Jump to content


ABUJA 2014


1323 replies to this topic

#51 Ripley

    Ripley

  • Premium Members
  • 4125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Interests:Modern architecture, swimming and politics.

Posted 16 August 2006 - 05:58 AM

View Postjim jones, on Aug 16 2006, 04:34 AM, said:

I have said ti before "deny abuja and the british isles , australia , new zealand and canada might as well say they will be playing with themselves in 2014 and beyond LOL

Jim jones


If the African CWG Feds are that petulant and irrational then there is no point carrying on with the CWGs at all. At the end of the day the CWGs are an ideal opportunity for smaller and developing nations to host a Games with global appeal (eg malaysia). The UK could quite happily pass on the CWGs in favour of Euro champs, World Champs and the Olympics.....so I guess the end of the CWGs will hurt the Africans much more since the African Games have about as much clout on the international scene and with sponsors as a mouse fart.

Using emotional backmail is just f*cked up in this context. There are a number of developing Commonwealth countires that are more stable and in a better position politically and in terms of security to host than Nigeria. By casting doubts on Nigeria nobody is saying that Africa should not host. South Africa is in a far better position right now and I don't see why the "white" Commonwealth is obliged to jump at the first "black" bid that comes along. Its not racist to try and protect the future of the Games.

Frankly with an election on the horizon the potential for Nigeria and Abuja to implode their bid is very high. It will be up to them to prove everyone else wrong....no-one, no matter where they are from will vote for a host city in a country that is in the grip of political turmoil and violence, particulalry when that city is the political capital of said country.
Posted Image

LONDON 2012 - Higher, Faster, Stronger, Sexier

#52 Rafa

    Flag Bearer Level 6

  • Premium Members
  • 6535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CAPE TOWN

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:48 PM

thats slightly idealistic, it will always come down to votes, u vote for me i vote for u,and if the agreements made a few year back are kept abuja will be tough to beat in terms of votes,
Posted Image

#53 Sir Rols

    Torch Bearer 10000 Club

  • Premium Members
  • 17025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Interests:Olympic movement, sport in general, history, politics, movies, literature, travel, inline skating

Posted 16 August 2006 - 06:23 PM

View PostMo Rush, on Aug 17 2006, 04:48 AM, said:

thats slightly idealistic, it will always come down to votes, u vote for me i vote for u,and if the agreements made a few year back are kept abuja will be tough to beat in terms of votes,

Vote deals could always be a trump card in any campaign _ provided the bidder in question has a workable plan. If Nigeria can provide that, they could well be in the box seat. But the jury is still out on that one.
Posted Image

#54 jim jones

    Flag Bearer Level 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2918 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nova scotia

Posted 18 August 2006 - 09:29 PM

View Postroltel, on Aug 16 2006, 04:09 AM, said:

There is a LOT of goodwill from myself and many others on the board to see events such as the Olympics and the CWGs go to new frontiers. If anything, many of us can be accused of wishful thinking that the likes of Argentina, Brazil, South Africa etc can host an Olympics sooner rather than later and the CWGs move to locations beyond the "boring" traditional white dominion hosts. Looking realistically at all these hopes, however, you always have to face one very simple fact _ these potential new frontier hosts have to first demonstrate the basic ability to be able to physically handle such events, and the stability and prosperity to do so responsibly. Yes, Nigeria may have the money part sorted out, but where they have BIG question marks over their abilities is their (lack of) political and social stability and their previous less than stellar experience in hosting smaller events.
Their plans may well be good, they may have the facilities and, yes, the numbers on the CGF may get them over the line, but just because a member of the CGF may come from a black-ruled nation doesn't mean they are not aware of the need to have a host that can host the games SUCCESSFULLY to ensure their future continuation. The CGF has already taken a risk of sorts awarding the 2010 games to India. They may well want to see how that succeeds before taking the risk even further. The time WILL come when Africa hosts a CGF, it may well be 2014, but there are a lot of factors working against it happening so soon as well.

For the record, if you were to ask me my preferences to the 2014 host, I'd say it depends: Abuja for the new frontiers and exotic factor (IF they can prove they can manage it), but if I was to look for the future of the CWGs, I'd have to say Halifax, to shore the games up in one of the more important of the CGF members and to bring the games back down to earth (something the Canadians have managed to do very well in the past).


Believe me Halifax is in no position to host a commonwealth games at all. No Stadium , No Aquatics
Centre, No Velodrome , and most importantly no money from the federal government , a provincial
government with a 12.5 billion dollar debt and a city with a debt of 280 million dollars. this is with a city of 375,000 people.
On the horizon is a 500 million dollar sewage treament plant , a 600 million dollar bill for a sewer pipe sywstem overhaul. The ammount of federal government financial support is capped at 35 percent compared to Glasgow with 80 percent financial support and Abuja with about the same as glasgow from its federal government.
Halifax is half the size of Glasgow for population and one tenth that of Melbournes.
As a nova scotian I say send it to Nigeria it is a the just thing to do with a country that is both financially equiped the best and venue wise has the stadiums, arenas , velodrome and aquatic centre in place today.

jim jones

View PostRipley, on Aug 16 2006, 10:58 AM, said:

If the African CWG Feds are that petulant and irrational then there is no point carrying on with the CWGs at all. At the end of the day the CWGs are an ideal opportunity for smaller and developing nations to host a Games with global appeal (eg malaysia). The UK could quite happily pass on the CWGs in favour of Euro champs, World Champs and the Olympics.....so I guess the end of the CWGs will hurt the Africans much more since the African Games have about as much clout on the international scene and with sponsors as a mouse fart.

Using emotional backmail is just f*cked up in this context. There are a number of developing Commonwealth countires that are more stable and in a better position politically and in terms of security to host than Nigeria. By casting doubts on Nigeria nobody is saying that Africa should not host. South Africa is in a far better position right now and I don't see why the "white" Commonwealth is obliged to jump at the first "black" bid that comes along. Its not racist to try and protect the future of the Games.

Frankly with an election on the horizon the potential for Nigeria and Abuja to implode their bid is very high. It will be up to them to prove everyone else wrong....no-one, no matter where they are from will vote for a host city in a country that is in the grip of political turmoil and violence, particulalry when that city is the political capital of said country.

seems to me that your tone is that of the developing part of the commonwealth is an infant that has to take orders from the GRandmother Great Britian. Got a thought for you . The developing part of the commonwealth will kick the old Hag to the curb LOL.

Jim jones

#55 wishblade

    Bronze

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Location:Halifax

Posted 19 August 2006 - 09:21 PM

Wow are you ever adement on convincing people to believe you Jim. First you say "with no money from the federal government" and then you make the statement of 35% contribution, which btw is subject to increase. You lose all credibility with statements like that.

#56 jim jones

    Flag Bearer Level 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2918 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nova scotia

Posted 19 August 2006 - 11:07 PM

View Postwishblade, on Aug 20 2006, 02:21 AM, said:

Wow are you ever adement on convincing people to believe you Jim. First you say "with no money from the federal government" and then you make the statement of 35% contribution, which btw is subject to increase. You lose all credibility with statements like that.

no creditability lost at all because there has not been any funding announcements what so ever on the commonwealth games . Micheal Chong has stated that the Feds will not go beyond 35 percent funding if they actually decide to fund the CWGs for Halifax. Both the province and the HRM are trying to get 50 K in federal funding for a feasability study. Have you seen it announced in the last month that the feds are going to fund a study and whom will do this study??
Micheal Chong actually has no cheque writing authority his bosses Bev Oda , Jim Flatterey and Steve Harper do.

So with no funding announcement like we had with Sheila Copps of the Jean Chretian Liberals for the Hamilton Bid one year prior to the bid selection date for the 2010 games how do you explain that there is actually a commitment in dollars and cents a opposed to platitudes a junior cabinet minister like Micheal Chong or Peter Mackay who is occupied with the foriegn affairs portfolio? Harper sandbagged Mackay to keep him out of the country and out of his hair LOL thus perventing a former leader of the PC's from networking inside the party.

Jim Flatterey said recently that the provinces should think about raising taxes if they want to have different programs they want. Considering that halifax is a military town and the tories are committing considerable money to equipment purchases for the military that is the place they are trying to buy votes. That tactic may be effective in the HRM.

There will be no increase in funding from 35 percent even if the tories with power actually approve funding as that would cut right to the heart of a bone of contention with western canada . The martimes gets far too many hand outs at alberta's expense. If they were to go north of 35 percent or what was the case with the Calgary 1988 olympics Harper and all the other Alberta conservative could kiss their political careers good bye in the next election.

The conservatives are not going to risk alberta for a commonwealth games in a tory Halifax, Nova Scotia that probably will stay with the liberals and the NDp in the next federal election.

jim jones

View Postwishblade, on Aug 20 2006, 02:21 AM, said:

Wow are you ever adement on convincing people to believe you Jim. First you say "with no money from the federal government" and then you make the statement of 35% contribution, which btw is subject to increase. You lose all credibility with statements like that.

no creditability lost at all because there has not been any funding announcements what so ever on the commonwealth games . Micheal Chong has stated that the Feds will not go beyond 35 percent funding if they actually decide to fund the CWGs for Halifax. Both the province and the HRM are trying to get 50 K in federal funding for a feasability study. Have you seen it announced in the last month that the feds are going to fund a study and whom will do this study??
Micheal Chong actually has no cheque writing authority his bosses Bev Oda , Jim Flatterey and Steve Harper do.

So with no funding announcement like we had with Sheila Copps of the Jean Chretian Liberals for the Hamilton Bid one year prior to the bid selection date for the 2010 games how do you explain that there is actually a commitment in dollars and cents a opposed to platitudes a junior cabinet minister like Micheal Chong or Peter Mackay who is occupied with the foriegn affairs portfolio? Harper sandbagged Mackay to keep him out of the country and out of his hair LOL thus perventing a former leader of the PC's from networking inside the party.

Jim Flatterey said recently that the provinces should think about raising taxes if they want to have different programs they want. Considering that halifax is a military town and the tories are committing considerable money to equipment purchases for the military that is the place they are trying to buy votes. That tactic may be effective in the HRM.

There will be no increase in funding from 35 percent even if the tories with power actually approve funding as that would cut right to the heart of a bone of contention with western canada . The martimes gets far too many hand outs at alberta's expense. If they were to go north of 35 percent or what was the case with the Calgary 1988 olympics Harper and all the other Alberta conservative could kiss their political careers good bye in the next election.

The conservatives are not going to risk alberta for a commonwealth games in a toryless Halifax, Nova Scotia that probably will stay with the liberals and the NDp in the next federal election.

jim jones

#57 thatsnotmypuppy

    Eurovision Winner 3 Years Running

  • Premium Members
  • 8219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 August 2006 - 11:00 PM

Yawn. As we saw with the 2011 Rugby World Cup our percieved 'voting block' ideas can be utterly pulled apart by smart marketing. Which is why I think the Games will be in Glasgow.

#58 Alexjc

    Flag Bearer Level 3

  • Premium Members
  • 3281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Life in general.

Posted 22 August 2006 - 01:37 AM

As we saw with the 2011 Rugby World Cup our percieved 'voting block' ideas can be utterly pulled apart by smart marketing.

:D Yeah, Ahh haha! :D

NZ RWC2011!

Glasgow CWG2014!
Sports Fest 2012!
Onward to London we go!

#59 Sir Rols

    Torch Bearer 10000 Club

  • Premium Members
  • 17025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Interests:Olympic movement, sport in general, history, politics, movies, literature, travel, inline skating

Posted 29 August 2006 - 09:06 PM

Quote

CANBERRA, Aug 30 AAP - US advice on troubled Nigeria has prompted Foreign Affairs to again warn Australians of the perils of travelling in the oil rich west African nation.
On Monday the US consulate in Lagos issued a warden message warning of impending threats to attack and or kidnap hostages from spots frequented by Westerners in the Niger Delta.
``The US Consulate has received credible information that, as of mid-August, there was an impending threat to attack and/or take hostages from the following areas: Intels camp, Kilometre 16, Aba Road; Orlando Courts behind Hotel Presidential; Prodeco Camp Onne, Wilbros Site II; Rumuelimeli Daewoo; Bonny Island; Rivers State Eket and Akwa Ibom State,'' the message says.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has maintained its overall Nigerian advice at ``high degree of caution'' but the department advises Australians to ``not travel'' in some areas of the country.
AAP

Once again, can't see things like this helping Abuja's cause.
Posted Image

#60 faster

    Torch Bearer 10000 Club

  • Premium Members
  • 13151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waterloo

Posted 29 August 2006 - 09:49 PM

The Brits had the games in 2002, its time that Canada gets a crack. Abuja shouldn't even be in the race. Lagos is in the only true Nigerian city and the country is currently in shambles. Oil workers routinely kidnapped and beaten and held for ransom. Utter nonsense to give the games to such a disorganized, imcompetant and regionally hostile nation, oh wait that can be Canada to, so I guess Glasgow can have them. :lol:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users