Blacksheep

Not until there is complete gender equality ... this rules out most of the Persian Gulf and Arabian peninsula and leaves us with Turkey and North Africa ... turning it into an Islamic games rather than a Middle East games.

I do think that the organisers and the city of Toronto missed a trick here. Having moved away from the Hamilton location, what I would have done would have been to build a single tier 25,000 seat stadium in the Portlands, future proofed for expansion. Once 2015 had finished, the Argonauts could have moved in. If Toronto won the right to host the Olympics, two extra modular decks could have been added producing a 75,000 - 80,000 seat Olympic stadium. Post games and depending on future needs, you either remove both decks or just the top one, leaving a 50,000 seat venue for either the Argonauts, major Toronto FC games, the Grey Cup etc. There might even be space for a new ballpark and all of the infrastructure would be in place.

and Los Angeles is 4,800km to Boston In 2016, Chicago proposed LA 3,300km away

In 1984, LA used stadiums in Boston and Maryland and for the football In 1996, Atlanta used stadiums in Miami and Washington In 2000, Sydney used stadiums Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne In 2008, Beijing used stadiums in Shanghai and if you look at the LA, NY and Chicago bids for 2012 and 2016, the football was spread around There is no reason not to use stadiums in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Montreal to host the football group games before moving the semi finals and finals close to Toronto.

Maybe so but the reason why football at every games is widely spread is so that the games had reach people who can't make it too other events. I don't think concentrating the football would enhance the bid, and could in fact detract from it.

You need about 5 football venues most of which are 30,000 seats+ .... I don't know if Toronto has this capacity?

I'd doubt they'd drop the Frank Clair. Interestingly the football is the one event that is spread around a country so using BC Place, Commonwealth Stadium, Canads Inn (or whatever the new is called) the Frank Clair and Montreal's Olympic stadium makes sense. What the Rogers offers with its roof closed seems too valuable to me.

When they say covered do they mean as in 'Dunedin' or a sliding roof facility, or just a regular stadium with a roof over each stand only?

It won't happen like this as it would turn the Euro's into a joke. How about London 2020 though .... there is enough stadia Wembley 90,000 seats Twickenham 80,000 seats (if approval can be given by the local council) Olympic Stadium 60-80,000 seats (depending on how much alteration has been agreed to) Emirates 60,234 seats New White Hart Lane 56-60,000 seats Stamford Bridge 41,837 seats and 4 teams who could expand their stadia The Valley (Charlton) 27,111 seats Selhurst Park (Crystal Palace) 26,309 seats Craven Cottage (Fulham) being increased to 30,000 seats new QPR stadium - 30,000 seats + and just outside of London is the Madjeski (Reading) which may be expanded to 36,900 seats.

yes but also Rio and maybe Istanbul offer a true uniqueness in their bids - first games in South America, first Muslim games etc - whilst a city which has already held the games twice won't have that PLUS to outweigh the MINUS of a spread out bid.

Looking at a Toronto bid - and I still think 2028 might be a better option than 2024, I think it will pose a massive challenge to any US nominee. You are talking a North American bid, so the US networks won't be totally upset. There will be government funding unlike the US and this is something that the IOC will like. Outside of the Big 3 (LA, NY, Chicago), no US city exceeds Toronto in terms of infrastructure, transport, sporting facilities suitable for the Olympics which are already in place. Whilst New York and Chicago might offer a vow factor, Los Angeles may need to work hard to come up with an imaginative new twist ..... unlike London whose 1948 austerity games bailed out the IOC, a 3rd games in LA would be a genuine 3rd selection. San Francisco could be interesting but if they can't even get a 49ers stadium built within the city limits, what hope is there for the facilities needed for an Olympics? Philadelphia and Dallas have made noises but can they genuinely put together as compact a bid as Toronto?

I never brought up Syria, but hey, don't let the truth stand in the way of a good lie

How convenient you forgot my mentioning that if that were to occur the Chinese might be drawn in as they were in the Korean War, and for all the typical American sable rattling would they really want that for a localised incident. I have not said they don't pose a threat. They've a proven record of actions against Japan including the kidnapping of their citizens, but think it is no more likely than some how thinking that Syria might bizarrely impact on Istanbul because they are in the same geographical region.

I argued it was technically closer (800km to 1,000km) merely to illustrate how stupid the suggestion about Syria was I take it you didn't read the quote you are referring to because no where did I say bigger or larger at all, I merely said that if that was to be considered then Tokyo had similar questions to answer

Oh didums - have I upset you? You don't seem to understand so I shall try to avoid big words - I said Tokyo/North Korea when you said Istanbul/Syria because they are both equally to have same impact i.e. zero. It was your drivel which started it but because you can't take the heat you choose to leave the kitchen. Your choice And I least I use proper English rather than degrade this board with your txt abbreviations

Actually the only person who looked a fool was you for raising such a ludicrous suggestion in the first place but considering the source it can hardly be unexpected. Idiot.

err, that was in RESPONE to your ludicrous initial suggestions re: Syria and Istanbul

The NorthWest of Madrid has been a construction site in the 10years I've had to travel there for work. Based on how much a successful Olympic bid could invigorate the completion of even 50% of this work, then it would undoubtedly be that for the completion of this work ..... and then of course this would help the economy turn resulting in the creation of more work. I've often felt that in many ways the infrastructure of Madrid has held the city back compared to Paris, London and even Berlin. A successful Olympic games would help alleviate this. Sorry I mean North East, Madrid is a nightmare for trying to get your compass bearings

We'll start off with the building of the Olympic village and the main Olympic Stadium Madrid Badajoz airport will be expanded and impetus will be retained to develop the Campo Real airport. The ring road motorway will be expanded and completed and anyone who has travelled on it will be aware that is a nightmare. The area to the northwest of the city was being expanded 2007-08 but this ground to a halt with the downturn occured. A number of these areas will now be completed particularly the access roads which are vital. Both the overland rail and the metro will be upgraded which will certainly help the business community in Madrid. I'd think that maybe 20,000 jobs will be created in the short term and the news the 'Madrid is open for business' will continue that beyond the games in spite of the economic news that the press delights in sensationalising.

Actually I wasn't the one who came up with the barmy and ridiculous suggestion that some how events in Syria could have a negative impact on a Istanbul bid In fact I believe it was you that came up with that pathetic and ridiculous line of thinking

Except in the Korean War, this led the US into direct conflict with China ...... is Japan worth it when push comes to shove? And nobody can be certain what the increasingly wacky North Korean leadership would do .... the point is that it is at least as dodgy for Tokyo as Syria is to Istanbul

A successful bid will be an catalyst for building work helping the construction sector, infrastructure improvements which will massively help business in Madrid - and having worked there this is a significant need - whilst constructing a large Olympic village of 18,000 people will provide a large opportunity for post games affordable housing. Banks and sponsors are always willing to spend money on facilities where they will have a global awareness raised, and in fact a number of the venues are actually already in place or under construction. The comment that this will be paid for by German and French money is one of the most inaccurate statements made, truly one created from a mind living in fantasyland. The bailout is in fact going to the banks only because the austerity actions already enacted by the Spanish Government are already sufficient to get their debt levels under control even though they are going to slightly miss their target. That is why the EU has agree to send the money directly to the banks. People make a big deal about unemployment rates, but they have already been comparatively high in Spain because of how it is measured/recorded - I have previously worked for a retail business in the UK where the staff turnover rate in the UK per annum was 23% and at our Spanish subsidiary it was 89% and at one retail business in Spain - Zara - staff turnover was 130% per annum and this was before the global downturn. This is because of how the Spanish work force operates so could people please get their facts straight rather than get their information from press sensationalism. Lets not forget that the malaise in the Spanish economy was caused by the property crash, and one of the best ways to make Spain a country of choice again is to host a major international spectacle. And again public support for Madrid 2020 remains extremely high far more so than for Tokyo 2020 because the Spanish realise that an Olympics is a great way to paint Spain in a positive light and receive inward investment. Only the ignorant would see parallels with Athens and Greece.

Clearly is what a lack of knowledge .... it was said that it was ludicrous to think North Korea could hit Tokyo because their missiles explode at launch. A 30 seconds Google search would reveal that comment to be totally false. People are happy to think that some how events in Syria are going to have a negative impact on the Istanbul bid however ... despite in being 8 years and a 1,000km away. If people are going to say Istanbul will be affected by Syria, then Tokyo can be equally impacted by the actions of North Korea At Seoul 1988, the experienced Kim-Il-Sung was in power, and the North Koreans were still being economically supported by the Soviet Union and China who kept them on a tight leash, In 2012, the Soviet Union no longer exists, China are trying to wash their hands of the North Koreans, who potentially will become far more volatile in their behaviour as they desperately cling to power. Under the crazier Kim Il Jong, they even attacked and sank the ROKS Cheonan in international waters .... and they've now got an even more unknown and experienced and potentially volatile leader desperately trying to cling to power. If we think Syria and their dying regime is a problem, it is not a patch on what might happen if North Korea does a 'Libya'. And unlike Syria and Istanbul, the North Koreans can actually strike Tokyo tomorrow

What is ludicrous is your lack of knowledge. The North Koreans have and have successfully tested the Rodong1 missile - basically an updated Scud for you Americans. This was successfully launched in 1993 and has been additionally exported to both Eygpt and Libya. It can be a) fitted with a nuclear warhead has a range of 1,000km (proven) with a hit accuracy of 2-4km North Korean fired successfully 7 of these in 2009 giving Japan the willies As Tokyo is 800km from North Korea, please explain what is ludicrous about it? p.s. the missile I believe you were ignorantly referring to was one designed to strike the Hawaiian Islands and West Coast

With the new team back in Ottawa, and potential expansion in the Atlantic provinces, the CFL will likely reach its optimum level even though the likes of Quebec, Windsor, London etc also make occasional noises regarding teams. Ironically with the 2026 FIFA World Cup being fairly open it might help a potential Canada bid. The hosting requirements are: 8-10 cities though they can make an exception as in the case of Brazil where there will be 12 Only 1 city can have two stadiums. So that means a standard bid would be 9-11 stadiums (South Africa had 10) Minimum capacity needs to be 40,000 seats but it is difficult to find a minimum requirement for a final. It does seem to be around 70,000-75,000 seats. With new stadiums in Winnipeg, Ottawa and Hamilton, likely in Regina and Toronto and potentially in Halifax and Calgary, it would seem that tomorrow Canada could find 9 venues as a minimum especially as most the current CFL stadiums are frequently increased in capacity to host the Grey Cup. Mosaic Place @ Taylor Field new Winnipeg Stadium McMahon Stadium Commonwealth Stadium BC Place Rogers Center Frank Clair Stadium the Big 'O' Halifax with maybe an expanded Hamilton or a new Argonauts stadium expandable to make 10. I expect the USA, China, Australia, and maybe Canada to bid, if the rotation formula is maintained the USA have already hosted and the MLS is not a huge draw China - after Russia and Qatar? Where next, North Korea? Australia has the stadiums but many are AFL Ovals unsuited to football Canada's MLS teams seem to be extremely popular and football is proving very popular There are 3 Canadian MLS teams, Ottawa wanted one, Edmonton have a growing Football team, and you are not too far off a domestic league.