Jump to content
GBModerator

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, RuFF said:

This is exactly why LA and California will not be ok with SLC 2026. The premium for SLC when considering the sponsorship LA is looking for is increasingly quantifiable. But this is why SLC for 2026 will be cost prohibitive. And it’s not the USOC’s problem as much as it’s the IOC. Quite the contrary, the IOC is a principle on its agreement with LA, and that agreement is bilateral. LA is held to a high standard of upholding it, and so is the IOC. 

The only way I see the US hosting 2026 is if these specific parties are directly benefitting from that choice. Los Angeles, California, and Casey Wasserman, literally in that order. 

Again though, the only reason we're talking about this is that the IOC could be in the most desperate of desperate situations.  This is not something they want to deal with.  The USOC won't want to deal with it.  LA and California won't want to deal with it.  The folks running the World Cup won't want to deal with it.  And Salt Lake would probably rather wait until 2030.

But with all that said.. what is the IOC to do if all 3 bids fall by the wayside?  They almost have no choice but to call up the USOC and ask for a hail mary for them to make Salt Lake available.  The solution is not going to be Tahoe.  They don't have the facilities they need.  And to offer up a plan where Salt Lake gives them the outdoor venues, then why not hold the whole thing there rather than to use venues in LA or Sacramento or Las Vegas just to placate LA?

No one wants to deal with this possibility.  But they may not have much choice except to at least consider that they may need it, even if that means making concessions to Los Angeles, to California, and to Wasserman (and it's not about doing this for their benefit so much as them not being harmed by whatever arrangement they come up with)

Share this post


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

Back when the agreement was rewritten Los Angeles built oversight into the agreement to guard against financial risk. It also wrote in their participation on the board of the OCOG. But basically they required their right to sit at the table in order to sign the host city agreement. At the time the IOC even encouraged Los Angeles to do it. 

So that begs the question. Calgary isn’t up for sharing, Italy isn’t up for sharing. At this point it’s only Paris that’s made for sharing, but faced with sharing the games but not the risk and their made for sharing would come to an end. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-4777814/amp/LA-city-oversight-2028-Olympics-agreement.html

Again, forgot for a second the thoughts of what is or isn't built into LA's agreement and Paris' agreement to host the Olympic Games.  Imagine that you're a member of the IOC faced with trying to find a host for the 2026 Olympics with the 3 cities you had invited to bid all having dropped out (and Erzurum basically scorched Earth at that point since you rejected them)..

pop-quiz-hot-shot.jpg

How does the IOC solve that problem?  Because they may not have a lot of options left but to impose upon the USOC and beg them for help, knowing the issues it will cause with LA.

Share this post


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

For me it’s simple, make LA, California, and Wasserman benefactors. That implies IF the games come to the US in 2026, they’re going to California. 

Then you're delusional.  I know you want to think the world revolves around LA and California, but you're dreaming if you think that's the solution to this dilemma.  It's not going to happen.  For the rest of us.. if the 2026 Olympics are held in the United States, they will be in Salt Lake City, not California.  If you thought this through without your own personal bias, you'd realize that's the case.

Whatever.  Moving on

Share this post


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

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.

You're right, it doesn't look good.  And yes, the list of countries that have rejected the Olympics is growing.  Still though, all it takes is 1 willing participant to stick with it.  Case in point on the Summer side where dropouts have included Italy (twice), Germany, and Hungary.  Plus whatever we want to make of Madrid's efforts.  Yet they got Paris in a time where numerous European cities dropped out.  If they get 1 city on the Winter side, then they can breathe just a little easier.  Who knows when or where that will come from and yes, it may not happen for the next couple of cycles, especially depending on what happens with the remaining 2026 bidders.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

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. 

That's the thing though.. all of the dropouts were coming from Europe, primarily in cities and countries that would still need to build infrastructure.  Wouldn't have thought that originally with Calgary, yet here we are.  No shot we're seeing them again for a long long time when it comes to Olympic bidding.  You know I'm not big on comparisons, but you're right that there are similarities to Boston where it seems like this all was mis-managed and that's what turned citizens off from the idea.  Had Calgary's efforts been managed better, maybe there would be a different outcome.  This is definitely 1 of those scenarios where the organizers didn't have their act together and couldn't sell it to their citizens.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

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”.

Have I ever said it's not possible?  No.  It's not out of the realm of possible, but every time I ask how you think we would get from where we are now to that point, it's some sort of non-answer.  If push comes to shove, I could easily see the IOC engaging with both Salt Lake and Sapporo out of desperation.  But the only reason we're entertaining the idea of a double is because it happened with 2024/2028.  If not for that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I know it's been hinted that the IOC would consider it, but that seems like ancient history at this point given all the twists and turns we've seen in the past few months.  You're poking fun at me for having the "hindsight" to talk about how the Summer double made sense.  Where's the sense in a foresight argument where that's the solution here?

4 hours ago, FYI said:

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.

Well, this is still the IOC we're talking about.  Their track record of late for making smart decisions isn't a good one.  You know as well as anyone here I've never bought into the line of thinking that other cities will see LA and suddenly decide to start bidding.  Paris and LA offer the IOC stability because they are mega-cities that were there in the right place at the right time.  That's not what the IOC has here and kicking the can down the road another 4 years won't necessarily give them stability.  If anything, it almost makes them look worse for them to go to Salt Lake or Sapporo who aren't even bidding and rush them through a process to secure them as hosts.  How's that going to look to other cities and their citizens around the world that there may not even be a process?

If either Salt Lake or Sapporo is the 2026 host, then the other one is still on the table for 2030.  And if the IOC is really that scared of bad PR, then go with the "we want less losers" line of thinking and cut other cities off at the pass if they're concerned about letting them bid.  But settle this one now and worry about that one later.  The only way I could see a double being even a slight possibility would be for both Salt Lake and Sapporo being on equal footing (which is almost impossible to imagine since neither city is likely to be that eager to jump on 2026 without major concessions).  But with the IOC no longer looking at 2030 and with their efforts more narrowly focused on 2026 and the mess that's developing, that's going to be their sole priority.

Share this post


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

You’re right. For the rest of us who have no stake SLC is the logical choice. But every city that’s gone down this path who indeed have a stake in the game they have been pretty clear about sharing. And for better or for worse they all do not align with your theory. Zero cities are interested in sharing the benefits, but not the risk. 

If there is to be an Olympics in California in 2026, they would have to build a sliding track and a ski jump venue and probably more.  It is exactly the antithesis of what LA and California are making their bid all about.  That is what you are suggesting right now.  You know darn well it's not going to happen.  LA2028 does not get to run the show for a 2026 Olympics if the USOC decides to go down that path.  They have an obligation to make sure that LA and California are not harmed financially, but they are not obligated to have a Winter Olympics be held in California just to placate LA.  I doubt LA and California and Tahoe would want that additional responsibility in the first place because they're putting themselves much more at risk with little hope of benefiting from it.

Share this post


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

Have I ever said it's not possible?  No.  It's not out of the realm of possible, but every time I ask how you think we would get from where we are now to that point, it's some sort of non-answer. 

If either Salt Lake or Sapporo is the 2026 host, then the other one is still on the table for 2030.  And if the IOC is really that scared of bad PR, then go with the "we want less losers" line of thinking and cut other cities off at the pass if they're concerned about letting them bid.  But settle this one now and worry about that one later.  The only way I could see a double being even a slight possibility would be for both Salt Lake and Sapporo being on equal footing (which is almost impossible to imagine since neither city is likely to be that eager to jump on 2026 without major concessions).  

You just answered your own question, & that’s what I’ve been saying all along. But yet when I say it, you call it “some sort of non-answer”. Go figure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RuFF said:

So then I think the IOC has to look elsewhere for 2026. For as much as you’re convinced it’s SLC the hurdles are too great. Insurmountable. For the sake of the argument. What do you think it would cost to land SLC 2026? And would the IOC be willing to pay for it? And if the IOC was willing to pay for the chance at 2026 in the US, would it be paying the premium all cash? Or would they get creative?

And maybe they will look elsewhere.  It could easily be the case that the IOC calls up the USOC and the USOC's response is "sorry, we're not in a position to make this work, we can't help you."  You continue to look at this solely through the prism of Los Angeles and that everything that involves the United States and the Olympics in the next 10 years must be all about them.  Their contracts and their needs will always be a consideration.  But I can assure you that if there is a conversation between the IOC and the USOC, it is not going to go "we can offer you a solution for 2026, but it needs to be in California."  No one involved, save for the Tahoe folks, will have any interest in that.

2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Bare in mind Tahoe wants to host a Winter Olympics and is actually in consideration by the USOC. Reports are that they are in contact with the IOC as well. And if you took all the resorts in Denver, Whistler, Salt Lake City and Colorado you’d find something in common with Tahoe, they’re the same resorts. The stakeholders are the same. It’s an educated guess based on very strong variables the IOC will have to face if they look to the US for 2026. 

Once again.. Tahoe is lacking at least 2 major venues that right now only Salt Lake can provide.  It would be exceedingly difficult for Tahoe to put something together on short notice if they're being asked to save the day for 2026.  Much easier for Salt Lake to do that.  Tahoe has resorts, but do they have Olympic-ready venues like they have in Utah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh - I so want the remaining three 2026 cities to drop out now, so the IOC has no choice but to go running to SLC, & then drive a certain windbag “really nuts”. :lol:

Share this post


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

Am I wrong for wanting to see it actually go to Almaty just to watch the message board implode? :p

Not at all.  At least 1 person in this thread was rooting for a US vs Canada battle for 2024.  Would have made for some great theater around here.

Share this post


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

Not at all.  At least 1 person in this thread was rooting for a US vs Canada battle for 2024.  Would have made for some great theater around here.

Gee, who could that have been!! :lol::P

Share this post


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

Am I wrong for wanting to see it actually go to Almaty just to watch the message board implode? :p

Hmmmm, a certain other dartboard player around is always singing that same tune, too. Any relation?! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on all that has happened, I can only draw two conclusions that I see happening, both with all 3 bids getting KO'd: The IOC will convince Beijing to host again in 2026, or outright cancel those games. But they've got no one to blame but themselves for a number of dumbfounding decisions over the last decade that have left them in this situation. And in all honesty, expect China to be the permanent home of the Olympics sooner rather than later, and then we'll protest that they don't deserve the Olympics. Talk about having it both ways.

Share this post


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

Based on all that has happened, I can only draw two conclusions that I see happening, both with all 3 bids getting KO'd: The IOC will convince Beijing to host again in 2026, or outright cancel those games. But they've got no one to blame but themselves for a number of dumbfounding decisions over the last decade that have left them in this situation. And in all honesty, expect China to be the permanent home of the Olympics sooner rather than later, and then we'll protest that they don't deserve the Olympics. Talk about having it both ways.

Cancelling the 2026 Olympics is not an option, less they want to return the $1 billion in rights fee money NBC pledged to them.  In all honestly, that's crazy talk to think China would be the permanent host of the Olympics.

Share this post


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

I was looking at Quakers favorite blog by Alan Abrahamson and read one of his old articles. He pointed to Stockholm . I understand it’s a private bid that lacks government support but I was thinking that for LA 1984 the IOC bent and didn’t make LA sign the host city contract. I’m wondering if that’s in the cards for Stockholm? Or something similar where the IOC approaches their government and makes concessions to save the games. I can assume it would sound crazy, but I think it solves the LA 2026 conflict and provides the IOC with a great winter story in a great winter place and a good solution.

https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2018/10/4/ioc-drops-to-three-for-2026-while-signaling-clearly-it-wants-stockholm

And perhaps the IOC will start making concessions to keep Stockholm in the running.  Yea, no kidding it would solve the issue of needing to make a desperation play to try and find a city that is not currently bidding to host the Olympics.  Gonna require a lot of convincing and/or a lot of money to keep them in the running.  Not to mention they'd need to make that play *before* they drop out.  Once they cancel the bid, it's all over and I doubt they'll be willing to return to it after the fact.

Share this post


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

Cancelling the 2026 Olympics is not an option, less they want to return the $1 billion in rights fee money NBC pledged to them.  In all honestly, that's crazy talk to think China would be the permanent host of the Olympics.

Well, plus another $750 / 800 mil from Europe and Asia.  It will be a major disruption of a well-oiled machinery PLUS they were hoping to show off their new HQTRS to the IOC membership and the world in June.  Now, they'll be showing a hollow monument with the absence of a 2026 Games.   Oh, NBC would LOVE to have a double 2026-28 Games, especially after parent-company GE today declared dividends as a penny and HUGE operating losses.  GE-Comcast-Universal-NBC could use a bit of good news like this in this quarter.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


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

I think most people would love to see the USOC and the IOC work out a deal behind closed doors and jack up their feduciary duties to their bilateral contract. 

I think you just stated your problem. You think I am looking at this through LA’s perspective because as you say I think it all revolves around LA and California and Wasserman for no reason. What you’re glossing over is that it does revolve around LA and California and Wasserman because they are the other end of a bilateral agreement where the IOC has feduciary duty of protecting LA’s, California’s, and a private bids interest. You’d have to be an idiot to look at it from anywhere else. LA isn’t a bystander like you and I. LA is in contract and it is responsible for holding up its end of the bargain. Likewise, the IOC, specifically and more so than the USOC, has a duty of putting LA’s interest first and defending the interests of that contract, by law. So if you perhaps understand a contract and the obligations of all parties involved you’d have to be an idiot to look at it solely from the perspective of the IOC. So try it out. You are Los Angeles and you’ve been handed the news that your private bid which aims for record surplus is threatened by the very group who owes you the responsibility of defending it. What do you say? Sure! Let’s fk ourselves and let the IOC serve only its interest counter to our own because we are kind people?  Convince yourself that this is all about the IOC, but if you’re any of those 3 entities the stakes are high, across the board, because then you aren’t just answering to LA, California or the OCOG, you’re answering to a greater force, the interests of the taxpayers. LA completely and unilaterally has the ability to handicap any motion whatsoever toward the US hosting 2026. And under zero circumstances is it going to “enjoy” additional risks to save the IOC and hook up Salt Lake City. Every single city has pretty mich said no to that prospect. But you think LA is going to say ok. And I think you completely fail to understand the stranglehold LA and California have on that conversation. 

6 hours ago, RuFF said:

The USOC has reaffirmed its interest in 2030 and not 2026. I’m guessing the USOC knows it’s duty to the 2028 bid. Not to mention the USOC has led itself professionally, so I am guessing if the IOC calls the USOC is going to say no or not approach the subject prior to consulting with the parties it has an agreement with. 

Greater force?  I didn't realize Casey Wasserman was a Jedi!!  LOL @ "conversation" still being your favorite word.

Interesting that the USOC seems to be in such a rush to find a 2030 candidate.  Hmm.. I wonder why that could be.  Perhaps they know there's a possibility they could be getting that call from the IOC which, again, only happens in the most desperate of circumstances.

I think you are looking at this through LA's perspective because you clearly are looking at it through LA's perspective.  Yes, there are other perspective out there.  It does NOT revolve around LA and California and Wasserman as if theirs is the only opinion that matters.  They are an interested party here.  Yes, they are contracts and financial interests that need to be protected.  No one is disputing that.  But so does the IOC.  They are obligated to deliver an Olympics in 2026 and need to find a city to host that Olympics.  Where else do you think they're going to turn?  We are talking about a scenario where the IOC has had every city drop out on them and they have no remaining options.  You can bet the farm that the IOC would give the USOC a call.  And of course they are going to take stock of what they have in place with LA and what offering up a city for 2026 would mean.  Doesn't mean it's impossible they could find a way to make that work.  LA does *not* need to sign off on that if the USOC is confident they will not be harmed.  They have every right to voice their concerns, but this does *not* start and end with them just because that's the only entity in all of this that you're thinking about.

I'm not trying to predict what's going to happen if Canada, Italy, and Sweden are all no go's for bidding.  I almost want to find out just to see where this all goes.  You can keep telling yourself that LA and California have control of a potential 2026 conversation, but you only think that because you continue to think that no one outside of LA and California have a stake in what happens with 2026.  We may see that put to the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the IOC needs to know by that January deadline for the Candidature books.  After that, June isn't that far away, and I think if everything collapses by January 20, 2019, the IOC needs their Plan B (yes, even if it means Salt Lake) in place by late March so that the agenda for the June Session can be locked in.  I am sure, LA will be fairly compensated for the inconvenience.  Organizationally, it should work very well for both Organizing Committees.  The core 100-250 staffers who will have worked on Salt Lake 2026, will just then relocate and switch gears to LA, (being joined by the World Cup staffers as well) just in time for the set of test events of 2027.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calgary 1988 ice venue capacities:

  • ice hockey/figure skating: 16,605
  • figure skating: 6,475
  • speed skating: 4,000
  • short track speed skating/curling: 3,200
  • ice hockey/figure skating: 2,000

Lillehammer 1994 ice venue capacities:

  • speed skating: 10,600
  • ice hockey 1: 10,500
  • figure skating/ST speed skating: 6,000
  • ice hockey 2: 5,000

Minimum ice venue capacity required in the Sochi-era:

  • ice hockey 1: 12,000
  • figure skating/ST speed skating: 12,000
  • speed skating: 8,000
  • ice hockey 2: 6,000
  • curling: 3,000

No one should step in and save the IOC until they cut the winter games venue requirements back to the 1980's/early 90's standard.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Oh, NBC would LOVE to have a double 2026-28 Games, especially after parent-company GE today declared dividends as a penny and HUGE operating losses.  GE-Comcast-Universal-NBC could use a bit of good news like this in this quarter.  

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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

LOL @ "conversation" still being your favorite word.

I know - I was laughing, too. Along with this :rolleyes:

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I think you are looking at this through LA's perspective because you clearly are looking at it through LA's perspective.  Yes, there are other perspective out there.  It does NOT revolve around LA and California and Wasserman as if theirs is the only opinion that matters.  They are an interested party here.  Yes, they are contracts and financial interests that need to be protected.  No one is disputing that.  But so does the IOC.  They are obligated to deliver an Olympics in 2026 and need to find a city to host that Olympics.  Where else do you think they're going to turn? 

We are talking about a scenario where the IOC has had every city drop out on them and they have no remaining options.  You can bet the farm that the IOC would give the USOC a call. LA does *not* need to sign off on that if the USOC is confident they will not be harmed.  They have every right to voice their concerns, but this does *not* start and end with them just because that's the only entity in all of this that you're thinking about.

You can keep telling yourself that LA and California have control of a potential 2026 conversation, but you only think that because you continue to think that no one outside of LA and California have a stake in what happens with 2026.  We may see that put to the test.

It’s the ole “L.A. must be FIRST in everything” syndrome! Sound familiar. They obviously caught it from their so-called favorite, non-bias & objective, ‘journalist’. Lmfao

Share this post


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

Hmmmm, a certain other dartboard player around is always singing that same tune, too. Any relation?! <_<

lol, nope, was trying to be snide with it but given the circumstances, if USOC goes ahead and says LOLNOPE, then what???  Two in a row in China looks pretty silly.  Putin's Sample B-topia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mountainboarder_530@yahoo. said:

lol, nope, was trying to be snide with it but given the circumstances, if USOC goes ahead and says LOLNOPE, then what???  Two in a row in China looks pretty silly.  Putin's Sample B-topia?

But looks like the USOC is already starting to consider 2026. They already announced yesterday that they’re going to “nominate their ‘2030’ candidate” is less than two months at their next meeting. I mean what’s the fricken hurry if that didn’t have 2026 “plan B” written all over it. Unless one of the other three bids miraculous stays in the race until June get the vote, it’s starting to look likely that 2026 can very well be headed to SLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......watch the video.....she probably is talking too much about this.

Edited by paul

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

×