Jump to content

FYI

Members
  • Posts

    11465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    195

FYI last won the day on May 26

FYI had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

43039 profile views

FYI's Achievements

Torch Bearer 10000 Club

Torch Bearer 10000 Club (15/16)

1.4k

Reputation

  1. Funny, yet you had no trouble posting this in the "2036 interest thread", which made reference about the *2030 race* in there. Go figure.
  2. Not really. It still has to do with the new-norm that you're constantly promoting. Again, that's just your way of conveniently deflecting what you don't like to hear.
  3. Nice way of trying to deflect. But it still has to do with the "new norm" that you're constantly promoting all over the place around here (so you never really know where it ends or where it begins). And the Pyrenees bid is suffering from more than just in-fighting, but also from a NOlympics movement & looming referendum that also threatens the bid to ultimately "withdraw".
  4. And the IOC *loved* it all, until it was FORCED to do something about their wild ways. They were like a bunch of party boys, until everyone was told that it was 'last call'. They'd do it all over again, if it was open bar night.
  5. Right, because remind me how much of a solid ground, Sapporo, Vancouver & the trainwreck that it the Barcelona/Pyrenees bids are, that's suppose to be for the first (2030) winter Games to be elected under the 'new-norm' procedure.
  6. If initial interest is your argument (which is what you're doing for 2036), then the previous withdrawals don't matter, because the "interested parties" were there at the *very beginning* - 'like it or not', that's how those races happened, too.
  7. It's not difficult at all when you look at them without an agenda in mind. The way the new-norm is designed, also doesn't really a allow for a flood of actual bids, either. So IDK what exactly you're trying to get at here, when it contradicts exactly what you're trying to promote.
  8. The withdrawals isn't your argument here, though. It's the "interested parties". So which is it? Cause it can't be both, so pick one.
  9. No, it was explained to you earlier, but you're *intentionally & deliberately* skewing the data to suit your own argument of "the new-norm is the next best thing since sliced bread". You're only counting the ACTUAL bids in these races, but yet for 2036, you're including those media reports that you're so found of. Well, for those previous races, we also had media reports & domestic NOC bid races that can all be labeled as "interested parties", too, & they increase the numbers by far. So please STOP being so disingenuous here, just so you can push your 'great new-norm' agenda.
  10. The IOC has never been short on "interested parties" wanting to discuss hosting any Olympics. It's not something "new" for 2036, like you keep trying to portray it. But as others have already pointed out, it's the *quality*, not the "quantity" that matters the most here.
  11. ^LOL, that argument sounds so ironically familiar from another past member who's acronym coincidentally was also AFan (but of a different Games). When the USOC was planning to bid for the 2024 Olympics, they said that they were going to run the domestic nod process that time "low-key" & behind-closed-doors (after their two previous recent losses, 2012 & 2016, at the time). So they weren't going to publicly mention which U.S. (alpha) cities they were in contact with, other than sending an "invitation" to 35 U.S. cities (or unless those cities themselves made some form of declaration of their "interest" or discussions with the USOC). But of course said member was so adamant that we "simply don't know" & "don't have enough information" & we're only on the "sidelines" to really know who the USOC is actually in contact with, even though common sense dictated who they likely were in contact with, & most likely who they weren't in contact with due to the current circumstances &/or stances of some of those U.S. (alpha) cities at the time to endeavor on a(nother) Olympic bid. But in the end, all of their arguments didn't add up because they wanted to read the tea leaves differently in promoting other U.S. (alpha) cities to come up to the plate, other than L.A. which we wound up with anyway nonetheless. This is not that much different from that scenario. Some common sense dictates who the IOC, is or isn't, in "continuous dialog" with. And if they are, how likely is it that an actual bid would materialize from some of these said places. Not knowing or some of these places 'understandably wanting to keep a lid on things' is a vague (& familiar) counter-argument, since it can just as easily not really be a 'crowded field of interested parties' as the IOC & some others would like to suggest otherwise.
  12. Yeah, if we're going to count every nook & cranny "interest", then the list for prior races really outpaces anything now, & the new-norm really hasn't super-charged interest at all. If anything, I'd say that it's DECREASED from the past. In addition to what you've mentioned, there's also the 2012 & 2016 U.S. domestic nomination races, which those alone saw about a dozen other cities showing 'interest' that never even made it to the application stage. Like Seattle, Tampa/Orlando, San Francisco, San Diego/Tijuana, Dallas, Houston, Washington DC/Baltimore, Pittsburgh & Cincinnati. And of course who can forget Las Vegas' rogue attempt for the 2020 Olympics. And so many other international mentions that are too long to list. But this notion that the new-norm, along with Brisbane's 2032 coronation, has somehow "super-charged" interest is a myth.
  13. No, no. We can't have just the "G7" nations host (as some say around here). The other 195+ nations of the world deserve a chance to host, too!
  14. This just reminds of the 'ole "if Atlanta can do it, so can we" arguments from the past, whenever someone would come in here & try to make a case for the other Atlanta's & Brisbane's of the world. How many times has it been said around here that every bid race is different, & therefore, the dynamics of every bid race will also be different. And with the IOC being able to just cherry-pick whoever they want now, that'll just make them that much more discriminate. Atlanta getting 1996 & Brisbane getting 2032 doesn't really prove anything, other than them being at the right place, at the right time (& in the case of the latter, it also greatly helped having a VP in the EB). That doesn't automatically mean, though, that other cities like them will prevail in the future, simply because they are just like them. The IOC is so much more involved than that.
  15. There really is no need for posting all of this, & in particular from the older bidding races, since a lot of that information is already on the GB's home webpage anyway, under *historical bid results*. And many of us here also already know this info from following many of those Olympic races from before. This is just redundant.
×
×
  • Create New...