Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Quaker2001

  1. 25 minutes ago, AjayLopez25List said:

    So.. it doesn't matter.. this is a forum website, we all can reply even the comment will be like 2 years ago.. 2030 it is long time from this recent year that time Covid-2019 will be no more

    I don't care you're replying to an old comment, but it's missing the point completely to lose the point of reference when that comment is made.  Yes, Sapporo said they're interested in bidding.  That was before the 2020 Olympics got postponed by a year and will cost Japan a huge sum of money.  And it's far from a guarantee that next summer will go off so smoothly.

    So add all that up together and are we confident Sapporo is going to bid for the 2030 Olympics?  Because now it's going to be a year later that they are done with Tokyo and a lot more money spent, so they may have reservations about spending billions more on another Olympics when a lot of Japanese citizens aren't so sure they want the first one to happen.

  2. 2 minutes ago, AjayLopez25List said:

    It is official Sapporo is in the game of bidding with Salt Lake for 2030 olympics (winter games) and Barcelona is rumored they to compete in the bid and Ukraine but no city selected as thier representative host for bidding for winter olympics

    You're replying to a post from September.  A couple of things have happened with the world since then that perhaps might affect whether or not Sapporo is in the game for 2030.

  3. 9 minutes ago, Nacre said:

    I think it will honestly be pretty horrendous for players and fans. The USSF only cares about stuffing it pockets with cash, so you can expect them to pick hosts by how much money they can make rather than making travel easy for the national teams and fans following their teams. 

    On the flip side I can't wait to hear their explanation for how it is actually environmentally friendly to route a team 10,000 km  in the group stage from Montreal to Los Angeles to New York to Houston.

    The 1994 World Cup still holds the record for highest attendance, and that was with only 24 teams before they expanded.  So clearly it wasn't that horrendous.  Yes, I know the stories about European fans used to travelling by train who found it a little tougher to get around.  Did Brazil not have to deal with that?  Russia?  And I'm pretty sure fans will welcome the North American experience with open arms after dealing with a World Cup held in Qatar.

    So save the sanctimonious nonsense as if the US-Canada-Mexico bid wasn't an obvious choice for 2026 over Morocco.  It'll be an outstanding World Cup.  And remember with expansion comes the new group stage format.  1/3 of all the teams will only play 2 games, so travel is not likely to be a major concern.

    • Thanks 1

  4. 1 hour ago, TGAA_Star said:

    I mean was it ever really in doubt that Australia/New Zealand weren't going to win the rights to host? I mean they have better infrastructure, better tourism hub, better airport access for teams to arrive in country by plane, better transportation hub to get from and to the stadiums

    I am sorry to say all of this but it is true and that is why they were awarded the tournament

    This is FIFA we're talking about.  Who once chose Qatar over the United States.  So yes, it wasn't 100% that Australia/New Zealand would win, even against a less interesting bid

    • Thanks 1

  5. 15 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

    SO- this morning UEFA have said they will support Columbia, effectively sinking the AUS/NZ bid...


    They have apparently said they want to open the game to new frontiers....in a time of COVID, global recession, with only 3 years to organise an expanded tournament...I would have thought a super safe choice would have been the only sensible choice. But we are talking FIFA.....


    You were saying...

    Australia & New Zealand Win Vote To Host 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup

  6. 42 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

    If I were American at this time, I wouldn't want to make jokes about the dictatorship that will host the next Winter Olympics. By the time 2028, you might live in a martial law authoritarian regime yourself (or even already by November 4th if Orangehead doesn't get the results he likes and his sycophants don't stop him).

    Yea, we're pretty close to that point already.  The good thing about 2028 is that - unless something ridiculous happens, and I don't even want to think about that - is that there's no way Trump is the President at that point and someone else will have been in place for at least 3.5 years.  I can't offer an outsider's perspective, but I'm guessing we haven't quite reached the "we're as bad as China" point just yet.

  7. 12 hours ago, mountainboarder_530@yahoo. said:

    of course they are.  Just like the World Cup in Russia, the IOC is going to have to hold their nose and jump in.  Its about survival at this point.  Im not sure they would survive a Beijing boycott.  Sidebar, if anyone is going to have to make a move NOW, its gonna have to be FIFA with the Qatar world cup, that one HAS to move, it is an unmitigated disaster.

    Qatar was awarded the 2022 World Cup nearly 10 years ago (December 2010).  FIFA has had almost a decade to re-evaluate that choice with all that we've learned in that time.  And yet the 2022 World Cup is still scheduled for Qatar.  They didn't have the balls to go up against an oil rich Arab nation and tell them "you know what, we changed our minds.. sorry."  If they didn't do that in 2013 or 2015 or 2017, why would they do it in 2020?

    Yes, that World Cup is likely going to be a disaster on a number of levels.  But the time to fix that mistake has come and passed.  FIFA has to live with the fallout and yes, they'll tell the world that they're happy with the decision rather than giving any indication they regret their choice.

  8. 2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    Ah, brings back memories of when I first moved to NYC in the early 1970s.  I first lived in the Flushing-Bayside area.  That natatorium, of course, wasn't even on the drawing boards then.  

    I've said it many times on here.. a lot of infrastructure projects got spurred on by the 2012 bid that might not have happened otherwise.  So there was some value in that effort and what it led to, even though it didn't result in the Olympics coming here

  9. 7 minutes ago, avensiss said:

    I do find it weird though that mega cities, like Paris, dont have a world class aquatic centre or velodrome....or a sports mad city like Brisbane not having a decent 60,000 seat stadium. An advanced city should have a these facilities..Ok I agree white water stadiums and bobsled tracks are a bit niche!

    What is a "world class aquatic centre" anyway?  Having an Olympic-sized pool and ancillary facilities is something many cities can build, but there's very little use to put thousands of seats in that venue considering how little that would get used.  But it's interesting to note this is a thing... Flushing Meadows Natatorium

    That was going to be the water polo venue for the New York's 2012 Olympic bid.  It got built anyway and opened in 2008.

    • Like 1

  10. 20 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    I think all of the above was based on the pre-Covid-19 situation.  Contracts with the IOC, especially with quality partners like Japan in contention, can be up for negotiation.  And I don't think the IOC will want to screw Tokyo and the Japanese gov't if 2021 doesn't happen at all -- because there will go Sapporo 2030.  The IOC has more to lose if it tightens the screws on TOCOG more than is reasonable and fair.  

    What Stefan said.  The IOC isn't always the most forward-thinking organization.  Sure, they may votes along lines with the next Olympics in mind, but do you really trust that the IOC will take care of Tokyo solely so they can ensure Sapporo would stay in the running for 2030?  This postponement and the ensuing fallout may have but the kibosh on their plans already.

    The more alarming revelations from this are the implications on future hosts.  Potential bidders may need to be increasingly wary of what they're getting themselves into.  And yes, the IOC clearly needs be much more open with how they're helping out with Tokyo or else it's going to make them look bad.

  11. 10 hours ago, Palette86 said:

    As the article notes.. there wasn't a plan B the first time out.  Then they said they would take 4 weeks to come up with a plan B.  1 week later, they announced the postponement.

    I don't know if another postponement is possible and will be under consideration at any point.  But it doesn't seem like it should be completely out of the realm of possible for that to happen just because he's saying so now

  12. 18 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    While I agree with you for the most part -- and the IOC can do it, with an organization of more than 600 PAID employees, sure.  

    But between global pandemics and the Olympics being the most blatant example of how a new virus can be so quickly and intensively spread, I think the IOC and the sports federations might have to think of new models.  (Why, there's even question at this point whether the Democrats will go ahead with their convention this year.  The Republicans, pandemic or no pandemic, will go ahead with their show in Charlotte, because Donald loves that sort of thing and the coronation (notice the built-in word there; - virus missing) ceremony.  They will need to wow people with the footage there.  But I digress . . .)

    I think the IOC and its choice of host cities -- and its contracts with NBC and the other big networks -- will have to be open to the fact that their big shows might not go on at all in the future.  So contingency arrangements will now have to be spelled out ad infintum in the Host City contracts.  But the IOC shouldn't feel too bad; they don't have the billion dollar stadia like the newly opened Chase Center, SoFi and Reliant stadia with no games to fill them.  That should also be a lesson for cities to stop fronting public monies for these showcase white elephants.  

    But I think the real story behind this pandemic phenomenon -- that Covid-19 is really a Russian invention -- out to sabotage the IOC, has yet to be told!!  ;)

    Did you take your meds this morning? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

  13. 7 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

    You make it sound like the IOC can’t cope with a crisis, that they ade going to fall to pieces over Covid-19.

    The IOC have been managing and multi-tasking through crises since the year dot - political boycotts, world wars, cancelled games, postponed games, pandemics, epidemics, internal and external corruption, to name just a few.

    They’re not just one small team sitting around the boardroom table doing everything.

    While managing Covid-19 issues and postponed Tokyo, the IOC will firmly keep an eye on locking in future Hosts and will still very likely vote on the 2032 Summer Host in 2021 or 2022  (and quite possibly the 2030 and 2034 Winter Hosts as well).

    It’s their job.   It’s in their DNA.

    Their DNA?  What exactly does that even mean?

    Yes, the IOC has weathered crises before.  In the 70s and 80s, their mere existence was under threat, but they managed to steer their way through those rough waters and re-emerge as strong as ever.  Remains to be seen if that's going to happen in the upcoming decade.

    The IOC doesn't exactly have the most stellar reputation around the world these days.  The number of cities offering themselves up to host the Olympics has been shrinking for quite some time.  Which was why we've seen the IOC re-think their selection process for choosing a host city.  A large reason for that is because these cites and countries don't want to work with the IOC anymore.  We've seen numerous cities put together a plan to host the Olympics and have that fall apart either because of poor management or because the will of the citizens to push back and force referendums has ended their efforts.  That's something the IOC has rarely had to deal with throughout their history, let alone on the scale we're seeing now.  It's not like it's just 1 or 2 cities where that's happening.  The number of failed bids is greatly outnumbering the number of bids that manage to get far enough to be presented to the IOC.

    And now we're dealing with COVID-19, which has postponed an Olympics for the first time in their history, and still leaves in question how things are going to look next summer.  The questions that will continue to come up over the next year is who will pay the costs for the delay.  Is the onus on Japan and the organizers to spend the money necessary?  How much is the IOC helping them out?  It's another point where prospective host cities for future Olympics will question the relationship between the IOC and the host city.  It may cause those cities to question their involvement with the Olympics if it's going to cost them more money than it's worth.  It's not a matter of the IOC being able to deal with the Tokyo Olympics and work towards future Olympics at the same time.  It's about those cities rethinking their plans now that the reality of a pandemic has reared its ugly head.

    So yes.. the IOC certainly has an eye towards 2030 and 2032 and beyond.  It's a lucky break for them that they don't need to think about 2028.  But where Tokyo 2020 would have been in the rear-view mirror 3 months from now, instead it's something they have to manage for an additional year.  Among other things, that certainly puts a hold on Sapporo's efforts to put together a bid for 2030.  And you can be sure that the folks in Queensland will want to see how the next year plays out before they sign on the dotted line (assuming they wind up being the IOC's choice for 2032)

  14. 21 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    No, the IOC has stated that they are no longer bound by that 7 year-lead time rule.  They've said that they can pick/announce a host city any time if the conditions are right.  I suppose if Sapporo and Salt Lake are the only serious contenders for both 2030 and 2034; they can lock them in early or much later than the normal 7 years.  

    20 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

    Definitely not a one-off, it is much more than that.  Further,, the traditional IOC 7-year  election/hosting timeline is officially out the window, as Baron said.

    Under the previous adoption of Agenda2020 and last year”s passing of the additional ‘New Norm’ reforms, a Host City can be voted on at any time.  It is the IOC’s New Norm.

    It is widely expected that the IOC will vote on the 2032 Summer Host around 2021-2022.

    Yea, good luck with that.  They may have been able to do that before the pandemic.  No way it's happening now.  The IOC is going to be busy spending the next year salvaging the Tokyo Olympics.  After that, only a few months until Beijing.  Then maybe they can start focusing on 2032.  So we are at the bare minimum 2 years away from naming a host, and who knows what cities might step up before then given the state of the world.  

    Yes, 7 years is no longer the official standard.  But do we expect to get a 2030 host much before 2023?  Probably not.  And we might not see a 2032 host until after that at this point.  Because the conditions probably won't be right until then.  Lets see how these new norms/Agenda 2020 actually play out, particularly now that COVID-19 may have had a ripple effect beyond just Tokyo's Olympics getting postponed

  15. On 5/8/2020 at 1:56 PM, stryker said:

    This is where the host cities have to push back. With the limited number of bidders as it is, IMO the host cities have significant leverage over the IFs right now. Sure they might throw a fit over the use of an existing venue that's not in the host city limits(UCI did this when Tokyo declined to build a new velodrome) but eventually it's still the Olympics and they'd have no choice but to accept it. I can't think of any recourse an IF would have to try to get an Olympic host to build the venue they demand.

    14 hours ago, stryker said:

    So there is some precedent for saying no to venue construction that would be too expensive.

    On the topic of the aquatics venues (problematic for the reasons highlighted in an earlier post) we're seeing some movement in terms of recent world championships and the Olympics away from the expensive permanent venue to existing stadiums/arenas that can be fitted with temporary pools (though I think London's as well as Sydney's have fulfilled their legacies well. I'd add Atlanta's to that as well). Kazan used a football stadium for the world championships. Fukuoka is planning to hold the world championships inside a convention center/arena.  Los Angeles is using Dedeaux Field (I assume they can save costs by using the filtration system for the university pool which is adjacent to the stadium and being used as a warmup pool) to save costs but I expect there will be some pushback from FINA over an open air venue in the LA heat. There's also the issue as was pointed out regarding test events. I would assume the USC baseball team would have to spend a significant portion of their 2028 season on the road then there's the issue of NCAA playoffs with regionals and super regionals which run into June. Wasn't one of the reasons LA moved the aquatics venue from Banc of California Stadium was LAFC would have had to play an extended road schedule and they did not agree to this? My guess would be holding the test events in summer 2027, take the infrastructure down, and reassembling it after the baseball season ends. I don't know what kind of time frame would be needed for this.


    I still don't get how they're supposed to make this work with the swimming venue.  I get that the whole point is to have the warm-up pool nearby, but they're not using Dedeaux Field as much as they're using the space for a temporary structure that's going to take awhile to build and make it difficult to restore the original condition of the field.  Yes, that's going to displace USC baseball for at least a year, just like it's probably going to impact the 2028 football season at USC, possibly more depending on how long it takes to construct and then remove the platform.

    In terms of your comments about pushing back.. shouldn't Rio have dont that with UCI prior to the 2016 Olympics instead of caving in and building a new one?  It's easy to say in a vacuum that the host cities have leverage, but if there's more than 1 bidder, than a city still has to put their best foot forward or risk losing the support of an IF.  That's their recourse.

  16. 5 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

    IF Tokyo is cancelled (hope not of course), I find it sad that 2028 has already been awarded...they could have offered Tokyo 2028, and LA the anniversary Games in 2032....I think they are starting to award the Games a bit early, who knows what the world, or any country will be like in 12 years time!

    If Tokyo can't host the Olympics in 2021, are they even going to want another one in the near future?  I don't think it would be so automatic to assume they would want the next available Olympics.  It's ironic how next Summer worked out because in a normal cycle, they'd be awarding the 2028 Olympics.  Thankfully that's already taken care of, so the IOC has to be relieved they don't have to worry about that.

    When you say "starting to award the Games a bit early," you realize that was a one off, right?  That's not the start of a trend that we should expect to continue.  Remains to be seen how the IOC will be awarding hosting rights in the future, but 2026 was voted on right where it should have been.  7 years out seems like it will still be the standard and I would imagine once they get past next summer, they'll start looking ahead to the 2030 Olympics.

  17. 8 hours ago, stryker said:

    If the Tokyo Olympics get cancelled because COVID19 is still an issue in the summer of next year that will be an unprecedented financial loss with all the construction and logistics for Japan. IMO that would be more than enough for a Sapporo bid to be dead on arrival. Suddenly 2030 is wide open. 

    Potentially, but I don't know if that's an invitation for Vancouver to waltz in knowing Salt Lake is still out there.  They'll need to start getting ready for that sooner rather than later.  I don't think they are well served to just drop into the race in mid to late 2021 following a cancelled Olympics.  The bigger question is how will the IOC handle that massive slice of humble pie, particularly with an Olympics in China to follow

  18. 1 hour ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

    Economic analysis has shown LA/Atlanta and Sydney (per event) were super cheap..(I will look for the link)...Sydney's stadium was only USD300million, incredibly cheap for a 115,000 stadium.

    The Sydney stadium was downsized to 80,000, the pool to 3,000 as planned, and there were temporary stands for everything else. from rowing, to archery, hockey etc...

    Sydney Games cost less than 1percent of state GDP over 7 years...and left no debt.


    $690 million in Australian dollars.  Based on exchange rates at the time, that was about $380 US dollars.  By comparison, Atlanta's stadium only cost about $209 million.

    LA's budget - no analysis needed - shows infrastructure spending at over a billion dollars.  If that's what you consider "super cheap," then imagine a city like Brisbane that has to build more from scratch because they don't already have the required facilities.  Suddenly not so super cheap anymore


    16 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

    I do find it weird though that mega cities, like Paris, dont have a world class aquatic centre or velodrome....or a sports mad city like Brisbane not having a decent 60,000 seat stadium. An advanced city should have a these facilities..Ok I agree white water stadiums and bobsled tracks are a bit niche!

    Sydney was done on the super cheap, no heroic architecture....(and Sydney needed a decent stadium, indoor venue and pool anyway)...but on TV you could never tell. 

    Los Angeles has almost no permanent Olympic-related construction planned and the infrastructure budget is still over a billion dollars.  I don't think you can necessarily call Sydney "super cheap" when construction of the main stadium alone was over A$700 million, even if it was good to have a new stadium.

    The problem with the Olympics is that you don't just need facilities, but for those facilities to be able to accommodate large crowds.  As Nacre noted, it's one thing to have an Olympic-sized pool.  It's another for that venue to be able to hold 10,000-20,000 fans for the 1 time they'll need it for the competition.  To that end...

    On 4/27/2020 at 12:38 PM, stryker said:

    Of course there's still the problematic Olympic Village and the biggest white elephant of them all- the athletics stadium.

    That gets said a lot, but look at the history and it's not necessarily all that true.  LA figured out a solution, albeit an expensive one, without having to build a new stadium.  Paris is using an existing stadium.  Rio, Athens, and Barcelona all used existing stadiums.  Sydney, London and Atlanta built new stadiums, but they're anything but white elephants.  Other sports and venues have been more of the culprits.  I don't think it's fair to point the finger at athletics as being the issue.

    Won't argue with the point about the Olympic village though.  That's what will almost always make a permanent host a non-starter.

  20. On 4/28/2020 at 8:38 AM, stryker said:

    A permanent host is a problem for the reason you've mentioned but I don't see why existing venues in a region couldn't be used. For example, Brisbane uses the Penrith Lakes course for slalom canoeing for a future U.S. summer bid uses the velodrome in Los Angeles. In terms of being spread and, yes, I agree about the transportation issues, but IMO this is something that the IOC and the respective IFs are going to just have to deal with. Drut also suggested the Games have too many sports (agreed but how do you reduce that number?) and I'd even add maybe it's time to consider smaller capacity venues especially for some of the indoor sports or consider possibilities such as open air speed skating ovals or having boxing outside (how many matches have been done in casino parking lots?)

    The way to reduce the number is to evaluate which sports are expandable, both in terms of operational cost and what is required of the host city.  Of course, the way the IOC operates which of course is heavy on politics, we get a situation where they vote to save modern pentathlon and eliminate wrestling (thankfully, wiser heads prevailed on that one).  We're talking a lot about slalom canoeing.  That requires a very specialized venue, so perhaps they need to be on the chopping block.  Surfing is obviously all good when we're talking about Tokyo or LA.  Paris, not so much.

    If the IOC is going start to tailor the program for each Olympics which some thoughts towards what makes sense for a particular host city (i.e. baseball/softball make perfect sense to have on the Tokyo program, but not so much for Paris).  And maybe let's not add 5 brand new sports just to bring in younger audiences as a further burden on potential hosts.

    Here's what I think needs to happen going forward.  Forget the permanent host idea.  Sounds nice in theory, but it'll never be practical if it's creating transportation issues, unless the IOC is willing to shoulder more of that burden rather than throwing it all on the host city's shoulders.  The IOC needs to create a better working relationship with potential host cities so that if things go south, it's not the city/country that suffers while the IOC reaps the benefits.  Not to mention the IF's who continue to demand the very best, so cities have to offer it up or they won't win it.

    Cities bid for the Olympics often in the best of times.  And then host the Olympics in not such good times.  We saw it with Athens after 9/11 where security costs ballooned.  We saw it with Rio where the Brazilian economy wasn't as strong in 2016 as it was in 2009.  We're seeing it here with Tokyo (and soon to be with Milan) in circumstances out of their control.

    I've been saying it for years and I'll say it again here.. the problem isn't so much with the Olympics.  A large part of the problem is with the IOC.  Until they recognize that and stop providing that incremental changes like Agenda 2020 are the solution, it will be tough to see any real change going forward.

  21. 3 hours ago, olympikfan said:

    Their are many countries very upset at China. India is one that is taking a stand to China. Many countries in Europe are taking steps to deal with China, and if Trump is reelected he might boycott the games and force others countries to do the same. Take heed IOC.

    Thank you for some good old-fashioned baseless speculation right there.  India - with a grand total of 21 athletes sent to the Winter Olympics - is going to take a stand?  European countries are going to send a message by.. doing what?  And if Trump gets re-elected (G-d help us all), do you really the USOPC or anyone else for that matter will give a $hit if he's pissed at China?

    The IOC is in bed with China right now.  There is ZERO chance either party is willingly backing out of that agreement.  Especially given how much damage control they're going to have to do with regard to Japan in the 202One Olympics.  You can't honestly think the IOC is going to turn their backs on China.  What's the alternative?  Cancel the 2022 Olympics?  Pretty sure the IOC will not consider that an option, especially with how badly they're hurting right now with Tokyo.

    2 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

    While I don't think the IOC cares about India when it comes to Winter Olympics or about the volatile (to put it mildly) man in the White House, I wouldn't be surprised if 2022 is the next thing to blow up right into the IOC's face.

    They chose Beijing in a competition between leftovers after all serious European contenders either didn't even make the starting line (Munich) or got fearful and annoyed along the way (Oslo), both accompanied or caused by sheer arrogance from Bach and company. That alone was problematic already, not least because of the human rights issues - but beggars couldn't be choosers in 2015 either and the fear for a potentially unstable Kazakhstan was obviously winning.

    Now, less than two years before the scheduled opening ceremony, a lot will depend on the will of the Chinese government to set up proper health and safety standards and cooperate fully with international organisations such as the WHO to tackle both the cause and the effects of the pandemic. The risk for another major image problem for the IOC is definitely enormous, but I'm sure Thomas Bach will see this again as the Olympic torch being the light at the end of the tunnel, guiding light for China and the world to come out of this crisis and celebrate unity etc etc.

    The good thing about the 2022 Olympics is that there's so much focus on trying to salvage 2021 that very little attention will be paid to Beijing next September.  So most people in Olympics circles will forget about what they hate about China and why they probably shouldn't have been awarded an Olympics in the first place.  That said, be careful of how we remember history.  The final vote total for Beijing over Almaty was 44-40.  A couple of voters have a change of heart at the last moment and suddenly the country that "obviously" wasn't winning actually pulls it off.

    That all aside.. yes, we're nearly 2 years away from the start of their Olympics.  Right now in the moment of this pandemic, there are a lot of fingers being pointed at China.  We know the lengths that Japan was willing to go to in order to make the world believe it would be safe to host the Olympics on schedule.  No one knows what the state of the world will be in 2 years or where we'll be in terms of this pandemic.  It's not as if we'll have forgotten about all this by the time the 2022 Olympics roll around, but it's unfair to evaluate the future based on the present in that regard.

  22. 9 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

    Reading reports that Japan only conducted 16% of the number of tests South Korea did (even worse, with a much larger population) in March, I think it's becoming more and more obvious that Abe and co. tried to keep things under the rug as long as possible to avoid cancelling/postponing the Olympics. And now they're seeing a steep increase in infections. Was that worth it for the Japanese government and the IOC?

    In hindsight, clearly not.  The question now is how do they manage the fallout?  It's anyone's best guess what the state of the world will look this time next year.  At this point, I do trust that Tokyo will do whatever they can to make the Olympics happen, which means instead of trying to suppress the numbers, now that need to look into testing and the development of a vaccine.  And yes, the economic fallout of all this would likely be devastating for the city and the country.

  23. 9 hours ago, stryker said:

    The IOC has said nothing. All their talk and focus has been on Tokyo and the damage the postponement will cause. In terms of finances, I know the Lombardy region is the wealthier part of Italy but I question whether that will even be enough for Milan to go through with all the costs needed. I was reading an editorial the other day on COVID19 and the world economy and one of the things mentioned was countries that have incurred high amounts of debt in fighting COVID19 like Italy who's already in huge debt anyways won't be able to pay it back. It will have to either be forgiven or Italy will default. A default would be enough IMO to end Milan's Olympic hopes.

    What exactly is the IOC supposed to say?  Have they said anything about France, speaking of areas hit hard by COVID-19?  There's no need for some sort of empty gesture when they have a much more pressing situation to deal with right in front of them.

    There's only 2 ways the 2026 Olympics don't happen in Italy.  Either the IOC takes it away from them (no shot) or Italy hands it back.  Do you actually see that happening with a snap of your fingers like that?  It's never going to be that simple.  The entire world is feeling the effects of what's going on.  When we start to hear reports about uncertainly in Italy over the Olympics, then maybe it's worth discussion.  Until then, talking about the end of Milan's Olympic hopes is nothing more than baseless speculation

  24. 10 hours ago, stryker said:

    I'm not so sure Sapporo is a sure thing anymore. With the billions of dollars having to be shelled out by Tokyo along with a recession, I have doubts whether there will be the finances or political will to go through with a bid from Sapporo. 

    As for Vancouver, it's a matter of when, not if, they host again. Given the skepticism still surrounding the IOC and its reforms, I could see the IOC going back-to-back WOGs in North America. A good selling point for Vancouver could be making the city the permanent training home for winter sports in Canada (I suspect in the near future the sliding track in Calgary will be shut down just as WinSport's Ski Jump was). Vancouver's venues would need some touch up but outside of an Olympic Village there's no need for any new venues. Langley Events Centre could host curling and with the IOC's flexibility on venues, it would be far cheaper for a Vancouver bid to propose using the Olympic Oval in Calgary (if Calgary's bid could propose using Vancouver's ski jumps then Vancouver can do the same with the speed skating oval). 

    We won't know what's up with Sapporo until late next year, and yes, it's very possible they won't want to bid for 2030, especially if things go less than swimmingly for Tokyo.

    I agree on Vancouver.. they'll likely be the next city in Canada to host another Olympics.  I'm still skeptical they'll go after 2030, but it's certainly possible they'll throw their hat in the ring, particularly if Salt Lake is targeting 2034.  Still, don't minimize the Olympic Village factor.  That's the kind of major urban planning initiative that may determine whether or not there's an appetite to bid in the first place.

  • Create New...