Jump to content

2030 Olympic Winter Games Bids


Recommended Posts

I smell a 'double' bonanza coming on! :D 

I mean, what more can the IOC ask for with Sapporo & SLC, as far as the Winter Olympics are concerned (especially the snow factor lol)! The IOC would probably sign, seal & deliver this already if it not for the public servey in Hokkaido early next year.

And as far as the other three candidates go, like the article says, no need to bother mentioning all of their deficiencies (that have already been discussed here anyway), other than to say that they're just toast at this point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FYI said:

I smell a 'double' bonanza coming on! :D 

I mean, what more can the IOC ask for with Sapporo & SLC, as far as the Winter Olympics are concerned (especially the snow factor lol)! The IOC would probably sign, seal & deliver this already if it not for the public servey in Hokkaido early next year.

And as far as the other three candidates go, like the article says, no need to bother mentioning all of their deficiencies (that have already been discussed here anyway), other than to say that they're just toast at this point.  

Perhaps that's what the upcoming announcement is all about.  That those other cities are officially out of the conversation and it's just down to Sapporo and Salt Lake.  And yes, how many times did I say it that even though most of the double talk around here was nonsense, if that perfect scenario a la Paris/LA came along that a double could happen.  Here we are.  If Sapporo is game for 2030, I'm sure the IOC will have no problem at all convincing Salt Lake and the USOPC to lock in 2034.  Probably wouldn't even have to offer them any monetary concessions the way they had to with LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Perhaps that's what the upcoming announcement is all about.  That those other cities are officially out of the conversation and it's just down to Sapporo and Salt Lake.

Which is what I said over a week ago, if the IOC wasn't going to be crowning anyone, anytime soon. That I could see them moving SLC & Sapporo from "continuous dialog" to "targeted dialog" (which is pretty much what that means).

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And yes, how many times did I say it that even though most of the double talk around here was nonsense, if that perfect scenario a la Paris/LA came along that a double could happen.  Here we are.  If Sapporo is game for 2030, I'm sure the IOC will have no problem at all convincing Salt Lake and the USOPC to lock in 2034.  Probably wouldn't even have to offer them any monetary concessions the way they had to with LA.

The ironic thing here, though, is that once-upon-a-time, you said that if another double was possible, that the *only* way it would make any sense again, is that IF one of those two cities was a "European" city (like it was with 24/28). Claiming even further, that by doing so without a Euro city, would "alienate" Europe in the future (so Sapporo, by that logic, was never one of those cities that would make a 'perfect scenario' for another double).

Here we are, though, with Sapporo (a non-Euro city) absolutely being part of such another equation. The only thing here that another likely double has in common with the last one, is that it also involves another U.S. city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FYI said:

Which is what I said over a week ago, if the IOC wasn't going to be crowning anyone, anytime soon. That I could see them moving SLC & Sapporo from "continuous dialog" to "targeted dialog" (which is pretty much what that means).

You also said "it won’t surprise me in the least, if SLC is confirmed for the 2030 Winter Olympics right before Beijing 2022."

Kinda sounds like you thought the IOC might be crowning someone, sometime soon.  I agree that they could be progressing with both Salt Lake and Sapporo moving forward.  But that's a world of difference from officially ending the dialog and giving it to Salt Lake

20 minutes ago, FYI said:

The ironic thing here, though, is that once-upon-a-time, you said that if another double was possible, that the *only* way it would make any sense again, is that IF one of those two cities was a "European" city (like it was with 24/28). Claiming even further, that by doing so without a Euro city, would "alienate" Europe in the future (so Sapporo, by that logic, was never one of those cities that would make a 'perfect scenario' for another double).

Here we are, though, with Sapporo (a non-Euro city) absolutely being part of such another equation. The only thing here that another likely double has in common with the last one, is that it also involves another U.S. city. 

But that's the beauty of this double.  When Paris/LA got put together, the deal was only going to come together if 1 of the 2 cities agreed to taking 2028.  LA was willing to do that knowing that they could milk the IOC for some additional funds for their troubles.  No need to do that here.  It's a scenario with a double that would have been harder to envision in the lead-up to the 2026 vote that people were throwing out suggestions.  And as you've noted a couple of times, the events of the past 2 years have us living in a different world than we did pre-pandemic. 

The impetus for a double here is knowing that Salt Lake is going to persist until they land an Olympics, whether it's for 2030 or 2034.  The USOPC had a similar mindset with the Summer Olympics and under the old process where it ended in a vote, they probably would have kept persisting even if it meant spending millions on another bid.  The IOC just saved them the trouble, and you can be sure the fact that it was an American city there and an American city here is what helps seal the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You also said "it won’t surprise me in the least, if SLC is confirmed for the 2030 Winter Olympics right before Beijing 2022."

Kinda sounds like you thought the IOC might be crowning someone, sometime soon.  I agree that they could be progressing with both Salt Lake and Sapporo moving forward.  But that's a world of difference from officially ending the dialog and giving it to Salt Lake

Yeah, and? It wouldn't have surprised me. The only difference now is the wording, since I could still see the IOC just moving SLC forward, since there's still that big question mark around Sapporo, as far as the public support goes (which you also, have acknowledged yourself).

25 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

But that's the beauty of this double.  When Paris/LA got put together, the deal was only going to come together if 1 of the 2 cities agreed to taking 2028.  LA was willing to do that knowing that they could milk the IOC for some additional funds for their troubles.  No need to do that here.  It's a scenario with a double that would have been harder to envision in the lead-up to the 2026 vote that people were throwing out suggestions.  And as you've noted a couple of times, the events of the past 2 years have us living in a different world than we did pre-pandemic. 

So now we're calling 'doubles' - "beauties"?! Seriously, what have you done with the REAL Quaker! :lol:

Sure, the pandemic has changed many things. But the 24/28 double happened before Corona. As well as the cities that were dropping off like flies for the (winter) Olympics was nothing new, either. Which then led to the IOC to make the "new norm" changes, which also happened pre-pandemic.

If a number of cities hadn't been turned off by the Olympics & not wanting to bid, doubtful the pandemic would've changed much if things had remained the way they were, as far as Olympic bids were concerned.

26 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The impetus for a double here is knowing that Salt Lake is going to persist until they land an Olympics, whether it's for 2030 or 2034.  The USOPC had a similar mindset with the Summer Olympics and under the old process where it ended in a vote, they probably would have kept persisting even if it meant spending millions on another bid.  The IOC just saved them the trouble, and you can be sure the fact that it was an American city there and an American city here is what helps seal the deal.

Uhmmm, that just sounds more like 'confirmation bias' (as you like to say). Since you've been saying along, even as recent as yesterday morning, that "the IOC need not think ahead to 2034".  That doesn't sound like any kind of 'impetus'. Especially when you went on to say "but that's 3 years down the road before they need to give 'serious consideration' to a 2034 host".

Under the old formula, that would've been true. But under the "new norm" procedures, the IOC can move forward at anytime, with whoever they see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Yeah, and? It wouldn't have surprised me. The only difference now is the wording, since I could still see the IOC just moving SLC forward, since there's still that big question mark around Sapporo, as far as the public support goes (which you also, have acknowledged yourself).

There is a massive question mark.  But unless that question gets answered really soon, I have a hard time seeing anything getting confirmed by February more than the IOC saying they're pushing ahead with Sapporo and Salt Lake, the latter of which is merely a formality of course

2 hours ago, FYI said:

So now we're calling 'doubles' - "beauties"?! Seriously, what have you done with the REAL Quaker! :lol:

Sure, the pandemic has changed many things. But the 24/28 double happened before Corona. As well as the cities that were dropping off like flies for the (winter) Olympics was nothing new, either. Which then led to the IOC to make the "new norm" changes, which also happened pre-pandemic.

If a number of cities hadn't been turned off by the Olympics & not wanting to bid, doubtful the pandemic would've changed much if things had remained the way they were, as far as Olympic bids were concerned.

No, not 'doubles'.. THIS double is a beauty.  And obviously it's only a beauty if certain circumstances present themselves, which of course means public support in Sapporo.  We all said here that Paris/LA was the perfect storm of events lining up for the IOC.  I agree with your last point though.. the pandemic didn't create this situation and if not for the pandemic, we'd probably be that much more confident in both Sapporo and Salt Lake that they're 2 cities the IOC would love to partner with.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Uhmmm, that just sounds more like 'confirmation bias' (as you like to say). Since you've been saying along, even as recent as yesterday morning, that "the IOC need not think ahead to 2034".  That doesn't sound like any kind of 'impetus'. Especially when you went on to say "but that's 3 years down the road before they need to give 'serious consideration' to a 2034 host".

Under the old formula, that would've been true. But under the "new norm" procedures, the IOC can move forward at anytime, with whoever they see fit.

Of course they can do whatever they want.  There's no timeline to follow, for better or worse.  Makes things a little less fun for us here, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're right, I did say the IOC doesn't need to think ahead to 2034.  Doesn't mean they can't think about it though.  Especially if a great opportunity is presented to them.  Sapporo 2030/Salt Lake 2034 seems like it might just be a great opportunity.  If Sapporo doesn't have the public support, then they lock in SLC for 2030 and think about 2034 later on.  Part of that comment was in response to the notion that if Salt Lake is the 2030 host and Sapporo doesn't have the support, they're screwed for 2034.  I don't believe that's the case.  Way too early to make that assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Part of that comment was in response to the notion that if Salt Lake is the 2030 host and Sapporo doesn't have the support, they're screwed for 2034.  I don't believe that's the case.  Way too early to make that assumption.

Yes, I do concur with that point, as well. A couple of others here have speculated that if SLC got anointed with 2030, because Sapporo got cold feet, that'll somehow be "the end" of the Winter Olympics as we know them. :blink:

I just don't see where that 'doom-&-gloom' scenario comes from, especially when Sapporo would possibly still be out there after more time has passed from Tokyo 2020ne. Sapporo passed on 2026 (& that was before the pandemic), but here they are, still considering 2030 even after Tokyo 2020ne. They only have one question mark ATM. Albeit, it's still a big question mark, though.

I can also envision a couple of European entrants for 2034, as well as perhaps Vancouver, after they maybe have had more time to 'organize' their bids. It's really not as dire as some already want to paint it if SLC does indeed end up with the 2030 winter Games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yes, I do concur with that point, as well. A couple of others here have speculated that if SLC got anointed with 2030, because Sapporo got cold feet, that'll somehow be "the end" of the Winter Olympics as we know them. :blink:

I just don't see where that 'doom-&-gloom' scenario comes from, especially when Sapporo would possibly still be out there after more time has passed from Tokyo 2020ne. Sapporo passed on 2026 (& that was before the pandemic), but here they are, still considering 2030 even after Tokyo 2020ne. They only have one question mark ATM. Albeit, it's still a big question mark, though.

I can also envision a couple of European entrants for 2034, as well as perhaps Vancouver, after they maybe have had more time to 'organize' their bids. It's really not as dire as some already want to paint it if SLC does indeed end up with the 2030 winter Games. 

I was just compelled to look up some info on Oslo.  We here remember how that ended in 2014, although that was right after Sochi, so it's understandable the Norwegians were a little wary of hosting an Olympics.  Now though, it's not a vote but rather a targeted dialog.  This is where Agenda 2020 could play a role because instead of the old days where it would be "show us your best," now it could be more like "show us what you've got, and maybe we can work with you."

Time will tell how quickly the IOC and the Olympic movement move on from Tokyo and Beijing (the former of which was a disaster for reasons out of everyone's control).  As we've said here so many times before, long gone are the days where the IOC had a full field of suitors to choose from.  But now, all they need is 1.  Easier said than done, especially insofar as Winter hosts are concerned, but perhaps Milan-Cortina gives others inspiration that a less formulaic proposal (i.e. a snow hub and an ice hub) could get consideration.  Especially in locales where there are already existing venues and infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the 31 minute mark of the IOC press conference 9/12/21 following day 2 of the IOC Executive Board Meeting and in answer to a question from Rob Livingstone from Gamesbids.com the IOC talks a bit about the recent meeting between Salt Lake City and the IOC.

The IOC also confirms that at Beijing 2022 that the IOC will be meeting with and continuing discussions with both Sapporo and Salt Lake City.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

At the 31 minute mark of the IOC press conference 9/12/21 following day 2 of the IOC Executive Board Meeting and in answer to a question from Rob Livingstone from Gamesbids.com the IOC talks a bit about the recent meeting between Salt Lake City and the IOC.

The IOC also confirms that at Beijing 2022 that the IOC will be meeting with and continuing discussions with both Sapporo and Salt Lake City.

 

 

 

Ok so double allocation someone?, also that confirms barcelona, ukraine and vancouver aren't in the discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chris_Mex said:

Ok so double allocation someone?, also that confirms barcelona, ukraine and vancouver aren't in the discussion

The dialogue will continue with Sapporo and Salt Lake City at Beijing but I don’t think there will be any allocation announcements then since neither have yet been elevated to the Targeted Dialogue phase as yet.

Sapporo also have not held their public opinion survey as yet either although that is technically possible to occur in January.

I don’t think it will hapoen at Beijing but there is an “outside chance” that one of these two might be elevated to Targeted Dialogue.   But my money is on just simply the talks with both continuing in Beijing and that’s it, for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That should come as no surprise. It's what some of us have been saying all along.

I mean, even Bach smiles with glee when talking about how cohesive the SLC bid is. Sapporo is right up there in all the categories, too, except the one on public support. If is wasn't for that big question mark on Sapporo, the IOC would be wrapping this up already with both the Hokkaido & Utah capitals. 

The Pyrenees, Ukraine & even Vancouver, aren't generating the same type of excitement from the Exco whenever they are mentioned, & for good reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Rob Livingstone, some good insight into the answers given by the IOC to his questions at the Day 2 IOC Media Conference last night.  Here’s some of Rob’s twitter post posted further below:

“Bach was coy when asked if the IOC might award the 2030 and 2034 Winter Games simultaneously, as the organization did with Paris 2024 and LA 2028 when both strong bids were on the table.  He said “that is In the hands of the Future Host Commission.”

“I’m not allowed to be a member.”

“Under new rules, the Future Host Commission recommends “preferred candidates” to the Executive Board for approval.  As president, Bach is quite influential in this process whether he is on the Commission or not.”

”Earlier this year the Executive Board ushered through a 2032 Summer Games bid by Brisbane, Australia to become the first host city elected this way.”

“There is no set timetable guiding the awarding of the Winter Games. “

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, did this duo race foe just became a trio with Vancouver 2030?

Is this is a big spanner in the works of a Sapporo and Salt Lake City double allocation?

Vancouver 2030 seems to have already done a random public survey too.

Quite a stunning development.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2021 at 10:10 AM, FYI said:

Yes, I do concur with that point, as well. A couple of others here have speculated that if SLC got anointed with 2030, because Sapporo got cold feet, that'll somehow be "the end" of the Winter Olympics as we know them. :blink:

I just don't see where that 'doom-&-gloom' scenario comes from, especially when Sapporo would possibly still be out there after more time has passed from Tokyo 2020ne. Sapporo passed on 2026 (& that was before the pandemic), but here they are, still considering 2030 even after Tokyo 2020ne. They only have one question mark ATM. Albeit, it's still a big question mark, though.

I can also envision a couple of European entrants for 2034, as well as perhaps Vancouver, after they maybe have had more time to 'organize' their bids. It's really not as dire as some already want to paint it if SLC does indeed end up with the 2030 winter Games. 

 

On 12/9/2021 at 10:29 AM, Quaker2001 said:

I was just compelled to look up some info on Oslo.  We here remember how that ended in 2014, although that was right after Sochi, so it's understandable the Norwegians were a little wary of hosting an Olympics.  Now though, it's not a vote but rather a targeted dialog.  This is where Agenda 2020 could play a role because instead of the old days where it would be "show us your best," now it could be more like "show us what you've got, and maybe we can work with you."

Time will tell how quickly the IOC and the Olympic movement move on from Tokyo and Beijing (the former of which was a disaster for reasons out of everyone's control).  As we've said here so many times before, long gone are the days where the IOC had a full field of suitors to choose from.  But now, all they need is 1.  Easier said than done, especially insofar as Winter hosts are concerned, but perhaps Milan-Cortina gives others inspiration that a less formulaic proposal (i.e. a snow hub and an ice hub) could get consideration.  Especially in locales where there are already existing venues and infrastructure.

 

22 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Ok so double allocation someone?, also that confirms barcelona, ukraine and vancouver aren't in the discussion

 

Stunning developments re Vancouver 2030 have just happened above.

But ad Rob Livingstone said, is it too late?
Or is the IOC breathing a sigh of relief in case a Sapporo 2030 public survey fails?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Like I just said in that Vancouver newswire thread, but that seems like it's just a knee-jerk reaction on their part, to the IOC's key meetings with SLC & Sapporo earlier in the week. It's like when India, Qatar, Germany & others, all scrambled that they were going to form their "exploratory committees" when Brisbane was named "preferred candidate". SLC (& even, Sapporo) are WAY ahead of Vancouver (& everyone else, for that matter). Plus, SLC (& Sapporo) actually have SNOW!

I have to say that at this point of the 2030 game, Vancouver is more like Rhine-Rhur. A nice proposal if only they had all of their T's crossed & I's dotted. And SLC (& Sapporo a good second) like Brisbane, in the drivers seat, that's getting very, very close to the finish line.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Or is the IOC breathing a sigh of relief in case a Sapporo 2030 public survey fails?

Let's not forget that Vancouver also has their lack of public interest. And they already conducted polls of their own, that showed only 43% of respondents in favor of another winter Games. So I doubt the IOC is breathing any sign of relief with them. I'd say that Sapporo is still in a better position at this point. And Sapporo actually has SNOW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Oh boy, did this duo race just become a trio with Vancouver 2030?

Is this a big spanner in the works of a Sapporo and Salt Lake City double allocation?

No, I don't think it's a spoiler at all for a Sapporo/SLC double. Both are still WAY ahead of Vancouver (much like how Brisbane was "way ahead" of Rhine-Rhur, Jakarta, Budapest, India, etc). And both of them have something else that Vancouver has little of - SNOW.

38 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Vancouver 2030 seems to have already done a random public survey too. 

Yeah, which only showed 43% in favor of another winter Games, too. 

32 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Quite a stunning development. 

Development, yes. Stunning, no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FYI said:

Let's not forget that Vancouver also has their lack of public interest. And they already conducted polls of their own, that showed only 43% of respondents in favor of another winter Games. So I doubt the IOC is breathing any sign of relief with them. I'd say that Sapporo is still in a better position at this point. And Sapporo actually has SNOW!

Yes the link to this August 2021 Vancouver 2030 community survey does not actually indicate a percentage of those supporting the bid, only the “community priorities in supporting a bid”.

If Sapporo 2030’s public survey in the new year shows majority support, then that’s a big obstacle removed from Sapporo’s path and it would have the inside running for 2030 provided there are funding guarantees.

If Sapporo 2030’s public survey shows a majority against the Games, then game over for them.

With Vancouver 2030 just announcing today they are forming an bid committee, they might be positioning themselves in case of a Sapporo public survey failure (?).

But Vancouver 2030 would still need to convince the IOC they enjoy majority public support too, and as you said, the last available Vancouver public opinion spoll shows less than majority support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Yes the link to this August 2021 Vancouver 2030 community survey does not actually indicate a percentage of those supporting the bid, only the “community priorities in supporting a bid”.

But Vancouver 2030 would still need to convince the IOC they enjoy majority public support too, and as you said, the last available Vancouver public opinion spoll shows less than majority support.

This quote is from the GB newswire article regarding today's Vancouver 'development' (which you also posted upthread):

"poor public support is another hurdle challenging the Canadian bid with an 'October poll' showing only '43 percent' across British Columbia behind plans to host the Games for a second time."

So IDK if that's a different poll than the one you linked, or a different one (since different months are mentioned), which does indicate a minority percentage in favor. 

20 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

With Vancouver 2030 just announcing today they are forming an bid committee, they might be positioning themselves in case of a Sapporo public survey failure (?).

If they are, that doesn't seem like a smart strategy, since Vancouver also has that issue. Sapporo's lack of public enthusiasm also hasn't been a big secret, either. It's been out there for a while now.

Like I said earlier, I think today's Vancouver announcement is more knee-jerk (much like Rhine-Ruhr's, Budapest, Doha, Jakarta, India, etc. were when Brisbane was named 'preferred bidder' by the IOC for 2032), since the IOC has had 'key meetings' this week with both Sapporo & SLC that have very, very positive, particularly in SLC's case. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...