Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/28/21 in all areas

  1. I was at the Opening too...best night of my life!
    1 point
  2. They might get Japan. That's not a given. Salt Lake getting an Olympics in the 2030s is a virtual certainty. If the USOPC had their way, it would be for 2034, but obviously that presumes the IOC has a 2030 host. We'll see what the Japanese appetite is for another Olympics so soon after Tokyo, and I imagine more than a few people will be watching Beijing in a couple of months to see how that goes, know that it'll be an unusual Olympics for a number of reasons. Hard to imagine any cities emerging for either of those 2, particularly if the IOC is looking at more backroom deals. We'll see how things look 2.5 years from now when hopefully for the IOC that the "genocide games" as some want to call them is a distant memory and they're only looking ahead at a brighter future. I'm sure there's some sentiment within the IOC to just these Olympics over with and hope they can move on. But like I said, all the IOC ever needs is 1 willing and capable partner every 4 years. They haven't failed at that yet, so there's little reason to think they're in grave danger at any point in the foreseeable future.
    1 point
  3. 1 point
  4. Particularly on a website decided to Olympic host bidding, let's not be ignorant to history here. We didn't get another Olympics in Beijing because they ticked boxes or because the IOC really wanted to partner up with a communist country. There were more than a few cities interested in bidding for 2022. The IOC scared nearly all of them off, in large part because of the recency of Sochi and their massively expensive Olympics, but also because of the miles long list of demands the IOC wants to impose on the host city/country. We know pretty definitively that's why Oslo dropped out, which is a shame, because that would have likely been another amazing Olympics. So that left the IOC with a giant douche and a turd sandwich in Beijing and Almaty. And it was a 44-40 final vote. If just 3 Beijing voters have a change of heart that day, we're not having this discussion (although we're probably having a different discussion as it relates to Kazakhstan). The moral of the story here being that let's not paint a picture of the IOC that they were really gung ho to return to Beijing and to partner with China. Nearly half of the IOC voters didn't want that, and I'm sure in hindsight, many of those 44 who advocating for Beijing probably regret that decision. We all know the IOC wants to play it both ways.. when things are good, they'll claim credit for the Olympic movement. When they aren't good, they'll avoid any notion that they can do anything for the cause of human rights. That all said.. Shanghai 2036? No shot after the trail of bad press the IOC is going to leave in their wake here, unless China does a complete 180 in the next decade, and we all know that's not going to happen. As the story goes and what we saw with 2032 is that the IOC only needs 1 willing partner that they want to work with. And then they can ignore the rest for whatever reason they want. Literally the only way Shanghai is even a thought in their minds would be for no other cities to be interested, which undoubtedly would include a lot of begging from the IOC for someone to come in and save their collective asses. As for Agenda 2020.. the whole purpose of that direction for the IOC isn't to find an ideal candidate, but rather for cities to be more open and less rigid about what they are allowed to offer up. If Italy offered up their Milan-Cortina bid for 2006 with venues spread over the country, they probably wouldn't have won. But in the age of agenda 2020, they get consideration they wouldn't have 2 decades ago. Agenda 2020 doesn't help a city like Shanghai if China can't help themselves and will spend extravagant amounts of money to make it happen. That's literally the antithesis of what Agenda 2020 is supposed to be about. The silver lining for the IOC is that once they're through this fiasco, they have 4 future hosts locked in with France, Italy, the United States, and Australia. It's been a long time since the future Olympics calendar hasn't included the likes of a China or a Russia or a new frontier country like Brazil. So they have an opportunity to salvage their reputation if 2 years is enough time before Paris for the world to forget everything that's happened in the last 20 months. Easier said than done, but that's why if we're talking about future summer hosts, the time for that discussion is likely years down the road
    1 point
  5. This is the problem with Agenda 2020. If Shanghai jumps in now and does everything right, of course it will tick every box and be technically sound. On what basis can the IOC turn it down? Not every Agenda 2020 'preferred candidate' will be as benevolent as Brisbane. What the rigidness of Agenda 2020 fails to capture is optics and mood - something only an IOC vote with multiple options could hope to mitigate. Case in point is the select of Sydney over Beijing in 1993 with Tiannamen Square so fresh in people's minds.
    1 point
  6. That is probably NOT a wise idea for any O host city now because the winners -- espeiclally Athletics are NOT finalized until 8-9 yers down the road. Remember, the IOC and WADA are still re-awarding many medals from London 2012 to those found doping by the cheating Russians. So, certainly, any smart stadium will NOT be engraving names of Olympic "winners" on their walls so long as those are still in flux and the jury is out.
    1 point
  7. I'm slightly less cynical than you, I do think smaller cities have a chance now, and that they'll be taken seriously rather than dismissed outright. That's partly because the supply/demand equation has shifted, but I would also credit the IOC's rule changes too. Of course, smaller cities still need to hope there's not an Alpha+ city wanting a Games in the same year that they're eyeing up. We're not going to see a situation where the IOC chooses Manchester over New York or Boston over London. And of course the buffer between the old and the new was the IOC ripping up their rules so neither of the megacities on offer lost out (so we have Paris and LA Games). A good decision, but they would never have done the same if Paris and Brisbane were the last two standing. The IOC have given themselves and smaller cities some more flexibility, which I think is a good thing. There are some aspects of the new norm I'm cynical about (transparency being the biggie), but this actually isn't one of them.
    1 point
  8. ^^ I don't know what evidence you have for that. Birmingham was the British candidate for 1992 and Manchester for 1996 and 2000. Neither city came higher than third. Many of the 128 members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who will make the decision, have emphasised that only London would stand a chance in future. As one said when Manchester lost to Sydney: “We will know you’re serious when you come back with London.” I'm not making (or attempting to make) any judgement on Manchester's capability but the IOC repeatedly rejected UK cities that aren't London and bit our hand off as soon as London was offered upsetting repeat bidder and strong favourite Paris. 2020 was not a bid race conducted under the "new norm" rules, so I don't know why you'd think Manchester (in a world where London 2012 didn't happen) would have a chance against Tokyo. Whether a city like Manchester has a chance in future with the new rules is a more interesting question. But to suggest any UK city but London could've won in recent decades is fanciful.
    1 point
  9. Emperor's cup final in early January will be the first ever event played here in the finally finished olympic stadium.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...