Jump to content

Reno-Tahoe Drops Winter Olympic Bid, Leaving Salt Lake City And Denver For December Nomination


Recommended Posts

A group representing the Reno-Tahoe Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games bid said Monday that it has turned down an invitation from the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to bid for a future Olympics. In a statement, Reno-Tahoe Winter Games Coalition representatives said the decision to drop out of the process was not made “lightly” – […]

The post Reno-Tahoe Drops Winter Olympic Bid, Leaving Salt Lake City And Denver For December Nomination appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

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

disappointed from my 1000-1200 dollar a night airbnb room rental prospects, but Im not overly surprised.  I was intrigued by the prospects, I was kinda hoping I could have something right in my own backyard, but thats the way it goes. 
 

I can already tell you Denver is dead man walking, so all in for SLC

Denver likely won't drop out so easily and if they had their act together, I'd give them a shot.  I don't anticipate them having their act together though.  It's a nice idea in theory, but the execution will likely be lacking, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the people of Colorado and their history with the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would have to be a hell of a front to turn a hell of a lot of denver voters "yes", like we havent seen before.  Got a few relatives and while Im not as in the know of local politics as I am with Tahoe/Reno, I got a little understanding of Colorado.  There was an initiative to expand the main interestate to the main ski resorts to three lanes, and it was dead on arrival on voting day, i think it ended up being 30-70.  Pretty shocking given the amount of gridlock already in Denver (driving in denver is an absolute nightmare.  SLC isnt a pleasure by any means, but Denver is a sheer disaster).  Any denver bid would have to go wholesale on their road system, that would cost hundreds of millions, and maybe billions.  Thing is..........this is a case they absolutely 1000 percent need it, olympics or not.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a Reno-Tahoe bid was doomed as soon as LA got 2028.  No way would the USOC pick California (or half of the bid) to double host w/in 2 years of each other. 

Plus, since repeat hosting seems to be the trend (whether it's Calgary or Cortina), 2026 might go to either one; then Salt Lake is comfortably in the driver's seat.  Now, Denver's 1976 fiasco will come back to haunt them.  If 2026 goes to Italy, then the IOC would be appeased, and 

2030 - Salt Lake

2034 - either Sapporo or Oslo-Lillehammer 

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

Well, a Reno-Tahoe bid was doomed as soon as LA got 2028.  No way would the USOC pick California (or half of the bid) to double host w/in 2 years of each other. 

Plus, since repeat hosting seems to be the trend (whether it's Calgary or Cortina), 2026 might go to either one; then Salt Lake is comfortably in the driver's seat.  Now, Denver's 1976 fiasco will come back to haunt them.  If 2026 goes to Italy, then the IOC would be appeased, and 

2030 - Salt Lake

2034 - either Sapporo or Oslo-Lillehammer 

When did you become Olympianfan? :D:P:lol:

12 hours ago, mountainboarder_530@yahoo. said:

it would have to be a hell of a front to turn a hell of a lot of denver voters "yes", like we havent seen before.  Got a few relatives and while Im not as in the know of local politics as I am with Tahoe/Reno, I got a little understanding of Colorado.  There was an initiative to expand the main interestate to the main ski resorts to three lanes, and it was dead on arrival on voting day, i think it ended up being 30-70.  Pretty shocking given the amount of gridlock already in Denver (driving in denver is an absolute nightmare.  SLC isnt a pleasure by any means, but Denver is a sheer disaster).  Any denver bid would have to go wholesale on their road system, that would cost hundreds of millions, and maybe billions.  Thing is..........this is a case they absolutely 1000 percent need it, olympics or not.  

The irony with Denver `76 is that the rejection of the Olympics prevented federal funding from spurring development in Colorado (including the roads) because they didn't want large numbers of people to come to the state.  But that wound up happening anyway and did so without the benefit of federal funding.  So in hindsight, it might have been wise to stick with the Olympics.  Couldn't have known that at the time, but here we are nearly half a century later talking about problems that have plagued them for decades that they would have been better served to get out in front of.

So yes, this is one of those cases where it's dangerous to tie infrastructure projects to an Olympics.  Denver (and the nearby ski resorts) have most of the necessary infrastructure they need in terms of venues, but not the means to get everyone around.  And even if Denver did push for an Olympics, it's all but a given they would rely on Salt Lake to provide some venues, most notably the sliding track and probably the ski jumps.  At which point, does it make sense to use Denver in the first place instead of just going with Salt Lake.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Around the Rings put out a much better article than most in reference to Reno-Tahoe dropping their bid. Of particular interest are these two excerpts. First:

“Los Angeles will host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games and will have exclusive marketing rights from early next year through the Games completion in 2028,” the RTWGC statement said. “Budget models for the Reno-Tahoe bid are based on a traditional seven-year marketing and sponsorship cycle and the RTWGC does not see an alternative business model to make a significantly shorter time span work.”

Olympic Organizing Committee budgets are projected based on marketing revenue, sponsorship rights, and ticket sales. With a limited window for exclusivity, any 2030 Winter Olympic host city would need to find ways to offset a loss of potential revenue."

What is important and of note is the 2nd half of the last sentence. "... any 2030 Winter Olympic host city would need to find ways to offset a loss of potential revenue."

This line is also important:

Reno’s withdrawal brings renewed questions for what Olympic Games the USOC is pursuing. Originally the process was described as for a “future Olympic Games,” but the exclusivity of the USOPP could end speculation that the U.S. is readying a bid just in case the 2026 bid race collapsed. 

I never argued that Reno-Tahoe were more prepared than SLC, nor that SLC isn't the obvious "safer" and ideal choice.. though it's important to note that Reno-Tahoe are far more capable of hosting than they have been credit for. That said my argument centered around 2026, 2030, and that marketing agreement. I argued that LA2028 owned those rights and if for any reason LA2028, the city of Los Angeles, or the State of California agreed to forfeit some of those rights, it would have to be done in a way that offered some benefits to all 3 entities, and Reno-Tahoe was the only bid on the table that had the possibility of doing that because under ZERO circumstances would any state or city increase their risk for the benefit of another. It just doesn't happen. But being as a reliable source is now posting about it I'm inclined to believe that 2030 won't happen in SLC either because no matter how ready they are, the money is in the marketing for the city. Though more prepared than Reno-Tahoe, SLC runs into the same wall, but harder. LA owns the marketing rights up until the closing ceremony of 2028. 

I read this article earlier and the implication I came away with was that Reno-Tahoe couldn't see a way to make their financials work - there are infrastructure needs that exist for Reno-Tahoe which simply do not exist for SLC, regardless of which Games they wind up hosting.  With most of the necessary infrastructure and major sites already in place, SLC is in a far better position to earn money if they do host in 2030, even if LA does have exclusivity over the marketing rights through 2028.  Now, 2026 might be a different animal, but you can be assured that the IOC and USOC will bend over backwards to make SLC a reality if both Sweden and Italy bow out of that race, even if that means giving LA more money for lost marketing opportunities.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RuFF said:

I never argued that Reno-Tahoe were more prepared than SLC, nor that SLC isn't the obvious "safer" and ideal choice.. though it's important to note that Reno-Tahoe are far more capable of hosting than they have been credit for. That said my argument centered around 2026, 2030, and that marketing agreement. I argued that LA2028 owned those rights and if for any reason LA2028, the city of Los Angeles, or the State of California agreed to forfeit some of those rights, it would have to be done in a way that offered some benefits to all 3 entities, and Reno-Tahoe was the only bid on the table that had the possibility of doing that because under ZERO circumstances would any state or city increase their risk for the benefit of another. It just doesn't happen. But being as a reliable source is now posting about it I'm inclined to believe that 2030 won't happen in SLC either because no matter how ready they are, the money is in the marketing for the city. Though more prepared than Reno-Tahoe, SLC runs into the same wall, but harder. LA owns the marketing rights up until the closing ceremony of 2028. 

They're not, though.  Their infrastructure needs were also going to be a major issue and there was little they could do to overcome that short of either spending a lot of money or partnering with entities outside of California and Nevada.  Karenina makes a good point that when you pile the sponsorship issues on top of that, it makes it nearly impossible for Reno-Tahoe to be able to make it work.  They've been after an Olympics since well before LA started this current bid and then landed 2028.  Salt Lake would have to deal with that as well, but they're in a better position to be able to make it work because their infrastructure needs are very minimal compared to that of Reno-Tahoe.

13 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I can see how you came away with that. However, even though there are infrastructure needs that are needed in Reno-Tahoe that aren’t needed in SLC, it’s important to note that they couldn’t make the financials work because the proposal wasn’t affording them a traditional 7 years of marketing rights. The article states that is because LA2028 holds those marketing rights until the closing ceremonies in 2028, 1 1/2 short years before the opening of 2030. So even with reduced costs in SLC there are still 1 1/2 years of marketing rights ....on a private bid. They still have a reduced budget to contend with in SLC and I’ll remind everyone again it’s a private bid, whole number one goal is a surplus. I am struggling to see how the USOC, LA2028, LA, California, and SLC would reconcile that? My hunch Is that the cost is going to be humbling for the IOC should it choose to go that route and the more likely route is the Winter Games not returning to the US until at least 2034. 

And what happens if both Italy and Sweden drop out of the running for 2026?  Then what?

If LA2028 is such an obstacle to a potential 2030 Olympics (and whatever becomes of 2026), why is the USOC entertaining the notion of a bid?  And why would Salt Lake and Denver be pressing on?

Or.. perhaps the USOC thinks they can make this work.  Perhaps they are setting themselves up to where this is a possibility, even insomuch as LA2028 was affected. I know you continue to think that it's not worth pursuing.  Clearly the USOC and 2 potential Winter host cities think otherwise.  You keep talking about the IOC and others being humbled and balking at the costs and the effect on LA2028.  Again, maybe realize that 2028 is not the only Olympics that's going to occur in the next decade and realize where there's a headline that says "the IOC must change everything," that drastic solutions may be called for.

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

Interestingly enough Quaker is right about something, in particular about looking at this issue from LA’s perspective. While LA2028 presents a clear issue a not so clear issue is the 2030 host if it is to be held in the US. What if you are Salt Lake City and you’ve just been awarded the 2030 games. How do you contend with following Los Angeles. I’m inclined to believe that in order to make that work further concessions would be necessary to LA, but also to SLC because SLC’s funding model and interests mirror LA’s, and by virtue have a stake in a full 7 years of marketing rights. I think, and I might be wrong, but I think LA could not viably host a Summer Olympiad without at least the 7 traditional years of lead up to the opening ceremony. While LA could technically host an Olympics in a year or twos time, why would it want to? 

The term "viably" is really ambiguous.  If LA was given 4 years lead time to host the Olympics, they could probably do it, but would they be as successful as if they're given 7 years instead?  Or in this case 11?  Probably not.  That's the beauty of giving the private enterprise the longer lead time versus the more government-run enterprise in Paris which gets the shorter lead time.  But since it's not actually all about LA..

Right now the USOC is readying a candidate.  Their eyes are on 2030, but 2026 is certainly on their minds as well.  One way or other, the USOC believes this is a wise path to go down, even given whatever it will mean for LA2028 and for the marketing efforts of Salt Lake (or Denver).  I sincerely doubt they haven't considered what they're getting into and would suddenly one day wake up and say they can't do it.

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...