Jump to content

Salt Lake City Olympic bid officials delay key meeting in Switzerland


GBModerator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Proponents of Salt Lake City’s Winter Olympics bid have delayed plans to visit International Olympic Committee (IOC) headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland by a week, the Salt Lake City-Utah Committee for the Games (SLC-UT) announced. The visit by a high-level delegation from Utah aimed at securing the state’s second Winter Games in 2030 or 2034 was […]

The post Salt Lake City Olympic bid officials delay key meeting in Switzerland appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote “SLC represents the kind of opportunity that the IOC may want to close this month if all stakeholders are on board, and could allow for an announcement ahead of the Beijing 2022 Games in February.” End quote 

I’ve said this all along ever since this ‘key’ meeting was announced a couple of months ago. So I’ll say it again, it won’t surprise me in the least, if SLC is confirmed for the 2030 Winter Olympics right before Beijing 2022. 
 

Quote  “Ending the race early could also prevent any further referendums or polling by interested bidders that typically don’t end positively for Olympic proponents and only serve to erode the Olympic brand.” End quote 

This is something I didn’t really think about, but it does add an added bonus of the IOC finally hand-picking a 2030 host, in order to avoid such bad Olympic PR in other locales by those actions, so it nullifies every other bid that’s not SLC, that the IOC is in “continues dialog” with ATM.

And when I do look at this, it only even further solidifies IMO, that 2034 is really not something the IOC is even considering at this time, judging by that very last sentence. And plus, as noted before, but even SLC officials prefer the earlier winter Games rather than the latter ones. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Quote “SLC represents the kind of opportunity that the IOC may want to close this month if all stakeholders are on board, and could allow for an announcement ahead of the Beijing 2022 Games in February.” End quote 

I’ve said this all along ever since this ‘key’ meeting was announced a couple of months ago. So I’ll say it again, it won’t surprise me in the least, if SLC is confirmed for the 2030 Winter Olympics right before Beijing 2022. 
 

Quote  “Ending the race early could also prevent any further referendums or polling by interested bidders that typically don’t end positively for Olympic proponents and only serve to erode the Olympic brand.” End quote 

This is something I didn’t really think about, but it does add an added bonus of the IOC finally hand-picking a 2030 host, in order to avoid such bad Olympic PR in other locales by those actions, so it nullifies every other bid that’s not SLC, that the IOC is in “continues dialog” with ATM.

And when I do look at this, it only even further solidifies IMO, that 2034 is really not something the IOC is even considering at this time, judging by that very last sentence. And plus, as noted before, but even SLC officials prefer the earlier winter Games rather than the latter ones. 

 

 

I agree, it is looking increasingly possible that a host vote on SLC2030 occurs just before the Beijing Games.

Re Sapporo 2030, the chances of them being sunk by a public vote anyway looks very much on the cards.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Quote “SLC represents the kind of opportunity that the IOC may want to close this month if all stakeholders are on board, and could allow for an announcement ahead of the Beijing 2022 Games in February.” End quote 

I’ve said this all along ever since this ‘key’ meeting was announced a couple of months ago. So I’ll say it again, it won’t surprise me in the least, if SLC is confirmed for the 2030 Winter Olympics right before Beijing 2022. 
 

Quote  “Ending the race early could also prevent any further referendums or polling by interested bidders that typically don’t end positively for Olympic proponents and only serve to erode the Olympic brand.” End quote 

This is something I didn’t really think about, but it does add an added bonus of the IOC finally hand-picking a 2030 host, in order to avoid such bad Olympic PR in other locales by those actions, so it nullifies every other bid that’s not SLC, that the IOC is in “continues dialog” with ATM.

And when I do look at this, it only even further solidifies IMO, that 2034 is really not something the IOC is even considering at this time, judging by that very last sentence. And plus, as noted before, but even SLC officials prefer the earlier winter Games rather than the latter ones.

The question then becomes how do the IOC and the USOPC reconcile having 2 Olympics in the United States 18 months apart.  If LA2028 wasn't on the calendar, Salt Lake would have probably been signed, sealed, and delivered already.  But that obviously creates some issues there which is why I'm less than convinced we'll see an announcement before February.  The IOC has so much negative press to deal with lately that they may be better served to wait and then lock in SLC.  Or hold them off until 2034 when they'll have a new TV contract to negotiate.  I agree though that perhaps 2034 isn't on their radar.  Which is a darn shame, because if it was, we would be clearly be talking about a double awarding of host cities. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The question then becomes how do the IOC and the USOPC reconcile having 2 Olympics in the United States 18 months apart.  If LA2028 wasn't on the calendar, Salt Lake would have probably been signed, sealed, and delivered already. 

The IOC almost delivered the U.S. two Olympics only 18 months apart, back for '96 & '98. The USOC obviously didn't have a problem with such a scenario then. Sure, maybe now having 2028 also in the U.S. isn't as ideal, but when everyone else right now looks like either a "giant douche (politically speaking - i.e. the Pyrenees) or turd sandwich", as you like to say, (i.e. the Ukraine), or just a casualty of downright shame of uncontrollable, negative circumstances (i.e. Sapporo), then you have to try & salvage what you can with what you've (reliably - i.e. SLC) got left.

21 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

 I agree though that perhaps 2034 isn't on their radar.  Which is a darn shame, because if it was, we would be clearly be talking about a double awarding of host cities. :lol:

Post Corona has changed the "double" landscape. For example, had Corona never been a thing, & Tokyo 2020 went ahead on schedule, & highly successful, as initially anticipated, Sapporo surely would've been all gung-ho for 2030, & 2034 more than likely also would've been in the cards right now as well. But that dang, pesky global pandemic just got in the way of the IOC's newly found 'double-fetish' thing. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the marketing/sponsorship dollars is as big of an issue as some people are making it out to be.  Most of the global Olympic sponsors are going to be onboard and providing key services and support regardless of where the Olympics are held.  

All signs, and several of the quotes in that article, point to the obvious - SLC will be named the 2030 host sometime in the next 2 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Karenina said:

I don't think the marketing/sponsorship dollars is as big of an issue as some people are making it out to be. 

Exactly. In this day & age, marketing is just everywhere. I think the only people that are complaining the most about the sponsorship are the people over at LA28. Perhaps they are still upset that they didn’t get the 2024 slot instead. 

30 minutes ago, Karenina said:

All signs, and several of the quotes in that article, point to the obvious - SLC will be named the 2030 host sometime in the next 2 months.

Yep. Although, some are still ‘less than convinced’. ^_^

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FYI said:

The IOC almost delivered the U.S. two Olympics only 18 months apart, back for '96 & '98. The USOC obviously didn't have a problem with such a scenario then. Sure, maybe now having 2028 also in the U.S. isn't as ideal, but when everyone else right now looks like either a "giant douche (politically speaking - i.e. the Pyrenees) or turd sandwich", as you like to say, (i.e. the Ukraine), or just a casualty of downright shame of uncontrollable, negative circumstances (i.e. Sapporo), then you have to try & salvage what you can with what you've (reliably - i.e. SLC) got left.

Sapporo is still showing interest.  Whether or not that can hold up to public scrutiny remains to be seen, but I'd hardly consider them a casualty at this point.  How many of us thought Stockholm would be heard from again after the 2022 fiasco.  Yet there they were bidding for 2026, yes even though they lacked the public support for the IOC to take them seriously.  I agree that this meaning could be to lock in Salt Lake, but it's not because they are the one and only option the IOC could consider.

8 hours ago, FYI said:

Post Corona has changed the "double" landscape. For example, had Corona never been a thing, & Tokyo 2020 went ahead on schedule, & highly successful, as initially anticipated, Sapporo surely would've been all gung-ho for 2030, & 2034 more than likely also would've been in the cards right now as well. But that dang, pesky global pandemic just got in the way of the IOC's newly found 'double-fetish' thing. :P

Sure.. a thing they did once and only once makes it a fetish.  :rolleyes:

I don't know the big change is so much about Corona and more how the IOC might choose to operate going forward where they just pick a city without a vote.  Harder to do that when there's 2 cities involved unless they're willing to make some sort of deal a la LA28.  Not as necessary any more in the age of "we want fewer losers" line of thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I agree that this meaning could be to lock in Salt Lake, but it's not because they are the one and only option the IOC could consider.

Who's the one that constantly says that all the IOC needs is "one willing partner" to host a Games. Well, they absolutely have that here in SLC. With the others, not so much. And that also includes Sapporo, even though they're "still showing interest" (which, btw, is not the same as having all your T's crossed & I's dotted like the Utah capital does).

20 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Sure.. a thing they did once and only once makes it a fetish.  :rolleyes:

 Uhh, how quickly we forget. But "fetish" was the word YOU used, NOT me, whenever someone spoke about another 'double' allocation post Paris '24/LA28 awardings. :rolleyes: Hence the :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, FYI said:

 Uhh, how quickly we forget. But "fetish" was the word YOU used, NOT me, whenever someone spoke about another 'double' allocation post Paris '24/LA28 awardings. :rolleyes: Hence the :P

Yes, because some people here, including some other poster I'm thinking of, seemed to want to throw that idea onto the table constantly.  Hey, this thing that happened once and only once under a very specific of circumstances.. let's assume it'll happen again because we're bored here and can't think of any better ideas.  So yes, some people here very much turned it into a fetish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, FYI said:

Who's the one that constantly says that all the IOC needs is "one willing partner" to host a Games. Well, they absolutely have that here in SLC. With the others, not so much. And that also includes Sapporo, even though they're "still showing interest" (which, btw, is not the same as having all your T's crossed & I's dotted like the Utah capital does).

Can we maybe not play the "showing interest" card with Sapporo as if the implication is that they belong in the same category as the likes of Doha-ha or Baku-ku?  Sure, SLC is ready to go anytime, but 2030 may not be the ideal time for them.  If the IOC wants to lock them in sooner rather than later and punt 2034 to a later point in, they might want to do that, but I think that would be a big mistake.  Especially because...

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Exactly. In this day & age, marketing is just everywhere. I think the only people that are complaining the most about the sponsorship are the people over at LA28. Perhaps they are still upset that they didn’t get the 2024 slot instead. 

Yep. Although, some are still ‘less than convinced’. ^_^

What does "marketing is just everywhere" even mean?  That's a really odd way of putting it.  Even more odd that you think LA is upset about 2024, not sure where you're pulling that one out of.  Other than your ass.

This isn't the 1990s where coverage of an Olympics was largely confined to over-the-air TV with a cable component on the side.  Internet coverage of sports was in its infancy.  Now we live in an era where there are thousands of hours of media coverage that needs to get sold.  There's a lot more money involved and asking companies to commit big dollars to an event means they're probably not going to want to do it again less than 2 years later.  So yea, if Salt Lake gets locked in now as 2030 host, they had the next 6.5 years that they're competing with LA for sponsorship dollars which makes things tougher for both cities.  Not to mention it makes the American TV rights for 2034 and beyond much less valuable because there's little chance of a US host in that span.  The IOC would be doing NBC a gigantic favor by having 2030 in Salt Lake.

Maybe in the end, Sapporo doesn't have their **** together or the public doesn't want to back it.  We found that out about Stockholm, but it was a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking that it was decided their bid was no good.  Again, I don't doubt the possibility that the IOC might want to jump on Salt Lake sooner rather than later.  But with all due respect to Rob Livingstone, not sure I see it that this meeting is going to pave the way for where the IOC, admist all the turmoil they've dealt with in the last year and a half, is getting ready to hand 2030 over to Salt Lake before the start of Beijing in February

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Can we maybe not play the "showing interest" card with Sapporo as if the implication is that they belong in the same category as the likes of Doha-ha or Baku-ku?  

I'm not implying that, you are. Still doesn't change the fact though, that Sapporo is still on shaky ground due to other negative circumstances, regardless that on technical merit alone, they're certainly quite capable.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Even more odd that you think LA is upset about 2024, not sure where you're pulling that one out of.  Other than your ass.

That comment was made moreso tongue-in-cheek than anything else, a$sh*le. What is it with you into making things more than what they actually are. The only person that's probably still upset that though, is our favorite so-called L.A. journalist, AA. :lol::P

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

But with all due respect to Rob Livingstone, not sure I see it that this meeting is going to pave the way for where the IOC, admist all the turmoil they've dealt with in the last year and a half, is getting ready to hand 2030 over to Salt Lake before the start of Beijing in February

 Well, la-dee-dah & "good for you", Quaker. No one expected the IOC to just hand-over 2032 to Brisbane, either. But they did. This 'key' meeting in Switzerland isn't just for the heck of it. So forgive the ones who'd rather have a different take from a website that's been around the Olympic block for quite some time now, & has more inside knowledge as to what's going on in the inner-circles of the Olympic world than most of us here do. Not everyone around here thinks that GB's is all about 'conspiracy theories being thrashed around', & actually find what's on here informative & insightful when one is looking at things from an impartial perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is for certain, and that is the world is very uncertain at the moment.  

That uncertain world environment that descended upon us all at the beginning of 2020 is still with us.   Along with that is that I don’t believe that the IOC’s urgency to lock in future Hosts has not abated in the slightest.

With this new variant upon us, this uncertain world remains as it was in 2020.

The question now is if there is sufficient time betwenn now and the IOC Session ahead of Beijing 2022.

In favour of SLC is that the it is fairly recent host of the Winter Olympics so existing facilities and organisational expertise has already been demonstrated.

Following the pattern of events this year leading up to the Brisbane vote in July, here is what I believe the sequence of events that needs to occur in order for Salt Lake City to be put to a Host Vote for 2030:

  1. The Salt Lake City organisers and the Governments of Utah and Salt Lake City need to commit to a 2030 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games candidature.
  2. The SLC2030 candidature needs to do a presentation to the Future Host Commission for the Olympic Winter Games,
  3. The Future Host Commission for the Olympic Winter Games then needs to recommend to the IOC Executive Board to elevate SLC2030 to the Targeted Dialogue phase.   
  4. The IOC Executive Board then needs to instruct the Future Host Commission to enter into Targeted Dialogue with SLC2030.  This is also announced to the world by the IOC President.
  5. SLC2030 then need to complete the IOC Future Host Commission Questionnaire.
  6. The IOC Future Host Commission visits Salt Lake City virtually.  For Brisbane 2032, this was held virtually over 3 days with live presentations from  the Queensland Premier, Brisbane Lord Mayor, AOC President, PA President and the Prime Minister (on tape), Brisbane 2032 presented on a range of topics including Games' Vision, the Games Masterplan and Venues, Transport, Games' Experience for Athletes and Spectators, Sustainability, Economics of the Games, Governance and Guarantees.   The group also answered further questions from the Future Host Commission.
  7. The Future Host Commission then recommends Salt Lake City as preferred candidate for 2030 to IOC Executive Board
  8. The IOC Executive Board, after considering the FHC report and posting questions in relation to the report, the Executive Board needs to then recommend that Salt Lake City should host the Winter Olympic Games in 2030.  That recommendation would be voted on by the Members of the IOC at the next available IOC full session.
  9. At the next available IOC Session of all IOC Members, a presentation is made by Salt Lake City 2030, before a Q&A session. The IOC then need to formally vote by majority to elect Salt Lake City as Host of the 2030 Winter Olympics.

The question now remains, can this all happen by the full IOC Session preceding Beijing 2022?

 

 

 

and the Queensland Government Commits to Olympic Games Candidature

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, la-dee-dah & "good for you", Quaker. No one expected the IOC to just hand-over 2032 to Brisbane, either. But they did. This 'key' meeting in Switzerland isn't just for the heck of it. So forgive the ones who'd rather have a different take from a website that's been around the Olympic block for quite some time now, & has more inside knowledge as to what's going on in the inner-circles of the Olympic world than most of us here do. Not everyone around here thinks that GB's is all about 'conspiracy theories being thrashed around', & actually find what's on here informative & insightful when one is looking at things from an impartial perspective. 

Heed your own and allow other people to have a different take.  You agree with Rob's assessment.  I don't.  You've said it yourself that this site was better when there were more serious debates about bid cities, even in the "us against them" scenarios when it was Americans and Canadians going at each other.  There's still good information from this site, but the forums, not so much.  And it's no one's fault (well yea, it actually is largely 1 person's fault, but that's a discussion for another day.. and no, I don't mean you), but Olympic bidding obviously isn't as interesting as it used to be with fewer cities involved and now the IOC potentially just picking a city and that's the end of it.

We'll see what happens.  I may be wrong.  I just think it's a bad move for the IOC to rush to get Salt Lake locked in.  But this is the IOC we're talking about, so we can't always count on them to do the smart thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The question now remains, can this all happen by the full IOC Session preceding Beijing 2022?

That's my question as well.  A lot needs to happen in the next 2 months.  Will the IOC look at the convenience of having members together in Beijing as an excuse to push for a vote despite all the turmoil they're dealing with?  I noticed in none of your steps was the USOPC consulted.  They need to be a big part of this process, not just the organizers and folks in Salt Lake and in Utah.

It goes without saying that Salt Lake is likely to have impeccable credentials.  They would have bid for 2022 or 2026 if the USOPC had let them (in hindsight, they could have saved the IOC's bacon for 2022 and then still landed LA for 2028 with plenty of separation between the 2, especially having a World Cup in between).  They're ready to go, but I'm guessing the LA28 folks would still like to persuade the IOC to get Salt Lake to hold off until 2034.  They may not get their way on that one and SLC has made it clear they want to go sooner rather than later because their venues are getting older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The question now remains, can this all happen by the full IOC Session preceding Beijing 2022?

No rush.  Covid is still messing things up.  And the IOC is still we ahead of its standard 7-year lead.  And with an ex-host city like SLC, they can even go six without skipping a beat.  So I say that the IOC will hold off on naming SLC until the next full IOC sessions in either Baranquilla (mid-2022) or Mumbai (2023), hoping that Sapporo, Ukraine or some other dark angel can come through for 2030.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Heed your own and allow other people to have a different take.  You agree with Rob's assessment.  I don't. There's still good information from this site, but the forums, not so much.  

Again, 'good for you'. And I was primarily referring to the GB's newswire section & certainly not the forums. But to make a parallel equation like you did earlier, but can we maybe not play the "you agree with RL's assessment, but I don't" card as if giving the implication that the GB's (newswire section) is some sort of fly-by-night news feed & that would make it comparable to a Doha-ha or Baku-ku sort of website?

I know you work in the field of sport, & have made a couple of noteworthy points, but don't come across as some sort of an AA, either. RL's actually on the ground at many of these things & has covered them for more than two decades now. He's obviously privy to information that none of us here even know about, even if to you, 'it doesn't make any sense'. Disagree if you want, but at the same time, offer up some compelling arguments (not points) to the contrary, other than why so simply disagree. 

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We'll see what happens.  I may be wrong.  I just think it's a bad move for the IOC to rush to get Salt Lake locked in.  But this is the IOC we're talking about, so we can't always count on them to do the smart thing

Well, why do you 'think' it's a bad move? (Some arguments in the article have mentioned why it maybe not be, or at least staff off other not so ideal situations for the IOC). But as you just said, & has been said before, but this is the IOC we're talking about after all. And they do what they want, whenever they want, as long as they can see that their moves, whether irrational or not, can benefit them in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

That's my question as well.  A lot needs to happen in the next 2 months.  Will the IOC look at the convenience of having members together in Beijing as an excuse to push for a vote despite all the turmoil they're dealing with?  I noticed in none of your steps was the USOPC consulted.  They need to be a big part of this process, not just the organizers and folks in Salt Lake and in Utah.

It goes without saying that Salt Lake is likely to have impeccable credentials.  They would have bid for 2022 or 2026 if the USOPC had let them (in hindsight, they could have saved the IOC's bacon for 2022 and then still landed LA for 2028 with plenty of separation between the 2, especially having a World Cup in between).  They're ready to go, but I'm guessing the LA28 folks would still like to persuade the IOC to get Salt Lake to hold off until 2034.  They may not get their way on that one and SLC has made it clear they want to go sooner rather than later because their venues are getting older.

True, I should have mentioned the support of the USOPC for the SLC2030 candidature which I understand from these reports was given in 2030.  

U.S. Olympic Committee selects Salt Lake City for potential 2030 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Bid - 14Dec2018 - Team USA

The USOPC support specifically for a 2030 Salt Lake City candidature would need to be demonstrated/reaffirmed to the Future Host Commission.

Decision on 2030 or 2034 Games still to be determined - 6Oct2021 - Sports Travel

This second article talks about the main concern around a 2030 bid is having only two years of clear sponsorship landscape run-in to the Games because of 2028 being in Los Angeles. Bullock 

“The main concern around a 2030 bid is having only two years of clear sponsorship landscape run-in to the Games because of 2028 being in Los Angeles. SLC Committee President and Chief Executive Officer Fraser Bullock said they have had direct talks with LA28 and have explored with the USOPC on how potentially to collaborate.”

But, as Bullock said, “we have to be very respectful with their Games” and mindful of the rarity that would be having the same country host back-to-back Olympics. No country has done so since World War II; the last country to do it was Germany in 1936 and before then, the 1932 Winter Games were in Lake Placid, New York, before the Summer Games were in Los Angeles.”

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The question now remains, can this all happen by the full IOC Session preceding Beijing 2022?

Let's not forget, that like Brisbane, SLC has been at this for YEARS now. At least the last five. And three years ago, the USOC officially named SLC (over Denver) as their next candidate for the Winter Olympic Games. And now that everything is done behind-the-scenes, who's to say how much of that list has already been completed. The IOC hasn't remained idle since Tokyo 2020ne. And this is the IOC afterall, & they tweak their own rules as they go along as long as they can see it benefits them in the end in some way. 

That said, though, if anything, I can at least see the IOC naming SLC as their "preferred candidate" right before Beijing 2022 (like they did with Brisbane, five months before they officially crowned them with 2032 at Tokyo 2020ne). 

19 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

So I say that the IOC will hold off on naming SLC until the next full IOC sessions in either Baranquilla (mid-2022) or Mumbai (2023), hoping that Sapporo, Ukraine or some other dark angel can come through for 2030.   

At this point, I'd say it makes more sense to hold off Sapporo, or the likes of Ukraine, 'til at least 2034. Too much uncertainty, especially with Ukraine, to see that all clear up in only 18 months from now. Needless to say, but we've all also have tried to gauge the global map of what other 'dark angel' could mysteriously pop up now that would want to work with the IOC at this point in time. And right now, that map, especially for the winter Games, is looking very bleak.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

No rush.  Covid is still messing things up.  And the IOC is still we ahead of its standard 7-year lead.  And with an ex-host city like SLC, they can even go six without skipping a beat.  So I say that the IOC will hold off on naming SLC until the next full IOC sessions in either Baranquilla (mid-2022) or Mumbai (2023), hoping that Sapporo, Ukraine or some other dark angel can come through for 2030.   

Yes, I agree and I’ve changed my mind on a 2030 Host Vote occurring at Beijing 2030.  It perhaps is technically possible to go to a Vote at Beijing 2030 but the IOC still have time on their side and I agree the likelihood of a Host Vote further down the track in 2022 or 2023 is more likely, especially since no candidature has yet been elevated to the Targeted Dialogue phase as preferred bidder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

Let's not forget, that like Brisbane, SLC has been at this for YEARS now. At least the last five. And three years ago, the USOC officially named SLC (over Denver) as their next candidate for the Winter Olympic Games. And now that everything is done behind-the-scenes, who's to say how much of that list has already been completed. The IOC hasn't remained idle since Tokyo 2020ne. And this is the IOC afterall, & they tweak their own rules as they go along as long as they can see it benefits them in the end in some way. 

That said, though, if anything, I can at least see the IOC naming SLC as their "preferred candidate" right before Beijing 2022 (like they did with Brisbane, five months before they officially crowned them with 2032 at Tokyo 2020ne). 

At this point, I'd say it makes more sense to hold off Sapporo, or the likes of Ukraine, 'til at least 2034. Too much uncertainty, especially with Ukraine, to see that all clear up in only 18 months from now. Needless to say, but we've all also have tried to gauge the global map of what other 'dark angel' could mysteriously pop up now that would want to work with the IOC at this point in time. And right now, that map, especially for the winter Games, is looking very bleak.

Yes, true an announcement re SLC2030 being elevated to Targeted Dialogue could certainly be made at the Beijing 2022 IOC Session.

I guess we won’t have long to wait to find out for sure being less than 2 months out.

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...