Jump to content

CanisMinor

Members
  • Content Count

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

CanisMinor last won the day on August 11 2011

CanisMinor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About CanisMinor

  • Rank
    Silver

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London, Muenchen, Chicago
  1. I still don't see how this can work in practice. Americans love transparency, they hate things being done in secret. There are simply too many "special interest" groups for a "behind the scenes" bid process, which presumably involves city government and business to work. Chicago's biggest weakness was low citizen support. A secret bid process will only aggravate that.
  2. I don't disagree that the IOC likes SF - I can certainly imagine they would. My point is that the city is one of militant earth-muffins. Remember this is the city where a homeless guy managed to legally block the construction of bicycle lanes. I think Social Media makes it even worse. Take Chicagoans, a citizenry that normally falls in line behind the political machine. Despite that, Chicago had some of the weakest citizen support for a bid of any city. At the time, twitter wasn't even mainstream. Imagine the protests and sit-ins a small "Chicagoans for Rio" could manage today? They'
  3. I think the debate is which cities ARE in that top set? A case can be made for Houston - soon to be the third largest city in the US and more reflective of the current melting-pot make-up of the US than Chicago is. Similarly, Boston could be argued to outclass Dallas or Philadelphia. On the other hand, one can argue that an SF should never been in the list as the probability of some activist citizens pulling a Denver '76 is just too high. Given the posting behavior, which seems to mirror that of Kernowboy and Blacksheep, I expect s/he will soon be instructed to no longer grace us with he
  4. I don't think that is an issue. Even if they are Applicant Cities, they will not make it to the Candidate City phase. Only SA can mount a technically strong enough bid.
  5. Yet, this is the exact argument you made why London is a great choice. You said: "The 1908 Olympics were originally awarded to Rome and only shifted to London 2 years prior. And the 1948 Olympics were held in the aftermath of WWII and nearly were handed to the United States as a result. So this was really the first time London really had a shot to do it right." Well, same for LA - both their bids were given to them because they were the default choice - without them the IOC would have been no more. And they did a great job - both times. I don't see why that should count against LA - it s
  6. Berlin has been awarded the Games twice. The first time they screwed it up by starting a war before the Games began. The second time they were a bit smarter and at least waited till after the Games to start a war. So, I count it as two Games - the fact they only hosted once is their own fault. Might agree with you if LA was hosting 2024, but my base hypothesis is that the US won't see a hosting before the '40s (my rationale is much earlier on this thread). Thus, '84 won't be particularly fresh in anyone's memory. Besides, the "recent" hosting is never a negative when Moscow is discusse
  7. Really? what about Atlanta 1996? Agree. Tired of folks repeating the old mantras of "we have no idea...blah...blah". The knowledge of why Chicago lost is so clear. 1) Geopolitics favored Rio - they were the one to beat 2) Chicago bid was weak on citizen support and transport The revenue deal was why the bid lost BADLY. However, even without the revenue issues, the bid would still not have won because of the above two points. Yea, well, many of the non-Brits were left quite cold by the idea of yet another rehash of London. That turned out pretty well, didn't it? In addition, other
  8. I'd like to see an objective view of how other cities had "great ideas, much better than Chicago's"? Here are the facts. 1) Chicago lost because - It was Rio's time - Chicagoan support for the Games was abysmal - The transport plan was mediocre 2) Chicago came dead last in the voting because of the USOC/IOC relationships. Two different causes, but both with the same result - there was no way Chicago would have won. Now, for those who seem to think Chicago should waste another $75m on a bid. Yes, cause 2 is fixed. However, other than the Rio issue, the other two points of cause 1 rem
  9. Let me be clearer then. Both technically and legacy wise the stadium was highly applauded. But you're right, the entire Chicago 2016 exec was probably completely naive. I mean with all the really in depth analytics of practically every IOC meeting, with representation on the exec that covered every winning bid from 1988 to 2008 we clearly had ZERO insights into the evaluation meeting. I mean, we should all just rather of asked FYI, MVP armchair quarterback, to come and tell us we might as well pack up and go home. Let me also be clear on this: Debate and opinions are great. But trying t
  10. Seems the only condescension, arrogance and presumption is from you. I always find it fascinating how someone is prepared to post something as 100% fact, when it is not founded in any reality. You were not on Chicago 2016 exec committee and privy to the technical evaluation. You did not have personal 1 on 1 meetings with 49 IOC members AFTER the vote to understand the true views on Chicago's bid. Yet SOMEHOW, you think you are qualified to state the above BS as fact? The only think that is a fact now, is your lack of credibility.
  11. It's funny though, in many meetings with the IOC in my role as an executive member of the Chicago 2016 bid committee, I heard only the highest praise for our stadium concept; that it was the strongest technical point of your bid. But, maybe you are right. I guess your info comes from a better source, no?
  12. Yet, the last bid from the US - Chicago - had a very sensible solution.
  13. 1) "It was Rio's time..." is why Chicago didn't win 2) "...tense relations with the USOC..." is why Chicago came dead last It had nothing to do with legacy. Chicago never had a campaign built on "we're ready...".
  14. No where do I write Germany shouldn't get another shot - I was a big supporter of Munich 2018, and would much rather see the games in Germany than in Italy or Spain. My point was about Berlin. Berlin has been given TWO shots at hosting an Olympic Games. They screwed up both. With so many cities begging for a first shot, I don't see any case for giving Berlin a third. It's called sarcasm. I guess this form of humour is not really known in Germany?
  15. 1) Legacy wise, it would have transformed the South Side by giving low income inhabitants access to a superior sporting facility. 2) It had a positive impact on the bid.
×
×
  • Create New...