Jump to content

2030 Olympic Winter Games Bids


Recommended Posts

Three strong former Winter Games Hosts now vying for 2030:

  1. Sapporo 1972
  2. Salt Lake City 2002
  3. Vancouver 2010

Although Vancouver 2030 is making a late charge, the reality is that is the most recent of the former Winter Olympic Games hosts.

Vancouver still has all it’s recent and newer Olympic Venues, so similar to it’s rivals SLC 2030 and Sapporo 2030.

It’s not really like the Brisbane 2032 situation when late bidders like Jakarta and Budapest expressed late interest in 2032 but really it was too little too late from them.   

As late-comers, neither the ‘too-little, too-late’ expressions of interest in 2032 by Jakarta or Budapest were backed up as having hosted before and they could not align thenselves with the New Norm by using existing facilities.

So recent Winter Olympic Host Vancouver is not at a disadvantage compared to Sapporo or Salt Lake City.

Remember IOC Future has not yet elevated any 2030 candidature to Targeted Dialogue as preferred bidder.

All three need to still satisfy the New Norm requirements including the all-important support of their citizens.

Sapporo needs to get cracking with it’s long-awaited public survey of it’s citizens ….

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Another twist ….

 

 

Oh nice, another reconciliation games, havent heard that since atlanta... and sydney... and SALT LAKE CITY... and PROPERLY VANCOUVER, oh and BRISBANE. Ok I understand that sportswashing is part of the business involved in hosting the olympics, but come on on first place, you can't just keep selling the games as a reconciliation event, that story just get old. And in second place, but definitely more important, an olympics doesn't solve the human right abuse against indigenous people, real recognition comes from laws and government actions, not an sporting event

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDK - but hasn’t the “reconciliation” card been played not once, but twice already, & both times by South Korea (1988 & 2018)? 

I’m sure the IOC will still want to hear any proposal, but the other two key bidders in this case, are still miles ahead, & that also still doesn’t change anything to defuse their deficiencies either.  
 

And doesn’t agenda 2020 suppose to defuse the whole “rival” thing, too, so there aren’t “too many losers” in the end. Seems like too much is being made here from too little, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Three strong former Winter Games Hosts now vying for 2030:

  1. Sapporo 1972
  2. Salt Lake City 2002
  3. Vancouver 2010

Although Vancouver 2030 is making a late charge, the reality is that is the most recent of the former Winter Olympic Games hosts.

Vancouver still has all it’s recent and newer Olympic Venues, so similar to it’s rivals SLC 2030 and Sapporo 2030.

So recent Winter Olympic Host Vancouver is not at a disadvantage compared to Sapporo or Salt Lake City.

Remember IOC Future has not yet elevated any 2030 candidature to Targeted Dialogue as preferred bidder.

All three need to still satisfy the New Norm requirements including the all-important support of their citizens.

I still wouldn’t classify Vancouver as “strong”, though. They don’t have the “cohesive unity”, as Bach himself described about SLC, in their meetings this past week. Even Rob earlier in the week, likenened Vancouver with Barcelona & Ukraine, as bids “not organizing fast enough”. 

I think another disadvantage that would hinder Vancouver, is if we’re talking about “repeat hosts”, then they’re the most RECENT Winter Olympic host of the three. So I’m sure that would also be taken into consideration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the 118 New Norm reforms were introduced in 2018, the IOC have  consistently said there is no set timetable guiding the awarding of the Games.

For 2030, Vancouver is later to join Continuous Dialogue (talking) - but it’s not too late.

“Dialogue with interested jurisdictions continues until the right partnership emerges and is singled out as the preferred bid”.

Game on!  Three strong former Winter hosts now in the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FYI said:

I still wouldn’t classify Vancouver as “strong”, though. They don’t have the “cohesive unity”, as Bach himself described about SLC, in their meetings this past week. Even Rob earlier in the week, likenened Vancouver with Barcelona & Ukraine, as bids “not organizing fast enough”. 

I think another disadvantage that would hinder Vancouver, is if we’re talking about “repeat hosts”, then they’re the most RECENT Winter Olympic host of the three. So I’m sure that would also be taken into consideration. 

Agreed.  If it's another 10 or 20 years down the road, that's a stronger case.  If they're not going to make this about having venues that would be a lot older later on (as Salt Lake has cautioned), then all they have is the message.  I don't doubt Rob's asserting that the IOC will be intrigued by that, but it sounds a lot like China's "one fifth of humanity" claim or Rio showing off the map of South America.  We know how those turned out.  I would like to hope the IOC is much more about technical merit these days.  And it's not like they're lacking for at least 1, possibly 2 very technically sound bids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

“Dialogue with interested jurisdictions continues until the right partnership emerges and is singled out as the preferred bid”.

Yes, & SLC is much closer than Vancouver is in that category. 

5 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Since the 118 New Norm reforms were introduced in 2018, the IOC have  consistently said there is no set timetable guiding the awarding of the Games.

For 2030, Vancouver is later to join Continuous Dialogue (talking) - but it’s not too late.

“Dialogue with interested jurisdictions continues until the right partnership emerges and is singled out as the preferred bid”.

Game on!  Three strong former Winter hosts now in the mix.

 

Disagree. As I mentioned before, but this mainly is a knee-jerk reaction. A couple of journalists (including Rob) asked Bach at the virtual meeting about a potential double with SLC & Sapporo, & I think that has triggered this: “oh no, a double with SLC & Sapporo! We must do something, anything to try & thwart that, cause otherwise, we’ll have to wait ‘til at least 2038!” It seems like they’re grasping at whatever they can at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sapporo I think is the front-runner for 2030 still if their public survey shows majority support of their citizens.

But the reality is that if their public survey fails, Sapporo 2030 is dead in the water.  

That’s when Vancouver 2030 can fill the void if it can also demonstrate majority public support.  If it can’t it is also dead in the water.

For Brisbane 2032, the IOC themselves conducted their own public opnion poll to test citizens support.

I also do not think that being the most recent Winter Host will count against Vancouver 2030 since there will be 20 years between both ediitions.

One question I have is does anyone know if Salt Lake City has recently tested the public support of it’s citizens for a another Winter Games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Agreed.  If it's another 10 or 20 years down the road, that's a stronger case.  If they're not going to make this about having venues that would be a lot older later on (as Salt Lake has cautioned), then all they have is the message. 

Yep, I still say it’s too soon for another Vancouver Games, with all things being equal, when SLC, & especially Sapporo, have gone a lot longer.

13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I don't doubt Rob's asserting that the IOC will be intrigued by that, but it sounds a lot like China's "one fifth of humanity" claim or Rio showing off the map of South America.  We know how those turned out.  I would like to hope the IOC is much more about technical merit these days.  And it's not like they're lacking for at least 1, possibly 2 very technically sound bids

I don’t doubt it, either. Of course the IOC will listen. But how much will they listen, is the real question. Especially, as pointed out, that card has been played before, & they’re also the most recent host of the three former hosts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Sapporo I think is the front-runner for 2030 still if their public survey shows majority support of their citizens.

But the reality is that if their public survey fails, Sapporo 2030 is dead in the water.  

That’s when Vancouver 2030 can fill the void if it can also demonstrate majority public support. 

So if that were the case, do you still think there would be a double with Vancouver & SLC then? Because 2034 is what the USOC really wants anyway.

6 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

I also do not think that being the most recent Winter Host will count against Vancouver 2030 since there will be 20 years between both ediitions.

Will all things being equal in this case, yes it would. You’re kidding yourself otherwise. Twenty years is nothing by Olympic context. 

9 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

One question I have is does anyone know if Salt Lake City has recently tested the public support of it’s citizens for a another Winter Games?

Yes it has. Why else do think Bach describes SLC’s bid as “cohesive unity” for? Because there’s great unity within the local & state gov’t for another winter Games. And also within the private & public sector, too. It’s mainly why the USOC chose SLC over Denver, as their next candidate to bid for a future Winter Olympic Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FYI said:

So if that were the case, do you still think there would be a double with Vancouver & SLC then? Because 2034 is what the USOC really wants anyway.

Will all things being equal in this case, yes it would. You’re kidding yourself otherwise. Twenty years is nothing by Olympic context. 

Yes it has. Why else do think Bach describes SLC’s bid as “cohesive unity” for? Because there’s great unity within the local & state gov’t for another winter Games. And also within the private & public sector, too. It’s mainly why the USOC chose SLC over Denver, as their next candidate to bid for a future Winter Olympic Games.

Absolutely, there is every chance of a double allocation out of these three.

  • Sapporo 2030
  • Salt Lake City 2034

If Sapporo’s public survey fails and Vancouver’s public survey gets up:

then:

Vancouver 2030 and Salt Lake City 2034

or

Salt Lake City 2030 and Vancouver 2034

In an era of diminshing of good Olympic hosts, 20 or 24 years between Games I think the IOC can make it work, just as much as it can make a USA Winter Games follow 2 years after a USA Summer Games if it needed to.

There is nothing in the Agenda 2020 or New Norm preventing a 20 or 24 year gap between Games in the same City.    Times have changed and if circumstances require it,  eg Sapporo drops out, the IOC will do it.

The IOC would easily do Vancouver again in a heartbeat if it needed to.

Don’t forget there was only 12 years between Innsbruck 1964 and Innsbruck 1976.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

There is nothing in the Agenda 2020 or New Norm preventing a 20 or 24 year gap between Games in the same City.    Times have changed and if circumstances require it,  eg Sapporo drops out, the IOC will do it.

Of course not. There was nothing preventing it under the old formula either, but it was still UN-officially exercised when ‘need’ be (i.e. two consecutive Olympics on the same continent never happened, as long as the IOC had the option otherwise).

19 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

In an era of diminshing of good Olympic hosts, 20 or 24 years between Games I think the IOC can make it work, just as much as it can make a USA Winter Games follow 2 years after a USA Summer Games if it needed to.

Sure, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here now, as your post now implies. Again, when all things are equal (& even in this case, they’re still not) & you have choices, then something else has to become the differentiating factor. And in this case, which former host has hosted the most recent. 

22 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

The IOC would easily do Vancouver again in a heartbeat if it needed to.

Don’t forget there was only 12 years between Innsbruck 1964 and Innsbruck 1976.

Of course they would. But they don’t need to in this case, not when a much stronger SLC is in the picture.

And let’s not be so disingenuous here. Innsbruck did NOT initially win the 1976 Winter Olympics. Innsbruck hosted again only 12 years after, because Denver, the actual ELECTED city for winter 1976 reneged on the deal in 1972.

So then the IOC had to scramble to find an alternative host. And ironically enough, the IOC turned to Vancouver, the 1976 winter runner-up, but I guess they didn’t want it then. So the IOC then turned to their plan-C & asked Innsbruck to host it again. Not because they initially wanted Innsbruck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY way I see Vancouver even remotely getting 2030, is if Sapporo falls to the wayside, & the USOC pushes back that they’re only interested in 2034 because of L.A. 2028.

But even then, as you yourself have acknowledged too, Vancouver still has their public support problem. And unless they can overcome that, like Sapporo, Vancouver would also be dead in the water. The only round-about, solid option on the table right now is SLC, which even Bach himself recognizes. And the IOC will give SLC 2030 in a heartbeat (as you say) if the circumstances also dictate (also as you say). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FYI said:

Of course not. There was nothing preventing it under the old formula either, but it was still UN-officially exercised when ‘need’ be (i.e. two consecutive Olympics on the same continent never happened, as long as the IOC had the option otherwise).

Sure, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here now, as your post now implies. Again, when all things are equal (& even in this case, they’re still not) & you have choices, then something else has to become the differentiating factor. And in this case, which former host has hosted the most recent. 

Of course they would. But they don’t need to in this case, not when a much stronger SLC is in the picture.

And let’s not be so disingenuous here. Innsbruck did NOT initially win the 1976 Winter Olympics. Innsbruck hosted again only 12 years after, because Denver, the actual ELECTED city for winter 1976 reneged on the deal in 1972.

So then the IOC had to scramble to find an alternative host. And ironically enough, the IOC turned to Vancouver, the 1976 winter runner-up, but I guess they didn’t want it then. So the IOC then turned to their plan-C & asked Innsbruck to host it again. Not because they initially wanted Innsbruck. 

Looking forward towards sochi 2034 and beijing 2038 then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FYI said:

The ONLY way I see Vancouver even remotely getting 2030, is if Sapporo falls to the wayside, & the USOC pushes back that they’re only interested in 2034 because of L.A. 2028.

But even then, as you yourself have acknowledged too, Vancouver still has their public support problem. And unless they can overcome that, like Sapporo, Vancouver would also be dead in the water. The only round-about, solid option on the table right now is SLC, which even Bach himself recognizes. And the IOC will give SLC 2030 in a heartbeat (as you say) if the circumstances also dictate (also as you say). 

Is there and strange option, were IOC just ignores peoples opinion and allocate olympics before sapporo or vancouver can even say the word referendum? I mean, if russia, china the US and probably a lot of middle east countries can do that why those two not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chris_Mex said:

Is there and strange option, were IOC just ignores peoples opinion and allocate olympics before sapporo or vancouver can even say the word referendum? I mean, if russia, china the US and probably a lot of middle east countries can do that why those two not

Don't lump the United States in with Russia and China.  This country is not a dictatorship.  The difference is in the method of funding where there's a lot more coming from the private sector than from the government relative to other bids.  Even still, do you remember Boston 2024?  That wasn't killed by a referendum, but it was polling numbers that pushed the USOC to cut ties with them and go with LA instead.

The IOC would probably be smart not to ignore people's opinions at this point.  We've seen how bad Olympics (from a financial standpoint) have hurt the cause of bidding.  They got away with forcing the Olympics on Tokyo despite public sentiment against it because they were confident Japan would deliver a good Olympics in spite of everything they were dealing with.  The last thing they should do is go against public sentiment and risk having it turn out poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Has SLC tested public support recently? I was wondering about this

I'm not sure when was the last time that was gauged. But certainly if there was something wrong with it now, we surely would've heard about it by now, like we have with Sapporo, Barcelona & Vancouver. And certainly praises from Bach about SLC would not have been as gleeful as they were this past week, since those NO-lympic crowds can be quite boastful. Again, huge public support was a big reason why the USOC chose SLC over Denver back in 2018, as their future candidate for another winter Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Don't lump the United States in with Russia and China.  This country is not a dictatorship.  The difference is in the method of funding where there's a lot more coming from the private sector than from the government relative to other bids.  Even still, do you remember Boston 2024?  That wasn't killed by a referendum, but it was polling numbers that pushed the USOC to cut ties with them and go with LA instead.

That poster has that strange habit of making that comparison, since they've done it before. I also gave them the Boston 2024 example then, too. But obviously that doesn't matter, since apparently, in their mind, for whatever reason, the U.S. is just like Russia & China. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris_Mex said:

Is there and strange option, were IOC just ignores peoples opinion and allocate olympics before sapporo or vancouver can even say the word referendum? I mean, if russia, china the US and probably a lot of middle east countries can do that why those two not

No.  The IOC is the one directing Sapporo and other candidates to test public support amongst it’s citizens for the 2030 Games.

These are new IOC rules. The candidates must do this - they have no choice.

They must follow the IOC’s New Norm rules or they don’t get the Games.

The New Norm IOC rules introduced in 2018 require a public survey or opinion poll or referendum to test whether a majority of the actual citizens support a Games before they are awarded.

Many advanced high quality candidatures have been blown out of the water by public opinion polls or referendums which at the last minute find that the people in that city don’t actually want the Games.

Sapporo’s candidature is in danger because they are about to test the public opinion of their own citizens.

So the IOC is not about to side-step it’s own new rules that it just announced to the world only 3 years ago to precisley prevent high quality candidatures collapsing and lots of money wasted because it found out a majority of it’s own citizens don’t want the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vancouver still making an honest run is a very good thing for 2030 security for a couple of reasons.  First, it gives the IOC some real authentic and needed "hands on" practice to work a charm offensive.  Vancouver, while notably trending down in popularity, in my book is still a competitive fight from a propaganda standpoint.  That one could absolutely be swung in the right direction, and the IOC NEEDS this experience after Calgary went belly-up in 2026.  That one was slightly less competitive and more of a lost cause, but Vancouver seems to be a very competitive race.  You need Vancouver just in case Sapporo goes awry.  Working strictly with only two bidders would be incredibly dumb especially with the knowledge that is very realistic that one of them, Sapporo, could fall with a poor public poll.

As extensively discussed above, Vancouver 2030-SLC 2034 looks pretty dang good too if Sapporo doesn't work out.  That needs to be a viable alternative plan, and the IOC needs to put in some serious ground work and gain some serious experience so it can win more challenging battles in Europe in the future.  If they cant turn a soft-serve challenge like Vancouver into a W, what the hell chance are they going to have in Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, or Austria?  They better take this seriously......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Working strictly with only two bidders would be incredibly dumb especially with the knowledge that is the very realistic that one of them, Sapporo, could fall with a poor public poll."

Sure, but this is conveniently ignoring the fact that Vancouver also has their own poor public support problem. I'd also say that Sapporo is still in a better position in other categories as well. Particularly, the snow category. And after the sh!t-show that will be Beijing 2022, where much of the snow, if not all of it, will be artificial, I wouldn't be surprised that many of the snow athletes will be voicing their concerns that the IOC make sure that they actually pick places from now on that have plenty of that powdery, white stuff, & that's natural.  

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...