Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't quite understand why the US should not bid. I understand that Europe's chances for hosting has gone up due to 2020, however, since 2002 North America has only hosted 2 WOG's while Europe has held 2 SOG's and 1 WOG during the same time. It will have been only 12 years since London and 14 since Vancouver, 22 since Salt Lake and 28 since Atlanta. I understand Europe has about 50 countries and N.A. only has 2 viable countries, but Why Europe first?

This is a very rational and well-thought out post. Unfortunately, I don't believe the IOC takes the same view.

First, many feel that North America has already hosted a disproportionate number of Games. The issue is that there are very few countries in North America capable of hosting so it feels like the US and Canada get more than their fair share in comparison to Europe.

Second, many view North and South America as one continent. Therefore, they consider Rio to fulfill the unofficial American quota. This doesn't seem right at all to those of us who actually live here, but it is one way the IOC can reduce the frequency of American Games. In response, I would ask how Europe would feel if we considered them one continent with Africa, but I digress. According to IOC math, the Americas host in 2010 and 2016. Europe hosts in 2012 and 2014. Therefore, one could argue that Europe is first in line for Summer Games.

Third, two-thirds of the IOC is from Europe. They have never asked Europe to go more than two cycles (12 years) without hosting Summer Games. It is unlikely that they would do so now, particularly considering the fact that many still resist the idea of Games in the United States. If they break this 12-year pattern, they will only do so for a solid African bid.

Fourth and finally, there is enormous desire to see the Games in Africa. Whenever Africa submits a workable plan, it will host, irrespective of the quality of the competition. This is my firm view, but there are some who disagree. There are three primary continents that rotate hosting duties: North America, Europe and Asia. Then there are those places that do not fall easily into the above categories and have fewer capable hosts: Oceania, South America, the Middle East, Africa. Whichever one of the "big three" can't beat Africa to the punch, will have to wait until after African Games to host. If the IOC had a wider selection of choices for 2020, I think it is unlikely they would've returned to Asia quite so soon. However, Tokyo's bid turned out to be perfectly timed. That leaves North America and Europe to duke it out because both know Africa is waiting in the wings. For the reasons already mentioned, I believe North America is almost certain to lose that battle.

I still think the likely scenario is:

2022 Europe

2024 Europe

2026 North America (USA)

2028 Africa

2030 Europe or Asia (Harbin?)

2032 North America (Canada)

I believe the above progression would be quite agreeable to the IOC. As an American, it is not agreeable at all to me. The only way to stop this from happening is for the US to refrain from bidding for Winter Games. I am not at all convinced the USOC has enough foresight or self-restraint to implement such a strategy,

The US has been an extremely strong partner for the IOC and has helped the Olympic movement to grow into what it is. If the above pattern holds true, then the US will probably not host Summer Games again until the 40's. A fifty-year gap between Summer hostings is far too long for such an important partner to wait. I believe it will damage the power of the Olympic movement in the US, but I also believe some of the IOC may actually desire this. It may well, however, also dampen the power of the Olympic movement worldwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC certainly has some big decisions to make in the next two years about its strategy for the 2020s. Do they continue to pursue the Summer Games even though 2024 (and 2028) seems very unlikely, or do they try to cultivate a strong city to bid for the 2026 Winter Games, which they could probably have on a silver platter with any decent bid? I just don't get the sense that the IOC is all that eager to return to the U.S. for the Summer Games unless New York were to put up a strong bid.

It's because China, Japan, England, Australia, Brazil, Greece, have all and will be hosting the Olympics; it's rivals and friends and with the US diminishing image they need a strong, big, and glamorous games. They are the only top 3 GDP nation to not get the Olympics this century.

This is a very rational and well-thought out post. Unfortunately, I don't believe the IOC takes the same view.

First, many feel that North America has already hosted a disproportionate number of Games. The issue is that there are very few countries in North America capable of hosting so it feels like the US and Canada get more than their fair share in comparison to Europe.

Second, many view North and South America as one continent. Therefore, they consider Rio to fulfill the unofficial American quota. This doesn't seem right at all to those of us who actually live here, but it is one way the IOC can reduce the frequency of American Games. In response, I would ask how Europe would feel if we considered them one continent with Africa, but I digress. According to IOC math, the Americas host in 2010 and 2016. Europe hosts in 2012 and 2014. Therefore, one could argue that Europe is first in line for Summer Games.

Third, two-thirds of the IOC is from Europe. They have never asked Europe to go more than two cycles (12 years) without hosting Summer Games. It is unlikely that they would do so now, particularly considering the fact that many still resist the idea of Games in the United States. If they break this 12-year pattern, they will only do so for a solid African bid.

Fourth and finally, there is enormous desire to see the Games in Africa. Whenever Africa submits a workable plan, it will host, irrespective of the quality of the competition. This is my firm view, but there are some who disagree. There are three primary continents that rotate hosting duties: North America, Europe and Asia. Then there are those places that do not fall easily into the above categories and have fewer capable hosts: Oceania, South America, the Middle East, Africa. Whichever one of the "big three" can't beat Africa to the punch, will have to wait until after African Games to host. If the IOC had a wider selection of choices for 2020, I think it is unlikely they would've returned to Asia quite so soon. However, Tokyo's bid turned out to be perfectly timed. That leaves North America and Europe to duke it out because both know Africa is waiting in the wings. For the reasons already mentioned, I believe North America is almost certain to lose that battle.

I still think the likely scenario is:

2022 Europe

2024 Europe

2026 North America (USA)

2028 Africa

2030 Europe or Asia (Harbin?)

2032 North America (Canada)

I believe the above progression would be quite agreeable to the IOC. As an American, it is not agreeable at all to me. The only way to stop this from happening is for the US to refrain from bidding for Winter Games. I am not at all convinced the USOC has enough foresight or self-restraint to implement such a strategy,

The US has been an extremely strong partner for the IOC and has helped the Olympic movement to grow into what it is. If the above pattern holds true, then the US will probably not host Summer Games again until the 40's. A fifty-year gap between Summer hostings is far too long for such an important partner to wait. I believe it will damage the power of the Olympic movement in the US, but I also believe some of the IOC may actually desire this. It may well, however, also dampen the power of the Olympic movement worldwide.

I also have no doubt that Buenos Aries will try and get the games- eventually if the IOC keep there "Europe every 12 years" mind set no one will bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, I'd rather see the USOC go for a Winter Olympics in 2026. 2032 is likely the earliest realistic shot a U.S. city is going to have at a SOGs whether it's Los Angeles, New York, Washington. As mentioned, the door for Europe is wide open in 2024 especially with Rome and Paris. As for 2028, I'd say it's South Africa all the way if they decide to go for it. If South Africa goes for 2024 I think if they do win then you can pencil in 2028 for Europe. If Europe wins 2024 then it's all but South Africa in 2028. The only hope any U.S. bid has is if South Africa gets cold feet and decides not to bid for either 2024 or 2028.

That leaves 2032.

The problem is the US will ever get both 2026 and 2032. The IOC is not going to award Summer Games to the US one year before they host Winter Games. It will not happen.

If the US takes 2026, Canada will host 2032 and the USOC will be forced to wait until the 40's. this is a truly dismal timeframe in my view.

Correction: The US will NEVER get both 2026 and 2032.

It's because China, Japan, England, Australia, Brazil, Greece, have all and will be hosting the Olympics; it's rivals and friends and with the US diminishing image they need a strong, big, and glamorous games. They are the only top 3 GDP nation to not get the Olympics this century.

I also have no doubt that Buenos Aries will try and get the games- eventually if the IOC keep there "Europe every 12 years" mind set no one will bid.

I disagree with almost every single word you write. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is the US will ever get both 2026 and 2032. The IOC is not going to award Summer Games to the US one year before they host Winter Games. It will not happen.

If the US takes 2026, Canada will host 2032 and the USOC will be forced to wait until the 40's. this is a truly dismal timeframe in my view.

If we didn't have damn corporate fools running the USOC we may be able to wait out for 2032. I have a feeling the any 2032 bid would be promoted nationally very well. They also need to stop picking cities no one cares about anymore- most people from where I lived had no clue Chicago tried to get 2016. Yes it's nice to give them to LA, or Chicago, or NYC, but if you pick a truly national city that represents the US then you've got a good bid. That's part of why I'm supporting a Boston, Philadelphia, or DC bid. They are universally known and respected and a bid from them could receive national backing.

I guess that's why it is so hard for the US to bid- the nation is so large and spread out that no one really gives a crap when the Olympics are being hosted 2000 miles away, what are their benefits? It's not like London or Paris or Rome where the games would create big opportunities for the entire nation and give out a nice global image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very rational and well-thought out post. Unfortunately, I don't believe the IOC takes the same view.

First, many feel that North America has already hosted a disproportionate number of Games. The issue is that there are very few countries in North America capable of hosting so it feels like the US and Canada get more than their fair share in comparison to Europe.

Second, many view North and South America as one continent. Therefore, they consider Rio to fulfill the unofficial American quota. This doesn't seem right at all to those of us who actually live here, but it is one way the IOC can reduce the frequency of American Games. In response, I would ask how Europe would feel if we considered them one continent with Africa, but I digress. According to IOC math, the Americas host in 2010 and 2016. Europe hosts in 2012 and 2014. Therefore, one could argue that Europe is first in line for Summer Games.

Third, two-thirds of the IOC is from Europe. They have never asked Europe to go more than two cycles (12 years) without hosting Summer Games. It is unlikely that they would do so now, particularly considering the fact that many still resist the idea of Games in the United States. If they break this 12-year pattern, they will only do so for a solid African bid.

Fourth and finally, there is enormous desire to see the Games in Africa. Whenever Africa submits a workable plan, it will host, irrespective of the quality of the competition. This is my firm view, but there are some who disagree. There are three primary continents that rotate hosting duties: North America, Europe and Asia. Then there are those places that do not fall easily into the above categories and have fewer capable hosts: Oceania, South America, the Middle East, Africa. Whichever one of the "big three" can't beat Africa to the punch, will have to wait until after African Games to host. If the IOC had a wider selection of choices for 2020, I think it is unlikely they would've returned to Asia quite so soon. However, Tokyo's bid turned out to be perfectly timed. That leaves North America and Europe to duke it out because both know Africa is waiting in the wings. For the reasons already mentioned, I believe North America is almost certain to lose that battle.

I still think the likely scenario is:

2022 Europe

2024 Europe

2026 North America (USA)

2028 Africa

2030 Europe or Asia (Harbin?)

2032 North America (Canada)

I believe the above progression would be quite agreeable to the IOC. As an American, it is not agreeable at all to me. The only way to stop this from happening is for the US to refrain from bidding for Winter Games. I am not at all convinced the USOC has enough foresight or self-restraint to implement such a strategy,

The US has been an extremely strong partner for the IOC and has helped the Olympic movement to grow into what it is. If the above pattern holds true, then the US will probably not host Summer Games again until the 40's. A fifty-year gap between Summer hostings is far too long for such an important partner to wait. I believe it will damage the power of the Olympic movement in the US, but I also believe some of the IOC may actually desire this. It may well, however, also dampen the power of the Olympic movement worldwide.

Agree with your scenario with two exceptions. If South Africa goes for 2024, they may very well win a runaway similar to Beijing in 2008. That would all but lock up a European bid for 2028. If South Africa passes on 2024, it's Europe and South Africa is a slam dunk for 2028. Realistically, if the U.S. wants a SOGs before 2032 then the USOC has to bank on no bids from South Africa. As for 2026, I think it depends on what both Canada and the USA want. If they want a SOGs, I think they both sit out 2026 although after Tokyo's win, I think the U.S. needs to look long and hard at a 2026 bid and drop out of 2024 unless they want to sit out until 2032.

I know this is a topic for the 2022 forum, but if referendums in Munich and Oslo fail, I could see the IOC going with Almaty for 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what fantasy world can such well-travelled people consider North America and South America the same continent? Are these the same people that fell for Rio's "map" back in 2009? If its anyone's "turn" between Europe and North America, it's North America. This idea of Europe's entitlement to every third Games is outdated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with your scenario with two exceptions. If South Africa goes for 2024, they may very well win a runaway similar to Beijing in 2008. That would all but lock up a European bid for 2028. If South Africa passes on 2024, it's Europe and South Africa is a slam dunk for 2028. Realistically, if the U.S. wants a SOGs before 2032 then the USOC has to bank on no bids from South Africa. As for 2026, I think it depends on what both Canada and the USA want. If they want a SOGs, I think they both sit out 2026 although after Tokyo's win, I think the U.S. needs to look long and hard at a 2026 bid and drop out of 2024 unless they want to sit out until 2032.

I know this is a topic for the 2022 forum, but if referendums in Munich and Oslo fail, I could see the IOC going with Almaty for 2022.

I agree. 24/28 could go either way between Africa and Europe and the only way the US squeezes in is for 28 if Africa doesn't bid.

As for 2022, after Sochi and Pyeonchang, it's very difficult for me to see the IOC getting excited about anything other than a very traditional host from Europe or North America. I like Almaty, but the timing does not feel right for them. That said, if it's slim-pickings, I guess anything is possible.

In what fantasy world can such well-travelled people consider North America and South America the same continent? Are these the same people that fell for Rio's "map" back in 2009? If its anyone's "turn" between Europe and North America, it's North America. This idea of Europe's entitlement to every third Games is outdated.

I agree with you. I just don't think the IOC does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Paris doesn't bid for 2024, I think a USA bid and to an extent Toronto can beat a European bid for 2024. Look at Madrid for ex. if they are the only European bidder anything is possible.

No Rome has already said if Tokyo wins 2020 then they will bid, that probably why Madrid was out in round one.

other than the other obvious factors that made them vulnerable for elimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what fantasy world can such well-travelled people consider North America and South America the same continent? Are these the same people that fell for Rio's "map" back in 2009? If its anyone's "turn" between Europe and North America, it's North America. This idea of Europe's entitlement to every third Games is outdated.

I agree about Europe's "entitlement" being outdated (and a little absurd), but do bear in mind that the Americas together have a smaller population than Africa, and a tiny fraction of the population of Asia- not to mention a smaller number of nations than either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I recognize Paris and Rome have their strong arguments which have nothing to do with it being Europe's turn but more so France and Italy's turn and having the ability to offer truly iconic cities. I see 2024 going to one of Paris or Rome, with Munich getting 2022. I think Tokyo won by such a large margin due to the backing of many Euros, in anticipation of 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has been an extremely strong partner for the IOC and has helped the Olympic movement to grow into what it is. If the above pattern holds true, then the US will probably not host Summer Games again until the 40's. A fifty-year gap between Summer hostings is far too long for such an important partner to wait. I believe it will damage the power of the Olympic movement in the US, but I also believe some of the IOC may actually desire this. It may well, however, also dampen the power of the Olympic movement worldwide.

If the IOC thinks this is a good path, then good for them. But it will absolutely lessen the power of the Olympics worldwide, not only is NBC losing or "almost breaking even" on their Olympic coverage even when it's places Americans think positively of like London. Then the contract comes up for negotiation in and around 2020, which coincides with when the NFL contracts come up for renegotiation. And while NFL is decidedly trending upwards, the Olympics while enjoyable contain many sports Americans couldn't care less about, and are only interested in when the Olympic games are being televised. So which do you think Comcast would be willing to splurge more on NFL or Olympics? While the committee has their own proclivities and politics they better tread carefully as they endanger their largest revenue source by crapping on the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think if Madrid won, it would've been easier for things to play out over the next few cycles? If Madrid won, it would've satisfied the "we need a European Summer Olympics within a 12 year time frame". Which means, South Africa could've gotten in for 2024, Tokyo could've gotten 2028, and then Canada or US could've gotten 2032. This I think would've been better for the United States. But now we have to wait for the even bigger guys like Rome, Paris, Berlin, and South Africa to duke it out.

I hope to see:

Oslo 2022

Durban/Cape Town 2024

Munich 2026

Rome/Paris 2028

Almaty 2030

NYC/Chicago/DC 2032

With the US waiting for 2032, we could get bigger support, and we can really work in the years up to it to make at an amazing bid.

Edited by USAandItalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think if Madrid won, it would've been easier for things to play out over the next few cycles? If Madrid won, it would've satisfied the "we need a European Summer Olympics within a 12 year time frame". Which means, South Africa could've gotten in for 2024, Tokyo could've gotten 2028, and then Canada or US could've gotten 2032. This I think would've been better for the United States. But now we have to wait for the even bigger guys like Rome, Paris, Berlin, and South Africa to duke it out.

I hope to see:

Oslo 2022

Durban/Cape Town 2024

Munich 2026

Rome/Paris 2028

Almaty 2030

NYC/Chicago/DC 2032

With the US waiting for 2032, we could get bigger support, and we can really work in the years up to it to make at an amazing bid.

They need to say , "Hey guys were bidding for 2032 so get your committees ready!'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say a Madrid win would've been the best possible outcome any future U.S. prospects. Tokyo is the worst. A Madrid win would've all but eliminated Rome and Paris for 2024. Really the only serious contention would've been another possible bid from Tokyo or South Africa. Even a 2024 loss would position the U.S. well for 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say a Madrid win would've been the best possible outcome any future U.S. prospects. Tokyo is the worst. A Madrid win would've all but eliminated Rome and Paris for 2024. Really the only serious contention would've been another possible bid from Tokyo or South Africa. Even a 2024 loss would position the U.S. well for 2028.

Totally agree. Worst case scenario for the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said for awhile that if the TV money coming out of the United States ever dried up, the IOC would be begging the USOC to come back here. Only problem.. that's the exact opposite of what happened 2 years ago. NBC and Comcast stupidly over-bid for a 2nd time and repeated their own unfortunate history.

...

As to the future.. you mentioned about the USOC finding a city where they could use a sponsor to strengthen their cause.

...

In short, the United States needs a compelling candidate to bid with... can any city beyond the big 4 of New York, Chicago, LA, and SF get it done? Is a Dallas or a Boston or a Washington DC going to be able to compete with what they're up against? And if not, is it enough that sponsors want a games back in the United States to accept less than the best this country has to offer. I think that's a very tall order for politics and commerce to overcome that.

But it's everything else that FYI brought up that makes Durban the more logical choice. We all know how much the IOC wants to bring an Olympics to Africa, and yea we see what other cities of the world are getting selected as host. But if all Cape Town's biggest plus is their name, I'm not sure that's a big enough trump card over Durban which is closer to what the IOC is looking for in terms of logistics. Just like in the United States, SASCOC needs to determine which city of theirs is best suited for an Olympic bid. All things considered, I think that city is Durban, even if it's not the most representative city the country has to offer, especially given what the IOC will be looking for.

Thanks for such a detailed post. One thing: I didn't mean in the least that corporate sponsors tied to a bid would help it succeed. If anything, I think the IOC views Atlanta games as the corporate games. I did mean, though, that major US companies that fund the Olympics could put pressure for the IOC to support an American bid-- any American bid. Just look at the past four years: we went from the IOC spiting the US to the US having had a reasonable chance to beat Tokyo for the games if it had bid. At some point, the IOC could become just as desperate for an American games as they are for an African games.

And re: Durban, it's interesting you say that the US needs a compelling city to win, but South Africa just needs a capable one. It's probably true, but to me choosing between Durban and Cape Town is like choosing between Tampa and San Francisco. One is sunny and spacious but bland; one has space issues and a rainy June but much more internationally appealing (name is certainly not the only thing CT has over Durban... have you been there?). Which would you rather have host?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually we do/did. Durban121 or something like that is his handle. And Canisminor, while a U.S. member, had/has been to South Africa extensively. But he's hasn't been around in quite some time. I wish they would post much more often, especially when it comes/came to South Africa. They had/have very knowlegable insight on the ground over there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the IOC thinks this is a good path, then good for them. But it will absolutely lessen the power of the Olympics worldwide, not only is NBC losing or "almost breaking even" on their Olympic coverage even when it's places Americans think positively of like London. Then the contract comes up for negotiation in and around 2020, which coincides with when the NFL contracts come up for renegotiation. And while NFL is decidedly trending upwards, the Olympics while enjoyable contain many sports Americans couldn't care less about, and are only interested in when the Olympic games are being televised. So which do you think Comcast would be willing to splurge more on NFL or Olympics? While the committee has their own proclivities and politics they better tread carefully as they endanger their largest revenue source by crapping on the US.

I see absolutely no evidence at this point that the lack of Summer Games in the U.S. is hurting the IOC financially or hurting the Olympic movement in the U.S. NBC paid a record amount of money for TV rights to 2014-2020 despite knowing that none of those Games would be in North America. All of the U.S. TOP sponsors have renewed through at least 2016. NBC experienced record viewership for the Beijing and London Games. The evidence suggests that the Summer Games are going to be just fine even if the U.S. doesn't host again for a while. The fact that both Rio and Tokyo should be "live" Olympics in primetime (assuming NBC is able to manipulate the schedule for morning finals in 2020) should provide even more of a boost to interest in the Summer Games in the U.S.

The Winter Games, OTOH, could probably benefit from being in the U.S. in the 2020s. Viewership and interest in the Winter Games has declined considerably since Salt Lake, and I think that's likely to continue over the next decade. I know that most here would prefer the U.S. to host the Summer Games, but I think the Winter Games could benefit a lot more by the U.S. hosting in the 2020s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the IOC thinks this is a good path, then good for them. But it will absolutely lessen the power of the Olympics worldwide, not only is NBC losing or "almost breaking even" on their Olympic coverage even when it's places Americans think positively of like London. Then the contract comes up for negotiation in and around 2020, which coincides with when the NFL contracts come up for renegotiation. And while NFL is decidedly trending upwards, the Olympics while enjoyable contain many sports Americans couldn't care less about, and are only interested in when the Olympic games are being televised. So which do you think Comcast would be willing to splurge more on NFL or Olympics? While the committee has their own proclivities and politics they better tread carefully as they endanger their largest revenue source by crapping on the US.

2 things to note..

NBC broke even on London in a sluggish economy and after stupidly over-paying for the rights. If their bid for 2010-2012 was $1.5 billion instead of $2 billion (which would have easily won it for them.. the next highest bid was around $1.3 billion), they would have made a ton of money on London. Considering the ratings for London far exceeded expectations and still generated huge revenues, the Olympics are still as healthy here as they've ever been.

And with regard to the NFL.. we've already seen that play out. NBC won the 2014-2020 bid (when a lot of experts were questioning their resolve after the Comcast merger and Ebersol's abrupt departure) and still had all the money they needed to renew their NFL contract. The next round of Olympic TV rights will probably come up somewhere around 2017-2018. The NFL deals won't be until a couple of years after that.

Like Barcelona said, there's nothing out there to suggest that the IOC is beginning to lose the American audience by not having an Olympics in this country. Yes, that could become an issue down the line, but until Olympic revenues start to drop (and they most certainly have not done so yet), the IOC has no need to placate the USOC in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 things to note..

NBC broke even on London in a sluggish economy and after stupidly over-paying for the rights. If their bid for 2010-2012 was $1.5 billion instead of $2 billion (which would have easily won it for them.. the next highest bid was around $1.3 billion), they would have made a ton of money on London. Considering the ratings for London far exceeded expectations and still generated huge revenues, the Olympics are still as healthy here as they've ever been.

And with regard to the NFL.. we've already seen that play out. NBC won the 2014-2020 bid (when a lot of experts were questioning their resolve after the Comcast merger and Ebersol's abrupt departure) and still had all the money they needed to renew their NFL contract. The next round of Olympic TV rights will probably come up somewhere around 2017-2018. The NFL deals won't be until a couple of years after that.

Like Barcelona said, there's nothing out there to suggest that the IOC is beginning to lose the American audience by not having an Olympics in this country. Yes, that could become an issue down the line, but until Olympic revenues start to drop (and they most certainly have not done so yet), the IOC has no need to placate the USOC in that regard.

That's why I think 2032 would be a great year for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geographer, I hope you stick around because we need more people who have actually been to South Africa. Your words will mean more. I don't think we have any SA regulars here.

Dysan still turns up here now and then.

Mo Rush/Rafa is one South African we miss. He still shows up now and then, but a long time between appearances. Last I heard, i think he was working someway in the events or promotions biz in SA, with contacts in the know with SASCOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...