Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/10/19 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    What is it with you and gay slurs? Internalized homophobia? As a straight guy (even as one who likes cute animals) it would never even occur to me to say something like that.
  2. 2 points
    She’s probably with AA ATM!
  3. 2 points
    It was Milan’s extravagant shopping that won the day! And boy, AA must be stewing in his own juices, cuz he got yet another one WRONG!
  4. 2 points
    So we really are seeing the end of the Olympic bidding process. Probably for the best in terms of the long-term health of the Movement, when you see the legacies of over-promising around the world. And if Coates is right (obviously there’s the caveat that he is Australian) there’s one thing for sure - Australia will be great hosts, they always are. I imagine this’ll mean Salt Lake 2030 will be confirmed at the same session if they get official quickly enough.
  5. 2 points
    ... and yet neither Melbourne, nor any other Australian city or region is making any moves toward a bid. So let go of Melbourne, they’re not bidding. End of story. I’m a Melbourne resident and I know Melbourne have not yet shown any interest in a bid for 2032 or any other games. We are now in the Agenda 2020 era. A 2032 Brisbane/SE QLD bid has been shown to be very feasible under Agenda 2020. In Australia, only Brisbane and South East Queensland are making any moves ahead of a possible bid.
  6. 2 points
    Some new pics from the official game, showing how the venues will (probably) be dressed up.
  7. 2 points
    Louise Martin interview on BBC radio said that the plan is to announce the 2026 & 2030 hosts at the General Assembly in October 2026 Adelaide 2030 Hamilton no other candidates expressed any interest, so lock them in Paris/LA style
  8. 1 point
    So Tokyo tickets go on sale today via CoSport (I assume ATR and the rest are doing the same) - what are you all buying? I'll check out what is on offer and see what hideous mark up they have.
  9. 1 point
    I wrote this elsewhere but it make sense posting this here as well: Sweden lost because it mishandled the politics, failing to realise that the IOC knew Winter Games were fragile and wanted reassurance, not to be treated as if the IOC "needed" them more than the other way round. There was also no story to Stockholm other than the "never hosted" one--which Rio 2016 pretty much ended as a playable card. (Gothenburg is 400 years old in 2021 and is staging a multi-year celebration, which could have been a story.) I hope that they pick themselves up and try and try again until they win, just like Pyeongchang.
  10. 1 point
    After today, something tells me that the Swedes won’t be back anytime soon. This last Swedish effort was tepid at best anyway (& very last minute, politically speaking), & it was obviously not enough, even for a winter sports country that’s never hosted the Winter Olympics before & who’s had several failed previous bids as well. None of that mattered to the IOC today, & I’m sure that the Swedes will remember that for quite a while yet. But of course, the SOK could still be glutton for punishment, so who knows.
  11. 1 point
    That's why Paris learnt that lesson with the 2024 bid. Also, I remember Chirac and Delanoë (The French mayor at that time) despised each other, even if Alain Juppé (Chirac's right hand) admired Delanoë (Had Juppé became President instead Sarkozy, he would invite Delanoë as part of the government, but that's another story). That's not the way happened with Macron and Hidalgo (Even with their own differences, both worked together for the bid. Even Valerie Plescesse -The governor of Ile-de-France- worked with them). Ironically that's the same thing Sala (Milan's mayor and PD politician) worked with Giuseppe Conte and (gasp) Matteo Salvini for that bid (That bid was capable to unite 3 antagonic parties). That aspect is key for the city-nation relations and gave the image of political unity for the bid. Löfven (The Swedish Prime Minister) did a good job considering the circumstances, but the "rebel mayor" of Anna Könin Jermyr was really damaging for that image of unity.
  12. 1 point
    Normally I wouldn't want to say the press conference will be dealbreaker, but damn, Stockholm didn't ever try. I wonder if some of the dubious voters watched that conference and said: "Hell no". That reminds me 2012 race when Paris was the favourite but London won. Paris had the best bid (Best technical qualification, narrative), but the lobbying was just messy (And then Chirac's comments on Finnish food). On the other hand, you have London, creating a proper exciting bid around the youth and olympic movement with Blair on board. The difference was, Paris learnt that lesson and went to create a different bid for 2024, now with Macron and Hidalgo on board. Using the same mastermind behind that campaign. In Tokyo, you had a normally serious Abe in a humanistic face related to a bid which can work as catarsis of a catastrophe. Or Rio and Pyeongchang as the cinderellas. Beyond the technical aspects, as was mentioned before, is about "selling themselves" and Italy lived for that. Milan was always expecting to shine alone over Rome and created an opportunity with an old seawolf like Magallo. Sure, the Swedish government was in negotiations; but the lack of confidence per government came before the elections and let's not forget Milan is currently a bright spot of the mainstream PD in antagonism over the current italian government with La Lega and M5S on coalition (That bid made possible three opposite parties working together). Also, I believe the Swedes looked like "amateurs" while promoting the event? The dilligence over the SOK was there, but between the government's lack of response, relative low approval by audiences and relevant holes related to financing and logistics were enough obstacles. Comparing Magallo, Richard Brisius failed so bad in that aspect (Off topic: he looked so regal in that conference).
  13. 1 point
    I was tempted to post a comment here, but not worth it. But it anyone wants to see want the polar opposite of 20/20 hindsight is.. There's only one story here and it's not a horse race
  14. 1 point
    I think the Swedish government just let their Olympic/sporting community have a little fun in presenting and "backing" the bid so half-heartedly. It just didn't build the critical mass that the Italians were able to build (even to the point of pushing aside their last big-city Olympic host, Torino, just so Milano could finally add the nomenclature "Olympic City" to its resume). Rome finally allowed that opportunity since Milano had always been a frustrated Summer wannabee (and which slot CONI has always reserved for Rome).
  15. 1 point
    But you're assuming that volunteers in these situations you mention have to go back home to their distant point of origin. I don't think any responsible OCOG would allow or foster that. It would be highly irresponsible for them to do so. I am sure volunteers , for a well-planned Games, are encouraged to shack up/ find shared housing close by for their duties.
  16. 1 point
    It would still be rather awful for people from Stockholm. At Vancouver 2010 volunteers had to meet very early in the morning at a transit site to get picked up by a bus and then go to Whistler. And they might make you wait there until midnight. And Whistler was only a two hour bus ride from Vancouver. For volunteers from Uppsala the equivalent would be driving an hour to a meeting point in Stockholm an hour before time to wait for a bus and go over your responsibilities, then take a 10 hour bus ride to Are, then work there for >8 hours, then take a 10 hour bus ride home, and then driving an hour back home. That's more than 30 hours in one "day" of volunteering. I am not saying that the Swedish bid was unworkable. But it would have been very challenging even with strong government support. With very little government support I think it was a longshot.
  17. 1 point
    The shrieking English PA lady was atrocious. These ceremonies use to be such dignified affairs, some (not all) now seem like carnival sideshows.
  18. 1 point
    It's a hypothetical, but it's one based on the organizers waking up one morning and deciding they don't want to host the Olympics anymore after they already agreed to host the Olympics. It's not going to be as simple as public support dropping and the organizers coming to a sudden realization. You're skipping ahead to where that's already happened and say "it'd be a stain," but wouldn't that be cause to NOT make that decision in the first place? I just can't envision the issue of public support (which isn't exactly that high right now) being the breaking point that would compel them to tell the IOC no thank you. There would have to be something more than that. And in reference to Denver, here's some good reading for you.. 'Colorado Would Be Laughing Stock of the World': Remembering Denver's Disastrous 1976 Olympic Bid The simple view of history is that it was NIMBY-ism and backlash from environmentalists that got the games cancelled. That's largely true, but it ignores the efforts of the Denver organizers who promised the host the games on a laughably small budget and were piss poor and planning the games. The result was massive changes to the venue plan which led to skyrocketing rockets and emboldened the Olympic opposition movement. In that regard, it's not unlike Boston's 2024 bid which made promises they weren't going to be able to keep, so it was easy for anti-Olympics movement to make the case against them. So back to Stockholm. Seems like they're well managed. They have a plan that doesn't require much new construction. Most importantly, there is a good amount of private financing. So what case to the citizens of Stockholm and Sweden have to oppose it? If it's just a general anti-Olympics sentiment, is that going to mean much for the organizers who obviously remain committed to the effort and certainly wouldn't back down anytime after Bach opens the envelope that says "Stockholm" on it.
  19. 1 point
    A retractable roof on Suncorp Stadium greatly boosts a bid as providing a solution for indoor sports and swimming. The legacy goes beyond the Olympics. Brisbane now has a large multi use indoor facility for indoor concerts and major sporting events. It can be closed when it rains and during the hot summer. I see it as the only feasible way of solving the arena issue without the need of building more arenas. Brisbane only needs a new modern arena downtown. Should Thas project not go ahead, Suncorp with a retractable roof is still an option. If Melbourne can solve their arena "problem" with Marvel/Docklands Stadium, Brisbane can pose a far serious bid with Suncorp having a roof.
  20. 1 point
    A lot. Which is why several posters have called you out for - as Jesse very accurately put it - a staggering amount of bullshit. Yes, the Soviet bloc boycotted 1984. What does that have to do with anything? The fact that you're trying to throw shade on LA by comparing them to Atlanta is just a petty insult and makes it hard to take anything you're saying seriously. It's basically the kind of generic "here's how much you suck" narrative that posters here like to throw out there to be mean. Do you honestly believe that the world's press is going to come to LA in 2028 and think it's like Atlanta, let alone because of the venue plan? I find it hard to believe you actually believe that. It's hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole. Here's the irony in your whole narrative. You refer to LA as using "cheap facilities" and now you're saying they have to make due with what the private sector provides. Well.. the private sector has provided LA the new stadium at Hollywood Park, Banc of California Stadium, Staples Center, Galen Center, Microsoft Theater, the sports park in Carson, plus massive renovations to the Coliseum, the Forum, and Pauley Pavilion. Yea, what a hardship for LA that they have to "make due" with all those excellent facilities. So what if they're not supported by the government. Who gives 2 shits if they're not "national" buildings as if that is a knock against Los Angeles or the United States in general. And I say that as an arrogant New Yorker who thinks LA is by far the ideal city in the United States for the Olympics, not here. And it's precisely because of the private sector investing in sports infrastructure that has made it that way. Not to mention 2 massive universities who spent about as much money on dorm rooms as another city might have to spend on an Olympic village, yet you're trying to spin that into a negative. Does any of this make Paris' venues better than LA's by comparison? Absolutely not. Does it make LA cheap? Hell no. Yes, Paris can offer up some iconic venues and vistas that LA doesn't measure up against (although by your own admission, LA does have a few of their own that Paris isn't on their level). But your narrative that the world is going to return to Los Angeles and that everyone is going to dislike the venues because they are "cheap" is completely full of horse manure. And some of the statements you tried to back it up with, particularly the ones where you claim LA has lost because they don't offer more extravagant bids, make you seem not only clueless, but extremely ignorant.
  21. 1 point
    The binational aspect of Stockholm is being overlooked in coverage of this. I think it’s the most important aspect of the bid - if it works, it’s a total game-changer for countries without bobsled tracks, high ski runs etc.
  22. 1 point
    I didn't actually name you, but that's quite a reaction. Guilty conscious? And since you bring up "immaturity" - most here think you're a horrible little cunt who who brings little to this forum aside from from casual homophobia. Just to be clear where we all stand.
  23. 1 point
    Here's a few pics I pulled from Twitter. You can finally see the roof.
  24. 1 point
    That goes without saying. And as an Australian poster already mentioned, 2032 would be the earliest a Melbourne bid could get off the ground anyway. And if Paris & L.A. host 2024 & 2028 respectively, I think a Melbourne 2032 bid would have a very good chance. Especially when it would mean three-consecutive strong & reliable, cost-effective Games; Paris, L.A. & Melbourne. That should give the IOC some real comfort for a long while. I think Berlin, as nice as it would be, is a non-starter, as some as our German fellow posters have attested to. There's been too much opposition in Germany lately against the Olympics, i.e. Munich 2022 & Hamburg 2024, & especially Berlin would be problematic if their 2000 failed attempt is any indication. So doubtful the IOC would want to deal with any of that. I think 2032 could position itself very nicely for Australia, providing the next two Summer Olympics go to where we think at this time are going. The time-window will come into question, but considering the alternatives that could likely be in play, Melbourne should have no problem. Doha will want to bid cause they'll say if Melbourne could bid with October dates, then why can't we. Fine, let them. They won't win anyway against Melbourne. Same with Baku. And the IOC will still want to take a break from Asia, especially China, so that puts Shanghai at bay (& Saporro could end up with 2026 if Europe doesn't come through again, so even more [east] Asian fatigue). Wouldn't worry too much about Russia, either.
  25. 1 point
    But aren't you the one constantly touting Ostersund/Are as already being one of the best & biggest winter resorts in Sweden & all of Europe? So do they really need to make it all the more "bigger & better"? And would the local populance & government support such an idea in a much more democratic country like Sweden? Sochi & Russia, on the other hand, had nothing, zilch, nada. And Putin & his clan were ready & willing to put the huge work into it. Those are the huge differences between the two countries. Sorry, Pillan. But I just don't see it. Ostersund & Sweden doesn't need this kind of big investment, when even you yourself say, you guys already have one of the biggest & best winter facilities out there. And IOC members talking among themselves in the open, is totally different on how they would cast their vote upon any particular candidate in a SECRET ballot.