Jump to content

London 2036


stryker
 Share

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Hansfromdenmark said:

Do you think that IOC will accept smaller venues if the games are good? or is there a buttom limet for venue capacity you think?

Not anymore, no - or at least it's much more relaxed than it was. I think I'm right in saying Tokyo 20 will be the last Games following the IOC's previous strict minimum capacity requirements for each sport. I'm sure you can find those requirements by Googling.

Paris 24 is the first Games where minimum venue requirements are relaxed (possibly entirely removed, I'm not sure). Certainly I think Paris and LA are in a strange grey area where they developed bids under the old assumptions but are hosting - and have been able to make changes - based on the new ones. Brisbane 32 will be the first Games where it's totally new, and perhaps the biggest example of that will be the smallest athletics stadium for over a century.

Getting rid of arbitrary, strict capacity requirements is probably the best single measure in the IOC's new norm. That said, I don't want to see hosts taking the michael. It should still feel like an Olympics, not a Commonwealth Games.

So to answer your question; yes, smaller cities should be much better placed than they were previously.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I havn´t studiet the Brisbane bid. But im Happy to hear what what you are writing. It gives me hope :) I think we could host it in Copenhagen joined with Malmø with "only" 2 new venues, the Athletics and Swimming arena. I hope i could get contact to someone who could go my idea for venues through and perhaps comment if I´m completely wrong. But it of course has to be someone with local knowledge :)  

The rest in existing venues, or temp venues/tribunes or temp rebuilds. The one with "low" capacity is for example table tennis i have placed in Malmø "Baltiska hallen" with only a cap. of 4.000. But perhaps one new indoor venue for aprox. 8.000 could be build in either Malmø or Copenhagen. But else I think we could do it! 

Well, it is not the thread on this forum for a debate on this. So back to London/Great Britian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/24/2021 at 3:39 AM, stryker said:

What are the chances Sebastian Coe would be involved with another bid? Granted Coe would be 80 by then, but I would think he would have some involvement.

Absolutely I think he would be involved. Aged 65 now he could remain in the IOC until 2036, the year of another possible London or multi-city UK Games.

He also has to step down as IAAF President in 2027 but by then, the 2036 Games may well have been awarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, yoshi said:

Not just involved... what are the chances of him speaking as IOC president in his home country (or any other country for that matter) in 2036?

I don’t think he can as he is 65 now and even though he only joined the IOC as a member in 2020, my reading of the IOC Age Rules  rare that he will need to step down as an IOC Member in 2026, the year in which he turns 70   (?)

IOC Age Rules:

The age limit fixed is 70 years old, except for members co-opted between 1966 and 1999, for whom the age limit is 80.”

“The IOC members are elected for a period of eight years, and their mandate can be renewed.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC bends its rules as it likes.

But if Bach does not prolong his term (which under the current rules he cannot, but Fencing 1976 might have other ideas and people willing to carry them out), I really doubt that in 2025, the next IOC President will again be an elderly European man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/2/2021 at 7:09 AM, Australian Kiwi said:

I also think the idea that only London is able to secure the Games doesn't really hold true. If Paris had won 2012 I think its entirely possible that Manchester could have landed 2020/24.

I don't know. The trend at the time was for countries to trot out their "Alpha+ cities" as I like to say after failure with what were considered "second-tier Olympic candidates at the time with the likes of France with Lille, Japan with Osaka, Germany with Leipzig (the most ridiculous of all of them), Spain with Seville, and the UK with Manchester (twice). Given there was fallout from Manchester's 2000 bid when the bid leader (can't remember his name) threatened to sue the IOC over bid related costs, I couldn't see a return to Manchester in terms of bidding at that time. 

Logistically, Manchester City removed the athletics track back in 2004 so there would not have been a viable option for an athletics stadium in a 2020 or 2024 bid which even today is the sticking point regarding any bid from Manchester or else where in the UK. Pure speculation, but I think the UK would have given London another shot, likely for 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ I don't know what evidence you have for that.

Birmingham was the British candidate for 1992 and Manchester for 1996 and 2000. Neither city came higher than third. Many of the 128 members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who will make the decision, have emphasised that only London would stand a chance in future. As one said when Manchester lost to Sydney: “We will know you’re serious when you come back with London.”

I'm not making (or attempting to make) any judgement on Manchester's capability but the IOC repeatedly rejected UK cities that aren't London and bit our hand off as soon as London was offered upsetting repeat bidder and strong favourite Paris.

2020 was not a bid race conducted under the "new norm" rules, so I don't know why you'd think Manchester (in a world where London 2012 didn't happen) would have a chance against Tokyo.

Whether a city like Manchester has a chance in future with the new rules is a more interesting question. But to suggest any UK city but London could've won in recent decades is fanciful.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Yeah, & that's what pretty much started the whole, "present us (the IOC) with ONLY your glamour, global capital cities for the Olympic Games" trend. Even for the domestic 2012 U.S. nominee race, the beta & gamma cities of Dallas, Houston & Cincinnati, etc. were easily bypassed by the USOC in favor of NYC.

For the 2020 race, the IOC was still in the era of, "give us your best-foot forward city you got on the table" faze. So no, in a hypothetical 2020 race where Manchester was also a candidate, I still see Tokyo handily winning 2020. I'd even go as far as saying, that Manchester may not have even made the short-list for that race. Even with the "new norm" bidding rules, I'd still question whether or not the IOC was serious about beta & gamma cities. The election of Brisbane certainly makes a case now for such cities, but I'd also still question the IOC's likelihood of continuing such a trend, when most of us know the real circumstances of the 2032 "race".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm slightly less cynical than you, I do think smaller cities have a chance now, and that they'll be taken seriously rather than dismissed outright. That's partly because the supply/demand equation has shifted, but I would also credit the IOC's rule changes too.

Of course, smaller cities still need to hope there's not an Alpha+ city wanting a Games in the same year that they're eyeing up. We're not going to see a situation where the IOC chooses Manchester over New York or Boston over London. And of course the buffer between the old and the new was the IOC ripping up their rules so neither of the megacities on offer lost out (so we have Paris and LA Games). A good decision, but they would never have done the same if Paris and Brisbane were the last two standing.

The IOC have given themselves and smaller cities some more flexibility, which I think is a good thing. There are some aspects of the new norm I'm cynical about (transparency being the biggie), but this actually isn't one of them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, of course. As has been said in the past, every race is different & the dynamics involved in any given race will still effect the final outcome, even in the era of the 'new norm', where the mega-cities, especially the democratic ones, are far & few between these days.  And I agree that smaller cities going forward won't be so easily dismissed. Again, Brisbane's so-called election makes sure of that IMO. But I still say that's mainly due to a byproduct of the 2032 'race', rather than something intentionally produced by the wonderful 'new-norm'. The IOC is still too old-school than to try & change their ways so easily, no matter how hard they claim that they try to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My speculation is obviously my own opinion but probably trying to say the same thing as you both - the 'Only Alpha' cities era of hosts clearly wasn't a reflection upon capability. Manchester would have easily pulled off the 2000 Games if it had been awarded them by some Atlanta-like turn of events. 

But circling back to the point of this thread - I'd love to see the Olympics back in the UK in the coming decades I just hope that its Manchester or some kind of Glasgow-Edinburgh arrangement. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 11/22/2021 at 10:21 PM, Australian Kiwi said:

My speculation is obviously my own opinion but probably trying to say the same thing as you both - the 'Only Alpha' cities era of hosts clearly wasn't a reflection upon capability. Manchester would have easily pulled off the 2000 Games if it had been awarded them by some Atlanta-like turn of events. 

But circling back to the point of this thread - I'd love to see the Olympics back in the UK in the coming decades I just hope that its Manchester or some kind of Glasgow-Edinburgh arrangement. 

 

Glasgow-Edinburgh would be more likely IMO given the fact that Glasgow has the athletics stadium that would be suitable for an Olympics. Manchester does not unless Manchester United wants to leave Old Trafford and that's not happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2022 at 3:30 PM, stryker said:

Glasgow-Edinburgh would be more likely IMO given the fact that Glasgow has the athletics stadium that would be suitable for an Olympics. Manchester does not unless Manchester United wants to leave Old Trafford and that's not happening.

Glasgow does not have an athletics stadium that would be suitable for an Olympic Games.... the National Stadium Hampden Park could be fitted with an athletics track like in the 2014 Commonwealth Games however this reduces its capacity to 44,000 which may not be enough.

 

Hopefully by 2036 Scotland will be an independent country :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2022 at 7:55 AM, Scotguy II said:

Glasgow does not have an athletics stadium that would be suitable for an Olympic Games.... the National Stadium Hampden Park could be fitted with an athletics track like in the 2014 Commonwealth Games however this reduces its capacity to 44,000 which may not be enough.

 

Hopefully by 2036 Scotland will be an independent country :) 

I've seen figures that showed Hampden Park was at 46,000 during the CWGs. Regardless of the number, either figure is not far below Brisbane's planned capacity of 50,000 for athletics and the ceremonies. Surely the IOC could live with Hampden Park's capacity for athletics while the ceremonies are held at either Murrayfield or Celtic Park. Having said all that, London is still the UK's best bet for another SOGs IMO as long as the London Olympic Stadium keeps the track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know West Ham want to do away with the track so very bad. but there absolutely can be some wheeling and dealing there that benefits both business sides I think.  Like make the condition that 2036 will be THE last games for this stadium for track events for one. and then more carrots and sticks and yeah, London looks pretty peachy agian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, complaints about the stadium seem to have reduced significantly since West Ham have been flying (relatively) high.

That said, I can't be arsed with their complaining. Unlike e.g. Spurs or Arsenal who spent hundreds of millions on new grounds, West Ham decided to rent an athletics stadium on the cheap and still had public money to retrofit it to make it more suitable for football. They went in with their eyes open, they even claimed getting rid of the track would be betraying the Queen.

On top of that, because of stewarding and policing costs, West Ham cost the stadium money each time they play there, whilst the summer events are generally profitable. West Ham have a sweet deal, but the corollary of that is they don't have a stadium that's entirely suited to football. That's the deal, you get what you pay for.

Lastly, getting rid of the track would be an enormously costly endeavour. Who's paying, and why would it be in the public interest to do this? The answer is, it wouldn't.

As far as a hypothetical 2036 bid goes, the problem will be what to do with West Ham for the start of the 2036/37 football season. Wembley would be the logical solution given that it's only the Paralympics that's likely to clash. I'd imagine that'd be a very easy deal to do, actually. West Ham will probably make a fair amount of cash from a few one-off Wembley games, especially if they get LOCOG2 to cover the rent (which wouldn't be unfair).

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...