Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yoshi

This bid process is confusing me.

Recommended Posts

So it's bid book day today, but they're only submitting what seems to be an old Volume 1. I understand that they've got rid of the Applicant phase to go back to Pre-2008 rules, but is this all the cities will be producing? And if not, then what will the IOC be doing with these plans? Are they getting shot of any city after evaluating these plans, & when/how will they decide who goes to session? Sorry but Im struggling to understand what exactly these files released today are for :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's like a conversation:

First part - so you want the Olympics? What's your rough plan?

Second part - Ok, can you actually, practically do this, are you for real?

Third part - you really want it? Ok, give us the proper detail.

And all cities will go to session? (Barring dropouts or monumental ****ups).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - the IOC Executive Board has the right to cut any candidates after each stage. So we could see Budapest told they will not proceed to stage 2 for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the IOC EB say then, to the LA bid, 'we're getting rid of you early as this is for Europe, come back in 2028 & it's yours'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think the IOC can only cut a city if they flop entirely technically, not sentimentally.

I always thought that the first priority would be for the IOC to work with the committee first to fix something they're lacking in the previously submitted document, before moving on to a cut. The only scenario where I'd see a city being cut would be if a Nowheresville, Nowhereland put in a bid. It's obvious they have no hope to make them fit enough for the Olympics, so the IOC's gonna have to cut 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think the IOC can only cut a city if they flop entirely technically, not sentimentally.

I always thought that the first priority would be for the IOC to work with the committee first to fix something they're lacking in the previously submitted document, before moving on to a cut. The only scenario where I'd see a city being cut would be if a Nowheresville, Nowhereland put in a bid. It's obvious they have no hope to make them fit enough for the Olympics, so the IOC's gonna have to cut 'em.

But the whole process is so large, and so unwieldly, that there are bound to be bumps and glitches in the first go-around...and until they have perfected the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly it's about partnering up with the bidders more and shepherding and guiding them more through the process. I can't shake the feeling though that it's also part of the old battle between the IOC Executive Board and the wider membership over who ultimately controls the voting process. The EB's proposed before to take over the host choice, but the membership at large has very long pointedly guarded its role and right to make the final vote and decision. This formula means the EB can more effectively push their preferred options along, winnowing the less appealing bidders to them along the wayside, and still give the members the final vote, albeit with a more restricted, and probably more directed, choice at the end.

Well, perhaps that's the intention. It'll be instructive to see how this plays out the first time. I can see Budapest being tapped on the shoulder along the way. What they say and do about Rome in their reports is gonna be interesting to see.

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  

×