Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GBModerator

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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Olympianfan said:

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.   

giphy.gif

Here we go with the dart board again.  Peru's GDP (depending on which index you use) is similar to that of countries like Greece, New Zewland, Portual, and Iraq.  When you measure it per capita, comparable countries include Turkmenistan, Columbia, Ecuador, and Thailand.

Lima's biggest venues for the Pan Ams including their national stadium (capacity of around 50,000 or less), and arenas holding less than 5,000.  They could have the greatest Pan Ams in the history of the event and it wouldn't mean anything for their Olympic aspirations, let alone a decade away from the vote.  This is not a country that has any realistic shot at winning a bid unless their competition is - to borrow another posters favorites - Baku-ku and Doha-ha.  No shot.

Shanghai for 2032 is realistic.  Lima for 2036 is not.  Stop trying to plan out the next 7 Olympics just so you can offer up a possibility of a lesser city winning.  Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo, Paris, LA.  Does Lima sound like a city that belongs in that fraternity?  No.. freaking.. way.

Share this post


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

This is not a country that has any realistic shot at winning a bid unless their competition is - to borrow another posters favorites - Baku-ku and Doha-ha.  No shot.

Let's be real here, Doha would probably beat Lima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dezcrafty said:

Let's be real here, Doha would probably beat Lima

You're probably right, mostly since they would be willing to shell out more money than Lima could responsibly put on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2019 at 12:10 AM, FYI said:

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.

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. 

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! :P

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. 

“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 :lol:, 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!” 

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

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.

Really confused. The IOC has got an abundance of bids for 2032 but then they need to go and change a rule just for Melbourne? Which one is it? 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2019 at 1:18 AM, Quaker2001 said:

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.

 

Well it sure seems like the Australian Olympic Committee are far more interested in Brisbane than Melbourne for 2032. I mean, John Coates is the Vice President of the IOC and he's behind Brisbane and not Melbourne. Interesting that.. I think the man who's one of the most senior in the International Olympic Committee might know what the IOC would do in a bidding race. Clearly, he's not foreseeing the time window being changed for Melbourne, otherwise perhaps he would already be lobbying and talking down the importance of a July/August games in support of Melbourne. Instead, he knows how crucial and important the NBC's television revenue is for the IOC and knows the rules won't be bent.

On 3/1/2019 at 1:18 AM, Quaker2001 said:

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.

When did I say here that you or anyone insulted Brisbane by suggesting they're a bad candidate? I don't even believe I said that Brisbane would be a good candidate. Of course Melbourne is better and far more prepared. I just don't believe the IOC will bend the rules for them and I think people here are being incredibly naive. AOC and John Coates have thrown their full support behind Brisbane who have already/completely finished the feasability study. How are the IOC even going to bend the rules when Melbourne isn't even being put forward as the Australian bid?

I'm not saying Brisbane will win. I'm not saying they will even be shortlisted if the bidding race is as competitive as some posters here say it will be. What i'm saying is that it looks like Brisbane will be the Australian candidate, should they proceed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting GB’s article came out just today talking about how the IOC is “changing their own rules & charter” as they go along lately bcuz of the predicament they find themselves in these days. With the double-allocation of 2024 & 2028, & now extending the deadlines in the 2026 bid process to accommodate Stockholm-“Are” & Milan-“Cortina”. So why couldn’t/wouldn’t they make one for Melbourne if it well suited them? The dates for NBC worked just fine with Seoul 1988 & Sydney 2000, so why couldn’t they work with a future Melbourne Games. The whole Doha date thing was a mere smokescreen in order to reject their bid for totally different reasons that they couldn’t officially declare. And thinking that the dates were the only reason, is what would be incredibly naive.

And from my understanding, John Coates has some sort of personal axe to grind with Melbourne over some personal ambitions of his own. So IDK if I would take him with any sort of credibity on any obejective level when it comes to Brisbane vs Melbourne. And if you’re claiming that you’re not saying that Brisbane would win or even get short-listed, then what would be the point on them (& the AOC for that matter) wasting millions on a bid for a fruitless purpose then?

Quaker brought up a good point, that the AOC should tred very carefully when it comes to comparing the two, & Boston & LA & the USOC comes to mind. Boston wasn’t initially chosen by the USOC bcuz it’s a “world-renown” city, but bcuz the USOC wanted to chose something else besides L.A., when the USOC had already chosen NYC & Chicago for previous races & failed & did not return to the bidding table . L.A. made the most sense from the get-go for a 2024 bid, but the USOC chose otherwise & learned the hard way that wasn’t the smartest choice. So the AOC should gauge their next candidate accordingly, by choosing one that would be their *best*-foot forward. And not one that would be “not saying that they would win or even be short-listed”, just bcuz all they have to offer is some “preferred (NBC) time-window”. 

And no, 2032 does not have an “abundance of bids”. They’ve had INTEREST, but that’s still (& we’re still) far from those being official bids at this point in time. The 2032 race is quite a ways from being officially underway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 12:13 PM, Quaker2001 said:

This is not a country that has any realistic shot at winning a bid unless their competition is - to borrow another posters favorites - Baku-ku and Doha-ha.  No shot.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 3:27 AM, stryker said:

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.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. But of course the rest of us are all “incredibly naive” bcuz we don’t share that same hometown bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 5:55 AM, Lord David said:

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). 

I think the dates that Seoul 1988 & Sydney 2000 used should be fine (only a couple of days there branched into October). Or if anything, maybe the last week of September & the first week of October for better accommodation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dates aside, Brisbane clearly can't even consider any aspirations of hosting now, given the state of their transport infrastructure. If they were proposing (or better yet building) 1, 2 or even 3 or more lines of actual underground subway to actually link the suburbs which are only accessible by bus, then we might be getting somewhere.

The Chandler site would be perfect for an Olympic Park style setup, if only there were a subway line linking it to downtown Brisbane. 2 to 3 stations on this site, and of course the stations along the way to Roma St Station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2019 at 10:02 PM, FYI said:

An interesting GB’s article came out just today talking about how the IOC is “changing their own rules & charter” as they go along lately bcuz of the predicament they find themselves in these days. With the double-allocation of 2024 & 2028, & now extending the deadlines in the 2026 bid process to accommodate Stockholm-“Are” & Milan-“Cortina”. So why couldn’t/wouldn’t they make one for Melbourne if it well suited them? The dates for NBC worked just fine with Seoul 1988 & Sydney 2000, so why couldn’t they work with a future Melbourne Games. The whole Doha date thing was a mere smokescreen in order to reject their bid for totally different reasons that they couldn’t officially declare. And thinking that the dates were the only reason, is what would be incredibly naive.

And from my understanding, John Coates has some sort of personal axe to grind with Melbourne over some personal ambitions of his own. So IDK if I would take him with any sort of credibity on any obejective level when it comes to Brisbane vs Melbourne. And if you’re claiming that you’re not saying that Brisbane would win or even get short-listed, then what would be the point on them (& the AOC for that matter) wasting millions on a bid for a fruitless purpose then?

Quaker brought up a good point, that the AOC should tred very carefully when it comes to comparing the two, & Boston & LA & the USOC comes to mind. Boston wasn’t initially chosen by the USOC bcuz it’s a “world-renown” city, but bcuz the USOC wanted to chose something else besides L.A., when the USOC had already chosen NYC & Chicago for previous races & failed & did not return to the bidding table . L.A. made the most sense from the get-go for a 2024 bid, but the USOC chose otherwise & learned the hard way that wasn’t the smartest choice. So the AOC should gauge their next candidate accordingly, by choosing one that would be their *best*-foot forward. And not one that would be “not saying that they would win or even be short-listed”, just bcuz all they have to offer is some “preferred (NBC) time-window”. 

And no, 2032 does not have an “abundance of bids”. They’ve had INTEREST, but that’s still (& we’re still) far from those being official bids at this point in time. The 2032 race is quite a ways from being officially underway.

Stopped taking the post seriously when you said "idk if I would take him with any sort of credibility". Him of course being the Vice President of the actual International Olympic Committee. :rolleyes: 

Clearly the Vice President of the IOC would have an inkling, just a little bit of knowledge about what his fellow members would prefer and he clearly doesn't think they are going to bend the rules again just to allow Melbourne to host. And I don't have to believe that Brisbane would win if they bid, I think it would be a good way to gain some exposure and can be used as a platform for further bids and to develop sporting facilities anyway like Madrid did with their bidding. Just because I (a random on the internet) don't think they'll win doesn't matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s clear that what you don’t take “seriously” is logic & objectivity, since you gloss over that time & again & then just continue with your (usual) snarky, partial responses. Your opinion is obviously in the minority in this thread since I’m not the only one that shares those other opinions. 

What Coates may or may not have an “inkling” about at this point I’d say would be very premature, especially when the Brisbane feasibility study hasn’t even been completed yet.

If all the AOC is interested in is to “be a good way to gain some exposure that can be used as a platform for future bids & to develop sporting facilities like Madrid did with their bids” (& wind up just like them BTW, although Madrid was actually interested in winning), then by all means, let them bid with Brisbane. But if the AOC is actually interested in *winning*, dates aside, then that means placing their best foot forward right from the get go. And that would mean Melbourne. 

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...