Asian Games 2018 !

[enoch]

Manila-Hiroshima 2020? Correct me if I'm wrong, but bi-national bids are not accepted by the IOC. Besides, Manila and Hiroshima are too far from each other in order for a co-hosted SOG to be feasible. There are lots of other factors to consider when bidding for a big international sporting event. It's not just about having tons of money (which the Philippine government is sooooo friggin' good at handling).

Oh? Where did you get this info? If so, then the JOC is already conceding Tokyo's loss in 2016? So by all means, I support Manila-Hiroshima 2020!!!

You could visit pinoyswimming.com (the Did you know? section) for the reference. I agree that, currently, the IOC only accepts one city bid. However, the one city rule is a farce since not all Olympic cities host it within their boundaries (like in Beijing 2008, the equestrian events would be slated in Hong Kong and like in Vancouver 2010, some events would be held in Whistler, B.C.). There will be an Olympic Congress in 2009 and I think it would be discussed there (for possible amendments to the Olympic Charter). For your information, Manila-Hiroshima is not the only bi-cities hoping to place a bid: Vancouver-Seattle plans to submit for the 2028 Olympics; Stara-Platina (Bulgaria and Serbia) plans to for the 2018 Winter Games. However, as there is a current restriction in the Olympic Charter, this is all but wishful thinking for now.

I agree, Hiroshima and Manila are too far from each other (not to mention that you need a plane to travel between the two cities), and I believe that would be the biggest stumbling block for that bid. I am pretty sure that if ever they would submit such a bid, it would be accompanied with a good concept.

The Philippine government should just focus on fixing the country's problems instead of investing a lot of money in dire efforts to impress the international community. How much is the application fee to bid for the SOG again? I'd rather spend that money on the national public school and health care systems. Do you know that the Philippine government guarantees only PHP 0.25 centavos to each citizen? That's not even enough to buy a pill to remedy a headache.

On the contrary, I think the IOC disagrees with you. While hosting the Olympics entails costs, it actually proven from statistical records that Olympic spending contributes to the economic development of the country (like generating jobs for the infrastructure development, etc.). I believe they are invoking this premise when they decided to include "universality and the developing countries in the cause of the Olympic Games" for discussion in the 13th Olympic Congress (although I may be mistaken on this). And don't worry too much on the finance side: the reason why Manila is teaming up with Hiroshima is for the fact it actually admits that it could not place an Olympic bid on its own. At least financially, it could not guarantee a successful hosting.

The Philippines is setting a goal in which it could be considered as "economically developed" in the future: unless of course, you want the Philippines to be a "third-world" country in perpetuity and that would be a shame. The current integration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) is seen as a prelude to a more larger grouping in East Asia which would include China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. Come 2020, it is likely that this agreement would be penned. This means that a lot of economic developments would be made until then (well, at least hopefully).

The fact that the Olympics' stature is becoming less and less intense in recent years is that they don't give developing countries a role in the Olympic Movement. Why, in its more than a hundred years existence, the Olympics is never held in an African city? Your guess is as good as mine.

How can the Phil be the record-holder for statistics held in the same venue? Why, were other countries the sponsors for other masses held or celebrated by whichever Pope in the same venue? (BTW, u can't really compare Mass attendance stats w/ sports-venue stats. No one here compares visitor stats to Lourdes or Medjogore to, say, stats of visitors who went to paid events (where they DO keep track of the exact number of persons who paid admission) in Athens 2004 or Sydney 2000.

Of course you can't compare mass attendance vis-a-vis "sports venue stats" (sic). What I'm trying to explicate here is in the support side: If there would be a good marketing program for the Games, Filipinos are very much likely and eager to support it following the precedence cited. That is the only and main point.

As for the 2020 Olympics, that is a pipe dream w/ or w/o Hiroshima. You have to have some dominance in sports ON the int'l level to be taken seriously in hosting an Olympics or some sort of world championship. Unfortuantely, other than billiards, sipa and arnis (which are NOT Olympic sports), I don't see the Philippines being a serious medal contender for ANY of the traditional summer Olympic sports.

Look at Singapore 2010 YOG bid: they didn't have an excellent sporting record as far as the Olympics is concerned, but they managed to short-list nonetheless. The reason? They have a very good concept and they tapped the core Olympic values very well.

Some people who still argues that it would take a lot of cash and sporting experience before a country could host an Olympic is purely a "first world thinker". The IOC's main concern why it ensures that a country must be able to guarantee the costs of the hosting chore is only to avoid last minute cancellations (like the case of Denver when it backed out from the responsibility of hosting the 1976 Winter Olympics). The reason why the IOC wants a hosting experience is for it to be provided basis on how well could a city manage a big sporting spectacle like the Olympics. The Olympic Movement is not exclusive to first world countries.

With regards to the sports the Philippines is engaged in, you forgot all about Boxing and Taekwondo. And who knows? Billiards might be slated in the Olympic Programme in the distant forseeable future.

But of course, never mind me. The bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics is yet to commence in 2009 (so we could both hope that the POC and JOC would wake up from this blunt reality), and it could be that Cape Town would be a favorite candidate by then, which I am also raring to support.

[enoch]

I'm sorry it's not 2009, it's 2011. My mistake.

[baron-pierreIV]

1. You could visit pinoyswimming.com (the Did you know? section) for the reference. I agree that, currently, the IOC only accepts one city bid. However, the one city rule is a farce since not all Olympic cities host it within their boundaries (like in Beijing 2008, the equestrian events would be slated in Hong Kong and like in Vancouver 2010, some events would be held in Whistler, B.C.). There will be an Olympic Congress in 2009 and I think it would be discussed there (for possible amendments to the Olympic Charter). For your information, Manila-Hiroshima is not the only bi-cities hoping to place a bid: Vancouver-Seattle plans to submit for the 2028 Olympics; Stara-Platina (Bulgaria and Serbia) plans to for the 2018 Winter Games. However, as there is a current restriction in the Olympic Charter, this is all but wishful thinking for now.

I agree, Hiroshima and Manila are too far from each other (not to mention that you need a plane to travel between the two cities), and I believe that would be the biggest stumbling block for that bid. I am pretty sure that if ever they would submit such a bid, it would be accompanied with a good concept.

On the contrary, I think the IOC disagrees with you. While hosting the Olympics entails costs, it actually proven from statistical records that Olympic spending contributes to the economic development of the country (like generating jobs for the infrastructure development, etc.). I believe they are invoking this premise when they decided to include "universality and the developing countries in the cause of the Olympic Games" for discussion in the 13th Olympic Congress (although I may be mistaken on this). And don't worry too much on the finance side: the reason why Manila is teaming up with Hiroshima is for the fact it actually admits that it could not place an Olympic bid on its own. At least financially, it could not guarantee a successful hosting.

2. Some people who still argues that it would take a lot of cash and sporting experience before a country could host an Olympic is purely a "first world thinker". The IOC's main concern why it ensures that a country must be able to guarantee the costs of the hosting chore is only to avoid last minute cancellations (like the case of Denver when it backed out from the responsibility of hosting the 1976 Winter Olympics). The reason why the IOC wants a hosting experience is for it to be provided basis on how well could a city manage a big sporting spectacle like the Olympics. The Olympic Movement is not exclusive to first world countries.

1. You mistake bi-national bids with an intra-national bid. Big difference. The Olympics, because of yachting or the football prelims are distributed to other cities WITHIN the one host country (so you have Vancouver-Whistler; yes, Beijing-HKG, but include SHanghai and I forget the 2 other cities; Los Angeles had Long Beach as its other major component for its 2016 portfolio, etc., etc. But these are all WITHIN the same national borders.

Whoever posted that on pinoyswimming.com is woefully misinformed. The bi- or even tri-national bids have all failed. To name a few that quickly come to mind:

*There was a 3 nation winter bid (Italy-Austria- and I think Croatia)-- that got nowhere.

* Some not very knowledgeable quarters in San Diego were trying to promote a San Diego-Tijuana summer bid. I believe both the USOC and the Mexican Olympic Committee told them to get real.

*Salzburg, which submitted its 2014 bid using the bobsled run on the German side of the border (not that seemed to present a problem technically since cultrurally, the 2 countires are similar; they both belong to the Euro community, so border controls would not be a problem; and the distance was not unreasonable), didn't make it past the first round.

The 2 largest sposrting orgs of the world, the IOC and FIFA, have publicly said they are NOT crazy about bi- or multi-national bids. The biggest problem is the visa problem plus turf problems w/ 2 org committees AND the IOC would have to deal with at least 2 org committees and not just ONE. Korea-Japan 2002 will be the last of the INT'L bi-national hostings we shall see in a long time.

Forget Manila-Hiroshima 2020; it won't fly. I doubt that Manila would even make the short list for 2020 with the likes of Capetown, Delhi, Prague, Rio, Rome, maybe Madrid and Istanbul, crowding the 2020 derby.

2. 'First world mentality'? Remember that the Olympics are a billion-dollar party for countries that CAN afford them. And even giving 2004 to Athens for purely sentimental reasons, the empty stadia the first 10 days of the Games, only buttressed the IOC's qualms that their Games, their one and only commodity, are less successful in smaller countries with NO great sporting traditions -- or at least world-class champions who are the drawing cards for both the live, local audiences and hordes of foreign visitors AND the networks who shell out gazillions in order to highlight these international stars.

With an exception or 2. you would have to be in the top 12 sporting countries (in terms of past Olympic medals) in order to have any credibility at landing an Olympics Games, summer or winter.

[baron-pierreIV]

and the Mediterranean Games?

Nuto, I believe Faster only picked the Games that attract at least 35* countries, have countries that span many, many time zones, are truly multi-continental (the CWGs, the Francophony games) (altho my question is, why does Russia not compete in the Asians since it calles itslef both a European and Pacific country? Is Oz a full-fledged member now of the Asian Games?) -- and are used as a stepping stone by star athletes who would shine in the succeeding Olympic Games. The Meds are just a sub-regional Games, involving countries that border that sea -- so it's really localized as opposed to truly continental.

----------------------------

* the IOC's 'magic' number for its sport-inclusion criteria...

[Sir Rols]

To name a few that quickly come to mind:

Not to mention the abortive Helsinki-Lillehammer winter bid.

[blueview]

Hahahaha, another Asian games for Thailand ? I don't think so, please give another country that games, Thailand have been the host of Asian games for 3rd times and I think that's enough

please, enough of thailand. they have like hosted it for a lot of times already.

no, i'm not sulking about the whole proceedings in korat. i have moved on.

but please, i think they are pushing their country too far in terms of hosting sports events, soon there will come a time that BKK would be met with comments of "been there, done that". that will not be good since i know that they still have their sights set on the SOG.

moving on...

i'm kinda touched by the comments of support for manila, but i think we still have to do more work in the city before we could seriously push for the bidding.

should we decide on continuing the bid, the city needs to build the long-overdue transport infrastructure it has laid down as early as the times of the Marcoses. by erecting these train lines, traffic (which has gradually decreased over the years) would be solved.

i would highly support a joint venture of the private and public sector in organizing the event. the government has little taste in matters of creativity and organization.

there were proposals for a new sports complex before but my best bet is that it would be built somewhere at the reclamation by the bay. when bong and i proposed for a fantasy manila expo bid, that area would be suitable for such a complex.

a friend of mine just finished his undergraduate thesis for a sports complex in that area. you may view that in this link:

SENTRONG PAMPALAKASAN NG PILIPINAS

some thoughts about the whole SEAG05 attendance thingy:

the 200,000 people who attended were the not the number of people who lined the "parade route". there was no literal parade of athletes in 2005 compared to the full round around the stadium track. basically the athletes marched onto the front of the stage in the grandstand and that was about it.

i was among those 200,000 people who were there during the opening and it was like the biggest "cuddle party" ever. an excellent argument for a new stadium in the city. we were at the open field in front of the grandstand where all activities are located.

PS

hi enoch and olympics08, didn't know there were new Filipino GB peeps here! welcome!

[cfm Jeremie]

*Salzburg, which submitted its 2014 bid using the bobsled run on the German side of the border (not that seemed to present a problem technically since cultrurally, the 2 countires are similar; they both belong to the Euro community, so border controls would not be a problem; and the distance was not unreasonable), didn't make it past the first round.

I really don't think that was the problem for Salzburg (as you said, the two countries are both part of the Schengen zone so border control is not an issue, the track was some 20 minutes from Salzburg so it fitted perfectly in the plan). The issue was not even mentioned in the Evaluation Commission report nor a single question was raised about it.

The problem is that Salzburg was very tough to market in front of both Sochi and PyeongChang who were screaming "legacy, legacy" while Salzburg had a lot of its venues in place. Furthermore, Austria carries very little weight in front of Korea and Russia...

I really think that Salzburg 2014 is a lost opportunity to go back to smaller Games a la Lillehammer.

[baron-pierreIV]

I really don't think that was the problem for Salzburg (as you said, the two countries are both part of the Schengen zone so border control is not an issue, the track was some 20 minutes from Salzburg so it fitted perfectly in the plan). The issue was not even mentioned in the Evaluation Commission report nor a single question was raised about it.

The problem is that Salzburg was very tough to market in front of both Sochi and PyeongChang who were screaming "legacy, legacy" while Salzburg had a lot of its venues in place. Furthermore, Austria carries very little weight in front of Korea and Russia...

I really think that Salzburg 2014 is a lost opportunity to go back to smaller Games a la Lillehammer.

I was just using it to illustrate my point about bi-national bids -- and here was one where it was barely even a footnote; yet the bid still lost. That's all.

[enoch]

I really don't think that was the problem for Salzburg (as you said, the two countries are both part of the Schengen zone so border control is not an issue, the track was some 20 minutes from Salzburg so it fitted perfectly in the plan). The issue was not even mentioned in the Evaluation Commission report nor a single question was raised about it.

The problem is that Salzburg was very tough to market in front of both Sochi and PyeongChang who were screaming "legacy, legacy" while Salzburg had a lot of its venues in place. Furthermore, Austria carries very little weight in front of Korea and Russia...

I really think that Salzburg 2014 is a lost opportunity to go back to smaller Games a la Lillehammer.

I was just using it to illustrate my point about bi-national bids -- and here was one where it was barely even a footnote; yet the bid still lost. That's all.

I think the IOC is pretty much concern on how the bids are going now, as they organized yet another Olympic Congress to tackle these issues. I mean, how could you achieve "universality" and how would you involve "developing countries" in the cause of the Olympic Movement if the IOC would not allow intra-national (or whatever the term may be) to be submitted in order to rotate the games to the five continents of the world. I mean, there has to be a solution to this overly "commercialized" hosting bids so that poorer countries of the world would get a share of the task and would feel closely affliated with the Olympics and all the values that it shares. The intra-national bids that failed previously is due to the fact that the IOC does not yet adapted a suitable set of guidelines to accomodate these bids. I am tired seeing the Summer Olympics happen in North America and Europe, much so in the case of Winter Olympics where it was always slated in Northern Hemisphere (not to mention that there is a limited choice for the hosting city as it could only be slated in a city that has temperate climate; which, then again, necessarily translates to Europe and North America all over again). I mean alright, the Olympics entails a lot of real investments in infrastructure and equipments so as not to inconvenience the athletes. Fine. Africa is long overdue to host an Olympics (otherwise we might as well cut that Olympic rings into four). The Olympics is not only about sports, remember. It is also cultural, and the exchange of culture so far has involved four continents. Everyone is praying that the Olympic Congress would hopefully turn to developing countries in the future to enlist their participation in the cause of the Movement. Anyways, they are always saying that they place on a pedestal the Olympic values, and I do hope that they will put their acts where their mouth is. Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone! Nice to be here.

[baron-pierreIV]

I think the IOC is pretty much concern on how the bids are going now, as they organized yet another Olympic Congress to tackle these issues. I mean, how could you achieve "universality" and how would you involve "developing countries" in the cause of the Olympic Movement if the IOC would not allow intra-national (or whatever the term may be) to be submitted in order to rotate the games to the five continents of the world. I mean, there has to be a solution to this overly "commercialized" hosting bids so that poorer countries of the world would get a share of the task and would feel closely affliated with the Olympics and all the values that it shares. The intra-national bids that failed previously is due to the fact that the IOC does not yet adapted a suitable set of guidelines to accomodate these bids. I am tired seeing the Summer Olympics happen in North America and Europe, much so in the case of Winter Olympics where it was always slated in Northern Hemisphere (not to mention that there is a limited choice for the hosting city as it could only be slated in a city that has temperate climate; which, then again, necessarily translates to Europe and North America all over again). I mean alright, the Olympics entails a lot of real investments in infrastructure and equipments so as not to inconvenience the athletes. Fine. Africa is long overdue to host an Olympics (otherwise we might as well cut that Olympic rings into four). The Olympics is not only about sports, remember. It is also cultural, and the exchange of culture so far has involved four continents. Everyone is praying that the Olympic Congress would hopefully turn to developing countries in the future to enlist their participation in the cause of the Movement. Anyways, they are always saying that they place on a pedestal the Olympic values, and I do hope that they will put their acts where their mouth is. Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone! Nice to be here.

Enoch,

In time, the (Summer) Olympics will get hosted by all 6 continents. It's just a matter of time before Africa and So. America will be ready.

Look, the 3rd modern Summer Olympics (St. Louis -1904) were the first ones outside of Europe but it became a victim of internal politics within the US -- was shunted from its original Chicago assignment to St. Louis -- so the staging of those were considered less than ideal by great-great-grandfather. After that, the SOGs stayed in Europe until 1932 when they returned to Los Angeles. And then, of course, the first Asian SOGs were to Tokyo in 1964 (yeah, yeah, I know about the original dates of 1940 and 1944...blah-blah-blah); then again to Seoul in 1988 and now to Beijing in 2008. As the continents and prospective host countries PROSPER (that's the key word), then the IOC can RESPONSIBLY award the Games to the countries that will not mortgage their children's futures just so they can stage a sports extravaganza. The IOC isn't being selfish about spreading the Games about. It is trying to do it responsibly -- both in their own interests and those of the prospective hosts.

The WOGs are something else entirely. Because half the roster of the Winter sports are played on ice and snow, so necessarily, they would have to go to traditional winter sports nations -- of which there are but a few to satisfy the technical requirements. (Look deeper into the Winter Bid folders to learn more about this.) Mrs. Megalomaniac Imelda Marcos' idea of bringing the Winter Games to Baguio (having imported all that white sand for beaches that didn't have them) may have seemed quaint and 'cute,' but was TOTALLY, TOTALLY... uhmmm... shall we say, spacey?

Good to have new folks here interested in this whole arcane business of bidding and awarding Olympic honors -- and I hope you find discovering new facts about the process equally enjoyable.

[munchen2018]

*There was a 3 nation winter bid (Italy-Austria- and I think Croatia)-- that got nowhere.

Baron, the 3 nation bid was Italy-Austria-Slovenia. Link to logo below.

http://www.aldaver.com/Images/Owb/06/lg2006b6.jpg

[cfm Jeremie]

Baron, the 3 nation bid was Italy-Austria-Slovenia. Link to logo below.

http://www.aldaver.com/Images/Owb/06/lg2006b6.jpg

Klagenfurt 2006 was actually the second 3-nation bid.

The 3-nation bid was presented by Tarvisio, Italy for 2002 (but the plan was quite similar to the one presented for 2006).

[enoch]

As the continents and prospective host countries PROSPER (that's the key word), then the IOC can RESPONSIBLY award the Games to the countries that will not mortgage their children's futures just so they can stage a sports extravaganza. The IOC isn't being selfish about spreading the Games about. It is trying to do it responsibly -- both in their own interests and those of the prospective hosts.

As I've stated before, the only thing that hinders the hosting aspirations of developing countries is the finance side: they don't have enough means to fund the extravaganza. So what do we do with it? We have to allow poorer cities "team up" with affluent cities in order for them to work their way to the hearts of the IOC members, and place a responsible bid that would not compromise their own internal problems (and I don't think the Philippine Congress will allow the government to bid in the Olympics if we could not afford it). They have a lot to share to the Olympic Movement, and if economics is a problem, then far richer countries should be willing to accomodate. Good thing, the present IOC President has convened the 13th Olympic Congress in order to shed light to this "bidding wars". I have to admit, I'm a little "disturbed" on how the present system works, and if the IOC will not do anything about it, it is not surprising that the OLympics would soon lose its anchor of prestege--especially in the developing world.

Thanks Baron for accomodating my whining. It's been a pleasure.

[Lord David]

As I've stated before, the only thing that hinders the hosting aspirations of developing countries is the finance side: they don't have enough means to fund the extravaganza. So what do we do with it? We have to allow poorer cities "team up" with affluent cities in order for them to work their way to the hearts of the IOC members, and place a responsible bid that would not compromise their own internal problems (and I don't think the Philippine Congress will allow the government to bid in the Olympics if we could not afford it). They have a lot to share to the Olympic Movement, and if economics is a problem, then far richer countries should be willing to accomodate. Good thing, the present IOC President has convened the 13th Olympic Congress in order to shed light to this "bidding wars". I have to admit, I'm a little "disturbed" on how the present system works, and if the IOC will not do anything about it, it is not surprising that the OLympics would soon lose its anchor of prestege--especially in the developing world.

Thanks Baron for accomodating my whining. It's been a pleasure.

Manila should be able to gather the funds for an Olympic bid. Heck, with all the money being spent on large Shopping Malls, why not?

But in order to even be seriously considered for the Olympics (i.e make the candidature list), it would have to drop Hiroshima from it's plans, it's just too far away, take away a good chunk of the limelight and I doubt the IOC would even allow it anyways.

If considerate funds are allocated towards an Olympic budget, there should be an Olympic park built by the coast of Manila Bay (Perhaps on reclaimed land near the Mall of Asia?)

This Olympic park should include:

- Olympic Stadium - 70,000 at minimum outright (Possible room for expansion, nothing too fancy like retractable seating or expensive looking design) Just make it look nice whilst being functional of course. Even without an Olympics, a stadium of this size is a must (Even a 60,000 would do).

- Aquatic Center - 10,000 seater main pool, 5,000 diving pool and training pools (Can be used as a major public pool complex after the games, whilst still being available for events).

- Velodrome - 3,000 to 5,000 seater

A main arena would not be necessary, as there is a new arena being built nearby.

Well that's my thoughts, most of the auxiliary venues are in place, all that is needed is a proper main Olympic park and stadium.

[baron-pierreIV]

1. Manila should be able to gather the funds for an Olympic bid. Heck, with all the money being spent on large Shopping Malls, why not?

2. all that is needed is a proper main Olympic park and stadium.

Just very quickly and not belabor the subject any more...

1. Well, the large Shopping malls are businesses enterprises that hope to get their investment back sometime. How does a stadium (for a predominantly basketball and beauty-pageant-loving country) do that?

2. uhmmm... you will need an Olympic Village, an IBC AND tons of practice courts and warm-up venues...

[cfm Jeremie]

Good thing, the present IOC President has convened the 13th Olympic Congress in order to shed light to this "bidding wars".

Hmm I don't think the 2009 Olympic Congress will specifically address the "bidding wars".

The 5 themes for the Congress are:

Theme 1: The athletes

- Relationship between the athletes, the clubs, federations and the NOCs

- Health protection in training and competition

- The social and professional life of athletes during and after elite competition

Theme 2: The Olympic Games

- How to keep the Games as a premier event?

- The Olympic values

- Universality and developing countries (this may be where the topic could be addressed)

Theme 3: The structure of the Olympic Movement

- The autonomy of the Olympic Movement

- Good governance and ethics

- The relationships between the Olympic Movement and its stakeholders

Theme 4: Olympism and Youth

- Moving towards an active society

- Is competitive sport still appealing?

- Youth sports events

Theme 5: The digital revolution

- A new management of sports rights

- How to increase the size of the sports audience?

- Communication with stakeholders in the digital age

[baron-pierreIV]

Theme 4: Olympism and Youth

- Moving towards an active society

- Is competitive sport still appealing?

- Youth sports events

That is where I will deliver my doctorate on "Youth and Anti-Olympism." The session will open with a seance in which we will invoke the spirit of great-granpappy, the old Baron PC. Mme. G. Daskalakis has graciously agreed to be the seance co-host. However, we are still in negotiation for which production house will provide the details for the seance: Gianna has unused credits from Jack Morton, and I want David Atkins. It will hopefully be settled before then. Stay tuned.

[enoch]

- Universality and developing countries (this may be where the topic could be addressed)

Exactly, Jeremy. The IOC knows that the Olympics is abruptly losing its stature that it once held over the years, since a lot of developing countries feel that they are isolated from the Olympic Movement. In addition, the fact that holding an Olympics entail a lot of cash, they feel that the Olympics is just for the rich... ask an average man in the street and they will reply to you in the same way. My Vietnamese friend once said to me that they [the Vietnamese] look forward to the SEA Games rather than the Olympics because they feel isolated from the Olympics. In the SEA Games, every nation could host it, as long as they declare themselves ready. If they could not host it for any particular reasons, other member countries of the SEA Games Federation would be willing to help (like what Malaysia did to Brunei Darussalam in 1999). The fact that the IOC President convened this Congress in light of such a general theme is a clear testament to this effect.

[enoch]

Manila should be able to gather the funds for an Olympic bid. Heck, with all the money being spent on large Shopping Malls, why not?

But in order to even be seriously considered for the Olympics (i.e make the candidature list), it would have to drop Hiroshima from it's plans, it's just too far away, take away a good chunk of the limelight and I doubt the IOC would even allow it anyways.

If considerate funds are allocated towards an Olympic budget, there should be an Olympic park built by the coast of Manila Bay (Perhaps on reclaimed land near the Mall of Asia?)

This Olympic park should include:

- Olympic Stadium - 70,000 at minimum outright (Possible room for expansion, nothing too fancy like retractable seating or expensive looking design) Just make it look nice whilst being functional of course. Even without an Olympics, a stadium of this size is a must (Even a 60,000 would do).

- Aquatic Center - 10,000 seater main pool, 5,000 diving pool and training pools (Can be used as a major public pool complex after the games, whilst still being available for events).

- Velodrome - 3,000 to 5,000 seater

A main arena would not be necessary, as there is a new arena being built nearby.

Well that's my thoughts, most of the auxiliary venues are in place, all that is needed is a proper main Olympic park and stadium.

The Olympic Stadium and Village is, yes, planned to be built in the Pasay Reclamation Area beside the Bay and the sprawling Mall of Asia complex. I think it's a tourism thing that they have in mind, plus, its the best side of town. That area is seen as a main tourism hub, as there is also a Science discovery center (plus the fact that the Manila Ocean Park is just a few kilometers away), a Convention Center, and other infrastructure soon to be built. Athletes and spectators would have something to do after the competitions. I do not know exactly the reason why they decided to team up with Hiroshima (maybe because Japan, who is the second largest development partner of the Philippines next only to the United States, has offered considerable amount of aid to upgrade existing facilities which would save the government a lot of money for other projects), and that, in view of the Olympic Congress, they are anticipating a future amendment to the Olympic Charter regarding this matter. But I think the main focus now of the POC is to secure first the 2018 Asian Games, and from there, they might work their way up to the Olympics. The main frustration of the Philippines (in the Olympic level) is actually to include billiards in the Sports Program, so that we would have our bread and butter sport in the Olympics and not to depend heavily on boxing that, well, sometimes, if not most of the time, Pinoy boxers would get a share of biased officiating (like ewhat happened to Monsueto Velasco in Atlanta 1996).

All of the thoughts submitted above are precisely correct, except for the fact that transportation links between the venues must also be addressed (you know, traffic in Manila could be a little, well, should we say, challenging). But there are plans already to build railroad systems within the city to ease transportation, plus additional coaches would be bought for the existing MRT and LRT lines (which is the most successful mass transport system in the world in terms of ridership) to beef up its facilities.

[enoch]

Mrs. Megalomaniac Imelda Marcos' idea of bringing the Winter Games to Baguio (having imported all that white sand for beaches that didn't have them) may have seemed quaint and 'cute,' but was TOTALLY, TOTALLY... uhmmm... shall we say, spacey?

Did she really proposed this? Totally maniac! How could you host a Winter Games without snow? The woman, it is proven, loves to fantasize.

[enoch]

Nuto, I believe Faster only picked the Games that attract at least 35* countries, have countries that span many, many time zones, are truly multi-continental (the CWGs, the Francophony games) (altho my question is, why does Russia not compete in the Asians since it calles itslef both a European and Pacific country? Is Oz a full-fledged member now of the Asian Games?) -- and are used as a stepping stone by star athletes who would shine in the succeeding Olympic Games. The Meds are just a sub-regional Games, involving countries that border that sea -- so it's really localized as opposed to truly continental.

I don't know why Russia does not compete in the Asiad considering that Siberia is part of the Asian territory (maybe it wants to attach itself more to wealthy Europe). Australia I think is not yet in the Asian Games (and if they do join the OCA, then China et al., would have competitive rivals coming in), although Aus wants to be included in the future "Association of East Asian Nations" (this is not the official name, although I think that's what they would call that East Asia grouping). Well, Australia is not actually "Asia" but its proximate to the continent: just under the Asean if you would look for a map now. But I think Oz could join the Asiad-- Guam, which is a US Territory in Oceania, is part of the East Asian Games.

[baron-pierreIV]

I don't know why Russia does not compete in the Asiad considering that Siberia is part of the Asian territory (maybe it wants to attach itself more to wealthy Europe). Australia I think is not yet in the Asian Games (and if they do join the OCA, then China et al., would have competitive rivals coming in), although Aus wants to be included in the future "Association of East Asian Nations" (this is not the official name, although I think that's what they would call that East Asia grouping). Well, Australia is not actually "Asia" but its proximate to the continent: just under the Asean if you would look for a map now. But I think Oz could join the Asiad-- Guam, which is a US Territory in Oceania, is part of the East Asian Games.

(As I've noted in another post of mine -- on the Doha folder) Australia is already included in the Asian bracket in soccer and volleyball, so will it be just a matter of time before it fully gets enveloped in the entire Asian docket?

[Sir Rols]

(As I've noted in another post of mine -- on the Doha folder) Australia is already included in the Asian bracket in soccer and volleyball, so will it be just a matter of time before it fully gets enveloped in the entire Asian docket?

Good question. I like the idea and it would certainly help raise the levels of comp in some of the big Asian events. On the other hand, Australians tend to be a bit ambivalent about our northern neighbours.

I think the thing is, the Commonwealth Games serves our purposes well these days in lieu of a continental games.

Personally, I;d like the see the Pan-Pacific idea expanded more. In swimming, the Pan-Pacs are already the second event after the world champs. Maybe a Pan-Pac Games would challenge the Asian Games as a real prestige meet.

[wingspread]

While I am against Manila submitting a bid for an SOG, I still toy around with the idea of creating a compelling speculative SOG bid plan for Manila for fun. Perhaps the five or so Filipinos here can team up for the next fantasy SOG bid war here on GamesBids. Team Manila!

Anyway, let's assume that the Philippines cleans up itself in the future and becomes a potential SOG host (I'm dropping Hiroshima and the whole bi-national bid thing; I think Manila could and should do it on its own). One weak point that needs to be addressed is legacy. Here's a table of venues and capacities that the IOC requires. I can't remember where I got this or if these are the latest figures, but it's still a good basis:

A bid has to have a right mix of existing, temporary, upgraded, and new permanent venues. Let's keep in mind that the Philippines does not have a strong and extensive sporting culture. I think the only sure shots at post-Games legacy are the badminton, basketball, boxing, and indoor volleyball venues. I still don't see a strong reason why Manila needs a 60,000 plus-seater athletics stadium, permanent or temporary. With barely any national interest in athletics and football, this one could end up just being a concert and worship venue. A high-capacity aquatics stadium doesn't even seem viable in the long run.

And yeah, welcome Enoch.

[blueview]

^^^^

Even if a stadium in Manila would end up being used as venue for non-sporting events, the point remains that there is a use for such a facility which I think counts a lot in terms of legacy.

Practice venues would not be found wanting, I actually think that we have more tha enough practice facilities for all the sports involved.

By creating a village then turn it over for public housing, it already solves a problem for the city.