Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

donutman88's Achievements


Bronze (3/16)



  1. I've always been a fan on the Summer Olympics more but overall I think Sochi turned out well. The big problem I saw was that 1/2 of virtually every sporting match/venue (in the Coastal Cluster, can't tell about the Mountain Venues) were empty. I liked the look and loved the location. As an engineer this would be a dream to get a blank check and get to build a city from scratch just for the Olympics. (Not cost effective I know, but pretty cool) I have to say though that after about 3-4 days of action I got fairly bored of most of the sports, as I usually do at the Winter Olympics, so I can't say this is Sochi's fault. It's like watching the same thing over and over again for 2 weeks straight, no spacing out of the sports and disciplines. Overall though, a fun and certainly interesting Olympics. I doubt Russia will get the Olympics again until at least the 2040s, maybe 2050s, so I hope they enjoyed it.
  2. If the US doesn't bid now they really are idiots. Yes, they might lose, but it certainly gives them the best shot in quite some time. If either France or South Africa doesn't bid, then the US really couldn't ask for anything more.
  3. Exactly. As I posted like an hour ago, I'd even argue 6 or 7 is good enough.
  4. Well here is what I've always wondered....why the heck does FIFA need so many stadiums for the World Cup, because in reality, they don't. In Brasil, they have double that in 12 stadiums, but why? It's true, people in those 12 cities "love" (I don't know what to say with the protests) to see soccer so close to their homes, but why 12 stadiums. Each one has like 3 to 5 matches total over the course of 2 to 3 weeks, when you could just as easily double that number to 6 to 8 matches over 2 to 3 weeks (14-21 days) with half the stadiums and so forth. This is really ridiculous in a place like Qatar where billions upon billions are being blown on 12 stadiums that post-cup will get very little use, all within very little distance of each other. Less stadiums equals less money and for goodness sake, in the case of Brasil, less travel for sure. That is why the venture turns into such an expensive one, and the reason I brought this up was because you guys are arguing over the distribution between joint nations.
  5. Yea Baron has a point. One change throws the entire rest of the sequence off. As great as this sequence would be in my opinion, it's not going to happen, simply because things change.
  6. I wouldn't say 90%, but a lot of people certainly do. Especially with all the internal bribery allegations that surfaced post selection. I agree, no definitive proof from FIFA itself. And as I said above, I wouldn't say 90% of people believe it was bribery, but a large number do. And again, no definitive proof from people like Garcia, but the internal and scandalous allegations that surfaced post selection do point to a good possibility of bribery. But who isn't to say that bribery hasn't been involved for a long time with FIFA, it just so happened that this time it was Qatar.
  7. I like 3 of the bids, those being Krakow, Stockholm, and Oslo. But what disappoints me is that only one of these cities can win, and it isn't likely any of them would win again until 2030 or even bid again at all. I think Krakow will continue to bid to get the olympics, but judging by the skepticism that went into the Stockholm and Oslo bids, I worry if they lose they won't bid again, but I really want to see an olympics in Krakow sooner than later. I think 2026 will go to North America, 2030 back to a new frontier or maybe Europe, and then you are looking at 2030 or maybe even 2034. It would just be disappointing if these cities stop bidding, especially Stockholm/Oslo, if they don't win.
  8. Is that www.krk22.pl a real web address? Because it isn't working for me....
  9. Is this not similar what happened to Rome in its 2020 bid? I was reading on another forum how the IOC would never live it down if Oslo didn't bid after the deadline, but I'm pretty sure that already happened to Rome....
  10. Well, I have a different meaning behind the word "boring." Believe me, any olympic games are fun, but I've always felt that the olympics should go somewhere new unless there really is no choice but to bring them back somewhere again. Oslo would provide a great games, I just always like to see them go somewhere new
  11. Completely agree. I don't know what it is, there is just something about Krakow that makes me want to see the WOG there. The only other one I wouldn't mind seeing would be Stockholm, but they still haven't officially bid yet. Beijing is polluted, Lviv is just plain weird, Oslo is kind of boring to go back there again, and Almaty interests me, but I just don't think Kazakhstan is quite the right place to have the olympics just yet.
  12. It certainly sounds like it. They didn't come out with the "yes we will" statement but the mere fact that they are to decide on Tuesday, 2 days after the Munich vote, makes it sound like they were definitely waiting on the Munich result. Now that Munich said no, I'm pretty sure Sweden stands a pretty good chance of saying yes
  13. At least Stockholm will likely join now...I've always been a fan of them over Oslo and the others
  14. I certainly hope Stockholm bids. I love watching bid races with tons of cities, and this one certainly has that written all over it. 7 cities bidding for one winter olympics? Much more entertaining than 2020. If Munich doesn't bid, and Stockholm does, I would tend to think Stockholm would be the favorite over Oslo.
  • Create New...