It would have been better to have let this idea with
stay in the trash from the very beginning.To make one thing clear, I have NOTHING against
as countryAustralia - winning?
- Thread starter Arv
- Start date
- Watchers 8
It would have been better to have let this idea with
stay in the trash from the very beginning.To make one thing clear, I have NOTHING against
as country
It would have been better to have let this idea with
And if we think that: "The EBU has considered the possibility of similarly inviting outside countries to participate in future editions of the contest".
And if we think that: "The EBU has considered the possibility of similarly inviting outside countries to participate in future editions of the contest".
I guess it´s time to say
R.I.P ESC 1956-2014
I predict everything after 2011, and I say EVERYTHING.
I don't think Australia will win Eurovision... they won't get enough support from the televoting imo. Among the juries it will do pretty well, but I don't think they will rank Australia 1st either. Anyway a Top 10 is pretty sure.
Krahl
Member
Actually what Björkman said was roughly, that Aus as part of the deal of even competing had to ally themselves with a european tv company that would guarantee that they would arrange the festival if Aus were to win.
The impression this comment gives is rather that there has already been "biddings" talks to ceveral tv companies of different countries to find one that would leave this guarantee, so by no means is this any awarding. In truth i think the list was very short of tv companies and countries that would agree to this arangement. For all we know Germany might have been the only one to agree.
Chorizo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Posts
- 4,346
I don't understand why some people are getting angry about Germany hosting in case Australia wins. We already knew that a European country would be the host and that most participating countries are not a desirable option for financial, political or other reasons. There aren't too many countries that would be willing or able to host and there was already speculation about Germany hosting weeks ago.
Australia would have significant influence on the show and at the same time the host country would have to share the cost. Of course, both the host country and Australia would profit from being able to advertise their countries internationally but the host country wouldn't have the dominant and exclusive role that it normally has.
I think smaller countries in financial troubles like Slovenia would love to host the show, if they won, but hosting Australia's show with limited possibilities for the host nation would be much less attractive.
The EBU knew all along that Australia would be one of the most likely winners, so they needed a plan in advance. Preparations in the winner's country need to start soon after the contest and they couldn't afford wasting months with looking for a suitable host.
I understand the reasoning that the country in second place should host but we don't know who that will be and if it will be a suitable or willing host, especially considering the circumstances. So should we then go down the top 10 until someone is willing to host? In this case, the contest might go to Russia or Azerbaijan again.
Germany is a logical choice because the country is able to host a great show as was demonstrated in 2011 and it has the financial means and organizational skills to do so next year as well. The fact that they only hosted a few years ago is a reason why they would be a good host and not the opposite. They have only recently demonstrated their ability to host and Germany can be much more relaxed about hosting Australia's show than a country that hasn't hosted the contest in a long time or even a country that has never won and never hosted the show. So it would be much easier for Germany to share the spotlight with Australia.
Germany is the biggest possible host country and I don't see a country that is a more logical choice. Eastern and Southern European countries are often faced with financial or political problems and the Northern European countries have all hosted the contest in recent years anyway while at the same time being much smaller than Germany. A larger country seems like a more reasonable choice than a smaller country. Small countries that cannot often organize international events would love to win and hold their own contest but organizing and financially contributing to someone else's show is much less appealing.
Among the larger countries, the only other choice I see is the UK but cultural ties are not reason enough to let them host the show. Someone here posted weeks ago about strong ties between the Australian and the German broadcaster and let's not forget that the BBC hosted the anniversary show. I can only speculate here but maybe the deal was that the BBC gets the anniversary show and Germany gets to hold Eurovision in case of an Australian victory.
Australia is one of the favorites but the way it looks now, other countries are more likely to win anyway.
If Germany could organize the show together with Australia, we might very well get the best Eurovision in history. There might be two Australian hosts and one German host, maybe Anke again. And last but not least Australia hosting the contest in Germany would make for much better bridge building than choosing the UK for historic reasons.
Australia would have significant influence on the show and at the same time the host country would have to share the cost. Of course, both the host country and Australia would profit from being able to advertise their countries internationally but the host country wouldn't have the dominant and exclusive role that it normally has.
I think smaller countries in financial troubles like Slovenia would love to host the show, if they won, but hosting Australia's show with limited possibilities for the host nation would be much less attractive.
The EBU knew all along that Australia would be one of the most likely winners, so they needed a plan in advance. Preparations in the winner's country need to start soon after the contest and they couldn't afford wasting months with looking for a suitable host.
I understand the reasoning that the country in second place should host but we don't know who that will be and if it will be a suitable or willing host, especially considering the circumstances. So should we then go down the top 10 until someone is willing to host? In this case, the contest might go to Russia or Azerbaijan again.
Germany is a logical choice because the country is able to host a great show as was demonstrated in 2011 and it has the financial means and organizational skills to do so next year as well. The fact that they only hosted a few years ago is a reason why they would be a good host and not the opposite. They have only recently demonstrated their ability to host and Germany can be much more relaxed about hosting Australia's show than a country that hasn't hosted the contest in a long time or even a country that has never won and never hosted the show. So it would be much easier for Germany to share the spotlight with Australia.
Germany is the biggest possible host country and I don't see a country that is a more logical choice. Eastern and Southern European countries are often faced with financial or political problems and the Northern European countries have all hosted the contest in recent years anyway while at the same time being much smaller than Germany. A larger country seems like a more reasonable choice than a smaller country. Small countries that cannot often organize international events would love to win and hold their own contest but organizing and financially contributing to someone else's show is much less appealing.
Among the larger countries, the only other choice I see is the UK but cultural ties are not reason enough to let them host the show. Someone here posted weeks ago about strong ties between the Australian and the German broadcaster and let's not forget that the BBC hosted the anniversary show. I can only speculate here but maybe the deal was that the BBC gets the anniversary show and Germany gets to hold Eurovision in case of an Australian victory.
Australia is one of the favorites but the way it looks now, other countries are more likely to win anyway.
If Germany could organize the show together with Australia, we might very well get the best Eurovision in history. There might be two Australian hosts and one German host, maybe Anke again. And last but not least Australia hosting the contest in Germany would make for much better bridge building than choosing the UK for historic reasons.
Chorizo: The thing that makes me and some more people angry is why this is announced BEFORE the competition (EBU has not thought threw this at all) I feel most sorry for Ann-Sophie at this point
If want to host, then it's simple, they have to win. That's half of the fun with this contest
The other thing you mentioned about the country coming 2nd may not have afford to host it. I hope you know that in the rules of the contest it stands clearly that if the winning country should decline to host, EBU will ask the country coming 2nd if they will host and so on.
It's time to resign some people in EBU now
(I would have been pissed off even if they had chosen as host)
If
want to host, then it's simple, they have to win. That's half of the fun with this contestThe other thing you mentioned about the country coming 2nd may not have afford to host it. I hope you know that in the rules of the contest it stands clearly that if the winning country should decline to host, EBU will ask the country coming 2nd if they will host and so on.
It's time to resign some people in EBU now
(I would have been pissed off even if they had chosen
as host)MyHeartIsYours
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,545
The Daily Mirror has an article on Australia winning in today's newspaper, and it says that the UK will host if the Aussies win 
The Daily Mirror has an article on Australia winning in today's newspaper, and it says that the UK will host if the Aussies win
Lol what? Do they have any evidence? Or is it wishful thinking?
Why are you even asking, it's the Daily Mirror :'D
MyHeartIsYours
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,545
I dont know but it was a fair sized article I was surprised lol, they said "Eurozvision" and it basically went on to say UK expected to host if Australia wins
ronny1988
Well-known member
everyone wants to host if another country is paying xD
Chorizo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Posts
- 4,346
Chorizo: The thing that makes me and some more people angry is why this is announced BEFORE the competition (EBU has not thought threw this at all) I feel most sorry for Ann-Sophie at this point
If
The other thing you mentioned about the country coming 2nd may not have afford to host it. I hope you know that in the rules of the contest it stands clearly that if the winning country should decline to host, EBU will ask the country coming 2nd if they will host and so on.
It's time to resign some people in EBU now
(I would have been pissed off even if they had chosen
The EBU didn't say that Germany would host, they only said that the contest would be held in a European country. That was their official statement. I don't think they had planned to make public that Germany would host in advance. The way this was now made public was certainly far from ideal and I think it shouldn't have been done like that. I agree on this point. I was only addressing the fact and not the way it was announced.
While I do think that other countries would be suitable to host too (e.g. Sweden), I don't think that any country would be more suitable than Germany. Having a bidding phase after the contest would have taken too much time, I suppose, and we don't know what they have agreed on internally. As already mentioned, there might have been an internal bidding phase.
I don't think Germany should be blamed for offering to host. We don't know what went on internally but it's not like Germany helped Australia participate just so they could hold the contest again. I don' see anything wrong with Germany supporting Australia. After all, Australia needs a partner in Europe, in case it wins.
I think they just went with the safest choice. The winner declining is a huge exception and it hasn't happened since the 1970s anymore. Since they know in advance that Australia is unable to host, I can understand that they wanted to play it save instead of going with what is normally a contingency plan and asking the country in second place. Australia was also guaranteed to have significant creative influence on next year's contest, in case they win. That wouldn't be the case, if a country declines to host, I suppose.
I think the person announcing it like this should be blamed but I can understand the decision.
Chorizo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Posts
- 4,346
The Daily Mirror has an article on Australia winning in today's newspaper, and it says that the UK will host if the Aussies win
Let's wait what the Guardian says.
MyHeartIsYours
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Posts
- 24,545
Really I think it would be fairest to let the Aussies pick where they want it to be hosted.