Jump to content

zekekelso

Members
  • Content Count

    3683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Everything posted by zekekelso

  1. Normally? What nations have used this French + English + mor than one official language scheme for announcements.You only have to go back to 2008 (or, heck, 2012) to see hosts not following that "accepted protocol." Less than half of South Africans can speak English. Several of the "really just tribal languages" you denigrate are more wide spoken than English. What's the characteristic of these "tribal" language speakers that makes them less worthy in your world view than the English speakers?
  2. Using three languages is common. Both Davos and St Moritz are primarily Germany-speaking, so that would be the third.
  3. That's exactly what I'm saying. There is nothing in the IOC charter that would knock out this plan. There is no way to know for sure what the IOC would and wouldn't allow. If France wants to talk to the IOC about such a bid, let 'em. See what the IOC says.
  4. I asked a simple question... what the the IOC charter would prevent this? Based on your answer, I'll assume the answer is "Absolutely nothing, as long as they pick one name to be the official host city." My question was about the Olympic charter. Is there something there that says it's OK to spread the games out geographically for Winter Games, but not Summer? No, it wasn't just Equestrian. There are football matches, sailing, etc. spread over wide areas. What's the limit here? How many venues are allowed to be outside the city limits? Seven? Eight? Actually, they did. See above.
  5. What is in the IOC charter that would prevent such a bid? Or would prevent a Reno/Lake Taho bid? Or a St. Moritz/Davos bid? Or a Pyeongchang/Gangneung bid? Or a Beijing/HongKong/etc. bid that had venues spread over thosands of miles. Or, heck, a Melbourne / Stockholm games?
  6. We all here do NOT know what the outcome would be. If the IOC were that predictable, there we be no point for this forum or website.
  7. Who are the idiots... Those who try something new? Or those that insist nothing can change? The World Cup was hosted by one nation. Except that time it had joint hosts. Joint hosts are now the norm for the Euro Cup. And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the WOG are becoming joint hosted in practice, if not in name. Things change. I have no idea if the IOC will allow joit hosts anytime soon. But I do know that some posters here are far too quick to reject and even rudely reject any idea that doesn't fit exactly with past practices.
  8. The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, Montana
  9. Echelon is where I'm putting the Olympic village. My god it's perfect. In what other city in the world do you have the groundwork and foundations in place just waiting for the OV to be built on top of it.
  10. One thing Vegas has going for it is an abundance of billionaires with the vision and experience for grand plans... Here's the scenario... Bucks and Jags go to LA. Raiders can't get a deal done in Oakland. Vegas would be the perfect home for them (and they don't give a frack what the NFL thinks of Vegas). Wynn or Adelson put together a plan that not only moves the Raiders to Vegas, but incorporates the Olympics into the stadium plan. As for SF... they have a stadium. It's in Santa Clara. 49ers going to be there a long time. And if SF wouldn't build a stadium for the 49ers, they sure aren't bu
  11. For the teams that will go there in the future of course. After LA, Vegas is one of the most likely cities to add a top-tier sports team over the next 10-20 years. The main reason Vegas doesn't have top-tier team now is that it was a much smaller city when the current franchises were being established. That and league hostility to gambling. But Vegas could sign a deal tomorrow to move the Jaguars to town.... and incorporate the Olympics into the design of the stadium they would need. I think you underestimate how much venue-adaptable infrastructure Vegas already has. It doesn't have an worl
  12. I'd argue that's one of the *advantages* Vegas has. Unlike those cities, Vegas *needs* to build sports/area infrastructure. Building a new stadium makes a lot more sense in Vegas than in New York.
  13. Nope. What are the Olympic game if not a tourist trap and money pit? And while a Vegas Olympics is darn unlikely, its not so unlikely it's not worth thinking about. Unlikely cities have won the Olympics before. Vegas has huge capacity to host the Olympic tourists. It has oodles of 5* hotels/restaurants/shopping for the IOC members, their families and other VIPS's. It has space to build. It has the need for a stadium and some of the venues. On the flip side, it's got a weather problem. So, as I said, unlikely. No reason to not discuss longshots here.
  14. As a said, not only are you guys right, but you are so sure you are 100% right that all other opinions are automatically wrong . Debate is pointless. Weather precludes RSA from ever going forward with a Cape Town bid, and only cities with existing T&F stadium are ever nominated. You guys really should get the board to shut down all debate on the subject and stop wasting everyone's time. Probaby should also get RSA to publically announce it. Since there is only one possible choice and all differing thoughts are automatically wrong, why waste everyone's time by not announcing it?
  15. You should probably send a note to the board administrators. Explain that you know all the answers. That anyone who thinks differently is obviously wrong. Thus all debate is pointless. Then can close down the applicable threads and save all of us a lot of time.
  16. I think the IOC is just as likely to take some unspoken glee out of snubbing the USOC. Why they heck would the IOC case of the USOC folks got their feelings hurt? Nah, not going to touch that with a Leafs fan. I'll take his post over a great many made by people with 1,000+ posts.
  17. The altitude impacts were much greater in Mexico City than they would be in Johannesburg. In the 29 swimming events held in 1968, Olympic records were set in 24 of them, including 4 world records. The impact of altitude on swimmers is no reason to reject Johannesburg.
  18. Rio's reputation on safety was horrible. Kidnapping, whole sections of the city outside of government control, etc. They got the games. As for altitude, the IOC loves world records; bring it on. Just looked it up. Johannesburg is 5793ft. That'll have some impact on the games, but nothing like Mexico City's 7,350.
  19. When you say that picking Toronto over a US city will put a bullet in the IOCs relationship with the US, what US are you talking about? The sponsors? Heck, Coke etc. would rather see the games in Delhi (or Glascow) than in the US anyway. Toronto's just fine with them. With NBC? They care about time zone. With the USOC? Who gives a frack about them? If they get their fees fees hurt by the IOC, so what? Are they going to stop sending athletes to the games?
  20. If you look at history, having both SOG and WOG in the same country in close time frames is common. If you look at "recent voting history" you'll see Salt Lake and Atlanta. If the IOC is so fickle that you are going to argue that everything has changed since 2002, then everything could change again tomorrow. No matter how you look at it, there is simply no way to state with the slightest level of confidence the IOC will hold 2010 against 2024. The fact that you think Canada's one gold in 2012 is a deal killer shows your way of thinking is out of touch with the IOCs.
  21. Many Londoners felt that way before the Olympics. They were wrong. The 2012 games showed that no matter how great your city is, it can be even better. No matter how positively the rest of the world sees you, that can be improved.
  22. They took it from the Indians? Somehow I don't see that going well with the IOC crowd.
  23. I gotta say, if the strongest technical point of a bid is spending $366m on a stadium, only to tear it down, something is very wrong.
  24. For what it's worth, LA is significantly larger than Chicago
  25. Rio had golf courses it could have used. But it wanted to build a new course to encourage more people in Brazil to take up golf, leave a legacy, bla, bla bla. Plus there tons of money for developers to make, graft to go around, etc. Trust me, this is the exact opposite of a burden. The only issue with where to build the course was who owned what land and was going to get rich off it.
×
×
  • Create New...