Jump to content

BidWeek: Transparency, consultation and avoiding Denver, Australia – what the IOC must do now


GBModerator

Recommended Posts

I still think its unlikely Brisbane will hand back 2032 - however I am certain that internally its probably a Plan C for the Queensland Government. Likewise the IOC would be wise to have a back up in mind for dialogue if **** hits the fan - Tokyo would be an excellent Innsbruck to Brisbane's Denver.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be very fitting, it's probably what the IOC should've done anyway if they wanted a city locked in early. To give Japan the Olympics they deserved to have to make up for the one they actually had. I think Madrid is very much on manoeuvres though, either for 36 or to position itself as Innsbruck. Samaranch seems just as much a canny operator as his dad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Where were the detailed plans and analysis before Brisbane was named preferred host?" A good question. The answer? There was none outside of John Coates proclaiming this whole thing would only cost 1.5 billion USD and there was what, one biased opinion poll that showed 60 plus percent in favor of hosting? Anyone who bought Coates' financial figures was drinking the kool-aid. Now with inflation and Australia in a per-capita recession it's blowing up in their faces

This however raises an issue I've harped on before. For all the reforms the IOC has claimed, they have failed miserably in PR and in fact they've gotten worse. Another point, handing Brisbane the Olympics so far out could go one of two ways. If it was handled fiscally responsible, it would be a success. On the flip side, if things went south and there is a change in government, there's nothing to stop them from saying no thanks. If the IOC is smart (debatable) they were paying attention to what transpired with the 2026 Commonwealth Games very carefully.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2024 at 1:51 PM, Australian Kiwi said:

Likewise the IOC would be wise to have a back up in mind for dialogue if **** hits the fan - Tokyo would be an excellent Innsbruck to Brisbane's Denver.

 

On 2/15/2024 at 3:33 PM, yoshi said:

That would be very fitting, it's probably what the IOC should've done anyway if they wanted a city locked in early. To give Japan the Olympics they deserved to have to make up for the one they actually had.

After everything that's come out regarding the organizing committee and the games??? thank god in retrospect that 2032 wasn't awarded to Tokyo, and hopefully if there's a Denver scenario, the IOC does not give it to them. Going back to a city who's most recent Olympic legacy is that of corruption and scandals (to the point it solidified the death of another city's Olympic ambitions), would be catastrophic for the IOC.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bear said:

 

After everything that's come out regarding the organizing committee and the games??? thank god in retrospect that 2032 wasn't awarded to Tokyo, and hopefully if there's a Denver scenario, the IOC does not give it to them. Going back to a city who's most recent Olympic legacy is that of corruption and scandals (to the point it solidified the death of another city's Olympic ambitions), would be catastrophic for the IOC.

TBH - as an Australian - I can't tell whether you are talking about Tokyo or Brisbane. Both have rotted Olympic legacies in my view. Tokyo, at least, can host them easily. Brisbane can't. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

TBH - as an Australian - I can't tell whether you are talking about Tokyo or Brisbane. Both have rotted Olympic legacies in my view. Tokyo, at least, can host them easily. Brisbane can't. 

Tokyo. Sure, they can hold them easily, but the IOC shouldn't return to them for a while. There's other cities that are also capable of hosting them within 8 - 7 years that the IOC can turn to if Brisbane cancels (which as many have said, probably will not happen.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bear said:

Tokyo. Sure, they can hold them easily, but the IOC shouldn't return to them for a while. There's other cities that are also capable of hosting them within 8 - 7 years that the IOC can turn to if Brisbane cancels (which as many have said, probably will not happen.)

Trouble is, there might not be any cities willing / able to in a manner that is not another risk the the IOC. It takes a fair while to develop a plan (usually the role of the bid process) which would eat into that remaining 8-7 years and leave them with not a great deal of time. In my mind, its really only Los Angeles, London, Paris or Tokyo who are realistic "Innsbrucks" for 2032.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Australian Kiwi said:

Trouble is, there might not be any cities willing / able to in a manner that is not another risk the the IOC. It takes a fair while to develop a plan (usually the role of the bid process) which would eat into that remaining 8-7 years and leave them with not a great deal of time. In my mind, its really only Los Angeles, London, Paris or Tokyo who are realistic "Innsbrucks" for 2032.

I’ll go you one further and say the ONLY one of those that could be a viable “Innsbruck” is LA. It’s the only one that could provide an Olympic Village effortlessly. And as the IOC showed with Switzerland’s 2030 “no villages-hotels instead” proposal, the one thing it’s not prepared to compromise on is the village.

Paris already sad during is 2024 campaign that it’s village availability window couldn’t extend to 2028. London’s and Tokyo’s have long since passed to private housing. The US college dorm strategy for villages is about the only model that can extend to multiple uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they withdraw any time before the end of the year, then that leaves basically all (at least most) of 2025 to find a new city that'd have the same length of time as everyone before LA had. Especially as if a Denver becomes more and more likely the IOC will be sounding out replacements before anything official is done. Couldn't run a full bid process but they could get something with enough time.

Just a question, if there is a Denver, would it be Brisbane, Queensland or Australia doing it? Only could Australia as a country say "Brisbane has to pull out but we as a country are still happy to host cheaply and easily - but it'll have to be Melbourne so if you don't want to go starting it all again then you'll have to relax the timing rules". Could they do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda asked a similar question yesterday in the Brisbane thread, but instead of still being 2032 (find someone else there), more like Melbourne 2036. Since NBC still has the broadcasting rights to 'til the 2032 Games, so they wouldn't want the timing rules "relaxed" then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, yoshi said:

Just a question, if there is a Denver, would it be Brisbane, Queensland or Australia doing it? Only could Australia as a country say "Brisbane has to pull out but we as a country are still happy to host cheaply and easily - but it'll have to be Melbourne so if you don't want to go starting it all again then you'll have to relax the timing rules". Could they do that?

It’d be a Queensland decision. They drove the bid. They’re what Lausanne accepted. At a crisis level, the Federal Government might consider what they could do to rescue matters, but more likely would wash their hands of the matter. The IOC isn’t the CGF - they wouldn’t be expecting, in the worst case scenario, for Australia to offer up an alternative any more than they expected Japan or Canada to offer up alternatives for 2030. More like we’d be on their sh!t list and could forget about hoping for hostings in the future. But, c’mon, this is all still a very remote possibility at this stage.

40 minutes ago, FYI said:

I kinda asked a similar question yesterday in the Brisbane thread, but instead of still being 2032 (find someone else there), more like Melbourne 2036. Since NBC still has the broadcasting rights to 'til the 2032 Games, so they wouldn't want the timing rules "relaxed" then. 

The “timing window’ I guess depends on how well NBC do during the next three games. Personally, I’m surprised the traditional broadcast model has lasted this long during the streaming age and digital disruption, but it seems resilient. I’m sure we must have a thread somwhere discussing that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any scenario where Brisbane is no longer 2032 host I can't see Australia holding onto it. It was very much their idea, the rest of Australia is ambivalent about it. 

As much as the idea of Melbourne 2036 excites me, it just wouldn't happen. The State of Victoria is in debt, and it will take us a decade to recover. I also don't think there would be the political will for it either. I think the same would be the case of Sydney. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Glad to see the 2032 farce being called out.   This new era process needs to be called out for what it is - completely untransparent and open to corruption.    The Olympics shouldn't be a gift given to people upon retirement.

Whilst there is no doubt the bidding process needed to be streamlined and costs eliminated it does feel like this process hasn't done the games any favours at all - there seems far less certainty about the future of the games as a result and it's ridiculous that 6 years from 2030 we still don't have a Winter Olympics host locked in.  

I do certainly think there is merit in awarding back to back games, or at least offering the runners up of one bid the option to host the subsequent games if criteria are met, but the games need a more transparent open and fixed process back in place for awarding them. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts here..

The preferred window isn't just for the benefit of American television, but it's also where a lot of the sports federations want to land.  So even if another network were to take over US TV rights, it wouldn't change much on that front in terms of being more open to a calendar change.  Whether it should or not is a different issue.

If something were to happen to Brisbane that they're either unable or unwilling to host 2032, Rols is correct that the list of available options is likely Los Angeles and not much else.  If the IOC had 5 or more years to reset, maybe that's a different story.  Anything less than that means either they need a city that can be ready on short notice (those are few and far between) or to have a lesser edition of the Olympics.  And we know there is no shot they're going to entertain the latter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

If something were to happen to Brisbane that they're either unable or unwilling to host 2032, Rols is correct that the list of available options is likely Los Angeles and not much else.  If the IOC had 5 or more years to reset, maybe that's a different story. Anything less than that means either they need a city that can be ready on short notice (those are few and far between) or to have a lesser edition of the Olympics. And we know there is no shot they're going to entertain the latter.  

Isn't the IOC already entertaining the latter, though. By Coates basically going to Brisbane 2032 last month & telling them to use Suncorp & QSAC & just be done with it, & to stop messing around with the whole Gabba debacle? That sounds like they're actually willing to accept a lesser edition of the Olympics (unless of course, it's some sort of smokescreen of reverse psychology).

But then again, all of it is only a making of their own doing anyway, since they totally rushed into that decision, & of all times, when the world was in the grips of global pandemic. In the end, though, if the latter is to be the case, they might as well just stay put with 2032 where they are, & just swallow the (Aldi lol) pill the IOC handed themselves already & yes, just be done with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2024 at 10:24 PM, Brekkie Boy said:

Whilst there is no doubt the bidding process needed to be streamlined and costs eliminated it does feel like this process hasn't done the games any favours at all - there seems far less certainty about the future of the games as a result and it's ridiculous that 6 years from 2030 we still don't have a Winter Olympics host locked in.  

I do certainly think there is merit in awarding back to back games, or at least offering the runners up of one bid the option to host the subsequent games if criteria are met, but the games need a more transparent open and fixed process back in place for awarding them. 

 

Exactly.

Yes, there’s merit to streamlining the process and allowing a bit of flexibility. But why does secrecy need to be an integral part of that process?

  • Like 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...
×
×
  • Create New...