Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, FYI said:

But this goes against the ‘wisdom’ by some around here that a double only works in this 26/30 scenario if one of those cities is in Europe. And if Europe bails out (again) would the IOC award both now without a European city in that mix, like we saw with 2024/2028, at the ‘risk’ of not having Europe in the picture ‘til at least 2034? I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with that train of thought per se, but as the saying goes - “beggars can’t be choosers”, but at the end of the day if the only strong, viable bids left are non-European ones, then so be it.

If the IOC is going to do a double, it needs to have the right cities and it needs to do so with purpose.  The right cities are not just "the only strong, viable bids left" just because they are there.  And the purpose needs to be more than "oh well, so be it."

Let's say the only 2 left standing for 2026 are Canada and the United States (whatever city that winds up being.. don't forget that Salt Lake seems more interested in 2030 than 2026).  Do you think they'd do the double in that scenario?  This isn't Oprah where everyone who shows up gets an Olympics.  Paris/LA was done with purpose.  Not sure 2 North American cities lends itself to the same concept.  To that end..

8 hours ago, FYI said:

Would the IOC really like/want to ‘piss off’ the U.S., though? Considering that they’re in talks now with the USOC about a possible 2026 or (preferably on the USOC’s part) a 2030 hosting? And considering where the U.S. pretty much agreed to stifle their 2024 bid in order to submit with the IOC’s wishes of L.A. taking 2028 instead? 

And like you said, particularly in SLC where it looks like they’re very eager to do it again, vs Calgary where they still don’t know whether or not to still proceed. And even if the U.S. didn’t get either 2026 or 2030, not so sure that they’d come back for 2034, especially if Calgary were to get 2030, unless of course the IOC is still having issues with getting quality winter (European) bids.

The USOC just got themselves a Summer Olympics.  Pretty sure they're riding high right now and won't be offended by not adding a Winter Olympics on top of that.  And considering they got some concessions for taking 2028, somehow I doubt they're too upset that they didn't get 2024.  They probably get a better deal that way than if they had taken it to the end in a heads up battle against perhaps.

As for a Winter bid, let's be fair about the situation here.. as much as the USOC's history is to bid at almost every available Olympics, would they be that interested in 2026 if there was potential competition out there that they'd have to beat out as opposed to a scenario where the IOC might be desperate for any willing country?  Probably not.  The USOC knows that if they push forward with a bid, they're probably doing so only if they're in a favorable situation.  They can bide their time with this one rather than jump into the fray sooner rather than later.  And if Salt Lake is that eager, I doubt they'll turn out like New York or Chicago which were largely destined to be one-and-done.  So if 2026 or 2030 doesn't happen, I'm confident Salt Lake will still remain interested for 2034 and going forward.  Plus, like you said, if the IOC is still having issues getting quality bids - and that's certainly the case now - the door might still be wide open for a U.S. winter bid.  And not for nothing, but 2034 is the first Olympics beyond the end of the current NBC deal.  Wouldn't that be a nice negotiating tool for the IOC securing television rights in the U.S. if the first Olympics everyone is bidding for is here in the U.S.

Share this post


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

 

But this goes against the ‘wisdom’ by some around here that a double only works in this 26/30 scenario if one of those cities is in Europe. And if Europe bails out (again) would the IOC award both now without a European city in that mix, like we saw with 2024/2028, at the ‘risk’ of not having Europe in the picture ‘til at least 2034? I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with that train of thought per se, but as the saying goes - “beggars can’t be choosers”, but at the end of the day if the only strong, viable bids left are non-European ones, then so be it.

 

well, if Sion and Stockholm drops out for 2026 then it would mean no european citiy made it to the actual Bidding process 2 circles in a row (2022 and 2026)

wouldn´t it be a bit naive from IOC to think Europe will rise like a Phoenix for 2030?
So then they should take what they get (maybe Canada and USOC-Bid) and don´t care about pissing off Europe, cause they been pissed off already with the Sochi/PC Games
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If the IOC is going to do a double, it needs to have the right cities and it needs to do so with purpose.  The right cities are not just "the only strong, viable bids left" just because they are there.  And the purpose needs to be more than "oh well, so be it."

Let's say the only 2 left standing for 2026 are Canada and the United States (whatever city that winds up being.. don't forget that Salt Lake seems more interested in 2030 than 2026).  Do you think they'd do the double in that scenario?  This isn't Oprah where everyone who shows up gets an Olympics.  Paris/LA was done with purpose.  Not sure 2 North American cities lends itself to the same concept.  To that end..

The USOC just got themselves a Summer Olympics.  Pretty sure they're riding high right now and won't be offended by not adding a Winter Olympics on top of that.  And considering they got some concessions for taking 2028, somehow I doubt they're too upset that they didn't get 2024.  They probably get a better deal that way than if they had taken it to the end in a heads up battle against perhaps.

As for a Winter bid, let's be fair about the situation here.. as much as the USOC's history is to bid at almost every available Olympics, would they be that interested in 2026 if there was potential competition out there that they'd have to beat out as opposed to a scenario where the IOC might be desperate for any willing country?  Probably not.  The USOC knows that if they push forward with a bid, they're probably doing so only if they're in a favorable situation.  They can bide their time with this one rather than jump into the fray sooner rather than later.  And if Salt Lake is that eager, I doubt they'll turn out like New York or Chicago which were largely destined to be one-and-done.  So if 2026 or 2030 doesn't happen, I'm confident Salt Lake will still remain interested for 2034 and going forward.  Plus, like you said, if the IOC is still having issues getting quality bids - and that's certainly the case now - the door might still be wide open for a U.S. winter bid.  And not for nothing, but 2034 is the first Olympics beyond the end of the current NBC deal.  Wouldn't that be a nice negotiating tool for the IOC securing television rights in the U.S. if the first Olympics everyone is bidding for is here in the U.S.

No one said there will be/should be a double without suitable Bids.

But the IOC should  be aware that it will be tough to get those Bids from Europe in the near future.
European Cities are willing, but the citizens are not. Oslo and Munich 2022,  Innsbruck 2026, and most likely Sion 2026 soon too.
Sochi ruined a lot for the IOC in Europe, cause whenever and wherever in Europe a City face a Olympic Referendum the Sochi Prize Tags will be on the table and will influence the people.
(there are other negative influences too, but Sochi prize tag was for sure the killer for Munich 2022)

And the lost public Polls didn´t just destroy the Munich and Oslo bids for 2022, and Innsbruck for 2026, it also ruined another bid from those Countries/Cities in the near future.
So the IOC should take a NorthAmerica double if they can get it. 

 

About the television rights - thats indeed a good point of view.
But IMO the IOC is not in the position to think about that yet.  
If they can get quality Bids to push SLC back to 2034, great for the Olympics and even better for the IOC TV rights negotiations.

But right now i can´t see where those quality Bids should come from.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No one said there will be/should be a double without suitable Bids.

But the IOC should  be aware that it will be tough to get those Bids from Europe in the near future.
European Cities are willing, but the citizens are not. Oslo and Munich 2022,  Innsbruck 2026, and most likely Sion 2026 soon too.
Sochi ruined a lot for the IOC in Europe, cause whenever and wherever in Europe a City face a Olympic Referendum the Sochi Prize Tags will be on the table and will influence the people.
(there are other negative influences too, but Sochi prize tag was for sure the killer for Munich 2022)

And the lost public Polls didn´t just destroy the Munich and Oslo bids for 2022, and Innsbruck for 2026, it also ruined another bid from those Countries/Cities in the near future.
So the IOC should take a NorthAmerica double if they can get it.

Well, a certain 'other' poster likes to scoff at anyone who would even suggest that a double might not happen.  Apparently any such negatively leads to a "don't rule it out, the IOC is already talking about it" response.

I'd say I'm sure the IOC is aware of what they're facing, but then again, this is the IOC so maybe they're still ignoring reality.  Yes, it's a matter of public record that we have all these European cities who have tried and failed at the hands of their citizens.  But - to para-phrase your other post - the IOC doesn't need Europe to rise like a Phoenix for 2030.  Like with 2024, they just need 1 and only 1 bid that they're satisfied with.  Needless to say, that likely requires said bid to survive a referendum.  Would an extra 4 years passing help that cause?  It might.  And it might not, but we'll never know if the IOC were to award 2 non-European cities this time around.

So the question is one of consequences.  If they do a double, will that further alienate European cities and shut any potentially willing candidates out for not 1, but 2 cycles?  Is there a hope they'll have someone back for 2034 or will Europe have become a lost cause at that point?  The flip side is what of Canada and the United States.  Again, assuming they're the only 2 left standing, do they battle it out for 2026 and leave 2030 for another time?  Would the loser of that battle want to return for 2030?  And what happens if there is no European challenger then?

My opinion is that doing a double has a potential of doing more harm than good.  I don't think they need to lock in 2 cities right now if these are the 2 they're presented with.  I'll certainly grant you that Calgary is not in the safest position if they're asked to come back.  But then again, they probably wouldn't be pushing for this in the first place if they thought the competition was stronger.  Similar, the USOC probably wouldn't be talking about the effort either if they thought this would be more difficult.

In short.. you say they should take North America if they can get it.  Do you not think they'll be able to get it 4 years down the road?  Why do they need to do this now?  If the problem in Europe is one of public perception, I'm not sure this helps that cause.

Share this post


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

No one said there will be/should be a double without suitable Bids.

Exactly - but as you can see, a certain ‘other’ poster likes to “scoff” at anyone who would even suggest that a double might happen.

And apparently any such negativity leads to a “what purpose would it serve, etc” response. Yeah, nevermind that the IOC is indeed talking about it with certain NOC’s. And nevermind that the “purpose” of awarding two solid (winter & “traditional”) bids at a point in time where the IOC is between a rock & hard place, wouldn’t also give them piece of mind for the next decade in the winter category.

Sure, the IOC doesn’t need Europe to rise like a Phoenix & all they need is just ‘one’ solid European city to step forward (as they got with Paris), but right now, even that looks like too much to ask for. The IOC got extremely lucky with Paris. Can they also get that again on the winter side? Considering everything, odds are not very likely at this point in time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Exactly - but as you can see, a certain ‘other’ poster likes to “scoff” at anyone who would even suggest that a double might happen.

And apparently any such negativity leads to a “what purpose would it serve, etc” response. Yeah, nevermind that the IOC is indeed talking about it with certain NOC’s. And nevermind that the “purpose” of awarding two solid (winter & “traditional”) bids at a point in time where the IOC is between a rock & hard place, wouldn’t also give them piece of mind for the next decade in the winter category.

Sure, the IOC doesn’t need Europe to rise like a Phoenix & all they need is just ‘one’ solid European city to step forward (as they got with Paris), but right now, even that looks like too much to ask for. The IOC got extremely lucky with Paris. Can they also get that again on the winter side? Considering everything, odds are not very likely at this point in time.

Not even close to what my opinion is, but whatever.

And yes.. "at this point in time."  You're asking the IOC to make a decision that's not just about now but about many years from now.  Is this the best time to make a decision like that when the IOC and the Olympic movement are not in such a good place?  And don't counter that by simply saying they did it for 2024/2028, so why not.  That's an overly simplistic argument.

I'm not unaware of the fact that the IOC is looking into this and that there are probably some very good reasons to do so.  I'm just questioning whether or not it actually is the smart move to make right now.  The easy analysis we're getting sometimes here is "yes, it worked for the Summer Olympics, so therefore why wouldn't it work for the Winter."  But it's not that simple and it's worth a more detailed discussion.

Here's the question to be asked.  The IOC is definitely between a rock and a hard place, but they put themselves in that position.  They have no one else to blame.  So if they're doing this for peace of mind.. what happens several years from now when they need to start finding the next Olympic host city?  Are they in a better position a decade from now from having done a double here or not?

How many times was it said in the lead up to 2024 that for the IOC to consider a double meant an admission that they were in a bad place and needed to do something drastic in order to change course.  They did it then because they fell into perhaps the most ideal of all possible circumstances with those 2 cities.  And locked in 2 cities/countries that may or may not have wanted to come back again.

So again.. what are the long term consequences of a double here?  The IOC has a problem now.  A Calgary/Salt Lake double feels a little like kicking the can down the road and then having to address the problem later on.  If the IOC thinks that Europe is completely a lost cause, then by all means pull the double now with whatever 2 cities are immediately available to them. But maybe if the IOC wants to try and right the ship, improve their reputation and further distance themselves from Sochi.. award 1 Olympics now and maybe things will be better in 4 years.  Maybe they won't, but at least there's that time to try and convince the people of Europe that their city need not reject the Olympics rather than to completely throw in the towel.  Because where does that leave them 8 years down the road?  Probably in the same bad place they are now.

Share this post


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

Not even close to what my opinion is, but whatever.

Ummm, & what exactly did I say that didn’t resemble your opinion. 

52 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And don't counter that by simply saying they did it for 2024/2028, so why not.  That's an overly simplistic argument.

Ummm to quote you - “not even close to what my opinion is, but whatever”. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm not unaware of the fact that the IOC is looking into this and that there are probably some very good reasons to do so.  I'm just questioning whether or not it actually is the smart move to make right now.  

Well, ‘good for you’ that you question it, regardless that you’re not unaware of the fact that the IOC is looking into it. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

The easy analysis we're getting sometimes here is "yes, it worked for the Summer Olympics, so therefore why wouldn't it work for the Winter."  But it's not that simple and it's worth a more detailed discussion.

No, it’s not just an easy analysis. That’s your take. No one is simply saying that since it worked for the Summer Olympics that it’ll also work for the Winter Olympics. A more detailed discussion has been had more than once (& now by more posters), but you just want to dismiss anything that doesn’t align with your (DA’s) train of thought. 

The USOC has already come out & said that if the IOC is looking into another double-allocation for 26/30, that they’d certainly want to be part of that equation (& preferably the 2030 equation). Do you honestly think that they’d just come out & say that if there wasn’t any possibility at all that it wasn’t possible & that there was more behind it? I think not.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

So if they're doing this for peace of mind.. what happens several years from now when they need to start finding the next Olympic host city?  Are they in a better position a decade from now from having done a double here or not?

So again.. what are the long term consequences of a double here?  The IOC has a problem now.  A Calgary/Salt Lake double feels a little like kicking the can down the road and then having to address the problem later on.  If the IOC thinks that Europe is completely a lost cause, then by all means pull the double now with whatever 2 cities are immediately available to them.

Europe seems like a lost cause now. And it’s probably safe to say even an another four years, too. Who’s to say, though, once a handful of none budget blowing & OTT Olympics have come & gone that Europe then won’t start to come around again?

Which BTW, let’s counter that with what did Paris/L.A. combo deal solve for 2032, 2036 & beyond, besides just locking in two solid hosts? One could also make the argument then that all the IOC did there too was also just “kick the can down the road”.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Ummm, & what exactly did I say that didn’t resemble your opinion. 

A lot.

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Ummm to quote you - “not even close to what my opinion is, but whatever”. 

No, I know what your opinion is.  You've made it clear.  You think a double "could" happen.  I know what that word means.  But when I ask you to offer some context behind that opinion, it's "Quaker is just being negative.. the IOC is talking about it, so it's not outside the realm of possibility."  There's a larger discussion here that I think is worth having.  So let's have it.

3 hours ago, FYI said:

No, it’s not just an easy analysis. That’s your take. No one is simply saying that since it worked for the Summer Olympics that it’ll also work for the Winter Olympics. A more detailed discussion has been had more than once (& now by more posters), but you just want to dismiss anything that doesn’t align with your (DA’s) train of thought. 

The USOC has already come out & said that if the IOC is looking into another double-allocation for 26/30, that they’d certainly want to be part of that equation (& preferably the 2030 equation). Do you honestly think that they’d just come out & say that if there wasn’t any possibility at all that it wasn’t possible & that there was more behind it? I think not.

JFC.  If there wasn't any possibility at all that it wasn't possible?  LOL.  Once again, please stop arguing against me as if you think my position is that I'm saying a double isn't possible.  I know there are legs behind this.  No fuckingshit the USOC would want to be a part of a double.  If the IOC is handing out Olympics like they're going out of style, of course the USOC is going to pursue that.  That's very much a 2-way street there though.  But just because the IOC is talking about something doesn't mean that we should expect that it's going to happen.  At this point, the discussion is about *if* the IOC should do this.  Hence why make it's worth taking a longer look at whether or not it's a smart move, aside from the fact the IOC usually can't be counted on to be smart.

And yes, the double has been discussed before in a generic sense.  But you know (and I know you know) that my position is that it depends on the cities.  So it's a much different discussion if we're talking Calgary/Salt Lake rather than a different pair of cities.

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Europe seems like a lost cause now. And it’s probably safe to say even an another four years, too. Who’s to say, though, once a handful of none budget blowing & OTT Olympics have come & gone that Europe then won’t start to come around again?

Which BTW, let’s counter that with what did Paris/L.A. combo deal solve for 2032, 2036 & beyond, besides just locking in two solid hosts? One could also make the argument then that all the IOC did there too was also just “kick the can down the road”.

Okay.. are you "One"?  Are you making that argument or are you just throwing at back at me as some sort of counter-point?  Remember what one of the main points you and I both agreed on the whole way.. this was about getting a big European city in the mix, not to mention one that had bid on the Olympics before and might not again.  If it was Budapest and LA left standing, would they have done the double?  Hamburg and LA?

Key word in that first past.. "now."  You offer it's probably safe to say in 4 years, Europe likely is still a lost cause (no, it is not safe to say.. that merely is your opinion), and it might time a handful of more cost-effective Olympics to get Europe to come around?  Does the IOC want to wait that long and close the door until then?  By awarding Paris the 2024 Olympics, that means most European cities likely would pass on 2028.  But if Calgary or Salt Lake gets 2026, why shut Europe out of 2030 even there may not be a city that makes it all the way to a bid?

Part of the argument about doing a double is what are the consequences of not doing a double.  We discussed that plenty with 2024/2028.  Paris may not have bid again.  LA might have had to try and raise money for another bid.  That's what the IOC was hoping to avoid.  What are they looking to avoid with a 2026/2030 double?  What's the rush to name a 2030 host now?

So, once again, to make my position clear.. I believe it's possible that a double award could be the way to go for 2026/2030.  My personal feeling though is that I don't see it making sense given the circumstances (please for the love of G-d do not interpret that as that I think it's not possible and that when you say you think it is possible, I'm arguing the opposite of that).  Maybe that will change in the next year, much like the idea of a Paris/LA double evolved.  But if it doesn't, so be it.  Right?  Bcuz ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t say that the plot thickens a bit, but rather that it looks to be right on course (or should I say as “expected” :P). It pretty much stacks up to what this Gamesbids article from back in October pretty much stated (& which I reposted back in this thread in the last page then)..

https://gamesbids.com/eng/robs-bidblog/bidweek-bach-takes-control-as-salt-lake-city-enters-2026-olympic-bid-race/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gamesbidsrss+(GamesBids.com+Headlines)

..that the IOC is dictating the “rules” here & it looks like they do indeed want to do another double allocation in this case, too, “just in case”, of course. And all the talk that the USOC “wasn’t bidding” for 2026 so they could “protect L.A.’s 2028 interests” was all just a bunch of rhetoric, & all along must’ve been talking to the IOC of being in this mix for “ideally” 2030.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get Calgary & SLC locked down then try to get Europe back (France?) for 2034 once those 2 & Paris 24 have (hopefully) run smoothly. As plans go, it's probably the best way available to get out of the mess - assuming the European bids for 26 all get voted down. Even though it would likely be the final nail for the bid process as we've known it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I wouldn’t say that the plot thickens a bit, but rather that it looks to be right on course (or should I say as “expected” :P). It pretty much stacks up to what this Gamesbids article from back in October pretty much stated (& which I reposted back in this thread in the last page then)..

https://gamesbids.com/eng/robs-bidblog/bidweek-bach-takes-control-as-salt-lake-city-enters-2026-olympic-bid-race/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gamesbidsrss+(GamesBids.com+Headlines)

..that the IOC is dictating the “rules” here & it looks like they do indeed want to do another double allocation in this case, too, “just in case”, of course. And all the talk that the USOC “wasn’t bidding” for 2026 so they could “protect L.A.’s 2028 interests” was all just a bunch of rhetoric, & all along must’ve been talking to the IOC of being in this mix for “ideally” 2030.

USOC: No plans for American bid for 2026 Olympics

Good for you that you wouldn't say that.  I am saying it.  That was the USOC's position a month ago was that they weren't looking at 2026, but left the door open a crack just in case (when you disappeared from this site for a couple of months).  That they're now looking to explore a 2026 bid indicates that they're assessing the situation a little differently now.  Hence, I think the plot has thickened.  You and I don't disagree about the possibility of a 2026/2030 double.  This is the USOC acknowledging that the IOC holds the cards and a month ago when they said they want to protect the financial interests of 2028 (part of that was some rhetoric, but not entirely IMO), now they need to pivot a little where they need to be in the discussions for 2026 or else they risk being left out.  Was the USOC talking to the IOC all along?  We don't know that and you know that's an opinion, not fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Sion bid falls, that would still leave Stockholm, Lillehammer and the Graz-Schmadling bids from the Euro entries.  Then there would also be Sapporo, Calgary.  A Milan or revived Torino bid is questionable because if the Italians put that forth , it would endanger Milan hosting the IOC Session of 2019 in which the 2026 site would be chosen.  So before the IOC casts for another site for 2019 (of which they can easily grab Baku, Doha or if pushed, Lausanne, to fill in for 2019) maybe they (the IOC) can jigger the deck so that a Milan or Torino entry, as say a Salt Lake bid, are above-board, lined up for 2030 but are in the mix next year because the IOC will indeed be doing a double award.  Altho I think  the IOC will give 2030 to the US.  It would be 28 years since the Winter Games were in the US. 

Share this post


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

If the Sion bid falls, that would still leave Stockholm, Lillehammer and the Graz-Schmadling bids from the Euro entries. 

Those three will all fall as well. And if need be, the IOC will change rules to let an Italian bid in. However looking at Italian politics, I guess they‘re not too keen on the idea of Italy hosting anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No bid will pass a referendum until at least the 2026 games pass smoothly in North America (assuming they do hold), combined with a positive outcome from Paris 24. That's what we've seen, & there's no reason to think it's changing before Paris. There are European countries that could do it without a referendum - France (who are somewhat occupied, but if they want 30, the IOC can't really say no), possibly Italy (but politics, & IOC rules), & possibly Spain (but Catalonia). The other possible outlier is Lillehammer -not needing Oslo's support could help it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

USOC: No plans for American bid for 2026 Olympics

Good for you that you wouldn't say that.  I am saying it.  That was the USOC's position a month ago was that they weren't looking at 2026, but left the door open a crack just in case (when you disappeared from this site for a couple of months).  That they’re now looking to explore a 2026 bid indicates that they’re assessing the situation a little different now. Hence, I think the plot has thickened.

And “good for you” (my favorite Quaker-ism there) that you do say the plot thickens now. But I don’t see it that way. I’m very well aware that the USOC made that statement over a month (just cuz I didn’t post here in the last couple of months doesn’t mean that I wasn’t keeping up with up with Olympic-related news. And gee, I guess I must have not watched PyeongChang 2018 either since I didn’t here about the ceremonies or my ‘verdict’ :P).

What has changed so much in the last 30 days that the USOC has had this drastic change of thought (besides absoultely nothing, other than the IOC 2026 deadline of interested cities looming in just a couple of weeks)?

Even if they weren’t talking to the IOC (which I find hard to believe that they weren’t in some capacity or another about the subject this whole time) then the USOC was postering themselves so they can ‘pivot’ the situation to get a Winter Olympic Games, be that in 2030 or ‘if called upon’ in 2026. Certainly again in the realm of assessment to the GB article from back in October. Hence, why I don’t find this lastest ‘news’ on the matter as plot thickening as you do.

 

Share this post


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

If the Sion bid falls, that would still leave Stockholm, Lillehammer and the Graz-Schmadling bids from the Euro entries.   

Do you really honestly see any of those cities making it all the way through, though? The other three still don’t have government support. 

The only Euro-candidate that I could see doing just that is either Turin or Milan. And even then, first the IOC would either have to 1. Amend their ‘rules’ to allow Italy to bid when they’re hosting the same session to elect the winning 2026 city. Or 2. Move the session to another country. And then what other hurdles would Turin or Milan would have to jump through in Italy itself to mount a bid ITFP.

Share this post


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

Read through this thread and it's a little huffy there FYI and Quaker. 

Anyhow, I was thinking that a lot of weight has been placed on SLC and Denver. If I am not mistaken Denver's desire for an Olympics is Luke. However, Reno-Tahoe folk have a much greater desire to host probably closer to SLC's. I was thinking that Reno is probably being overlooked here too much. First, it has more hotel rooms than SLC. Second, should Reno-Tahoe dump Sacramento and instead go for the more appealing Las Vegas they would benefit from the following. Within about 2 square miles there are thousands of hotels eliminating the need for an athletes village in both regions, an under construction 65,000 seat Las Vegas Stadium (for the Raiders), the Orleans Arena (9500), The MGM Grand Arena (17157), T-Mobile Arena (18000), and Thomas & Mack Center (18000). Also within this zone is McCarran International Airport. Actually, it should be flipped to Nevada 2030 or Las Vegas 2030. Reno could host the outdoor events and Park City could pick up the remaining slack. In near proximity to the stadiums in Las Vegas is the Las Vegas Convention Center with nearly 2 million SF of exhibition space. It is also important to note that Reno's airport is literally 1 mile from the strip in Reno as well. It's a little regional, and a little compact to say the least. 

Granted, SLC is more ready to go. But as has been discussed to death not all cities in the world are ready to go. The benefit of the Vegas/Reno-Tahoe Combo is this. It would show first hand what a regional existing facility bid would look like and perhaps more accurately provide a measure of what Agenda 2020 means. Just a thought. Time will tell.

Las Vegas?  As in the city that tried to submit a rogue bid for 2020?  That worked out real well for them.

Reno-Tahoe hasn't been overlooked here.  It's been discussed many times before.  Long before Agenda 2020 was a thing.  If the USOC is going to put a Winter bid forward, it's going to be with their best and most capable candidate.  That's never going to be Reno over Salt Lake.  The USOC learned the hard way what happens when they try something new over the obvious candidate.

You're mostly right about Denver.  I think there would be desire there, but what it would take to put on an Olympics is more than they're willing to put out there.  They have the city portion of a bid all ready to go.  The mountain portion, not so much, especially connecting the 2.  So what of Reno?  Having hotel rooms is helpful.  But hosting an Olympics requires these things called sports facilities.  Of which Reno has very few that would be of much use for an Olympics.  You're right that Las Vegas offers all the city venues they need.  At which point, which good is Reno?  In comparison to Salt Lake, not exactly a selling point that they have a little regional, little compact airport when they could have a hub for a major airline that's currently undergoing a total makeover.  And if Park City is in the mix, then why not hold the whole thing in Utah rather than to offer something spread out?

So yes.. SLC is more ready to go.  Hence why they're the smart choice rather than a quirky Nevada bid that's regional for the sake of being regional.  That's not a plus if there's a better option out there.  Which in this case there is.  Las Vegas isn't a locale that screams Winter.  To quote Reuben from Ocean's Eleven.. "Of course, lest we forget, once you're out the front door, you're still in the middle of the fucking desert!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Winter Olympics in the middle of a desert, even more so when it is the world capital of artificiality and gambling, is not exactly what IOC PR is looking for these days.

From my Central European perspective, SLC seems the logical choice by a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RuFF said:

Ultimately, I understand that you’re saying Reno’s weakness, other than being regional, is the lack of outdoor sports facilities. The question that would raise, if I were on the Reno-Tahoe coalition is what are those facilities and how much do they cost. And realistically those facilities rely on the natural environment. And just as realistic is that those facilities are the prime source of tourism in an area already known for that kind of tourism. We can disagree, for sure, but I think something is being glossed over here. Not saying that the advantages stated of SLC don’t exist, it’s just the other side of that coin that might be a smidge greater than its being pegged at.

Glad that you understand, but saying that Reno's weakness is a lack of sports facilities is not really an opinion that one can disagree with.  It's a fact.  What exactly do you think is being glossed over?  Again, not like this hasn't been discussed here before.  Let's actually look at what Reno has..

Mackay Stadium - current capacity of 30,000 (some sources say it's less than that) following recent renovations which actually reduced overall capacity.  Sure they could bring in temporary seating, but why settle for that when there's Rice-Eccles stadium has 45,000 seats and there are serious considerations for an expansion that would add up to 10,000 more seats now that the University of Utah is in the Pac-12 and therefore gets bigger opponents there.

Reno does have 2 indoor arenas, Lawlor Events Center and the Reno Events Center.  Lawlor has a capacity of 11,536.  For basketball.  I'm not sure there is room to fit an ice rink there without major structural changes..

11639713.jpeg

Similarly, Reno Events Center has a capacity of around 7,000 but that's also for basketball.  It's designed to be flexible, but I don't know how easily they could fit an ice rink there.  At best, maybe it's a secondary hockey or curling venue, but that's about it.

There is the Reno Livestock Events Center.  Not sure how easily that could be configured to be an Olympic venue.  Again though, only holds about 6,000 people, so at best it's a secondary hockey venue.

Reno does have a convention center which would serve them well.  381,000 square feet of exhibition space.  Which sounds like a lot, but pales in comparison to the 515,000 square feet of exhibition space at Salt Palace, and I saw that with my own eyes back in 2002.  Can only imagine the increased requirements given the larger number of media they'd need to accommodate.

I can't speak expertly on the rest of the facilities and what they would cost.  But all of this will get measured up against Salt Lake, which has almost everything ready to go, both indoor and outdoor.  If you want to make a case for the other side of the coin.  You're not really offering much of an argument to back up your opinion though other than "are we sure Salt Lake is that much better than Reno-Tahoe?"  Every time this has been discussed here, the answer is almost always a resounding yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RuFF said:

Just to add to that point. Nevada, unlike California, DOES pay for sport (ref. Raiders). In addition, the number one business of Nevada is tourism. An Olympics and the prep for one that aligns with the regions existing lifestyle and long term goals is perhaps coming together and on the table. Now, that does not at all mean that SLC is not the obvious safer choice, but Nevada, as a whole, isn't a bad choice either. When speaking of Nevada we by no means have a Boston. And a substantial amount of Las Vegas is people from Southern California. The Olympics would be, IMO, barking up the right tree. 

No they wouldn't.  No question that tourism is the lifeblood of Las Vegas, but they have little trouble attracting large numbers of people to come there.  Would an Olympics really boost their profile to the point they'd want to deal with the IOC?  Do hotel and casino owners need to cede a month of their business to the IOC to accommodate them when they'll usually have regular crowds anyway?

You've made the point many times over (and I do largely agree with the sentiment) that LA can showcase itself to the world using the Olympics and see a side of the city that didn't exist in 1984.  That the "New LA" will get a spotlight it might not otherwise get.  Las Vegas doesn't need that and I'm not sure they'd even want that.  Sure, they have enough facilities to host almost any event, including the city portion of the Winter Olympics, but would locals - both people and businesses - benefit from that?  How exactly does the prep for an Olympics align with their existing lifestyle?  If Reno-Tahoe wasn't interested in the Olympics, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  And not for nothing.. San Francisco is much closer to Reno than Las Vegas is.  So if the idea is to get another major city involved (1 that is bigger than Sacramento), why Las Vegas?  Because it's in the same state as Reno?  Because Nevada pays for sports whereas California does not?

Don't think those arguments fly.  Either way, this is about choice.  The USOC has the option to pick either Salt Lake or Reno-Tahoe.  Salt Lake IS the obvious safer choice.  Nevada, as a whole, is a pretty bad choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I can’t argue perspective. But Las Vegas could offer LA 2028 par stadiums, and Reno Tahoe near Denver par slopes. An unlimited inventory of hotels in the city with more 5 star hotels than any other in the world, and this. A direct link to Southern California’s 24 million residents and Norther California’s 15.5 million. I can see LA2028 being a lot more open to this as an extension of LA2028. But that’s just my perspective. There, in my opinion, is a lot more if you look beneath the surface. The players alone would be far deeper pocketed in Nevada than either Colorado or Utah. 

And how exactly are people going to get between Las Vegas and Reno?  Hard to attend Olympic events in Tahoe if your hotel is in Reno.  This isn't LA2028's decision.  They have little to no say and I'd think they'd rather see a Winter Olympics a little further away rather than trying to compete for their attention.  Just because Vegas has money does not mean they're going to spend it on an Olympics if there's no long-term benefit to them.  Especially when that could be a moot point in the first place if the USOC knows Salt Lake is the better pick because there's very little they'd need to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic why not accept a Dubai and Lebanon joint winter Olympics bid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×