Jump to content

Nacre

Premium Members
  • Posts

    1424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by Nacre

  1. Back to Japan . . . The original plan was for 50,850 security personnel during the games. I thought that one saving grace of having no spectators would be a reduction in that number. Yet somehow they have actually increased the number of security staff to 59,000! https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASP7J5KK4P7GUTIL00H.html?ref=tw_asahi (link in Japanese) The escalating security costs are going to make it impossible for future hosts to avoid heavy financial losses even without risks such as Covid.
  2. The Canadian government invests in Vancouver which increase Canada's GDP, which in turn creates more tax revenue for the government, which can be spent across Canada including in Toronto on stuff like the 2015 Pan American Games. Are you opposed to all federally-funded projects in Canada? higher wages in a community = higher cost of living in that community I really wish that wasn't true, but it is. A growing economy in both Vancouver and London's east end inevitably means higher prices to live in those places.
  3. By improving Canada's overall economic performance, which is why governments fund transportation even without the Olympics. Vancouver's economic success benefits all of Canada. It's hard to point the Olympics as having a causal role in this, but Vancouver was the best performing area of Canada in the years after their games. The east end of London also saw significant economic growth and gentrification after 2012, although that also unfortunately inevitably raised housing prices.
  4. My point was actually the opposite. The IOC probably would have given Sapporo a future winter games already if the Japanese wanted them enough to promise to support a bid. They did not before, and Sapporo certainly will not be in "continuous dialogue" about hosting a winter games after the economic disaster the "2020" Olympics have become. In fairness I think a future winter games is much safer and more sensible for Canada than the summer games have been for Japan. Calgary is building a new arena for the NHL anyway, McMahon stadium needs to be renovated whether Calgary hosts the Olympics or not, the ski jumps already exist and either need to be demolished or refurbished, the city needs another CTrain line, and so on. There would be much less Olympic-specific expense than has happened in Tokyo. And by tying in a new CTrain line, public housing/village, venue upgrades and so on to another Olympic bid, you and other Canadians would get both a better #4 city and the pleasure of watching team Canada beat the USA in front of a home crowd. Is that worth $100+ in public subsidy per Canadian household? Only Canadians can answer that.
  5. The problem is that the Japanese probably don't want the IOC, not that the IOC doesn't want Japan. Bach might have given them another winter games under the table before this ever started (just like they did for LA and Brisbane).
  6. Many people in Japan are interesting in seeing their athletes compete and the Olympics they are hosting. Most people in Japan are very unhappy about losing $20 billion on the Olympics and wish they could somehow both avoid losing the money and having to host (a thus far small number of) people who are bringing Covid along with them. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
  7. Russia essentially built a new city for that amount of money, though. And (partially due to western sanctions preventing Russians from going to the west) that city has become a booming tourist town. What will the Japanese get in exchange for the $20 billion investment? I don't know if it's been mentioned upthread, but Toyota, Panasonic and other Japanese companies are pulling their Olympic ads on domestic Japanese television. These games have become a toxic brand in Japan, and no one with any sense would want to be associated with the disaster.
  8. I see your point. Long Beach - Los Angeles - Sherman Oaks: 72 km Gold Coast - Brisbane - Sunshine Coast: 184 km In fairness even Tokyo is doing this with track cycling in Izu: 130 km away from Tokyo proper.
  9. It has not fully reformed, but he has at least bought them another 11 years in which to change their way of doing things. I remain dubious that a spread out plan is going to work well. (Having everything in one city makes logistical issues a lot easier.) But they absolutely have to do something to break the sports up into smaller groups. I would prefer four games instead of two, but regional bids like the Gold Coast regional bid for 2032 is the other viable way to achieve it. I think we have to wait until after 2032 before we can judge Bach's tenure.
  10. I think that the biggest problem is that Australia and Britain are something of a crutch for the CGF. Even in relatively prosperous countries like Canada and New Zealand there is little desire for the kind of games that were hosted in Glasgow and the Gold Coast. It was hard to force through drastic reform when there were still some bidders available. But taking large sums of public money away from other areas and diverting them to sporting venues is a really hard sell in places outside of Australia and the UK. Hence the difficulty in getting games in Canada or South Africa across the finish line.
  11. Which is more important to the Japanese government, looking bad in the eyes of the IOC and Olympic fans in the rest of the world, or looking bad in the eyes of their own citizens? The Japanese people are going to be enraged (even moreso than they are already) at having to foot the bill for the Olympics when they cannot even attend the events. The logical course of action for the Japanese politicians and head of state is to take every opportunity to show the people of Japan that it's the IOC and sporting federations that are pushing this forward and not them. Especially since they need to distract the public from the fact that they failed to begin vaccinations quickly.
  12. Unfortunately I think Quaker is right, and a fight will begin to shift blame between Japan and the IOC. If I were the PM or Emperor of Japan, there's no way I would agree to attend the ceremonies and open the games, for example.
  13. I wish the USA would wait a bit before hosting this. The tournament has never before been hosted by a team outside of the top 10. (Japan is ranked #10, while the USA is ranked #16 in the world.) Watching the US national team get its teeth kicked in will not really "grow the game" among Americans.
  14. The problem is that as long as India (the BCCI) does not want cricket in the Olympics there is no chance of it being added. It's comparable to the USA not wanting basketball in the Olympics.
  15. The only realistic choice is London. Capital costs would be near zero with the venues from 2012 re-used and no additional transport systems or hotels would be needed.
  16. If B.C. did not want to provide a small amount of funding for the World Cup, it's hard to imagine that the province will be willing to spend vastly more money on a project with substantially less public interest and commercial return.
  17. Since it is a huge annoyance for even an American city to host the President, I am not sure that others countries will be in any way disappointed if the US government declines to attend the Olympics. It is the equivalent of trying to punish someone by giving them free candy. I don't disagree. But the common people that vote for those politicians do care about Tibetans and Uighurs, and mostly do not believe or understand that China has surpassed us as the most powerful country in the world.
  18. It's not just that. An Olympic boycott would play right into the CCP's narrative that the USA is merely angry with China for surpassing it as the most powerful country in the world, instead of being genuinely concerned about China's behavior.
  19. I don't see any point in spreading things about. London has existing venues and can host on its own. A northern England bid of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield would have to build new venues (for athletics maybe a new stadium for Everton?) but they have quite a few existing facilities (large arenas, the velodrome in Manchester, etc) and certainly have the population base to host the games on their own. Why not pick one area or the other?
  20. I am not a European, so maybe I am wrong. But to me it seems like UEFA would be happy to have countries like Ireland and Sweden host, but those countries do not want the burden of building many new stadiums and hosting on their own. So this was the only way for UEFA to put their tournament in countries like Ireland, Belgium, Sweden and Bulgaria that would not have been willing to host on their own. It is easy to blame sports organizations, and some of that blame is even deserved. But they also face legitimately difficult decisions. Spreading events out over a larger area creates logistical problems, yet it also reduces the burden on any individual community.
  21. Romney is a sensible person. If it not a stronger message, it is at least a more constructive message. Doing nothing lets China believe there are no consequences for its bad behavior. Meanwhile publicly insulting the Chinese people through an outright boycott will drive China to become more jingoistic and make it harder for moderate politicians in the Chinese Communist Party to work towards reforms.
  22. Beyond the fear of cost overruns, I think one of the major concerns is that people no longer see the benefits of hosting as a real benefit. When handled well, mega events can be useful tools for urban redevelopment. But unfortunately gentrification is now a dirty word, as people want both low housing prices/cost of living AND high wages in a thriving economy. (Never mind the fact that this is a contradiction: your cost of living is your neighbors' wages.) The success of London 2012 in gentrifying east London has not been entirely welcomed, for example. In Canada I think the desire for cultural connection to the UK remains strong, as it is a major part of their national identity. (Along with ice hockey and pretending to be able to speak French.) But very few people in Canada care about sports like netball or track cycling, and very few people watch the games or even know when they are being held. I think the Commonwealth Games should become a Commonwealth Festival with culture (music, arts, cuisine, etc.) given an equal share of the focus with sport. As a semi-outsider it seems like the other countries of the Commonwealth still care a great deal about cultural ties with the motherland and each other.
  23. It really is a shame that Quebec City is not suitable, though. It's probably the most European city in North America, has a long tradition of winter sports (even without the NHL), and is certainly cold and snowy enough for a winter games.
  24. They could if they really wanted to, because they should not need to build any new venues in Vancouver and the Commonwealth Games Federation would likely accept a reduction in venue sizes to get a Canadian bid.
  25. Whistler is quite a distance away from Vancouver, but of course it was the same distance in 2010. So I don't understand why Vancouver's bid would need to be any more regional than it was in 2010. The new venues built for the 2010 games were converted into community facilities after the winter games. But they ought to be able to reconvert them for competition use. If that isn't viable because of local politics then the bid ought to be scrapped. If they are planning to use venues in the provincial capital of Victoria, then they ought to simply forgo hosting. The journey between Vancouver and Victoria takes more than three hours by car and ferry - too much for officials and volunteers going back and forth between the two a couple of times per day. With a border pass it's actually quicker to get from Vancouver to Seattle if there's no traffic. I understand the need for regionalization, but people need to understand that the logistical challenges of hosting the games are already huge. At the 2010 games some volunteers in Whistler were getting back home to Richmond and Surrey at 4 AM or later after their day. Taking away several more hours of sleep means potentially going without sleep at all.
×
×
  • Create New...