Jump to content
GBModerator

Do you think the IOC should choose both Los Angeles and Paris to host the 2024 and 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games when it convenes in September 2017?

Do you think the IOC should choose both Los Angeles and Paris to host the 2024 and 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games when it convenes in September 2017?  

69 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Do you think the IOC should choose both Los Angeles and Paris to host the 2024 and 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games when it convenes in September 2017?



Recommended Posts

Do you think the IOC should choose both Los Angeles and Paris to host the 2024 and 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games when it convenes in September 2017?

(Note:  This question is not asking which city in which year, only what you think about both years being awarded at the September 2017 session)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are difficult times. The IOC are in genuine danger - the time to be conventional is gone. The only difficulty or stumbling block has now gone. This is not just a chance to do something different to try & save the Olympics, I fear it may be THE chance. Yes, a potential Canadian bid for 28 would be scuppered, but they seem focused on Calgary for the Winters instead - somewhere that could help save those games too. Maybe I'm blind but I truly cannot see a downside to the double award now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that it would be an unprecedented break with the rules seems a bit silly, since it has happened before with the IOC awarding Paris 1924 and Los Angeles 1932.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Oh wow, really?! I never knew that! I've never really gone that far back to check into the details of host city selections. I always thought L.A. got 1932 by default, just like 1984. Ohh, but wouldn't that be an irony that both Paris & L.A. get awarded both at the same time again, & with Paris going first again, too!! :lol:

I agree about the "rules" thing. These are very tumultuous times & the IOC obviously needs some elbow room to try & figure out their next step. And this move would definitely do that. There's really only one person here that's vehemently against a double-award. Everyone else is for it, or at the very least, indifferent or undecided on it.

The IOC could say that this is what they need to do now considering all of the dire circumstances over the past few years with potential, credible bidders. And that for 2032, everyone else is welcomed to place viable bids. There's been many instances in other areas of the world where "traditional" protocol has been broken bcuz things sometimes need to be seriously overhauled. So I don't see why the IOC needs to be held to a stronger hold in that regard. Case in point, last years U.S.' presidential election. Bcuz of a VERY outdated "electoral college", where now stuck with Mr. Cheetoh until 2021, at least.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Desperate times requires desperate measures. And the IOC contemplates these type of situations as "unique cases". Regardless of the opinion of people like Mr. Coates, this decision is mostly dependant of the survival of these Games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FYI said:

^Oh wow, really?! I never knew that! I've never really gone that far back to check into the details of host city selections. I always thought L.A. got 1932 by default, just like 1984. Ohh, but wouldn't that be an irony that both Paris & L.A. get awarded both at the same time again, & with Paris going first again, too!! :lol:

I agree about the "rules" thing. These are very tumultuous times & the IOC obviously needs some elbow room to try & figure out their next step. And this move would definitely do that. There's really only one person here that's vehemently against a double-award. Everyone else is for it, or at the very least, indifferent or undecided on it.

i even find @Sir Rols argument for not awarding the double games unconvincing, especially the part where he thinks the 2024 runner up should be given a wink and a nudge to apply for 2028 going in as a heavy favorite. honestly, which on-the-fence cities would want to waste the time and money to go up against a practically acknowledged favorite? all this to soothe the egos of some IOC and NOC members who will feel their powers declining (when in fact their power is declining). 

the choice of the double award couldn't be more clear. unfortunately, it's a testament to bach's leadership abilities that he might not be able to push this through. guess that 1976 gold medal can only take you so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krow said:

i even find @Sir Rols argument for not awarding the double games unconvincing, especially the part where he thinks the 2024 runner up should be given a wink and a nudge to apply for 2028 going in as a heavy favorite. honestly, which on-the-fence cities would want to waste the time and money to go up against a practically acknowledged favorite? all this to soothe the egos of some IOC and NOC members who will feel their powers declining (when in fact their power is declining). 

To be fair though, what you're describing is more Quakers take. Rols thing is more about "breaking the rules mid-cycle", & how that will look to potential bid cities that are/were looking to bid for 2028.

But yeah, Rols is still the one that's really vehemently against this. I still think that they're over-analyzing it way too much, IMHO considering the pickle the IOC's in these days. And considering that one of the arguements against it "how will that look like to the Hungarians? To shove it in their face as the only loser of a double-award" is no longer applicable here, then that's one less obstacle against it already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, paul said:

Horrible idea to shackle a global city to the failing IOC for double the normal lead up.

I don't think it would hurt Los Angeles at all. In fact it would probably be stronger in 2028 than in 2024. Trump will certainly be gone by then. The metro system should be better by then, and they might even be able to get the San Francisco-Los Angeles high speed rail line done by 2028.

Paris would probably have a harder time with a delay of four years because of the EU issue and the need to build an Olympic village. But it should still be OK with the extra time to plan for the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I agree with @Sir Rols. I also think it's too late to change the rules and there may be cities interested in 2028 that obviously didn't bid for 2024 but, apart from that, the problem here is that there are fewer and fewer cities interested in the Olympics. Will awarding 2024 and 2028 together solve that problem? I don't think so. That's what has to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This July at the IOC's next meeting, they can address that to see how they can move forward with this, if they choose to do so. I find that most of the people that are against this seem to be ones that would like to see thejr favorite city perhaps place a bid for 2028 (& the L.A. '24 supporters). But isn't that a catch-22, saying that the problem is fewer & fewer cities are interested in the Olympics, but then doing a double-award negates these fewer cities from bidding. That doesn't make sense to me. It's either one or the other, but not both. 

I also don't think that anyone here is saying that a double-award will "solve" that problem, but what it will do, is give the IOC more time to do that, & that's what I think some people are not seeing. Many are quick to judge that Agenda 2020 was a "fail". But I stil think it's yet to early to really tell. These type of problems don't fix themselves overnight. The IOC has a big mess on their hands to mend properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the catch-22, and I'm probably not offering up anything here that hasn't already been said..

The IOC can go 1 of 2 ways here.  Either they can roll the dice and take their chances with what they'll get for 2028.  Or they can acknowledge they have 2 (and only 2) extremely worthy bidders right now and figure out a way to reward both of them.  The risk with the former is that maybe they don't get any solid bidders for 2028 (I don't think it will be as bad as 2022, but who knows).  The problem with the latter is how do they go about the double-award, not to mention any cities who might have thought about bidding for 2028 and might be put off from trying at it again down the road.  But I don't think that's a major concern.

krow brings up a great point here.. the fact that this is even being discussed could already influence the 2028 bidding.  Let's say Paris gets 2024 and LA is bidding for 2028.  Seems like they already have a big leg up and that could discourage other cities from entering themselves knowing how favored LA is likely to be.  If LA gets 2024, then probably Paris isn't there for 2028 and they've been lost for a while.

I agree with zeke that this is an excellent idea, which is probably why the IOC won't go for it.  Because they're not exactly known for acting in their best interests.  Their egos and greed will probably compel them to welcome cities to bid for 2028 so they can have this big process rather than to forgo it and lose the attention it brings.  They seem to have trouble realizing the trouble they're in and how to find a real solution.  Agenda 2020 was supposed to be the first step, but we've seen how well that's going.  Like FYI said, I don't think it can be labelled as a failure just yet, but so far, it clearly hasn't been helpful.

When the IOC and the Olympics were in trouble in the 70s and early 80s, it wasn't just the 1 Olympics that sent them on the proper path.  That started to right the ship, but it took more after that to restore faith in the Olympic movement.  That's going to be the case here, even if there's a double award.  It'll probably be a number of years before we know whether or not the IOC has dug themselves out of the hole they're in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, paul said:

Horrible idea to shackle a global city to the failing IOC for double the normal lead up.

How is it double the lead up. It's only four extra years, not seven. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

krow brings up a great point here.. the fact that this is even being discussed could already influence the 2028 bidding.  Let's say Paris gets 2024 and LA is bidding for 2028.  Seems like they already have a big leg up and that could discourage other cities from entering themselves knowing how favored LA is likely to be. 

Even under a regular (non-double award discussion) 2028 process, with Paris getting 2024 & Europe being out after that, I'd liken L.A. chances very much to any other potential 2028 bidder. It's not like Baku, Doha, Brisbane or even St. Petersburg could present a real challenge anyway. And the IOC would just baulk if they see another East Asian bid anytime soon. The only other city that I can see in this scenario presenting a real threat to L.A. 2028 is Toronto. But that also could still be dependent on what happens with their Calgary 2026 winter bid.

Share this post


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

But yeah, Rols is still the one that's really vehemently against this.

I'm not really vehemently against it - I think the Paris-LA double aim is good but thing there's better ways to go about it. In fact, if the process follows the normal course, it's still the result that's likely to result anyway. Whoever would lose wouldn't need any nudge and wink that they'd be given an advantage either - it'd be pretty bloody obvious, especially after all this talk of the dream double, that the runner up would be heavily desired to come back anyway and would be a pretty unbackable favourite whoever they faced once they did enter the race. And all without any sweeteners. The only fly in the ointment for me is that i think LA would be ready to go again, but I share the doubts of many that Paris would.

A couple of good hosts in a row may help the IOC's image problems. But I don't think its the magic bullet either - and anyway it still has three to get through in PC, Tokyo and Beijing that may not help in the short term anyway (I don't know how PC is gonna end up in the balance sheet, but Tokyo's already contributed a fair deal to negative headlines and I can't see Beijing doing much to stir warm feelings towards wanting to host the WQOGs). I've said it halfway flippantly before, but I do think social media is a big, if not the major, part of the IOC's problems. We're living in an age where reasoned debate and moderation are just drowned out and sidelined now that any and all NIMBYs and malcontents have the biggest soapbox ever the magnify their grievances. We saw it all in Brexit and the US elections last year, and much the same in the referendums we'v seen on the games. Now, I don't wanna belittle the concerns of those who are just plain anti-Olympics and there spending and social costs of the games - they certainly have a point and some justification. But so much of the anti-arguments thrown in the Oslo and Hamburg referendums were incredible bulls!t and #alternativefacts, but when you've got malcontents with a mighty megaphone to spread them, the IOC and pro-Olympic side are just struggling to rebut them amidst the clamour. I don't know what the answer is to that - it's a problem that the whole world's gonna be grappling with in all areas of public life in coming years. 

Share this post


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

This July at the IOC's next meeting, they can address that to see how they can move forward with this, if they choose to do so. I find that most of the people that are against this seem to be ones that would like to see thejr favorite city perhaps place a bid for 2028 (& the L.A. '24 supporters). But isn't that a catch-22, saying that the problem is fewer & fewer cities are interested in the Olympics, but then doing a double-award negates these fewer cities from bidding. That doesn't make sense to me. It's either one or the other, but not both. 

I also don't think that anyone here is saying that a double-award will "solve" that problem, but what it will do, is give the IOC more time to do that, & that's what I think some people are not seeing. Many are quick to judge that Agenda 2020 was a "fail". But I stil think it's yet to early to really tell. These type of problems don't fix themselves overnight. The IOC has a big mess on their hands to mend properly.

It's not contradictory. There may be only one or two cities interested in 2028 (fewer than in 2024, terrible scenario) that still would deserve the chance to try to get the Olympics. If the IOC wants to award 2024 and 2028 together so as not to lose either LA or Paris, which would be perfectly understandable, at least the process should have been somehow reopened for other cities to express their interest—too late now to do something like this. It's just about trying to keep it as open as possible for everybody under the current circumstances. We agree that the double-award wouldn't solve the problem, it would only give the IOC time, but the double-award could also work against other potential future bidders, so I'm not sure that there are only advantages in it or that it's the lesser of the two evils. Certainly not an easy problem to solve here.

Share this post


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

 It's not contradictory. If the IOC wants to award 2024 and 2028 together so as not to lose either LA or Paris, which would be perfectly understandable, at least the process should have been somehow reopened for other cities to express their interest—too late now to do something like this. It's just about trying to keep it as open as possible for everybody under the current circumstances.

Well, here's another couple of catch-22's. So in other words, it's not okay to 'change the rules midstream' for a double-award 'under the current circumstances', but it's okay to change them mid-cycle to 'reopen the process for everybody' under those same current circumstances? And who's everybody? Those 'one or two' cities that you're talking about? Like who could those be? Madrid &/or Brisbane, perhaps? Doesn't sound like it's worth the bother, really. Especially when a city like Brisbane is still in it's exploratory stage anyway.

And besides, on the other side of that same fair coin, how would that be fair to Paris & L.A. to reopen the process now while they're still the only two left here for 2024 sticking it out? I remember when Beijing & Almaty were the only two left for 2022, & people were saying then, "reopen the process, reopen the process" but many argued, how is that fair to the two remaining winter bids - so I see no difference here. Especially when this time around, the two bids left are SO much stronger than the two left from 2022. 

And yeah, you're right, though, that it's too late now to reopen the process anyway. But when there was enough time, there wasn't a need to do that to begin with. Cuz you still had the two & three other bids back then (Hamburg, Rome & Budapest) that ultimately withdrew, so it wasn't necessary. And that's the second catch-22 (well, actually third. Cuz yes, the first one is still a catch-22, too). I guess, though, if yet one more city was to withdraw from 2024, then there wouldn't be a need for a double-award. That should "solve" everything then, now wouldn't it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and now Budapest is gone I don't think it'd be bad form to do this.

If Paris wins, we might see Toronto go for 2028 (if they can get their act together) but Asia and Europe are effectively out and Durban is surely a non-starter now they can't even get a CWG done. Who else is there?

If LA wins we might see a European flavoured race in 2028 but firstly, can we really rely on Madrid and Rome and secondly, wouldn't they likely lose to Paris anyway? The alternative, Paris not entering because they're bored of losing, would probably have the IOC asking "what if".

The predicament the IOC finds itself in, combined with the huge qualities of both Paris and LA, combined with the fact that either would likely win 2028 if they came back anyway means they should just bite the bullet and give both the Games.

And no, this solution won't solve the structural issues or the cost issues the Games faces (in the same way LA won't "rescue" the Games if they host, as some of their supporters claim), but it would give the IOC two dead certs in the easiest and smoothest way possible. They'll then have some breathing space to consider the future.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Paris wins, I'm not sure Europe is out for 2024. If the IOC can do back to back to back east Asia, it can do two in Europe, especially if it goes to East Europe.

 

>> 

Yes, and now Budapest is gone I don't think it'd be bad form to do this.

If Paris wins, we might see Toronto go for 2028 (if they can get their act together) but Asia and Europe are effectively out

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eastern Europe? Like who, Budepest that just withdrew from 2024? The Ukraine or Putin-ville? Yeah, sure. 

And the IOC has done back-to-back (east) Asian *winter* Games bcuz they had no other viable alternative. They haven't done back-to-back east Asian summer Games, however. 

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

×