website statistics
Jump to content

Summer Olympic Games 2032 Bid Process


Recommended Posts

The Indonesian NOC posted on Instagram to explain that 'targeted dialogue' means it is not over yet, I commented on the lack of openly accessible information and gave what information that Brisbane had shared to public. They later deleted the post for some reason...



 

Edit: They reposted it, let's hope it's not because of my negative comment :lol:

Link to comment
https://totallympics.com/forums/topic/1978-summer-olympic-games-2032-bid-process/page/17/#findComment-352748
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griff88 said:

The Indonesian NOC posted on Instagram to explain that 'targeted dialogue' means it is not over yet, I commented on the lack of openly accessible information and gave what information that Brisbane had shared to public. They later deleted the post for some reason...



 

Edit: They reposted it, let's hope it's not because of my negative comment :lol:

Well I don't see information that Brisbane shared to public either, it just suddenly became the recommendation city. I understand that it's a developed city with relatively good facilities and friendly atmosphere for athletes. But I don't see the discussion about the budget and how to raise it. It may be a "debt trap" for Australia like Belt and Road initiative.

Link to comment
https://totallympics.com/forums/topic/1978-summer-olympic-games-2032-bid-process/page/17/#findComment-352764
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Vic Liu said:

Well I don't see information that Brisbane shared to public either, it just suddenly became the recommendation city. I understand that it's a developed city with relatively good facilities and friendly atmosphere for athletes. But I don't see the discussion about the budget and how to raise it. It may be a "debt trap" for Australia like Belt and Road initiative.

I saw something like this, which probably is not that convincing - but it is better than just saying “we’re bidding” without having any concrete thing accessible to public while being optimistic af

Link to comment
https://totallympics.com/forums/topic/1978-summer-olympic-games-2032-bid-process/page/17/#findComment-352773
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
12 minutes ago, rybak said:

I really doubt that we will have another Games in Korea in near future :d 

This is kind of "politically correct World Peace" 1976 Gold Medalist, Men's fencing, Thomas Bach would love to promote in his quest for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Now Brisbane 2032 board members must at least farted twhen they heard this.

Link to comment
https://totallympics.com/forums/topic/1978-summer-olympic-games-2032-bid-process/page/17/#findComment-360637
Share on other sites

The modern Olympic movement has undergone the biggest changes in Host City/Region selection in it’s history.

 

Its called Agenda 2020 (2014), New Norm (2018) and Agenda 2020+5 (2021).

 

Very big changes to the selection process and announced to the world.

 

No secret here.

 

Although yes I’m Australian, I am very glad that Brisbane/SEQ 2032 grasped these changes very quickly after they were announced and has been very busy ever since literally sprinting to the finish line, which I’m glad they have almost reached with the 138th IOC Session in Tokyo expected to vote on the 2032 host.

 

Yes, it’s all changed.  No more rigid 7 year bidding period, so many more changes.

Link to comment
https://totallympics.com/forums/topic/1978-summer-olympic-games-2032-bid-process/page/17/#findComment-361430
Share on other sites

Here is a good run-through of these IOC changes to the selection process: :)

 

 

NEW APPROACH TO FUTURE HOST ELECTIONS

THE REVOLUTIONARY NEW APPROACH TO ELECTING HOSTS FOR OLYMPIC GAMES AND YOUTH OLYMPIC GAMES RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS FOR POTENTIAL HOSTS, AS WELL AS MORE SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS AND MASTERPLANS. 

THE REFORMS ENSURE THE IOC REMAINS IN STEP WITH A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD TO DELIVER GAMES THAT ARE BETTER ALIGNED WITH FUTURE HOSTS’ LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHILE MAINTAINING THE INHERENT MAGIC OF THE GAMES AND PROVIDING THE BEST POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE FOR ATHLETES.

Credit: International Olympic Committee

 

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has made significant improvements to its approach to future hosts since the election of Thomas Bach as IOC President in 2013.

 

The reforms began in earnest in 2014 with the unanimous approval by the full membership of the IOC,* collectively known as the IOC Session, of Olympic Agenda 2020, a strategic roadmap for the future of the Olympic Movement that, with a focus on increasing sustainability and legacies, led to a major review of all aspects of organising the Olympic Games and Youth Olympic Games.

 

One of the key areas addressed by Olympic Agenda 2020 was the candidature procedure, with a new philosophy introduced that invited potential hosts to present  projects that best fit their sporting, economic, social and environmental-planning needs rather than trying to fit the local context to the Games.

 

The goal was to create Olympic projects that are less expensive and that maximise operational efficiencies, while also unlocking greater value for future hosts, with a strong emphasis on legacy and sustainability.

 

Building on the success of these initiatives, 2018 saw the adoption of the New Norm, additional reforms that provided Olympic hosts with even more flexibility in designing the Games to meet their long-term development goals. The IOC also increased the assistance and expertise it and the wider Olympic Movement provided.

 

The impact of these reforms has been considerable. A one-year, non-committal dialogue stage introduced for the candidature phase of the Olympic Winter Games 2026, for example, resulted in significant cost reductions in both the candidature and operating budgets – approximately 80 and 20 per cent lower, respectively, than the average for 2018 and 2022.

 

As a reflection of the IOC’s flexibility with regard to the use of existing and temporary venues, 80 per cent of the proposed venues for 2026 were existing or temporary, a 33 per cent increase from the 2018/2022 average of 60 per cent.

 

So effective and appreciated was the increased partnership during the 2026 dialogue stage that the IOC set up a Working Group in early 2019 to consider ways to build upon these elements for the future.

 

*IOC Members represent the athletes, International Federations (IFs), National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC).

INCREASED FLEXIBILITY AND DIALOGUE

Following consultation with the IOC Executive Board (EB), the Working Group recommendations were presented to and approved by the IOC Session in June 2019. The Executive Board then agreed on an action plan for their implementation in October 2019, resulting in the creation of a new, streamlined approach to future host elections that allows for increased flexibility and cooperation on a bilateral level.

 

This approach is creating greater opportunities for dialogue between the IOC and Interested Parties (cities/regions/countries/National Olympic Committees), while allowing for more flexibility with regard to the timing of future elections. In addition, Interested Parties are not necessarily limited to a single city but can refer to multiple cities, a region or a country.

 

The door is open to any Interested Party to enter into non-committal continuous dialogue with the IOC through two permanent Future Host Commissions (see below for more information). It also allows the IOC to target a potential host if deemed beneficial to the Olympic Movement.

 

The initial dialogue does not have to be edition-specific, with discussions intended to determine whether a potential host is best suited to organise an Olympic Games or a Youth Olympic Games, and when. The strict timelines and deadlines of the past no longer exist.

 

The IOC will continue to offer hands-on support and expertise to help define and develop projects in partnership with the Interested Parties that will produce many long-lasting legacies for the local populations.

 

The new approach mirrors the rapidly changing world we live in: As the governing body of the Olympic Movement, the IOC has positioned itself at the vanguard of innovation and development to help deliver the best possible Olympic projects with the most benefits for Olympic stakeholders and future hosts alike.

 

“We must continue to keep up with the fast pace of change in our current world,” said President Bach. “Flexibility is a necessity to ensure good governance and to have sustainable Olympic Games in the future. We will do that while maintaining the magic of the Games, the fundamental principle of universality and our commitment to having athletes at the centre of everything we do.”   

WHAT ARE THE INNOVATIONS ?
  • The establishment of a permanent, non-committal and non-edition specific ongoing dialogue to explore and create interest among Interested Parties for the Olympic Games and Youth Olympic Games;

 

  • Once a potential host is identified, it does not mean the end of the line for other Interested Parties, as in the past. They can remain in Continuous Dialogue with the Future Host Commissions, to discuss hosting a future Olympic event.

 

  • The creation of two Future Host Commissions (Summer and Winter) to oversee interest in future Olympic Games and Youth Olympic Games and advise the Executive Board;

 

  • Giving the IOC Session more influence by having non-Executive Board members make up the Future Host Commissions.
FUTURE HOST COMMISSIONS

The two Future Host Commissions were appointed by IOC President Bach in October 2019. Both are gender-balanced and represent a full range of Olympic stakeholders, including athletes, International Federations (IFs), National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC).

 

The Commissions comprise IOC Members who are not on the Executive Board to ensure that the IOC Session has even more influence by being involved from the very beginning of the dialogue.

 

The full composition of the Commissions can be found here: Summer and Winter.

 

The Commissions will respect any confidentiality that may be requested by potential hosts as they work toward the development of the public and private dimensions of their project, as well as the content of any discussion of particular proposals.

 

The Terms of Reference of the Commissions and Rules of Conduct for the Commissions can be found here.

ROLE OF THE FUTURE HOST COMMISSIONS

The role of the Future Host Commissions is to continually explore, monitor and encourage interest in future Olympic Games, Olympic Winter Games and Youth Olympic Games.

 

The Commissions interact with potential hosts to determine the nature and extent of their possible interest and work with them to understand the various elements and opportunities of the Olympic Games and the Youth Olympic Games.

 

The Commissions will assist interested parties in formulating a strong vision for their Olympic project and designing sustainable proposals that align with their long-term development goals.

 

The role of the Commissions is also to study the long-term challenges related to hosting future Olympic Games, such as climate change.

 

The Commissions will report regularly to the Executive Board, providing advice and recommendations regarding possible hosts to enable the Executive Board to be in a position to react to various developments and opportunities deemed to be in the best interest of the Olympic Movement.

CONTINUOUS VS TARGETED DIALOGUE – WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?
 
 
CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE

With this new approach, the Future Host Commissions remain open for dialogue in perpetuity.

 

Continuous dialogue is exploratory in nature and non-committal, held with Interested Parties for a future Olympic Games or Youth Olympic Games with the support of their respective National Olympic Committees (NOCs). These discussions are non-edition specific.

 

Throughout this dialogue, the Commissions constantly monitor and analyse the projects, providing feasibility assessments that will form the basis for recommendations and advice provided at frequent intervals to the IOC Executive Board (EB).

TARGETED DIALOGUE

At any time, the EB can make the strategic decision to instruct the Future Host Commissions to enter into targeted, edition-specific dialogue with an Interested Party or Parties, who will then be referred to as Preferred Host(s).

 

The EB will base such a decision on a positive feasibility assessment from a Future Host Commission and on other factors, such as potential opportunity in terms of current global context (including socio-economic, geopolitical and universality factors), alignment with Olympic Agenda 2020 and Olympic Agenda 2020+5, and strong public support.

 

At this time, the Preferred Host(s) will be asked to submit a streamlined set of documents, including guarantees, while the Future Host Commissions will make more detailed evaluations of the project(s) and, if required, visit the Preferred Host(s).

Based on the evaluation report of the Future Host Commission, the IOC Executive Board can put one or more Preferred Host(s) forward for a vote by the IOC Session if all requirements have been met.

 

Should the Preferred Host(s) fail to deliver key requirements, the EB can instruct the Future Host Commissions to return to Continuous Dialogue with other Interested Parties.

VOTE BY THE IOC SESSION

The Session’s prerogative to elect Games hosts has been preserved.

 

Once the Executive Board has put forward the Preferred Host(s) to the IOC Session, IOC Members will have the opportunity to hear presentations, ask questions and provide comments before voting for the future host.

 

IOC Members therefore continue to be at the centre of the decision-making process.

BENEFITS OF THE NEW APPROACH

With its strong commitment to flexibility, sustainability, legacies and the optimisation of all aspects of the Olympic Games, the IOC aims with the new approach to remain in step with a rapidly changing world to deliver Olympic events that are fully aligned with future hosts’ long-term development plans and Olympic Agenda 2020 and Olympic Agenda 2020+5 while maintaining the magic of the Games and providing thebest possible experience on and off the field of play for the athletes.

 

 

624D5B42-1E53-4615-9A4F-7CF13E333E45.jpeg

Link to comment
https://totallympics.com/forums/topic/1978-summer-olympic-games-2032-bid-process/page/17/#findComment-361433
Share on other sites

 

6 years in the making

The history of Brisbane/SEQ’s 2032 Bid

AOC - Australian Olympic Committee

IOC - International Olympic Committee

COMSEQ - Council of Mayors of South East Queensland 

PM - Australian Prime Minister

OCLG  Olympic Candidature Leadership Group (Brisbane/SEQ 2032)

QP - Queensland Premier

When

What

By

Nov 2014

Olympic Agenda 2020 announced 

“A strategic road map for the Olympic Movement”

IOC

2015

 

 

Pre-feasibility Study of a potential SEQ bid for 2028 Olympic Games commissioned in 2015 and released 2016

COMSEQ

Sep 2017

Paris and Los Angeles awarded 2024 and 2028 Games

IOC

April 2018 

2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games

 

GOLDOC

Jan 2019

 

SEQ People Mass Movement Study Released 

COMSEQ

Feb 2019

 

2032 SEQ Olympic / Paralympic Games Feasibility Study 

COMSEQ

May 2019

- ‘Sport Accord’ global sports conference Gold Coast visited by the IOC President

-  IOC President addresses AOC

IOC President

June 2019

New Norm Olympic bidding rule changes announced

IOC

June 2019

Australian Prime Minister meets with IOC President at G20 Summit

PM

 

July 2019

IOC Sends Funding Contribution Letter to Queensland Government

IOC

July 2019

Brisbane 2032 Value Proposition Assessment released

QP

Aug 2019

Inaugural Meeting of 2032 Olympic Candidature Leadership Group

OCLG

Sep 2019

Queensland Premier leads delegation in visit to IOC in Lausanne, Switzerland.

QP

Dec 2019

Queensland Premier announces Candidature for 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games

QP

Dec 2019

AOC welcomes Queensland 2032 Olympic Games Candidature

AOC

Mar 2020

Bid suspended due to COVID Pandemic

QP

Nov 2020

PM meets with IOC President and AOC President in Tokyo

PM, IOC + AOC

Dec 2020 

Brisbane/SEQ 2032 Bid continuous dialogue resumes

QP

Jan 2021

IOC Presentation to Brisbane Candidature representatives

IOC

Feb 2021 

Brisbane/SEQ 2032 Candidature presentation made to the IOC Future Host Commission

OCLG

Feb 2021

Feasibility Assessment Report into the Brisbane/SEQ 2032 Candidature presented to the IOC Executive Board

IOC Future Host Commission

Feb 24 2021

IOC Future Host Commission instructed to enter into “Targeted Dialogue” with the Brisbane/SEQ candidature

IOC Executive Board

Mar 2021

IOC Approves Agenda 2020+5

 - a strategic roadmap and the Olympic movement through to 2025.

 137th IOC Session

 

What Happens Now ?

 

 

 

 

 

Targeted Dialogue with Brisbane 2032 OCLG

IOC Future Host Commission + OCLG

 OCLG

 

Completion of IOC Questionnaire and other documents which iron out the finer details.

OCLG

 

Future Host Commission recommends preferred candidate to IOC Executive Board

IOC Future Host Commission

 

IOC Executive Board recommends preferred 2032 candidate to IOC Session

IOC Executive Board

138th IOC Session, 20-21 July, 2021 in Tokyo.

IOC Session Votes on Games’ 2032 host

IOC 

 

Link to comment
https://totallympics.com/forums/topic/1978-summer-olympic-games-2032-bid-process/page/17/#findComment-361441
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Posts around Totallympics

    • summary   Brignone = top star of the championships     rest of the team = why wasting money bringing them to the championships and expose them to the world, showing their total lack of talent?   
    • Yep. Not sure if it was the NOC or the biathlon federation (I assume the latter) that put him in the Livigno training 'world' with a former Italian biathlete as coach, but they can definitely also be blamed:  almost everyone involved in that shitshow got the motivation just sucked out of them by the methods and shitty atmosphere until they either retired or changed country  
    • ISU World Tour 2024/25 -  Milan (Stage 6/6)   Final Overall World Tour Classification - Women:   01.  Kristen Santos-Griswold - 1120 points 02.  Xandra Velzeboer - 950 points 03.  Corinne Stoddard - 948 points 04.  Hanne Desmet - 918 points 05. Choi Minjeong - 760 points 06.  Kim Gilli - 713 points 07.  Danae Blais - 540 points 08.  Florence Brunelle - 518 points 09.  Elisa Confortola - 496 points 10.  Arianna Fontana - 493 points   Final Overall World Tour Classification - Men:   01.  William Dandjinou - 1184 points 02.  Jens van 't Wout - 950 points 03.  Pietro Sighel - 764 points 04.  Steven Dubois - 740 points 05.  Miyata Shogo - 614 points 06.  Park Jiwon - 606 points 07.  Roberts Kruzbergs - 595 points 08.  Jang Sungwoo - 512 points 09.  Sun Long - 472 points 10.  Jordan Pierre-Gilles - 434 points   Final Overall World Tour Classification - Nations:   01.  Canada - 8731 points 02.  the Netherlands - 6919 points 03.  Italy - 6184 points 04.  South Korea - 6015 points 05.  China - 5135 points 06.  United States of America - 4589 points 07.  Japan - 3500 points 08.  Poland - 3187 points 09.  Belgium - 2668 points 10.  Kazakhstan - 2182 points
    • Lots of injuries, including often just pure bad-luck stuff like a fall from a set of stairs, illness, and of course the Sochi tragedy in 2014: one of her biathlon friends, young Julia Pieper, killed herself with a biathlon rifle early during the Olympics (she wasn't on the team, but was a training partner of both Preuss and Dahlmeier). Obviously a hard hit, which led to terrible Olympics for Preuss, with a DNF, awful results in her other individual races and a relay where she was the first runner for Germany, but fell early on, got snow in her rifle and broke a pole and ended up losing almost 3 minutes, which in turn resulted in Germany being off the podium for the first time ever.   After that came all the injuries and illness and everything. So glad to finally see her have her big individual global gold, that is so well deserved.
    • Dave Ryding's Sixth was the best from a  man since 1934!  We actually have two Women's Golds in the 1930s.
    • first win for the Italian men's relay since 2007      very good Home stage for us   if only the organizers didn't set the finals sessions at 2 p.m. (especially on Saturday), there would have been a lot more spectators on the seats 
    • update: Not the best start to the year for Tentoglou, but I guess it can only get better from here    Karalis seems to be getting consistent in jumps over 5.90m, and proving that 2024 was no fluke and he is hopefully here to stay (and I guess to win more silver and bronze medals because there is some Swedish guy who is apparently too good )   No news on Stefanidi and she hasn't been very active on social media. She may have quietly retired, but I have a feeling she is pregnant and will try to come back for LA 2028.    Meanwhile, we have some other hopes in the women's pole vault and I think we'll still qualify 3 girls for LA even without Polak (suspended), Kyriakopoulou (retired), and Stefanidi. Two 16 yos are doing well this indoor season, Bouboulidi (4.21) and Mirtsiou (4.15). We also have 21 yo Retsa, who seemed very promising a number of years ago with 4.14 as a 16 yo and then had some injuries and her progress kind of stalled. Now she is improving a lot this year and has a SB (and obviously PR) of 4.41    New U18NR in the men's long jump from 17 yo Tzelepis with 7.46. It will be interesting to track his progress over the next few years vs Tentoglou when he was that young. There are another two teenagers who seem promising, both from Grevena (Tentoglou's hometown) - Samaras and Isaakidis.   Also 19 yo Mita in the men's high jump with a new PB of 2.26 
    • ISU World Tour 2024/25 -  Milan (Stage 6/6)   Men's 5.000m Relay:   01.  Italy 02.  Canada 03.  Kazakhstan   Final Men's 5.000m Relay World Cup Classification 2024/2025:   01.  Canada - 400 points 02.  China - 390 points 03.  Italy - 360 points 04.  the Netherlands - 336 points 05.  South Korea - 304 points 06.  Japan - 264 points 07.  Kazakhstan - 234 points 08.  Belgium - 220 points 09.  United States of America - 172 points 10.  Great Britain - 168 points                &  (host country) qualified for the World Championships 
    • ISU World Tour 2024/25 -  Milan (Stage 6/6)   Women's 500m:   01.  Kristen Santos-Griswold 02.  Arianna Fontana 03.  Xandra Velzeboer   Final Women's 500m World Cup Classification 2024/2025:   01.  Kristen Santos-Griswold - 410 points 02.  Xandra Velzeboer - 398 points 03.  Florence Brunelle - 360 points 04.  Hanne Desmet - 256 points 05.  Michelle Velzeboer - 242 points 06.  Kim Boutin - 218 points 07.  Choi Minjeong - 208 points 08.  Corinne Stoddard - 194 points 09.  Arianna Fontana - 184 points 10.  Kim Gilli - 176 points
    • ISU World Tour 2024/25 -  Milan (Stage 6/6)   Men's 1.000m:   01.  William Dandjinou 02.  Pietro Sighel 03.  Jang Sungwoo   Final Men's 1.000m World Cup Classification 2024/2025:   01.  WIlliam Dandjinou - 380 points 02.  Jens van 't Wout - 360 points 03.  Roberts Kruzbergs - 294 points 04.  Jang Sungwoo - 248 points 05.  Felix Roussel - 246 points 06.  Pietro Sighel - 240 points 07.  Sun Long - 192 points 08.  Michal Niewinski - 179 points 09.  Park Jiwon - 162 points 10.  Jordan Pierre-Gilles - 156 points
×
×
  • Create New...