2030 Olympic Winter Games Bids

[cfm Jeremie]

Whatever one might think about the new bid process, it is a fact that the bids themselves are a lot cheaper than in the past (the 2026 bid cities spent a fraction of what was spent for 2022, and same goes for Brisbane).

(note that I am not saying that the staging of the Games will necessarily be cheaper)

[TorchbearerSydney]

Brisbane will be a super cheap Games.....Sydney was a cheap Games (3rd cheapest per event after LA and Atlanta)...... Australia can pull these things off very efficiently. Sydney was a low tech Games in many ways (half the venues and media facilities were metal sheds in a state fair ground, the stadiums were simple design with no 'hero architects'), but they still pulled off the best Games ever.

I suspect Brisbane, planned and funded over 11 years, will come in on a low budget.

[ulu]

 

Sapporo expected to announce cost cuts to land 2030 Olympics

 

Quote

The northern Japanese city of Sapporo is set to announce what it says will be a reduction in costs that will make it an attractive venue for the 2030 Winter Olympics.

City officials were expect to announce details on Monday.

 

[stryker]

18 hours ago, ulu said:

 

Sapporo expected to announce cost cuts to land 2030 Olympics

 

 

20 percent is not peanuts, but I'd be curious as to where in the budget the cuts were made. I don't know if that's enough to garner enough public support especially when Tokyo's numbers become public. The insidethegames article said a public opinion survey will be held next year although it's unclear what it's impact would have on the bid. That doesn't matter. If the public were to vote no, Sapporo's politicians would be committing political suicide. It reminds me a lot of the so-called "non-binding" referendum that Calgary had.

If Japan really wants a Winter Olympics, well, why not Tokyo? It has the connections to Nagano and Sapporo is planning to use the Nagano sliding track anyway. Hold the ice hockey, curling, and short track/figure skating in Tokyo then speed skating and the outdoor events in Nagano.

[AustralianFan]

Looks like a two-horse race as Rob says:

 

 

[Quaker2001]

8 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Looks like a two-horse race as Rob says:

I know I've poked fun at the idea of a double allocation in the past, but I agree this seems like a real possibility.  2030 is Sapporo's if they can get support for it (easier said than done), and then Salt Lake is right behind them for 2034 which the USOPC will likely appreciate even though the SLC folks might not be as happy.  And that'll be a huge boon for American TV rights if the first Games of the new contract is on US snow and ice.

[iceman530]

Thats pretty much the ultimate super mega happy ending.  I really hope it goes down like that.  Ill be cracking some of the good stuff if thats how it goes down, thats exactly how I want to see it.  Really want Japan to surprise me here.  

[cfm Jeremie]

Any potential double awarding would most likely be linked to the status of Broadcast rights sale.

Through the Host City Contract, the IOC commits to a financial contribution to the OCOG.

As most of the broadcast rights are secured until 2028 or 2032, I am not sure the IOC is willing to take a gamble by awarding the 2034 Games if they are not 100% confident about the revenues they will be able to secure.

[FYI]

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I know I've poked fun at the idea of a double allocation in the past, but I agree this seems like a real possibility.  2030 is Sapporo's if they can get support for it (easier said than done), and then Salt Lake is right behind them for 2034 which the USOPC will likely appreciate even though the SLC folks might not be as happy.  And that'll be a huge boon for American TV rights if the first Games of the new contract is on US snow and ice.

Just wait the F'n minute here! Who are you, & what have you done with the REAL Quaker??!! Are you really offering up double "fetish", I mean double allocation as a 'real possibility' now?! 

And you've more than 'poked fun' at the mere idea of a double in the past. You were just downright chastising at anyone who were to ever bring it up, & with the usual sarcastic line of "just because a double happened before, that means it must & can happened again".

What really shocks me even more, is that you're saying this simply cause Rob is mentioning it? Especially in a tweet where it sounds like it's just his "personal intuition"? What was that again about not trying to ride a wave. 

Also, when all the double talk was going on in the past, you always said that it would only make sense if the two cities in question made sense. And Sapporo you always likened into the NOT making sense category. Oh, the irony lol!

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Just wait the F'n minute here! Who are you, & what have you done with the REAL Quaker??!! Are you really offering up double "fetish", I mean double allocation as a 'real possibility' now?! 

And you've more than 'poked fun' at the mere idea of a double in the past. You were just downright chastising at anyone who were to ever bring it up, & with the usual sarcastic line of "just because a double happened before, that means it must & can happened again".

What really shocks me even more, is that you're saying this simply cause Rob is mentioning it? Especially in a tweet where it sounds like it's just his "personal intuition"? What was that again about not trying to ride a wave. 

Also, when all the double talk was going on in the past, you always said that it would only make sense if the two cities in question made sense. And Sapporo you always likened into the NOT making sense category. Oh, the irony lol!

First off, not just saying it because Rob mentioned it.  He made a pretty sensible argument for why it could happen (which yes, is based on an "if").  That's why I'm agreeing with it.  *Because it makes sense*  As opposed to the many times people made nonsensical arguments in the past which, yes, we're very much "hey, it happened before, so let's pick 2 cities and offer up some random speculation on it."  Sure, it's 100% it's Rob's personal intuition.  But I'm still offering up *my* opinion in response to that, just as you did in the other thread.  Do you have an opinion on what Rob said?  Or do you just have an opinion on my opinion based largely on all sorts of pre-conceived notions?  What's your thought on the matter, do you agree or disagree?  Much like in the other thread, I didn't respond to you just to comment on your opinion or to be contrarian.  I posted because I had my own thoughts on the matter.

Why do I think it's a possibility?  Here's some basis for that argument, lest you think I'm saying something for the sake of saying it.  We both agree that the world of Olympic bidding is very different post-COVID than it was before the pandemic.  As much as we always said that the IOC is unpredictable, how many people here or elsewhere would have guessed we'd see things play out as they did with Brisbane, even after the IOC pledged to change the process in mid-2019.  That's a new variable that we can probably assume will be business going forward for them and not necessarily a one-off based on circumstance that were *unlikely but not impossible* to repeat themselves.

So what about Sapporo now which you lumped into the giant douche/turd sandwich category?  Yes, they need to prove they have public support and that's no small feat.  But they're still very much in the conversation and likely to be engaged with the IOC at some point.  The beauty of this double is that the IOC might not need to broker a deal to placate 1 of the cities.  The usual bid process that gave us Paris 2024/LA 2028 isn't necessary here because we know the USOPC is likely willing to accept 2034.  They probably don't need to be paid off in order to get them to go along with it.  Solves the issue of sponsorship dollars with 2 close together US hosts.  And makes TV rights in the United States a lot more attractive with the first Olympics of the new contract in the United States.

Once again, all of this is based on whether or not Sapporo can get public support.  A good argument can be made IMO to find out what they've got in that department now rather than handing 2030 over to Salt Lake and then hoping Sapporo has the appetite for an Olympics 4 years down the road.  It's a risk either way, but that Sapporo is clearly engaged right now, it might be the prudent move to hear them out.  And if that bid collapses because the Japanese public turns on it, then lock in Salt Lake and they have a few years before they make a serious push for a 2034 host.  Who knows what might emerge before then

[iceman530]

What Im worried about is putting hope in Sapporo and then getting the Norway 2022 kick in the nuts.  Im trying to be realistic in my expectations with that one.  

[FYI]

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

First off, not just saying it because Rob mentioned it.  He made a pretty sensible argument for why it could happen (which yes, is based on an "if").  That's why I'm agreeing with it.  *Because it makes sense*  As opposed to the many times people made nonsensical arguments in the past which, yes, we're very much "hey, it happened before, so let's pick 2 cities and offer up some random speculation on it."  Sure, it's 100% it's Rob's personal intuition.  But I'm still offering up *my* opinion in response to that, just as you did in the other thread.  Do you have an opinion on what Rob said?  Or do you just have an opinion on my opinion based largely on all sorts of pre-conceived notions?  What's your thought on the matter, do you agree or disagree?  Much like in the other thread, I didn't respond to you just to comment on your opinion or to be contrarian.  I posted because I had my own thoughts on the matter.

Why do I think it's a possibility?  Here's some basis for that argument, lest you think I'm saying something for the sake of saying it.  We both agree that the world of Olympic bidding is very different post-COVID than it was before the pandemic.  As much as we always said that the IOC is unpredictable, how many people here or elsewhere would have guessed we'd see things play out as they did with Brisbane, even after the IOC pledged to change the process in mid-2019.  That's a new variable that we can probably assume will be business going forward for them and not necessarily a one-off based on circumstance that were *unlikely but not impossible* to repeat themselves.

It's a little bit of both actually. Your opinion isn't off limits simply because it's your opinion. Afterall, this is a public forum to debate anyone's opinion (or as you like to say, preconceived notions of what I think your opinion might be). 

That said though, here's the thing, in the other case, you mentioned that it would be prudent for the IOC to "wait-&-see" & not rush in & give SLC 2030 in just a couple months. Okay, fine. A double-allocation (which you were always so against, & no, not all of the opinions that were offered up at the time were nonsensical. You merely perceived them that way cause they didn't line up with your arguments), would also require a wait-&-see approach IMO, especially at this state in the game.

But gauging from Rob's tweet (in either scenario, giving SLC 2030 or a double), it sounds to me that a decision on something is coming off the pike very soon. Since he also goes on to say - "bids from Spain, Canada & Ukraine *are not organizing soon enough*". A wait-&-see approach surely would allow some time for bids to organize, but it really sounds here that SOME type of decision is coming very, very soon. 

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

So what about Sapporo now which you lumped into the giant douche/turd sandwich category?  Yes, they need to prove they have public support and that's no small feat.  But they're still very much in the conversation and likely to be engaged with the IOC at some point.  The beauty of this double is that the IOC might not need to broker a deal to placate 1 of the cities.  The usual bid process that gave us Paris 2024/LA 2028 isn't necessary here because we know the USOPC is likely willing to accept 2034.  They probably don't need to be paid off in order to get them to go along with it.  Solves the issue of sponsorship dollars with 2 close together US hosts.  And makes TV rights in the United States a lot more attractive with the first Olympics of the new contract in the United States.

Once again, all of this is based on whether or not Sapporo can get public support.  A good argument can be made IMO to find out what they've got in that department now rather than handing 2030 over to Salt Lake and then hoping Sapporo has the appetite for an Olympics 4 years down the road.  It's a risk either way, but that Sapporo is clearly engaged right now, it might be the prudent move to hear them out.  And if that bid collapses because the Japanese public turns on it, then lock in Salt Lake and they have a few years before they make a serious push for a 2034 host.  Who knows what might emerge before then

No, I'm not likening Sapporo now in the 'giant douche/turd sandwich' category. What I said was, that they're a casualty of negative circumstances that were/are beyond their control (i.e. mainly Coronavirus & Tokyo 2020ne). I said the Pyrenees & is the giant douche (politically speaking, due to all of their in-house squabbling), & Ukraine the turd sandwich (since it's literally the anti-thesis of agenda 2020, not to mention other geo-political negatives). 

If the IOC is indeed on the way for another 'double' lol, & yes, Sapporo is still very much iffy on the public support sector (which is what tends me to believe SLC 2030 moreso at this point), but I can also envision that perhaps they may award both simultaneously, & give the USOC what they want - 2034 (much to SLC's chagrin), & maybe have a clause in there if Sapporo in the end for 2030 falls to the wayside, that SLC will then step in & save the day. And yes, Q, that last part is pure speculation. And I'm only making it because of Sapporo's achelees heel (& not giant douche or turd sandwich) position ATM.

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, FYI said:

It's a little bit of both actually. Your opinion isn't off limits simply because it's your opinion. Afterall, this is a public forum to debate anyone's opinion (or as you like to say, preconceived notions of what I think your opinion might be). 

Well aware it's a public form.  If you want to challenge my opinion, go right ahead.  But if you're going to do that, have your own opinion to offer.  We're both guilty of the whole preconceived notions then which is why we sometimes get into our pissing contests.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

That said though, here's the thing, in the other case, you mentioned that it would be prudent for the IOC to "wait-&-see" & not rush in & give SLC 2030 in just a couple months. Okay, fine. A double-allocation (which you were always so against, & no, not all of the opinions that were offered up at the time were nonsensical. You merely perceived them that way cause they didn't line up with your arguments), would also require a wait-&-see approach IMO, especially at this state in the game.

I think it would be prudent.  Doesn't mean they're going to do that.  Tough to tell how much of their homework they've done here, whether it's with SLC or Sapporo or any of the other potential bids.  To that end..

4 hours ago, FYI said:

But gauging from Rob's tweet (in either scenario, giving SLC 2030 or a double), it sounds to me that a decision on something is coming off the pike very soon. Since he also goes on to say - "bids from Spain, Canada & Ukraine *are not organizing soon enough*". A wait-&-see approach surely would allow some time for bids to organize, but it really sounds here that SOME type of decision is coming very, very soon. 

That decision could be a lot of different things though.  That he mentioned those other bids, maybe the announcement is essentially telling those countries not to bother putting anything together and that the IOC is proceeding with just Sapporo or Salt Lake.  Or it certainly could be that they're pushing ahead with Salt Lake, although there's likely still a lot that needs to be done in terms of contracts before there can be a more formal vote and announcement.  I don't want to frame this as "it's the IOC, they can do whatever they want," but without a formal timeline, that's a lot more true than ever before.

5 hours ago, FYI said:

No, I'm not likening Sapporo now in the 'giant douche/turd sandwich' category. What I said was, that they're a casualty of negative circumstances that were/are beyond their control (i.e. mainly Coronavirus & Tokyo 2020ne). I said the Pyrenees & is the giant douche (politically speaking, due to all of their in-house squabbling), & Ukraine the turd sandwich (since it's literally the anti-thesis of agenda 2020, not to mention other geo-political negatives). 

If you're using the word "casualty," then the implication there is that the bid is dead for 2030, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you think it's completely hopeless for them.  Anyone who follows the Olympics at all knows how the Japanese public feels about the Olympics and the IOC, but I don't think it's a lost cause that they couldn't pull it together, if the IOC wants to hear them out.  I think the prudent move is for them to do that.  And at the same time, they can still tell all the other cities not to bother with putting together a bid.  Try again when 2034 is on the table in a few years.

5 hours ago, FYI said:

If the IOC is indeed on the way for another 'double' lol, & yes, Sapporo is still very much iffy on the public support sector (which is what tends me to believe SLC 2030 moreso at this point), but I can also envision that perhaps they may award both simultaneously, & give the USOC what they want - 2034 (much to SLC's chagrin), & maybe have a clause in there if Sapporo in the end for 2030 falls to the wayside, that SLC will then step in & save the day. And yes, Q, that last part is pure speculation. And I'm only making it because of Sapporo's achelees heel (& not giant douche or turd sandwich) position ATM.

I don't disagree with your speculation.  As much as the IOC wanted the world to know "there is no Plan B" when it came to the Tokyo postponement, I imagine if it's Sapporo 2030 and Salt Lake 2034, they'll quietly tell SLC "be on the ready for 2030 just in case."  To use one of my phrases, that wouldn't be taking someone else's sloppy seconds.  That would be what SLC was gunning for in the first place, so at that point, dealing with LA28 and any money issues become largely irrelevant.

But that's why the wait-and-see approach might be the move here.  Give Sapporo a little more time to gauge public interest (which is hard to do now when we're still very much in the middle of the pandemic, so the wounds from Tokyo are still fresh) and see if they're a legit contender.  If they're named as a host city, at that point either they've taken care of the public support issue or the IOC hasn't properly done their homework.

[FYI]

18 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If you're using the word "casualty," then the implication there is that the bid is dead for 2030, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you think it's completely hopeless for them.  Anyone who follows the Olympics at all knows how the Japanese public feels about the Olympics and the IOC, but I don't think it's a lost cause that they couldn't pull it together, if the IOC wants to hear them out.  I think the prudent move is for them to do that.  And at the same time, they can still tell all the other cities not to bother with putting together a bid.  Try again when 2034 is on the table in a few years.

That's correct. I don't think Sapporo is completely hopeless. Perhaps casualty is the wrong word then. But their not-ideal circumstances over the last couple of years now, certainly can handicap them quite significantly. 

And absolutely, the IOC should definitely hear them out, if officials there want to be in the now infamous 'continuous dialog' phase. I'm sure the USOC wants that, too, considering we know their ulterior motive here, which with Sapporo in the discussion, it makes the chances of a(nother) double in this case more obtainable, & gives the USOC ultimately what they want (even though SLC might not quite be that thrilled with the later date).

[iceman530]

This is what scares me most about the "continuous dialog" thing with the winter olympics.  Knowing the new format, and how we have seen nations in the SOGs line up to be thrown in the "continuous" mixer, for the winter games......... we have SLC, Barcelona/Pyrenees, Sapporo, Vancouver, and........ Ukraine.  That is not exactly awe inspiring.  This has been a known format for awhile now.  And this is all we can get interested in the new format?  That is well, pretty frightening for the future outlook.  Especially since SLC and a very wishful Sapporo bid are the only "agenda 2020" options without Ukraine going full on Sochi Jr (in terms of building infrastructure completely from scratch and probably having contracts skimmed off the top.  Would probably legit be close to what Sochi proper was paid for).  

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

That's correct. I don't think Sapporo is completely hopeless. Perhaps casualty is the wrong word then. But their not-ideal circumstances over the last couple of years now, certainly can handicap them quite significantly. 

And absolutely, the IOC should definitely hear them out, if officials there want to be in the now infamous 'continuous dialog' phase. I'm sure the USOC wants that, too, considering we know their ulterior motive here, which with Sapporo in the discussion, it makes the chances of a(nother) double in this case more obtainable, & gives the USOC ultimately what they want (even though SLC might not quite be that thrilled with the later date).

And if there is indeed some sort of announcement soon, perhaps it's more along the lines of "we're talking to Salt Lake and Sapporo and everyone else need not apply."  What happens from there remains to be seen.  Sure, it's convenient for the IOC when they're in Beijing to make decisions that require everyone to be together.  But locking in Brisbane right before Tokyo was probably easier since they had time to discuss with them (the postponement was more of a burden for the organizing committee rather than the IOC to help them deliver the games).  Not so much in the lead up here with the shortest turn-around from a Summer Olympics to a Winter Olympics we've ever had

[Quaker2001]

48 minutes ago, iceman530 said:

This is what scares me most about the "continuous dialog" thing with the winter olympics.  Knowing the new format, and how we have seen nations in the SOGs line up to be thrown in the "continuous" mixer, for the winter games......... we have SLC, Barcelona/Pyrenees, Sapporo, Vancouver, and........ Ukraine.  That is not exactly awe inspiring.  This has been a known format for awhile now.  And this is all we can get interested in the new format?  That is well, pretty frightening for the future outlook.  Especially since SLC and a very wishful Sapporo bid are the only "agenda 2020" options without Ukraine going full on Sochi Jr (in terms of building infrastructure completely from scratch and probably having contracts skimmed off the top.  Would probably legit be close to what Sochi proper was paid for).  

At the end of the day, they don't need 5 interested cities.  They need 1 per cycle.  They have that right now with Salt Lake and hopefully Sapporo.  After that, who cares about Spain or Ukraine or Canada.  The IOC can cut them off now if they want and potentially re-engage with them later on.  Maybe someone else emerges.  I know things seem bleak, but Stockholm was supposed to be dead in the water after 2022.  And they came back to bid for 2026, albeit with a very subpar bid.

The IOC doesn't have to think a decade down the road if they don't want to.  Sure, it's tough to envision if there are cities/countries out there that want a Winter Olympics in the future.  But this new format isn't about getting cities excited.  Agenda 2020, as we've said so many times here, is about allowing the bid countries to do what's best for them rather than to conform to some formula the IOC sets out.  It goes without saying that the IOC is suffering from some terrible public relations of their own doing over the last decade and that's a problem they need to solve.

[FYI]

36 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And if there is indeed some sort of announcement soon, perhaps it's more along the lines of "we're talking to Salt Lake and Sapporo and everyone else need not apply."  What happens from there remains to be seen.  Sure, it's convenient for the IOC when they're in Beijing to make decisions that require everyone to be together.  But locking in Brisbane right before Tokyo was probably easier since they had time to discuss with them (the postponement was more of a burden for the organizing committee rather than the IOC to help them deliver the games).  Not so much in the lead up here with the shortest turn-around from a Summer Olympics to a Winter Olympics we've ever had

Yeah, I had mentioned that the other day as well. I can also see a '"targeted dialog or preferred candidate" status, whatever the next phase is from 'continous dialog' phase. That way they can save anyone else, that's not Sapporo or SLC, the expense of a campaign that likely won't give those particular cities any fruits this time around. That's what agenda 2020 is also suppose to be about, so there aren't "too many losers" in the end.

21 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

At the end of the day, they don't need 5 interested cities.  They need 1 per cycle.  They have that right now with Salt Lake and hopefully Sapporo.  After that, who cares about Spain or Ukraine or Canada.  The IOC can cut them off now if they want and potentially re-engage with them later on.  Maybe someone else emerges.  

The IOC doesn't have to think a decade down the road if they don't want to.  Sure, it's tough to envision if there are cities/countries out there that want a Winter Olympics in the future.  But this new format isn't about getting cities excited.  Agenda 2020, as we've said so many times here, is about allowing the bid countries to do what's best for them rather than to conform to some formula the IOC sets out. 

Yeah, I think the IOC is comfortable right now with Sapporo & especially SLC. Spain, Canada & especially the Ukraine, aren't ideal right now for 2030. So the 'targeted dialog' seems to be the next step here with the two strongest of these five cities/regions.  

[Quaker2001]

29 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, I had mentioned that the other day as well. I can also see a '"targeted dialog or preferred candidate" status, whatever the next phase is from 'continous dialog' phase. That way they can save anyone else, that's not Sapporo or SLC, the expense of a campaign that likely won't give those particular cities any fruits this time around. That's what agenda 2020 is also suppose to be about, so there aren't "too many losers" in the end.

Exactly.  Much easier now than in the past for the IOC to say "thanks, but no thanks."  Which is almost a little ironic because there were plenty of bids back in the days when they had a lot of suitor that they should have told to not bother trying.  Now they can do that and focus more of their efforts on the cities that matter, the ones that might actually get selected.  And yea, I forgot about the "fewer losers" aspect, but without a vote, then there are no losers.

31 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, I think the IOC is comfortable right now with Sapporo & especially SLC. Spain, Canada & especially the Ukraine, aren't ideal right now for 2030. So the 'targeted dialog' seems to be the next step here with the two strongest of these five cities/regions.  

They don't need to take a long view approach here.  Under the old timeline, a host city for 2034 wouldn't be selected until 2027, meaning the bid process wouldn't really commence until 2025.  They have time before they need to think about that.  Sure, there's the risk that they pick Salt Lake for 2030, Sapporo decides they don't have the support, and then they're in trouble.  But I have a feeling if that happens, then maybe Almaty re-emerges or someone in Europe decides they'll take advantage of the lack of competition.  To the IOC's credit, at least the targeted dialog means that a city is more likely to know sooner rather than later if the IOC has any faith in them.  And that city doesn't need to worry about an over-the-top presentation where they have to promise the IOC the world in order to win a vote.  In an age where potential host cities, particularly Winter sites, are few and far between, much more efficient to operate this way even if the lack of transparency can be a little disconcerting.

[FYI]

15 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Sure, there's the risk that they pick Salt Lake for 2030, Sapporo decides they don't have the support, and then they're in trouble.  But I have a feeling if that happens, then maybe Almaty re-emerges or someone in Europe decides they'll take advantage of the lack of competition.  

Oh gosh. Must we really mention that 'A' city? That's bound to send someone around here hyperventilating. I know it's come up in discussion before, that had just a few IOC members voted differently for 2022, that Beijing wouldn't be hosting in just a couple of months (but then again, had that happened, what would we be looking at instead, especially with Coronavirus & now with the new Omicron variant).

But as you always like to say, that race in the end, was between a "giant douche & a turd sandwich" (after literally all of Europe said 'thanks, but no thanks, IOC'). So do you honestly see that as an option that the IOC Exco would seriously contemplate if the A-city was to raised their hand again? I know that there's a couple of positives there, but I still think the negative still overshadow them. I'd only place them like a notch or two (at most) above the Ukraine. 

[TorchbearerSydney]

Almaty is way above the Ukraine- it has hosted major events like World Expo and the Asian Winter Games. It has a GDP per person three times bigger than Ukraine and Ukraine has Russian troops on the border after Russia took a slice of the country!

Kazakhstan has endless fossil fuel wealth and a dictator- perfect for the Olympics!

[iceman530]

absolutely agreed, for those reasons, and the bid frankly speaking, was excellent.  Nice and compact setup, and it would have given an opportunity to really ramp up some infrastructure projects in Almaty.  Better economy, not on Russia's "ish" list, autocratic stability, have hosted events before, didnt lose to China by much (thankful it did though, China's earned this game in spades), wouldn't need a "from scratch" effort that Ukraine would.  Its five or six notches above Ukraine.  If the likely event Sapporo gets scuttled, which I absolutely do not want to see but understand the reality of the situation, it is a pretty good option in the new reality of the WOGs.  Especially if no European nation besides Ukraine is sincerely interested.

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Oh gosh. Must we really mention that 'A' city? That's bound to send someone around here hyperventilating. I know it's come up in discussion before, that had just a few IOC members voted differently for 2022, that Beijing wouldn't be hosting in just a couple of months (but then again, had that happened, what would we be looking at instead, especially with Coronavirus & now with the new Omicron variant).

But as you always like to say, that race in the end, was between a "giant douche & a turd sandwich" (after literally all of Europe said 'thanks, but no thanks, IOC'). So do you honestly see that as an option that the IOC Exco would seriously contemplate if the A-city was to raised their hand again? I know that there's a couple of positives there, but I still think the negative still overshadow them. I'd only place them like a notch or two (at most) above the Ukraine. 

40 out of 84 IOC voters thought it was the best choice for 2022, even though it was 2 bad options.  Yes, I think it's something they would contemplate, but only if they didn't have better options.  We know that won't be the case for 2030.  Hopefully not the case for 2034.  So then, it's 2038 at the earliest and who knows what the state of the world and the Olympics will be by then

[TorchbearerSydney]

I have been to Almaty- it is a really beautiful city (it was the Soviets 'Eastern' showcase city, Berlin being the 'Western' showcase city). In winter it would be magic. 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

40 out of 84 IOC voters thought it was the best choice for 2022, even though it was 2 bad options.  Yes, I think it's something they would contemplate, but only if they didn't have better options.  We know that won't be the case for 2030.  Hopefully not the case for 2034.  So then, it's 2038 at the earliest and who knows what the state of the world and the Olympics will be by then

I dunno. Now that the Exco is more in charge of what cities, or not, get to be on the ballot, I'm not so sure. They gave Erzurum the old heave-ho, even when the 2026 would-be candidates like Calgary & Austria, were starting to drop-off like flies. But yes, hopefully 2030 & 2034 get slotted-in by Sapporo & SLC, respectively, before anyone has to contemplate anything less than those two bids. By 2038, it could be a different ballgame. And hopefully by then, we could see Annecy, Innsbruck or gasp, maybe even Oslo &/or Stockholm back in the picture. That is of course, if climate change hasn't made the Winter Olympics obsolete by then.