Jump to content

South Africa To Bid For 2024 Summer Olympics


GBModerator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tony, this might be your worst post ever and that's saying something..

First off, you only joined these boards a couple of months ago, so we'll have to take your word for it on this. More importantly though, the vote for the 2008 Summer Olympics was in 2001. If you are actually 16 years old as you claim you are, that means you were 4 years old when that vote happened!!! Thank you for re-opening the door on the subject of your age. And now I'm starting to think again that we're being trolled. Holy freaking crap.

LMFAO!!! Comedy gold... :lol::P:ph34r::blink:^_^

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a tough time believing that he started studying politics at the age of 6 considering how little knowledge he has of anything at 16. I'm also convinced that Tony has money on Rome or something. Idk why he's so obsessed over them winning.

Moving on, if South Africa is in a position where they are incapable of wasting away billions like Sochi did, Durban makes the most sense. A Olympic Park complex is already mostly in place, and several universities in the city that could benefit from state of the art sports complexes.

I don't doubt South Africa could host a top notch and appealing Olympics but I would find it a shocking expenditure of money considering their socio-economic challenges, even if they spent just 1 billion on a budget Olympics it would be too much. It will take billions to address growing inequality and the huge AIDS and crime epidemics in that country and the corrupt misallocations of resources are still mind boggling. Genocide Watch has them on the 2nd to highest level indicating that preparations for genocidal violence are underway already. Education and medical investments should be urgent priorities for all future governments there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt South Africa could host a top notch and appealing Olympics but I would find it a shocking expenditure of money considering their socio-economic challenges, even if they spent just 1 billion on a budget Olympics it would be too much. It will take billions to address growing inequality and the huge AIDS and crime epidemics in that country and the corrupt misallocations of resources are still mind boggling. Genocide Watch has them on the 2nd to highest level indicating that preparations for genocidal violence are underway already. Education and medical investments should be urgent priorities for all future governments there.

Ya know what? Life and the Olympics will still go on regardless of where the above happens. I am sure RSA has the pulse of its people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genocide watch, for real? Don't get me wrong crime is something that needs to be improved, and is way better than 10 years ago overall, buy really, genocide? What race is wiping out which other race? Be careful the terms you throw around.

Secondly in terms of education, police etc, SA already spends vast sums on these, we do not need to spend more. What we do need is more effective use of these funds, more competent people in roles and get a grip of money leak due to corruption - something most nations face today in some form.

Putting more money into poverty alleviations will achieve nothing. To get people out of poverty the mindset needs to be there among both leaders and population. That's the area that needs focus. Pumping more freebies to the population creates one that is lazy, expects others to provide and generally will not help us in the future. We need to get education right, continue with the vast infrastructure programs and create a climate that encourages investment. These will help push people up.

So I cannot see how an Olympics will halt these, it will actually ensure they all continue to happen

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genocide watch, for real? Don't get me wrong crime is something that needs to be improved, and is way better than 10 years ago overall, buy really, genocide? What race is wiping out which other race? Be careful the terms you throw around.

Secondly in terms of education, police etc, SA already spends vast sums on these, we do not need to spend more. What we do need is more effective use of these funds, more competent people in roles and get a grip of money leak due to corruption - something most nations face today in some form.

Putting more money into poverty alleviations will achieve nothing. To get people out of poverty the mindset needs to be there among both leaders and population. That's the area that needs focus. Pumping more freebies to the population creates one that is lazy, expects others to provide and generally will not help us in the future. We need to get education right, continue with the vast infrastructure programs and create a climate that encourages investment. These will help push people up.

So I cannot see how an Olympics will halt these, it will actually ensure they all continue to happen

Be nice to actually see some actual figures on how much SA spends into economic development and education rather than taking your word for it. Also I dont understand how a country that has an unemployment rate around 50%, life expectancy of about 50, and an increase in crime needs "motivation and good leaders" when in reality they need to have continued welfare programs, increased taxes on the rich, as well as job creating legislature and social and labor reforms

I agree that SA should continue to invest their money to encourage development of their country, but hosting a two week sport extravaganza probably wont help that at a national level or in the long term.

Also in regards to SA being on genocide watch, I looked that up, and it is VERY racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be nice to actually see some actual figures on how much SA spends into economic development and education rather than taking your word for it. Also I dont understand how a country that has an unemployment rate around 50%, life expectancy of about 50, and an increase in crime needs "motivation and good leaders" when in reality they need to have continued welfare programs, increased taxes on the rich, as well as job creating legislature and social and labor reforms

I agree that SA should continue to invest their money to encourage development of their country, but hosting a two week sport extravaganza probably wont help that at a national level or in the long term.

Also in regards to SA being on genocide watch, I looked that up, and it is VERY racist.

Disagree with your economic proposals for SA, I believe there are fr better ways to increase the quality of life rather than raising taxes and spending more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^i agree. And why should we take "their word for it" instead, all the way over in Oregon when he can't even get some simple figures right. South Africa has less than 25% unemployment, not 50%. Talk about a gross inaccuracy. At least Dysan is there on the ground in South Africa & has more domestic insight. Having a liberal, democratic welfare attitude ain't gonna solve all their problems either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah sure just tax ge rich more that's the solution. The reality is you do that and the rich will keep leaving, most of their money is out the country already.

if most people are going to base their opinions on my country by a simple 5min google search then I have no need to try clarify anything for you because clearly you know more than me.

More welfare is is never a good thing. Look into the real issues in my country and you will see that that will do nothing to improve things. we have allowances and welfare breaks. But then people resalise, ahhh if I have 5 kids I don't want I get more money. It doesn't help. Education and a desire to be the best is what we need to foster, plain and simple.

And google racist. Then google the word genocide. Then come back to me and tell me how that links. Throwing big words around when you know nothing on the ground makes you ignorant. Having a portion of the population being racist happens in your own country as well. Its anywhere. Racial tensions does not mean freaking genocide. If you are still in school study a bit harder. If you aren't... Well then.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that, that Genocide Watch Report is clearly racist and obtuse -But again, I always came with academic criticism from their studies in some controversial cases but that's another story-.

About the issues in SA, i'm glad for dysan opinion -Close to the "social reality"- and I agree with FYI. I always defend the welfare system, because this is one of the biggest universal rights, but also I don't necessary believe in the point of more welfare=magic formula. The welfare is not necessary a placebo or an excuse. A sane economy and fair political system needs to enter in function to make balance for all the issues. That's the point of political economy. In my case -Mexico- for a long time we used these social programs. At the end it was a failure because: a. Don't resolve the real problems of the people -And in some cases only make worse- and b. They were expensives.

My wise grandmother said "always teach them to fish, never give the fish"..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that, that Genocide Watch Report is clearly racist and obtuse -But again, I always came with academic criticism from their studies in some controversial cases but that's another story-.

About the issues in SA, i'm glad for dysan opinion -Close to the "social reality"- and I agree with FYI. I always defend the welfare system, because this is one of the biggest universal rights, but also I don't necessary believe in the point of more welfare=magic formula. The welfare is not necessary a placebo or an excuse. A sane economy and fair political system needs to enter in function to make balance for all the issues. That's the point of political economy. In my case -Mexico- for a long time we used these social programs. At the end it was a failure because: a. Don't resolve the real problems of the people -And in some cases only make worse- and b. They were expensives.

My wise grandmother said "always teach them to fish, never give the fish"..

Exactly, prepare them for the future and the future will come. It will be a hard journey, but it's a journey we must all take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this indeed does go through and it appears it will, whether it's Durban (most likely) Cape Town, Joburg, a South African bid will be the biggest favorite since Beijing. The IOC practically begged South Africa to join the 2020 race. The only bid I can see derailing a South African bid is Paris or maybe Rome. Even if that occurred, South Africa would all but have 2028 in the bag. Any bid will have risks, but much like Rio, the "come to Africa" card is going to be compelling, a tough angle for any other bid to overcome.

After this, if I'm the USOC I'd forget 2024 altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Mistercorporate did go over the top with the whole genocide thing.

However, South Africa has a lower life expectancy than they did in 1990. A few different sources saying that it has the second lowest life expectancy in the world.

UNICEF lower expectancy than 1990 http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/southafrica_statistics.html

CIA world factbook 2nd lowest in the world. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Visual image of the worlds expectancy statistics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10561478/Countries-with-highest-and-lowest-life-expectancies-for-people-born-in-2013-charted.html

UNICEF also says that South Africa has 14% of the population living under poverty line (US$1.25)

Then there is the HIV/AIDS statistic http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica/

The country came 70th in the summer medal tally in 2008 and 23rd in 2012. Now with all the above issues and the fact the country doesn't have that great of a sporting record, what do they have? The first African country to host a games?

Now i'm aware France, Italy, Germany etc haven't stated their intentions yet but I disagree with Baron, Athens, Quaker that they should steer clear.

Not sure how I feel about Berlin, but I believe Rome is not as appealing as Paris.

Country that hasn't hosted the Summer games in 100 years, proven sporting record with France being in the top 10 since 1984. Bid 3 times; 2nd in 1992, 3rd in 2008, 2nd in 2012 (highest evaluation out of all cities as well) and then they have one of the highest life expectancy's in the world etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life expectancy is highly affected by only one element in SA - HIV Aids. This is the reason for the fall. It is something that is now starting to come right, though there have been far too many embarrassing steps along the path. Rates in some age bands are now decreasing based on much better drugs, years of education and the like. It won't turn around over night though. It's a country that is very unequal. And no matter your race if you are in a higher income bracket life is generally rather peachy.

If we want to judge everything on life expectancy and UN stats why don't we just state that we only want a nation that's developed and conforms to certain western ideals and everyone else don't bother. It sometimes comes across as developed nation arrogance to developing nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't judging everything on life expectancy. Hence why I raised poverty and Aids.

I don't mean to target South Africa. I have never traveled there and I know it seems like i'm acting as if it's an awful country which I know it isn't. I just don't believe that Italy, France, Germany should skip this bidding race. I also don't see the fuss about South Africa! Whoop dee doo it could be the first African country. That's all I can see. They would be nowhere near as technically ranked as Paris, perhaps they wouldn't even make the shortlist if it wasn't for the fact they were an African nation.


Sorry and perhaps it may sound harsh but developing nations should stick to developing and not bidding for expensive sporting events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

France, the US and Italy can't seem to get their acts together for 2024. RSA knows which city it will bid with; which city to pour the Olympic dollars/rands to...so...hello??

I don't think that's a fair statement. It's very early. Bidding hasn't started for 2024. Potential bidders are weighing their options -- as they should. I'm not going to fault any prospective bidder for taking time to thoroughly evaluate their options, the likely competition, the tenor of the IOC, etc. that's not a "failure to get their act together," it's just prudence.

If I were one if those three, I would at least delay until after South Africa made their intentions clear and probably longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is...RSA, knowing their candidate will be Durban, seems ready to go at the drop of a hat. The other three are still dickering, weighing their options, still lining up the hoops they have to jump thru -- and then KNOWING that the elephant in the room is finally waking up, shouldn't you really take pause and decide just to move on to other things?? Yes, conceivably it's still very early...but as I said, this announcement I believe was made with a great degree of certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life expectancy is highly affected by only one element in SA - HIV Aids. This is the reason for the fall. It is something that is now starting to come right, though there have been far too many embarrassing steps along the path. Rates in some age bands are now decreasing based on much better drugs, years of education and the like. It won't turn around over night though. It's a country that is very unequal. And no matter your race if you are in a higher income bracket life is generally rather peachy.

If we want to judge everything on life expectancy and UN stats why don't we just state that we only want a nation that's developed and conforms to certain western ideals and everyone else don't bother. It sometimes comes across as developed nation arrogance to developing nations.

It's not arrogance or ignorance as you seem to think it is. A third of an organization I run is based in South Africa and I deal with people there on a regular basis because of that. It's difficult for me to take a faceless person on the internet's opinion above that from a respected international human rights professor (who runs Genocide Watch) and the many people on the ground in South Africa and the South African diaspora I'm in contact with. Basic research and a decades long interest in the country have suggested that things aren't getting better for the majority of blacks and whites. Granted, Asians/Indians have seen their lot improved but even some of them are drinking the dillusional coolaid nowadays. I have one associate who tells me South Africa has a bright future and that things aren't bad there at all but then continuously posts depressing and exasperated complaints on his facebook wall about situations that he personally experiences on a regular basis that wouldn't even exist in all but the most violent backwards countries. Anyone who thinks Genocide Watch is racist simply because the general public posting on there is quite shrill versus the posts by their Editors is clearly not understanding why it's a respected source even for the media and various governments. That's like saying the Mail & Guardian is racist since the comments section is full of racism. Anyway, I'm going to just have to respectfully disagree on this one, having followed developments in countries from Eritrea to Zimbabwe to Yugoslavia my intuition is that South Africa's future is quite grim, unless of course you think Zimbabwe is an acceptable level of socio-economic development...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country came 70th in the summer medal tally in 2008 and 23rd in 2012. Now with all the above issues and the fact the country doesn't have that great of a sporting record, what do they have? The first African country to host a games?

Now i'm aware France, Italy, Germany etc haven't stated their intentions yet but I disagree with Baron, Athens, Quaker that they should steer clear.

Not sure how I feel about Berlin, but I believe Rome is not as appealing as Paris.

Country that hasn't hosted the Summer games in 100 years, proven sporting record with France being in the top 10 since 1984. Bid 3 times; 2nd in 1992, 3rd in 2008, 2nd in 2012 (highest evaluation out of all cities as well) and then they have one of the highest life expectancy's in the world etc etc.

So what. Brazil ranks 37th, yet they're hosting 2016. And what else did Rio have besides "it's South America's time" that their bid team & their president were constantly chanting. Were you as angst against them, too?

I also disagree that any of the Europeans shouldn't automatically just forget it. But the USOC needs to think very long & hard, especially when the only candidates that they have on the table wouldn't be able to compete confidently even against Paris or Rome.

I don't disagree with any of that. But that also doesn't automatically mean that the French would be totally unbeatable. This is a competition after all.

I don't mean to target South Africa. I have never traveled there and I know it seems like i'm acting as if it's an awful country which I know it isn't. I.

Then you sure are fooling us here, since that's all you seem to do with your tiresome anti-South African diatribe.

I also don't see the fuss about South Africa! Whoop dee doo it could be the first African country. That's all I can see. They would be nowhere near as technically ranked as Paris, perhaps they wouldn't even make the shortlist if it wasn't for the fact they were an African nation.

Again, what was the "fuss" with Rio, despite just being in South America. And how they leap-frogged your "whoop dee doo" Doha (simply bcuz they had butt loads of cash) to get on the short-list. And Rio was still the least technically capable of all the finalists yet went on to win everything.

Sorry and perhaps it may sound harsh but developing nations should stick to developing and not bidding for expensive sporting events.

You need to run that by the China, Brazil, Russia, Turkey, Doha & the Baku-koo's of the world then.

Oh, & the Almaty's & the Ukraine's, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what. Brazil ranks 37th, yet they're hosting 2016. And what else did Rio have besides "it's South America's time" that their bid team & their president were constantly chanting. Were you as angst against them, too?

Not as much as I am against South Africa no, but they definitely weren't my top choice for 2016. Brazil sure isn't going well with their preparations for the world cup next year. Stadiums that will finish just in time for the games, they already had the tragic crane/stadium collapse killing two workers. The IOC president already travelled to Brazil and essentially told them to speed up. We have made it very clear, very clear, there is not a single day to lose,” Bach said Thursday. “We need progress every day to make these games the success we all want it to be.”.

Just like Sochi the country is also facing spiraling costs for the World Cup and these all reflect on the preparation for the olympics. Looks like the risky choices where the only pull is that they are from a new continents are starting to fail hey?

I don't disagree with any of that. But that also doesn't automatically mean that the French would be totally unbeatable. This is a competition after all.

Then you sure are fooling us here, since that's all you seem to do with your tiresome anti-South African diatribe.

Didn't say France was unbeatable, just said that they shouldn't be ruled out.

Mm yes well seems someone needs to bring you back down to earth because the way some of you act about South Africa is as if the country doesn't have the severe issues they do have.

Again, what was the "fuss" with Rio, despite just being in South America. And how they leap-frogged your "whoop dee doo" Doha (simply bcuz they had butt loads of cash) to get on the short-list. And Rio was still the least technically capable of all the finalists yet went on to win everything.

You need to run that by the China, Brazil, Russia, Turkey, Doha & the Baku-koo's of the world then.

Oh, & the Almaty's & the Ukraine's, too.

Not "my" Doha, yeah the city ranked higher than Brazil did in 2016 and yes I believed they should have been shortlisted for 2020. The IOC dug themselves a hole by giving them the crappy excuse of the different dates as a reason in 2020 for why they didn't make the shortlist which essentially "should" put a stop to a whole lot of other potential future bids.

Yes South America made the shortlist with the worst evaluation and they won but look how that has turned out for them? These risky bets aren't paying off at all for the IOC. First Sochi and now Brazil. Will they make the mistake for a 3rd time?

And don't worry I think the above speaks volumes about Russia and Brazil. And the IOC already have shut down several bids from Turkey, Doha and Baku.

Which leaves the worlds largest nation; a sporting superpower, host of a great 2008 games despite controversy. Now if Brazil pull off a miracle and host an amazing games then maybe in the 2024 vote we will see South Africa win. However, for the mean time they aren't looking great.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Didn't say France was unbeatable, just said that they shouldn't be ruled out.

Mm yes well seems someone needs to bring you back down to earth because the way some of you act about South Africa is as if the country doesn't have the severe issues they do have.

.

2. Yes South America made the shortlist with the worst evaluation and they won but look how that has turned out for them? These risky bets aren't paying off at all for the IOC. First Sochi and now Brazil. Will they make the mistake for a 3rd time?

3. And don't worry I think the above speaks volumes about Russia and Brazil. And the IOC already have shut down several bids from Turkey, Doha and Baku.

4. Which leaves the worlds largest nation; a sporting superpower, host of a great 2008 games despite controversy. Now if Brazil pull off a miracle and host an amazing games then maybe in the 2024 vote we will see South Africa win. However, for the mean time they aren't looking great.

1. I'm not discounting the French. I've always acknowledged, if they bid, they'll be a formidable opponent. And there's a difference between recognizing South Africa's issues (which I think that everyone here does) than to boombastically amplify them, which is what you & a couple of others here do.

2. The vote for 2024 will be in 2017, after both Rio & Sochi. So far, Sochi 2014 is hosting fine. And Rio 2016 will be ready, just like Athens 2004 was. But that's why the IOC voted "safe" for 2020, so they can have a cushion before they push the envelope again. And that's why they'll do the same for 2022 (if Oslo stays in).

3. Yet you seem to still think that Almaty is a viable option bcuz they can come up with a "pretty plan".

4. And like China, the IOC can't ignore Africa forever. Which sends many athletes to the Summer Olympics & would represent over one Billion to the Olympic family. Again, like Athens, Rio will be ready. People made dire predictions about Sydney 2000, too, but those Games turned out fine, didn't they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...