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

[Quaker2001]

22 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

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.

Which is to say.. maybe this isn't going to work out as well as the IOC might make it seem.  Again, there's a pathway to make it happen, but it's not one I foresee the IOC going down.

15 minutes ago, FYI said:

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. 

They can tell us this is about climate change, but I don't think anything is buying that.  This is definitely damage control

8 minutes ago, FYI said:

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.

Building and maintaining these facilities isn't just about the Olympics.  There needs to be a better plan for how they will be used and maintained the rest of the year, whether it's for competitions or recreational purposes or whatever else.  Definitely climate change is an issue there about where these facilities can exist and make money.  Let alone to have a world class facility up to Olympic standards that can stand the test of time.

As harsh as it is to think about, maybe certain sports aren't destined to survive long term because of the costs associated with them.  With few exceptions (think whitewater canoeing), most summer sports aren't like that.  Find a field or a court and you're good to go.  And as we've seen with Brisbane, clearly the IOC is willing to accept less than the biggest, shiniest, newest facilities out there.  We'll see which countries insist on offering those.  Not really an option with the Winter Olympics where especially for the snow sports, you need very specialized facilities.

[Nacre]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Building and maintaining these facilities isn't just about the Olympics.  There needs to be a better plan for how they will be used and maintained the rest of the year, whether it's for competitions or recreational purposes or whatever else.

This is the fundamental issue. In general, Olympic facilities are an awful fit for the actual needs of the local community. Re-using the same facilities once every sixteen or twenty years does not make sense if they are not heavily used in the interval period.

For the winter games a complicating factor is that part of the decline comes with the overall decline in winter sports participation. Skiing is an expensive sport with a relatively high risk of catastrophic injuries (both of which make it unappealing to parents) and it's hard to get to a ski area if you are young or don't own a vehicle with snow tires. Declining numbers of winter sports enthusiasts equals declining support for spending money on winter sports.

Edited January 18 by Nacre

[Sir Rols]

Some interesting interactive satellite images comparing snow coverage at European resorts this year and last year:

Stark contrast: the warming of Europe’s ski resorts – photo essay

[StefanMUC]

With the decision about Russia and Belarus coming back, the IOC will further alienate the public in countries it would need on its side, also among the few remaining solid winter options.

[AustralianFan]

Vancouver to host Winter Games again? And again?

The International Olympic Committee is looking at a plan that would have several cities host the Olympic Winter Games on a rotating basis, and Vancouver is on the list.

Feb 14, 2023  Dean Recksiedler and Charlie Carey

vancouver.citynews.ca

 

[AustralianFan]

Could Vancouver become a permanent Winter Olympics host city?

Posted February 14, 2023 9:36 pm EST      From Globalnews.ca

“It’s an idea that’s gained currency in recent days, amid word the International Olympic Committee is considering teeing up a rotating list of permanent host cities amid a lack of volunteers to host the winter games.”

“Cities being floated as theoretical regular hosts include Salt Lake City and Vancouver in North America, Pyeongchang in Asia and places like Switzerland, Italy and Scandinavia in Europe.”

WATCH: Vancouver is on a list of potential rotating Winter Games host cities discussed at the highest of the International Olympic Committee. Richard Zussman reports.

“Could Vancouver become one of a select few permanent homes to an Olympic podium?”

 

 

 

[AustralianFan]

From Rob Livingstone:

 

[AustralianFan]

(videos within previous links posted above of re Rob Livingstone’s interviews)

[FYI]

So how does a city who's province does not want to fund/commit to another Olympic Games, all of the sudden, become part of a permanent rotating pool of hosts? Not to mention places like Switzerland & Scandinavia, which have also in the recent past, have said, thanks, but no thanks to the Olympic circus. That's another Olympic billion dollar question.

[Sir Rols]

More to the point, what’s Vancouver got to do with it? It’s not an alpine venue, and it’s the alpine/snow locations that are the focus of these “considerations”. Sure, Whistler might be a contender. Or Cortina. Or Åre. Or Zhangjiakou. But anchor cities/ice sports locations aren’t part of the discussions. 

[Quaker2001]

We've heard this idea thrown out there plenty of times before, but actually executing it would be a lot different.  Salt Lake I'm sure would be on board.  PyeongChang likely as well.  After that, no idea who else they're assuming would be in this rotation.

 

Nice idea in theory.  Good luck trying to actually make it work.  Unless the IOC stops acting like the IOC and actually wants to help the host cities rather than just using them and not caring about the aftermath

[AustralianFan]

“The idea of designating a pool of host cities around the world as permanent host cities, as opposed to one-off hosting duties, changes the entire dynamic and cost-benefit analysis.”

”And it is certainly likely to increase competition to land one of these spots, with previous host cities — with existing venues, facilities, and infrastructure — having the upper hand.”

 

[Brekkie Boy]

The trouble is the IOC would probably not keep such a plan around long enough to get to the second cycle of the hosts.

I think as things are now that they've dropped any pretence of a transparent bidding process they should probably seek to lock in 2030, 2034 and even 2038 probably out of a pool of former hosts, but I think it would be foolish to look much further ahead yet and it is still important that the IOC doesn't block out potential new hosts - there are certainly a few who though new to the Olympics wouldn't be new to hosting Winter sports events.

 

I do think the sensible compromise for both the summer and winter games to slash bidding costs and encourage both new and former hosts to bid is to award on a two episode cycle, perhaps even with the caveat that for the Winter Games at least one of those two games would go to a former host.

[stryker]

3 hours ago, Brekkie Boy said:

I think as things are now that they've dropped any pretence of a transparent bidding process they should probably seek to lock in 2030, 2034 and even 2038 probably out of a pool of former hosts, but I think it would be foolish to look much further ahead yet and it is still important that the IOC doesn't block out potential new hosts - there are certainly a few who though new to the Olympics wouldn't be new to hosting Winter sports events.

Kind of hard to do when you only have one host city and they just want 2034.

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, Brekkie Boy said:

The trouble is the IOC would probably not keep such a plan around long enough to get to the second cycle of the hosts.

I think as things are now that they've dropped any pretence of a transparent bidding process they should probably seek to lock in 2030, 2034 and even 2038 probably out of a pool of former hosts, but I think it would be foolish to look much further ahead yet and it is still important that the IOC doesn't block out potential new hosts - there are certainly a few who though new to the Olympics wouldn't be new to hosting Winter sports events.

 

I do think the sensible compromise for both the summer and winter games to slash bidding costs and encourage both new and former hosts to bid is to award on a two episode cycle, perhaps even with the caveat that for the Winter Games at least one of those two games would go to a former host.

 

FIFA thought it would be a good idea to award 2 World Cups at once.  How'd that work out for them?

 

There is little to no benefit in looking beyond 2030 at this point.  If Stockholm steps up and can be taken for seriously for 2030, then by all means talk to SLC about 2034.  But right now, the IOC is on shakier ground than in recent memory, especially with regard to the Winter Olympics (the Summer side seems to be in better shape).  The list of cities that wants 2030 is close to 0, what's the sense in trying to lock in more Olympics down the line?  It's not like they can just say "hey Vancouver, you want 2038?" when they had a bid in the works for 2030 and couldn't get it all together.

 

1 step at a time.  Bidding costs are no longer the issue.  It's the sustainability of an event that requires very specific venues where the ROI simply isn't there.  The IOC got lucky that Italy pulled together a venue plan, although we're seeing that they're still having issues with that.  Looking 15 years down the line is not something most cities, with the exception of a Salt Lake, will likely want to be a part of