Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, FYI said:

What if Milan & Stockholm fall to the wayside & the IOC has to turn to SLC for 2026?

Oh, if that happens, then all bets are off; and it's probably SLC-USOC's for the asking, much to the chagrin of LA.  But LA will just have to suck it up.  The IOC will throw them another $600 mil.  I think we'll know by March.  The IOC has to know if there's going to be a full Session for June or not.  If it's just the Italian bid left, then they can just acclaim that.  No need for a full Session, altho the IOC might still want everyone there for their annual pow-wow.  It was just the IOC Exec Board which ratified LA's bid for 1984 in August 1978 when LA was the only one left.  

The ratification vote can also be done electronically; and probably 90 days away is what the Swiss-Tek Convention Center will want for cancellation of the June event with minimal penalties.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

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.  

17 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Oh, if that happens, then all bets are off; and it's probably SLC-USOC's for the asking, much to the chagrin of LA.  But LA will just have to suck it up.  The IOC will throw them another $600 mil.  I think we'll know by March.  The IOC has to know if there's going to be a full Session for June or not.  If it's just the Italian bid left, then they can just acclaim that.  No need for a full Session, altho the IOC might still want everyone there for their annual pow-wow.  It was just the IOC Exec Board which ratified LA's bid for 1984 in August 1978 when LA was the only one left.  

The ratification vote can also be done electronically; and probably 90 days away is what the Swiss-Tek Convention Center will want for cancellation of the June event with minimal penalties.  

Remains to be seen what the IOC does if both Italy and Sweden fall by the wayside.  I think we all agree 1 of their first calls will be to the USOC.  If the USOC is interested in working out some sort of deal to make Salt Lake 2026 happen, do they even look elsewhere or do they put all their eggs in 1 basket with them.  If that all happens though, where they have 0 candidates bidding, why award 2 Olympics to those 0 candidates?  It just doesn't make any sense for them to do that.

18 hours ago, FYI said:

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.

Why would the IOC want to do that?  If they have their 2026 bidder (and yea, they might need some sort of contingency plan available should something fall apart there) and both Salt Lake and Sapporo are likely to bid for 2030, what's in it for the IOC to work something out with Salt Lake now when they know they might have 2 solid bids for 2030.  To say nothing of what that means for Salt Lake as being that contingency for 2026 if needed.

If 2026 gets settled by June (and especially if it doesn't involve Salt Lake or Sapporo where they can both look towards 2030), then why would the IOC look beyond that.  And if the IOC is thinking towards 2030, are they going to have a deal done there at the same time as they award 2026?  Or will it come later?  Because if it comes later, then it's not a double.  At that point, it's more like what FIFA did for 2018/2022 where originally they were accepting bids for both World Cups but eventually it turned into 2 distinct votes that didn't overlap with each other.  How much flak did FIFA catch for doing that one, to say nothing of how it resulted in Qatar getting 2022.

We keep talking about bad press with the IOC.  It's a risk any way you look at it if 3 years from now or whenever, the IOC starts taking bids for 2030 not knowing what they have and with the possibility of cities dropping out.  But they also need to tread carefully about working out a deal behind the scenes where it seems like they're rushing a city through the process.  If that happens for 2026 because they have no other choice, so be it.  If they're doing that for 2030 more than a decade out, that's likely creating bad press now to save them potential bad press down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Why would the IOC want to do that?  If they have their 2026 bidder (and yea, they might need some sort of contingency plan available should something fall apart there) and both Salt Lake and Sapporo are likely to bid for 2030, what's in it for the IOC to work something out with Salt Lake now when they know they might have 2 solid bids for 2030.  To say nothing of what that means for Salt Lake as being that contingency for 2026 if needed.

Remember that was the arguement trying to be made against Paris 2024 by a certain “other poster” in the L.A. thread? Granted, I think that danger exists moreso with Stockholm than Milan at this point. But I don’t think such an argument is neither here nor there at this juncture. 

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If 2026 gets settled by June (and especially if it doesn't involve Salt Lake or Sapporo where they can both look towards 2030), then why would the IOC look beyond that.  And if the IOC is thinking towards 2030, are they going to have a deal done there at the same time as they award 2026?  Or will it come later? Because if it comes later, then it’s not a double.

Yet again, how about creating stability on the winter side of things? What’s so wrong in trying to do that? And what difference does it make if it comes in June or later? If they decide it later without a formal 2030 bid process, it still qualifies as some sort of double. Although, that’s exactly what you said for 24/28. That you could still see it happening, even if it wasn’t at the same time as the Lima 2017 session.

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

At that point, it's more like what FIFA did for 2018/2022 where originally they were accepting bids for both World Cups but eventually it turned into 2 distinct votes that didn't overlap with each other.  How much flak did FIFA catch for doing that one, to say nothing of how it resulted in Qatar getting 2022.

Yeah, but what kind of flak did the IOC get for awarding 2024 & 2028 together, besides really none?

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We keep talking about bad press with the IOC.  It's a risk any way you look at it if 3 years from now or whenever, the IOC starts taking bids for 2030 not knowing what they have and with the possibility of cities dropping out.  But they also need to tread carefully about working out a deal behind the scenes where it seems like they're rushing a city through the process.  If that happens for 2026 because they have no other choice, so be it.  If they're doing that for 2030 more than a decade out, that's likely creating bad press now to save them potential bad press down the road.

And how much bad press did the IOC receive for awarding L.A. the 2028 Games more than a decade out, besides really none? For all the talk some were making that there would be hell to pay, if the IOC did that, to the NOC’s that would’ve been interested in 2028, was nothing more than hot air. There would likely be more bad press with a crumbling (2030) process yet again (as we saw with 2022 & 2026, & even 2024) than there would be by awarding 2030 more than a decade out.

Share this post


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

Remember that was the arguement trying to be made against Paris 2024 by a certain “other poster” in the L.A. thread? Granted, I think that danger exists moreso with Stockholm than Milan at this point. But I don’t think such an argument is neither here nor there at this juncture. 

Do we care what that other poster thinks?  Yea, it's probably not an issue, but your logic for doing this now is avoid potential issues for 2030.  If Salt Lake and Sapporo are both likely in the running, that's 2 solid options?  Why make a deal with 1 of them now rather than letting the situation play itself out 4 years when both of them are ready to put their best foot forward?

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Yet again, how about creating stability on the winter side of things? What’s so wrong in trying to do that? And what difference does it make if it comes in June or later? If they decide it later without a formal 2030 bid process, it still qualifies as some sort of double. Although, that’s exactly what you said for 24/28. That you could still see it happening, even if it wasn’t at the same time as the Lima 2017 session.

LOL.. no, if they award 2026 and something happens later for 2030, it's not a double.  It's 2 distinct and separate things.  Not even remotely the same as an agreement between 3 parties that they all worked together to make it happen.  Again, take a look at FIFA and how that worked out to lock in 2 hosts at once and what "stability" did for them.  What's wrong is that there's no formal process here.  If the IOC is going to look for a 2030 host, they're opening up a brand new process.  These things take years to play out.  You expect the IOC to condense that down into a matter of months?  That's not stability.  That's stupidity.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Yeah, but what kind of flak did the IOC get for awarding 2024 & 2028 together, besides really none?

You keep trying to compare this to 2024/2028, but there's nothing here that makes them similar other than the potential end results (and even then, it's not the same if it's not part of 1 singular agreement).  2024/2028 was an extremely formal process.  They had 2 bidders they were actively engaged with and spent months working out a deal that was agreeable to all 3 parties.  They took their time to reset their plans and make calculated decisions.  If the IOC is left with nothing for 2026, they don't get the luxury of planning things out with 2 interested parties.  They need to make pitches to Sapporo and the USOC and whoever else they decide to make a call to and probably will have to offer all sorts of concessions to make it happen.  The folks at the IOC aren't going to look at the situation and suddenly deciding putting 2030 is going to help the situation.

The 2024/2028 double was a luxury of pretty ideal circumstances.  What's going on with 2026 is trending towards the polar opposite of ideal.  It shouldn't be handled with the same solution.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

And how much bad press did the IOC receive for awarding L.A. the 2028 Games more than a decade out, besides really none? For all the talk some were making that there would be hell to pay, if the IOC did that, to the NOC’s that would’ve been interested in 2028, was nothing more than hot air. There would likely be more bad press with a crumbling (2030) process yet again (as we saw with 2022 & 2026, & even 2024) than there would be by awarding 2030 more than a decade out.

Because LA was already bidding.  They had years of preparation to put them in a position to put together their plan and then still took time to adjust that plan to make it work for 2028.  Who said there would be hell to pay or bad press from that?  That's such a straw man argument.  You're assuming a 2030 bid process would be a disaster.  What if it's not?

The USOC is rushing to have a Winter candidate ready.  We both know why that's happening, even if they can't say it publicly.  Is there any evidence that another city/country is rushing to have a bid ready to go in the next year?  If we get to June and both Milan-Cortina and Stockholm have dropped out, it's not like 1 phone call is going to make it happen.  There's still going to need to be a process to officially name a 2026 candidate and at that point it will probably have to play out pretty publicly over a period of a few months if not longer than that.  Why would they do that all over for 2030 when they didn't even have a bid in the first place.  Because you're so certain that they should lock in Sapporo now even though they don't have a bid on the table?  How could they simply pick a city and assume it would be their best option without considering alternatives?  And yes, that would create some seriously bad press if the IOC looked like they were forcing themselves on a city by trying to strike a deal in private.  Again, you can't compare it to LA because they already had all the cards on the table.

Bottom line.. even if the IOC decided to determine a 2030 host now as opposed to 4-5 years from now, it's not going to happen overnight.  This is an organization that spends years engaging with cities to determine the best candidate to be their host city.  You're saying it's a risk to have the process crumble on them (even though more than likely, if everyone else dropped out, they'd have Sapporo).  It's an even bigger risk to speed through that process and potentially wind up with the wrong city and/or a city that is not fully prepared.  That may create stability now, but they could easily be paying for it down the line.

Share this post


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

LOL.. no, if they award 2026 and something happens later for 2030, it's not a double.  It's 2 distinct and separate things.  Not even remotely the same as an agreement between 3 parties that they all worked together to make it happen. 

Ugh, whatever. “Semantics”.

33 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You keep trying to compare this to 2024/2028, but there's nothing here that makes them similar other than the potential end results (and even then, it's not the same if it's not part of 1 singular agreement). 

No different than you continually trying to bring up FIFA as a comparion, when the two situations are nowhere similar. Whereas 2024/2028 is a totally tangible circumstance that can be directly tied to the IOC & their manipulating decision making when it suits them.

39 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Who said there would be hell to pay or bad press from that?  That's such a straw man argument.  You're assuming a 2030 bid process would be a disaster.  What if it's not?

Prominent members here. So it’s not my ‘straw man argument’. And there you go again, playing devil’s advocate. I’m not “assuming” anything. The proof is in the pudding, that the last three bid processes have been nothing but a headache for the IOC. And to think that’s going to change overnight all of the sudden, is nothing short of naivety.

45 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Bottom line.. even if the IOC decided to determine a 2030 host now as opposed to 4-5 years from now, it's not going to happen overnight.  This is an organization that spends years engaging with cities to determine the best candidate to be their host city.  You're saying it's a risk to have the process crumble on them (even though more than likely, if everyone else dropped out, they'd have Sapporo).  It's an even bigger risk to speed through that process and potentially wind up with the wrong city and/or a city that is not fully prepared.  That may create stability now, but they could easily be paying for it down the line.

How convenient. But yet you think that other bidders, particulary Europeans ones are going to crawl out of the woodwork overnight. Can’t have it both ways.

No kidding that this is an organization that spends years to determine the best candidate to be their host city. But when they virtually have no cities to engage with these days (especially the ones they really, really want), then as the old saying goes; beggars can’t be choosers.

Plus, I don’t see how winding up with a city like Sapporo would be a “bigger risk, or the wrong city, or a city that’s not fully prepared”, when in your previous post you label them as a “solid bid”.

Share this post


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

Ugh, whatever. “Semantics”.

Fine, it's semantics.  Still think there's next to zero possibility your version of a "double" has any chance of happening.

26 minutes ago, FYI said:

No different than you continually trying to bring up FIFA as a comparion, when the two situations are nowhere similar. Whereas 2024/2028 is a totally tangible circumstance that can be directly tied to the IOC & their manipulating decision making when it suits them.

Guess what.. these 2 situations are nowhere near similar either.  The only tie that binds is that it's the IOC.  Manipulative decision making?  Who got manipulated in the 2024/2028 deal?  Paris got their Olympics.  LA waits 4 years, but gets some extra cash thrown their way.  None of that all happens unless everyone involved is agreeable.

28 minutes ago, FYI said:

Prominent members here. So it’s not my ‘straw man argument’. And there you go again, playing devil’s advocate. I’m not “assuming” anything. The proof is in the pudding, that the last three bid processes have been nothing but a headache for the IOC. And to think that’s going to change overnight all of the sudden, is nothing short of naivety.

Proof of what?  No question 2022 and 2026 have been disasters.  2024 wasn't.  Yes, there were 2 dropouts, but they were always 2 excellent candidates after all of that.  You're saying there likely will be bad press with 2030 bids.  You think there won't be bad press if they make some behind the scenes deal to make that happen now?  Not exactly going to help the image of an organization that most of the world thinks is corrupt and forces themselves upon cities/countries to spend tons of money that the IOC is approaching them in a much more closed process.  They're better off waiting because even if every other city drops out, pretty good bet they're left with Sapporo.  And if that's not the case, then what are they doing telling Sapporo now to accept 2030?  Talk about manipulative.  And what happens if they say no?

37 minutes ago, FYI said:

How convenient. But yet you think that other bidders, particulary Europeans ones are going to crawl out of the woodwork overnight. Can’t have it both ways.

No kidding that this is an organization that spends years to determine the best candidate to be their host city. But when they virtually have no cities to engage with these days (especially the ones they really, really want), then as the old saying goes; beggars can’t be choosers.

Says the guy who says Annecy may be out there in a few years.  We're not talking about overnight.  We're talking about 3-4 years from now.  Yet you're the one who says get 2030 done now when there are no active bidder for the only Olympics that's currently on the table.  And if you're going to tell me that 2028 wasn't on the table initially either when the 2024 bid was going on, you can't ignore the number of available bids then was 2.  The number of available bids here could soon be 1.

As for Europe, you continue to push that Lillehammer is a non-entity.  As emphatically as Oslo dropped out of the 2022 bid when it was theirs for the taking, maybe let's put some credence into the fact that there's any notion that Norway would consider a 2030 bid.  That's hardly begging.  Besides, if no one is engaging with them now, why award 2 Olympics instead of 1?  Give everyone time to line everything up.  And if the IOC fears a referendum or a dropout, then they can tell that city/country they're no longer interested, just like they did with Erzurum.

45 minutes ago, FYI said:

Plus, I don’t see how winding up with a city like Sapporo would be a “bigger risk, or the wrong city, or a city that’s not fully prepared”, when in your previous post you label them as a “solid bid”.

Because in your mind, Sapporo is the only city that's going to be there for 2030, so why even entertain the notion that another city might be out there.  That might not be the case.  What if another bid emerges that's better?  You can't assume that won't happen.  And the nice thing for the IOC is that with 2028 already sorted, they can spend a lot more time working out 2030.  So use that time to their advantage rather than rushing it and likely winding up with another Asian Winter Olympics.  If that's going to happen - and there's a decent chance it will - then maybe it's a smarter move to not do that in the middle of a run of 3 Asian Olympics and between the 2 Asian Winter Olympics.

Share this post


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

Manipulative decision making?  Who got manipulated in the 2024/2028 deal?  Paris got their Olympics.  LA waits 4 years, but gets some extra cash thrown their way.  None of that all happens unless everyone involved is agreeable.

The IOC manipulated protocol to get what they wanted in the end. Just bcuz all the parties involved got what they wanted (well, not really, cuz let’s keep in mind, like Abratrollson likes to keep reminding us, that L.A. really wanted 2024 & should’ve gotten 2024), doesn’t mean that none of that happened bcuz the IOC didn’t pull the strings to make it all happen.

41 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

No question 2022 and 2026 have been disasters.  2024 wasn't.  Yes, there were 2 dropouts, but they were always 2 excellent candidates after all of that. 

 There were actually three dropouts for 2024; Rome, Hamburg & Budapest. High-profile drop outs that still deluded the 2024 race, even though the last two candidates remaining were excellent (well to everyone else except the two you-know-who’s from Lala land of course).

41 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Says the guy who says Annecy may be out there in a few years.  We're not talking about overnight.  We're talking about 3-4 years from now.  

For someone who gets all huffy when you get misquoted or misinterpreting what you say, you sure have no trouble doing the exact same thing to others.

What I said was, if Paris 2024 goes off without a hitch, then perhaps we MIGHT see an Annecy bid for 2034 after that. That’s still not 2030, though, & it would be more than three to four years from now before we even start to hear any talks about bids for that bid-cycle to come about.

44 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

As for Europe, you continue to push that Lillehammer is a non-entity.  As emphatically as Oslo dropped out of the 2022 bid when it was theirs for the taking, maybe let's put some credence into the fact that there's any notion that Norway would consider a 2030 bid.  That's hardly begging. 

You said the same thing about Switzerland before Sion called it quits. Perhaps that’s the difference between me & you. You like to rely on a ‘notion’. While I like to rely on the raw data.

49 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Because in your mind, Sapporo is the only city that's going to be there for 2030, so why even entertain the notion that another city might be out there.  That might not be the case.  What if another bid emerges that's better?  You can't assume that won't happen.  And the nice thing for the IOC is that with 2028 already sorted, they can spend a lot more time working out 2030.  So use that time to their advantage rather than rushing it and likely winding up with another Asian Winter Olympics.  If that's going to happen - and there's a decent chance it will - then maybe it's a smarter move to not do that in the middle of a run of 3 Asian Olympics and between the 2 Asian Winter Olympics.

For someone who generally doesn’t like to entertain notions, you’re sure doing a lot of that here.

Again, misquoting me here, but I never said that Sapporo would be the ‘only city’ there for 2030. What I said was that it’s very likely to be the most viable/desirable one that the IOC would want anyway, with Europe, you know, just bailing out left & right on them lately. Plus, if 2026 goes to SLC, it’s not like they’d be there for 2030 either. So the pickin’s would likely be slim to none for that cycle, again going by recent precedence.

Share this post


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

The IOC manipulated protocol to get what they wanted in the end. Just bcuz all the parties involved got what they wanted (well, not really, cuz let’s keep in mind, like Abratrollson likes to keep reminding us, that L.A. really wanted 2024 & should’ve gotten 2024), doesn’t mean that none of that happened bcuz the IOC didn’t pull the strings to make it all happen.

They pulled the strings because they knew the parties were agreeable.  And remember we were talking here about how it would have been tougher to go that right if there were still 3 cities in the running instead of 2.  Once it was down to Paris and LA, then the IOC started pulling those strings because they knew the cities were likely to work it out rather than go into a vote and hope for the best.  Let's also not ignore that the IOC had to throw some cash at LA to make it happen.  So it's not as those there was no cost to the IOC for making that move.

17 minutes ago, FYI said:

 There were actually three dropouts for 2024; Rome, Hamburg & Budapest. High-profile drop outs that still deluded the 2024 race, even though the last two candidates remaining were excellent (well to everyone else except the two you-know-who’s from Lala land of course).

Would Budapest have stood any shot at beating Paris or LA?  Rome dropped out of 2020 as well, so they probably wouldn't have done so well.  And Hamburg may or may not have been the best choice from Germany's standpoint.  We consider those dropouts high profile because they're part of a bigger trend, but the odds of any of those cities beating Paris would have been pretty slim.  As opposed to some of the dropouts for 2022 and 2026 which would have had a better shot at winning.  History may or may not remember who was in the running for 2024/2028.  More likely they'll remember what left us with Beijing for 2022 and whatever we get for 2026.

21 minutes ago, FYI said:

For someone who gets all huffy when you get misquoted or misinterpreting what you say, you sure have no trouble doing the exact same thing to others.

What I said was, if Paris 2024 goes off without a hitch, then perhaps we MIGHT see an Annecy bid for 2034 after that. That’s still not 2030, though, & it would be more than three to four years from now before we even start to hear any talks about bids for that bid-cycle to come about.

"we might see an Annecy bid for 2034" is different than "Annecy may be out there in a few years?"  I know what you said.  If you think there are circumstances that could put a European city in the mix for 2034, why not for 2030?  If the thinking is to give it more time to see if there's a city out there, then what's the rush to ignore a more traditional timetable for 2030 bidding and get it done now?  The IOC can wait until after Beijing in 2022 to start getting serious about 2030 bidders.  It's not like they don't already have an idea of who might be out there, but give those cities the extra time to see how serious they are rather than to do it based on what we know now and speed up the process for the sake of speeding up the process.

28 minutes ago, FYI said:

You said the same thing about Switzerland before Sion called it quits. Perhaps that’s the difference between me & you. You like to rely on a ‘notion’. While I like to rely on the raw data.

What "raw data" are you talking about?  Yes, I know as well as you do that Europe may wind up having produced 0 total candidates for 2022 and 2026.  But you're so convinced now, still in 2018, that trend will continue for 2030.  How can the IOC know that will be the case if they don't go through the process rather than just assuming it's a lost cause?  If the fear is more bad press, can it get much worse than what they're dealing with right now?  I don't think they're doing themselves more harm by inviting bids from European countries.  I think they're doing more harm by writing them all off and hoping things will be better when they're ready to start thinking about 2034.  They have the luxury of not needing to think about finding the next Summer host.  They should use that to their advantage to put in the time and effort to deal with all their troubles with the Winter Olympics rather than to just kick the can down the road and hope things will be better then.

33 minutes ago, FYI said:

For someone who generally doesn’t like to entertain notions, you’re sure doing a lot of that here.

Again, misquoting me here, but I never said that Sapporo would be the ‘only city’ there for 2030. What I said was that it’s very likely to be the most viable/desirable one that the IOC would want anyway, with Europe, you know, just bailing out left & right on them lately. Plus, if 2026 goes to SLC, it’s not like they’d be there for 2030 either. So the pickin’s would likely be slim to none for that cycle, again going by recent precedence.

For all the European cities that have pulled out, have you forgotten that's exactly what Sapporo did as well?  Different reasons and it wasn't so public and high profile as losing on a referendum, but you can't ignore the fact that Sapporo could have been there with a 2026 bid that's on the verge of falling apart, but instead said "no thanks, we're looking ahead to 2030."  Okay, so if they're not the only city there for 2030, then are we talking about a fresh bid here where multiple cities are making a pitch for 2030?  And if they are the most viable/desirable city (again, how does the IOC know that if they haven't given consideration to other cities that may or may not be out there), how does the IOC turn to Sapporo less than a year than they rescinded their bid and say "we need you to make a pitch to us now so we can get you for 2030."  That worked for LA when the alternative was to go to a vote and potentially lose to Paris.  With Sapporo, if the IOC calls them up and says let's talk 2030, that's a desperation move that Sapporo can use as leverage.  Is it worth doing that just for a little stability?  Probably not.  Not to mention if the issue is bad press, get ready for the shitstorm that the IOC could be walking into with Tokyo's budget.  Get past that and then let Sapporo take the stage.

Share this post


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

Assuming 600 million would quiet LA, how much do you think it will cost to quiet SLC? Would the 600 million purchase SLC’s right to marketing and if not would SLC also receive a kickback from the IOC. I can easily see a billion rising from between both cities. 

It's not about quieting Salt Lake.   The USOC doesn't want to bid for 2026 because of LA and the World Cup, but if Milan-Cortina and and Stockholm both drop out of the bidding for 2026, where else does the IOC turn?  So the USOC may leverage that for everything it's worth and tell the IOC to put a gigantic pile of cash on the table.  Yea, it could be well over a billion dollars.  Because there may not be a good alternative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We consider those dropouts high profile because they're part of a bigger trend,

Exactly - you just said it. Part of a ‘bigger trend’ that doesn’t show any signs of letting up. 

15 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

History may or may not remember who was in the running for 2024/2028.  More likely they'll remember what left us with Beijing for 2022 and whatever we get for 2026.

Right, that’s why some even here still question why in the world did the IOC choose Beijing for 2022. They have forgotten already that the IOC only had a “turd sandwich & giant douche” to choose from in the end. 

15 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

"we might see an Annecy bid for 2034" is different than "Annecy may be out there in a few years?"  I know what you said.  If you think there are circumstances that could put a European city in the mix for 2034, why not for 2030?

Yes, it’s different cuz I mentioned a specific cycle that’s more than just a “few years” away. And it still might NOT happen. It all depends how Paris 2024 goes as I mentioned earlier. They definitely won’t try for 2030 for the same reasons you cite that Sapporo gave up on 2026, i.e. Tokyo 2020. And I certainly don’t see much coming from the Alpine or Scandinavian states, either. For example, it’s Stockholm 2026 or bust (& they’re hanging on by a thread at this point). 

15 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

What "raw data" are you talking about?  Yes, I know as well as you do that Europe may wind up having produced 0 total candidates for 2022 and 2026.  But you're so convinced now, still in 2018, that trend will continue for 2030. 

You said it earlier - ‘bigger trend’.  So I haven’t “convinced” myself of anything. And it’s more than just 2022 & 2026. It’s also (again) 2024. Plus, countries like Switzerland & Sweden have said NO to the Olympics even prior to those races. So the big trend started way back then. If you want to ignore all that simply to try & make an argument to the contrary, then fine. But I choose not to ignore the proof in the pudding. 

15 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

With Sapporo, if the IOC calls them up and says let's talk 2030, that's a desperation move that Sapporo can use as leverage.  Is it worth doing that just for a little stability?  Probably not.  

Will yeah - the IOC is in desperate times, aren’t they? Aren’t you the one that told a certain “other poster” (bcuz they say otherwise) that the IOC can ask SLC to take 2026, bcuz desperate times call for desperate measures? Plus, it’s not just Sapporo. If Milan (or Stockholm, by some miracle) stays in the 2026 race, then I can see the USOC & IOC talk about 2030. I’m sure there’s already talks between them about both sets of Games, not just one.

 

Share this post


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

Exactly - you just said it. Part of a ‘bigger trend’ that doesn’t show any signs of letting up. 

Trends don't last forever.  And less we forget.. in the middle of the 2022 mess and the 2026 mess is Paris 2024.  All the IOC needs is 1 willing city.  Who's to say that can't come from Europe.

56 minutes ago, FYI said:

Right, that’s why some even here still question why in the world did the IOC choose Beijing for 2022. They have forgotten already that the IOC only had a “turd sandwich & giant douche” to choose from in the end. 

The irony there is that this bid may be even more of a mess than that one and the end result may wind up being Salt Lake City.  But for those of us who follow these things, the dropouts from 2022 and 2026 are much more significant than the ones from 2024.  If those cities stay in, the 2024 Olympics are likely still in Paris and even without a double, pretty decent chance that 2028 winds up in LA.  In short.. the 2024 dropouts didn't necessarily affect the outcome.  The 2022 dropouts definitely did, and who knows how 2026 turns out.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

You said it earlier - ‘bigger trend’.  So I haven’t “convinced” myself of anything. And it’s more than just 2022 & 2026. It’s also (again) 2024. Plus, countries like Switzerland & Sweden have said NO to the Olympics even prior to those races. So the big trend started way back then. If you want to ignore all that simply to try & make an argument to the contrary, then fine. But I choose not to ignore the proof in the pudding. 

You can talk about all of these trends and I'm not ignoring the state of affairs with the Olympics these days, but using that to try and predict the future is not "proof" of anything.  It's merely your opinion.  Which is to say.. good for you! :P

The difference here is that you don't seem to want to give it a chance.  I think the IOC has to give it a chance.  And that you mentioned Sweden.. they started to conceive a bid for 2022 before the government shut them down.  And here they are back in the fold for 2026.  Hanging on by a thread for sure, but still in it.  So who's to say that one of the countries that dropped out wouldn't figure out a way to try again.  Again, all the IOC needs is 1 bidder to stay the course.  Easier said than done, but that's all it would take to break a trend.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Will yeah - the IOC is in desperate times, aren’t they? Aren’t you the one that told a certain “other poster” (bcuz they say otherwise) that the IOC can ask SLC to take 2026, bcuz desperate times call for desperate measures? Plus, it’s not just Sapporo. If Milan (or Stockholm, by some miracle) stays in the 2026 race, then I can see the USOC & IOC talk about 2030. I’m sure there’s already talks between them about both sets of Games, not just one.

It sure is desperate times and it could get more desperate.  But how exactly is "talks" supposed to lead to the IOC pulling up their timetable to award the 2030 Olympics by a few years.  Would they not have a formal bid process or are you expecting the IOC is just going to strike a deal with someone with no warning?

So let's say 1 of the current 2026 bidders holds on.  You're right, the USOC is probably in communication with the IOC about 2030.  So is Sapporo.  What indication is there that makes you think the IOC would suddenly decide to award 2030, "besides really none" (thanks for the new FYI-ism there).  If it's about stability, then why didn't the IOC turn this competition into one where both 2026 and 2030 were on the table.  Because in hindsight, the USOC would have been all for that.  As would Sapporo.  And then if everyone else dropped out who was interested in 2026, then it would be easier to pull off what they did with Paris and LA.  The only difference here would be convincing someone to go first rather than go second.

And it can't be boiled down to "well, the IOC is unpredictable and they're not always that smart, so they could do this."  It can't be a matter of a handshake deal behind the scenes with which cities they might be talking to.  That's worse and would lead to more bad press and instability and not necessarily solve problems.  There's no desperation for 2030 like there probably will be for 2026.  That's not a desperate time.  It doesn't call for a desperate measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Trends don't last forever.  And less we forget.. in the middle of the 2022 mess and the 2026 mess is Paris 2024.  All the IOC needs is 1 willing city.  Who's to say that can't come from Europe.

You’re right! Milan 2026/SLC 2030! :lol::P

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

You can talk about all of these trends and I'm not ignoring the state of affairs with the Olympics these days, but using that to try and predict the future is not "proof" of anything.  It's merely your opinion.  Which is to say.. good for you! :P

Yeah, it’s an opinion BASED on those trends. And by that same token, all you’re offering up is “your” opinion, too (which is basically what this whole forum is about anyway - opinions), but with you it’s even worse, cuz you’re not basing it on anything, or “proof”, only by “chance”, which is some kind of argument. So “good for you” right back at ya! :P

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

The difference here is that you don't seem to want to give it a chance.  I think the IOC has to give it a chance.  And that you mentioned Sweden.. they started to conceive a bid for 2022 before the government shut them down.  And here they are back in the fold for 2026.  Hanging on by a thread for sure, but still in it.  So who's to say that one of the countries that dropped out wouldn't figure out a way to try again.  Again, all the IOC needs is 1 bidder to stay the course.  Easier said than done, but that's all it would take to break a trend.

Well, let’s not start to sound like some L.A. columnist here, who’s already calling out 2026 for them. And as you just alluded to, the Swedish government shut down the 2022 bid. That’s a key element that virtually every bid needs. Stockholm 2026 still needs that government support (& at this point, it’s not looking good that they’re gonna get it).

It’s their NOC that’s wants to hang on tooth & nail here. Not the government, not the citizens. So not really a strong foundation if that’s the argument you want to use (& let’s not forget how staunchly the Swedes were against the Stockholm 2004 bid, too). Like I’ve said with Norway & Switzerland before, but I’ll believe in a Swedish bid when I finally see one at the IOC voting table. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

There's no desperation for 2030 like there probably will be for 2026.  That's not a desperate time.  It doesn't call for a desperate measure.

What was the desperation for 2028 that promoted the IOC to make a desperate measure to give those Games right away to L.A., besides really nothing? :lol::P And don’t tell me the usual hindsight rhetoric that “it made sense at the time”. Cuz even you were against that double then, & even went on to say, that if it did happen, you could see it happening after the Lima session, if at all.

Share this post


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

I feel as if I've been invited into the living room of a gay couple. This is the kind of sh!t people imagine happening when they think of gay people. 

1) No one invited you. You invited yourself

2) You probably think about gay people a lot, I'm guessing

Share this post


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

It's not about quieting Salt Lake.   The USOC doesn't want to bid for 2026 because of LA and the World Cup, but if Milan-Cortina and and Stockholm both drop out of the bidding for 2026, where else does the IOC turn?  So the USOC may leverage that for everything it's worth and tell the IOC to put a gigantic pile of cash on the table.  Yea, it could be well over a billion dollars.  Because there may not be a good alternative.

There is always Almaty Kazakhstan they can go to in 2026 then North America in 2030, Sapporo Japan would be looking great for 2034.

Share this post


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

There is always Almaty Kazakhstan they can go to in 2026 then North America in 2030, Sapporo Japan would be looking great for 2034.

Image result for can't tell if trolling or stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

1) No one invited you. You invited yourself

2) You probably think about gay people a lot, I'm guessing

I think that PuFF gets flustered when her adored L.A. columnist (& her own rants, that are basically ‘parroting’ his) don’t get put on the same high pedestal as she puts him (them) on. And then lashes out about the ‘gay people’ & ‘gay community’ here. Either that or he’s one of those self-loathing, closeted gays, or both lol. Or perhaps he’s been shunned by the man of his dreams that wanted nothing to do with him because he’s such a damn ‘queen’ lmfao.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says the insecure one who’s done nothing but howl & hiss in the L.A. thread over the past three fricken years. :rolleyes::P

Share this post


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

You’re right! Milan 2026/SLC 2030! :lol::P

If that winds up being the sequence, we won't know it for at least another 4 years and not before then.

14 hours ago, FYI said:

Yeah, it’s an opinion BASED on those trends. And by that same token, all you’re offering up is “your” opinion, too (which is basically what this whole forum is about anyway - opinions), but with you it’s even worse, cuz you’re not basing it on anything, or “proof”, only by “chance”, which is some kind of argument. So “good for you” right back at ya! :P

We're trying to predict what's going to happen with the IOC and these Olympics bids.  Of course it's all based on opinions, but what evidence is out there that would indicate the IOC is going to consider a double, besides really none?  You keep harping on that idea out of personal intuition and your double fetish, but I doubt we're all going to wake up one morning and find out that the IOC is going in that direction.  Do you honestly believe there's a decent chance that happening?  Don't make this about, "well it *might* happen, and you said you thought it was possible."  It's so much flawed logic that says this is going to turn out like 2024/2028, especially where that took nearly a year to play out.  If that's going to happen here, the IOC is running out of time to initiate that plan and they don't have the right situation to do it with.

15 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, let’s not start to sound like some L.A. columnist here, who’s already calling out 2026 for them. And as you just alluded to, the Swedish government shut down the 2022 bid. That’s a key element that virtually every bid needs. Stockholm 2026 still needs that government support (& at this point, it’s not looking good that they’re gonna get it).

It’s their NOC that’s wants to hang on tooth & nail here. Not the government, not the citizens. So not really a strong foundation if that’s the argument you want to use (& let’s not forget how staunchly the Swedes were against the Stockholm 2004 bid, too). Like I’ve said with Norway & Switzerland before, but I’ll believe in a Swedish bid when I finally see one at the IOC voting table. 

Here's the thing, though.  You say "I'll believe it when I see it" but this is still the IOC we're talking about.  They don't exactly have a solid track record of seeing what should be obvious to them.  A lot of your theories about doubles and where the IOC will go is based on trend of cities dropping out of the running.  But in order for the IOC to go in that direction, they'd have to acknowledge that problem exists in the first place.  They haven't really done that.  So again, be careful about basing predictions on what the IOC might do based on how you see things (yes, I know, you're going to throw that one back at me as well and say it's all about opinions) and look at how they're seeing this and how they'll respond to "trends."

15 hours ago, FYI said:

What was the desperation for 2028 that promoted the IOC to make a desperate measure to give those Games right away to L.A., besides really nothing? :lol::P And don’t tell me the usual hindsight rhetoric that “it made sense at the time”. Cuz even you were against that double then, & even went on to say, that if it did happen, you could see it happening after the Lima session, if at all.

Jesus.. you continuing to say that I was against the double doesn't magically make that true, because it's not.  Stop telling yourself that or show me the post where I was against it.  And you wonder why I get all uppity when you mis-represent my opinion.

2024/2028 wasn't about desperation.  It was about opportunity.  It's rare that the IOC has had 2 bids like that in front of them, so they did something unorthodox and took advantage of a situation.  And they spent nearly a year putting that together.  What the IOC has now is not a situation to be taken advantage of.  They're on the verge of major damage control mode.  The solution to that isn't to say "you know what, we don't have a bidder for 2026, so let's find 2 hosts instead of 1."  Does that make any sense?  How does any of the current climate and what we know about the IOC lead you to believe they'll go in that direction.  Don't make it about 2024/2028, because that's neither here nor there.  How many times have we said on this site that past history doesn't necessarily predict the future.  That's the kind of logic that some people use to say "well, this city is better than Atlanta, so therefore, they can host an Olympics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Group voices concerns over 2030 Olympic bid
Posted 10:29 pm, November 15, 2018, by Elle Thomas

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah group is voicing concerns over 2030 Winter Olympic bid, saying residents may not be considering consequences of an Olympic round two.

All around the Salt Lake Valley, residents can find remnants of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

The infrastructure that came alongside those games is part of what has been garnering a lot of support from Utah elected officials, but a group has concerns Utahns aren’t taking the consequences of the games into consideration.

“It was awesome. it was super fun, I went to three events a day,” said Josh Kanter, the founder of Alliance for a Better Utah.

It was an event that had a lasting impact on the Beehive State.

“In many ways the 2002 Olympics put salt lake city on the map,” Kanter continued.

But the question is, is Utah ready for round two?

“If anyone is well suited to host the Olympics again, Salt Lake is it, right?” Kanter said.

The fate of the 2030 games is a tale of two cities… Salt Lake and Denver.

“Two regional powerhouses,” Kanter said.

A number of elected officials have come to bat for the games.

“We are proud to be a part of the olympic family,” said Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski in a press conference Wednesday. “We feel like this is in our DNA.”

Still, not everyone is on board.

“It’s one of these things that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should,” Kanter said. “Our [Alliance for a Better Utah] concern is there is a lot of critical thinking that needs to be done just in terms of, is this the right thing for the state at this time?”

The Alliance for a Better Utah agrees, the games do have their pros.

“It’s great that we’re going to put the state on the map again and give us that boost of tourism,” Kanter said.

But they also believe we may be blinded to the cons.

“People need to think about all of the consequences, positive and negative,” Kanter said.

Part of the issue they see is how our current infrastructure would be able to support an influx of people.

“We don’t really have the infrastructure in place for some of these things as well. Those long term consequences, the environmental consequences… there are a lot of things i think people need to think about long and hard,” Kanter said.

Another concern stems from the $1.3 billion price tag attached to getting Salt Lake Olympics ready.

“How many tax payer dollars are going to be used and where is that money coming from? Obviously we have competing needs for tax payer dollars all the time,” Kanter said.

Even with a hefty number of people attending the games, a recent study has projected Salt Lake would break even with the amount spent — but if there was money left over, it's not clear where it would go to.

“With the Olympics, that’s generally speaking going to be Summit County, Davis and Weber county and then of course Salt Lake County and yet the real economic need in this state is in many of our other counties,” Kanter said.

Overall, they wonder, could that amount of money be better spent elsewhere?

“It’s sort of weighing where our priorities are and what can we do with the amount of money that the state is spending,” Kanter said.

Even some of our Olympic bid counterparts aren’t sold on the games.

“We haven’t solved homelessness, we haven’t solved affordable housing, we haven’t solved transportation issues… all of those things seem to be bigger priorities than a three week party,” said Brad Evans, an organizer for Let Denver Vote.

Let Denver Vote is concerned that Denver isn’t ready to take on the Olympic burden. Their goal is to gain support to get an initiative on the 2019 ballot which would allow residents to vote on whether or not they want to see the Olympics in Colorado, if taxpayer dollars are involved.

“We just want to make sure the public has a vote in it,” Evans said.

Given our current infrastructure, they say Salt Lake may be the better choice.

“Yeah! Go Salt Lake City,” Evans laughed. “I mean Salt Lake’s had it before, you guys have had it before and may be more well equipped.”

But that’s not necessarily a compliment

“It’s like with Amazon, phewww, dodged that bullet!” Evans laughed as he pretended to wipe sweat from his brow.

At the end of the day, if it doesn’t go to one city, it will go to the other. “It is definitely tax payer hot potato,” Evans said.

In a recent poll more than 80 percent of Utahns reported being in support of Salt Lake hosting the 2030 games. However, the alliance believes that number may be incorrect.

“Going out and polling something and getting people to say, ‘Yes, we want the olympics’ is one thing. Put it on the ballot and tell people it might cost money, or what the consequences may be and you might get a very different result,” Kanter said.

When it comes down to it, Alliance for a Better Utah says they just want to see what’s really better for Utah.

“We have to at least be critical and honest about what those priorities are and how we’re ranking them.”

FOX 13

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If that winds up being the sequence, we won't know it for at least another 4 years and not before then.

Oh, excuse me then. I forget that you have the Olympic crystal ball in your possession. :rolleyes:

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We're trying to predict what's going to happen with the IOC and these Olympics bids.  Of course it's all based on opinions, but what evidence is out there that would indicate the IOC is going to consider a double, besides really none? 

OH FFS. Don’t give this “evidence” bullsh!t & try to tell me that I can’t have an opinion bcuz I can’t produce evidence. Do you have any “evidence” to the contrary? That’s why they’re called OPINIONS & not “evidence”.

The IOC also says that they DON’T have a “plan B” if the 2026 race falls apart. But you know as well as I that’s total nonsense. Of course they have a plan-B even if there’s no “evidence” of that available ATM. Although, they have said before that a 2026/2030 double was not out of the question. So there’s your “evidence”. But I’m sure you’ll come back with some counter quaker theory, as usual. 

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You keep harping on that idea of personal intuition and your double fetish, but I doubt we’re all going to wake up one morning and find out that the IOC is going in that direction. Do you honestly believe there's a decent chance that happening?  Don't make this about, "well it *might* happen, and you said you thought it was possible."  It's so much flawed logic that says this is going to turn out like 2024/2028, especially where that took nearly a year to play out.  If that's going to happen here, the IOC is running out of time to initiate that plan and they don't have the right situation to do it with.

Well “good for you” that you doubt that. Of course I think there’s a ‘decent’ (key word there) chance of it happening. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having the umpteenth go-around about this, now would we. But even at a decent chance, I’m still not saying totally, for certain, 100% that it “will” happen. OTHO, I certainly don’t agree with your “near-ZERO” assertion, either. And that’s where we mainly differ here. So it’s not “harping” or a “double fetish”, as you so enjoying saying, but moreso about your “near-Zero fetish”.

And the IOC didn’t publicly talk about a 2024/2028 double until after Budapest finally pulled out of 2024, which was about May 2017, less than four months from the Lima Session. So we’re still at least a number of months away from that respective point in time in where the IOC made any type of move in that case.

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Jesus.. you continuing to say that I was against the double doesn't magically make that true, because it's not.  Stop telling yourself that or show me the post where I was against it.  And you wonder why I get all uppity when you mis-represent my opinion.

No, you get all uppity bcuz that’s your nature. I know what you said, cuz it’s always the same condescending, beat-a-dead-horse, back-&-forth with you. If you say it’s not true, then you go back in time (since you’re good at that sometimes), Mr. Time Machine, & show me that you didn’t say that. Cuz I’m not gonna go through pages & pages of your many long-toothed posts just to “show you”.

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

2024/2028 wasn't about desperation.  It was about opportunity.  It's rare that the IOC has had 2 bids like that in front of them, so they did something unorthodox and took advantage of a situation.  And they spent nearly a year putting that together.  

“Opportunity”? Are you F’n kidding me with THAT now. :rolleyes: And again, that double was not nearly a year in the making, it was just a few months, right after Budapest 2024 officially withdrew from the race in May 2017. In Sept. 2016 (a year before the Lima Session), people were still arguing (you included) which city was going to be more “butthurt” & not come back for 2028 if they lost 2024 (particularly Paris & L.A.). So obviously it wasn’t that obvious at the time back then that Paris was going to win 2024, if you thought that L.A. could still win it, hence those exchanges (before that double was even part of the equation).

 

Share this post


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

Oh, excuse me then. I forget that you have the Olympic crystal ball in your possession. :rolleyes:

Likewise.  Wait, nevermind.  You don't have a crystal ball.  You have pudding, which you claim contains "proof."

3 hours ago, FYI said:

OH FFS. Don’t give this “evidence” bullsh!t & try to tell me that I can’t have an opinion bcuz I can’t produce evidence. Do you have any “evidence” to the contrary? That’s why they’re called OPINIONS & not “evidence”.

You can have an opinion just as I have mine.  But then don't talk about "proof" as if your predictions about the future of Olympic bidding as if you have a crystal ball and already know what 2030 would look like.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

The IOC also says that they DON’T have a “plan B” if the 2026 race falls apart. But you know as well as I that’s total nonsense. Of course they have a plan-B even if there’s no “evidence” of that available ATM. Although, they have said before that a 2026/2030 double was not out of the question. So there’s your “evidence”. But I’m sure you’ll come back with some counter quaker theory, as usual.

Really?!  So a few weeks ago when they very specifically since "we have no plan B," I'm supposed to believe that they know exactly what they're going to do if Milan-Cortina and Stockholm both drop out?  I don't buy that for a second.  I'm sure they've had some closed door discussions about what they'll do if that happens that they can't count on it publicly.  But how the hell could they possibly have a plan B when the USOC doesn't officially have a candidate (we can say we know it'll be Salt Lake, but that's much easier said than done)?  Can they snap their fingers can get Sapporo to come back into the mix for 2026?  As for the potential of a double, sure it was discussed in the wake of Paris/LA, but it's barely been mentioned in months.  Plus there's this from April..

IOC Deny 2026/2030 Olympic Bid Double-Allocation Planned Despite U.S. Prominence In 2026 Announcement

I don't doubt for a split second that there are conversations between the IOC and potential 2030 candidates.  But when it's reported that there's no talk of a double and the IOC doesn't have a plan B, we're supposed to believe it's all a bunch of lies?  So essentially, you're reading the tea leaves and telling me not to believe what the IOC is saying or what is being reported.  No thank you.  Believe what you want, but when the IOC says they don't have a plan B, maybe it's because - try and stay with me for a minute here - they actually don't have a plan B.  And even if it's something they're discussing in private, that's a pretty sketchy plan.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Well “good for you” that you doubt that. Of course I think there’s a ‘decent’ (key word there) chance of it happening. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having the umpteenth go-around about this, now would we. But even at a decent chance, I’m still not saying totally, for certain, 100% that it “will” happen. OTHO, I certainly don’t agree with your “near-ZERO” assertion, either. And that’s where we mainly differ here. So it’s not “harping” or a “double fetish”, as you so enjoying saying, but moreso about your “near-Zero fetish”

No fuckingshit.  Do you really think you need to keep saying that as if you think I'm arguing you're making a prediction of something definitely happening?  Yea, I think there's a near zero chance of it happening.  So forgive me for arguing with someone who thinks there's a "decent chance" of it happening and who sneers at me for having an opinion that disagrees with you.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

And the IOC didn’t publicly talk about a 2024/2028 double until after Budapest finally pulled out of 2024, which was about May 2017, less than four months from the Lima Session. So we’re still at least a number of months away from that respective point in time in where the IOC made any type of move in that case.

We were talking about it here a lot sooner than that.  Yea, we know why that is, but it was one of the "Top 10 Stories of 2016" so it had at least some traction well before May of 2017.  And if they started talking about it publicly in May of 2017, then when do we suppose they started talking about it privately?  After all, if the argument is that the IOC has a Plan B already figured out in private even if they're publicly saying the opposite, it stands to reason the 2024/2028 was being talked about long before they said anything about it.  Probably not a coincidence it was more out in the open once Budapest dropped out.  Not like it wasn't a discussion point here long before that.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

“Opportunity”? Are you F’n kidding me with THAT now. :rolleyes: And again, that double was not nearly a year in the making, it was just a few months, right after Budapest 2024 officially withdrew from the race in May 2017. In Sept. 2016 (a year before the Lima Session), people were still arguing (you included) which city was going to be more “butthurt” & not come back for 2028 if they lost 2024 (particularly Paris & L.A.). So obviously it wasn’t that obvious at the time back then that Paris was going to win 2024, if you thought that L.A. could still win it, hence those exchanges (before that double was even part of the equation).

Once again, get your history straight.  The "other posters" you speak of were mostly the L.A. boosters (and our favorite columnist) who said there would be no way a privately-backed bid could come up with tens of millions of dollars to back another bid.  We both framed that bid from the standpoint of it potentially being the last chance for Paris whereas the USOC would probably pick themselves up, dust them off, and bid again.  If there had been a vote for 2024, Paris would have been the odds on favorite.  Doesn't mean it would have been obviously obvious that they would win.  Paris of all cities knows what it means to be a favorite and then not win the vote.  "In the making" isn't just when it became public knowledge that the IOC was looking at it. How many discussions did we have hear about a double and how it may not work with Budapest still in the running, even though they were likely an also-ran up against Paris and LA?  The IOC may have officially laid it on the table in May.  Probably was being talked about long before then.

I'm sure we agree that things go on behind the scenes that the public isn't privy to.  Again, I don't doubt that 2030 is being talked about.  IMO, it's going to be nothing more than talk because they don't have the pieces in place like they did last time.  They did LA and the USOC a massive favor by awarding them 2028.  Maybe it's a thank you for billions that NBC has pledged in rights fees.  It was still a willing participant in the bid process though.  They don't have that here.  They may have 0 willing participants.

 

Let's just stop all this back and forth because we're just going in circles.  You think I'm wrong.  Fine, whatever.  I think you're wrong, and not just because I'm being contrarian or trying to play devil's advocate.  It's because I've listened to what you're saying and still think it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Share this post


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

and who sneers at me for having an opinion that disagrees with you.

This is the most hypocritical piece of crap & projection coming from the likes of you. It’s like if a certain “other poster” claimed something like this (oh wait - they have) & it’s truly & utterly laughable. No “meme” needed there. Just this :P

Share this post


Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...