FYI Posted February 22, 2024 Report Posted February 22, 2024 1 hour ago, Sir Rols said: I’d prefer a scaled down or more distributed northern English games than London again. I don't think the Ruhr is glamorous, but think it would be a great hosting option and prefer it to Berlin or Munich. No, but in that case, it's moreso the German appeal for me than anything else. And they at least also have the world-famous Cologne cathedral there. What does Brisbane have again? Some brewery factory? Quote
Sir Rols Posted February 22, 2024 Report Posted February 22, 2024 (edited) 32 minutes ago, FYI said: I guess, as usual, it just comes down to a matter of perspective then. Cause of the next three slated Summer Olympics, I'm most excited about Paris, & least excited about Brisbane (even moreso now with the latest revelations coming from there). And L.A. falls somewhere in-between on my list. Sydney I'd agree that would've been too soon again. That's why Melbourne would've been the perfect fit in both cases (new-ish with more appeal). How can the U.S. & Australia be the example when both approach Olympic hostings differently, though? The Feds in the U.S. aren't going to subsidize 1/2 the Olympics to any city (like Australia is doing with Brisbane). It just doesn't work that way here. The city & state are all on their own, barring security costs. That's why the whole pitch that Brisbane can be the "model" for other lesser-tier cities is a farce. I agree about Boston, though. Would've been a better alternative to L.A. again, & nicer locale than Atlanta. But the Bostonians just didn't want them. I remember the whole South Africa debates on here from back in the day, when some were adamant that for them it had to be scenic Cape Town or their biggest city Johannesburg. Never mind that Durban was the one with the all-ready Olympic stadium & a sports venue precinct. Not to mention, Durban also would've been the most conducive (much like Brisbane) to the all important time-frame dates. But none of that matter to that crowd lol. I still think that if the Games ever make it to South Africa, that less-glamorous Durban still trumps Cape Town & Johannesburg because it would still make the most cost-effective sense. Of course there’s no single one-size-fits-all model for hosting. US hosting models don’t fit elsewhere - the US college-dorm style for villages, for example. Other models wouldn’t fly in the US - like the acceptability of public funding. But nevertheless, an example of a lesser-tier city hosting a more or less frugal games is a demonstration of the viability of one new approach. Supposedly the “New Norm” is also about working more closely to fit the games to a city - one of the better and worthier aspects of it, despite drawbacks elsewhere. You’re right, how you view any particular host comes down to personal tastes. You’ve never liked Brisbane. And I can understand that. I’m not enthusiastic either, but I don’t absolutely hate it. 32 minutes ago, FYI said: I was thinking more inline with, the IOC just cutting some sort of deal with NBC in order to shift the dates for a "preferred candidate". Much like FIFA did with FOX (or whoever the U.S. broadcast channel was for 2022), that they gave them some sort of good deal for 2026 in order to make up for a Nov/Dec 2022 WC. But if that wasn't possible, there was always 2036 for Australia (which NBC doesn't have right now). It's not like 2032 was that short-supplied with other "interested parties" (yes, many of them were subpar, but there was still plenty of time to see what else came about, unlike 2030 which they jumped over altogether, like pole vaulters). I don’t think it was Fox that had to be smoothed over for WC 2022 - US TV doesn’t hold the same sway with FIFA that it has with the IOC. It was more UEFA and the clash with the powerful and lucrative European football clubs and their seasons. And at the end of the day, FIFA are basically unapologistic gangsters. They make the IOC look like saints. There’s no point indulging in what-ifs now. Brisbane, for better or worse, has 2032. No ifs or buts. Surely the main goal now is making the best of it - and quite frankly, it would do it better by being a cheap “Aldi” games than another expensive cautionary tale. There’s no shame in that. Edited February 22, 2024 by Sir Rols Quote
Nacre Posted February 22, 2024 Report Posted February 22, 2024 3 hours ago, Sir Rols said: Well, then I’d be pretty sure the OCOG would try to devise a sports plan to maximise their ticketing revenues - cricket rather than baseball, for example. Again, I don't disagree. The original question I was answering is whether using smaller venues really matters. And I think it certainly does matter for the balance sheet of the games; if there's a large stadium or arena available then there is a pretty big advantage to using it to sell more tickets during the games. Quote
FYI Posted February 22, 2024 Report Posted February 22, 2024 46 minutes ago, Sir Rols said: You’re right, how you view any particular host comes down to personal tastes. You’ve never liked Brisbane. And I can understand that. I’m not enthusiastic either, but I don’t absolutely hate it. There’s no point indulging in what-ifs now. Brisbane, for better or worse, has 2032. No ifs or buts. Surely the main goal now is making the best of it - and quite frankly, it would do it better by being a cheap “Aldi” games than another expensive cautionary tale. There’s no shame in that. I don't necessarily dislike or hate Brisbane anymore than how some international members at the time didn't think that Boston was good enough to be Olympic host or how Atlanta "sucked" in their view, for example (although, other Aussies on here have called Brisbane a "backwater, hick town", so that doesn't leave that much of a good impression TBW). It's how it all came about is what I dislike most about it. And then how a certain-you-know kept going on-&-on about how it was the "best choice" all thanks to the "new-norm" & any form of critique was just drowned out by spam/trolling & point-by-point redundant analysis that made me even more turned-off by it (much like how some said what Danny did with Rio which left a baste taste in their mouths about 2016). I get that it is what it is. But one can still dream, can't they! Quite frankly, I don't really relish the idea of an "Aldi" Games. Not for something like the Olympics anyway. That's okay for those lesser-tier events for smaller cities that can't host the real deal, that very few pay any attention to anyway. It gives them something to at least aspire/aim for. But the Olympics is the creme-de-la-creme of all multi-sport events & should be as reflective as such as much as possible (let's be honest, that's exactly what turned many of us here into Olympic fanatics ITFP). Maybe can we step it up a notch or two then? So instead of an Aldi Games, can we at least have a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods Games? Is that still too much to ask for! Quote
Sir Rols Posted February 22, 2024 Report Posted February 22, 2024 15 hours ago, Nacre said: Again, I don't disagree. The original question I was answering is whether using smaller venues really matters. And I think it certainly does matter for the balance sheet of the games; if there's a large stadium or arena available then there is a pretty big advantage to using it to sell more tickets during the games. Fair enough. In Brsbane’s case, though, I don’t think there’s a huge difference between the contentious venues - I’m not sure wat the limitations are on temporar seating at QE2 or Carrara, but they might even be able to match he Gabba’s 50k. 15 hours ago, FYI said: I get that it is what it is. But one can still dream, can't they! Quite frankly, I don't really relish the idea of an "Aldi" Games. Not for something like the Olympics anyway. That's okay for those lesser-tier events for smaller cities that can't host the real deal, that very few pay any attention to anyway. It gives them something to at least aspire/aim for. But the Olympics is the creme-de-la-creme of all multi-sport events & should be as reflective as such as much as possible (let's be honest, that's exactly what turned many of us here into Olympic fanatics ITFP). Maybe can we step it up a notch or two then? So instead of an Aldi Games, can we at least have a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods Games? Is that still too much to ask for! LOL! Do you guys have Aldi in the US? I gotta say, their chocolate usually puts most other supermarkets to shame here. That said, the “Aldi” games concept is of course hyperbolic, and basically part of the debate in Qld about the Gabba versus the alternatives. But again, it’s symptomatic of what I’m trying to get to with my thoughts on the disconnect between the ned fr cheaper games versus the temptation to spend big for pride, national and city honour etc. Really, I think it’s more a factor of the crowds and the spirit that lifts a games more than how glittering and new the venues are. Quote
Gonzo Posted February 22, 2024 Report Posted February 22, 2024 Brisbane Lions AFL Chair came out yesterday and basically said re-build the Gabba or we will be a second-rate team within a decade due to the financial losses of playing in a smaller/old stadium that would not even accommodate their growing membership base He pointed to the fact that Geelong's GHMBA Stadium (aka Pork Barrel Park) was rebuilt stage by stage for $350 million and questioned the $2.7 billion Gabba cost Quote
FYI Posted February 23, 2024 Report Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, Sir Rols said: LOL! Do you guys have Aldi in the US? I gotta say, their chocolate usually puts most other supermarkets to shame here. Yes, we do (I wanted to ask the same question of Australia since I saw that little tidbit lol). They've been around in certain markets in the northern part of the U.S. for as long as I can remember. Over the last few years though, they've been expanding more towards the southern part. They advertise themselves here as the "cheaper" grocery alternative. But from what I've seen, it's really hit or miss. Some things are a better value than your typical grocery store but other things are not. They also own Trader Joe's here, which is suppose to be more "upsale" than your average Aldi's. 1 hour ago, Sir Rols said: That said, the “Aldi” games concept is of course hyperbolic, and basically part of the debate in Qld about the Gabba versus the alternatives. But again, it’s symptomatic of what I’m trying to get to with my thoughts on the disconnect between the ned fr cheaper games versus the temptation to spend big for pride, national and city honour etc. It's pretty ironic with me, cause I've never really been a big venue freak like some on here are/have been (particularly Lord David lol). I've always been like, whatever, just give me a good show when the Olympic time comes! But I've been paying more attention to Brisbane's (regional) venue plan over the last few months. And maybe that also has more to do that it's easier to follow versus when they're in a big, intricate metropolis. I haven't really paid much attention to L.A.'s 2028 plan that much, other than the obvious pieces, like Memorial Coliseum, SoFi & the college dorms for the athlete housing. And wanting to know if they'll be moving the white water venue to OKC, & where surfing is taking place. 1 hour ago, Sir Rols said: Really, I think it’s more a factor of the crowds and the spirit that lifts a games more than how glittering and new the venues are. Yeah, I suppose. It'd be much better to have a crowded, low-scale Games, VS having many empty seats like Athens 2004 or having completely empty, big stadiums & venues like Tokyo 2020ne (which was of course, through no fault of their own). 1 Quote
Sir Rols Posted February 23, 2024 Report Posted February 23, 2024 26 minutes ago, FYI said: Yeah, I suppose. It'd be much better to have a crowded, low-scale Games, VS having many empty seats like Athens 2004 or having completely empty, big stadiums & venues like Tokyo 2020ne (which was of course, through no fault of their own). One thing that TV does well, is making the games look so sleek and good, no matter the actual surroundings. All those banners, and sidings and tarpaulins with the “look” on them - never mind the fact that they’re replacing the visual clutter of advertising - are also covering up huge arrays of bare metal scaffolding, bleachers and temporary kiosks and security check tents, even in the biggest, most modern of venues. Without those “Look” coverings, almost all games would look more like a big temporary construction sites. Quote
FYI Posted February 24, 2024 Report Posted February 24, 2024 22 hours ago, Sir Rols said: One thing that TV does well, is making the games look so sleek and good, no matter the actual surroundings. All those banners, and sidings and tarpaulins with the “look” on them Quote
Booville Posted February 24, 2024 Report Posted February 24, 2024 16months. That is how long Brisbane have to come up with a Plan B. Based on London2012, cities normally would have 7years from games award to hosting so if Brisbane are hosting in summer 2032, an alternative solution needs to be in place ideally by summer 2025 unless the IOC plan to draw upon an emergency location if things drag beyond this point. Would a costly fully temporary stadium be an alternative with limited legacy? Can a white elephant such as redeveloping the QEII stadium be avoid? Would it first time bidder such as Jakarta step in? Would a historic failed bidder like Istanbul, Madrid or Doha be willing to step up? Or would the IOC go back to a recent host such as London/Paris/Tokyo to step in? And how would this impact upon candidates for 2036? Quote
Sir Rols Posted February 24, 2024 Report Posted February 24, 2024 7 hours ago, Booville said: 16months. That is how long Brisbane have to come up with a Plan B. Based on London2012, cities normally would have 7years from games award to hosting so if Brisbane are hosting in summer 2032, an alternative solution needs to be in place ideally by summer 2025 unless the IOC plan to draw upon an emergency location if things drag beyond this point. Would a costly fully temporary stadium be an alternative with limited legacy? Can a white elephant such as redeveloping the QEII stadium be avoid? Would it first time bidder such as Jakarta step in? Would a historic failed bidder like Istanbul, Madrid or Doha be willing to step up? Or would the IOC go back to a recent host such as London/Paris/Tokyo to step in? And how would this impact upon candidates for 2036? Plan B should be in place in three weeks (March 18) when the review report comes in - the Government’s committed to implementing all recommendations. I would envisage if QE2 is chosen, it would be an upgrade of existing strands, augmented by a bunch of temporary seating. But we’ll see. I don’t think we’re anywhere near to a code red and looking for alternative hosts. To much at stake for all sides. Quote
Bear Posted February 28, 2024 Report Posted February 28, 2024 14 minutes ago, Victorian said: Well is the couple offering to fund it? Otherwise they ought to be quiet... Quote
FYI Posted February 28, 2024 Report Posted February 28, 2024 If they're also Brisbane, Queensland & Australian taxpayers, then they have every right to voice their opinion/concerns on it who don't also don't necessarily relish an "Aldi" Olympics. But at the same time, they live more comfortably than your average Australian taxpayer, so their talk of a vanity Olympics most likely may not sit well with others. That said, though, Mr. Wilson still raises some valid points, & touches on issues that we've already discussed here. And while some may still be onboard with a no-frills Brisbane Olympics, it's becoming very clear that Brisbane has bitten off more than they can comfortably do. If some of their current venues aren't even big enough for your other typical sporting events/concerts, like Taylor Swift for example, how are the Olympics going to be handled any better/adequately? Cause even a "cheaper", low-scale Olympics is still going to require a lot of resources. Quote
Australian Kiwi Posted February 28, 2024 Report Posted February 28, 2024 37 minutes ago, FYI said: If they're also Brisbane, Queensland & Australian taxpayers, then they have every right to voice their opinion/concerns on it who don't also don't necessarily relish an "Aldi" Olympics. But at the same time, they live more comfortably than your average Australian taxpayer, so their talk of a vanity Olympics most likely may not sit well with others. That said, though, Mr. Wilson still raises some valid points, & touches on issues that we've already discussed here. And while some may still be onboard with a no-frills Brisbane Olympics, it's becoming very clear that Brisbane has bitten off more than they can comfortably do. If some of their current venues aren't even big enough for your other typical sporting events/concerts, like Taylor Swift for example, how are the Olympics going to be handled any better/adequately? Cause even a "cheaper", low-scale Olympics is still going to require a lot of resources. They can't afford it without more federal cash. Given their infrastructure contribution is already at 50% split state/feds, this won't go down well asking for more. Remember, only 5% of Sydney 2000 was paid for out of federal tax - NSW stumped up the rest and called it 'Australia's Games'. Meanwhile its becoming more and more evident 2032 will be "Queensland's Games" - but with a massive contribution from Australian taxpayers. Its bizarre. Shows the power of being a poltically marginal state (it is Australia's Florida in more ways than one, nobody in Canberra wants to say no to them). Quote
FYI Posted February 28, 2024 Report Posted February 28, 2024 1 hour ago, Australian Kiwi said: They can't afford it without more federal cash. Meanwhile its becoming more and more evident 2032 will be "Queensland's Games" - but with a massive contribution from Australian taxpayers. Its bizarre. Shows the power of being a poltically marginal state (it is Australia's Florida in more ways than one, nobody in Canberra wants to say no to them). Not really familiar with Australia's political landscape (other than knowing just from these boards alone that Queensland is very vast & conservative, much like Texas here in the U.S.). But based on this statement alone, is Australia primarily a more politically liberal country in it's other states? It's really ironic & hypocritical really, cause also based on this statement, & knowing how conservatives (at least here in the U.S. anyway) are so against "gov't handouts" for any type of social programs, unless of course it's for the own political agendas, then it's okay. I can just imagine the uproar from all the conservatives here, if the U.S. Federal Gov't was going to subsidize more than 50% of L.A. 2028 in one of the most liberal states & cities in the country. They'd be crying foul & quickly be dubbing it the "woke" (whatever the f@ck that means, which they can never seem to have an answer for) Olympics. Quote
Australian Kiwi Posted February 28, 2024 Report Posted February 28, 2024 3 minutes ago, FYI said: Not really familiar with Australia's political landscape (other than knowing just from these boards alone that Queensland is very vast & conservative, much like Texas here in the U.S.). But based on this statement alone, is Australia primarily a more politically liberal country in it's other states? I think I made a big broad comparison, but there is some more nuance I suppose. I think overall Australia is a bit polarising - in some ways we are a very progressive country when it comes to social economic issues, eg. we don't freak out as much over high tax and have a far more accessible education and health system which is relatively respected by all sides of politics. We also are some big unresolved issues around race.. but at the same time I'd also argue we are one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world. In terms of individual states - yes, generally Qld has traditionally been very conservative with pockets of progression (eg. South East Queensland is fairly moderate, as is some of the tourist cities in FNQ like Cairns and Port Douglas). Brisbane is perhaps very comparable to Dallas or something "blue city in red state". The rest of Queensland extremely insular, and very, very conservative and very suspicious of Brisbane and "the South East". They would see 2032 as an urban, liberal indulgence. WA is also conservative but perhaps more economically than socially - if you don't come for their mining money they are generally content. SA is genearlly more progressive in voting than Qld or WA. NSW and Vic are easily the most left leaning by far, I'd say similar to California perhaps (although noting what I say about Australia overall definitely applies to these two places--- and it should be noted in my own state Victoria there has been an alarming rise in the Far Right since COVID). Quote It's really ironic & hypocritical really, cause also based on this statement, & knowing how conservatives (at least here in the U.S. anyway) are so against "gov't handouts" for any type of social programs, unless of course it's for the own political agendas, then it's okay. I can just imagine the uproar from all the conservatives here, if the U.S. Federal Gov't was going to subsidize more than 50% of L.A. 2028 in one of the most liberal states & cities in the country. They'd be crying foul & quickly be dubbing it the "woke" (whatever the f@ck that means, which they can never seem to have an answer for) Olympics. Yeah I don't doubt it . Makes you wonder whether the attitude would be different if the Olympics were behind held in Orlando --- I have no doubt Trump would have manouvered something to make it the "biggest, bestest Olympics you have ever witnessed." 1 Quote
Sir Rols Posted February 28, 2024 Report Posted February 28, 2024 14 hours ago, Victorian said: It’s not as if there’s a shortage of people giving out their personal unsolicited venue visions for Brisbane 2032 these days. Here, SSC and the wider media is full of them. Everyone from Coates to Katter is getting their say. Where’s @Lord David when you need him? Anyway, it sounds niceish. Guess we’ll see in a bit over a fortnight. 12 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said: They can't afford it without more federal cash. Given their infrastructure contribution is already at 50% split state/feds, this won't go down well asking for more. Remember, only 5% of Sydney 2000 was paid for out of federal tax - NSW stumped up the rest and called it 'Australia's Games'. Meanwhile it’s becoming more and more evident 2032 will be "Queensland's Games" - but with a massive contribution from Australian taxpayers. Its bizarre. Shows the power of being a poltically marginal state (it is Australia's Florida in more ways than one, nobody in Canberra wants to say no to them). That’s the nitty gritty of all this. Reworking all the funding. While it’s all about cutting costs, it still has to fit into the Qld-Federal funding model. The Federal Government already pointedly washed its hands of the Gabba upgrade, but would they be expected to cough up 50 per cent if another venue at Victoria Park (or even a Carrara or QEII upgrade) was used instead? Or would that stil be left in the Qld Treasury’s basket? Whatever gets chosen/mooted next month is still likel to have to through the hops of negotiations with Canberra (and Lausanne). Which all goes back to that it’s totally ludicrous this is all still up in the air at this stage. Anyway, so much for the first 8 pages of this thread being about a certain person wasting his breath telling us he wasn’t going to waste his breath on “pointless” arguments with the “suddenly outraged” on venue plans that were “set in stone”. 1 Quote
FYI Posted February 28, 2024 Report Posted February 28, 2024 31 minutes ago, Sir Rols said: It’s not as if there’s a shortage of people giving out their personal unsolicited venue visions for Brisbane 2032 these days. Here, SSC and the wider media is full of them. Everyone from Coates to Katter is getting their say. In that Brisbane video I saw the other day, the narrator's 'suggestion', was to build a new 70K-seat new stadium across the street from the current Gabba. And then once that was completed, the current teams playing at the old Gabba, can move to the new Gabba. Then the old Gabba can be demolished (but I think that school left alone), & in it's place, build THERE the OV, instead of having it in Northshore Hampton (where the transport links aren't as great, according to him), & after the Games the OV becomes more needed housing. That way a nice & efficient "Olympic precinct" can be built right there in Downtown Brisbane. 38 minutes ago, Sir Rols said: Where’s @Lord David when you need him? 38 minutes ago, Sir Rols said: Anyway, so much for the first 8 pages of this thread being about a certain person wasting his breath telling us he wasn’t going to waste his breath on “pointless” arguments with the “suddenly outraged” on venue plans that were “set in stone”. And "done & dusted". Quote
Gonzo Posted February 28, 2024 Report Posted February 28, 2024 I did mention before about putting the Brisbane Arena at the current Gabba site, does make a lot of sense considering the transport options The RNA Showground site would be the best for a new stadium than Victoria Park or Albion, but can't see either it or Victoria Park happening and the Ekka people would kick up a fuss Quote
Sir Rols Posted February 29, 2024 Report Posted February 29, 2024 (edited) Looks like the Victoria Park idea is getting the cold shoulder from the Premier and the Lord Mayor: Premier Steven Miles, speaking to journalists in Cairns, described Wilson as “a great Queenslander” who had made a “really valuable” contribution to the debate about new venues. However, Miles said he was wary of allocating funding beyond the existing envelope. “It would be very difficult to get the Australian government to commit those funds,” he said. “I’ve heard from Queenslanders – particularly in regional Queensland – that they think the existing funding allocation for the Olympics is enough. I don’t think they’d want to see a big increase in the amount of funding allocated.” … Incumbent Brisbane lord mayor Adrian Schrinner was also reluctant to back the Wilsons’ proposal, describing it as “just one of many suggestions that are floating around”. He said the park, which the council wants to transform into Barrambin, was already scheduled to host equestrian and BMX events at the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games and was not suitable for a permanent stadium. “The reality is, we are already beginning to create Brisbane’s biggest new park in 50 years,” Schrinner said on Wednesday. “As far as I am concerned, this is the plan for Victoria Park.” https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/golden-triangle-of-games-venues-rejected-by-local-state-leaders-20240228-p5f8hr.html Edited February 29, 2024 by Sir Rols Quote
Australian Kiwi Posted February 29, 2024 Report Posted February 29, 2024 The irony of this is that Brisbane is possibly the most challenging Australian city to do this in - yes the stars have aligned for all the reasons we know but geographically and in terms of urban planning realities it couldn't be harder. None of these challenges being faced by 2032 organisers would be an issue in Sydney, Melbourne or Perth. I dare say even Adelaide's urban form and infrastructure (excluding accommodation) is a better canvas from which to stage the Olympics. Quote
FYI Posted February 29, 2024 Report Posted February 29, 2024 5 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said: The irony of this is that Brisbane is possibly the most challenging Australian city to do this in - yes the stars have aligned for all the reasons we know but geographically and in terms of urban planning realities it couldn't be harder. Even Australia's very own Kevan Gosper, who he himself was also an IOC VP in the past, has recently said, that the IOC in choosing a regional plan like Brisbane 11 years out, was "a mistake, unfortunate & wrong". Those are pretty strong words coming from someone like him. Quote
Gonzo Posted February 29, 2024 Report Posted February 29, 2024 34 minutes ago, FYI said: Kevan Gosper He's still alive? Good lord! Like a Sith Master! What is Sophie up to these days? Quote
Rob2012 Posted February 29, 2024 Report Posted February 29, 2024 9 hours ago, Sir Rols said: Looks like the Victoria Park idea is getting the cold shoulder from the Premier and the Lord Mayor: It's kind of crazy. Brisbane was awarded these Olympics years earlier than usual, but they now seem to be further behind other hosts. The discussion about which site is to be the main hub of activity - the Olympic Park if you will - is normally made before a bid is even launched. London was making that decision in 2002/3. I've kind of lost track here. How many options are now under consideration, who's behind each one, and which is most likely to happen? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.