Jump to content

2036 Olympics: Crowded Field of Interested Parties


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Yeah but is also possible that those 40 votes had a political implication behind, such as the beijing 2000 bid failure, rather than Beijing (with almost all stadium venues built and plans to develope world class ski resorts) being a bad option for 2022

What would the Beijing 2000 bid have to do with anything?  Not sure I get the connect.

There are always political winds blowing a certain way that influence the outcomes.  I've heard in the years since that vote that some IOC members may have been essentially told not to pick Kazakhstan since the IOC would come to regret that decision.  In hindsight, who knows how that would have gone.  We'll never know what was going through the minds of the voters that day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Now also, as FYI pointed out above, comparisons of the event spate of withdrawals with the “New Norm” are going to be inevitably unfair. Under the new process there’ll basically be no such thing as “withdrawal” - there’s nothing to withdraw from as the process is designed that no-one’s status is formal and the winner is designated after everything is basically signed sealed and delivered anyway.  

There are positives and negatives with the new formula.  To the point about Bach's famous "too many losers" mantra, I think the issue was less about scaring off cities (as you illustrated, things haven't really played out in a way where that is a big issue) and more about having multiple cities put in all the time and effort for a bid only to couple up with nothing and then have to do it all over again.  That's where "continuous dialogue" is as very apropos concept.  Imagine Rio's 2012 bid which didn't get to the shortlist with the benefit of being able to continue to talk with the IOC without going through the trouble of a new bid.  We'll see how this goes in the future as cities don't get 1 Olympics but then shift their interest to the next one.  Which could make things easier for cities with long-term aspirations rather than just going after the next Olympics that's available

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The point I am making is that for the 2036 Games we literally do not know who of the list of interested parties will actually commence discussions with the IOC Future Host Commission.   All we have are media reports of interested parties at this stage.

So , since under the new host selection process the IOC themselves don’t publish a list of “Interested Parties” nor a list of “Parties in Continuous Dialogue”, it certainly is difficult to gauge which of the media reports of interested parties progressing into actual dialogue with the IOC in a future edition of the Olympic Games.

We wait for an interested party themselves to choose if and when they might want to to disclose to the world to know if they are in continuous dialogue with the IOC for the 2036 Games.

All we have to go on is a list of media reports of parties interested in hosting the 2036 Games. 

2 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Just re-posted with the links now ‘clickableY5vkflC.jpg                                           

The majority of these links all lead to the same place in Wikipedia.  Which is fine, but a list like this exists for the 2024 bids, so remember that when you're making the case about how we can't evaluate that format versus this one.

That said, this helps illustrate the point I'm trying to make that a little bit for very easy research gives us some much needed and useful insight.  And it can help separate where there is real interest and it's less about a media report.  For example...

Egypt's interest comes directly from their minister of sport.  There are construction projects already underway that account for plans that would be used in an Olympic bid.  So this is more than just a media report.  We have tangible plans with them.

We have Istanbul, which has been at this for a long time.  We don't need to question whether or not we should take them seriously.

But then you put Kaohsiung on there.  The "interest" there is from a legislator who thinks the city should bid.  That's it.  Nothing more than a suggestion.

Similarly with Hong Kong, it's a plea from the citizens.  At the moment, nothing more than that.

This all is why it's not the best idea to just have 1 list as if everyone on there is an equal.  Things are inevitably going to change as they always do.  But I think we can be smarter about which of these cities is more likely than others to start a dialog with the IOC.  Which is to say, have an actual plan to present.  And not just someone saying "we should bid for the Olympics" with absolutely no substance behind it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

These questions remain:

  • Who will actually start ‘continuous dialogue’ with the IOC ?
     
  •  Who will is already in ‘continuous dialogue’ ?

And we'll get answers to those questions in time.  But again, I guarantee you there will be more than a couple of cities on your "media reports" list that we'll wonder why we included them on there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And we'll get answers to those questions in time.  But again, I guarantee you there will be more than a couple of cities on your "media reports" list that we'll wonder why we included them on there in the first place.

Yes, no doubt that we’ll get answers to some of those questions in time.

But since we here on Gamesbids.com are only commentators and not an official committee to vet media reports of interested parties, then we can only offer our opinions in the interim.

The only thing we have is a field of media reports of interested parties.

Relax, …. don’t stress that some of these published reports aren’t going anywhere.

Some will , some won’t, that’s fine.  

We don’t have the security blanket of interested parties having to initially complete bid applications to be formally considered by the IOC.   That no longer applies in this new process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

It’s not exactly strong empirical evidence for losing putting NOCs off from bidding again. Indeed, as Dick Pound (I think) used to say: “You have to lose one to win one”. A question to you and the wider Gamesbids membership - When was the last time a city won the games without having previously lost a bid (or one by the same country) in the immediate (let’s say 2) decades before? I’m hard pressed to think of any since Melbourne, and before that maybe in the 1920s when just about every host was a “new frontier”.

The only city that comes to mind under that criteria is Atlanta. I know you said two decades before, but it was still the U.S.' first bid after having hosted L.A. 1984. Even the USOC wasn't expecting to win 1996, because it was still viewed as too soon after L.A., so that makes it even more of an anomaly, since the initial expectation was to bid again for 2000.

And back then, remember how some of these bid cities mainly used their first attempt as a "warm-up" bid. And Turkey even made it into some kind of law, that they were going to win until they won. So they certainly weren't turned off by the old bidding process.

23 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I’ve always believed that Bach’s “no more losers” mantra was more a excuse, and to justify his changes, rather than a serious attempt to address issues about maintaining public support for bds.

When it comes to PR, anything that the IOC says always seems to be disingenuous at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

There are positives and negatives with the new formula.  To the point about Bach's famous "too many losers" mantra, I think the issue was less about scaring off cities (as you illustrated, things haven't really played out in a way where that is a big issue) **and more about having multiple cities put in all the time and effort for a bid only to couple up with nothing and then have to do it all over again.** That's where "continuous dialogue" is as very apropos concept.  Imagine Rio's 2012 bid which didn't get to the shortlist with the benefit of being able to continue to talk with the IOC without going through the trouble of a new bid.  We'll see how this goes in the future as cities don't get 1 Olympics but then shift their interest to the next one.  Which could make things easier for cities with long-term aspirations rather than just going after the next Olympics that's available

I don't think the IOC really cared/s about how much money these bid cities put out before. That's just more of their PR propaganda spin to make themselves look good while pretending to be frugal at the same time. Their hand got forced to do something about their bad PR image that their previous bidding process was causing with cities fleeing the other way. 

I've said it before, & I'll say again, but I firmly believe that if the IOC can go back to the "good 'ole days" of how they did bidding business before, they'd do it in an Olympic sprint second. They're not fooling anyone (well, almost anyone) with all their feel good PR spin, other than perhaps themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

I don't think the IOC really cared/s about how much money these bid cities put out before. That's just more of their PR propaganda spin to make themselves look good while pretending to be frugal at the same time. Their hand got forced to do something about their bad PR image that their previous bidding process was causing with cities fleeing the other way. 

I've said it before, & I'll say again, but I firmly believe that if the IOC can go back to the "good 'ole days" of how they did bidding business before, they'd do it in an Olympic sprint second. They're not fooling anyone (well, almost anyone) with all their feel good PR spin, other than perhaps themselves. 

I’ll give the point that, yeah, it is laudable to save money from the costs of bidding. Any such trimming is good.

But there’d already been lots of tweaks to reduce bidding costs - limits on “gifts”, cutting out members’ visits, and, as Quaker mentioning, eliminating the need for bidders to go through the technical qualifications again if they re-bid for the next games after a losing bid.

The new process(es) don’t make bidding “no cost”. The main savings are in promotional activities and materials. Beyond that there’s still the costs of consultants, planning, regulatory approvals, environmental, economic and community impact studies, polls and surveys, campaigns to raise awareness or boost local support etc.

And, yes, while different people have different views on whether bid spendings are exorbitant or wasteful or not, personally I don’t think for the most part there were scandalous or unsupportable. While some public funds were inevitably required, a large bulk of financing came through business fundraisings, donations, sponsorships, sponsorships in kind etc. and spending was pretty well in line with the costs of any typical tender process for major contracts, projects or events by governments and businesses. The main difference in the IOC tenders was that there was far more interest and publicity - and “show biz” - both domestically and internationally.     

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FYI said:

Don't see that happening, unless no solid 2036 European bid emerges. But the IOC will surely try very hard to fish for one, though.

Agreed.  Any halfway decent bid that emerges from Europe (and you're 100% right that the IOC will do their best to find there) has a leg up on one from nearly anywhere else in the world.  Continental rotation continues to be a myth as it always has been, but hard to deny that aspect will play a part here.  And considering we're talking about an Olympics that's 14 years away, the IOC has plenty of time to try and find that ideal bid (or bids) to engage with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Yes, no doubt that we’ll get answers to some of those questions in time.

But since we here on Gamesbids.com are only commentators and not an official committee to vet media reports of interested parties, then we can only offer our opinions in the interim.

The only thing we have is a field of media reports of interested parties.

Relax, …. don’t stress that some of these published reports aren’t going anywhere.

Some will , some won’t, that’s fine.  

We don’t have the security blanket of interested parties having to initially complete bid applications to be formally considered by the IOC.   That no longer applies in this new process.

Love the irony that you of all people are telling me to relax.  Not stressed at all, just trying to have a more reasonable and rational discussion.

You're right, nothing about these threads are in any way official and it's all a matter of opinion.  I think we all understand that, but most of us are here because we have an interest and a passion for the subject matter.  So I don't believe it's too much to ask to expect that we can offer up some context and nuance to those opinions and the reports we're reading about rather than simply regurgitating a list of every city that has ever been mentioned by anyone in the media.  Let's be smarter than that and do a better job of parsing through all that information.

It goes without saying that it's probably going to be a long time and a slow march towards a 2036 host.  If we're trying to offering up a true assessment of that process at this very very early juncture, don't think it's too much to ask a site called Games Bids to know what "interested parties" and "media reports" are all about.  Because far too many times here, people don't

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Love the irony that you of all people are telling me to relax.  Not stressed at all, just trying to have a more reasonable and rational discussion.

You're right, nothing about these threads are in any way official and it's all a matter of opinion.  I think we all understand that, but most of us are here because we have an interest and a passion for the subject matter.  So I don't believe it's too much to ask to expect that we can offer up some context and nuance to those opinions and the reports we're reading about rather than simply regurgitating a list of every city that has ever been mentioned by anyone in the media.  Let's be smarter than that and do a better job of parsing through all that information.

It goes without saying that it's probably going to be a long time and a slow march towards a 2036 host.  If we're trying to offering up a true assessment of that process at this very very early juncture, don't think it's too much to ask a site called Games Bids to know what "interested parties" and "media reports" are all about.  Because far too many times here, people don't

The two summer hosts preceding 2036 were selected 11 years in advance of those Games.   The IOC are quite willing to put up a prospective host to a vote as soon as one emerges which ticks all the boxes - and which gives that host more time.

With the high level of interest in hosting the 2036, I think it’s more likely that a host will be elevated sooner rather later.

I don’t think it goes without saying at all that it will be a long slow march towards a 2036 host.   Any interested party who thinks and goes slow does so at their peril because there is no 7-years-advance-rule any more to select a host.

As said, the IOC have clearly shown a willingness to elevate an interested party early to as soon as one ticks all the boxes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The two summer hosts preceding 2036 were selected 11 years in advance of those Games.   The IOC are quite willing to put up a prospective host to a vote as soon as one emerges which ticks all the boxes - and which gives that host more time.

With the high level of interest in hosting the 2036, I think it’s more likely that a host will be elevated sooner rather later.

I don’t think it goes without saying at all that it will be a long slow march towards a 2036 host.   Any interested party who thinks and goes slow does so at their peril because there is no 7-years-advance-rule any more to select a host.

As said, the IOC have clearly shown a willingness to elevate an interested party early to as soon as one ticks all the boxes. 

Sure they do if they have a reason to support em ehm...coates...samaranch...else why dont we have yet a host for 2030, if the US, Canada and Japan surely "ticks all boxes"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful now. We don't want to talk about in here why the 2030 host hasn't been selected yet, even though a couple of the 'continuous dialog-ers' for that race already "ticks all the boxes", when this thread is about the "crowded field of interested parties for 2036". Nevermind that all of this still intertwines with the holier-than-thou "new-norm" that some around here treat like the Bible in virtually every single thread that they're in. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FYI said:

Careful now. We don't want to talk about in here why the 2030 host hasn't been selected yet, even though a couple of the 'continuous dialog-ers' for that race already "ticks all the boxes", when this thread is about the "crowded field of interested parties for 2036". Nevermind that all of this still intertwines with the holier-than-thou "new-norm" that some around here treat like the Bible in virtually every single thread that they're in. ^_^

Its not a secret, Its well known that Samaranch Jr is supporting Barcelona-Pyrenees bid (which collapsed the moment they tried to made it regional) and thats why they are waiting to announce something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The two summer hosts preceding 2036 were selected 11 years in advance of those Games.   The IOC are quite willing to put up a prospective host to a vote as soon as one emerges which ticks all the boxes - and which gives that host more time.

With the high level of interest in hosting the 2036, I think it’s more likely that a host will be elevated sooner rather later.

I don’t think it goes without saying at all that it will be a long slow march towards a 2036 host.   Any interested party who thinks and goes slow does so at their peril because there is no 7-years-advance-rule any more to select a host.

As said, the IOC have clearly shown a willingness to elevate an interested party early to as soon as one ticks all the boxes. 

11 years in advance of 2036 is 2025.  That's still 3 years away.  When exactly are you expecting a host announcement?  We all get there's no timetable anymore, but it has been less than a year since the 2032 host was made official.  So why do you assume there's going to be some sort of rush to get a 2036 host?  Because the IOC showed a willingness (*once*) to do it before?

Do we really have a high level of interest in hosting 2036?  Or do we just have a long list of "media reports" to go off of?  I think it's more of the latter than the former.  So maybe let's not act like the IOC has all the information they need and is ready to start down the path towards selecting a candidate.  Or that cities that need to be at the ready really soon or they risk getting left out.

I think you're still over-selling the interest level in these Olympics.  Again, look back at how many media reports there were for recent Olympic bids and you'll see it's not all that different from what we have now.  And we know how many viable bids that actually gave the IOC

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the argument on there being more interested cities in the old-norm or the new-norm I think one thing is absolutely clear - there wasn't just one interested city in the 2032 games - or 2028 for that matter too.   It's just other cities were never given the clear opportunity to put their case forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Brekkie Boy said:

Regardless of the argument on there being more interested cities in the old-norm or the new-norm I think one thing is absolutely clear - there wasn't just one interested city in the 2032 games - or 2028 for that matter too.   It's just other cities were never given the clear opportunity to put their case forward.

We'll never really know what would have happened with 2028 if circumstances didn't play out the way they did.  Paris/LA came together relatively quickly, so 2028 as a standalone disappeared in short order.

Here's the thing though as we'll look back at history.  We know who bid for 2024, including the withdrawals.  And right now with 2030, we know the IOC has been working with.  We don't have that context for 2032.  So we don't really know who else may have been involved there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we do, though, have at least some context to how 2032 (& to a lesser extent, even 2028) would've played out if the IOC had let it. Even GB's wrote a good, thorough analysis on the subject last year.

For better or for worse, there was about six or seven other "interested parties" that wanted to be 'involved' early on, & a couple of those even made somewhat of a big stink when the IOC just leaped (& caught those interested parties by surprise) into naming their "preferred bidder" for 2032.

So I don't think it's too far-fetched to gauge at least from that, who else could've been at play there, & also who else could've been interested later on, considering we were still 11 years out last year from 2032. And I still think that this "sudden, new super-charged interest" has to do more with FOMO (considering how the IOC handled 2032) than genuine interest actually being from the "new-norm process".

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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...