Alpes Françaises 2030 Opening Ceremony

[baron-pierreIV]

So, we've seen it for this Summer 2024 -- taking place down a river.  No stadium; no enclosed security.  But for 2030; since the streams in the Alpes will be, hopefully, FROZEN -- will the Ceremonie d'overture  2030 be ANOTHER fluvial parade down the Paillon?  

Wow!  Wouldn't the French have other ideas?  I mean, been there, done that.  Where are those Albertville snow-globe gals when you need them?   

Then the torches:  first the turd-shaped ones for 1992; then the aneurysm-shaped ones for 2024?  I guess phallic ones for 2030??  Allez les Bleus!! 
 

 

 

Edited February 21 by Sir Rols

[sebastien1214]

Interesting that you are opening this topic now, a week ago the Sport & Society website (specializing in everything related to the French sporting environment and in particular the Olympics) published an article* on this subject.

The only certainty at the moment is that the closing ceremony will take place in Nice (PACA region). So the opening ceremony will necessarily take place in the Rhône-Alpes region, but that doesn't help us much in trying to guess the right place.

Overall, two main options. The first, a classic ceremony in a stadium:

- The two biggest stadiums in the region are in Saint-Etienne and Lyon. But neither of these two cities will host events, so it would be strange to open in one of these two cities.
- Grenoble has a 20,000-seat stadium, the Stade des Alpes. But already, it's really too small for an opening ceremony (even if it's "only" winter games), and what's more it's ugly. It's not even imposing, the stands are really not high at all, stage-wise it would be a disaster. And the city of Grenoble doesn't need a bigger stadium, so I don't see why we would enlarge it for the Olympics.

Second option, an outdoor ceremony. Not a parade of boats like in Paris, but a static place, a bit like the opening ceremony of the Paris 2024 Paralympics.

During Annecy's bid for the 2018 Olympics, it was planned that the ceremonies would take place in a temporary 42,000-seat "theater" with a view of Annecy lake.

I would really like them to take up this idea for the 2030 Olympics. It allows us to have a ceremony in the heart of the city, outside, while making it easier to secure the event.

--------

* https://sportetsociete.org/2024/04/07/jo-2030-la-reflexion-demeure-quant-a-la-localisation-de-la-ceremonie-douverture/

[baron-pierreIV]

The OC has to be in the same City as the OV and where the IOC is camped out.*  So, since the main OV will be in Nice; Nice will have to come up with--even a makeshift stadium a la Albertville or PyeongChang if they are to hold it in a traditional stadium setting?  And it being Nice in February, of course, it could be an outdoor venue.  

* Except Milano-Cortina's Closing in Verona.  I guess they will have to split the participating athletes back to the OVs in Milano (1/5 hours drive away?)  and whomever else is left in the Cortina OV -- what?  Another 1.5 hrs drive east?  But since there's nothing but clearing out of the OV the next day left, it's OK if the athletes get back to their dorms at 2:00 or 3:00am.  But you'll need a whole fresh crew of drivers to take them to the airports the next day.  

Edited April 14, 2024 by baron-pierreIV
x

[sebastien1214]

The rules are made to be changed and given how much the IOC... well Thomas Bach changed a lot of rules for the opening ceremony of Paris 2024, I don't see why it would be impossible to deviate from the rule which says that the OOC must be made in the same city as the Olympic Village. In any case, it is excluded that Nice will host the opening ceremony from the moment they have the closing ceremony. That's the only certainty, and it won't change. It is impossible for Nice to obtain both ceremonies.

Afterwards, for athletes who will have their events in Nice, we can indeed wonder how to repatriate them quickly from Annecy to Nice. But the problem would be the same if the OOC was done in Nice: how do we quickly get them to Annecy?

(and in my opinion, there will not be one main Olympic village, but two or three small Olympic villages in each of the event zones).

[baron-pierreIV]

4 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

The rules are made to be changed and given how much the IOC... well Thomas Bach changed a lot of rules for the opening ceremony of Paris 2024, I don't see why it would be impossible to deviate from the rule which says that the OOC must be made in the same city as the Olympic Village. In any case, it is excluded that Nice will host the opening ceremony from the moment they have the closing ceremony. That's the only certainty, and it won't change. It is impossible for Nice to obtain both ceremonies.

Afterwards, for athletes who will have their events in Nice, we can indeed wonder how to repatriate them quickly from Annecy to Nice. But the problem would be the same if the OOC was done in Nice: how do we quickly get them to Annecy?

(and in my opinion, there will not be one main Olympic village, but two or three small Olympic villages in each of the event zones).

Does Annecy have the accommodations not only for the athletes, the Olympic family?  The Broadcasters?  The at least 2,500 folks who put on the OC?  The world press?  The 25,000 plain folks who will be the OC live audience? 5-6K Security troops?  No, I would say, the logistics of an OC -- more important than a Closing-- demand that it be staged in the anchor city where everyone has a bed and a room to quickly get back to.  In terms of labelling, how can a Nice-Alpes '30 open in a smaller city called something else other than "Nice"?  

[sebastien1214]

Accommodation can be built. And that's good, there is a need to build a lot of apartments in Annecy, there the price per m² has exploded, and there are less and less apartments available.

So I want to say: it's even better to build accomodation in Annecy since there is a real need for new apartments. This is also the main interest, in my opinion, of building Olympic villages, so that once the event is over they can be used by the population.

(and by the way, the name of the candidacy is French Alps 2030; it was never Nice 2030. And even if Lyon decided to join the candidacy, it would still remain French Alps 2030 and not Lyon 2030.).

[baron-pierreIV]

7 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

(and by the way, the name of the candidacy is French Alps 2030; it was never Nice 2030. And even if Lyon decided to join the candidacy, it would still remain French Alps 2030 and not Lyon 2030.).

Well, that's the candidacy bid.  It will have to carry an anchor city when it is selected.  And if not, NBC, at least, serving the 2nd largest TV audience, will nominate its own "anchor host" city for its graphics and promo.  "French Alps" is just too amorphous. All the host cities will be putting out their own cups, mugs, pins, T-shirts saying Nice 2030 or Val d:Isere 2030, etc., etc. Airline ticket codes will say NIC (or whatever the airport code is) --not "French Alps."  

[sebastien1214]

Since the IOC uses the name "French Alps" for the application, I don't see why they would suddenly ask to change the name. “French Alps” is enough for the general public to clearly identify where the games will actually take place. I even think it's more identifiable than Brisbane 2032 for example, I'm not sure many people outside Australia know it's an Australian city, or even its precise location; until a few months ago, I even thought that Brisbane was on the West Coast of Australia...

For the airports: I am willing to bet that there will be more people arriving from Geneva airport than from Nice airport given the current distribution of tests.

As for what NBC will do, I don't care, I'm French, not American. (and overall in France we don't care what NBC or any other American media might want).

[baron-pierreIV]

12 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

Since the IOC uses the name "French Alps" for the application, I don't see why they would suddenly ask to change the name. “French Alps” is enough for the general public to clearly identify where the games will actually take place. I even think it's more identifiable than Brisbane 2032 for example, I'm not sure many people outside Australia know it's an Australian city, or even its precise location; until a few months ago, I even thought that Brisbane was on the West Coast of Australia...

For the airports: I am willing to bet that there will be more people arriving from Geneva airport than from Nice airport given the current distribution of tests.

As for what NBC will do, I don't care, I'm French, not American. (and overall in France we don't care what NBC or any other American media might want).

I don't know that IOC can sign a "Host City contract" with an amorphous entity like "French Alps."  There has to be a legal entity, a city, maybe even a Department that can guarantee and live up to what has been presented -- and whom the IOC can go after if things go wrong.  The IOC cannot go after an entity called "French Alps," sebastien.  Are you kidding me?  That's why the IOC wants all those guarantees in place by the time the HCC is signed so that there are real, concrete legal entities coalescing to make the event happen.  Even in 2014 when the cluster of stadia and venues were actually in Adler, the IOC's partner and answering entity was Sochi.  

You may not care what NBC does -- but the IOC does.  Without NBC, there would be no IOC today.  So take off your xenophobic blinders, sebastien.  These are global events that the IOC puts on and safeguards.  

[baron-pierreIV]

This is how it works:

We (the IOC) are a packager.  The Olympic Games in all its variations are our "property" and product.  You (bidding city) have agreed to stage the Games in accordance with terms we have agreed upon and negotiated through a long process.  We will partner with you to deliver the product per our rules and choices.  We, on the other hand, also have our obligations and contracted terms with our other clients (the broadcasters, the IFs, the TOP sponsors, the NOCs) to put on these quadrennial extravaganzas.  Thus, we have all these interlocking agreements which we must abide by.  Legal IDs are needed so that if anything goes wrong, we can go after you in your jurisdiction, and similarly, if we falter, you can go after us in our home district of Lausanne, Switzerland.  You know where we reside, we have nothing to hide.  

So that's how the Olympic Games in this day and age are put on, run, and live another day to the next set of Games.  Without those contracts, the Games cannot happen.  

Edited April 14, 2024 by baron-pierreIV
x

[sebastien1214]

23 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I don't know that IOC can sign a "Host City contract" with an amorphous entity like "French Alps."  There has to be a legal entity, a city, maybe even a Department that can guarantee and live up to what has been presented -- and whom the IOC can go after if things go wrong.  The IOC cannot go after an entity called "French Alps," sebastien.  Are you kidding me?  That's why the IOC wants all those guarantees in place by the time the HCC is signed so that there are real, concrete legal entities coalescing to make the event happen.  Even in 2014 when the cluster of stadia and venues were actually in Adler, the IOC's partner and answering entity was Sochi.  

You may not care what NBC does -- but the IOC does.  Without NBC, there would be no IOC today.  So take off your xenophobic blinders, sebastien.  These are global events that the IOC puts on and safeguards.  

In all our exchanges, harsh but until now always courteous, I have never allowed myself to stick defamatory labels such as "xenophobic" on you. I would ask you to do the same for me.

What I say about the fact that I don't care about Americans, perhaps in a slightly provocative way *and I apologize if that was too much for you*, is not a hatred of Americans. Americans. But just the fact that while I don't deny the influence that NBC can have on the IOC/Olympics, it is undeniable that the influence is limited in countries like France or Germany which are regional/semi-global powers, for example in developing countries.

And related to the specific point of discussion, it would surprise me if the games were renamed "Nice 2030" because it would suit NBC if that were the case, to sell them better. Don't forget the political context of the candidacy: it is a merger of two competing files between two French regions. There is a lot of politics in this story, and that is equally, if not more, important. If the games are renamed to Nice 2030, believe me that the Rhone-Alpes region would be unhappy (especially since the president of the region is aiming for the 2027 presidential election). If the names of the games really need to be changed, there really needs to be a much more solid reason than marketing considerations.

And to return to the 2030 Olympics, it is ultimately roughly the same configuration as Milan-Cortina 2026. I don't think that a question of label makes a big difference (there may be legal terms which m 'escape that said, I'm not a specialist on that). For the entity to turn against in the event of a problem, at first glance it seems obvious to me that it would be the organizing committee, regardless of the name it would bear.

[sebastien1214]

3 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

This is how it works:

We (the IOC) are a packager.  The Olympic Games in all its variations are our "property" and product.  You (bidding city) have agreed to stage the Games in accordance with terms we have agreed upon and negotiated through a long process.  We will partner with you to deliver the product per our rules and choices.  We, on the other hand, also have our obligations and contracted terms with our other clients (the broadcasters, the IFs, the NOCs) to put on these quadrennial extravaganzas.  Thus, we have all these interlocking agreements which we must abide by.  Legal IDs are needed so that if anything goes wrong, we can go after you in your jurisidctions, and similarly, if we falter, you can go after us in our home district of Lausanne, Switzerland.  You know where we reside, we have nothing to hide.  

So that's how the Olympic Games in this day and age are put on, run, and live another day to the next set of Games.  Without those contracts, the Games cannot happen.  

The problem is that Thomas Bach changes the rules so much that I almost wonder if today there are really terms in the contract...

Especially since the IOC has put itself in a delicate situation with these 2030 Olympics by delaying their attribution. Even if everything starts from a contract established between the host and the organizer, there are always negotiations at a given moment, a balance of power between the two (I take for example the question of alcohol in stadiums during the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar).

By putting itself in such a position, the IOC weakens its position, since who can seriously think that the French Alps will not ultimately obtain the Games when we are only 6 years away? In a logic of negotiation such as I imagine it in my head, this leaves more room for maneuver for the host to push more things to their advantage, by saying "anyway if they are not happy they have no choice, they're not going to take the games away from me."

[baron-pierreIV]

2 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

And to return to the 2030 Olympics, it is ultimately roughly the same configuration as Milan-Cortina 2026. I don't think that a question of label makes a big difference (there may be legal terms which m 'escape that said, I'm not a specialist on that). For the entity to turn against in the event of a problem, at first glance it seems obvious to me that it would be the organizing committee, regardless of the name it would bear.

They will work on that to narrow it down by Signing Day.  There has to be a lead city or a lead organization (and the locally based one is preferred to--rather than the CNOSF or the Italian Olympic Committee because those are really representatives and partners of the IOC already.  (I believe the NOCs can be "guarantors" but not the parties on the hook for staging the Games, the COJOS.)   The 'settled" name is important not only in terms of marketing considerations, but that will guide all the legal contracts from whence the partnership is founded on.  See previous post on what constitutes a Host City Contract. 

[baron-pierreIV]

11 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

The problem is that Thomas Bach changes the rules so much that I almost wonder if today there are really terms in the contract...

Especially since the IOC has put itself in a delicate situation with these 2030 Olympics by delaying their attribution. Even if everything starts from a contract established between the host and the organizer, there are always negotiations at a given moment, a balance of power between the two (I take for example the question of alcohol in stadiums during the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar).

By putting itself in such a position, the IOC weakens its position, since who can seriously think that the French Alps will not ultimately obtain the Games when we are only 6 years away? In a logic of negotiation such as I imagine it in my head, this leaves more room for maneuver for the host to push more things to their advantage, by saying "anyway if they are not happy they have no choice, they're not going to take the games away from me."

There are "outs", I'd say, for all or most contingencies.  I think the IOC, by now, being familiar with all of the bidders, have a good feel for who they can negotiate with in good faith and those who cannot.  They have consultants and technical experts up the wazoo to further buttress whatever decisions they put out.  

Edited April 14, 2024 by baron-pierreIV

[sebastien1214]

11 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

They will work on that to narrow it down by Signing Day.  There has to be a lead city or a lead organization (and the locally based one is preferred to--rather than the CNOSF or the Italian Olympic Committee because those are really representatives and partners of the IOC already.  (I believe the NOCs can be "guarantors" but not the parties on the hook for staging the Games, the COJOS.)   The 'settled" name is important not only in terms of marketing considerations, but that will guide all the legal contracts from whence the partnership is founded on.  See previous post on what constitutes a Host City Contract. 

For the organization I think it will be like Milan-Cortina 2026. By quickly searching, I see that the organizing committee for these games is called Fondazione Milano Cortina 2026. Their board of directors seems to be made up of 22 members including 10 members from the sporting world, 10 members representing the two regions Lombardy & Veneto, a government representative and the president. And I imagine that all the contracts that the IOC makes are with them.

Now, again, if the organizing committee was called "Viva Italia 2026" (I'm making up a name at random), at first glance I don't see the difficulty that this would pose.

6 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

There are "outs", I'd say, for all or most contingencies.  I think the IOC, by now, being familiar with all of the bidders, have a good feel for who they can negotiate with in good faith and those who cannot.  They have consultants and technical experts up the wazoo.  

There must be exits, but the closer we are to the deadline, the fewer the options. And there, apart from Switzerland or Sweden, I don't see it (SLC 2030 seems impossible to me because the Americans won't want it, for marketing reasons but which directly concerns them).

And I'm a little afraid that the choice of the French Alps for 2030 was made by default. I never had the feeling that we had a very solid bid, unlike Paris 2024. I was really surprised when I learned that it was the French Alps which had been pre-selected for 2030. The file application is only a year old, and it was built by a rather shaky merger of two regional project prototypes. I'm not saying it's going to be a disaster, it's too early to make any bets, but with 6 years left of the games, I'm not really super confident. I think the Swedish & Swiss bids were better, I still think so today.

[baron-pierreIV]

20 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

I'm not saying it's going to be a disaster, it's too early to make any bets, but with 6 years left of the games, I'm not really super confident. I think the Swedish & Swiss bids were better, I still think so today.

I've thought about that, too.  I think the IOC went with the French bid--and I'm just guessing here--because the mountain communities/ski resorts in France (Val d'Isere, Annecy, etc.) have more infrastructure already in place to better cope with what the WOGs are expected to be in size, by 2030?  Also, that at least per the initial plan, the various clusters, link better than their equivalents in the two other bids?  Also, maybe better meteorological forecasts for the French bid?  That's just what I'm guessing.  (I never did like the Sweden-Sigulda plan.  That division by sea in the Winter, is a killer for me.  Why didn't the Swedes partner with Lillehammer for the sliding events instead?) 

Also, on the 6-year timeline on the French bid, obviously, it must have impressed the IOC that the French bid, the last one to come in the door, was put together very convincingly in a short time, that therefore a 6-year leadtime (with a lot of infrastructure save for another arena and a long-track speedskating oval in Nice not even in blueprints) was not a problem.  

Edited April 14, 2024 by baron-pierreIV

[sebastien1214]

10 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I've thought about that, too.  I think the IOC went with the French bid--and I'm just guessing here--because the mountain communities/ski resorts in France (Val d'Isere, Annecy, etc.) have more infrastructure to better cope with what the WOGs are expected to be in size, by 2030?  Also, that at least per the initial plan, the various clusters, link better than their equivalents in the two other bids?  Also, maybe better meteorological forecasts for the French bid?  That's just what I'm guessing.  (I never did like the Sweden-Sigulda plan.  That division by sea in the Winter, is a killer for me.  Why didn't the Swedes partner with Lillehammer for the sliding events instead?) 

I have a little difficulty explaining why the French file beat the Swedish bid. But regarding the Swiss bid, I think that the IOC was very afraid of a referendum in which Switzerland would be forced to withdraw from the organization of the Olympic Games, whereas in France, the referendums, well.... The last referendum organized in France was almost 20 years ago. It's not something common with us.

But for the rest, in terms of climate, I tend to think that Sweden would fare a little better than France. (for Switzerland, well, we are two border countries so...). And in terms of clusters, for the Swedish bid I think there were only two, whereas for the French Alps we started with 3 or 4 clusters. So I really don't understand why the Swedish bid went in the trash.

[FYI]

"So I really don't understand why the Swedish bid went in the trash."

One word (well, two) really: (gov't) guarantees. 

Just like how the IOC was concerned about referendums with Switzerland (yet they got "privileged dialog" for 2038, go figure), they were also afraid of Sweden's lukewarm, at best, political support.

France was much more willing to provide those all-important guarantees very early on than Sweden was. And that's basically what the IOC has always cared about the most. Venue plans are merely just afterthoughts these days with the so-called "new-norm".  

[yoshi]

I'm surprised it's not the opening that'll be in Nice - there's that lovely stadium there they had the Rugby World Cup in. Any chance of Monaco, bobsleigh capital of the Mediterranean, involved in anything?

(The whole 2030 process has been a bit of a mess - I bet the IOC almost wished they could zap LA 2028 so Salt Lake could just get it . I'm intrigued by Nice, I hope it works out but 5 & a half years isn't very long when you're building an Olympics from zero...)

[sebastien1214]

9 minutes ago, yoshi said:

I'm surprised it's not the opening that'll be in Nice - there's that lovely stadium there they had the Rugby World Cup in. Any chance of Monaco, bobsleigh capital of the Mediterranean, involved in anything?

(The whole 2030 process has been a bit of a mess - I bet the IOC almost wished they could zap LA 2028 so Salt Lake could just get it . I'm intrigued by Nice, I hope it works out but 5 & a half years isn't very long when you're building an Olympics from zero...)

It would be funny, just for a joke, if we organized the bobsleigh events in Monaco. But let's not forget that it remains a sovereign country and I don't know if the IOC is yet ready to take the step of organizing the Games in several countries! (well, you would tell me, there is indeed the example of horse riding for 1956.)

Coming back to the choice of the closing for Nice, perhaps it was made with the idea that it would be good to do the opening outside (Paris-style). And if we take this parameter into account, we must recognize that Nice is a little less marketable than the landscapes that we can have for a mountain town.

[FYI]

14 minutes ago, yoshi said:

I'm intrigued by Nice, I hope it works out but 5 & a half years isn't very long when you're building an Olympics from zero...)

Yeah, cause even 11 years out is proving to be quite the task in other cases! 

[sebastien1214]

2 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, cause even 11 years out is proving to be quite the task in other cases! 

Knowing that SLC had the organization for 2034 last year, that is... 11 years before 2034, in their place I would cross my fingers very hard and pray that nothing bad happens!

(just kidding)

[FYI]

^^ "Kidding" or not, the big difference, SLC isn't starting from scratch (especially with them being a previous host). The IOC even told them last week in their meetings there to "slow down with their preps. No need to rush with this".

Besides, my remark wasn't really against Nice, as oppose to another 'awarding', which if we're really going to count now the time before things were made "official" by the IOC, then the host I'm talking about really had 16 years to get things started (& hasn't made much progress since). Now I'm gonna feel so bad when baron keeps ripping Paris & Tony E. a new one every other day on here! 

[yoshi]

As someone who doesn't follow F1 as a sport but does like playing the games, if you can seriously put a bobsleigh track on the Monaco Grand Prix circuit, tunnel and all, it would genuinely be one of the greatest things to ever happen at the Winter Olympics 

[sebastien1214]

7 minutes ago, FYI said:

^^ "Kidding" or not, the big difference, SLC isn't starting from scratch (especially with them being a previous host). The IOC even told them last week in their meetings there to "slow down with their preps. No need to rush with this".

Besides, my remark wasn't really against Nice, as oppose to another 'awarding', which if we're really going to count now the time before things were made "official" by the IOC, then the host I'm talking about really had 16 years to get things started (& hasn't made much progress since). Now I'm gonna feel so bad when baron keeps ripping Paris & Tony E. a new one every other day on here! 

But I agree with you on SLC. I have not the slightest doubt that it will be a success; they have all the infrastructure but even without that, I can't imagine for a moment the Americans not being able to organize an event very well. Afterwards for the French Alps 2030, we are not starting from scratch either, there is still a lot of infrastructure, but not everything. For example, nothing for speed skating, but in particular because this sport is even less popular than curling in France so... let's say that my main fear is that we will build white elephants.