Jump to content

Australian Kiwi

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Australian Kiwi

  1. Admittedly haven't really followed this very closely - why are these Games being packaged as 'Milan CORTINA'? Milan is such a global name - surely that would suffice? And its not like previous Winter Olympics haven't been somewhat cohosted-eg Vancouver and Whistler. Likewise 2032 won't be Brisbane-Gold Coast. Pick one! I like consistency. Just a thought.
  2. The video above has just made me realise that Italy will have managed to fit in two Olympics between American Games.
  3. That Woodkid track is stunning. Musically was up there with the highlight moments of the Athens, London and Sochi ceremonies.
  4. My thoughts on the 2032 logo... Overt Western expressions of Indigenous culture (like the Sydney 2000 logo) will be unlikely. 'Brand Queensland' is going to be very keen to take centre stage. You'll notice 'QUEENSLAND' is firmly planted on the interim logo - not to mention appearing on the Commonwealth Games 2018 logo. I have a feeling the IOC will snuff this idea. However I think the logo will likely speak more to promoting an image of Queensland as a whole instead of Brisbane alone. Colours: the state colour is Queensland Maroon. I feel fairly confident this will be present in some ways. The state's geography from east to west has quite a great cross section of colours: The reef (pinks, yellows and aquas - could be very LA84). The coast (aquas, deep blues, golden sands, lush green mountains) The outback (yellows, oranges, shades of green). I hope we will not see an 'Athlete in Motion' logo again in an Australian Games (the 2000 Olympics and 2006 and 2018 Commonwealth Games had them - time to be a bit more original). I'd love to see a native flower of some kind be the basis of the logo. I think flowers and native flora are culturally neutral (much more important/sensitive now compared to when Sydney's logo was designed) and can offer a great degree of flexibility in how they are visually interpreted. It could almost take a similar form to the olive wreath on the 2004 logo. If its not the logo I think Australian natives could make an incredible 'Games Look' reminiscent of Atlanta's 'Quilt of Leaves' For example, the Golden Wattle is Australia's national flower, and there are many varieties native all across the country. They usually flower at the end of winter and signal the arrival of spring and summer (when these Olympics will be held). It's also been the inspiration for the new Australian National Brand - which coincidentally reminds me of the London 2012 cauldron. Some ideas from Google..... imagine the green and gold of the below mixed in with Queensland Maroon...... a very dark and almost Atlanta-like scheme but I think it could be very beautiful.
  5. This is wonderful! you're really talented. The shape of Queensland with the shards all coming together on SEQ is fantastic. My only though might be to play around with colours - its ok to vary off from Olympic colours towards the palette that could be used in 2032... I have a feeling 2032 might be a lot of Green, Gold and Maroon (duh).
  6. I knew about Coles but as I understood it Coates was also fairly obstructive to the bid having success. I'd also forgotten about that incident - poor judgement I think by Ron Walker as it meant that Rogge (who had planned on visiting Melbourne during the 2006 Games) backed out (something about protocol of having a senior NOC member present with the IOC president?) At the time it wasn't a good look as the feeling around town was that Melbourne would move onto exploring a 2020/2024 Olympic bid (needless to say the idea never gained momentum).
  7. Rogge was great and had a the presence of a benevolent statesman. The Olympics under his watch felt optimistic. He didn't have an ego about him either.
  8. I was just reading about the inception of the 1996 bid and came across an article on the history of the bid that mentioned that the study was commissioned on behalf of the City (who decided it was a no-goer).
  9. You really don't get it, do you? You can bold, up size font and bullet point all you wish but none of the above resolves the question at hand - did Coates give Brisbane a significant advantage by providing it with intel above and beyond what Germany or any other applicant nation was provided? The fact that others were blind sided by the announcement and expressed dissatisfaction with the process is a significant red flag that it was not an even playing field. As an applicant city without the support of a powerful insider like Coates the proposition of Agenda 2020 would be far too risky because the water is murky. The fact that Kazan is powering up as a potential interested party for 2036 speaks for itself. Welcome to your New Rules.
  10. Victorian here - I don't think 2000 selection of Sydney is the historic problem with Melbourne and Coates (Sydney was the right choice). It was kind of the opposite-- he was frustrated that in 1988 the AOC endorsed Melbourne over Brisbane marginally for 1996 and consequently white-anted the Melbourne bid from the inside.
  11. Bang on here . This is precisely what I've tried to articulate. Its plain as day this is what has been happening over the past few years. Its a basic conflict of interest how close he has been to the process. My intent in posting this article from 1999 was that it provides a fairly interesting take on the man himself and what motivates him. I'm not convinced of his ethics.
  12. Without setting things on fire even more (I truly just thought it was an interesting article given recent conversations around here) - I don't think its demonisation. Its not like he's the only member of the IOC who has been pulled over the coals. As much as I love the Olympics I loathe the IOC. Its difficult to embrace the Agenda 2020 when its first application has from one of the Old Boys to secure their own interests. As I've said elsewhere, if this was Kazan 2032 the world would be going mad about it.
  13. You are right - I do have it in for Coates. I don't like corrupt, entitled old men who have a well documented history of brazen poor conduct without consequence. Not to mention his contempt towards resolving serious 'cultural' matters within the AOC regarding bullying and sexual harassment. I firmly believe that his ego got the better of him and he (by stealth) took advantage of the Agenda 2020 reforms to spoon feed intel to the Australian bid with the goal of giving it an unbeatable advantage. He's a smart cookie with an ego. As for Brisbane - I don't have it in for the city. It will give the world an incredible and refreshing Games in 2032.
  14. I never knew this - but in 1977 Atlanta undertook a detailed study into a bid to host the 1984 Olympic Games. The study is a great snapshot of where the appetite for the Olympics was in the 1970s, identifies the need to focus on sustainability and making use of existing venues wherever possible (it highlights Munich and Montreal as key lessons in avoiding cost overruns resulting from grandiose venues). However unlike LA84 (and 1996) it still proposed a reliance on federal and state funding to make the 'modest' proposal feasible. Major capital investment was envisaged for the main stadium, aquatics centre, velodrome and village - with everything else largely to take place in existing city and local school and university sports facilities. Venue options: Expansion of Grant Field (now Bobby Dodd Stadium) or adapted Atlanta-Fulton Stadium (former baseball stadium located north of 1996 Centennial Stadium). "Downtown" Aquatic Center to be handed over to YMCA Atlanta post-Games Lakewood Fairgrounds Ultimately the continued fallout of Montreal and the findings of the study gave the City of Atlanta cold feat and it withdrew interest leaving LA and NY as the US candidates for 1984. Link
  15. I don't think it was losing, but more the brutality of the first elimination with such little support in the first round? As an Australian I can certainly empathise with the sense of shock at being eliminated with just a single vote in our bid for the 2022 World Cup. Again, imagine if London had exited the 2012 race first - or even second - when it was billed as a London v Paris race? The British tabloids would have lost their minds and cast a hex on Lausanne.
  16. The arrogant words which confirm scale of corruption in Olympics Ian Wooldridge Last updated at 00:00 10 March 1999 ONE sentence uttered in a devastating Australian television documentary has openly confirmed the corruption and chicanery rife in the International Olympic Committee. It was: 'They have to have a sense of obligation to you when they go into that room.' The room referred to is that to which IOC members retire in secret session to determine which city will host the Olympic Games six years hence. 'They' are the IOC members whose votes will decide it. The man who spoke those words in brusque arrogance to an astute woman interviewer will live to regret them. He is John Coates, president of the Australian Olympic Committee and a major player in the campaign which won next year's Olympics in Sydney. What he was unmistakably referring to, and seemingly attempting to justify, was the amount of bribery, palm-greasing and extravagant 'gifts' that now have to be lavished upon visitors from the IOC's vastly over-bloated membership to elicit their support. 'You have been described as a Machiavellian figure. Are you?' asked his interrogator. Coates smirked and enigmatically replied: 'Whatever it takes.' Whatever it takes. I can assure Mr Coates that his smart alec response will come under far less than enigmatic scrutiny when discussed at the International Olympic Committee's cauterising meetings in Lausanne this week. Openly he has blown the gaff on Olympic malprac-tices known to Sportsmail readers for the past decade. There is no doubt that the Sydney Olympics will take place on schedule and probably be an enormous success. Whether or not John Coates will be a hero figure then is another matter. He has assumed despotic control in alliance with a political party anathema to the Olympic movement when it still had principles and has elbowed into oblivion anyone who stood in his path. Those not elbowed, including several prominent Australian businessmen and lawyers, have already resigned in order to duck the shrapnel that will fly after this week's explosive meeting in Switzerland. With his usual equanimity, Juan Antonio Samaranch, the Spanish IOC president, has striven to diminish its significance by poo-pooing the entire scandal. 'The accusations against nine of the 10' (IOC members accused of graft and accepting back-handers) 'have scant foundation and the remaining one has hardly done anything wrong.' In a speech to his countrymen, he blamed the Press for 'overreacting' to the underhand tactics, including the hire of prostitutes, employed by Salt Lake City to host the next Winter Olympics. Adroitly, Samaranch sidestepped any reference to the tactics employed by Sydney to stage the Millennium Summer Games. The following are alleged: that Sydney paid for minimally 12 IOC members and their wives to holiday on Australia's Gold Coast, that others were helicoptered out to the Barrier Reef, that two African delegates were entrusted with $35,000 to 'encourage' impoverished athletes in their home countries and, most bizarre of all, that they arranged for another African IOC member to witness an operation performed in a major Sydney hospital. Though Olympic rules stipulate that no IOC member may visit a candidate city more than once, one so enjoyed himself that he went back to Sydney to be royally entertained on three further occasions. Another allegation that will surface this week is that Phillip Coles, an Australian IOC member for the past 17 years, set up a headquarters in Paris where, for five months, he entertained European fellow IOC colleagues too old, infirm or idle to take the long flight to Australia. As I said, little of this will surprise regular Sportsmail readers. I have been writing about this Olympic voting scandal for years. It was in these pages that the Princess Royal, an IOC member since 1988, first revealed that much of her time was wasted by returning valuable and unsolicited gifts that arrived at Buckingham Palace or her home at Gatcombe Park from bidding cities wishing to ingratiate themselves and obtain her vote. She sent them back by return of post or courier. It is massively disappointing that, as an incorruptible witness, she is now on an official tour of Japan instead of being in Lausanne, preparing to shred the flimsy veneer that cloaks the corruption long endemic in the International Olympic Committee. She is a maverick, of course, and may have Plan B up her sleeve. She knows where the bodies are buried, who has sold whom down the river and what the going price is to obtain a crucial vote. But the British royals are not supposed to embroil themselves in politics, especially, at the moment, in Australia, where a referendum on republicanism is shortly to be conducted. Pity. That famously corruscating tongue of hers could have done much to bring the Olympic movement back from the brink of ridicule and, ultimately, disband-ment. In his defiant arrogance Mr John Coates of Australia - so clever that he didn't anticipate the softly-softly question cleverly posed by a woman he felt he could walk all over - has finally opened the can of worms. Whether Coates survives the imbroglio is a matter of small consequence. Whether Juan Antonio Samaranch retains the International Olympic Committee presidency after this weekend is altogether a different matter. The man has betrayed almost every Olympic principle entrusted to him since the day of what he regards as no less than enthronement. Do you know something? I believe he is so surrounded by lickspittle sycophants and those to whom he has imparted the art of luxurious freeloading that he will survive. Clearly he will never speak to me again. This will not disturb my sleep at all.
  17. Yeah culturally that is certainly not appropriate if they haven't consulted with Indigenous folks here in Australia before doing that. That moment aside I LOVED tonight's ceremony. I think it struck a more positive, fun tone that the sombre / slightly playful Opening didn't quite achieve. It also felt much more cohesive and well constructed. Well done Tokyo.
  18. Apologies - above should read: I just did a bit of a Google - most candidate cities that have the unfortunate 'humiliation' of first round elimination do not return. Only exceptions in past 50 years is Istanbul (last for 2000, bidded for 2008). LA 1980 doesn't really count as it was a two horse race.
  19. I just did a bit of a Google - most candidate cities that have the unfortunate 'humiliation' of first elimination do return. Only exceptions in past 50 years is Istanbul (last for 2000, bidded for 2008). LA 1980 doesn't really count as it was a two horse race.
  20. Wasn't Rob saying though that he has moved on from his view that it was a case of American-exceptionalism? That aside I certainly do agree that it probably wasn't - and was simply more a case of terrible optics and poor "bedside manner" in the way it was announced. If an Australian city exited like that it would have caused uproar. I have no doubt that if by some strange quirk of voting patterns in first round of voting in 2005 resulted in "having obtained the least number of votes... the city of London has been eliminated" would have caused serious uproar among the British and I don't think they would be have returned for another shot anytime soon.
  21. This is an excellent point. The IOC loved the spectacle of those big, widely televised announcements and the drama they would create. I think perhaps a good starting point might have been to keeping the voting process quieter and less like a national election. Make it a closed session. No final pitches. From candidates - they're not there. Only pre-recorded videos and bid books. Just IOC members. Don't reveal eliminations in drips and drabs ("the city of ... has been eliminated" - awful). Simply announce the elected city via press release with the final results. A month or so later the IOC executive can travel to the elected host city to sign contracts and celebrate without rubbing the other cities noses in it. Perhaps offer the unsuccessful candidates automatic (conditional) qualification for shortlisting for the next Olympiad (this would work in the IOC's favour more than theirs and could provide some structure to the "continuous dialogue"). Waive applicant fees, etc, to entice them to stick with it. Chicago's experience was a case in point of poor optics. Instead it could have been: Rio de Janeiro elected host of 2016 Olympic Games. In recognition of the worthy bids from Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago, the IOC hopes they will accept our offer of continuous dialogue over the coming four years towards electing the host of the 2020 Olympics. Of course - other cities could join Madrid, Tokyo, and Chicago but perhaps members could be encouraged to value persistence.
  22. This approach absolutely sucks - and its truly surprising that the IOC can't see the reputational risk of dragging candidates along like that. That diagram is so high level and vague. It will certainly backfire when they use this approach to appoint a more contentious host - such as Russia or China. Brisbane slid under the radar because its a relatively unremarkable decision to return to safe hands Australia - but I can see this really closing out interest from new frontiers entirely and will create a fair amount of heat of the choice of host is contentious (such as Moscow or Shanghai). I think as soon as interest picks up again they'll be back to voting. Coates got what he wanted.
  • Create New...