Does the Winter Olympics just need a rotating roster of hosts?

[Sir Rols]

11 hours ago, FYI said:

I can't really recall that. At least not here on GB's anyway. Many forumers then were all up in arms over the decision, that they couldn't understand it at all.

Meh. I can’t recall much outrage. Like any race, particularly in GBids heyday, there were supporters of the various bids. But there weren’t to my memory feral Austrians and Russians engaged in army bargy, so for most it was the philosophical choice between what many considered a worthy new frontier but with all to be built versus an picturesque established location in the Land of the Von Trapps (I do remember a lot of Sound of Music memes). It wasn’t so much a surprise as more confirming some people’s biases and confounding others’. As to the build from scratch aspect, a general thought was that if anybody could do it, Russia could. Putin  hadn’t risen from the presidential grave to brazenly establish the Second Evil Empire at that stage.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Sir Rols

[AustralianFan]

Sorry, but I think someone’s wires are crossed because the IOC are not even contemplating, have ever said or logically would ever consider awarding an Olympic Winter Games “decades in advance”.

Not now, not ever.

I don’t know where this “notion” has sprung up in some posts in this thread.

A rotating hosting pool (if it is adopted at all) does not equal awarding the Games decades in advance.

[AustralianFan]

Meanwhile in Lake Placid - from Inside The Games:

“The New York village staged the Games in 1932 and 1980 but it is deemed unlikely to be able to do so again in the "short term" as it would struggle to produce fair and safe conditions for athletes.”

(PhD Researcher, Natalie Knowles, University of Waterloo)

“She noted that, this week in Lake Placid, there has been rainfall before snow on top which "creates some difficult conditions".

"We looked at all the former Olympic locations and the future scenarios of climate change," Knowles said at the FISU World Conference.”

"We're trying to figure out which locations would continue to have those conditions in the future.”

"Lake Placid was one that is going to see rain on snow.”

 

[FYI]

6 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Meh. I can’t recall much outrage. Like any race, particularly in GBids heyday, there were supporters of the various bids. But there weren’t to my memory feral Austrians and Russians engaged in army bargy, 

And I can't recall a fairly well-received choice, either. So lets just call it a wash then. And I didn't say that Austrians & Russians were directly going at each other here (especially considering that neither of those candidates were the 2014 favorite [but then again, that hasn't stopped others before lol]). It was just some of the general feelings on the board with that decision some of the members were displaying right after the 2014 election. I even had one particular member PM'ed me (never had that before & haven't since lol) that they thought the decision was fraught. But anyway, it's water under the bridge now, & the IOC is the one left with steering the creeky boat in very choppy waters ever since that particular (winter) hosting.

[FYI]

5 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Meanwhile in Lake Placid - from Inside The Games:

“The New York village staged the Games in 1932 and 1980 but it is deemed unlikely to be able to do so again in the "short term" as it would struggle to produce fair and safe conditions for athletes.”

Lake Placid by itself can't stage a 21st century Winter Olympics anyway (this has been discussed before on the boards). They'd have to co-host with a metro-anchor for the ice arena events, like Albany. Or gasp, go even further than that, like NYC (or Boston, but most of us here already know how they feel about the Olympics, & it's not good). Or perhaps going co-national with Montreal, which before the new-norm would've been a no-no, but now, considering the IOC has been forced to be more flexible, then who knows. But then again, would Montreal want to, anyway (after their big Olympic hangover).

[Quaker2001]

5 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Meanwhile in Lake Placid - from Inside The Games:

“The New York village staged the Games in 1932 and 1980 but it is deemed unlikely to be able to do so again in the "short term" as it would struggle to produce fair and safe conditions for athletes.”

Interesting that they're deeming Lake Placid potentially unsafe for athletes.. in the middle of an event they're hosting hundreds of athletes.  Maybe not the message they want to send.

I'm amazed they're able to pull off an event of this size.  World Cup events there I can see since they have a smaller footprint.  And we all know how much they struggled back in 1980 to pull that off.

Here are some of the venues they're using that aren't exactly that close.  And these are smallish venues.  Perfect for an event like this.  No shot for the Olympics

Hockey - 3 venues plus the Olympic arena
Cheel Arena at Clarkson Universty - 4,200 capacity, 90 minute drive from Lake Placid
Maxcy Hall at SUNY Potsdam - ?? capacity, 90 minute drive from Lake Placid
Roos House at SUNY Canton - ?? capacity, 1:48 drive from Lake Placid

Curling - Saranac Lake Civic Center
Based on what I'm seeing online, maybe a few hundred spectators could fit in there.  At least it's only about 20 minutes from Lake Placid

Snowboarding - Gore Mountain

90 minute drive from Lake Placid

[Sir Rols]

9 hours ago, FYI said:

Lake Placid by itself can't stage a 21st century Winter Olympics anyway (this has been discussed before on the boards). 

Lol! Where’s Lord David to extol the virtues of the Lake Placid High School gym???

15 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Sorry, but I think someone’s wires are crossed because the IOC are not even contemplating, have ever said or logically would ever consider awarding an Olympic Winter Games “decades in advance”.

Not now, not ever.

I don’t know where this “notion” has sprung up in some posts in this thread.

A rotating hosting pool (if it is adopted at all) does not equal awarding the Games decades in advance.

Sorry, but the IOC’s exact word: “rotating the Olympic Winter Games within a pool of hosts” certainly does imply deciding on an approved fixed roster of locations for games decades in advance. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

Ohh, that lord David. Where has he been lately, with all his bid book fantasies. lol

[AustralianFan]

6 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

 

“rotating the Olympic Winter Games within a pool of hosts” certainly does imply deciding on an approved fixed roster of locations for games decades in advance. 

Imply nothing.

This is just fantasy talk that has sprung up in this thread.

No mention ever of a fixed roster has by the IOC decades in advance. 
Nor will they ever.

No applicant City in their right mind would want to commit, or be able to commit, to a Games decades in advance.  

Further, no government in their right mind would be able to commit to a Games decades in advance. 

Let’s just let this nonsense of “decades ahead Games awarded roster” rest in peace.

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, AustralianFan said:

No applicant City in their right mind would want to commit, or be able to commit, to a Games decades in advance.  

Further, no government in their right mind would be able to commit to a Games decades in advance. 

Exactly - madness,

So then tell me, how do you interpret the sentence: “The idea of rotating the Olympic Winter Games within a pool of hosts” (IOC’s exact words - Olympics.com)?

Or as you yourself put it:

On 1/7/2023 at 9:06 AM, AustralianFan said:

While not officially announced, I expect that the IOC will consider and ratify the introduction of a permanent rotating pool of Winter Olympic/Paralympic hosts in the next 12-24 months or so, ie some time in 2023, 2024 or so.

 

On 1/7/2023 at 11:16 AM, AustralianFan said:

Whether or not you agree on the idea of a permanent rotating hosting pool, its looking like it will be adopted by the IOC.

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Sir Rols

[AustralianFan]

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

So then tell me, how do you interpret the sentence: “The idea of rotating the Olympic Winter Games within a pool of hosts”

 

Ok so here’s how I envisage it will work.

Say you have a total of 5 candidates admitted to the inaugural rotating hosting pool, which for argument’s sake commences with the 2038 Winter Games:

• Candidate A
• Candidate B 
• Candidate C
• Candidate D
• Candidate E

2038 (Inaugural Pool Host)

Selecting the Inaugural Host from the pool to kick things off begins with the  Future Host Commission having dialogue with all five candidates to see who of the five is ready and willing to be:

- inaugural pool host

- enjoys majority public support

- enjoys government support and financial guarantees

- is climate ready

- has required standard of venues and infrastructure

The Future Host Commission makes recommendation/s to IOC EB to elevate Candidate/s A and D to Targeted Dialogue, which the IOC approves and announces to the world.

Six months later, the IOC recommends to the IOC EB Candidates A and D as being suitable for the 2038 Games.  The IOC EB agrees and both Candidates A and D are put it to the IOC Session 4 months later for the Host Election.

Candidate D from the Pool is formally elected as (inaugural) 2038 Host.

2042  (Second Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with the other 4 candidates (excluding Candidate D)

Candidate A from the pool is elected 2042 Host.

2048  (Third Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with the other 3 candidates (excluding Candidates A and D) 

Candidate E from the pool is elected 2048 Host.

2052  (Fourth Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with the remaining 2 candidates (excluding Candidates A, D and E).

Candidate B from the pool is elected 2048 Host.

2056  (Fifth Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with Candidate C only. If foundsuitathe remaining 2 candidates (excluding Candidates A, B, D and E).

Candidate C from the pool is elected 2056 Host.

*********************************

All five Pool Candidates have each now had a Games each.

That’s as far as I got, it’s getting late.

[spectator12]

I think it might be a good idea, to go ahead and propose, a Winter indoor sports games, with just the arena sports, so then even cities, such as Manila, Mexico City, or Dubai could host, and it would negate the need for artificial snow.  But hopefully there would be a preferential bias towards only cities that already have enough arenas..  I read somewhere Sapporo might have enough natural snow for a while, if they were like a permanent outdoor host, but I guess they don't really want the Olympics now..

[Quaker2001]

10 minutes ago, spectator12 said:

I think it might be a good idea, to go ahead and propose, a Winter indoor sports games, with just the arena sports, so then even cities, such as Manila, Mexico City, or Dubai could host, and it would negate the need for artificial snow.  But hopefully there would be a preferential bias towards only cities that already have enough arenas..  I read somewhere Sapporo might have enough natural snow for a while, if they were like a permanent outdoor host, but I guess they don't really want the Olympics now..

I doubt that warm weather or tropical climate cities would ever have a serious interest in that even if it was a thing.  And is there was an event like that, there are plenty of places in cold weather climates that would likely jump in before countries that have little to no interest in winter sports would want it

[spectator12]

true, I was just thinking that some of the figure skaters are from warmer weather countries, and I think Colombia is good at speed skating (but I think that it is in-line skating) not ice

[Quaker2001]

8 minutes ago, spectator12 said:

true, I was just thinking that some of the figure skaters are from warmer weather countries, and I think Colombia is good at speed skating (but I think that it is in-line skating) not ice

Not enough to justify putting a major event there.  Not when there are countries that have and/or need those facilities a lot more

[Quaker2001]

Alright, let's try and find some middle ground between our arguing Aussies.  Here's my take.

First off, let's not take any statements from the IOC as gospel.  They're considering a rotation of hosts out of desperation, moreso than because they think it's a good idea.  And it's something that's going to take time and effort to execute.  They may decide it's not how they want to go.

Let's say though hypothetically speaking that they do go that route.  It's not "permanent" in the sense that they won't ever change the list of cities.  Maybe 10 years down the road, someone drops out and then a new location emerges.  And I doubt they'll be awarded more than 10-12 years out.

So yes, it's looking long term, which is something the IOC doesn't usually do.  But it doesn't guarantee who is or isn't going to host the Winter Olympics in the year 2046.  Just gives them a template to go off of, one they could change or adjust as they go along.

[AustralianFan]

6 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

 

Ok so here’s how I envisage it will work.

Say you have a total of 5 candidates admitted to the inaugural rotating hosting pool, which for argument’s sake commences with the 2038 Winter Games:

• Candidate A
• Candidate B 
• Candidate C
• Candidate D
• Candidate E

2038 (Inaugural Pool Host)

Selecting the Inaugural Host from the pool to kick things off begins with the  Future Host Commission having dialogue with all five candidates to see who of the five is ready and willing to be:

- inaugural pool host

- enjoys majority public support

- enjoys government support and financial guarantees

- is climate ready

- has required standard of venues and infrastructure

The Future Host Commission makes recommendation/s to IOC EB to elevate Candidate/s A and D to Targeted Dialogue, which the IOC approves and announces to the world.

Six months later, the IOC recommends to the IOC EB Candidates A and D as being suitable for the 2038 Games.  The IOC EB agrees and both Candidates A and D are put it to the IOC Session 4 months later for the Host Election.

Candidate D from the Pool is formally elected as (inaugural) 2038 Host.

2042  (Second Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with the other 4 candidates (excluding Candidate D)

Candidate A from the pool is elected 2042 Host.

2048  (Third Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with the other 3 candidates (excluding Candidates A and D) 

Candidate E from the pool is elected 2048 Host.

2052  (Fourth Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with the remaining 2 candidates (excluding Candidates A, D and E).

Candidate B from the pool is elected 2048 Host.

2056  (Fifth Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with Candidate C only

(excluding Candidates A, B, D and E).

Candidate C from the pool is elected 2056 Host.

*********************************

All five Pool Candidates have each now had a Games each.

 

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Here's my take.

First off, let's not take any statements from the IOC as gospel.  They're considering a rotation of hosts out of desperation, moreso than because they think it's a good idea.  And it's something that's going to take time and effort to execute.  They may decide it's not how they want to go.

Let's say though hypothetically speaking that they do go that route.  It's not "permanent" in the sense that they won't ever change the list of cities.  Maybe 10 years down the road, someone drops out and then a new location emerges.  And I doubt they'll be awarded more than 10-12 years out.

So yes, it's looking long term, which is something the IOC doesn't usually do.  But it doesn't guarantee who is or isn't going to host the Winter Olympics in the year 2046.  Just gives them a template to go off of, one they could change or adjust as they go along.

I agree.  The IOC may not end up going for the rotating pool idea at all in any form.

If they do introduce a rotating host pool:

New entrants to the Pool

Once the inaugural pool of Candidates is established, the IOC may initially consider a fixed minimum time period before a new candidate can be admitted.

It may be one or two Games cycles, or say 5 or 10 years?

Or it might be after the all candidates in the Pool have rotated through a Games each?

Or it might actually be whenever the IOC EB determines it can admit a new entrant to the Pool, adjust as they go along, as you said Quaker2001.

Overall, with the risk of changing circumstances over time and so many variables, the IOC will want to maintain a degree of flexibility.

[FYI]

7 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

2048  (Third Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with the other 3 candidates (excluding Candidates A and D) 

Candidate E from the pool is elected 2048 Host.

2052  (Fourth Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with the remaining 2 candidates (excluding Candidates A, D and E).

Candidate B from the pool is elected 2048 Host.

2056  (Fifth Pool Host)

Around 4 years later, the dialogue process is repeated with Candidate C only. If foundsuitathe remaining 2 candidates (excluding Candidates A, B, D and E).

Candidate C from the pool is elected 2056 Host.

*********************************

All five Pool Candidates have each now had a Games each.

Hey, you got your years mixed up! Should be 2046, 2050 & 2054 Winter Games! lol

[FYI]

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Alright, let's try and find some middle ground between our arguing Aussies. Here's my take.

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

First off, let's not take any statements from the IOC as gospel.  They're considering a rotation of hosts out of desperation, moreso than because they think it's a good idea.  And it's something that's going to take time and effort to execute.  They may decide it's not how they want to go.

Precisely. Just how Bach last summer claimed that a simple double-allocation wasn't in the cards (because it wasn't "good governance"). But now, all of the sudden, a mere six months later, we're gonna have a "permanent pool of winter hosts"?!  

Next year by this time, they can change their tune yet again & say that a permanent winter roster is not feasible after all, after looking at all the variables much more closely.

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Let's say though hypothetically speaking that they do go that route.  It's not "permanent" in the sense that they won't ever change the list of cities.  Maybe 10 years down the road, someone drops out and then a new location emerges.  And I doubt they'll be awarded more than 10-12 years out.

So yes, it's looking long term, which is something the IOC doesn't usually do.  But it doesn't guarantee who is or isn't going to host the Winter Olympics in the year 2046.  Just gives them a template to go off of, one they could change or adjust as they go along.

And isn't that what the IOC is more-or-less already doing in the Summer Games category anyway. Awarding Games no more than 11 years out. So all they have to do now is simply apply that format into the winter category. 

[AustralianFan]

25 minutes ago, FYI said:

 

Precisely. Just how Bach last summer claimed that a simple double-allocation wasn't in the cards (because it wasn't "good governance"). But now, all of the sudden, a mere six months later, we're gonna have a "permanent pool of winter hosts"?!  

 

The pivotal Report from the Future Host Commission was handed to the IOC Executive Board in December 2022.

That snow venues climate warming report, led in December 2022 this huge change in thinking and all these radical ideas, announced to the world, under consideration now to as to how future Winter Olympic Hosts might be selected.

Here is the link to that huge breaking news 7 December 2022 with IOC media conferences held at the end if all three days of that Executive Board Meeting:

7 December 2022: IOC Executive Board Meeting announcements

[Quaker2001]

39 minutes ago, FYI said:

Precisely. Just how Bach last summer claimed that a simple double-allocation wasn't in the cards (because it wasn't "good governance"). But now, all of the sudden, a mere six months later, we're gonna have a "permanent pool of winter hosts"?!  

Next year by this time, they can change their tune yet again & say that a permanent winter roster is not feasible after all, after looking at all the variables much more closely.

And isn't that what the IOC is more-or-less already doing in the Summer Games category anyway. Awarding Games no more than 11 years out. So all they have to do now is simply apply that format into the winter category. 

Here's how I think it could go (which means it certainly won't happen), although I don't trust the IOC to think this way and stick with it long term.

Let's say their pool of cities is Salt Lake, Vancouver, PyeonChang, and find 2 sites in Europe.  Salt Lake gets 2030.  The IOC tells them something like "keep your facilities and infrastructure up to date and somewhere down the line, we'll come calling."  In which case the IOC should be doing more to help out those host cities, although I don't expect that to happen because they don't operate that way.

So then 2034 comes around, which of the "pool" of candidates do they want to talk to?  Spare everyone else the time and expense of proposing to host an Olympics, unless it's a city/country that thinks they would want to play that game.  Host an Olympics, be ready for us again down the line.  Would help the cause for a lot of winter sports federations to have those venues available for competitions and training.  Maintain them so that they stay ready for action (looking at you, Calgary).

All easier said than done, but that's how the IOC would have to do it if this wanted to be a thing.  Which, who knows if they would just abandon it if it suited them.

[AustralianFan]

50 minutes ago, FYI said:

Hey, you got your years mixed up! Should be 2046, 2050 & 2054 Winter Games! lol

you’re right, I got the years out of sync there  (it was late last night is my excuse)

As you said, it should have been. 2038, 2042, 2046, 2050 and 2054

[AustralianFan]

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Here's how I think it could go (which means it certainly won't happen), although I don't trust the IOC to think this way and stick with it long term.

Let's say their pool of cities is Salt Lake, Vancouver, PyeonChang, and find 2 sites in Europe.  Salt Lake gets 2030.  The IOC tells them something like "keep your facilities and infrastructure up to date and somewhere down the line, we'll come calling."  In which case the IOC should be doing more to help out those host cities, although I don't expect that to happen because they don't operate that way.

So then 2034 comes around, which of the "pool" of candidates do they want to talk to?  Spare everyone else the time and expense of proposing to host an Olympics, unless it's a city/country that thinks they would want to play that game.  Host an Olympics, be ready for us again down the line.  Would help the cause for a lot of winter sports federations to have those venues available for competitions and training.  Maintain them so that they stay ready for action (looking at you, Calgary).

All easier said than done, but that's how the IOC would have to do it if this wanted to be a thing.  Which, who knows if they would just abandon it if it suited them.

It would work much more smoothly if these pesky things were to always remain the same:

• public support
• government financial guarantees
• climate readiness
• availability and useability of venues and other infrastructure

But … we know that any one of these things can change over time, no matter what best laid plans are made, including a rotating hosting pool.

I cannot see any avoidance of the dialogue pricess to test all these things even for those candidates in the hosting pool.

[FYI]

12 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

The pivotal Report from the Future Host Commission was handed to the IOC Executive Board in December 2022.

That snow venues climate warming report, led in December 2022 this huge change in thinking and all these radical ideas, announced to the world, under consideration now to as to how future Winter Olympic Hosts might be selected.

It's rather hard to believe that a report handed to them a few months later, after Bach made his comments, simply led them to all these radical ideas. Surely the IOC had to have SOME kind of inkling of what was going on well before-hand. It's precisely why they're doing all this zigging-&-zagging, trying to find a way out of a maze. As of late, they change their minds as often as changing one's underwear. It makes them look not in control anymore, when they're desperately wanting to regain control of their long-established, lavish sports party. 

[FYI]

10 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

It would work much more smoothly if these pesky things were to always remain the same:

• public support
• government financial guarantees
• climate readiness
• availability and useability of venues and other infrastructure

Lol, 'pesky' things? 

Taxpayers should have a right & say as to where their tax dollars are going. To them, I doubt they would find any of that pesky, & that would go in-line with the gov't financial guarantees, not to mention the maintenance re'q to have all those facilities at the ready for future (winter) Games.

Climate change is another serious matter. Weather patterns look like they're starting to get more extreme now, & should take priority these days, over some three-week sports orgy, regardless of how much we nerds here at GB's are enthusiastically enthralled by them.