Today's IOC session

[baron-pierreIV]

3 hours ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

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

Huh?  What 29th Amendment??

[baron-pierreIV]

39 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.

Ya think?  

[BTHarner]

Some people think Garcetti could be a future President,

[Faster]

There are people pushing for it. I would say, when is the last time a person made the leap from a Mayor's office to the White House, but the Orange Clown of Stupidity.

Now the task for the IOC is to get a Western country over the finish line for a winter games. I am sure the preference would be for it to be Austria/Switzerland/Norway/Germany over Canada but they might have to take what they can get. Maybe the COC should get together with their Norwegian/Swiss/Austrian counterparts and devise a double award for 2026 and 2030.

[baron-pierreIV]

59 minutes ago, Faster said:

There are people pushing for it. I would say, when is the last time a person made the leap from a Mayor's office to the White House, but the Orange Clown of Stupidity.

None that I can think of.  Giuliani was the last one bruited about.  Nothing came of other great US city mayors - Wagner, Lindsay or New York; Sam Yorty of LA.  Not unless Garcetti succeeds Jerry Brown as governor, since Brown is now going on 76.  I think Sacramento might be Garcetti's path to the White House.  He's certainly very telegenic and conducted himself marvelously the past day or so.  I think it was wise for LA 2024 to keep the Orange Scourge out of the picture.  

[Roger87]

5 hours ago, Faster said:

There are people pushing for it. I would say, when is the last time a person made the leap from a Mayor's office to the White House, but the Orange Clown of Stupidity.

Now the task for the IOC is to get a Western country over the finish line for a winter games. I am sure the preference would be for it to be Austria/Switzerland/Norway/Germany over Canada but they might have to take what they can get. Maybe the COC should get together with their Norwegian/Swiss/Austrian counterparts and devise a double award for 2026 and 2030.

That was exactly the other proposition by two years. But first they need confirmation of the bids. The SOK is fighting overtime for convince again Stockholm (lol) and Turkey now wants the WOG.

[JMarkSnow2012]

14 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Huh?  What 29th Amendment??

The one that will be passed along with the 28th Amendment. Be afraid, be very afraid.

[baron-pierreIV]

1 hour ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

The one that will be passed along with the 28th Amendment. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Silly.

[stryker]

23 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.) 

 

So more or less the IOC is simply extending the invitation phase. I don't really see how this helps the IOC other than maybe giving them more time to help a prospective candidate city to mount a PR offensive in advance of a referendum. There were hints of this after Calgary announced a budget the IOC almost immediately came out and said it could be reduced and I expect the IOC to work vigorously to keep Calgary in the race especially with referendums looming over Sion and Innsbruck. If both of those cities voted no and Calgary somehow decided to not pursue a bid, the IOC could face another 2022 situation where they have to choose between the likes of Almaty and Ezurum and I think there's a good chance that could actually happen. The IOC still doesn't get the problem. The problem isn't the bidding process, the problem is the size of the Games. Until they tackle that issue, we will continue to see fewer and fewer bids. On a side note, I would assume with Calgary likely going forward that the COC has closed the book on any SOG bid by Toronto. If Toronto determined a Commonwealth Games bid was out of the question, maybe the COC has determined that a SOG is simply too big and expensive for Canada?

 

[baron-pierreIV]

59 minutes ago, stryker said:

. On a side note, I would assume with Calgary likely going forward that the COC has closed the book on any SOG bid by Toronto. If Toronto determined a Commonwealth Games bid was out of the question, maybe the COC has determined that a SOG is simply too big and expensive for Canada?

 

Unless there comes a time when Toronto (or Montreal) will be the ONLY bidder in a particular cycle, then forget another North American SOGs for 25 years after 2028.  So the earliest the SOGs could return to, say, Canada, would be 2052 or 2056.  

[Roger87]

Also mentioned in Gamesbids, the play has started: http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1052649/bach-resists-growing-paris-2024-rumours-as-informal-talks-begin-with-mayors

[hektor]

Could they do some sharing like have a few 2024 events in the 2028 city and vice versa.

Like  sailing in LA during Paris Games and equestrian in Versailles during LA Games? Random selection...

[Roger87]

6 hours ago, hektor said:

Could they do some sharing like have a few 2024 events in the 2028 city and vice versa.

Like  sailing in LA during Paris Games and equestrian in Versailles during LA Games? Random selection...

It's not allowed (Melbourne 1956 was an special case), but I think they can make special presentations for other non Olympic sports as a sort of friendships.

[Quaker2001]

7 hours ago, hektor said:

Could they do some sharing like have a few 2024 events in the 2028 city and vice versa.

Like  sailing in LA during Paris Games and equestrian in Versailles during LA Games? Random selection...

What's the reason for doing that?  Don't think it accomplishes anything other than to create more logistical headaches than the IOC needs to deal with.

[FYI]

Guys, I think that they were being facetious. Either that, or being trolled.

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, FYI said:

Guys, I think that they were being facetious. Either that, or being trolled.

Or, neither of the above.. it was just a bad idea.  Not that we ever see those around here 

[FYI]

11 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Unless there comes a time when Toronto (or Montreal) will be the ONLY bidder in a particular cycle, then forget another North American SOGs for 25 years after 2028.  So the earliest the SOGs could return to, say, Canada, would be 2052 or 2056.  

The next several cycles could very well be repeat-hosts anyway:

Tokyo 2020

Beijing 2022

----

Paris 2024

Innsbruck 2026

Los Angeles 2028

Calgary 2030

Melbourne 2032

Sapporo 2034

----

 

[LatinXTC]

21 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Unless there comes a time when Toronto (or Montreal) will be the ONLY bidder in a particular cycle, then forget another North American SOGs for 25 years after 2028.  So the earliest the SOGs could return to, say, Canada, would be 2052 or 2056.  

Montreal bidding again??? I don't see that happening, especially since the eyesore from the only games they ever had still stands. 

And I have a feeling Toronto will do what they did for 2024. They'll toy with the idea of hosting until a couple days before the deadline to put forth a bid and neglect to do so. They're not a serious contender for anything until they actually put forth a bid by the time the deadline arrives, which at earliest would be 2023 I think. 

I could see a US bid 12 years after LA and us still have a great chance of winning that bid. It's happened before, and if the current political climate around the world hardly changed much then even better for us. I feel 2032 and 2036 are going to be an Australian/Asian bid, and with a lack of European cities interested in hosting as always, except for those we really don't want to see hosting at all, the US could easily slide into a 2040 victory.

[FYI]

5 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

And I have a feeling Toronto will do what they did for 2024. They'll toy with the idea of hosting until a couple days before the deadline to put forth a bid and neglect to do so. They're not a serious contender for anything until they actually put forth a bid by the time the deadline arrives, which at earliest would be 2023 I think. 

I could see a US bid 12 years after LA and us still have a great chance of winning that bid. It's happened before, and if the current political climate around the world hardly changed much then even better for us. I feel 2032 and 2036 are going to be an Australian/Asian bid, and with a lack of European cities interested in hosting as always, except for those we really don't want to see hosting at all, the US could easily slide into a 2040 victory.

Yeah, but much like Toronto, & most of Europe, a lot of the U.S. major cities are also ambivalent (or indifferent) about, or just downright against, the Olympics (see Boston 2024). And the other U.S. cities that are left who might be interested are also ones that we really don't want to see hosting at all either (unless of course we put up eager beaver L.A. yet again ).

Sure, 2040 is a long way off (but then again, the bidding process & vetting for those Games will begin sometime around 2030 or maybe even before), & a lot can change between now & then, but so could the situation in Canada & Europe. So still too early on that call.

[Roger87]

Both cities halls in Lausanne

 

[baron-pierreIV]

3 hours ago, Roger87 said:

Both cities halls in Lausanne

 

This is still no substitute for actual visits -- except that most of the IOC members have of course set foot in LA and Paris already.  But this is so up to the 1986 votes!   

[stryker]

This is a good start. The IOC ought to extend this rule to ski jumps as well.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1052622/promise-to-use-existing-sliding-tracks-among-2026-winter-olympic-candidature-process-changes

[paul]

Paris24 amateur hour.........

All the Paris-bid look and graphics have been pretty bad.....all the generic swirls, color passed, no defined color branding...the decision to use a graphic that looks like "LA".etc. etc. But when you combine limited creativity and bad judgement you get something like the altered pic used in their presentation below.......I mean really.....who thought this was a good idea? Pushing the tee-pee symbol at every gathering was awkward enough......but somebody had to think really hard how to make it even more dorky.

None of this crap is good enough for a city as interesting as Paris.

[Roger87]

2 hours ago, stryker said:

This is a good start. The IOC ought to extend this rule to ski jumps as well.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1052622/promise-to-use-existing-sliding-tracks-among-2026-winter-olympic-candidature-process-changes

This is also a moot point for European countries. 

[paul]

While bills mount for Olympic hosts, IOC members pass the aperitifs -The Washington Post

On Tuesday, representatives from Paris and Los Angeles went to Lausanne to bid for the 2024 Games, a process that mainly consisted of trying to convince a lot of Olympic yachting blazers, over dinner at the Beau Rivage, to please let them plunge their cities into incalculable debt.

Cities are in a position to make demands, and they should start by demanding a larger cut of the TV and sponsor money as the price of doing business.

Funny though. The IOC hasn’t addressed one very large reason the Olympics are such a burden: its hoarding of the lion’s share of TV and sponsor-marketing revenue that could relieve some of the financial pressure. The IOC does almost none of the work, yet strictly controls what economists Robert Baade and Victor Matheson term the “monopoly rents.”

By far the main source of Olympic revenue is TV rights fees, which amounted to $4.1 billion in 2016. The IOC pockets fully 70 percent of that. Why? For what?

Rio stadiums are sprouting weeds while there is still a lingering $35 million to $40 million in debt. Yet in a meeting of the IOC executive board this week, it declined further help, during a pause between the courgette souffle and the lavender risotto. Meanwhile, Brazil’s recession is so bad schoolteachers and hospital workers are going unpaid.

The IOC gives lip service to reform. This week, it announced the results of a governance review by an independent evaluator in Lausanne, which recommended 33 changes it should make to keep up with “societal expectations.” Among other things, it recommended that money distribution be linked to “minimum standards of good governance.” The IOC would not commit.

At its core, the IOC is not a “movement”; it’s an operation, a racket. Its existence depends entirely on business contracts — and those can be renegotiated. For example, the IOC soon will benefit from even greater cash flow, thanks to its hard dealings with the U.S. Olympic Committee, which will see its rights fees paid by American networks cut from 12.5 percent to 7, and its share of marketing revenue slashed from 20 percent to 10 starting in 2020.

Cities could and should get more. You’ll know the IOC has truly reformed only when they give up their entrecôte and stop demanding hotels that once served as residences for Empresses. You’ll know it when they open their numbered accounts for public inspection. And you’ll know it when they revise the Olympic contract to give the host city a fairer cut to defray the cost and risks they take on.