Jump to content

CanisMinor

Members
  • Content Count

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by CanisMinor

  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...".
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. Uh, you might as well include 1916 in that. And in both 1916 and 1936 those "external political issues" were Germany's own doing. As I said earlier, seeing as Germany responded to both previous Berlin SOG awards with a world war, maybe Berlin should not qualify for a 3rd shot. Now, if you want a city overdue for a summer games, how about Chicago? They've been denied since 1904.
  19. There was zero wrong with the Chicago stadium proposal. It was one of the strongest points of the bid.
  20. Completely agree - as we know for the 2016 Domestic Campaign, nearly half of the USOC thought that LA was the best option. This is what I really like about the USOC process - it is rigorous. They use the previous cycles bid requirements, and cities have to submit a full bid to the USOC. For example, LA and Chicago both submitted a complete bid to the USOC based on the 2012 questions, making the domestic competition equivalent to the standard of the international competition.
  21. But the discussion is not about the soccer stadium, it is about whether or not Cape Town can utilise an athletics stadium. Two different subjects.
  22. Actually, 1) Plan called for 7,500 seats remaining 2) Plan was to recycle seats into wheel chairs 3) Cost included the development of the entire Olympic Park So, for the third time your numbers are incorrect and mere guesses. Regardless, your ramblings still miss the point of that of why the stadium was a problem for a Chicago bid, as you alluded to?
  23. Huh? Let's take your logic and apply it to a car. You buy a Rolls Royce for a $1 million. You drive the queen in it once. You try and sell it, and eventually someone buys it for $20,000 to use as a taxi. They use it as a taxi, and make money off it as a taxi. How is that not a white elephant, seeing as a cheap Ford could have done the same thing? Beijing has massive social issues. They could have spent their money on better uses. The UK has massive social issues, they could have spent their money on better uses. Athens has massive social uses and could have spent money on better uses. South Africa has massive social issues, but is in better shape economically than the UK or Greece. So, why should SA suddenly be held to a different standard than the rest of the world? My point remains. There is still no tenant. This is an undeniable fact, no matter how you spin it. What's your point? Would the stadium have been built in East London without the Olympics? No, it wouldn't. A 2024 Games in SA is 12 years away. So why is the fact that they aren't falling over themselves to built a stadium NOW such an issue?
  24. Chicago's stadium was planned to cost under $400million.
  25. In other words, a total white elephant boondoggle. Okay, fair point - a huge stadium drawing crowds of around 10 to 20,000. Definite success! So, a white elephant for Beijing? Why is Beijing allowed a white elephant, but SA not? As far as money goes, South African economy is larger than Greece, and more sound than the current UK economy, as well as current bidders Turkey and Spain. And yet, with the games drawing to a close, their is still no tenant. Uh, clearly you have never been to a university athletics even in South Africa? or a university Rugby event? Cape Town Stadium is a football stadium. Green Point was an athletics stadium. The city needs a new athletics stadium. And yes, unlike Athens, South Africa will build a usable sized stadium. And Cape Town IS a CURRENT capital of South Africa, and has been since unification in 1910.
×
×
  • Create New...