Where does the IOC go from here?

[baron-pierreIV]

Plus, a whole region (not one city, like Hamburg previously -- but like six cities) of Germany, the 4th richest nation on the planet, has already raised its hand to bid for 2032.  And by the time that bid gets serious, Bach will be on his way out, so he would not be too restrained to push the right buttons and exert undue influence on the IOC for a Germany/Westphalia 2032 Games to become his biggest legacy.  

And 2032 would be 60 years from the last German Games, so that gap would be most acceptable.  

Edited August 2, 2017 by baron-pierreIV

[Quaker2001]

10 hours ago, FYI said:

As for 2026 (& the winter Olympics in general), I can only imagine that later this year (once the dust starts to settle with all the 2024 & 2028 red-tape), the IOC will begin feverishly working to try & get a traditional host to the 2026 table. I doubt that the IOC will simply just let Sion & Innsbruck go without a fight. The IOC is desperate for a Western European Winter Olympics like never before, & they'll be stupid if they wouldn't try to entice those two Alpine bids with somekind of incentives, like they threw L.A.'s way just to convince them to simply take 2028. Personally, I see the Austrians being more receptive to some kind of deal VS the Swiss. So I'd say that 2024, 2026 & 2028 are all going to be three-peat Olympic hosts. As for Calgary, they seem to be the back-up plan (in the IOC's view) if Europe again falters for 2026. Whether or not Calgary actually bids is another story.

In theory, yes.  But did they fight to keep Oslo (not that they had control over that) and look at the IOC's response when they dropped out?  I agree the IOC is desperate, but what will they do with that desperation to make something happen?  Which is to say.. will the IOC actually try to entice the Swiss and Austrians to bid, or will they sit back and hope that those countries come to them and do little to accommodate their efforts?  They did that with LA who was already engaged and in the mix and the alternative was to leave them with nothing.  If they have multiple cities, what's the incentive for the IOC to offer them money if they're going to duke it out and the loser gets left with nothing?

[baron-pierreIV]

Can Innsbruck handle a full-blown 21st century WOGs?  Or will it be a scaled down Games, friendly only to what Innsbruck's already got on the ground?  I say, for 2026 and 2030, Innsbruck might have the edge (and Calgary in the bkgd, being a good 3rd back-up).  And they could very well do a double-award then in 2019 with Innsbruck for 2026 and 2030 to Calgary.  

[FYI]

18 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

They did that with LA who was already engaged and in the mix and the alternative was to leave them with nothing.  If they have multiple cities, what's the incentive for the IOC to offer them money if they're going to duke it out and the loser gets left with nothing?

But so far, all of these "multiple cities" seem iffy (at least the cities that the IOC really wants). All dependant on referendums that have yet to take place. So the incentive here for the IOC is to be proactive rather than reactive with these particular cities. 

Yeah, they didn't do that with Oslo, but they probably thought that the Norwegian's wouldn't pull out so far engaged into the mix. Well, they did. So that should serve as a lesson for the IOC. Although, the IOC did offer Oslo $880 million (& they still said no). 

25 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I agree the IOC is desperate, but what will they do with that desperation to make something happen? 

Baron just beat me to it (but I've mentioned it before), the IOC could do another double-award for the 2026 & 2030 winter Games. As you said in your response to Nacre in reference to Denver; but, "desperate times call for desperate measures". And let's remember that it was the Winter Olympics that were in trouble first, with cities dropping out, before that turmoil finally made it's way to the Summer Olympic contest.

[FYI]

18 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Can Innsbruck handle a full-blown 21st century WOGs?  Or will it be a scaled down Games, friendly only to what Innsbruck's already got on the ground? 

It's a canton-wide effort. With events proposed all over Tyrol, & a couple in Germany. I think some ice hockey is proposed in Munich. But if you question Innsbruck, what about Sion? Even tinier & more isolated than Innsbruck. I think the Swiss proposal is also more spread-out than Innsbruck's. More proposed events beyond Valais canton.

[FYI]

 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

What of the next Summer Olympics?  Who knows.  There's a lot of "well, this city would be strong, but only if they bid, and not if this other city bids as well" logic here.  So it's anyone's best guess.  But we're now several years away from potential Summer hosts even having to think about whether or not they want to bid.  Not that I trust the IOC to realize the situation they're in and adjust accordingly.

As it stands now, 2032 will be awarded in 2025, & the bids themselves for those Games are due in 2023. And that's not including the extra time involved if some of those cities have to go through a domestic process first before a candidate gets picked, like in countries as the U.S., Australia, Germany, Italy & China.

So while it may seem like these cities have "several years" to 'think' about bidding" for 2032, they're gonna at least need to start dipping their toe in the bidding pool real soon just to test the waters & gauge the interest in their respective communities (especially these days) & then actually start working on a bid & organizing committee. All those things take lots of time. As we've seen, (western) Germany & India are already testing the 2032 waters.

[Nacre]

8 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

2.Do you think Denver is a shanty little town with nothing there? They have a baseball, college football and NFL stadium each with over 50k capacity to choose from to host the opening/closing ceremonies. They have a basketball stadium with 18k capacity that can host hockey, figure skating, and/or short track speed skating. They have college facilities and convention centers that can take care of other ice events as well. The only thing they need to build for sure is a long track speed skating venue.

Baseball, American football, etc are not in the winter Olympics. They would have to build a bobsledding track, speed skating venue, another large arena for figure skating, and ski jumps (Colorado has ski jumps but they aren't Olympic worthy) as well as a new media center (the existing convention center isn't suitable for broadcasters) and the Olympic village.

People in Colorado do not want to pay for all that.

Quote

Do you have any evidence such as polling to prove that statement???

Of course I am not Gallup. But when I was in New Mexico and Colorado last September I talked to people from Denver to Durango, and talked about skiing and the winter Olympics with several people. (I have never been skiing in Colorado and wanted to know if it was really worth a return trip since I live twenty minutes away from the snowiest ski resort in the world.) None of them wanted Colorado to bid for the games again.

You can contrast that with LA, where if you ask 10 people on the street about the Olympics 7 to 9 of them will be in favor of LA hosting again.

 

[Quaker2001]

58 minutes ago, FYI said:

But so far, all of these "multiple cities" seem iffy (at least the cities that the IOC really wants). All dependant on referendums that have yet to take place. So the incentive here for the IOC is to be proactive rather than reactive with these particular cities. 

Yeah, they didn't do that with Oslo, but they probably thought that the Norwegian's wouldn't pull out so far engaged into the mix. Well, they did. So that should serve as a lesson for the IOC. Although, the IOC did offer Oslo $880 million (& they still said no).

I'll believe the IOC has learned a lesson when I see it.  You would think what happened with the 2022 vote and 2024/2028 would show them the light, but this is still the IOC, so it remains to be seen if they'll change how they operate.  I agree the IOC should make an effort to get out in front of the situation, but will they actually do that?  And again, as your last point noted, they tried to keep Oslo in the running but were unable to do so and we saw what it left them with.  So let's see if they can keep the potential 2026 candidates in the fold when it may or may not be out of their control.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Baron just beat me to it (but I've mentioned it before), the IOC could do another double-award for the 2026 & 2030 winter Games. As you said in your response to Nacre in reference to Denver; but, "desperate times call for desperate measures". And let's remember that it was the Winter Olympics that were in trouble first, with cities dropping out, before that turmoil finally made it's way to the Summer Olympic contest.

The 2024-2028 double was a matter of circumstance.  If the IOC has exactly 2 candidates for 2026 and they're good ones, then maybe it's an option.  But the flipside of that, similar to with the potential Summer host cities, is whether or not you're shutting out potential candidates that aren't in the running for 2026 but would consider jumping in for 2030.  That was less of a concern with Paris and LA because it was such good cities and who they might be shutting out for 2028 can almost be a write off.

Either way, it comes down to the same axiom it always does.  The IOC can only choose from the candidates that are put in front of them.  No amount of desperation puts a candidate in the race that doesn't want in.  Can the IOC make it so that the Olympics are more enticing to potential host cities?  Sure they can.  Will they do that though?  I still have my doubts.  The outlook for 2026 looks slightly better now than it did at the end for 2022, but by the same token, at this point in the 2022 race, things were looking pretty good.  2019 seems like a long way off in that regard.

[stryker]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

In theory, yes.  But did they fight to keep Oslo (not that they had control over that) and look at the IOC's response when they dropped out?  I agree the IOC is desperate, but what will they do with that desperation to make something happen?  Which is to say.. will the IOC actually try to entice the Swiss and Austrians to bid, or will they sit back and hope that those countries come to them and do little to accommodate their efforts?  They did that with LA who was already engaged and in the mix and the alternative was to leave them with nothing.  If they have multiple cities, what's the incentive for the IOC to offer them money if they're going to duke it out and the loser gets left with nothing?

I think the IOC will have to do more than just throw cash at a prospective candidate. They can start by be more open to regional rather than compact bids. They've already taken a step in the 2026 race by encouraging the use of an existing sliding track. Same should be done for the ski jump as well and even the arenas for the indoor ice events. Innsbruck is proposing using the oval at Inzell in Germany. This should be extended to the SOGs also particularly with regard to venues like the canoe/kayak course, rowing, velodrome, and the athletics stadium. Regarding Germany's regional bid for 2032, it's a great start but there is no athletics stadium and no football team in any of those cities needs a new stadium. Might as well hold the athletics in Munich. The IOC also needs to accept smaller venue capacities similar to those for the CWGs and the Pan Ams. Doing so would allow more cities to use existing infrastructure.

[Quaker2001]

22 minutes ago, FYI said:

As it stands now, 2032 will be awarded in 2025, & the bids themselves for those Games are due in 2023. And that's not including the extra time involved if some of those cities have to go through a domestic process first before a candidate gets picked, like in countries as the U.S., Australia, Germany, Italy & China.

So while it may seem like these cities have "several years" to 'think' about bidding" for 2032, they're gonna at least need to start dipping their toe in the bidding pool real soon just to test the waters & gauge the interest in their respective communities (especially these days) & then actually start working on a bid & organizing committee. All those things take lots of time. As we've seen, (western) Germany & India are already testing the 2032 waters.

Yes, we've discussed this before that these things don't come together at the last minute.  But from the IOC's standpoint, they're not in a position where they have to (or will likely want to) engage with potential summer host cities for a while.  Normally it's 2 years between the vote and when they formally open the bid process for the next Olympics.  That gap is now tripled.  The USOC had a lead-up process to vet a domestic candidate that lasted 2 1/2 years, but they still didn't send that letter for 2024 until early 2013.  So for a 2032 bid, that would mean 2021, still more than 3 years away.  So yes, they do have "several years" before they "starting dipping their toe in the bidding pool" just to "test the waters."  Some of that groundwork has already been laid, as it usually does.  But we are still a long ways off before it needs to get serious.

[Quaker2001]

5 minutes ago, stryker said:

I think the IOC will have to do more than just throw cash at a prospective candidate. They can start by be more open to regional rather than compact bids. They've already taken a step in the 2026 race by encouraging the use of an existing sliding track. Same should be done for the ski jump as well and even the arenas for the indoor ice events. Innsbruck is proposing using the oval at Inzell in Germany. This should be extended to the SOGs also particularly with regard to venues like the canoe/kayak course, rowing, velodrome, and the athletics stadium. Regarding Germany's regional bid for 2032, it's a great start but there is no athletics stadium and no football team in any of those cities needs a new stadium. Might as well hold the athletics in Munich. The IOC also needs to accept smaller venue capacities similar to those for the CWGs and the Pan Ams. Doing so would allow more cities to use existing infrastructure.

That's the common narrative here.. "the IOC needs to"  But will they?  Agenda 2020 was supposed to be the vehicle that led to reform, but at the end of the day, it did nothing for them.  Yes, they should allow bids to be more regional, but look how that worked out for 2022.  Is the IOC willing to accept these things and allow cities to bid along those lines?  And if they aren't willing to accept it, will there be pushback to where certain candidate cities say forget it and decide not to bid and/or set themselves up to allow a referendum to kill it.

[Quaker2001]

20 minutes ago, Nacre said:

Baseball, American football, etc are not in the winter Olympics. They would have to build a bobsledding track, speed skating venue, another large arena for figure skating, and ski jumps (Colorado has ski jumps but they aren't Olympic worthy) as well as a new media center (the existing convention center isn't suitable for broadcasters) and the Olympic village.

People in Colorado do not want to pay for all that.

Of course I am not Gallup. But when I was in New Mexico and Colorado last September I talked to people from Denver to Durango, and talked about skiing and the winter Olympics with several people. (I have never been skiing in Colorado and wanted to know if it was really worth a return trip since I live twenty minutes away from the snowiest ski resort in the world.) None of them wanted Colorado to bid for the games again.

You can contrast that with LA, where if you ask 10 people on the street about the Olympics 7 to 9 of them will be in favor of LA hosting again.

Salt Palace Convention Center - 515,000 square feet
Colorado Convention Center - 800,000 square feet

So if you can tell me why 1 was good, but the other is not, I'll be curious to hear that one.  Salt Lake had to build a speed skating venue.  They build not 1, but 2 new arenas for hockey, 1 of which was an hour away.  Their curling venue was an hour in the opposite direction.  They built plenty of new venues in the mountains.

Denver has all the city venues they need covered, with the exception of speed skating, but that's not a hard one to re-purpose.  Yes, coming up with a plan for the mountain venues is easier said than done, although if they use the sliding venue from Salt Lake (which the IOC would likely go for) and maybe another sport or 2 in Salt Lake, that helps matters there.  I won't argue that there are major challenges involved here, but there's not all that much that the people of Colorado have to pay for.

[FYI]

10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The 2024-2028 double was a matter of circumstance.  If the IOC has exactly 2 candidates for 2026 and they're good ones, then maybe it's an option.  But the flipside of that, similar to with the potential Summer host cities, is whether or not you're shutting out potential candidates that aren't in the running for 2026 but would consider jumping in for 2030.  That was less of a concern with Paris and LA because it was such good cities and who they might be shutting out for 2028 can almost be a write off.

Yeah, but who on the winter side, besides Switzerland, Austria & Canada (who for now, all seem to want 2026, & which the IOC would just love to have any of 'em, especially the first two), 'cannot' be ruled out for 2030? Krakow? Almaty? Sofia? Sapporo? Aside from the U.S., (which now has 2028 anyway), with maybe Salt Lake, & Oslo (who doesn't want it anyway), I don't see any other credible candidates that can't be just 'written off', as you say, in order to try & do a 2026/2030 double.

[FYI]

21 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes, we've discussed this before that these things don't come together at the last minute.  But from the IOC's standpoint, they're not in a position where they have to (or will likely want to) engage with potential summer host cities for a while.  Normally it's 2 years between the vote and when they formally open the bid process for the next Olympics.  That gap is now tripled.  The USOC had a lead-up process to vet a domestic candidate that lasted 2 1/2 years, but they still didn't send that letter for 2024 until early 2013.  So for a 2032 bid, that would mean 2021, still more than 3 years away.  So yes, they do have "several years" before they "starting dipping their toe in the bidding pool" just to "test the waters."  Some of that groundwork has already been laid, as it usually does.  But we are still a long ways off before it needs to get serious.

How has the gap tripled? It's only doubled. But even at 2021, or three years as you put it (which isn't really that far away anyway), that's not "several" years away. But a *few*. But maybe we're just arguing semantics (as you say sometimes). But I digress.

However, while I agree that the IOC isn't necesarily eager to even look at 2032 at this moment, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the cities themselves, not the IOC. And again, (western) Germany & India are already looking into it without even consulting the IOC (& remember are old pal on here who would always argue the other cities that consult "in private" about it), which doesn't necessarily have to follow the IOC's timetable yet, when things are actually due to them.

Right now their gauging their citizenry & constituency (espeicially in Germany's case), before they go to the IOC with a formal proposal. That's what I'm talking about & how it usually works before anything official ever gets off the ground.

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Yeah, but who on the winter side, besides Switzerland, Austria & Canada (who for now, all seem to want 2026, & which the IOC would just love to have any of 'em, especially the first two), 'cannot' be ruled out for 2030? Krakow? Almaty? Sofia? Sapporo? Aside from the U.S., (which now has 2028 anyway), with maybe Salt Lake, & Oslo (who doesn't want it anyway), I don't see any other credible candidates that can't be just 'written off', as you say, in order to try & do a 2026/2030 double.

Well, the fact you just named 3 candidates kinda proves the point, doesn't it?  Let's say Innsbruck drops out and it's Sion and Calgary let.  Who's to say Innsbruck wouldn't want to try again for 2030.  Again, think about your timeline.. 4 years ago at this point for 2022, where were we?  Like I said, maybe a double award will wind up making sense.  But it's way too early in the game to know whether that's a smart move.  Just because it worked out so neatly for 2024/2028 doesn't mean it will be as smart for 2026/2030.  The first one served a means.  What would 2026/2030 try to accomplish?

[baron-pierreIV]

2 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well, the fact you just named 3 candidates kinda proves the point, doesn't it?  Let's say Innsbruck drops out and it's Sion and Calgary let.  Who's to say Innsbruck wouldn't want to try again for 2030.  Again, think about your timeline.. 4 years ago at this point for 2022, where were we?  Like I said, maybe a double award will wind up making sense.  But it's way too early in the game to know whether that's a smart move.  Just because it worked out so neatly for 2024/2028 doesn't mean it will be as smart for 2026/2030.  The first one served a means.  What would 2026/2030 try to accomplish?

With LA, London and Paris as 3-peat hosts, I think this will be the Innsbruckerdingnaggians' driving force  -- to be the 1st 3-peat WOG host (and just to get ahead of St. Moritz and Lake Placid). 

[Quaker2001]

47 minutes ago, FYI said:

How has the gap tripled? It's only doubled. But even at 2021, or three years as you put it (which isn't really that far away anyway), that's not "several" years away. But a *few*. But maybe we're just arguing semantics (as you say sometimes). But I digress.

However, while I agree that the IOC isn't necesarily eager to even look at 2032 at this moment, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the cities themselves, not the IOC. And again, (western) Germany & India are already looking into it without even consulting the IOC (& remember are old pal on here who would always argue the other cities that consult "in private" about it), which doesn't necessarily have to follow the IOC's timetable yet, when things are actually due to them.

Right now their gauging their citizenry & constituency (espeicially in Germany's case), before they go to the IOC with a formal proposal. That's what I'm talking about & how it usually works before anything official ever gets off the ground.

Tripled = become three times as much or as many.

Several = more than two but not many.

I think we are arguing semantics here, less we try to define what "we're talking about here" since it may or may not be the same thing.  Laying the groundwork is something interested cities/countries should be doing.  But it doesn't necessarily need to happen sooner rather than later, and it's still a far cry from when that turns into a formal proposal.  More than that..  while I doubt too many interested cities will look at Tokyo and learn positive lessons from there, letting Paris and LA get a few years into their organizational efforts might be what some countries, like a Germany or an India, need to see to get a better idea of what they're getting into.  Is gauging their citizenry now and in this environment going to give them an honest read on what they should do?  Or perhaps the time to do that is later on.  There's a lot of middle ground between doing things "real soon" and waiting until the 11th hour.  And again, to wait until 2021 to turn it into something serious still gives them 2 to 2 1/2 years before they need to make a formal proposal.  That's more than enough time to get that type of effort done and a lot of it is better served to be done closer to 2023 than now.

[Quaker2001]

17 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

With LA, London and Paris as 3-peat hosts, I think this will be the Innsbruckerdingnaggians' driving force  -- to be the 1st 3-peat WOG host (and just to get ahead of St. Moritz and Lake Placid). 

Meh.  London made it a part of their narrative, but I don't see Innsbruck pushing that.  Lake Placid is not going to host another Winter Olympics anytime soon, if ever.  St. Moritz doesn't seem to be the preferred choice of the Swiss.  Unless I'm mistaken, I don't recall LA or Paris pushing the 3-peat concept, probably in part because they're up against each other.

[baron-pierreIV]

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

Meh.  London made it a part of their narrative, but I don't see Innsbruck pushing that.  Lake Placid is not going to host another Winter Olympics anytime soon, if ever.  St. Moritz doesn't seem to be the preferred choice of the Swiss.  Unless I'm mistaken, I don't recall LA or Paris pushing the 3-peat concept, probably in part because they're up against each other.

I say Poh-ta-toe; you say to-ma-to.   

[FYI]

 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well, the fact you just named 3 candidates kinda proves the point, doesn't it?  Let's say Innsbruck drops out and it's Sion and Calgary let.  Who's to say Innsbruck wouldn't want to try again for 2030.  

That's sounds too (typical) Devil's advocate. By that logic, who's to say that Hamburg, Rome & Budapest couldn't have also come back for 2028 (who's logic did that sound like in a certain blather blog)? Not to mention the 2024 loser, Toronto, Melbourne & whoever else that could've been interested. It's why many argued ITFP why a 2024/2028 combo-deal wouldn't happen. But the IOC chose to bite the bullet anyway & chose to award both now.

They knew from the get go they had two rock-solid bids left over & wanted to take advantage of it rather than gamble "what if's" for 2028. And considering how much more of a rattled cage the Winter Olympics are, it's certainly plausible that the same could also pan out for 2030.

58 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, think about your timeline.. 4 years ago at this point for 2022, where were we?  Like I said, maybe a double award will wind up making sense.  But it's way too early in the game to know whether that's a smart move.  Just because it worked out so neatly for 2024/2028 doesn't mean it will be as smart for 2026/2030.  The first one served a means.  What would 2026/2030 try to accomplish?

I'm not saying that the IOC should start off the next winter process this way. But you brought up the scenario if of one of the three, Sion, Innsbruck or Calgary, dropped out (which I see that being more of a case with Sion than Innsbruck), then the IOC is pretty much left with the same type of dilemma that brought them not only 2022 but 2024 as well. That's starting a trend here. And unlike 2022, & more like 2024, Innbruck & Calgary would be two, worthwhile & desirable bids from the IOC's POV & would probably want to hold onto them in order to prevent more "too many losers".  

The IOC is in a delicate predicament where they're not so sure when & where they'll be able to have another traditional winter Olympic host. So I think that if there's a way to also hold on to not just one, but two here, that they might take advantage here as well. Let's remember that only last year at this time the idea of a 2024/2028 combo-deal was unthinkable by many. All I'm saying, though, is that it's not at all outside the realm of possibility anymore, all things considered.

49 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Tripled = become three times as much or as many.

The IOC agreed to award only TWO Games together, NOT three. So the gap to 2032 has only doubled, not "tripled".

51 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Several = more than two but not many.

FEW = not many, but more than one. To me, several indicates more than a few, since you start off with two anyway. 2017 to 2021 to me is only a few years, not several. But yes, it's semantics now. But if you want to continue to split hairs, be my guest. But IDK what we're arguing anymore since it appears that we agree in the crux of the 2032 matter anyway. But again, I digress. And as baron just said, "poHtatoe - tomaHto".

[Quaker2001]

20 minutes ago, FYI said:

That's sounds too (typical) Devil's advocate. By that logic, who's to say that Hamburg, Rome & Budapest couldn't have also come back for 2028 (who's logic did that sound like in a certain blather blog)? Not to mention the 2024 loser, Toronto, Melbourne & whoever else that could've been interested. It's why many argued ITFP why a 2024/2028 combo-deal wouldn't happen. But the IOC chose to bite the bullet anyway & chose to award both now.

They knew from the get go they had two rock-solid bids left over & wanted to take advantage of it rather than gamble "what if's" for 2028. And considering how much more of a rattled cage the Winter Olympics are, it's certainly plausible that the same could also pan out for 2030.

Yes.. "could".  Don't give me the devil's advocate line as if my disagreement with you means I'm trying to argue "could not."  You're getting ahead of yourself here.  Again, if the circumstances line up that a double makes sense - and they might - it could serve a means.  But considering we don't know yet the make-up of the 2026 field, it's a little earlier to start throwing that out there, unless this is one of those possibility for the sake of a possibility discussions.

And since you ask who could come back.. did Switzerland not explore a 2022 bid and then nix it?  Here they are for 2026.  The double happened once.  That means very little towards whether it would happen again in a completely different circumstance.

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

I'm not saying that the IOC should start off the next winter process this way. But you brought up the scenario if of one of the three, Sion, Innsbruck or Calgary, dropped out (which I see that being more of a case with Sion than Innsbruck), then the IOC is pretty much left with the same type of dilemma that brought them not only 2022 but 2024 as well. That's starting a trend here. And unlike 2022, & more like 2024, Innbruck & Calgary would be two, worthwhile & desirable bids from the IOC's POV & would probably want to hold onto them in order to prevent more "too many losers".  

The IOC is in a delicate predicament where they're not so sure when & where they'll be able to have another traditional winter Olympic host. So I think that if there's a way to also hold on to not just one, but two here, that they might take advantage here as well. Let's remember that only last year at this time the idea of a 2024/2028 combo-deal was unthinkable by many. All I'm saying, though, is that it's not at all outside the realm of possibility anymore, all things considered.

Well, it probably wouldn't have ever happened if AA hadn't suggested it in the first place!  It's not outside the realm of possibility either, but the circumstances that would lead to it happening don't seem like they'll present itself here.  The IOC basically had to negotiate to pay of LA to take 2028.  Would they play Innsbruck and Calgary against each other like that when, unlike 2024, they knew from the get go that 1 of those cities would be more willing to make a deal if it came to that.  They knew that Paris would threaten not to come back after 2024 if they lost (LA maybe not so much).  I don't think that concern is as strong with these 3 countries, particularly if 1 of them is Canada.

43 minutes ago, FYI said:

The IOC agreed to award only TWO Games together, NOT three. So the gap to 2032 has only doubled, not "tripled".

Read my original post..

Normally it's 2 years between the vote and when they formally open the bid process for the next Olympics.

If not for the double, the deadline to submit a bad for 2028 would have been in 2019, 2 years from now.  Instead - assuming the IOC sticks to the same calendar (although that's not a guarantee), the next bid submissions will come in 2023, 6 years from now.  Hence.. tripled

Semantics, yes.  But that's the math when you keep it in the original context I brought that up for.

[FYI]

52 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

But considering we don't know yet the make-up of the 2026 field, it's a little earlier to start throwing that out there, unless this is one of those possibility for the sake of a possibility discussions.

I thought that was already clear. Of course the situation would have to present itself first, but looking into situation where it's plausible that it could, since again, the last two bidding races ended up with only two players (& apart from Sion, Innsbruck & Calgary, which really even at this early point, would be top-of-the-line candidates. Anyone else at this point would be more or less fodder), it's starting to become a trend. And when looking at it that way, it's not getting ahead of anything, but rather being pragmatic. Again, all things considered.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

And since you ask who could come back.. did Switzerland not explore a 2022 bid and then nix it?  Here they are for 2026.  The double happened once.  That means very little towards whether it would happen again in a completely different circumstance.

And that's just it. Switzerland has explored 'several'  bids, but in the end has always nixed it. And Graubunden canton has already said no to 2026. So I'm not really counting on Valiais to be any different for 2026, either (or 2030 for that matter). 

If it's just a matter of "coming back", again, Hamburg, Rome & Budapest (plus many others) also could've come back & are a better potential line-up than anything else that could come about besides Sion, Innbruck & Calgary, but the IOC didn't care. They took the bull by the horns & rode with what they thought to be a powerhouse duo they could not afford to let go.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well, it probably wouldn't have ever happened if AA hadn't suggested it in the first place!  

Meh. I don't buy that it was him that he "first brought it up". He's always so Trump-like that he was "first" to mention it that it makes me skeptical. As you well know, too, his agenda-driven bias makes his credibility questionable now. I never even heard of him until the 2024 race anyway. He probably heard it or read it somewhere in Olympic circles & then rolled with it. Much like TELA did on several things here.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

It's not outside the realm of possibility either, but the circumstances that would lead to it happening don't seem like they'll present itself here.  The IOC basically had to negotiate to pay of LA to take 2028.  Would they play Innsbruck and Calgary against each other like that when, unlike 2024, they knew from the get go that 1 of those cities would be more willing to make a deal if it came to that.  They knew that Paris would threaten not to come back after 2024 if they lost (LA maybe not so much).  I don't think that concern is as strong with these 3 countries, particularly if 1 of them is Canada.

I actually think the circumstances could be more pronounced with 2026 than they were with 2024. Again, the potential line-up for 2028 (before the combo deal) looked to be more attractive early on than anything outside Sion, Innsbruck & Calgary for 2026 or even 2030. And that's what tends me to go that direction for now. It's become harder for the IOC to drum up feasible bids for the Winter Olympics than it is for the Summer Olympics, particularly due to the mountain cluster having to be near a major hub/city nowadays due to how large the Winter Olympics have gotten in the last twenty years.

[stryker]

Based on the latest news out of Calgary, unless the IOC wants to pony up the gap needed to be covered via taxpayer dollars, then the Calgary bid is dead. While the city council is allowing for more time, the overall impression says it's still very skeptical. I expect a major PR offensive by the IOC here soon, maybe behind the scenes. If Calgary says no and Innsbruck says no in their October referendum, will the IOC make the needed changes? Who knows, but I have to wonder if Nursultan Nazarbayev is watching events unfold and thinking if Almaty enters the race there is a very good possibility they could be the last one standing in the 2026 race especially with referendums hanging over Innsbruck and Sion. If that nightmare scenario comes to fruition, what would the IOC do? Call for Salt Lake? I can't see any other outcome in that situation where they wouldn't grudgingly give the WOGs to Almaty. How could they not after Almaty not only was accepted as finalist in the 2022 race but came up just three votes short of actually hosting.

[Roger87]

When the other options for 2026 Winter Olympics are Erzurum while dealing with the neo Sultan Erdogan, Almaty with the 75 years old "president" Nazarbayev and a complete unknown Ushuaia bid in an unexpected Argentina, you see there aren't a lot of choices. I wouldn't be surprised if Bach helps to the Scandinavian NOC for reviving Oslo or Stockholm bids while securing Innsbruck in a double deal.

Also, late post but normally for hosting events - It's normally accepted for returning as host in normal circunstances after waiting for, at least, 40 years as the average pass of three different generations between both events. Not a rule per se but an appreciation for international events (Unless you're Castillian :D)

[thatsnotmypuppy]

I'm not wading into this discussion beyond making this point - Melbourne is not going to happen under a John Coates led AOC.  He has repeatedly stated the next Australian bid will be Brisbane - so all us Victorians can hope for is he will step down/voted out between now and 2023/2024.

The summer Games window is pretty much set in stone - and while most athletes prefer to compete in cooler temperatures the IOC wants sunny warm weather.

I'm hoping we see Chile or Argentina put in a bid for 2026/2030 (NZ won't - not even worth asking) as I'm interested to see if Agenda 2020 will in fact allow a "massaging" of Games dates.  If the IOC is open to a May/June or August/September Winter Games then there is hope for September/October in Melbourne.  The AFL/NRL were flexible in 2000 and can be again.