Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by LuigiVercotti

  1. Assuming that the bid rules don;t change then first off you'd have to say that a CONCACAF bid would be front and centre for prime pozzie. However there is every chance that the US may take their ball home and not bid. Also there is no reason to expect things will stay the same in terms of the voting rules; they will change just like the format of the WC itself have changed when it suits the president. For example hypothetically Blather could be gone by 2018 replaced by say Bin Hamman who could then argue for either a dumping of the rotation policy or even (depending on the Chinese) the MaFIFA could give the AFC two bites at the cherry (Qatar the Mid East WC followed by the east Asian Chinese WC). There could also be the potential (remote yes) that Australia either disengages with AFC entirely or again depending on China pushes itself as a joint Oceania/AFC bid with Hamman onside (if possible). Having said that I can't realistically believe an Oz bid could be seriously considered. So maybe we might be looking at Canada and the US as separate bids from CONCACAF, Morocco or Nigeria for CAF and China or Australia as a bolter from AFC. Not sure about Argentina & Uruguay, but maybe Chile or Venezuala for Conmebol.
  2. Doha would be a vote secured through petrodollars alone...and unlike MaFIFA which has only 1 sport and 22 voting members to be bought the IOC has 27+ sports and 100+ voters. Also the IOC has experienced Middle Eastern inspired terrorism...MaFIFA has yet to have that dubious honour...
  3. Danny...no chance. Bin Hamman is a big fish in a little pond that is the MaFIFA ex-co. He can use money and amazing promises about venues whilst heading up the AFC and thus get Qatar over the line for 2022. Come the IOC Qatar has no one in the membership to help them really, plus there are heaps of far more powerful people within the IOC (as well as more influences on why the Olympics should go to a different country) than in the decision making group at MaFIFA HQ. Qatar won the world cup through backroom deals and big dollars in a small and less ethical group of voters. The IOC process is more scrupulous, less prone to manipulation by one man, and has a greater range of vested interests,
  4. Mo, I hope you don't actually believe there is a causal link between having a great video of venues and actually winning the vote As has been reported almost everywhere Russia and Qatar were the technical underachievers in both races, so it has to be more about how they have spun the idea that the new venues they are building are some kind of monolithic fealty to the MaFIFA robber barons, set in concrete and steel. If anything I'm becoming more warm to the idea that you win a bid with MaFIFA by building at least half a dozen totally new and totally unsupportable arenas so that the MaFIFA big knobs can strut and preen at how important they are.
  5. Even if it could (and as MaFIFA has no credibility when it comes to keeping to the rules hence stopping an Oz 2026 bid) I think the FFA shouldn't. Spend the money on the game at grass roots and national elite levels and start getting some bums on seats in Zurich. If you don;t have a voice of your won in the shouting match you'll get nowhere. By the way CAF I expect Der Kaiser was our one and only vote. Franz would have been loyal whereas no doubt Platini flip-flopped and didn't commit.
  6. Oh dear, the monocellular cerebellum that is the mouthpiece from Rajapaskaland now thinks he understands FIFA's machinations (voting for technical reports when both Russia and Qatar were the lowest ranked in their respective bids shows how inane this buffoon is). Plus it's not about the number of votes (the how) but the causal relationships (the whys). Then again I'd be surprised if a fan of the Hambantota Cosa Nostra understands the difference between voting numbers and legitimate reasons for awarding anything...
  7. Okay...what were the reasons the 2018/2022 bid race panned out as it did?
  8. I saw the report about Bhanot (who struck me as being almost as buffoonish and negligent as Kalmadi) and Verma but not the link to Swiss Timing...I wonder how desperate the Swiss were to get the nod for the Delhi time keeping contract, and if it really did involve bribery. Considering that Swiss law has a fairly intriguing way of handling things like slander (just ask Andrew Jennings) does Swiss Timing have some sort of comfort or delusion that this same domestic law system will keep them out of the merde in India? And is this another example of Indian's bashing and blaming foreigners for local corruption and influence peddling. I bet right now Kalmadi is camped outside his lawyer's office or looking into country's that don;t have extradition treaties with India
  9. For those of you with a bent trivial according to Stephen Fry's new autobiography he makes an appearance as an extra in 'Chariots of Fire', wherein he appears after the college dining scene... As to his attitude to the experience perhaps these credit sequences from the TV version of his Footlights Revue give some idea...
  10. Here's an interesting take on the political aspects of the OC:
  11. Just as an aside, why does Chuck Blazer sound like the name of a character in a Will Ferrell movie And just in case you don't know who he is here's a pic of him impersonating Brian Cadd as a pirate: I'm sure that whilst the questions are being asked no doubt within Blather's Castle there will be mutterings of the Yank attack on a bid rivalling US 2022, plus how important in the scheme of things is Blazer versus Bin Hamman? I suspect Blazer's comments won't be anywhere near as telling as the ongoing rivalry between Blather and his Qatari Qolleague.
  12. So...finally we are seeing the chickens coming home to roost in Delhi for the corrupt officials behind the shambolic Delhi Games. And note how these two who have been arrested had their work signed off by Kalmadi and Bhanot.
  13. So far the new mobile format is working fine for me (IPhone helps I guess...sorry Rob), though posting this way is less capable than on the PC (which is to be expected I guess). For now I see the mobile version more suitable for browsing threads and getting updates than actually being a tool to contribute with...
  14. Baron, I agree 100% with your comment about the Oscars being an American marketing institution, and I don't think it needs to apologise for its American bias. But it doesn't actually truthfully reflect what some perceive to be its stature as the premiere criteria for film excellence. You raise the issue of the Best Foreign Language film is the award for non-Hollywood films, but this of course means that any non-Hollywood English language film (from the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland etc etc) have to compete in the same marketing space as does the giants of the Hollywood system. Plus having looked at the AMPAS site for their rules re Best Picture they make no reference to Foreign Language excluding that categories winner from the Best Picture (or vice versa). So therefore (as my original gripe re the criticism of Chariots of Fire being 'least deserving') is that the Best Picture Oscar is in itself a biased, subjective award influenced more by its context and its role as a marketing tool for American movie studios than it is by the actual quality of the films that either attain or fail to get nominated. To judge a film less worthy based on the Oscars as a criteria is an unfair assessment (at least your stance regarding the historic authenticity of the movie has a more honest appraisal of the actual content). And in fact the increase of nominations from 5 to 10 is a tacit acknowledgement from the AMPAS that this is the case: how else can the Academy justify such a wide selection otherwise when Film Festivals such as those at Cannes, Berlin and Venice simply have the awarding of a Grand prize simply announce a winner based on a jury of critics or experts from the industry. The Academy are covering their arses with their financial sponsors by making sure that even more films can be spruiked to the public as 'Oscar nominated', hence hopefully improving the box office.
  15. In all these posts about 'Oscarwatchers' and 'they' you've yet to post anything aside from general comments with no citations or historical evidence and then made sweeping statements including references to me (firstly) not following the Oscars and now not following the Oscars of late. Instead of making unsubstantiated comments when in fact all you really want to do is express your personal opinion about the film (which in itself is fair enough) how about posting a quote from somelike like a Rex Reed, a Gene Shalit, a Leonard Maltin to back up your argument. This consensus you talk about has so far been your word and yours alone. By the way just because a film wins the major awards before the Oscars (such as the SAGs, the British Acadmey Awards etc) as The Hurt Locker did is no guarantee that it will win the Best Picture Oscar; 'Brokeback Mountain' was one of the most recent cases in point (losing out to 'Crash' which did not garner as much positive critical support in previous awards). 'The Hurt Locker' could just as arguably have won against 'Avatar' because of the push behind Kathryn Bigelow's directorial awards as well as the historical trend for the Academy to reject science fiction nominees that have also a significant box office record (Spielberg and Lucas both know about that issue). There is even the political aspect of the Academy finally endorsing the war in Iraq via 'The Hurt Locker' as seen through mainstream Hollywood cinema which is something that no other preceding film had accomplished. The email campiagn wasn't the reason why it won, it was representative of the manner in which the Aacdemy will be subject to its own observances of artistic and commerical ethics when handing out awards. Finally another part of the antipathy possibly felt by some against 'Chariots of Fire' is that David Puttnam's subsequent stewardship of Columbia Pictures was remarkable in how much antagonism he aroused during the two years he was studio head. It's very easy to draw the conclusion that the Hollywood establishment and those who support it would have found the win of CoF in 1981 and from there Puttnam's ascent into a powerful studio position as something to be dismissed or attacked. So...how about being upfront and saying your personal opinion is 'Chariots of Fire' is that it wasn't one of the most meritorious of best picture Oscar winners and then corroborate that with supporting citations, critiques or history? PS: This list of the 1000 best films from the NY Times includes from 1981 'Reds', 'Atlantic City' and...surprise surprise: 'Chariots of Fire'. Plus '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die' (Quintessence Editions 2003) includes 'Chariots...' but doesn't include 'Atlantic City'...hence I have far greater faith in these and my own views on the worth of 'Chariots of Fire' than so-called unnamed Oscarologists...
  16. Re point 1 go look at the manner in which Miramax and Harvey Weinstein has been involved in its campaign to accrue Oscar nominations and votes, particularly with regard to the win of 'Shakespeare in Love'. Or for that matter producers of the most recent Best Picture winner 'The Hurt Locker' were engaged in a direct email campaign that broke the ethical rules of the AMPAS yet it still took the prize. Considering the amount of money that is involved with an Oscar endorsement and the cut throat nature of the Hollywood film industry, and such historical precedents it's a fair call to question the ethical standards of AMPAS when it comes to their voting process. Perhaps I'm guilty of hyperbole however when you have a $500+ million film like Avatar losing out to a $11m indie production with its main supporters breaking the rules of the awards then something does seem wrong. Re point 2 it's easy to forget how American-centric the Hollywood film industry was in the 70s and early 80s. A simple run down of the best picture winners between 1968 and 1981 shows that every Best Picture awarded in that period was for an American film. For example, take 1979 when The Deer Hunter won for Best Film and Michael Cimino (who after Heaven's Gate disappeared without a trace as an American wunderkind director). Only four out of 20 acting nominees were non-American and Alan Parker was the sole non-US director nominated. And for the period 1970-1979 only about 4 of the 50 nominees for best picture had non-US production ownership. As someone who has been watching the Oscars for over 30 years it's been obvious that since 'Chariots of Fire' there has been a growing internationalisation of the Academy Awards and the Hollywood film industry in general, and before then local interests and local stories were more prestigious for the main audience of the Oscars; i.e. Americans. And if you think my point about 1981 being a great year for film is ridiculous how come this was also the year that saw must-see and critically acclaimed foreign produced/directed films 'Das Boot', 'Gallipoli', 'The French Lieutenant's Woman' and 'Tre Fratelli' not get nods in the Best Picture category? Frankly any discussion about what is a less deserving Oscar winning film is moot because there has to be some question as to what constitutes a film being better than another when winning such an industry voted award. The Academy is an American institution which has made questionable awards which in the past have leant towards American themes, actors, directors, stories and producers. To claim there hasn't been this historical bias is in turn ridiculous.
  17. So what then constitutes the central premise of the film for you is it's historicity? For me I(and for a lot of other people) CoF is more about issues relating to British class structures, the relationship between amateurism and professionalism, religion and the individual and then the Olympic history (mutated though it is). Just because a story isn't necessarily true doesn't mean it is 'phony baloney'. Plus I wonder how many people had their attitudes regarding Olympism and what should be seen as the more ideal or perhaps even perfect construct behind the Olympic Games shaped by this film? It may be a sweetly seductive misreperesentation but the sequence with the British athletes on the beach running to Vangelis evokes a far more 'Olympic' feel for many altruists than the more real but also far more compromised reality of say a Marion Jones or a Ben Johnson doco. Question for you without notice; where do you stand on 'Miracle'?
  18. Actually it wasn't the Geordie clip that helped to trigger the closure of my account but one of my OC vids (which I used as a pretext to remove all of my OC videos). The fascist bullyboy Google-owned YouTube minions obviously like being lick spittles to the IOC. Come on Baron, that's ridiculous hyperbole. 'Chariots of Fire' did manipulate the historical events to make the movie work dramatically as cinematic semi-fiction, but to call it false, dishonest & disingenuous is BS! That claim could be made against every film ever made by any country's cinema when it comes to adapting history for film. Absolute historical verisimilitude would make almost every movie unworkable in terms of production values, dramatic content and honesty, and 'Chariots of Fire' is far less guilty of egregious unhistorical truth than (for example) 'Amadeus'. Plus one of the best aspects of an enjoyable and critically acclaimed film such as 'Chariots of Fire' is that for those who do want to dig deeper and get to the more accurate rendition of the history behind the film it gives you a starting framework and a reason to do so. That is how cinema and it's depiction of history or biography usually works; either you accept it as entertainment and move on or you use it as a catalyst to investigate further. Oscarologists? There are people out there who actually have some kind of belief in an organisation that makes the giving out of awards look even more corrupt than FIFA or the IOC under the wily old falangist?! Seriously though 'Chariots of Fire' was eminently worth the award (for example it got very positive reviews from Vincent Canby and Roger Ebert as seen on Rotten Tomatos). Warren Beatty's "Reds" was a 3 hour 15 minute ponderous paean to an obscure American communist, which was critically acclaimed however it barely made budget on domestic box office (unlike 'CoF' which made $58 million in the US alone). 'On Golden Pond' would have been an Academy members wet dream with its cast however it was also set up to be way too obvious as an Oscar nominee. 'Ragtime' also was a great film with a legend of American cinema as part of the cast (James Cagney), whilst 'Atlantic City' was a Louis Malle film that gave Burt Lancaster a great send off. Frankly 'CoF' has suffered in its reputation as a Best Picture Oscar winner for 1981 because (1) it wasn't an American story and (2) it didn't have big stars of American cinema and (3) 1981 was simply a superlative year for cinema. And as the likes of Bruce Beresford and those actresses who lost out to Marisa Tomei for her Best Supporting Actor Oscar know the Oscars have been traditionally about awarding American film makers with American stories and American actors.
  19. Love the film Geordie (Bill Kerr, Alistair Sims) and have it on DVD...as fictional Olympic movies a real delight. However the purported footage from the 56 Games is in fact from the 1948 London Games, which is fair enough as it was actually released before Melbourne held their SOGs. And it was my clip of the opening credits and a bit about Geordie wanting to wear his kilt (and giving the sassanachs a right serve) that was removed from YouTube...the mongrels killed my account Sunday (thanks in part to the IOC...double mongrels). Maybe I might restore my vids later but right now I'm thinking YouTube can get stuffed
  20. He was certainly the chief bozo behind all the khaotic and kalamatous build up to Dehi 2010, but how mcuh of this is mere scapegoating? Getting rid of the dullard after the games and not looking at the systemic reasons why there was such a schemozzle in the first place is not going to help anyone. Plus no one individual can be blamed with the inherent problems with an Indian city hosting a major multi-sport event such as the 2010 CGs; when a populace is so marginalised with so much poverty and so little competent development from an anarchic government it's no surprise that things went to hell in a handcart. Just as Gianna Angelopoulos wasn't solely responsible either for Athens 2004r almost failing, then being delivered on time but then being a huge financial sink hole for Greece, Kalmadi stands both part of and more relevantly symbolic of the failures of government in India in hosting the CGs.
  21. Baron, CoF has more holes in it historically than a presentation on corporate ethics from Septic Blather, but it would have to be the greatest Olympic-related film of all time (well it's between CoF and 'The 500 Pound Jerk' ). I know there would be lots of people who'd argue in favour Riefenstahl's 'Olympia' but to be honest hardly anyone has sat through the entire two part monolithic production from Leni. On the other hand 'Chariots of Fire' was spectacularly successful in terms of popular acclaim and didn't disgrace itself financially. Plus when push comes to shove it's a rattling good yarn.
  22. Do us all a favour and upgrade your version of BabelFish from the Imbecile Version...at least JimJones knew how to articulate his ideas and opinions in something that was actually coherent. And considering your position as the arch Rajapaksa-Mouthpiece here GamesBid I thought it was your own beloved leader who said there was no Tamil refugees and they all loved Sri Lanka. But you wouldn't be doubting the same man who defeated the LTTE in time to make sure that a cricket ground could be named after himself in time for the World Cup now would you?
  23. Of course the difference between the Gold Coast and Hambantota is on the Gold Coast not everyone is related to the President, the head of the defence forces, the sports minister etc etc, and you're actually able to voice an opinion contrary to hosting the CGs. In the backward underdeveloped port village that is the GC's only rival to voice a negative opinion might turn you into a non-person, much like those non-existent Tamil refugees
  24. Mo, the bid plan (which I assume we would consider to be the technical aspects of the bid) is the easy part and can be cobbled together frankly by any city (as demonstrated by the likes of Havana, Bangkok, Lille, Leipzig and of course Istanbul). However before even starting the process of developing a bid plan any group developing a candidature for an Olympic bid has to be aware of the dynamics and importance of IOC membership blocs and how to maximise the effectiveness of their lobbying to that august group. To be honest the mechanics of a bid and its technical excellence will always play second fiddle to the sheer political skill demonstrated by the leading members of a bid committee in concert with partisan and powerful groupings of IOC members. That's why anyone looking to Istanbul bringing home the 2020 gold have no hope, no matter how good or bad their city's infrastructure is nor the financial backing nor the sporting prowess of Turks. As demonstrated time and time again it's not what you know at the IOC, it's who you know.
  25. Salient points me old china, which then gives rise to the thought of their needing to be a bloc of similarly interested folk circling the Turks, not just one or two big knobs (or one or two idealists). Question is, has any confirmed or speculative bid for 2020 started to give an indication of such a bloc? Or to continue the fish analogy, anyone formed up in a school or are they all bottom feeders :P
  • Create New...