Jump to content

2036 Olympics: Crowded Field of Interested Parties


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Brekkie Boy said:

What's the point though when it'll just be a secret deal behind closed doors again.  They need to return to a fully transparent voting process rather than just seemingly invite corruption as the norm.

If you want to eliminate corruption then the old bidding system is the worst bidding process you could possibly turn to, where many IOC members visited bidding cities and corruption was rife.

At least now, only the Future Host Commission, and the IOC President sometimes, visit during the preliminary continuous dialogue stages.

With New Norm, once a candiate is elevated to Targeted Dialogue, a media conference is held and it is announced to the world - it’s  o secret.

There is no evidence of corruption happening in the new process - it’s just different.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to eliminate corruption then the old bidding system is the worst bidding process you could possibly turn to, where many IOC members visited bidding cities and corruption was rife.

At least now, only the Future Host Commission, and the IOC President sometimes, visit during the preliminary continuous dialogue stages.

With New Norm, once a candiate is elevated to Targeted Dialogue, a media conference is held and it is announced to the world - it’s  no secret.

There is no evidence of corruption happening in the new process - it’s just different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution to alleged corruption isn't taking the process behind closed doors so any possible corruption is even less transparent to the wider world.

Yes, the process needed changing but as I've said before an election where you have just one candidate on the ballot paper is not a free and fair election - it's what dictatorships pass off as democracy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great.  More PR spin from an organization that is awful at PR.  "Hey, look at all these cities that are interested in hosting the Olympics way off in the future."  When anyone who knows anything about the bid process knows the majority of them won't be given any serious consideration.  

41 minutes ago, Brekkie Boy said:

The solution to alleged corruption isn't taking the process behind closed doors so any possible corruption is even less transparent to the wider world.

Yes, the process needed changing but as I've said before an election where you have just one candidate on the ballot paper is not a free and fair election - it's what dictatorships pass off as democracy.

Careful there.  Use the word "corruption" in any discussion of the new bidding process and you're likely to offend AustralianFan :rolleyes:.

There's a lot of improvements with the new system.  No longer are cities required to spend tons of money to put together a bid and then promise the world to the IOC.  The IOC in turn is being much more selective about who they are engaging with so that bids who don't have the goods can be cut off much earlier in the process.  Those are obviously good things.

But yes, we can't have a scenario where the IOC somewhat out of the blue picks 1 and only 1 city, effectively naming them the host with no explanation of how they got there.  We know they have their "fewer losers" mantra, but that's taking it a step 2 far.  Make it 2 cities or maybe 3 and have a legitimate vote.  And because the process is about dialogue, whoever doesn't win has a leg up on the next Olympics.  Think Rio 2012 or Tokyo 2016.  They would have benefited from this where they didn't have to put a whole new bid together from scratch and present themselves again to the tune of millions of dollars.  That's a good thing.

Either way, I agree 100% that there needs to be a vetting process that's more than just picking 1 city behind closed doors and effectively naming them the winner.  I hope that was a one off and doesn't happen again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Either way, I agree 100% that there needs to be a vetting process that's more than just picking 1 city behind closed doors and effectively naming them the winner.  I hope that was a one off and doesn't happen again.

This is the New Norm system of selecting host cities.  It’s not a one-off, it’s the new way of selecting host cities.

The New Norm has it’s own vetting system, it’s called the IOC Future Host Commission.

That’s the whole point of the IOC Future Host Commission:  to have continuous dialogue with interested parties.

The New Norm host selection process led to the 2032 host selection.

The New Norm host selection process is being used again, right now, for the 2030 host selection.

The New Norm host selection process will be used again for the 2034, 2036, 2038, 2040 host selections.

It’s no more behind closed doors than the old bidding system.   That’s a myth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brekkie Boy said:

The solution to alleged corruption isn't taking the process behind closed doors so any possible corruption is even less transparent to the wider world.

Yes, the process needed changing but as I've said before an election where you have just one candidate on the ballot paper is not a free and fair election - it's what dictatorships pass off as democracy.

Forget this nonsense and comparisons with democracy and dictatorships. Do you think this is an election of reoresentatives of the people?  What you’re saying is off-the scale unrelated.

This is about a process where there is dialogue and discussions with interesting parties for an Olympic Games.

The IOC Future Host Commission talks with various interested parties and then recommends a candidate.

It’s nonsense to say it’s behind closed doors, any more than the old broken bidding system was.   That’s a myth, seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s this huge myth circulating around that New Norm is “behind closed doors”.

Following the first, successful New Norm host selection process for the 2032 Summer Games, we are now into the second New Norm host selection process for the 2030 Winter Games.

It’s happening as it was designed to happen.

Regular media conferences and announcements to the world are held at key stages along the way, as it was under the old broken bidding system.  

The IOC Future Host Commission talks with interested parties and then recommends to the IOC Executive Board a candidate or candidates for elevation to the Targeted Dialogue phase.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This helps understanding of the new process:

Credit: Barret extols IOC's new process for electing Olympic Games hosts - 23 May 2022 - Inside The Games

  • International Olympic Committee (IOC) director of future Olympic Games hosts Jacqueline Barrett has extolled the new approach to awarding hosting rights for the multi-sport event, insisting it offers opportunities for "an open, frank and non-committal discussion" with a wider range of parties.
  • The IOC has moved away from the traditional bidding process, with its Future Host Commission instead identifying and proposing its preferred candidate to the Executive Board.
  • The Executive Board can then enter targeted dialogue with a bid before choosing whether or not to recommend that a proposal is brought to a vote at an IOC Session.
  • Brisbane 2032 became the first edition of the Summer Olympics awarded under this format, when it entered targeted dialogue with the IOC Executive Board in February last year before having its hosting rights rubber-stamped at the 138th Session in Tokyo.
  • Barrett discussed some of the advantages to the IOC of this new process with insidethegames, arguing that it opened the field to a wider range of interested cities, regions and countries.
  • "I think some of the benefits that we’re seeing everyday when we speak to people is how they like this new approach to doing things and how it’s bringing people to the table, and many of the discussions we have with interested parties is that they feel comfortable," she reflected.
  • "They feel welcome coming to this process because of the new way of doing things.”
  • "In the old process they might not have approached us.“
  • "I think that this is a doors open policy - we’re here to be able to talk with anybody at anytime about any edition of the Games, and they might not even have an idea of what edition of the Games they want to go for.”
  • "They might think we have a possibility of organising Games that they'd like to discuss with us but without any commitment, and I think that’s also the big difference.“
  • "In the past people couldn’t really speak to us until we opened a process, so already at that point you’re so far down the line.”
  • "Often we would have discussions, and we’d be thinking to ourselves, 'if only we’d been able to talk to them a year ago, or six months ago', because things would set in place that are difficult to change. If only we’d been able to engage earlier we could have had a much better discussion, and I think that is the beauty of this new approach.”
  • "You can really have an open and frank and non-committal discussion, or a sharing of ideas.”
  • "Cities, regions and NOCs [National Olympic Committees] can road test ideas, have a chat, and learn what it’s all about, without having to make any commitment. And in some respects if they don't want to, without having to have gone public yet."
  • Barrett insisted that the flexibility of the approach is better suited to allowing a proposal "to mature at its own speed without it necessarily being under a public spotlight if it isn't ready to do so".
  • She added that discussions also enabled the IOC to offer "the expertise that we can bring with being at the forefront of Games planning everyday" to various interested parties.
  • "If a project doesn’t go forward, for us we feel it’s an investment in sport," Barrett said.
  • "Any project, whatever a city or region goes on to do in the realm of sport for anything else, will perhaps be a little bit better because they’ve got some more knowledge and expertise that we’ve been able to bring to the table."
  • "It’s beneficial to us too: we learn more about a project earlier, we can help, we can guide, we can make suggestions, we can optimise, with the whole idea being that any project is the most sustainable one possible, the lowest cost possible and a project that’s most aligned with what a city or region is trying to do in its own community.“
  • "For us that is the key thing now that the Games are here to adopt to a city or a region, it’s not the other way round, and I think in past processes, it was a little bit like we opened a bidding process for a given year and we said 'here’s what we need you to tell us, you figure it out and if you get the Games go away and do it'.
  • "Now what we’re saying is what are your concerns, what are the challenges in your region and in your communities, what are your long-term plans for the next 10 or 20 years or even longer, and how would hosting a Games fit into this long-term planning?
  • "The Games shouldn’t be the starting point for that, it should be how the Games can help what a city or a region or a community is trying to do for itself anyway, so there’s no one-size-fits all solution there.”
  • One of the criticisms levelled at the new bidding process is a lack of transparency, while for Brisbane 2032 there were allegations of a conflict of interest concerning Australian Olympic Committee President and IOC vice-president John Coates, who helped to oversee the change to the process.
  • IOC President Thomas Bach insisted that Coates had no input in Brisbane being recommended for exclusive negotiations, and claimed that it was a "very transparent procedure".
  • Barrett also defended the new process, and argued confidential discussions should not be mistaken for a lack of transparency.
  • "I would say transparency is really important for us, and I think it's a difference for us between transparency and enabling some conversations to be confidential if they want them to be," Barrett said.
  • "I think on transparency, all of the documents related to the new approach are on our website for anybody to see.“
  • "Every document we've put on the website, the questionnaires, the reports, all the framework, anything to do with the new process is there.“
  • "The new approach, the various stages to it, how it happens, why it happens, who does what, everything is there, and I think that's very transparent.“
  • "I think this ability for a city or a region or a NOC to have a confidential discussion to road test some ideas is absolutely natural and normal, and not every meeting we would ever have would be open to the public anyway.“
  • "You have a workshop, you have a meeting, those are the running of the business, but I think that's why I would make the difference.“
  • "We are everyday trying to communicate this more, and I think when you do something new it takes time to get that out and get that across, especially when you've perhaps been in a situation and a process that's been largely the same for many decades and people are used to that.“
  • "A lot of it happened during the pandemic, where everybody was locked down and we were not getting together so much.“
  • "We were changing the way we did business to do a lot more virtually, which we found was a different way of doing things."
  • It was revealed on the final day of the 139th IOC Session in Lausanne that the Executive Board is hopeful of entering a targeted dialogue with a candidate for the 2030 Winter Olympics in December with a view to awarding hosting rights for the Games at the Session in Mumbai next May.
  • Sapporo has long been viewed as a frontrunner for 2030, but is facing stiff competition from Salt Lake City, Vancouver, and a joint Pyrenees-Barcelona proposal.
  •  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Careful there.  Use the word "corruption" in any discussion of the new bidding process and you're likely to offend AustralianFan :rolleyes:.

Ya think? Where have you been. That's pretty much been par-for-the-course with them for quite some time now, & this "new-norm is the best thing since sliced bread" BS has been on *overdrive* for the past 15 months ever since Brisbane was named 'preferred bidder' for 2032. So 'offended' is putting it mildly.

More like OCD-driven hysteria (which is evident is so many threads with the incessant new-norm spamming whenever someone mentions anything critical about the "new process". It even just bumped up it's new-norm "library" thread [yes, that's what they labeled it :lol:] from a few months back so they can "teach us" all about it :lol:). It really does make Oly28's ceremonies/flag pole ramblings seem so trivial in comparison. And more akin to a certain delirious Angelo & his feverish tirades from a few years back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Great.  More PR spin from an organization that is awful at PR.  "Hey, look at all these cities that are interested in hosting the Olympics way off in the future."  When anyone who knows anything about the bid process knows the majority of them won't be given any serious consideration.  

Yeah, I thought the same thing when I saw that. If we divide up the ones that are interested in 2036 & 2040, the number is probably no higher than the bidding cycles of each of 2004, 2008 & 2012, when we had 11, 10 & 9 initial bidding cities (before the short-lists were made) respectively for each of those cycles. So yeah, just some tailored-made Bach lip-service here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, I thought the same thing when I saw that. If we divide up the ones that are interested in 2036 & 2040, the number is probably no higher than the bidding cycles of each of 2004, 2008 & 2012, when we had 11, 10 & 9 initial bidding cities (before the short-lists were made) respectively for each of those cycles. So yeah, just some tailored-made Bach lip-service here. 

Feels like an extension of the "we would like to see an Olympics in Africa" line.  Along those lines..

2 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

 

 

 

A wider range of interested cities isn't necessarily a good thing.  How many times have we said it here that a city being "interested" means nothing if they're not a worth candidate.  The good thing about the new process is that it makes it easier for the IOC to dismiss an unworthy candidate.  But the messaging here is going to get lost really quick if we get more pie in the sky bids that have no business putting themselves forward

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triggered much AustraliaFan?

Key personnel of failed and forgotten 40 year old Brisbane bid changes bidding process and games are then awarded to Brisbane four years ahead of usual time frame just looks so honest doesn't it.   A shame really that Brisbane Games will always be tainted by that question however good they are - and as much as I believe it's a good thing to see the Olympics embracing smaller regional cities rather than just the worlds megacities I just don't believe under the familar process they'd have got close to winning.   Yes, some would say that is entirely the point but when a process lets transparency the questions will always be asked, even if it was all absolutely above board.

 

The main reason though there are seemingly so many cities interested in 2036 is that many were completely blindsided by the awarding of the 2032 games before they had a chance to open a dialogue of their own.    The Olympics shouldn't be awarded on a first come, first serve, basis.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brekkie Boy said:

Triggered much AustraliaFan?

Key personnel of failed and forgotten 40 year old Brisbane bid changes bidding process and games are then awarded to Brisbane four years ahead of usual time frame just looks so honest doesn't it.   A shame really that Brisbane Games will always be tainted by that question however good they are - and as much as I believe it's a good thing to see the Olympics embracing smaller regional cities rather than just the worlds megacities I just don't believe under the familar process they'd have got close to winning.   Yes, some would say that is entirely the point but when a process lets transparency the questions will always be asked, even if it was all absolutely above board.

 

The main reason though there are seemingly so many cities interested in 2036 is that many were completely blindsided by the awarding of the 2032 games before they had a chance to open a dialogue of their own.    The Olympics shouldn't be awarded on a first come, first serve, basis.

 

Wow, brekkieboy, leading off with a personal attack?  about triggering?  i didn’t figure you to exhibit trolling characteristics.

hmm, sounds like brekkieboy you’re all talk and no evidence if a personal attack is what you’re leading off with.

It sounds also brekkieboy that you’re in complete denial about the massively changed new host selection process and the reality that it has directly led to a huge renewed interest from cities and regions from all over the world in hosting the 2036 Games.

Would you like me to again post here each of the long list of interested cities/regions in hosting the games.  I’m happy to, just let me know and I’ll also thrown in the actual links too so you can check them out for yourself.

Seriously, the entire interest in hosting the Olympic Games has been super-charged with these huge changes in the host selection system.

Even with all that, here you are thrashing around in the past with your whacky theories and denying reality.  It actually reminds me of a certain ex-president thinking the election was stolen in the biggest democracy in the world.

Seriously, you’re literally obsessing over trying to explain away the 2032’s selection success with some unfounded crackpot conspiracy theory —-  while you’re failing to look up see the long cities /regions queueing up to have continuous dialogue with the IOC Future Host Commission.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brekkie Boy said:

Triggered much AustraliaFan?

Key personnel of failed and forgotten 40 year old Brisbane bid changes bidding process and games are then awarded to Brisbane four years ahead of usual time frame just looks so honest doesn't it.   A shame really that Brisbane Games will always be tainted by that question however good they are - and as much as I believe it's a good thing to see the Olympics embracing smaller regional cities rather than just the worlds megacities I just don't believe under the familar process they'd have got close to winning.   Yes, some would say that is entirely the point but when a process lets transparency the questions will always be asked, even if it was all absolutely above board.

The main reason though there are seemingly so many cities interested in 2036 is that many were completely blindsided by the awarding of the 2032 games before they had a chance to open a dialogue of their own.    The Olympics shouldn't be awarded on a first come, first serve, basis.

 

4 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Wow, brekkieboy, leading off with a personal attack?  about triggering?  i didn’t figure you to exhibit trolling characteristics.

hmm, sounds like brekkieboy you’re all talk and no evidence if a personal attack is what you’re leading off with.

It sounds also brekkieboy that you’re in complete denial about the massively changed new host selection process and the reality that it has directly led to a huge renewed interest from cities and regions from all over the world in hosting the 2036 Games.

Would you like me to again post here each of the long list of interested cities/regions in hosting the games.  I’m happy to, just let me know and I’ll also thrown in the actual links too so you can check them out for yourself.

Seriously, the entire interest in hosting the Olympic Games has been super-charged with these huge changes in the host selection system.

Even with all that, here you are thrashing around in the past with your whacky theories and denying reality.  It actually reminds me of a certain ex-president thinking the election was stolen in the biggest democracy in the world.

Seriously, you’re literally obsessing over trying to explain away the 2032’s selection success with some unfounded crackpot conspiracy theory —-  while you’re failing to look up see the long cities /regions queueing up to have continuous dialogue with the IOC Future Host Commission.

Here you go, you can look up the long list of interested parties yourself, they’re just next door:

2036 Interested Cities/Regions

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...