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'd be a real threat to the games. Now take that to the militant earth muffins of SF. If they mobilize, the Games will be dead quicker than you can say "76". On Houston - yea, good point on the weather - would be like hosting in Hong Kong or Singapore.
  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 her/his presence.
  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 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.
  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 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.
  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 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?
  8. Not quite. Every Olympic Games from 1984 to 2004 has been profitable. I don't know about Beijing, and the jury is still out on London, although it will likely turn profitable, too.
  9. 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.
  10. As much as I love Lisbon, it really is a bit decrepit. And as you observe, Portugal needs to fix their economy first. I can see Budapest as a far more likely candidate.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. Yet, the last bid from the US - Chicago - had a very sensible solution.
  15. 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...".
×
×
  • Create New...