Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CanisMinor last won the day on August 11 2011

CanisMinor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About CanisMinor

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • 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. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. Yet, the last bid from the US - Chicago - had a very sensible solution.
  10. 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...".
  11. 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.
  12. There was zero wrong with the Chicago stadium proposal. It was one of the strongest points of the bid.
  13. As long as they include the Praying Hands (https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2V78avPkzVyx6zB9Ts5RYPQOG-Xn4JyV5VBkFCDWzTWQl5b-r), I'm in support Maybe they can have a lightning bolt shoot out from the praying hands to light the cauldron?
  14. Why certainly. The LA Coliseum has now been around since 1920 - going onto 92 years. In that time, sure the field has been raised and lowered, facilities updated and seating renovated or replaced. But the basic structure is intact - right down to the original 1932 games logo. Many other cities have their Olympic stadiums intact. Just a couple that are older than 75 year: - 1936 - Garmisch Partenkirchen - 1928 - Amsterdam In other sports, Chicago has been able to keep the historic Wrigley Field around since 1914. London could have retained historic parts of Wembley or the White City St
  15. And yet, I still see no evidence of this, that the IOC demanded meetings at Atlanta which weren't demanded of any other games. If it's public record, then you shouldn't have a problem pointing to that clear public record of meetings demanded by the IOC at Atlanta, and how those same meetings weren't demanded for any other games. Let me be clear, to you and others such as Rob, et al. I'm not claiming Atlanta was "the greatest". It was a highly successful games. There was nothing disastrous or embarrassing about it. To continue trying to paint it as such, simply shows your willingness to b
  • Create New...