Jump to content

London 2036


stryker
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/20/2022 at 6:26 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

If it were a Birmingham-Manchester 2036 bid, 

#1 - after Brisbane, and India;s bid is that Ahmenadbadabad instead of Delhi or Mumbai, the IOC would then be going with 2ndary and tertiary cities.  I don't think that the IOC would be enthused with that idea.  

#2 - Why build new facilties / white elephants again in the Midlands when London has all of them?  

#3 - Would Birming-Manchester-Glasgow have the collection of 1st class hotels that London has?

#4 - My only question for a 4th London bid would be: where would they place OV #4?  Is there still space in QE2 Park?  

1 - What makes you think the IOC would not be enthused with "secondary" cities? There is a long history of them hosting as much as the likes of LA, Paris and London (Brisbane is preceded by Atlanta, Barcelona, Montreal, Munich, Melbourne, Antwerp, etc.) 

2 - Politics is why. The UK is a difference place to 2005 and I think there would be a degree of backlash if London was seen to be a walk in for a fourth Olympics without consideration of other UK options. 

3 - Yes. Not sure what you mean by "first class" though. Standard Olympic punters dont stay at the Ritz. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

1 - What makes you think the IOC would not be enthused with "secondary" cities? There is a long history of them hosting as much as the likes of LA, Paris and London (Brisbane is preceded by Atlanta, Barcelona, Montreal, Munich, Melbourne, Antwerp, etc.) 

I don't think by that previous list that the IOC was "enthused" by secondary cities, either. More context in those instances gives more insight on those previous selections.

Most of us around here already know how Brisbane & Barcelona came to be. Atlanta was simply at the right place, at the right time, only due to the simple fact that Athens (the presumed/early favorite for 1996) just wasn't ready.

Montreal was just a compromise between the two Cold War superpowers at the time (Moscow & L.A.). And wasn't Munich, West Germany's largest (& most renowned) city at the time anyway?

And Melbourne I think was more about bringing the Games to the Southern hemisphere for the first time, since their main rival Buenos Aires only lost by one vote. Plus, wasn't Melbourne also Australia's principal city at the time? And Antwerp, that was so far back in time anyway, when the Olympics were just starting to gain main stream popularity. 

I still say if push comes to shove, that the IOC would still "choose" the glitziest city on offer, versus a secondary/provincial one with less glitz.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FYI said:

I don't think by that previous list that the IOC was "enthused" by secondary cities, either. More context in those instances gives more insight on those previous selections.

Most of us around here already know how Brisbane & Barcelona came to be. Atlanta was simply at the right place, at the right time, only due to the simple fact that Athens (the presumed/early favorite for 1996) just wasn't ready.

Montreal was just a compromise between the two Cold War superpowers at the time (Moscow & L.A.). And wasn't Munich, West Germany's largest (& most renowned) city at the time anyway?

And Melbourne I think was more about bringing the Games to the Southern hemisphere for the first time, since their main rival Buenos Aires only lost by one vote. Plus, wasn't Melbourne also Australia's principal city at the time? And Antwerp, that was so far back in time anyway, when the Olympics were just starting to gain main stream popularity. 

I still say if push comes to shove, that the IOC would still "choose" the glitziest city on offer, versus a secondary/provincial one with less glitz.

I agree that there is an element of interference that brings the Games to Brisbane and Barcelona. As I have said elsewhere though, I do think Brisbane will offer an amazing Games when 2032 rolls around just like Barcelona did in 1992. 

Yes - as you said Melbourne was (by some measures) Australia's primary city at that time. It had experienced a decline in the following decades in a very similar way to Montreal falling under Toronto's shadow after 1976. Interestingly Melbourne boomed after 2000 and is still on track to overtake Sydney as Australia's largest city by 2030. 

I am still hopefully in the context of the UK that Manchester or Edinburgh-Glasgow get some serious consideration. London again would be a pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

I am still hopefully in the context of the UK that Manchester or Edinburgh-Glasgow get some serious consideration. London again would be a pity.

Of course in the context of plausibility, it’s certainly possible, just like it was for Brisbane.

But in order for that to happen, a solid/hypothetical Manchester or Glasgow bid would have to be in the mix with the likes of Doha-ha, Jakarta & India, etc. just like Brisbane was.

But put it into the mix with a Shanghai or a Rome or a NYC, then Manchester or Glasgow starts to become that more far-fetched.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 9:26 PM, baron-pierreIV said:

If it were a Birmingham-Manchester 2036 bid, 

#1 - after Brisbane, and India;s bid is that Ahmenadbadabad instead of Delhi or Mumbai, the IOC would then be going with 2ndary and tertiary cities.  I don't think that the IOC would be enthused with that idea.  

#2 - Why build new facilties / white elephants again in the Midlands when London has all of them?  

#3 - Would Birming-Manchester-Glasgow have the collection of 1st class hotels that London has?

#4 - My only question for a 4th London bid would be: where would they place OV #4?  Is there still space in QE2 Park?  

I don't know where athletes would be housed. New housing is always welcome in London, so I don't see this being any sort of obstacle.

It would, by necessity, be a less compact games than previously. The Olympic Park can't be used as fully as it was in 2012. Areas where certain temporary venues were situated are now built on. The paths have been narrowed and open areaas greened so you're not going to be able to have 300,000 people a day there as we had at peak times a decade ago.

But with the direction the IOC has gone in that shouldn't matter.

Further, Sadiq Khan has talked about a "London centred" Games, which suggests that he's looking at not only a Games that's less compact within London, but a Games that manspreads itself across the region, or perhaps includes other cities hosting core sports.

Let's see. At this point everything is very vague and it may all amount to nothing. Same goes for the embryonic hopes of Manchester/Birmingham/Glasgow.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to do that talking about scaled down Games, then wouldn't Birmingham actually be best placed out of any UK city for that? There's surely more land for the village, a stadium that'll have experience of being expanded and reduced, the other 2022 facilities, the NEC already there for just about all the indoor sports - and that way it'd free West Ham from another decade of uncertainty about what'd be done with the stadium after another Olympics, since with UK Athletics moving to Brum I'm sure they'll be looking at turning London Stadium into a proper football ground soon. 

Edited by yoshi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob. said:

I don't know where athletes would be housed. New housing is always welcome in London, so I don't see this being any sort of obstacle.

It would, by necessity, be a less compact games than previously. The Olympic Park can't be used as fully as it was in 2012.

 

 

Although I thought most of the moving parts of the 2012 games were mishandled (logo, ceremonies, the games' "look"), if London wants to play host again, I say go for it. I'd rather they host again than a Rio, Beijing or a talked-about city similar to what's in South Africa, Indonesia, India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they could always fulfill the prophecy of Davey by basing the whole thing in Croydon...or maybe now Crossrail is finally open, Abbey Wood is more appealing :lol:

...has Davey completely left the forum? I tried to get his name as an @ but it didn't come up :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, yoshi said:

...

I'm confused :blink:

 

Crimea river, oh..nevermind. :lol:

West Ham hasn't had a "decade of uncertainty" over the stadium. They've had (nearly) a decade of exactly what they agreed to, and the coming decade will be the same if UK Athletics aren't pressured out. And not only did they agree to sharing with athletics, they publicly denigrated the idea that athletics should ever leave the Olympic Stadium. So I'm not sure where this narrative that we should feel bad for West Ham has come from.

Of course, if they want a perfect football stadium rather than a compromised one that comes with the cut-price deal they have, they can always leave and instead spend upwards of half a billion on somewhere new, as Arsenal, Spurs, Everton etc have done.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Sorry, I didn't click, I was taking it too literally - was wondering what the hell the longest river in Crimea had to do with the London Stadium. West Ham have got a deal that was very unfair on the rest of the league, based on a condition that they probably won't need to fulfill at all. It's all a very British lack of forward planning, although tbf West Ham have done a pretty good job of turning what's there into a football ground. UK Athletics moving to Brum is still a very obvious thing to do, especially with Alexander Stadium rebuilt. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the stadiums, a lot depends on which city we choose for an Olympics bid. If it's Northwest England, then Manchester United's saga gets involved too. If it's Scotland, would Hampden be big enough as it is?

Edited by yoshi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the London Stadium (as the promised 2012 legacy) and Alexander Stadium can't co-exist.

I don't think an Olympic bid will have any bearing on what Man Utd does or vice versa. They're not West Ham or Man City c2002. They're one of the three wealthiest clubs in the world. If they want a new stadium they'll just build one to spec rather than faffing around for a few years with an Olympic bid that may or may not be successful, and then faffing around again to have the track removed. And all indications are that they're staying at Old Trafford and renovating anyway, so even if I'm wrong it's a moot point. 

Hampden was 44k during the CWG. That strikes me as much too low for an Olympics even with the new flexibility we're now seeing from the IOC.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would UK Athletics want to continue with the whole retracting the seats and fitting out of the London Stadium for like one event a year when they've got a ready made one all in place, which they own to boot? 

Given the Glazers' allergy to spending money, I wouldn't be surprised if they back a Manchester Olympic bid, then try to wangle a new stadium out of the Olympics budget, just like West Ham. 

Thought Hampden was bigger than that. Does look like it could do with having some work done though, and with Scotland's national team finally able to football again, I'd have thought an expansion could be justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, yoshi said:

Would UK Athletics want to continue with the whole retracting the seats and fitting out of the London Stadium for like one event a year when they've got a ready made one all in place, which they own to boot? 

The previous head of UKA claimed London was the most profitable venue for them. The compensation the stadium paid to UKA when the stadium was unable to be used during the first year of the pandemic was also substantial, as is the amount being rumoured for UKA to move out. I really don't think it's UKA pushing for this move away. I'm sure the best option for them is AS as a year round base, LS for their biggest events.

My preferred option would be to somehow renegotiate West Ham's contract so they pay for the seats being moved. After all, the moveable seats were installed for their benefit, not for athletics' for which the stadium was already fine.

But it seems like we may be heading for the 2012 legacy being binned and the taxpayer funded stadium intended for our Olympians being handed over to a wealthy EPL club. Which is a travesty tbh.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, yoshi said:

Given the Glazers' allergy to spending money, I wouldn't be surprised if they back a Manchester Olympic bid, then try to wangle a new stadium out of the Olympics budget, just like West Ham. 

Can't see it personally - I just don't see Man Utd operating that way. The Glazers don't like spending their own money, that is certainly true, and the leveraged buy-out is why they are by a long way the most hated owners in the PL. But I suspect they'd be fine with loading an extra billion or so debt onto the club, essentially funding a new stadium in the same way Spurs funded theirs through banks loans and long-term reypayments. But their preferred option is renovation at this stage afaik, so it's a moot point.

And just as I type this, this appears in my twitter feed

 

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, yoshi said:

Thought Hampden was bigger than that. Does look like it could do with having some work done though, and with Scotland's national team finally able to football again, I'd have thought an expansion could be justified?

Hampden with a platform track installed is 44k. Remember the first few rows of the stadium were below the level of the temporary track during the CWG, hence the lower than usual capacity when hosting athletics.

As for redevelopment, the Scottish FA now owns the stadium, and this is apparently being looked at with the 2028 UK/Ireland Euros bid in mind...

https://news.stv.tv/sport/hampden-redevelopment-to-be-explored-as-part-of-euro-2028-bid

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob. said:

The previous head of UKA claimed London was the most profitable venue for them. The compensation the stadium paid to UKA when the stadium was unable to be used during the first year of the pandemic was also substantial, as is the amount being rumoured for UKA to move out. I really don't think it's UKA pushing for this move away. I'm sure the best option for them is AS as a year round base, LS for their biggest events.

My preferred option would be to somehow renegotiate West Ham's contract so they pay for the seats being moved. After all, the moveable seats were installed for their benefit, not for athletics' for which the stadium was already fine.

But it seems like we may be heading for the 2012 legacy being binned and the taxpayer funded stadium intended for our Olympians being handed over to a wealthy EPL club. Which is a travesty tbh.

It would be a travesty if done for free, and it does feel fair to charge West Ham for the seat move, since they're effectively squatting in UKA's stadium, not the other way round. If they sell it to West Ham, they should be charged however much the post 2012 rebuild cost. 

1 hour ago, Rob. said:

Can't see it personally - I just don't see Man Utd operating that way. The Glazers don't like spending their own money, that is certainly true, and the leveraged buy-out is why they are by a long way the most hated owners in the PL. But I suspect they'd be fine with loading an extra billion or so debt onto the club, essentially funding a new stadium in the same way Spurs funded theirs through banks loans and long-term reypayments. But their preferred option is renovation at this stage afaik, so it's a moot point.

And just as I type this, this appears in my twitter feed

 

I don't know how they're going to renovate OT big time without a full rebuild, it's supposed to be in such a state. In any case United certainly wouldn't stand for anything other than a full proper football ground, so any Olympic setup would have to be the same as what the blue lot did. 

1 hour ago, Rob. said:

Hampden with a platform track installed is 44k. Remember the first few rows of the stadium were below the level of the temporary track during the CWG, hence the lower than usual capacity when hosting athletics.

As for redevelopment, the Scottish FA now owns the stadium, and this is apparently being looked at with the 2028 UK/Ireland Euros bid in mind...

https://news.stv.tv/sport/hampden-redevelopment-to-be-explored-as-part-of-euro-2028-bid

Good to hear that about Hampden, although I don't know if they'd keep the oval shape or make it a football shape like Celtic and Rangers. Keeping the current shape with say 65k seats normally and roughly 50k with a track platform would fit with Brisbane's scale. Are there any other rebuilds connected to Euro 28? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 11:17 AM, Rob. said:

Can't see it personally - I just don't see Man Utd operating that way. The Glazers don't like spending their own money, that is certainly true, and the leveraged buy-out is why they are by a long way the most hated owners in the PL. But I suspect they'd be fine with loading an extra billion or so debt onto the club, essentially funding a new stadium in the same way Spurs funded theirs through banks loans and long-term reypayments. But their preferred option is renovation at this stage afaik, so it's a moot point.

And just as I type this, this appears in my twitter feed

 

My god.......how are teams not forced into administration with those sorts of numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premier League economics - nothing is real and everything is possible :ph34r:

(More seriously, I don't pretend to understand the actual mechanism of how this all works, and how clubs operate with this level of debt. All I do know is that if they had to operate under normal business maths, most of the league (and the second tier too) would be stuffed.)

Edited by yoshi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2022 at 5:47 PM, Olympics2028 said:

Although I thought most of the moving parts of the 2012 games were mishandled (logo, ceremonies, the games' "look"), if London wants to play host again, I say go for it. I'd rather they host again than a Rio, Beijing or a talked-about city similar to what's in South Africa, Indonesia, India.

No, no. We can't have just the "G7" nations host (as some say around here). :lol: The other 195+ nations of the world deserve a chance to host, too! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Backing up to the North v London debate I actually think although I'm sure the politicians of the North would like a chance with London 2012 being so fresh in the memory most Brits would rather see another games in the capital and those venues largely reused than a multi-billion pound building programme in the North.

 

Have to wonder too after the success of this weekends Jubilee Concert whether a future opening ceremony on the Mall might be considered if Paris somewhat starts a trend of non-stadium openers.

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...