Jump to content

FYI

Members
  • Posts

    12,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    237

Everything posted by FYI

  1. I really would like to get rid of mine if I could, but the public transportation where I'm at (which is a pretty big urban area & still growing) SUCKS so much that you really have to have a car if you want to get around here efficiently. Cause you could literally wait for the bus sometimes for over an hour if you miss a scheduled stop. That's just insane. And a subway? lol, yeah, right.
  2. Of course there needs to be a viable European candidacy, or two, for the 2036 Games to return to Europe. And yes, that isn't a guarantee. Because if there isn't, then obviously 2036 has to go somewhere else. That's why I say it's Europe's 'to lose'. But if there is a credible bid on the table from Europe for '36, the IOC will be salivating all over it, no doubt about that. I also don't see how Italy having 2026 has to do with 2036. France has 2024 & soon will have 2030, too. The U.S. also has 2028, & soon enough will also have 2034. So if the Italians want another (Summer) Games, then I don't see why not. But it's also not like the choices from elsewhere are that stellar, either. Mexico & Poland have already declared themselves out. It's not like the U.S. is gonna try again that soon, not when '34 is already going to be in SLC. Australia is out obviously because of '32. Africa or South America again? That's a big maybe at this point. Plus, two southern hemisphere Games back-to-back seems unlikely, too. So that leaves Asia. Which there, the only two credible places that would want to embark on this are China & South Korea, since Japan still has a bitter aftertaste about the Olympics. And there's all this "talk" lately about India. But first, I'd like to know how they're going to address the mandated time-frame issue, which they always seem to ignore. I've said in the past that I can see the IOC bypassing Europe for their every two Games if there was a very compelling candidate at the time, but I was always referring to (South) Africa in that sense. Would they do it for India? Maybe, but they need to still address so many things with them first, that I'd say 2040 is a more likely target with them.
  3. Oh, definitely. But try telling that to any Castilian at the time that, & you would've been showered with rhetoric to the contrary. Even former IOC president JAS, advised Madrid *not* to bid for 2016, citing 2012 was already slated for Europe & that Rio that time was a credible threat. But did they listen to their own countryman, who would've known better than anybody else? Of course not. Not necessarily a matter of being outsmarted. Tokyo was just seen, at the time, as the "safe pair of hands", during a time of economic turmoil & the question of political stability, when Spain was going through one of their worst economic crisis (yet ironically enough, they thought spending on an Olympics was a good idea), & Turkey was doing massive crackdowns on protests (not to mention the Syrian conflict at their border then). Which ironically enough, turned out to be pretty accurate, when Tokyo 2020 had to endure one of the most unforeseen challenges of any Olympic host city. If you really wanted a partner to help navigate through that big dilemma, the Japanese seemed to be a perfect fit in that regard. Plus, as with all of the Olympic bid races back then, many members also voted strategically, as to who or what they would support in any given race, so that they can then give their own respective country a better chance at the next Games if they were bidding, if a city outside their own continent was not hosting the previous edition (much like what happened to Madrid for 2016), since at the time, Rome & Germany were planning 2024 bids of their own.
  4. Of course, brand-new always trumps old(er) anyway. Just look at how the IOC drooled over new stadia back in the day (& they still would if they could). I know L.A. has been working lately to expand their mass-transit, especially in preparations for the 2028 Olympics. But Southern California for decades was mainly car territory. They're just lately playing catch-up to those other cities with the extensiveness of their grids which they've already had in place for decades now (hence their age). Which L.A., for being the 2nd largest city in the U.S., should've had some sort of extensive network already long ago.
  5. They more than likely still felt pretty burned-out from their three-consecutive attempts, especially when they felt so sure that 'third time's the charm' mentality, like it played out for PyeongChang 2018 (even though objectively speaking at the time, they were mainly the only ones seeing it that way). And considering how 2032 was so suspiciously crowned (& the rug swept right under from everyone else that was interested then), Madrid probably did themselves a favor by staying away from that "race", too. Plus, let's also remember that 2032 was hand-delivered to Brisbane right in the middle of the Coronavirus pandemic. So everyone else at the time, had other important priorities (like trying to keep people safe), rather than trying to embark on trivial things (in comparison) like launching Olympic bids.
  6. I've been reading recently how many international spectators are not that thrilled in coming here for the WC, due to how subpar public transit is in the U.S. compared to Europe (or Japan). Outside of NYC, Chicago (which isn't hosting any WC matches this time), Boston & maybe San Fran, Philly & DC, public transportation in most other U.S. cities really sucks.
  7. https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1143602/madrid-opens-door-to-2036-olympics Posting this where it actually belongs. I’ve always said that 2036 is Europe’s to lose, & can definitely see the Madrileños being a big contender this time out (especially if Germany doesn’t make a play here). And with the baggage of Barcelona 1992 being really far back now in the rear-view mirror, they can make a really good case for this run (I also wouldn’t have those pesky Castellanos all over me this time ). Although, I really would like to know where Gustavo gets the idea that “Qatar is the ‘clear favorite’ to host (the 2036) event”? Is it from the same “voices” that said “Madrid was the ‘favorite’ to host the 2020 Games”? I guess that just also falls in line with the “reports” that said Dallas was going to host the 2026 final. Just goes to show, that with all those early prognostications, should really be taken with a grain of salt (especially the outlier ones).
  8. Why is that article even posted in this thread, when it's clearly talking about Madrid possibly interested in hosting 2036 (& all the others mentioned are just afterthoughts). Talk about indirect trolling on SL's part, simply because they "heard" something. Anyway, speaking on what's actually in the article, 2036 could indeed finally be Madrid's time. They won't have the baggage of 1992 anymore, & could make a compelling case this time, not to mention the (unofficial) rotation being on Europe's side. That said, Rol's, I think you should move this, along with the article, to the proper thread, away from you-know-who's voices in their head.
  9. I know you didn't say Nashville anymore. I'm talking about when you DID a couple of years ago. Just like now with Dallas. In other words, your so-called 'predictions' are "just dumb" & WRONG every time.
  10. While 300K is certainly a much more manageable number than 600K, the latter is still a smaller number than the one-million that gather in Times Square for New Year's Eve every year. Regardless, though, it'll still be the largest attendance for any Olympic opening ceremony. So it should still be a show-stopper.
  11. So much for all the "reports" (along with sportlighting's "predictions" - nashville anyone lol) that Dallas was getting the final.
  12. But aren't appeals in this matter yet to cast by the other parties involved? And wouldn't it be more appropriate, it they want an Olympic medal ceremony, that it should be at Milan 2026 instead (the next WINTER Olympics)?
  13. India would've been considered unthinkable just a decade ago, but yeah, now there seems to be quite a bit of chatter about them lately, without mentioning many of the logical concerns that would accompany an Indian Olympic hosting.
  14. ^Right, it's dubbed as "privileged dialog", which is something the IOC just pulled out of their rear-end anyway. That said, though, they've still given Switzerland 'til like 2027 to get their act together (in the IOC's eyes anyway) before anything further goes on with them (or they're out). By that time, 2036 should be much further along in the vetting process. Like I mentioned, it wouldn't be the first time in the IOC's history that they juggle two contests at once. After all, there are two sets of Games (one winter & one summer), which they've usually alternated the process as well.
  15. Jumping all over the place? No one is suggesting (I know I'm not) for 2038 to be decided before 2036 is. But by the time 2028 comes around, 2036 should've been sorted out by then (the way the IOC is operating these days) & 2038 would be the next logical step. I (& others have) certainly agree/d (much to the bewilderment of a certain-you-know-who around here) that choosing 2032 (certainly a distant future edition 11 years out at the time it was crowned by the IOC) right in the middle of a global pandemic no less, before figuring out 2030 (who's timeline of trying to find suitable candidates was growing short) was a big mistake. But the IOC was more focused on just giving in to a certain VP colleague of theirs at the time. The 2038 winter Games in comparison, even if chosen in summer 2028, would still have less lead-time than Brisbane 2032 did. So at that point, it's not really as distant an edition anymore as one might think. Again, before the new-norm, bid cities were preparing *years in advance* their bidding portfolios, & the IOC was juggling back-&-forth, chronologically, between those bidding contest. So I really don't see much of a difference now, other than the IOC just adding a few more years now to the lead-time. Plus, at a time when other bidders were caught off-guard by the sudden coronation of Brisbane 2032, many of them are now in FOMO mode & perhaps thinking now that it's never too early to at least be engaging (not to be confused with awarding) with the "new-norm", whimsical IOC these days, because they, at any given moment, can just hand-out a Games whenever they see it's appropriate now. What is certainly whacky, though, is worrying about very distant future editions with a 'permanent roster of rotating winter hosts', when they're having a hard enough time as it is in trying to fill in the next decade alone with winter hosts.
  16. "but going for 2038 is just 'excessive' at this point" Is it really? Cause apparently, nothing seems to be excessive nowadays when it comes to the 'new-norm', since lets keep in mind, that lately they're awarding host cities 10-11 years out, like they did with 2032 & like they're going to do soon enough with 2034 (& the way things are starting to look, with 2036, too). And speaking of SLC, they've been at it in trying to get another winter Games for quite some time, like 6-7 years already. Even when the previous lead-time was 7-years out, bid cities were still preparing 4-5 years before that. So the IOC wanting to engage in 2038 already doesn't seem to be too far-fetched at this point, since if they keep with their current new-norm calendar, they'd more than likely be ready to anoint a 2038 host only fours years from now come 2028 in L.A. no doubt.
  17. Exactly, there's still IOC protocol to be followed before Nice can even be officially anointed. So why not still have Sweden in the mix until everything had to become official. However, when it comes to Sweden, it really is a slippery-slope since their record at this is really not that great. But then again, neither is Switzerland's for that matter. Yet they got invited to "privileged dialog" for 2038. So in all fairness, if not for 2030, then why couldn't Sweden have gotten that same consideration as Switzerland, instead of basically just getting told not to bother anymore? So unless Bach & Co. secretly know that there's some sort of Swedish bureaucracy that they can never overcome, then I can understand the SOK's frustration of at least not getting that same opportunity as Switzerland in making their case.
  18. I still say that they're getting off easy for all the damage they have been causing throughout these boards over the last three years, but we'll take any kind of win in this case.
  19. I also thoroughly concur with Rols & Australian Kiwi's (along with many other members) concerns, that SOMETHING should finally be done about Australian Fan's abusive/spamming behavior on these boards (& the sad thing, it's not just a bizarre behavior that they just do on this website, either).
  20. Oh, come on. You're gonna let some bully troll get the best of you? I thought you had much thicker skin than that, krow. lol You're just letting them win & commandeer these boards with their one-sided, lop-sided (new-norm) views, which is exactly what they want. Then they'll just have conversations with themselves about La-Lausanne & how wonderful & great everything is over there. Don't let them get the best of you. The board still needs open-minded & thoughtful discussion from as many thought provoking (particularly the veteran) members as possible. Along with the much needed humor that goes along with it (which a certain you-know-who has done their best to suck that right out of these boards).
  21. ^However, that said, I seriously doubt that they're some silly kid on here stirring trouble. I actually take them at their word (due to all their rhetoric on here, good or bad, but mostly bad) about their (older) age in this case.
×
×
  • Create New...