Jump to content

Rob.

Premium Members
  • Posts

    16164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    231

Rob. last won the day on May 15

Rob. had the most liked content!

About Rob.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

129194 profile views

Rob.'s Achievements

Torch Bearer 10000 Club

Torch Bearer 10000 Club (15/16)

2.2k

Reputation

  1. The decrease in applicants is certainly true. It's the increase post new-norm (that you're claiming) that we're having trouble with. Because it doesn't look like you're comparing like with like (and Sir Rols explained this better than I could). We're yet to see the equivalent stages to the applicant/bidding stage and we need a sample size of two or three cycles to make a claim such as yours with any certainty.
  2. Excellent post. I'll just pick up on this bit and supplement your memory with Wikipedia... So, for 2012...the crowded list of interested parties is... Besides the initial nine applicant cities, other cities also wished to bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics, but the bids were not internally selected by the NOC (in case of more than one bidding city from the same country), were not put forward to the IOC, or were withdrawn before filing the necessary paperwork.[58] The Nigerian capital, Abuja, planned to present a bid to become the first African city to stage the Olympic Games, but ended up not filling its application.[59] In Asia, three cities were interested in holding the Games, but did not officially submit a bid: Hyderabad,[60] New Delhi,[61] and Tel Aviv.[62] In South America, the Brazilian Olympic Committee chose Rio de Janeiro over São Paulo,[63] and if Rio de Janeiro had been selected by the IOC, it would have been the first Olympiad staged in South America (four years on, Rio de Janeiro did land the 2016 Summer Olympics). In Canada, Toronto initially planned to gain hosting rights for 2012 after losing the 2008 Olympics bidding process, but because Vancouver landed the 2010 Winter Olympics, the Canadian city cancelled these plans.[64] In the United States, the city of New York was picked by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) over San Francisco,[65] although several other cities submitted candidatures to become the American candidate for the 2012 Olympics; these included Houston, Washington D.C. (in cooperation with nearby Baltimore), Cincinnati, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles,[66] Seattle and Tampa[67] (in cooperation with nearby Orlando).[68] Several European cities wanted to follow the likes of London, Madrid, Moscow and Paris, and were thus hopeful to gain their NOC's support. Germany chose Leipzig over Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Stuttgart,[69] while in Spain, Seville lost out to Madrid.[34] Other referenced cities were Budapest,[70] Milan, Rome,[71] Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, Oslo and Copenhagen.[72]
  3. And the one venue that is "not in use" is Earls Court whose demolition had nothing to do with the Olympics or its legacy planning. So really, 100%.
  4. Hampden with a platform track installed is 44k. Remember the first few rows of the stadium were below the level of the temporary track during the CWG, hence the lower than usual capacity when hosting athletics. As for redevelopment, the Scottish FA now owns the stadium, and this is apparently being looked at with the 2028 UK/Ireland Euros bid in mind... https://news.stv.tv/sport/hampden-redevelopment-to-be-explored-as-part-of-euro-2028-bid
  5. Can't see it personally - I just don't see Man Utd operating that way. The Glazers don't like spending their own money, that is certainly true, and the leveraged buy-out is why they are by a long way the most hated owners in the PL. But I suspect they'd be fine with loading an extra billion or so debt onto the club, essentially funding a new stadium in the same way Spurs funded theirs through banks loans and long-term reypayments. But their preferred option is renovation at this stage afaik, so it's a moot point. And just as I type this, this appears in my twitter feed
  6. The previous head of UKA claimed London was the most profitable venue for them. The compensation the stadium paid to UKA when the stadium was unable to be used during the first year of the pandemic was also substantial, as is the amount being rumoured for UKA to move out. I really don't think it's UKA pushing for this move away. I'm sure the best option for them is AS as a year round base, LS for their biggest events. My preferred option would be to somehow renegotiate West Ham's contract so they pay for the seats being moved. After all, the moveable seats were installed for their benefit, not for athletics' for which the stadium was already fine. But it seems like we may be heading for the 2012 legacy being binned and the taxpayer funded stadium intended for our Olympians being handed over to a wealthy EPL club. Which is a travesty tbh.
  7. I don't see why the London Stadium (as the promised 2012 legacy) and Alexander Stadium can't co-exist. I don't think an Olympic bid will have any bearing on what Man Utd does or vice versa. They're not West Ham or Man City c2002. They're one of the three wealthiest clubs in the world. If they want a new stadium they'll just build one to spec rather than faffing around for a few years with an Olympic bid that may or may not be successful, and then faffing around again to have the track removed. And all indications are that they're staying at Old Trafford and renovating anyway, so even if I'm wrong it's a moot point. Hampden was 44k during the CWG. That strikes me as much too low for an Olympics even with the new flexibility we're now seeing from the IOC.
  8. Unless you mean that cities aren't going to use the Olympics in the same way as before, with emphasis on existing venues meaning cities aren't altering their whole face around a Games.
  9. Hmmm....not sure I agree with this I agree with FYI and others that in a field like 2012's a city like Brisbane would stand no chance; even today with the altered processes. But I also see that cities like Brisbane, when they have less competition, at least have a chance now because of some of the new rules the IOC has instigated over things like minimum capacities, regional spread, existing venues etc etc. Ironically, given that AustralianFan bangs these two drums almost simultaneously, the more (genuine) interest there is the less chance there is of more Brisbanes. But if tepid interest continues then I can see more, not fewer, less-well-known cities getting a month in the world's limelight.
  10. Crimea river, oh..nevermind. West Ham hasn't had a "decade of uncertainty" over the stadium. They've had (nearly) a decade of exactly what they agreed to, and the coming decade will be the same if UK Athletics aren't pressured out. And not only did they agree to sharing with athletics, they publicly denigrated the idea that athletics should ever leave the Olympic Stadium. So I'm not sure where this narrative that we should feel bad for West Ham has come from. Of course, if they want a perfect football stadium rather than a compromised one that comes with the cut-price deal they have, they can always leave and instead spend upwards of half a billion on somewhere new, as Arsenal, Spurs, Everton etc have done.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salhyr
  12. I don't know where athletes would be housed. New housing is always welcome in London, so I don't see this being any sort of obstacle. It would, by necessity, be a less compact games than previously. The Olympic Park can't be used as fully as it was in 2012. Areas where certain temporary venues were situated are now built on. The paths have been narrowed and open areaas greened so you're not going to be able to have 300,000 people a day there as we had at peak times a decade ago. But with the direction the IOC has gone in that shouldn't matter. Further, Sadiq Khan has talked about a "London centred" Games, which suggests that he's looking at not only a Games that's less compact within London, but a Games that manspreads itself across the region, or perhaps includes other cities hosting core sports. Let's see. At this point everything is very vague and it may all amount to nothing. Same goes for the embryonic hopes of Manchester/Birmingham/Glasgow.
  13. No, the list of applicants had slowed to a trickle. Interested parties have always been ten a penny. We're yet to see if anything's improved, but the fact the IOC has changed its processes (for better or for worse, I certainly think there have been some improvements) means direct comparisons with past decades are going to be hard. How do you compare the number of applicant cities in past cycles with whatever transpires from now on? I don't know.
  14. Hmmm.....there are always long lists of "interested parties" if that's how we're now going to define it. Doesn't really mean much until you get to the application stage.
×
×
  • Create New...