Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by FYI

  1. Careful now. We don't want to talk about in here why the 2030 host hasn't been selected yet, even though a couple of the 'continuous dialog-ers' for that race already "ticks all the boxes", when this thread is about the "crowded field of interested parties for 2036". Nevermind that all of this still intertwines with the holier-than-thou "new-norm" that some around here treat like the Bible in virtually every single thread that they're in.
  2. Don't see that happening, unless no solid 2036 European bid emerges. But the IOC will surely try very hard to fish for one, though.
  3. I don't think the IOC really cared/s about how much money these bid cities put out before. That's just more of their PR propaganda spin to make themselves look good while pretending to be frugal at the same time. Their hand got forced to do something about their bad PR image that their previous bidding process was causing with cities fleeing the other way. I've said it before, & I'll say again, but I firmly believe that if the IOC can go back to the "good 'ole days" of how they did bidding business before, they'd do it in an Olympic sprint second. They're not fooling anyone (well, almost anyone) with all their feel good PR spin, other than perhaps themselves.
  4. The only city that comes to mind under that criteria is Atlanta. I know you said two decades before, but it was still the U.S.' first bid after having hosted L.A. 1984. Even the USOC wasn't expecting to win 1996, because it was still viewed as too soon after L.A., so that makes it even more of an anomaly, since the initial expectation was to bid again for 2000. And back then, remember how some of these bid cities mainly used their first attempt as a "warm-up" bid. And Turkey even made it into some kind of law, that they were going to win until they won. So they certainly weren't turned off by the old bidding process. When it comes to PR, anything that the IOC says always seems to be disingenuous at best.
  5. Funny, yet you had no trouble posting this in the "2036 interest thread", which made reference about the *2030 race* in there. Go figure.
  6. Not really. It still has to do with the new-norm that you're constantly promoting. Again, that's just your way of conveniently deflecting what you don't like to hear.
  7. Nice way of trying to deflect. But it still has to do with the "new norm" that you're constantly promoting all over the place around here (so you never really know where it ends or where it begins). And the Pyrenees bid is suffering from more than just in-fighting, but also from a NOlympics movement & looming referendum that also threatens the bid to ultimately "withdraw".
  8. And the IOC *loved* it all, until it was FORCED to do something about their wild ways. They were like a bunch of party boys, until everyone was told that it was 'last call'. They'd do it all over again, if it was open bar night.
  9. Right, because remind me how much of a solid ground, Sapporo, Vancouver & the trainwreck that it the Barcelona/Pyrenees bids are, that's suppose to be for the first (2030) winter Games to be elected under the 'new-norm' procedure.
  10. If initial interest is your argument (which is what you're doing for 2036), then the previous withdrawals don't matter, because the "interested parties" were there at the *very beginning* - 'like it or not', that's how those races happened, too.
  11. It's not difficult at all when you look at them without an agenda in mind. The way the new-norm is designed, also doesn't really a allow for a flood of actual bids, either. So IDK what exactly you're trying to get at here, when it contradicts exactly what you're trying to promote.
  12. The withdrawals isn't your argument here, though. It's the "interested parties". So which is it? Cause it can't be both, so pick one.
  13. No, it was explained to you earlier, but you're *intentionally & deliberately* skewing the data to suit your own argument of "the new-norm is the next best thing since sliced bread". You're only counting the ACTUAL bids in these races, but yet for 2036, you're including those media reports that you're so found of. Well, for those previous races, we also had media reports & domestic NOC bid races that can all be labeled as "interested parties", too, & they increase the numbers by far. So please STOP being so disingenuous here, just so you can push your 'great new-norm' agenda.
  14. The IOC has never been short on "interested parties" wanting to discuss hosting any Olympics. It's not something "new" for 2036, like you keep trying to portray it. But as others have already pointed out, it's the *quality*, not the "quantity" that matters the most here.
  15. ^LOL, that argument sounds so ironically familiar from another past member who's acronym coincidentally was also AFan (but of a different Games). When the USOC was planning to bid for the 2024 Olympics, they said that they were going to run the domestic nod process that time "low-key" & behind-closed-doors (after their two previous recent losses, 2012 & 2016, at the time). So they weren't going to publicly mention which U.S. (alpha) cities they were in contact with, other than sending an "invitation" to 35 U.S. cities (or unless those cities themselves made some form of declaration of their "interest" or discussions with the USOC). But of course said member was so adamant that we "simply don't know" & "don't have enough information" & we're only on the "sidelines" to really know who the USOC is actually in contact with, even though common sense dictated who they likely were in contact with, & most likely who they weren't in contact with due to the current circumstances &/or stances of some of those U.S. (alpha) cities at the time to endeavor on a(nother) Olympic bid. But in the end, all of their arguments didn't add up because they wanted to read the tea leaves differently in promoting other U.S. (alpha) cities to come up to the plate, other than L.A. which we wound up with anyway nonetheless. This is not that much different from that scenario. Some common sense dictates who the IOC, is or isn't, in "continuous dialog" with. And if they are, how likely is it that an actual bid would materialize from some of these said places. Not knowing or some of these places 'understandably wanting to keep a lid on things' is a vague (& familiar) counter-argument, since it can just as easily not really be a 'crowded field of interested parties' as the IOC & some others would like to suggest otherwise.
  16. Yeah, if we're going to count every nook & cranny "interest", then the list for prior races really outpaces anything now, & the new-norm really hasn't super-charged interest at all. If anything, I'd say that it's DECREASED from the past. In addition to what you've mentioned, there's also the 2012 & 2016 U.S. domestic nomination races, which those alone saw about a dozen other cities showing 'interest' that never even made it to the application stage. Like Seattle, Tampa/Orlando, San Francisco, San Diego/Tijuana, Dallas, Houston, Washington DC/Baltimore, Pittsburgh & Cincinnati. And of course who can forget Las Vegas' rogue attempt for the 2020 Olympics. And so many other international mentions that are too long to list. But this notion that the new-norm, along with Brisbane's 2032 coronation, has somehow "super-charged" interest is a myth.
  17. No, no. We can't have just the "G7" nations host (as some say around here). The other 195+ nations of the world deserve a chance to host, too!
  18. This just reminds of the 'ole "if Atlanta can do it, so can we" arguments from the past, whenever someone would come in here & try to make a case for the other Atlanta's & Brisbane's of the world. How many times has it been said around here that every bid race is different, & therefore, the dynamics of every bid race will also be different. And with the IOC being able to just cherry-pick whoever they want now, that'll just make them that much more discriminate. Atlanta getting 1996 & Brisbane getting 2032 doesn't really prove anything, other than them being at the right place, at the right time (& in the case of the latter, it also greatly helped having a VP in the EB). That doesn't automatically mean, though, that other cities like them will prevail in the future, simply because they are just like them. The IOC is so much more involved than that.
  19. There really is no need for posting all of this, & in particular from the older bidding races, since a lot of that information is already on the GB's home webpage anyway, under *historical bid results*. And many of us here also already know this info from following many of those Olympic races from before. This is just redundant.
  20. Considering that it's the host cities that basically flip the entire bill to host those athletes & the sports they're involved in, at the world's biggest sporting venue, then these cities getting some form of return/recognition for their hard, working Olympic efforts is at the very least reasonable to expect. ,What attracted me to the Olympics to begin with, IS the "traveling circus" (as you call it) nature of the event. The globalism, the different cultures of each different host. I certainly felt excited about every different Summer Games from 2000-2020 (pre-pandemic of course). And it's that same appeal what has me excited about Paris 2024 & Milan 2026. I don't think that the Olympics would have the same impact if it were stationary in one locale or two (& that would bring it's own set of unique challenges as well if that were the case).
  21. The Olympics, in all actuality, are now more of a business, than just merely an athletic event anymore. Everyone & their grandmother, now want a piece of that Olympic pie. So while selecting an established number of hosts cities sounds good in theory, in practice it most likely wouldn't work as well. Although lately, we are seeing a number of more repeat hosts than ever before. But I think that's still more of a case-by-case basis rather than just being "established".
  22. That's probably because you're, more or less, just as guilty of said behavior, so of course you don't get it. Although, albeit, your conduct is not as extreme as "that guy", at least IMO anyway, since I do look at most your posts, shrug & just move on. Since I really don't care about your ceremony idiosyncracies or where the placements of flag poles should be, nor about how much airtime should the Spice Girls get at the next London Olympics.
  23. They must have wet dreams about this new-norm mumbo-jumbo. Instead of counting sheep at night, they must count new-norm power-points & that "crowded field of interested parties".
  24. Ya know, there's a saying that it's also wise of when to know to throw in the towel & maybe try again later, instead of stubbornly trying to move forward with something so futile. That strategy hasn't worked out too well for them in the past. But I guess some never learn.
  25. I only see 11 active cities on that bold list. That's the same number of "interested" cities that the IOC had for the 2004 Games. And how many of those are for the 2040 Games, as Bach also indicated? So then that means the number is even less for each 2036 & 2040. So then NO, 'the new bidding process' has NOT "supercharged" interest because of Brisbane's 2032 anointment. That's just pure hyperbole.
  • Create New...