Jump to content

FYI

Members
  • Posts

    11569
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    202

Everything posted by FYI

  1. That’s not accurate at all. Olympic officials were already seriously discussing it as early as Nov. 2016 (that’s when the double debate was already well underway in discussion here on GB’s): ..when Rome had already withdrawn the month before in Oct. 2016 (& Hamburg the year before in Nov 2015), & when Budapest was in the midst of reopening their referendum case, hence, why they were seen as the third-wheel for a double allocation (& why talks of a double emerged ITFP) until they finally withdrew their 2024 bid in Feb. 2017. The very next month in March 2017, the IOC appoints their very own group to look into the “double” matter. So all of that happened way before the summer & while Budapest was still in the picture, & WAY before the 2024 vote got really close. The whole point of a double then was so that the IOC could produce the best possible hosts for an Olympic Games in a climate that was seeing (& still does) dwindling quality candidates. And that’s what did they when they awarded (or ‘rewarded’ as some have said) both Paris & L.A. at the same time. It doesn’t matter if the bids now are not “official”, since the ultimate goal of the IOC is still the same. Too produce the best quality hosts that they possibly can get at any given/or same time, in an era where Bach & Co. still don’t want to produce “too many losers”.
  2. Of course the IOC doesn't have to do anything that they don't want to. They do, though, always do what's in the best interest for them. And in this case, that can mean awarding more than one Games at once. The 'hard deadline' can be for whatever the IOC chooses. That can mean just 2030, or it can mean more than just one Games. There's no rule that dictates with this "new norm" that is has to be just one-Games-at-a-time like in the past. The old bidding days of yesteryear were most definitely 'separate'. Nowadays, though, not so much. Since the IOC can now talk to (i.e. continuous dialog) with whoever they want, whenever they want, for whichever Games they want, & awarded them whenever they feel like it. Remember when Budapest was still in the picture for 2024 before they pulled the plug on it? The general consensus was that a double with them still in the picture was complicated, because it meant that one of those three cities was going to be "left out" from a double allocation. And whoever that was would've had to wait for the next available Olympics eight years later. It would be the same thing in this scenario if we're just talking about 2030, with three cities still involved if a double were to occur in the end. Having someone already lined-up for 2034 (in this case, it'd likely be SLC), avoids such a triangle. And one of the two losers of 2030 already understands that they're in a competition, per se, with another city for that edition of the Winter Olympics.
  3. I still fail to see how that makes that big of a difference, in the double scenario, if things were to get so-called separate. You say - 'what's the rush' in that instance. But you're still forgetting one key element, & that is the Dec. 7th date, where the IOC E.B. will then decide what cities will get moved to 'targeted dialog'. And actually, I'm starting to think the opposite would hold more bearing, since having things still intertwined would seem to make a double more complicated, since we're still dealing with three cities here, instead of two, like Paris & L.A. towards the end of the 2024 campaign. If we still have three cities in contention come spring of next year, then I can see things being "a lot murkier" for a double. Whereas having them 'separate', makes another double easier IMO.
  4. I've already commented in the other GB's newswire thread about this, but this is becoming more & more "as the (IOC) world turns". lol
  5. LOL - looks like the right hand just doesn't know what the left hand is doing anymore. The AP story from the other night said that "recent meetings with the IOC have 'led' U.S. officials to believe all signs point toward SLC bidding for the 2034 Olympics, though they say Utah's capital will be ready if asked to host the 2030 Games, too". Sounds like the IOC is just trying to save a little face here.
  6. So it looks like this isn't as 'distinct & separate' afterall. It's still as intertwined as ever. But at the same time, what do you expect the IOC to say, especially when everything with them is done so hush, hush - wink, wink - secret handshake these days. Someone just had a slip-of-the-tongue & the IOC didn't like it.
  7. This has been long in the making, but there almost seems no doubt now that another *double* can be on the horizon. Only thing that can stop that now, is if both Sapporo & Vancouver falter. But let's just hope that at least one of them makes it through.
  8. Pretty much how I called it last night in the Vancouver 2030 thread, & the night before in the Spain cancels 2030 bid. This just has *double* written all over it now.
  9. That might seem like a no-brainer on the surface, but when tenacity & stubbornness also plays into the equation, as was evident with Madrid's three consecutive Summer Olympic bids (when it was really still too soon for a country like Spain after Barcelona 1992. Not to mention after London won 2012, Madrid should've at least skipped 2016), I still can't necessarily see sensibility being a core concern of theirs. Particularly when regional tug-of-wars between those two cities/provinces is so blatant. And that really can be said with any country that has such competitive/fierce rivalries within them.
  10. It also might depend on what the COE finally does, particularly with Madrid & 2036. And that would mean, bye, bye Barcelona 2038.
  11. ^Mmmmm, I'm not so sure about that. Just look at the ultimate irony, to say the very least, at the post just above yours. lol
  12. Nothing particularly groundbreaking in there. At least not around here anyway, since a lot of those points have already been discussed on these boards for the past several months now.
  13. Seattle also wasn't picked for 1994, but now they "shockingly" have for 2026!
  14. Well, if the Superbowl ever makes it to London, I wonder what our friend here will have to say about it lol. But yeah, the world in one place is, & has been, what has made the Olympics so special. Once you start to dilute that aspect of it, it then starts to become more of ho-hum, just your average event. It's the same when the conversation has turned to before of having more than one host at the same time, or spreading the venue plan too far out, when it comes to lessening the burden on host cities. That also would take away from the Olympic experience/atmosphere IMO. As it is, some argue that the Olympics are already losing their prestige anyway, like our friend here does.
  15. Actually, it's precisely the Summer Games that make the Olympics more *international*. It's been mentioned many times here, that the Winter Olympics aren't as international, due to the limited number of countries that participate in winter sports. So therefore, it only makes sense that the roster of host cities is larger for Summer Games than they are for the Winter Games. "more than capable" in what way? Because that can be very subjective depending on the context to which you might be referring to. They could've easily been a reflection since both countries (the U.S. & the U.K.) have many cultural similarities. I remember reading about how Atlanta was selling itself as an African-American city during their 1996 bid campaign. However, once the 1996 Games arrived, I don't remember/recalling much, if any, "African-ness" there, other than perhaps some African statues at some of the venues. Their ceremonies reflected more of the 'South' (which on the surface, only made sense) than anything else really, hence the pick-up trucks (which they could've done without, though). That's where in that sense, a city like London, L.A. or Atlanta, etc. I'd say aren't more than capable of handling true cultural identity than your Rio, Rome or Johannesburg, etc.
  16. Exactly. I think Athens 2004 & Beijing 2008 are perfect examples of such. You knew where those Olympics were taking place because of their ceremonies. And while I do enjoy watching the Olympic ceremonies as much as anyone else around here (& I enjoy watching them precisely for the cultural aspect of the host country), I still stay tuned afterwards to watch the sports (& any Olympic drama that might come about lol). I don't turn off NBC, etc. for one moment during those 16 days & nights.
  17. I'll have to remember that one, Q! I've mentioned in the past, how classic it would've been to have had an L.A. vs Toronto showdown around here. But now that you mention it, maybe a NYC vs Toronto match up would've been much better!! I can just envision it now, you comin' in here like a bull in a china shop, cause you know those Canadians would've been knockin' down your city left, right & center! Ahh, the good ole' days. That reminds me of our *other AFan* 'buddy' from the past. And that Phlegm 'dude' (that Baron nicknamed lmao). Those were a couple of characters, to say the least. But even now, I still think we have a couple of 'common enemies' around here. Ohh, that Imagine Dragons song is coming to my head now lol. Sure, & you've said that before. And yeah, there were some that were randomly just picking two cities, which I agree with you on that. But even in plausible cases, it seems that you just totally wanted to dismiss it. Even now, when it's starting to look even more plausible, you still want to keep it at bay, for the most part. But 'whatever', I digress. Cause lets not get into another PM over it. Well, the boards seem to be pretty active still since Tokyo 2020ne & Beijing 2022 have passed. And by next year in 2023, we'll be getting ready for 2024. So maybe things will still be pretty active around here even then. For sure, that are NN "library" teacher will see to that!
  18. Something tells me, though, that'd be over Madrid's dead body.
  19. And the irony there, is that he claims the "traveling circus" nature of the Olympics should cease. Yet he wants more "internationalism" WITHIN each Olympics. That doesn't make any sense to me. If I wanna see as much internationalism as I possibly can in one place, I'll just go to Disney World. No need to wait for the Olympics for that.
  20. From my experience, anyone in the North who I've found that uses that word, is not originally from the North anyway. I just find the word so "Valley-girl/beach-bum"-ish (I know, I'm being so Bennett again here). And your meme hits that perfectly here. But I digress. No, just envisioned you. And that was only in response because of your ironic contrarian meme. I've been on SSC many, many years ago (I can't even remember my handle from over there, since it was different). And the problem I found with it when I was there, is that it's TOO moderated. Maybe because the community is so large over there, but it seems that every room has a moderator. And thus, everything seems more controlled/constricted, especially when there are disagreements. Maybe things are different over there now with more infighting, but the main problem here is when people have *strong differences of opinions*. Especially when they involved certain members like our L.A. friend from the past, or our current new-norm 'buddy', etc. etc. etc. And you've said it yourself many times before, & particularly when it comes to this website considering what's it all about, but some come on here & think that any critique given to them is a personal attack against them &/or their city. When all we're trying to do here, is gauge the winds of any Olympic hopefuls with what information we do have to try & gauge that with. But still, even with all the mud-wrestling that goes on here, surely places like Facebook, Twitter & other like avenues are much worse. The irony here is, that you & I got mostly along on these boards before (& actually, we still concur on many other points now). But it wasn't 'til the post-Paris/L.A. double happened that the "pissing contests" ensued. We just don't see eye-to-eye on that one (well, apparently we do, but we're just "viewing it differently"), & that's where all of this has stemmed from ever since.
  21. Yeah, totally agree with ya there! Somehow I don't think that'll be part of the 2028 ceremonies, though.
×
×
  • Create New...