Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by FYI

  1. That’s why. It’s not something I’d peg from someone where you’re from in saying. You mean how you’ve always used memes & gifs in excess (like you’re doing now), trying to set some sort of Guinness world record yourself? Or as if in doing so, somehow makes what you’re trying to say stand out more or win your argument (or somehow you think makes you seem “cool”)? Like people who yell louder (or use large font on this site trying to get their point across) & you claim are like (speaking of) Trump supporters? lol I envision this is you every night in your room, pecking away on all the boards that you probably belong to: Yet again, “dude”.
  2. There also really isn't anything to keep them from elevating a bid to targeted dialog for another Olympic bid cycle, either. In this case, that would be 2034. I mentioned last night, in the 'SOC set to end 2030 Winter Olympic Bid' thread in the GB's newswire section, that I can see them elevate Sapporo & Vancouver to 'targeted dialog' for the 2030 winter Games (& having them two dual it out for those Games), & moving SLC to targeted dialog for 2034. That right there, removes all the issues with SLC for 2030, & leaves the IOC E.B. to pick Sapporo or Vancouver for 2030. And if push comes to shove, & both Sapporo & Vancouver falter with public support in the end, then the IOC can turn to SLC as a last resort for the 2030 edition.
  3. I think what they meant is that Sapporo’s support seems a bit unreliable because of the postponed Tokyo Games, not because Japan is unreliable. At least that’s how I read it. Especially when they’re making the comparison to Vancouver, who’s support numbers aren’t any better, & in fact are even worse than Sapporo’s.
  4. But the weather in Nashville in February is very similar to that of Vancouver & Sochi, hosts of the 2010 & 2014 Winter Olympics, respectively!
  5. I concur. Jerry Jones can huff-&-puff all he wants, but it's FIFA's call at the end of the day. It'll be either at Metlife or SoFi as second choice.
  6. You mean how you "thought" Nashville was a good guess, too?!
  7. You're welcome, "dude". Don't act, though, as if you don't "do it" either (or anyone else on these boards, for that matter). Although, if I didn't use them, you'd confuse those words in quotations as my own, like you have in the past with "good for you", for example, which was always a Q-thing. So in order for you not to get confused again, hence the ".." Oh, give me a break. It's not like the counter tweet was four months 'old', or even four weeks old. It was only four days old. Which was appropriate in this case, since what you decided to retweet, again, had no elaboration to "a lot murkier".
  8. Have you not seen Vancouver's support numbers recently? They're even worse than Sapporo's ATM - 34% down from 43% last fall. So in Vancouver's case, support is going in the *wrong* direction. You're making this out like the ole' Olympic bid 'races' of the past, which it isn't that way any longer. There's no "voters" or 'hidden favorite' anymore, per se, just a rubber stamping of the full-membership over the IOC's E.B.'s cherry-picked candidate of their choosing for any given cycle of an Olympic Games. The USOC has been pretty clear all along that they'd prefer 2034 anyway (particularly because of L.A. 2028). So that would depend a lot if Sapporo or Vancouver actually does wind up with 2030, & not necessarily that SLC is in direct competition with those two cities. SLC only winds up with 2030, if both Sapporo & Vancouver falter. Otherwise, we're most liking seeing a double allocation, with SLC getting the latter winter Games, which is the one that the USOC wants anyway, much to SLC's chagrin.
  9. ^The difference in this case, though, is that any of the cities can be moved to either the 2030 or 2034 'targeted dialog' phase. I can see Sapporo & Vancouver being moved to the 2030 targeted dialog (& leaving those two to duke it out for those Games), & moving SLC to the 2034 targeted dialog. Which even Rob admits he could see happening (even if he said it just four days ago). Then, there's no issue of anyone missing out.
  10. Is that another one of your "predictions", like Nashville was.
  11. Exactly. Yet you had no problem “plucking out” that one-liner that doesn’t really say much of anything, other than to perhaps lean on “your line of thinking”, in order to maybe “rile me up”, & I took the “bait”. Whatever. Here’s a “confirmation for you”, though, also taken from the school of Q:
  12. That's cause I had a good teacher in that category! But "we still don't know", to play from another page of the Q-book. Finding that line curious doesn't really mean anything if it doesn't explain anything. Then again, it shouldn't be that murky at all that a double wouldn't occur if the IOC can't find someone else, other than SLC, to take on 2030. We always knew that. A double in this case can only happen if someone else takes 2030. That's not something that we didn't already know.
  13. Perhaps it also needs to added to the NN "library" thread as well!
  14. That never meant anything anyway. Since with the "new-norm process", the COE can invite Madrid back in at anytime. Although, will the "refocus" on 2034 still put Madrid on the back-burner for now. That's raises another question, though, will the Spanish continue with the apparent futile winter attempt, or will they go again with a Madrid summer bid, where cohesive cooperation with all parties that would need to be involved, be a given.
  15. Yeah, I know the tweets were four days apart. And I know that they're not your words or opinion. But considering that Rob didn't elaborate on "a lot murkier", I'm surprised that you took those three little words at face value. Since considering when I do it, according to you, it's 'confirmation bias'. Go figure.
  16. Well, they still better hurry if they wanna 'refocus' on 2034 then!
  17. But wouldn't this just add, not subtract, to your "traveling circus" mentality, though.
  18. ^Yeah, but hey. We can still add it to the list of 'media reports' in that "crowded field of interested parties"!
  19. That’s why I thought that Cincinnati had the edge over KC as far as the Midwest went. Cincinnati is closer to a much larger population base, & the other Northeast locales that would’ve made logistics easier. And Cincinnati is also a pretty big U.S. soccer market. But I guess that FIFA thought that the northeast already had enough representation, especially when you also include Toronto. Plus, I think one thing worth noting here, is that Denver isn’t part of the Midwest. It’s almost just as far to KC as Cincinnati is. But this looks like it was more about geographical distribution on FIFA’s part than anything else. Especially, as you alluded to, in that particular part of the U.S., where soccer is surprisingly popular. Without KC or Cincinnati there, that would’ve meant a huge gap in the northern/central part of the country. I mean, I was “shocked” when I saw the amount of people packed in KC’s entertainment district waiting for this announcement (particularly when we can still say that we’re not quite over the pandemic, & I couldn’t make out anyone in the crowd wearing a mask). The world is ours: How Kansas City landed games as host for 2026 FIFA World Cup soccer https://amp.kansascity.com/sports/article262573777.html And it looks like it was the same in several other U.S. cities as well. It must have the IOC just pining away at all of the Olympic bid races of yesteryear, after seeing that, when packed squares of people were waiting in anticipation if their city was going to be picked to host the Olympics. And when the winner was announced, the cheers & celebrations that followed. But now we have the “new-norm: it’s a game changer” - where Olympic bid announcements are just made under wraps & catches most by surprise these days lol.
  20. Lol, Idk where you get that from. When clearly, all the hatin’ on KC being selected was/is going on in Denver: Denver sports fans were angry, baffled that Kansas City got World Cup over their city https://amp.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/for-petes-sake/article262610887.html
  21. Agreed. The IOC is going to hold out as long as possible to name the 2030 host, until they can't delay it any longer. I can even see when we get to the 'targeted diglog' stage, still not knowing exactly what if Sapporo's numbers don't improve more (or even Vancouver's for that matter). Ironically enough, 2030 are the Olympics that SLC wants, but the one that the IOC, & particularly the USOC (& also L.A. for that matter), don't want them to get. I think everyone involved, other than SLC, wants them to get 2034 instead. That would also give the IOC more stability with the winter Games, as far as finding reliable hosts for them when the good pickens are hard to come by these days. But Sapporo, in the end, is the one which will dictate who gets what. And everyone else, is just waiting with anticipation with what will come out of Sapporo next.
  • Create New...