Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by FYI

  1. ^What does that have to do with the World Cup, besides also nothing? Especially when the main (mostly rhetorical) question was, were you just as "shocked" when your 'sure-bet' pick, Nashville, didn't get picked. :-P
  2. You're right. "It's never been about a 'specific' Olympics", but again, SLC & Bullock have always been clear that they want the Olympics *sooner* rather than later. And in this particular instance, that means 2030. But just like L.A. had to wait for the USOC's green light to bid, for whichever Olympics the USOC told them, SLC also had to wait for that green light. "Old norm, new norm" really doesn't matter here, since the end game is all the same, landing an Olympics whenever either of those two cities can at the 'earliest'. Since as you said, L.A. also has been at this for a while. The "we'll be ready whenever you want us" also applies to L.A., cause how many times have we also said on these boards that L.A. can be ready at a drop of a hat, hence their constant persistence since 2000. And yeah, L.A. didn't have to agree to any arrangement with the IOC. But if they wanted an Olympics regardless, they knew what they had to do. It's the same with SLC. If they ultimately want another Olympics, even if it's a *later* one, they to will agree in order to achieve that goal.
  3. Were you just as shocked when Nashville (your constant "prediction" pick) got rejected? Seattle shouldn't be that much of a 'shock', considering it's a much bigger market than Nashville, & it creates another dual-cluster along with Vancouver (another larger market), in a region that didn't get represented at all the last time the World Cup was in the U.S.
  4. Well, as you like to say in these hypothetical cases, "it's easy for us here to say", & we'll just "never know" then. Maybe it wouldn't have been settled by now. But then again, maybe it would have. Or at the very least, both Sapporo & SLC would've been in 'targeted dialog' at this juncture. Yeah, SLC still has questions about 2034, but that's only because the IOC hasn't made any determination about 2030, since they're still waiting on Sapporo to give them some better news so they know how to move forward. Had Sapporo been on better footing all along, particularly on the public support element (which is what is basically stalling Sapporo), the IOC would've moved along quicker with all of this.
  5. Minneapolis didn’t want it for the same reason: https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-pulls-out-of-running-as-host-city-for-2026-world-cup/476974773/?clmob=y&c=n&clmob=y&c=n Can’t find anything on Detroit ATM. But maybe they were just one of those “interested parties”.
  6. Nope, they certainly didn't. Just like Minneapolis & Detroit didn't want it either IIRC.
  7. Well, that's a given. If we already had more of that info on Sapporo, this would've been signed, sealed & delivered by now. Either SLC got 2030, or Sapporo 30 & SLC 34. If it was really such a hopeless cause for Sapporo, I don't think that they'd still be part of the 'continuous dialog', like a certain other Pyrenees bid.
  8. ^That's not entirely so. SLC & Bullock have always mentioned that they'd like to host the Olympics *sooner* rather than later, so that equals 2030, not 2034. The only reason they're opening up more to the option of 2034 now, is because it's starting to look more clear to them, after having listened to all parties involved, that 2034 would be better. Much like L.A. case as well. Yeah, they entered the game wanting 2024, but in the end, they had to conceded to 2028 if they wanted an Olympics regardless. Not much different in SLC's case either at the end of the day.
  9. Yeah, would like to know where they get that from, other than from their own inner circle.
  10. That's because all they had to choose from the Midwest was KC & Cincinnati. All the big player Midwestern locales sat this one out this time around. I didn't think that they'd chose both, but thought Cincinnati would've gotten picked over KC due to their closer proximity to the rest of the east coast cities. No surprise over Nashville getting cut (to a certain someone's dismay ). And not surprised both Texas cities got picked this time, since both are big soccer cities, especially Houston, & when also you don't have some of the other big markets like we had in '94. And looks like the refurbished Hard Rock stadium won it over Orlando this time out.
  11. It's interesting reading many of those naysayer comments about that article. Especially when local support continuously polls around 85%. But of course, it's always the very vocal minority that speaks out the most &/or it has to do with source (as another comment alluded to). I'm just like "Just-A-Fan's" comment, though - "I'll be happy to visit the Olympics in another city.." That for me is L.A. & SLC!
  12. Of course it doesn't have to be a "rush". But what even Bullock also alluded to, "..& all the pieces fit together as best we can. We're trying to make those pieces fit together as *soon* as we can". Paris & L.A. were also part of pieces to 'fit together'. And really, it's not like they're rushing anything anyway. All parties involved here have been at this for quite some time now. It's not like all of these great efforts were thrown together overnight.
  13. So much for Nashville getting picked! And I was right about both Dallas & Houston getting selected. And FIFA also went with another (NW) cluster with Seattle & Vancouver. And Miami gets picked instead of Orlando this time. And while Kansas City is a little surprising over Cincinnati, it's not surprising that at least a Midwestern site got picked, especially when we didn't have any of the bigger players from there this time around.
  14. "If a Salt Lake City bid were to land in 2034 instead of 2030, there would be no reason for the IOC to wait and make that election further down the road." I've made that same point before. What would really be the point in that at that particularly juncture, other than making things so-called 'separate'. And if Bullock apparently hadn't heard anything about a double allocation before, surely he must have more of an inkling about it now, especially when key in-person meetings have been conducted at IOC headquaters this past week.
  15. The whole First Nations deal is what makes it seem so unpredictable really, precisely since it's never been done before. It seems noble on the surface, but it makes the project more complicated than it needs to be. What happens if later on the line something comes up that they were not to like with any of the other (too many already) partners? I could see it get really messy, really quick in that instance. Support could also grow later on. But then again, maybe not. As a matter of fact, it looks like it's declining, not growing since their last poll. That should be a good sign of warranted skepticism. Especially when we're already talking about such a low-bar number to begin with. Deep strides would have to be taken in that dept. in order to vastly improve it, & as of now, I just don't see that happening. At least not by the short time needed to make those support numbers grow greatly.
  16. With the SOC also getting ready to pull the plug on the Pyrenees bid, this one here ain't looking that great either. This is starting to reminisce of the old bidding 'withdrawal' days.
  17. And then there were three.. this is starting to look like the 2022, 2026 races all over again.
  18. IDK how one gets 52% to 34% as "similar public opinion levels". Plus, the whole too-many-involved-parties of the Vancouver bid, make it too much of a slippery slope. Could make it another Barcelona-Pyrenees fiasco down the road. So I definitely wouldn't put it 'on par' with Sapporo in those regards.
  19. I agree. This is starting to get much more complicated than it needs to be, IMO. And this is before we even get to the part about public support. Plus, I would think the whole structure of this bid effort, would be enough to make the IOC very nervous. Talk about the talk some are making with the "this could be another Denver '76", particularly when it comes to discussing about Sapporo. But I'm starting to see more of a danger with Vancouver than Sapporo when it comes to that element.
  20. Seems doubtful. SLC is surely a lock-in, but one of the other two is sure to falter. And as of now, that looks more like Vancouver. Plus, having just two cities moving to "targeted dialog" will make it much easier for the IOC to do a double allocation with '34, than by still dealing with three cities by the end of the year.
  21. I think that you're much more of a fan of all things jubilee, the royals, the spice girls, james bond, etc. than the Olympics, & it's no wonder why you clash around here so much.
  22. And of course the one with highest support numbers, just like Milan's were, continuously well into the 80's, is SLC. And the irony there, is that the USOC would rather prefer 2034 if given the choice. That's why the IOC is still holding this off. They're going to try to save their emergency reserve as long as they can without having to use it, unless when/if absolutely necessary.
  23. Wow, those are some very hefty numbers in favor for Milan (even higher than Brisbane. I would've expected the opposite). But seeing those numbers now, it reminds of someone here saying back then that's what sealed the deal for Milan getting 2026. The Swedes have always been lukewarm, at best, to any Olympic bid in the past. And which is what always has me thinking that their attitude towards hosting the Games isn't hardly ever going to change. And Sapporo yielding those same type of preliminary polling numbers, I would think would have the IOC biting their fingernails. Cause 52 percent is just cringe worthy, if anything hugely negative were to go south during the lead/prep time.
  • Create New...