Jump to content

cfm Jeremie

Premium Members
  • Posts

    2,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by cfm Jeremie

  1. 3 hours ago, capetown2020 said:

     

    Would host Aquatics in an indoor venue (temporary setup) in Los Angeles not offer advantages for broadcasting quality, lighting consistency, and athlete conditions...Is the benefit of an existing warm-up pool adjacent to Dedeux and proximity to the Colisseum and MPC such a huge advantage?

    Not to mention a likely increase in revenue (including hospitality which should be much better at Stapple)

  2. 1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    Paris 2024: Cutting carbon emissions (insidethegames.biz) 

    Truly hypocritical.  184 barges and what? 150 buses == and all their diesel exhaust -- for an OC that could have been held WITHOUT those conveyances??  Shame on you, Tony Estanguet!! 

    We know you belong in the 20th Century but really, you believe all boats and buses still run on diesel?

    Surely you cannot be that ignorant and your hate for Estanguet is blinding you.

    And also, would you care to explain to us how you would transfer the athletes from the village to the venue of the OC, wherever that is, wihtout buses? 

    • Like 1
  3. It has been since clarified that the documents lost/stolen from a representative of the City of Paris (i.e. not the OCOG - as much as some Estanguet-obsessed maniac would have loved it) were not related to Games security.

    • Like 1
  4. 3 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

    If the IOC really wanted to demonstrate a New Norm Games, in cities with existing infrastructure, we'd be seeing 2032 in Sydney or Melbourne. If the IOC really cared about sustainability, they'd relax on the dates and gather 10 or more cities from around the world with the existing facilities to be on long term rotation-- London, Los Angeles, Sydney, Melbourne, Beijing, Tokyo, Paris, etc all come to mind here. 

    The problem with 2032 is that the contract with NBC was already signed before the 2032 Games were awarded. I am almost 100% convinced that the time window for the Games is included in the contract with significant penalties should the time window be changed.

    Hopefully the IOC can negotiate more flexibility in the post-2032 MRH contracts.

  5. 1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

    You can’t force people to come back. If people move on, they do so for reasons. Life circumstances, get new jobs, just get older and lose interest. Or the big one - Olympic bid spectating is no longer as exciting as it used to be - indeed, many people have lost faith in the integrity of the IOC and its choices following recent decisions. Or they’ve been turned off by coming to the board and finding the fun has been sucked out by people spamming IOC press releases or stonewalling and gaslighting attempts to have proper debates they don’t like.

    I can confirm that I have much less interest in engaging in this forum since it has been hide jacked by some trolls. Even if they have been on the “Ignore » list for a long time, I find it depressing to come to a topic and dozens and dozens of ignored posts with nothing in between.

  6. Actually, according to the latest rules published by the IOC (Strict eligibility conditions in place as IOC EB approves Individual Neutral Athletes for the Olympic Games Paris 2024 (olympics.com)), the IOC will seek an independent evaluation of each qualified AIN proposed by the IF.

    The above should therefore be a perfect example to see how the IOC is applying the eligibility conditions (that clearly states that Athletes who actively support the war will not be eligible).

  7. 2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    This is a double-edged sword.  If Sapporo has no hopes of winning anything until at least 2042, then it's probably a smart decision to abandon any long-term Olympic plans.  But by the same token, what happens if Switzerland 2038 isn't everything the IOC had hoped for and they need to find suitors, as they did here with 2030.

    The IOC has given the deadline of 2027 to confirm Switzerland into targeted dialogue. By then, you would still have 9 years to go before 2042 so plenty of time to find another host (China anyone ?)

  8. Yes but it is a natural track as pointed out: so you don’t have the very complexe icing system infrastructure that must be embedded into the concrete construction. Furthermore it is built every year on the same site which is already prepared by an experienced team…

    So completely different thing with what would need to be done in either Cortina or Cesana.

  9. 41 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

    Again, in repeat, Sweden’s 

    Lack of strong political support at all levels was Sweden’s huge problem.  @Sir Rols You seem to be having great trouble accepting this and have resorted to attacking me personally projecting your anger at Sweden not being elevated. 

    First, the notion of attacking you « personally » is a non-sense since, when it come to bidding process, you have no personality whatsoever, posting over and over again whatever the IOC official sources (website, document, press conferences…) without any analysis from your part.

    Second, we all know that lack of political support was the weakness of Sweden 2030. However when one read the full feasibility assessments of both Switzerland and Sweden, the difference in terms of political support is not that strong. So it is difficult to understand why both Sweden and Switzerland were not given an additional 4 (!) years to strengthen their projects…

    What’s so difficult to understand?

     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...