Salt Lake City 2034

[AustralianFan]

Interesting read on how Salt Lake City 2030 candidature team may interract with the IOC Future Host Commission this week

 

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, agreatolympicfanforlife said:

I have been saying for the longest time that SLC and The IOC are going to come to a handshake agreement and there is going to be a double allocation and the IOC is going to award Sapporo for 2030 and SLC for 2034.

They need to make sure they have Sapporo ready to lock in for them to be able to do that.  That doesn't seem like it's going to happen anytime soon.

Once they do get Sapporo on solid footing (still a big "if" at this point), then they can press forward with both parties.  But it may or may not be a double allocation in the same vein that we saw with Paris and LA.  That was by necessity a 3-way agreement that had to come together all at once.  The IOC agreeing with Sapporo and SLC would be 2 completely separate and unrelated deals.  Could they be announced at the same time?  Sure.  Neither city is bidding and competing against each other though, and for all room discussions that will likely be happening, they don't have to get both parties in the room together to make it happen

[FYI]

Huh? Aren't Sapporo & SLC bidding (per se) & vying for the same 2030 Games. Yeah, the USOC would prefer the 2034 edition, but they're still leaving the door open for 2030, which SLC would rather prefer.

I also don't quite agree that the IOC would handle Sapporo & SLC separately. Especially when they're having "continuous dialogs" with both of them at any given point. The only way a completely separate scenario happens, if in the end, Sapporo just bails on 2030. Then the IOC only has SLC to deal with (& whoever else may still be left over, i.e. Barcelona-Sarajevo lol, Vancouver, etc).

But if Sapporo really does want 2030, then the IOC is going to have to go back & tell SLC, that they'll get 2034 then (much to their chagrin). And at that point, I don't see the need of "two completely separate & unrelated deals". They can just seal the deals all at once next summer in Mumbai, which the IOC wants to save as a 'big announcement' gathering anyway. 

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Huh? Aren't Sapporo & SLC bidding (per se) & vying for the same 2030 Games. Yeah, the USOC would prefer the 2034 edition, but they're still leaving the door open for 2030, which SLC would rather prefer.

I also don't quite agree that the IOC would handle Sapporo & SLC separately. Especially when they're having "continuous dialogs" with both of them at any given point. The only way a completely separate scenario happens, if in the end, Sapporo just bails on 2030. Then the IOC only has SLC to deal with (& whoever else may still be left over, i.e. Barcelona-Sarajevo lol, Vancouver, etc).

But if Sapporo really does want 2030, then the IOC is going to have to go back & tell SLC, that they'll get 2034 then (much to their chagrin). And at that point, I don't see the need of "two completely separate & unrelated deals". They can just seal the deals all at once next summer in Mumbai, which the IOC wants to save as a 'big announcement' gathering anyway. 

They can, but they're not obligated to do that.  Sapporo and SLC at this point are vying more for a future Winter Olympics rather than putting in formal bids for 2030.  That's what makes this different from Paris/LA.  Like you said, it's just "continuous dialog" at this point.  Yes, that dialog is likely going to lead to an eventual decision and there's a good chance that decision is Sapporo 2030 and SLC 2034.  But that's still 2 very separate and distinct deals if the IOC wants to put that together because it's not part of a bid process. 

This wouldn't be the kind of 3 way conversation that gave us Paris 2024/LA 228.  When that happened, the IOC had to strike a deal with LA for 2028 they couldn't simply cross out 2024 from the original bid.  They don't have to offer SLC concessions to take 2034 because there's no official bid for 2030.  And I think we can be pretty sure that the USOPC has told them to prep for either scenario rather than to press forward with one option and have the other as a fallback.

I agree that we could get an announcement from the IOC that both are happening.  But Sapporo signing the host city contract for 2030 and Salt Lake for 2034 need not be intertwined with each other.

[FYI]

Lol, okay. But that's basically just all semantics. Yeah, we don't have a "formal bidding process", & sure, vying more for a "future" Winter Olympics is pretty accurate, since 2030 is indeed - in the future. So IDK what exactly is 'separate' here, since the only difference is the way the IOC is going about it this time around (with the 'new norm/it's a Game changer' theme ), but the end result can be the same. It's not like hush-hush, behind closed-door meetings didn't happen when there were all-out bidding campaigns.

It's obvious both the USOC & SLC want another Winter Olympics, so I don't see what would be the benefit for the IOC to delay giving a Games to what is a sound, all the way around, candidate like SLC (whom they've been in contact with about the matter for a few years now anyway), if 2030 were to go to Sapporo. But since there's no "formal" bidding process, maybe instead of calling it a double-allocation, we can call it a "double-assignment" then!  

[Quaker2001]

34 minutes ago, FYI said:

Lol, okay. But that's basically just all semantics. Yeah, we don't have a "formal bidding process", & sure, vying more for a "future" Winter Olympics is pretty accurate, since 2030 is indeed - in the future. So IDK what exactly is 'separate' here, since the only difference is the way the IOC is going about it this time around (with the 'new norm/it's a Game changer' theme ), but the end result can be the same. It's not like hush-hush, behind closed-door meetings didn't happen when there were all-out bidding campaigns.

It's obvious both the USOC & SLC want another Winter Olympics, so I don't see what would be the benefit for the IOC to delay giving a Games to what is a sound, all the way around, candidate like SLC (whom they've been in contact with about the matter for a few years now anyway), if 2030 were to go to Sapporo. But since there's no "formal" bidding process, maybe instead of calling it a double-allocation, we can call it a "double-assignment" then!  

I'll still call it a fetish 

The whole idea of a double is that it implies that 2 things happen together, not just generally around the same time.  If the "only difference" is the way the IOC is going about it, that's a pretty big difference, especially if the end result doesn't exactly resemble what happened in 2017 other than the IOC picked 2 cities instead of 1.

You say you don't see the benefit of a delay.. what's the benefit of rushing to announce a 2nd city?  Easy for us to say Salt Lake is an obvious choice, but it's not like they'd be going anywhere.  Unlike LA 2028 which had spent millions of dollars on a bid and would be asked to do so again if there wasn't a double, that's not the case with SLC.  It's not like they're going anywhere if the IOC gives 2030 to Sapporo.

You're right some of this is semantics, just trying to point out this isn't quite like the last time.  There are key differences and we should be smart enough to recognize that.  I kinda can already get the sense that you want to reply with "you're just saying all that to be argumentative," so I'll save you the time and point out that I'm not.  It wouldn't surprise me to see the mayors of Sapporo and Salt Lake up on a stage together.  But I don't think that's the direction this is headed in.  And that's with the obvious caveat that none of this applies if Sapporo doesn't have their act together for a 2030 bid.

[baron-pierreIV]

And especially with Russia now a non-actor in things Olympic, the US emerges as the IOC's most valuable market more than ever.  All those Russian (& Belarussian) athletes are gonna grow fat and flabby sooner than they had hoped for.  

[FYI]

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You say you don't see the benefit of a delay.. **what's the benefit of rushing to announce a 2nd city?** Easy for us to say Salt Lake is an obvious choice, but it's not like they'd be going anywhere.  Unlike LA 2028 which had spent millions of dollars on a bid and would be asked to do so again if there wasn't a double, that's not the case with SLC.  It's not like they're going anywhere if the IOC gives 2030 to Sapporo.

In case you haven't noticed, but the IOC just loooves to be in a 'rush' to announce host cities (i.e. see Brisbane 2032 ). And that was really a case where it did make more sense to wait than here, when a global pandemic was literally wreaking havoc around the world. Yet, the IOC felt compelled to march on, virus or no virus, with their 2032 plans, nonetheless. 

It's also not like L.A. was going anywhere if the IOC just gave 2024 to Paris & that was it. Especially when they knew if it was going to be a head-to-head contest that they would lose. But considering now, it's all about "continuous & targeted dialog" anyway, L.A. wouldn't have had to spend millions of dollars more for another bid & they would've been back. But the IOC still felt compelled enough to give them 2028 anyway.  

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You're right some of this is semantics, just trying to point out this isn't quite like the last time. But I don't think that's the direction this is headed in.  And that's with the obvious caveat that none of this applies if Sapporo doesn't have their act together for a 2030 bid.

Speaking of things that are easy for us to say, but you're right, this isn't quite like the last time, cause it's totally different cities for totally different Olympic cycles. But the end game can very well end up being the same way. And yes, obviously the caveat here is Sapporo, which makes all the more sense if they do indeed have their act together for a 2030 bid.

[Quaker2001]

7 hours ago, FYI said:

In case you haven't noticed, but the IOC just loooves to be in a 'rush' to announce host cities (i.e. see Brisbane 2032 ). And that was really a case where it did make more sense to wait than here, when a global pandemic was literally wreaking havoc around the world. Yet, the IOC felt compelled to march on, virus or no virus, with their 2032 plans, nonetheless.

Sure, dude.  Doing something once means the IOC just loooves (lol) doing that something.  No doubt Brisbane was a surprise.  But doesn't that go to the theory we've had here for awhile that the IOC is unpredictable and does whatever they feel like doing?  And that past history doesn't really tell us what they might do in the future.  It's often just about circumstance and even then, it doesn't always make sense.  How many people here thought we were going to get some sort of announcement about future hosts around Beijing.  That didn't happen.  Clearly this isn't a rush job for them.  Under a normal timetable we'd get a 2030 host sometime in 2023 and that seems like it's exactly what's going to happen.

7 hours ago, FYI said:

It's also not like L.A. was going anywhere if the IOC just gave 2024 to Paris & that was it. Especially when they knew if it was going to be a head-to-head contest that they would lose. But considering now, it's all about "continuous & targeted dialog" anyway, L.A. wouldn't have had to spend millions of dollars more for another bid & they would've been back. But the IOC still felt compelled enough to give them 2028 anyway. 

Which came on the heels of the IOC's "too many losers" edict.  And also what likely led them to eventually move away from formal bidding and more towards dialog.  At the time though, if they didn't give LA 2028 then, they were looking at another 4 year wait and a long and expensive bid process.  We didn't know at the time that the IOC was going to move away from process into something where they kinda do whatever they want whenever they feel like it.  Of course LA wasn't going to go away (as opposed to Paris which might have), so the IOC made that decision in the moment and brokered that deal to save everyone involved the trouble.  Which allowed them to wind up with 0 losers

7 hours ago, FYI said:

Speaking of things that are easy for us to say, but you're right, this isn't quite like the last time, cause it's totally different cities for totally different Olympic cycles. But the end game can very well end up being the same way. And yes, obviously the caveat here is Sapporo, which makes all the more sense if they do indeed have their act together for a 2030 bid.

It's possible.  The dynamic of that 2024 vote was that every other city dropped out (formally) and they were left with just 2 bids.  Right now, there's 2 other bids out there.  It's easy for us to dismiss them and in time there's a pretty good chance the IOC will feel the same way.  That's why this isn't going to be a rush job.  Credit the IOC with doing some due diligence here and figuring out where everyone stands (aside from SLC, which hardly a variable, we all know what they're about).  Either way though, it's all just dialog.  Not 2 years of a formal bid process where cities have spent their time and energy.  If Sapporo gets chosen for 2030, I doubt the sentiment around SLC will be that they lost.  Or that the IOC needs to immediately move to give them 2034.  That could very well happen.  But IMO, it's far from a given that's how it'll play out

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Sure, dude.  Doing something once means the IOC just loooves (lol) doing that something.  No doubt Brisbane was a surprise. Clearly this isn't a rush job for them.  Under a normal timetable we'd get a 2030 host sometime in 2023 and that seems like it's exactly what's going to happen.

'Dude'? I thought you were from New York & not the Valley. lol

And I was being facetious with the love part, cause there was no need for 2032 to be a rush job, considering the dire circumstances at the time. But yet it was. Sure, the IOC can be unpredictable, but that doesn't stop anyone here (including yourself) of speculating about what they might, or might not do in the future. But what 2032 did give is precedence, in which the IOC has now opened the door to that possibility again. 

"Under a normal timetable" doesn't exist anymore, remember? Especially when you're only using it for 2030 & not applying it to 2034 as well, since that cycle is also part of the "continuous dialog". In that aspect, the normal timetable doesn't apply anymore, & both of those cycles can still be part of the same equation. Cause now, the IOC "does kinda whatever they want, whenever they feel like it".

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

It's possible.  The dynamic of that 2024 vote was that every other city dropped out (formally) and they were left with just 2 bids.  Right now, there's 2 other bids out there.  It's easy for us to dismiss them and in time there's a pretty good chance the IOC will feel the same way.  That's why this isn't going to be a rush job.  Credit the IOC with doing some due diligence here and figuring out where everyone stands (aside from SLC, which hardly a variable, we all know what they're about). 

Who says I'm not giving the IOC credit for due diligence? They are (& have been) conducting "continuous dialogs" with all the viable parties, have they not? There are two other bids out there, yes, but really, they're not as strong as the first two (& I think that's something that we can both agree on). There's constant political in-fighting with one, & with a cross-continental proposal (not to mention a NOlympics movement). And the other one just seems like it can't get it's feet off the ground. That's where those other two stand. Seems like they're easy enough to dismiss, just like the IOC dismissed all of the other 2032 potential suitors, for one reason or another. 

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If Sapporo gets chosen for 2030, I doubt the sentiment around SLC will be that they lost.  Or that the IOC needs to immediately move to give them 2034.  That could very well happen.  **But IMO, it's far from a given that's how it'll play out**

"Sure, dude". Cause the USOC & SLC just like having all of these "continuous dialogs" & backroom meetings just for the heck of it. lol

[Quaker2001]

39 minutes ago, FYI said:

'Dude'? I thought you were from New York & not the Valley. lol

And I was being facetious with the love part, cause there was no need for 2032 to be a rush job, considering the dire circumstances at the time. But yet it was. Sure, the IOC can be unpredictable, but that doesn't stop anyone here (including yourself) of speculating about what they might, or might not do in the future. But what 2032 did give is precedence, in which the IOC has now opened the door to that possibility again.

Fine then.. fuhgeddaboutit!

I figured you were being somewhat facetious, but again, the lesson IMO is less "that thing that happened once, now it means it can happen again" and more "past history gives us little guide to the future when it comes to the future."  I have no issue with speculation, especially when the whole basis of this forum has gotten a little boring.  I just think too many people tend to want to base that speculation on "precedence" when that doesn't really give all us that much insight as to what to look for.  Every situation is a little different.  That part about all this hasn't changed.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

"Under a normal timetable" doesn't exist anymore, remember? Especially when you're only using it for 2030 & not applying it to 2034 as well, since that cycle is also part of the "continuous dialog". In that aspect, the normal timetable doesn't apply anymore, & both of those cycles can still be part of the same equation. Cause now, the IOC "does kinda whatever they want, whenever they feel like it".

Never implied 2034 isn't in play.  You're kinda making my point for me though.. there is no "normal" and might not be for a long time to come, so what difference does it make what happened before?  The only reason I brought that up was to note that the IOC will probably want a 2030 host locked in no less than 7 years in advance, so that means they'll want it wrapped up by then, most likely making an official announcement next year in Mumbai.  They have to have 2030 done by then.  They could also do 2034 by then if they want to and think it makes sense for them.  Because since the IOC is Cartman now..

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Who says I'm not giving the IOC credit for due diligence? They are (& have been) conducting "continuous dialogs" with all the viable parties, have they not? There are two other bids out there, yes, but really, they're not as strong as the first two (& I think that's something that we can both agree on). There's constant political in-fighting with one, & with a cross-continental proposal (not to mention a NOlympics movement). And the other one just seems like it can't get it's feet off the ground. That's where those other two stand. Seems like they're easy enough to dismiss, just like the IOC dismissed all of the other 2032 potential suitors, for one reason or another.

The funny thing there is I honestly don't even remember who was even interested in 2032 without looking it up.  And then Brisbane seemed to randomly one day be the pick.  At least here we have a better idea of who the suitors are and where they stand.  Absolutely the IOC can (and almost certainly will) dismiss them at a moment's notice with no explanation.  Or just announce a winner.  When I said "credit the IOC with doing their due diligence," that wasn't an implication that you weren't giving them credit.  I'm of how they're operating now in a less formal manner.  Understandably, the fact that it's less transparent is not a good thing, but at least it allows them to be flexible here (i.e. award 2030 without having to tell other cities "sorry, you lost, try again for the next Olympics" and potentially seeing that it makes sense to award 2034 now).  We'll see how it all plays out, but for my money, the circumstances here should stand on their own, regardless of what recent history may offer up.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

"Sure, dude". Cause the USOC & SLC just like having all of these "continuous dialogs" & backroom meetings just for the heck of it. lol

I'm sure there's plenty of sentiment within the SLC camp asking why the USOPC didn't put them forward for 2022.  That's obviously a hindsight argument, but even though SLC wants their Olympics as soon as they can get them, we know the USOPC might not feel the same way.  They're having dialogs to secure an Olympics.  What they're not doing is spending tens of millions of dollars on a formal bid like LA did.  If they spent all that time and energy and came away with nothing and then had to make a brand new investment of time and energy, that's a different scenario than SLC not getting 2030, almost certainly then being the presumptive favorite for 2034, and positioning themselves to get it whenever the IOC decides they want to award it

[FYI]

On 4/28/2022 at 2:01 PM, Quaker2001 said:

but again, the lesson IMO is less "that thing that happened once, now it means it can happen again" and more "past history gives us little guide to the future when it comes to the future."  I have no issue with speculation, especially when the whole basis of this forum has gotten a little boring.  I just think too many people tend to want to base that speculation on "precedence" when that doesn't really give all us that much insight as to what to look for.  Every situation is a little different.  That part about all this hasn't changed.

Never implied 2034 isn't at play. You're kinda making my point for me though.. there is no "normal" and might not be for a long time to come, so what difference does it make what happened before?

The thing is, though, that this time it's more than just precedence. It's actually part of the formula ("the new-norm: it's a Game changer") that the IOC is now following & that they themselves have instilled, & as you said yourself, which makes them much more flexible. The IOC itself has said that these new bidding reforms are meant to be able to find the right partner at ANY given moment. And to seize that partner whenever they feel that they've found them. That can mean the old 7 years of the past, but it can also mean the 11 years that we've recently seen with the last two Summer Olympic designations. There's NO set rule now for when the IOC can go cherry-picking.

On 4/28/2022 at 2:01 PM, Quaker2001 said:

When I said "credit the IOC with doing their due diligence," that wasn't an implication that you weren't giving them credit.  **I'm of how they're operating now in a less formal manner.**

You sure about that? Cause like I just said above, how they're operating now, is without no time-frames, deadlines or protocols. They can now act on a whim, if they so wish, & if it's in their own best interests to do so, of course.

On 4/28/2022 at 2:01 PM, Quaker2001 said:

I'm sure there's plenty of sentiment within the SLC camp asking why the USOPC didn't put them forward for 2022.  That's obviously a hindsight argument, but even though SLC wants their Olympics as soon as they can get them, we know the USOPC might not feel the same way.  They're having dialogs to secure an Olympics.  What they're not doing is spending tens of millions of dollars on a formal bid like LA did.  If they spent all that time and energy and came away with nothing and then had to make a brand new investment of time and energy, that's a different scenario than SLC not getting 2030, almost certainly then being the presumptive favorite for 2034, and positioning themselves to get it whenever the IOC decides they want to award it

They may not be spending tens of millions of dollars on a formal bid, but they're still spending/investing time & energy, & some money, on those continuous dialogs, etc. If 2030 does go to Sapporo, & the USOC would prefer 2034 anyway, I don't see what would be in it for the IOC to delay in the inevitable, per se.

If SLC is the right partner the IOC is looking for (which I'm sure most would agree that SLC is as rock-solid a partner that the IOC can get in these turbulent Olympic times, & especially for the winter Games), then I don't see the incentive of waiting much longer than necessary, other than to have things so-called "separate", which doesn't make much sense when all parties involved seemingly have the same goals.

[Quaker2001]

17 hours ago, FYI said:

The thing is, though, that this time it's more than just precedence. It's actually part of the formula ("the new-norm: it's a Game changer") that the IOC is now following & that they themselves have instilled, & as you said yourself, which makes them much more flexible. The IOC itself has said that these new bidding reforms are meant to be able to find the right partner at ANY given moment. And to seize that partner whenever they feel that they've found them. That can mean the old 7 years of the past, but it can also mean the 11 years that we've recently seen with the last two Summer Olympic designations. There's NO set rule now for when the IOC can go cherry-picking.

The formula almost seems like it's more that there is no formula.  And that the idea is that they address each situation differently based on the individual circumstances.  I think we're pretty much in agreement on all this.  That and we believe this is a smart way to operate because it gives them that much needed flexibility.

17 hours ago, FYI said:

You sure about that? Cause like I just said above, how they're operating now, is without no time-frames, deadlines or protocols. They can now act on a whim, if they so wish, & if it's in their own best interests to do so, of course.

Again, we're on the same page here.  The only reason I mentioned old timelines is that it gives us a minimum time frame of when they're likely to announce a host.  It's pretty much a guarantee we'll get something next year in Mumbai.  What that something is remains to be seen.

17 hours ago, FYI said:

They may not be spending tens of millions of dollars on a formal bid, but they're still spending/investing time & energy, & some money, on those continuous dialogs, etc. If 2030 does go to Sapporo, & the USOC would prefer 2034 anyway, I don't see what would be in it for the IOC to delay in the inevitable, per se.

If SLC is the right partner the IOC is looking for (which I'm sure most would agree that SLC is as rock-solid a partner that the IOC can get in these turbulent Olympic times, & especially for the winter Games), then I don't see the incentive of waiting much longer than necessary, other than to have things so-called "separate", which doesn't make much sense when all parties involved seemingly have the same goals.

No one said bidding for an Olympics was easy.  Of course there's an investment needed.  But that investment, especially the expense, is a lot smaller when it's targeted dialog and not a formal bid where cities are in direct competition with each other.  Especially when a possible outcome is that you lose and you essentially have to start from scratch again.

We're trying to predict the actions of an organization that is increasingly unpredictable.  It's easy to say that SLC is obvious and that the IOC should push forward with them ASAP.  You know I've said that if the perfect storm came along like Paris and LA, it could get the IOC to go in that direction.  Maybe this is it.  But if it is, it's because *this* is the perfect storm.  Not just because the last one was.

[FYI]

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, we're on the same page here.  The only reason I mentioned old timelines is that it gives us a minimum time frame of when they're likely to announce a host.  It's pretty much a guarantee we'll get something next year in Mumbai.  **What that something is remains to be seen.**

Not really. Obviously it's going to be the 2030 host, & perhaps the 2034 host as well.

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We're trying to predict the actions of an organization that is increasingly unpredictable.  It's easy to say that SLC is obvious and that the IOC should push forward with them ASAP.  You know I've said that if the perfect storm came along like Paris and LA, it could get the IOC to go in that direction.  Maybe this is it.  But if it is, it's because *this* is the perfect storm.  Not just because the last one was.

SIGH - & you also know that I've never made any implication of "just because it happened last time". That's simply your constant misinterpretation.

It's quite obvious that the IOC would have to have the "perfect storm" to do what they do. Obviously, they're not gonna do something like that if their only two options are a "giant douche & turd sandwich" (as you always eloquently put it). But for Pete's sake, stop trying to imply that somehow, in some weird way, SLC falls into that same category 'just because' - "it's easy to say" that SLC is obvious.., since that seems to be your key phrase for your many contrarian points (yes, I said it). 

If anything the new formula (or lack there of now, as you put it) makes it's much easier for the IOC to do whatever the heck that they want now, as to not to have "too many losers" going forward. Something that wasn't even around the last time they did a double. But now it's NOT "just" the Paris/L.A. double allocation, but it's ALSO how they handled Brisbane, too, that makes it all the more plausible for this round. 

 

[AustralianFan]

IOC Future Host Commission visit concludes.

 

[FYI]

"Both the 2030 and 2034 Games could be awarded simultaneously, *like they were* for the Paris 2024 and Los Angeles Games in 2017."

I guess ITG's (ya know, that reputable Olympic news source), needs to get that infamous "just because that one thing that happened that one time.." memo, because it sounds like they're just spinning their wheels over there! 

[Quaker2001]

8 hours ago, FYI said:

Not really. Obviously it's going to be the 2030 host, & perhaps the 2034 host as well.

That sounds like exactly how I view this.  So we're very much on the same page here.  Not sure what you think I'm saying that leads you to believe otherwise.  Or simply that you're trying to argue the opposite of any point you perceive that I'm making

8 hours ago, FYI said:

SIGH - & you also know that I've never made any implication of "just because it happened last time". That's simply your constant misinterpretation.

Oh sigh yourself.  Yes I know that.  Again, my original comment was to another poster.  You saw that and felt the need to jump in to chastise me.  This isn't about my response to your opinion on this one, yet for some reason, you seem to think it is.

8 hours ago, FYI said:

It's quite obvious that the IOC would have to have the "perfect storm" to do what they do. Obviously, they're not gonna do something like that if their only two options are a "giant douche & turd sandwich" (as you always eloquently put it). But for Pete's sake, stop trying to imply that somehow, in some weird way, SLC falls into that same category 'just because' - "it's easy to say" that SLC is obvious.., since that seems to be your key phrase for your many contrarian points (yes, I said it). 

Are you trying to see how many times you can use the word "obvious" in a paragraph?  Speaking of key phrases 

Thanks for the strawman there.  How did we get to the giant douche/turd sandwich idea?  I honestly don't see what point you're trying to make here.  SLC is obvious in the context of a *good* perfect storm like we got with Paris/LA.  Not the bad perfect storm of Beijing/Almaty.  I almost don't want to say more on this because it's a giant  right now.

8 hours ago, FYI said:

If anything the new formula (or lack there of now, as you put it) makes it's much easier for the IOC to do whatever the heck that they want now, as to not to have "too many losers" going forward. Something that wasn't even around the last time they did a double. But now it's NOT "just" the Paris/L.A. double allocation, but it's ALSO how they handled Brisbane, too, that makes it all the more plausible for this round. 

No argument from me there.  Brisbane proved the IOC can and will, at a moment's notice, make a decision.  And that was a lot more random than this is where we're seeing things play out.  That said.. there's an IOC session coming up and an expectation we'll get a 2030 host there.  So there is some sort of timeline in play here that dictates when that host contract will likely be signed.  My guess - and I have a feeling you will agree - is that they could announce they've picked a host before then and Mumbai is just a formality to formally vote on it.  But that still gives us a basis of when this all might play out.  We didn't have that with Brisbane.  That exists in some sense here.

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

That sounds like exactly how I view this.  So we're very much on the same page here.  Not sure what you think I'm saying that leads you to believe otherwise.  **Or simply that you're trying to argue the opposite of any point you perceive that I'm making**

Hmmmm, that sounds awfully familiar. 

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Oh sigh yourself.  Yes I know that.  Again, my original comment was to another poster.  You saw that and felt the need to jump in to chastise me.  This isn't about my response to your opinion on this one, yet for some reason, you seem to think it is.

UGH!  Yeah, 'sure dude'. Like you've never "jumped in to chastise" anyone on here before. I also never realized that we only had to respond to posts that are only directed at you on here. 

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Are you trying to see how many times you can use the word "obvious" in a paragraph?  Speaking of key phrases 

Thanks for the strawman there.  How did we get to the giant douche/turd sandwich idea?  I honestly don't see what point you're trying to make here.  SLC is obvious in the context of a *good* perfect storm like we got with Paris/LA.  **Not the bad perfect storm of Beijing/Almaty**.  I almost don't want to say more on this because it's a giant  right now.

Exactly, that's why I brought that up, since you're only stating the OBVIOUS, like Captain Obvious, with your "perfect storm" analogies. No sh!t that it has to be two "good" cities that the IOC can actually work with to move forward with those two host cities at once for two different cycles.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

Hmmmm, that sounds awfully familiar. 

UGH!  Yeah, 'sure dude'. Like you've never "jumped in to chastise" anyone on here before. I also never realized that we only had to respond to posts that are only directed at you on here. 

Exactly, that's why I brought that up, since you're only stating the OBVIOUS, like Captain Obvious, with your "perfect storm" analogies. No sh!t that it has to be two "good" cities that the IOC can actually work with to move forward with those two host cities at once for two different cycles.

 

[FYI]

You’re so ‘obvious’. 

[Olympics2028]

Sapporo last hosted the winter games in 1972, SLC in 2002.

I'm assuming the sports facilities of an event held 50 years ago are a bit more limited or worn-out than the facilities of an event held 20 years ago are. But if the people of Sapporo are as excited to host the games again as the people in Salt Lake City are, then a two-fer or double award is in order.

Did Sapporo compete with getting the games that Nagano landed for 1998? If they did, another reason why Sapporo should receive a bit more of an extra push from the IOC in getting the winter games for 2030 or 2034. Or visa versa.

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, Olympics2028 said:

Sapporo last hosted the winter games in 1972, SLC in 2002.

I'm assuming the sports facilities of an event held 50 years ago are a bit more limited or worn-out than the facilities of an event held 20 years ago are. But if the people of Sapporo are as excited to host the games again as the people in Salt Lake City are, then a two-fer or double award is in order.

Did Sapporo compete with getting the games that Nagano landed for 1998? If they did, another reason why Sapporo should receive a bit more of an extra push from the IOC in getting the winter games for 2030 or 2034. Or visa versa.

Lots of useful history on how Nagano was selected for 1998 and some background on how Sapporo got 1972 - 1998 Winter Olympics - Host City Selection

 

[StefanMUC]

Also noteworthy that Sapporo is regularly hosting major events, so many venues have been in use and modernised since 1972. Others have been demolished or replaced by newer ones of course, but it’s not like nothing has happened in Sapporo for half a century.

[FYI]

On 5/1/2022 at 9:29 PM, Olympics2028 said:

But if the people of Sapporo are as excited to host the games again as the people in Salt Lake City are, then a two-fer or double award is in order.

One would think (all things considered), wouldn’t you. But I’d be careful with that kind of talk around here, if I were you. Otherwise, you can be accused of having a ‘two-fer fetish’. lmfao 

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, FYI said:

One would think (all things considered), wouldn’t you. But I’d be careful with that kind of talk around here, if I were you. Otherwise, you can be accused of having a ‘two-fer fetish’. lmfao 

Already responded to his post.  Didn't accuse him of anything.