Jump to content

IOC reveals for first time it could be “in position” to elect 2030 Winter Olympics host next May


Recommended Posts

Let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance - that’s bs, and it’s the old way.

All it shows is that you are not good at accepting change.

The minority here still thrashing around trying to create conspiracy theories about the New Norm Host selection process simply shows that you do not like change. ….. and it shows that you want to go back to the old, regimented, costly system of bidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that you're the one in the minority. When several respectable Olympic news sources (including this site) & the majority on here, see it otherwise, then you should really re-evaluate you're 'old-line' of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

Seems to me that you're the one in the minority. When several respectable Olympic news sources (including this site) & the majority on here, see it otherwise, then you should really re-evaluate you're 'old-line' of thinking.

As I said, let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance.

This is just the new way of selecting Olympic Hosts.   There is no fast-tracking, it’s just new.

 Get on board or get out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance - that’s bs, and it’s the old way.

All it shows is that you are not good at accepting change.

The minority here still thrashing around trying to create conspiracy theories about the New Norm Host selection process simply shows that you do not like change. ….. and it shows that you want to go back to the old, regimented, costly system of bidding.

No. We can accept change. No-one’s saying go back to the old system. It had flaws. But so does the “new norm”.

We post because we have a passion for the Olympics and many of us believe the “new norm” has major flaws - in transparency, in it’s design to be “flexible” to the whims of the top IOC leadership. I believe  those flaws make it even more potentially corruptable than the previous procedures. I’m happy to see discussion and participate in pointing out those flaws and hopefully feed a wider discussion outside this board that ultimately gets such flaws addressed. To me, that’s far more honest and important than a knee-jerk defensive position that “new norm” is perfect so stop discussing it lest it taint Brisbane’s 2032 win.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Rols said:

No. We can accept change. No-one’s saying go back to the old system. It had flaws. But so does the “new norm”.

We post because we have a passion for the Olympics and many of us believe the “new norm” has major flaws - in transparency, in it’s design to be “flexible” to the whims of the top IOC leadership. I believe  those flaws make it even more potentially corruptable than the previous procedures. I’m happy to see discussion and participate in pointing out those flaws and hopefully feed a wider discussion outside this board that ultimately gets such flaws addressed. To me, that’s far more honest and important than a knee-jerk defensive position that “new norm” is perfect so stop discussing it lest it taint Brisbane’s 2032 win.  

Who is “we”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

As I said, let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance.

This is just the new way of selecting Olympic Hosts.   There is no fast-tracking, it’s just new.

 Get on board or get out of the way.

So again, several RESPECTABLE Olympic news sites, like ITG's, ATR's & this one right here GB's, are all "rusted-on mantras"?! :wacko: Denial is a river in Egypt, too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FYI said:

 

So again, several RESPECTABLE Olympic news sites, like ITG's, ATR's & this one right here GB's, are all "rusted-on mantras"?! :wacko: Denial is a river in Egypt, too!

As I said, let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance.

This is just the new way of selecting Olympic Hosts.   There is no fast-tracking, it’s just new.

 Get on board or get out of the way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Who is “we”?

Jeezus! Not pedantic much?

Okay, yeah, maybe the odd Nolympics person has wandrered onto the site at times. I didn’t think you’d identify with them - I just assumed you’d also describe yourself as having a passion for the games. Apologise for getting that wrong. 

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

As I said, let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance.

This is just the new way of selecting Olympic Hosts.   There is no fast-tracking, it’s just new.

 Get on board or get out of the way

You continually sounding like a broken-record (or in your case, a "rusted-on mantra") whenever you're confronted with actual CREDIBLE news sources that contradict your PR spin doesn't help your stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

As I said, let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance.

This is just the new way of selecting Olympic Hosts.   There is no fast-tracking, it’s just new.

 Get on board or get out of the way.

 

20 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance - that’s bs, and it’s the old way.

All it shows is that you are not good at accepting change.

The minority here still thrashing around trying to create conspiracy theories about the New Norm Host selection process simply shows that you do not like change. ….. and it shows that you want to go back to the old, regimented, costly system of bidding.

 

3 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

 

As I said, let go of this rusted-on mantra that Olympic Hosts must be selected in calender year order and that it must happen only 7 years in advance.

This is just the new way of selecting Olympic Hosts.   There is no fast-tracking, it’s just new.

 Get on board or get out of the way

Ah yes, stage two after “Release the Timeline/Press Releases!”.  Start the “keep spamming the same response” stage.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

To me, that’s far more honest and important than a knee-jerk defensive position that “new norm” is perfect so stop discussing it lest it taint Brisbane’s 2032 win.  

And that's what this "nonsense" is really all about (& always has been). Because questioning the "new norm" for whatever it's worth, in their mind also questions Brisbane's so-called win. It's akin to when a certain you-know-who didn't want to acknowledge any foreign interference in a certain presidential election, because then it would call their own 'win' into question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

 

 

Ah yes, stage two after “Release the Timeline/Press Releases!”.  Start the “keep spamming the same response” stage.

spacer.png

LOL, I remember a certain Angelo using the same 'rusted-on' tactic a few years back as well. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sure there are many here who too are looking forward to December to see who of Sapporo, Salt Lake City or Vancouver are elevated to Targeted Dialogue and then on to the final Host Vote in May 2023.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

December, 2022

 IOC Executive Board Meeting

As I said, I’m sure there are many who are looking forward to the outcome of this December’s IOC Executive Board meeting to see who of Sapporo, Salt Lake City or Vancouver are elevated to Targeted Dialogue

(and then on to the final Host Vote in May 2023).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Nope, I'll make them my words too.  Because he's right.

First off, you're giving us this timeline and omitting these key dates..

22 May 2019 - Future Olympic Games elections to be more flexible

26 Jun 2019 - Evolution of the revolution: IOC transforms future Olympic Games elections

So your "evidence" of a timeline is already falsified.  We can argue semantics til we're blue in the face, but the fact we have a 2032 host before we have a 2030 host means that something is a little weird.  Let alone that the decision was made in the middle of a once in a century global pandemic that delayed the 2020 Olympics by a year.

This is not a conspiracy.  The IOC chose to fast-track an announcement of the 2032 host.  Nothing wrong with that other than it lacks the kind of transparency the IOC often likes to boast they're all about.  But let's also not pretend - to Rols' point - that the IOC couldn't "fast track" a 2030 host and name it sooner rather than later if they really wanted to

In the New Norm era, selecteding a host not in calendar order may be something that you personally think is weird, but that is irrelevant.

What you call “fast tracking” is not fast tracking at all. Candidates enter continuous dialogue at any time and the IOC will, when a candidature has ticked all the boxes can be elevated at any time, pandemic or no pandemic.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

In the New Norm era, selecteding a host not in calendar order may be something that you personally think is weird, but that is irrelevant.

What you call “fast tracking” is not fast tracking at all. Candidates enter continuous dialogue at any time and the IOC will, when a candidature has ticked all the boxes can be elevated at any time, pandemic or no pandemic.

Is there a reason you felt compelled to reply to me in 3 separate posts, including one more time after a spirited back and forth with Bollock and Lollock?  Is that even a thing?

You don't actually need to get hyper-defensive anytime someone brings up how Brisbane 2032 came to be.  It's not an insult to them or a criticism.  It's not suggesting there's a conspiracy.  It's just acknowledging that yea, this all was a little weird.  In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not the only one who personally thinks that.  Again, to say that is not a knock against Brisbane, so you don't need to come to their defense any time sometime brings it up.  You need to find a new hobby.

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...