Jump to content

FYI

Members
  • Content Count

    10309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

Everything posted by FYI

  1. It’s clear that what you don’t take “seriously” is logic & objectivity, since you gloss over that time & again & then just continue with your (usual) snarky, partial responses. Your opinion is obviously in the minority in this thread since I’m not the only one that shares those other opinions. What Coates may or may not have an “inkling” about at this point I’d say would be very premature, especially when the Brisbane feasibility study hasn’t even been completed yet. If all the AOC is interested in is to “be a good way to gain some exposure that can be used as a platform for future bids & to develop sporting facilities like Madrid did with their bids” (& wind up just like them BTW, although Madrid was actually interested in winning), then by all means, let them bid with Brisbane. But if the AOC is actually interested in *winning*, dates aside, then that means placing their best foot forward right from the get go. And that would mean Melbourne.
  2. Uhh, the Winter Olympics are *not* officially referred to as the “Winter Olympiad”. ‘Olympiad’ is only reserved for the Summer Olympics.
  3. Takeda resigns from IOC and as JOC President amid bribery allegations https://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php/articles/1076967/takeda-resigns-as-joc-president-amid-bribery-allegations
  4. Well, at least they didn’t try to bring down their Olympic Stadium in protest of the bid, like last time.
  5. There’s only ONE certain other poster around here that recites AA’s mumbo-jumbo as gospel. The rest of us who actually like some objectivity know better than to listen to him lol.
  6. Well, going by all of this logic, further illustrates why a(nother) double is still quite possible this summer then! Sweden is still iffy, so Milan 2026 & SLC 2030!!
  7. Oh, where have we heard this song & dance before - Switzerland, Austria, Calgary? Only for a referendum to come around & these so-called “rise in support” wind up being nothing at all. Not to mention, that the ‘poll’ was conducted by the IOC itself. Enuff said.
  8. Oh geez. Is he still trippin’ on that? I didn’t even bother to read it. I’m sure it’s just another long-winded piece anyway (as they usually are). Or be accepting it as religion like a certain other poster around here does. It’s really sad. He probably needs some counseling or something, cuz he seems to think that he’s part of the EB or something. Like what he says should go, & logic be damned. Sounds like a certain U.S. president.
  9. SLC is really the only feasible option in the U.S. for a Winter Olympic bid. To quote some around here, “it’s the L.A. of bids but on the winter side of things”. And considering what the IOC is looking for these days is sustainability, moreso out of necessity though, then the only thing that remains is what year will SLC be hosting. And I’d say that it’ll be sooner rather than much later.
  10. The irony there is that’s most likely what Sweden thinks of the IOC; Drama & megalomania. So run from the IOC as fast as you can. Why else would they still be dragging their feet on this. It was afterall the Swedish Taxpayer Association that was all for Calgary 2026 when they were still in the race lol.
  11. Even so, there’s still the disruption of the Games themselves (which was their main gripe of their ‘04 bid), which for a country as small as Sweden (population-wise), the impact will still be felt among all Swedes. Especially when another purpose (or moreso selling point) of a larger venue concept is to include more of the respective population in the bid.
  12. “IOC Executive Director Christophe Dubi said Thursday in Falun that even if the bids miss the April 12 guarantee deadline, the IOC could still accept documents up until the June 24 election in Lausanne, Switzerland.” lmfao - the first time in Olympic bidding history? What real desperation looks like in Lausanne these days lol
  13. It’s not just the cost that a lot of these European citizens are protesting, though. It’s the disruption & corruption that is also associated with the Olympics. And that is something, demonstrated by history, that the Scandinavian’s in particular don’t like. It won’t matter in the end how much posturing the IOC does with Sweden if in the end the Swedes themselves just don’t want the Games. The IOC needs Sweden much more than Sweden needs the IOC. Afterall, Oslo would’ve been handed the 2022 Winter Games, with their cost-effective plan, on a silver-platter but the Norwegian’s still told the IOC to take a flying hike. The only thing that’s interesting out of this whole thing, was for the critics of the Stockholm-Are distance plan. But obviously, it’s what the IOC would really like here, now the only question that remains is will they actually get what they really want here.
  14. It’s not ‘a lot’ of people that make the money, though. At least not the common folk, anyway. This is where paul’s arguments of graft, corruption & waste with the Olympics come into play. It’s the well-off elite that think the Olympics will make THEM money. And that’s why it’s the average citizens that are now starting to wake up & say - “NIMBY with my tax dollars”.
  15. Says the pot to the kettle. You mean like the way you try to spin things to say you were right? Let’s remember that SLC is now indirectly involved in the 2026 bid process, that’s why the USOC was in such a rush to name their “future nominee” a couple of months ago. If either Stockholm or Milan falter, that still leaves one of them left & then the IOC could just as easily award the Utah capital 2030 at the same time in June this summer, just like they did with 2024 & 2028. It’s not a matter of you buying into or not, it’s the IOC’s. If both Stockholm or Milan fail, there’s still someone else besides SLC in the mix. We’ve had that convo before, so I won’t delve into it again here.
  16. Oh gawd. Another Tulsa bombardment of Annecy this & Annecy that.
  17. Oh, another possible double-allocation? You don’t say! I know that a certain other poster around here would disagree.
  18. I think the dates that Seoul 1988 & Sydney 2000 used should be fine (only a couple of days there branched into October). Or if anything, maybe the last week of September & the first week of October for better accommodation.
  19. That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. But of course the rest of us are all “incredibly naive” bcuz we don’t share that same hometown bias.
  20. An interesting GB’s article came out just today talking about how the IOC is “changing their own rules & charter” as they go along lately bcuz of the predicament they find themselves in these days. With the double-allocation of 2024 & 2028, & now extending the deadlines in the 2026 bid process to accommodate Stockholm-“Are” & Milan-“Cortina”. So why couldn’t/wouldn’t they make one for Melbourne if it well suited them? The dates for NBC worked just fine with Seoul 1988 & Sydney 2000, so why couldn’t they work with a future Melbourne Games. The whole Doha date thing was a mere smokescreen in order to reject their bid for totally different reasons that they couldn’t officially declare. And thinking that the dates were the only reason, is what would be incredibly naive. And from my understanding, John Coates has some sort of personal axe to grind with Melbourne over some personal ambitions of his own. So IDK if I would take him with any sort of credibity on any obejective level when it comes to Brisbane vs Melbourne. And if you’re claiming that you’re not saying that Brisbane would win or even get short-listed, then what would be the point on them (& the AOC for that matter) wasting millions on a bid for a fruitless purpose then? Quaker brought up a good point, that the AOC should tred very carefully when it comes to comparing the two, & Boston & LA & the USOC comes to mind. Boston wasn’t initially chosen by the USOC bcuz it’s a “world-renown” city, but bcuz the USOC wanted to chose something else besides L.A., when the USOC had already chosen NYC & Chicago for previous races & failed & did not return to the bidding table . L.A. made the most sense from the get-go for a 2024 bid, but the USOC chose otherwise & learned the hard way that wasn’t the smartest choice. So the AOC should gauge their next candidate accordingly, by choosing one that would be their *best*-foot forward. And not one that would be “not saying that they would win or even be short-listed”, just bcuz all they have to offer is some “preferred (NBC) time-window”. And no, 2032 does not have an “abundance of bids”. They’ve had INTEREST, but that’s still (& we’re still) far from those being official bids at this point in time. The 2032 race is quite a ways from being officially underway.
  21. It wasn’t really direct quote’S’, other than just a ONE LINE that was more so tongue-in-cheek, particularly the ‘can’t annoy the Americans’ bit (which is the only thing I quoted), which again goes back to a time when some were actually using that as a negative towards any American bid. But whatever, moving on now. What’s incredibly naive is that you think the IOC’s “criteria” is somehow set in stone or something. Remember, the IOC broke it’s own traditional protocol when they awarded both Paris & Los Angeles Olympic Games simultaneously, when many said that it couldn’t/wouldn’t be done? So you’re the one that needs to stop pretending that the IOC doesn’t do what it wants, when it wants for whenever it suits them. Okay, so Boston & Budapest are pretty well-known around the world. But that actually doesn’t really help Brisbane’s profile, though. It actually hinders it even more then. And while Melbourne may not also be in the same league as other global cities, the fact remains it’s still Australia’s second largest city with virtually most of the venues & infrastructure already in place to handle a Games with more ease (& that’s what you just want to “throw away”). And that’s what the IOC is more interested in these days, is cost-effective Games so no more cities (especially in democratic countries) don’t run away from bidding in the near future, due to exborant cost & waste. How is Brisbane “in a ‘far better’ position” than Melbourne? Because of the preferred time slot window? Hardly. That’s only one element of all the “criteria”, albeit, an important one (to NBC anyway), but still only one element nonetheless. While Melbourne has all the others, & that won’t change no matter how hard ‘you try’. Also, I never said that Brisbane couldn’t hypothetically win. I did say, yet again, if the only competition was Baku or Doha, it’s Brisbane’s for the taking! And the way you’re posting is if Brisbane has everything ready to go, ala Paris, L.A. or Melbourne. A lot of those venues still aren’t of Olympic caliber & would still need to be expanded on. Another main issue is also infrastructure, which Brisbane lacks in terms of handling the Olympic onslaught during the Games. “Come on”, 2032 isn’t going to be decided for another six-&-a-half years. The double-award of 2024 & 2028 forced a couple of cities interested in those latter Games, like Shanghai & Brisbane, to rethink in 2032. Plus, like I mentioned earlier, after Madrid’s three consecutive losses, they’re probably still Olympic bid fatigued. So when you look at that way, no it’s not that strange. To quote another favorite poster of mine around here , a lot can happen between now & then. In a couple of years, someone in political office in Madrid can wake up one day & say - “you know what, we should really try at the Olympics again. I think it can really be our time to shine this time around!” What happened to “beggars can’t be choosers at this point” all of the sudden? And please, when push comes to shove, the IOC isn’t going to allow NK to co-host. And you’re acting like Brisbane is the be-all & end-all. I never said that Brisbane would be flat out rejected. I even give you the kudos over Baku-koo & Doha-hah! But you “painting a sweet picture”, especially about the “preferred time-window” (which I’m don’t deny in the first place), is what’s silly & absurd. That aspect alone isn’t going to mean much IMHO, unless of course they’re the only game in town, which would still remain to be seen. Not to mention that they could also fall casualty to what has brought down other potential bid cities already, considering that Brisbane is still in the feasibility stage.
  22. Did I say you said that? No I didn’t. What I said is that I can recall when certain other foreign members have said that in the past when trying to make the argument against American bids. Claiming that the IOC shouldn’t bow to American interests simply bcuz they contribute over 60% of their revenues. So unless you’re all those foreign members, then no, my post was not ‘clearly’ directed at you. That’s why I also said ‘the irony’. Because here, the other side of the argument is trying to be made for a foreign bid bcuz of the IOC’s (but really NBC’s) preferred time-window slot of July/August. I’m very well aware of all those cities having dropped out from previous bids, so I’m not ignoring anything. But what is very flawed with that list, is that the first three cities there, with the exception of Rome, are not world-renowned. At least not to the degree of a global scale. Plus, Boston did after all get replaced by Los Angeles, so that was a wash. And the latter three cities were bidding for the Winter Olympics, where the IOC is having most of the trouble in keeping bid cities to remain in the race. Virtually all of those places have made recent rumblings about future bidding though. So it’s more than just “IF”. And yes, no one is denying that Brisbane has ‘one of the most important (IOC - ahem, NBC) guidelines’, but again, that’s all that is has to offer. And I just don’t see that aspect alone as being enough. Shanghai wants to bid. Seoul wants to bid. Moscow/St. Petersburg want to bid. Düsseldorf wants to bid. India wants to bid. So how is that nobody? I’m not wanting to “throw away” anything, but how can you call a bid that would require so much work, venue & infrastructure-wise, “decent”? It’s not like we’re talking about a bid like Paris, L.A. or Melbourne, where a lot of the venues & major infrastructure is already in place, or would merit it’s construction & use post-Games. ‘Pretty rich how you’re ignoring’ the main dynamics of those cities/countries/respective races. Düsseldorf has some ambition. So let’s see how that turns out first. Madrid wasn’t interested in 2024 (& rightly so), cuz they were indeed denied three consecutive times. Their timing was off all of those three times - it was still too soon for 2012 only 20 years after Barcelona 1992, & especially with 2016 when London was already slated with 2012 to have two European Olympics in a row, & Rio 2016 was a formidable new-frontier opponent at the time. And with 2020 they had many obstacles to overcome, mainly a sluggish economy & the Operation Puerto doping scandal. But 2032 would be a different time & era where I could see a bid from them finally taking off bcuz their timing & circumstances could finally be right. As for Moscow/St. Petersburg, aren’t you the one that just said that “beggars can’t be choosers at this point”? And who’s to say that in the end Brisbane can’t fall prey to the instances that have derailed other potential bid cities. Don’t assume that they can be immune to what’s happened in places like Boston, Rome, Budapest, Calgary & Oslo, especially when all the nitty-gritty of actual cost & work comes out that would need to be done, & that’s when the extreme skepticism & scrutiny begins to grow. Yet just the other day news from London came out that they could be interested in bidding again as early as 2032. London, Shanghai, Moscow, maybe Madrid or Düsseldorf line up? Hmmm, who knows. It’s almost like you’re stuck in the “no one wants to host the Olympics anymore” timeline. Everyone except Brisbane of course. But hey, again, if you’re only competition is Baku-koo or Doha-hah, I’d say you got it in the bag then!
  23. I find the irony here so amusing. I can recall when certain foreign members here have gone as far as saying “screw NBC” (or U.S. money in general) when it comes to trying to dictate where the Games should be held in order to appease these American companies bcuz they contribute so much money to the Olympic Movement (& especially when others have made those arguments *for* American bids). But now all of the sudden, the IOC “can’t afford to ‘annoy’ the Americans” when it comes to certain other (foreign) bids & the ‘preferred time-slot window’ of the IOC (well, more like NBC). But it can’t work both ways simply bcuz now it’s convenient to make that argument for another bid of one’s preference. And quite frankly, the U.S. is already slated to have yet another Olympics in 2028, given to them in an unsual process in the first place (& likely another Winter Olympics right before or after those Summer Olympics). So the U.S. is already being taken care of by the IOC very well. The preferred time-window thing is also the only thing that Brisbane has got going for it. The amount of work needed there is humongous (as attested by even other Aussie members here). And considering all these wasted projects that former host cities have gotten in trouble with & why the IOC finds itself in a mess these days bcuz of it, I don’t think that they’ll be wanting to go down that road again of bloat & graft anytime soon (Melbourne really is the only cost-effective Aussie option). Brisbane is also not really a world-reknowned city. It would be like the U.S, bidding with Minneapolis, Dallas or Houston. Foreigners everywhere would gasp - “what are the Americans thinking! We want NYC, not some no-name city!” Unless places like Baku-koo & Doha-hah are the only competition, I don’t see it happening. But if we have places like Shanghai, Moscow/St. Petersburg or a German bid or even Madrid (it could finally be their time), then that’s where the bets will be placed, all things considered.
×
×
  • Create New...