The New Norm

[Bear]

44 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Why couldn’t that have been put to the test then? Yes, still put Nice through to Preferred Candidate, but also keep Sweden in Targeted Dialogue for 2030 till March, when they would have had to deliver to have any chance to move forward anyway. Still would not have prevented Nice getting the final endorsement for a vote in March, and left the door open for Sweden to join them if they managed it. Nothing to lose for any party. The fact is Sweden delivered what they were told they had to by November, but were left hanging by considerations they weren’t told they needed to address yet.

Because the timeline is already reduced, you do not want to waste more time pursuing something that may or may not work when you can instead pursue an alternative that has a greater chance of working out. also remember that they still need to conduct site visits, and that's not really something you can organize in an instant

If this process was happening a year ago when it was supposed to, then yeah they could have put it to the test, but now it's just too late to wait on a nation to get themselves together when there's already one ready to deliver what is needed.

not to mention, if Sweden genuinely wanted the Games, then why did they wait for so long to create and present their candidature? We had like a whole 2 years of it just being Salt Lake City and Sapporo in the race, they definitely could have started doing something then. I really don't think they have a right to complain about the 2030 process...

that being said, i do agree that the 2032 process came out of no where, and there was no reason for the IOC to do that in 2021. it's probably the reason they ended up with a not so great 2030 process

[Sir Rols]

15 minutes ago, Bear said:

Because the timeline is already reduced, you do not want to waste more time pursuing something that may or may not work when you can instead pursue an alternative that has a greater chance of working out. also remember that they still need to conduct site visits, and that's not really something you can organize in an instant

But it wouldn’t have extended the timeline. Nice still has to get it’s final tick in March, and then still have to wait till it gets vote approval come Paris… or not even then if the rules of not voting for a host in the same country are still adhered to.

Surely flexibility means keeping all options open as long as practicable, rather than closing them off as soon as possible.

15 minutes ago, Bear said:

not to mention, if Sweden genuinely wanted the Games, then why did they wait for so long to create and present their candidature? We had like a whole 2 years of it just being Salt Lake City and Sapporo in the race, they definitely could have started doing something then. I really don't think they have a right to complain about the 2030 process...

Same could be said of France and Switzerland

Edited January 31 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

29 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

But it wouldn’t have extended the timeline. Nice still has to get it’s final tick in March, and then still have to wait till it gets vote approval come Paris… or not even then if the rules of not voting for a host in the same country are still adhered to.

Exactly, there's still IOC protocol to be followed before Nice can even be officially anointed. So why not still have Sweden in the mix until everything had to become official.

However, when it comes to Sweden, it really is a slippery-slope since their record at this is really not that great. But then again, neither is Switzerland's for that matter. Yet they got invited to "privileged dialog" for 2038. So in all fairness, if not for 2030, then why couldn't Sweden have gotten that same consideration as Switzerland, instead of basically just getting told not to bother anymore? So unless Bach & Co. secretly know that there's some sort of Swedish bureaucracy that they can never overcome, then I can understand the SOK's frustration of at least not getting that same opportunity as Switzerland in making their case.  

[Sir Rols]

31 minutes ago, FYI said:

Exactly, there's still IOC protocol to be followed before Nice can even be officially anointed. So why not still have Sweden in the mix until everything had to become official.

However, when it comes to Sweden, it really is a slippery-slope since their record at this is really not that great. But then again, neither is Switzerland's for that matter. Yet they got invited to "privileged dialog" for 2038. So in all fairness, if not for 2030, then why couldn't Sweden have gotten that same consideration as Switzerland, instead of basically just getting told not to bother anymore? So unless Bach & Co. secretly know that there's some sort of Swedish bureaucracy that they can never overcome, then I can understand the SOK's frustration of at least not getting that same opportunity as Switzerland in making their case.  

Of course, we all know there’s nuances that came into play for the 2030 V2.0 bid race. And I’m not even that displeased with the choice of Nice. Nice is nice. It’s not the decision I’m pissed off with, it’s the process. For a process Bach set up to produce “no more losers”, it sure looked like they went, unnecessarily, out of their way to produce a loser.

Similarly with 2032. I’m of course happy with Brisbane getting the nod. But I think the process that got it there stank. Both those “New Norm” decisions could have been reached exactly as they were without any taint or suspicion of unfairness.

Edited January 31 by Sir Rols

[Bear]

53 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Same could be said of France and Switzerland

and yet they were able to get themselves ready in time while sweden was not.

54 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

But it wouldn’t have extended the timeline. Nice still has to get it’s final tick in March, and then still have to wait till it gets vote approval come Paris… or not even then if the rules of not voting for a host in the same country are still adhered to.

Compared to Sweden, at least in terms of the guarantees, Nice is ready to go. If we had Sweden instead, and they ended up not being able to proceed with the guarantees, then the targeted dialogue process would have to restart, and the IOC would have to plan a new site visit before July, engage in even more talks, etc etc.

Why would you want to risk having to reset the process with a different group half way through, when you could simply go with the candidate that has already delivered the key thing you require?

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Surely flexibility means keeping all options open as long as practicable, rather than closing them off as soon as possible.

Again, if this was happening a year ago, then I could see the IOC sticking with Sweden for a little longer juuust in case those guarantees can come through, but we are now 6 years out with little room for any delays. You mention practicable, and I'd argue that we are now in a time range where it is no longer practicable to keep all options open, especially when we already have a capable candidature (or three) of producing what is needed at the time it is needed.

in regards for switzerland, well i don't really agree with the IOC doing that lol. I can excuse them also going for 2034 considering the circumstances the winter games are in and the fact that SLC would have taken them either way, but going for 2038 is just excessive at this point...

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, Bear said:

and yet they were able to get themselves ready in time while sweden was not.

Because Sweden was following due process and a timetable set for them by the IOC. And Switzerland didn’t - they were told they had to re-do their venue plan, and that there was no evidence of political support.

1 hour ago, Bear said:

Compared to Sweden, at least in terms of the guarantees, Nice is ready to go. If we had Sweden instead, and they ended up not being able to proceed with the guarantees, then the targeted dialogue process would have to restart, and the IOC would have to plan a new site visit before July, engage in even more talks, etc etc.

But who’s saying they should have gone with Sweden INSTEAD of Nice? Not me. I’m arguing it would have made sense to go with BOTH (or even with Switzerland as well). I’m not arguing for either/or, and I’m not disputing Nice was the more ready to go on the day. If Sweden had been elevated as well, and they ended up not being able to proceed with the guarantees, Nice would still be there exactly as it is now. No need to restart anything, just proceed as per the still existing timetable. Nice being chosen alone early, has not sped up the timetable, there’s still bureaucratic hoops to go through.

There was also a chance both could have been elevated to go to vote - in theory at least, the “New Norm” still allows for “one or more” preferred candidates to be put forward to a vote of the full IOC membership.

Just to say, I appreciate the good, honest discussion with you on this. I enjoy it. It’s refreshing.

Edited January 31 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

"but going for 2038 is just 'excessive' at this point"

Is it really? Cause apparently, nothing seems to be excessive nowadays when it comes to the 'new-norm', since lets keep in mind, that lately they're awarding host cities 10-11 years out, like they did with 2032 & like they're going to do soon enough with 2034 (& the way things are starting to look, with 2036, too). And speaking of SLC, they've been at it in trying to get another winter Games for quite some time, like 6-7 years already.

Even when the previous lead-time was 7-years out, bid cities were still preparing 4-5 years before that. So the IOC wanting to engage in 2038 already doesn't seem to be too far-fetched at this point, since if they keep with their current new-norm calendar, they'd more than likely be ready to anoint a 2038 host only fours years from now come 2028 in L.A. no doubt.

[Guilga]

10 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

There was also a chance both could have been elevated to go to vote - in theory at least, the “New Norm” still allows for “one or more” preferred candidates to be put forward to a vote of the full IOC membership.

In practice though... 

If this was the way they're going, would Brisbane be the only bid for 2028 in record time? If this was the plan, given what now happened in the winter side, I feel they would actually do the multiple bids to a vote already for 2030.

The real new norm is that instead of convincing a whole IOC membership, you just need to do that to a single one.

[Bear]

13 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Just to say, I appreciate the good, honest discussion with you on this. I enjoy it. It’s refreshing.

Same to you 

9 hours ago, FYI said:

"but going for 2038 is just 'excessive' at this point"

Is it really? Cause apparently, nothing seems to be excessive nowadays when it comes to the 'new-norm', since lets keep in mind, that lately they're awarding host cities 10-11 years out, like they did with 2032 & like they're going to do soon enough with 2034 (& the way things are starting to look, with 2036, too).

I mean, kinda? we're 14 years out from 2038, and the process for summer 2036 is still in its early stages. Focusing on a distant future edition instead of the next available edition (ex. awarding 2032 in 2021 instead of focusing on 2030 at the time) is probably one of the reasons that got us into a messy bid process that seemingly had no real timeline. They gotta take things one step at a time instead of jumping all over the place haha

[Sir Rols]

6 hours ago, Guilga said:

In practice though... 

If this was the way they're going, would Brisbane be the only bid for 2028 in record time? If this was the plan, given what now happened in the winter side, I feel they would actually do the multiple bids to a vote already for 2030.

The real new norm is that instead of convincing a whole IOC membership, you just need to do that to a single one.

 

2 hours ago, Bear said:

I mean, kinda? we're 14 years out from 2038, and the process for summer 2036 is still in its early stages. Focusing on a distant future edition instead of the next available edition (ex. awarding 2032 in 2021 instead of focusing on 2030 at the time) is probably one of the reasons that got us into a messy bid process that seemingly had no real timeline. They gotta take things one step at a time instead of jumping all over the place haha

I don’t think anybody really expects 2036 to be sorted out this year, but who knows? Next year marks the same time span before 2036 as Brisbane got awarded, so it’s a possibility. And we’ll likely not even know till it happens.

At the moment it’s basically a game of blind man’s bluff - not even the bidders really know what the time span is, or if the rules will suddenly change. And if there’s been one lesson learned from 2032 and 2030-34-38, it’s that it’s also a sprint to see who can come up with the guarantees first. Once that happens it’s game over for anyone else working steadily through it.

I just think the IOC could save itself from all this confusion and suspicion with a bit of transparency and guidance. 

By all means have your roster of interested parties in continuous dialogue. But at some point say: “Okay, we’re about to start focussing on a 2036 host now. We will be more closely working together with the interested parties on their plans and hope to be able to make a recommendation for tasrgeted dialogue by _______.” Then bidders know they have a target to work to. And if one bid is able to reach Targeted Dialogue earlier, great, but then say “We now have a targeted bidder. If anyone else hopes to join them, you have until _________. After that date we will be working towards recommending a Preferred Host”. Let all the bidders know where they stand and also give them a chance to catch up if they find they’ve been gazumped purely by bureaucratic fiat.  Just a generous timetable where everyone knows they’re on the same page, and if they want to or must change it, give some leeway for all involved to avoid missing out through no fault of their own.

I’d also like to see more transparency about bid plans - they should be publically available. Maybe not a full Bid Book, but a sufficiently fleshed out dossier at least. Citizens have a right to know what is being planned on their behalf, or indeed that a bid is even going ahead on their behalf. 

And I think it should always be striven to take at least two bds to a vote, where possible. By al means vet those to those the EB thinks are viable and desirable, even which of those they prefer, but let the wider membership have a final say on which has more appeal. Instead of no real role any more than being a rubber stamp.

Edited January 31 by Sir Rols

[Bear]

16 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

 

I don’t think anybody really expects 2036 to be sorted out this year, but who knows? Next year marks the same time span before 2036 as Brisbane got awarded, so it’s a possibility. And we’ll likely not even know till it happens.

At the moment it’s basically a game of blind man’s bluff - not even the bidders really know what the time span is, or if the rules will suddenly change. And if there’s been one lesson learned from 2032 and 2030-34-38, it’s that it’s also a sprint to see who can come up with the guarantees first. Once that happens it’s game over for anyone else working steadily throug it.

I just think the IOC could save itself from all this confusion and suspicion with a bit of transparency and guidance. 

By all means have your roster of interested parties in continuous dialogue. But at some point say: “Okay, we’re about to start focussing on a 2036 host now. We will be more closely working together with the interested parties on their plans and hope to be able to make a recommendation for tasrgeted dialogue by _______.” Then bidders know they have a target to work to. And if one bid is able to reach Targeted Dialogue earlier, great, but then say “We now have a targeted bidder. If anyone else hopes to join them, you have until _________. After that date we will be working towards recommending a Preferred Host”. Let all the bidders know where they stand and also give them a chance to catch up if they find they’ve been gazumped purely by bureaucratic fiat.  Just a generous timetable where everyone knows their on the same page, and if they want to or must change it, give some leeway for all involved to avoid missing out through no faul of their own.

I’d also like to see more transparency about bid plans - they should be publically available. Maybe not a full Bid Book, but a sufficiently fleshed out dossier at least. Citizens have a right to know what is being planned on their behalf, or indeed that a bid is even going ahead on their behalf. 

And I think it should always be striven to take at least two bds to a vote, where possible. By al means vet those to those the EB thinks are viable and desirable, even which of those hey prefer, but let the wider membership have a final say on which has more appeal.

totally agree on your take regarding transparency. I really only disagreed with the role of the guarantees aspect, especially in the context of the 2030 process, but I think we've discussed that enough 

I hope that as the "new norm" (or whatever its properly called) process is used more, there are adjustments made to create a better process each time, but as of right now its kinda disjointed.

[FYI]

3 hours ago, Bear said:

I mean, kinda? we're 14 years out from 2038, and the process for summer 2036 is still in its early stages. Focusing on a distant future edition instead of the next available edition (ex. awarding 2032 in 2021 instead of focusing on 2030 at the time) is probably one of the reasons that got us into a messy bid process that seemingly had no real timeline. They gotta take things one step at a time instead of jumping all over the place haha

Jumping all over the place? No one is suggesting (I know I'm not) for 2038 to be decided before 2036 is. But by the time 2028 comes around, 2036 should've been sorted out by then (the way the IOC is operating these days) & 2038 would be the next logical step.

I (& others have) certainly agree/d (much to the bewilderment of a certain-you-know-who around here) that choosing 2032 (certainly a distant future edition 11 years out at the time it was crowned by the IOC) right in the middle of a global pandemic no less, before figuring out 2030 (who's timeline of trying to find suitable candidates was growing short) was a big mistake. But the IOC was more focused on just giving in to a certain VP colleague of theirs at the time. The 2038 winter Games in comparison, even if chosen in summer 2028, would still have less lead-time than Brisbane 2032 did. So at that point, it's not really as distant an edition anymore as one might think.

Again, before the new-norm, bid cities were preparing *years in advance* their bidding portfolios, & the IOC was juggling back-&-forth, chronologically, between those bidding contest. So I really don't see much of a difference now, other than the IOC just adding a few more years now to the lead-time.

Plus, at a time when other bidders were caught off-guard by the sudden coronation of Brisbane 2032, many of them are now in FOMO mode & perhaps thinking now that it's never too early to at least be engaging (not to be confused with awarding) with the "new-norm", whimsical IOC these days, because they, at any given moment, can just hand-out a Games whenever they see it's appropriate now.

What is certainly whacky, though, is worrying about very distant future editions with a 'permanent roster of rotating winter hosts', when they're having a hard enough time as it is in trying to fill in the next decade alone with winter hosts. 

 

[Bear]

5 minutes ago, FYI said:

Jumping all over the place? No one is suggesting (I know I'm not) for 2038 to be decided before 2036 is. But by the time 2028 comes around, 2036 should've been sorted out by then (the way the IOC is operating these days) & 2038 would be the next logical step.

I mean, the 2038 process is already in a more advanced stage compared to the 2036 process, considering we already have a preferred candidate (even if it's not referred to as such) for those games

[FYI]

^Right, it's dubbed as "privileged dialog", which is something the IOC just pulled out of their rear-end anyway.

That said, though, they've still given Switzerland 'til like 2027 to get their act together (in the IOC's eyes anyway) before anything further goes on with them (or they're out). By that time, 2036 should be much further along in the vetting process.

Like I mentioned, it wouldn't be the first time in the IOC's history that they juggle two contests at once. After all, there are two sets of Games (one winter & one summer), which they've usually alternated the process as well.

[FYI]

*By that time, 2036 should be much further along in the vetting process - if not already decided upon by then.

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

And I think it should always be striven to take at least two bds to a vote, where possible. By al means vet those to those the EB thinks are viable and desirable, even which of those they prefer, but let the wider membership have a final say on which has more appeal. Instead of no real role any more than being a rubber stamp.

It really does appear now as if the EB doesn't trust their own voters to make the right decisions anymore. Or at least the decisions the EB wants.

[Sir Rols]

18 minutes ago, FYI said:

It really does appear now as if the EB doesn't trust their own voters to make the right decisions anymore. Or at least the decisions the EB wants.

You’ve got to hand it to Bach and Coates, they managed to outfox even the old fox Samaranch himself, and not through want of Sama’s trying to sideline the membership.

Despite the fact that it’s theoretically possible, I wonder if we’ll ever see a contested final again? Looks unlikely the way they’ve been applying the “New Norm” so far.

I need to know Michelle Yeoh’s preferred hosts…

Edited January 31 by Sir Rols

[Guilga]

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

 

I don’t think anybody really expects 2036 to be sorted out this year, but who knows? Next year marks the same time span before 2036 as Brisbane got awarded, so it’s a possibility. And we’ll likely not even know till it happens.

At the moment it’s basically a game of blind man’s bluff - not even the bidders really know what the time span is, or if the rules will suddenly change. And if there’s been one lesson learned from 2032 and 2030-34-38, it’s that it’s also a sprint to see who can come up with the guarantees first. Once that happens it’s game over for anyone else working steadily through it.

I just think the IOC could save itself from all this confusion and suspicion with a bit of transparency and guidance. 

By all means have your roster of interested parties in continuous dialogue. But at some point say: “Okay, we’re about to start focussing on a 2036 host now. We will be more closely working together with the interested parties on their plans and hope to be able to make a recommendation for tasrgeted dialogue by _______.” Then bidders know they have a target to work to. And if one bid is able to reach Targeted Dialogue earlier, great, but then say “We now have a targeted bidder. If anyone else hopes to join them, you have until _________. After that date we will be working towards recommending a Preferred Host”. Let all the bidders know where they stand and also give them a chance to catch up if they find they’ve been gazumped purely by bureaucratic fiat.  Just a generous timetable where everyone knows they’re on the same page, and if they want to or must change it, give some leeway for all involved to avoid missing out through no fault of their own.

I’d also like to see more transparency about bid plans - they should be publically available. Maybe not a full Bid Book, but a sufficiently fleshed out dossier at least. Citizens have a right to know what is being planned on their behalf, or indeed that a bid is even going ahead on their behalf. 

And I think it should always be striven to take at least two bds to a vote, where possible. By al means vet those to those the EB thinks are viable and desirable, even which of those they prefer, but let the wider membership have a final say on which has more appeal. Instead of no real role any more than being a rubber stamp.

Absolutely spot on there. 

 

12 minutes ago, FYI said:

It really does appear now as if the EB doesn't trust their own voters to make the right decisions anymore. Or at least the decisions the EB wants.

I feel it's the former. Like, in the old process they had their shortlists before the vote.

 

47 minutes ago, Bear said:

I mean, the 2038 process is already in a more advanced stage compared to the 2036 process, considering we already have a preferred candidate (even if it's not referred to as such) for those games

Hey, don't worry! 2036 host might come out of the blue anytime now just like 2038, you just need the guarantees, y'know? It would be funny if out of nowhere, Bach already has a host ready for this one by games time in Paris, but at this point, would it be surprising?  

[yoshi]

If 2036 is running slightly late, I suspect it's because the IOC had it all planned out for St Petersburg on a similar setup & timescale to Brisbane's win, but then you know what happened & not even this IOC would be so brazen as to jump openly into bed with Putin now. So we've got something resembling competition, although completely secretly, and it feels like the people who matter really want Ahmedabad at this point. But I guess there's no telling anymore. You'd have hoped the struggles Brisbane are having would've told them some form of bid process is really really useful...

[FYI]

St. Petersburg 2040/44 is another story, though! 

[Sir Rols]

9 minutes ago, yoshi said:

If 2036 is running slightly late, I suspect it's because the IOC had it all planned out for St Petersburg on a similar setup & timescale to Brisbane's win, but then you know what happened & not even this IOC would be so brazen as to jump openly into bed with Putin now. So we've got something resembling competition, although completely secretly, and it feels like the people who matter really want Ahmedabad at this point. But I guess there's no telling anymore. You'd have hoped the struggles Brisbane are having would've told them some form of bid process is really really useful...

I realy don’t know what to make of Ahmenabad. Considering the climate problems, the scope for corruption and India’s very loose application of the concept of “democracy” it should be a no-goer. But there’s just so much chatter about it in the news snippets….????? 

[FYI]

India would've been considered unthinkable just a decade ago, but yeah, now there seems to be quite a bit of chatter about them lately, without mentioning many of the logical concerns that would accompany an Indian Olympic hosting.

[Sir Rols]

The whole Brisbane Gabba-venues issue that has arisen in the past week, has started to give some more misgivings about the “New Norm” as we’ve seen it in operation for two host selections now.

Both the selection of Brisbane and Nice seem to have been driven by one over-riding factor - both provided rock solid political support. And, okay, you can see why the IIOC is so keen on that after the issues its had in the recent past with bids falling apart before they can get going because of failing political/public support. The lesson for he future seems to be - get your Government’s ironclad backing first and quickly.

But it looks to me this laser focus on support has come at the expense of complete and detailed bid/venue plans that can be properly scrutinised. Both Brisbane and Nice were waved through with blanks in their venue lists that were left to be worked out later.

Brisbane was approved with a number of venues, most particularly the athletics stadium, that were left with a number of undecided “options”, only vaguely pencilled in and a bunch of others where the IOC made recommendations that were not taken up by the OCOG. And here we are, almost three years after selection, a number of venues are up in the air again and the whole project seems to be going through a crisis of public support - sitting at just 38 per cent apparently on the back of Gabba cost-explosions and misgivings.

Nice - and, yes, I’ll grant you, there WERE factors that dictated a more urgent, hurried evaluation - still has two unfllled spots for as yet non-existent venues for ice sports in the city. And an astounding lack of awareness of a bid even going on - what was it ? Only 35 per cent of the residents of the area knew of the bid? Chances are it will all get sorted, but this is still a risk that the IOC has just kicked down the road in the name of “a firm commitment b all levels of gvernment”.

Isn’t this approach putting the cart before the horse? How can any (democratic) government really be trusted to 100 per cent sign-off on plans that are not fully completed or vetted? Or, for that matter, how can public support for a games be relied upon when they’re not given full details of costs, venues and other factors that will affect them directly?  

 

Edited February 15 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Isn’t this approach putting the cart before the horse? How can any (democratic) government really be trusted to 10 per cent sign-off on plans that are not fully completed or vetted? Or, for that matter, how can public support for a games be relied upon when they’re not given full details of costs, venues and other factors that will affect them directly?  

You mean the so-called new-norm isn't the be-all, end-all - greatest thing thing since sliced bread, & a "model" for all Olympic cities going forward that we were all sold that it is/was (particularly in this thread & throughout the boards over the past three years)?! 

One thing seems to be becoming abundantly clear, though, that Bach & Co. should be going back to the drawing board & then call it the "new reality check". 

[Sir Rols]

There’s good aspects of the “New Norm” too. The flexibility of it certainly saved the IOC’s skins for 2030. It does cut down bidding costs. The ongoing partnership “dialogues” and helping cities better tailor the games to them are big bonuses. It’s just that, IMO, it could also do with a LOT more transparency, more accountability, more clearly defined targets and target dates. And, as intimated above, some redirection on the priorities they seem to be courting in hosts.

But let’s face it, for all of Bach’s blathering about “too many losers”, it wasn’t the risk of losing bids that was scaring hosts off - it was the incredible rising cost of the games themselves and a more sceptical attitude to the benefits they bring. It wasn’t the method of choosing hosts, it was the perception they weren’t as much value any more for the investment they required.

That’s not only on the IOC, though. Hosts have been all too willing and hubristic enough to get sucked into over-spending lavishly on vanity projects for the games (and still do, as Brisbane and Milano-Cortina are showing). And to give the IOC some credit, Lausanne seems to have got that message. Their steps like requiring minimal new builds now, getting firmer with Milano-Cortina over their sliding centre follies, and now sending in Coates to read the riot act to Brisbane over the Gabba debacle, show they’re indeed willing to crack the whip now to control costs and keep firmer control of the hosts. They’re not doing it to be altruistic  or humanitarians, of course. It’s just a good, more sustainable business model. They know for their own, and the Games’ survival, they’ve got to rein in the waste and largesse. 

Edited February 15 by Sir Rols