Still no clear path for Salt Lake City Winter Olympic bid after trip to Switzerland

[GBModerator]

A high-level trip to the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Lausanne headquarters on the picturesque shores of Lake Geneva Wednesday confirmed to the Salt Lake City Olympic bid team that its Winter Games project is on the right track.  But the questions remains – which track? The influential delegation led by the bid’s president and CEO […]

The post Still no clear path for Salt Lake City Winter Olympic bid after trip to Switzerland appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

[FYI]

"If a Salt Lake City bid were to land in 2034 instead of 2030, there would be no reason for the IOC to wait and make that election further down the road."

I've made that same point before. What would really be the point in that at that particularly juncture, other than making things so-called 'separate'. 

And if Bullock apparently hadn't heard anything about a double allocation before, surely he must have more of an inkling about it now, especially when key in-person meetings have been conducted at IOC headquaters this past week.

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, FYI said:

"If a Salt Lake City bid were to land in 2034 instead of 2030, there would be no reason for the IOC to wait and make that election further down the road."

I've made that same point before. What would really be the point in that at that particularly juncture, other than making things so-called 'separate'. 

And if Bullock apparently hadn't heard anything about a double allocation before, surely he must have more of an inkling about it now, especially when key in-person meetings have been conducted at IOC headquaters this past week.

Is that inkling coming directly from the source (meaning the IOC) or from a media report?  Because if those discussions are starting to happen, surely a media member would have an inkling of their own?  As much as these discussions are going on behind closed doors, it doesn't mean they have to be secretive.  If Rob or some other reporter has access to any of these officials, I would love for him to ask that direct question. 

All the cards are on the table right now with regard to where Salt Lake stands, so it's not like they haven't addressed that all yet.  We continue to get the diplomatic response about "best interests of the IOC" and how they're just waiting to learn their fate, so the question I have is who gets to initiate that.  Is it the IOC telling Salt Lake and the USOPC what they are planning on?  Or does the USOPC get to dictate what they're looking for?

The good thing about the timeline here where the IOC will likely make their targeted dialogue announcement in December and then vote in May is that they can decide what they want to do with 2034 then and Salt Lake has 5 months to modify their bid to reflect 2034, which obviously they're already thinking about anyway.  Doesn't have to be a rush to come together like Paris/LA.

[FYI]

Of course it doesn't have to be a "rush". But what even Bullock also alluded to, "..& all the pieces fit together as best we can. We're trying to make those pieces fit together as *soon* as we can". Paris & L.A. were also part of pieces to 'fit together'.

And really, it's not like they're rushing anything anyway. All parties involved here have been at this for quite some time now. It's not like all of these great efforts were thrown together overnight.

[Quaker2001]

20 minutes ago, FYI said:

Of course it doesn't have to be a "rush". But what even Bullock also alluded to, "..& all the pieces fit together as best we can. We're trying to make those pieces fit together as *soon* as we can". Paris & L.A. were also part of pieces to 'fit together'.

And really, it's not like they're rushing anything anyway. All parties involved here have been at this for quite some time now. It's not like all of these great efforts were thrown together overnight.

They were, but LA didn't enter that equation seeking the 2028 Olympics.  It was always about 2024 until a couple of months before the vote.

Contrast that with Salt Lake which has been playing the long game since the USOPC made them the nominee.  They've always taken the attitude of "when the IOC is ready for us, we'll be there."  So they very much have been looking at this not sure of what Olympics they'll be bidding for.  If the IOC tells them "we'd like you for 2034," they will almost certainly have those plans together already.

[FYI]

^That's not entirely so. SLC & Bullock have always mentioned that they'd like to host the Olympics *sooner* rather than later, so that equals 2030, not 2034. The only reason they're opening up more to the option of 2034 now, is because it's starting to look more clear to them, after having listened to all parties involved, that 2034 would be better. Much like L.A. case as well. Yeah, they entered the game wanting 2024, but in the end, they had to conceded to 2028 if they wanted an Olympics regardless. Not much different in SLC's case either at the end of the day.

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, FYI said:

^That's not entirely so. SLC & Bullock have always mentioned that they'd like to host the Olympics *sooner* rather than later, so that equals 2030, not 2034. The only reason they're opening up more to the option of 2034 now, is because it's starting to look more clear to them, after having listened to all parties involved, that 2034 would be better. Much like L.A. case as well. Yeah, they entered the game wanting 2024, but in the end, they had to conceded to 2028 if they wanted an Olympics regardless. Not much different in SLC's case either at the end of the day.

The similarity is that both cities are playing the long game.  LA entered the game long before 2024 was in the picture.  Their bid plans date all the way back to 2000 when they started targeting the 2012 nomination.  Then they wanted 2016.  And we all know the story about 2024 where Boston's incompetence opened the door for them.  Salt Lake is in the same boat that they were always going to persist until they finally got another Olympics.  But that's where the similarities end.

LA went through this before the new norm era.  They spent 2 years with a formal bid in the works for 2024, only "in the end" as you said for it to no longer be for 2024.  And they didn't have to agree to that arrangement with Paris, except the IOC made it worth their while.

Salt Lake doesn't really have to bid.  The IOC knows the particulars and essentially just needs to tell SLC what the story is.  How many years on this forum have we said of Salt Lake "we'll be ready whenever you want us?"  That the USOPC may be pushing SLC and the IOC towards 2034 is hardly new information.  That's been the talk for awhile now and was always going to be a part of the narrative.  So even though SLC has always been that overly eager kid at school raising his hand waiting for the teacher to call on him, it's never been about a specific Olympics.  Especially once LA got out in front of them.  The sad irony is that the USOPC could have put Salt Lake up for 2022, probably easily won that vote, and still had LA for 2028.

[FYI]

You're right. "It's never been about a 'specific' Olympics", but again, SLC & Bullock have always been clear that they want the Olympics *sooner* rather than later. And in this particular instance, that means 2030. But just like L.A. had to wait for the USOC's green light to bid, for whichever Olympics the USOC told them, SLC also had to wait for that green light.

"Old norm, new norm" really doesn't matter here, since the end game is all the same, landing an Olympics whenever either of those two cities can at the 'earliest'. Since as you said, L.A. also has been at this for a while. The "we'll be ready whenever you want us" also applies to L.A., cause how many times have we also said on these boards that L.A. can be ready at a drop of a hat, hence their constant persistence since 2000.

And yeah, L.A. didn't have to agree to any arrangement with the IOC. But if they wanted an Olympics regardless, they knew what they had to do. It's the same with SLC. If they ultimately want another Olympics, even if it's a *later* one, they to will agree in order to achieve that goal.

[Quaker2001]

12 hours ago, FYI said:

You're right. "It's never been about a 'specific' Olympics", but again, SLC & Bullock have always been clear that they want the Olympics *sooner* rather than later. And in this particular instance, that means 2030. But just like L.A. had to wait for the USOC's green light to bid, for whichever Olympics the USOC told them, SLC also had to wait for that green light.

"Old norm, new norm" really doesn't matter here, since the end game is all the same, landing an Olympics whenever either of those two cities can at the 'earliest'. Since as you said, L.A. also has been at this for a while. The "we'll be ready whenever you want us" also applies to L.A., cause how many times have we also said on these boards that L.A. can be ready at a drop of a hat, hence their constant persistence since 2000.

And yeah, L.A. didn't have to agree to any arrangement with the IOC. But if they wanted an Olympics regardless, they knew what they had to do. It's the same with SLC. If they ultimately want another Olympics, even if it's a *later* one, they to will agree in order to achieve that goal.

You're completely mis-remembering history if that's how you're viewing LA's efforts to land the Olympics.  The USOC wanted to bid for the 2012 Olympics, so they sought a candidate city.  Yes, LA was interested.  The USOC chose New York over them.  2016, same deal, except this time it was Chicago.  And then 2024, Boston initially gets the nod.  We obviously know what happened there.  So that's 3 times the USOC passed over LA to go with another city.  Who knows what might have happened if NYC and/or Chicago decided to make another run at it.  LA was "ready" all that time and yet the USOC didn't seem to be interested until they exhausted several other options.

By contrast, the USOC hasn't bid for a Winter Olympics since Salt Lake hosted 2002.  And even when SLC officially was named as the USOC's candidate, it was for a "future Olympics," not for a specific bid.  LA never got that assurance that if they lost, they would remain the USOC's bid city for the Summer Olympics.  They probably would have had to earn it again if it came down to it.

If your argument is that LA and SLC are similar because they were both going to persist until they got what they wanted, then yes, that's accurate.  But how they got to where they did is 2 very different paths