United States 2026/2030

[FYI]

35 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Just remember who got you started with the memes. You clearly picked that up from me 

Don’t you feel so accomplished!  And just remember then who got you started with the “ “ ‘s. You clearly picked that up from me! 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Likewise.  Wait, nevermind.  You don't have a crystal ball.  You have pudding, which you claim contains "proof."

Oh, that’s right. How could I have forgotten. You have all those “emmy’s”, just like a certain (other know-it-all) L.A. columnist, & who has certain other know-it-all followers, who “sneer” at anyone with differing opinions. 

[Quaker2001]

Not sure how this went completely unnoticed here since this story is from this past weekend..

Report: IOC won't award both 2026, 2030 Winter Games next year

Read into that what you will, but the report comes directly from this quote from Bach..

Quote

“I don’t think that this is possible because we have a number of interested cities and (national Olympic committees) already for 2030,” Bach told Around the Rings, an Atlanta-based online news source, at an Olympic meeting in Tokyo.

“You would need to give all of them a fair chance,” Bach said.

So that's what the most important person at the IOC just said.  Take it with a grain of salt if you want given some of the rhetoric that he's been offering in recent weeks/months.  But I think we can take this as confirmation that 2030 is NOT currently on their radar to be awarded within the next year.

[FYI]

I read that article a few days ago, & thought to myself, I wonder how long it’ll take quaker to put it up here as trying to make some sort of ‘vindication’ for himself. I’m actually kinda surprised myself that the newswire section didn’t have it already. 

But anyway, it’s quite interesing that whenever I quote Bach from something that would go against your argument, it’s the usual “good for you/Bach” quakerism. But if he says something that you think concurs with you, it’s conveniently “so that’s what the ‘most important person’ at the IOC just said”. Go figure.

But you’re right on one thing - considering the rest of his rhetoric that he usually gives, this is not quite exaclty the most sturdy of comments coming from him either. Especially when he says that he “thinks” it’s not possible. So this really doesn’t give “confirmation” about anything. Besides, what is he really expected to say (especially if there are things going on behind the scenes & negotiations that would still need to be ironed out) in a public forum in Tokyo in front of reporters. “Oh yes, that is EXACTLY what we’re doing! Next question!” Don’t think so.

Plus, the article also cites (which you didn’t include with that quote) that Sapporo & Almaty as those “number of other interested cities”. Not exactly the “traditional winter sport powers” that Bach & crew really, really want. So I’m sure that the rest of the IOC is just foaming at the mouth at the prospect of yet another (East) Asian Winter Olympics (not to mention summer Tokyo 2020 in the middle of all that).

And also, the big rush of the USOC to find a ‘2030 candidate’. I know you’ll say it’s solely bcuz of the 2026 “back-up” plan (which I can also concur to), but if we want to read into anything that a ‘certain other poster’ (& his favorite columnist) has to say, then the IOC will do whatever it takes to give Stockholm the 2026 Games (& to a lesser extent, Milan). Then if that were to happen, does the IOC really want to go just 383 miles away to Norway (as the one of the other “interested” countries, which again, I’ll believe that when I see it) for the very next edition of the Games? Hardly, IMO.

Obviously, if some are still asking the question, then it’s at least on THE radar. So if you want to take this article as holy sacred, then be my guest. But yes, I’ll take it with a grain of salt, at least for now anyway. 

[Quaker2001]

16 minutes ago, FYI said:

I read that article a few days ago, & thought to myself, I wonder how long it’ll take quaker to put it up here as trying to make some sort of ‘vindication’ for himself. I’m actually kinda surprised myself that the newswire section didn’t have it already. 

But anyway, it’s quite interesing that whenever I quote Bach from something that would go against your argument, it’s the usual “good for you/Bach” quakerism. But if he says something that you think concurs with you, it’s conveniently “so that’s what the ‘most important person’ at the IOC just said”. Go figure.

Likewise, if he had hinted that they were thinking about doing a double, you know you would have almost immediately posted about it here and given me a "I can't wait to hear what Quaker thinks about this, I'm sure he'll tell us why we shouldn't listen to him"  Instead, because you disagree, you're just giving me your "good for you" response.

22 minutes ago, FYI said:

But you’re right on one thing - considering the rest of his rhetoric that he usually gives, this is not quite exaclty the most sturdy of comments coming from him either. Especially when he says that he “thinks” it’s not possible. So this really doesn’t give “confirmation” about anything. Besides, what is he really expected to say (especially if there are things going on behind the scenes & negotiations that would still need to be ironed out) in a public forum in Tokyo in front of reporters. “Oh yes, that is EXACTLY what we’re doing! Next question!” Don’t think so.

Perhaps if the IOC was considering awarding 2030 now, they'd say "we're considering awarding 2030 now," rather than explaining why they're not.    In the context of Salt Lake, obviously they can't say anything publicly about 2026 even though it's not a secret they know it's a consideration on their part.  But what's the point of being secretive about 2030 if that's the direction they're going?  I don't get what purpose that serves.  If they're thinking about a double, they should be telling the "number of interested cities and (national Olympic committees) already for 2030" what's going on and it would probably be a matter of public record or at least something that leaked out.

39 minutes ago, FYI said:

Plus, the article also cites (which you didn’t include with that quote) that Sapporo & Almaty as those “number of other interested cities”. Not exactly the “traditional winter sport powers” that Bach & crew really, really want. So I’m sure that the rest of the IOC is just foaming at the mouth at the prospect of yet another (East) Asian Winter Olympics (not to mention summer Tokyo 2020 in the middle of all that).

Which then begs the question.. why would they want to lock in another Asian Olympics 4 years before they have to?  I was going to mention Lillehammer, but we'll save that for next..

42 minutes ago, FYI said:

And also, the big rush of the USOC to find a ‘2030 candidate’. I know you’ll say it’s solely bcuz of the 2026 “back-up” plan (which I can also concur to), but if we want to read into anything that a ‘certain other poster’ (& his favorite columnist) has to say, then the IOC will do whatever it takes to give Stockholm the 2026 Games (& to a lesser extent, Milan). Then if that were to happen, does the IOC really want to go just 383 miles away to Norway (as the one of the other “interested” countries, which again, I’ll believe that when I see it) for the very next edition of the Games? Hardly, IMO.

Well, that other poster is only saying that because his columnist said it.  Not exactly an original thought on his part and who gives a crap what they think since they pegged 2024 wrong.  If Stockholm wins, then that probably makes things a little more difficult for Lillehammer.  But less we forget, they won the `94 games just 2 years after Albertville.  And I doubt the IOC would mind double back to back in Europe to offset 2 Winter Olympics in a row in Asia, although obviously I wouldn't like their chances against either Salt Lake or Sapporo.

47 minutes ago, FYI said:

Obviously, if some are still asking the question, then it’s at least on THE radar. So if you want to take this article as holy sacred, then be my guest. But yes, I’ll take it with a grain of salt, at least for now anyway. 

The source that asked the question was from ATR, so they're reading the same stuff we are about 2026/2030, so that's why it's on their mind and they were probably hoping to see if Bach would give any insight on 2026 by asking about 2030.  Like I said earlier, take it with a grain of salt if you want.  We're probably both guilty of confirmation bias here.  Still, what Bach said is what I have brought up before, that there are cities lining up for 2030 (whether we want to believe in them or not) and to have them rush into a 2030 isn't giving them a fair chance.  Besides, that the USOC is readying a candidate, why wouldn't other NOC's be doing the same if they thought there might be a reason to have one ready?  I know you're going to tell me I'm just saying that because it fits my narrative, but again, if the argument was the other way around, you'd probably be telling me the same thing.

[FYI]

43 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Likewise, if he had hinted that they were thinking about doing a double, you know you would have almost immediately posted about it here and given me a "I can't wait to hear what Quaker thinks about this, I'm sure he'll tell us why we shouldn't listen to him"  Instead, because you disagree, you're just giving me your "good for you" response.

Sure, but that’s only bcuz it’s taken from the Quaker playbook, TBW. 

45 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

But what's the point of being secretive about 2030 if that's the direction they're going?  I don't get what purpose that serves.  If they're thinking about a double, they should be telling the "number of interested cities and (national Olympic committees) already for 2030" what's going on and it would probably be a matter of public record or at least something that leaked out.

Like I mentioned, if things are still being worked out behind the scenes, which of course they are (i.e. the USOC rushing to get their ‘2030 candidate’ in place by next Friday), then it’s not prudent at this time for the IOC to declare anything of the sort. In a few more months from now I could probably see it, but not just yet.

49 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Which then begs the question.. why would they want to lock in another Asian Olympics 4 years before they have to?  I was going to mention Lillehammer, but we'll save that for next..

I agree that this scenario isn’t the most ideal. However, if Stockholm & Milan do walk away in the end, then it really becomes a situation where beggars can’t be choosers, since then SLC is taken out of the equation for 2030 since the IOC will then turn to them for 2026. But if the IOC really wants to give Almaty “a ‘fair’ chance”, over a much more solid bid like Sapporo, then by all means, let them.

57 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well, that other poster is only saying that because his columnist said it.  Not exactly an original thought on his part and who gives a crap what they think since they pegged 2024 wrong. 

If Stockholm wins, then that probably makes things a little more difficult for Lillehammer.  But less we forget, they won the `94 games just 2 years after Albertville.  And I doubt the IOC would mind double back to back in Europe to offset 2 Winter Olympics in a row in Asia, although obviously I wouldn't like their chances against either Salt Lake or Sapporo.

They pegged 2024 wrong bcuz they had that whole L.A.’24 mega bias thing going on. For 2026, their bias is not that extreme, other than the whole ‘SLC can’t go before L.A.’ mumbo-jumbo. 

Also for starters, Albertville to Lillehammer is still virtuallly a world away than Stockholm to Lillehammer - 1,345 miles vs just 383 miles. In addition, winter ‘92 & ‘94 happened in a era where Europe was not so anti-Olympic. So asking for Scandinavia, of all places, to host back-to-back Olympics in a region where is seeing a lot of the backlash, is asking for too much Olympic overload, IMO. I just don’t see it happening. As it is, Stockholm 2026 is only hanging on by a mere thread.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Still, what Bach said is what I have brought up before, that there are cities lining up for 2030 (whether we want to believe in them or not) and to have them rush into a 2030 isn't giving them a fair chance.  

“Good for you (& Bach)” that you’ve brought that up before. The same argument was made for 2028 before the double there. And before you put the whole hindsight “opportunity” spin again, many said the same thing that other cities deserved a ‘fair chance’, too. 

But again, those cities “lining up” for 2030 are either not the ideal candidates that the IOC is longing for, or are in regions that have literally revolted against the Olympics. They (you) can give them all the “fair chances” they want, but you can’t force the Olympics on the people who just either don’t want, or are hardly the locale that the IOC really wants. 

[Quaker2001]

20 hours ago, FYI said:

Like I mentioned, if things are still being worked out behind the scenes, which of course they are (i.e. the USOC rushing to get their ‘2030 candidate’ in place by next Friday), then it’s not prudent at this time for the IOC to declare anything of the sort. In a few more months from now I could probably see it, but not just yet.

What do they have to declare?  Bach was asked if a double was being considered.  He said "I don't think it's possible."  That's an important choice of words, as opposed to saying something like "we're not considering it at this time."  How would it work that something is not possible now, but suddenly becomes possible a few months from now?  Because if this are going on behind the scenes with the IOC regarding a double (different story with the USOC.. we know why they're rushing and it's probably not about 2030), then Bach just flat out lied.  And if you're going to tell me about 2024/2028 where it wasn't being talked about and then it was, that's because they had 2 active candidates.  When Bach is saying that 2030 candidates need to be given a fair chance, it is fair if the IOC suddenly decided in the next few months for the IOC to say 2030 on the table?  Even if that's the case, they'd still be talking about it now, and so if a reporter is asking about it, why wouldn't Bach give an indication about it?

21 hours ago, FYI said:

However, if Stockholm & Milan do walk away in the end, then it really becomes a situation where beggars can’t be choosers, since then SLC is taken out of the equation for 2030 since the IOC will then turn to them for 2026. But if the IOC really wants to give Almaty “a ‘fair’ chance”, over a much more solid bid like Sapporo, then by all means, let them.

Also for starters, Albertville to Lillehammer is still virtuallly a world away than Stockholm to Lillehammer - 1,345 miles vs just 383 miles. In addition, winter ‘92 & ‘94 happened in a era where Europe was not so anti-Olympic. So asking for Scandinavia, of all places, to host back-to-back Olympics in a region where is seeing a lot of the backlash, is asking for too much Olympic overload, IMO. I just don’t see it happening. As it is, Stockholm 2026 is only hanging on by a mere thread.

So let's say SLC gets 2026.  That removes geographical issues that could be working against Lillehammer.  They'll most certainly get their fair chance, and it would obviously increase the IOC's desire to get a European city in the running.  I know Lillehammer is "believe it when I see it" for you and it might not happen for them.  But it would be extremely foolish of the IOC to dismiss that possibility just because Sapporo is likely putting a good bid together (and at that point, who cares about Almaty).  And that's exactly why the IOC needs to do its due diligence and acknowledging that possibility rather than dismissing it and just hand-selecting a city like Sapporo.  Much better outcome for the IOC if they win a vote rather than a deal being struck behind the scenes without a formal process.

If Stockholm does hang on to get 2026, there's a good chance they're still dealing with the city council there who may or may not be behind the bid.  So the IOC may have to sort that out rather than the vote and the signing of the host city contract being a done deal on the spot.

21 hours ago, FYI said:

“Good for you (& Bach)” that you’ve brought that up before. The same argument was made for 2028 before the double there. And before you put the whole hindsight “opportunity” spin again, many said the same thing that other cities deserved a ‘fair chance’, too. 

You know what.. at one point, I made the same argument saying "what about any potential 2028 bid cities" if they did the double.  That was before the field was reduced to just Paris and LA, speaking of ideal candidates that the IOC was longing for.  And I don't seem to recall any cities coming out and saying that process was unfair.

21 hours ago, FYI said:

But again, those cities “lining up” for 2030 are either not the ideal candidates that the IOC is longing for, or are in regions that have literally revolted against the Olympics. They (you) can give them all the “fair chances” they want, but you can’t force the Olympics on the people who just either don’t want, or are hardly the locale that the IOC really wants. 

What happened to beggars can't be choosers?  The IOC should be listening to any city willing to offer themselves up for 2030, and for any city they don't like, cut them off at the pass like they did with Erzurum.  As we've said plenty of times here, the IOC can only select from whatever cities are bidding.  They might not get the ideal candidate they're looking for.  They certainly don't have that now.  So again, given all that, what do they gain from rushing the 2030 process?  That's why I keep harping on the fact that this is not 2024/2028 where the ideal candidates were there for them.  They are none here.  If they had one (Salt Lake might be it, but they could be needed for 2026), it might be a different story.  There's no way the IOC can be that confident in 2019 that they know what will be the smartest move for them for 2030.

[FYI]

[Nacre]

Can you guys give it a rest with the GIF's and slurs? This isn't a fight anyone is going to win. If you want to debate something, debate it. Don't use ad hominem attacks. If you just want to vent your vitriol go play War Thunder or something instead.

[Quaker2001]

10 hours ago, Nacre said:

Can you guys give it a rest with the GIF's and slurs? This isn't a fight anyone is going to win. If you want to debate something, debate it. Don't use ad hominem attacks. If you just want to vent your vitriol go play War Thunder or something instead.

We are debating.  We just happen to feel pretty strongly about our respective positions.  Yea, sometimes it devolves a little bit, but whatever, we can handle it.  Not like that's a rarity for Gamesbids.  If you would like to participate in the debate/discussion, you're more than welcome to register your opinion.

[FYI]

10 hours ago, Nacre said:

If you just want to vent your vitriol go play War Thunder or something instead.

Being on GameBids, is a lot like playing War Thunder (‘or something’)! 

10 hours ago, Nacre said:

Can you guys give it a rest with the GIF's and slurs? This isn't a fight anyone is going to win. 

Who’s fighting (other than a little certain homophobic troll from Lala land)? And as you can see, I’m not the master of the memes/“GIF” thing. That honor certainly goes to “some other poster”. 

10 hours ago, Nacre said:

If you want to debate something, debate it. Don't use ad hominem attacks. 

In case you haven’t noticed, but this ‘debate’ has been going on now, on & off, for nearly a year in this thread (& one other 2026 thread). So forgive me if at that very moment last night, I decided to “vent” with a “GIF”  instead of further debating for the umpteeth time on this subject. But if you insist...

20 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

What do they have to declare?  Bach was asked if a double was being considered.  He said "I don't think it's possible."  That's an important choice of words, as opposed to saying something like "we're not considering it at this time." 

Exactly - but isn’t that what I said? The former is his opinion. The latter is a collective declaration. He said the former.

20 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

So let's say SLC gets 2026.  That removes geographical issues that could be working against Lillehammer.  They'll most certainly get their fair chance, and it would obviously increase the IOC's desire to get a European city in the running.  I know Lillehammer is "believe it when I see it" for you and it might not happen for them.  But it would be extremely foolish of the IOC to dismiss that possibility just because Sapporo is likely putting a good bid together.

Call it what you like, but I don’t see that as ‘due diligence’ but rather just going to the crap table & rolling the dice when the odds are heavily stacked against you, in my POV.

Although, I will say that a SLC/Sapporo combo is less likely than say a Stockholm or Milan/SLC one. But I still wouldn’t say that it’s a ‘near-zero’ chance, either.

20 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You know what.. at one point, I made the same argument saying "what about any potential 2028 bid cities" if they did the double.  That was before the field was reduced to just Paris and LA, speaking of ideal candidates that the IOC was longing for.  And I don't seem to recall any cities coming out and saying that process was unfair.

Exactly - so what cities could come out & say that the process wasn’t fair if they hand out 2030 now? Certainly the 2032 ‘interested’ cities that are stating this early could have cried foul over 2028, but they didn’t. And remember, it’s the winter side of the Olympics that are facing the more dire circumstances than their summer counterpart.

20 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

What happened to beggars can't be choosers?  The IOC should be listening to any city willing to offer themselves up for 2030, and for any city they don't like, cut them off at the pass like they did with Erzurum.  As we've said plenty of times here, the IOC can only select from whatever cities are bidding.  

You’re assuming though, that they’ll be plentiful credible choices for 2030. Again, considering the (Winter) Olympic bidding landscape these days (& has been for quite some time already), I wouldn’t hedge any bets on that then. 

20 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

They might not get the ideal candidate they're looking for.  They certainly don't have that now.  So again, given all that, what do they gain from rushing the 2030 process?  That's why I keep harping on the fact that this is not 2024/2028 where the ideal candidates were there for them.  They are none here.  If they had one (Salt Lake might be it, but they could be needed for 2026), it might be a different story.  There's no way the IOC can be that confident in 2019 that they know what will be the smartest move for them for 2030.

Stockholm & Milan are not ideal candidates?  Sure, both are hanging on by a thread, especially the former, but that’s what the IOC really, really wants - again, especially the former.

So having two consecutive Winter Olympics in “traditional winter sport nations” wouldn’t be a ‘smart move’ on their part? I would be confident & see that as an “opportunity”. 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

We are debating.  We just happen to feel pretty strongly about our respective positions.  Yea, sometimes it devolves a little bit, but whatever, we can handle it.  Not like that's a rarity for Gamesbids.  If you would like to participate in the debate/discussion, you're more than welcome to register your opinion.

Finally, something I can agree with Quaker about!  And it’s not like Nacre himself hasn’t had his hand on the War Thunder (or something) joystick on a position he felt strongly about (i.e. the Ice & Snow Olympics, for example ).

If a subject doesn’t interest me around here (& there are plenty of those), I just don’t comment on it. As the saying goes, if you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all.

[Quaker2001]

9 hours ago, FYI said:

Exactly - but isn’t that what I said? The former is his opinion. The latter is a collective declaration. He said the former.

He's still the head of the IOC.  It's not like we're talking about a report with a quote from some random IOC member that may not be representing their position.  So I doubt this is a matter of his opinion.  After all, we know it's been brought up with the IOC before, so it's not like this is new territory for them.

10 hours ago, FYI said:

Call it what you like, but I don’t see that as ‘due diligence’ but rather just going to the crap table & rolling the dice when the odds are heavily stacked against you, in my POV.

Yes.. in your POV.  We're not the IOC, as much as we try to predict what thye'll do.  We here have the luxury here of passing judgment on cities and their bids without giving serious analysis.  So it's easy for us to see that Barcelona or Lillehammer won't come together or that Sapporo is an acceptably solid bid.  But how is the IOC supposed to know any of that unless those cities actually put together a presentation and do the work?  Case in point with Calgary.. when that bid first came together, would anyone here have guessed their bid would end the way it did?  That's what due diligence is.  You call it rolling the dice because you have little faith in a positive outcome.  Isn't it just as risky to lock in a city if they haven't done all the prep work that's required of a city to ensure they can capably host an Olympics?  And again, if you're targeting Sapporo, then what's the rush to get them on board now as if they wouldn't be there 4 years from now?

11 hours ago, FYI said:

Although, I will say that a SLC/Sapporo combo is less likely than say a Stockholm or Milan/SLC one. But I still wouldn’t say that it’s a ‘near-zero’ chance, either.

We may well wind up with SLC 2026 followed by Sapporo 2030 for all the reasons we've discussed here.  I'll maintain that it's a near zero chance that both of those will be decided within the next year though.  The IOC could have gone that route when they got serious with the 2026 process.  Nothing that has transpired in the past year leads me to believe that's a decision they'll make now or anytime in the near year.

11 hours ago, FYI said:

Exactly - so what cities could come out & say that the process wasn’t fair if they hand out 2030 now? Certainly the 2032 ‘interested’ cities that are stating this early could have cried foul over 2028, but they didn’t. And remember, it’s the winter side of the Olympics that are facing the more dire circumstances than their summer counterpart.

Well, how exactly is the IOC picking their 2030 candidate?  Japan, Norway, and the U.S. have all expressed interest in 2030.  Tough to do anything with the USOC given what's going on with Stockholm and Milan.  What's the deal that would come together that would make sense for everyone involved? (and as it developed, you know as well as I do that 2024/2028 made sense in the end.. I don't care what people said here or what we thought because that's completely irrelevant)  If the IOC is determined to find a 2030 host now rather than later, they're not going to say "Sapporo looks safe, let's just pick them." Again, easier for all of us here in the peanut gallery to make that decision than for the IOC to work out some sort of deal in secret.  Where you've said the idea behind a 2026/2030 double is to avoid potentially negative press, a double like this (especially one that's not so transparent, as opposed to with Paris and LA where they were fairly openly asked to come to an agreement amongst themselves) is inviting all sorts of negative press.

11 hours ago, FYI said:

You’re assuming though, that they’ll be plentiful credible choices for 2030. Again, considering the (Winter) Olympic bidding landscape these days (& has been for quite some time already), I wouldn’t hedge any bets on that then. 

No, I'm not assuming that.  They don't need plentiful choices.  They need 1.  And to do a double award now is very much hedging your bets.  It's assuming the IOC can read the landscape of bidders for an Olympics they haven't started considering yet now better than they'd be able to 4 years from now.  If there was an obvious choice for what city it would be, it might be a different story.  I don't think the IOC can say with any certainty that they've identified that city, let alone that there's some major risk of that city not being there 4 years from now where they would be ready and willing to deal now.

11 hours ago, FYI said:

Stockholm & Milan are not ideal candidates?  Sure, both are hanging on by a thread, especially the former, but that’s what the IOC really, really wants - again, especially the former.

So having two consecutive Winter Olympics in “traditional winter sport nations” wouldn’t be a ‘smart move’ on their part? I would be confident & see that as an “opportunity”. 

Of course they're not.  Yea, the IOC would love to have an Olympics in Scandinavia.  But right now Scandinavia doesn't seem to love the idea of hosting an Olympics.  So Sweden may be a preferred location to have the Olympics, but in cites of being a candidate bidding for the Olympics, there's nothing ideal about what's happening with Stockholm.  It goes to what you said earlier that you can't force an Olympics on a city/country that doesn't want it.

Yea, having 2 consecutive Winter Olympics in traditional winter sport nations would be extremely smart.  But that's not an option to them right now.  You're the one suggesting to write off those nations and not even give them a chance and instead give 2030 over to something the IOC may not want.  Sapporo will be there for them 4 years from now.  The only reason to award them an Olympics now is if there's a fear they won't be there 4 years from now.  And if there's a chance they'd be a drop out (it's obviously not just a Europe thing, as we saw with Calgary), maybe the IOC shouldn't be rushing to award them an Olympics.

[FYI]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

He's still the head of the IOC.  It's not like we're talking about a report with a quote from some random IOC member that may not be representing their position.  So I doubt this is a matter of his opinion.  After all, we know it's been brought up with the IOC before, so it's not like this is new territory for them.

To use your logic - if it was more collaborative, why didn’t he just say so instead of (again) saying that he “thinks” it’s not possible. And you’re right, this is not new territory for them. So it’s not like it’s an unprecedented matter now of how it might work again.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes.. in your POV.  We're not the IOC, as much as we try to predict what thye'll do.  We here have the luxury here of passing judgment on cities and their bids without giving serious analysis.  So it's easy for us to see that Barcelona or Lillehammer won't come together or that Sapporo is an acceptably solid bid.  But how is the IOC supposed to know any of that unless those cities actually put together a presentation and do the work?  Case in point with Calgary.. when that bid first came together, would anyone here have guessed their bid would end the way it did?  That's what due diligence is.  You call it rolling the dice because you have little faith in a positive outcome.  Isn't it just as risky to lock in a city if they haven't done all the prep work that's required of a city to ensure they can capably host an Olympics?  And again, if you're targeting Sapporo, then what's the rush to get them on board now as if they wouldn't be there 4 years from now?

Yes, & your angle is merely YOUR POV. So what are you trying to say with that. And no kidding that we’re not the IOC. But us not giving serious analysis to (potential) bid cities?! I’d say that some of us (bid dossier fanatics) here actually give bid cities more serious analysis than some actual IOC members do. How many times has it been said here that many (if not most) IOC members don’t even bother reading any of the bId documents or even the Final Evaluation Report right before vote time? And isn’t the point of this very website to interject on these very bid cities? This place isn’t like being at the local sport bar & asking random people there what they ‘think’ about Olympic bId cities A,B & C. I would like to believe that we have more insight here than that, that closely resembles what the IOC may, or may not actually do.

Barcelona would require a lot of work in the snow cluster, not to mention the transportation links to get there. So that’ll be indicative in their bId book. So it would be costly for them, & remember that the IOC chose to dump Erzurum for that very reason - “too costly”. And of course, there’s also that little sticking point of Catalonia’s independence still looming over their head, not to mention an economy that’s still recovering from the country’s bad recession a few years back. 

Lillehammer? Yeah, right. I’ll still maintain that I’ll believe in Norway when I actually see it (you’re doing it with Calgary). Especially, when their next door neighbor, Sweden, is still hanging on by a thread for 2026, bcuz Scandinavia is one of those anti-Olympic regions that want nothing to do with the (Winter) Games. 

As for Calgary, no, but it’s for totally different reasons & your comparison does. not apply here. Before they placed their bid, the bid drop outs were primarily from Europe. So Canada was not on that radar (yet). Plus, they were proposing to use a lot of existing facilities to keep costs low. So there was no reason really to think that their bid would derail like it did. If anything, though, Calgary’s dropout now makes it even more dire for the IOC to assume that something credible will come out of the woodwork from Europe for 2030. Cuz now the problem is growing by going intercontinental.

So no, it’s not that I have little faith in a positive outcome, but rather looking at it from a ‘due diligence’ angle. Even you yourself have claimed that bcuz of Calgary’s clusterfu@k of a 2026 bid, that we won’t see them for a long time to come. So aren’t you in essence then, doing with them now that you claim that I’m doing with Norway? Especially when Norway’s 2022 bid would’ve been handed to them on a silver-platter (unlike Calgary), & they still said “no thanks”. So what’s really the difference here then, besides none. 

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We may well wind up with SLC 2026 followed by Sapporo 2030 for all the reasons we've discussed here.  I'll maintain that it's a near zero chance that both of those will be decided within the next year though.  The IOC could have gone that route when they got serious with the 2026 process.  Nothing that has transpired in the past year leads me to believe that's a decision they'll make now or anytime in the near year.

Well, ‘good for you’ that you think that there’s ‘near-zero chance’. So that means that we’re at a stalemate once again.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well, how exactly is the IOC picking their 2030 candidate?  Japan, Norway, and the U.S. have all expressed interest in 2030.  Tough to do anything with the USOC given what's going on with Stockholm and Milan.  What's the deal that would come together that would make sense for everyone involved? 

Well, gee. In order for Sapporo to be in the 2030 picture, obviously both Milan & Stockholm would have to also drop out from 2026. And we’re still a couple of months away before any of that can happen. If it does, then the USOC’s “interest in 2030” becomes moot, bcuz then the IOC turns to them to rescue 2026. So then that leaves just (yeah, right) Norway. 

If the IOC does manage to snag Milan or Stockholm for 2026, then SLC could easily fit in the 2030 picture. The IOC gets two consecutive Winter Olympics in traditional winter sport nations (which they so desperately want anyway), & that’s how it would make sense for everyone involved in this scenario. Again, I see the latter being more of a chance than the former. But a ‘near-zero’ chance is what I still disagree with. To use your logic again - let’s see how a couple of other things pan out first.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

No, I'm not assuming that.  They don't need plentiful choices.  They need 1.  And to do a double award now is very much hedging your bets.  It's assuming the IOC can read the landscape of bidders for an Olympics they haven't started considering yet now better than they'd be able to 4 years from now.  If there was an obvious choice for what city it would be, it might be a different story.  I don't think the IOC can say with any certainty that they've identified that city, let alone that there's some major risk of that city not being there 4 years from now where they would be ready and willing to deal now.

You keep saying that. But if all they need is “one”, then why bother with the rest of the collapsing side show (the bId process) when they can have that one city now. And especially when the IOC keeps talking about cutting the expense from bId cities & create “less losers” (which came from ‘Bach himself’). 

And what are you talking about? Are you assuming that the IOC can’t read the bidding landscape? They sure were reading it for 2028 fours years early. If they didn’t award 2028 last year, I think that they would’ve been fine, to use your logic again here. But they didn’t. Even when many were against or on the fence about it (including some IOC members) ITFP. But for 2030 it’s looking to be more dire. So grab your bread baskets while you can!

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Of course they're not.  Yea, the IOC would love to have an Olympics in Scandinavia.  But right now Scandinavia doesn't seem to love the idea of hosting an Olympics.  So Sweden may be a preferred location to have the Olympics, but in cites of being a candidate bidding for the Olympics, there's nothing ideal about what's happening with Stockholm.  It goes to what you said earlier that you can't force an Olympics on a city/country that doesn't want it.

Yea, having 2 consecutive Winter Olympics in traditional winter sport nations would be extremely smart.  But that's not an option to them right now.  You're the one suggesting to write off those nations and not even give them a chance and instead give 2030 over to something the IOC may not want.  Sapporo will be there for them 4 years from now.  The only reason to award them an Olympics now is if there's a fear they won't be there 4 years from now.  And if there's a chance they'd be a drop out (it's obviously not just a Europe thing, as we saw with Calgary), maybe the IOC shouldn't be rushing to award them an Olympics.

Isn’t that what you’ve done with Calgary, though? Wrote them off already & that they “won’t be back for a long time to come”. So why can’t that same logic apply to Norway? And yes, I agree about Sweden (although, there’s still Italy, which ATM, seems to be more receptive about 2026). So if the Swedes falter now, what makes you think that they’ll just dust themselves off & try again four years later when they’ve repeatedly have said no to the Olympics? You’re trying to argue both sides of the coin here. And now whose assuming about Sapporo. 

[Quaker2001]

5 hours ago, RuFF said:

Maybe they see it too. Nobody has a problem with gay people, except maybe for church. But that you or anyone is gay isn’t the problem. I am also NOT homophobic, nor do I think I can be convinced or that it’s a disease. 

However, I’m also not blind or stupid and neither are most of your gay colleagues. Everyone, gay or otherwise, knows there is a segment of gay society that is self loathing, clique forming, vile, downright mean and insecure people who try projecting their self hate and insecurities on themselves and each other. Regardless of sexual orientation I don’t care for people like that. Unfortunately, rather than stand up and say something about this most gay dudes will instead fall back until something like what I just said is brought up, and even though it’s true they’ll anger on its truth. And that’s my truth. I’ve identified you two and a few of your clique as those kinds of people. Simply put, I have minimal respect for you. 

You.  You clearly have a problem because you can't help expressing your feelings on a regular basis, usually without any provocation.  I don't know what happened in your life (there must have been something) that has you so angered, but even if you think certain people here are self loathing, clique forming, vile, downright mean and insecure people, it's you and you alone who have chosen to make it about sexual orientation.  And continue to rant about it as if something or someone personally triggered you here.  Get the f*ck over yourself and whatever demons you are having trouble suppressing and realize that people on this site have always treated each other like crap (as Rob said, this forum has gone way downhill over the years and you're really not helping the cause, so I'm stunned you haven't been told to take a permanent vacation since others have been suspended/banned for way less than your bullshit).

And once again.. when you actually have something Olympics-related to contribute to the discussion, you feel free to let us know.  Until then, FYI will continue to have this back and forth which may be boring and tiresome to most, but at least it's on topic, if only a desperate attempt to have any some of dialog related to Olympics bids these days.

[FYI]

17 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Get the f*ck over yourself and whatever demons you are having trouble suppressing and realize that people on this site have always treated each other like crap (as Rob said, this forum has gone way downhill over the years and you're really not helping the cause, so I'm stunned you haven't been told to take a permanent vacation since others have been suspended/banned for way less than your bullshit).

Yeah, exactly. I second that. 

17 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And once again.. when you actually have something Olympics-related to contribute to the discussion, you feel free to let us know.  Until then, FYI will continue to have this back and forth which may be boring and tiresome to most, but at least it's on topic, if only a desperate attempt to have any some of dialog related to Olympics bids these days.

Touché! 

[Nacre]

23 hours ago, FYI said:

Finally, something I can agree with Quaker about!  And it’s not like Nacre himself hasn’t had his hand on the War Thunder (or something) joystick on a position he felt strongly about (i.e. the Ice & Snow Olympics, for example ).

I certainly have opinions that other people disagree with but I have never felt the need to use personal attacks to communicate those ideas or to respond to the opinions of others.

If people want to have a flame war they can do it through private messages.

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, FYI said:

To use your logic - if it was more collaborative, why didn’t he just say so instead of (again) saying that he “thinks” it’s not possible. And you’re right, this is not new territory for them. So it’s not like it’s an unprecedented matter now of how it might work again.

Now we're getting into semantics here over the word "think."  But whatever on that front.  Yes, they've done a double before, but very little about what they might be doing here (which again, I think there's nothing.. you think there might be, so let's just agree to disagree) is similar to the last one.  So it would be somewhat new territory.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Yes, & your angle is merely YOUR POV. So what are you trying to say with that. And no kidding that we’re not the IOC. But us not giving serious analysis to (potential) bid cities?! I’d say that some of us (bid dossier fanatics) here actually give bid cities more serious analysis than some actual IOC members do. How many times has it been said here that many (if not most) IOC members don’t even bother reading any of the bId documents or even the Final Evaluation Report right before vote time? And isn’t the point of this very website to interject on these very bid cities? This place isn’t like being at the local sport bar & asking random people there what they ‘think’ about Olympic bId cities A,B & C. I would like to believe that we have more insight here than that, that closely resembles what the IOC may, or may not actually do.

I would love to believe that as well and that's where I get ticked off where some folks here are blurring the line between discussion of actual bids and "hey, here's a venue plan that I think would be really cool" as if we're supposed to treat that as real.  So yes, I do believe we here are more than just the peanut gallery.  But where I was going with the POV comment..

Take Erzurum.  The prevailing opinion here for a while is that they had no shot and at best would be a last resort.  I somewhat doubted that the IOC would tell them "thanks, but no thanks" before the vote, but that's what happened as some predicted here.  Still, that's one of those situations where we can dismiss Erzurum from the start and say it's pointless for them to even bid.  But the IOC did invite them to the dialog stage and then once they had that dialog, then they cut them off.  Just like in the past how the likes of Doha-ha and Baku-ku got to at least offer themselves up even before the IOC shot them down.

That's what I mean by due diligence.  Hear out a Lillehammer or a Barcelona.  Let them put together their presentations, knowing the obstacles that are there.  And if they don't have the goods, then tell them to pack up and go home.  You and I and whoever else here can say the odds of them coming through are not good.  But the same cities you want the IOC to deal with now are likely to be there 4 years from now.  Give them the time to make their best proposal rather than going with whatever they have ready now and assume it will be good.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

So no, it’s not that I have little faith in a positive outcome, but rather looking at it from a ‘due diligence’ angle. Even you yourself have claimed that bcuz of Calgary’s clusterfu@k of a 2026 bid, that we won’t see them for a long time to come. So aren’t you in essence then, doing with them now that you claim that I’m doing with Norway? Especially when Norway’s 2022 bid would’ve been handed to them on a silver-platter (unlike Calgary), & they still said “no thanks”. So what’s really the difference here then, besides none.

Yea, that's what I think about Calgary.  And I may be wrong.  What killed Calgary's bid was more about mis-management than the usual anti-Olympics sentiment that took out European bids.  And yet.. Stockholm dropped out for 2022 and came back for 2026, even though they might drop out again.  Norway dropped out of 2022 and are already mulling a return for 2030.  Perhaps someone picks up the pieces of Calgary's bid and convinces the COC they have their act together.

Either way, the difference between you and me is that I'm expecting the IOC to not write off Calgary.  Or Norway.  Or whoever else might come along.  Due diligence means that the IOC engages in dialog with these cities rather than rushing to judgment.  Again, goes back to the whole POV thing.. easy for us to say "I'll believe it when I see it" with Norway.  The IOC doesn't have that luxury to assume that any potential bidders will fall apart without at least giving them a shot first.  And avoiding negative press is not a reason to exclude them.

5 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, ‘good for you’ that you think that there’s ‘near-zero chance’. So that means that we’re at a stalemate once again.

I'm not trying to win an argument or to convince you of my position.  I'm listening to the points you're making.  I just don't believe it's what the IOC is thinking right now or will be thinking at any point in the next year or so.

5 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, gee. In order for Sapporo to be in the 2030 picture, obviously both Milan & Stockholm would have to also drop out from 2026. And we’re still a couple of months away before any of that can happen. If it does, then the USOC’s “interest in 2030” becomes moot, bcuz then the IOC turns to them to rescue 2026. So then that leaves just (yeah, right) Norway. 

If the IOC does manage to snag Milan or Stockholm for 2026, then SLC could easily fit in the 2030 picture. The IOC gets two consecutive Winter Olympics in traditional winter sport nations (which they so desperately want anyway), & that’s how it would make sense for everyone involved in this scenario. Again, I see the latter being more of a chance than the former. But a ‘near-zero’ chance is what I still disagree with. To use your logic again - let’s see how a couple of other things pan out first.

Yes, let's use my logic to further the point I'm making.  There is so much uncertainty now with the 2026 bids, so how can they move forward to start considering 2030 until 2026 is settled?  The "near zero" chance I talk about has nothing at all to do with what cities are selected, but rather *when* those cities are selected.  If the IOC votes on 2026 with Milan and/or Stockholm, then the picture doesn't include 2030.  That's a separate picture that the IOC is unlikely to look at now.

I'll say it yet again.. easy for us here to say what makes sense.  It's a different story for the IOC to actually execute it.  How do we get from where we are now where 2030 isn't currently a consideration for the IOC to Salt Lake being their choice?  Like I said earlier, that may well be the outcome if there's a vote in 2023.  Not in 2019, IMO.

5 hours ago, FYI said:

You keep saying that. But if all they need is “one”, then why bother with the rest of the collapsing side show (the bId process) when they can have that one city now. And especially when the IOC keeps talking about cutting the expense from bId cities & create “less losers” (which came from ‘Bach himself’).

What is that 1 city though?  It can't be Salt Lake or Sapporo.  They're not currently bidding for 2026.  How else should the IOC go about picking that city if not for a vote?  If it's a matter of shortlisting fewer cities rather than letting everyone bid, then they're running the risk of dropouts like they have now.  And I'm okay with them looking at a Barcelona bid with little support and a potentially large budget and saying they're not interested.  Maybe it'll be the same with Lillehammer.  But how will we ever know what cities do or don't have the goods until they allow those cities to make a presentation?  Those costs are small potatoes compared to the expense of a full bid process like we've had in the past.

6 hours ago, FYI said:

And what are you talking about? Are you assuming that the IOC can’t read the bidding landscape? They sure were reading it for 2028 fours years early. If they didn’t award 2028 last year, I think that they would’ve been fine, to use your logic again here. But they didn’t. Even when many were against or on the fence about it (including some IOC members) ITFP. But for 2030 it’s looking to be more dire. So grab your bread baskets while you can!

You mean the IOC that thinks everything is fine right now and said they have no plan B?  We have no idea what 2030 is going to look like.  Yet again (I'm saying this enough that you can make it a new Quaker-ism if you want).. easy for us to make that determination now.

You're probably right they would have been fine without the 2024/2028 double.  Paris probably beats LA.  Then LA licks their wounds, picks themselves up and come back for 2028 and probably win it.  As much as some people said LA wouldn't come back and the USOC would pack it in, you and I didn't buy into that.

Forget all of that though and just focus on this.  There's nothing to grab for 2030 right now.  Let's say the USOC puts together a proposal for Salt Lake.  They can't offer that for 2026 until Stockholm and Milan are gone, at which point they're not an option for 2030.  If Stockholm or Milan hangs on and gets 2026, then the IOC potentially has a Salt Lake 2030 proposal.  But would they just accept that without looking an alternatives, including Sapporo?  And if Salt Lake has something, wouldn't Sapporo rush in so they're not left out of the mix for 2030?  At that point, let these cities get themselves ready for a fully played out bid process, not one that's rushed as if these cities will give up their Olympic aspirations if they're not discussed now.

6 hours ago, FYI said:

Isn’t that what you’ve done with Calgary, though? Wrote them off already & that they “won’t be back for a long time to come”. So why can’t that same logic apply to Norway? And yes, I agree about Sweden (although, there’s still Italy, which ATM, seems to be more receptive about 2026). So if the Swedes falter now, what makes you think that they’ll just dust themselves off & try again four years later when they’ve repeatedly have said no to the Olympics? You’re trying to argue both sides of the coin here. And now whose assuming about Sapporo. 

The difference (and there's more than a "besides none" here) is that you want to take assumptions as if they're a matter of record and expect the IOC to act accordingly.  I don't.  We can make predictions/assumptions all we want, but at the end of the day, they're all just guesses.  They might be right, might be wrong.  The IOC isn't going to guess.  They're going to do their homework in ways that no one on a site like this will (even if individual voters aren't as serious as others, collectively someone will be paying attention).  And once they have that information from actually having talking to bid organizers and city leaders or whoever else, then and only then will they make an informed decision.  Doesn't mean they'll make the correct decisions, and we've seen all too many times where the wrong ones have been made.

[FYI]

9 hours ago, Nacre said:

I certainly have opinions that other people disagree with but I have never felt the need to use personal attacks to communicate those ideas or to respond to the opinions of others.

If people want to have a flame war they can do it through private messages.

I never said that you did do that. What I meant is that when you have an opinion that you feel strongly about, you try to get your point across just like anyone else here does.

As far as personal attacks go, there’s only one person here that really does that unprovoked. As Quaker mentioned earlier, him & I can get into some heated debates, but we can handle it, & it’s not like it’s an anamoly for this website, & never attack one another with biggoted comments as this other individual does, again unprovoked & merely does it bcuz we don’t agree with their position & never have & that’s their gripe.

And private messaging? That’s pretty useless if one is not a paying “premium” member (which most here are not). Three in & out private messages & your mailbox is full without constantly deleting it. Another option would be, though, for the people who are not interested in the ‘debate’, is just to ignore it completely & move along. I do it all the time here. Like I mentioned earlier, if there is nothing nice to say or contribute, then no need to say anything at all.

[FYI]

And did you hear that the IOC did NOT award L.A. the 2024 Olympics, but instead the 2028 Games? 

lmfao

[paul]

Well, there's a rose in a fisted glove
And the eagle flies with the dove
And if you can't be with the one you love, honey
Love the one you're with

[Maximf83]

4 hours ago, RuFF said:

I did hear that. Did you hear that a minimum wage increase and 11 billion in concessions was not enough to appeal to the French public that is pissed at taxpayer spending and the feeling of being placed behind the priorities of the rich? Did you hear Emmanuel Macrons approval rating is in the vicinity of Trumps? Did you hear that this is all going on on Anne Hidalgos watch who has political aspirations for President of France? Haha. 

I feel bad for the bid committee as they are nose deep in a political environment primed for a backlash against the Olympics. It’s coming boys. 

if the no olympics movment in paris will start getting traction which will actually put the 2024 games in danger, i fear that l.a will be next

[Olympianfan]

20 hours ago, RuFF said:

I did hear that. Did you hear that a minimum wage increase and 11 billion in concessions was not enough to appeal to the French public that is pissed at taxpayer spending and the feeling of being placed behind the priorities of the rich? Did you hear Emmanuel Macrons approval rating is in the vicinity of Trumps? Did you hear that this is all going on on Anne Hidalgos watch who has political aspirations for President of France? Haha. 

I feel bad for the bid committee as they are nose deep in a political environment primed for a backlash against the Olympics. It’s coming boys. 

The French trade Unions support the Olympic Games so that could be good for Paris 2024 but if the bid thing happen and they don't want to host any more then the 2024 Games will be moved to Los Angeles, The 2028 games could go to Jakarta Indonesia after the amazing job they did as the back up host city for the 2018 Asian Games, Would be the great legacy for Joko Widodo bringing the Olympic Games to Indonesia. 

 

[Quaker2001]

17 hours ago, Maximf83 said:

if the no olympics movment in paris will start getting traction which will actually put the 2024 games in danger, i fear that l.a will be next

No it won't.  Paris has already been awarded the 2024 Olympics.  What exactly do you think the No Olympics movement could accomplish at this point?  Even if they did gain traction, explain how that effort could put the 2024 Olympics in danger?  Let alone that a movement in LA could be similar.

These movements have been effective at forcing referendums and getting officials to acknowledge them.  But they've all done this *before* the IOC has voted on a bid, not after.  We're not going to see a repeat of Denver 1976 where local citizens manage to shoot down what in the grand scheme of things is a tiny amount of funding in order to kill a city's Olympic plans.  We all know the socio-economic situation in France is not that great right now.  But the French government is behind it - along with other events the country has an will host - so I don't see anything changing.  Virtually every Olympics in recent memory has had issues that made people question whether or not they should be or will be held.  Paris will be no different in that regard.

[Nacre]

24 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

 We're not going to see a repeat of Denver 1976 where local citizens manage to shoot down what in the grand scheme of things is a tiny amount of funding in order to kill a city's Olympic plans.

And it's important for people to understand that the IOC picked Denver before Colorado signed the agreement to provide public money. Governments in Paris and LA have already signed an agreement to host.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Nacre