Jump to content

Organizers To Discuss Next Step For Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Bid Amid Collapse Of 2026 Race


Recommended Posts

A committee formed to examine a possible bid to host the 2030 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah is scheduled to meet Tuesday to discuss the “next step” in its bid process. The Executive Committee behind the bid to host the city’s second Games this century is co-chaired by Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Utah Senator […]

The post Organizers To Discuss Next Step For Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Bid Amid Collapse Of 2026 Race appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Uh - huh.    Careful, Sunshine, we don't want just anyone wiping a few strands of your little cerebellum off the floor when you over-do these "thinking" exercises.  Don't over-reach too much.  No one

Oh, I’m sure! Except of course, a certain “sunshine” that roams around here. 

and just like that, Plan B is set into motion.......  Id say there is now a 75-80 percent chance this thing is in SLC for 2026.  

Nor would I be surprised with the double award to Sapporo now for 2030.  Reality is, the current bidding process is not working.  Red-teaming this, the IOC will be in open panic and desperate to maintain the survivability of the winter games.  Theyll get SLC and Sapporo in IMO, and then hopefully use this time in the 2020's to figure out further reform for the process.  What they need is stable markets right now.  Europe does not provide that.  Canada does not provide that.  Only the good ole US of A and Asia provide that currently.  Stick with the safe bets, and move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure there will be very public "private conversations", and I think they will be very smart not to reveal those "private" conversations, but everyone will still have a very strong likely guess on what is going on behind those doors.  Theyll be talking to LA and the IOC to make sure everything that can be tied down will be tied down, because this has not happened before, but it needs to happen.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mountainboarder_530@yahoo. said:

and just like that, Plan B is set into motion.......  Id say there is now a 75-80 percent chance this thing is in SLC for 2026.  

Nor would I be surprised with the double award to Sapporo now for 2030.  Reality is, the current bidding process is not working.  Red-teaming this, the IOC will be in open panic and desperate to maintain the survivability of the winter games.  Theyll get SLC and Sapporo in IMO, and then hopefully use this time in the 2020's to figure out further reform for the process.  What they need is stable markets right now.  Europe does not provide that.  Canada does not provide that.  Only the good ole US of A and Asia provide that currently.  Stick with the safe bets, and move on.

I had called it SLC 2026 & Sapporo 2030 back on Nov. 15th, 2017 in the Calgary 2026 thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it makes sense honestly

Why even bother with a charade of Lillehammer and Barcelona who are just going to turn it down in the end? If the bidding process stays as it is, there isnt going to be another European games in our lifetimes;  thats a fact.  Get your one "for sure....all in" vote in Sapporo and be done with it, and try like hell to figure something out for 2034.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve said that before as well - why continue the bad PR of these bid races if many of these cities are just going to be pulling out time & again. But of course there is someone else around here that would say that it’s still “interest” from some of these cities for 2030. But like I’ve also said before, I’ll finally believe in a Scandinavian, Swiss or other Western European Winter bid, when I actually finally get to see one at the IOC voting table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..........that would actually be really smart and make a lot of sense IMO.  Never thought about it that way, if given the chance a Los Angeles/Mammoth Mountain bid would be a great option for winter of 2026.  Even Tahoe........not a bad shout at all......Id love to see another games back there.  I never felt Denver had a hope and a prayer with the Colorado voters but............Tahoe just might.  Lots of interesting prospects to think about and discuss here.

I know some posters frown about the "what if" game, but you know what, Tahoe and SLC are exponentially more likely to host 2026 than Stockholm or Cortina/Milan, if I am being frank.  

The catch then becomes, if it somehow is agreed upon in Tahoe/LA/Mammoth (any of that combination) does SLC feel cheated if that were to happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Stockholm/Are bid bcuz it’s in Sweden, where the IOC would absolutely love & desperately want a Winter Olympics. They didn’t appear to have the same type of love for Calgary or Milan. And very doubtful they would be so in love with an L.A./Tahoe or Mammoth bid, either. Especially when L.A.’28 is already on the summer agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently this is the Fantasy Land thread.  What's going on here?

If plan B comes to pass and the 2026 Olympics are in the United States, they are going to be in Salt Lake.  The notion of the games being hosted elsewhere is completely delusional.

Yes, the issue of LA and 2028 needs to be addressed, but as the story goes, desperate times call for desperate measures.  This is not about Salt Lake.  They know that.  All they need to do is sit by a phone and get ready to receive a phone call that can only be initiated by the IOC reaching out to the USOC.  The folks in SLC have said before they can get ready pretty quick, but it was the USOC that shut them down for 2026.  So it's up to the USOC to make that decision.

And if you're going to entertain ideas of Tahoe or LA getting in on this.. would LA even want to take on the responsibility of the 2026 Olympics knowing they'd have to get help from Salt Lake?  Is Tahoe organized enough to get in on this with such short notice?  I know we're trying to think outside the box here, but it's all a pipe dream to think the USOC will go with go with anything other than their safest play.  That is, of course, *if* it comes to that.  Less we forget there are still 2 other bids out there, even though they're teetering on the edge as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mountainboarder_530@yahoo. said:

and just like that, Plan B is set into motion.......  Id say there is now a 75-80 percent chance this thing is in SLC for 2026.  

Nor would I be surprised with the double award to Sapporo now for 2030.  Reality is, the current bidding process is not working.  Red-teaming this, the IOC will be in open panic and desperate to maintain the survivability of the winter games.  Theyll get SLC and Sapporo in IMO, and then hopefully use this time in the 2020's to figure out further reform for the process.  What they need is stable markets right now.  Europe does not provide that.  Canada does not provide that.  Only the good ole US of A and Asia provide that currently.  Stick with the safe bets, and move on.

LOL :lol:

The IOC is not going to openly panic because they're still convinced there's nothing to panic about.  The problem isn't with the bid process.  That's not what is scaring cities off.  It's the prospect of getting in bed with the IOC and spending billions of dollars while getting little return on that investment and leaving cities and their citizens in debt.  

Yes, the future of the Winter Olympics is definitely in question right now.  What the IOC needs is a host for 2026.  Adding a host for 2030 doesn't solve any of their issues.  It just kicks the can down the road.  The IOC can't write off Europe as if it's a given that every bid that comes along is going to fall apart (and saying "that's a fact" doesn't make it true).  Give those cities a chance to make their case and if everyone else drops out, there's still Sapporo as a fallback option.  It would send a bad message to other potential bidders - and yes, at least give them an opportunity to offer up a plan - to bypass them and choose Sapporo now.  Because then what for 2034?  4 years later, someone else will be there?  Try like hell to figure something out?  Not a good strategy for an organization that really sucks right now at coming up with long term strategies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that as long as Stockholm and Milan are in the mix the USOC/IOC will not be making any (more) great pronouncements.  

Yep - the Swedish bid looks like a mess - however I would not put it past CONI to cobble something together to "save" the IOC.

Edited by thatsnotmypuppy
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

The IOC can't write off Europe as if it's a given that every bid that comes along is going to fall apart (and saying "that's a fact" doesn't make it true).  Give those cities a chance to make their case and if everyone else drops out, there's still Sapporo as a fallback option. 

IDK what your definition of fact is - but in reality, it means truth. Fact equals true. Giving Sapporo 203O now wouldn’t be writing off Europe, either.  

Give those cities a chance to make their case? That still costs money only for them to call it quits after spending millions on a campaign (& a referendum) that they’ll eventually have to fold anyway. And for what? A failed bid? I’m sure many Calgarians would’ve preferred the city not to even have bothered with 2026, after spending several millions already, if they knew from the get-go that the bid was getting dumped in the end. And the IOC getting (more) bad PR over it, too, doesn’t do them any favors, either.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

It would send a bad message to other potential bidders - and yes, at least give them an opportunity to offer up a plan - to bypass them and choose Sapporo now.  Because then what for 2034?  4 years later, someone else will be there?  Try like hell to figure something out?  Not a good strategy for an organization that really sucks right now at coming up with long term strategies.

 What bad message? The same bad message when 2024 & 2028 were awarded together (but of course you’ll say ‘that made sense’, cuz hindsight is 20/20)? Yet some cities are already lining up ‘interest’ for 2032, including a couple from Europe. If Western Europe still wouldn’t come forward for 2034, it would be for the same reasons that we’re seeing now, & not bcuz the IOC decided to award 2030 to Sapporo (or Salt Lake, for that matter). 

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

I've always thought that SLC has a roadblock with Los Angeles 2028. First, for obvious reason... revenue. But second because California provided the financial guarantee for LA 2028. For that reason I felt that perhaps Tahoe might sneak in there... but this random idea crossed my mind and I thought to myself... What if Los Angeles hosted 2026? Just like that, roadblock would be gone. And we have all discussed the possibility of separating the indoor events from the outdoor events. I'm just sayin. Mammoth Mountain or Lake Tahoe sound pretty good to me. 

Uh - huh.  :rolleyes:  Careful, Sunshine, we don't want just anyone wiping a few strands of your little cerebellum off the floor when you over-do these "thinking" exercises.  Don't over-reach too much.  No one here expects too much from you.  ;)

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FYI said:

IDK what your definition of fact is - but in reality, it means truth. Fact equals true. Giving Sapporo 203O now wouldn’t be writing off Europe, either.  

Scroll up to where a previous poster said "If the bidding process stays as it is, there isnt going to be another European games in our lifetimes;  thats a fact."  No, sports fans, that's what the definition of an *opinion* is.

5 minutes ago, FYI said:

Give those cities a chance to make their case? That still costs money only for them to call it quits after spending millions on a campaign (& a referendum) that they’ll eventually have to fold anyway. And for what? A failed bid? I’m sure many Calgarians would’ve preferred the city not to even have bothered with 2026, after spending several millions already, if they knew from the get-go that the bid was getting dumped in the end. And the IOC getting (more) bad PR over it, too, doesn’t do them any favors, either.

Thank you, Captain Hindsight.  Who knew from the start that the bid wouldn't survive?  Take a look at the Calgary 2026 thread (started in September 2015 when Nenshi himself said that there was a group working on an Olympic bid and that he'd offer to help).  It wasn't until about a year later than Nenshi started to show skepticism, and several months after that when the idea of a plebiscite was thrown around that the bid was being questioned.  Sure, it's easy to say now that it was going to fail, but a big part of that is having gone through steps to discuss funding.  Not to mention the lack of a compelling narrative to justify it to Calgary's citizens.  They weren't scared off by the idea of working with the IOC or fears that past Olympic budgets would come to haunt them.  They simply couldn't come up with a case to make.  And not for nothing, but considering they would have had to use Vancouver, perhaps there were logistical concerns where some Calgarians saw that and decided it was a bad idea and that's why they were against it.  Or it could have been poor management and organization.  Either way, couldn't have known it was going to go down this way at the start and that they never should have bothered in the first place, especially if they had known the only 2 other cities to make it this far might drop out themselves.

38 minutes ago, FYI said:

 What bad message? The same bad message when 2024 & 2028 were awarded together (but of course you’ll say ‘that made sense’, cuz hindsight is 20/20)? Yet some cities are already lining up ‘interest’ for 2032, including a couple from Europe. If Western Europe still wouldn’t come forward for 2034, it would be for the same reasons that we’re seeing now, & not bcuz the IOC decided to award 2030 to Sapporo (or Salt Lake, for that matter). 

Let's take a little trip in the wayback machine, shall we.  This is from July 2017, right after the IOC had indicated they would be voting on the 2024/2028 double.  I'll include the previous post for cost.

On 7/21/2017 at 11:13 AM, stryker said:

As far as the double awarding concept goes, it worked out well for 2024 and 2028 because the IOC had two quality candidates. I'm sure if the U.S. elected to sit out 2024 after the Boston bid crumbled, we wouldn't be having this conversation. As for 2026 and 2030, I don't know if the IOC would have two quality candidates with the Calgary bid seemingly dead and referendums hanging over Sion and Innsbruck. Salt Lake has discussed a possible 2030 bid and I have to wonder if things go south in the 2026 race if the IOC would encourage the USOC to put forth Salt Lake a bit earlier (2026)

On 7/21/2017 at 11:56 AM, FYI said:

Of course that goes without saying. There has to be two solid bids on the table for a 2026/2030 combo deal in the first place. And if the IOC can get them, then they'll do what they need to do in order to keep them (see 2024/2028).

Not sure if you noticed, but the IOC doesn't have 2 solid bids on the table.  They have 0.  Salt Lake and Sapporo are not in the running for 2026 and who knows what's going to happen if the IOC indeed has to pull the trigger on a plan B they aren't prepared for.  This is not the 2024 bid where the IOC had 2 of the most solid bids they could have possibly asked for sitting in front of them at that moment in time and decided to reward both of them.  How does the IOC go about rewarding a city like Sapporo that at least for now has said "no thanks" to them when they're no longer a part of this process?  Again, they might have to find a city for 2026, but that's going to be difficult enough without trying to figure out 2030 at the same time.

I know you'll tell me this is a Quaker-ism, but we don't know what 2032 and 2034 will look like.  But you can't argue both sides where cities might not come forward for 2034, but acknowledge interest in 2032 (where cities could just as easily drop out).  When the IOC came out and basically said "who's interested in either 2026 or 2030," they did it to gauge interest from cities like Salt Lake and Sapporo who they probably knew were more interested in 2030 and would only be a fallback option for 2026.  Indeed, we could be headed in that direction, but this is not playing out like 2024 (how that cycle played out is why it made sense for a double.. yes, that's a hindsight argument, but it's not going to be the same here).  They're basically going to have to pluck a city from outside the bid process to get them in and will likely have to offer serious concessions to make that happen.  Why do that twice over when there's no need to?

Plus, if we're talking about cities getting a bad message from the IOC.. 2028 was never a part of the discussions during the 2024 bid process.  2030 has been thrown around a lot in relation to 2026, so to declare those Olympics no longer available to potential bidders is a much worse message than to take 2028 from any would be bidders who hadn't yet declared their intentions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What, if anything, could make the winter games appealing again to countries where voters need to accept bids - is the notion of the winter games itself now damaged goods? Whisper it, but is the only chance of a winter multi-sport event getting held in those countries in future if it’s held outside the IOC umbrella, &/or is the only way for the IOC to save itself to focus on the summer games? In short...is there a long-term future, or have the Winter Olympics run their course?

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

What, if anything, could make the winter games appealing again to countries where voters need to accept bids - is the notion of the winter games itself now damaged goods? Whisper it, but is the only chance of a winter multi-sport event getting held in those countries in future if it’s held outside the IOC umbrella, &/or is the only way for the IOC to save itself to focus on the summer games? In short...is there a long-term future, or have the Winter Olympics run their course?

The Winter Games still have a long term future if the IOC follow this route if the USOC LA 2028 is a pain in the ass for 2026 then the IOC Plan B can go to Almaty Kazakhstan in 2026 my route will be Plan B 2026 

2026 Almaty Kazakhstan 

2030 USA

2034 Sapporo Japan 

2038 Santiago Chile 

2042 New Zealand 

2046 North America 

2050 Harbin China

Europe is going through massive stress right now that the Olympic Games is the last thing on many people's mind maybe in generation time now Europe may have the Olympic Spirit in them the current generation of European politicians are very weak, I would write Europe off for at least a generation.

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

What, if anything, could make the winter games appealing again to countries where voters need to accept bids - is the notion of the winter games itself now damaged goods? Whisper it, but is the only chance of a winter multi-sport event getting held in those countries in future if it’s held outside the IOC umbrella, &/or is the only way for the IOC to save itself to focus on the summer games? In short...is there a long-term future, or have the Winter Olympics run their course?

A couple of thoughts here. If the USOC does decide to bail out the IOC in 2026 it will be with Salt Lake City. Only thing the bid would need would be a secondary ice hockey arena (they could go to Denver or Boise for that) and an Olympic Village (new housing at Utah or BYU?). Even so, it's not going to be fixed with a simple phone call. Lots of strings are going to have to be pulled for it to work for reasons already mentioned like competing with Los Angeles for sponsorship money. While we're speculating here, let me throw another wrench into the mix. What if no amount of convincing can get the USOC to put forth Salt Lake in 2026? Where does the IOC go to then? It won't be Almaty. Dare I say it, but . . . could Vladimir Putin be eyeing this thing from afar and thinking Sochi 2026? I wouldn't put it past him to do it. I could see talks between the IOC and USOC collapsing and Putin coming out of the woodwork saying Sochi has everything ready. Sure it was an expensive venture the first time around, but everything's in place for a low cost Olympics. The IOC might not have any choice.

In terms of the future of the WOGs, unless there are major changes then there will not be a WOGs in western Europe for the foreseeable future. And it's more than just the bidding process. The IOC has to be prepared for nation-wide hosting such as in Switzerland or Austria. To take it even further, the IOC needs to encourage bids from nations that don't necessarily have all the winter sports venues, and I'm talking beyond using another country's sliding track or ski jump. I'm referring to something along the lines of London hosting the ice events with snowboarding and freestyle skiing in Scotland and alpine, sliding, and nordic combined in Lillehammer. Or Helsinki with Are and Latvia (Helsinki had something similar in the 2006 race when they proposed the alpine events being held at Lillehammer). I'd even say Amsterdam with skiing in Switzerland or Germany. If the WOGs are spread enough using existing venues then perhaps the need for a costly Olympic Village is eliminated. And the IOC has to be willing to accept smaller capacity venues (eliminate the required two 10,000 plus seat arenas).

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

Scroll up to where a previous poster said "If the bidding process stays as it is, there isnt going to be another European games in our lifetimes;  thats a fact."  No, sports fans, that's what the definition of an *opinion* is.

Yeah, I saw that. Didn’t seem that’s what you were directly referring to, though, since that’s not what you really quoted, or even had in bold, in that particular post of yours. But I agree that saying “in our lifetime” (as far as Europe is concerned) is a big stretch. But for the forseeable future it doesn’t really look good, especially when you look at the ‘fact’ how many European bids have totally bailed ship in recent bid cycles.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Who knew from the start that the bid wouldn't survive?  Either way, couldn't have known it was going to go down this way at the start and that they never should have bothered in the first place, especially if they had known the only 2 other cities to make it this far might drop out themselves..

Fair enough about Calgary 2026. But do you really think that they’d come back for 2030 after this decable that became their 2026 bid (it’s almost akin to Boston 2024)? Quite unlikely. Plus, the intial sentiment here was about Europe (when you were referring to the other poster). Which, at this point in time, we have more of a definitive basis that anything that they start over there in the forseeable future, is quite likely to go down the tubes cuz the political & citizenry will is just not over there right now. 

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Let's take a little trip in the wayback machine, shall we.  This is from July 2017, right after the IOC had indicated they would be voting on the 2024/2028 double.  I'll include the previous post for cost.

Not sure if you noticed, but the IOC doesn't have 2 solid bids on the table.  They have 0.  Salt Lake and Sapporo are not in the running for 2026 and who knows what's going to happen if the IOC indeed has to pull the trigger on a plan B they aren't prepared for. .

And thank you Captain Time Travel! :lol: No kidding that Salt Lake & Sapporro are not in the 2026 running. But it’s starting to look like it could become a good possibility that the former could very well wind up with 2026.

And you just said it yourself. Who know’s what actions the IOC will take if they need to execute (the infamous) “plan B” that they aren’t prepared for. We’ve seen first-hand now that the IOC can (& will) bend from protocol if it means to stabilize the organization from further turmoil.

You also can’t argue both sides of the coin saying that something is not possible, & then saying we don’t know what the IOC will do when push comes to shove. As you said yourself just last night (& has been mentioned on these boards before) - “desperate times call for desperate measures”.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I know you'll tell me this is a Quaker-ism, but we don't know what 2032 and 2034 will look like.  But you can't argue both sides where cities might not come forward for 2034, but acknowledge interest in 2032 (where cities could just as easily drop out).  When the IOC came out and basically said "who's interested in either 2026 or 2030," they did it to gauge interest from cities like Salt Lake and Sapporo who they probably knew were more interested in 2030 and would only be a fallback option for 2026.  Indeed, we could be headed in that direction, but this is not playing out like 2024 (how that cycle played out is why it made sense for a double.. yes, that's a hindsight argument, but it's not going to be the same here).  They're basically going to have to pluck a city from outside the bid process to get them in and will likely have to offer serious concessions to make that happen.  Why do that twice over when there's no need to?

You say there’s no need, but what purpose does it serve to have a fourth bad bid process in a row? Where it makes for even more negative PR for the IOC?

For all the rhetoric that goes around that Agenda 2020 is still in it’s infancy to see how it will actually work & that L.A. is going to “save the Olympics” once again & bidding cities will then come-a-flockin’, we still won’t know any of that until all of that, or at least some of it, begins to “play out”. So in the meantime, the IOC looks like they need to stablize the winter side of things like they did the summer, until things start to turn around. Unless of course, they’re glutton for punishment.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Plus, if we're talking about cities getting a bad message from the IOC.. 2028 was never a part of the discussions during the 2024 bid process.  2030 has been thrown around a lot in relation to 2026, so to declare those Olympics no longer available to potential bidders is a much worse message than to take 2028 from any would be bidders who hadn't yet declared their intentions.

The only people really in tune to that are mainly on these forums. The average joe out there in city A, B or C won’t put too much credence into that ‘bad message’ from the IOC.

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

While we're speculating here, let me throw another wrench into the mix. What if no amount of convincing can get the USOC to put forth Salt Lake in 2026? Where does the IOC go to then? It won't be Almaty. 

Tell that to our infamous GB’s dartboard game boy, Olympianfan. “That’ll drive him nuts”. :lol:

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

I'm referring to something along the lines of London hosting the ice events with snowboarding and freestyle skiing in Scotland and alpine, sliding, and nordic combined in Lillehammer. Or Helsinki with Are and Latvia.

These two possibilites sound very plausible. The thing is, Sweden is offering something very similiar to the latter now, & they still won’t bite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, yoshi said:

What, if anything, could make the winter games appealing again to countries where voters need to accept bids - is the notion of the winter games itself now damaged goods? Whisper it, but is the only chance of a winter multi-sport event getting held in those countries in future if it’s held outside the IOC umbrella, &/or is the only way for the IOC to save itself to focus on the summer games? In short...is there a long-term future, or have the Winter Olympics run their course?

I think there is a future, but it may be returning to past host sites rather than looking for new ones.  Calgary and the Italian bid are both relying on past Olympic infrastructure.  Salt Lake, Sapporo, and Lillehammer are in the same boat.  Maybe they'll get a Sochi or a Beijing where they're willing to spend the money to build all sorts of facilities from the ground up, but I think those are going to be few and far between.  The IOC can't simply give up on the Winter Olympics.  There's too much money invested for an organization like theirs to throw in the towel and put everything on the Summer Olympics.

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

A couple of thoughts here. If the USOC does decide to bail out the IOC in 2026 it will be with Salt Lake City. Only thing the bid would need would be a secondary ice hockey arena (they could go to Denver or Boise for that) and an Olympic Village (new housing at Utah or BYU?). Even so, it's not going to be fixed with a simple phone call. Lots of strings are going to have to be pulled for it to work for reasons already mentioned like competing with Los Angeles for sponsorship money. While we're speculating here, let me throw another wrench into the mix. What if no amount of convincing can get the USOC to put forth Salt Lake in 2026? Where does the IOC go to then? It won't be Almaty. Dare I say it, but . . . could Vladimir Putin be eyeing this thing from afar and thinking Sochi 2026? I wouldn't put it past him to do it. I could see talks between the IOC and USOC collapsing and Putin coming out of the woodwork saying Sochi has everything ready. Sure it was an expensive venture the first time around, but everything's in place for a low cost Olympics. The IOC might not have any choice.

In terms of the future of the WOGs, unless there are major changes then there will not be a WOGs in western Europe for the foreseeable future. And it's more than just the bidding process. The IOC has to be prepared for nation-wide hosting such as in Switzerland or Austria. To take it even further, the IOC needs to encourage bids from nations that don't necessarily have all the winter sports venues, and I'm talking beyond using another country's sliding track or ski jump. I'm referring to something along the lines of London hosting the ice events with snowboarding and freestyle skiing in Scotland and alpine, sliding, and nordic combined in Lillehammer. Or Helsinki with Are and Latvia (Helsinki had something similar in the 2006 race when they proposed the alpine events being held at Lillehammer). I'd even say Amsterdam with skiing in Switzerland or Germany. If the WOGs are spread enough using existing venues then perhaps the need for a costly Olympic Village is eliminated. And the IOC has to be willing to accept smaller capacity venues (eliminate the required two 10,000 plus seat arenas).

From the standpoint of Salt Lake, they're already projecting ahead to 2030, so this is on their radar.  Easier said than done for them to solve issues of venues and infrastructure, let alone what it means for LA.  Although the latter is probably more an issue for the USOC to deal with.

As for your second point.. buyer beware.  Look at what happened with Calgary where they were proposing a bid to include more of the country.  How'd that work out.  For all the talk about changing the model of hosting a Winter Olympics to allow more than a localized region to host, that doesn't work unless a city or a country offers up that plan.  Italy is doing that and look at how messy that has become.  The IOC is probably not going to break up the Winter Olympics to where they're asking multiple countries to take part.  So unless someone offers that to them, it's not going to happen.

I agree with you that the IOC needs to be willing to settle for less than they're used to asking for.  But they still need to be offered that in the first place.  Less they have to resort to what might happen with 2026 when they're begging cities to join the fray after they declined to apply in the first place.

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...