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

8 hours ago, FYI said:

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. 

By reopening the bid process I mean looking for cities that may be interested in 2028 (and only in 2028) while ensuring that Paris or LA are still in. I was particularly thinking about Toronto. Why bother opening a bid process for 2028? Because that's how it's done to pick Olympic hosts. The IOC could very well contact a city they were interested in and simply ask them to host, but that's not how it works as you know.

It would be fair for LA and Paris because the 2024 process, which is what they are both bidding for, wouldn't be altered at all. The search for new candidates would only affect 2028 (a year in which, BTW, neither LA nor Paris say to be interested in). Your camparison with 2022 makes no sense as the loser wasn't awarded 2026 by default. Had that been the case, yes, they should have also checked if there were other cities interested in 2026.

And finally, there's no time to change anything now as I said before and that's why I think this should be done as it was originally planned, awarding only 2024, the fairest for everybody in my opinion. The anomaly would be the double-award, not having only one winner. Double-awarding 2024 and 2028 now arguing there will be no better bids for 2028 is questionable as it's impossible for us to know what will happen for 2028.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Athan said:

By reopening the bid process I mean looking for cities that may be interested in 2028 (and only in 2028) while ensuring that Paris or LA are still in. I was particularly thinking about Toronto. Why bother opening a bid process for 2028? Because that's how it's done to pick Olympic hosts. The IOC could very well contact a city they were interested in and simply ask them to host, but that's not how it works as you know.

These are exceptional times for the IOC to be looking at this as "business as usual". Obviously there's a problem, the last two bid cycles started off with several bids, only to be dwindled down to two in the end. This is starting to be become a problematic trend.

Yes, the usual nature of these things were "that's how it's done to pick Olympic hosts", but these aren't usual times. The IOC, at least for now, has to think of a strategy on how to reverse this downward spiral before it gets to the point of no return. But they need to buy some time in order to do this, & this could be that one & only opportunity where they could do that comfortably.

A Toronto 2028 bid for now, wouldn't be a sure thing, either. That's still contingent on what they're gonna do about Calgary 2026 winter bid. Not to mention a possible World Cup 2026 bid on their part. I can't imagine Canada going after all three, so that's too many 'what ifs' for Toronto at this point, as well.

26 minutes ago, Athan said:

It would be fair for LA and Paris because the 2024 process, which is what they are both bidding for, wouldn't be altered at all. The search for new candidates would only affect 2028 (a year in which, BTW, neither LA nor Paris say to be interested in). Your camparison with 2022 makes no sense as the loser wasn't awarded 2026 by default. Had that been the case, yes, they should have also checked if there were other cities interested in 2026.

Well, of course they say that now, particularly L.A., what else would you expect them to say when they are indeed bidding for 2024 & that decision hasn't been made yet? But I don't buy for a second that if L.A. loses 2024 that they wouldn't be back for 2028. It would be totally foolhardy of them to do so when geopolitically speaking, North America would be in a great position for 2028 anyway.

Paris OTHO would be troublesome, bcuz this would be their fourth loss, & their proposed village site would no longer be available anymore for a 2028 bid. So I believe it more in their case that they wouldn't return. But that in itself also causes a dilemma bcuz the IOC would then risk losing a STRONG European bid for quite some time when they have it right now right in front of their face.

And no, the 2022 loser didn't get 2026 by default, but why do you think that was? Bcuz UNLIKE 2022, the last two remaining bids were the two leftover DUDS of the pack (the IOC wasn't really interested in either of them, but at that point, beggars can't be choosers). For 2024, though, it's the exact opposite, where the two STRONGEST bids are the ones still left in contention. So in that regard, it does make a lot of sense of why the IOC wants to retain these two, top-notch bids considering the dilemma that they find themselves in. 2022 presented no such dilemma.

46 minutes ago, Athan said:

And finally, there's no time to change anything now as I said before and that's why I think this should be done as it was originally planned, awarding only 2024, the fairest for everybody in my opinion. The anomaly would be the double-award, not having only one winner. Double-awarding 2024 and 2028 now arguing there will be no better bids for 2028 is questionable as it's impossible for us to know what will happen for 2028.

I think the "fairest to everybody" (which in this case is really "one" city [Toronto] in your argument) went out the window the moment Budapest (the third city to bail from 2024) called it quits. It might be questionable to some, but considering this is becoming a big problem, I don't find it questionable why the IOC is considering it. They may not even do it in the end. But I wouldn't be surprised, either, if they did 'under these circumstances'. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify this point: neither do I believe LA (or somewhere else in the USA) wouldn't bid for 2028 if they didn't get it now and I also agree that Paris would be more unlikely to do the same. They're obviously not going to talk about that now. My reasoning was more in the sense that they're not officially bidding for 2028, so it wouldn't be unfair to any of them to open that year for other candidates that didn't originally bid for 2024 as neither LA nor Paris are supposed to have any sort of priority over anybody else for 2028. Toronto is the city I was thinking about, you just mentioned Brisbane and Madrid (although I don't think Madrid will bid again before 2032) and there could also be some other cities that showed interest recently. But again, this is only speculation, it's impossible to know what will actually happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to go off topic but I find it hard to imagine the capacity of Wanda Metropolitano will be anything like sufficient for an Olympics once a platform track is installed. And would Atletico want to move out for two seasons anyway. Madrid probably needs a major rethink of their stadium option now. So they're another one who you can't count on to bid.

Share this post


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

Not to go off topic but I find it hard to imagine the capacity of Wanda Metropolitano will be anything like sufficient for an Olympics once a platform track is installed. And would Atletico want to move out for two seasons anyway. Madrid probably needs a major rethink of their stadium option now. So they're another one who you can't count on to bid.

You're right. And the aquatics centre being built next to it is also likely to be bought by Atlético de Madrid, so there probably won't be any swimming pool. Even the metro station has changed its name from "Estadio Olímpico" to "Estadio Metropolitano". I guess the best option for Madrid to host the Olympics would be building a new stadium, aquatics centre and gymnastics arena in the new neighbourhood of Valdebebas, which would create a mega-cluster as it lies just north of Campo de las Naciones where IFEMA pavillions and Ciudad Real Madrid are. I'd say Madrid is still interested in the Olympics, but the times of bidding again and again are over. That's why I wouldn't count on Madrid until 2032 at the very least and only if there's a clear shot at winning.

 

21 minutes ago, yoshi said:

Please don't tell me the stadium's called Wanda :lol:

It is. Wanda is actually the name of the sponsor, the stadium itself is called "Estadio Metropolitano".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant :lol: If all of this is being done by Atletico, will the stadium even keep its potential athletics capability? Any new stadium could have legacy problems now - is there anyone else that could take on a completely new Olympic stadium post-2032? I can't imagine Real moving out of the Bernabeu. 

Share this post


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

Just to clarify this point: neither do I believe LA (or somewhere else in the USA) wouldn't bid for 2028 if they didn't get it now 

Don't count on that, though. L.A. is as good as it's going to get, as far an Olympic bid is concerned, for the U.S. in the immediate future. Just how you explained that Madrid would have to build a lot of their facilities all over again (so you think 2032 would be more likely for them) so would New York have to build again. And Chicago & San Francisco would still have the issues of the two big Olympic pieces, the main stadium & OV.

And New York is more in the position of Madrid, that they just got done building  a lot of sports facilities since their last Olympic bid to be wanting to build more anytime soon. But unlike Madrid, Chicago & San Fran have too many NIMBY's, citing that their cities have too many problems to be thinking Olympics again (just like what happened with Boston 2024).  

And then you have cities like Boston who said hell NO to the Olympics. And then you have a city like Dallas, while technically capable, the USOC told them 'no thanks' anyway. So who else is viably left who can also take on the international campaign? So really it's L.A. or bust for the U.S. for the time being, be that 2024, 2028, & I'd say even up to 2032, too. And I'm sure that is also being fitted into the equation somewhere.

6 hours ago, Athan said:

Toronto is the city I was thinking about, you just mentioned Brisbane and Madrid (although I don't think Madrid will bid again before 2032) and there could also be some other cities that showed interest recently. But again, this is only speculation, it's impossible to know what will actually happen.

You keep saying that, but here's the thing, how many of those cities that you think will suddenly show interest for 2028 (that haven't, or jumped ship, in the last two bid cycles) could come up with bids as solid, sustainable & desireable as Paris & L.A. right have now? Especially in a time where the IOC's image is being ruined by costs over-runs & white elephants, & that's why many cities are flat out saying no the Olympics these days. I don't think very many could, if at all, TBH. One can say that we just don't know what will happen with 2028, but the trend is dictating otherwise. We have a HUGE red-flag indicator present that says there's a very big problem, so what can be done to fix it now in order to prevent an even bigger problem later on.

At the end of the day, the IOC as an international sporting organization, is also a business. And businesses make decisions based on trends & factors that they see in front of them at the moment - not on "well, we just don't know what will happen with business next year, so we have to wait & see to be fair to everybody & see who comes along, even if it means risking a really great sure thing right now". That doesn't like good business sense in my opinion. Which is why, as a couple of different posters have stated already, the IOC ultimately won't do it anyway. Cuz it makes too much sense for them, especially when they're riddled with too much old school mentality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. Yes totally they should award both this September. 

Firstly, Paris and Los Angeles are probably the two most capable and prepared hosts we've seen bid for the games in a while. Additionally, both cities are located in nations that despite current political events are stable politically and economically and will present games that embody what is so great about the Olympic movement. 

Awarding the games to both of these cities ensures that in the Summer Olympic world, solid hosts cities will follow one another giving the IOC a much needed break. Tokyo, Paris, Los Angeles, [insert Australian city]. Those are host cities and nations that will give the movement good press, good money, and introduce them to new fans. Yes this will not solve all of the Olympic movements problem, it will give the IOC the breathing room it needs to figure things out. Not to mention, after seeing what will be three consecutively amazing games who the hell wouldn't want to bid again? 

As for the cities that would loose out on 2028; The only two realistic US candidates outside of LA are Houston and Dallas...Dallas was the only one that even showed interest in 2024 and the IOC turned them down. Australia will still exist for 2032. Canada seems far more interested in getting 2026 (and I would argue the movement needs Calgary in 2026). Africa's out of the picture, so is Asia, and eastern Europe, and South America. At the end of the day, I think it would be more embarrassing for the IOC to open up 2028 to anyone. What if America doesn't put in another city? What if Europe sits out or the only cities that make it through are from nations the IOC would rather not give the games to? Just duck that bullet now and give the Olympics to their respective true modern homes; Paris and Los Angeles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr.bernham said:

 At the end of the day, I think it would be more embarrassing for the IOC to open up 2028 to anyone. What if America doesn't put in another city? What if Europe sits out or the only cities that make it through are from nations the IOC would rather not give the games to? Just duck that bullet now and give the Olympics to their respective true modern homes; Paris and Los Angeles. 

i think this encapsulates the main advantage of just giving the double award. opening up '28 to bidders could very easily result in a strong out-of-the-gate field, which gets whittled down one by one as politicians lose interest when NIBYs get loud. that usually generates terrible headlines for both the olympics in general and the IOC in particular, who look like they don't have their house in order (which they obviously don't, e.g. sochi). with WOG cycles likely to be as rocky as ever, the IOC could really use a 4-year break from the will-they/won't-they dance we've seen so many cities go through recently.

Share this post


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

Brilliant :lol: If all of this is being done by Atletico, will the stadium even keep its potential athletics capability? Any new stadium could have legacy problems now - is there anyone else that could take on a completely new Olympic stadium post-2032? I can't imagine Real moving out of the Bernabeu. 

No, the stadium capacity has been reduced from that proposed for the 2020 Olympics. Madrid would need to build a new stadium, and legacy is precisely its biggest problem. None of the city's football teams, the only ones that can move such big crowds, needs a new stadium. The only possible legacy I can think about now is using it as the national stadium that Spain lacks, similar to the Stade de France, for our national teams as well as for important concerts and other shows. Promoting athletics, a sport that has traditionally been forgotten in Spain, would also be nice and the new stadium could be used to try to organize at last big athletics events in Madrid.

 

3 hours ago, FYI said:

You keep saying that, but here's the thing, how many of those cities that you think will suddenly show interest for 2028 (that haven't, or jumped ship, in the last two bid cycles) could come up with bids as solid, sustainable & desireable as Paris & L.A. right have now? Especially in a time where the IOC's image is being ruined by costs over-runs & white elephants, & that's why many cities are flat out saying no the Olympics these days. I don't think very many could, if at all, TBH. One can say that we just don't know what will happen with 2028, but the trend is dictating otherwise. We have a HUGE red-flag indicator present that says there's a very big problem, so what can be done to fix it now in order to prevent an even bigger problem later on.

At the end of the day, the IOC as an international sporting organization, is also a business. And businesses make decisions based on trends & factors that they see in front of them at the moment - not on "well, we just don't know what will happen with business next year, so we have to wait & see to be fair to everybody & see who comes along, even if it means risking a really great sure thing right now". That doesn't like good business sense in my opinion. Which is why, as a couple of different posters have stated already, the IOC ultimately won't do it anyway. Cuz it makes too much sense for them, especially when they're riddled with too much old school mentality. 

Yes, I know what you mean. It's true there's a worrying trend and, even though I'm still not convinced by the double-award, I can understand the arguments for it. You're right in that this is the IOC business and what to do is up to only them, but since this is a business in which each and every country is involved, I think they should at least ask potential future bidders about their intentions before awarding 2028 by default, although it would never be made public whether they do it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

At the end of the day, I think it would be more embarrassing for the IOC to open up 2028 to anyone. What if America doesn't put in another city? What if Europe sits out or the only cities that make it through are from nations the IOC would rather not give the games to? Just duck that bullet now and give the Olympics to their respective true modern homes; Paris and Los Angeles. 

 

4 hours ago, krow said:

i think this encapsulates the main advantage of just giving the double award. opening up '28 to bidders could very easily result in a strong out-of-the-gate field, which gets whittled down one by one as politicians lose interest when NIBYs get loud. that usually generates terrible headlines for both the olympics in general and the IOC in particular, who look like they don't have their house in order (which they obviously don't, e.g. sochi). with WOG cycles likely to be as rocky as ever, the IOC could really use a 4-year break from the will-they/won't-they dance we've seen so many cities go through recently.

Exactly, but this is getting lost by some in the 'it must be fair to everybody' & 'not break the rules midstream' arguments. While there is merit to that under normal circumstances, it looks like most can agree that these aren't normal circumstances, though. 

Even if ultimately the double-award isn't applied here, I still believe that Paris getting 2024 is paramount (regardless of what the L.A. cheerleaders say). Then the IOC can say to L.A., "look, we recognize how strong of a candidate you are, but we also had/have other very important stakes that we needed to address first. And while we realize that this wasn't your desired outcome (since no one really bids to lose), we still anticipate that if you reapply for 2028, we don't forsee any other bids that would be as credible & as strong as yours. Not to mention that geopolitically speaking, your bid would be a 2028 favorite nonetheless". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

As for the cities that would loose out on 2028; The only two realistic US candidates outside of LA are Houston and Dallas...Dallas was the only one that even showed interest in 2024 and the IOC turned them down. 

I think you mean the USOC turned down Dallas as a final candidate as the US bid for the 2024 games, not the IOC. Wise decision on their part.

If I remember correctly their plan to host was a gigantic mess. They wanted a very spread out games similar to what Toronto had for the Pan Am games, which would not have been a bad idea if it weren't for Dallas' terrible public transportation system. Also a lot of the venues and games would have been held outside city limits, especially the ceremonies and track and field events.

They even were thinking of wanting to cohost with Houston, for which we say a big f**k you to them Houston can host all by itself if it wanted to, but unfortunately we haven't shown any interst of hosting the games in years. A shame too as our only big obstacles as far as venues go are the outdoor water events like kayaking, rowing, open water swimming and maybe even sailing. 

For now the first indoor athletics stadium for an Olympics is still an option since the Astrodome is still vacant and with no plans on its future yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

Houston can host all by itself if it wanted to, but unfortunately we haven't shown any interst of hosting the games in years. 

I'm sure that's bcuz they finally took the hint of being rejected twice for both 2012 & especially 2016. And now they turned away Dallas. Let's face it, the USOC isn't interested in Texas whatsoever. And that's probably bcuz they wouldn't fair all too well in the international arena againt the big name global cities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2017 at 9:22 AM, LatinXTC said:

I think you mean the USOC turned down Dallas as a final candidate as the US bid for the 2024 games, not the IOC. Wise decision on their part.

Yeah I meant USOC. Sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For now the first indoor athletics stadium for an Olympics is still an option since the Astrodome is still vacant and with no plans on its future yet."

The IAAF would never approve it.

Share this post


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

"For now the first indoor athletics stadium for an Olympics is still an option since the Astrodome is still vacant and with no plans on its future yet."

The IAAF would never approve it.

Why not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most Canadians would rather see Calgary host a Winter Olympics compared to Toronto hosting a Summer. I certainly would. 

I also think of it this way.

2020 - Tokyo

2022 - Beijing

2024 - Paris

2026 - Calgary

2028 - Los Angeles

2030 - hopefully things settle down enough in Europe and in the IOC to have a traditional country host.

That gives the IOC 13 years of certainty. 13 years to rework the public image, to rebuild the brand and figure out how the Movement is going to function in our brave new world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't paid enough attention lately is this awarding two at once a stunt? Eleven years in advance seems like quite a bit of time to plan and prepare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2017 at 10:03 AM, FYI said:

Even if ultimately the double-award isn't applied here, I still believe that Paris getting 2024 is paramount (regardless of what the L.A. cheerleaders say). Then the IOC can say to L.A., "look, we recognize how strong of a candidate you are, but we also had/have other very important stakes that we needed to address first. And while we realize that this wasn't your desired outcome (since no one really bids to lose), we still anticipate that if you reapply for 2028, we don't forsee any other bids that would be as credible & as strong as yours. Not to mention that geopolitically speaking, your bid would be a 2028 favorite nonetheless". 

But this is just a double awarding spaced out - and costing LA another - what - $50 million?  How is that something anyone wants to be apart of?  Yeah LA - you will have 2028 - but first you need to shlepp it out for years with Baku, Doha and Kazan etc.  This is even with the possibility of a strong Chinese bid from Shanghai - which no matter which way you spin it - the Chinese will get a ****-ton of votes just based on them building up half of Africa/Asia and calling in some favours...

It would be the height of arrogance to tell LA to just try again and we'll look after you - and another colossal black eye to the IOC.  The US media will tear the IOC to shreds - and with ad revenue not how it used to be the IOC runs the risk of losing big bucks next time rights go up for sale.

Alternatively give LA 2024 and try telling the French to be patient... lol.

Edited by thatsnotmypuppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the biggest benefit to awarding both. You don't risk pissing off either the French or the Americans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it does piss off the one who gets 2028, since they view it as a "consolation prize" (*cough* L.A.), cuz it's not the 2024 edition that they're bidding for. I say tough sh!t. Since you're basically being handed an Olympic Games on a silver-platter, whichever way you wanna look at it.

I agree with most, though, that the IOC should just do it. But there's a minorty that stlll against such a move bcuz it rattles the cage midstream & can alienate "potential" bidders that could've been interested for 2028. But that's the thing, cities are hardly "lining up" these days, & the ones that do, most of them drop out anyway. So take what you can get, I say, while the few pickin's left on the shelf are still good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, FYI said:

Except it does piss off the one who gets 2028, since they view it as a "consolation prize" (*cough* L.A.), cuz it's not the 2024 edition that they're bidding for. I say tough sh!t. Since you're basically being handed an Olympic Games on a silver-platter, whichever way you wanna look at it.

I agree with most, though, that the IOC should just do it. But there's a minorty that stlll against such a move bcuz it rattles the cage midstream & can alienate "potential" bidders that could've been interested for 2028. But that's the thing, cities are hardly "lining up" these days, & the ones that do, most of them drop out anyway. So take what you can get, I say, while the few pickin's left on the shelf are still good. 

Considering later statements made with regard to 2028, I'm pretty sure LA will be happy to take that one and not view it as a consolation prize.

I agree as well they need to do this.  Because if they don't, 1 of 2 things happens.  Either the city that doesn't win 2024 isn't back for 2028 and they've scared that city off.  Or that city does come back having not been given a free pass, but how does that look for the other cities in the running (if there are other cities in the running).  As it has been said, if there were more than 2 cities still in this, it might be a different story.  That it's just Paris and LA, probably 2 of the strongest cities out there they could possibly hope for, reward both of them here and worry about the optics of that move later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Considering later statements made with regard to 2028, I'm pretty sure LA will be happy to take that one and not view it as a consolation prize.

Funny you should say that. Looks like mayor Garcetti is having second thoughts on those later statements regarding 2028.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php/articles/1048363/exclusive-los-angeles-mayor-wants-to-host-olympics-in-2024-and-warns-ioc-he-will-keep-campaigning-hard

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

×