GBModerator Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Despite rampant rumors that the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) was set to drop Boston 2024 and move in another direction after a quarterly board meeting Tuesday, the national Olympic body remains solidly behind its first choice to host the Olympic Games – regardless of the strong city-wide opposition to the bid. From the Electronic Arts headquarters near San […] View the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Boston's support will not rise as long as the whole insurance scheme is unfinalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 LOL...the USOC is crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 An approval rating in the mid 60s by the middle of July is a pipe dream that's only possible if of those who are against the bid decide to change their minds, and that's not likely not to mention the number of people who are undecided is in the single digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger87 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Good luck USOC if you're still keeping Boston as big card, because you will need that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 LOL...the USOC is crazy. Agreed. You'd think they'd know how to go about this by now. They keep changing the crew hoping to get better at it; but this whole, present USOC crew (the Board members) is just stupid and ignorant...insofar as presenting a winning city at the right time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 The USOC is being incredibly delirious & defiant here. Unwilling to accept their mistake & unwilling to cut their losses & move on. Not heeding any of the words of some senior IOC members a couple of weeks ago in their Lausaunne exercises. This seems to be more of a matter now of "we made the right decision from the start, & we'll show you!" Is 65% approval rating possible between now & Sept 2017. Sure, anything's possible. But it's extremely unlikely. Even getting the numbers to over 50% by this Sept, when the 2024 application deadline is due, is going to be a herculan task. As a matter a fact, weren't the latest poll numbers last month showed the numbers still going backwards, already dipping into dangerous levels of just 39%. It's starting to look like the USOC is dead-set to go on a suicide mission. But I guess it really doesn't matter anyway. No matter what they do, they ain't getting 2024 regardless, not with the line-up that's likely emerging. And maybe that's part of the USOC's strange thinking at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felixc Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 With Paris all but certain to be in the race for 2024 and to a lesser extent the other European cities - the best case scenario for the USOC was going to be to have a city become a partner with the USOC for at least a two games cycle and let that city go through the process for 2024 with little expectations for winning but setting themselves up to go up against South Africa in 2028 with the experience and contacts etc.. that they gained through the earlier bid. That's gone now. Even if Boston makes it to the finish line, there is absolutely zero chance that they would continue on a second time. So, it is likely that staying with Boston ruins the US chances for both 2024 and 2028. Maybe LA could make a run for 2028 but you have to think that the 100 anniversary in 2032 is going to weigh heavily against LA. It's a mess. The USOC and Boston 2024 are just going through the motions at this point. Just look at the expressions on the faces of the USOC and Boston 2024 at that Press Conference yesterday. Is there any excitement there? This is starting to get historically bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 The USOC and Boston 2024 are just going through the motions at this point. Just look at the expressions on the faces of the USOC and Boston 2024 at that Press Conference yesterday. Is there any excitement there? I didn't see it but that's not a great sign. It's a shame as I kind of love the idea of the NE Olympics in the US. But since I'm now in the Paris 24 camp (I think), I hope the US can come back stronger. Still hoping NYC might feel the temptation to bid again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 With Paris all but certain to be in the race for 2024 and to a lesser extent the other European cities - the best case scenario for the USOC was going to be to have a city become a partner with the USOC for at least a two games cycle and let that city go through the process for 2024 with little expectations for winning but setting themselves up to go up against South Africa in 2028 with the experience and contacts etc.. that they gained through the earlier bid. That's gone now. Just a bit of out-of-the-box thinking: What if Boston 2024 reversed course and declared they weren't going to sign the IOC host city contract guaranteeing public funding in the event of overruns? Obviously, they would be out of the running for 2024, but it would enable the USOC to work with Boston to get everything in order for 2028. It would also help earn good vibes with Bostonians; the skeptics will become engaged once they feel their pocketbooks are safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Just a bit of out-of-the-box thinking: What if Boston 2024 reversed course and declared they weren't going to sign the IOC host city contract guaranteeing public funding in the event of overruns? Obviously, they would be out of the running for 2024, but it would enable the USOC to work with Boston to get everything in order for 2028. For what purpose? They will have to agree to the host contract for 2028, and then public support will drop again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Just a bit of out-of-the-box thinking: What if Boston 2024 reversed course and declared they weren't going to sign the IOC host city contract guaranteeing public funding in the event of overruns? Obviously, they would be out of the running for 2024, but it would enable the USOC to work with Boston to get everything in order for 2028. It would also help earn good vibes with Bostonians; the skeptics will become engaged once they feel their pocketbooks are safe. The IOC won't vote for a city that's not going to sign on the dotted line. So like Nacre said, if that continues to be a hang-up, an extra 4 years won't solve that dilemma unless the IOC changes course on that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I mean, they don't sign the dotted-line in 2024, but they do sign in 2028. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 For what purpose? They will have to agree to the host contract for 2028, and then public support will drop again. I missed this the first time around. Ignore my 1:06pm comment. If Boston goes through the motions of creating a viable bid for 2024 (minus guaranteeing the IOC any money), then they would start the 2028 bid with a head start because they would have already gone through all the effort of lining their ducks up to get the land for venues, etc. Additionally, they could start the 2028 bidding cycle with a viable insurance policy to present to the public on day 1. Also, staging a 2024 bid without the contract would forge trust between the general public and the bid organizers. Lastly, there's probably a portion of the opposition really wants the Olympics, but would really rather have the sweetheart deal that the IOC gave LA in 1984. These people might claim to oppose the bid when polled in the hopes of strong-arming the IOC. However, losing the 2024 bid would inject a bit of reality into these people and convince them to answer the poll question differently. EDIT: portion of the opposition *that* really wants the Olympics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 That would mean that the USOC pull the plug now for 2024 & just say that they're gonna work on 2028 instead so they can "get things more into order". But how likely is that really? For all intents & purposes, the USOC delved into this looking to WIN 2024, not "to get everything in order for 2028", which should've already been in order TBW. Who's to say things would really improve by then anyway. Look at New York & Chicago. They both had 8-12 years, respectively to rethink things, & even after the USOC's 2024 "invitation", they still said 'take a hike'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I understand my idea conflicts with the USOC's goal of winning the 2024 bidding race. But I am thinking more generally. Feel free to substitute another city for Boston and to delay the whole business by 4 years (bid for 2028 without signing the contract, but bid again for 2032 with the contract signed). Mind you, the first bid would not be completely unserious. The budgeting and venue planning would proceed as normal. And, in order to keep the numbers realistic, have an insurance contract to guarantee the IOC would not be liable. Basically, a repeat of Chicago's 2016 bid minus the signing of the contract in the final month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 So in other words, you're advocating to spend tens of millions of $$ on an "not completely unserious" bid campaign all for the sole purpose to "forge trust" between bid organizers & the public for the next more serious round? Yeah, now there's a totally frivolous way to squander away precious resources. And seems to totally contradict a 'forging of trust'. And something that the USOC would not endorse in the least. Sorry, but that's really thinking outside the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Was Chicago 2016's bid unserious when they repeatedly flirted with substituting private insurance for the public guarantee? Was it frivolous for the USOC to spend millions of dollars on a city's bid that was not guaranteed to sign the IOCs contract until the very last minute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I understand my idea conflicts with the USOC's goal of winning the 2024 bidding race. But I am thinking more generally. Feel free to substitute another city for Boston and to delay the whole business by 4 years (bid for 2028 without signing the contract, but bid again for 2032 with the contract signed). Mind you, the first bid would not be completely unserious. The budgeting and venue planning would proceed as normal. And, in order to keep the numbers realistic, have an insurance contract to guarantee the IOC would not be liable. Basically, a repeat of Chicago's 2016 bid minus the signing of the contract in the final month. The old tact of the USOC in the 80s when they were working with Winter candidates was to find 1 city and stick with them. They did that with Anchorage on the Winter side, but then decided to pull the plug after 2 attempts and go with Salt Lake. And I believe it became their intention to give them at least 2 shots and possibly stick with them further. As much as we've talked about that here as a strategy, the USOC was clearly looking at what candidate gave them the best chance of winning in 2024. This is not a long-term project for them. If they go at it again for 2028, they're going to do a complete re-evaluation of the process. If it turns out Boston is still their favored option, good for everyone involved. But that can't be assumed when you have other cities out there who might be interested and better positioned for 2028 than they are now. The USOC spent 2 years sorting through candidates to pick Boston. You think they would just go with them again for 2028 without a similarly extensive process? Not a chance. Even if the USOC has a long-term plan in place here, the fact that they picked Boston for 2024 with no regard to the future tells you what their mindset is. Can't go back and change that now. Was Chicago 2016's bid unserious when they repeatedly flirted with substituting private insurance for the public guarantee? Was it frivolous for the USOC to spend millions of dollars on a city's bid that was not guaranteed to sign the IOCs contract until the very last minute? Chicago's bid made it to the final vote. Let's see how far Boston's bid gets before we're going back in time 6 years to decide how serious Chicago's bid really was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JO2024 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 With Paris all but certain to be in the race for 2024 Well, no, you will have to count on Paris for the 2024 race. They officialised their bid last week Overall, this Boston bid is looking really bad. Hopefully Paris will do a bit better. I'm seeing things like this: 2024 will go to Europe (whether it's Rome, Hamburg, Budapest or Paris), 2028 might go the US, 2032 will go to Oceania (probably Australia) and 2036 will be the first African Olympics. There won't be any Asian Games for a while after their three consecutives Games (2018, 2020, 2022). I missed this the first time around. Ignore my 1:06pm comment. If Boston goes through the motions of creating a viable bid for 2024 (minus guaranteeing the IOC any money), then they would start the 2028 bid with a head start because they would have already gone through all the effort of lining their ducks up to get the land for venues, etc. Additionally, they could start the 2028 bidding cycle with a viable insurance policy to present to the public on day 1. Also, staging a 2024 bid without the contract would forge trust between the general public and the bid organizers. Lastly, there's probably a portion of the opposition really wants the Olympics, but would really rather have the sweetheart deal that the IOC gave LA in 1984. These people might claim to oppose the bid when polled in the hopes of strong-arming the IOC. However, losing the 2024 bid would inject a bit of reality into these people and convince them to answer the poll question differently. EDIT: portion of the opposition *that* really wants the Olympics I think that's what's problematic with a US bid. It's always changing the city: Los Angeles 1982, Atlanta 1996, New York 2012, Chicago 2016, Boston 2024. It doesn't allow the city to approve on its bid if it fails. It's not like Madrid, Rio, Paris, Istanbul, etc. Those have been trying at least twice, if not more, and it helped them each time to improve on their previous bid. Not possible with the US (appart from LA). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Was Chicago 2016's bid unserious when they repeatedly flirted with substituting private insurance for the public guarantee? Was it frivolous for the USOC to spend millions of dollars on a city's bid that was not guaranteed to sign the IOCs contract until the very last minute? They signed it in the end, though, didn't they. And their city council voted unaminously for it. So what's Boston's hold up. You also didn't see Chicago nor the USOC come back for 2020 either. So that right there tells you that neither party was interested to spend yet another $80 million on another exhaustive bid campaign. It was either win or go home for 2016. So I wouldn't hold my breath for Boston 2028 if 2024 has come & gone. Like Quaker said, other cities might come forward that are better positioned & surely the USOC will take it's due diligence & also look at them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Chicago's bid made it to the final vote. Let's see how far Boston's bid gets before we're going back in time 6 years to decide how serious Chicago's bid really was. If Boston spent years flirting with a bid that that did not include the public guarantee, it would undoubtedly poll well enough to make it until the final vote. You make good points with the rest of your comment. I don't contend that if a different city comes along and offers a better deal, the USOC should opt for Boston instead. But looking around the US, it seems there are very few possible candidates for bids in 2028 and 2032. Apart from LA, American cities don't have large stadia equipped for athletics. Constructing such a stadium and finding a sustainable post-games use seems to be a Herculean task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think that's what's problematic with a US bid. It's always changing the city: Los Angeles 1982, Atlanta 1996, New York 2012, Chicago 2016, Boston 2024. It doesn't allow the city to approve on its bid if it fails. It's not like Madrid, Rio, Paris, Istanbul, etc. Those have been trying at least twice, if not more, and it helped them each time to improve on their previous bid. Not possible with the US (appart from LA). Umm, but Los Angeles & Atlanta both hosted, though. And to continue bidding with the same city doesn't always guarantee success, like in Istanbul's & Madrid's case. Not to mention Ostersund & Sion. Quite frankly, I think this whole business by some that one should keep bidding with the same city, in cases where you might have other viable options like in the U.S.' case, is pretty overrated. I'd rather subscribe to the "at the right place, at the right time" theory myself. That seems to be the case most of the time than not when it comes to winning Olympic bids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Apart from LA, American cities don't have large stadia equipped for athletics. Constructing such a stadium and finding a sustainable post-games use seems to be a Herculean task. So how is that any different from Boston then. If Boston spent years flirting with a bid that that did not include the public guarantee, it would undoubtedly poll well enough to make it until the final vote. This appears to be grasping at straws, though. Let's say for arguments sake that were the case, do you really think that would make any bit of difference come vote day, considering the competition is likely to be much better in all other categories. I don't believe it would, unless it was a contest of the "B's" in the end, Boston, Budapest & Baku-koo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 So how is that any different from Boston then. I'm not claiming that Boston isn't facing difficulty building a stadium for the Olympics. do you really think that would make any bit of difference come vote day, No it wouldn't. I'm arguing that the issues plaguing Boston 2024 are not unique to Boston. Exhibit A being Chicago which did exactly the same thing and fell flat on its face 6 years ago. For the third time, the USOC has gone through the motions of "waiting for the right place at the right time" and it has gotten screwed thrice. It may be time to rethink that strategy. Instead of waiting for lightning to strike in the right place and time, it may be better to invest time and money in lightning rod instead. Is it possible that the lightning rod is never struck by lightening? Sure, but that is a risk the USOC will have to take if they want the summer Olympics anywhere other than LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.