Sir Rols

Moderators
  • Content count

    19124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    189

Sir Rols last won the day on February 20

Sir Rols had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1790 Excellent

1 Follower

About Sir Rols

  • Rank
    Chick-a-boom-boom-boom
  • Birthday 04/29/62

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sydney

Recent Profile Visitors

125301 profile views
  1. Brisbane's chances or not are just a distraction from the main debate. As I said, I don't fancy their chances myself, and whether it will go the distance at all. The only point I was making was that, as in any race and as we saw for 2022, the vote ain't over till it's all played out with all the dramas, drop-outs and unexpected occurrences. The fact is though, that Brisbane is well advanced in planning for a bid. It's spent millions already on its evaluation and started a formal public study involving all levels of government in South East Queensland. It's making all the serious and formal pre-bid moves. Whether it goes ahead in the end or not will depend on all the usual factors - money, political support, public support and appetite for it.As any city does, if they go into it, they'd be doing so with a hope they can win. They wouldn't be doing so on the basis of hoping everyone else would fall over so they can win. The inappropriateness of a single city hosting a World Cup complete with its 10 or so stadia is a different kettle of fish than an Olympics, which of course is traditionally a single city event. In regards to their ability and appropriateness for an Olympics, the better example would be their 2006 Asian Games, which went off pretty bloody successfully. Ther question then would be whether they leverage their existing infrastructure from those games and the WC for an Olympics, or whether they'd bring out their bags of gold to go all out in excessive lavishness again. Yeah, I'm sure they'd attract the same level of queasiness as Beijing 2008 or Sochi 2014 did in the west. But I'm also sure the IOC would be confident they'd be able to deliver as slick and lavish games as those two as well. Personally, I think Turkey's a lame duck in the water, at least as long as its present government is in place, for the Olympics. I think there's a very good chance the first Middle East Olympics will be one of the Gulf states, and possibly even within the next decade or so. I'm pretty sure thy're gonna be trying for it and will do persistently and aggressively all the while carrying their own particular set of positive and negative baggage. And as usual, how that plays out will be seen and followed here.
  2. For summer, it wouldn't need to be that drastic - extending the September deadline on to October or November at a pinch would suffice for most instances. Not much we could do about winter. But then again, not much anyone can do about the Winter Games if global warming continues.
  3. No, I don't consider them related at all. One we're talking about geographical constraints. The other is just a matter of bigotry - or in this case the bigotry of one person who considers a couple of countries not worthy of hosting a winter games for completely subjective reasons. When the IOC has indeed awarded those countries anyway. It's not a constraint on them, it's a matter of offensive attitudes by members here. On to your geographical constraints. Well, to a certain degree, one just has to accept them and use some common sense. It's not like Fiji or Havana are grossly wronged because they can never host a winter games and that the IOC has to modify their requirements to allow them that possibility. On the other hand, yes, you have given the example of Finland which indeed would be a worthy and deserving WOG host. But then again, the IOC HAS attempted to tackle and modify their criteria to make such hosting possible. One of the specific recommendations of Agenda 2020 pertaining to both the summer and winter games was to allow dual hosting across borders where it makes sense - which gave rise to the Krakow bid which involved (I think it was) Czechoslovakia, and would allow Finland to bid with a neighbour (as they did already once before the 2020 modifications with Norway. Or as Salzburg tried to do with Berchtesgaden). Agenda 2020 also floated the allowability of more regional bids, easing the way, for example, for Sweden to have a chance for a WOGs (on of my last great Oly hosting wishes for my lifetime) despite its distance handicaps for downhill venues. Or which in the summer arena has already given rise for Brisbane to now investigate a 2028 regional bid involving greater south-east Queensland. I'm more concerned about the timing window constraints myself. The July-Sept window of allowability for the SOGs, and the Jan-Feb window for the WOGs. Which in both cases effectively knocks off a lot of otherwise willing, aspiring, deserving and attractive hosts from the southern hemisphere. I've been on my hobbyhorse before about how it eliminated an otherwise obvious host like Melbourne, or in South Africa where it limits the choices with Capetown and Jo-burg both constrained by their climate, or Buenos Aires in South America. Not to mention the chances of NZ, Chile, Argentina or even Oz perhaps spring to a WOGs which they could otherwise physically handle .I still maintain it was an unwise precedent for the IOC to use that criteria to eliminate Doha (or was it Dubai) from 2016 (or whenerever it was). Now THAT's a constraint that could easily be remedied with a bit of flexibility - but then again, we'd then be told that that is mightily unfair on the broadcasters - how dare anyone suggest winter sports can be televised in the US in July, or that the summer games be allowed to interfere with the fall sweeps period for US ratings! Lets not get into the permanent hosting locations debate. An entirely different can of worms.
  4. Good you clarified that - just that you do seem extremely dismissive of arguments against it or comments that some IOC members may be against it. Ot it may just be they were already re-assured by having Paris and a US bidder in, and quite truthfully told them they'd have little chance against either. Either way, it was informal and up to the respective cities to take the advice or not. Of course that's problematic. The IOC should be dealing with their image problem though, not compounding it by changing rules ad-hoc without consultation to suit a short term aim. Yeah, that's really going to help their image for forthrightness and level-playing fields, isn't it? That's far from saying they're untouchable. The problem there would mainly be political and perceptual. I doubt anyone could argue that they couldn't stage a well executed, even lavish show. Like their Asiad. I wouldn't rate them highly either. I think an Oz bid is questionable. But Queensland is and has been for some time well advanced in a process of investigating a specific 2028 bid. Melbourne only comes up because there's been the odd comment from them saying "What about us? We may be interested too" (though not much more than that). But, yes, formal proceedings are well underway in Queensland about a Brisbane/SE Queensland bid. Whether it reaches fruition is another matter. If 2028 is so bereft of likely candidates as many make out, this may be their golden, best opportunity and do a Beijing/Almaty (or as we say in Oz, doing a Bradbury). Well, that's our bread and butter - scoping, identifying, dismissing likely candidates, and handicapping those who do emerge from that field or arise from left of field. You know as well as anyone that it's foolhardy to rule anybody out, or rule them definitely in even when they've launched the process. You seem to be taking th glass half empty approach to it in this particular debate. Enticing bidders would probably work best if they repaired their reputation a bit more. That's vital. Yes, maybe four more years will give them a bit more breathing room to do that. Still, what makes the four years increase the pool of "viable and able to be taken seriously" candidates, which was my particular point? On the topic of South Africa - Durban 2022 CWG (likely soon to be spoken of in the past tense as a doomed, stripped games) may have put their chances and willingness back way beyond 2032. I hope not, but can't serioulsly even sugar coat it as anything but a huge setback for any South African Olympic chances. No, the suggestion of Quaker's I referred to specifically suggested a pass mark through to the final candidature round. I'm not going to hunt it down, but that stuck quite specifically in memory as sensible and achievable.
  5. I know you and the likes of FYI are gung-ho for the double award (I've seen your comments over at insidethegames), and yeah, there's no disputing the attractiveness and desirability of a Paris-LA sequence, but IMO the double awarding is not the way to go about it, or at least not the way of going about it at this stage of the campaign. It might have been fine if this had been floated and/or implemented right at the start of the process - everyone with a stake would have known where they stood, it might/probably would have put a few more hopefuls into the mix (anyone with a desire for 2028 for a start. Not to mention the IOC probably wouldn't have "advised" Toronto and Doha to hold fire - see that's problematic for a start). It would have gone through due process (approval and vote by the IOC membership) and the legal niceties would have ben examined and smoothed out. It would have minimised the risk of bad blood and betrayal of faith. Add it is, it's a case of changing the rules ad-hoc mid-race, cut out the IOC membership at large from a say, opened a legal can of worms (as much as I'm sure Bach is looking for ways to circumvent any inconvenient obstacles like that), strayed from the IOC charter and left a raft of burgs from Toronto to Brisbane/Melbourne to Doha to Madrid left hanging with no recourse to put their names back in. And its all very well to say that it's okay to piss off people we don't like (like Russkis and Arabs) as long as it benefits people we do (like western democracies), but when a vast bulk of the IOC members represent areas that fall into the former category, it isn't good politics - not to say it's downright offensive and unfair and pretty well against the globalism and inclusiveness the Olympics stand for. The trouble is with all this "Dual awarding is the way to go" infatuation is it's looking at the end result but failing to consider the process. I don't accept that the IOC or host city pool is much in "desperate" times, at least as the summer games go, as is made out. But for IOC "advice", we might have had at least two others in the mix still at this stage. If as so many of us say, that Paris should be awarded because LA is more likely to come back anyway, well, let's see that happen if LA is so gung-ho. And if they don't, that's their (and the USA's) loss - blind Freddie could tell you they'd go into that race as an almost insurmountable favourite (not to mention that it would fly in the face of one of the chief arguments of many of us arguing on Paris' behalf). The likes of Doha (or Dubai) might have been an obscene choice for a World Cup, but as an Olympic city it's not anywhere near so unattractive - it would have the money and resources to do it and is one of the more liberal and acceptable locations to bring a city-based games to the middle east. Oz is certainly interested, though no certainty. Just like Canada. I wouldn't be so quick to write off some of the Euro candidates to step in to place if Paris lost out. I doubt the field would be bereft of candidates. And if you're asking: "What cities would realistically be viable candidates for 2028, that the IOC in general can take seriously?" then that poses the problem with what happens after 2028 then? Why suddenly for 2032 will a raft of cities suddenly become viable and able to be taken seriously if not four years before? If you're suggesting there's not many to choose from any more and unlikely to be many in the future, aren't you then just delaying the inevitable extinction rather than preventing it? There's many things the IOC could and should be doing to rebuilt their reputation, relationships and shattered trust. I just don't see fudging their own rules mid course for a short term reprieve that leaves some out in the cold is the way to do it. And I don't expect it to happen in the end - as I said, it's too late in the game to achieve it or do it properly. One of the better suggestions I've seen is one by Quaker a few weeks back - just go with the due process as it's been running and established, and whoever the runner-up in Lima is, quietly tell them they should go again for 2028 as their chances would be incredibly great (as I'm sure would happen anyway) and maybe also sweeten the deal with a carrot, like saying they'd already have pre-selection through to the final stage of candidature, without having to go through all the early nitty gritty. Probably get the same result, without rule tweaking/breaking, bad blood and skullduggery.
  6. I agree with you about the growth part, but in terms of competition, it would be great for Oz and NZ to compete at the summer Asiads. We really don't have a viable secondary level competition after the Olympics to gain experience and hone competitive tactics and practices at. The Pacific Games are incredibly small, low level and don't provide a good level of competition at all. For Oz at the moment, after the Olympics it's really only the Commonwealth Games (where the competition varies according to the sport) or the Pan-Pacs in swimming that give us our best non-Olympic hit-out. Just as joining the AFC did wonders for Australian football in giving us some good "match practice", the Asiads would also fill an important gap in our Olympic preparations. That said, I wouldn't want to see us join the OCA fully or formally. That would risk us getting swamped in Asian sports politics. On that level, the Oceania grouping gives us a nice level of independence and freedom to move when it comes to things like bidding.
  7. In what way though? There's places that geographically can't host a summer games either - Doha was knocked back for climate and much of the Southern Hemisphere is now out of the question for the time window - as it is for the WOGs as well. That sucks, but it's a physical restraint. That's different to saying they're undeserving of hosting because they don't fit your personal desirability criteria. Both China and South Korea perform well and win medals at the WOGs - yet some people would have it that they're still unfit to host because somehow winning on ice makes them more underserving than winning on snow. Just as it was important to take the summer games to Rio, it's important the WOGs go to new areas like Korea and China (as distasteful as I myself also find Beijing getting 2022) - the games belong to the world, not a select cadre of subjectively designated "worthies".
  8. And as I also said in the LA thread: Well, actually, they're the only two mentioned that might stand to lose out (and at this stage, I haven't seen Turkey mentioned in any lists of likewise or hopefuls for bidding 2028). The others are from China, Taiwan and Heiberg from Norway (I don't know where Roger87 got Azerbaijan from), all Executive Board members or very influential in the IOC. I don't think you can dismiss them as having something to lose, or negative nancies. It certainly shows that Bach doesn't have the exec board fully behind him on the proposal. Also to consider is one thing the membership at large has always been very keen to protect from erosion is their precious vote for the host cities. With many of their other privileges stripped over the years, the hosting vote is their one real big power they have. They could well see this as an attempt by the President or the EB to strip them, or sideline them, of that role. If, as a number of those quoted say, it would be the type of move that could only be implemented by a vote at a full session, I think it would be a strong doubt such a vote would go Bach's way. Not even Samaranch could get a lot of his proposals through, and Bach, as much as he might think he is, isn't yet a Samaranch in terms of his hold on power or sway.
  9. Well, actually, they're the only two mentioned that might stand to lose out (and at this stage, I haven't seen Turkey mentioned in any lists of likewise or hopefuls for bidding 2028). The others are from China, Taiwan and Heiberg from Norway (I don't know where Roger87 got Azerbaijan from), all Executive Board members or very influential in the IOC. I don't think you can dismiss them as having something to lose, or negative nancies. It certainly shows that Bach doesn't have the exec board fully behind him on the proposal. Also to consider is one thing the membership at large has always been very keen to protect from erosion is their precious vote for the host cities. With many of their other privileges stripped over the years, the hosting vote is their one real big power they have. They could well see this as an attempt by the President or the EB to strip them, or sideline them, of that role. If, as a number of those quoted say, it would be the type of move that could only be implemented by a vote at a full session, I think it would be a strong doubt such a vote would go Bach's way. Not even Samaranch could get a lot of his proposals through, and Bach, as much as he might think he is, isn't yet a Samaranch in terms of his hold on power or sway.
  10. Also, another interesting angle on it: Are the 2024/2028 joint bid rumours provoking an IOC Civil War? Gotta say, I've been following Nick Butler since he shines insidethegames - he's really blossomed. He was a bit wet behind the ears at first, but he's doing some good Oly and IOC reporting now.
  11. IOC members opposed to Bach plan to award 2024 and 2028 Olympics together
  12. So they can compete, and win medals. Some even gold. But they better not think of hosting. Yep, definitely an #alternativefacts
  13. Why stop at the Winter Asians? What about summer as well?
  14. Hmmmm. Not a bad idea. Let's face it, the Oceania Olympic Council (or whatever it i) is just too insignificant to be much use - it doesn't give us clout or much in the way of an internal competition. Just as Australia join the Asian Football Confederation and has already hosted an AFC Championship - , maybe it's time for Oceania to hook up with one of the bigger regional Olympic Councils formally. My only concern is that the Olympic Council of Asia is already pretty big and crowded - the Asiads are already huge events not that far behind the Olympics themselves. Do they really want to make them bigger?