Jump to content

Toronto Considers 2024 Olympic Bid


GBModerator

Recommended Posts

Noooooooo! South Africa, w/o any previous int'l hosting, just hosted the MOST SUCCESSFUL World Cup last year...even before Brazil 2014...so they have NOTHING else to prove. They have earned their stripes. My God, all the African NOCs (about the same number as Europe) were READY to back up an RSA bid. So what r u talking about? :blink:

You say 8+ out of 30+ cities won on their first try? THat isn't a great percentage.

Noooooooo! South Africa, w/o any previous int'l hosting, just hosted the MOST SUCCESSFUL World Cup last year...even before Brazil 2014...so they have NOTHING else to prove. They have earned their stripes. My God, all the African NOCs (about the same number as Europe) were READY to back up an RSA bid. So what r u talking about? :blink:

With all due respect that is probably the most dumbest thing I have seen you post here. How is a World Cup successful when majority of the games were not sold out? When most of the population couldn't afford tickets? When people suggested moving the tournament to Germany? Construction delays, strikes etc.. Does this what the IOC wants? Out of three World Cups I remember 2010 was the worst (the other two being 2002 and 2006).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You say 8+ out of 30+ cities won on their first try? THat isn't a great percentage.

I'm NOT going to go into the finer points. One of the dumbest things u have posted here! But I think that is a DAMN good percentage vs. those of repeat bidders. The stakes are NOT equal.

With all due respect that is probably the most dumbest thing I have seen you post here. How is a World Cup successful when majority of the games were not sold out? When most of the population couldn't afford tickets? When people suggested moving the tournament to Germany? Construction delays, strikes etc.. Does this what the IOC wants? Out of three World Cups I remember 2010 was the worst (the other two being 2002 and 2006).

U're applying 1st world standards to a developing country. Everything is to a certain scale. Should I judge you the way a Rolls Royce or a Mercedes engine is built? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm NOT going to go into the finer points. One of the dumbest things u have posted here! But I think that is a DAMN good percentage vs. those of repeat bidders. The stakes are NOT equal.

U're applying 1st world standards to a developing country. Everything is to a certain scale. Should I judge you the way a Rolls Royce or a Mercedes engine is built? :blink:

How is it dumb if its the truth. The remaining bids would be repeats meaning about 80% of winning bids were repeat. South Africa is part of the G20 for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best world cup was 2006, and 1994 probably both have almost in EVERY games EVERY seat sold, and more important... Full stadia. 2010 was good almost every games was empety... Excepctions right. The worst world cup was 2002

Also the stadiums weren't to great.... At least as Germany ones... good but not great!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. 80% of winning bids were repeat?

2. South Africa is considered a developed economy.

1. Well obviously your chances are higher when you win on a repeat bid because the voting body already knows you PLUS you would've had a chance to improve on the previous bid. So I don't see how that would be an UNUSUAL advantage over first-time bidders/victors??? If you were an average student, and took the bar for the first time and passed, wouldn't that be more of an unusual victory over someone who's taken it 2 or 3 times and then passes it?

2. By whom? It's like "India," it may be the 8th or 9th biggest economy, but its wealth is NOT reflective of its population. What? Only about 350-400 million Indians are now counted as the "middle class and up." So that still leaves another 800 million in abject poverty they have been in for ages.

When RSA was picked in 2003, it wasn't a G-20 country. If they're considered a "developed" economy, then why did the RSA gov't decline to run for 2020 saying there are a few other priorities. In that respect, their thinking is developed and mature, but on the ground, NOT all their people are still getting all the basic needs of health, housing and education.

The point is...what RSA accomplished for 2010, considering it was only the few years that vaulted them into a nearly-fully developed economy, is nothing short of amazing. They do not NEED an AAA+ rating to rank high in the next SOG bidding round. Rio didn't exactly stage a 100% PERFECT 2007 PanAms, did it? Yet... RSA only needed a "pass;" and it was NOT the massive fiasco that Delhi 2010 was. So that's all that RSA/Durban needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Well obviously your chances are higher when you win on a repeat bid because the voting body already knows you PLUS you would've had a chance to improve on the previous bid. So I don't see how that would be an UNUSUAL advantage over first-time bidders/victors??? If you were an average student, and took the bar for the first time and passed, wouldn't that be more of an unusual victory over someone who's taken it 2 or 3 times and then passes it?

2. By whom? It's like "India," it may be the 8th or 9th biggest economy, but its wealth is NOT reflective of its population. What? Only about 350-400 million Indians are now counted as the "middle class and up." So that still leaves another 800 million in abject poverty they have been in for ages.

When RSA was picked in 2003, it wasn't a G-20 country. If they're considered a "developed" economy, then why did the RSA gov't decline to run for 2020 saying there are a few other priorities. In that respect, their thinking is developed and mature, but on the ground, NOT all their people are still getting all the basic needs of health, housing and education.

The point is...what RSA accomplished for 2010, considering it was only the few years that vaulted them into a nearly-fully developed economy, is nothing short of amazing. They do not NEED an AAA+ rating to rank high in the next SOG bidding round. Rio didn't exactly stage a 100% PERFECT 2007 PanAms, did it? Yet... RSA only needed a "pass;" and it was NOT the massive fiasco that Delhi 2010 was. So that's all that RSA/Durban needs.

The point is Africa was given the 2010 World Cup and it hasn't been "given" the 2024 Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pro Toronto 2020 but I can understand now why they waited for 2024. The Pan Ams are a stepping stone to the big prize plus bidding for 2020 would most likely conflict with the preparations for 2015. Plus you have Rio 2016 factored into the equation. I definitely am looking forward to their 2024 bid. If a European city wins 2020 it even bolsters its chances more. The biggest threats would obviously be a South African bid and an American bid. I like the cities chances, probably the best out of the other two bidding phases its gone through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pro Toronto 2020 but I can understand now why they waited for 2024. The Pan Ams are a stepping stone to the big prize plus bidding for 2020 would most likely conflict with the preparations for 2015. Plus you have Rio 2016 factored into the equation. I definitely am looking forward to their 2024 bid. If a European city wins 2020 it even bolsters its chances more. The biggest threats would obviously be a South African bid and an American bid. I like the cities chances, probably the best out of the other two bidding phases its gone through.

Yeap! If Toronto would have been in the Americas two in a row which is pretty unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I often think that outside the big nations, the IOC tend to go for an iconic city rather than just any old one - Atlanta being the exception.

For me, South Africa would have a strong bid if it were Cape Town or Johannesburg, but Durban? And this is because it is the only one with a useful city. We say South Africa because its Africa - why not India then?

Toronto I think would be an excellent candidate. Like all bids what it lacks is a main stadium. Rio was slightly different in that they'd already built their main athletics venue and are simply expanding it to 60,000 seats. I believe Toronto has a 12,000 capacity venue for the Pan Ams.

IF, Toronto were to build a new venue to be used for the Argonauts and expandable upwards for the Olympics (temporarily) they'd be in a much stronger position and should have considered this as an option rather than the flirtation with Hamilton. Back in the 70s they averaged over 47,000 at home and new venues always attract new fans. A 50,000 seater with the ability to add another 25,000 tier would have been ideal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I often think that outside the big nations, the IOC tend to go for an iconic city rather than just any old one - Atlanta being the exception.

For me, South Africa would have a strong bid if it were Cape Town or Johannesburg, but Durban? And this is because it is the only one with a useful city. We say South Africa because its Africa - why not India then?

Toronto I think would be an excellent candidate. Like all bids what it lacks is a main stadium. Rio was slightly different in that they'd already built their main athletics venue and are simply expanding it to 60,000 seats. I believe Toronto has a 12,000 capacity venue for the Pan Ams.

IF, Toronto were to build a new venue to be used for the Argonauts and expandable upwards for the Olympics (temporarily) they'd be in a much stronger position and should have considered this as an option rather than the flirtation with Hamilton. Back in the 70s they averaged over 47,000 at home and new venues always attract new fans. A 50,000 seater with the ability to add another 25,000 tier would have been ideal.

Not happening when the Argos are struggling. A possible NFL can do the trick though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best world cup was 2006, and 1994 probably both have almost in EVERY games EVERY seat sold, and more important... Full stadia. 2010 was good almost every games was empety... Excepctions right. The worst world cup was 2002

Also the stadiums weren't to great.... At least as Germany ones... good but not great!

I thought the stadiums in South Africa looked better than in Germany but it's only my view. Sure the organization wasn't as smooth but still. And the average attendance was almost as high as in 2006 despite some empty seats. Agree that 2002 was very lame in many ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is Africa was given the 2010 World Cup and it hasn't been "given" the 2024 Olympics.

Huh? Again, I don't follow your non-sequiturs. Africa/rSA was "given" 2010 because FIFA wanted to go there one way or another. Of course 2024 isn't given to them. They will have to bid like everyone else. But as we all prognosticate here, barring South Africa falling off into the ocean or Doha buys 60 members of the IOC, and if they and Durban stay on track to bid for 2024, then the tea leaves at this moment read to a very strong Durban candidacy.

I think Toronto should be ready for that. If not, then they are quite naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Again, I don't follow your non-sequiturs. Africa/rSA was "given" 2010 because FIFA wanted to go there one way or another. Of course 2024 isn't given to them. They will have to bid like everyone else. But as we all prognosticate here, barring South Africa falling off into the ocean or Doha buys 60 members of the IOC, and if they and Durban stay on track to bid for 2024, then the tea leaves at this moment read to a very strong Durban candidacy.

I think Toronto should be ready for that. If not, then they are quite naive.

A developing country especially with its third largest city that has never hosted an event this big will not win on its first try. No way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what a lot were saying on here, too, about PyeongChang. That the IOC was not going to give a nation with very little Winter sports tradition, in a 'podunk' South Korean town the Winter Olympics. And yet the IOC overwhelmingly chose that podunk South Korean town to host 2018.

And barring you having a crystal ball & can read the minds of 115 IOC members, predictions like "no way" don't fly. Especially when we don't even know the full official field for 2024, let alone the bid books themselves.

Durban has the main Olympic stadium already in place, has a brand-new international airport & a sports precint. All things that Cape Town does not have at this time. And Cape Town is only a smidge larger than Durban. So don't make it sound like it's a huge difference, like say, between Paris & Lyon or Berlin & Leipzig. Durban is the largest metro area on the eastern African coast & is only smaller by a million than Toronto's metro & equivalent to Rome's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

uhmmm...and Vancouver is #2 or #4? :rolleyes:

How long have you been handicapping Olympic bidding?

Winter Olympics? its number 3 btw. With that aside Durban what experience does it have in staging an event this big by itself. The last few Summer Games have gone to a nation's capital or its largest and renowned city. 2004-Athens 2000-Sydney 2008-Beijing 2012-London 2016-Rio 2020- Guaranteed as all 6 bids fit that criteria. Durban isn't going to top the world class cities that will be bidding for the second third and even sixth times when its bidding for the first time. Maybe on its second or third try because they will have learnt from their mistakes and whatnot.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what a lot were saying on here, too, about PyeongChang. That the IOC was not going to give a nation with very little Winter sports tradition, in a 'podunk' South Korean town the Winter Olympics. And yet the IOC overwhelmingly chose that podunk South Korean town to host 2018.

And barring you having a crystal ball & can read the minds of 115 IOC members, predictions like "no way" don't fly. Especially when we don't even know the full official field for 2024, let alone the bid books themselves.

Durban has the main Olympic stadium already in place, has a brand-new international airport & a sports precint. All things that Cape Town does not have at this time. And Cape Town is only a smidge larger than Durban. So don't make it sound like it's a huge difference, like say, between Paris & Lyon or Berlin & Leipzig. Durban is the largest metro area on the eastern African coast & is only smaller by a million than Toronto's metro & equivalent to Rome's.

Persistence pays 2010 they didn't have an airport venue plan wasn't great fast forward to 2018 bid and their were improvements. Sure Durban can bid in 2024 but will they win on their first try as PChang probably not. When they bid for the second or third time their chances will go up as they fix their mistakes and improve infrastructure. Oh and the main stadium is about 20,000 seats short so it can't be said the stadium is there and delivered, albeit it is very close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Persistence pays 2010 they didn't have an airport venue plan wasn't great fast forward to 2018 bid and their were improvements.

That 'persistence' still didn't change the overall negative perception of PyeongChang's bid on these boards, compared to Munich's 'fantastic' bid. Hindsight is always 20/20. It's not a 'rule' that a bid must bid multiple times before it wins. It's all relative compared to the dynamics of each individual race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That 'persistence' still didn't change the overall negative perception of PyeongChang's bid on these boards, compared to Munich's 'fantastic' bid. Hindsight is always 20/20. It's not a 'rule' that a bid must bid multiple times before it wins. It's all relative compared to the dynamics of each individual race.

Off course it isn't a rule, but a majority of bids have been won on multiple tries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in essence what you're saying is that no first-time bidder will ever bid again? And besides, South Africa has bid before. Yes, with a different city, but the IOC has dealt with the South Africans before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in essence what you're saying is that no first-time bidder will ever bid again? And besides, South Africa has bid before. Yes, with a different city, but the IOC has dealt with the South Africans before.

I never said that. :lol: If they bid with Cape Town I would think they would have a better chance since they can rectify any mistakes from the 2004 bid. Durban is a whole new territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...