At the moment the Olympic movement is favouring largely one-city based sites, and is constantly playing safe with big money, big governments and big business in its choice of location. The days of cities like Barcelona winning seem to be over (but they did have a powerful regional authority to back their bid, it wasn't just a city).

That will probably change because all things go out of fashion. Eventually I am sure they will favour "network" bids where two or more cities (with good transport links) offer a joint bid. So, given the superb connections between Liverpool and Birmingham, and the complementary strengths of the cities, how about a joint Liverpool - Birmingham bid for 2032? If the Maglev is built, and/or we get proper high speed connections to the continent, it might be possible to include Marseilles as well, so the French would back it. It would then be the Liverpool / Birmingham / Marseilles Olympics.

Overflow facilities (eg overflow hotel accommodation for technical staff) exists in secondary sites like Manchester and Nottingham, and their airports could be used as back-up facilities as part of the bid.

Anyone keen on this?

no way, what a horibel idea........ then it would be like a country olympics.

it nly makes sense that cities next to eachother do that, liverpool and manchester/ newcastle and gateshead...... but birmingham and liverpool????

Liverpool / Birmingham / Marseilles Olympics.

Heh. Why the hell did you choose Marseille? :rofl:

If more than one city was involved there'd be too much squabbling over who'd host what events.

how random, this would never happen, i don't think the french would be too happy sharing the olympics. I think it'll stay at one city at a time, or maybe 2 near each other.

.....i have no idea how this idea came abut lol

Great! The bid formation process has started. There is dialogue. Interest. Yes, it's guarded interest in some quarters, and there will be sceptics - we need them to help keep us realistic. We are just glancing at a roadmap without our spectacles, and can't yet quite make out where the road is, but we have seen two great towns, and maybe a third. We can only go forward from here.

http://pathwayjr.com:8001/Pictures/School/Common/Fall98-Spring99/Onier-Insane.jpg

Lay off the magic mushrooms. :)

Liverpool - Birmingham?

:laugh:

Liverpool - Birmingham?

:laugh:

Don't forget Marseille :)

Birmingham will be big and bad enough to host it on its own by 2032 - let alone with the Scousers and French.

P.S It wont be long until Brum bids for the Commonwealth games, expect a bid before the 2020's are out.

Birmingham will be big and bad enough to host it on its own by 2032 - let alone with the Scousers and French.

P.S It wont be long until Brum bids for the Commonwealth games, expect a bid before the 2020's are out.

Making allowances for politcial leadership, obviously ;)

Maybe by 2052, they can have it in Birmingham, Austin, Melbourne, Seoul, and Culcutta.

2052 olympics should be on the Moon :rant:

I'd rather they be in Liverpool.

Liverpool '32.

Imagine that.

I'd rather they be in Liverpool.

Liverpool '32.

Imagine that.

Yes, but there are thousands of cities around the world, why one regional English centre? Birmingham is unlikely to ever win alone, it needs a partner. Ditto Liverpool.

Bids are effectively national anyway, it requires national resources to host these events - Government Depts are already trying to find ways of paying for the London Olympics without raising suspicions in the regions that money is being diverted. Of course it will be, we all know that.

So, if England is to get the Olympics ever again after 2012, where should they go? I don't think one English city (other than London) will win alone. And, as I've said, I think that network-bids may become more acceptable once its realised that smaller or less resourced cities can never win alone.

Marseilles was suggested simply because if the English and French are both backing a bid, it's got a better chance, and Marseilles is - like Liverpool - the great city port of the country. (Yes, there's Bristol but it's a bit small, mind you, they might have a chance with a joint Bristol - Cardiff games?).

So a question for Birmingham is who to team up with. Same for Liverpool. The Mancs like go go it alone (and lose alone), and will continue to, so I think the trick for aspiring cities who want to win is to find good pairings that can genuinely offer some synergy and that are sufficiently far apart to offer a good spread of benefits.

2052 olympics should be on the Moon :rant:

Imagine the pole vault :)

Hosting the Olympics is a costly business, running to many billions of pounds. Unlike the Montreal Olympics where the city is still paying off the huge debt (30 years after the event) the modern Olympics can be quite successful and profitable.

But to be realistic I don't think Brum can do it on its own especially in 2032 or any other time in the future. They would either have to city-share or perhaps go for something a little more manageable like the Commonwealth Games (assuming there will be such a thing by that time)

In al honesty I think a Manchester/Liverpool bid would be more appropriate to host the Olympics than Brum (assuming London don't bid again)

Just for the record, I'm not dissing the poster, but Montreal finally paid off their olympic debt two years ago, and they only got the debt because they built a very experimental stadium that failed, and they had to massively increase their security budget because they were awarded the Games before Munich 1972.

Today's Olympics are much more streamlined cost-wise, and the IOC have a better understanding of what to expect from cities financially.

Other than London - unless any UK city can do a 'Barcelona' without the Olympics, i.e. get into a position of international significance we won't be getting the Olympics again.

To be honest, the only city I can see getting the Olympics in the UK would be Edinburgh.

I hate to see the O's in Edinburgh, and that isn't a reflection on that particular city: I think its beautiful, unique, classic and very calming. And I think that's why Id hate to see it engulfed in the O circus, classical buildings being flattened, high streets turned into bigger roads, the extra volume of traffic and tourism would only hinder its prospects as a fine city.

Glasgow could be a good choice, but I guess its too far off into the future to even contemplate right now

I think Dublin could do it in the future if it wanted the Barcelona effect. Whether or not though it wanted to do that though is another question.

Why Birmingham and Liverpool? That makes no geographic sense, Manchester and Liverpool make sense coz they're right next to each other as does Edinburgh and Glasgow, Leeds and Bradford or even Cardiff and Newport. Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool would make more sense. Not that it's gonna happen anyway.

Birmingham would be better off bidding for any future Commonwealth Games: it tried and failed 20 or 30 years ago and has seen Manchester do a fantastic job just a few years ago. So if Birmingham are serious about being "a centre of sporting excellence" then build the City Of Birmigham stadium in readiness for a possible bid

^yeah and maybe the IAAF World Athletics Championships. They and the Commonwealth Games are the next best thing to an Olympics and are an ideal size for a city of Birmingham's size and international status.

Agreed. Birmingham have already hosted various major athletic/gymnastic events both at the NIA/NEC/AS over the last fuew years, but it needs to think a bit bigger and the IAAF/CG would be perfect. Here's hoping!

2032? 20-bleeding-32??!!!

You're 'aving a larf ain't cha??

The way global warming/climate change and the rest of the depressing shit (nuclear race, middle east instability, etc etc) is going - there won't be an earth left to call our own by 2032 as it is!!!!! :runaway:

I don't want to be old either - 67 seems like a terrifying age to have to be. I hope to be dead before then, hoist by my own petard.

Besides, anyone like to wager a bet that - if there IS still an earth standing - Arena Central will probably still be going through the "consultation and redesign" stages.... :tongue2:

2032? 20-bleeding-32??!!!

I don't want to be old either - 67 seems like a terrifying age to have to be. I hope to be dead before then, hoist by my own petard.

Haha you're old

I'll only be 52 that year...

Haha you're old

I'll only be 52 that year...


Bog off you ageist bastard! I hope you get your comeuppance too sometime soon!

:tongue2:

best not think about how old i'll be by then, boo hoo

The modern Olympics have always been hosted by one city. This isn't the World Cup - No Joint Bids.

Yes, but there are thousands of cities around the world, why one regional English centre? Birmingham is unlikely to ever win alone, it needs a partner. Ditto Liverpool.

Bids are effectively national anyway, it requires national resources to host these events - Government Depts are already trying to find ways of paying for the London Olympics without raising suspicions in the regions that money is being diverted. Of course it will be, we all know that.

So, if England is to get the Olympics ever again after 2012, where should they go? I don't think one English city (other than London) will win alone. And, as I've said, I think that network-bids may become more acceptable once its realised that smaller or less resourced cities can never win alone.

Marseilles was suggested simply because if the English and French are both backing a bid, it's got a better chance, and Marseilles is - like Liverpool - the great city port of the country. (Yes, there's Bristol but it's a bit small, mind you, they might have a chance with a joint Bristol - Cardiff games?).

So a question for Birmingham is who to team up with. Same for Liverpool. The Mancs like go go it alone (and lose alone), and will continue to, so I think the trick for aspiring cities who want to win is to find good pairings that can genuinely offer some synergy and that are sufficiently far apart to offer a good spread of benefits.

So a question for Birmingham is who to team up with. Same for Liverpool. The Mancs like go go it alone (and lose alone), and will continue to, so I think the trick for aspiring cities who want to win is to find good pairings that can genuinely offer some synergy and that are sufficiently far apart to offer a good spread of benefits.

Chip on shoulder springs to mind.

We really lost out on the Commonwealth games didn't we! :)

Arse!

Birmingham would be better off bidding for any future Commonwealth Games: it tried and failed 20 or 30 years ago and has seen Manchester do a fantastic job just a few years ago. So if Birmingham are serious about being "a centre of sporting excellence" then build the City Of Birmigham stadium in readiness for a possible bid

A well thought out and sensible reply.

Birmingham should definitely go for the Commonwealth Games if it builds the centre of sporting excellence.

Other than London, no other city in the UK has the pulling power. Olympic Cities tend to be internationally reknowned and regardless of Barcelona's size it is a great famous city. The rest of the UK cities I think should aim for the world championships at most.

CroyDan, I think the CommonWealth games are somewhat more prestigious than the World Championships - certainly last a lot longer and have many more events, although I think you are right about only London really having a chance.

However, and it is a big however, I don't think Barcelona had anything like the international reputation that it does now before 1985 (when it was awarded the games), in fact, Barcelona was a bit of a shit hole, the Ramblas was crime ridden (much more so than now), and you would certainly not consider leaving the main streets.

All the costal area was developed for the games also.

However, I think the IOC have changed, they'd take gambles like Barcelona previously, which did great things for that city, but after Atlanta - another not great city before the Olympics - when they put on a crap Olympics, and it didn't seem to help the city long term, I think we'll only see very major cities awarded with the games.

Look at the cities since the Atlanta games who have been awarded, Bejing and London, with Madrid, Paris and New York the other possibilities.

Cities like Manchester and Birmingham are never going to be competing with these types of cities.

Atlanta!

Oh dear.

I will say no more. :)

yes Atlanta was a bit of an embarressment. Drugs & cheating are commonplace in the Os but bombs going off is a bit much!

MetroLink, good points - Also I think the problem is with the IOC decisions - they are politically motivated half of the time. Moscow (Cold War), Barcelona (you could say post Franco era), Atlanta (african american majority population). Bejing (China wanting to be accepted internationally despite Human Rights record). Heck even Germany hosted the games while the Nazi party was in charge! But like you said I don't think they wish to make the same mistake as Atlanta - bomb or no bomb it was awfully organised!

When I said the rest of the UK cities should aim for the World Championships at most, I was under the impression that after the O's this was the next big tournament, maybe I was wrong, but yes the rest should aim for the commonwealth games ( manchester did a great job) and also the european championships too.

I agree with the points made - the Olympic committee seem to be playing it safe with their choices now. Barcelona was successful hosting but I daresay the IOC are wary of bankrupting cities and risking the farce of Atlanta.