Athan Posted March 1, 2017 Report Share Posted March 1, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.