Tony E Loves Architecture Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Bach has made it clear that he likes the idea of Rome hosting. Paris would hope that Rome doesn't bid. If Paris does not host 2024, I can't see them bidding for quite some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JO2024 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Bach also said that Paris would be a "very, very strong" candidate. Bach is just being positive with each bid and encouraging them all. I wouldn't read too much into what he says, for he is not the one deciding in the end. Oh that reminds about Rogue and Paris 2012.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Bach has made it clear that he likes the idea of Rome hosting. Paris would hope that Rome doesn't bid. If Paris does not host 2024, I can't see them bidding for quite some time. I'm sure he does like the idea of Rome hosting. But do he and the 100 other people who have a vote like the idea of Rome hosting more than they like the idea of Paris hosting. My inclination is to say that no, they probably do not. So I doubt Paris is overly concerned about Rome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixie_Victoria Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Awesome radio speech (that I could've written) by French sport journalist Pascal Praud. He's known by all the French and operates on the biggest national radio station (RTL) so it's great to see such a wise & relevant message reaching such a large audience. For the non French-speakers: In a nicely written chronicle, he points out that intending to present a bid isn't serious. That we all know well that 4 billions will turn into 10 in the end, and that the way the IOC works is way too shadowy and suspicious to spend money and energy on a bid. The Singapore walloping is also recalled, underlying that everything had been done to win back then, to end in a defeat. I would've added that we have even less chances than in 2012, but that's an awesome job which could hopefully open some of our compatriots' eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 The Singapore walloping 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Why do the French consider 2012 to be such a national humiliation? I mean, Paris had the misfortune to be up against probably the only city in the world that could possibly have beaten it then, & even then only lost by what, 3 votes? I mean, if Chirac had kept his mouth shut or if we'd had anyone other than Seb on stage, it'd be London agonising over 2024. And you can't really use the other 2 losses to explain, because 92 was rigged from the start & going after 08 after Athens & against Beijing was just silly. So I don't understand why you think the IOC has a vendetta against Paris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Why do the French consider 2012 to be such a national humiliation? I mean, Paris had the misfortune to be up against probably the only city in the world that could possibly have beaten it then, & even then only lost by what, 3 votes? I mean, if Chirac had kept his mouth shut or if we'd had anyone other than Seb on stage, it'd be London agonising over 2024. And you can't really use the other 2 losses to explain, because 92 was rigged from the start & going after 08 after Athens & against Beijing was just silly. So I don't understand why you think the IOC has a vendetta against Paris. Because it appears that way. They ALMOST got 2012, If only 2 votes had switched, 3 summers ago would've been on the Champs des Mars and the Champs ELysees rather than in Stratford and the Horse Guards grounds. It's the notion of always being the bridesmaid. But they should ask: what do the Charlie Hebdo readers want??? Maybe that should be their main clue!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 For the non French-speakers: In a nicely written chronicle, he points out that intending to present a bid isn't serious. That we all know well that 4 billions will turn into 10 in the end, and that the way the IOC works is way too shadowy and suspicious to spend money and energy on a bid. The Singapore walloping is also recalled, underlying that everything had been done to win back then, to end in a defeat. I would've added that we have even less chances than in 2012, but that's an awesome job which could hopefully open some of our compatriots' eyes. I don't speak French, so obviously I can't follow. These are valid points about the IOC and the costs and whether or not it's a smart idea to bid for 2024? But be honest.. how did he describe the vote in Singapore in 2005? Did he refer to it as a 'walloping' or is that your view of it? Yes, Paris had a very good bid and I'm sure it was devastating when they lost. Much as I'm sure Salt Lake did after the `98 vote or Beijing after the 2000 vote or Pyeongchang after the 2010 and 2014 vote. All of those were close losses from bids where "everything had been done to win, to end in defeat," but they all bounced back, bid again, and won. And that's to say nothing of cities like Athens and Rio and Tokyo who also lost a vote and came back to win. So again.. there are plenty of reasons to give why Paris shouldn't bid for 2024. That the loss in Singapore was an emotional blow to them should NOT be 1 of them. If you believe that's what is holding them back, then you're once again proving to have a defeatist attitude about this. It would be like an athlete not wanting to compete because there's a chance he could lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Because it appears that way. They ALMOST got 2012, If only 2 votes had switched, 3 summers ago would've been on the Champs des Mars and the Champs ELysees rather than in Stratford and the Horse Guards grounds. It's the notion of always being the bridesmaid. But they should ask: what do the Charlie Hebdo readers want??? Maybe that should be their main clue!! And that's understandable. They thought they were going to win and in the end, 1 of their big rivals got it in a very tight race. The French were dealt an emotional blow with that one, but to characterize it like they were shamed or humiliated by the IOC.. I can think of a city/country in the 2012 bid that applies to, but it's not Paris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 From my understanding the French let all the talk of "being the favorite" go to their head and could not fathom how London could beat them. My response to all this negativity is this: Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 From my understanding the French let all the talk of "being the favorite" go to their head and could not fathom how London could beat them. My response to all this negativity is this: Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. This. Again, there needs to be a separation between "Paris shouldn't bid because the IOC is shady and it may cost more than it's worth" and "Paris shouldn't bid because we got our hopes up before and the IOC crushed them." The former is reason not to bid for 2024. The latter is not. And if that's the attitude they take to this (which I don't believe it is.. seems more like that's about some posters here than anything), then yes, that is the textbook definition of a defeatist attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 . The latter is not. It's human nature. Oh, you don't want me? Then fcku you. And don't come begging 12 years from now. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 It's human nature. Oh, you don't want me? Then fcku you. And don't come begging 12 years from now. But the IOC was not like that in 2005. Paris lost by two bloody votes...two. That argument would only make sense if they ended up like Madrid or New York, but coming in second by a margin of two votes shows that the IOC does want them. Paris probably could have gotten those two votes if they had been more compassionate like London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 But the IOC was not like that in 2005. Paris lost by two bloody votes...two. That argument would only make sense if they ended up like Madrid or New York, but coming in second by a margin of two votes shows that the IOC does want them. Exactly. Paris probably could have gotten those two votes if they had been more compassionate like London. OR if Jacques Chirac had just kept his big trap shut about Finnish cuisine on the eve of the vote. There are your two votes. But really, it was three votes that they needed, since two woulda merely created a tie. But still, three votes is not that much in the bigger picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 It's human nature. Oh, you don't want me? Then fcku you. And don't come begging 12 years from now. There were 104 voters. 50 of them wanted Paris. So it's not being true to the situation (and you know this, you're just trying to make a point) to make it sound like the IOC told them to fcuk off. The message I'd take away is that they thought Paris had a good bid, but London's was slightly better. And if you analyze the voting further, go back to the first round where London got only 22 of the 97 votes. That means that given the initial choice of 5 cities, more than 3/4 of the voters chose a city other than London. I'm sure this was a real gut punch for Paris, particularly to lose to London. But if they were to skip 2024, an Olympics which may very well have Europe written all over it (you've said it won't be Boston, so unless South Africa jumps in, what other continent would it be), then that has 'butthurt' written all over it. Less they actually think the IOC has some sort of grudge or vendetta against them and nothing in prior voting makes the case for that to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamC Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Pascal Praud also says in his editorial that the host city is chosen by "an assembly of 20-30 people", that the IOC, FIFA, all these organizations are corrupt, using Qatar 2022 to illustrate his point. I think he has the right to accuse the IOC of being corrupt*, but this is not really true (the IOC is made of 100+ members voting, it's not FIFA and its executive committee) and quite dishonest to use false arguments to make his point. *Though apart from the Salt Lake debacle, this still needs to be proven, the only shady decision the IOC has made in the recent years is maybe Sochi, but Russia in 2007 wasn't the Russia of 2014, a brand new shining Olympic Park and palm trees must have been enough to convince the IOC, and there weren't many talks of this election being corrupt back then, were there? He's an expert in football and obviously has the IOC and FIFA mixed up. The problems with the IOC aren't quite the same as FIFA's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixie_Victoria Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 My response to all this negativity is this: Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. It's not negativity, it's a lack of will, and no thirst for the games anymore (for those of the French who don't want a bid of course). There's no crying either, we just don't want any bid nor the games...Apart from that, we're really fine thank you To be honest, I think it's also about time to stop talking about Chirac ? He wasn't the most clever man ever, that's a fact, but it's only one factor among many, I could give 4 names of 4 IOC members and their nationalities, (we have them ), who promised they would vote for Paris and weirdly changed their votes on the voting day. A friend of mine working at L'Equipe confirmed that to me. So Paris would've lost anway. Chirac or not. As far as I'm concerned, I would love to see Africa be awarded its first games...It's Africa's time and they're very capable of doing it. It's human nature. Oh, you don't want me? Then fcku you. And don't come begging 12 years from now. haha thumbs up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Seriously though, how self conscious do the Fins have to be get offended by a comment on their cuisine? The Lastman comment during Toronto's bid was actually offensive. I find it hard to believe that Chirac's words made that big of an impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulsa Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Why do the French consider 2012 to be such a national humiliation? I mean, Paris had the misfortune to be up against probably the only city in the world that could possibly have beaten it then, & even then only lost by what, 3 votes? I mean, if Chirac had kept his mouth shut or if we'd had anyone other than Seb on stage, it'd be London agonising over 2024. And you can't really use the other 2 losses to explain, because 92 was rigged from the start & going after 08 after Athens & against Beijing was just silly. So I don't understand why you think the IOC has a vendetta against Paris. It was a "national humiliation" because the majority of French Media said : "Paris will win, it's sure", they said we won before the vote. And all the public thought fine it's sure we will win... Medias were stupid. I don't think it's the Chirac fault. We lost because London was better, and 4 votes it's almost nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I find it hard to believe that Chirac's words made that big of an impact. Oh, you mean kinda like the U.S. congress (which didn't have a direct vote BTW) doing what they could in trying to derail Beijing's 2000 Olympic bid? By itself, no Chirac's words wouldn't have had a "big" impact. But in a TIGHT race like the 2000 & 2012 ones it's something where even the minute of hiccups could swing it one way or the other. This is just another one of those things where we'll never really know the answer (akin to the other theory that Greek IOC member pushed the "wrong" button that coulda made the world of difference to Madrid 2012), but considering how finicky some IOC members can be (& when at the time there were two Finnish IOC members) it's not something that I'd downright dismiss either. Especially when again, being on the eve of the crucial 2012 vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 And heck, maybe it wasn't even the Finns who took offence, but it coulda been any number of other voting members that could have.. "Oh, those presumptuous & offensive French again". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 And heck, maybe it wasn't even the Finns who took offence, but it coulda been any number of other voting members that could have.. "Oh, those presumptuous & offensive French again". Especially in the manner that the French Media conducted itself. The media was arrogant and assumed that Paris was the favorite and would win, I could see how some IOC members (especially US, Russian, and Spanish) could take offense to that and vote against Paris. So really the French need to point at themselves and ask, "How did our attitude make Paris loose". The Chinese also had a similar attitude in the 2000 race and they lost by a similar margin to Sydney. It was a "national humiliation" because the majority of French Media said : "Paris will win, it's sure", they said we won before the vote. And all the public thought fine it's sure we will win... Medias were stupid. I don't think it's the Chirac fault. We lost because London was better, and 4 votes it's almost nothing. So really you have yourselves to blame for the "national humiliation". The French people collectively drank the medias kool-aide and were shocked when it had a very bad after-taste. It's not negativity, it's a lack of will, and no thirst for the games anymore (for those of the French who don't want a bid of course). There's no crying either, we just don't want any bid nor the games...Apart from that, we're really fine thank you To be honest, I think it's also about time to stop talking about Chirac ? He wasn't the most clever man ever, that's a fact, but it's only one factor among many, I could give 4 names of 4 IOC members and their nationalities, (we have them ), who promised they would vote for Paris and weirdly changed their votes on the voting day. A friend of mine working at L'Equipe confirmed that to me. So Paris would've lost anway. Chirac or not. As far as I'm concerned, I would love to see Africa be awarded its first games...It's Africa's time and they're very capable of doing it. IOC members almost never can be trusted and you're stupid for trusting them. It's an anonymous vote and anyone can vote for any city they want. That doesn't mean the organization as a whole is horrible, it just means you are putting your trust in slippery hands. Chicago thought they had secured votes, but they were out in round one. And if you think that Africa is ready for the games than you are delusional. The continent has never hosted an event similar to the Olympics and South Africa is already bidding for the CWG in 2022. It's not Africa's time and it won't be until at least 2032 and that depends on how well SA hosts the CWG's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Especially in the manner that the French Media conducted itself. The media was arrogant and assumed that Paris was the favorite and would win, I could see how some IOC members (especially US, Russian, and Spanish) could take offense to that and vote against Paris. So really the French need to point at themselves and ask, "How did our attitude make Paris loose". The Chinese also had a similar attitude in the 2000 race and they lost by a similar margin to Sydney. So really you have yourselves to blame for the "national humiliation". The French people collectively drank the medias kool-aide and were shocked when it had a very bad after-taste. IOC members almost never can be trusted and you're stupid for trusting them. It's an anonymous vote and anyone can vote for any city they want. That doesn't mean the organization as a whole is horrible, it just means you are putting your trust in slippery hands. Chicago thought they had secured votes, but they were out in round one. And if you think that Africa is ready for the games than you are delusional. The continent has never hosted an event similar to the Olympics and South Africa is already bidding for the CWG in 2022. It's not Africa's time and it won't be until at least 2032 and that depends on how well SA hosts the CWG's. I don't agree with that. Africa is very much ready to host. South Africa hosted the WC in 2010 with great success. Sure a Commonwealth Games would help, but SA could bid right now and still have a great shot. It is very much Africa's time, and the only reason they won't make waves in 2024 is because it's been so long since the IOC has gone to Europe. And even then I'm not convinced that they won't be a contender. Africa does not have to wait until 2032. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Especially in the manner that the French Media conducted itself. The media was arrogant and assumed that Paris was the favorite and would win, I could see how some IOC members (especially US, Russian, and Spanish) could take offense to that and vote against Paris. So really the French need to point at themselves and ask, "How did our attitude make Paris loose". The Chinese also had a similar attitude in the 2000 race and they lost by a similar margin to Sydney. So really you have yourselves to blame for the "national humiliation". The French people collectively drank the medias kool-aide and were shocked when it had a very bad after-taste. That's not quite right either. The French media might have been a bit too gung-ho and over-confident (and that probably goes for a lot of home media in most bidding cities), but the bid itself was anything but. In fact, if the bid team had a problem it was that (in hindsight) they could have been a bit MORE forceful. Early on, and after considering their '92 and '08 defeats, they had private discussions with the IOC about what they should do and how they should approach it. They were told by the IOC that, as perceived front runners, their best approach would be to NOT to appear arrogant and to adopt a lower key approach to the bid so as not to appear too over-confident and expectant. Which they did, only to be overhauled in the end by a London bid that was able to be (indeed, had to be to beat Paris) more emotional and hard sell, while the French presentations were criticised in hindsight as too bland, boring, technocratic and presented by bureaucrats in grey suits. London tugged the heart strings, but the French were hamstrung by not being able to pull the emotional card lest they be seen as too arrogant, as per the Greeks for 1996 or the Chinese for 2000. Edited February 17, 2015 by Sir Rols 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 It's not negativity, it's a lack of will, and no thirst for the games anymore (for those of the French who don't want a bid of course). There's no crying either, we just don't want any bid nor the games...Apart from that, we're really fine thank you Speak for yourself on that one. Clearly there are some people in Paris and in France who think bidding for an Olympics is a good idea. It does not make them naive or stupid because they disagree with you. And the message you're giving here gets a little muddled when on one hand you're talking about getting humiliated before as a reason for not having a thirst for the games and all of the political and economic issues that you claim make it a bad idea. Obviously the French weren't so hurt by 2012 that they were afraid to bid with Annecy for 2018. It goes without saying that probably wasn't a smart idea. But that's also not the IOC's fault for France being put in that position either. It was a "national humiliation" because the majority of French Media said : "Paris will win, it's sure", they said we won before the vote. And all the public thought fine it's sure we will win... Medias were stupid. I don't think it's the Chirac fault. We lost because London was better, and 4 votes it's almost nothing. Okay, so it was a national humiliation because your media said so. I could make the same claim about Chicago in the 2016 with our media, how they blew it out of proportion that Chicago was eliminated in the first vote. And there was a lot less confidence in Chicago 2016 than there was in Paris 2012 if your media was saying it was a sure thing. Again though, if this is about what your media believed and expressed to their audience, then that's their fault for giving a false perception of Paris's chances in what turned out to be an extremely close final vote against London. IOC members almost never can be trusted and you're stupid for trusting them. It's an anonymous vote and anyone can vote for any city they want. That doesn't mean the organization as a whole is horrible, it just means you are putting your trust in slippery hands. Chicago thought they had secured votes, but they were out in round one. It's amazing these affairs are still conducted under those pretenses. Especially since these votes aren't made public. If you're counting on "promised" votes in a process where there's very little accountability, you're being very naive if you expect those kinds of guarantees and then are upset when the person you trusted in doesn't come through for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.