Spyros Capralos has retained his role as Coordination Commission chair from Baku 2015 through to Minsk, with Pierce O'Callaghan moving from the sport director role to act as a key consultant to organisers. The pair were among the prominent figures from the inaugural edition of the event.

During the EOC seminar here this week, Simon Clegg was confirmed to be returning to his previous role as executive director for the European Games. It was the role the former British Olympic Association official had held before switching to the chief operating officer job for Baku 2015, where he had to deal with the good, bad and ugly side of the Games.

Two of the other central figures, former EOC head Patrick Hickey and Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev, prevent the full band from being back together. But there is a good replacement for the latter in Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko. More on that later.

It would seem from the officials involved that the Games could simply mirror those in Baku, but for the most part I do not get the feeling that will be the case.

Clegg was keen to point out that no two Games are the same, while the phrase that rolled off the tongue of many delegates was that Minsk 2019 would be "very different" to Baku. It appears unlikely we will have a repeat of Lady Gaga performing at an Olympic Games standard Opening Ceremony, with lavish excess expected to be replaced with a more prudent affair. 

Looking back on Baku 2015, the mantra was that the event would be a"Big Bang" moment to launch the Games onto the sporting calendar.

A big bang was an appropriate description in one sense, with the Games exploding from nothing into something on a vast scale. They left people scratching their heads asking "why are we here?" and "what is the point of all this?".

In truth, there really did not seem a great deal of point to the Games, other than acting as a massive coming out party for President Aliyev, one that he probably regrets given the international press coverage. 

By appearing to hand over the reins to Azerbaijan, the EOC ended up with a project that became a hard-sell to other countries, with a few surely seeing their eyes water at the costs seemingly involved. Perhaps it would have been better for a "moderate" rather than a big bang to have occurred.

From a sporting perspective, the Games did not appear to carry too much weight. There were limited qualification opportunities heading towards the Olympics, and only one sport used the Games as their European Championships for the year. Both athletics and swimming were held but at a very low level.

This might seem an unfair criticism for the first staging of the event, but you did have to wonder whether there was really a need and place for the Games on the calendar.

It is to the EOC's credit that some impressive progress has been made in tackling some of these clear issues.

With a slimmed down sport programme, which contains no second tier or junior events like its predecessor, there appears to be far more resting on the Games in Minsk with 10 of the 15 sports offering qualification in some form for Tokyo 2020. Baring in mind sambo and beach soccer are not on the Olympic programme, it is more like 10 from 13.

Qualification either through direct means to the Games or through ranking points does suggest the second edition is likely to feature in the planning of top athletes as they plot their course through to Tokyo. Similarly, the Games are set to act as a European Championships for four sports.

Another key step has been the hiring of marketing agencies to try to secure sponsorship for the Games, both for Minsk 2019, but also for future editions of the multi-sport event. Both agencies, Octagon and Altius, have made it clear that their role is to help produce and promote an identity for the European Games.

Given that the Games is the new kid on the block, it cannot boast the same history and instant recognition that the Olympics or Commonwealth Games can conjure up. A major question will be whether the Games can truly carve its own place into a sporting calendar which remains so crowded.

The EOC appear to have "taken back control" of the Games this time around, with revenues set to be shared equally with Minsk 2019, while there certainly seems a greater focus on reducing the costs.

Minsk 2019's budget is claimed to be around $40 million (£30 million/€33 million), with only existing venues set to be used, along with the soon to be completed refurbishment of the Dinamo Stadium. The venue, which was already being renovated before Belarus' capital were awarded the Games, will have around a 22,000 capacity when it is finished. It is another indication that the event should prove manageable and, if done properly, it could provoke interest from other European countries.

A smaller scale and far lower cost Games appears essential for the EOC, as they try to secure future hosts.

The organisation has made it clear that they are looking to take the European Games to Western Europe, and they have stated a wish to secure a host by the end of this year. They will hope to use the low costs of Minsk to show the Games can be done affordably, as well as showing a willingness to allow a multi-city and multi-nation approach.

Given that Western European bids for editions of the Olympic Games have been subject to referendums, it appears a remote prospect that the same populations will be too keen on hosting. If you are going to host a mega-event, you would take the Olympics over the European Games every day.

Western European nations might also be less inclined to sign up for the Games compared to their counterparts in Azerbaijan and Belarus, whose leadership, let's say, is less concentrated on the consensus of the population.

I have some sympathy for the EOC on this. I remember Pat Hickey rallying against the media criticising human rights shortly after Baku 2015.

"Western Europe doesn't stand up to the plate," he said in Kuala Lumpur in 2015. "They don't have any Games, they don't bid for anything."

There is some truth to what he said, I would suggest.

Last year's European Youth Olympic Festivals took place in Turkey and Hungary, with next year's scheduled for Bosnia and Azerbaijan. Last year's EOC seminar took place in Macedonia, before this year's here in Serbia's capital Belgrade. In 2019 it will take place in Albania, with each country nearly a stone's throw away from each other. The EOC General Assembly last year was held in Croatia.

It seems obvious from this that there is far more willingness from countries in Eastern Europe to host EOC events, whether they be seminars or European Games.

The main danger this poses is that the Games could quite easily depend on the likes of Azerbaijan and Belarus to act as hosts.

The build-up to and a significant portion of Baku 2015 was dominated by criticism about human rights in the nation. You can certainly make the case that the Games had a role in making people across Europe gain a wider awareness of the issues. It was something that EOC President Janez Kocijančič was trying to assert when I spoke to him here in Belgrade.

While there is something to be said for Games shining a light on these issues and potentially being part of a solution, the EOC cannot keep taking the event to countries which are ranked low for human rights and press freedoms. The difficulty is I do not think countries are falling over themselves to want to host.

It could be a fascinating and potentially crucial year in the future of the European Games, as despite the progress being made in developing the concept, there are still major question marks going forward.

Can the EOC and Minsk 2019 keep costs down to attract future hosts? Will human rights issues dominate coverage and damage the brand of the European Games that the EOC wish to create? Can the Games also prove attractive enough for the public and top athletes to fully embrace the idea?

It should be interesting to see how it unfolds.