IOC president pushes back on early 2034 Winter Olympic bid election

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Is it really playing chicken?  Or is it acknowledging that going LA-Salt Lake might not be the smartest idea as a long-term strategy.  In the grand scheme of things, SLC makes more sense for 2034.  But obviously that's presuming they have a 2030 host.  And we'll know the answer to that one in the next year.

It's moreso playing chicken with 2034, not necessarily 2030, I'd say. We all know SLC gets 2030 if both Sapporo & Vancouver were to fall to the wayside. But if one of them were to manage to land 2030, then why prolong in what is considered by so many (including the IOC, by their own acknowledgement), what would make an ideal host for the Winter Olympics, with SLC, other than to continue playing the IOC's political chess game. I thought all that type of BS stopped when the incredible 'game-changer', aka the "new norm", came to be. Or least that's the line the IOC likes to feed everyone else. 

[Chris_Mex]

56 minutes ago, FYI said:

It's moreso playing chicken with 2034, not necessarily 2030, I'd say. We all know SLC gets 2030 if both Sapporo & Vancouver were to fall to the wayside. But if one of them were to manage to land 2030, then why prolong in what is considered by so many (including the IOC, by their own acknowledgement), what would make an ideal host for the Winter Olympics, with SLC, other than to continue playing the IOC's political chess game. I thought all that type of BS stopped when the incredible 'game-changer', aka the "new norm", came to be. Or least that's the line the IOC likes to feed everyone else. 

Another question is, even if 2030 goes to Sapporo/Vancouver & SLC goes into 2034. What if any french or german bid, or even a more solid spainsh bid come to competition, would those games be out of dialogue automatically, especially considering that in a case vancouver is succesfull is highly unlikely to have an america-america games sequence, specially when there exist european bids

[FYI]

3 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

specially when there exist european bids

Except that European bids *don't* exist. You said it yourself, "what if" this country or that country were to present a bid. The so-called wonderful thing about the new-norm, is that any interested party can come forward for ANY Games at ANY time. Why aren't some of these so-called European bids that you seem to think are out there coming forward now for 2034 then? If Barcelona wants to present "a more solid" bid next time, then now is the time to correct their mess of what was once their 2030 haphazard attempt. And meanwhile, we have cities already lining up for 2036, a Summer Games that come *after* 2034. 

I also see Germany going after a Summer Olympics before another winter bid. Especially when Munich & the surrounding communities don't seem interested. The same with Spain. They're likely gonna give Madrid another shot once again with 2036. And France, I can't seem them pursuing another Olympics until after Paris 2024 is in their rear-view mirror anyway, & that's if things go off without too much fuss with their Summer Games. 

As for a Vancouver being a hinderance to a SLC 2034, if the alternative, solid options aren't there, then continental rotation goes out the window. As was with the case that gave us Beijing 2022 after PyeongChang 2018. What the IOC will care about the most at the end of the day, is having good, quality partners to host their big (winter) party. And SLC would give them just that. 

[Chris_Mex]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Except that European bids *don't* exist. You said it yourself, "what if" this country or that country were to present a bid. The so-called wonderful thing about the new-norm, is that any interested party can come forward for ANY Games at ANY time. Why aren't some of these so-called European bids that you seem to think are out there coming forward now for 2034 then? If Barcelona wants to present "a more solid" bid next time, then now is the time to correct their mess of what was once their 2030 haphazard attempt. And meanwhile, we have cities already lining up for 2036, a Summer Games that come *after* 2034. 

I also see Germany going after a Summer Olympics before another winter bid. Especially when Munich & the surrounding communities don't seem interested. The same with Spain. They're likely gonna give Madrid another shot once again with 2036. And France, I can't seem them pursuing another Olympics until after Paris 2024 is in their rear-view mirror anyway, & that's if things go off without too much fuss with their Summer Games. 

As for a Vancouver being a hinderance to a SLC 2034, if the alternative, solid options aren't there, then continental rotation goes out the window. As was with the case that gave us Beijing 2022 after PyeongChang 2018. What the IOC will care about the most at the end of the day, is having good, quality partners to host their big (winter) party. And SLC would give them just that. 

2022 either way was going to be celebrated in asia, and 2018 followed a continental rotation (canada-russia-s.korea) given that if oslo had presented a bid and european bid would have followed (oslo) the continental rotation would have been kept in winter olympics. Again, 2034 bids will start to build up in 2025, 9 years ahead of those games and what if france have a success (which they are on their way) with their paris 2024 games and as japan decide to present a winter bid for 2034 (which is far more possible than it appears). The asian sequence between 2018 and 2022 was a coincidence of various factors, principally the fact that there was already a span of 12 years since the last summer olympics in asia, and a 20 years gap between winter games in asia, with the already mentioned lack of winter bids for 2022. But that by any means, mean that it should be repeated for 2028-2034, if vancouver gets the 2030 winter olympics, and europe presents a solid bid for those games, 2034 is europe to loose. Without mentioning the possibility of japan bidding again for 2034, which would increase the chances of a succesfull bid due to the 12 years since the last asian winter games. I believe the main reason why IOC wanted to push back on 2034 is to let interest grow between european parties for hosting the games, and also because for either sapporo and vancouver it would have been unfair to have to compete each other while SLC have an open path for 2034.

[Quaker2001]

10 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, of course it's 'different', because you say so. But then again, you work in the field (you're not a journalist, but perhaps you have some inside scoop on certain things, particularly when in comes to NYC, that not everyone will be privy to) & can argue some of your points accordingly, ya know, without 'journalistic reporting'.  

You know what.. what are we even arguing about here? 

I brought up AF in the context of your comments about SLC being in "we shall see" mode.  Not to invite his ridiculous take on what he did or didn't see happening to compare it to how you see a double.  Not sure how you turned that into a "I don't see how this is any different, really" comparison.  Unless you're the AF here.  Which almost seems to be what you're implying.

Okay, you win.  It's the same.  You're AF.  Good for you. 

10 hours ago, FYI said:

Lol, tell me about it! And of course he didn't want to listen, because you "living there & had a better understanding" isn't evidence. It was just your *insight & opinion*. But did that make any of your points wrong back then? No, not necessarily. But then again, the irony there (wait for it), maybe is that we can say that you "had a better understanding" because of some 'inside knowledge' of the situation because you work in the field over there & it was just your "educated guess" & not actual evidence?

He didn't want to listen because he's an idiot.  He was so stuck in a thought process that any opposing narrative was dismissed so he could cling to his original narrative.  Which is pretty much what you're doing here.  You presume that we were headed towards a double.  You listened to experts who confirmed they believe the same thing.  Fine, I'm not disparaging any of that.  But now Bach comes out and says they're not looking at a double.  Yet somehow, in somewhat AF-fashion, your response is "nope, that doesn't make sense, it makes more sense if there was a double in the works."  Which comes straight out of the Trump playback.  Form an opinion, find an echo chamber to validate that opinion, clap back when evidence comes out (even if it comes from the highest authority possible) because how could educated guesses (which, I feel the need to remind you again are not the same as journalistic reporting) not be right! 

10 hours ago, FYI said:

You don't need to keep 'explaining' anything to me. You keep going on about it because you want to. Because somehow by going on & on about the same thing, you think that gives your narrative more weight (you know, like you claim Trump supporters do), but it really doesn't. Remember, most of what is talked about on these boards is more about educated guesses & insight, & not necessarily about any kind of "evidence". I mean, who does that start to sound like then.

And you're not going on?  You keep harping on how you think a double was in the works.  Your narrative is based on guesses.  My narrative is based on a statement from the head of the IOC.  This isn't a who's right/who's wrong scenario.  I don't care.  And again, if the course of events changed - which is always a possibility - would be nice to get some more guesses as to why that is.  Because the answer to that shouldn't be that Bach's statement doesn't make any sense and the whole "good governance" line is a bunch of hogwash.  So much for trying to predict the IOC.

10 hours ago, FYI said:

Of course inquiring minds want to know. But surprise, we're not going to know everything, especially when it comes to an organization as secretive & hush-hush as the IOC likes to be. Again, Bach's comment was ambiguous at best (even you agreed that it was). So why take it at face value to the umpteeth degree (well, I know why you do), when in the end, we know the IOC likes to keep most of their cards under wraps, & can change whenever they want on a dime when it suits them (if they're even telling us the situation how it is ITFP). 

You literally said upthread how the double talk for 2024/2028 started in late 2016.  So obviously that wasn't so secretive and hush-hush, was it.  Yes, Bach's comment here was ambiguous.  Why shouldn't we take it at face value?  Because.. confirmation bias?  Because you say so?  If Bach hinted that they were considering a double, you would 100% take that comment at face value and be trying to validate the statement.  But since he didn't?.. "well uhh you know the IOC doesn't like to tell us things and can do whatever they want, so uhhhh what Bach just said doesn't matter, because I say so.  And I want to be contrarian!"

10 hours ago, FYI said:

There is irony, but not in the way you're implying (or should I say, projecting). Since I'm not 'ripping' (the original) AF as much as he was ripping on you (or anyone else, for that matter) for not having any "evidence" for your arguments. Again, these boards are all about wishy-washiness (& you're part of that as well). So of course you would know all about "heavy doses of confirmation bias & doubling down on a nice wishy-washy position".

LOL, what?  That sounds like a generic "I'm rubber and you're glue, everything bounces off me and sticks to you" response.

I never said I didn't feed into the ridiculousness of these boards.  So do you and you're as much a part of it as I am.  The problem with these boards and I've said it for years is that too many people can't separate fantasy from reality and don't know how to read the room.  You are all about that right now in case you weren't aware.

10 hours ago, FYI said:

So then why all the back-&-forth? Again, that's what these boards are all about anyway. But if you want to become an (original) AF all of the sudden, & demand evidence (excuse me, "journalistic reporting") of why people have certain positions on certain topics, then that's not my issue, but yours. 

We've already established you're the AF here, so thanks for doing some projecting for us there.  I'm not "all of a sudden demanding evidence."  I'm showing you a piece of evidence, a direct quote from the head of the IOC.  And yet you want to dismiss it as hearsay.  The same person whose opinion you told me I should be more respectful of writes a story with a headline that says "IOC president pushes back on early 2034 Winter Olympic bid election" and you're telling me I shouldn't put much stock into this one.  Well which one is it?  If you're going to try and talk out of both sides of your mouth, then don't be surprised when someone calls you out on it.  Bach said what he said.  If you can't allow me to take that at face value and feel the need to tell me (more than one) that I shouldn't because you don't think the same way, guess whose issue that is.

[Quaker2001]

11 hours ago, FYI said:

It's moreso playing chicken with 2034, not necessarily 2030, I'd say. We all know SLC gets 2030 if both Sapporo & Vancouver were to fall to the wayside. But if one of them were to manage to land 2030, then why prolong in what is considered by so many (including the IOC, by their own acknowledgement), what would make an ideal host for the Winter Olympics, with SLC, other than to continue playing the IOC's political chess game. I thought all that type of BS stopped when the incredible 'game-changer', aka the "new norm", came to be. Or least that's the line the IOC likes to feed everyone else. 

The new norm is about the IOC doing things on their own timeline, which is pretty much what they're doing here.  It's not about picking Olympic hosts as soon as possible just because we presume we know who they're going to pick and that they're already having conversations.  Salt Lake isn't going anywhere.  There's virtually zero risk that if they don't get awarded the 2034 Olympics by this time next year that they're going to lose interest.  If they get awarded the games in 2025 or 2027 under a new IOC president, the end result is still the same and I doubt the USOPC or the SLC organizers are worse for the wear.  As ridiculous as Bach's statement about wanting the new administration to have this one is, the IOC is still free to make a decision on 2034 whenever it's convenient for them.  Which is exactly what the new norm is all about

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

2022 either way was going to be celebrated in asia, and 2018 followed a continental rotation (canada-russia-s.korea) given that if oslo had presented a bid and european bid would have followed (oslo) the continental rotation would have been kept in winter olympics. Again, 2034 bids will start to build up in 2025, 9 years ahead of those games and what if france have a success (which they are on their way) with their paris 2024 games and as japan decide to present a winter bid for 2034 (which is far more possible than it appears). The asian sequence between 2018 and 2022 was a coincidence of various factors, principally the fact that there was already a span of 12 years since the last summer olympics in asia, and a 20 years gap between winter games in asia, with the already mentioned lack of winter bids for 2022. But that by any means, mean that it should be repeated for 2028-2034, if vancouver gets the 2030 winter olympics, and europe presents a solid bid for those games, 2034 is europe to loose. Without mentioning the possibility of japan bidding again for 2034, which would increase the chances of a succesfull bid due to the 12 years since the last asian winter games. I believe the main reason why IOC wanted to push back on 2034 is to let interest grow between european parties for hosting the games, and also because for either sapporo and vancouver it would have been unfair to have to compete each other while SLC have an open path for 2034.

2034 bids won't start to build up in 2025.  We have 1 potentially building up already.  There's no 7 year timeline anymore like we used to have.  If European cities want in, they need to do so sooner rather than later.  Is it possible the IOC is waiting to see if anyone emerges?  Sure, but I don't think they want to wait until 2027 to lock that in.  Especially with negotiations for US media rights coming up.  They'll want so clarity on that one so when networks are bidding, they know at least 1 host city they're bidding on.

It's certainly not impossible a European bid could emerge.  Who would have ever guessed we'd have 2 left standing to vote on for 2026.  But again, this is the new norm era.  Nothing is stopping any of these cites/countries from initiating a conversation and it doesn't seem like there are too many places that want to do that right now.  The IOC should count their blessings there could be 3 cities to consider for 2030 for the time being

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

You know what.. what are we even arguing about here? 

I brought up AF in the context of your comments about SLC being in "we shall see" mode.  Not to invite his ridiculous take on what he did or didn't see happening to compare it to how you see a double.  Not sure how you turned that into a "I don't see how this is any different, really" comparison.  Unless you're the AF here.  Which almost seems to be what you're implying.

Okay, you win.  It's the same.  You're AF.  Good for you. 

He didn't want to listen because he's an idiot.  He was so stuck in a thought process that any opposing narrative was dismissed so he could cling to his original narrative.  Which is pretty much what you're doing here.  You presume that we were headed towards a double.  You listened to experts who confirmed they believe the same thing.  Fine, I'm not disparaging any of that.  But now Bach comes out and says they're not looking at a double.  Yet somehow, in somewhat AF-fashion, your response is "nope, that doesn't make sense, it makes more sense if there was a double in the works."  Which comes straight out of the Trump playback.  Form an opinion, find an echo chamber to validate that opinion, clap back when evidence comes out (even if it comes from the highest authority possible) because how could educated guesses (which, I feel the need to remind you again are not the same as journalistic reporting) not be right! 

And you're not going on?  You keep harping on how you think a double was in the works.  Your narrative is based on guesses.  My narrative is based on a statement from the head of the IOC.  This isn't a who's right/who's wrong scenario.  I don't care.  And again, if the course of events changed - which is always a possibility - would be nice to get some more guesses as to why that is.  Because the answer to that shouldn't be that Bach's statement doesn't make any sense and the whole "good governance" line is a bunch of hogwash.  So much for trying to predict the IOC.

You literally said upthread how the double talk for 2024/2028 started in late 2016.  So obviously that wasn't so secretive and hush-hush, was it.  Yes, Bach's comment here was ambiguous.  Why shouldn't we take it at face value?  Because.. confirmation bias?  Because you say so?  If Bach hinted that they were considering a double, you would 100% take that comment at face value and be trying to validate the statement.  But since he didn't?.. "well uhh you know the IOC doesn't like to tell us things and can do whatever they want, so uhhhh what Bach just said doesn't matter, because I say so.  And I want to be contrarian!"

LOL, what?  That sounds like a generic "I'm rubber and you're glue, everything bounces off me and sticks to you" response.

I never said I didn't feed into the ridiculousness of these boards.  So do you and you're as much a part of it as I am.  The problem with these boards and I've said it for years is that too many people can't separate fantasy from reality and don't know how to read the room.  You are all about that right now in case you weren't aware.

We've already established you're the AF here, so thanks for doing some projecting for us there.  I'm not "all of a sudden demanding evidence."  I'm showing you a piece of evidence, a direct quote from the head of the IOC.  And yet you want to dismiss it as hearsay.  The same person whose opinion you told me I should be more respectful of writes a story with a headline that says "IOC president pushes back on early 2034 Winter Olympic bid election" and you're telling me I shouldn't put much stock into this one.  Well which one is it?  If you're going to try and talk out of both sides of your mouth, then don't be surprised when someone calls you out on it.  Bach said what he said.  If you can't allow me to take that at face value and feel the need to tell me (more than one) that I shouldn't because you don't think the same way, guess whose issue that is.

UGH, the only thing that's "established", is that this is such a typical Qwaker response here. Yet another bowl of your infamous, "meaningless word salads". Only filled with 'harping' projections, Trumpisms, confirmation biases & childish insults (something a certain former president likes to do too, whenever someone doesn't eat his drivel). But don't worry, I'm not going to go on anymore, so knock yourself out, cause I'm out. "You win" the Olympic gold medal here, for whatever that's worth.  "Good for you", Q. 

[Olympics2028]

So much text from various users in this thread, that posting videos or photos by comparison right now would seem to bring some relief to the eyeballs. I have lots of vids ready and handy that show what I like (or don't like) in opening ceremonies.

As for the 2032 winter games going to SLC? So what? I believe the IOC and 2028 OOC have other things to worry about.

 

 

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, Olympics2028 said:

So much text from various users in this thread, that posting videos or photos by comparison right now would seem to bring some relief to the eyeballs. I have lots of vids ready and handy that show what I like (or don't like) in opening ceremonies.

As for the 2032 winter games going to SLC? So what? I believe the IOC and 2028 OOC have other things to worry about.

And since this isn't a ceremonies topic, what would you hope that accomplishes?  And yes, the 2028 OOC would worry if the 2030 Olympics when to Salt Lake.  That would be an issue for them.

[Chris_Mex]

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 There's no 7 year timeline anymore like we used to have     .Sure, but I don't think they want to wait until 2027 to lock that in.

 

Yeah sure then why is 2030 getting elected next year since sapporo and SLC bids are built since 2019?, or then when do you think is 2034 going to get elected?

[FYI]

16 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

2022 either way was going to be celebrated in asia, and 2018 followed a continental rotation (canada-russia-s.korea) given that if oslo had presented a bid and european bid would have followed (oslo) the continental rotation would have been kept in winter olympics. 

Yeah, but you need BIDS ITFP to try & exercise any type of continental rotation (which isn't a "rule" BTW, unlike the 'timeframe' one which actually IS a *rule*).

16 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Again, 2034 bids will start to build up in 2025, 9 years ahead of those games and what if france have a success (which they are on their way) with their paris 2024 games and as japan decide to present a winter bid for 2034 (which is far more possible than it appears). 

 You don't seem to understand that with the "new norm", bids NO longer have to wait for a certain traditional time window to make a case for any particular Games (haven't you learned anything from our new-norm 'buddy' on these forums lol). There are no time constraints to wait for, or deadlines to meet. So if there are any cities out there that are already interested in 2034, they can come out & make their intentions be known to the IOC at ANY time. They don't have to wait 'til 2025. And the IOC can "vote" in a city for whatever Games they want at any time they see fit as well. Again, why do we already have cities raising their hands for 2036 then (which comes before 2034)? Because that is the new standard that the IOC has now placed, & some of these cities are now afraid of FOMO after how the IOC awarded 2032 eleven years ahead of time.

As for France, sure, it looks like they're on their way for a successful Games. But so was Tokyo in 2018, two years before the 2020 Games were suppose to take place. But look what happened there (you cite now that those Games were a "disaster", due to circumstances beyond Japan's control), & has brought Sapporo, which once could've been considered as a shoo-in for another Winter Olympics, into serious question. So as history has unfortunately taught us, let's not put the cart before the horse here. Hopefully, Paris 2024 will go off without a hitch (because I'm looking very forward to those Games, as I also was with Tokyo 2020 two years out), but only time will tell if that's truly the case, particularly when we're living in a more-&-more unstable world these days.

16 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

I believe the main reason why IOC wanted to push back on 2034 is to let interest grow between european parties for hosting the games, and also because for either sapporo and vancouver it would have been unfair to have to compete each other while SLC have an open path for 2034.

As has been already well "established" in this thread, but "believing" is not any evidence or indication of anything lol. Who really knows why the IOC is pushing back. They can also be pushing back because they simply can, & don't want to give the impression that they no longer hold the cards. That said, though, I'll "believe" in more European interest in the Winter Olympics when I see it. Until then, it's the IOC's (or anyone else's, for that matter), wishful thinking.

3 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Yeah sure then why is 2030 getting elected next year since sapporo and SLC bids are built since 2019?

That's just mere coincidence at this point. Cause lets remember again how many years out Brisbane 2032 got elected, & *before* the 2030 winter Games (which if we want to look at things traditionally here, should've been elected first).

[Chris_Mex]

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, but you need BIDS ITFP to try & exercise any type of continental rotation (which isn't a "rule" BTW, unlike the 'timeframe' one which actually IS a *rule*).

 You don't seem to understand that with the "new norm", bids NO longer have to wait for a certain traditional time window to make a case for any particular Games (haven't you learned anything from our new-norm 'buddy' on these forums lol). There are no time constraints to wait for, or deadlines to meet. So if there are any cities out there that are already interested in 2034, they can come out & make their intentions be known to the IOC at ANY time. They don't have to wait 'til 2025. And the IOC can "vote" in a city for whatever Games they want at any time they see fit as well. Again, why do we already have cities raising their hands for 2036 then (which comes before 2034)? Because that is the new standard that the IOC has now placed, & some of these cities are now afraid of FOMO after how the IOC awarded 2032 eleven years ahead of time.

As for France, sure, it looks like they're on their way for a successful Games. But so was Tokyo in 2018, two years before the 2020 Games were suppose to take place. But look what happened there (you cite now that those Games were a "disaster", due to circumstances beyond Japan's control), & has brought Sapporo, which once could've been considered as a shoo-in for another Winter Olympics, into serious question. So as history has unfortunately taught us, let's not put the cart before the horse here. Hopefully, Paris 2024 will go off without a hitch (because I'm looking very forward to those Games, as I also was with Tokyo 2020 two years out), but only time will tell if that's truly the case, particularly when we're living in a more-&-more unstable world these days.

As has been already well "established" in this thread, but "believing" is not any evidence or indication of anything lol. Who really knows why the IOC is pushing back. They can also be pushing back because they simply can, & don't want to give the impression that they no longer hold the cards. That said, though, I'll "believe" in more European interest in the Winter Olympics when I see it. Until then, it's the IOC's (or anyone else's, for that matter), wishful thinking.

That's just mere coincidence at this point. Cause lets remember again how many years out Brisbane 2032 got elected, & *before* the 2030 winter Games (which if we want to look at things traditionally here, should've been elected first).

Is interesting how you cite our "new norm" friend when your are defending american bids with the same intensity. anyway, resuming your bible, in any scenario SLC is locked in for 2034 am I right?

[FYI]

18 minutes ago, Chris_Mex said:

Is interesting how you cite our "new norm" friend when your are defending american bids with the same intensity. anyway, resuming your bible, in any scenario SLC is locked in for 2034 am I right?

I'm not defending anything from "my bible" with the same intensity. SLC isn't really "my bid" to defend really. I'm just stating out the circumstances & facts as how they stand, which you refuse to look at.  

And for the record, I don't "defend American bids with the same intensity from my bible". As a matter of fact, I was foolishly called "Un-American" once (which even my friend Q here can attest to) because that person moronically thought that I wasn't supporting American bids enough.  

I was also for Paris 2024 instead of L.A. 2024, when that contest was going on. So please spare me your snide comments (we've had enough of those in this thread as it is), since you haven't been on these forums not nearly long enough to fling such unprovked nonsense at me. So unless you have anything constructive further to say, maybe you should stop & think before you say things about others that you have absolutely no clue about.

[Quaker2001]

8 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Yeah sure then why is 2030 getting elected next year since sapporo and SLC bids are built since 2019?, or then when do you think is 2034 going to get elected?

Because 7 years is still the minimum.  But the IOC has shown that if they feel like making an announcement out of the blue that they've picked a host with little warning, they're going to do that.  2028 was awarded before 2026.  That was a unique circumstance, of course.  But now 2032 has been awarded before 2030.

We'll have a host for 2030 come next spring.  Fairly confident about that.  I have no idea about 2034.  For whatever reason, Bach seems to want that to be the next IOC president's decision.  Either way, there's no official timeline we should expect for 2034.  The only reason we somewhat have it for 2030 is because they're not going to go past the 7 year out mark.  And also because there's an IOC session next summer where they'll want to announce some sort of news.

[yoshi]

Can I just ask why Salt Lake 2030 would be so terrible for LA? I don't get it, they're completely different events, completely different states, isn't sponsorship & TV etc just done for "Olympics" as a whole? Apart from being maybe a bit samey for the rest of the world, American Olympics twice in 3 years, and a bit weird when we're used to it being spread around, what's the problem?

[Nacre]

1 hour ago, yoshi said:

Can I just ask why Salt Lake 2030 would be so terrible for LA? I don't get it, they're completely different events, completely different states, isn't sponsorship & TV etc just done for "Olympics" as a whole? Apart from being maybe a bit samey for the rest of the world, American Olympics twice in 3 years, and a bit weird when we're used to it being spread around, what's the problem?

The idea is that domestic advertising and sponsorship money within the USA would end up being split between the two games. I have no idea if that is really true, but that's the theory.

[Quaker2001]

15 hours ago, yoshi said:

Can I just ask why Salt Lake 2030 would be so terrible for LA? I don't get it, they're completely different events, completely different states, isn't sponsorship & TV etc just done for "Olympics" as a whole? Apart from being maybe a bit samey for the rest of the world, American Olympics twice in 3 years, and a bit weird when we're used to it being spread around, what's the problem?

What Nacre said.  And it's absolutely true, not just some unfounded theory.

They may be different events, but they still need massive amounts of funding in order to operate.  The IOC handles worldwide TV rights and sponsorships, but domestically, those dollars are what allow the OOC's to avoid using public money.  That's obviously a much bigger priority in the US where the government doesn't offer as much backing for the Olympics.

Think back to Tokyo and how much money Dentsu (not an official sponsor of the Olympics) poured into that effort in order to make it happen.  If Sapporo gets 2030, perhaps they'll make another large investment and hope to get a return on that.  But if Sapporo was happening just 18 months after Tokyo (not just "twice in 3 years," that's how close LA 2028 and a 2030 Winter Olympics are), would they make another big investment so soon?

Now apply that to what's happening with the USOPC, whose efforts are separate from that of the IOC.  They're looking to line up sponsors to help underwrite the LA games.  If Salt Lake is hosting in 2030, maybe some of those companies with an interest in working with Salt Lake might not want to make 2 big financial commitments so close together.  But if they're 5.5 years apart instead of 1.5 years apart, then they might see a better return on that investment.  

There's not a limitless amount of money out there or corporations willing to invest in the Olympics.  LA and Salt Lake may be in different states, but it's still in the same country and still the same NOC trying to run those games.  As the story goes, they could certainly pull it off if they had to.  But yes, it'll be much more difficult for all 3 parties (LA, SLC, and the USOPC) to co-exist to try and make that work.  And if they response to that is "well we almost had Atlanta 1996 and Salt Lake 1998".. yes we did, but operating budgets and advertising are in a different stratosphere now than they were back then.  So it's not the same

[yoshi]

Hmm yeah ok. But by that logic, is 2038 better still? And given the number of companies that operate in both the US and Canada, would Vancouver pose a similar problem? (Presumably not as severe due to not actually being in the USA).

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, yoshi said:

Hmm yeah ok. But by that logic, is 2038 better still? And given the number of companies that operate in both the US and Canada, would Vancouver pose a similar problem? (Presumably not as severe due to not actually being in the USA).

2034 is far enough away.  In pre-new norm times, that Olympics would be awarded in 2027, so if Salt Lake were to get that, they probably wouldn't start doing most of their sales work until after LA 2028 anyway.  And sure, there's companies in both countries, but it's still 2 different NOC's.  So it's not the same organization making the same ask of a company.