Jump to content
yoshi

Today's IOC session

Recommended Posts

Just what is the extraordinary session going to decide? I ask as I thought they'd already agreed to conduct the double award so are they actually going to decide on the order, sign the Host City Contracts & finish up the bid process today? And are they providing a way to watch proceedings as they would with a normal session?

Share this post


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

Just what is the extraordinary session going to decide? I ask as I thought they'd already agreed to conduct the double award so are they actually going to decide on the order, sign the Host City Contracts & finish up the bid process today? And are they providing a way to watch proceedings as they would with a normal session?

Today's session is apparently mostly about agreeing the Executive Boards's dual-award proposal. Hence, tomorrow's schedule is:

"Each City will have a separate room, where it can display models, show bid videos and interact with IOC Members and the media. In the morning, IOC Members will visit each City’s presentation room from 9.30 to 11.30 a.m. "

 

PS: Session video should be at https://www.olympic.org/130th-ioc-session

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I thought they'd already agreed the dual award in principle. Does that mean that which-city-gets-which will still be determined in Lima?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA Presentation to IOC

Paris Presentation to IOC

 

Watched both now....and as far as I'm concerned Paris edged it but not by much....

Estanguet very impressive for Paris, Garcetti very impressive for LA. Hidalgo and Wasserman both came across as pushy and a little insincere. Macron as slick as everyone expected. Alison Felix did well too. On the main speakers I'd call it a score-draw. A couple of things stood out though:

* Paris' Olympic Day celebrations have given it some fab images for their presentations which really show off their Games in the City concept. Easily the best video in the two presentations was Paris' concluding film with these images in it. Mike Lee working his magic again it seems. On the whole, Paris' presentation was night and day from the dour presentation of their 2012 bid.

* LA making a very conscious choice to devote a not insignificant chunk of its presentation to a very dry financial analysis - stuff that's already in the bid book and would normally be left there for IOC members to digest on their own. Completely understandable given that finance is one of their USPs.

* I remain amazed how blatantly LA is saying "vote for us despite Trump" without actually saying it. Larry Probst talking of the world's athletes training in America before they turn pro and concluding by saying "this isn't putting America First, it's putting the World First". Alison Felix's whole speech about America not being perfect, but urging IOC members to view the long-game, quoting MLK. This is unprecedented. I cannot remember the subtext of a bid deliberately pushing against its nation's leader before. Not that I mind, it endears me to LA24, but it is extraordinary.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Oh, I thought they'd already agreed the dual award in principle. Does that mean that which-city-gets-which will still be determined in Lima?

Seems they will agree the double award in principle but - and this is new - they will only go ahead with it if one of the cities puts their hands up for 2028. If that's the case the Lima session becomes a rubber-stamping exercise, if not battle commences for 2024 and 2024 alone:

Quote

If the joint awarding is approved today, Coates recommends they next approach the two host cities to form a Tripartite Commission to discuss with the IOC which one would host each.

One would then declare its candidature for 2028, explain any modifications to their bid and provide new guarantees and address matters in joint marketing plan. This would then be approved in Lima at the IOC Session.

"This isn't something that the IOC EB chooses to do unilaterally," Coates concludes. "The vice-presidents and the EB would like to bring this proposal to you in the light of what Patrick Baumann describes as the 'outstanding' proposals this morning."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1052582/race-for-the-2024-olympic-and-paralympic-games

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rob. said:

Too slow old fella! :lol:

Hey, those are "old" guys who run this WHOLE SHOW!!  Can't have the impulsive young 'uns to RUSH and RUIN things.  B)

Share this post


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

It's a whole, well-choreographed dance.  So, now, if LA says, OK, we'll go with 2028 -- then c'est finis.  It's done.  

So in 2117 -- will we see the same thing?  I mean, in 1924, now in 2017 -- so might as well make it a Trifecta for 2124.  Reserve 2124 for Paris and 2128 for LA already!! 

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

It's a whole, well-choreographed dance.  So, now, if LA says, OK, we'll go with 2028 -- then c'est finis.  It's done.  

Merci, le baron!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now will LA accept to forego 2024 ?

This reminds me when a plane is overbooked and they look for someone to agree to take the next flight with a cash premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hektor said:

Now will LA accept to forego 2024 ?

This reminds me when a plane is overbooked and they look for someone to agree to take the next flight with a cash premium.

That's it.  At least publicly, they're leaving it to the 2 cities to declare.  (No pressure -- ;) ;) )  But I think privately, Bach is pushing some buttons --  otherwise, it will stalemate.  

But we won't get an answer today.  Unless, Wasserman, Garcetti and Probst have been given carte blanche by their respective boards, the  3 will go back to the US, present the matter to the LA2024 and USOC boards, and the LA City Council -- and get a consensus.  THey will then inform the IOC -- and that would seal the deal.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw on the Gamesbids Facebook feed that a new bidding procedure will be implemented for the 2026 Winter Olympics and it will involve approval of a candidate city before the bid process actually begins. Not sure how this is going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stryker said:

Just saw on the Gamesbids Facebook feed that a new bidding procedure will be implemented for the 2026 Winter Olympics and it will involve approval of a candidate city before the bid process actually begins. Not sure how this is going to work.

I think what that means is that you have to be really serious (w/ public support, funding, etc., etc.) BEFORE the IOC would name you as an Official Candidate City.  In other words, for the IOC to waste their time and name on you, you have to be pretty serious (like LA and Paris are at ths stage) to get to the final stage.  So that it won't appear that many cities have dropped out early, the IOC will only move you forward if you are really serious.  (I don't know how different this is from the m.o.s of the past, but they will work with the more viable bids early and move the serious ones forward.) 

Per the NY Times article, over and above the issue of Paris' options for the OV lot, there is a consensus among the IOC'ers that they don't want to see Donald Trump opening an SOG (and the LA-2024 team, I think, is very closet Democrat) -- so that is another strong reason, the IOC would rather delay the next set of SOGs so that by 2028, the Orange Clown will be gone from office!  And this argument makes total sense to me.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Switzerland - if you must have a referendum & reject us then do it BEFORE the world knows you're bidding - that way it's a little less embarrassing for us. 

Love, IOC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I think what that means is that you have to be really serious (w/ public support, funding, etc., etc.) BEFORE the IOC would name you as an Official Candidate City.  In other words, for the IOC to waste their time and name on you, you have to be pretty serious (like LA and Paris are at ths stage) to get to the final stage.  So that it won't appear that many cities have dropped out early, the IOC will only move you forward if you are really serious.  (I don't know how different this is from the m.o.s of the past, but they will work with the more viable bids early and move the serious ones forward.) 

Per the NY Times article, over and above the issue of Paris' options for the OV lot, there is a consensus among the IOC'ers that they don't want to see Donald Trump opening an SOG (and the LA-2024 team, I think, is very closet Democrat) -- so that is another strong reason, the IOC would rather delay the next set of SOGs so that by 2028, the Orange Clown will be gone from office!  And this argument makes total sense to me.  

I guess if this is an indirect shade against Rome and Stockholm lmao? 

Anyway, as expected, the IOC approves the final resolution, now waiting for the next dance. Also according to InsidetheGames, Bach had a private meeting with Macron, Hidalgo and Garcetti yesterday. So, now the the next move will be make by Los Angeles team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I think what that means is that you have to be really serious (w/ public support, funding, etc., etc.) BEFORE the IOC would name you as an Official Candidate City.  In other words, for the IOC to waste their time and name on you, you have to be pretty serious (like LA and Paris are at ths stage) to get to the final stage.  So that it won't appear that many cities have dropped out early, the IOC will only move you forward if you are really serious.  (I don't know how different this is from the m.o.s of the past, but they will work with the more viable bids early and move the serious ones forward.) 

Well, considering that both Switzerland & Austria would have pending referendums on their  winter bids until well *after* the 2026 race has officially begun, then I don't see how the IOC can effectively excercise this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

the IOC would rather delay the next set of SOGs so that by 2028, the Orange Clown will be gone from office!

I wouldn't bet on that- there's the 29th Amendment to consider ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I think what that means is that you have to be really serious (w/ public support, funding, etc., etc.) BEFORE the IOC would name you as an Official Candidate City.  In other words, for the IOC to waste their time and name on you, you have to be pretty serious (like LA and Paris are at ths stage) to get to the final stage.  So that it won't appear that many cities have dropped out early, the IOC will only move you forward if you are really serious.  (I don't know how different this is from the m.o.s of the past, but they will work with the more viable bids early and move the serious ones forward.) 

Per the NY Times article, over and above the issue of Paris' options for the OV lot, there is a consensus among the IOC'ers that they don't want to see Donald Trump opening an SOG (and the LA-2024 team, I think, is very closet Democrat) -- so that is another strong reason, the IOC would rather delay the next set of SOGs so that by 2028, the Orange Clown will be gone from office!  And this argument makes total sense to me.  

Well there is a presidential election in France in 2022 so nobody knows who the IOC will have to open the Games. Could be worse than Trump. Also in 2028 it could be Ivanka.

Edited by hektor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hektor said:

Well there is a presidential election in France in 2022 so nobody knows who the IOC will have to open the Games. Could be worse than Trump. Also in 2028 it could be Ivanka.

I know it's still 5 years ahead, but let's say if the FN is still at bottom, divided and in full auto implosion as currently, Le Pen won't appear as the black lagoon monster (Cautious optimist thought).

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

×