Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by FYI

  1. Sure, but weren't Milan & Brisbane's poll numbers well above just 52%, though, especially Brisbane. That's why I think those two didn't have much of a problem going forwrd. I In Sapporo, however, there's clearly more of a NOlympics movement with these low polling numbers. Which sadly, isn't going to do much the bid much favors. Unless they can demonstrate more polls with higher approval numbers, at least in the 60's, IDK how comfortable the IOC would still be with that then.
  2. That's a scary thought. But then again, would Russia have invaded Ukraine this year if that were the case. Although, again, they did invade Georgia back in 2008, when they already had been awarded 2014. Albeit this time, though, the invasion is much worse than back then.
  3. Well, in all fairness, I did say that LA fanboy was even worse (although, I have a theory on that, but I'm not going to mention it in order not to cause anymore controversy on the matter). But the characteristic of "controlling the conversation", as that previous poster always coined it, is very much so spot-on in this case. Just as if we didn't praise everything L.A. with that poster, without divulging into a full-on mud-slinging match, it's very much the same here, but with the "new-norm". As Stefan noted above; AF's trollish behavior has undermined any attempt for meaningful discussion around here, at least when it comes to everything involving the new norm. Since they're not here to discuss about it, but rather "teach" about it, hence the NN "library". So sorry Rob, but it appears that you're very much in the minority here, & AF needing to "calm down a bit" is putting it mildly. I mean for all the years that myself & Rol's have been on these boards, I've *never* seen him in such offense-mode like I have seen him with AF these past few months (I don't think even our LA fanboy did that. So that you tell you something right there). And IIRC, I think you also mentioned a time or two back then, when even LA fanboy was also a 'decent poster' when he wasn't dressed in his full L.A. war gear. But alas, I digress. Since we don't want to be accused of getting "off-topic", now do we. But I felt that I had to say my peace on the subject, since strangely enough, it's not the first time that you've come to AF's defense around here.
  4. I don't get it either. There was another poster a few years back that was even worse (if you can believe that), but very similar in their way of wanting to "control the conversation". And if it didn't go the way they wanted it, then they went on attack mode. And it took a long, long time before something was ever done about it. It seems at times that the most outlandish ones have the most free reign, & the ones that also play the victim & deflect when their egregious behavior gets called out.
  5. “Typical (Quaker) post there”. Full of deflections, projections, “confirmation biases” & resulting in petty, personal attacks & insults (with finger[s]) towards the end there, all because when someone just doesn’t agree with “your line of thinking”. I “thought you were better than that”, Q. Those tactics sound very familiar, though, like from “some other poster” over in the other thread right now. Or that other one from L.A. a few years back. Or speaking of, a “certain former president”. But since you also suffer from another attribute like our “sunshine buddy” next door, this one is for you:
  6. Careful there, I made that same point before. And that's when I got the "not only the G7 countries should get to host the Games" response.
  7. Because not ALL of an Olympics is paid for by the private sector. In most countries, other than the U.S. (& even then, some public money will be needed, like for security, which is uber-expensive for the Olympics), the Olympics are paid for by public money. So shouldn't those citizens have a say of where their tax dollars are going to be spent? I agree, though, that sometimes the public doesn't always know what they're voting or not voting for. But they should still have their say regardless.
  8. I think the IOC is doing all they can to lock in someone for 2030, especially when it looks that the USOC prefers 2034. If Sapporo or Vancouver had better support numbers at this point, this dual set-up would've been signed, sealed & delivered by now.
  9. There's no "maybe" about it. You *absolutely* do, & you win the Olympic Gold medal in that event. No, that's more like the other AFan-ism from the past, remember. Exactly. So what's this nonsense about "how funny it is that I'm now trying to turn it around on you" when you admit that you lied. No, again, that's more from the other sooo AFan-ish from the past. That's from their playbook. The "we just don't know/don't have enough evidence" mantra, sitting on the fence, wishy-washy, devil's advocate school of thought. Seems like you picked up quite a few cues from them since then. Well, if they're now being more open about 2034, shouldn't that suggest that it's also being part of the "continuous dialog" here? Why can't we take that at face value then, instead on solely relying on what Bullock himself may or "may not know". And maybe Bullock is lying. I mean you admittedly do it, so.. And okay, so there are quite a few quotes from him there, but they're pretty generic. More like diplomatic in nature. They're not anything striking nor news breaking. So talk about 'you seeing a few quotes in a GB's article & want to make a bigger deal out of it than it deserves'.
  10. Next thing you know, we'll be getting those posts in bright-neon font, since they'll still think that they're not getting their "point across". What else would you expect from the creator of new-norm "library".
  11. Yeah, that's certainly a big concern, if not a bigger concern than the massive interruption itself that the Olympics can bring to a city. And as I alluded to earlier, as much as I love the Games, I don't think that I'd want them in my backyard. Costs overruns would certainly be a big concern for me. I wouldn't want any kind of local taxes to go way up in order to help pay for a 2-1/2 week sports orgy, cause you know that the private sector & Olympic revenues alone ain't gonna pay for the whole darn thing. I'll just keep watching from afar, TYFM!
  12. It really is ironic. Because as much as I LUV the Olympics, I don't think that I'd really relish it in my backyard. I'm like the Swedes have been in this case. I don't want the large hoards of crowds descending upon my city. The traffic, the noise, the inconveniences that it would bring not only during Games time, but also in the years during the lead/prep time. I love the extravaganza that is the Olympic Games, but I guess just like hosting a big, loud party - as long as it's at someone else's house! So have fun L.A. lol
  13. Of course it does. To you that is. And yeah, Bullock said that. And (talk about "plucking out a line" from the story & "running with it")? So what do you expect him to say anyway? "Yeah, the IOC is ready to do a double, & we'll be ready, willing & able to take on the task whenever they say the word" - when everything is suppose to be done under wraps nowadays? I don't think so. Plus, considering SLC would rather host sooner rather than later, any talk of a double most likely wouldn't be on Bullock's mind anyway. And I don't have to be "careful" about anything. I think you enjoy these pissing contests, since you like to dumpster dive into old topics to see what kind of "dirt" you can dig up so you can then "shove it into people's faces". That's just the usual 'extremely smarmy & Quaker of you' tactic. Still you. Speaking about that November GB's story, in late March when there was another story about how it didn't pan out that way, you sure were quick to "needle me a little" about how "see, there was no rush at all to anoint SLC 2030". So don't act all coy & innocent now, with this 'turning it around on you' nonsense, if that remark from then wasn't at all about "shoving it in my face", especially with your little at the end. There is no 'the evidence is the factual element of this story'. That's just more 'confirmation bias' on your part. Again, what do you expect SLC to say out in the open, when the process is now so hush-hush, wink-wink & secret handshake? If there's any talk of a double, it's going on ATM between the USOC & the IOC. Bullock & SLC are in the back-burner for now, since again, they'd rather host 2030 than 2034 anyway. That's not about "riling you up", it's about discourse. But it you take it as "bait", then so be it. I can't help you with that. LOL, now who's got the "ego". This was always more than just hypotheticals, because we always had a good idea of who the cities were/were not going to be. So it was never that "misguided". And for the third time, SLC saying that they haven't heard anything about it doesn't really prove anything (do you think repeating that somehow makes it more true?). Since again, a double would mean in their case, that they'd most likely be hosting later rather than sooner, which is not what they want. That's what the USOC would prefer.
  14. Yeah, but that had more to do with the Japanese getting weary & anxious over the extra added expense & logistics the one-year postponement Tokyo 2020ne was causing. When the Japanese first won 2020, back in 2013, they were estatic as can be. I was fully expecting Tokyo 2020 to be a full-on success (pre-pandemic) like London 2012 was. All signs before Coronavirus were pointing to that, particularly in 2019 when the Japanese hosted a successful Rugby World Cup. But as we all sadly know now, that wasn’t the case. That said, though, we should really treat this as a case-by-case basis. Or in this instance, a city-by-city basis. It should be no great surprise why the citizens of Tokyo were getting Olympic fatigue by the summer of 2021, but would the people of Sapporo feel any different about the Winter Olympics coming to their city in 2030? Case in point, look at how the people of Boston rejected their 2024 Olympic bid, but Los Angeles was all gung-ho to bid in their place instead. So in other words, can’t really judge an entire country over Olympic support with one brush when the difference in different sections of some countries could be drastically different. Especially when we’re talking about large populated countries like the U.S. & Japan, where many POV’s & attitudes are as different as night & day.
  15. That last bit sounds very AFan’ish. And no, not the current new-norm fanatic one, either. That doesn’t make any sense, though, since we’re not talking about “my opinion”. We’re talking about Rob’s. Which I hardly ever find any reason to doubt (unlike you), especially when he’s really into the thick of all things Olympic than anyone of us here. So if I’m going to gauge who’s opinion I’m going to value more on the Olympic subject matter (that’s not directly on these forums), well, that’s easy. “Typical Quaker post here”. Looks for what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site. Finds what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site. Then ‘shoves’ what they ‘think’ is wrong with this site in someone’s else‘s face. To quote one of your phrases again, “good for you”. Q. But to quote another infamous phrase around here; “you’re entitled to your opinion, ‘but’ opinions are not evidence”. Well, talk about “confirmation bias” here, huh Q. To quote another Q-phrase line here, “no sh!t, Sherlock”. Of course the IOC will have to use what’s in front of them to ‘dictate’ what they’ll do next. That’s a given. However, don’t make it sound like I’m one of those other posters that just “randomly” is picking two cities for another double-“fetish”. Talk about always “how many times over do I need to ‘correct you’ mis-representing my position”. I have never claimed that ANY two cities would fit the double bill. You also know darn well that I’ve agreed that it has be the right combination of two cities. Though your argument before was always more ‘no can do’ than anything else. Call it “picking sides” or whatever else you want. However , if some of us don’t particular want to sit on the fence on certain subejects, that doesn’t make our arguments irrational or ‘nonsensical’ simply because you don’t want to “pick a side”.
  16. "Continental rotation" I think plays more in the sense of (at least since the end of WWII), that two consecutive Summer Olympics haven't been played on the same continent. It's not exactly a "myth", but it's also not a hard-core, linear "rule", either. It's not something "official", but rather a geopolitical *consideration* for the IOC to balance whenever they can do so. And as been already mentioned, I think for the Winter Games, CR plays less of a factor since there's less than ideal locales for those. The '92 & '94 Winter Games were both in Europe, for example. The only pattern that can really be established here, is that Europe has never gone more than 12 years without a *Summer* Olympics. But other than that, I don't see any other meaningful trend beyond the occasional IOC stray to a new continent. And what happens when a particular *country* has gone longer than a continent? Depending on who the players & factors are, I think the former should overtake the latter, IMO.
  17. As I've told you in the past, that phrase is from YOUR playbook, not mine. But if you're basically going to undermine Rob's opinion just because you don't agree with it or "see things differently", well, "good for you". But I know who's opinion I'd rather take up on this one. So yeah, I guess "good for me" if that's the case then. Of course it's "spot on", cause it's YOUR opinion. And of course the bid process has changed. But as you also like to say, "this is the IOC we're still talking about here" - who does what they want, whenever they want, however they want. There's absolutely *nothing* in the new bid process that says they can't do another double. On the contrary, the new process just makes that easier IMO.
  18. France, Germany & Sweden all seem iffy, at best, at this juncture. France is very busy preparing for the 2024 Summer Olympics, Germany's track record on Olympic bids isn't all that great (if anything, I see them going after a Summer Olympics next, than another winter bid). And Sweden is probably still reeling from their 2026 loss. And lol, you really think that the IOC is going to go with China again, only 12 years later after 2022 (especially with the big geopolitical headache the Chinese gave the IOC with those Games)? Yeah, I don't think so. If you'd said South Korea again, I'd probably give you that one. But China? LOL And if Japan doesn't want 2030 now, I don't see them being all that gung-ho for 2034, either. This is the same Japan that also passed on 2026. So if they pass up 2030, too (especially when it can basically be given to them on a silver-platter in this case), then I really wouldn't hold up too much hope with them just doing a 360 just four years later. Plus, that just brings us to the point about an "election". That's gone now (as are new-norm "buddy" around here constantly likes to remind us). Even in this GB's article, it states: "The new Olympic bidding process allows 'interested parties' to join a 'continuous dialog' to discuss hosting options before one or more cities are identified for 'targeted dialog' and a *specific* edition of the Games, so at the moment SLC and rivals are just in the pool for *any* future Games". It's that very last part, that indicates, that the IOC can basically choose whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever Games they want. The IOC has also said before, that they'll pick a host whenever "the right partner comes along". So in other words, that means that they won't necessarily wait for who else might come along if they feel they have found a solid enough *partner* for whichever Games. And as been pointed out to you already, not just by me, but by at least three other posters as well, continental rotation really isn't much at play here, & in particular for the Winter Games, where the very good options are far & few between.
  19. If push comes to shove, continental rotation goes out the window (we already have "recent precedence" for this anyway, see PyeongChang 2018 & Beijing 2022). The more pressing issue here is to have good, SOLID hosts for the Olympics, & in particular the Winter Games. Unlike the "time-frame" rule (remember that), the continental rotation thing (to use another favorite word here) is NOT a "rule". It's just something the IOC unofficially exercised whenever they could *afford* to do so. In this scenario we have here, not so much.
  20. "The IOC estimates that it will be ready to identify bids for 'targeted diglog' in December, and though it has not been specifically discussed, the IOC's Future Host Commission and Executive Board could target and elect two editions of the Games *at one time*. The dual allocation of Paris and Los Angeles has already set a recent *precedent* for this line of thinking." I guess Rob didn't get the memo from that other line of thinking, of "just because 'that thing' that happened 'once' before, doesn't mean that's how we should look at this here. And that the idea is that they address each situation differently based on the individual circumstances" mantra.
  21. “What on earth are you on about?” ”This thread is about the level of interest in hosting the 2036 Summer Games”, remember?! “You’re completely off-topic.” If you want to talk about the 2030 Winter Games, “here is the link” to it: https://www.gamesbids.com/forums/forum/138-2030-olympic-winter-games-bids/ But “this thread here that you are in now is about those interested in hosting the 2036 Summer Games”.
  22. I think we do, though, have at least some context to how 2032 (& to a lesser extent, even 2028) would've played out if the IOC had let it. Even GB's wrote a good, thorough analysis on the subject last year. For better or for worse, there was about six or seven other "interested parties" that wanted to be 'involved' early on, & a couple of those even made somewhat of a big stink when the IOC just leaped (& caught those interested parties by surprise) into naming their "preferred bidder" for 2032. So I don't think it's too far-fetched to gauge at least from that, who else could've been at play there, & also who else could've been interested later on, considering we were still 11 years out last year from 2032. And I still think that this "sudden, new super-charged interest" has to do more with FOMO (considering how the IOC handled 2032) than genuine interest actually being from the "new-norm process".
  • Create New...