Frenchy
-
Posts
467 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Frenchy
-
-
I can serve if France needs me.
Thanks for the offer baron!
Don't call us.
We'll call you!
-
It's sad to see that France thinks of itself like this
Surely an Olympics could do you a power of good, to show the world & yourselves that France is still relevant & modern, to give France a lift. 
To be fair, only a minority like hektor, who doesn't live here btw, think of France as he does.
The rest of us are quite proud of our country in spite of some of her failings.
As for doing good, I agree that organising a SOG would have been quite uplifting.
That's precisely why we bid in 2005 for 2012.
Unfortunately the ioc preferred playing politics and Russian roulette rather than giving the games to the only city who was genuinely passionate about its bid.
That was then.
This is now.
Today everyone here believes that the present political, economic and social climate isn't conducive to a successful bid for 2024.
Too bad........
-
The point with which I don't agree, is that France does not need the Games. France is an old country, a gloomy country, and is slowly turning into a kind of museum-country. I think that hosting the Games would inject a well-needed dose of dynamism and optimism to Paris and to the country.
hektor,
You sound like Donald Rumsfeld and his dim-witted president back in 2003!!
(remember “the French don’t have a word for entrepreneur” ? 
)TGV, la carte à puce (smart card), ITER. . . .
Hardly the achievements of a museum country!
As for dynamism EDF, Vivendi, Orange etc are hoovering up utility companies the world over.
I fail to see, like most of my countrymen, what a SOG would add in the immediate future.
-
Even without indicating it's even thinking of bidding, Paris is the common city on just about everyone's list of early favourites. In the atmosphere after the vote yesterday, it definitely is one city that just has to say Oui and it would be installed to frontrunner status in many people's minds.
Every French member on this board though says it's not under consideration or has much popular support to go. We all probably hope they'll go for it, but I can see why they might be a bit gun-shy, and it's up to them to go for it or not.
If there’s one lesson we’ve learnt from previous experience it’s that bidding for a SOG is a filthy, dirty and brutal affair (2005 is the perfect example) with the prize, usually but not always, going to the filthiest, dirtiest and most brutal bidder.
Quite frankly it’s a bother we can well do without.
Besides, holding a SOG means three things:
- locking down a city for two months and turning it into a target for every loony terrorist on the globe
- handing the keys to a group of men and women, the ioc, who haven’t been the friendliest of people to us (Rogge gave an interview back in September 2005 to l’Equipe Magazine in which he basically spat in the eye of the French bidding team. We’re still reeling from that interview today….)
- and spending an inordinate amount of money for the privilege, money that will never be recouped whatever some might say.
It’s a ‘privilege’ we can well do without in the present climate.
There are also the domestic issues. François Hollande was elected with the smallest of majorities in 2012 and his only solutions to France’s economic woes were to increase taxes. So much so that after twelve months in office he has reached a level of unpopularity which it took Sarkozy four years to reach previously! With local and mayoral elections looming in 2014 the last thing the French elector wants is new spending. Any candidate who so much as mentions the word ‘Olympics’ runs the real risk of being voted out of office!
Neither is being a frontrunner or a favourite necessarily the cosy trip it’s made out to be as we well know. When you’re a favourite you seem to be spending more time fending off attacks than trying to put your message through to the ioc. Again, why bother?
It’s not like we really needed the games after all. We might be happy to host the games, even be proud to host them but don’t really need them. Paris is already the most visited city in the world. It’s the capital of style and glamour. It’s where every woman wants to be taken to!
It’s the city that put the ‘A’ in A-list! So it’s not like we needed to be on the map. We’re already there!If you add to the equation the fact that France already hosts a bevy of internationally known sporting events (TDF, Roland-Garros, 24h du Mans, le Vendée Globe, la Route du Rhum, Grand Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe, etc, not forgetting our role in football, rugby, handball….) the argument for going through the mangle of bidding then hosting an event such as the SOG really starts to lose its attraction.
Then again, I may be completely wrong and Paris will be bidding for 2024!!
-
If Toulouse were to bid, then they would be a tough competitor.
(snip)
Forget it.
There will be no WOG in France until there's been a SOG in Paris.
Which - for the moment - is no time soon......
-
John Coates is not a fan of Delhi...
Well there goes any hope for Delhi 2020...2024...2028 etc etc
We ARE talking about John "$35,000" Coates?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,37411,00.html
Hardly a reference....
-
"Stay or Go?"
Why?
What's wrong?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/commonwealth_games/delhi_2010/9025907.stm
-
The Olympics are great. But they are not about democracy.
I can't believe you wrote that!!
Read the Charter:
"Fundamental Principles of Olympism"
(...)
Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for
universal fundamental ethical principles."
Democracy and the respect for human rights should be the very first condition when choosing a host city.....
-
From what I heard, they're making every 8 Aug some National Fitness Day in China.
Well if that ain't "legacy", I don't know what is!!
-
...athletes and spectators exposed to dangerous level of smog, researchers have concluded.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/otherspor...rchers-say.html
-
-
-
The Solution is very apparent stop the building of Venues by picking bid cities with much on the ground at the time of the Bid. That would favor a Rio for 2016 .
Jim Jones
Are you insane?
What would happen to all those juicy building contracts and backhanders?
Over the IOC's dead body, my good man!!
As an aside, it would be great if some courageous investigative journalist (not Andrew Jennings, he's thrown in the towel) did some research on the relations between IOC members and the construction industry (nod-nod, wink-wink)
-
The sad thing about all this is that the IOC knows the solution.
Here are some highlights from the Olympic Games Study Commission report (not surprisingly chaired by Dick Pound). Legacy, deviation from the Games Template, real role for the Evaluation Commission: it says it all.
(snip)
The IOC Executive Board should develop an IOC communications strategy to make
clear the mandate of the Evaluation Commissions, including a specific component
directed to the costs of organizing the Games. Such a communication strategy must also
be designed to inform the public of the IOC’s intentions regarding the cost, size and
complexities of the organization of the Games and additional costs resulting from the
plans of potential host cities. It should address the objective of creating the best
possible legacy of the Games (which does not mean the "biggest" facilities) and the
cooperative management of the preparations for and operations of the Games under the
guidance of the IOC.
All very wise and proper Jeremie, and I couldn't agree more with what you're saying.
Unfortunately it's wishful thinking.
Why?
Henry Kissinger clearly stated the reasons in September 2005 when asked how he explained Paris' failure to win the 2012 games:
"Les Français n'ont pas compris ce qu'est le CIO. Beaucoup de ses membres viennent de pays pauvres."
All is said in that one sentence.
Differences between winners and losers in the bidding wars are minute.
(Beijing lost by 2 votes to Sydney in 1993, PyeongChang 3 votes to Vancouver, Paris 4 votes to London)
It's quite clear that IOC members from Third World countries couldn't care two hoots about facilities, legacy et al...
They see the games as a rich/white man's event from which they are excluded.
Coherent analysis is not for them.
They are only interested by what they can gain for themselves and nothing else.
As long as the IOC have Third World members in its midst, sadly, nothing will change.....
-
As Baron says, If the IOC wants us to take its "we want to reduce the scale of the Games" story seriously, then it should appear to be serious about it.
Cutting the scale of the Games is not cutting out a baseball and softball venue. Its about making an executive board decision about which city offers the type of Games that would not inspire other cities to be extravagant.
Its about taking bold steps and shoving the diplomacy aside in evaluation reports by clearly stating, "and wtf do you think you will do with this 90,000 seater after the games?"
By allowing IOC Members to vote Sochi and London you're not sending the right message
I couldn't have put it better myself.
(without running the risk of being accused of paranoia and sour grapes, that is!)
One wonders whatever happened to all those wonderful decision taken in Prague in 2003?
Paris 2024
in Paris 2024 Summer Games
Posted
<pedant mode>
Accent aigüe, not grave.
Touché (not touchè)
<pedant mode>