Jump to content

Blacksheep

Members
  • Posts

    567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Blacksheep

  1. You reckon - try getting into the US as a European citizen. Clear and transparent - yes. Cumbersome, bureaucratic and time consuming also Yes. I don't know how up to date your information is, but the 10years visitor visa doesn't seem to exist .... I can't get one despite regularly travelling to the US, neither can my brother, neither can a couple of my friends ... in fact my employer is going down the route of investing heavily in video conferencing because of the awkwardness of getting into the USA. You need to apply in several days in advance for a visa which makes things very impractical on occasion, it is incredibly difficult to change dates on the visa etc etc And for your information, it was actually the NEW YORK TIMES, that suggested that the overly restricted passport controls were a possible issue. p.s. Love your comment re: Heathrow. Try getting through passport control at JFK or LAX as a non-American before you decide to throw stones in glass houses
  2. South America's turn? To have a turn implies that there had previously been a games held in South America. I don't recall hearing of those particular games Rio offered the possibility of an iconic setting, a lasting legacy for a country of still considerable inequality with major infrastructure improvements, a games held in a major country who had never held the games, but with one of the world's largest economies, and of course holding the games on a brand new continent (but also within the timezones favoured by the North American broadcasters) - as well as a major economy which advertisers would flock to. A little bit more than it being South America's turn, What did Chicago offer - that the USA could host the games for a fifth time (04, 32, 84, 96)? and if Toronto 2024 is ruled out because of Vancouver in 2010, then why should Chicago 2016 have had the games so soon after Salt Lake City 2002?
  3. If you were saying Summer Games then yes, but its a combination of Winter Games too and there are only so many countries that can host the Winter Olympics - especially in North America, so Canada should not be penalised because of this. If Canada decided they were penalised and therefore were not going to bid for the Winter edition again, it would remove a huge potential host from the bidding competition. Between Montreal and Calgary there was 12 years - between Vancouver and Toronto 2024 (?) there will have been 14 years. Lets compare with another sporting nation - there were 44 years between Melbourne 1956 and Sydney 2000, so a potential 48 years in being awarded the Summer Games is not unacceptable. I mean if Madrid wins 2020, then it will have been only 28 years since Barcelona 1992. Almost 50 years between Montreal and Toronto .... hardly excessive.
  4. Then why raise the issue of Chicago having an outstanding technical bid and suggesting it is a major plus point. Especially if as you say this goes out the window once the shortlist is made. Its all well and good, but beyond the technical side, all Chicago seemed to offer was it was the USA's turn and it has to be more than that when coming up against the likes of Paris, South Africa etc .....
  5. But there were other outstanding technical bids regarded even more highly than Chicago. I don't think there is anti-American bias, especially after Bush/Cheney left. However the issue of overly restrictive passport and visa policies, more so than any other contender is going to factor into IOC members minds .... do the American govt make a special circumstance for 2024, because if they don't then it will be a struggle against major contenders like Paris.
  6. Huh? So the 3rd ranked South African city, which is not even an Alpha or a Beta city, has a better chance than a world famous global city, with a history of hosting numerous international events including athletics, and will by 2017 have almost all of the venues in place, including velodrome, acquatics centre, tennis centre with sliding roof, alongside a main stadium already shown to be capable of hosting world class athletics events and which will have been updated for Euro 2016. ...... South Africa will win one day but they need to bid more than once every 4/5 cycles with different cities. I don't see the USA getting a summer games until 2028. Looking at the cities - Dallas, LA etc - they would likely be up against Paris, and you can bet a lot of the IOC will have a soft spot for Paris rather than a US city. Likewise, if one of the big European players come in for 2022, I don't see a Winter Games in the US until 2026
  7. And in the UK, there is a culture of private enterprise developing sporting facilities with minimal charge to the public sector and this is spreading to Europe where the stadiums are no longer paid for and owned by the city, but are paid for by the individual sports teams. Look at the sports stadia built in the USA, and low and behold, in a lot of cases the taxpayer picks up 50% or more of the cost. So much for private enterprise.
  8. What utter utter nonsense. Numerous European cities capable of holding the Summer Olympics have invested in infrastructure projects which are entirely independent of any successful hosting of the Olympics. There were existing proposals for West Ham United to build a new stadia long before the Olympics came into the picture, whilst Tottenham Hotspur had similar plans. The fact the former has taken advantage of an existing facility is simply something that happens. The Lee Valley Arena was already an area highlighted for development whether London won the Olympics or not. Berlin, Madrid, Paris etc have all moved forward with the development of sporting facilities independent of any Olympic victory or even bid, whilst Istanbul had long invested in the major infrastructure for the Olympics. ALL cities gain from bidding for a games because whilst not all infrastructure is completed, much actually is, though maybe not to the same scale.
  9. Wishful thinking by a distance
  10. Even though these countries having shown an indication to bid they all could if UEFA asked them to. England (last held 1996) Italy (last held 1980) Germany (last held 1988 as West Germany) Spain (last held 1964) They already have the stadiums and infrastructure in place so it could occur with minimal cost. In addition Belgium has not officially dropped their interest in bidding - their proposal was likely to involve a variation of the 7 stadia they suggested for their joint bid with the Netherlands for 2018 plus 2 more
  11. You can be certain that if Turkey was to drop out, there are several countries who already have the stadia and infrastructure to host the Euros at minimal cost and at a profit, without all the razamataz that a bidding contest would bring. When there were concerns about Ukraine being able to complete their stadia it was suggested that Germany could step in at the last moment.
  12. Germany like the Netherlands like Bulgaria-Romania had all previously expressed interest and only in the last 6 weeks have decided to withdraw from the process. If Istanbul get the 2020 games that might go against Turkey's bid.
×
×
  • Create New...