Internally, International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach appears to be confident that he has sufficient support among colleagues within the sports world. Externally, the election of Emmanuel Macron rather than Marine Le Pen as President of France earlier this month appears to have offset the last major question mark surrounding either candidate. Any uncertainty over either has seemingly now been reduced to a tolerable level.

An Executive Board meeting has consequently been convened in Lausanne for June 9 to "receive and discuss…reports from the Working Group currently looking into the candidature procedure". It seems to be the key step in ironing out the process before the IOC membership-at-large converge on the lakeside city to rubber-stamp it at a Candidate City Briefing on July 11 and 12. This latter gathering will probably be upgraded to the status of an IOC Session in order to ensure necessary decisions can be validated.

A vote, or final decision of some description, will then be made at the IOC Session in Lima on September 13.

The Working Group due to present to the Executive Board is chaired by the four IOC vice-presidents: Australia's John Coates, Turkey's Uğur Erdener, China's Yu Zaiqing and Spain's Juan Antonio Samaranch. 

Let us be in no doubt, though, that it is Bach alone who is the key figure in any decision. 

Erdener, to be blunt, has shown himself to be an unswerving disciple of everything the German wants during his time at the IOC. Yu is generally seen as a representative of the Chinese State, who have no obvious preference either way in this debate. Coates is also close to Bach and, while slightly less predictable, is unlikely to want to stick his head too far above the parapet so soon after having to fight for his life to remain President of the Australian Olympic Committee. 

Samaranch is probably the most significant of the four, and I will return to him in a moment.

Erdener, Yu and Coates all criticised or doubted the joint awarding plans when we contacted them in February. Many other Executive Board and wider IOC members joined them at the time in publicly or privately opposing the plans.

It appears that the tide has now completely changed. We are still hearing second-hand reports of opposition to the basic legalities of a joint awarding from a small group of IOC opponents to Bach. This group supposedly includes present and recent former Executive Board members and opponents of the German from when he successfully stood for the Presidency in 2013.

But this appears to have been reduced to a small rump. A majority, including figures who have opposed him on other issues, now seems broadly supportive. The withdrawal of Budapest and the apparent absence of viable options for 2028 has added to a growing feeling that it is a good idea.

Of course, members may show support for political as well as ideological reasons and it does not mean they will necessarily approve every move Bach makes.

The line that has appeared in the last week is that there will be one vote in Lima. Each ballot paper will have a box for 2024 and a box for 2028 and voting IOC members will be able to choose which one out of Los Angeles and Paris they would like to host either.

In theory, this will negate the problem of having a “"loser" as both candidates will "win". It will ensure that IOC members can still exercise their one primary power of casting a meaningful vote in Olympic host city elections. It will also mean that the Lima meeting remains significant and will still generate lots of publicity and attention.

So far, so good, and this certainly makes more sense than having a normal vote for 2024 in which the "loser" is offered 2028.

There are several problems here, however.

Although on paper there would be two winners, it is possible that an election on these grounds could still become what is, in reality, a full-on race to the line for 2024. 

If we, as journalists, go to Lima and are confronted by a posse of consultants and lobbyists spinning furiously and battling for the earlier edition, we are naturally going to report it as such, and present the 2028 host as a "loser". It will therefore require a huge shift in rhetoric and, possibly, a public indication from one or both bids that they would prefer or at least be content to host the later Games.

The IOC's failure to properly "communicate" the reasoning behind decisions has increased much of the criticism it has received in recent months. They must ensure this does not happen again.

But, on a broader level, my modest instincts gleaned over four years following Bach around is that he would not like to leave this decision to chance. He likes to control well, everything, and is mindful of how close his IOC colleagues came to selecting Almaty rather than Beijing for the 2022 Winter Games. Beijing, widely seen as his preferred choice, ultimately won by just four votes during the 2015 IOC Session in Kuala Lumpur.

He will certainly try to get his views across by soliciting the support of key allies such as the still-influential Kuwaiti Sheikh Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah. 

Two other options have therefore been mooted. Firstly, Bach and the Executive Board could select and even announce a "preferred order" to the IOC at the Candidate City Briefing. Secondly, representatives from Paris and Los Angeles could broker a deal either between themselves or through consultation with the IOC. Of course, it is possible they could do either of these options but attempt to keep the outcomes private, but there would always be the risk of a leak.

Eric Garcetti and Anne Hidalgo, the respective Mayors of the two candidates, met during April's SportAccord Convention in Aarhus and it is possible this process is already ongoing.

It is still possible, then, that the only vote in Lima is to rubber-stamp a single proposal for city "x" to host in 2024 and city "y" in 2028.

Samaranch, incidentally, told the EFE news agency today that they will only "change the rules of the game" if Los Angeles and Paris arrive "at a principle of agreement between them". He added that it would be "very good for the Olympic movement to do two Games in these two cities", before insisting that they have no shortage of alternative bidders for 2028.

I am not sure where he has in mind. The likes of Madrid and Istanbul seem flimsy, at best, while any Russian option currently seems politically difficult. An Australian bid seems slightly more reliable, but that is only one...

Could his comments therefore be part of a strategy to persuade Los Angeles and Paris to reach a deal? Just like the public airing of the apparent Lima double ballot voting plans?

Again, I am not sure. His tone was certainly slightly more on the fence and I got the impression he has not completely made up his mind. But, if the two bidding cities can reach a consensus, he is keen. His ambivalence could be part of an attempt to end the "no losers" narrative or to play to his Spanish audience. There is nothing to suggest he or any of the other vice-presidents will go out on a limb and deviate from the Bachean line. 

The obvious next question concerns who Bach supports and who is most likely to be awarded each edition?

Clearly, only one person can be sure to the answer of the first question. But there have certainly been indications towards Paris for 2024 and Los Angeles for 2028. This has been the mooted scenario ever since the joint awarding plan was first rumoured late last year. I was surprised by how strong signals from Lausanne have been this week that it is still the case. As we saw during the two Evaluation Commission inspections, both bids are incredibly strong technically so it is seemingly coming down to other factors, such as the emotional appeal of the centenary of the Paris 1924 Games.

Several people, including IOC members, have also speculated to me that the IOC administration would prefer to go to Paris because it is closer and more familiar territory. An American bid would be more "difficult" and likely to challenge their way of doing things. 

I am not completely sure about this and it would certainly be far too early to write Los Angeles off in a straight fight. Quite simply, it is one of the strongest bids and leadership teams the IOC have ever seen and, if a choice had to be made, is surely the strongest bid technically due to the lower risk involved. There are also strong commercial incentives to go to California at some stage.

This is why the 2024 and 2028 idea makes a lot of sense as a way to avoid missing out on either…if it is executed and presented well.

Los Angeles have certainly been slightly more open in their language about their preferences. Paris have repeated over and over how they are only interested in 2024 and would not be able to use their proposed Athletes' Village site in Saint-Denis in 2028. Eleven years would certainly give them time to find an alternative, if needed, so this is not a sufficient excuse.

But a 2028 Games does seem to make more sense for Los Angeles. This argument can be made in terms of the city’s transportation plans, which are unlikely to be completed by 2024, and the more long-term personal political objectives of Garcetti. Could the slightly greater "risk-factor" of Paris also play to its advantage by making it more suitable for the earlier edition?

That said, given the more short-term nature of Hidalgo's career ambitions - she is already being positioned as a French Presidential contender in 2022 - it is also possible that she could come to the bargaining table in a bid to avoid any result perceived to be a politically damaging "loss".

There are several other "unknowns". First is the influence of Macron, the centrist founder and leader of the En Marche! party who could increasingly be positioned as a rival to the Socialist Party's Hidalgo. If he becomes a key negotiating figure with the IOC it is possible, if unlikely, that he could conclude that a 2028 bid is more appropriate. Paris is also bidding against the likes of Osaka in Japan and Ekaterinburg in Russia to host the 2025 World Expo, an event for which 2020 host Dubai is reportedly spending $8 billion (£6.15 billion/€7.12 billion). 

It seems remiss to even mention it but there is still the underlying risk of a terrorist attack, in either city but particularly in Paris, which could completely change the debate.

There is also the still unknown role being played or to be played by US Presidential counterpart Donald Trump, with whom Macron is likely to meet over the next few weeks. Could they even discuss their respective Olympic bids between themselves?

Plenty more twists and turns remain, then, but it certainly seems the IOC are planning to press ahead with their virtually unprecedented plans for a joint awarding. 

It is not quite as fun as a genuine straight fight for a single Games, but it will still be fascinating to see how it plays out.