Jump to content

Blacksheep

Members
  • Posts

    567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Blacksheep

  1. The Athletics stadium was supposed to seat 25,000 which isn't bad but will seat half due to Hamilton withdrawing. The only simple answer is in these economic times is building a 60,000 seat stadium with no use doesn't make much sense.

    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.

  2. Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg are all at least one time zone away I doubt it. Vancouver is 4200km away. To put that in context Toronto is 5500km away from London.

    and Los Angeles is 4,800km to Boston

    In 2016, Chicago proposed LA 3,300km away

  3. 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.

  4. The requirement is 20,000

    For 2008 this was proposed in the GTA

    North Park Stadium, Oakville 20,000

    Vaughan Grove Sports Park, Vaughan 20,000

    Olympic Stadium, Toronto 100,000

    You can add:

    Rogers Centre 51,000

    BMO Field 21,800

    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.

  5. But to have the most compact plan you can have all venues within the greater Toronto Area. That has never happened before, something a Toronto bid can potentially push.

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

  6. Too be honest I think you are wrong. I don't think anyone has identified Canberra is capital of Australia always thinking its Sydney (I of course correct them because I am a Geography major in about 2 years lol)

    I think its the best bid possible. 89% of venues within 10 minutes of the athletes village.

    Only thing far away is tennis 27km at York University (but easily accessible by ttc, Don Valley which is just outside the 10 minute range and New Markham Arena (boxing)

    Substitute: North Caledon Equestrian Centre with the Modern Pentathlon centre that was proposed. Move boxing to Markham saves 20 minutes.Drop Brampton and Mississauga arenas as they are not necessary. A new canoe slalom venue has to be built in the downtown core. Make Rogers Centre host early preliminaries in football and rugby (which drops Frank Clair Stadium).

    And there you have it the furtherest venue (including football) will be only 32 minutes. Only 5 venues will be outside the range of the 6km Olympic Waterfront.

    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.

  7. 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.

    • Like 2
  8. Yeah, but the State & City would still come forward. And the Feds, as before, will flip the bill on security.

    I think "compact" bids R blown out of proportion on these forums. Certainly for 2016, Madrid & Tokyo were the most compact, but yet the most spread out venue plan won those Games hands down. N for 2020, we pretty much have the same scenario. The 3 cities that made the short-list, Madrid & Tokyo have the compactness again, but yet Istanbul's plan is spread ou N they still were included to compete for these Games.

    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.

  9. 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?

  10. Zip. Im not sure why Sheep brought up Syria or North Korea in the first place (though he claims it was FYI). I was hoping to get to a dead end that would let everybody start over and move on.

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

  11. You went on to defend your argument by detailing North Korea's military capability and then chastised me for pointing out their unsuccessful long range missile tests. I explained that North Korea had to be prepared to deal with the US if they attacked Japan and you discontinued the conversation.

    Considering you felt North Korea posed no threat to Japan, you spent quite a while trying to prove the opposite.

    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.

  12. Actually, Sheep, as the above quote shows, you argued that North Korea is a bigger threat to Tokyo than Syria is to Istanbul.

    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

  13. So says the "idiot" that can't even read the Working Group report properly which was pointed out by another poster in the Toronto city council thread in the GB newswire section.

    N it wasn't anymore of a "ludicrous" suggestion than any of your half-brain drivel. The only thing ludicrous is your constant, childish attitude N insulting N fighting with nearly everyone on these boards, virtually ever since you got here. You're nothing but a complete waste of time N do nothing but degrade these boards with your twaddle. You're going on my ignore list now cuz I'm not wasting anymore of my time with your stupid a$s BS, BS.

    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

  14. Still made you look like a fool, though.

    N "errr", I even conceded that if if the situation didn't escalate & just blew over, that by vote time, it most likely would've been all forgotten about & meant nothing in the end.

    Y is it that you constantly take things outta context & then embellish on them. You claim that you don't like it when a certain other poster here does it to you, but yet you hypocritically do it to others all the fricken time!

    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.

  15. I'd be very surprised if all that translated to 20,000 jobs.

    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.

    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

  16. What major construction is Madrid planning as part of their bid? What jobs will be created?

    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.

  17. Exactly, which has been pointed out countless times already. But as usual, BS has the wool over his eyes. He's making a mountain outta a molehill with Syria/Istanbul/Japan/North Korea. No surprise there.

    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

  18. I am fully aware that North Korea has limited short range missile capability thanks to missiles procured from the former USSR via Egypt. The state of North Korea's nuclear program is uncertain, though many suspect they may have some nuclear capability. I am also aware that the failed tests were for long-range delivery systems that would most likely be used to target the US. The many consecutive failures demonstrate to me a general lack of competence and knowledge that is likely to compromise ANY attack, whether short or long-range.

    The fact is North Korea will not attack Japan unless they can strike the US as well. The US will defend Japan with our full military might. The North Koreans would be extremely foolish to aim a couple of scuds at Tokyo without having the weaponry needed to combat the retaliatory onslaught that would certainly come from the US. They would be sentencing themselves to destruction.

    In summary, the failure of the long-range missile tests is extremely significant and does safeguard Japan.

    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

  19. Besides the fact that i think Madrid hosting the 2020 Olympics is a laughable idea under the current situation, there are broader issues at play. The Spanish banks and the Spanish government will both face total European bailout this year. With that around their necks how on earth do they think that these same European countries (Germany, France) would in anyway support them to host an Olympics with basically their money?? Its an utter joke.

    Secondly, when 1 in 4 peopledo not have a job (and likely to hit 1 in 3 not too far away), so many people are being evicted from their homes and are battling to survive, schools and hospitals are suffering with massive declines in funding. Within all of this how on earth do you expect the people to even support a bid where so much money is being pumped into an Olympics while the lives they know are totally crumbling around them?

    People in here live far too much in fantasyland rather than reality

    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.

  20. Hmmmmmmm, I don't think that Athensfan has a "lack of knowledge" on the subject. I think that what he is referring to what is ludicrous is what's the fricken point on u going on about this obtuse point.

    Like I mentioned earlier, Y should this matter to Tokyo when South Korea is even THAT much closer to North Korea than Japan is. Yet the IOC had no problems whatsoever in giving PyeongChang the 2018 WOG's. It's certainly not giving Tokyo any "willies" from bidding for the 2020 SOG's either.

    You really think that the North Koreans would risk having every nation on the planet being against them if they attacked a Japanese Olympic Games. Please. I don't think that even they R that stupid. Some people always tried using this argument against PyeongChang 2018, but in the end, it obviously meant nothing to the IOC.

    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

  21. Good grief.

    The fact that they have yet to conduct a successful test is beside the point I suppose.

    These tangents are absolutely ludicrous.

    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

    B) 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

  22. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...