Jump to content

FYI

Members
  • Posts

    13,542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    240

Everything posted by FYI

  1. Sure, one can obviously go that route (& if they can afford to). But since many consumers nowadays are basically driven by price (otherwise, retailers like Walmart, Amazon, & now the latest cheap fad - Temu, wouldn't be so popular), those people are always going to go for the cheapest option no matter what. Also, it's easier to do that with some items, like clothing & shoes, for example, then with others, like TV's or appliances. It use to be that those pricey items use to last years, if not decades, before they needed replacements. Nowadays, it seems the more expensive these high-ticket items like those TV's & appliances are, the quicker they malfunction (& a lot of it has to do with all that extra stuff they add to them these days, that in most cases, aren't really necessary). And many times, it's not even worth the bother to get them repaired, cause a new model would not cost that much more to get VS fixing the older, broken one.
  2. A lot of things not lasting nowadays is cause they're Chinese junk anyway that's widely available just about everywhere now. With most people not wanting to break-the-bank in buying everyday items, what does one expect. Plus, a lot of these companies intentionally make things to break or wear out after just a few months or a year or two of use. Cause otherwise, they know that their revenues would drastically fall if they make their products "too good" & last years. It's kinda like the pharmaceutical companies: they don't make cures, they sell treatment plans.
  3. Well, isn't influence what usually decides these things anyway. I mean, it's not like Brisbane was/is the epitome of an out-of-the-park proposal/bid (which, as has been witnessed over the last 3.5 years & counting). They got catapulted into the Olympic realm mainly based on the influence of one IOC higher-up who had a "score to settle".
  4. Even Atlanta 1996 had one. Albeit, not a very extensive one at the time, but still had one nonetheless.
  5. Yes, exactly. I still think 32 years between hostings, for a smallish nation like Australia, relatively speaking, is 'too soon'. People still bemoan for the U.S. hosting too much, but the U.S. is still 10x's the population. And I would very much have to agree with him, that it would be.
  6. Oh, one thing about most of these cities now (with the exception of Boston & Philly), they'd more than likely have to host outside the July/Aug. hosting window & into the fall, since most of those cities are HOT(lanta) as hell now in the summer months here.
  7. And that's fine. No argument there. Cities needs to improve with time. It just seems, though, that Brisbane has put the cart before the horse. I still think that Brisbane should've easily waited another decade (there was a video I posted a few months ago in one of the Brisbane threads where someone there talked about that very point). Or Melbourne should be hosting 2032, then the next time around it could've been Brisbane. Minneapolis would be better suited than Orlando. Orlando, probably much like Brisbane, would require a much more regional effort. But either way, the Olympics would be quite a stretch for either city. Besides the big three in the U.S. NYC, Chicago & L.A., it probably comes down to Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia or maybe even Atlanta again. Maybe Phoenix, that's a rather large area now, almost the size of Atlanta metro these days. Boston would've been nice to, better alternative than L.A. Just too bad that they didn't want it in the end.
  8. Really? For starters, it's no secret that the transport to & from QSAC is going to be "extremely challenging & costly to facilitate", to say the least, during Games time, since it's on the outskirts of the city.
  9. Venues aside, I still have concerns over the transport links with a venue plan that is so spread-out, which even regional leaders have said repeatedly needs to be addressed for an effectively staged Games. L.A. & even Atlanta today, though, are still much larger cities than other smaller U.S. cities that are comparable to the size of Brisbane now. That's why I gave you that list of other U.S. cities that would be more-or-less similar in size, & you said that you still questioned the capability on many of them.
  10. Because the verdict is still out on that one. The 2032 Games are still 8 years away. Let's wait & see how those Games turn out first before we start claiming success prematurely to a smaller Games. Well again (to borrow you-know-who's line), we'll just have to 'wait-&-see'. Well, exactly. And many are still questioning Brisbane's capability. So I don't see why that should be found 'offensive'. That was how long ago? Atlanta 1996 had 271 events in 26 sports. Paris 2024 had 329 events in 32 sports. And how many more events/sports will L.A. 2028 have? So much so that they have farmed-out a couple of events to faraway OKC. I bet even Atlanta today would be stretched thin to do it again.
  11. It couldn't be a model for similar-tier cities, though. Not in the U.S. anyway. The model here for hosting the Olympics is far different than in other countries. That's what I find flawed & exaggerated when it comes to Brisbane's selection, because that's not really why it got anointed in the first place.
  12. No, of course not. But unless the Summer Olympics shrink in size, which it doesn't look like it in the foreseeable future, then the pool of hosts can't expand as much as we'd like, & will have to be reserved to the larger cities. But at the same time, how much can they shrink before they start to lose the allure that we've grown so accustomed to over the years. Well, it certainly shouldn't be a select handful in an already exclusive ExCo, that's for sure. But even you yourself mentioned how NYC would be more to your liking than L.A. again. So does the line above mean that you'd be okay or as excited with a B or C-rate city in the U.S. instead (i.e. Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Nashville, Detroit, Orlando lol, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc)?
  13. Why do they need to do that? There's less than a handful of countries in Africa that could even dream of hosting the Olympics anyway. There doesn't need to be an in-depth committee formed only to come up with the obvious. Morocco is CO-hosting a WC with two other countries (well, multiple countries if you include the token matches in South America). So it's really not the same feat that South Africa did for the 2010 WC. When the IOC feels comfortable enough to make the move into Africa, they'll do it. Of course, there needs to be a viable & reliable bid ITFP for them to want to make that move, though.
  14. Oh, come on. You know very well that a Melbourne Games would easily fall more in-line with the "new-norm" agenda than Brisbane does. And the ONLY reason why Melbourne was shoved to the wayside is because it couldn't accommodate the Games during the supposedly, more desireable July/Aug. time-frame. But as it turns out, now the calendar doesn't matter all that much anymore, when Bach has already hinted that the Games could be staged later in the year in an upcoming cycle. How convenient now for JC. He just made it to get that passed through when he did. If we have to have repeat countries, then yes, I would be more (key word there) excited if it was Melbourne instead, a much more cosmopolitan city, than Brisbane. Just like I would be more excited (just like you) had it been another U.S. city besides L.A. But notice how you said NYC & not Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Kansas City or similar-like city. That's the difference, & the line should to be drawn somewhere. Why would I be offended? On the contrary, maybe you're the one taking this a little too personally since we are talking about an Australian city here. This reminds of what Quaker has said on here before, like when the Minneapolin, Houstonian & Leipzig supporters would come on here in the past, & then take it all too personally when the rest of us (including you) would tell them that their cities were just not Olympic material. So did that really mean then those other cities 'offended' us in hosting? Why are you taking my non-excitement about Brisbane as 'offense'? I'm not that particularly that excited about L.A. either BTW, so your assertion would be totally wrong. What I actually find 'offensive' though (more than anything else) is how Brisbane came to be ITFP, which has absolutely *nothing* to do with the city itself. Regardless, I still say that Brisbane needed more time to grow as a city, which is seemingly quite apparent, before being thrusted into the Olympic spotlight so early.
  15. Well, the IOC had a different sentiment in mind, when they told the BOA, after their Birmingham & Manchester losses, that if they wanted to win an Olympic bid, that they needed to bid with London & none other. And what happened only a couple of years after that message (when the U.K. was preparing a bid)? London won the 2012 Games. And at the same time, though, it's also these glamorous & prestigious cities that can easily accommodate a 21st Summer Olympics & who would be much more "agenda2020/new-norm" complaint. What's more "regularly"? If we're talking 20 years or so, sure. I also don't want to see London or especially Paris again anytime soon. But considering the Olympics are a once, every four-years event (that not every city in the world will get to experience anyway, so only the best, or at least a notch or so below that, should step forward), I don't think that we'll have to worry about that anytime soon. But again, in the meantime, we still have places like Germany, Italy (for a Summer Games), Spain, Turkey (which many here would be excited about) & India, etc still waiting in the wings. Meanwhile, we have "repeat" places like L.A. & Australia as the next two summer Games penciled in, which many would say (& which I've seen argued here before) as only the "elite & prestigeous" (or some even go farther "anglo") countries only get to host. That's not really that exciting, either. Hotlanta has do it with the hot, Georgia summers. That moniker didn't come from the Olympics. And sure, who can remember that long ago, especially when those were my very first Games to watch. However, I will always remember those horrendous pick-up trucks from the OC! The Centennial Park bombing also put a damper on things. But you were also there in person, so obviously your POV would be different, VS someone watching on TV. That said, Paris 2024 though, the excitement was still able to come right through the TV screen!
  16. Let's put that into more context, though. Paris literally waited an entire CENTURY to shine in the Olympic spotlight again. L.A. hosted twice, & will host again in four-years, during that same timeframe (you were very excited about Paris 2024). Melbourne hosted all the way back in 1956, so how can anyone be "bored" from that hypothetical prospect (especially when here again, L.A. would've hosted twice in the same timeframe)? I surely would've found Melbourne 2032 a much more exciting prospect than Brisbane. Same goes with Tokyo & London, they were evenly spaced by generations to encounter any degree of boredom. Maybe on a website like this to some it might, but in general, no one would've thought that. If there's any large Olympic cities to be 'bored' with right now, it's L.A. & Beijing (simply because they hosted two Games too close together, even though they were for different seasons). We can take it to another level though (if you want to use that argument) & say I'm "bored" with repeat countries. Australia, for it's smallish size, has hosted more than their fair share of Games, but yet they're hosting their third Games, & only 32 years from their last Games. I can still remember Sydney (they were one of my first Games to watch). So if we really want to "broaden" the appeal, how about going to countries that have waited much like longer, like Germany, or who havn't hosted at all, like Turkey or India (& speaking of, some people are still throwing a hissy-fit over the prospect of Ahmedabad). It wasn't a failure, but it wasn't exciting either. Not like London 2012 or Paris 2024. Plus, how much have the Summer Games grown since then. Brisbane right now is the about the same population that Atlanta was in 1996 when it hosted.
  17. Here's the article I was mainly talking about (it's a lenghty one to):
  18. Of course it was. There was a good GB's article that was done three years ago when the "choice" was made. There's also been plenty of other articles online on the matter. JC had a "score to settle" when Brisbane lost the 1992 bid. JC is also Bach's right-hand man. In what IOC rationale universe. besides a JC's one, do they choice a smallish city, with limited infrastructure, in a smallish-country (relatively-speaking) that just hosted (again, relatively-speaking) 32-years prior? No way in the world that would've happened in any other context.
  19. This point is always exaggerated & why the "choice" of Brisbane doesn't automatically translate that it "can" somehow be a 'template' for smaller cities to use going forward. For starters, Brisbane resides in a country with almost three-times the population of Hungary & over four-times the size of Denmark (as per your examples), where there's more taxpayers to more easily help flip the bill. Also, in a country like the U.S. where the Federal gov't does *not* give any money (other than for security) for the Olympics, you're never going to see a smaller city here like Brisbane ever be given any moola from the central gov't for all the extra infrastructure that would be needed in a U.S. smaller city, like Pittsburgh, Charlotte or Kansas City, etc. There's a reason why since the turn of the century, only large to mega-cities have hosted the Summer Olympics, & why Brisbane indeed just seems quite off in that relative recent line-up. It wasn't.
  20. "Bris-bain" The 2032 Games would be "on the verge of being moved" over JC's dead body first! So that guy needs to stop thinking that. But then towards the very end, he says that they probably are going to host it "because they're pretty far along in the planning process". lol One of the few sensible things he says is that hosting the Olympics takes a lot of infrastructure that smaller cities just don't really have. He also says how Brisbane was the "only bidder", which is why they got the Games, but we all here know the real story behind that. But if the guy can't even pronounce Brisbane how the Aussie's say it, then how can he be taken seriously anyway. Maybe a certain Brizzie booster needs to set him straight. lol
  21. Yeah, go with this one: This one looks like the aliens 👽 have just landed!
  22. Lol, & what makes it even funnier, is how Krakow is being propped up in here. A (smallish) city that didn't want anything to do with the 2022 Winter Olympics. A winter Games that would've been handed to them on a silver-platter, when all that was left to choose from was Beijing & Almaty. And now, they would be totally okay with a SUmmer Olympics, that would cost 4-5 times as much (easily in there case)? Yeah, okay. lol
×
×
  • Create New...