Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/first-look-at-southeast-queenslands-possible-olympics-2028-bid-20160727-gqf3xt.html

Early days but this news article from the Brisbane Times of 26 July 2016 indicates movement to a possible bid for the 2028 Summer Games in south east Queensland and based in Brisbane, Australia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

John Coates has gone on record quite emphatically as saying the IOC's decreed timing window and our climate means that Brisbane is our only feasible candidate for a future games. That said, I agree wi

Lmfao - do you ever stop & just listen to yourself!  Duh - China's population obviously was a determining factor. Just like South America never having hosted was a determining factor for Rio.

Or they could build a 60,000 multi-use stadium in Brisbane. Are you saying our third largest city doesn't deserve such an asset. It seems a bit contradictory that you get snippy about the idea of regi

Highly unlikely that the federal Government will give financial backing (which is an IOC requirement) - especially after the recent election.

Furthermore Brisbane does not have the venues and the costs will be immense.

Bottom line - right now Melbourne and Sydney are the only reasonable Olympic options.

This is just Quirk being a dickhead as per usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Coates has gone on record quite emphatically as saying the IOC's decreed timing window and our climate means that Brisbane is our only feasible candidate for a future games. That said, I agree with Pups that federal government support is unlikely at this stage, and it's just too bloody early for us to have another tilt.

I will say I'm intrigued by their regional focus in the plans. Not sure how it would fly, despite Agenda 2020, but it does make it more than a lame duck plan.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the forum on should Melbourne bid for another Olympics in 2028. The panel said that Brisbane might be the preferred first bid choice (again) and we'd be riding on the hopes that they lose.

Too bloody early? What about Toronto's failed 1996 Olympic bid, which came on the back of Montreal just 20 years prior and a Calgary 1988 Winter Games. That bid was too Toronto and Ontario-centric, with little reference to the glory (or part glories) of Canada's sporting and Olympic past.

Regional for Brisbane huh? It should be Brisbane and the Gold Coast at the most, with perhaps the Sunshine Coast up north if you really wanted to spread it out a little. The rail network could be upgraded and be a test bed for high speed rail in Australia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord David said:

Regional for Brisbane huh? It should be Brisbane and the Gold Coast at the most, with perhaps the Sunshine Coast up north if you really wanted to spread it out a little. The rail network could be upgraded and be a test bed for high speed rail in Australia.

If you read the report, that's exactly what they're proposing.

3 minutes ago, Lord David said:

Too bloody early? What about Toronto's failed 1996 Olympic bid, which came on the back of Montreal just 20 years prior and a Calgary 1988 Winter Games. That bid was too Toronto and Ontario-centric, with little reference to the glory (or part glories) of Canada's sporting and Olympic past.

The operative word is failed bid. As was their 2008 bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sir Rols said:

If you read the report, that's exactly what they're proposing.

The operative word is failed bid. As was their 2008 bid.

But at least their 2008 bid was the strongest of all bidders. It only went to Beijing because it was obviously going to be one of those "we might as well give it to them now or they'll keep nagging us". Especially given that China is the largest populated nation on Earth.

The 1996 bid was a puzzle for Toronto, it was not only too soon, but had they gone with their original plan (Exhibition Stadium to be upgraded for Athletics, Skydome for the Ceremonies and York University as the Athletes' Village) then they might have fared worse than 3rd place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon. You've been around long enough to know that "strongest bid" is entirely subjective. It can be a strong technical bid, or a strong geopolitical bid or a strong emotional bid or a strong marketed bid. None of which guarantee a win alone. The bid game is littered with losing so-called or self-proclaimed  "strongest" bids. If winning is the criteria, then Beijing was self-evidently the strongest bid.

51 minutes ago, Lord David said:

The 1996 bid was a puzzle for Toronto, it was not only too soon, but had they gone with their original plan (Exhibition Stadium to be upgraded for Athletics, Skydome for the Ceremonies and York University as the Athletes' Village) then they might have fared worse than 3rd place.

Well, we'll have to agree to differ on that. I don't think any country can assume they deserve a games more often than once or twice a century. Maybe the USA, if pressed, but you'd find plenty of people that would dispute that as well and think the US gets more than their fair share. I'm not even that happy that we're likely to see a Tokyo-Paris-LA sequence of repeat hosters. I feel the games should be shared around, not go regularly to the same half a dozen or so countries. Venue plans aren't the be-all-and-end-all of choosing hosts...thank god!

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, Lord David said:

It only went to Beijing because it was obviously going to be one of those "we might as well give it to them now or they'll keep nagging us". Especially given that China is the largest populated nation on Earth.

Lmfao - do you ever stop & just listen to yourself! :lol:

Duh - China's population obviously was a determining factor. Just like South America never having hosted was a determining factor for Rio. And Russia, being a large winter sports power never having hosted the winter Games before, was a determining factor for Sochi.

So I don't see how Beijing's case was anymore different than anybody else's who had a "nagging" narrative. If anything, you could say that Australia nagged three times until the IOC finally gave in for 2000.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2016 at 4:41 PM, Lord David said:

A 60,000 seater multipurpose stadium seems a bit odd. Just propose a new arena already, with the main stadium either being QEII Stadium at 90,000 or a replacement venue somewhere else in the city.

The cost of bringing QE2 (QSAC) up to even a bog standard passable level will be prohibitive.  It's a complete rebuild.  The track itself is no longer IAAF approved even.  Sh*t public transport links as well. Not an option.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

The cost of bringing QE2 (QSAC) up to even a bog standard passable level will be prohibitive.  It's a complete rebuild.  The track itself is no longer IAAF approved even.  Sh*t public transport links as well. Not an option.

Well then build a new athletics stadium elsewhere then. You could propose it for downsizing post Olympics, or as an an alternative venue for the new NRL team or the Brisbane Lions of the AFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FYI said:

 

Lmfao - do you ever stop & just listen to yourself! :lol:

Duh - China's population obviously was a determining factor. Just like South America never having hosted was a determining factor for Rio. And Russia, being a large winter sports power never having hosted the winter Games before, was a determining factor for Sochi.

So I don't see how Beijing's case was anymore different than anybody else's who had a "nagging" narrative. If anything, you could say that Australia nagged three times until the IOC finally gave in for 2000.

It was simply Beijing's 2nd attempt. They didn't end up boycotting Atlanta after their failed 2000 bid. They learned from their mistakes and presented a much stronger bid. Although it wasn't superior to Toronto's, it was good enough to get them the Games, otherwise we'd have had to have seen the same narrative for 2012.

It wasn't just South America not having hosted that was a determining factor for Rio. It was the huge boost of experience from the 2007 Pan American Games which proved that they could host.

As for Sochi, of the non finalized bidders, much of which were from the same region or ex-Soviet states, it was clear that Russia would barely go through. Only during the Candidate phase did they revamp their bid to the compact one we ended up with, this was the unique selling point which got them the Games.

I don't see Australia as nagging. It was clearly our time, we avoided a Bicentennial bid because we were focused on the World Expo instead. So we attempted for 1992, 1996 and finally landing 2000. Bids that were getting stronger and stronger each time, not necessarily rehashing the same city or bid just to finally land it after 3 attempts or so.

Oh and Istanbul and Madrid also have a nagging narrative, but they'll probably never get the games, not for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord David said:

It wasn't just South America not having hosted that was a determining factor for Rio. It was the huge boost of experience from the 2007 Pan American Games which proved that they could host.

Of course the 2007 Pan Ams was a huge boost for Rio 2016 to prove their worthiness. But don't sit there & pretend that the fact Brazil & South America never having hosted before wasn't part of the equation which tilted the scale towards Rio. The Olympics is also about spreading Olympism throughout the world. Otherwise, the 2016 Olympics would've already started over a week ago in Chicago or Tokyo.

2 hours ago, Lord David said:

As for Sochi, of the non finalized bidders, much of which were from the same region or ex-Soviet states, it was clear that Russia would barely go through. Only during the Candidate phase did they revamp their bid to the compact one we ended up with, this was the unique selling point which got them the Games.

Oh please. The actual "unique selling point" that ultimately got Sochi the 2014 Winter Games was Putin's peter Rubles.

2 hours ago, Lord David said:

I don't see Australia as nagging. It was clearly our time, we avoided a Bicentennial bid because we were focused on the World Expo instead. So we attempted for 1992, 1996 and finally landing 2000. Bids that were getting stronger and stronger each time, not necessarily rehashing the same city or bid just to finally land it after 3 attempts or so.

I hardly would call a victory of a mere two votes (& in actuality, really one), as a resounding indication that the IOC was deadset on Australia for the 2000 Olympics. Certainly not like the landslide victories of Beijing 2008, Rio 2016 & Pyeongchang 2018.

What was 'clear', was that Beijing was in the lead in the first four rounds of voting. TEven after the second round, Sydney didn't even gain anymore votes. It wasn't until Manchester & Berlin were eliminated, that Sydney managed to muster enough of those votes to squeak by to victory. 

With Berlin facing very, very strong opposition to their 2000 bid, & Manchester really just not cutting the mustard with the IOC, Sydney was simply the only other option to the "anywhere but China" camp. So sorry, but considering all of the above, I wouldn't call the 2000 vote as "clearly our time".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well then build a new athletics stadium elsewhere then. You could propose it for downsizing post Olympics, or as an an alternative venue for the new NRL team or the Brisbane Lions of the AFL.

Or they could build a 60,000 multi-use stadium in Brisbane. Are you saying our third largest city doesn't deserve such an asset. It seems a bit contradictory that you get snippy about the idea of regional plan, then get even more snippy when a central showcase venue is proposed. Or are you just most snippy because it's not a Melbourne proposal?

13 hours ago, Lord David said:

They learned from their mistakes and presented a much stronger bid. Although it wasn't superior to Toronto's, it was good enough to get them the Games, otherwise we'd have had to have seen the same narrative for 2012.
 

It wasn't a venue plan that derailed Beijing 2000, it was the slight matter of a massacre in Tienanmin square a mere couple of years before the IOC was asked to vote. It was the fact that the "anywhere but the blood-on-its-hands Chinese dictatorship" voters lined up behind Sydney. And again, in 2008 obviously Toronto's plan wasn't the strongest. Technically maybe, but overall no - it didn't win. "Strongest bid" is such a misused term on these forums. You obviously mean it as technically, but a bid is so much more than its venue plan.

13 hours ago, Lord David said:


It wasn't just South America not having hosted that was a determining factor for Rio. It was the huge boost of experience from the 2007 Pan American Games which proved that they could host.
 

Oh, and the fact that they got standing ovations at the pre-vote presentations when they pulled out their maps showing zero hostings in South America wasn't a gauge of the mood and sentiment that got Rio over the line? Yes, the 2007 Pan-Ams were important - which, as you say, proved Rio 2016 was feasible. But here's the thing when we get to your beloved venue plans and technical reports. They're not a deciding factor or biggest selling point, they're just the bare minimum pre-requisite a city needs to go on to have a chance to be seriously considered. And then that's where the other factors - those pesky airy-fairy thoughts about which is more pretty, which is favoured by geopolitics, which is selling itself with a nicer message - take over. The IOC then don't care who had the most impressive bid book (as you know, most don't read them) or who's proposing a media centre that's three minutes walk closer to the main stadium than the others.

This is the problem - you have a major fascination with technical bid plans and bid books. Nothing wrong with that - I don't share that fascination but I can understand it. But then you get all huffy when real-world concerns get in the way of your grandiose technical visions. It's those bloody environmentalists that get in the way of your solid plans to divert rivers in Quebec or raise the summit of Thredbo. It's that nagging one-third of the world's population that get in the way of your beloved venue planning by Toronto. Or it's those annoying lefty politicians and taxpayers that put a hold on valuable bid book presentations by the likes of Rome, Boston or Hamburg. Or that it's the regrettable and unfair tilt of the earth's axis that is likely to leave Melbourne in the cold for future Summer Games bids and make Brisbane a more viable contender.  I'm willing to say you probably are a good judge of technical specs. But technical quality can also be subjective (see Brisbane stadium proposals, above). Perhaps you should get your nose out of the bid book technical volumes sometimes  and try to get a handle on how those that don't give two-sh!its about technical plans view the landscape.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Or they could build a 60,000 multi-use stadium in Brisbane. Are you saying our third largest city doesn't deserve such an asset. It seems a bit contradictory that you get snippy about the idea of regional plan, then get even more snippy when a central showcase venue is proposed. Or are you just most snippy because it's not a Melbourne proposal?

We have Suncorp Stadium and the Gabba.  On the Gold Coast they have Metricon and Robina Stadium.  

What purpose is there for another large capacity stadium in the Brisbane region?  

We do not have multiple sporting teams like Melbourne/Sydney to necessitate another stadium. The Brisbane Roar are needed as a co-anchor with the Broncos at Suncorp.  The Lions and cricket keep the Gabba going.  There is just no push or another stadium here.  Further south both Metricon and Robina are frankly a waste with their limited use - neither are profitable.  Furthermore neither Suncorp, Robina or Metricon (even by 2028) will need more than cosmetic upgrades. The Gabba could do with some work but you can't expand it as the entire area is built up.  None need replacing.

Brisbane can bid as much as they like - but anything bar a temporary main stadium is a crock of sh*t.  The big problem is there is little space for even that.  Do you want the main stadium in Ipswich or Logan City?

Yeah I would prefer Melbourne as the city is pretty much ready to go and is a better example of how Agenda 20/20 can work - hosting within your means.  Sydney as well.

Finally I haven't mentioned anything about the regional plan - so don't get snippy with your presumptuous snippiness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sh!t, sorry Pups - I just realised I'd quoted you and not Lord David. I was in no way addressing you - I thought I was replying to LD;'s reply to your quote. I'm embarrassed now - and will try to fix the quote.

 

I won't retreat that I think LD's being snippy - you, however, are as insightful and informed as ever. I happen to agree with you on brissie's chances. I do think they're approach is interesting however.

 

Sorry mate. Peace out.

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...