Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Ok offtopic, how on earth 75% of athens olympic venues are still in use. Theres literally an olympic park the size of an airport left abandoned in the outskirts of athens, what venue is still in use?, the olympic stadium which is already crumbling down because of the lack of mantainment?. Not to mention the 93% of venues usage in rio, again a gigantic olympic park in the middle of Barra determined inhospitable by their own government.

is it really reliable that info?

Yes it is reliable.  It has been assured by KPMG, which is a third party, according to the audit standard ISAE 3000.

A closer look at Athens 2004:

 

oybQmhJ.jpg

rWHkF0j.jpg

4dfIdJg.jpg

V2nL3XN.jpg

9LAC7TM.jpg

Mv9rMiS.jpg

0daInkK.jpg

MsTlDXJ.jpg

e23oYvZ.jpg

zECqtoQ.jpg

5cj59ML.jpg

4pUg3Zv.jpg

VvtUO4O.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Ok offtopic, how on earth 75% of athens olympic venues are still in use. Theres literally an olympic park the size of an airport left abandoned in the outskirts of athens, what venue is still in use?, the olympic stadium which is already crumbling down because of the lack of mantainment?. Not to mention the 93% of venues usage in rio, again a gigantic olympic park in the middle of Barra determined inhospitable by their own government. is it really reliable that info?

Now that Athens 2004 has been demonstrated 75% olympic venues still in use, looking now at Rio de Janeiro 2016:

—————————————————————————————

2Peerem.jpg

iFzujIY.jpg

qf9lXsG.jpg

WVcqk6Y.jpg

iwU0n8M.jpg

HESxuPy.jpg

ejGjHMs.jpg

PzcgRsD.jpg

p9h5UFA.jpg

sPmhjcH.jpg

2IoCHQd.jpg

MVMfWMT.jpg

Y7iufQI.jpg

s9b5xzZ.jpg

 

Credit:  Over 125 years of Olympic venues: post-Games use - library.Olympics.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Ok offtopic, how on earth 75% of athens olympic venues are still in use. Theres literally an olympic park the size of an airport left abandoned in the outskirts of athens, what venue is still in use?, the olympic stadium which is already crumbling down because of the lack of mantainment?. Not to mention the 93% of venues usage in rio, again a gigantic olympic park in the middle of Barra determined inhospitable by their own government. is it really reliable that info?

Yes, 75% of Athens 2004 permanent Olympic venues are still in use.

No, the Athens 2004 Olympic Stadium is not crumbling down.   The Athens 2004 Olympic Stadium is in regular use as AEK Football Club’s home stadium - just like London Olympic Stadium is home to West Ham United.

Yes, 93% of Rio de Janeiro 2016 permanent Olympic venues are still in use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

I really had a good laugh when I read about how all those venues are still in use.

Creative statistics at work obviously. 

More likely you have launched on to the keyboard and have not even read the report.

Over 125 years of Olympic venues: post-Games use - library.Olympics.com

Assured by KPMG, according to the audit standard ISAE 3000.

 

SvSztFi.jpg

kUzIHz3.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

“According to a new survey released by specialized Swiss communications firm BCW Sports, while 56 percent of 100 cities asked said they prefer the new site selection approach over the traditional bidding structure (at 31 percent), 57 percent admitted they missed out on an event they were interested in because of lack of clarity around the process.”

“In 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) led the way by reforming their decades-old approach to allocating the Olympic and Paralympic Games by doing away with the highly structured battle royale style competition and replacing it with shrouded dialogue and flexibility where IOC executives ultimately name compatible bids to elect. With no fixed timetables or milestones, those outside the process can only guess what’s going on.“

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Host Cities Prefer the Dialogue System over the Traditional Bidding War

“A study from BCW Sports has found potential host cities prefer the dialogue process now adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), over the traditional bidding process for sporting events.“

  • “Surveying 100 cities worldwide who are active in bidding and hosting these events, it found that 56 per cent were more in favour of dialogue, but also noted weaknesses in this process.”
  • “Some of these included a lack of clarity over the timeframe and decision-making, which are more concrete in a traditional format for bidding.”
  • “Only 31 per cent were more in favour with the bidding process, with 14 per cent having no preference.”
  • “That said, 53 per cent said they were only influenced somewhat by whether the process was bidding or dialogue, before deciding to submit interest.”
  • “A quarter said this was very important to them and would influence their decision, while 22 per cent said it would hardly influence them at all.”
  • “The opportunity to influence the rights holders' requirements and the process of learning and developing through discussions with rights holders were seen as the most positive reasons to favour the dialogue process, with 24 per cent saying it helped cost savings on bidding campaigns.”

BDP89Bw.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Host Cities Prefer the Dialogue System over the Traditional Bidding War

“A study from BCW Sports has found potential host cities prefer the dialogue process now adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), over the traditional bidding process for sporting events.“

  • “Surveying 100 cities worldwide who are active in bidding and hosting these events, it found that 56 per cent were more in favour of dialogue, but also noted weaknesses in this process.”
  • “Some of these included a lack of clarity over the timeframe and decision-making, which are more concrete in a traditional format for bidding.”
  • “Only 31 per cent were more in favour with the bidding process, with 14 per cent having no preference.”
  • “That said, 53 per cent said they were only influenced somewhat by whether the process was bidding or dialogue, before deciding to submit interest.”
  • “A quarter said this was very important to them and would influence their decision, while 22 per cent said it would hardly influence them at all.”
  • “The opportunity to influence the rights holders' requirements and the process of learning and developing through discussions with rights holders were seen as the most positive reasons to favour the dialogue process, with 24 per cent saying it helped cost savings on bidding campaigns.”

BDP89Bw.jpg

 

@StefanMUC @Sir Rols @FYI @stryker @Gonzo @Australian Kiwi @Circle @munichfan @baron-pierreIV @Chris_Mex @Guilga 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is the same survey GBModerator scooped them on and posted here much earlier this week. Interesting to note the things he highlighted:

“A majority of cities interested in staging major international sports events say they have missed out on key opportunities because they were unaware that the adapted dialogue-style process was open to select the host.

57 percent admitted they missed out on an event they were interested in because of lack of clarity around the process.

Comments provided by respondents revealed “host cities would like to be aware of the timing for the beginning and end of a process and be given sufficient time so they can consider whether they would like to get involved.”

The respondents underlined the need for transparency throughout the process including with timelines; who the decision makers are and the criteria; and whether there is already a de facto decision in place when the process was opened.

Respondents most valued the transparency and clear process timelines of the traditional bidding process, with one of those surveyed commenting that these could be incorporated in the dialogue-based approach.”

These - transparency and lack of clarity - are EXACTLY the main criticisms of the “New Norm” that have been made by members here, and it appears they are indeed echoed by the main stakeholders in bidding. No-one has denied that the new approach has benefits, but most have noted it’s far from perfect and has some worrying flaws. And 56 per cent support for it is far from overwhelming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Yes, this is the same survey GBModerator scooped them on and posted here much earlier this week. Interesting to note the things he highlighted:

“A majority of cities interested in staging major international sports events say they have missed out on key opportunities because they were unaware that the adapted dialogue-style process was open to select the host.

57 percent admitted they missed out on an event they were interested in because of lack of clarity around the process.

Comments provided by respondents revealed “host cities would like to be aware of the timing for the beginning and end of a process and be given sufficient time so they can consider whether they would like to get involved.”

The respondents underlined the need for transparency throughout the process including with timelines; who the decision makers are and the criteria; and whether there is already a de facto decision in place when the process was opened.

Respondents most valued the transparency and clear process timelines of the traditional bidding process, with one of those surveyed commenting that these could be incorporated in the dialogue-based approach.”

These - transparency and lack of clarity - are EXACTLY the main criticisms of the “New Norm” that have been made by members here, and it appears they are indeed echoed by the main stakeholders in bidding. No-one has denied that the new approach has benefits, but most have noted it’s far from perfect and has some worrying flaws. And 56 per cent support for it is far from overwhelming. 

Agreed.

Interesting too that only 31% were in favour of the old traditional bidding process.

There will be no return to the traditional bidding war - that is crystal clear.

While the New Norm dialogue process is not perfect, it still enjoys clear majority support of 56% of the 100 cities surveyed.

So yes, improving the new dialogue process and eliminating flaws, including improving  transparency, is the next challenge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, agreed. That’s the whole point of critiquing it.

It should also be noted though that the IOC, both before and after “New Norm” really hasn’t had much problem attracting summer games bidders. It’s the winter games that are the problem. And despite the “New Norm” and all the cajoling, encouraging and making allowances they’ve done, they’re still left with a shaky final list of only two candidates for 2030 as they were for 2022 and 2026.

Now, I don’t suggest that has anything to do with the “New Norm”. More, it’s an issue with the winter games themselves. Somethings got to be done about them to make them a more attractive proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Yes, agreed. That’s the whole point of critiquing it.

It should also be noted though that the IOC, both before and after “New Norm” really hasn’t had much problem attracting summer games bidders. It’s the winter games that are the problem. And despite the “New Norm” and all the cajoling, encouraging and making allowances they’ve done, they’re still left with a shaky final list of only two candidates for 2030 as they were for 2022 and 2026.

Now, I don’t suggest that has anything to do with the “New Norm”. More, it’s an issue with the winter games themselves. Somethings got to be done about them to make them a more attractive proposition.

I agree that even since the introduction of the dialogue system, the Winter Olympics currently has a problem attracting parties interested in parties in hosting.  There is certainly a bigger problem 

On the other hand, for the Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, the introduction of the New Norm dialogue system has been a raging success in attracting a long list of cities interested in hosting.

It’s quite stunning that the IOC recently announced in Seoul that it is currently in Continuous Dialogue with 10 cities for Future Games, with all of those suspected to be in that list of 10,  publicly having expressed interest also in hosting the 2036 Games.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

On the other hand, for the Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, the introduction of the New Norm dialogue system has been a raging success in attracting a long list of cities interested in hosting.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. The so-called “long list” is no longer than the numbers of cities who’ve expressed similar interest at a comparable stage for past bid cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to verify, after a very quick and non-exhaustive search (Wikipedia) past potential bidding city numbers were:

2004: 11 cities - five candidate cities - Athens, Rome, Capetown Stockholm, and six applicants Buenos Aries, Rio, San Juan, Istanbul, St Petersburg, Seville, lille

2008: 10 cities - Five candidates - Beijing, Toronto, Osaka, Paris, Istanbul, and five applicants Bangkok, Cairo, Kuala Lumpur, Seville, Havana (and an unspecified number of potentials including Monterey, NYC, Prague, Busan and Moscow)

2012: 9 candidate cities - London, Paris, New York, Madrid, Moscow, Leipzig, Rio, Istanbul, Havana (other applicant cities not named)

2016: 7 formal cities - Rio, Madrid, Tokyo, Chicago, Baku, Doha, Prague and 17 cities named as potential bidders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. The so-called “long list” is no longer than the numbers of cities who’ve expressed similar interest at a comparable stage for past bid cycles.

Most definitely disagree on that.

To start with, the notion of “bid cycles”.

Bidding is gone.  It’s no more.

Bidding cycles have gone.  They’re no more.

Traditional bidding wars has gone, gone, gone.  They’re no more.

Secondly, we are now talking about ten cities who the International Olympic Committee have progressed beyond just being interested parties and have entered into New Norm Continuous Dialogue .

There is no mistaking that interest in hosting the Summer Olympic Games has jumped sharply upwards since Brisbane 2032’s first New Norm selection as Host.

With the the IOC’s recent stunning announcement, is proof that early interest in hosting the Summer Games has surged again under New Norm and is translating into action with Ten Cities now having entered into Continuous Dialogue with the IOC.

A majority of 100 world cities have now expressed preference for the New Norm Dialogue System over the traditional, humiliating bidding wars (preferred by only 31%).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is a different process now, and because there’s so little transparency and clarity, it’s difficult to make direct comparisons. But…

3 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Secondly, we are now talking about ten cities who the International Olympic Committee have progressed beyond just being interested parties and have entered into New Norm Continuous Dialogue .

There is no mistaking that interest in hosting the Summer Olympic Games has jumped sharply upwards since Brisbane 2032’s first New Norm selection as Host.

 Expressions of early interest and negotiations aside, and sticking purely to applicant and candidate cities, there is no mistaking that:

For the 2004 games, there were eleven cities who had lodged formal applications and deposits, and submitted detailed plans for evaluation and public dissemination, for their intention to to host the summer games. For 2008 there were ten who did so. Nine for 2012. Seven for 2016 (though Delhi and Dubai were poised to formally submit but withdrew at the last minute, while Houston, Philadelphia and San Francisco formally submitted to, but were knocked back by, the USOC). Many of the cities in those races - eg Paris, Istanbul, Madrid, Rio, Tokyo - could indeed also be considered, in today’s parlance, to have been in “continuous dialogue” seeing as they submitted formal applications  for multiple and often consecutive olympiads.

In contrast, we now have 10 un-named cities (though we’ve discerned most them) that have entered into “New Norm Continuous Dialogue”, at various stages of planning and preparedness (lack of transparency and clarity prevents us knowing how far any of them are on the track), for 2036 and beyond. In no universe is that a “sharp upwards jump”.  At best, it’s business, or rather formal interest, as much as it ever was.

Again, nobody is disputing there’s many benefits to the new system. And there’s also flaws, concerns and teething problems that the latest survey has made public. But trying to describe the new process, and “Brisbane 2032’s first New Norm selection as Host”, as having sparked a major renaissance in hosting interest is over-reaching.

The real test will be when we’re told (assuming we ever even are) how man of the ten make it to “Targeted Dialogue” and beyond.

 

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Yes, it is a different process now, and because there’s so little transparency and clarity, it’s difficult to make direct comparisons. But…

 Expressions of early interest and negotiations aside, and sticking purely to applicant and candidate cities, there is no mistaking that:

For the 2004 games, there were eleven cities who had lodged formal applications and deposits, and submitted detailed plans for evaluation and public dissemination, for their intention to to host the summer games. For 2008 there were ten who did so. Nine for 2012. Seven for 2016 (though Delhi and Dubai were poised to formally submit but withdrew at the last minute, while Houston, Philadelphia and San Francisco formally submitted to, but were knocked back by, the USOC). Many of the cities in those races - eg Paris, Istanbul, Madrid, Rio, Tokyo - could indeed also be considered, in today’s parlance, to have been in “continuous dialogue” seeing as they submitted formal applications  for multiple and often consecutive olympiads.

In contrast, we now have 10 un-named cities (though we’ve discerned most them) that have entered into “New Norm Continuous Dialogue”, at various stages of planning and preparedness (lack of transparency and clarity prevents us knowing how far any of them are on the track), for 2036 and beyond. In no universe is that a “sharp upwards jump”.  At best, it’s business, or rather formal interest, as much as it ever was.

Again, nobody is disputing there’s many benefits to the new system. And there’s also flaws, concerns and teething problems that the latest survey has made public. But trying to describe the new process, and “Brisbane 2032’s first New Norm selection as Host”, as having sparked a major renaissance in hosting interest is over-reaching.

The real test will be when we’re told (assuming we ever even are) how man of the ten make it to “Targeted Dialogue” and beyond.

 

Not over-reaching at all.  Forget 2004, that’s ancient history - 18 years ago.

History has showed that interest in hosting the Olympics has steadily waned over recent years, many pullling out, being sunk by referendums or hesitant or lack of government support,  the costs of a traditional humiliating bidding wars going throigh the roof, many reasons. But traditonal bidding wars with strict costly venue requirements and minimum capacities led tonsky rocketing coats and many wasted white-elephant venues.

That’s why the entire bidding process changed over to the radical New Norm dialogue system.

The whole bidding process, the whole package, had to change, ….. and it did.

New Norm was born in 2018/19 and in 2021 the first New Norm was was selected.

And yes, of course,  you will be told who is elevated to Targeted Dialogue.

2032 Summer Olympics - First New Norm Host Selection Process:  IOC Media Conference (<<click the link)  a big IOC press conference was held 25 February 2021 to the world’s media announcing one candidature being Brisbane elevated to Targeted Dialogue.   There may have been others in Continuous Dialogue but there was at least one, being Brisbane.

2030 Winter Olympics - Second New Norm Host Selection Process:  a big IOC  press conference will be held, likely in the next 6-12 months, to the world’s media announcing who will be elevated to Targeted Dialogue.  We’re guessing that three candidatures are in Continuous Dialogue with the IOC, being Sapporo, SLC and Va

2036 Summer Olympics - Third New Norm Host Selection Process:  a big IOC press conference will be held, likely in the few years, to the world’s media announcing who will be elevated to Targeted Dialogue.  How many will be elevated?   Currently, the IOC has confirmed that Ten have entered Continuous Dialogue.

Yes.

The system changed from biddingto dialogue.

Since the, interest in hosting the Summer Games has surged again and now the majority of the 100 Cities surveyed prefer the New Norm dialogue shstem.

Only 31% like the old broken bidding war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Mentioned in the previous post, here is proof that a media cinference is held when a Candidature/s is elevated to Targeted Dialogue under the New Norm dialogue system.

24 Februrary 2021:

This coming Wednesday 7 December 2022, a media conference by the IOC President has been scheduled for 2pm.

Following Brisbane in 2021, will we see a second New Norm host elevated to Targeted Dialogue?

 Or will we have to wait until the next IOC Executive Board Meeting in May 2023?

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...