Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Posts

    7513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    187

Quaker2001 last won the day on November 26

Quaker2001 had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About Quaker2001

  • Birthday November 25

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NYC

Recent Profile Visitors

39532 profile views

Quaker2001's Achievements

Flag Bearer Level 7

Flag Bearer Level 7 (12/16)

1.4k

Reputation

  1. There were people (not here, but still vocal on social media) that still thought a week before the opening ceremony in Tokyo that the Olympics wouldn't happen. In the same vein, we can be sure that RWB will be pushing his boycott theories until the last possible minute. But then again, he's a lethal combo of trolling and stupid, so there's that
  2. Looks like this is starting to gain traction again.. Diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing expected to be announced Cue RWB telling us how this is going to turn into a full boycott in 3.. 2.. 1...
  3. 2030 is covered, so that's the important thing. Sapporo falls through and they're not covered for 2034, that's a problem to solve a few years down the road. They don't need to figure it out now. Almaty is not a terrible place to host an Olympics. It's far from an ideal location, but we largely thought that in the context of the 2022 field that could have been, which as you like to point out should have been headlined by Norway. That bid didn't fall apart because it was technically deficient. They dropped out because they wanted to tell the IOC to take their 7,000 page list of requirements and go fornicate themselves with it. So maybe the targeted dialog formula helps get cities back in the mix. Perhaps it allows those cities to work with the IOC rather than to have to pitch their biggest and brightest in order to win. Either way, not something they need to be concerned about until at least 2024 or 2025, hopefully when the pandemic is well in the rear view mirror and memories of China having hosted an Olympics are not longer at the forefront
  4. Almaty at least has venues and experience hosting winter sports events, so they're miles ahead of a place like Erzurum that doesn't have an serious experience. Going forward, I think the IOC's thinking on winter hosts is that if you don't have infrastructure in place, don't bother bidding. The "new frontier" candidates need not apply. Yes, the hope would be that some of these European locales start showing some interest. A successful 2026 Olympics in Italy will probably go a long way towards helping that cause. And who knows what the state of climate change does, but obviously we can't really blame the IOC for that
  5. 40 out of 84 IOC voters thought it was the best choice for 2022, even though it was 2 bad options. Yes, I think it's something they would contemplate, but only if they didn't have better options. We know that won't be the case for 2030. Hopefully not the case for 2034. So then, it's 2038 at the earliest and who knows what the state of the world and the Olympics will be by then
  6. Exactly. Much easier now than in the past for the IOC to say "thanks, but no thanks." Which is almost a little ironic because there were plenty of bids back in the days when they had a lot of suitor that they should have told to not bother trying. Now they can do that and focus more of their efforts on the cities that matter, the ones that might actually get selected. And yea, I forgot about the "fewer losers" aspect, but without a vote, then there are no losers. They don't need to take a long view approach here. Under the old timeline, a host city for 2034 wouldn't be selected until 2027, meaning the bid process wouldn't really commence until 2025. They have time before they need to think about that. Sure, there's the risk that they pick Salt Lake for 2030, Sapporo decides they don't have the support, and then they're in trouble. But I have a feeling if that happens, then maybe Almaty re-emerges or someone in Europe decides they'll take advantage of the lack of competition. To the IOC's credit, at least the targeted dialog means that a city is more likely to know sooner rather than later if the IOC has any faith in them. And that city doesn't need to worry about an over-the-top presentation where they have to promise the IOC the world in order to win a vote. In an age where potential host cities, particularly Winter sites, are few and far between, much more efficient to operate this way even if the lack of transparency can be a little disconcerting.
  7. At the end of the day, they don't need 5 interested cities. They need 1 per cycle. They have that right now with Salt Lake and hopefully Sapporo. After that, who cares about Spain or Ukraine or Canada. The IOC can cut them off now if they want and potentially re-engage with them later on. Maybe someone else emerges. I know things seem bleak, but Stockholm was supposed to be dead in the water after 2022. And they came back to bid for 2026, albeit with a very subpar bid. The IOC doesn't have to think a decade down the road if they don't want to. Sure, it's tough to envision if there are cities/countries out there that want a Winter Olympics in the future. But this new format isn't about getting cities excited. Agenda 2020, as we've said so many times here, is about allowing the bid countries to do what's best for them rather than to conform to some formula the IOC sets out. It goes without saying that the IOC is suffering from some terrible public relations of their own doing over the last decade and that's a problem they need to solve.
  8. And if there is indeed some sort of announcement soon, perhaps it's more along the lines of "we're talking to Salt Lake and Sapporo and everyone else need not apply." What happens from there remains to be seen. Sure, it's convenient for the IOC when they're in Beijing to make decisions that require everyone to be together. But locking in Brisbane right before Tokyo was probably easier since they had time to discuss with them (the postponement was more of a burden for the organizing committee rather than the IOC to help them deliver the games). Not so much in the lead up here with the shortest turn-around from a Summer Olympics to a Winter Olympics we've ever had
  9. My thoughts exactly. China has what I imagine is an almost unlimited set of resources to keep everyone safe from COVID. We saw that was very effective in Tokyo. Remains to be seen what happens if athletes or anyone else test positive, but that Tokyo managed to award every medal that was scheduled, we can be sure China will be driven to do the same.
  10. Well aware it's a public form. If you want to challenge my opinion, go right ahead. But if you're going to do that, have your own opinion to offer. We're both guilty of the whole preconceived notions then which is why we sometimes get into our pissing contests. I think it would be prudent. Doesn't mean they're going to do that. Tough to tell how much of their homework they've done here, whether it's with SLC or Sapporo or any of the other potential bids. To that end.. That decision could be a lot of different things though. That he mentioned those other bids, maybe the announcement is essentially telling those countries not to bother putting anything together and that the IOC is proceeding with just Sapporo or Salt Lake. Or it certainly could be that they're pushing ahead with Salt Lake, although there's likely still a lot that needs to be done in terms of contracts before there can be a more formal vote and announcement. I don't want to frame this as "it's the IOC, they can do whatever they want," but without a formal timeline, that's a lot more true than ever before. If you're using the word "casualty," then the implication there is that the bid is dead for 2030, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you think it's completely hopeless for them. Anyone who follows the Olympics at all knows how the Japanese public feels about the Olympics and the IOC, but I don't think it's a lost cause that they couldn't pull it together, if the IOC wants to hear them out. I think the prudent move is for them to do that. And at the same time, they can still tell all the other cities not to bother with putting together a bid. Try again when 2034 is on the table in a few years. I don't disagree with your speculation. As much as the IOC wanted the world to know "there is no Plan B" when it came to the Tokyo postponement, I imagine if it's Sapporo 2030 and Salt Lake 2034, they'll quietly tell SLC "be on the ready for 2030 just in case." To use one of my phrases, that wouldn't be taking someone else's sloppy seconds. That would be what SLC was gunning for in the first place, so at that point, dealing with LA28 and any money issues become largely irrelevant. But that's why the wait-and-see approach might be the move here. Give Sapporo a little more time to gauge public interest (which is hard to do now when we're still very much in the middle of the pandemic, so the wounds from Tokyo are still fresh) and see if they're a legit contender. If they're named as a host city, at that point either they've taken care of the public support issue or the IOC hasn't properly done their homework.
  11. What's Borjing? There is zero chance the Olympics are affected. Japan had their Olympics. Because of that, China will refuse to let theirs be affected. Yes, the ISU Worlds could be in danger. Any event with less resources than the Olympics (which is just about everything) might have to re-think things. But it's too early to talk about signs. Omicron has some people freaking out, but as more and more people get vaccinated, I don't think it'll be a major issue after a month or so
  12. Things got worse in 2015 which is why we have an Olympics upcoming in Beijing. One would have thought that's where they felt cornered and were forced to make changes, but it didn't really happen. Now, they have 4 future hosts lined up and all they ever need is 1 willing city that wants to host their even to think that everything is okay. All things considered, things are better now than they were a few years ago. Remains to be seen how quickly the IOC and the world can move on from the fallout of having an Olympics in China, but the silver lining for anyone involved will always be "it'll be better with Paris and Milan-Cortina"
  13. First off, not just saying it because Rob mentioned it. He made a pretty sensible argument for why it could happen (which yes, is based on an "if"). That's why I'm agreeing with it. *Because it makes sense* As opposed to the many times people made nonsensical arguments in the past which, yes, we're very much "hey, it happened before, so let's pick 2 cities and offer up some random speculation on it." Sure, it's 100% it's Rob's personal intuition. But I'm still offering up *my* opinion in response to that, just as you did in the other thread. Do you have an opinion on what Rob said? Or do you just have an opinion on my opinion based largely on all sorts of pre-conceived notions? What's your thought on the matter, do you agree or disagree? Much like in the other thread, I didn't respond to you just to comment on your opinion or to be contrarian. I posted because I had my own thoughts on the matter. Why do I think it's a possibility? Here's some basis for that argument, lest you think I'm saying something for the sake of saying it. We both agree that the world of Olympic bidding is very different post-COVID than it was before the pandemic. As much as we always said that the IOC is unpredictable, how many people here or elsewhere would have guessed we'd see things play out as they did with Brisbane, even after the IOC pledged to change the process in mid-2019. That's a new variable that we can probably assume will be business going forward for them and not necessarily a one-off based on circumstance that were *unlikely but not impossible* to repeat themselves. So what about Sapporo now which you lumped into the giant douche/turd sandwich category? Yes, they need to prove they have public support and that's no small feat. But they're still very much in the conversation and likely to be engaged with the IOC at some point. The beauty of this double is that the IOC might not need to broker a deal to placate 1 of the cities. The usual bid process that gave us Paris 2024/LA 2028 isn't necessary here because we know the USOPC is likely willing to accept 2034. They probably don't need to be paid off in order to get them to go along with it. Solves the issue of sponsorship dollars with 2 close together US hosts. And makes TV rights in the United States a lot more attractive with the first Olympics of the new contract in the United States. Once again, all of this is based on whether or not Sapporo can get public support. A good argument can be made IMO to find out what they've got in that department now rather than handing 2030 over to Salt Lake and then hoping Sapporo has the appetite for an Olympics 4 years down the road. It's a risk either way, but that Sapporo is clearly engaged right now, it might be the prudent move to hear them out. And if that bid collapses because the Japanese public turns on it, then lock in Salt Lake and they have a few years before they make a serious push for a 2034 host. Who knows what might emerge before then
  14. And you very literally just did that. Good to know that it's acceptable to reply to snark with more snark. I'll have to remember that one. Last thing I'll say here and then move on.. was I a little snarky here? Absolutely, I won't pretend that I wasn't. But it's unfair to make comparisons to some of the worst elements of this forum and I think you know that Anyways, I think we're both done here. As you said, onto another topic
  15. I know I've poked fun at the idea of a double allocation in the past, but I agree this seems like a real possibility. 2030 is Sapporo's if they can get support for it (easier said than done), and then Salt Lake is right behind them for 2034 which the USOPC will likely appreciate even though the SLC folks might not be as happy. And that'll be a huge boon for American TV rights if the first Games of the new contract is on US snow and ice.
×
×
  • Create New...