Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Quaker, what do you thinks the odds are that we'll see a double award of Milan or Stockholm for 2026, and then Salt Lake or Denver for 2030? Do you think it's best in the IOCs interest to decide in 2019 their plans through 2030?

Slim to none.  Doesn't seem to be on the IOC's radar anymore and it serves little purpose.  No, it is not in their best interest to do that given the current state of affairs.  They need to figure out 2026 first.  Then and only then should they start thinking about 2030.  If they were thinking about 2030 now, they need to say so when they have the likes of Sapporo and the USOC thinking about it.  That the USOC is fast-tracking a candidate means they're preparing for the 2026 collapse where they may be called upon.  Not because they're preparing for a double award, IMO.

And no, you don't need to call out that other poster.  To answer your follow up.. my opinion has remain unchanged and I don't see the circumstances changing to where a double award is the way to go.  Possible, yes.  But very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Even though I did not tag you directly, thanks for sharing. I too am smelling a double-award on the horizon, I agree with you in that the USOC wouldn't be worrying this early about a 2030 bid, especially when they already have a full-on Olympics to plan, if they weren't expecting to find out about hosting 2030 next year. I also think they are putting some sort of trust in SLC about erasing some of the bad press, which is understandable.

 

Look, we agree!

Just an FYI again :lol:, Quaker is not going to agree with US then! ^_^:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FYI said:

Lmfao - is Quaker your GB’s mentor or something? And just FYI :lol:, but Quaker doesn’t believe that they’ll be any sort of double award here (if you’ve been following the forums these past few months, including this one). He’s quite adamant that the IOC at this point should ‘focus’ on 2026 & only 2026.

I OTOH, think that it’s in the best interest of the IOC to instill stability on the winter side of things for the next decade, like they did on the summer side. And it could be possible Milan 2026 & SLC 2030 could still work out very nicely for them if they’re interested at all in having no more bad PR around the bid process. It still gives them a European Winter Games in 2026 & also I don’t think the USOC is pursuing a 2030 candidate so early for no reason whatsoever. 

1 minute ago, FYI said:

Yeah, I know that’s the point of the forums (that’s why I mentioned my stance on it). But if you’ve also checked out the Calgary 2026/SLC 2030 thread lately, you’d see that his opinion hasn’t changed. As a matter of fact, he seems to think that the more these cities are dropping out of 2026, the less likely that there would be a double in this case, even though that’s exactly what happened in the summer category last year in order for that double to occur. 

I see the double fetish is still alive and well with you.  But now it could possibly be Milan/SLC?  Did we borrow Olympian Fan's dart board for that one?

Really don't need you to tell other people want I'm thinking.  I mean, I do appreciate your obsessiveness with me that when someone else mentions my name, you can't help yourself but to interject on my behalf.  Keep talking up the double though.  Will make it much more fun for me to shove it back in your face when it doesn't happen.  And when you inevitably say "no, I just said it was a possibility, I never predicted it was definitely going to happen," I'll pull an FYI and remember what you actually said at the time because you are clearly saying you think it's the smart thing for the IOC to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Maybe I should've done more reading before I asked the question, obviously I missed some backstory here ... :D

So what do you think of QQ’s know-it-all post now, Anthony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FYI said:

So what do you think of QQ’s know-it-all post now, Anthony?

Regardless of the issues the two of you have, he has a valid point LOL. He seems to be thinking the USOC is lined up to pull an Innsbruck when Denver dropped out three years before, expect with much more planning. (at most 11 years, but ready whenever needed). Which, could be very smart, because it may send a message like "if this city can do it on such little notice and still not spend so much, there's no reason why *insert winter sports city/region* can't also host. I actually never considered it like that to tell you the honest truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I see the double fetish is still alive and well with you.  But now it could possibly be Milan/SLC?  Did we borrow Olympian Fan's dart board for that one?

Obviously I’m not the only one with the “fetish” if another member is thinking the same thing (that’s not dart boy). 

12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Really don't need you to tell other people want I'm thinking.  I mean, I do appreciate your obsessiveness with me that when someone else mentions my name, you can't help yourself but to interject on my behalf.  

Are you taking ques from PuFF’s play book now? :lol::P

12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Keep talking up the double though.  Will make it much more fun for me to shove it back in your face when it doesn't happen.  And when you inevitably say "no, I just said it was a possibility, I never predicted it was definitely going to happen," I'll pull an FYI and remember what you actually said at the time because you are clearly saying you think it's the smart thing for the IOC to do.

I wasn’t “talking up” anything. Anthony brought it up & I concurred with him.

”Shove it back in my face”? Just exactly how old are you? :rolleyes: You just admitted yourself that it was “possible”. Also saying that it’s in their best (which someone else also mentions, plus we know by now that the IOC doesn’t always make the smartest moves anyway) is NOT the same as saying that it “will” happen. There is a difference, ya know. But I’ll remember that anyway, cuz if it did happen, I will so much enjoy “SHOVE IT BACK IN YOUR FACE”, too! :P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

thinking the USOC is lined up to pull an Innsbruck when Denver dropped out three years before, expect with much more planning. (at most 11 years, but ready whenever needed). Which, could be very smart, because it may send a message like "if this city can do it on such little notice and still not spend so much, there's no reason why *insert winter sports city/region* can't also host. I actually never considered it like that to tell you the honest truth. 

Yes, but in case it doesn’t work out that way, there’s still Sapporo that says that they’re still interested in 2030 if SLC winds up with 2026 if everyone else withdraws. That’s how this whole thing started anyway several months back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FYI said:

Yes, but in case it doesn’t work out that way, there’s still Sapporo that says that they’re still interested in 2030 if SLC winds up with 2026 if everyone else withdraws. That’s how this whole thing started anyway several months back. 

Didn't Norway also claim they would try for 2030, because 226 didn't give them enough time to garner political support?

 

But even so, in the case that Sapporo is interested in 2030, you're actually supporting Quaker's claim more in that SLC can step in and cover 2026 should the IOC be left with absolutely no options, and then cities like Sapporo, Oslo/Lillehammer, and whoever else can actually bid for 2030. Not half-cracked logic. Keeps host interested and a stable bid process, and gets the IOC that desired North American or Western Europe host for at least 2026, but maybe even 2030 as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Regardless of the issues the two of you have, he has a valid point LOL. He seems to be thinking the USOC is lined up to pull an Innsbruck when Denver dropped out three years before, expect with much more planning. (at most 11 years, but ready whenever needed). Which, could be very smart, because it may send a message like "if this city can do it on such little notice and still not spend so much, there's no reason why *insert winter sports city/region* can't also host. I actually never considered it like that to tell you the honest truth. 

Innsbruck replaced Denver (and not until the IOC first offered the games to Whistler, after Vancouver/Garibaldi's bid for the `76 Winter Games) with only 3 years lead time for those Olympics.  If something were to happen here, it would happen before the vote, not after.  So whoever the USOC nominates would still have a full 7 years.  The USOC has said they're looking at 2030, but internal memos indicate they have an eye towards 2026.  They won't initiate that conversation with the IOC, but they know it's a very real possibility that Milan and Stockholm both drop out of the running.  At which point, where else will the IOC turn.  It's not about sending a message to other cities.  Salt Lake (moreso than Denver) is pushing for this because they believe they can host a successful Olympics.  Not simply to step in and replace another city.  And the reason they wouldn't have to spend is because they have all the venues in place from 2002.  No other city is really positioned to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Didn't Norway also claim they would try for 2030, because 226 didn't give them enough time to garner political support?

 

But even so, in the case that Sapporo is interested in 2030, you're actually supporting Quaker's claim more in that SLC can step in and cover 2026 should the IOC be left with absolutely no options, and then cities like Sapporo, Oslo/Lillehammer, and whoever else can actually bid for 2030. Not half-cracked logic. Keeps host interested and a stable bid process, and gets the IOC that desired North American or Western Europe host for at least 2026, but maybe even 2030 as well. 

They said the timing is not right for them for 2026 and that 2030 is a better bet.  Keep in mind this is obviously the country and the same general region that rejected the 2022 Olympics when it was practically being handed to them on a silver platter.

Sapporo had originally been looking at 2026 and 2030.  They eventually said they're only looking at 2030 now, citing a couple of long-term infrastructure projects, although I think they just want to steer clear of Tokyo.  And yes, you're saying exactly what I have said about 2030 that there could be some interested parties there.  By awarding 2030 now without having a more formal process, how would they even decide which available city to do with?  Not as neat and tidy as what the IOC had for 2024 where there were 2 cities in the running (and 2 excellent bid cities at that) engaging with them.  If both of the remaining 2026 bids drop off, then they have nothing.  And the USOC knows they need to tread carefully with a Winter bid since there are implications with LA 2028 in terms of financial dealings.  Of course, if the IOC reaches a total desperation mode, they'll likely be willing to deal with Salt Lake (or Denver.. but probably not Denver) in order to make it worth their while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Didn't Norway also claim they would try for 2030, because 2026 didn't give them enough time to garner political support?

You mean the same Norway that told the IOC to take a fricken hike for 2022 (even though it would’ve been handed to them on a silver platter), that Norway?

Not enough time to garner political support for 2026? That hasn’t stop Sweden from trying to get 2026 (even though they’re hanging on by thread at this point).

Like I’ve said all along about the Swiss, too - but I’ll believe in a Norwegian bid when I finally get to see one on the IOC voting table on Election Day.

10 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

But even so, in the case that Sapporo is interested in 2030, you're actually supporting Quaker's claim more in that SLC can step in and cover 2026 should the IOC be left with absolutely no options, and then cities like Sapporo, Oslo/Lillehammer, and whoever else can actually bid for 2030. Not half-cracked logic. Keeps host interested and a stable bid process, and gets the IOC that desired North American or Western Europe host for at least 2026, but maybe even 2030 as well. 

Like I just said, I’ll believe in a Norwegian/Swiss/(or anywhere else in Western Europe) bid when I finally see one at a full IOC voting session. The reality right now is, that Europe is not at all interested in the (Winter) Olympics, & taking a wild guess that someone credible/viable (that actually WANTS the Games in the end) in Europe is just going to come out of the woodwork for 2030 is like merely rolling the dice, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, FYI said:

Obviously I’m not the only one with the “fetish” if another member is thinking the same thing (that’s not dart boy). 

He asked a question.  And directed it at someone specific.  But you see someone else mention a double and it's zzzzzzOMG, DOUBLE!!  I NEED TO TELL EVERYONE WHAT I THINK ABOUT THAT!!!

33 minutes ago, FYI said:

Are you taking ques from PuFF’s play book now? :lol::P

Nope.  But you are.  Where else do you think you got the "QQ" from.  And here, let me save you the response so you don't have to post it. abf.png

36 minutes ago, FYI said:

”Shove it back in my face”? Just exactly how old are you? :rolleyes: You just admitted yourself that it was “possible”. Also saying that it’s in their best (which someone else also mentions, plus we know by now that the IOC doesn’t always make the smartest moves anyway) is NOT the same as saying that it “will” happen. There is a difference, ya know. But I’ll remember that anyway, cuz if it did happen, I will so much enjoy “SHOVE IT BACK IN YOUR FACE”, too! :P

Says the guy with the mentality of a high school class clown.  I've said repeatedly that it was possible, so that shouldn't be new to you.  And yea, if there's a double, you can give me the biggest "I told you so" in the history of this website and you will undoubtedly remind me about it for the rest of time.  You can even go the Abra-spams-for-fun route and try and take credit for suggesting it.  But at this point, there is virtually no expectation that it's going to happen other than to people on this forum.  It's not too far removed from the kind of absurd speculation that takes over this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

He asked a question.  And directed it at someone specific.  But you see someone else mention a double and it's zzzzzzOMG, DOUBLE!!  I NEED TO TELL EVERYONE WHAT I THINK ABOUT THAT!!!

Yeah, so? To quote Anthony: “just getting discussion rolling, hence the point of this thread, and forum entirely”. 

Didn’t realize that you were the forum/thread gestapo & one can only comment on the posts that are directly addressed to certain people in particular. :rolleyes:

17 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Says the guy with the mentality of a high school class clown.  

Well, let me take a que from YOUR playbook then: 

abf.png

:P

19 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And yea, if there's a double, you can give me the biggest "I told you so" in the history of this website and you will undoubtedly remind me about it for the rest of time. 

Let me que up my I Told You So dance then, just in case! 

giphy.gif

:lol::P

22 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You can even go the Abra-spams-for-fun route and try and take credit for suggesting it. .

:lol:

67329087.jpg

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FYI said:

And just FYI :lol:, but Quaker doesn’t believe that they’ll be any sort of double award here (if you’ve been following the forums these past few months, including this one). He’s quite adamant that the IOC at this point should ‘focus’ on 2026 & only 2026.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

But if you’ve also checked out the Calgary 2026/SLC 2030 thread lately, you’d see that his opinion hasn’t changed. As a matter of fact, he seems to think that the more these cities are dropping out of 2026, the less likely that there would be a double in this case, even though that’s exactly what happened in the summer category last year in order for that double to occur. 

If you want to get the discussion rolling, tell him what you think.  I can tell him what I think without you doing it for me.  Maybe he's right that you didn't feel included.  Here's what you should stick to..

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR maybe it’s BCUZ, FYI :P of your PuFF-type mentality from previous discussions that we’ve had on the subject before, & he was asking you of all people, when he’s also “smelling” a double-award on the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FYI said:

OR maybe it’s BCUZ, FYI :P of your PuFF-type mentality from previous discussions that we’ve had on the subject before, & he was asking you of all people, when he’s also “smelling” a double-award on the horizon.

PuFF-type mentality.. what does that even mean?  Or are you just throwing his name out there because that itself is supposed to be offensive?

He was asking me because I started the topic, and perhaps because I have an opposing opinion.  Of course, you see that, have to start off by insulting both of us (although you mentioned me by name as opposed to "that other poster", that's unlike you :ph34r:), and then for some reason feel incessant need to attract attention to yourself and tell everyone your opinion when no one asked for it..

hn7iks.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

and then for some reason feel incessant need to attract attention to yourself and tell everyone your opinion when no one asked for it.

Are you fu@king kidding me with this hypocritical garbage? “Insulted” both of you? :wacko: If that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black! If you’re so thin-skinned, maybe you need to go & play on the playground then with all the other little kids instead of trying to post here. And if you felt insulted, again it might be BCUZ of that conversational history on that subject matter a couple of times already over the past several months, where you know, you think you know-it-all & everyone else should bow to “your opinion” - sounds like a certain “other poster”, no? That’s why it fits here. :P

And talk about “feeling an incessant need to attract attention to yourself” by you ‘incessantly’ telling me that no one ‘asked’ for my opinion. For another cue of your playbook “good for you” :P that he asked for “your” opinion. But I don’t need your fu@king permission to what I can or can’t post about. So get off your sanctimonious high horse already. Again, didn’t realize that you were the thread police & that people here are only permitted to comment on posts that are only directed at them. :rolleyes: 

And ‘FYI’, stop with the FYI memes already. It was cute the first time, the second time, not so much. Oh, & here’s another cue from your playbook which also fits here just for you:

tenor.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FYI said:

Are you fu@king kidding me with this hypocritical garbage? “Insulted” both of you? :wacko: If that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black! If you’re so thin-skinned, maybe you need to go & play on the playground then with all the other little kids instead of trying to post here. And if you felt insulted, again it might be BCUZ of that conversational history on that subject matter a couple of times already over the past several months, where you know, you think you know-it-all & everyone else should bow to “your opinion” - sounds like a certain “other poster”, no? That’s why it fits here. :P

Oh, I wasn't insulted by it.  Trust me, at this point I'm well aware what a cesspool this forum has become (I have someone who I blame for that and no, it's not you) that turns us all into bitter assholes, myself include.  No, it's just your typical back-handed slap where prior to offering your opinion, you had to take a shot at me (whatever, I don't care, but still gonna call you out for it).

4 hours ago, FYI said:

And talk about “feeling an incessant need to attract attention to yourself” by you ‘incessantly’ telling me that no one ‘asked’ for my opinion. For another cue of your playbook “good for you” :P that he asked for “your” opinion. But I don’t need your fu@king permission to what I can or can’t post about. So get off your sanctimonious high horse already. Again, didn’t realize that you were the thread police & that people here are only permitted to comment on posts that are only directed at them. :rolleyes:

So if someone posted "hey FYI, what do you think about this?" and I jumped in and responded ""Lmfao, is FYI your GB's mentor?" and "here's 2 posts worth of what he thinks about this and I, OTOH, think the opposite," you're telling me you wouldn't have the exact same response as I did?  Bullshit!  You would have had the exact same reaction and fired back at me.  You can comment on whatever you want, but for FFS, let me tell another poster who ask me a question what I think when he asks me.  You want to tell him what you think to further the discussion, I'm okay with anyone doing that.  But you are one of the last people here I want to tell other people about my opinions.  That's like someone asking me what I think of tonight's dinner and then you eat it first and tell him to just smell your farts.

5 hours ago, FYI said:

And ‘FYI’, stop with the FYI memes already. It was cute the first time, the second time, not so much. Oh, & here’s another cue from your playbook which also fits here just for you:

So you just recycled the same thing I sent to you.  Real original.  And FYI, that one is a Gif, not a meme.  Get it straight! :D  As if you haven't responded to a post before with just an image.  The funny thing is.. I'm pretty sure you picked up that habit from me B)

I do hope you appreciate the irony here you're telling me about what you "can or can't post about" and then in the next breath, telling me what not to post.  If it bothers you so much..

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

61818700.jpg

For someone that says that they weren’t insulted by it, you sure do enjoy going on a nuclear diatribe about how I rattled your cage, & then further saying what a cesspool that this website has become (& it’s not the first time that you’ve said such things, either). But the irony in that is, that you keep coming back to the cesspool again, again & again. Go fu@king figure. :rolleyes:

But again, talk about attracting attention to yourself (your words), this is what I see when keep harping about this nonsense: 

Attention-whore---meme.jpg

But to quote your last “gif” :P (as it the difference between that & a meme really means diddly squat :rolleyes:), I really “don’t give a sh!t” what you have to say. Moving on - BCUZ :P I’m done with this pot of sh!t that you continue wanting to stir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they will award 2030 early because there are at least TWO solid bids there (Sapporo, a US bid, and possibly Lillehammer, Almaty and Erzurum again.  And after a good Paris 2024 Games, who knows, the good burghers of Annecy might want to try again; or at least position themselves for 2034.)  So, as long as Sapporo has hinted they will go for 2030, the IOC will NOT short-circuit the process for 2030, especially as Tokyo 2020 might turn out to be a profitable one as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Milan & Stockholm fall to the wayside & the IOC has to turn to SLC for 2026? Then they’re out for 2030, so that just leaves Sapporo as the solid bid. And Lillehammer? Norway is wishing thinking at this point in time, & Almaty & Erzurum are not the “traditional winter Olympic sport destinations” that the IOC is so desperately wanting to return to. 

Even if Milan, or to a lesser extent Stockholm, were to make it to the 2026 finish line, I think the USOC (& IOC) will want to still work something out for 2030. And then I agree, either way, once Paris 2024 comes & goes, perhaps Annecy will then want to make a run for 2034.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×