2030 Olympic Winter Games Bids

[iceman530]

and that is the whole intent of the survivor mode.  Indeed 2038 is a long time away.  And indeed that could buy time for the "European freeze" to thaw out and maybe start warming to the idea of a WOGs again, but we need that bridge to get there.  We need two parts to the bridge for it to stand upright.  Right now, we only have SLC, and it just so happens that portion of the bridge can be used for 2034 and be absolutely locked in beyond question.  No other candidate is a 2034 lock but SLC.  Of course,  SLC can be a 2030 lock, but there are other cities that can take SLC's spot for 2030, and we sure as hell hope its Sapporo, but if we have to use SLC for 2030, we no longer have an ironclad lock in for 2034.  So we are looking at Sapporo and giving them the time of day, and thats good and we should give them plenty of elasticity because of the potential of how excellent it could be, but they are by no means the only ones we should be giving the time of day to.  We need insurance in the likely chance Sapporo gets Norway 2022ed by a vote.  Thats where Almaty and Lviv/Bukovel comes in, where all a sudden one might be a turd sandwich, but we all a sudden have a giant douche (Ukraine), and what we thought was a turd sandwich might actually be a vegemite sandwich (Almaty).  Not everyone likes vegemite, but it'll work great on a sandwich for some people.  If we build a bridge to 2038, the future for the WOGs has so much more promise.  2038 gives so much time to rethink and regroup if we lock in both 2030 and 2034.  

[StefanMUC]

That the „European freeze“ will thaw by 2038 is pretty realistic, but that will itself make a European WOG more unrealistic in the future.

Climate change is real in the Alps already.

[Quaker2001]

9 hours ago, FYI said:

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. 

Almaty at least has venues and experience hosting winter sports events, so they're miles ahead of a place like Erzurum that doesn't have an serious experience.

Going forward, I think the IOC's thinking on winter hosts is that if you don't have infrastructure in place, don't bother bidding.  The "new frontier" candidates need not apply.  Yes, the hope would be that some of these European locales start showing some interest.  A successful 2026 Olympics in Italy will probably go a long way towards helping that cause.  And who knows what the state of climate change does, but obviously we can't really blame the IOC for that

[Quaker2001]

8 hours ago, iceman530 said:

and that is the whole intent of the survivor mode.  Indeed 2038 is a long time away.  And indeed that could buy time for the "European freeze" to thaw out and maybe start warming to the idea of a WOGs again, but we need that bridge to get there.  We need two parts to the bridge for it to stand upright.  Right now, we only have SLC, and it just so happens that portion of the bridge can be used for 2034 and be absolutely locked in beyond question.  No other candidate is a 2034 lock but SLC.  Of course,  SLC can be a 2030 lock, but there are other cities that can take SLC's spot for 2030, and we sure as hell hope its Sapporo, but if we have to use SLC for 2030, we no longer have an ironclad lock in for 2034.  So we are looking at Sapporo and giving them the time of day, and thats good and we should give them plenty of elasticity because of the potential of how excellent it could be, but they are by no means the only ones we should be giving the time of day to.  We need insurance in the likely chance Sapporo gets Norway 2022ed by a vote.  Thats where Almaty and Lviv/Bukovel comes in, where all a sudden one might be a turd sandwich, but we all a sudden have a giant douche (Ukraine), and what we thought was a turd sandwich might actually be a vegemite sandwich (Almaty).  Not everyone likes vegemite, but it'll work great on a sandwich for some people.  If we build a bridge to 2038, the future for the WOGs has so much more promise.  2038 gives so much time to rethink and regroup if we lock in both 2030 and 2034.  

2030 is covered, so that's the important thing.  Sapporo falls through and they're not covered for 2034, that's a problem to solve a few years down the road.  They don't need to figure it out now.  Almaty is not a terrible place to host an Olympics.  It's far from an ideal location, but we largely thought that in the context of the 2022 field that could have been, which as you like to point out should have been headlined by Norway.  That bid didn't fall apart because it was technically deficient.  They dropped out because they wanted to tell the IOC to take their 7,000 page list of requirements and go fornicate themselves with it.

So maybe the targeted dialog formula helps get cities back in the mix.  Perhaps it allows those cities to work with the IOC rather than to have to pitch their biggest and brightest in order to win.  Either way, not something they need to be concerned about until at least 2024 or 2025, hopefully when the pandemic is well in the rear view mirror and memories of China having hosted an Olympics are not longer at the forefront

[FYI]

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Going forward, I think the IOC's thinking on winter hosts is that if you don't have infrastructure in place, don't bother bidding.  The "new frontier" candidates need not apply. 

By "new frontier", that technically would still include the A-city. You yourself before, have classified Kazakhstan as a "still unknown entity" in central Asia with a questionable gov't of their own. I know that they have some venues & some winter sport hosting experience, but I still don't think that easily negates the other major concerns there.

Some on here like to jest that having a dictatorship & (supposedly) deep pockets is just "perfect" for the Olympics. But is that what the IOC really wants more of? Especially when we know that China got 2022 pretty much by default anyway. And even in the authoritarian category, Kazakhstan is still in the minor leagues when compared to the likes of Russia & China. 

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

2030 is covered, so that's the important thing.  Sapporo falls through and they're not covered for 2034, that's a problem to solve a few years down the road.  They don't need to figure it out now.  

So maybe the targeted dialog formula helps get cities back in the mix.  Perhaps it allows those cities to work with the IOC rather than to have to pitch their biggest and brightest in order to win.  Either way, not something they need to be concerned about until at least 2024 or 2025, hopefully when the pandemic is well in the rear view mirror and memories of China having hosted an Olympics are not longer at the forefront

Sure, the thing is though, that these 'new norm', 'continuous & targeted dialog', & 'preferred candidate' statuses don't have any sort of timeline anymore. Under the old formula, they didn't need to start worrying about 2034 until 2024 or 2025. But now they can start to concern themselves with any Olympic year at any given time. Hence, why we're already starting to hear rumblings & news for 2036.

Heck, Bach even came out the other day already hinting about 2040 in Africa!  Sure, that was probably for a smokescreen to try & hide from the fallout of Beijing 2022, but to think that they're not thinking about 2034 already, seems to defeat the purpose of why they instilled these so-called "new norm" changes ITFP.

[TorchbearerSydney]

Q:  But is that what the IOC really wants more of?

 

What the IOC WANTS and what it has to choose from is often 2 very different things....

[FYI]

^Sure, but even the IOC Exco told Erzurum to take a hike for 2026, even when grand places like Graz, Sion & even Sapporo, had all withdrawn by then, & when Calgary was headed right for a referendum. So they knew the stakes were dire at that moment, & still said 'thanks, but no thanks', to a city that they didn't feel very comfortable with.

[FYI]

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Almaty at least has venues and experience hosting winter sports events, so they're miles ahead of a place like Erzurum that doesn't have an serious experience.

That's not entirely true. Erzurum has venues left over from the 2011 winter universiade. And they hosted the 2017 European Youth Olympic winter festival. And also the world ice hockey U18 championships divisons back in 2009 & 2010. So "miles ahead" doesn't seem like a correct assessment in this case.

[iceman530]

5 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

Q:  But is that what the IOC really wants more of?

 

What the IOC WANTS and what it has to choose from is often 2 very different things....

This.  Absolutely this.  And that is so important to remember here.

[iceman530]

16 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

That the „European freeze“ will thaw by 2038 is pretty realistic, but that will itself make a European WOG more unrealistic in the future.

Climate change is real in the Alps already.

Also very true.  Coaxing Norway and Sweden is going to be all the more important, and frankly, probably encouraging Russia to build another grandiose winter project in a place with more reliable snow fall (Novosibirsk/Sheregesh)

[FYI]

On 12/4/2021 at 9:19 PM, iceman530 said:

This.  Absolutely this.  And that is so important to remember here.

Considering that they're not even in the picture here, even when the pickens have become slim (particularly in the winter category), should say something.

Something also "that is so important to remember here", is that the IOC sometimes is foolish, but by no means are they stupid. One isn't literally going to have a "turd sandwich", simply because they're starving & nothing else is available (unless some are into that sort of stuff, that is).

And again, now that the Exco is more in control of the selection process, & there aren't any hard deadlines anymore, they can keep anyone that they don't like in limbo indefinitely, or just close the door the right in their face (i.e. Doha, Jakarta, India, etc), or literally just hand them over a Games as quickly as they very well please (i.e. Brisbane 2032).

[iceman530]

Respectfully, their demeanor in this Beijing process has absolutely gravitated towards "stupid".  Crazy left the station with the Peng incident, and Bach bought a ticket the moment he "interveiwed" her.  It's only going to get more interesting these next two months.  

I repeat, turning down Erzurum surprised me.  It showed that the IOC actually does have a bottom rung and will not accept some bids.  Erzurum is now the line.  It is just a question of if Ukraine and Kazakhstan are above the Erzurum line, and I believe that they are.  If Sapporo drops off, and they probably will, we will find out where the new "line" is in short order if SLC says no to 2030.

[FYI]

SLC is all hung-go for 2030. It’s the USOC that prefers 2034. Obviously, someone is going to have to give in, though. And Sapporo may or may not drop-off, but I’m going to take Q’s cue here & take the ‘wait-&-see’ approach with them.

As far as Ukraine & Kazakhstan, if only those two bids could be merged somehow, then we could have a winner here. One having the Democratic gov’t & drive, & the other having much of the sports facilities needed. But each on their own, present  way too many uncertainties that the IOC appears not to be willing to gamble on, especially (as some on here like to point out) in this world of post-Corona uncertainty. 

[Chris_Mex]

1 minute ago, FYI said:

SLC is all hung-go for 2030. It’s the USOC that prefers 2034. Obviously, someone is going to have to give in, though. And Sapporo may or may not drop-off, but I’m going to take Q’s cue here & take the ‘wait-&-see’ approach with them.

As far as Ukraine & Kazakhstan, if only those two bids could be merged somehow, then we could have a winner here. One having the Democratic gov’t & drive, & the other having much of the sports facilities needed. But each on their own, present  way too many uncertainties that the IOC appears not to be willing to gamble on, especially (as some on here like to point out) in this world of post-Corona uncertainty. 

I mean, IOC should wait and see how thing develop, because you may end up in a 2024 scenario where if sapporo wants 2030 or none, and slc is very open for 2034, and you select very early on SLC, you'll end up with no bids in 2034. So yeah, SLC may probably just secured its rights to host olympics in a future, but the year is an important question for the survival of the winter olympics.

[FYI]

IDK where some of you get this ‘doom-&-gloom’ scenario where if SLC gets 2030, then no one will come out for 2034, & that’ll be “the end” of the Winter Olympics. The more dire issue here IS 2030, not 2034. And selecting SLC earlier, actually gives MORE time for others to come out & play for 2034. 

But ideally, I think that the IOC & USOC are working very hard to try & convince Sapporo (which the officials there are keen on anyway), to take 2030, & hence, give the USOC the Games they really, really want. But if they can’t do that, somebody still has to host the 2030 Games nonetheless.

[iceman530]

10 minutes ago, Chris_Mex said:

I mean, IOC should wait and see how thing develop, because you may end up in a 2024 scenario where if sapporo wants 2030 or none, and slc is very open for 2034, and you select very early on SLC, you'll end up with no bids in 2034. So yeah, SLC may probably just secured its rights to host olympics in a future, but the year is an important question for the survival of the winter olympics.

That's basically how I see it too.  You don't want to run a risk of no bids for 2034, and that's a very real risk.  I don't see a scenario where there are no 2030 bids.  Someone will step up.  Possibly a last minute knight in shining armor a-la Milan/Cortina emerging at the last moment.  I cannot say the same about 2034.  

[FYI]

Again, IDK where some of you get this ‘doom-&-gloom’ scenario where if SLC gets 2030, then no one will come out for 2034, & that’ll be “the end” of the Winter Olympics. The more dire issue here IS 2030, not 2034. And selecting SLC earlier, actually gives MORE time for others to come out & play for 2034. 

But ideally, I think that the IOC & USOC are working very hard to try & convince Sapporo (which the officials there are keen on anyway), to take 2030, & hence, give the USOC the Games they really, really want. But if they can’t do that, somebody still has to host the 2030 Games nonetheless.

[FYI]

3 minutes ago, iceman530 said:

That’s basically how I see it too. You don’t want to run a risk of no bids for 2034, and that’s a very real risk. I don't see a scenario where there are no 2030 bids.  Someone will step up.  Possibly a last minute knight in shining armor a-la Milan/Cortina emerging at the last moment.  I cannot say the same about 2034.  

Why is it a ‘very real risk’? That’s seems very counter-intuitive. Can you give a much better explanation other than “someone will step up” & “I cannot say the same about 2034”.

I mean what’s more dire about 2034, a Games still over 12 years away, than 2030, a Games happening four years earlier?

I can envision a couple of contenders that  could step up (as you say), for 2034. Annecy being an obvious first one, after gauging how Paris 2024 goes. Or Barcelona could then have their political house more in order. Or Austria might take a gander. Or GASP, maybe even Oslo or Stockholm may want to peek their head out again. Or even Sapporo (even if they don’t bite now) might not be as scared after more time has passed from Tokyo 2020ne.

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, iceman530 said:

That's basically how I see it too.  You don't want to run a risk of no bids for 2034, and that's a very real risk.  I don't see a scenario where there are no 2030 bids.  Someone will step up.  Possibly a last minute knight in shining armor a-la Milan/Cortina emerging at the last moment.  I cannot say the same about 2034.  

Salt Lake is about as much of a guarantee as the IOC could possibly hope for.  They're going to get an Olympics sooner rather than later.  If not 2030, then 2034.  We're in a new era where it's not so much about bids as it is preferred candidates.  Unless some unforeseen catastrophe hits Salt Lake, the odds of not having a bid for 2030 are about the same as me winning an Olympic medal.

The IOC doesn't have the luxury of basing the decision for 2030 on what may or may not be out there for 2034.  You can make an assumption there's no one out there for 2034, but all they need is 1 willing city and they're set.  Just because we can't see such a city now doesn't mean 1 won't emerge in the next few years

[Karenina]

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Salt Lake is about as much of a guarantee as the IOC could possibly hope for.  They're going to get an Olympics sooner rather than later.  If not 2030, then 2034.  We're in a new era where it's not so much about bids as it is preferred candidates.  Unless some unforeseen catastrophe hits Salt Lake, the odds of not having a bid for 2030 are about the same as me winning an Olympic medal.

The IOC doesn't have the luxury of basing the decision for 2030 on what may or may not be out there for 2034.  You can make an assumption there's no one out there for 2034, but all they need is 1 willing city and they're set.  Just because we can't see such a city now doesn't mean 1 won't emerge in the next few years

Well, the problem is that, apart from Sapporo and SLC, there isn't necessarily a good option for 2034 that exists, even in the hypothetical, and while one could emerge within the next few years, the more pressing issue is that while SLC and the USOPC are more than willing to take 2034, unless Sapporo steps up in the next 6 months for 2030, then the IOC is going to have to pull the trigger on SLC for 2030 which leaves them hoping that either Sapporo steps up for 2034 or some other good option for 2034 does emerge.  

Right now, my guess is that the IOC would happily award a double to Sapporo & SLC if they can get Sapporo on board.  If not, then I expect we'll see SLC awarded 2030 next summer.  I don't see the IOC holding out until their 2023 session to make the 2030 decision.

[AustralianFan]

4 hours ago, Karenina said:

Well, the problem is that, apart from Sapporo and SLC, there isn't necessarily a good option for 2034 that exists, even in the hypothetical, and while one could emerge within the next few years, the more pressing issue is that while SLC and the USOPC are more than willing to take 2034, unless Sapporo steps up in the next 6 months for 2030, then the IOC is going to have to pull the trigger on SLC for 2030 which leaves them hoping that either Sapporo steps up for 2034 or some other good option for 2034 does emerge.  

Right now, my guess is that the IOC would happily award a double to Sapporo & SLC if they can get Sapporo on board.  If not, then I expect we'll see SLC awarded 2030 next summer.  I don't see the IOC holding out until their 2023 session to make the 2030 decision.

I agree and Sapporo 2030 or 2034 now hangs on the result of the public survey in the new year of Sapporo residents that they have committed to hold in accordance with the IOC’s New Norm procedures.

If the majority of Sapporo residents support a winter olympics, then full steam ahea.

If they vote No, then a Sapporo winter games candidature abruptly ends then and there.

 

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, Karenina said:

Well, the problem is that, apart from Sapporo and SLC, there isn't necessarily a good option for 2034 that exists, even in the hypothetical, and while one could emerge within the next few years, the more pressing issue is that while SLC and the USOPC are more than willing to take 2034, unless Sapporo steps up in the next 6 months for 2030, then the IOC is going to have to pull the trigger on SLC for 2030 which leaves them hoping that either Sapporo steps up for 2034 or some other good option for 2034 does emerge.  

Right now, my guess is that the IOC would happily award a double to Sapporo & SLC if they can get Sapporo on board.  If not, then I expect we'll see SLC awarded 2030 next summer.  I don't see the IOC holding out until their 2023 session to make the 2030 decision.

The IOC need not think ahead to 2034.  Yes, there's a risk that if they award 2023 to Salt Lake, then that leaves the cupboard bare for 2034.  But that's 3 years down the road before they need to give serious consideration to a 2034 host.  They have time to make that happen, so even if no one obvious is out there now, someone is likely to emerge before then.  And the good thing for the IOC is that they already have 2032 settled, so they put a lot of the focus on finding a host for 2034.

[FYI]

12 hours ago, Karenina said:

Right now, my guess is that the IOC would happily award a double to Sapporo & SLC if they can get Sapporo on board.  If not, then I expect we'll see SLC awarded 2030 next summer.  I don't see the IOC holding out until their 2023 session to make the 2030 decision.

That's my thinking, as well. Of course the counter argument can be made, as others have, that the IOC doesn't have to worry about 2034 right now. That they have 3 years to do that. But the flip-side here, is wouldn't it be very comforting to them to have solid, "safe" hosts locked-in now for the next 15 years instead (especially in this current world of uncertainly)?  That was the validation to award Brisbane so far in advance. 

And I also agree, the IOC ain't waiting 'til 2023 to award 2030, either. There's way too much "continuous dialog" going on right now to think it's just only for a "wait-&-see" tactic. Some form of (direct or indirect) decision is coming relatively soon, with either for 2030 alone, or a double with 30/34 in mind.

[Hightowerio86]

7 hours ago, FYI said:

That's my thinking, as well. Of course the counter argument can be made, as others have, that the IOC doesn't have to worry about 2034 right now. That they have 3 years to do that. But the flip-side here, is wouldn't it be very comforting to them to have solid, "safe" hosts locked-in now for the next 15 years instead (especially in this current world of uncertainly)?  That was the validation to award Brisbane so far in advance. 

And I also agree, the IOC ain't waiting 'til 2023 to award 2030, either. There's way too much "continuous dialog" going on right now to think it's just only for a "wait-&-see" tactic. Some form of (direct or indirect) decision is coming relatively soon, with either for 2030 alone, or a double with 30/34 in mind.

That's why I believe the IOC is going to come to a handshake agreement with SLC and like you said I think that the IOCwil do a double allocation that will give Sapporo 2030 and SLC in 2034.

[AustralianFan]

“The IOC insists that there is no timetable for electing a 2030 host, and the Future Host Commission will continue to evaluate and monitor interest among candidates, guided by strategic opportunities for the Olympic movement and the global context.”