Jump to content

donutman88

Members
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by donutman88

  1. I've always, ALWAYS had a problem with the ref from this game in Marco Rodriguez. He is generally very strict, but then he comes right back and contradicts himself by letting crazy things like this happen. He is the subject and seems to be the ref all too often in controversial games and endings like this one, and is always inconsistent. He refereed two games last world cup where he sent two guys off on straight reds, one of them done with no business whatsoever in the Chile Spain game last time around. In the ITA URU game he seemed to do it again, sending off a guy on a very questionable red card and I've even read some former refs' comments it may not even have warranted a yellow judging by what else he let slip by. Yet 20 minutes later he won't give a card, even a yellow, let alone warn the guy who just bit a competitor for the 3rd time. Inexcusable. This guy's got issues with reffing, and the bigger issue is that FIFA has essentially made him their "pet" referee. He is sent to every single tournament FIFA has and refs more matches at each tournament than most anybody else, the commentator on ESPN even said yesterday he's the "FIFA Favorite." It's ridiculous, never liked the guy, and after yesterday, certainly never will.
  2. I don't see how that will happen. Poland seems to be pretty happy about their govt and just because they share a border doesn't mean riots will ensue. I think this is perfect for Krakow actually. Lviv is obviously down the tube, I agree that Oslo won't be successful because of the high lack of public support, leaving what I believe to be Krakow, Almaty, and Beijing. I doubt the IOC will award Beijing and its winter smog a 3rd straight Asian Olympics, and between Almaty and Krakow, as much as I like to see the olympics go to new frontiers, I think the IOC will go with the "safest" option left in Krakow. Slovakia seems to be pretty much 100% on board with what the Poles want to do.
  3. Anybody know when the official/detailed schedule for Rio will be released? I know a general one has been developed, and its a LONG ways off, but I was just wondering. Haven't been able to find anything in my searches over the past 6 months or so.
  4. 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.
  5. What day is it this week? I assume it's before Sochi starts?
  6. I truly see this race as another 2014 one. You have the "favorite" in Oslo (Salzburg in 2014), then 2 others cities who I see getting shortlisted (Krakow and Beijing, maybe Almaty) that although people don't see being a threat (like Sochi was), could pull it off. It'll be interesting w/o Stockholm and essentially Lviv in the race now.
  7. 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.
  8. Exactly. As I posted like an hour ago, I'd even argue 6 or 7 is good enough.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. It was awhile back when I was attending, As I was at the Tennessee vs A&M game and then I was at the Missouri Arkansas game. What I meant by trashy was that there was a fairly good degree of litter left under the stands in the halls, but then again I was at a football game. The outside of the stadium and the interior to an extent is in dire need of a facejob, because in some spots you can see stains and in certain spots cracks on the stadium. I don't know if that's been fixed but if it hasn't, that was my main issue, giving it a "trashy" look on top of the litter. I would personally like to see a Dallas or Philly bid over say another LA bid, not because of its better chances, but because I'm a fan of giving the games to new places, not bringing them back to the same ones if there are other cities, especially in the same country, capable of hosting. I think the Cotton Bowl can host the ceremonies and athletics, but they really need to renovate the place if it's going to do so. I know they've tried in the past, but the last time I checked (which granted, was like 6 years ago), it hadn't worked.
  12. I'm curious to see what stadium Dallas puts forth as its Ceremonies Stadium and if that turns out to be the same as the Athletics Stadium. For me sadly, this will be the make or break factor. I used to go to the Cotton Bowls at the old Cotton Bowl itself, and the place was a dumpster, litterly (get it, litter everywhere ). Unless serious renovations happen to that place, or Dallas decides to go with AT&T Stadium (although 100+ thousand seats is a bit extreme), I won't be backing a Dallas bid. But again, I'm curious to see what they propose for each, because the Cotton Bowl would be used for both, but who knows if they pick AT&T.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. I don't think the Olympics themselves, in the city of Sochi/in the security perimeter will be at risk, it's everybody trying to get there that will be. The fact is, Russian airport and transport security is horrible to say the least, so it wouldn't surprise me to see attacks on transportation to/from Sochi during the olympics. On the other hand, you have to get that Spectator Pass deal to get into venues and get a visa to get into Sochi, so Sochi itself should be relatively secure. Once you get there, I don't think it'll be a problem, but I'd be worried about getting there. Especially if you are taking Russian Domestic Transport, rather than flying or coming in from International Destinations.
  16. Is that www.krk22.pl a real web address? Because it isn't working for me....
  17. The forums about Krakow 2022 are correct in saying that due to Ecological and Land-Ownership Reasons, the Tatra Mtns. couldn't be used. But, I think there were just as suitable mountain skiing venues/places throughout Poland that could have been used. Although obviously they couldn't have been as far away as Are. That's why I feel it was sort of a situation where the Slovaks wanted in a bit, and the Poles thought they could use their thoughts and help, so that's why I speculated as such above, because there are numerous other ski resorts in Poland to be used that aren't the distance of Are.
  18. I wondered the same thing the first time I saw the bid idea, but quite honestly I think the Poles wanted to bid with the help of the Slovakians because, although they have never had a candidate city, they may be able to help the Polish O.C. out with advice from their previous run. And of course, I think the Slovakians really wanted in, and again this is speculation, I would think had they not worked with Krakow, they would have bid on their own, and then Krakow would have had even more competition which they didn't want. Again, all pure speculation but those are my thoughts
  19. I think it'll either be Oslo or Krakow, I know, not very interesting, but I think it's accurate. People harp on Krakow for being a dual nation bid, but it's happened before with places such as Salzburg where only a few events need to be located in the other country. Krakow is building all the new infrastructure as we speak and for a place that truly is a Winter Olympic Games country but hasn't hosted yet, I think the IOC will be intrigued by it. Although I think in the end Oslo will win the games because just like Tokyo, it is the "safe" option, in reality Krakow and even Stockholm aren't very risky either, although you could argue with Are that Stockholm is a bit risky as well.. I've always been a fan of bringing the olympics to a new place, and as much as I wouldn't mind seeing Almaty host, I think that Krakow and Poland really deserve to host the games and I think the people of Poland think so as well. Public support is enormously high in Krakow and I think the IOC should take into consideration that Poland has that support and it is a true Winter Olympics Country.
  20. Agreed. I've always seen this "shortlist" method as a way to get rid of cities the committee sees as non-credible (like Baku or as I believe Lviv) and a way to get rid of those without the infrastructure. And Let's be honest...Lviv is the only one without that infrastructure, so I could completely see 5 cities making the shortlist. Plus, with Bach's new opinions on bidding, I tend to think that for 2024, the shortlist will be gone, so to a degree, I think he will lobby for a very flexible shortlist.
  21. Let's be honest though...if Dallas is selected...the committee and likely Jones himself will find a way to get him involved. He isn't the most popular figure around, but like people on this board have been saying, he sure knows how to get the job done.
  22. I've always liked Dallas as the city the US should chose. LA is more attractive, yes, but I get really bored when the same city gets the games over and over and over again, especially in a country where 6+ cities can host the games. But, I think that AT&T Stadium would've been a great venue for the ceremonies...I never realized that since it was in Arlington, it couldn't host the ceremonies. If that is the case I honestly don't want to see the ceremonies at the Cotton Bowl without some serious renovations to the place, but I still really want to see the US pick Dallas to host the games
  23. In recent history, other than 2006, I'd say about 60% to 2/3 of the cities get shortlisted. That means you can expect up to 4 cities to be shortlisted in my opinion, but then again, maybe even 5. Obviously, Oslo and Stockholm should get shortlisted if their respective governments go thru with it. I expect one of the two governments to say no in all seriousness, and in my opinion, because of Are and because of their skepticism, Stockholm is more likely to say no, and I think they will in the end. I think that with that, Oslo would say yes and be shortlisted. However, if Sweden does end up saying yes, they will obviously be shortlisted because they have all the infrastructure and funds. Beijing is a fairly "safe" bet when you get beyond those two cities in my opinion. The way I see it, candidate cities aren't selected based on who is likely to win, they are selected based on infrastructure as a way to "weed out" the cities like Baku. Beijing has all the infrastructure and although very likely to lose, the IOC probably wants them to host down the road and as a result, will give them the opportunity to make this a successful warm-up bid of sorts. This is where the gray area kicks in. I see no way Lviv gets selected as a candidate city, but heck, you never know with this IOC. As for Krakow and Almaty, either 0, 1, or 2 of them will be selected. I see it largely dependent on Stockholm and Oslo. Should one decline, I tend to think both would be shortlisted. On the other hand, if both go thru, at least one should be shortlisted and perhaps both. Krakow, although a new concept, has the infrastructure under construction and despite people saying that the joint bid hurts their chances, I just don't see it that way. Almaty is similar. They are like Beijing in the sense they are likely to host a games in the near future and as a result, might get shortlisted because of that, but the same goes for Krakow. The way I see it, I think both will get shortlisted, because I don't think both Oslo/Stockholm will follow thru. I'd say Oslo, Krakow, Beijing, and Almaty will get shortlisted in the end, simply because I don't see Sweden following through with the Are concept, and heck, Oslo might leave the race as well. Also, I don't expect a runaway Oslo victory either, and as unpopular as it is, Beijing is a solid option, and the other two would provide an interesting new frontier for the games. I guess over the next year and a half we will see.
  24. 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....
×
×
  • Create New...