jawnbc Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Pretty much sums it up. IOC's in a tough spot on this one. I wonder if the IOC's new requirement around human rights is designed to give them a Hail Mary option (Salt Lake, Vancouver, or Calgary)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Pretty much sums it up. IOC's in a tough spot on this one. I wonder if the IOC's new requirement around human rights is designed to give them a Hail Mary option (Salt Lake, Vancouver, or Calgary)? I for one would prefer a Summer Games in the States or Canada. The IOC would have to fork over some type of deal with the USOC to get SLC as a host, something along the lines of "You get 2022 and we will give you a summer games within the years 2020-2032". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 On one hand I can understand that you can't change the rules of a bid process during a running one on the other hand the Winter Olympics 2022 shouldn't become a 'relict' of a wrong direction in a time, in which the IOC just trying to end exactly tihs wrong direction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phandrosis Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 I hope the IOC can learn a lesson from all of this. When voting for a host city, make sure that their planned expenditures and legacy are truly profitable, given the inevitable rise in costs after election. Other cities got turned away when Sochi up and spend about 50 billion USD building venues and roads that corruption heavily ingrained itself in. I mean, that's why I think Almaty will eventually win if they don't allow a sort of Hail Mary to jump in. Almaty is sure to spend less than Beijing. Hell, Beijing will spend more on ceremonies than Almaty will spend on constructing a new venue. In fact, it'll almost look like the IOC is supporting extreme spending if they decide on Beijing again. Just my opinion, but it'll look that way. As for a hail mary for 2022, it probably wont happen, but if it does they should just throw it at some city with almost all the venues from a previous games. Like... I don't know Innsbruck could probably handle them a technical 4th time (including YOG). If they were really desperate they could throw them to the US or even Japan. It would be weird for sure hosting in the same nation twice in a row but Japan has hosted Asian Winter Games (3 times and one more in 2017) and Olympic Winter Games (twice!) so it's not like they couldn't handle it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Coast Lions Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Almaty Kazakhstan would only have to build 2 venues to host the games and upgrade the Central Stadium which will be hosting the ceremonies and Medeo which will host speed skating, The major cost of the games is building the villages for media and athletes which will be turn into housing after the games and roads and public transport development upgrade the airport and build new hotels which Sochi did and some of them are turning into apartments after the games. Calgary Canada would be called up to host the 2026 Winter Games and after I think Almaty Kazakhstan 2022 and if Calgary Canada 2026, Then the IOC will be in an great place for another big spending games in China in 2030 for the next 20 years I see the WOPG going to theses places Almaty Kazakhstan 2022 - Calgary Canada 2026 - Harbin China 2030 - Sarajevo Bosnia and Herzegovina 2034. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Almaty is sure to spend less than Beijing. Hell, Beijing will spend more on ceremonies than Almaty will spend on constructing a new venue. In fact, it'll almost look like the IOC is supporting extreme spending if they decide on Beijing again. Just my opinion, but it'll look that way. Almaty could spend less, but it wouldn't be at the "fiscally conservative" level that some of you like to preach on about here. Almaty has already spent a lot of money on building some of these roads & venues bcuz of previous events. But they still have quite a bit to be done as well, considering that they failed to score adequately in 11 out of the 14 categories in the IOC's 2022 preliminary evaluation report. And how you cite that's Sochi level of corruption is what ballooned a lot of their budget, is what could also be a factor as well for Almaty. Kazakhstan ranks like 144 (& 13 spots behind Russia) outta some 177 countries in the global corruption index. And that's what the IOC should really be staying away from. And not bcuz China would have to build up their alpine resort venue (which could provide a legacy for many Chinese winter sports enthusiasts anyway). Plus, Beijjng would reuse a lot of their 2008 venues as well. So money would be saved there. Not to mention that on a political stability nature, China is already well established. While the IOC would be taking quite a gamble with Kazahkstan. That alone should make the IOC leery. If they sheid away from much more desirable, "new frontier" Istanbul (& Erdogan) for a lot of the same reasons, then I don't see it playing out that much differently in this case. The Olympics have always been much more about who's got the most venues in place anyway. And I don't see that changing anytime soon, even in this dismal of a race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 I hope the IOC can learn a lesson from all of this. When voting for a host city, make sure that their planned expenditures and legacy are truly profitable For who and over what period of time? That's not as simple a question as it seems and could hamstring worthwhile developments. Governments shouldn't be banned or even discouraged from piggybacking investment onto their nations' Olympic bids. In fact, done well, such investment is a great thing because you often end up with 20 year projects accelerated into 5 short years. I'm really of the opinion that there's no one one-size-fits-all blue print of what a good Olympic bid looks like. What a good bid looks like is a HARD question and varies from city to city. But the IOC ought to be able to discern bad bids - ones that will damage their reputation and do no real good for the people of the host city - and reject them outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phandrosis Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 For who and over what period of time? That's not as simple a question as it seems and could hamstring worthwhile developments. Governments shouldn't be banned or even discouraged from piggybacking investment onto their nations' Olympic bids. In fact, done well, such investment is a great thing because you often end up with 20 year projects accelerated into 5 short years. I'm really of the opinion that there's no one one-size-fits-all blue print of what a good Olympic bid looks like. What a good bid looks like is a HARD question and varies from city to city. But the IOC ought to be able to discern bad bids - ones that will damage their reputation and do no real good for the people of the host city - and reject them outright. I guess what I was trying to say is that the games shouldn't leave a city in extreme debt that takes decades to recover from like in 1976. I agree that governments should invest in their own games, but not to a point where the deficit will be greater than any profit from tourism, ticket sales, whatever. Games should have a good balance between public and private investments so that the taxpayers don't have to struggle with the entire load, just a part of it. Also I guess I was also trying to say what you said about the IOC being able to differentiate between doomed to fail bids and "good" bids that will benefit both the IOC's reputation as a successful organization and the city in the long run. That's the lesson I hope they learn from this experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phandrosis Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Kazakhstan ranks like 144 (& 13 spots behind Russia) outta some 177 countries in the global corruption index. And that's what the IOC should really be staying away from. And not bcuz China would have to build up their alpine resort venue (which could provide a legacy for many Chinese winter sports enthusiasts anyway). Plus, Beijjng would reuse a lot of their 2008 venues as well. So money would be saved there. Not to mention that on a political stability nature, China is already well established. While the IOC would be taking quite a gamble with Kazahkstan. Both sides really have issues. Beijing is going to use a lot of 2008 venues, but they need to build almost all of the snow venues, which actually costs a lot. Kazakhstan is hella corrupt, even more so than China apparently. But I really don't have any other events that took place there to base my opinion on, so I just give them the benefit of the doubt that they would be able to handle it. All I know is that the country spent over 1.4 billion on the Asian Games (source: wikipedia eyoo) which is actually more than Vancouver spent on their Olympic Games, but not nearly close to Sochi. uhhh edit apparently Vancouver spent more like 1.8 million but I'm comparing Asian Games to Olympic Games so it's going to be more regardless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Vancouver actually spent $6.5 Billion on 2010. The figure you're speaking about was just the 'operational budget'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phandrosis Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 Yeah I was looking at the operational budget and also wrote million instead of billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 On one hand I can understand that you can't change the rules of a bid process during a running one on the other hand the Winter Olympics 2022 shouldn't become a 'relict' of a wrong direction in a time, in which the IOC just trying to end exactly tihs wrong direction... Are they really trying though? I'll believe it when I have evidence, not just some big Agenda 2020 PR bla bla which then turns out to be rather cosmetic changes probably... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 This is begging for a segment on Jon Oliver's show b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 As for a hail mary for 2022, it probably wont happen, but if it does they should just throw it at some city with almost all the venues from a previous games. Like... I don't know Innsbruck could probably handle them a technical 4th time (including YOG). If they were really desperate they could throw them to the US or even Japan. It would be weird for sure hosting in the same nation twice in a row but Japan has hosted Asian Winter Games (3 times and one more in 2017) and Olympic Winter Games (twice!) so it's not like they couldn't handle it either. Can you imagine the political fall-out if the IOC were to stop the process now and - by lack of others willing to jump in - throw 2022 to Japan, because China doesn't feel right? It'll never happen anyway, but this would be the unsmartest IOC decision in a very, very, very long time. After cutting Europe out, they'd also be disgraced in China (and, less important, also Kazakhstan). They'll give 2022 to one of the two still standing, but they should be even more worried about 2026: Four years down the road, I don't see a drastic u turn in public opinion in Europe, North America seems to aim for (or will have got already) Summer Games, Asia really is saturated and Southern hemisphere excluded by the IOC itself. Leaves...none. Well maybe Brasov will get the WYOG and then go for the big one, but Romania is not exactly a safe player either (or anywhere in the Balkans). Or if the US get 2024, Canada will again eye Winter Games...but the options aren't really out there for the IOC unless something drastic changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 I am sure the IOC is already trying to get France, Canada, Austria etc on board for 2026. The IOC response was factually accurate, while also being a huge temper tantrum. It was unprecedented for the IOC to announce 880 million dollars (or almost the entire operations budget) for a host before the contracts were signed. Vancouver got like 200 million less for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 To be fair, I'd be a little pissed off at the Oslo bid team for being a tease too. They should've quit months ago. It was absolutely rediculous that they continued when everyone, including the organizers themselves, new the bid was dead and that it was a direct infringement on Norwegians democratic rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted October 3, 2014 Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 To be fair, I'd be a little pissed off at the Oslo bid team for being a tease too. They should've quit months ago. It was absolutely rediculous that they continued when everyone, including the organizers themselves, new the bid was dead and that it was a direct infringement on Norwegians democratic rights. I don't agree. Norwegians (at least the citizens of Oslo, so quite some share of the overall population) had their democratic right in voting in a referendum, which passed. That the public opinion got negative afterwards is not per se a reason to stop the bid. And the Norwegians also elected a government which had to take a decision, one way or the other. I seriously doubt they were a tease, they probably tried to overcome the negative trend in the polls, but they simply didn't manage until the decisive vote. These things do happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 I guess what I was trying to say is that the games shouldn't leave a city in extreme debt that takes decades to recover from like in 1976. I agree that governments should invest in their own games, but not to a point where the deficit will be greater than any profit from tourism, ticket sales, whatever. Games should have a good balance between public and private investments so that the taxpayers don't have to struggle with the entire load, just a part of it. Also I guess I was also trying to say what you said about the IOC being able to differentiate between doomed to fail bids and "good" bids that will benefit both the IOC's reputation as a successful organization and the city in the long run. That's the lesson I hope they learn from this experience. Yes but you would have never thought that Montreal would go over budget like they did. The thing is that it can be hard to tell if a bid will go over if it does not have the usual red flags of a dictatorship, lack of infrastructure, and lack of general investment. None of those flags applied to Montreal yet they went over budget. The IOC needs to have restrictions and be heavily involved during the preparation for the games to ensure it is finished on time and not over budget. My biggest beef with the games is how they force cities to adapt to the games rather then the games adapt to the city. We all know that each cities hosting is unique and different, there is not a one-size-fits-all for how to organize and prepare for the games so why should the IOC expect them to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 I guess what I was trying to say is that the games shouldn't leave a city in extreme debt that takes decades to recover from like in 1976. I agree that governments should invest in their own games, but not to a point where the deficit will be greater than any profit from tourism, ticket sales, whatever. Games should have a good balance between public and private investments so that the taxpayers don't have to struggle with the entire load, just a part of it. Also I guess I was also trying to say what you said about the IOC being able to differentiate between doomed to fail bids and "good" bids that will benefit both the IOC's reputation as a successful organization and the city in the long run. That's the lesson I hope they learn from this experience. I think the "balance" between public and private funding is totally irrelevant. The degree to which the Games are or are not not publicly funded should correspond to the will of the people. As long as the bills are paid, I have no problem with 100% private funding and the IOC shouldn't either. There is absolutely no reason why governments should be required to invest financially in Olympic Games unless that is the only way the bidder in question is able to fund the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Because private individuals can skip town, go bankrupt, etc. The IOC needs to have a "lender of last resort" just like a banking system needs a government-run and backed national bank at its heart. That part I don't blame them for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 ^^But there certainly are a lot of private individuals in the Los Angeles area. I highly doubt all of them would bounce off in this situation. You don't know how committed some are, and/or how free-load-y others are. Scratch tha., there are tons of possible-private-funders EVERYWHERE *that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 Because private individuals can skip town, go bankrupt, etc. The IOC needs to have a "lender of last resort" just like a banking system needs a government-run and backed national bank at its heart. That part I don't blame them for. Someone needs to be accountable, yes. But not the federal government. Not in the US. The world is FAR too preoccupied with insurance policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phandrosis Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 I think the "balance" between public and private funding is totally irrelevant. The degree to which the Games are or are not not publicly funded should correspond to the will of the people. As long as the bills are paid, I have no problem with 100% private funding and the IOC shouldn't either. There is absolutely no reason why governments should be required to invest financially in Olympic Games unless that is the only way the bidder in question is able to fund the project. My only issue is that the games would become completely corporate if that happened. You would have Coca Cola on the back of every athlete and the medals would have the Nike symbol on them. Unless a company is truly charitable towards the games (which logically is not gonna happen), you're going to see product placement everywhere that'll ruin the atmosphere previous games have had. An example being Atlanta, where they relied heavily on corporate sponsorship for funding, but were criticized by the European IOC members as having "a general atmosphere of commercialism" that undermined IOC sponsorship in favor of their (Atlanta) own so they could pay for the games. Sure, the government only gave them so much so they had to rely on corporate sponsorship and ticket sales, but the results show that sometimes this isn't the best plan of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 The Olympic charter outlaws advertising in venues. I think the sponsors would respect that, considering how long they've been partnered for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted October 4, 2014 Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 The Olympic charter outlaws advertising in venues. I think the sponsors would respect that, considering how long they've been partnered for. That is when organizers will get clever. Start projecting ads to the stadiums exterior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.