Jump to content
GBModerator

Repeat Olympic Bidders Could Benefit From More Streamlined Process: Bach

Recommended Posts

International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach said cities that bid for a second consecutive Games will be able to save costs and time by leveraging efforts already made in their first bid. Bach said in an interview with German magazine Suttgarter Nachrichten that repeat bidders shouldn’t have to start from scratch and could pay less than […]

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, sure looks like it. 

Also interesting to see confirmed the two-city award plan is getting strong opposition from the membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it's also a clear indication of who they wanna give 2024 to; 

"Bach said “Europe is the core continent of the Olympic movement.  It would not be wise to ignore that.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the organization that gave us Agenda 2020, does anyone buy this will actually lead to any meaningful change in the bid process?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It looks like it's also a clear indication of who they wanna give 2024 to; 

"Bach said “Europe is the core continent of the Olympic movement.  It would not be wise to ignore that.”

Watch Abrahamson and tRuff refuting this for some way or another XD

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who can they rely on for 2028 if they decide not to do a one-off double award? If LA wins 2024 I find it hard to see Paris coming back straight-away for a 5th bid in my lifetime. If Paris wins 2024 I have an easier time imagining LA coming back again - they always seem to be eager - but still wouldn't bet my house on it. Madrid used to be perennial bidders but the stadium situation has changed there now, Rome can't be relied upon in any way to stick around (see 2020 and 2024), Milan may be an option but it's quite speculative right now, Toronto always seems to be mentioned but never quite gets all their ducks in order, Durban and South Africa are currently making a pigs ear out of their Commonwealth Games build up, Russia despite wanting to bid according to Zhukov is a no-go with their doping scandal still far from resolved, Istanbul used to be a perennial bidder but surely they've got bigger worries now and would be a real security nightmare. And these seem to me to be the most likely options!

China again? Buenos Aries after hopefully hosting a successful Youth Olympics next year? Australia? Hmmm.....

Well, it's the IOC's baby, it's up to them. They presumably have a better idea than us as to who is already looking at 2028. And maybe Bach has suggested this idea after having already talked with Paris and LA and is pretty confident one or both will return.

Fun times...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spain still has more serious issues to deal with than going for the Olympics. Like Rob said, La Peineta is now a football only stadium which will be used by Atletico very soon so I guess they finally gave up on the olympic dreams. Not mentioning they don't have Samaranch around anymore to give them a little push. 

I find hard for Italy to bid again and I don't have much faith in them after two bids in a row being pulled back. Maybe if they send another city but Rome (which is dominated right now by an anti olympic sentment) I would say otherwise. 

Argentina is still recovering from the mess which was the Kirchner rule (not as bad as Dilma but still) and Macri is not exactly the most popular person around. The reason they're able to make the Youth games is because they really don't have to build up anything much from scratch, with the exception of the village. I honestly don't see them bidding for the Summer Olympics very soon. Not mentioning Rio would still be very recent. 

Share this post


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

Who can they rely on for 2028 if they decide not to do a one-off double award?

Well, it's the IOC's baby, it's up to them. They presumably have a better idea than us as to who is already looking at 2028. And maybe Bach has suggested this idea after having already talked with Paris and LA and is pretty confident one or both will return.

Unless there's a secret, desirable country out there that nobody knows about, that's willing to give the IOC a solid & reliable Games, there really is nobody left that they could strongly rely on. So I don't know who else that they could have a better idea of. I mean the only other places that you didn't mention in your list of "most likely options" are Baku & Doha. And I can't see the IOC wanting to touch them with a ten-foot pole.

And for all the talk by some that it wouldn't be "fair" to others if both were awarded right now, isn't it just as unfair for Bach (& Co) to coerce the 2024 runner-up to come back for 2028 & that they'd have a leg up in the matter? IMHO, this already compromises the 2028 to those "others". Bcuz if I were Paris or L.A., you're damn right that I better have a "leg up" (& actually more than just that) if I was expected to come back & bid again, just for the sake of coming to bid again ITFP. Especially when the argument can be made that either one of them would win 2028 anyway.

Share this post


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

Unless there's a secret, desirable country out there that nobody knows about, that's willing to give the IOC a solid & reliable Games, there really is nobody left that they could strongly rely on. So I don't know who else that they could have a better idea of. I mean the only other places that you didn't mention in your list of "most likely options" are Baku & Doha. And I can't see the IOC wanting to touch them with a ten-foot pole.

And for all the talk by some that it wouldn't be "fair" to others if both were awarded right now, isn't it just as unfair for Bach (& Co) to coerce the 2024 runner-up to come back for 2028 & that they'd have a leg up in the matter? IMHO, this already compromises the 2028 to those "others". Bcuz if I were Paris or L.A., you're damn right that I better have a "leg up" (& actually more than just that) if I was expected to come back & bid again, just for the sake of coming to bid again ITFP. Especially when the argument can be made that either one of them would win 2028 anyway.

Yep I agree with this. I feel this is really irresponsible for Bach to say. If you come back you'd have an advantage. For 1 it's not a guarantee that the returner will win and 2 it's now a blatant announcement that the playing field will not be even for new bidders.

He needs to over ride these members and simply bite the bullet and and award both games.

I agree Paris isn't coming back but I don't think LA will either not so soon at least maybe 2032 but they can't justify it to the local public for a second go around with this.

 

Bach and the IOC can't afford to hedge there bets to the loser returning knowing full well they have a volatile Europe and a short attention span US.

 

Award both games and figure out what to do about 2032's process

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

I agree Paris isn't coming back but I don't think LA will either not so soon at least maybe 2032 but they can't justify it to the local public for a second go around with this.

Bach and the IOC can't afford to hedge there bets to the loser returning knowing full well they have a volatile Europe and a short attention span US.

I don't believe that L.A. wouldn't return, though. They're always returning whenever the USOC says that they want to bid. So why would 2028 be any different, especially when this time they got as far as being the USOC nominee (albeit, by default, though).

If local support is supposedly as high as 88% there, & as much as L.A. supporters claim that "L.A. has 'always loved' the Olympics", then I don't forsee that number drastically going down with another 2028 bid. 

I also don't see the USOC forgoing 2028, & definitely not 2032 (in the unlikely event they did skip 2028). Geopolitical speaking, 2028 would be North America's for the taking if Paris gets 2024 & there's no double-award. The USOC (& L.A.) would be totally stupid to let that ideal timing just slip right through their fingers.

Share this post


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

I don't believe that L.A. wouldn't return, though. They're always returning whenever the USOC says that they want to bid. So why would 2028 be any different, especially when this time they got as far as being the USOC nominee (albeit, by default, though).

If local support is supposedly as high as 88% there, & as much as L.A. supporters claim that "L.A. has 'always loved' the Olympics", then I don't forsee that number drastically going down with another 2028 bid. 

I also don't see the USOC forgoing 2028, & definitely not 2032 (in the unlikely event they did skip 2028). Geopolitical speaking, 2028 would be North America's for the taking if Paris gets 2024 & there's no double-award. The USOC (& L.A.) would be totally stupid to let that ideal timing just slip right through their fingers.

Well, there's always that chance that maybe LA won't want to bid for it in 2028 if they think they have a great chance of having the games for the 100yr anniversary of their first time hosting instead. Granted it's still a longshot of a possibility of that scenario happening, but not really as much of a longshot when Paris is doing exactly that right now.

But I just hate for LA, or another US city, forks over another $50 million to put forth a bid that is basically theirs for the taking.

Share this post


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

I don't believe that L.A. wouldn't return, though. They're always returning whenever the USOC says that they want to bid. So why would 2028 be any different, especially when this time they got as far as being the USOC nominee (albeit, by default, though).

If local support is supposedly as high as 88% there, & as much as L.A. supporters claim that "L.A. has 'always loved' the Olympics", then I don't forsee that number drastically going down with another 2028 bid. 

I also don't see the USOC forgoing 2028, & definitely not 2032 (in the unlikely event they did skip 2028). Geopolitical speaking, 2028 would be North America's for the taking if Paris gets 2024 & there's no double-award. The USOC (& L.A.) would be totally stupid to let that ideal timing just slip right through their fingers.

 

I see your point but you have to admit times are changing. Yes LA loves the idea of bidding for the Olympics but you have to remember the enthusiasm in LA over the last 30 years was to get them to be the USOC candidate city. That's was the stage they were repeatedly trying to get too for the last like 20 something years. Hence the idea of LA bidding over and over again for the Games that most people here have is actually LA bidding over and over again to be the USOC's candidate city. Now that that has been accomplished and they are now the candidate city, we can't just assume that they will be as enthused to do the same process over again in 2028. Public fatigue will set in and support will dwindle and in a social media world where online frustrations are easily vented and dispersed that has spelt doom for many returning cities in the last couple of cycles.

Yes Paris has bid repeatedly and lost the games but the USOC has also had some embarrassing losses and may say "Hey lets wait this out" It's hard to get any major city behind a second go around at an Olympic bid in these post Beijing / Sochi and city wide referendum times. Public support for bidding again will go down cause the average joe doesn't understand the politics behind these bids, they just say we were told no and go pout in a corner and where as before government officials would just up and bid again, the general public has become extremely well organized to push referendums through. No public official wants to go through that so I truly do say most likely neither Paris nor LA will return after a loss based solely on the fact of the possibility of the public losing interest after the loss  

This latest scandal that is rocking the IOC is sure to turn off a lot of major cities from bidding for 2028. Calling into question the 2016 games the 2022 vote tally mishap the 2020 payments is disastrous for the IOC's image, worse yet if it is proven to be true. So again I have to conclude that the IOC needs to award both games now cause these two strong candidates will not be going through the process for a second time while the IOC's skeletons get flushed into the press. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the average LA 2024 supporter will understand if they lose to Paris on Paris' fifth try - there won't be a great insult or anything.  Especially when LA believes it can host the Olympics for free, why wouldn't they be back for 2028?

Share this post


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

But I just hate for LA, or another US city, forks over another $50 million to put forth a bid that is basically theirs for the taking.

But wouldn't that still be better than spending all that money in a 'longshot' bid race, though. It's always argued that it's all about the 'timing' anyway.

10 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

This latest scandal that is rocking the IOC is sure to turn off a lot of major cities from bidding for 2028. Calling into question the 2016 games the 2022 vote tally mishap the 2020 payments is disastrous for the IOC's image, worse yet if it is proven to be true. So again I have to conclude that the IOC needs to award both games now cause these two strong candidates will not be going through the process for a second time while the IOC's skeletons get flushed into the press. 

I won't comment too much on the previous parts of your post about L.A. rebidding, bcuz I still don't agree with them. Especially when you have other L.A. supporters saying that the Olympics won't cost taxpayers anything, so what would there be for the public to protest on that front? It's either an L.A. Olympics will cost taxpayers money, or it won't. So which is it, cuz it can't be both. So let's just agree to disagree on that one.

On this part, however, I concur with a lot of that. Yes, this latest scandal isn't going to sit very well with a lot of people. And the IOC's is going to need to start looking very, very hard in the mirror & realize that the (credible) "suckers" willing to partake in their expensive extravaganza are getting very, very slim.

But then again, you have others that argue that the IOC would still have the likes of Baku, Doha, China & Russia to put on their "lavish" shows. So I guess then, that we'll just have to wait & see to which direction the IOC really wants to go. Repair relations with the West, or go down the authoritarian road.

Share this post


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

Well, there's always that chance that maybe LA won't want to bid for it in 2028 if they think they have a great chance of having the games for the 100yr anniversary of their first time hosting instead. Granted it's still a longshot of a possibility of that scenario happening, but not really as much of a longshot when Paris is doing exactly that right now.

But I just hate for LA, or another US city, forks over another $50 million to put forth a bid that is basically theirs for the taking.

Paris isn't bidding for 2024 because it's the centennial of 1924.  I'm fairly confident that's purely coincidental.  Can't really see LA using that as motivation.

Your last point is spot on though.  Which raises the question of what Bach is doing here.  To imply that repeat bidders could have a leg up (again, if that talk holds any substance) could change the tenor of future bids.  And if this is about getting the 2024 runner-up a clearer path to a 2028 win, then just come out and say that.  At the very least, be honest with other potential bidders, particularly any first-timers, if their odds of winning are lower as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alphamale86 said:

I see your point but you have to admit times are changing. Yes LA loves the idea of bidding for the Olympics but you have to remember the enthusiasm in LA over the last 30 years was to get them to be the USOC candidate city. That's was the stage they were repeatedly trying to get too for the last like 20 something years. Hence the idea of LA bidding over and over again for the Games that most people here have is actually LA bidding over and over again to be the USOC's candidate city. Now that that has been accomplished and they are now the candidate city, we can't just assume that they will be as enthused to do the same process over again in 2028. Public fatigue will set in and support will dwindle and in a social media world where online frustrations are easily vented and dispersed that has spelt doom for many returning cities in the last couple of cycles.

So, let me get this straight.. you think LA's goal was to become the USOC's candidate city and now that they've made it that far, you think they're going to give up on pursuing another Olympics?  Public fatigue?  Online frustrations?  Do you realize how ridiculous that all sounds?

First off, various entities in LA have been pursuing an Olympics since only a few years after Atlanta.  They were there bidding for 2012.  And again for 2016.  They got passed over for Boston and look how quickly they were there when the USOC needed a new bidder.  The only argument where they might not be so interested in in pursuing another Olympics is that they'll have to raise tens of millions of dollars in private funds to do so.  But then again, isn't that the point of this news story that the IOC may make it so they're not spending as much money?  Even still, they'll certainly claim to be able to produce a surplus from the Olympics, so it's an investment that would be worth it.

As has been said many times here before, past US bid cities were not in it for the long term.  Certainly not New York and who knows about Chicago if that bid went differently.  LA strikes me as the type of city that is going to keep at this until they win.  If this group loses interest, I'm confident someone else will pick up the slack.  You say we can't assume they'll be as enthused to go through this again.  That's a massive cop out.  Because we can't assume they won't be as enthused either.  All we can do is make our best guess whether or not they'll be back.  I'm betting they will be, regardless of what the IOC does or doesn't do to make their winning that much easier next time out.

Share this post


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

And if this is about getting the 2024 runner-up a clearer path to a 2028 win, then just come out and say that.  At the very least, be honest with other potential bidders, particularly any first-timers, if their odds of winning are lower as a result.

And this is what really just puts a big hole in the against-camp argument that awarding both 2024 & 2028 now is "unfair" to other potential 2028 bidders. If the 2024 runner-up is going to have a "leg-up" for 2028 as some sort of "reward" for coming back, then that's already unfair & then what is really the point of not awarding both now. Just get it over with already, & have some time to relax from the negative publicity of bid cities dropping out like flies mid-campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alphamale86 said:

Yes Paris has bid repeatedly and lost the games but the USOC has also had some embarrassing losses and may say "Hey lets wait this out" It's hard to get any major city behind a second go around at an Olympic bid in these post Beijing / Sochi and city wide referendum times. Public support for bidding again will go down cause the average joe doesn't understand the politics behind these bids, they just say we were told no and go pout in a corner and where as before government officials would just up and bid again, the general public has become extremely well organized to push referendums through. No public official wants to go through that so I truly do say most likely neither Paris nor LA will return after a loss based solely on the fact of the possibility of the public losing interest after the loss  

Why is it that public support "will go down" as if that's a statement of fact?  If we're talking about an LA bid which is privately backed, then the average joe isn't as invested as he/she would be in another city where public financing is a major part of the bid.  If you want to talk about referendums and government officials, ask yourself if you honestly think any of that applies to LA.  There has to be an understanding that there can only be 1 host that gets selected and sure it sucks to lose, but sometimes it takes more than 1 shot to win.  Ask Tokyo and Pyeongchang how that worked out for them.  This idea that somehow LA is going to be humiliated and/or butthurt from a loss to the point they won't want to return doesn't ring true to me.  I know you're just offering the possibility, but I don't think it's likely that's going to happen with LA.  Especially not if they instantly enter the 2028 race as a major front-runner. 

Share this post


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

And this is what really just puts a big hole in the against-camp argument that awarding both 2024 & 2028 now is "unfair" to other potential 2028 bidders. If the 2024 runner-up is going to have a "leg-up" for 2028 as some sort of "reward" for coming back, then that's already unfair & then what is really the point of not awarding both now. Just get it over with already, & have some time to relax from the negative publicity of bid cities dropping out like flies mid-campaign.

Exactly.  This is where the IOC can't seem to get out of it's own way.  They need to just shut up and let things run their course.  We talk a lot about how the IOC needs a safe and reliable host to turn the tide for them.  But it's stuff like this that is discouraging cities and countries from wanting to deal with them.  It's all really shady and who can blame cities for not wanting to play this game.  The more this all plays out, the more I feel like they need to double-award 2024 and 2028, even though they probably don't have it in them to do that.  Get it over with and spend that extra time to be a little introspective and figure out how you can change the image of your organization.  Of course, all this is to imply they're going to admit they have a problem in the first place.  Good luck trying to get them to come to that realization.

Share this post


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

So, let me get this straight.. you think LA's goal was to become the USOC's candidate city and now that they've made it that far, you think they're going to give up on pursuing another Olympics?  Public fatigue?  Online frustrations?  Do you realize how ridiculous that all sounds?

First off, various entities in LA have been pursuing an Olympics since only a few years after Atlanta.  They were there bidding for 2012.  And again for 2016.  They got passed over for Boston and look how quickly they were there when the USOC needed a new bidder.  The only argument where they might not be so interested in in pursuing another Olympics is that they'll have to raise tens of millions of dollars in private funds to do so.  But then again, isn't that the point of this news story that the IOC may make it so they're not spending as much money?  Even still, they'll certainly claim to be able to produce a surplus from the Olympics, so it's an investment that would be worth it.

As has been said many times here before, past US bid cities were not in it for the long term.  Certainly not New York and who knows about Chicago if that bid went differently.  LA strikes me as the type of city that is going to keep at this until they win.  If this group loses interest, I'm confident someone else will pick up the slack.  You say we can't assume they'll be as enthused to go through this again.  That's a massive cop out.  Because we can't assume they won't be as enthused either.  All we can do is make our best guess whether or not they'll be back.  I'm betting they will be, regardless of what the IOC does or doesn't do to make their winning that much easier next time out.

 

22 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Why is it that public support "will go down" as if that's a statement of fact?  If we're talking about an LA bid which is privately backed, then the average joe isn't as invested as he/she would be in another city where public financing is a major part of the bid.  If you want to talk about referendums and government officials, ask yourself if you honestly think any of that applies to LA.  There has to be an understanding that there can only be 1 host that gets selected and sure it sucks to lose, but sometimes it takes more than 1 shot to win.  Ask Tokyo and Pyeongchang how that worked out for them.  This idea that somehow LA is going to be humiliated and/or butthurt from a loss to the point they won't want to return doesn't ring true to me.  I know you're just offering the possibility, but I don't think it's likely that's going to happen with LA.  Especially not if they instantly enter the 2028 race as a major front-runner. 

110% agree with all of this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI and Quaker

 

You all have valid points but you're forgetting something this is an American city and American cities seldom take losing well...and thats from the public stand point up to investors. So you can assume all you want that they're just doing this till they win but judging from the American track record once their city gets to the candidate stage they pretty much are their to win or go home.

 

2) All of the things you all said are true but you all are ignoring that the situation now in 2017 is not the same as it was back in 96 and even 2010. You both have written prior to this that LA has been trying to bid since Atlanta and yes of course LA was trying to bid again, the world was a different place then and the Olympics was at one of it's peaks. You all have to admit that a potentially Massive corruption scandal, the fact that 8 cities have dropped out of the race in the last 3 bids due to public backlash, and growing terroristic concerns are going to make any city think twice about bidding in the 2020 years.

Back in 96 9/11 didn't happen, the hardship of Athens didn't happen, sochi and beijing didn't happen trump didn't happen, and 8 referendums didn't happen. All I am saying is if I am someone who has been deeply enthused about something but then I realize the landscape has drastically changed since I set out on this journey I am going to think twice before I jump in again. One messed up cycle can be dismissed but 3 is a pattern that can't be ignored and when you take that into account plus this hole bizarre concept of "American Exceptionalism" (I'm not from the US), that is ingrained in the minds of people here, losing this time does not equate to a return for 2028 ESPECIALLY seeing 2028 isn't even a guaranteed win.

No American city in these times will put themselves up to lose twice in a row.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

plus this hole bizarre concept of "American Exceptionalism" (I'm not from the US), that is ingrained in the minds of people here, 

But that's what all of your points are, though. They seem very entitement oriented. 

All I keep hearing is, "you all have valid points, but, but.. " You keep saying that we can "asume" all we want, but isn't that what you're doing to with all of your arguments? I hear nothing but assumptions there as well. You just keep rehasing the same stuff over & over, like saying it that many times somehow would make it so. Still don't buy it. Especially when the majority of those problems you have cited against another 2028 bid already existed before the 2024 race. So that point is neither here nor there.

L.A. actually being the candidate this time around I think only strengthens their enthusiasm, not weaken it. Just like it did with Madrid when they lost 2016 & then went right after 2020. And if L.A loses 2024 & there's no double-award, they can think - "hey, we keep getting closer & closer to the grand prize. The next time (2028) has to be the charm!" 

BTW, where are you from, if you're not from the U.S.

1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

losing this time does not equate to a return for 2028 ESPECIALLY seeing 2028 isn't even a guaranteed win.

These bid races are never a guarantee, but a 2028 race, under the normal process & geopolitical circumstances, would be virtually handed to L.A. on a silver platter. And especially when Bach is already assigning the 2024 runner-up with a "leg-up" in order to return. 

1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

No American city in these times will put themselves up to lose twice in a row.

Here's another assumption. Bcuz that's what it is, an assumption on your part. I'm just curious about one thing (bcuz you haven't made that clear), since you're all for a double-award & if it actually takes places, is there an order of preference of which city gets which Games? Or does it not matter one way or another to you.

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

×