Jump to content

Athensfan

Members
  • Posts

    8,054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Everything posted by Athensfan

  1. If the U.S. bids, we should put our best foot forward. Why pass over a superior alternative because someone deems it necessary for them to "sit in the corner for awhile?" Doesn't that seem like cutting off your nose to spite your face? If Reno seemed to be like a strong prospect, it would be a different story. So far I'm unconvinced that Reno can offer an internationally appealing and competitive bid. It is ludicrous to suggest that Atlanta somehow outshone Chicago and New York. You cannot equate the '96, '12 and '16 votes. If New York or Chicago had bid for '96 they would have won. If Atlanta had bid for '12 or '16 they would have lost. Judging by the fairly uniform belief that Atlanta staged the weakest Games in recent memory, I think the '96 Olympics harm your argument more than they help. Although many factors have contributed to the forseeable drought of U.S. Olympics -- Atlanta's mediocrity is certainly one of them. What matters more than winning the bid is staging excellent Games. I believe that Denver, if they so chose, could do that. I am not convinced Reno could. Rather than offering up another sub-par American Games, I think the USOC needs to evaluate all their options thoroughly -- including the possibility of not entering the race.
  2. If you imagine that '76 never happened, it's a no-brainer to pick Denver over Reno. There's absolutely no question that Denver offers a superior setting. Assuming the will is there and assuming the IOC is willing to let bygones be bygones, I believe a Denver bid would be much more competitive and credible internationally. The whole question is '76. Baron is convinced that the referendum is an eternal albatross. Perhaps he is right, but that doesn't make Reno an exciting alternative.
  3. Agreed. If Durban dives into the pool at the last second it will change everything.
  4. Madrid will give Rome a run for their money -- the problem is that neither Madrid nor Rome really has any money. I'd definitely take Madrid seriously and I don't expect the IOC to start paying attention to financial realities until they have no other choice.
  5. I really don't see Bach as a problem for Munich. If anything he's an asset. Considering Germany's sporting strength and economic power, they are dramatically under represented as Olympic host. Munich 2022 is the odd-on favorite in my book.
  6. I agree with Baron on this one. The financial impact of weirdly timed WOGs would be big. Plus, there's no way the IF's can structure their schedules to build up to Winter Games in July or August. The comparison to Sydney isn't really fair either. You can host all the summer events in the spring without any trouble. Winter events need snow and need to be held in the height of winter.
  7. The USOC has said repeatedly they are not bidding for 2020.
  8. Come to think of it, Durban's absence from the 2011 list is kind of surprising....
  9. Based on the website of the Union of Olympic Cities it sounds as though all communication is directed to the cities and the NOC's are not involved in any readily apparent way. See the website here: http://www.olympiccities.org. As near as I can tell 2011 will mark the fourth time this summit has taken place. Thought it might be interesting to compare this year's list with past attendees. There are a lot of familiar faces, but some new ones as well. Here are the aspiring attendees from 2008: Annecy, France Busan, Republic of Korea Chicago, USA Copenhagen, Denmark Denver, USA Geneva, Switzerland Madrid, Spain Poznań, Poland PyeongChang, Republic of Korea Quebec City, Canada Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Here are the aspiring attendees from 2009: Annecy, France Busan, Republic of Korea Chicago, USA Copenhagen, Denmark Denver, USA Geneva, Switzerland Madrid, Spain Poznań, Poland PyeongChang, Republic of Korea Quebec City, Canada Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Here are the aspiring attendees from 2010: Abuja, Nigeria Annecy, France Durban, South Africa Gothenburg, Sweden Kazan, Russia PyeongChang, Republic of Korea Qinhuangdao, China Quebec, Canada Rotterdam, Netherlands San Francisco, U.S.A. Zakopane, Poland Just to review, here are the aspiring attendees for 2011: Annecy, France Dallas, U.S.A. Denver, U.S.A. Gothenburg, Sweden Istanbul, Turkey Kazan, Russia Poznan, Poland PyeongChang, Korea Québec City, Canada Reno, U.S.A. Rotterdam, Netherlands Saint Petersburg, Russia San Francisco, U.S.A. Sao Paulo, Brazil Tulsa, U.S.A.
  10. I don't doubt that Reno is serious about the Olympics. I'm not yet sure that the USOC is serious about Reno. I don't think Reno's presence at this conference indicates anything about whether or not the USOC will submit them as an applicant city for 2022. To me it's just not a a major indicator.
  11. ARRRGH! Baron, the U.S. may well bid for 2022, but they haven't said so yet. I just have a preference for SOG over WOG. Good grief! Also, I said there were probably varying levels of interest present. Maybe some cities are dead serious, but that doesn't say anything about what their NOC's think or whether they'll get out of the starting gate. You're saying this is "serious business." How can you look at Tulsa and say that with a straight face? Not to mention Sao Paulo, Kazan, Gothenburg.... If anybody's being obstinate here, it's you championing Reno 2022 and lambasting anybody who doesn't think it's a great idea.
  12. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the USOC is planning on bidding for 2022. They haven't ruled it out as a possibility and there are a couple of interested cities. That's all we know. As for Dallas and SF, even if the US bids for 2022, there's no guarantee they'll win. It seems to me that this conference is purely exploratory and doesn't entail any kind of actual commitment or declaration. So why not send a few interested parties without worrying about exactly how the future will play out? Different cities can be present with different levels of curiosity and ambition. I'm not clear on whether or not the NOC's are even particularly involved with which cities do and don't attend. Regarding Tulsa, they can pester the USOC all they want, but the USOC is in the driver's seat -- they have all the power.
  13. It suggests to me that we shouldn't attach too much significance to the list of attendees.... No Madrid, no Paris, no Tokyo, no Doha, no Dubai, no Toronto, no Chicago, no New York -- lots of potential applicant cities absent.
  14. Pure Facts point is fair. Sao Paulo is in attendance at the same conference. I can't imagine they have any serious Olympic ambitions for the near future. Tulsa sticks out like such a sore thumb.... ugh. Reno's not far behind. Personally, I'm just glad to see a strong American presence. It's a reminder to the IOC that the U.S. is serious about it's desire to host.
  15. Ditto about Sir Elton. London 2012 seems so intent on looking cutting edge that I have a hard time imagining Elton John making an appearance. I like Coldplay and could totally see them.
  16. In my opinion, FIFA's recent selections render all speculation futile. As near as I can tell, they are not using any solid criteria in making their decisions apart from which culture seems appealing at the moment. Technical considerations don't seem to matter and because the continental rotation rules are not fixed and may well change again, the apparent logic behind USA 2026 may not factor in at all. Even if FIFA does stick with the current rules instead of changing them for each cycle, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to go someplace totally random like Cuba. Ok, maybe not Cuba.... But then again, you never know. This vote basically proved that all bets are off. FIFA will follow their own whims and special interests. I think predictions are basically pointless.
  17. At this point there aren't any. Yes, it's the world's second most populous country, yes it poses a marvelous cultural contrast to previous hosts, yes it's growing economically, BUT.... there's very little sporting tradition. the infrastructure is inadequate. poverty is widespread. corruption is widespread. India's record is questionable at best when it comes to organizing major international events. I would love to see a successful Olympic Games in India, but I don't see it happening in the next 20 years -- particularly considering the problems leading up to the Commonwealth Games.
  18. I have to say, the comparisons to Athens don't seem quite fair. Athens wasn't plagued by the same kind of corruption. They wasted three years bickering and then Gianna rode in to save the day. Legacy suffered painfully, but as one who was there, I thought the Games were a smash. It's saddening to me that so many spectators were scared away by fears of terrorism and stories of incomplete venues. Delhi's dilemma's will certainly kill any Olympic dreams for several decades (though I always questioned India's readiness anyway). I wonder, though, how these Games will affect the thinking of IOC members. Will they disregard Delhi as a tragic, but avoidable anomaly? Or will they be wary of new frontier hosts? (Durban?) I suspect that when all is said and done, Delhi will serve as a much-needed reality check for all major international sporting events. Just because you want someone to host doesn't mean they're ready. At their core are these events about sport and improving the quality of life or are they just about flash and glamour? The IOC and others will be reminded that these are real questions that must be considered. I don't think they'll start automatically dismissing the likes of Durban, but they will look very, very closely.
  19. Ugh. The stadium was not the problem. Everything else (money disputes, another American Games, revolving door leadership, lack of a story) was the problem. TOTALLY agree w/ Rols. The next American bid must NOT be in-your-face red, white and blue. It must be a celebration of the world. We are a nation of immigrants and any of the big four can tell that story (NYC, SF, Chicago, LA). The message needs to be, "It's not about US. It's about YOU." More than ever, the Games would be a celebration of global diversity. They would be Games with HEART. That's a story that would appeal to the IOC. Throw in some meaningful infrastructure improvements and favorable timing for the bid and you're good to go.
  20. 2024 may be pushing it, but 2028 definitely has potential. The biggest question is the leadership. In which city will a group of smart, charismatic organizers emerge? That is by far the most important criteria in determining whether or not a bid gets off the ground and whether it has a legitimate shot at winning. Yes, the venues are a significant issue and NYC has a big hill to climb in terms of a stadium and the village. Still, the leadership is more important. If capable people don't have a strong will to stage the Olympics, then it's game over. The leadership might surface in NYC or it might show up in Chicago or San Francisco (the most dubious IMO). L.A. has the ever persevering SCCOG which, though it doesn't constitute bid leadership, does maintain consistent Olympic momentum, which is an asset. Any of those cities could stage great Games. I strongly believe the leadership will be the biggest determining factor in deciding which one steps up to the plate. (Incidentally, it has recently occurred to me that one of the potential legacies of an L.A. Games would be mass transportation. L.A. is a city badly in need of improved mass transportation and that could be a selling point both to locals and to the IOC.) One of the things Chicago 2016 revealed about the bid process is that the bid must not only be technically superior, it must tell a story. It must have some kind of hook. That central vision is the most important thing that the bid leaders must develop. Chicago failed to do so. They put forward a plan and said "we want the Games." Not good enough. Rio said, "We are a rising economic power and our continent has NEVER hosted." Madrid said, "We have demonstrated consistent passion for the Olympic movement, passion symbolized by the dedicated service of Juan Antonio Samaranch. Honor his legacy and our national enthusiasm for the Games." Those were the only two stories that emerged from the bid. Consequently, those two duked it out in the final. Whether it is NYC or any other city, the next American bid must tell a compelling story. The leadership of that bid must figure out what that story is and communicate it powerfully.
  21. I am not coming to this thread without my personal biases. I am pro-London and anti-tower (at least anti-THIS tower). If the Tower cannot be completed in a timely manner with sufficient attention paid to the unresolved details, it should not be built at all. I realize that many details can change during construction, but it does sound as though this project is lacking in forethought. An unattractive, poorly thought-through tower that is not particularly visitor-friendly would not help London in any way.
  22. Seattle is a FANTASTIC city, but the Olympics are simply not feasible there.
  23. I hear you and I agree in terms of personal preference. I just think Houston, Philly and Miami are feasible and Seattle isn't.
  24. Seattle is a fantastic city, but I doubt they'll ever bid for the Games. The two biggest reasons: 1.) Geography makes transportation a huge challenge. Baron is right, it's a small, very congested area. And that's without an Olympics. 2.) Seattle is nothing if not eco-friendly. The city is populated with tree-huggers and I doubt that they would ever embrace the level of construction that would be required for an Olympic Games. Truly a wonderful city, but not an Olympic host.
  25. I agree that nobody can say for certain what the future holds, but the stadium is a big problem...
×
×
  • Create New...