Hamburg might be 'aware' of the costs, but how will it look to people elsewhere if the IOC were to continue to choose the flashiest, newest bid possible.

"Oh look. The IOC hasn't learned a darn thing & they aren't "reforming" at all. Still allowing all these new stadiums & arenas to be built all over the world just so they can have them for an Olympics."

These people elsewhere will recognise when they read the master plan of Hamburg carefully that the legacy of the newly built stadiums and arenas is fitting the Agenda 2020 perfectly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how many people out there do you know that will read Hamburg's master plan "carefully", if at all, really. Unless they're all related to Lord David, I don't see that happening. :-D

Even for the gross expense that Sochi was, if one were to also look at it carefully, I'm sure that one would see that there were still some lasting legacies left behind there, & that a lot of the expense went squandered away in corruption.

But that still didn't stop the naysayers in other places to use that as ammunition for their no-campaigns, Boston, Oslo, Munich, just to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indianapolis is the Dubai of the USA, bidding for all kinds of domestic sports events. They have annual events like Indianapolis 500, March Madness almost every year, etc. They have also hosted a lot of one-time events like the Pan-American Games, FIBA Championships, Super Bowl, etc. For a city of its size (only the 33rd biggest city in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas) it has a very large share of sports teams and events.

The media who attended certainly thought Indianapolis did a better job. http://vigilantsports.com/2012/01/29/national-media-react-to-indys-super-bowl/ The problem is not New York, but rather that the stadium for the Giants/Jets is out in New Jersey, which is the problem for any New York sports event. Manhattan > every other city in America. But when "New York" is actually Hoboken or East Rutherford then Indianapolis starts to look good.

Semantics here perhaps, but Manhattan is not a city. New York is a city and Manhattan is a borough of New York. That's why the 2012 bid was NYC 2012, not Manhattan 2012.

So Indianapolis is the Dubai of the USA? Hold on a sec..

image.png

Let's get a couple of things straight here. Indy does not bid for the Indianapolis 500. They don't really even bid for the NCAA Tournament. There is an agreement in place that says because the NCAA is based there, they get the Final Four once every 5 years. Good for their Pan Am Games (almost 30 years ago) and the FIBA World Championships (which required all of 2 venues). Not discounting what they have relative to their size and yes, it can make for a nice cozy atmosphere for visiting fans and media for these events. I've been to a Final Four there, so I totally understand and agree with that logic. But to say Indy is a sports-focused city in comparison to Manhattan New York? Indy does not have a baseball team or a hockey team. NYC has 2 of the former and 3 of the latter. They weren't selected as a host city for the `94 World Cup where the US was. And where you say you would like to see the World Cup there.. lot different if you're there for a centralized event like a Super Bowl or a Final Four than a 1-off game as one of a number of venues. Let alone anything in the context of the Olympics. Good for Indy that they have a core of sports venues downtown that include the convention center, the football stadium, an indoor arena, and the baseball stadium. Atlanta was able to create that too and yes it landed them an Olympics, but how do we collectively feel about Atlanta? Indianapolis is not a sports-focused city simply because they happen to have all this in close proximity to downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, German Interior Minister de Maiziere now says that if pushed, he would choose an Olympic bid over the EURO 2024, though he still thinks Germany can get both.

He'll probably be out of his job soon though given that he's totally at odds with Merkel over the refugees (and showing hus incompetence day by day).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the IOC can interpret the AGENDA 2020 in every direction (if it cares at all).

Either it puts emphasis on cutting costs - then the OG will only be awarded to megacities because megacities will most likely have most needed facilities in place.

Or it puts emphasis on the legacy - then megacities still have an advantage because they are simply more cabable of swallowing an event of such size without going bankrupt. The only perspectives that might work in favor of Hamburg is if the IOC really wants to encourage non-megacities to apply in order to broaden the number of contenders for future bids. Or if the IOC wants to get rid of the stamp that the games are a big gigantic mess and really want to downsize this. In this case it would be nice to award the games to a non-gigantic city for matter of being consequent.

Anyway, I like the concept of Hamburg (yes, and it is expensive but with a meaningful legacy) but I doubt that the IOC will not be attracted by the lure of Paris or LA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, you keep saying that personally you can't see Hamburg putting together a stronger bid than Paris anyway, but yet you say something like "in order for the Olympic movement to remaln healthy, the answer is second-tier cities", is quite a contradiction on your part.

I am saying that "lesser" cities should be able to win IF they come up with a better plan. Bigger cities with better infrastructure are generally going to have better plans. But if a smaller city has a more cost effective plan that would leave a better legacy and yet than still meets the needs of the athletes and sporting federations then it should win.

Since when do the Olympics take place right at the "center" of a city's downtown anyway.

The issue is not about central business districts themselves, but rather the aggregation of housing, transport and venues altogether. For the Olympics that is the Olympic Park, and the IOC has a very strong preference for keeping the main venues, media village and athletes village all together for the same reasons a walkable Super Bowl is attractive. London does not have a downtown at all, but it did build a huge Olympic Park.

Semantics here perhaps, but Manhattan is not a city. New York is a city and Manhattan is a borough of New York. That's why the 2012 bid was NYC 2012, not Manhattan 2012.

Functionally, though, the boroughs are each as big as smaller American cities, which is my point. Manhattan's population is 1.6 million, and the entire Indianapolis metro area's population is 1.7 million.

Let's get a couple of things straight here. Indy does not bid for the Indianapolis 500. They don't really even bid for the NCAA Tournament. There is an agreement in place that says because the NCAA is based there, they get the Final Four once every 5 years. Good for their Pan Am Games (almost 30 years ago) and the FIBA World Championships (which required all of 2 venues). Not discounting what they have relative to their size and yes, it can make for a nice cozy atmosphere for visiting fans and media for these events. I've been to a Final Four there, so I totally understand and agree with that logic. But to say Indy is a sports-focused city in comparison to Manhattan New York?

I must be really inarticulate this week.

Indianapolis has adopted a deliberate strategy of attracting sports events and institutions to their city. They want to be the sports capital of the United States. New York has a heavily diversified economy and does not need to go the route of Las Vegas or Indianapolis in building a city devoted to one industry.

None of this is about Hamburg, though, so I will shut up about it.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Atlanta was another reason.

Let's take a closer look at all those though. We all know how Barcelona got the Games. Not because they were a "smaller" city, but because JAS was from there & did everything in his power to make it happen. Otherwise, Paris most likely would've gotten those Games. And besides, it's not like any of the other cities in the '92 race were megacities. Certainly not Brisbane, Belgrade Birmingham nor even Amsterdam. Same thing for 1996, there were no true megacities on the bid roster. And Athens was barely ready for 2004, let alone for 1996.

And while Sydney ultimately took 2000, let's remember who the clear favorite for those Games was; Beijing. The Chinese led every ballot only to lose the last one by a mere two votes. The extreme politicking of that race, the "anywhere but China" mantra is what really led to Sydney's win. And if we were to still at the other remaining cities, the two largest cities on the 2000 ballot were the ones that were actually dueling it out. Berlin & Manchester were barely even on the rader. But Berlin's case was more likely handicapped by dismal support & protest. Istanbul I'm not even counting cuz the IOC wasn't going there at all at that time. Not to mention the Games were a bit smaller back then.

So it's still quite clear, when given the choice, the IOC prefers very large urban areas for their party. Even the Winter Olympics have taken to that direction. Doubtful will see another Albertville, Lillehammer-type (same era as Barcelona & Atlanta) winter Games anytime soon.

I didn't mean that cities were getting the Summer games because they weren't megacities, but that the viable range seems to start with a metropolitan population (today) of around 5 million. It's notable that before Athens, the previous city to fall below this range was Montreal !

It's just possible the IOC will try a smaller (i.e. non-mega) city in 2024 or 2028 to test the effectiveness of Agenda 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be really inarticulate this week.

Indianapolis has adopted a deliberate strategy of attracting sports events and institutions to their city. They want to be the sports capital of the United States. New York has a heavily diversified economy and does not need to go the route of Las Vegas or Indianapolis in building a city devoted to one industry.

None of this is about Hamburg, though, so I will shut up about it.

Sports capital of the United States? That's not a thing. You are just making that up. Indianapolis is not trying to be that. They're not building an industry based around sports. Indianapolis Motor Speedway has roots dating back a century. Yes, they attracted the NCAA to move their headquarters there and in part because they have the infrastructure in a good location to host big events. Yes, Indianapolis is in a position to host Final Fours and the occasional Super Bowl and do it well. But in a grander discussion of an Olympics, and especially in a thread about Hamburg, it's neither here nor there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying that "lesser" cities should be able to win IF they come up with a better plan. Bigger cities with better infrastructure are generally going to have better plans. But if a smaller city has a more cost effective plan that would leave a better legacy and yet than still meets the needs of the athletes and sporting federations then it should win.

Yes, I KNOW what you were trying to say. And I kept telling you that there's still too many other variables to simply leave it to a blanket generalization of "if a 'lesser' city has a better plan..." Especially when smaller cities generally would have to spend more anyway, so a "cost effective plan" in those instances is usually a catch-22.

Again, a "better plan" could mean many different things to many different IOC members. Usually a "better legacy plan" means to them on the bigger picture. Like going to new countries & continents & opening up the Olympic Movement to new horizons.

And quite frankly, a smaller city that has many of facilities already in place & is trying to come up with a cost effective plan & would also have a lasting legacy, to try & bid for the Olympics, Durban, always seems to get shot down by quite a few around here. Go figure. But we're just going around in circles now, anyway. So..

It's just possible the IOC will try a smaller (i.e. non-mega) city in 2024 or 2028 to test the effectiveness of Agenda 2020.

Well, like I said above. They'll probably "test" that effectiveness with Durban, but for 2032, since the South Africans have already said that they're refraining to try until then. But I don't see the IOC making those seem kind of concessions for anyone else at this point.

Besides, like someone else mentioned earlier, the IOC will make of "agenda 2020" how they see fit. So in other words, not too much will change probably. And therefore, it's still too early to tell what "agenda 2020" would really mean in the end to the IOC, if anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...