Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/09/2015 in all areas

  1. Just to point out, yes Joburg has the bigger stadium that was used for the 2010 world cup, BUT it is completely incompatible for fitting in an athletics track. Once again, Durban was the only city that ensures it was Olympic compliant when building it's new world cup stadiums. That shows how far in advance they were planning when all other regions were not. Hence, for Joburg to bid, they (like Cape Town) would have to build a new stadium for track sports and will have little use for their two existing 60000+ seater stadiums. Thanks, I can't be bothered to continue to see intellectually challenged responses
    2 points
  2. Do we have to bring Hitler into the debate over Bach's behaviour? Really?
    1 point
  3. As you said "may", but still proposing a future change you need to prove the potential interest of the change or logical reason(s) for that change. And that's the point of your proposition of Jo-burg had not real support in reality. Let's recapitulate: Infrastructure Both cities are full of hotels, restaurants and atractions. In any case, Durban was more experienced in international events, contrasting Jo-burg. Poverty Both have their pros and cons. So, in what sense Jo-burg is better fit for that when both have the same issues? Geography Johannesburg is in a dry plateau and is 1,753 m above sea level. Meanwhile Durban is a coastal city with better weather condictions. Venues Jo-burg has a bigger stadium (FIFA), meanwhile Durban was equiped with many sporting centers. Considering the defense of the "2020 Agenda" for some posters here, which bid would have been less expensive for the African people? Making white elephants of sporting venues or adequate an international airport and public transport for the other city? Political Will Considering most of the core voters of the current government is located in Southeastern South Africa and the ideological values (Mentioned before), it's not brainer how Jo-burg would have been riskier. So next time, when someone declaring how the government would do, it will came with factical reasons. And it goes for other crazy propositions (Reading previous posts, remember how enthusiasm Z was from a potential Lagos bid?)
    1 point
  4. That's precisely the problem here. It's like trying to have a discussion with a certain poster from 'England' or a certain other one from the land down under. No matter how much rationale one explains (especially as well as you've done), to these particular individuals, they merely revert back to their meaningless rhetoric. I guess it's hard to comprehend when you're doing "10 second google searches" from 10,000 miles away. Cuz ya know, the internet is never wrong.
    1 point
  5. Overly negative article on state of construction for 2016... normally I yawn at these, but the talk of power contracts is interesting. And the video is good http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/08/us-olympics-brazil-idUSKBN0NT0BT20150508
    1 point
  6. Is there an ignore button on here for individual posters? Listen Z man, I am South African, I think my knowledge of the political fundamentals at play trumps that of someone that Google's his info for a response. Politically, a Johanesburg Games has no support. You are stating support for Cape Town way back when means likely support for Joburg now without even comprehending how the political landscape plays out in SA. The main political leaders are from Durban. The simple fact is you have a hypothesis and are sticking to it regardless. Well done you. But it means nothing since it is rooted in so much conjecture it is flawed. If you want to be taken seriously, not by the internet but by a South African, then listen. It seems you just filter everything out
    1 point
  7. It's not "shocking" that people on here disagree with one another. What gets tiring though, is when you're telling the majority here on the subject that they're "overrating" Durban's chances "way too much", & your "opinion" must then be the be-all & end-all, while at the same time, you haven't EFFECTIVELY told any of us why we're overestimating. All of your subjective "points" have been constructively countered by many of us here. Yet you insist on reiterating again & again what has already been addressed. You don't agree with the rest of us here on the matter. The rest of us don't agree with you. It should be case closed already.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...