Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
baron-pierreIV

What is $ cut-off for 2024 bid cities?

Recommended Posts

So, in the new Agenda 2020 rules & procedures, what $$ amount is the IOC stipulating as the cut-off point to make it an affordable and less extravagant race to run in? $10 mil? $15 mil? $20m? $25 mil?

I'd say if they can limit the race costs to no more than $15 mil per city, then the IOC is truly on its way to a reform.

Only problem is, the IOC has NOT stipulated how much a cheaper campaign is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$15 million??? When was the last time the amount of a bid was that low???

If I'm not mistaken, Baron is referring to the cost of preparing the bid, not the amount of the bid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$15 million??? When was the last time the amount of a bid was that low???

Latin, I am NOT taking about what it costs to stage the ENTIRE Games. First things first. As JMark said, it's the cost of preparing the bid. See, that's what scared Rome and South Africa in the 2020 rounds because it was going to cost over $50 million. So, if the IOC is serious about all their reforms, then what have they lowered the spending bar at, since they are limiting the efforts of the cities interested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, Baron is referring to the cost of preparing the bid, not the amount of the bid.

Yes I knew what he was talking about, and even then I don't think they've been that cheap in a long time.

Yes I knew what he was talking about, and even then I don't think they've been that cheap in a long time.

More recently, the bid budget for Tokyo was $75 million, which was half what it spent in 2016.

Madrid's was between $30 million to $35 million.

Not sure what Istanbul's was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I knew what he was talking about, and even then I don't think they've been that cheap in a long time.

More recently, the bid budget for Tokyo was $75 million, which was half what it spent in 2016.

Madrid's was between $30 million to $35 million.

Not sure what Istanbul's was.

Sochi stopped counting at US$95 mil. Chicago (w/ what supporters paid out of their own pocket to go) was like $76 mil. As you said, Tokyo's was $75 mil. I'd estimate Istanbul's bid was at least between $45 - $50 mil. Durban and Rome didn't even want to go anywhere near $40 mil, let alone the more realistic $50 mil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think $25-40 million would not be unreasonable for a major high profile tender for a multi-billion dollar public project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sochi stopped counting at US$95 mil. Chicago (w/ what supporters paid out of their own pocket to go) was like $76 mil. As you said, Tokyo's was $75 mil. I'd estimate Istanbul's bid was at least between $45 - $50 mil. Durban and Rome didn't even want to go anywhere near $40 mil, let alone the more realistic $50 mil.

For the right to host the 1996 games, the 5 candidates cities spent a total of 100 million, with Atlanta only spending about 7.3 million. At the rate of inflation, that's about 13-14 million dollars. So found my answer! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a digital, electronically connected world surely they can cap a bid at say $50 million.

It would be amazing if a bid was suddenly asked to leave a bid race for going over budget- that would be a defining day!

There goes Doha! And any Chinese cities! Oh and Russia lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a digital, electronically connected world surely they can cap a bid at say $50 million.

It would be amazing if a bid was suddenly asked to leave a bid race for going over budget- that would be a defining day!

Then if its $50 mil, it's no different than it was 4 years ago.

So how is that a "cheaper" path ? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard of inflation?

But so what? They've cut down a lot of things, starting with, just as an example - no more physical bid books. I wouldn't consider the IOC progressive in its desire for reforms if $50 mil is the ceiling they're keeping for bids starting with 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see one problem with a cap to bid costs- the temptation to skimp on due diligence, which then becomes a nasty issue if the bid is accepted.

But then the onus falls on the IOC. They have to vet their candidates with a fine tooth comb (and have a good back-up). They shouldn't even like controversial cities like Doha in at the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh!! There it is...

http://www.hostcity.net/event-bidding-news/ioc-woos-cities-proposal-pay-bid-costs

IOC president Thomas Bach has revealed the proposed changes of its Olympic Agenda 2020 review, revealing incentives for cities to bid for Games such as financial support, cost controls and the option to host events in more than one city

Ole-Einar-Bjorndalen-crop.jpg?itok=o-YAt
Ole Einar Bjørndalen, IOC member for Norway, whose capital city Oslo pulled out of bidding for the 2022 Games

International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Thomas Bach today (Tuesday) revealed 40 recommendations from the Agenda 2020 review of the Olympic Movement, which detail how to reduce costs and increase benefits for countries contemplating hosting the Games.

Agenda 2020 was instigated in 2013, shortly after Bach’s election as IOC president and has since engaged a vast range of people. The review has taken place against a backdrop of Sochi 2014, which was perceived to be an extremely high cost event, and cities pulling out of bidding for the 2022 Winter Olympic Gamesdue to cost concerns.

The first three of the 40 recommendations relate to bidding, including details of how the world’s biggest event owner might financially support bidding cities and develop wider benefits with the host nation.

Under the recommendations, the IOC would cover the travel and accommodation costs for six delegates for candidate city briefings to the IOC, ASOIF, AIOWF and the ANOC General Assembly, plus costs for 12 delegates travelling to the host city election at the IOC Session.

Candidate cities would not present on any other occasions, which means that presentations would no longer be made at SportAccord Convention – a traditional fixture in the year of the host city election.

The cost of cities hosting IOC Evaluation Commission visits would also be borne by the IOC. Printed versions of the candidature files would be axed, and consultants and lobbyists working for bidding cities would be monitored and registered by the IOC.

These reductions in bidding cost are, however, tiny in relation to the costs of hosting the Olympic Games. This is why Agenda 2020 proposes “shaping the bidding process as an invitation” – a form of consultation with cities at an early stage, with a focus on cost and benefit.

Under Agenda 2020, the IOC plans to better communicate the difference between the two different budgets related to hosting the Olympic Games: “long-term investment in infrastructure and return on such investment on the one hand, and the operational budget on the other hand,” as well as better communicating the IOC’s contribution to the operational budget.

The IOC seeks to reduce the cost of venue infrastructure for cities by prioritising the use of existing and temporary facilities at this early stage of bid planning.

“The recommendations in Olympic Agenda 2020 are designed to change the bidding process in a positive way,” said Ole Einar Bjørndalen, IOC member for Norway, whose capital city Oslo pulled out of bidding for the 2022 Games in September 2014.

“I think it is important to bring the Olympic Winter Games especially back to their roots, where the organisers are creating genuine winter festivals and where the inhabitants of the host city are as important as the athletes.

It is a step forward that the bidding cities will have the chance to focus on Games that work in the local context – socially, economically and environmentally.”

Olympic Agenda 2020 also opens up the possibility of Olympic Games events being hosted outside the host city – and even outside the host nation, in exceptional circumstances.

“I think it is positive that the IOC will encourage the re-use of venues, temporary venues, and even the use of some venues in other regions and countries. This will lower the costs, which will hopefully make staging the Games more attractive for more countries,”said Bjørndalen.

I think it was passed.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

OMG!  That was like 3.5 years ago, Dec 2014.  What am I supposed to be sure of now?  

I haven't the foggiest idea. You just never said that the discussion was ended.

Also, your arithmetic is very questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

I haven't the foggiest idea. You just never said that the discussion was ended.

Also, your arithmetic is very questionable.

It's MY brand of arithmetic.  If you don't know what you're posting about, who are you to criticize me?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

It's MY brand of arithmetic.  If you don't know what you're posting about, who are you to criticize me?? 

I didn't criticise, I questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×