Jump to content

Kenadian

Premium Members
  • Content Count

    5632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Everything posted by Kenadian

  1. Why would you assume my thoughts are based on something in my personal life? I have nothing against South Africa personally or nothing against Africa at all and I have said in the past that I would love to see the Olympic Games there. But I don't believe they are ready. Not now. Their time will come but with all the things I just don't see it being 2024. My opinion based on my observations.
  2. The South Africans will have to have a near perfect bid, but if there is even a glimmer of doubt--and there is much that could do that--they will lose to a more secure bid from Europe or even the United States. South Africa would be the smallest economy since Greece in 2004 to host the Games. Even with their economies in a 'shambles' most of Western Europe and the United States is still richer than South Africa. There are 8 to 14 US states that are richer than or comparable to the whole of South Africa. Putting a check mark over the black ring is not enough reason to give full out support to South Africa. Not yet, anyway. Give them some bid experience, some time to grow their economy, settle some problems and wear out the competitors and then they will be a force to be reckoned with. I believe their window of opportunity is about 8 to 20 years after 2024.
  3. Apples and coconuts. 2012 was in Europe so of course Europe wasn't getting 2016. Rio had failed bids for 2004 and 2012 so they paid some dues to the IOC for 2016. South Africa only had the one bid from Cape Town for 2004. It is a game of numbers, networks and realities. Brazil's population: 200 million Brazil's economy: 2,500 billion Brazil's medal haul: 16 gold since 1992 Brazil at the Olympics: Only missed one since 1920 South Africa's population: 52 million South Africa's economy:375 billion South Africa's medal haul: 7 golds since 1992 South Africa at the Olympics: Banned between 1960 and 1992 Oh and history...the longest stretch between the Summer Games in Europe: 12 years. Africa might have a shot at 2024, but it is a loooooooooong shot.
  4. There are some cities that just don't have the Olympic feel to them and New York is one of them. Let me explain...because it is a wonderful city and I love it tremendously. But New York's combination of geography, culture, population, real estate, attitude, density, history, etc. just kind of forms a stew that makes it hard for them to host the Olympics. Other cities of Olympic caliber also have this affliction. Hong Kong. Singapore. And in a way, Istanbul. It doesn't mean it can't happen. They just have specific challenges that are harder to address than London or Sydney.
  5. Oh right, Africa. That place with 13 or 14 of the 110 IOC members and a bevy of human, political and economic issues. OK let me reconsider what I said. 2024 is going to Europe.
  6. You forgot China...in the current cycle, but also the 2010 cycle with Harbin. That puts it at 22 (when you count China, your list of 8 above, the 12 hosts* and Sweden). Although I'm not sure about Finland. They have the snow and put in a bid for 2006, but they don't have the required 800 m vertical. So the other 5 or 6...maybe a few other Balkan or Eastern European countries? Croatia or Romania? The Southern Hemisphere has three 'wishfuls' (Argentina, Chile & NZ) but I'm not sure if the IOC would ever pull a seasonal change like FIFA might do with Qatar. And I sometime hear people say somethings about the Himalayas or Central Asia, but other than Almaty, they don't seem like they'll be ready for prime time for a long time. *Austria, Bosnia (Yugoslavia), Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, and the USA
  7. I've said this before, and I'll say it again...the Winter Games have two major requirements that for some are obstacles and others are flat out rule them out: natural and consistent snow conditions and a mountain ski run with a 800 m vertical drop. Years ago, I saw an interview with Dick Pound where he said that there were only 27 countries that COULD host the Winter Games. We're witnessing the bid cycle for the XXIV Games and so far 12 countries have been awarded the honour. That says two things to me. One is that we're about halfway through that list of 27 so there are some that are clearly stronger than others. The other is that IOC must have done some sort of internal review to determine places on the planet that have the ability or at least the potential to host the Games. Certainly, a flat country like the Netherlands is not on the list and a hot country like Chad is likewise excluded. But Sweden is one country that should be on that list. It is just too bad they didn't win with Ostersund for the 1994 Games.
  8. It wasn't an "unrealistic" bid. It just wasn't the normal, compact little bid that we have seen in the past. No one disputed that the distance to Are wasn't a problem. But it wasn't an unworkable problem. The IOC could have said "OK, you have 200 athletes in a different town, we can work with that this time". The games have flexibility. But the IOC could have also said "NO, too far" and I think everyone would have accepted that. After all, in a race of six cities, five aren't going to make it. I mean, we have all sorts of other ideas around that are just as "unrealistic". The long discussed off-season Southern Hemisphere Winter Games in Santiago, Mendoza or Christchurch. Pancake flat Finland proposing to host the 2006 Games. The Games returning to a tiny village. And then the most unrealistic Winter Games of all...the one's were going to see next month. But I know...there are all these folks around here who are bored with the Olympic Games in North America, Scandinavia or Western Europe. And they'd love to see them hosted in Burma, Mozambique or Uzbekistan. Yet the horrible irony is that as the Games get bigger and bigger with larger price tags and more requirements for media and visitors, it is these New Frontiers that are being proposed as potential host. Paris should lose the massive games of 2024 to Nairobi because they already hosted the puny Games of 1900 and 1924? It just seems so funny to me.
  9. Are had nothing to do with this. The Swedes pulled out because they didn't want to spend right now. If the distance to Are was the reason, it would have been expressed by the IOC so that future bids like that would also back out.
  10. Allowing a poor country to overspend on a two week sporting event in the name of personal glory is hardly a victory for pragmatism. Although I guess the rotting concrete of Montreal, the graffitied venues of Athens, and the big vast empty nest in Beijing are all signs of true pragmatism. Or was that egoism? Stockholm had a lot of the elements in play already. Are was going to be their big question mark. But Sweden is a pragmatic and practical country. Like Vancouver or Salt Lake, many of the venues are there already and have hosted world class events...regularly so! Sweden didn't pull out because of Are. They pulled out because they are worried about cost overruns and that is a bad message to all but the very naive or the biggest of egos.
  11. I dunno...I kinda think that any IOC supporters of Stockholm would not really support Oslo on two fronts: - the geopolitical game would mean an Olympic Games in one Scandinavian country pushes the hopes of the other off by 20-30 years. - if there's a desire to try a 'new frontier' or 'something different' neither Oslo nor Norway represent that. In both cases, Krakow benefits.
  12. Oh come on! The IOC loves totalitarian regimes. They get sh1t done with big shiny venues and lavish ceremonies without any of that nasty protesting, public consultation, democracy bull.
  13. I'm a bit disappointed but not surprised by this news. The Swedes are a pragmatic bunch and while this bid had a big problem with distance to one of the venues, Swedish pragmatism proved to be the biggest gap to overcome. I almost expect Lviv will drop out, too. And in that case, maybe the IOC will just let the remaining four pass through? But at this point, I think it will be an Oslo v. Krakow showdown. While we are definitely going to see more Olympic Games held in Asia in the future, three Asian-hosted Olympics in a row is really unlikely.
  14. Ceremonies aren't supposed to 'top' previous ones. They should instead reflect the moment and place in which their held. Stop comparing and enjoy. Unless, of course, it sucks.
  15. Let's just put it this way... Oslo is a slide back to an old fling. Beijing is a reliable drunk dial booty call. Stockholm is a long distance love affair. Krakow is bi. Almaty is a blind date. And Lviv is going to get dumped by text before the first date.
  16. No, that would have been Kenadian-eh-whats.dat.a-boot-hein-oui-bonjour. But logging in with that everyday would have been a nightmare.
  17. I used to go by the name "Kendegra" when I signed up here years and years ago which was a portmanteau of the lady in my life and her car (Kendra drove an Acura Integra). I explained that one years ago when this subject was first raised. Sort of a silly choice, really, and people often thought it was female, which the base of it was. So when I got the chance to change it, I made it "Kenadian" to keep some of the old branding yet reflect my nationality (I'm from Canada). So if you thought my real name was Ken...you're wrong.
  18. But the Olympics do have a global following. Take a look at this silly board. Every continent has been represented at some point.
  19. But Toronto is not Montreal. Besides, I really don't think Toronto will land the 2024 Games. That year just has 'Europe' written all over it. The Olympics never go more than 12 years without a stop in Europe. That will change in the future as countries, cities and athletes in Asia, South America and Africa develop into more modern places with the ability to host. But for now, the cycle points to Europe. And a winter Olympics in Toronto is not feasible. There are no suitable mountains anywhere near the city. All the best ski resorts in Canada are thousands of kilometers away in British Columbia and Alberta. Quebec has the biggest resorts in the East and their mountains still fall short of Olympic standards.
  20. I don't think you can flat out rule against Paris' chances. Their 2008 and 2012 bids were highly rated by the IOC and they have excellent infrastructure. If South Africa bids for 2024 and Durban is the South Africa bid, they have a lot of barriers to overcome. WC 2010 is a feather in their cap, but with the Olympics, we're talking about a different bird here. One sport spread over a country and a month, vs. 25+ sports in two weeks in one city. I think they'd gain more from a successful Commonwealth Games than the World Cup.
  21. If you've ever been to South Africa, you'll see their problems are bigger than any of the other leading contenders mentioned for this cycle - poverty, crime, violence, AIDS, mediocre transport, a huge disparity between the well off and the not well off, and so on. You might even start to question why such a country would put an expensive elite two week sporting event ahead of all these problems. Yes, you can say the same for Brazil, China, Russia...even London, Chicago or Vancouver. But South Africa's economy is much smaller and less developed than any of those economies and their problems are much, much bigger. I'm not writing them off for 2024 and I too would someday like to see Africa host the Olympics. When they are ready and the time is right. But I certainly wouldn't say Durban's funky stadium and the "Final Continent" argument give them the upper hand at this moment. Some of you may be bored with the idea of an Olympic Games in Rome, Berlin, Toronto or San Francisco but there are serious, serious issues to consider here and keeping you entertained isn't one of them.
  22. Curious...of those of you who are pretty much handing the 2024 Games to South Africa, how many of you have ever been there?
  23. Folks on this board certainly like to inflate South Africa's chances. They have a couple of things in their favour. But they also have a hellava lot more going against them.
  24. Well, FIFA does things in a funny way. Back in 1966, they picked the hosts for 1974, 1978 and 1982. And then in 1974 they ratified Colombia as host for the 1986 tournament. All of these well over a decade and some of them in 'shaky' countries...that's a lot of time and a lot can happen. And in some, a lot did! The IOC only plans things out 6 or 7 years ahead of time. Imagine if in 1980 they picked Moscow and Sarajevo for the 1992 Games?
×
×
  • Create New...