Jump to content

Nacre

Premium Members
  • Content Count

    1353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by Nacre

  1. While that is certainly true, you run into another problem. Namely that corporate sponsors are going to be put under pressure to not cooperate with a host country they see as particularly wrong. I don't think you would see sponsors boycott a country like China (too much money at stake), but it might happen for Iran, Nigeria or Kazakhstan.
  2. Because they have a very strong central government that would be willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done, just as we saw last time with the summer games. Beijing would be OK for the athletes and hell for the fans.
  3. To be fair though, the US political system must look pretty weird to foreign eyes. Atlanta: explicit ban on gay marriage, executions legal and frequent, loose restrictions on firearms New York: gay marriage, no capital punishment, strict gun laws Seattle: gay marriage, euthanasia, and marijuana are all legal, but gun laws are relaxed and executions are also legal (albeit hardly ever used)
  4. It depends on what you mean by safe choice. Beijing and Kazakhstan are guaranteed to do a respectable job of holding the actual events, and any protests would be crushed within hours. I don't think you would see many international visitors to Almaty, though, and it would be a PR nightmare. And Beijing's smog is even worse during the winter. If Oslo pulls out I really hope Poland wins.
  5. Civil war seems very unlikely, but it would be even worse than it sounds if it happens because it would soon become a proxy war between Russia and NATO. The Olympics are insignificant compared to the problems facing the country right now. And saying that the bid is going to reunite the country is advocating rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
  6. I'm not certain, but I think this is a kind of game for Baron. Sort of like a debating class where it doesn't matter what you say only that you win the argument. To Baron: I am not trying to insult you. I am genuinely curious about your position.
  7. Wasn't Vancouver a step down from Torino? It's hard to compare costs since every host calculates things differently, but I seem to recall that Vancouver was cheaper than Torino, especially if you factored in inflation.
  8. Bidding and winning the bid are two different things. If Oslo publicly withdraws its bid then that will add further fuel to the fire of criticism people have towards the games. If Oslo loses in a fair fight that's not the end of the world for the IOC because they will still be left with a good winning bid. Being forced to choose between Poland and China after Norway, Germany and Sweden have all said no to the IOC would be a disaster.
  9. Baron, have you ever taken a Myers-Briggs test? (There's a free one online here: http://www.onlinepersonalitytests.org/mbti) If so may I ask what your type is? I think it would be disastrous for the IOC if Oslo pulls out, but I don't think it needs Oslo to actually win the bid. If the technical aspects of Poland's bid are solid then I think Krakow would be a good choice, and China will find a way to make things work if they win. But if the Norwegians shut the door on them then I think other people around the world may actually start to take pride in saying no to the games. Tons of people, right across the political spectrum, have been questioning the massive cost and human rights issues that have arisen in the past couple of decades.
  10. But if there clearly many more people opposed than there are in favor (55% No vs 35% Yes) then politicians have more to fear for supporting an Olympic bid than they do if they question it. And the more people question the wisdom of hosting the games the more the 10% undecided will shift to saying no.
  11. I agree that initial low public support is not insoluble, but 34.5% in favor is a pretty wretched starting position. If you kick that up to 44% is that good enough to go forward with the plan in a democratic country?
  12. How is San Diego going to make 10 billion dollars back from hosting the games? And if the initial projection is 10 billion it will probably cost about 25 billion based on past history.
  13. It's easy to talk about the US being a shoe in in 2032, but which city? Neither LA, New York or Chicago seem like locks to even be interested. Since the US economy is likely to further deteriorate by then it's hard to imagine Chicago will have a better bid for 2032 than they did for 2016. (You can't grow your way out of debt when you have a huge trade deficit and are bleeding capital.) Los Angeles is the easy frontrunner for making a bid, but I frankly can't see them having a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the IOC to go back instead to LA instead of Paris, Shanghai, etc. Any LA bid is going to be based around existing venues. That will appeal to taxpayers in the US but not the international voters.
  14. It provides ammunition for Olympic critics who argue that the games are corrupt. Progressively minded cities like San Francisco and Seattle look at things like Salt Lake City's corruption and human rights issues with Russia and China and ask why we would want to be connected with the Olympics if that's what they stand for. As for New York and Chicago . . . compare their interest to that of Madrid and Istanbul. I don't think they are good examples of cities that are ardently enthusiastic about the IOC.
  15. There isn't anywhere in the US that needs the sliding venues, though. The same thing can be said for Reno, Denver, etc. All of the other venues make sense and actually fit needs of the city. The city needs replacements for 50+ year old venues Key Arena, Mercer Arena, Memorial Stadium (could build an outdoor stadium/speed skating rink if they also used the adjacent parking lot), etc. The state also wants to expand its ski areas to accommodate local demand. A winter Olympics make sense for Seattle because it is already talking about doing most of the work required to host. It's actually reasonably well placed for the winter games. It's the closest major US city to Asia, is close to Europe if you fly over the north pole and closer to Europe than California, and is no farther from New York, Philadelphia, etc than LA is. There are a few other reasons Seattle won't want to host the games, though: money, transportation, bad memories of the SLC scandal, etc. Husky Stadium was modified because they wanted to get RID of the track. Why build a multi-billion dollar stadium just to convert it back again?
  16. Seattle only makes sense for the winter Olympics, in which case they wouldn't need Vancouver. The city council rejected making a bid for 2012 and traffic has only gotten worse since then. Seattle also doesn't have enough hotels to accommodate its regular summer tourists, and has struggled to build up infrastructure for cruise traffic. Additionally, Vancouver and Seattle are pretty far away and across an international border. It's a three hour drive between the two without traffic and without a customs delay at the border. There's also no possible use for a summer Olympic stadium in either city, IMO.
  17. Not only that. Shanghai is the largest city in the world. I don't have a problem with them bidding so soon after Beijing. You can't fault a city for bidding. If the IOC doesn't want to go back to China so soon they can simply vote for somewhere else. However I think the USA getting so many Olympics is massively overstated. Los Angeles got the games in 84 because they were the only city bidding, and Atlanta didn't face an alpha city (IE Paris, Rome, Berlin, etc.) China is free to bid again but I doubt the IOC chooses them unless they don't get another strong city.
  18. Well, they're not really alone in that! I think this is happening in every western country, not just France. It is kind of sad that we always look at the governments of other countries for these things and not at their people, but that has always been the case. We have seen before that once a country moves further along the Olympic bidding process they become much more positive. I think Gallic pride will win over cynicism if the government pushes forward a strong bid. And I think Paris is really well equipped to do just that.
  19. The World's Fair site in Flushing is really intriguing, especially with the tennis and baseball stadiums already nearby. Has there ever been any discussion about turning it into a campus for a new college? That would be a solid use for the stadium, and the athlete accommodations transition to dorm rooms has been done many times before.
  20. That's fine. But why? Right now we are caught in a three way struggle between host cities and countries which are frightened by the cost of the games and the venues becoming white elephants, the IOC which wants revenue, and the various sports federations which want their sports added/retained. The only want to satisfy all three groups is to spin off a third category of Olympic games. You could satisfy the host cities by cutting sports, but that would reduce revenue for the IOC and anger the sport federations, so it won't happen. Or we can continue to let the games grow in size and expense and watch more and more democratic countries decline to bid for the games.
  21. Don't worry. I'm sure your brand of constructive criticism will soon drive away the new posters you profess to dislike so much. My personal concern isn't the size of the city but the venues. If Boston could find some way of making a 90,000 track stadium work I'm sure the USOC would put them forward as a US bid. But almost no city in the USA has a need for that kind of stadium. Even London wasn't able to retain its athletics track for the Olympic stadium. Going forward I would be surprised if any American city other than Chicago and Los Angeles bid for the summer games in the next couple of decades. New York is a possibility if they used the world's fair site, but New Yorkers don't seem to actually want the Olympics.
  22. Personally I doubt any city will. Los Angeles seems like the only city that is even possible, and California's economy is still a concern. They are also facing a massive drought that may last several years and prove a serious distraction during the bidding period.
  23. I'm not certain if that was a joke or not, but no. CLASSIC OLYMPICS (individual/ancient sports) Ceremonies in athletics stadium. aquatics (swimming & diving) archery athletics boxing canoeing equestrian fencing gymnastics judo rowing sailing taekwondo weightlifting wrestling MODERN OLYMPICS (team/modern sports) Ceremonies in football stadium. aquatics (water polo & synchronized swimming) badminton baseball basketball cricket cycling field hockey football handball rugby shooting softball table tennis tennis volleyball This might be a dumb idea, but it fixes a lot of the problems facing current bid cities. You cut down the athletes needed as well as the venues. And you don't need a track-equipped stadium for the modern version of the games, which is the single biggest problem for a lot of cities and a massive problem for any future American bid. You can argue that this doesn't preserve the feel of the Olympics, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.
  24. I would love to see Lisbon, Dublin, or Copenhagen get the Olympics (Prague is too historic to tear stuff down to build a stadium) but I question if they are really big and powerful enough. If we are going to say that Boston, Seattle and Minneapolis are too small then so are Dublin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Lisbon, etc. I really do think that splitting off a spring or fall variant of the Olympics is the logical thing to do to reduce the size and expense to manageable levels while also giving the IOC more revenue. Then developing countries and beta cities could host the "third Olympics" and have their chance to shine.
  25. I'm not an expert in infrastructure either, but I can still dislike sitting in traffic. Consider Dallas. If a Dallas were bidding the IOC voters could experience for themselves what transportation is like in that city compared to Paris or whatever other cities are bidding. You just need to establish rules preventing the bidding city from approaching the voters. You need rules of that sort for bribery concerns anyway. I realize in hindsight that the "undercover" was a horrible choice of words to use. My point is not that the IOC should use subterfuge, but that the voters should move around independently and not be wined and dined by an organizing committee. Well, they can, but if they are staying in a 3 star hotel and given a per diem they would either have to break the rules or go into their own pocket for luxury. I don't object to them having a good time; they should have a good time in a city they are going to award the Olympics to. But I think they should evaluate what the city is like for "normal people" who would travel there for a sporting event rather than being wined and dined.
×
×
  • Create New...