Jump to content

2016: If Not The Usa, Then Who?


Who could beat the USA for 2016?  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Which city is up to the challenge

    • Tokyo
      11
    • Rome
      4
    • Madrid
      5
    • Rio
      10
    • Monterrey
      2
    • Baku
      0
    • New Delhi
      1
    • Other (please explain)
      3


Recommended Posts

Well, if that's the case, then I'd be very, very concerned if Copenhagen or Oslo bids. :lol: Since the European hosts after the last two London Olympics were Scandinavian (i.e. Stockholm & Helsinki). But Oslo & Helsinki are too small now for the enormous event, & Stockholm doesn't want them. And Copenhagen recently said that they were not gonna pursue an Olympic bid.

And if "tradition" played some kind of role in Olympic voting, I'd say the first one would've happen for 2008 with Paris, after Athens 2004. Because after the first (modern) Athens Olympics were held in 1896, Paris followed right after in 1900. But obviously that didn't happen. So I'd say the IOC doesn't vote by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well, if that's the case, then I'd be very, very concerned if Copenhagen or Oslo bids. :lol: Since the European hosts after the last two London Olympics were Scandinavian (i.e. Stockholm & Helsinki). But Oslo & Helsinki are too small now for the enormous event, & Stockholm doesn't want them. And Copenhagen recently said that they were not gonna pursue an Olympic bid.

Copenhagen couldn't bid for 2016, even if it wanted, because it will hold the 121st IOC Session, where those Games would be attributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if that's the case, then I'd be very, very concerned if Copenhagen or Oslo bids. :lol: Since the European hosts after the last two London Olympics were Scandinavian (i.e. Stockholm & Helsinki). But Oslo & Helsinki are too small now for the enormous event, & Stockholm doesn't want them. And Copenhagen recently said that they were not gonna pursue an Olympic bid.

And if "tradition" played some kind of role in Olympic voting, I'd say the first one would've happen for 2008 with Paris, after Athens 2004. Because after the first (modern) Athens Olympics were held in 1896, Paris followed right after in 1900. But obviously that didn't happen. So I'd say the IOC doesn't vote by that.

LOL, my last theory of "tradition" or "hosting patterns" was blown out the water by London 2012.

I figured the first time Australia hosted (1956), it was followed by mediterranean Europe (Rome), East Asia (Tokyo) and Latin America (Mexico CIty). Sydney 2000 was followed by mediterranean Europe (Athens), East Asia (Beijing) so 2012 should have been Rio, or at least NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is Turkey's "Olympic law" that commits them to bid until they win kicking in this time? I haven't heard anything about them officially throwing their hat in the ring.

they will annouce the candidature in june...

and they are really working well this time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being facetious because of your Istanbul emoticon & the word "tiring" in your post. I'm well aware that not every city is going to go through the major steps of trying to get the Olympic Games like Istanbul is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon it'll be Buenos Aires. They already have a velodrome, Tennis center and enough Indoor stadiums, and a new continent will help even more.

Here we are with another noob ;) , if it were to be South America next (mind you that the Americas are considered one continent) then it would most certainly be Rio De Janeiro, (not that Buenos Aires couldn't make the shortlist, it has before, it should be noted that Rio hasn't made any for any recent Olympics) that's primarily because they would have most of the necessary venues already built to host the 2016 Olympics, including a high capacity main stadium (not to mention valuable experience). Also, it should be noted that the country of Brazil as a whole would gain much needed experience with them hosting the inevitable 2014 World Cup, which is scheduled to take place in South America.

Buenos Aires, could make all the upgrades in time if it were to be chosen as host, and host a spectacular Olympics for that matter, but it seems Rio is several "points" ahead of Buenos Aires, when it comes to which city can potentially host within the short timespan. (as in from now to the 2016 games)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except BA hasn't expressed any interest or even any signs of interest in bidding.

Ah, that too... but who knows, maybe after a successful Rio games, Buenos Aires might consider bidding again? Or maybe wait for better luck in a 2056 bid? :lol:;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it should be noted that the country of Brazil as a whole would gain much needed experience with them hosting the inevitable 2014 World Cup, which is scheduled to take place in South America.

The troublem is, the WC in 2014 could be as much a hindrance as a help. There are doubts enough about Brazil's capabilities to host 2014, and while a lot of us like the idea of a Rio Olympics, again many of us have reservations about their capabilities or the sheer responsibility of awarding such a country the games. Trying to handle both within the space of two years could be beyond them and the killer. Sure, there's some overlap in facilities, but each event also has its own unique and expensive requirements as well. In the 1970s, World Cup-Olympic doubles may have been doable and even common. I'm not so sure nowadays, particularly for a country such as Brazil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The troublem is, the WC in 2014 could be as much a hindrance as a help. There are doubts enough about Brazil's capabilities to host 2014, and while a lot of us like the idea of a Rio Olympics, again many of us have reservations about their capabilities or the sheer responsibility of awarding such a country the games. Trying to handle both within the space of two years could be beyond them and the killer. Sure, there's some overlap in facilities, but each event also has its own unique and expensive requirements as well. In the 1970s, World Cup-Olympic doubles may have been doable and even common. I'm not so sure nowadays, particularly for a country such as Brazil.

Yet, the Brazilian authorities seem to truly believe they can handle the two supreme global sporting events separated by two years.

If the WC 2014 hadn't been almost "thrown" at Brazil's face, then it could have a full-time commitment with the 2016 Olympics bidding and preparations (if elected). But just days away of being given this WC task, I wonder if they'll be so interested in 2016, especially when they can't know beforehand what difficulties might arise during the WC preparations. But then again... if it's not 2016, it won't be before 2028, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why not just reject the WC, like Colombia has, if they're more interested in the Olympics. No one is holding a gun to them to do it.

Actually, if they had to choose, I reckon they'd be more interested in the WC than the Olympics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

76.jpg

─░stanbul welcomes you with the words of Mevlana....

Come, Come again !

Whatever you are...

Whether you are infidel,

idolater or fireworshipper.

Whether you have broken your vows

of repentance a hundred times

This is not the gate of despair,

This is the gate of hope.

Come, come again...

The year 2007 was declared as the "International Rumi Year" by UNESCO in March 2006. This is intended for the commemoration of Rumi's 800th birthday anniversary and will be celebrated all over the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why not just reject the WC, like Colombia has, if they're more interested in the Olympics. No one is holding a gun to them to do it.

The way FIFA chose South America specifically for the WC 2014 and the absence of any signs of interest from Argentina - the most qualified country to rival the WC with Brazil, make me believe that it's almost the same as pointing a gun to Brazil and force them to host it.

Had FIFA's continental rotation prized Australia or North America, most of these assumptions wouldn't be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way FIFA chose South America specifically for the WC 2014 and the absence of any signs of interest from Argentina - the most qualified country to rival the WC with Brazil, make me believe that it's almost the same as pointing a gun to Brazil and force them to host it.

If Brazil hosts the 2014 WC, it's not because they're being forced to. It's because they'd LOVE to host it.

If Brazil really didn't want the 2014 WC, the US would be more than willing to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brazil hosts the 2014 WC, it's not because they're being forced to. It's because they'd LOVE to host it.

If Brazil really didn't want the 2014 WC, the US would be more than willing to accept.

Until we see how they deliver the PanAms this April (July?), that'll decide how Brazil fares in either a 2014 WC or a 2016 Olympic bid. I don't think they can handle both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...