Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Luffy

  1. Well the equation is quite simple, isn't it ?

    They either get into the 2024 fight. Spend a lot of money and time with possibly very little success OR they sit out. Let Rome win and have a 90% chance of securing 2028.

    IOC will have overdose on Asia, Europe won't be eligible. Only Africa or Toronto could be a decent threat but then it will be almost three decades without games for the IOC's main partner. There is no reason to think a good US bid won't be as good as a Canadian one.

    Honestly, why spend 50 millions when you have a 20% chance of sucess when you can have 90 ?

  2. Well, Paris a pair ...but France has hosted FIVE Olympic Games already.

    Yes but you have to be honest and fair and recognize the extreme limitations in good choices to host WOG. Especially before 1990. Only Austria, Switzerland, France, Canada, Japan, USA, Norway and Italy were viable host. They throw a bone at Yugoslavia and could have gone to Sweden but that's about it.

    So to be it seems strange to hold this against those countries for them not hosting a SOG.

    I can understand people denying Paris on the basis they hosted twice but hardly on the base they hosted WOG too

  3. Nathalie was born in Paris... And she is supposed to be a counselor, she is supposed to advice the president directly and represent him at sports events so basically I don't really understand the attacks.

    If there is a field where France is doing well at the moment, it's in obtaining major sports events so the critics are a bit harsh.

    And saying Valls should be sent to Spain just because he wasn't born in France or calling Sarkozy an Hungarian jew like some people do is an atrocious thing to do. Disagreeing politically with someone can done without racism.

    • Like 1
  4. And stade of France also host a lot of rugby matches, concerts etc.

    Is it really that strange to other countries that people and politics in France like the idea of having 20 teams in 20 rather big cities instead of having 7 clubs in Paris just because it's the capital ?

    Paris has a good football, handball, more than decent Basket and two Rugby teams, does it really need more than this ?

    I think that's cooler to have a first league team in almost in every big city but that's just my opinion

  5. I guess it seems pretty stupid to many on the surface. But when you're putting your best foot forward, especially mutilple times, with your hard work & dedication, then it doesn't seem that stupid afterall. No one likes to lose under those circumstances. And surely Paris & the U.S., for examples, would be somewhat warranted in thinking that way. It's only human nature.

    Yes but that's denying two simple truth about olympics bids. Firstly that there is others countries able to do one as good as you and Secondly there will be one great bid for at least one of those countries.

    No one is denying that the US can win an olympic bid for example, but there is no chance a SOG race end up in a 2022 situation where LA is left only with Baku. Sure the US can 2024 but like Tokyo in 2020, they will have at least to defeat one of the likes of Rome, Berlin and Durban etc

  6. There will always be another viable candidate against them and Paris like any other cities has to accept that.

    We are used to the: "We won't make a bid if we don't think we can win" blabla from everyone. And it's pretty stupid to be honest.

    The only way Paris or any major European city, or the USA cannot be contenders is when their continents isn't favored by the IOC geopolitics. Apart from that there is always hope but also there is always going to be at least one or two major contenders in the mix, a Rome, Madrid, Berlin, LA, Cape Town, and Shanghai to fight against them.

    What Paris should really asked themselves is 'do they need these' rather than having them just because they want them. Is there a way this event can be used to revamp districts of the capitals, to improve transport, to create permanent jobs and obtain new contracts etc?

    To be honest I think the city could use it but obtain the same things with spending less money. I think France's sport has really improved for decades now. We have basically decent teams in every collective sport, decent athletes in a lot of sports and he still on the rise. Paris's Defense district is still the first economical district of Europe and Paris is still in the most visited cities. France is the country with most visitors in the world.

    Would the Olympics really improve that much what's basically doing the best in France?

    Paris had two serious bids and was rejected twice, maybe it's better for us to go Madrid's way and focus on others things and just accept that the IOC just prefers to go to different places.

  7. Except that For Fifa, nothing went wrong at all.

    They are still very happy with their decisions and don't care about humans rights and worker conditions at all and just want beautiful stadium and lucrative events.

    I do not wish to open the debate on an unrelated topic, but you guys should really realized that the only difference between Fifa and IOC is that the IOC has better little ants working for them making them look organised and more democratic than they are.

    Just like FIFA, they are just of bunch of spoiled brats, princess and cheicks, most of them having never played any sport at a competition level, full of themselves and having crazy exigences. They don't give a crap about democracy, human rights, they only cared about hotels and how much will be spent on their entertainment.

    Fifa is all the same but at least they went to every continents. IOC gave Brezhnev the games in the cold war at a time murders and sweet siberian camps were a reality and China despite terrible human right records and total lack of democracy, is Fifa really worst than them to give two World cups to modern day Russia and Qatar ?

  8. Well of course it has everything to do with the emergence of the US as the world first nation and not so much with England.

    I think the US prefers, for logistic purposes, for easier travel for its fans and maybe for just having more cultural aspects in comon, to see the game awarded to Australia or England and that helped them get the few votes more they needed to win the games.

    Thinking that isn't taking away the greatness of London 2012 and Sydney 2000 off, nor diminishing the extreme quality of the bids.

  9. If you're talking about what they did "systematically," you're making a lot of expectations in order to fit your system and then pointing to 1 aberration (which, as you noted, is really the 3rd) that somehow breaks the pattern. That's kinda like how people used to think here that only years ending in 8 would feature an Asian host. That was a pattern.. until it wasn't.

    The thing to keep in mind isn't just trying to find trends or patterns in the cities that won, but to look at the circumstances of how they got there. Tokyo won the 2020 bid because there were only 2 other bidders, both of which (Madrid and Istanbul) seemed like less than reliable options. So the IOC went with Tokyo. That you mentioned Barcelona.. I'd hardly consider that a new frontier the way we apply that label now to China or to Brazil. And that Olympics probably should have gone to Paris if not for Juan Antonio Samaranch rigging the race so that his hometown Barcelona would win. Moscow won in 1980 where the Winter Olympics that year were to be held in the United States (Lake Placid was the only bidder) and the previous Summer Olympics had been in Canada. Montreal won the `76 bid because they were the only non-superpower of the 3 bidders. Rome 1960 wasn't really a new frontier either as Rome had originally been selected as host of the 1908 games and don't forget Cortina d'Ampezzo had been selected host of the 1956 Winter Olympics.

    If you're looking at potential 2024 hosts, it's almost pointless to look at the bigger picture. Focus on those bidders (whoever the list may comprise) in that time and place. Rome probably would have had a good shot at landing the 2020 Olympics had economic issues (among other things) forced them to withdraw. If a German city were to bid and they had their act together, no reason they couldn't be selected. The history you're offering up hardly takes Rome or Berlin off the table if they're in the race.

    I meant new frontiers in the sense it was a country they never been before to. Not in the new continents/area context. Probably someone with a better english than me would have found a better term.

    I want to reiterate that I'm speaking only about SOG.

    I know that each race has it's own dynamics and history, and of course no one is denying that Australia, the US and England are wealthy and competent to deliver great games but It's clear to me than IOC prefered to go to new countries or back to english speaking countries rather than old european cities.

    I think we can all agree that in recent years, Rome, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm had very strong bids in a year that could be won by Europe and they didn't get it. And to an extent you could add Moscow and Berlin to that list.

    So maybe it was just coincidences or that the IOC went to most countries it could go before giving another try to some cities but I'not convinced Rome, Paris or Berlin's name is going to be in an envelloppe anytime soon.

  10. What is troubling me is how the IOC is going to couple their perpetual desire for new frontiers and their absolute love for english speaking countries with the fact they cannot stay far from Europe for too long for the SOG.

    After Paris hosted 1924, for almost a century, they systematically went for places where they never been, Seoul, Mexico, Moscow, Barcelona, Beijing, Tokyo, Montreal, Rome etc and the much beloved english speakers : Australia, the US and the UK.

    There is only two exceptions : Athens. {And I don't need to argue this is a special place for the IOC} and Munich when they already been to Germany.

    Yet, they suddenly elected Tokyo for 2020 and my question is : Is this a new era where the IOC go back to former host countries or more like a Munich thing ?

    And so are Rome and Berlin on the table or are we going back to Boston, Istanbul, Durban ?

    I will give it a try

    2022 Beijing, China
    2024 Boston, or any city winning the USOC nomination, USA

    2026 Munich, Germany
    2028 Cape town, South Africa
    2030 Calgary Canada
    2032 Istanbul, Turkey
    2034 Oslo, Norway
    2036 Melbourne, Australia
    2038 Sapporo Japan
    2040 Shanghai, China
    2042 Sion, Switzerland

  11. I read an article in French by an estonian writer who is reporting secretly from Sochi.

    He spoke of many disasters and massive flood which halted the work for a long time apprently.

    I don't know the estonian newspaper but it was in the courrier international, a french magazine who collects the best or should i say informative articles from "serious" Newspapers.

  12. I don't think you need to win a medal to be a member, just to have played a sport at an high level or to have participate seriously in the Olympics.

    You aren't going to tell me that from the thousand of Athletes who participated in the summer or winter olympics for the last 40 years, you can't find 100 people who have the skills to be good sports administrator ?

  13. And i'm getting tired of the South Africa excuse to say the world have been to Africa!

    That being said a SA's bid would have very high chances.

    Now back to Rome, well if they bid and Madrid didn't get the 2020 games, they can win.

    But i predict 2024 will be one of the most fantastic race ever with Madrid, Paris, maybe a german city & Istanbul & Rome in europe and that's without counting out a possible SA, Middle East, US bid.

    I just feel Rome has something a little more charming than Madrid, Paris & Istanbul in people vision of the world so i wouldn't be surprise to see it win.

    On the other hand, if the shortlist is Madrid, Paris, Rome, Istanbul & maybe cities from SA & USA, you would have to be very clever to bet who will win, and Rome could go out in the first round or even win!

  14. On the opposite i want you to go on please.

    Please continue the list.

    Currently only 40 Members of the 113 active members of IOC participated in any Olympiad.

    Most of them are on that list because of the Athletes Commission that Samarach created only in 1981 to make sure there is actually some sportsman in the IOC.

    So two-thirds of the people who will vote for either Madrid, Istanbul or Tokyo to host a huge sport event have never been in olympics or even been doing real sport except footing.

    And on the 40 members who did participate, a few of them are a real joke like Prince Albert II in bobsleigh.

    So yes please continue the list, because as i see it, any one in the Windsor family has more chance to become an IOC member than someone behind such great games like London has.

  15. Sebastian Coe is not an IOC member for a very good reason.

    He was an athlete, a real one.

    Don't you know that's forbidden for the IOC! You must be a prince at least to get him and you musn't have entered the games! and on top of it you musn't musn't have won some medals!

    How would the Emperor of Ireland, the King of Switzerland, the Tsar of Mexico and the sultan of Australia would feel & look if they have someone without a tittle & who actually participate in the olympics & did well sitting next to them????

    Surely the Queen has a grandchildren she can marry to Coe & give him a tittle?

  • Create New...