Jump to content

Budapest 2032?


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Tejas57 said:

no. they lowered the bar to allow anyone to host. its called the new norm...

I was responding to a post that said . . .

Quote

Sorry to say but all four of you have literally been asleep for 3 years while Brisbane has been heading to the finish line.  Yes that does sound arrogant and that was not intended.  But it is true.

. . .

.... and don’t complain now because you’re so far behind the front-runner.  Don’t blame the IOC, or John Coates, the tooth fairy or your Mum.

The other potential host cities are not behind Brisbane in venues or tourism infrastructure. They are behind Brisbane in not being fast tracked by the Australian vice president of the IOC. That is why they are complaining about not being given the chance to put forward a bid.

I certainly hope that the IOC reduces the burden on host cities moving forward. The question is how those host cities are selected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Nacre said:

The other potential host cities are not behind Brisbane in venues or tourism infrastructure. They are behind Brisbane in not being fast tracked by the Australian vice president of the IOC. That is why they are complaining about not being given the chance to put forward a bid.

Precisely!! But any mention of that REALITY on the subject, gets met with a litany of vitriol, or ridiculous accusations of “moaning”, & throwing around the IOC’s own findings, as if that means anything when they have their mind already made up on something, or in this case a Host City (see Beijing 2008’s & Rio 2016’s Final Evaluation Report cards), from the Brisbane bandwagon. Reminds me of all the L.A. 2024 cheerleaders from a few years ago.

So if “the ‘new rules’ benefit everyone”, how does that exactly work out then, when only ONE of those “everyone” gets shoved to the front of the line. That sounds like the total opposite to me.

Sure, Jakarta, Doha & Delhi sound like non-starters. But Budapest & Rhine-Ruhr could’ve made a play, especially if the IOC is indeed trying to water down the Olympics so Brisbane (& supposedly other cities/regions of similar size) can host the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason the IOC has pre-empted the competitive bidding process for '32  is because it wants to swing the Games (at least the summer) out of the Europe-Asia-No. America cycle.  Since 2000, it's gone to Europe 3x (Athens, London, Paris), Asia 2x (Beijing, Tokyo), and 1x each for South and North America.  Obviously, Africa isn't ready yet, and the WOGs just stay in the northern hemisphere.  I also think NBC wants to know where 2032 will be held since that will be the last SOG in their current deal.  It might influence the US broadcast rates for the next few cycles.  So, after 7 Games, it's time to take it back to a safe and solid host in 2032.    

But the IOC better have a back-up in case Brisbane falters.  Which of the other cities would want to be a possible #2?  (Or would it be LA again?) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nacre said:

I was responding to a post that said . . .

The other potential host cities are not behind Brisbane in venues or tourism infrastructure. They are behind Brisbane in not being fast tracked by the Australian vice president of the IOC. That is why they are complaining about not being given the chance to put forward a bid.

I certainly hope that the IOC reduces the burden on host cities moving forward. The question is how those host cities are selected.

The IOC, at this point in time, gone for  Brisbane/SEQ who have  all their ducks lined up. 

The other Bidders do not at this point in time have all the ducks lined up.

Hungary has no ducks at all.  They have barely formed a committee to study the feasibility of a Bid. Too slow.

Rhine-Ruhr is missing the two biggest things:   it does not have government nor support of its own government nor its citizens.

Venues and infrastructure are no good if your own government and people don’t support you.

Qatar are dreaming and deluded to think that the IOC will ever allow a Summer Games to be held in the northern hemisphere winter (December), otherwise too hot. I don’t know what their game really is here.

Stop with this lame duck victim rubbish  about the other bidders not having a chance. 

This was one of the easiest decisions the IOC has had to make.

At this point in time, 3 years after the new rules started, the IOC in uncertain times has gone for Brisbane/SEQ.

It’s not even close.

The ducks Brisbane/SEQ has lined up now are:

- Full tri-level government support, national, state and local governments 

- Majority citizens support

- Minimal new venues required, 85% exist from 2018 CW Games

- Legacy requirements met

- Consultation with International Federations

- Using mostly existing venues & some  temporary venues across

- Ample accommodation

- Games being held in July/August

- Ample Tourism Infrastructure

- Airport expansions completed, new runways, new cruise ship terminal completed, new metro line, Cross River Rail, Gold Coast Freeway duplication, Light Rail expansions, Bruce Highway upgrade to Sunshine Coast

 - Very experienced in running global events safely

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2021 at 5:58 PM, AustralianFan said:

It’s no secret.  The media have been openly reporting Brisbane’s incredible progress all that time.  Check out the Brisbane 2032 thread,  those media reports, IOC visits, full government support, business support, venue reports, feasibility reports, value proposition reports, athletes support and citizens support, etc have been reported and logged right there.

here is a youtube video from channel 10 news in 2008 talking about bidding for 2024. 

 

here is another from 2017.

Another from 2019.

 

Brisbane bidding for the games was no secret  - it's been in the news and on the TV. if anyone was suprised by the bid, they were not paying attention given  Bach has met with the Premier multiple times, including in brisbane 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FYI said:

Precisely!! But any mention of that REALITY on the subject, gets met with a litany of vitriol, or ridiculous accusations of “moaning”, & throwing around the IOC’s own findings, as if that means anything when they have their mind already made up on something, or in this case a Host City (see Beijing 2008’s & Rio 2016’s Final Evaluation Report cards), from the Brisbane bandwagon. Reminds me of all the L.A. 2024 cheerleaders from a few years ago.

So if “the ‘new rules’ benefit everyone”, how does that exactly work out then, when only ONE of those “everyone” gets shoved to the front of the line. That sounds like the total opposite to me.

Sure, Jakarta, Doha & Delhi sound like non-starters. But Budapest & Rhine-Ruhr could’ve made a play, especially if the IOC is indeed trying to water down the Olympics so Brisbane (& supposedly other cities/regions of similar size) can host the Games.

It does feel like things have swung too far in the other direction doesn't it? If the previous process was too brutal, left too much bad feeling amongst losers and populations who watched live on big screens in city squares as their bids failed, this process seems to be too secretive, and we're still getting cities complaining which is what Bach wanted to avoid! So even on its own terms it's not quite worked. And yes, it's open to accusations of cronyism even if none has taken place. I know that annoys some people, but that's why transparency of process is important.

I can see what the intent is, but I wonder if they've got the balance right. There don't seem to be any set milestones, set timelines or anything anymore. Just out of the blue announcements.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rob. said:

It does feel like things have swung too far in the other direction doesn't it? If the previous process was too brutal, left too much bad feeling amongst losers and populations who watched live on big screens in city squares as their bids failed, this process seems to be too secretive, and we're still getting cities complaining which is what Bach wanted to avoid! So even on its own terms it's not quite worked. And yes, it's open to accusations of cronyism even if none has taken place. I know that annoys some people, but that's why transparency of process is important.

I can see what the intent is, but I wonder if they've got the balance right. There don't seem to be any set milestones, set timelines or anything anymore. Just out of the blue announcements.

Don’t forget, this is not happening in a vacuum, the world and the Olympic movement are in the grip of a once in a hundred years pandemic.

It shouldn’t be surprising then that the golden opportunity presented by the advanced state of Brisbane/SEQ’s Bid, conceived in 2015,  has moved the majority of the IOC members in a pandemic, and midst the Tokyo troubles, to lock them in for the 2032 Games.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2032 wouldn't normally be decided until 2025 so I'm not entirely sure I buy that. I suppose you could argue there might be a severe shortage of bids with economies having been squeezed and the IOC is tying down a host while it can. But that doesn't answer the questions coming from those countries who think they've been a bit shafted.

The IOC are never going to keep everyone happy all of the time whatever they do, in a sense they're in a no win situation. But I still feel after 2032 is awarded there should be a reevaluation as to whether the 'new norm' is as transparent as it needs to be and whether it's meeting the aims it set for itself.

Brisbane, like any bid, can only work within the framework set out for it. Just to clear it's the framework, not how Brisbane have worked within it, that people have questions about.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tejas57 said:

here is a youtube video from channel 10 news in 2008 talking about bidding for 2024. 

 

here is another from 2017.

Another from 2019.

 

Brisbane bidding for the games was no secret  - it's been in the news and on the TV. if anyone was suprised by the bid, they were not paying attention given  Bach has met with the Premier multiple times, including in brisbane 

I don‘t think anyone was surprised about Brisbane bidding, they were surprised that the IOC acted in the way they did.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rob. said:

It does feel like things have swung too far in the other direction doesn't it? If the previous process was too brutal, left too much bad feeling amongst losers and populations who watched live on big screens in city squares as their bids failed, this process seems to be too secretive, and we're still getting cities complaining which is what Bach wanted to avoid! 

Exactly. It seems like the “too many losers” from the old process has stuck around, but in a different “new norm” secret fashion.

5 hours ago, Rob. said:

So even on its own terms it's not quite worked. And yes, it's open to accusations of cronyism even if none has taken place. I know that annoys some people, but that's why transparency of process is important.

The only ones annoyed by it are the Brisby’s on these boards, & perhaps some on the IOC E.B. who don’t like their actions or intentions questioned or scrutinized. Who I’d like to hear from on the matter, are from some of the general membership, especially like Dick Pound & Prince Albert. They’re usually pretty tell-it-like-it-is. 
 

5 hours ago, Rob. said:

I can see what the intent is, but I wonder if they've got the balance right. There don't seem to be any set milestones, set timelines or anything anymore. Just out of the blue announcements.

Yep - ironically, it’s like a free-for-all now in a sense. But only for the ‘preferred candidate’ in this case.

3 hours ago, Rob. said:

2032 wouldn't normally be decided until 2025 so I'm not entirely sure I buy that. I suppose you could argue there might be a severe shortage of bids with economies having been squeezed and the IOC is tying down a host while it can. But that doesn't answer the questions coming from those countries who think they've been a bit shafted.

Yeah, me neither. I think the pandemic & the Tokyo postponement should’ve been major reasons to not rush into this, rather than the other way around.

I mean, don’t they have their hands full as it is trying so hard that Tokyo 2020ne doesn’t get cancelled? Yet there they were, trying to juggle as much as they can, in behind-closed-door meetings to pick a future host so far in advance? To say nothing of the fact (which I mentioned in another thread), that if the IOC should be looking to secure future hosts at this time, it should be for 2030, since that obviously comes before 2032 does anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I think the reason the IOC has pre-empted the competitive bidding process for '32  is because it wants to swing the Games (at least the summer) out of the Europe-Asia-No. America cycle.  Since 2000, it's gone to Europe 3x (Athens, London, Paris), Asia 2x (Beijing, Tokyo), and 1x each for South and North America.  Obviously, Africa isn't ready yet, and the WOGs just stay in the northern hemisphere.  I also think NBC wants to know where 2032 will be held since that will be the last SOG in their current deal.  It might influence the US broadcast rates for the next few cycles.  So, after 7 Games, it's time to take it back to a safe and solid host in 2032.    

But the IOC better have a back-up in case Brisbane falters.  Which of the other cities would want to be a possible #2?  (Or would it be LA again?) 

That’s a pretty basic assessment. You’re comparing continents to one country? Germany last hosted in 1972, & Hungary has never hosted. Yet Australia, as a country, just last hosted in 2000. I still remember those Games very vividly. Somewhere new, or at the very least, somewhere that hasn’t had it in a long time would’ve been ideal. But the IOC was more interested in just rushing into this.  

Others outside of the U.S. don’t like the fact & ‘moan’ that the U.S. hosts a lot, seemingly because it’s only one of two (maybe three) countries in North America that could ‘safely’ host the Olympics. So for a country that has only a fraction of the population that the U.S. does, 2032 is definitely still too soon then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, FYI said:

That’s a pretty basic assessment. You’re comparing continents to one country? Germany last hosted in 1972, & Hungary has never hosted. Yet Australia, as a country, just last hosted in 2000. I still remember those Games very vividly. Somewhere new, or at the very least, somewhere that hasn’t had it in a long time would’ve been ideal. But the IOC was more interested in just rushing into this.  

Others outside of the U.S. don’t like the fact & ‘moan’ that the U.S. hosts a lot, seemingly because it’s only one of two (maybe three) countries in North America that could ‘safely’ host the Olympics. So for a country that has only a fraction of the population that the U.S. does, 2032 is definitely still too soon then.

Bottom line, I think the Australia-Brisbane bid -- and locking it in soon -- exposes the IOC probably the least.  I have this sinking feeling that Lloyds (of London) has advised the IOC to forget this foolish business of grand bidding contests and lock in the safe "bids" while they can, otherwise, Lloyds will double or triple the IOC's premiums.  And as for Bach and the present crew, they will do that, and let the next generation of IOC leaders deal with any headaches as those Games actually approach -- besides which the next generation of IOC leaders will he facing the same situation anyway. 

But this is all about $$$ -- and because the IOC has been--on top of just finishing that $200 million new headquarters--hit hard by the $950 mil payoff to LA; probably help out Tokyo with another $1.5 billion, and who knows what else.  What refunds there will be for lower TV ratings for Tokyo 2020 and Beijing?  The IOC's reserve coffers are dwindling pretty fast.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob. said:

2032 wouldn't normally be decided until 2025 so I'm not entirely sure I buy that. I suppose you could argue there might be a severe shortage of bids with economies having been squeezed and the IOC is tying down a host while it can. But that doesn't answer the questions coming from those countries who think they've been a bit shafted.

The IOC are never going to keep everyone happy all of the time whatever they do, in a sense they're in a no win situation. But I still feel after 2032 is awarded there should be a reevaluation as to whether the 'new norm' is as transparent as it needs to be and whether it's meeting the aims it set for itself.

Brisbane, like any bid, can only work within the framework set out for it. Just to clear it's the framework, not how Brisbane have worked within it, that people have questions about.

 

“2032 wouldn’t normally be decided until 2025”

The traditional 7 year timeline is gone precisely because this is the Agenda 2020 + New Norm bidding changes. 

I think when there a big changes made to the way things have been done, unfortunately it will take some hard lessons for some to understand those changes.

The Agenda 2020 and New Norm are not just catch phrases or slogans we read about or a bit of trimming at the edges.

They are the biggest changes to Bidding in the history of the Olympic movement.

2014:  Agenda 2020 bidding changes announced

2017:  New Norm bidding changes announced

I could be wrong but my understanding is that that Brisbane/SEQ’s  imminent awarding of the 2032 Games are not the first to awarded under the Agenda 2020 bidding changes.

- Beijing 2022, as controversial as it is, has major venue clusters spread half way far across the country.  The Zhangjiakhou venue cluster is 2.5 hours driving from Beijing.  Zhangjiakhou does have an airport but not everyone is going to fly there.  

- Los Angeles 2028 being awarded their 11 years out at the same Session as Paris 2024, was also a call the IOC made under Agenda 2020 reforms.

- Paris 2024 uses mostly existing venues with some temporary venues. One competition, surfing, is being conducted on the other side of the globe in Tahiti.

- Milano-Cortina 2026, similar to Beijing 2022, with venues spread far and wide across several regions in Northern Italy.

- Brisbane/SEQ 2032 will be the first, I understand, to be awarded under the New Norm bidding changes.

I agree that after Brisbane/SEQ’s vote, expected in July, that the IOC should conduct post-implementation review of the New Norm bidding rule changes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if, had let's say...Jakarta...got the nod so early on by the IOC based on the "Agenda 2020 + New Norm", you would have defended all those changes all so vigorously as well or if you had posted endless rants as to why the IOC played unfairly.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

I'm wondering if, had let's say...Jakarta...got the nod so early on by the IOC based on the "Agenda 2020 + New Norm", you would have defended all those changes all so vigorously as well or if you had posted endless rants as to why the IOC played unfairly.

 

Or better yet, what if the current Chinese IOC VP got Chongquing/Chendu (was it?), annointed ‘preferred candidate’ status under the “new norms of Agenda 2020”? I bet this thread would be screaming CORRUPTION at the top of their lungs! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

46 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yep - ironically, it’s like a free-for-all now in a sense. But only for the ‘preferred candidate’ in this case.

Yes, the New Norm biddng changes have opened up more bidding possibilities for sure.  One of the biggest changes is that the traditional 7 year timeline has been thrown out.

Also the IOC now has no hesitation to lock in a Games to an excellent candidate who has full government and citizen support plus met all the other requirements. -   because who knows how long government and citizen support will last?  Lock them, sign ‘em up and that’s 2032 done.

2030 bidders are no way anywhere near ready.   That’s why a preferred bidder with targeted dialogue for 2030 will eventually emerge after the 2032 host has been awarded.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

I'm wondering if, had let's say...Jakarta...got the nod so early on by the IOC based on the "Agenda 2020 + New Norm", you would have defended all those changes all so vigorously as well or if you had posted endless rants as to why the IOC played unfairly.

 

Absolutely.  The rules are clear, announced to the world.  If Brisbane or any other candidate have not met the IOC’s new bidding requirements, then there’s no reason to complain.  Just do better next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

Or better yet, what if the current Chinese IOC VP got Chongquing/Chendu (was it?), annointed ‘preferred candidate’ status under the “new norms of Agenda 2020”? I bet this thread would be screaming CORRUPTION at the top of their lungs! 

The rules are clear, announced to the world.  If Brisbane, or any other candidate, do not met the IOC’s new bidding requirements, then there’s no reason to complain.  Just do better next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Also the IOC now has no hesitation to lock in a Games to an excellent candidate who has full government and citizen support plus met all the other requirements. -   because who knows how long government and citizen support will last?  Lock them, sign ‘em up and that’s 2032 done.

That doesn’t mean that things still can’t go askew. Just ask Denver 1976 that. If the Olympic bill starts to skyrocket, people will take notice & start to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

- Beijing 2022, as controversial as it is, has major venue clusters spread half way far across the country.  The Zhangjiakhou venue cluster is 2.5 hours driving from Beijing.  Zhangjiakhou does have an airport but not everyone is going to fly there.  

Beijing 2022 was not awarded under the “new norm”.  The bidding campaign for those Games was already well under way before Agenda 2020 was even announced. Zhangjiakou is also going to use artificial snow, since it hardly snows there. That sounds very environmentally friendly, doesn’t it. Beijing was also ultimately chosen cause all the European bidders withdrew, & not because of Agenda 2020. Had that not been the case, Beijing would not be hosting next winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FYI said:

Lol, is the IOC paying you to come on here & sound like a broken record? 

Bidders and Bloggers

The IOC sets the bidding rules by which all interested cities, regions, countries  Bidders have to abide by if they want to land an Olympics.

So apologies to anyone here if I sound like a broken record repeating the IOC’s new rules here.

When there are huge changes to the Rules, like right now, not everyone will grasp the changes quickly.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...