Jump to content
Chrishigh765

Calgary 2026 and Salt Lake 2030?

Recommended Posts

I dunno if you read the most recent news but USOC decided to solely focus on L.A. 2028 (which, to be honest, is a good thing. Let America enjoy their Olympics big time since they haven't hosted in a while).

Calgary seems to be picking momentum, but we have to see what the citizens of Alberta say about it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not believe anything anymore until Bach pulls the name out of the envelope. Munich was considered a shoe-in for 2018, and who won? A small mountain town in South Korea with minimal established winter sports infrastructure. I loved Pyeongchang and I'm not dissing them at all, and I'm very glad Pyeongchang was chosen over Munich, but on a comparison scale, Munich was likely the better choice, especially when viewed from a 2018 lens instead of a 2011 lens.

 

Oh, and the infamous Oslo 2022 bid. All Oslo had to do was stay in the race. Hell, all Stockholm and Krakow had to do was stay in the race. But after the financial disaster of Sochi 2014, all of them eventually pulled away (Lviv due to political concerns but I didn't have my hopes up for them at all). Within a yearlong timeframe, we went from the idea of bouncing from Sochi to Pyeongchang to Oslo, to Sochi to Pyeongchang to Beijing - a city with minimal snowfall. So, I am not going to get my hopes up for anything. Calgary's bid isn't even final yet, those in Alberta could still shoot it down, and could always pull a Denver 1976 as well. I am very optimistic, and will be hoping daily for the next year that the IOC does what's good for the movement as a whole and focuses on North American and European host cities, but given the fate of some recent host city elections, nothing is certain until your name comes out of that envelope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the flying fuckk has said anything about Salt Lake 2030? What are you smoking pal. 

Edited by ofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 3:24 PM, anthonyliberatori said:

I loved Pyeongchang and I'm not dissing them at all, and I'm very glad Pyeongchang was chosen over Munich, but on a comparison scale, Munich was likely the better choice, especially when viewed from a 2018 lens instead of a 2011 lens.

What you’re referring to here is called hindsight 20/20. Of course in 2011 when the 2018 vote was taken, things looked very different. And if the IOC knew then what they know now, would they have voted any differently? Maybe, but maybe not.

But as much praise as you’re giving PyeongChang all over these boards, I wouldn’t say in the end that Munich was likely the better choice if you were so pleased with PyeongChang 2018. These Winter Games were a success in their own right that reflecting back of what coulda been I don’t think changes that in anyway. Life is always about perspective & the shoulda, woulda, couldas. But in the end, you still can’t change any of them.

On 2/26/2018 at 3:24 PM, anthonyliberatori said:

Oh, and the infamous Oslo 2022 bid. All Oslo had to do was stay in the race. Hell, all Stockholm and Krakow had to do was stay in the race. But after the financial disaster of Sochi 2014, all of them eventually pulled away (Lviv due to political concerns but I didn't have my hopes up for them at all). Within a yearlong timeframe, we went from the idea of bouncing from Sochi to Pyeongchang to Oslo, to Sochi to Pyeongchang to Beijing - a city with minimal snowfall. So, I am not going to get my hopes up for anything. Calgary's bid isn't even final yet, those in Alberta could still shoot it down, and could always pull a Denver 1976 as well. 

This also goes to the earlier part of your post, but remember that Munich was also mulling a bid for 2022 & scrapped it off the table in Nov. of 2013, only two months before the start of Sochi 2014. You talk about maybe Calgary 2026 pulling a Denver if Beijing 2022 gets out of control, well, who’s to say that couldn’t have also happened with Munich 2018, once they saw Sochi 2014 going all out on “steroids” (pun intended). So who knows - maybe the IOC still saved themselves a whole bunch of headaches by voting the way they did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people doubting the possibility of a back to back North American WOG? How is that different to South Korea/China?

Share this post


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

What you’re referring to here is called hindsight 20/20. Of course in 2011 when the 2018 vote was taken, things looked very different. And if the IOC knew then what they know now, would they have voted any differently? Maybe, but maybe not.

But as much praise as you’re giving PyeongChang all over these boards, I wouldn’t say in the end that Munich was likely the better choice if you were so pleased with PyeongChang 2018. These Winter Games were a success in their own right that reflecting back of what coulda been I don’t think changes that in anyway. Life is always about perspective & the shoulda, woulda, couldas. But in the end, you still can’t change any of them.

I'm well aware of what hindsight 20/20 is. And I was very pleased with Pyeongchang 2018, so much that I would've rather it picked for 2014, so Munich could've had 2018, and Oslo would've had 2022. I'm actually upset that I don't get to see a German Winter Olympics AND a South Korean Winter Olympics. I was really a cheerleader for both for different reasons. What I was trying to get at was that I wouldn't have changed the way 2018 happened, as Pyeongchang successfully delivered an amazing Olympics, but going on your point about "Life is always about perspective & the shoulda, woulda, couldas. But in the end, you still can’t change any of them", I can't erase Sochi 2014 from ever happening, which is what I would like to do.

 

14 hours ago, FYI said:

You talk about maybe Calgary 2026 pulling a Denver if Beijing 2022 gets out of control, well, who’s to say that couldn’t have also happened with Munich 2018, once they saw Sochi 2014 going all out on “steroids” (pun intended). So who knows - maybe the IOC still saved themselves a whole bunch of headaches by voting the way they did.

 

A  man once said: "Life is always about perspective & the shoulda, woulda, couldas. But in the end, you still can’t change any of them." Sure, Munich could've voted itself out, just like any host could've. But for someone who makes a claim about not letting hindsight distract from the present, that seems to be the basis of your entire post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

I was very pleased with Pyeongchang 2018, so much that I would've rather it picked for 2014, so Munich could've had 2018, and Oslo would've had 2022. I'm actually upset that I don't get to see a German Winter Olympics AND a South Korean Winter Olympics. I was really a cheerleader for both for different reasons. What I was trying to get at was that I wouldn't have changed the way 2018 happened, as Pyeongchang successfully delivered an amazing Olympics, I can't erase Sochi 2014 from ever happening, which is what I would like to do.

It’s been noted by a couple of people during PyeongChang 2018, that the better choice for 2014 was actually Salzburg than either PyeongChang or Sochi (which actually, I tend to agree with). Salzburg 2014 would’ve been a majestic Winter Olympic setting in comparison to what we actually got. But a couple of slip-ups (particularly the doping scandal from some on the Austrian team during Turin 2006) didn’t help the bid any. But in comparison again to the massive state-sponsored doping of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, the former would’ve been a walk in the park.

In “hindsight” to what we know now, I think the IOC would’ve elected Salzburg 2014 instead. It would’ve given them a low-cost budget Winter Games still in the Alps, & therefore I think that PyeongChang still likely would’ve wound up with 2018 as a result. And then after that perhaps we coulda had Munich or Oslo 2022. That would’ve been the perfect line-up.

47 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

But for someone who makes a claim about not letting hindsight distract from the present, that seems to be the basis of your entire post. 

That’s only bcuz you opened that door. So I was merely following the premise of your initial post to illustrate a counterpoint. 

Share this post


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

It’s been noted by a couple of people during PyeongChang 2018, that the better choice for 2014 was actually Salzburg than either PyeongChang or Sochi (which actually, I tend to agree with). Salzburg 2014 would’ve been a majestic Winter Olympic setting in comparison to what we actually got. But a couple of slip-ups (particularly the doping scandal from some on the Austrian team during Turin 2006) didn’t help the bid any. But in comparison again to the massive state-sponsored doping of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, the former would’ve been a walk in the park.

In “hindsight” to what we know now, I think the IOC would’ve elected Salzburg 2014 instead. It would’ve given them a low-cost budget Winter Games still in the Alps, & therefore I think that PyeongChang still likely would’ve wound up with 2018 as a result. And then after that perhaps we coulda had Munich or Oslo 2022. That would’ve been the perfect line-up.

That’s only bcuz you opened that door. So I was merely following the premise of your initial post to illustrate a counterpoint. 

If your counterpoint follows the same basis as my original point, it's not a successful counterpoint. You didn't prove much other than you can play into semantics and hindsight like me.

 

But I do agree, Salzburg was a host not worth losing. Would've been a successful host in a beautiful alpine town, and would've opened the doors for Munich and Oslo to be vying for 2022, instead of Beijing and Almaty. But again, we can't change it. All we can really do is hope for a North American or European host for 2026 and 2030, preferably Calgary and Salt Lake/Denver/Reno or whoever makes it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

If your counterpoint follows the same basis as my original point, it's not a successful counterpoint. You didn't prove much other than you can play into semantics and hindsight like me.

Well, why wouldn’t it follow that? That’s usually how it works. If you’re wanting to make a point, then why couldn’t I build on that same basis? I wasn’t trying to “prove” anything by it, other than to show the flipside of that same coin. But it looks like it was successful, though, if in the end you agreed with my counterpoint anyway.

41 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

 All we can really do is hope for a North American or European host for 2026 and 2030, preferably Calgary and Salt Lake/Denver/Reno or whoever makes it out.

Do you think that both 2026 & 2030 will be awarded together then?

Share this post


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

Do you think that both 2026 & 2030 will be awarded together then?

If need be, maybe. It also depends on who the proposed 2030 host is though. There are still a lot of variables that could go into that, as official bids haven't even been placed. I would hope that the IOC wouldn't let a North American or European city slip away through a vote, just like they didn't want one 2024 host to win and the other slip away, because the Games need secure future bids in order to get it out of the current rut. However, lots can happen between now and then. Ask again in a year, which the Pyeongchang longterm legacy starts to form, bids are final, and cities are preparing to vote. Depending on the situation with the possible 2026 World Cup and LA 2028, the US may not be willing to step up for 2030. Calgary and Sion could drop out. All of these "coulds" we both oh so love :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, if the IOC's wishes were fishes . . .

Plan A - a Euro host.

A1 - Sion or Stockholm-Are/Sigulda bids first -- both new host cities.  

A2 - Austria '26;

A3 - Lillehammer or an Italian site (which sends the Session quickly to MOnaco).  

Plan B - Calgary 

And if NO Euro candidate is lined up strongly for 2030

Plan C - Do a double North American reward for 2026/30.  And the interest at that time would be the selection of the US host city.  

Plan D - Sapporo or Erzurum.  (How about New Zealand and Chile or Bariloche showing up?) 

2030 - probably a lock for North America 

And for 2034  -

maybe Almaty v. Annecy for 2034 (especially if Paris 2024 will be a big success) v. Erzurum?  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:40 AM, Ikarus360 said:

I dunno if you read the most recent news but USOC decided to solely focus on L.A. 2028 (which, to be honest, is a good thing. Let America enjoy their Olympics big time since they haven't hosted in a while).

Calgary seems to be picking momentum, but we have to see what the citizens of Alberta say about it. 

"IF" Calgary decides to bid for the 2026 Games The City of Calgary bid to the IOC should stipulate that if they are awarded the 2026 Winter Games that they also automatically be awarded the 2034 Winter Games. It makes no sense for any City to spend that kind of taxpayer money without some kind of chance to be financially rewarded. When any City is awarded Games they should get them again in 8 years. They already have the Venues and the volunteer experience, now lets make some $$$'s. Just imagine how well Vancouver would have profited if they would have had the Winter Games again last year instead of South Korea. What about Sochi? That place is a toilet now, if they would have had the Games again 8 years later they would have continued to improve the place as a city and a capable venue for the games again, this time they might have even been ready! There is a huge opportunity here for economic growth in Calgary, but only if we get to profit after we spend. As a tax payer, I'm all for the Games if we get them twice, but I'm a no vote for a one time shot.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sochi is doing fine, especially considering the poor economic condition in Russia overall due to Western sanctions. Although ironically that may be driving more Russian tourists to go to Sochi instead of foreign countries.

Sochi/Adler is an interesting situation in Olympic history because the Russians spent heavily to create a tourist destination somewhat like the Spanish did in Barcelona. And thus far it is actually paying off. A semi-tropical tourist destination in their own country is perhaps predictably popular with Russian tourists. The huge price of building a tourist destination nearly from scratch is ironically the one part of the plan that has gone well. The white elephant sports facilities, doping, invasion of Ukraine, etc are the unfortunate aspects of the Sochi winter games rather than the infamous $51 billion expense.  

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


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

Sochi is doing fine, especially considering the poor economic condition in Russia overall due to Western sanctions. Although ironically that may be driving more Russian tourists to go to Sochi instead of foreign countries.

Sochi/Adler is an interesting situation in Olympic history because the Russians spent heavily to create a tourist destination somewhat like the Spanish did in Barcelona. And thus far it is actually paying off. A semi-tropical tourist destination in their own country is perhaps predictably popular with Russian tourists. The huge price of building a tourist destination nearly from scratch is ironically the one part of the plan that has gone well. The white elephant sports facilities, doping, invasion of Ukraine, etc are the unfortunate aspects of the Sochi winter games rather than the infamous $51 billion expense.  

The IOC is lying about having no Plan B o course they will have a plan B, With the USOC and LA 2028 having the deal with NO 2026 the plan B could be going back to Sochi Russia in 2026 or Almaty Kazakhstan if everyone else bail. Sochi has everything ready only thing they will have to build is another games village and build some new hotels as the temporarily hotels from the 2014 Winter Games are now homes. Sochi Russia is the new Innsbruck 1976 for the IOC it's ready to go for another games another games could make the White elephants back in use and have tenants after the games build on the legacy from the 2014 Winter Games.  

Share this post


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

The IOC is lying about having no Plan B o course they will have a plan B, With the USOC and LA 2028 having the deal with NO 2026 the plan B could be going back to Sochi Russia in 2026 or Almaty Kazakhstan if everyone else bail. Sochi has everything ready only thing they will have to build is another games village and build some new hotels as the temporarily hotels from the 2014 Winter Games are now homes. Sochi Russia is the new Innsbruck 1976 for the IOC it's ready to go for another games another games could make the White elephants back in use and have tenants after the games build on the legacy from the 2014 Winter Games.  

1489341144933.jpg

Share this post


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

The IOC is lying about having no Plan B o course they will have a plan B, With the USOC and LA 2028 having the deal with NO 2026 the plan B could be going back to Sochi Russia in 2026 or Almaty Kazakhstan if everyone else bail. Sochi has everything ready only thing they will have to build is another games village and build some new hotels as the temporarily hotels from the 2014 Winter Games are now homes. Sochi Russia is the new Innsbruck 1976 for the IOC it's ready to go for another games another games could make the White elephants back in use and have tenants after the games build on the legacy from the 2014 Winter Games.  

Odd that a question about Sochi appeared here, but I guess not surprising on this site

Would love to hear how 2026 could wind up in Sochi or Almaty.  I agree it's a bunch of BS about no plan B, although perhaps the IOC actually is that deluded into thinking they don't need one and they actually don't have a backup plan should all 3 bid drop out, which remains a distinct possibility.  Of course, given this latest news (which yes, at the very least is a little dubious), I'm anxious to hear from an "other poster" about how a double is still a possibility and that plan B is going to involve 2030.  Since that continues to make less and less sense, and not just because this is the IOC these days..

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 1:13 AM, Quaker2001 said:

Odd that a question about Sochi appeared here, but I guess not surprising on this site

Would love to hear how 2026 could wind up in Sochi or Almaty.  I agree it's a bunch of BS about no plan B, although perhaps the IOC actually is that deluded into thinking they don't need one and they actually don't have a backup plan should all 3 bid drop out, which remains a distinct possibility.  Of course, given this latest news (which yes, at the very least is a little dubious), I'm anxious to hear from an "other poster" about how a double is still a possibility and that plan B is going to involve 2030.  Since that continues to make less and less sense, and not just because this is the IOC these days..

tenor.gif

Because Sochi Russia got everything in place for the games and Almaty Kazakhstan did not bid cause they thought two games in Asia in a row and there was no possibility that they could get it in 2026, Vladimir Putin and the President of Kazakhstan would easy jump in to be the Plan B if they get asked to be, Almaty would more likely get the games over Sochi cause of PR reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 1:13 PM, Quaker2001 said:

I'm anxious to hear from an "other poster" about how a double is still a possibility and that plan B is going to involve 2030.  Since that continues to make less and less sense, and not just because this is the IOC these days.

Then take a Xanax, why don’t you, since you’re so obviously anxious. And for the umpteenth time, I’ve never said that a double was a locked-in given. But as usual, thanks for always interpreting what I’ve said into what I haven’t said. However, to use your logic though here, why don’t we just wait for how things will “play out” before making any final calls. Sound familiar. ^_^

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

×