GBModerator Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 A new poll released Thursday reveals that Boston 2024 efforts to build support through public consultations and full transparency are not working as had been hoped. Numbers released by WBUR/MassINC reveal that within Boston only 36 per cent support the bid, down from 51 per cent in January and 44 per cent in February. In the poll of […] View the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 The USOC, not having learned from the debacle of Denver 1976, should really rethink its vetting procedure -- and not let the clueless Board of Directors make stupid decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 The USOC, not having learned from the debacle of Denver 1976, should really rethink its vetting procedure -- and not let the clueless Board of Directors make stupid decisions. Never miss a chance to slip that reference in there, do we. Yea, the USOC picked wrong on this one. They had their reasons for choosing Boston, but there were questions surrounding their support level and if this poll is to be believed (and not all of them are), then this is a problem. I don't think we're at the point we can call this Denver 1976, but the USOC likely is second-guessing themselves right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Never miss a chance to slip that reference in there, do we. Yea, the USOC picked wrong on this one. They had their reasons for choosing Boston, but there were questions surrounding their support level and if this poll is to be believed (and not all of them are), then this is a problem. I don't think we're at the point we can call this Denver 1976, but the USOC likely is second-guessing themselves right now. They should be second guessing and be ready to either humiliatingly drop or call Los Angeles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 They should be second guessing and be ready to either humiliatingly drop or call Los Angeles. Nah. If Paris is in it, pack it in. Let LA save its money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Here's the red flag in this one. The opposition percentage is now over 50 percent. The number of undecideds is just 13 percent. At some point, for this bid to go to forward, Boston is going to have to convince some of those who are against the bid to change their minds. The GB article sights Tokyo as an example of how they turned around support for their bid but the difference was Tokyo had a far greater percentage of undecideds (30 percent) to work with. Boston doesn't have that option. I've stated before, I think a referendum is practically a certainty here and if the numbers remain like this, it's not going to pass. With summer approaching , if the numbers don't improve, the USOC (if they aren't doing so already) have to be staging some private conversations with Los Angeles. I only keep bringing up L.A. because they would be the city that would probably be most ready to go on short notice. Even if there was no referendum, could the USOC really put forward Boston with public support numbers so low? Voters in the United States have shown that when politicians pass or do something (Obamacare) voters will punish the politicians in office. That has to be in the back of Mayor Walsh's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 If USOC drop Boston and instead go for another city (LA?), surely there would also be questions asked internationally about USOC's judgement skills and why they would then bid with their second choice instead. I'd say: Either Boston or none at all for 2024 in these circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 If that figure doesn't budge this bid is toast; whether the USOC pulls it or the IOC votes for someone else. But I wouldn't say the situation is beyond salvaging. A two stage approach would be what I'd be aiming for now: 1. Get support to around about 50% by the time the applicant file goes in so you can at least say there's a mandate (even if there isn't an official referendum). If that's possible then you've got a little bit of momentum behind you. That's the aim for the next year. 2. Then, use Rio 2016 and Team USA as a catalyst for growing Olympic fever. I'm quite certain that despite the delays Athens had a positive effect on public support for London (our leg of their torch relay was used to galvanise support), and Tokyo 2020 used London 2012 very well with athlete's parades and saying "see what London just did, we can have that". And this is what happened.... http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/304-2020-bidding-sports/1011570-public-support-grows-for-tokyo-2020-after-london-2012 I think Sochi was an exception in that its build up and aftermath drove away bidders. If Rio is anything like as spectacular as it ought to be, it could have a similar effect on Boston's public support as London did for Tokyo 2020. So.....it doesn't look good now, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 2022 no one wants to bid, 2024 cities are bidding but some spark is still missing......it feels different .......maybe too soon to be exciting but no one (very few) people in the US care that Boston is bidding, it's not important to people I know in Boston either.....kinda just whateva whateva ........... I don't think it captured the imagination. ...like I mentioned in Hamburg 2024 thread a while back...."no one (very few) people in the US care that Boston is bidding, it's not important to people I know in Boston either." Perhaps the Olympics just are not as interesting, inspirational, or necessary as they used to seem, and the benefits to the host are very questionable and carry ominous burdens and risks; for little players it can ruin your economy, for big players it's disruptive to development that makes more long term sense for large cities. It's kinda a wannabe game now, and the bids are tournament of envy and spite...or a fight for relevance. Maybe Boston will start the 2024 list of drop outs.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 ...like I mentioned in Hamburg 2024 thread a while back...."no one (very few) people in the US care that Boston is bidding, it's not important to people I know in Boston either." I remember cynicism was the order of the day in the early days of London's bid too. Olympics aren't a priority for people day-today (why should they be?) and if they feel like a long way off or unachievable then why should people care? But it's possible to change that within the two-years from starting out to reaching the actual vote. London did, Tokyo did. Boston - though it's starting from a lower support base - might be able to as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 (if they aren't doing so already) have to be staging some private conversations with Los Angeles. I only keep bringing up L.A. because they would be the city that would probably be most ready to go on short notice. Actually, the 2 new stadia in Oakland is on the verge of happening... http://abc7news.com/sports/council-oks-new-negotiating-agreement-for-oakland-coliseum/567491/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 I remember cynicism was the order of the day in the early days of London's bid too. Olympics aren't a priority for people day-today (why should they be?) and if they feel like a long way off or unachievable then why should people care? But it's possible to change that within the two-years from starting out to reaching the actual vote. London did, Tokyo did. Boston - though it's starting from a lower support base - might be able to as well. The difference between London and Tokyo and this is that Boston is not as well developed in infrastructure as those two cities. The past winter has given people a taste of overloaded public transit and an overwhelmed local government, and they don't want an Olympic sized repeat of that. Boston's current plan is an Atlanta style affair with a lot of temporary venues and no significant long term investment in parks, transit, etc that the London and Tokyo bids incorporated. So I'm not sure what their actual selling point is. If people don't want to deal with the hassle and cost of hosting, what can the bid committee point to that says it will be worth doing? Would London 2012 have been worth it without the Olympic Park and redevelopment of Stratford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Speaking of infrastructure... http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/24/olympic-organizers-acknowledge-mixed-message-transportation-projects/cTNpYRGRSgAoyqdmlr7EsL/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/03/09/olympics-funding-has-big-dig-ring/D5tMAr5vVUyTrgGKtEYp1H/story.html# Of course, there still is time for fixes and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Actually, the 2 new stadia in Oakland is on the verge of happening... http://abc7news.com/sports/council-oks-new-negotiating-agreement-for-oakland-coliseum/567491/ They're still in negotations. Those stadiums are a long ways off from happening. I'll believe they're on the verge of happening when the old stadium is demolished and/or the first shovel goes into the ground. Speaking of infrastructure... http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/24/olympic-organizers-acknowledge-mixed-message-transportation-projects/cTNpYRGRSgAoyqdmlr7EsL/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/03/09/olympics-funding-has-big-dig-ring/D5tMAr5vVUyTrgGKtEYp1H/story.html# Of course, there still is time for fixes and such. There is, but all these statements of confidence we tend to hear from the organizers and others in Boston don't seem to ring true. Doesn't seem like they have their bases covered quite as well as they'd like us all to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Nacre brought up an interesting point: Boston's current plan is an Atlanta style affair with a lot of temporary venues and no significant long term investment in parks, transit, etc that the London and Tokyo bids incorporated. So I'm not sure what their actual selling point is. He is completely right, Boston's only selling point is this "Wouldn't it be cool to have the Olympics in Boston?!" and if the polls mean anything it's that the people of Boston do not think it would be cool. Maybe it's the winter talking, but I think Bostonian's know their boundaries and hosting the Olympics are beyond them. If that was the committee's only public selling point then I wish them good luck and look forward to seeing the games in Europe. We all know what their technical selling points are (however weak they may be), but those selling points are not points that can be sold to the Boston public. Another problem is that how can the Boston bid be national if they are focusing the majority of their time trying to convince their own city to bid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Nacre brought up an interesting point: He is completely right, Boston's only selling point is this "Wouldn't it be cool to have the Olympics in Boston?!" and if the polls mean anything it's that the people of Boston do not think it would be cool. Maybe it's the winter talking, but I think Bostonian's know their boundaries and hosting the Olympics are beyond them. If that was the committee's only public selling point then I wish them good luck and look forward to seeing the games in Europe. We all know what their technical selling points are (however weak they may be), but those selling points are not points that can be sold to the Boston public. Another problem is that how can the Boston bid be national if they are focusing the majority of their time trying to convince their own city to bid? I think it's hard to make an American bid national. The Olympics aren't really a "special" event to the USA. When you win 100+ medals every time, it's hard for a nation to rally around its athletes at home because they're going to win everything anyways. That's why I think a World Cup makes more sense for the U.S. at this point. It'll create a lot more buzz and get the nation a lot more involved because they'll be cheering on one team, who is essentially the underdog, which is a rarity for most American sports teams. The Olympics would just be another event for Americans to dominate and stroke their egoes. You certainly won't see the crowds and excitement and "rallying of the troops" that you saw in London or Vancouver or Sydney, or during the American World Cup runs in 2010 and 2014, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 I think it's hard to make an American bid national. The Olympics aren't really a "special" event to the USA. When you win 100+ medals every time, it's hard for a nation to rally around its athletes at home because they're going to win everything anyways. That's why I think a World Cup makes more sense for the U.S. at this point. It'll create a lot more buzz and get the nation a lot more involved because they'll be cheering on one team, who is essentially the underdog, which is a rarity for most American sports teams. I think that is ridiculous. American's get even more excited about the Olympics when the games are here not just because we always top to medal charts but because we get to show off our country. It's an opportunity to get close with the athletes and get even more excited about the event and if you don't believe me just look at SLC, Atlanta, and LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 I think that is ridiculous. American's get even more excited about the Olympics when the games are here not just because we always top to medal charts but because we get to show off our country. It's an opportunity to get close with the athletes and get even more excited about the event and if you don't believe me just look at SLC, Atlanta, and LA. While that's true to a degree, the reality is that the size of the USA means that the athletes are rarely locals and the Olympics would still be far away even if they were hosted in the USA. Boston is as far from Houston as London is from Istanbul. (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-SAW%0D%0ABOS-IAH&R=&PM_q=*&PM=*&MS=wls&MP=&MC=&PC=&PW=&PT=&RC=&RW=&RS=&DU=km&DM=&SG=&SU=mph&EV=&EU=kts) So people in Texas are typically not going to want to help fund or volunteer for a games in Boston. Nor could you say the athletes are close to people in Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, etc if the games were held in Boston. The World Cup is more attractive because we would not have to waste money on venues and it can be spread over the country more easily. EDIT: For a triangular view of the distances in the USA compared to Europe: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-SAW%0D%0ASAW-CEK%0D%0ACEK-LHR%0D%0ABOS-IAH%0D%0AIAH-SEA%0D%0ASEA-BOS&R=&PM_q=*&PM=*&MS=wls&MP=&MC=&PC=&PW=&PT=&RC=&RW=&RS=&DU=km&DM=&SG=&SU=mph&EV=&EU=kts For people outside of New England and New York, Boston is not really close by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 I think in a fast, social media world it is very hard to turn around negative opinions- there are so many groups, hysterical individuals with online platforms that they can overwhelm reasonable conversation very very fast. This is a BIG problem for their bid.... I say just give it to Paris now ... (but I love Paris)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Nacre brought up an interesting point: He is completely right, Boston's only selling point is this "Wouldn't it be cool to have the Olympics in Boston?!" and if the polls mean anything it's that the people of Boston do not think it would be cool. Maybe it's the winter talking, but I think Bostonian's know their boundaries and hosting the Olympics are beyond them. If that was the committee's only public selling point then I wish them good luck and look forward to seeing the games in Europe. We all know what their technical selling points are (however weak they may be), but those selling points are not points that can be sold to the Boston public. Another problem is that how can the Boston bid be national if they are focusing the majority of their time trying to convince their own city to bid? It's the same question I've asked of Boston for awhile.. what are they trying to accomplish with the Olympics? What we hear a lot is that a lot of projects are already in the works, so throwing the Olympics fits in the city's plans. Not sure I buy that one. And if a lot of these things are happening anyway, is that Olympics adding to that or is it simply an opportunity to spend more money when the timing feels right. I know there are some plans for revitalization of some areas in Boston, but seems like it's an extra added expense for something like a temporary stadium in order to accomplish that. I get where Joe Schmo in Boston is questioning what the benefit to him will be. At least with Atlanta, they got a couple of things out of it (including a much needed new baseball stadium, awkward as that situation was). I don't know what lasting effect the Olympics would have on Boston. As for this being a "national bid".. I think it's hard to make an American bid national. The Olympics aren't really a "special" event to the USA. When you win 100+ medals every time, it's hard for a nation to rally around its athletes at home because they're going to win everything anyways. That's why I think a World Cup makes more sense for the U.S. at this point. It'll create a lot more buzz and get the nation a lot more involved because they'll be cheering on one team, who is essentially the underdog, which is a rarity for most American sports teams. The Olympics would just be another event for Americans to dominate and stroke their egoes. You certainly won't see the crowds and excitement and "rallying of the troops" that you saw in London or Vancouver or Sydney, or during the American World Cup runs in 2010 and 2014, for that matter. BR and Nacre hit on it, but it has nothing to do with the medals. This is a large country (Canada is too, although I couldn't speak to what the 2010 Olympics meant to people outside of Vancouver and BC), so yea, if we have an Olympics in Boston, is that going to be felt on the West coast? I remember some people saying when the Super Bowl was in New York (New Jersey) last year that the NYC area didn't truly embrace the event because there are simply too many people spread over the area as compared to a city like Indianapolis where the Super Bowl affects a lot more people. So that's the catch-22 with the United States. A lot of people get into the Olympics (as a percentage, perhaps not as much as other countries, but again that's where size comes into play), but many of them would just as soon not go through the hassle of their city hosting it. And Nacre brought up a great point that if an Olympics are held in Boston, they're going to be Boston's games in terms of many of the spectators and volunteers involved. That all being the case, the idea of "America's Games" as it relates to the entire country seems somewhat far-fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 I think in a fast, social media world it is very hard to turn around negative opinions- there are so many groups, hysterical individuals with online platforms that they can overwhelm reasonable conversation very very fast. In that regard though, how important are opinions on social media? Look at all the animosity against NBC and their Olympic coverage. We see #nbcfail all the time, but do they really care? Not so much. They can claim - and somewhat rightfully so - that commentary is coming from a minority that doesn't necessarily represent the whole. It's why going off of social media doesn't always give you the full picture. That said, it does help to form an opposition to something like the Olympics and that could easily be the case here. Social media is a great way to get your message out to a lot of people, so when you have an anti-Olympics crowd (and that happens with all bidders.. Boston is not alone in that regard), this is how they're likely to band together. And for a bid like Boston where support is tepid at very best, that could be a problem for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 In that regard though, how important are opinions on social media? Look at all the animosity against NBC and their Olympic coverage. We see #nbcfail all the time, but do they really care? Not so much. They can claim - and somewhat rightfully so - that commentary is coming from a minority that doesn't necessarily represent the whole. It's why going off of social media doesn't always give you the full picture. That said, it does help to form an opposition to something like the Olympics and that could easily be the case here. Social media is a great way to get your message out to a lot of people, so when you have an anti-Olympics crowd (and that happens with all bidders.. Boston is not alone in that regard), this is how they're likely to band together. And for a bid like Boston where support is tepid at very best, that could be a problem for them. Opinions on social media are pivotally important- look at the death of the traditional media, papers/ free to air TV and radio.... look at the use of all types of social media in modern political and marketing campaigns. Social media is the preferred method now to build support or opposition because it is targeted, traceable and changeable in real time. It is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 If that figure doesn't budge this bid is toast; whether the USOC pulls it or the IOC votes for someone else. But I wouldn't say the situation is beyond salvaging. A two stage approach would be what I'd be aiming for now: 1. Get support to around about 50% by the time the applicant file goes in so you can at least say there's a mandate (even if there isn't an official referendum). If that's possible then you've got a little bit of momentum behind you. That's the aim for the next year. 2. Then, use Rio 2016 and Team USA as a catalyst for growing Olympic fever. I'm quite certain that despite the delays Athens had a positive effect on public support for London (our leg of their torch relay was used to galvanise support), and Tokyo 2020 used London 2012 very well with athlete's parades and saying "see what London just did, we can have that". And this is what happened.... http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/304-2020-bidding-sports/1011570-public-support-grows-for-tokyo-2020-after-london-2012 I think Sochi was an exception in that its build up and aftermath drove away bidders. If Rio is anything like as spectacular as it ought to be, it could have a similar effect on Boston's public support as London did for Tokyo 2020. So.....it doesn't look good now, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet. What you suggest is logical, but the key is your first point, getting the approval rating over 50%. Right now, barring some major event, that's extremely difficult with the numbers against the bid over 50%. I've seen the references to London and Tokyo at this point in their bid campaigns but the difference was both of them had a far greater percentage of undecideds to work with. Polls show only an undecided percentage of 13% in the Boston bid which means they have to swing some voters from those who are against the bid and that's very difficult. The excuses from Boston are getting old. First it was the weather. They said once they started having these statewide committee meetings that public support would go up. It hasn't. It's gotten worse. So what is Boston's response? We're just getting started. Really? Oh they're promising more meetings but so far that hasn't worked. Maybe they haven't had enough? This bid is looking very much like Oslo and one that I could see not even making it out of the summer. Let's face it. If come June and July, the numbers are the same as now, there's no way this goes forward. If this bid collapses either because of a withdrawal from Boston or even worse, the application is submitted and then the bid gets crushed in a referendum, then Scott Blackman, Larry Probst, and the rest of the USOC executive board should tender their resignations immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 Probst won't resign. That was an easy one for us to get a US member in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 What you suggest is logical, but the key is your first point, getting the approval rating over 50%. Right now, barring some major event, that's extremely difficult with the numbers against the bid over 50%. I've seen the references to London and Tokyo at this point in their bid campaigns but the difference was both of them had a far greater percentage of undecideds to work with. Polls show only an undecided percentage of 13% in the Boston bid which means they have to swing some voters from those who are against the bid and that's very difficult. The excuses from Boston are getting old. First it was the weather. They said once they started having these statewide committee meetings that public support would go up. It hasn't. It's gotten worse. So what is Boston's response? We're just getting started. Really? Oh they're promising more meetings but so far that hasn't worked. Maybe they haven't had enough? This bid is looking very much like Oslo and one that I could see not even making it out of the summer. Let's face it. If come June and July, the numbers are the same as now, there's no way this goes forward. If this bid collapses either because of a withdrawal from Boston or even worse, the application is submitted and then the bid gets crushed in a referendum, then Scott Blackman, Larry Probst, and the rest of the USOC executive board should tender their resignations immediately. This It seems as though the public meetings have only decreased the support. Boston will fail before it even makes it to the IOC, I don't see it making it past the summer. If Boston does submit the bid then I can see the US dropping out, and that would be more embarrassing then Boston loosing in the first round. Then again choosing the only city out of four that already had strong opposition and a well developed 'NO!' campaign from the start was stupid and embarrassing. Personally I would rather the US just not bid for 2024 and save our energy and money on 2028. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.