Jump to content

2036 Olympics: Crowded Field of Interested Parties


Recommended Posts

59 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.

Do you understand what the word triggered means?  If not, take a look in a mirror.  Do you have nothing better to do than to take giant screen grabs and post them all?  Reminds me of a certain political party in this country that things that screaming things louder somehow makes them more true, even if they're complete nonsense to begin with.

We've been over this before.. talking about "interested cities" 14 years out from an Olympics doesn't carry the weight you seem to think it does.  History doesn't remember cities that were interested.  They remember the ones that actually had the goods to bid.  Of that list of cities you gave us for 2036, how many can we dismiss already as having zero chance at landing the Olympics?  Making the same point over and over again doesn't make it a better argument, it just digs in how ridiculous it is. 

Interest in hosting the Olympics has NOT been super charged.  You can't just post (again and again and again) a list of cities and act like it's a large group of viable candidates.  It's not.  Interest in the Olympics would be serious bidders NOT getting easily beaten by referendums and mismanagement.  You're just parroting the same old tired PR spin from the IOC.  "Hey, look at us and all these places that want to host our Olympics.. until we tell them we don't care anymore." 

The IOC went down a bad path of "new frontier" hosts and look where it got them.  They've righted the ship somewhat in moving away from that and awarded games to sensible, more reliable hosts.  At the end of the day, all they need is 1 city and they're set.  The rest is just background noise.  How many cities have been chirping about an Olympics for years and have not been (and probably will never be) taken seriously.

One more time.. you don't need to keep defending this new selection process as if it's allowing all these places to have a chance at hosting the Olympics.  You know as well as I do most will never get even a moment's consideration and it'll probably have been a waste of time for it to have been discussed, even on a message board like this

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brekkie Boy said:

Triggered much AustraliaFan?

Literally, your post was followed up by not one, not two, not even three, but by TEN "new-norm" hyperbolic, typical spamming posts (as if that suppose to mean anything in the grand scheme of things anyway). So that should answer your question quite thoroughly. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Do you understand what the word triggered means?  If not, take a look in a mirror.  Do you have nothing better to do than to take giant screen grabs and post them all?  Reminds me of a certain political party in this country that things that screaming things louder somehow makes them more true, even if they're complete nonsense to begin with.

Touche.

8 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

We've been over this before.. talking about "interested cities" 14 years out from an Olympics doesn't carry the weight you seem to think it does.  History doesn't remember cities that were interested.  They remember the ones that actually had the goods to bid.  Of that list of cities you gave us for 2036, how many can we dismiss already as having zero chance at landing the Olympics?  Making the same point over and over again doesn't make it a better argument, it just digs in how ridiculous it is. 

Interest in hosting the Olympics has NOT been super charged.  You can't just post (again and again and again) a list of cities and act like it's a large group of viable candidates.  It's not.  Interest in the Olympics would be serious bidders NOT getting easily beaten by referendums and mismanagement.  You're just parroting the same old tired PR spin from the IOC.  "Hey, look at us and all these places that want to host our Olympics.. until we tell them we don't care anymore." 

The IOC went down a bad path of "new frontier" hosts and look where it got them.  They've righted the ship somewhat in moving away from that and awarded games to sensible, more reliable hosts.  At the end of the day, all they need is 1 city and they're set.  The rest is just background noise.  How many cities have been chirping about an Olympics for years and have not been (and probably will never be) taken seriously.

A lot of us have been over this for the past 15 months already. But the usual comeback is always, " look, stop with the 'whacky conspiracy theories'. The new-norm is so great, so WOW, how can anyone BUT me not see that!"  :wacko:

14 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

One more time.. you don't need to keep defending this new selection process as if it's allowing all these places to have a chance at hosting the Olympics.  You know as well as I do most will never get even a moment's consideration and it'll probably have been a waste of time for it to have been discussed, even on a message board like this

Lol, good luck with that. That was like trying to tell a certain Angelino from a few years back that they didn't need to keep yodeling about how much rainbow & sunshine L.A. 28 was going to be (while constantly putting down Paris 24 in the process), yet they never ceased to continue with their L.A. rants.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

.. talking about "interested cities" 14 years out from an Olympics doesn't carry the weight you seem to think it does.  History doesn't remember cities that were interested.  They remember the ones that actually had the goods to bid.  Of that list of cities you gave us for 2036, how many can we dismiss already as having zero chance at landing the Olympics? 

BSCvzQQ.jpg

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll quote the rest of that paragraph that you conveniently omitted:

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We've been over this before.. Making the same point over and over again doesn't make it a better argument, it just digs in how ridiculous it is. 

Interest in hosting the Olympics has NOT been super charged.  You can't just post (again and again and again) a list of cities and act like it's a large group of viable candidates.  It's not.  Interest in the Olympics would be serious bidders NOT getting easily beaten by referendums and mismanagement. 

You're just parroting *the same old tired PR spin* from the IOC.  "Hey, look at us and all these places that want to host our Olympics.. until we tell them we don't care anymore." 


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

BSCvzQQ.jpg

Is there a reason all of your posts new are images in giant font?  What's the problem, don't think we can read them otherwise?

You're still parroting bad talking points from the IOC.  You really don't see the difference?  An "interested party" is just that.  Interested.  There's no automatic implication that the other party has mutual interest.  I want to date a supermodel, but I don't have a genuine chance if she doesn't care about me.

So yea.. continuous dialogue.  Again, a city/region being interested in bidding for an Olympics does not mean the IOC is having conversations with them.  The whole idea with the new norm which you seem to be such a massive fan of is that the IOC can much more easily cut them off and tell them no.  So yes, if a city's chances are so remote that the IOC knows there's no point in dealing with them, there need not be dialogue there.  Not all cities and bids are created equal and you have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.  There's still a process here where not all interested parties are part of the dialogue phase.  I don't understand why that's such a disconnect with you, but it's why the IOC chirping "look how many cities want to worth with us" is nothing but lip service.  You know as well as I do that many of these interested cities are going to have a real short conversation with the IOC and that will be the end of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 An "interested party" is just that.  Interested.  There's no automatic implication that the other party has mutual interest.  I want to date a supermodel, but I don't have a genuine chance if she doesn't care about me.

So yea.. continuous dialogue.  Again, a city/region being interested in bidding for an Olympics does not mean the IOC is having conversations with them. 

NzQCXT2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.....there are always long lists of "interested parties" if that's how we're now going to define it. Doesn't really mean much until you get to the application stage.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Hmmm.....there are always long lists of "interested parties" if that's how we're now going to define it. Doesn't really mean much until you get to the application stage.

…except that in recent years, the lists of interested parties had slowed down to a trickle ….

 which is one of the main reasons why the host selection system was changed.

Brisbane’s success has super-charged interest in hosting the Games again.

The IOC has said this several times and they are the ones who have to manage it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AustralianFan said:

…except that in recent years, the lists of interested parties had slowed down to a trickle ….

No, the list of applicants had slowed to a trickle. Interested parties have always been ten a penny.

We're yet to see if anything's improved, but the fact the IOC has changed its processes (for better or for worse, I certainly think there have been some improvements) means direct comparisons with past decades are going to be hard. How do you compare the number of applicant cities in past cycles with whatever transpires from now on? I don't know.

Edited by Rob.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

NzQCXT2.jpg

We agree on these things, but where we disagree is the significance.  You look at the long list of interested parties and proclaim "look how super-charged the Olympic bid process is."  Rob is right though.. this is nothing new.  The big question is, as you indicated, who gets to the dialogue stage, because it's certainly not going to be every city on the list.

Look at the bids for 2012.  There were 5 cities shortlisted (the old equivalent of "targeted dialogue") and cities that didn't get shortlisted included Rio, who of course would have a much different result 4 years later, and Istanbul, who had been on the shortlist for 2008.  That was a strong group of candidates.  Remains to be seen what to make of this 2036 group, but do you think there will be as strong a field when the IOC is starting to get serious and looking at who to elevate to targeted dialogue?  I sincerely doubt that.  So maybe let's temper a little bit of the excitement that just because we have all these interested parties that it automatically implies they are good candidates.

4 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

…except that in recent years, the lists of interested parties had slowed down to a trickle ….

 which is one of the main reasons why the host selection system was changed.

Brisbane’s success has super-charged interest in hosting the Games again.

The IOC has said this several times and they are the ones who have to manage it all.

The IOC says a lot of things, but a lot of it is bad PR spin.  They'll jump on any positive they can and ignore any negatives.  The system was changed so that it wouldn't be a free for all and so the IOC could properly vet the cities before they decided who to engage with.  That's a smart move and absolutely the right decision.  But once again, Rob is spot on that overall interest in the Olympics has always been there.  That hasn't changed.  We still need to be critical of the list of candidates though and look at who might genuinely have a chance of being selected.  Most of these "interested parties" do not.  It's a quality versus quantity argument.  The IOC doesn't need quantity.  They need quality.  Nothing has been super-charged, no matter how many times you want to say it to convince us otherwise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only see 11 active cities on that bold list. That's the same number of "interested" cities that the IOC had for the 2004 Games. And how many of those are for the 2040 Games, as Bach also indicated? So then that means the number is even less for each 2036 & 2040. So then NO, 'the new bidding process' has NOT "supercharged" interest because of Brisbane's 2032 anointment. That's just pure hyperbole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

So maybe let's temper a little bit of the excitement that just because we have all these interested parties that it automatically implies they are good candidates.

We still need to be critical of the list of candidates though and look at who might genuinely have a chance of being selected.  Most of these "interested parties" do not.  It's a quality versus quantity argument.  The IOC doesn't need quantity.  They need quality.  Nothing has been super-charged, no matter how many times you want to say it to convince us otherwise

They must have wet dreams about this new-norm mumbo-jumbo. Instead of counting sheep at night, they must count new-norm power-points & that "crowded field of interested parties".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Interested in 2036

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bids_for_the_2024_and_2028_Summer_Olympics#Non-selected_bids

Look at the even longer list of "interested cities" there and then tell me how 2036 is super-charged.  Because if we're including everyone where there's even a single report about there that they are looking into bidding for an Olympics, that's a much larger list than we have now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AustralianFan, your dedication, pehaps devotion, to the new norm may be commendable, but you can for the LOVE OF GOD, stop spamming your points every time someone mildly disagree with it? Just a single, simple response would be fine. It´s really annoying when you enter defense mode and start spamming.

AND YES, it´s too early to a bid race for 2036 and to have a crowded field for it. Winter 2030 and 2034, besides talks with the IPC to renewal of their agreements, are in order first. And i would be careful on choosing a bid for 2036, given of what happened 100 years before.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That guy had been on my back for months about what I guess he judges as my spamming too. In my case, I look at his posts, shrug and just move on.

I don't know why so many gamesbid users from A to Z get bent out of shape when comments or opinions rub them the wrong way.

As for the IOC playing up the notion of many cities wanting to bid for future games? If that's not an honest description of what's really going on, the IOC needs to stop the traveling circus nature of, in particular, the summer and, less so, the winter games. I still think a rotation of a select number of hosts should be established.

The Olympics are an athletic event, not a travel-tourist-airline-industry event.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Olympics2028 said:

^ That guy had been on my back for months about what I guess he judges as my spamming too. In my case, I look at his posts, shrug and just move on.

*I don't know why so many gamesbid users from A to Z get bent out of shape when comments or opinions rub them the wrong way.*

That's probably because you're, more or less, just as guilty of said behavior, so of course you don't get it. 

Although, albeit, your conduct is not as extreme as "that guy", at least IMO anyway, since I do look at most your posts, shrug & just move on. Since I really don't care about your ceremony idiosyncracies or where the placements of flag poles should be, nor about how much airtime should the Spice Girls get at the next London Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Olympics2028 said:

As for the IOC playing up the notion of many cities wanting to bid for future games? If that's not an honest description of what's really going on, the IOC needs to stop the traveling circus nature of, in particular, the summer and, less so, the winter games. I still think a rotation of a select number of hosts should be established.

The Olympics are an athletic event, not a travel-tourist-airline-industry event.

The Olympics, in all actuality, are now more of a business, than just merely an athletic event anymore. Everyone & their grandmother, now want a piece of that Olympic pie. So while selecting an established number of hosts cities sounds good in theory, in practice it most likely wouldn't work as well. Although lately, we are seeing a number of more repeat hosts than ever before. But I think that's still more of a case-by-case basis rather than just being "established".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FYI said:

The Olympics, in all actuality, are now more of a business, than just merely an athletic event anymore.

 

I get that too. But when past summer and winter games are being focused on, I generally don't think of "City A" or "City B" - or "country A" "country B." I instead tend to think of the way they were organized, including their so-called look - such as logos/mascots/ceremonies - and the amount of spectator support they did or didn't receive.

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...