Jump to content

donutman88

Members
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by donutman88

  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. 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.

  3. In my personal opinion, Krakow could be hosts for the 2030 Winter Olympic Games. I still think that Stockholm/Are will get the 2022 Edition, but Krakow are showing promising signs now, so by time the 2030 Bid starts, they will be even stronger. 2026, will probably go to Usa, probably Denver. I think that they shouldn't bid with Salt Lake City, because they already hosted it in 2002, so they should give another city a chance. So, I recon 2022 = Stockholm/Are, Sweden, 2024 = Rome, Italy, 2026 = Denver, Usa, 2028 = Durban, South Africa and 2030 = Krakow, Poland. Just my opinion.

    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.

  4. Oh come on. Probably 90 Per cent of Non-Qatarie's think that they brought the World Cup. A country that has never qualified for a World Cup, who hasn't contributed to the Football World and a Small country and also a country in the middle of no where. If that is not bribery, then I want to know what is.

    I wouldn't say 90%, but a lot of people certainly do. Especially with all the internal bribery allegations that surfaced post selection.

    Where's your proof?? The special counsel, Michael Garcia, hasn't come out with anything. You will probably need to take some basic law courses, young man.

    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.

  5. The Krakow Bid is starting to grow on me, but I am still doubtful because of the joint country bid. Still want Stockholm/Are to win.

    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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Why didn't Krakow Bid with Tatra Mountains? It is nearer than Jasna, and it is the Polish side of the Poland-Slovakia Border and would of given a strong Bid for Krakow, without the risk of rejection for joint bid?

    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

  9. 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.

  10. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see a five-city shortlist. If Bach is serious about wanting bidders to show more flexibility and imagination, they'll have to put Stockholm (assuming it gets government backing) and Krakow through as a show of faith. Oslo (again assuming support) and Beijing are pretty well no-brainers in terms of ability to organise them, and I don't count out Almaty making the cut – like Baku, they have been delivering on the promises of past bids. Lviv's the only one I really discount from making it through at this stage.

    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.

  11. 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.

  12. Oslo is not boring, and will become an instant success like Lillehammer was in 1994

    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

  13. Now, I hope Krakow is going forward and submit an official bid. Neither Oslo or any of the other current official bidders excite me at all.

    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.

  14. You probably right Stockholm would take the place of Almaty in this second phase.... but I did not count in the Swedish capital as I don't feel they will bid.

    When should they make their choice clear ???

    They are supposed to make their "official" decision tomorrow or Tuesday, which leads me to believe that with a little persuasion, the Stockholm bid will proceed.

  15. So let's predict the candidate city will be shortlisted to :

    - Oslo

    - Beijing

    - Almaty

    I'd say if Stockholm bids they will be shortlisted, and if Stockholm doesn't bid there may be a very slight chance Krakow is also shortlisted because they are building all the infrastructure as we speak and the way I see it, the IOC generally tries to shortlist around 60% to 2/3 of the field.

  16. Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Lviv, Ukraine

    Beijing, China

    Krakow, Poland

    Oslo, Norway

    Stockholm, Sweden

    Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    USA

    Germany

    Canada

    Spain

    Finland

    Switzerland

    Ostersund, Sweden

    Harbin, China

    Has anybody heard anything about Sarajevo in a long while? I think its obvious they won't bid but they have just been silent for a long time now...so I'm wondering if there is something I am missing...in other words, I'm wondering how they are still highlighted in yellow....

  17. So Munich out, will Stockholm take on Oslo after all?

    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

×
×
  • Create New...