Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CanisMinor last won the day on August 11 2011

CanisMinor had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    London, Muenchen, Chicago

CanisMinor's Achievements


Silver (4/16)



  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 should count far more in favor of LA. No other cities in the world have done as much for the Olympic movement as London and LA have. Why is London then patted on the back by you, and LA is derided? And you think the major commercial incentive of CocaCola and a US games, at a time when the IOC was still barely scraping by financially had zero impact? Atlanta was chosen for two reasons: 1) As you say, Athens wasn't ready 2) Because the dollar signs shone brightly in the eyes of the IOC. In 1904, the IOC chose the US because of the money potential. In 1932, they were forced to choose the US, because no one else would pay for their party. In 1984, they were forced to choose the US, because no one else would pay for their party. In 1996, the alternative wasn't viable, and the CocaCola dollars became compelling. As I say - not ONCE has a US city been awarded a SOG based on the merits of the bid - every time it has been about the money for the IOC.
  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 discussed, e.g., 2012 bid, so why is it such a much bigger deal for the US? The big issue for the US is that it is still perceived as having hosted too many times, as opposed to a particular city being too recent. Three points on this: 1) Birmingham can, Liverpool can't. 2) 2024 is only 12 years away for a country of 60,000. The US is more than 5x that size. 3) A lot of posters argue that Europe "deserves a Games" every second or third cycle, because it has so many countries. So then, why bother bringing the Games back to the same country, when so many European countries have yet to host? London made it big deal of getting the Games a third time. They practically guaranteed that everyone knew it was awarded multiple times. Also, remember the circumstances of LA's first 2 hostings. The 1932 Olympics were awarded to Los Angeles in the midst of the Great Depression. No other city stepped up - Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1932. And the 1984 Olympics were held in the aftermath of a number of financial disasters, including Montreal 1976. Again, Los Angeles was a "default choice", and again Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1984. Instead of disparaging Los Angeles, I think it deserves some credit for saving the Olympic Movement, and being prepared to risk everything - twice - for the IOC. ...and that is the crux of it. The ONLY time the IOC considers any US bid seriously, is when they need money.
  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 posters are practically frothing with pleasure at the thought of a third shot for Paris or Berlin. So why shouldn't LA, which is already credited with saving the Olympic Movement, not be more appropriate than any other city for a third shot?
  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 remain, and if anything they are even bigger obstacles today. Chicago's transport situation in 2024 will be substantially worse than it will be in 2016. Citizen's are even more anti-games now they they were in 2009 - I don't see this changing by 2017.
  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 to sell something as fact of which you have zero knowledge is ludicrous.
  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. 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 Stadium, but responded by demolishing the legacy. If you want to see true architecture of the 1908 or 1948 Games in London, where do you go? In Berlin, Munich, Garmisch, Ingoldstadt, LA, Atlanta, Amsterdam and most Olympic hosts, the stadiums are well-used and tourist drawcards. In London? Nothing. And still, other than an allegation, you haven't posted a single fact in support of reports of the day indicated Atlanta was a shambles compared to any other Games. It's clear you have an anti-Atlanta bias with zero facts, other than what you read on Wikipedia and blogs.
  14. 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 believe random wikipedia articles and op eds, as opposed to doing a bit of research. Go rent some DVDs and watch Atlanta's ceremonies, it's main events. Go into the newspaper archives and read the daily articles relating to the games written during the two weeks. Then come back with your "public record evidence", and let's see of your sweeping statements hold. You're right. London managed to solve this with both their previous games - they demolished the stadium.
  15. Not really. It is the anti-americanism that they failed to address. - Atlanta was a highly profitable games for the IOC and for the USOC - It was highly successful for the viewers and attendees - It was highly successful for the athletes - Along with Barcelona it is simply the best example of how a games can transfer a mid-tier city - The legacy use of the Atlanta venues is unparalleled. Unlike the empty white-elephant venues of Sydney, Athens, and Beijing, Atlanta has made good use of all the investment Addressing the negative points: - The transport issue is ridiculous. There were a handful of isolated incidences. These were less significant than the initial empty seats and the security blunders London faced, and less than occurred in Athens by far - If you want to call Atlanta "a car crash" based on the few random internet editorials you have linked to, then I guess, the judging debacles in the fencing, triathlon, cycling and swimming in London, together with the above empty seats and security blunders, would mean London should be called a "cruise-ship wreck" As to the criticism that "coke bought the games". Wait a second - this is the same Coke that is a top sponsor. This is the same Coke that the IOC is desperately trying to get more revenues from - to the extent that they are prepared to humiliate Chicago just to force the USOC to give up more money from this Coke. Seems to me, Coke's money should be a plus!
  • Create New...