Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LDM

  1. This is the first I have heard this idea. Can you elaborate further on where you heard this or what the idea was? Were they looking to build a new, full spec rowing course in LA?
  2. Agree. Great concept and amazing execution. Perfectly reflects the angle they are trying to push LA for as a candidate city: new age, youthful, vibrant, creative and tech savvy.
  3. I'm an Aussie (thus the km's), but have strong interest in US college sport (thus the Track & Field reference)! Funnily enough I was over in NY for the Super Bowl a couple of years ago, but didn't go to the game and just stuck in Manhattan for the whole week. I didn't know it was such an issue with transport. But all the issues you raise make sense. Back to the drawing board I guess to figure out how to get a games to NYC....
  4. Would it really be a deal breaker for NYC if they actually had to use MetLife Stadium (a redeveloped/renovated one) as the Track & Field/Ceremonies stadium, despite the fact it is technically located in NJ? I mean, it is only 7.5km outside the state boundary. If it is fine for NY football teams to call it their home stadium then why can't it be acceptable for an olympics? If anything it ties in with what Agenda 2020 stands for: a more sustainable and responsible venue plan. If football (soccer) can be played in other cities as part of the games schedule, why can't this scenario be acceptable? And New Yorkers may even be more engaged with the idea of the Olympics when one of the main hubs is located outside the epicentre of the city, ensuring less congestion.
  5. If LA 2024 did win, what would people think would be sports they may advocate to bring in? Crossfit? MMA? 3X3 Basketball? Lacrosse?
  6. I should have prefaced my post by saying I am perfectly aware of how improbable and unlikely any of these 'solutions' are at actually being implemented. But the topic is about how does NYC get an Olympics with the stadium being the issue. My suggestion was merely how I believe I feel it could in the most realistic form (however unlilkely - obviously). In response to your comments about LA and the Coliseum, the difference is that it is a pre-existing structure and has pre-existing constraints, built in a bygone era. These days stadium design and architecture is well advanced and capable of being able to morph into different use cases. Here in Australia we recently had a design proposal for our Olympic stadium in Sydney to be almost completely renovated so that the stands can pivot and move to accommodate the different dimensions of the sports we play - Aussie Rules, League, Rugby and Football (Soccer). So the technical requirements I don't feel are that hard. As for the business case, that is obviously not as clear cut, however I do believe there could be value if you had: 1. a partner like the City Football Group and 2. a more central location actually in New York.
  7. When does the first BidIndex ranking come out for the 2024 race?
  8. If unsuccessful for the 2024 bid I would imagine it would be fait accompli that they decided to double-down and pursue a 2028 bid, for which I would say is completely warranted. Given that the US has multiple cities that would offer compelling or interesting SOGs, I am keen to hear from people who are probably a bit more learned in the bid game and/or US citizens from these areas as to why they may not be a feasible option. The cities I am curious about: San Diego San Francisco/San Jose Phoenix Chicago New York Philadelphia Washington, DC
  9. The most likely (however unlikely) way for something plausible to manifest (financially justifiable etc) would be if City Football Group - who own NYCFC, Man City & Melb City - to buy a sizeable minority stake in the Jets to have skin create another revenue stream to offset the costs/risks of building a brand new stadium. Stadium architectural design and capability is at a point where building a stadium that can morph into different use-cases is possible (i.e Soccer, NFL & Olympic T&F layouts). So building a new stadium that works is the easy part. It's having a compelling, sustainable business plan that is the issue. Having City Football Group combine with an NFL team (Jets) would fix that in my eyes.
  10. It is probably this! By 2040 I do believe that a SEQ bid would be a quality one and a justifiable host city. I just feel it is a shame to have such a ready-made host like Melbourne that would 100% deliver a games that would be on par with London and Sydney (I have no doubt) miss there opportunity to do so because they hosted one in 1956! In an age where so many cities are shirking the Olympics because they can't justify it financially, or that they don't have the domestic support to do it, we have one right here ready to go.
  11. As a proud Melburnian I would want the games at any cost (but that is just me being selfish)! Maybe having it in our winter could be an advantage - athletes can witness Australia's four seasons in one day! I think it was you that wrote in a previous topic (LA2024?) when picking apart a point by Lord David that the idea of having a strong technical bid is not the be all and end all because IOC members views on bid quality takes in so many factors. What I am saying is that due to my view that Melbourne is an exceptionally strong option as a host city, that they would be one of the few cities in the world that could command flexibility if they really wanted to bid. But that is just pure speculation, obviously. There are always exceptions to the rule, you just need to know who/what they are. Besides, it is kind of a moot point talking about Melbourne as an option anyway at this stage because we are not likely to be a serious option for a games until 2032 at the earliest, with those games to be decided in 2025. A lot can change in 9 years and perhaps the IOC may change their criteria even more so by that stage to allow it to bid.
  12. When I say Melbourne would be a 1000x, I don't mean that to be a slight on Brisbane's bid - as much as I know it sounds like it. It's just based on the pure fact that Melbourne is so well positioned to deliver a truly exceptional games that if Australia was to bid and use Brisbane, I feel like it would be a waste using a sceptical bid as opposed to an absolute home run for a country that will only ever get the chance to host the games once every 40 years at best. It just doesn't make any sense. Whilst I am not suggesting that this would be the main driver for lodging a bid for Brisbane, that given Australia relies on a heavy tourism industry, having a joint bid between one of our main tourist destinations in the Sunshine Coast and GC and having that given global exposure through a olympic candidacy, it would probably offset a lot of the expense as indirect/direct tourism marketing and maybe justify having a crack. But also with the intention of winning, obviously. The sheer global exposure for them is just a consolation prize. RE: Sir Rols - of course Coates is going to tow the party line. I wouldn't expect the IOC VP to go against protocol given his standing in the organisation, but in reality (which is very different to the public optics presented, the dates would be flexible. At least they would be for Melbourne. Using Doha, whilst an applicable example, is really comparing apples to oranges. The IOC has to be diplomatic, and so they won't call them out on their million other issues (when, if they had any spine, they probably should).
  13. I just don't buy that they would not consider Melbourne. It's illogical not to. The city not only has the required climate (albeit outside the preferred timeframe), it is a developed, world-class city, has great infrastructure for an olympics, all the requisite facilities for an olympics, is safe and secure locally, but also as part of a country that is safe, is a stable economy, is widely regarded as the sporting capital of the world (or at least always in the top handful of cities) and so on. A Melbourne Olympics would be 1000x better than a Brisbane bid. I mean, it's not even close. To exclude it from consideration because it doesn't fall within a desired timeframe makes no sense. No matter where the Olympics is held, there is going to be a strong proportion of the world where it is not ideal because it doesn't match up with their summer. Deal with it. If Qatar can change timeframes for FIFA, Melbourne can change it for the Olympics. PS. I am from Melbourne, so the bias is real.... but it doesn't change the fact that I am also right
  14. Understood - thanks! And I got myself muddled when I said LA hosting it twice would be a positive. I meant would SF & Chicago have enough downside that even with LA having already hosted twice that the IOC would view them more favourably still.
  15. Are cities like Chicago & San Francisco genuine contenders? Or do they possess too many flaws in comparison to LA to overlook the fact LA has hosted twice before?
  16. Given that OG bids sometimes require a concerted effort to win over a two and even three cycles, if LA was to fail at 2024 and the US probably being a favourite for the 2028 race based off continental rotation, is LA a fait accompli for being the nominated city? Or are cities like SF and Chicago more likely options? Is LA legitimately the best candidate city for the US? Or are they merely using 2024 bid to keep the US in the conversation for 2024 before launching 2028 with a more appealing bid (new OG city)?
  • Create New...