Feasibility Study Supports A Brisbane 2032 Olympic Bid That Could Cost AUD $5.3 Billion

[GBModerator]

A 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games bid by Australia’s South-east Queensland and led by Brisbane would be an important catalyst to much-needed transportation improvements in the region, and could leverage existing facilities to cut other costs – this according to a commissioned feasibility report released Thursday by French company Lagadere. The 265-page report outlines a […]

The post Feasibility Study Supports A Brisbane 2032 Olympic Bid That Could Cost AUD $5.3 Billion appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

[stryker]

$5.3 billion seems awfully conservative for a SOGs. The report says they'd build one stadium, I assume this would be the Olympic Stadium. Does Brisbane really have a need for a 70,000+ stadium post-Olympics? Doesn't seem so. I'd also assume that most of the venues from the CWGs would be used. The only way Brisbane can pull this off is insisting on smaller capacity venues IMO.

[FYI]

5 hours ago, stryker said:

$5.3 billion seems awfully conservative for a SOGs. 

That’s only for the operating costs (& the figure is actually $3.77 Billion in USD). The actual costs for the Games would be much higher. 

As a couple of the Aussie members have attested to here before, Brisbane would require a lot of work to justify if they even need all of that new construction/upgrades post-Games, as even the rest of your post alludes to.

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

As a Brisbane local i'm biased but I can see this bid happening (not saying it'll win against larger global cities). 

The main issue I find is that they'd need to work on a fast rail between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I volunteered for the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games while living in Brisbane and it took me almost 2 hours to get from where I live to the main stadium in GC. And i'm located near the Brisbane airport which would be a good location for the Olympic Village and was in fact the plan for the Olympic Village for the 1992 Brisbane Olympic bid. 

Other venues:

The aquatic centre in GC was pretty good for swimming/diving/synchronized swimming, they might need to add another pool but otherwise it's in good shape.

The Brisbane tennis centre can handle the tennis event.

Suncorp Stadium, Carrara Stadium & other stadiums can handle football and rugby sevens.

The new velodrome at Chandler works perfectly for the cycling.

Belmont is still good for the shooting.

Brisbane Convention Centre, Gold Coast Convention Centre & Carrara Sports & Leisure Centre work for weightlifting, squash, wrestling, basketball and badminton. 

The main addition is an Olympic stadium with a capacity for over 90,000 people which South East Queensland doesn't have. That would need to host the ceremonies and the athletics. And the other is the Olympic village. I still think near the Brisbane airport where all the apartments are going up at Portside would be a perfect idea but faster transportation to the Gold Coast venues would be needed.

There's obviously some other sports left out but the biggest issues from my perspective are the transport concept, hotel capacity, Olympic stadium and the Olympic village. 

[Nacre]

Australia has a huge advantage over the USA and Canada in that Australia's domestic leagues uses oval-shaped fields, tennis is hugely popular, and there is a lot of support for building facilities like velodromes for the Commonwealth Games.

I don't think comparably sized North American cities like Vancouver or Minneapolis would ever be able to manage the Olympics. But a major part of that is having so much invested in sports infrastructure that is relatively useless for the Olympics. (For example my city of Seattle spent $900 million in 2019 dollars on a baseball stadium for a team no one here cares about. We could have built two Olympic stadiums for that amount of money if Americans played cricket instead of baseball.) If Carrara Stadium could be rebuilt along the lines of London's original plan for 2012 (25,000 permanent seats + 55,000 temporary seats), Brisbane does have the advantage that its existing sports infrastructure is tailor-made for the Olympics.

The insoluble issue seems to be hotel capacity. How much domestic tourism does Queensland get? I can't seem to find any tourism data that isn't behind a paywall.

[Lord David]

The feasibility study can be found here:

https://seqmayors.qld.gov.au/initiatives/2mfHY5whV6uNpagYpw2v

It's a regional bid, unlike the compact proposal for 1992.

The main stadium is proposed at a permanent 25,000, expanded temporarily to 55,000. A far cry from QE II Stadium's proposed expansion for the 1992 Olympics at 95,000.

A new arena is needed in Brisbane to supplement the existing Brisbane Entertainment Centre. 

The Media accommodation and Main Media Centre is an issue, as the Expo 88 suite which was proposed in 1992 as the location for this, is now the Brisbane Convention Centre, which will preferably host some indoor sporting events. 

But can such a games work? Are the proposed infrastructure developments enough? Can they propose a new Olympic Stadium that would only be 55,000 seats? Should such a capacity be higher? Should it match the 1992 proposal of 95,000?

And what about Melbourne? Shall we start a domestic bid war before the real deal? 

[Lord David]

12 hours ago, Nacre said:

The insoluble issue seems to be hotel capacity. How much domestic tourism does Queensland get? I can't seem to find any tourism data that isn't behind a paywall.

 

The feasibility study states that currently around 40,000+ accommodation in hotels/apartments is available in the region, with an expected 55,000+ come 2032. Other forms of alternative accommodation is proposed, but the key issue is housing the media. This is significantly short of the 81,000 stated to be needed for an Olympics. 

A purpose built Media Village should be proposed in conjunction with the required Athletes Village and sub Village sites. Have a main Media Village in Brisbane and smaller sub sites in Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast. 

Cruise Ships could cover any shortfall, just contract a couple of cruise lines to have their 3,000+ room ships docked at Brisbane. Maybe around 3? That's 9,000+ additional rooms already. 

[Olympianfan]

22 hours ago, Lord David said:

The feasibility study can be found here:

https://seqmayors.qld.gov.au/initiatives/2mfHY5whV6uNpagYpw2v

It's a regional bid, unlike the compact proposal for 1992.

The main stadium is proposed at a permanent 25,000, expanded temporarily to 55,000. A far cry from QE II Stadium's proposed expansion for the 1992 Olympics at 95,000.

A new arena is needed in Brisbane to supplement the existing Brisbane Entertainment Centre. 

The Media accommodation and Main Media Centre is an issue, as the Expo 88 suite which was proposed in 1992 as the location for this, is now the Brisbane Convention Centre, which will preferably host some indoor sporting events. 

But can such a games work? Are the proposed infrastructure developments enough? Can they propose a new Olympic Stadium that would only be 55,000 seats? Should such a capacity be higher? Should it match the 1992 proposal of 95,000?

And what about Melbourne? Shall we start a domestic bid war before the real deal? 

The new Perth Stadium can be expanded to 80,000 seats from the 60,000 they have right now Perth is in a better position over Brisbane to host next games in Australia, There have been allot of development in Perth.

From 2036 the IOC would be more friendly to having the games not in July and August when the NBC deal runs out if the games want to come back to Australia it will be in either Melbourne or Perth, John Coates era will soon becoming to the end with AOC Brisbane 2032 bid will fail to either Jakarta Indonesia or Shanghai China.

[Quaker2001]

49 minutes ago, Olympianfan said:

The new Perth Stadium can be expanded to 80,000 seats from the 60,000 they have right now Perth is in a better position over Brisbane to host next games in Australia, There have been allot of development in Perth.

From 2036 the IOC would be more friendly to having the games not in July and August when the NBC deal runs out if the games want to come back to Australia it will be in either Melbourne or Perth, John Coates era will soon becoming to the end with AOC Brisbane 2032 bid will fail to either Jakarta Indonesia or Shanghai China.

The flip side of that last part is that 2029 is right around when the IOC is looking for a new U.S. TV deal (if they don't have it locked in already).  So it may be the opposite.. the IOC may specifically be looking at the familiar window for the Olympics if they need that to attract more TV dollars, whether it's from NBC or another network.  As opposed to, say, 2032 when NBC is already locked in and can't renegotiate terms if there's a city that wants to propose a bid outside the usual timeframe.

[stryker]

Melbourne has a stadium that fits athletics and the ceremonies. Brisbane is relying on a concept that has thus far proven to be unfeasible in building a small-scale stadium with a large number of temporary seats.

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

On 2/26/2019 at 10:44 AM, stryker said:

Melbourne has a stadium that fits athletics and the ceremonies. Brisbane is relying on a concept that has thus far proven to be unfeasible in building a small-scale stadium with a large number of temporary seats.

But what Melbourne doesn't have is weather that suits the Summer Olympics time slot and the IOC can't change it as it would jeopardize one of the largest incomes they have, the USA broadcasting rights with NBC. 

They bent the rules with Sydney but they're not going to do it again, especially when Los Angeles is likely going to save their ass for a second time in 2028. The IOC can't afford to annoy the Americans so if Melbourne can't host in July/August (which it can't considering it's pretty damn cold then), then it's Brisbane/South East Queensland for the Australian bid. 

[FYI]

I find the irony here so amusing. I can recall when certain foreign members here have gone as far as saying “screw NBC” (or U.S. money in general) when it comes to trying to dictate where the Games should be held in order to appease these American companies bcuz they contribute so much money to the Olympic Movement (& especially when others have made those arguments *for* American bids). But now all of the sudden, the IOC “can’t afford to ‘annoy’ the Americans” when it comes to certain other (foreign) bids & the ‘preferred time-slot window’ of the IOC (well, more like NBC). But it can’t work both ways simply bcuz now it’s convenient to make that argument for another bid of one’s preference. And quite frankly, the U.S. is already slated to have yet another Olympics in 2028, given to them in an unsual process in the first place (& likely another Winter Olympics right before or after those Summer Olympics). So the U.S. is already being taken care of by the IOC very well. 

The preferred time-window thing is also the only thing that Brisbane has got going for it. The amount of work needed there is humongous (as attested by even other Aussie members here). And considering all these wasted projects that former host cities have gotten in trouble with & why the IOC finds itself in a mess these days bcuz of it, I don’t think that they’ll be wanting to go down that road again of bloat & graft anytime soon (Melbourne really is the only cost-effective Aussie option). 

Brisbane is also not really a world-reknowned city. It would be like the U.S, bidding with Minneapolis, Dallas or Houston. Foreigners everywhere would gasp - “what are the Americans thinking! We want NYC, not some no-name city!” Unless places like Baku-koo & Doha-hah are the only competition, I don’t see it happening. But if we have places like Shanghai, Moscow/St. Petersburg or a German bid or even Madrid (it could finally be their time), then that’s where the bets will be placed, all things considered. 

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

12 hours ago, FYI said:

I find the irony here so amusing. I can recall when certain foreign members here have gone as far as saying “screw NBC” (or U.S. money in general) when it comes to trying to dictate where the Games should be held in order to appease these American companies bcuz they contribute so much money to the Olympic Movement (& especially when others have made those arguments *for* American bids). But now all of the sudden, the IOC “can’t afford to ‘annoy’ the Americans” when it comes to certain other (foreign) bids & the ‘preferred time-slot window’ of the IOC (well, more like NBC). But it can’t work both ways simply bcuz now it’s convenient to make that argument for another bid of one’s preference. And quite frankly, the U.S. is already slated to have yet another Olympics in 2028, given to them in an unsual process in the first place (& likely another Winter Olympics right before or after those Summer Olympics). So the U.S. is already being taken care of by the IOC very well. 

The preferred time-window thing is also the only thing that Brisbane has got going for it. The amount of work needed there is humongous (as attested by even other Aussie members here). And considering all these wasted projects that former host cities have gotten in trouble with & why the IOC finds itself in a mess these days bcuz of it, I don’t think that they’ll be wanting to go down that road again of bloat & graft anytime soon (Melbourne really is the only cost-effective Aussie option). 

Brisbane is also not really a world-reknowned city. It would be like the U.S, bidding with Minneapolis, Dallas or Houston. Foreigners everywhere would gasp - “what are the Americans thinking! We want NYC, not some no-name city!” Unless places like Baku-koo & Doha-hah are the only competition, I don’t see it happening. But if we have places like Shanghai, Moscow/St. Petersburg or a German bid or even Madrid (it could finally be their time), then that’s where the bets will be placed, all things considered. 

This post is clearly directed at me so i'll go right ahead and reply. 

When did I say "screw NBC"? I don't recall saying it and I haven't really posted here much for quite some time so if I did say it, it must have been before cities were dropping like flies from being interested in hosting.

It's pretty rich that you're ignoring the main point of the argument. Cities around the world that are world-renowned like Rome, Budapest, Boston, Oslo, Krakow and Stockholm all bid for recent games and then just withdrew because barely anyone wants to host anymore. Beggars can't be choosers at this point. Brisbane might not be world renowned but look how the 2022 bidding race turned out. They had to settle for a city that hosted the Summer edition less than 10 years prior to the decision because the only other option was a country many people wouldn't consider travelling too. Wasn't that what you said to me when I tried to justify Almaty a few years ago as not so awful potential host city given the circumstances?And then look what they did for 2028, they were so desperate that they gave almost $2 billion in additional funding for L.A to host the games and broke with a long tradition of actually having a ballot 7 years prior to the games because there were barely any other cities interested in hosting an expensive 2 week event.

Brisbane matches one of the most important guidelines and that's the timing window. You mention places like Shanghai, Moscow, Madrid or a German bid and then in the same sentence you say IF. If is the key word there. Look how nobody wants to host the games anymore. You're wanting to throw away a decent bid (that nobody is saying has to win by the way) because SOME cities MIGHT bid? You mention Germany. How did Hamburg go again? You mention Madrid but they certainly weren't interested in 2024 after being denied three consecutive times. Oh and Moscow/St Petersburg? Because the lead up to the 2014 Olympics in Sochi went oh so smoothly.

Gone are the 2012 bidding days of Paris v London v Madrid v NYC and having the luxury of discarding bids from cities like Rio and Istanbul. It's almost like you're stuck in a 2005 timeline.

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

When did I say "screw NBC"? I don't recall saying it and I haven't really posted here much for quite some time so if I did say it, it must have been before cities were dropping like flies from being interested in hosting.

Did I say you said that? No I didn’t. What I said is that I can recall when certain other foreign members have said that in the past when trying to make the argument against American bids. Claiming that the IOC shouldn’t bow to American interests simply bcuz they contribute over 60% of their revenues. 

So unless you’re all those foreign members, then no, my post was not ‘clearly’ directed at you. That’s why I also said ‘the irony’. Because here, the other side of the argument is trying to be made for a foreign bid bcuz of the IOC’s (but really NBC’s) preferred time-window slot of July/August.

2 hours ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

It's pretty rich that you're ignoring the main point of the argument. Cities around the world that are world-renowned like Rome, Budapest, Boston, Oslo, Krakow and Stockholm all bid for recent games and then just withdrew because barely anyone wants to host anymore. Beggars can't be choosers at this point. 

I’m very well aware of all those cities having dropped out from previous bids, so I’m not ignoring anything. But what is very flawed with that list, is that the first three cities there, with the exception of Rome, are not world-renowned. At least not to the degree of a global scale. Plus, Boston did after all get replaced by Los Angeles, so that was a wash. And the latter three cities were bidding for the Winter Olympics, where the IOC is having most of the trouble in keeping bid cities to remain in the race. 

2 hours ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

Brisbane matches one of the most important guidelines and that's the timing window. You mention places like Shanghai, Moscow, Madrid or a German bid and then in the same sentence you say IF. If is the key word there. 

Virtually all of those places have made recent rumblings about future bidding though. So it’s more than just “IF”. And yes, no one is denying that Brisbane has ‘one of the most important (IOC - ahem, NBC) guidelines’, but again, that’s all that is has to offer. And I just don’t see that aspect alone as being enough. 

3 hours ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

Look how nobody wants to host the games anymore. You're wanting to throw away a decent bid (that nobody is saying has to win by the way) because SOME cities MIGHT bid?

Shanghai wants to bid. Seoul wants to bid. Moscow/St. Petersburg want to bid. Düsseldorf wants to bid. India wants to bid. So how is that nobody? 

I’m not wanting to “throw away” anything, but how can you call a bid that would require so much work, venue & infrastructure-wise, “decent”? It’s not like we’re talking about a bid like Paris, L.A. or Melbourne, where a lot of the venues & major infrastructure is already in place, or would merit it’s construction & use post-Games. 

3 hours ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

You mention Germany. How did Hamburg go again? You mention Madrid but they certainly weren't interested in 2024 after being denied three consecutive times. Oh and Moscow/St Petersburg? Because the lead up to the 2014 Olympics in Sochi went oh so smoothly.

‘Pretty rich how you’re ignoring’ the main dynamics of those cities/countries/respective races. 

Düsseldorf has some ambition. So let’s see how that turns out first. Madrid wasn’t interested in 2024 (& rightly so), cuz they were indeed denied three consecutive times. Their timing was off all of those three times - it was still too soon for 2012 only 20 years after Barcelona 1992, & especially with 2016 when London was already slated with 2012 to have two European Olympics in a row, & Rio 2016 was a formidable new-frontier opponent at the time. And with 2020 they had many obstacles to overcome, mainly a sluggish economy & the Operation Puerto doping scandal. But 2032 would be a different time & era where I could see a bid from them finally taking off bcuz their timing & circumstances could finally be right. As for Moscow/St. Petersburg, aren’t you the one that just said that “beggars can’t be choosers at this point”?

And who’s to say that in the end Brisbane can’t fall prey to the instances that have derailed other potential bid cities. Don’t assume that they can be immune to what’s happened in places like Boston, Rome, Budapest, Calgary & Oslo, especially when all the nitty-gritty of actual cost & work comes out that would need to be done, & that’s when the extreme skepticism & scrutiny begins to grow.

3 hours ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

Gone are the 2012 bidding days of Paris v London v Madrid v NYC and having the luxury of discarding bids from cities like Rio and Istanbul. It's almost like you're stuck in a 2005 timeline.

Yet just the other day news from London came out that they could be interested in bidding again as early as 2032. London, Shanghai, Moscow, maybe Madrid or Düsseldorf line up? Hmmm, who knows. It’s almost like you’re stuck in the “no one wants to host the Olympics anymore” timeline. Everyone except Brisbane of course. But hey, again, if you’re only competition is Baku-koo or Doha-hah, I’d say you got it in the bag then!

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Did I say you said that? No I didn’t. What I said is that I can recall when certain other foreign members have said that in the past when trying to make the argument against American bids. Claiming that the IOC shouldn’t bow to American interests simply bcuz they contribute over 60% of their revenues. 

So unless you’re all those foreign members, then no, my post was not ‘clearly’ directed at you. That’s why I also said ‘the irony’. Because here, the other side of the argument is trying to be made for a foreign bid bcuz of the IOC’s (but really NBC’s) preferred time-window slot of July/August.

I’m very well aware of all those cities having dropped out from previous bids, so I’m not ignoring anything. But what is very flawed with that list, is that the first three cities there, with the exception of Rome, are not world-renowned. At least not to the degree of a global scale. Plus, Boston did after all get replaced by Los Angeles, so that was a wash. And the latter three cities were bidding for the Winter Olympics, where the IOC is having most of the trouble in keeping bid cities to remain in the race. 

Virtually all of those places have made recent rumblings about future bidding though. So it’s more than just “IF”. And yes, no one is denying that Brisbane has ‘one of the most important (IOC - ahem, NBC) guidelines’, but again, that’s all that is has to offer. And I just don’t see that aspect alone as being enough. 

Shanghai wants to bid. Seoul wants to bid. Moscow/St. Petersburg want to bid. Düsseldorf wants to bid. India wants to bid. So how is that nobody? 

I’m not wanting to “throw away” anything, but how can you call a bid that would require so much work, venue & infrastructure-wise, “decent”? It’s not like we’re talking about a bid like Paris, L.A. or Melbourne, where a lot of the venues & major infrastructure is already in place, or would merit it’s construction & use post-Games. 

‘Pretty rich how you’re ignoring’ the main dynamics of those cities/countries/respective races. 

Düsseldorf has some ambition. So let’s see how that turns out first. Madrid wasn’t interested in 2024 (& rightly so), cuz they were indeed denied three consecutive times. Their timing was off all of those three times - it was still too soon for 2012 only 20 years after Barcelona 1992, & especially with 2016 when London was already slated with 2012 to have two European Olympics in a row, & Rio 2016 was a formidable new-frontier opponent at the time. And with 2020 they had many obstacles to overcome, mainly a sluggish economy & the Operation Puerto doping scandal. But 2032 would be a different time & era where I could see a bid from them finally taking off bcuz their timing & circumstances could finally be right. As for Moscow/St. Petersburg, aren’t you the one that just said that “beggars can’t be choosers at this point”?

And who’s to say that in the end Brisbane can’t fall prey to the instances that have derailed other potential bid cities. Don’t assume that they can be immune to what’s happened in places like Boston, Rome, Budapest, Calgary & Oslo, especially when all the nitty-gritty of actual cost & work comes out that would need to be done, & that’s when the extreme skepticism & scrutiny begins to grow.

Yet just the other day news from London came out that they could be interested in bidding again as early as 2032. London, Shanghai, Moscow, maybe Madrid or Düsseldorf line up? Hmmm, who knows. It’s almost like you’re stuck in the “no one wants to host the Olympics anymore” timeline. Everyone except Brisbane of course. But hey, again, if you’re only competition is Baku-koo or Doha-hah, I’d say you got it in the bag then!

Well your post literally discussed direct quotes from my previous post so it was clearly directed, at least somewhat at me. 

And it's not just NBC's preferred timeslot... remember, the IOC used it as a reason to throw away Doha's 2016 bid? It's part of the criteria, stop pretending like the IOC will simply overlook this for Melbourne, it's incredibly naive. 

And please, Boston and Budapest are pretty known around the world. Of course they're nowhere near in the same regard as London, Rome, Tokyo or NYC but neither is Melbourne.  Was Boston the original choice by the USOC before they dropped out? Yes? Thought so. The other cities may have been for the Winter Olympics but they feed into the narrative that almost nobody wants the games. 

Oh and, I never said Brisbane is winning, or coming runner up but it's in a far better position than Melbourne. John Coates knows it, the AOC know it, the IOC won't bend the rules for Melbourne no matter how hard you try. 

As for the Brisbane bid, I already outlined what needs to be done, it's quite a bit but a lot of the venues are existing. The way you're posting is as if they're building everything from scratch. A lot of the GC2018 venues are already there. The main build is the main stadium which judging by the plan is set to be a temporary one. Brisbane already has Suncorp Stadium, the Chandler venues which includes a new velodrome, QSAC which can be renovated and all the GC 2018 venues including Carrara stadium.  

Also, I did some looking and I can't find anything recent on Madrid looking into a 2032 bid which is strange considering cities like Shanghai and Brisbane are already developing feasibility studies. India? Are you serious? Nobody wants to touch that with a 10 foot pole after the disaster of the 2010 Commonwealth Games.  Oh and you mentioned Seoul? Are you referring to the planned joint bid with North Korea? Come on.

So we're looking at:

1. Shanghai
2. Moscow/St Petersburg 
3. Dusseldorf
4. Brisbane
5. Somewhere in India
6. Possibly London? 
7. Seoul co-hosting with a nation that is run by a dictator

 

Again, never said Brisbane was winning or even getting a swag of votes but you're acting like it'll be flat out rejected or that the IOC will somehow bend the rules for Melbourne? You're painting a sweet picture of how there's so many cities interested in 2032 so why would the IOC bother to change the rules and heavily impact the NBC and American viewership just for Melbourne to bid? Silly. 

[FYI]

14 minutes ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

Well your post literally discussed direct quotes from my previous post so it was clearly directed, at least somewhat at me. 

It wasn’t really direct quote’S’, other than just a ONE LINE that was more so tongue-in-cheek, particularly the ‘can’t annoy the Americans’ bit (which is the only thing I quoted), which again goes back to a time when some were actually using that as a negative towards any American bid. But whatever, moving on now.

19 minutes ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

And it's not just NBC's preferred timeslot... remember, the IOC used it as a reason to throw away Doha's 2016 bid? It's part of the criteria, stop pretending like the IOC will simply overlook this for Melbourne, it's incredibly naive.

What’s incredibly naive is that you think the IOC’s “criteria” is somehow set in stone or something. Remember, the IOC broke it’s own traditional protocol when they awarded both Paris & Los Angeles Olympic Games simultaneously, when many said that it couldn’t/wouldn’t be done? So you’re the one that needs to stop pretending that the IOC doesn’t do what it wants, when it wants for whenever it suits them.

28 minutes ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

And please, Boston and Budapest are pretty known around the world. Of course they're nowhere near in the same regard as London, Rome, Tokyo or NYC but neither is Melbourne.  Was Boston the original choice by the USOC before they dropped out? Yes? Thought so. The other cities may have been for the Winter Olympics but they feed into the narrative that almost nobody wants the games. 

Okay, so Boston & Budapest are pretty well-known around the world. But that actually doesn’t really help Brisbane’s profile, though. It actually hinders it even more then. And while Melbourne may not also be in the same league as other global cities, the fact remains it’s still Australia’s second largest city with virtually most of the venues & infrastructure already in place to handle a Games with more ease (& that’s what you just want to “throw away”). And that’s what the IOC is more interested in these days, is cost-effective Games so no more cities (especially in democratic countries) don’t run away from bidding in the near future, due to exborant cost & waste. 

36 minutes ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

Oh and, I never said Brisbane is winning, or coming runner up but it's in a far better position than Melbourne. John Coates knows it, the AOC know it, the IOC won't bend the rules for Melbourne no matter how hard you try. 

How is Brisbane “in a ‘far better’ position” than Melbourne? Because of the preferred time slot window? Hardly. That’s only one element of all the “criteria”, albeit, an important one (to NBC anyway), but still only one element nonetheless. While Melbourne has all the others, & that won’t change no matter how hard ‘you try’.

Also, I never said that Brisbane couldn’t hypothetically win. I did say, yet again, if the only competition was Baku or Doha, it’s Brisbane’s for the taking! 

43 minutes ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

As for the Brisbane bid, I already outlined what needs to be done, it's quite a bit but a lot of the venues are existing. The way you're posting is as if they're building everything from scratch. A lot of the GC2018 venues are already there. The main build is the main stadium which judging by the plan is set to be a temporary one. Brisbane already has Suncorp Stadium, the Chandler venues which includes a new velodrome, QSAC which can be renovated and all the GC 2018 venues including Carrara stadium.  

And the way you’re posting is if Brisbane has everything ready to go, ala Paris, L.A. or Melbourne. A lot of those venues still aren’t of Olympic caliber & would still need to be expanded on. Another main issue is also infrastructure, which Brisbane lacks in terms of handling the Olympic onslaught during the Games. 

50 minutes ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

Also, I did some looking and I can't find anything recent on Madrid looking into a 2032 bid which is strange considering cities like Shanghai and Brisbane are already developing feasibility studies.  

“Come on”, 2032 isn’t going to be decided for another six-&-a-half years. The double-award of 2024 & 2028 forced a couple of cities interested in those latter Games, like Shanghai & Brisbane, to rethink in 2032. Plus, like I mentioned earlier, after Madrid’s three consecutive losses, they’re probably still Olympic bid fatigued. So when you look at that way, no it’s not that strange. 

To quote another favorite poster of mine around here , a lot can happen between  now & then. In a couple of years, someone in political office in Madrid can wake up one day & say - “you know what, we should really try at the Olympics again. I think it can really be our time to shine this time around!” 

1 hour ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

India? Are you serious? Nobody wants to touch that with a 10 foot pole after the disaster of the 2010 Commonwealth Games.  Oh and you mentioned Seoul? Are you referring to the planned joint bid with North Korea? Come on.

What happened to “beggars can’t be choosers at this point” all of the sudden?  And please, when push comes to shove, the IOC isn’t going to allow NK to co-host.

1 hour ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

Again, never said Brisbane was winning or even getting a swag of votes but you're acting like it'll be flat out rejected or that the IOC will somehow bend the rules for Melbourne? You're painting a sweet picture of how there's so many cities interested in 2032 so why would the IOC bother to change the rules and heavily impact the NBC and American viewership just for Melbourne to bid? Silly. 

And you’re acting like Brisbane is the be-all & end-all. I never said that Brisbane would be flat out rejected. I even give you the kudos over Baku-koo & Doha-hah! But you “painting a sweet picture”, especially about the “preferred time-window” (which I’m don’t deny in the first place), is what’s silly & absurd. That aspect alone isn’t going to mean much IMHO, unless of course they’re the only game in town, which would still remain to be seen. Not to mention that they could also fall casualty to what has brought down other potential bid cities already, considering that Brisbane is still in the feasibility stage.

[Quaker2001]

On 2/27/2019 at 6:55 PM, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

They bent the rules with Sydney but they're not going to do it again, especially when Los Angeles is likely going to save their ass for a second time in 2028. The IOC can't afford to annoy the Americans so if Melbourne can't host in July/August (which it can't considering it's pretty damn cold then), then it's Brisbane/South East Queensland for the Australian bid. 

They bent the rules with Seoul.  And then they did 12 years later with Sydney.  Who's to say they wouldn't do it again 30+ years later?  What does LA getting 2028 have to do with that?

If the Australian Olympic Committee wants to bid for an Olympics, they're going to put forward the city they believe is most likely to win.  If the choice is between Melbourne and Brisbane, it can't just be about the preferred time window where Melbourne is considered a non-starter so then just push Brisbane even though they're not as well suited to host an Olympics.  As long as they are clear what they're offering with Melbourne (as opposed to the Qatar 2022 World Cup bid which made promises for the traditional timetable and then didn't deliver), IMO that's a better option than Brisbane.  And if we're talking about world-renowned cities.. look at the cities that have hosted the Olympics this century.  Almost of all them are among the biggest of big cities around the world.  Boston is not a world-renowned city.  In comparison to the others on that list - save for Krakow - they're all prominent country capitals.  Boston is a wonderful city with a lot of history, but it was the USOC's 3rd option after New York and Chicago both got rejected and didn't return.  And they only got picked in the first place because the USOC thought they wanted something different than LA.  Even though they should have realized from the start that LA was the obvious choice and that Boston was never destined to succeed.  There was plenty of first-guessing from this site that saw that one coming a mile away.

In a similar vein, the AOC should learn from that.  Melbourne is the city they should be putting forward, not trying to offer plans to build up Brisbane because conforming to the IOC's wishes is more important than what's best for Australia.  Do you honestly believe the only reason Doha's bid got tossed was because of when they can or can't host the Olympics?  I know that's been discussed a lot with South Africa where they might have to make a similar decision.  None of those cities are Melbourne though.  Yes, it's an uphill battle to win a vote against other cities with that hurdle to overcome.  Still, when the mantra of the IOC these days (well, at least they pretend it is) is to take steps to not burden a city with billions in unnecessary costs to get a city ready for an Olympics with no legacy plan, that swings the pendulum in Melbourne's favor if they'd have to spend less and are more able to reap the benefits.

Let's make 1 thing clear here though since I know Brisbane is your home, and I've said this plenty of times here.  To say that Brisbane is not a good candidate for an Olympic bid is hardly an insult against the city.  It's simply a realization that they are not well-suited to put forth and Olympic bid and think that will be a smart thing to do for either the city or the country.  Hopefully this feasibility study will help to reveal that.

[Olympianfan]

The problem for Australia now it's no longer the only place in the Southern Hemisphere which could host the games Brazil hosted it and Indonesia and if Peru does a great job in hosting the 2019 Pan Am Games they could also go for the Olympic Games. 

Indonesia 2018 Asian Games was a brilliant games and if Lima does a great job the Pan Am Games are far bigger then the Youth Olympic Games sorry Argentina both Jakarta Indonesia and Lima Peru could host the Olympic Games before Australia get's to host it again. 

[Quaker2001]

22 minutes ago, Olympianfan said:

The problem for Australia now it's no longer the only place in the Southern Hemisphere which could host the games Brazil hosted it and Indonesia and if Peru does a great job in hosting the 2019 Pan Am Games they could also go for the Olympic Games. 

Indonesia 2018 Asian Games was a brilliant games and if Lima does a great job the Pan Am Games are far bigger then the Youth Olympic Games sorry Argentina both Jakarta Indonesia and Lima Peru could host the Olympic Games before Australia get's to host it again. 

Australia was never "the only place in the Southern Hemisphere which could host."  They were simply the only ones who had hosted.  South America wasn't incapable of providing a host city until Rio got the nod.

Peru.. seriously?  Indonesia?  They're more suited for the Youth Olympics, not for the big show.  I sincerely doubt they're hosting an Olympics before Australia goes again.

[Lord David]

Can Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium/Lang Park be upgraded with a retractable roof and be used in a similar manner like Georgia Dome was used for Basketball and Gymnastics in Atlanta's 1996 Centennial Olympics? 

Remember Atlanta got a new arena only after the Olympics, so Brisbane could be the same. If a new arena comes bid time or is under construction, then use it, otherwise don't have it as the deal breaker for a potential Olympics. 

[stryker]

On 2/28/2019 at 3:55 AM, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

But what Melbourne doesn't have is weather that suits the Summer Olympics time slot and the IOC can't change it as it would jeopardize one of the largest incomes they have, the USA broadcasting rights with NBC. 

They bent the rules with Sydney but they're not going to do it again, especially when Los Angeles is likely going to save their ass for a second time in 2028. The IOC can't afford to annoy the Americans so if Melbourne can't host in July/August (which it can't considering it's pretty damn cold then), then it's Brisbane/South East Queensland for the Australian bid. 

I'm aware the weather issues that hamper Melbourne, however, given the IOC's push for a cost-effective Olympics, Melbourne is the only option for Australia at the moment. And Australia has the sports history and they have the media market (not sure where they rank globally) where the IOC is going to want to go back to Australia at some point probably sooner rather than later. If that means bending the dates so Melbourne can host, while not ideal, it can be done. Having Brisbane go on a spending spree just because of the ideal weather window is not what the IOC needs or wants right now.

[Lord David]

I just noticed now, that they got a French company to do the feasibility study. What, they couldn't do it on their own? They couldn't get an Australian company to do this in more detail?

As for a Melbourne Olympics, the hosting window shouldn't be too much of an issue. We should propose it in early September, without branching out to October (that can be for the Paralympics). The AFL Grand Final simply has to end earlier in August, allowing for the fit out to install the athletics track, removal of seating (like in the 2006 Commonwealth Games) and temporary things like for use during the ceremonies.

I'm not saying Brisbane and SEQ can't host, but they really don't have much infrastructure going for them. They didn't offer much in 1992 and they probably won't offer much in 2032, lest they propose an underground metro system (a much needed system btw, to link the suburbs that don't have a rail link), for the likes of some of the southern suburbs and eastern suburbs like Chandler. If a subway line were to reach Chandler to the Brisbane CBD, then this would be excellent for an Olympic Park style setting.

[Olympianfan]

1 hour ago, Lord David said:

I just noticed now, that they got a French company to do the feasibility study. What, they couldn't do it on their own? They couldn't get an Australian company to do this in more detail?

As for a Melbourne Olympics, the hosting window shouldn't be too much of an issue. We should propose it in early September, without branching out to October (that can be for the Paralympics). The AFL Grand Final simply has to end earlier in August, allowing for the fit out to install the athletics track, removal of seating (like in the 2006 Commonwealth Games) and temporary things like for use during the ceremonies.

I'm not saying Brisbane and SEQ can't host, but they really don't have much infrastructure going for them. They didn't offer much in 1992 and they probably won't offer much in 2032, lest they propose an underground metro system (a much needed system btw, to link the suburbs that don't have a rail link), for the likes of some of the southern suburbs and eastern suburbs like Chandler. If a subway line were to reach Chandler to the Brisbane CBD, then this would be excellent for an Olympic Park style setting.

The AFL will be in the pain in the ass for it unless they will have the AFL Grand final in Perth in 2032 for it it will be a nightmare and it will have to be held in late October with the Football Finals at Marvel Stadium and the grand Final at Perth on the last Saturday of September which will be the 2nd biggest stadium for the AFL it will take a few weeks to get it ready for Athletics and ceremonies.

Olympic Games from the 15th to 31st of October the Paralympics Games from the 17th to the 28th of November then the MCG will be ready to host the Boxing Day test match.

[Lord David]

5 minutes ago, Olympianfan said:

The AFL will be in the pain in the ass for it unless they will have the AFL Grand final in Perth in 2032 for it it will be a nightmare and it will have to be held in late October with the Football Finals at Marvel Stadium and the grand Final at Perth on the last Saturday of September which will be the 2nd biggest stadium for the AFL it will take a few weeks to get it ready for Athletics and ceremonies.

Olympic Games from the 15th to 31st of October the Paralympics Games from the 17th to the 28th of November then the MCG will be ready to host the Boxing Day test match.

No it won't be a pain in the ass. Just end the season in August. Have the pre-season a tad earlier. The September/October window is perfect for an Olympics/Paralympics whilst allowing room for the Cricket season. Remember, the A-League will probably have to start later or have a pause during this period.

[Olympianfan]

18 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Australia was never "the only place in the Southern Hemisphere which could host."  They were simply the only ones who had hosted.  South America wasn't incapable of providing a host city until Rio got the nod.

Peru.. seriously?  Indonesia?  They're more suited for the Youth Olympics, not for the big show.  I sincerely doubt they're hosting an Olympics before Australia goes again.

Ok Indonesia is less likely then Peru as Peru is way more develop then Indonesia, Lima is a better city to host the Olympic Games than Jakarta is Shanghai China 2032 - Lima Peru 2036 - Europe 2040 that depends on if they do a brilliant job in hosting the 2019 Pan Am Games.