Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. Since Rob did it for 2012, let's look at the 2024 field of candidates.. Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics That's a really long list of cities there and it's based off of actual interest. Not your misleading notion of "media reports" which is a terrible metric to use. So for 2024, there were all those cities, 5 eventually put in bids, and as we know, only 2 were left standing at the end. How is that all any different than what we should expect for 2036? Other than your pie in the sky notion that there's more serious contenders out of this group in your mind than will probably actually play out. Maybe take a longer look at those media reports to get a better sense of who is serious or no. An example from 2024.. N.Y. looking at bid for 2024 Olympics, Cuomo says You would have jumped on this and put it in your "interested cities" list. If you actually read the report, you'd see there was no interest. Just the governor of the state of New York saying he would entertain a proposal *IF* there actually was a proposal. Which was then made moot 2 weeks later when the mayor of NYC said they wouldn't entertain a bid. So aside from your nonsensical posts about looking at past bids versus current "interest," we need to be a little bit more discerning when compiling a list based on media reports. Maybe take a look at those reports first and actually reading them because simply adding them to your list and saying "they're interested" and making it seem like we should evaluate them as if they're working towards what could be a legitimate bad
  2. Let's not forget the history of that vote. 84 votes cast and 40 were for Almaty. In hindsight, yes that would have been a disaster. But let's not paint it that China was the only option, because a lot of people knew from minute one that was a bad choice. At the end of the day, what matters is the winner, not how strong the field of competition was
  3. Exactly.. that's an extremely dumb way of looking at it if we're judging by media reports. Those existed pre-new norm as well so why aren't you putting that list together? Other than that it might completely dis-prove your point. To lump all media reports into a list as if they're all created equal is extremely stupid. Not all "interest" is the same and if you're going to go off those reports, be smart enough to know what's in those reports. It's not that difficult to do a few minutes of research and have at least some idea of what cities may or may not actually have something that may eventually lead to a more serious bid rather than just generic and meaningless "interest"
  4. If you plan the data into an Excel spreadsheet, it can create a graph. That said... What exactly are we comparing here? Up through 2024, you're giving us bids and applicant cities. For 2032 and 2036, you're giving us the list of media reports. Seems like you're intentionally skewing the information to try and prove your "look how great the new norm is at getting interested cities." That's not a trend you're trying to demonstrate. It's confirmation bias
  5. 2 points here.. We've said it here many times over that there's no formula to hosting an Olympics. So we tend to overplay the idea of "city B is going to see what city A is doing" and think that's a thing. Rarely does it work out that way, IMO. There are bits and pieces of information and lessons to be learned, but especially as circumstances evolve (i.e. the selection process), that changes how the game is played. To that end, I doubt Brisbane is going to lead to a spate of bids seeing smaller cities thinking they can do it. Brisbane has some circumstances specific to them that still make it a tough proposition for anyone else to copy them. And in any event, it's still a quality over quantity argument. At the end of the day, the question isn't how many cities are bidding for the Olympics. It's how many *good* cities are bidding. Even then, it's still somewhat of a red herring because so long as the IOC has 1 worthy city, the rest don't exactly come away with anything
  6. Yea, that's what I was referring to, more about the old line of thinking where cities used the Olympics as an urban renewal project, often with a mind toward boosting tourism. Barcelona is obviously the ultimate example of that. But I don't think we'll see it as much going forward. Paris and LA certainly aren't in that mold. They're not bidding for the Olympics looking for a tourism boost. Neither is Milan-Cortina. And certainly not Salt Lake. Brisbane OTOH seems like they're a little more in that category. They've been gradually building themselves up and now will show themselves off to the world because it's not exactly a world-renowned city. So they're more of an old school bidder in that regard.. "we want to use this Olympics to let the world know who we are" I don't know who on the 2036 list does or doesn't fall into that bucket. Need to wait to see which of those "interested cities" are actually seriously interested before we can make that assessment
  7. It sometimes works better in practice than in theory. A lot of cities claim an influx of tourists, but under-sell how many of the locals are getting out of dodge come games time. Some cities do it better than others though. You really can't take much about what you saw with Tokyo during the Olympics to learn much about the city since, as you said, it was the middle of the pandemic. No crowds, so the usual atmosphere was missing. London is a well-known city, especially to Americans. We speak the same language. Share a lot of music. And we're familiar with aspects of their culture (think the Royal Wedding x2). Rio's big draw is the beaches. We've seen it before, including 2 years earlier with the World Cup. The real success stories are places like Sydney, where a lot of people aren't as familiar. Barcelona was always a tourist destination, but hosting in `92 allowed them to show off the post-Franco era transformation of the city to the world. Those examples are likely to be few and far between going forward though, for better or worse.
  8. Your opinions are based on incomplete information. Do you plan on watching all of the 2024 ceremonies? Or will you lose interest during parts you don't like? We'll see how long the parade of nation is where they're doing it on boats. But I hope that doesn't result in them shortchanging any of the athletes at all
  9. By 2028, that night at the Oscars will be more than 6 years old. I'm guessing they'll have some fresh ideas and better current events by then
  10. They're both. As much as the Olympics are a sporting event, it is and always has been an international spectacle. Many cities absolutely do use it to try and drum up tourism. Others, as we know, use it as a propaganda tool. Either way though, given that every minute of every Olympic competition is beamed around the world in real time and social media makes it easy for everyone to interact with it, people are going to get a big taste of the host city over 2 1/2. So they'll want to put their best foot forward in hopes that people won't soon forget about them
  11. That's what happens when you come into someone else's bedroom and leave poop on the bed
  12. It's certainly a unique concept. If it's pulled off well, I think it will be very memorable. But that's a big "if" for them to execute their vision, since it's not like they can exactly do a lot of rehearsing for it
  13. You're not one to talk about rude. Another poster gives you the perfect opening to discuss your thoughts about what LA 2028 should do with their opening ceremony. Instead, you give us a brief thought sandwiched between you insulting this website and its posters. Not sure why you still find the resentment odd. There will be a lot of visual effects, for sure. The time of day will play into what they do since the ceremony is likely to start during the daytime and probably finish after sunset. Expect a lot of fireworks (literal fireworks, not figurative) towards the end once it gets dark. And probably a lot of aerial shots trying to show off both stadia.
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bids_for_the_2024_and_2028_Summer_Olympics#Non-selected_bids Look at the even longer list of "interested cities" there and then tell me how 2036 is super-charged. Because if we're including everyone where there's even a single report about there that they are looking into bidding for an Olympics, that's a much larger list than we have now
  15. We agree on these things, but where we disagree is the significance. You look at the long list of interested parties and proclaim "look how super-charged the Olympic bid process is." Rob is right though.. this is nothing new. The big question is, as you indicated, who gets to the dialogue stage, because it's certainly not going to be every city on the list. Look at the bids for 2012. There were 5 cities shortlisted (the old equivalent of "targeted dialogue") and cities that didn't get shortlisted included Rio, who of course would have a much different result 4 years later, and Istanbul, who had been on the shortlist for 2008. That was a strong group of candidates. Remains to be seen what to make of this 2036 group, but do you think there will be as strong a field when the IOC is starting to get serious and looking at who to elevate to targeted dialogue? I sincerely doubt that. So maybe let's temper a little bit of the excitement that just because we have all these interested parties that it automatically implies they are good candidates. The IOC says a lot of things, but a lot of it is bad PR spin. They'll jump on any positive they can and ignore any negatives. The system was changed so that it wouldn't be a free for all and so the IOC could properly vet the cities before they decided who to engage with. That's a smart move and absolutely the right decision. But once again, Rob is spot on that overall interest in the Olympics has always been there. That hasn't changed. We still need to be critical of the list of candidates though and look at who might genuinely have a chance of being selected. Most of these "interested parties" do not. It's a quality versus quantity argument. The IOC doesn't need quantity. They need quality. Nothing has been super-charged, no matter how many times you want to say it to convince us otherwise
  16. Is there a reason all of your posts new are images in giant font? What's the problem, don't think we can read them otherwise? You're still parroting bad talking points from the IOC. You really don't see the difference? An "interested party" is just that. Interested. There's no automatic implication that the other party has mutual interest. I want to date a supermodel, but I don't have a genuine chance if she doesn't care about me. So yea.. continuous dialogue. Again, a city/region being interested in bidding for an Olympics does not mean the IOC is having conversations with them. The whole idea with the new norm which you seem to be such a massive fan of is that the IOC can much more easily cut them off and tell them no. So yes, if a city's chances are so remote that the IOC knows there's no point in dealing with them, there need not be dialogue there. Not all cities and bids are created equal and you have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise. There's still a process here where not all interested parties are part of the dialogue phase. I don't understand why that's such a disconnect with you, but it's why the IOC chirping "look how many cities want to worth with us" is nothing but lip service. You know as well as I do that many of these interested cities are going to have a real short conversation with the IOC and that will be the end of it.
  17. Do you understand what the word triggered means? If not, take a look in a mirror. Do you have nothing better to do than to take giant screen grabs and post them all? Reminds me of a certain political party in this country that things that screaming things louder somehow makes them more true, even if they're complete nonsense to begin with. We've been over this before.. talking about "interested cities" 14 years out from an Olympics doesn't carry the weight you seem to think it does. History doesn't remember cities that were interested. They remember the ones that actually had the goods to bid. Of that list of cities you gave us for 2036, how many can we dismiss already as having zero chance at landing the Olympics? Making the same point over and over again doesn't make it a better argument, it just digs in how ridiculous it is. Interest in hosting the Olympics has NOT been super charged. You can't just post (again and again and again) a list of cities and act like it's a large group of viable candidates. It's not. Interest in the Olympics would be serious bidders NOT getting easily beaten by referendums and mismanagement. You're just parroting the same old tired PR spin from the IOC. "Hey, look at us and all these places that want to host our Olympics.. until we tell them we don't care anymore." The IOC went down a bad path of "new frontier" hosts and look where it got them. They've righted the ship somewhat in moving away from that and awarded games to sensible, more reliable hosts. At the end of the day, all they need is 1 city and they're set. The rest is just background noise. How many cities have been chirping about an Olympics for years and have not been (and probably will never be) taken seriously. One more time.. you don't need to keep defending this new selection process as if it's allowing all these places to have a chance at hosting the Olympics. You know as well as I do most will never get even a moment's consideration and it'll probably have been a waste of time for it to have been discussed, even on a message board like this
  18. Welp, looks like we're getting close.. Spain’s 2030 Winter Olympics joint bid in peril as sides fail to reach agreement
  19. Feels like an extension of the "we would like to see an Olympics in Africa" line. Along those lines.. A wider range of interested cities isn't necessarily a good thing. How many times have we said it here that a city being "interested" means nothing if they're not a worth candidate. The good thing about the new process is that it makes it easier for the IOC to dismiss an unworthy candidate. But the messaging here is going to get lost really quick if we get more pie in the sky bids that have no business putting themselves forward
  20. 1 Samaranch is not like the other. This isn't 1986 when the original JAS rigged the game so that Barcelona would get picked. That worked once with what was a very appealing bid. This time, not so much
  21. Great. More PR spin from an organization that is awful at PR. "Hey, look at all these cities that are interested in hosting the Olympics way off in the future." When anyone who knows anything about the bid process knows the majority of them won't be given any serious consideration. Careful there. Use the word "corruption" in any discussion of the new bidding process and you're likely to offend AustralianFan . There's a lot of improvements with the new system. No longer are cities required to spend tons of money to put together a bid and then promise the world to the IOC. The IOC in turn is being much more selective about who they are engaging with so that bids who don't have the goods can be cut off much earlier in the process. Those are obviously good things. But yes, we can't have a scenario where the IOC somewhat out of the blue picks 1 and only 1 city, effectively naming them the host with no explanation of how they got there. We know they have their "fewer losers" mantra, but that's taking it a step 2 far. Make it 2 cities or maybe 3 and have a legitimate vote. And because the process is about dialogue, whoever doesn't win has a leg up on the next Olympics. Think Rio 2012 or Tokyo 2016. They would have benefited from this where they didn't have to put a whole new bid together from scratch and present themselves again to the tune of millions of dollars. That's a good thing. Either way, I agree 100% that there needs to be a vetting process that's more than just picking 1 city behind closed doors and effectively naming them the winner. I hope that was a one off and doesn't happen again.
  22. If 1 and only 1 city gets elevated to targeted dialogue, then essentially the IOC has just named their host for the 2030 games. Can't see them handing that to the Spain bid without a fight.
  23. Is there a reason you felt compelled to reply to me in 3 separate posts, including one more time after a spirited back and forth with Bollock and Lollock? Is that even a thing? You don't actually need to get hyper-defensive anytime someone brings up how Brisbane 2032 came to be. It's not an insult to them or a criticism. It's not suggesting there's a conspiracy. It's just acknowledging that yea, this all was a little weird. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not the only one who personally thinks that. Again, to say that is not a knock against Brisbane, so you don't need to come to their defense any time sometime brings it up. You need to find a new hobby.
  24. Nope, I'll make them my words too. Because he's right. First off, you're giving us this timeline and omitting these key dates.. 22 May 2019 - Future Olympic Games elections to be more flexible 26 Jun 2019 - Evolution of the revolution: IOC transforms future Olympic Games elections So your "evidence" of a timeline is already falsified. We can argue semantics til we're blue in the face, but the fact we have a 2032 host before we have a 2030 host means that something is a little weird. Let alone that the decision was made in the middle of a once in a century global pandemic that delayed the 2020 Olympics by a year. This is not a conspiracy. The IOC chose to fast-track an announcement of the 2032 host. Nothing wrong with that other than it lacks the kind of transparency the IOC often likes to boast they're all about. But let's also not pretend - to Rols' point - that the IOC couldn't "fast track" a 2030 host and name it sooner rather than later if they really wanted to
  • Create New...