Jump to content

2030 contingency scenarios: beyond Vancouver and SLC


Recommended Posts

oh Japan dont tease me like this...... dont give me hope.... 

Japanese public divided on hosting Olympics again, survey reveals (insidethegames.biz)

That is the most razor thin margin of error.  36.6 percent for, 36 percent against, and 27.7 percent not sure. IOC, make it or break it guys, all out charm offensive needs to begin now.  Im talking like, as of 2 weeks ago sorts of now.  Please get involved to make this happen.......  I will eat all of the crow.  All of it.  So happily too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2021 at 3:10 PM, StefanMUC said:

Of those above, Austria would probably be the easiest to persuade as there‘s less referendum pressure and the Austrian Skiing Federation is like a state in the state, being highly influential in politics.

But it would still take the IOC a huge lot of convincing work to make it happen.

Uhm…seems in local elections today, communist party is the biggest party (around 28%) in Graz, so keep them out of the equation (there‘s Salzburg/Innsbruck anyway). :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Austria, can you just imagine if the IOC had picked Salzburg for 2014 instead? A proposed low-cost bid in a majestic Alpine setting. I think the Winter Olympics would have had a much brighter future, than the dire mess they do have today, had that have been the case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salt Lake City’s interest in Winter Olympics made "very clear" to IOC - 26Sep2021 - Inside The Games

“United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) chief executive Sarah Hirshland insists Salt Lake City’s interest in staging the Winter Olympics has been made "very clear" to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) despite remaining undecided over bidding for either the 2030 or 2034 Games.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo, therein lies the rationale here all along of this thread.  2030 is the problem set that buys the winter olympics the most important thing of all:  time.  2038 is a very long time away.  Not as far as Im sure the WOC would like, but far enough to make some sincere overtures for this whole process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem though, is that the USOC & the IOC may not necessarily want the same thing in this case. It seems to me, from that last article, that the USOC is posturing. As if they’re hinting at some sort of double allocation (I know that’ll make someone’s head here spin :D), with the intent that they want 2034.

But that seems like a plan B at this point, when the main focus is that 2030 obviously  needs to be filled-in first. We all can’t always have our preferences. So if push comes to shove, the IOC could just say to the USOC - ‘it’s 2030 or bust. There’s absolutely no one else at this time that wants this. So take your pick’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, FYI said:

The real problem though, is that the USOC & the IOC may not necessarily want the same thing in this case. It seems to me, from that last article, that the USOC is posturing. As if they’re hinting at some sort of double allocation (I know that’ll make someone’s head here spin :D), with the intent that they want 2034.

But that seems like a plan B at this point, when the main focus is that 2030 obviously  needs to be filled-in first. We all can’t always have our preferences. So if push comes to shove, the IOC could just say to the USOC - ‘it’s 2030 or bust. There’s absolutely no one else at this time that wants this. So take your pick’.

Yeah... we're forgetting this decision doen't really rely on USOC but in the people that are gonna effectively pay for the olympics, which on first place, are already paying for the 2028 SUMMER edition, and which will want no other event over to overshadow their games. So the only scenario in which SLC get to host in 2030, it's that in first place, there is no other interested bidders (becuase IOC will prefer another host than the US 2 years after another american games), and in second place, IOC pays for the biggest part of the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, FYI said:

The real problem though, is that the USOC & the IOC may not necessarily want the same thing in this case. It seems to me, from that last article, that the USOC is posturing. As if they’re hinting at some sort of double allocation (I know that’ll make someone’s head here spin :D), with the intent that they want 2034.

But that seems like a plan B at this point, when the main focus is that 2030 obviously  needs to be filled-in first. We all can’t always have our preferences. So if push comes to shove, the IOC could just say to the USOC - ‘it’s 2030 or bust. There’s absolutely no one else at this time that wants this. So take your pick’.

Oh Ill get the awkwardness out of the way then in that regard.  If there is a patsy for 2030 that steps for ward be it Vancouver, Sapporo, or even Lviv, I would be about 75 percent certain that SLC 2034 will be announced in tandem.  There would be a higher prospect of a double award than a singular one.  IOC knows full well it would be playing with fire by not doing that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lviv is not happening, not for 2030 anyway. Talk about ‘playing with fire by doing that’. The IOC is very foolish at times, but not that foolish. 

Yes, the USOC only gets its wish if someone else VIABLE comes into play (hence their posturing). Otherwise, they’ll have to suck it up, & take what they can get.

I sometimes have to think, though, why so much of a fuss with 2030 simply because LA is hosting 2028. I mean SLC nearly won 1998 despite Atlanta having just won 1996 not even a year earlier back then. And before someone mentions, there’s also the 2026 WC to think about - the U.S. also hosted the WC in 1994 as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Lviv is not happening, not for 2030 anyway. Talk about ‘playing with fire by doing that’. The IOC is very foolish at times, but not that foolish. 

Yes, the USOC only gets its wish if someone else VIABLE comes into play (hence their posturing). Otherwise, they’ll have to suck it up, & take what they can get.

I sometimes have to think, though, why so much of a fuss with 2030 simply because LA is hosting 2028. I mean SLC nearly won 1998 despite Atlanta having just won 1996 not even a year earlier back then. And before someone mentions, there’s also the 2026 WC to think about - the U.S. also hosted the WC in 1994 as well.

Didn't they bribed their way into 2002 olympics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^You really should read up on that "bribery scandal". Everyone was doing it back then. Nagano & Sydney were also accused of bribes. SLC was merely the one that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Even Senior IOC member, Dick Pound of Canada, said at the time, that he didn't really understand why SLC went to such lengths, when technically speaking, their bid was really the best of all their opponents. But speculation has it, that since SLC had been trying & trying for decades prior to that to land the Winter Olympics, & having lost 1998 by literally such a SLIM margin, they just got really nervous & went overboard with all the 'bribes' for the 2002 Games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Yeah... we're forgetting this decision doen't really rely on USOC but in the people that are gonna effectively pay for the olympics, which on first place, are already paying for the 2028 SUMMER edition, and which will want no other event over to overshadow their games. 

The people of Utah are NOT paying for L.A. 2028, & the people of California would NOT pay for SLC 2030/34. In the U.S., the Federal Gov't does not pay for the Olympics (as others countries do). The only tab the Feds pick up here is for security (which is still a big ticket item), but the rest of the Olympic price tag is up to the respective states & local cities hosting, along with the organizing committee. The people & gov't of Utah have already made it clear, they would welcome another Winter Olympics there, hence why the USOC picked SLC as their candidate over Denver (a few years back), where support was lukewarm at best.

8 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

So the only scenario in which SLC get to host in 2030, it's that in first place, there is no other interested bidders (becuase IOC will prefer another host than the US 2 years after another american games), and in second place, IOC pays for the biggest part of the event.

That seems pretty obvious. And it's probably another reason why the USOC hasn't committed to a year yet. But as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. And both parties involved (the IOC & USOC) might have to settle with what they can get, which may not be ideal to both, or one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, FYI said:

The people of Utah are NOT paying for L.A. 2028, & the people of California would NOT pay for SLC 2030/34. In the U.S., the Federal Gov't does not pay for the Olympics (as others countries do). The only tab the Feds pick up here is for security (which is still a big ticket item), but the rest of the Olympic price tag is up to the respective states & local cities hosting, along with the organizing committee. The people & gov't of Utah have already made it clear, they would welcome another Winter Olympics there, hence why the USOC picked SLC as their candidate over Denver (a few years back), where support was lukewarm at best.

That seems pretty obvious. And it's probably another reason why the USOC hasn't committed to a year yet. But as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. And both parties involved (the IOC & USOC) might have to settle with what they can get, which may not be ideal to both, or one of them.

That's why I believe the IOC is going to do a double allocation giving SLC in 2034 and I think Sapporo is going to get 2030 cause it very likely they are going to bid

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hightowerio86 said:

That's why I believe the IOC is going to do a double allocation giving SLC in 2034 and I think Sapporo is going to get 2030 cause it very likely they are going to bid

whats the status of the new government?  has there been any movement there with more formal discussions?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iceman530 said:

whats the status of the new government?  has there been any movement there with more formal discussions?  

What new government? The way the LDP changes PMs is like the USSR in the early 80s. One ultra conservative being replaced by the next. Only difference is in Japan they don’t die on office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, where is our Double (‘fetish’) Allocation expert when we need them! :D

Believing is one thing, but reality is quite another. A double allocation at this point (& with the USOC getting it’s wish) relies heavily on someone else with a very *viable* bid to come forward.

And that’s just it, we won’t know anything more about Sapporo until after their national elections this fall. And wide speculation has it, that the current gov’t will lose, & a party that is more anti-Olympic will win. And that will be the end of any Sapporo bid.

And Vancouver is also pretty up in the air still. And Western Europe? Who knows, but that also looks quite unlikely right now. So for now, I’m sure the IOC is desperately only trying to figure out 2030 first. A more clearer picture about anything else won’t come until after Beijing 2022 is over, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2021 at 2:25 PM, iceman530 said:

Vancouver needs to make their big-dick move already.  

Maybe when the United WC 2026 final venues are announced I'd think after Beijing, Vancouver might wake up since it seems only Toronto and Edmonton are the only Canadian cities hosting for 2026; and of course, Hamilton is gearing up as the CWG Centennial host in 2030.  That last move might impact any budget Ottawa will allocate for a 2030 WOG.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't see the ExCo committing to 2034 before even a 2030 host is yet to be determined. It's already been bypassed once by electing a 2032 host, but bypassing it twice?

I know the "new" bidding process doesn't set a time-line now as to when, & what cycle of Games, gets to be determined. But seriously, already committing, aside from "rubber stamping", a Games 12-years out (which would be the longest lead time of any Games at that point) when 2030 needs to be the urgent focus right now, seems very whacky & would surely raise eyebrows from the outside looking in regardless. 

As I said up-thread, but the only way at this point I see that SLC gets 2034 is by a double-allocation, & that requires right now another *viable* suitor gets 2030, which at this point, is still very murky.  I've also recently read that by SLC waiting an extra four years, would require more costly renovations to their already aging venues from the 2002 winter Games. So that's a catch-22 with L.A. 2028.

So I'd be very surprised that 2034 gets handed over alone, Brisbane-style, before Beijing 2022. Unless again, the IOC is prepared to do a double winter award, which also again, is far from a given at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention, that's not to say that the IOC wouldn't award 2030 by itself to SLC, Brisbane-style, & perhaps maybe before Beijing 2022 opens. But 2034 alone? That one is more far-fetched. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Hightowerio86 said:

I don't know if y'all read this story but I have a feeling that the IOC and Salt Lake City are going to come to a gentlemen's agreement that SLC will host the 2034 games before the Beijing Games open a la Brisbane.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1113857/salt-lake-city-2030-governing-board

My take is this is a negotiation as to which Olympics SLC gets and it may be a matter of who blinks first. I think the USOC knows they have the IOC over a large barrel here. If the IOC is that desperate for a 2030 host given the uncertainties surrounding the other bidders (I do believe the Sapporo bid will be shelved once the LDP get wiped out in the upcoming elections) then the USOC can talk money with the IOC to make up for shortfalls they might lose out via sponsorship money. That or the USOC says 2034 or bust and the IOC can't say no to that and risk losing what essentially is the WOGs most sure fire candidate in terms of legacy and existing infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the IOC would call the USOC's bluff if that were the case about '34. It's obvious that SLC & the USOC want a winter Olympics really bad anyway. So I say it's an even playing field at this point. In Utah, they want the Winter Olympics sooner rather than later, so I think an agreement about 2030 is probably more in the cards, considering no other feasible international candidates really stick out at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we in a hurry for host announcements, in a normal period we would be perfectly on time for bids to start shaping right now, which it's happening, Lviv is preparing a bid, Canada is convincing stakeholders, Barcelona is pitching a bid with navarra politicians, Sapporo got into the game last year and 2020 president already said she'll want to repeat as president, SLC years ago started building the bid since I believe 2018, those are at least 5 bidding cities, without mentioning the possibility that after 2022 olympics, winter games will gain momentum and maybe there will be another bidders, so even if 3 out of em drop form the race, still there's two left, and just in time to be elected in mumbai in 2023, so definitely there's not a lack of bidder over which IOC should worry

  • 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...