Jump to content

FYI

Members
  • Content Count

    10309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

Everything posted by FYI

  1. That’s only for the operating costs (& the figure is actually $3.77 Billion in USD). The actual costs for the Games would be much higher. As a couple of the Aussie members have attested to here before, Brisbane would require a lot of work to justify if they even need all of that new construction/upgrades post-Games, as even the rest of your post alludes to.
  2. Yeah, just like Egypt. As mystical as an Olympics would be in both those places, the grim reality is that the Olympics are likely beyond the reach of both those countries ATM.
  3. Yep, & that was the case back in ‘97 with their 2004 summer bid. Everyone wanted Stockholm for those Games. Everyone except for the Swedes themselves, that is. And I’d say that the likelihood of them wanting a(n) (Winter) Olympics now is even less likely.
  4. Thank you Captain Obvious for that tidbit. But that’s of course is Sweden actually wants these Winter Olympics ITFP.
  5. Up until Sochi 2014, London 2012 had the highest security tab of $1.5 Billion (even surpassing Beijing 2008). From what I could find, Russia spent anywhere from $2-$3 Billion on security for Sochi 2014. Still nowhere near $5 Billion, but it does make it an anomaly & the costliest security tab for an Olympic Games (summer or winter), at least for now anyway.
  6. No Olympic Games (let alone a Winter Olympics) has had security costs of $5 Billion. Although, we’re definitely heading well into the $2 Billion mark with the upcoming Summer Olympic Games (2020, 2024 & 2028). Recent Winter Olympics have been approaching the $1 Billion mark & it’s safe to assume that by the 2026 Winter Games that number could easily reach about the $1.5 Billion mark (that was about the price tag for London’s 2012 security). But even still, it’s not just the expensive cost of the Games themselves that the Swedes (or Scandinavians) in general are against. It’s also “the disruption & huge influx of ‘ugly foreigners’ being brought forth to their otherwise tranquil country” that they really don’t like/want. At least that was their main gripe against the Stockholm 2004 summer bid (back in ‘97), & I don’t see that mentality having changed that much there since then about hosting the Games. It’s quite evident that they don’t at least want it now, either, having snubbed the 2022 bid & now this 2026 attempt only hanging on by a mere thread.
  7. Nope. There’s a reason why the USOC nominated SLC last week as their “future” Games’ bid candidate (which you’re conveniently ignoring so you can throw this a$shat idea about). So if anything, I could see SLC 2026 & Stockholm 2030 rather than your outlandish scenario.
  8. No, I’m not “one” of those people. I was being facetious both times for the others that have (recently). Yeah, which you aren’t being fair, since I only brought L.A. It was our favorite “other poster” that brought up Paris in his lame attempt (as usual) of bringing up what’s going on in France ATM against them. So that’s on him. So right back at ya!
  9. Another off-topic drift that belong in the L.A.’28 thread & not this one.
  10. Yeah, really. Talk about been there, done that. But according to mainly Angelinos around here L.A. ‘28 is gonna be the greatest show on Earth (while mostly everyone else YAWNS at the aspect & thinks that a different American city should be hosting next). But the circumstances that brought us L.A.’28 are primarily the same ones that most likely gonna gives SLC 2026 or 2030, whether some of us like it or not.
  11. While the IOC has a lot of the blame, just as much is due to circumstances beyond their control, though. Like social media, & sites like these, & like posts above, opposition groups can make it too easy sometimes to derail bids. I think if it wasn’t for the internet these days, that a lot of the IOC’s problems, in terms of potential host cities these days anyway, wouldn’t be as extreme. Bcuz the average person out there wouldn’t care if the next Winter Olympics here were in Denver or Salt Lake, much less that Salt Lake was actually the 2002 host.
  12. No, Budapest withdrew cuz the opposition was able to get the necessary signatures to enforce a referendum. So then the bid committee decided to call it quits before it got around to that stage. They were quite adament, actually, in their argument that the Olympics should start going to medium-size cities instead of huge metropolises like Paris & L.A. But anyway, this discussion should really be happening in the Paris 2024 thread, since some people here get their panties in a bunch when threads drift off-topic.
  13. And did you hear that the IOC did NOT award L.A. the 2024 Olympics, but instead the 2028 Games? lmfao
  14. I never said that you did do that. What I meant is that when you have an opinion that you feel strongly about, you try to get your point across just like anyone else here does. As far as personal attacks go, there’s only one person here that really does that unprovoked. As Quaker mentioned earlier, him & I can get into some heated debates, but we can handle it, & it’s not like it’s an anamoly for this website, & never attack one another with biggoted comments as this other individual does, again unprovoked & merely does it bcuz we don’t agree with their position & never have & that’s their gripe. And private messaging? That’s pretty useless if one is not a paying “premium” member (which most here are not). Three in & out private messages & your mailbox is full without constantly deleting it. Another option would be, though, for the people who are not interested in the ‘debate’, is just to ignore it completely & move along. I do it all the time here. Like I mentioned earlier, if there is nothing nice to say or contribute, then no need to say anything at all.
  15. To use your logic - if it was more collaborative, why didn’t he just say so instead of (again) saying that he “thinks” it’s not possible. And you’re right, this is not new territory for them. So it’s not like it’s an unprecedented matter now of how it might work again. Yes, & your angle is merely YOUR POV. So what are you trying to say with that. And no kidding that we’re not the IOC. But us not giving serious analysis to (potential) bid cities?! I’d say that some of us (bid dossier fanatics) here actually give bid cities more serious analysis than some actual IOC members do. How many times has it been said here that many (if not most) IOC members don’t even bother reading any of the bId documents or even the Final Evaluation Report right before vote time? And isn’t the point of this very website to interject on these very bid cities? This place isn’t like being at the local sport bar & asking random people there what they ‘think’ about Olympic bId cities A,B & C. I would like to believe that we have more insight here than that, that closely resembles what the IOC may, or may not actually do. Barcelona would require a lot of work in the snow cluster, not to mention the transportation links to get there. So that’ll be indicative in their bId book. So it would be costly for them, & remember that the IOC chose to dump Erzurum for that very reason - “too costly”. And of course, there’s also that little sticking point of Catalonia’s independence still looming over their head, not to mention an economy that’s still recovering from the country’s bad recession a few years back. Lillehammer? Yeah, right. I’ll still maintain that I’ll believe in Norway when I actually see it (you’re doing it with Calgary). Especially, when their next door neighbor, Sweden, is still hanging on by a thread for 2026, bcuz Scandinavia is one of those anti-Olympic regions that want nothing to do with the (Winter) Games. As for Calgary, no, but it’s for totally different reasons & your comparison does. not apply here. Before they placed their bid, the bid drop outs were primarily from Europe. So Canada was not on that radar (yet). Plus, they were proposing to use a lot of existing facilities to keep costs low. So there was no reason really to think that their bid would derail like it did. If anything, though, Calgary’s dropout now makes it even more dire for the IOC to assume that something credible will come out of the woodwork from Europe for 2030. Cuz now the problem is growing by going intercontinental. So no, it’s not that I have little faith in a positive outcome, but rather looking at it from a ‘due diligence’ angle. Even you yourself have claimed that bcuz of Calgary’s clusterfu@k of a 2026 bid, that we won’t see them for a long time to come. So aren’t you in essence then, doing with them now that you claim that I’m doing with Norway? Especially when Norway’s 2022 bid would’ve been handed to them on a silver-platter (unlike Calgary), & they still said “no thanks”. So what’s really the difference here then, besides none. Well, ‘good for you’ that you think that there’s ‘near-zero chance’. So that means that we’re at a stalemate once again. Well, gee. In order for Sapporo to be in the 2030 picture, obviously both Milan & Stockholm would have to also drop out from 2026. And we’re still a couple of months away before any of that can happen. If it does, then the USOC’s “interest in 2030” becomes moot, bcuz then the IOC turns to them to rescue 2026. So then that leaves just (yeah, right) Norway. If the IOC does manage to snag Milan or Stockholm for 2026, then SLC could easily fit in the 2030 picture. The IOC gets two consecutive Winter Olympics in traditional winter sport nations (which they so desperately want anyway), & that’s how it would make sense for everyone involved in this scenario. Again, I see the latter being more of a chance than the former. But a ‘near-zero’ chance is what I still disagree with. To use your logic again - let’s see how a couple of other things pan out first. You keep saying that. But if all they need is “one”, then why bother with the rest of the collapsing side show (the bId process) when they can have that one city now. And especially when the IOC keeps talking about cutting the expense from bId cities & create “less losers” (which came from ‘Bach himself’). And what are you talking about? Are you assuming that the IOC can’t read the bidding landscape? They sure were reading it for 2028 fours years early. If they didn’t award 2028 last year, I think that they would’ve been fine, to use your logic again here. But they didn’t. Even when many were against or on the fence about it (including some IOC members) ITFP. But for 2030 it’s looking to be more dire. So grab your bread baskets while you can! Isn’t that what you’ve done with Calgary, though? Wrote them off already & that they “won’t be back for a long time to come”. So why can’t that same logic apply to Norway? And yes, I agree about Sweden (although, there’s still Italy, which ATM, seems to be more receptive about 2026). So if the Swedes falter now, what makes you think that they’ll just dust themselves off & try again four years later when they’ve repeatedly have said no to the Olympics? You’re trying to argue both sides of the coin here. And now whose assuming about Sapporo.
  16. Finally, something I can agree with Quaker about! And it’s not like Nacre himself hasn’t had his hand on the War Thunder (or something) joystick on a position he felt strongly about (i.e. the Ice & Snow Olympics, for example ). If a subject doesn’t interest me around here (& there are plenty of those), I just don’t comment on it. As the saying goes, if you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all.
  17. Being on GameBids, is a lot like playing War Thunder (‘or something’)! Who’s fighting (other than a little certain homophobic troll from Lala land)? And as you can see, I’m not the master of the memes/“GIF” thing. That honor certainly goes to “some other poster”. In case you haven’t noticed, but this ‘debate’ has been going on now, on & off, for nearly a year in this thread (& one other 2026 thread). So forgive me if at that very moment last night, I decided to “vent” with a “GIF” instead of further debating for the umpteeth time on this subject. But if you insist... Exactly - but isn’t that what I said? The former is his opinion. The latter is a collective declaration. He said the former. Call it what you like, but I don’t see that as ‘due diligence’ but rather just going to the crap table & rolling the dice when the odds are heavily stacked against you, in my POV. Although, I will say that a SLC/Sapporo combo is less likely than say a Stockholm or Milan/SLC one. But I still wouldn’t say that it’s a ‘near-zero’ chance, either. Exactly - so what cities could come out & say that the process wasn’t fair if they hand out 2030 now? Certainly the 2032 ‘interested’ cities that are stating this early could have cried foul over 2028, but they didn’t. And remember, it’s the winter side of the Olympics that are facing the more dire circumstances than their summer counterpart. You’re assuming though, that they’ll be plentiful credible choices for 2030. Again, considering the (Winter) Olympic bidding landscape these days (& has been for quite some time already), I wouldn’t hedge any bets on that then. Stockholm & Milan are not ideal candidates? Sure, both are hanging on by a thread, especially the former, but that’s what the IOC really, really wants - again, especially the former. So having two consecutive Winter Olympics in “traditional winter sport nations” wouldn’t be a ‘smart move’ on their part? I would be confident & see that as an “opportunity”.
  18. Isn’t it obvious? He gets them from the same place he gets any of his other Beavis ‘hot takes’ —
  19. It’s now clear! We now know who O.F. really is (lala) incognito!!
×
×
  • Create New...