Jump to content

The New American Race


LA84

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just to go out of the NYC talk a little bit, I think dates are pretty important in the USOC race.

This was the 2012 USOC/IOC Schedule

November 2002 - NYC chosen by the USOC to bid for the US

July 2003 - NOC's to inform IOC of the name of an Applicant City by letter

Autumn 2003 - Meeting betwen IOC, NOC and Applicant Cities. Release of Questionnaires to the NOC and Applicant City

January 2004 - Applicant City/NOC submit replies to questionnaires released by the IOC

Spring 2004 - Examination of replies by the IOC; mid-month, candidate cities were announced.

May 2004 - IOC shorlisted 5 cities

November 2004 - NYC submits 600-page bid book to the IOC

Winter 2005 - IOC Evaluation Committee visits to candidate cities

June 2005 - IO Evaluation Committee released it's report on their visits

July 2005 - London wins the right to host the 2012 Summer Games

If you're going to compare this for the 2016 race, just add 4 more years. In reality, the USOC must inform the IOC about a bid city by the summer of next year.

No.  Actually that calendar is a little off.

By April 2006, the USOC is supposed to announce its intentions.

now I'm just guessing...

July '06 - candidate US cities (if they are even going to open up the process) submit their portfolios to the USOC

maybe Nov 2006 - USOC shortlists its candidate cities

May 2007 - USOC picks its bid city (altho I read somewhere that that might not happen until December 2007)

July 2007 - IOC informally compiles long list of serious cities

Nov/Dec 2007 - USOC ratifies official candidature

then here, we sort of get closer to NYC2012's timetable...

May 2008 - IOC issues short list.  Cities can now produce logos with "Candidate City" status.

August 2008 - Beijing Olympics (candidate cities informally start their campaign by being present in Beijing)  

campaigning continues until

July/August 2009 - selection of 2016 host in Copehangen

I read in an article that the USOC wont start the process of 2016 until after the Paralympics which end on the 19th of March.

...take it for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The schedule wasn't off. It was tha actual schedule the IOC conducted the 2012 race. I'm assuming it will be the same as the IOC is not used to stretching out a race just for the sake of other cities in North America to prepare to bid...

Here's the actual schedule during the 2012 Summer Games Race... Scroll to page of 17 of the document, not of the file.

The difference with the 2012 and the 2016 race was that the USOC had a lot more time in preparing for 2012. 2016 is so much different the USOC has less time in its hands. The USOC would benefit by choosing New York over any other city because they'll have much more time to fix the kinks in the bid.

If they'll decide to have a race and choose another city, they'll only have to communicate directly with the winning city once they made the decision to choose that city, as it would be unfair to other bidding cities. Then, they would prepare for their bid in less time and that wouldn't be good as there would be utmost of 6 months to fix whatever problem they have, and at the same time, inform the IOC and answer the questionnaires in less time.

So, by choosing NYC over any other city interested, it will benefit the IOC a lot. NYC is still seriously considering a re-bid. Nobody in the City Administration has said no to another bid. We'll hear everything once the Olympics and Paralympics are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of Chicago's Mayor Daley's State of the City address states that...

Chicago Sun Times

The mayor also talked about making a bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics "that could help us build new housing and transportation for our future" to fill the void created by a federal government that is "abandoning policies that offer opportunity" for working people.

That's not good. It's the federal government who's going to support you if you win. How are you going to win if you're not even bidding yet, and you're already firing against the very government you're trying to convince?

That's just not a good statement, IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of Chicago's Mayor Daley's State of the City address states that...

Chicago Sun Times

The mayor also talked about making a bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics "that could help us build new housing and transportation for our future" to fill the void created by a federal government that is "abandoning policies that offer opportunity" for working people.

That's not good. It's the federal government who's going to support you if you win. How are you going to win if you're not even bidding yet, and you're already firing against the very government you're trying to convince?

That's just not a good statement, IMO ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not good. It's the federal government who's going to support you if you win. How are you going to win if you're not even bidding yet, and you're already firing against the very government you're trying to convince?

That's just not a good statement, IMO ???

He also made a valid point in the next paragraph.

"By cutting back on college loans, affordable housing and medical care for the poor, they are undermining opportunity, instead of expanding it. We are forgetting the lessons of history: the Homestead Act, the WPA, the GI Bill ... all of these initiatives provided millions of people with the elements of the American Dream -- a college education, a good job, a chance to own their own home," the mayor said.

Daley is a hard-core Democrat and makes no qualms about not liking Bush.  He knows that the by the time the IOC chooses the 2016 host city a new president will be in office.  I don't think his statement really hurts anything, as 1) it's pretty much true and 2) his reputation is set among the politicians, so it's not like he's suddenly going to make friends with the Republicans.  They each know where the other stands and have managed to work together on many other issues in the past.  In the big picture of the bid process, a Chicago mayor slightly disparaging the Republican party is really no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not good. It's the federal government who's going to support you if you win. How are you going to win if you're not even bidding yet, and you're already firing against the very government you're trying to convince?

That's just not a good statement, IMO ???

He also made a valid point in the next paragraph.

"By cutting back on college loans, affordable housing and medical care for the poor, they are undermining opportunity, instead of expanding it. We are forgetting the lessons of history: the Homestead Act, the WPA, the GI Bill ... all of these initiatives provided millions of people with the elements of the American Dream -- a college education, a good job, a chance to own their own home," the mayor said.

Daley is a hard-core Democrat and makes no qualms about not liking Bush.  He knows that the by the time the IOC chooses the 2016 host city a new president will be in office.  I don't think his statement really hurts anything, as 1) it's pretty much true and 2) his reputation is set among the politicians, so it's not like he's suddenly going to make friends with the Republicans.  They each know where the other stands and have managed to work together on many other issues in the past.  In the big picture of the bid process, a Chicago mayor slightly disparaging the Republican party is really no big deal.

Oh, I definitely know a) He's a Democrat B) As what most Democrats are, they don't like Bush c) Of course, he's against a lot of Bush's agenda.

Whether he made valid points on his criticizism is not the issue. He made his points, but... Before you even get to the point of being the US Bid City, you have to go through this Federal Government he's criticizing first and foremost. Why? They're not going to go away until the 2016 IOC race is on its midway point. When all the cities are shortlisted and in the middle of the evaluation visits.

So before you think about bidding to the IOC, think about getting through the USOC process first, the Federal Government level of the race. And these type of statements won't play good to the very people whom you are convincing to support you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, there is a lot of stretching going on in here of late.  The significance of Guiliani going to Turin, the First lLady's delegation, etc.    

Please - Republican Guiliani is going because Bush knows he will likely be a contender for higher office in 2008 and may be in power when the IOC vote comes down in 2009.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Everyone knows GWB supports Guilianni for 2008.  It doesn't show any sort of bias for NYC.  Had he sent Bloomberg it might be a different story.

Betts attendance in Turin is a violation of Peter Ueberroth's directive that nothing be done by interested cities until a decision is made whether the U.S. will bid.  I am sure his presence there went beyond getting coffee for Mrs. Bush.  If so this will not bode well at all for NYC with the USOC.

Daley's statements were spot on and he is right.  The Federal Government's financial contributions towards building for an Olympics in the U.S. is almost nil.  Outside of security, the Fed only has to support whatever city is chosen to represent the U.S. in 2009 which they will do, if it be NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles or Philadelphia.  The citizens of Illinois and Chicago are the ones who are ultimately going to have to pick up the tab for any overages that occur, or in the alternative, enjoy any windfall that will happen.  

As much as I know the NYC supporters hope otherwise, his statements were nothing earth-shattering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, there is a lot of stretching going on in here of late.  The significance of Guiliani going to Turin, the First lLady's delegation, etc.    

Please - Republican Guiliani is going because Bush knows he will likely be a contender for higher office in 2008 and may be in power when the IOC vote comes down in 2009.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Everyone knows GWB supports Guilianni for 2008.  It doesn't show any sort of bias for NYC.  Had he sent Bloomberg it might be a different story.

Betts attendance in Turin is a violation of Peter Ueberroth's directive that nothing be done by interested cities until a decision is made whether the U.S. will bid.  I am sure his presence there went beyond getting coffee for Mrs. Bush.  If so this will not bode well at all for NYC with the USOC.

Daley's statements were spot on and he is right.  The Federal Government's financial contributions towards building for an Olympics in the U.S. is almost nil.  Outside of security, the Fed only has to support whatever city is chosen to represent the U.S. in 2009 which they will do, if it be NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles or Philadelphia.  The citizens of Illinois and Chicago are the ones who are ultimately going to have to pick up the tab for any overages that occur, or in the alternative, enjoy any windfall that will happen.  

As much as I know the NYC supporters hope otherwise, his statements were nothing earth-shattering.

I was going to say this, but I was afraid that I couldn't word it appropriately. Nicely put...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there really isn't much to talk about here...the USOC has pretty much "played down" 2016 thus far (and I think this will work to their advantage in the end).....

however, I do think it is a bit naive for those who think Chicago and any other city consdering a bid for 2016 from the USA isn't being spoken about in Torino.....

I think the USOC will definately bid...as for the city we will have to see...as I have said before I think it will be either NYC or Chicago in the end, while LA, Philly, SF, and Houston will bid but be cut...I do also still think NYC will have an advantage over Chicago (how great it will be we can't possibly know yet, we will have to just wait and see)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right about the USOC staying quiet on the 2016 issue; but on the other hand, I really think you're underestimating some cities just as capable as NYC or Chicago of hosting the games.

we will have to see...I mean don't get me wrong all the cities I mentioned can host an excellent SOG without a problem...but I still think it will come down the Chicago and NYC...maybe SF and Washington D.C.....LA will not happen because they hosted twice before, and Houston and Philly (although both great cities) just don't have that international stature I think NYC and Chicago have....and I still think out of all of them that NYC will have an advantage (again this could be small or large...we will have to see).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with you on some points, disagree with you on others.  But we will see.  As for Philadelphia and its international prestige, all I have to mention is Atlanta was a far more unknown city, and they got the games.  So international prestige doensn't always equal a winning bid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with you on some points, disagree with you on others.  But we will see.  As for Philadelphia and its international prestige, all I have to mention is Atlanta was a far more unknown city, and they got the games.  So international prestige doensn't always equal a winning bid.

of course you make a great point with Atlanta...but I think that that is exactly what the USOC will try to avoid this time...as we saw with 2012 and will most likely see with 2016...the IOC seems to be attracted to cities that are already well established on an International level, and are truly among the elite of "world class" cities...please don't get me wrong I have been to Philly and would absolutely love to see a Games there, it is a great city and there is no doubt in my mind that they like every other US city could do it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please - Republican Guiliani is going because Bush knows he will likely be a contender for higher office in 2008 and may be in power when the IOC vote comes down in 2009.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Everyone knows GWB supports Guilianni for 2008.  It doesn't show any sort of bias for NYC.  Had he sent Bloomberg it might be a different story.
You can put it in different ways. I totally understand why you want it to look that way...  :wink:

But after Betts mentioning NYC is still seriously considering a re-bid, then President Bush appointing a key player and a very positive representative for NYC and the Republican Administration, you can't take out the big possibility this could have a connection on a possible NYC re-bid.

Betts attendance in Turin is a violation of Peter Ueberroth's directive that nothing be done by interested cities until a decision is made whether the U.S. will bid.  I am sure his presence there went beyond getting coffee for Mrs. Bush.  If so this will not bode well at all for NYC with the USOC.

True... But it was the President, the chief executive who directed this. Who knows, it might be one of the USOC's plan for NYC to continue on communicating with the IOC even without mentioning anything about an NYC 2016 bid. After all, NYC hasn't announced anything yet, so it is no illegal for NYC to communicate with people they have talked and dealt with, same as Chicago having a press conference announcing its exploratory committee and it's Mayor mentioning its city's intentions of bidding for the 2016 SOG.

Daley's statements were spot on and he is right.  The Federal Government's financial contributions towards building for an Olympics in the U.S. is almost nil.  Outside of security, the Fed only has to support whatever city is chosen to represent the U.S. in 2009 which they will do, if it be NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles or Philadelphia.  The citizens of Illinois and Chicago are the ones who are ultimately going to have to pick up the tab for any overages that occur, or in the alternative, enjoy any windfall that will happen.
And the IOC understands that it's our system in this part of the world. So, it's really up for the cities to pick up the tab. New York proposed it and will definitely do it. We have our economy flying expecting billions of dollars in surpluses against other with millions of dollars of deficits.
As much as I know the NYC supporters hope otherwise, his statements were nothing earth-shattering.

I was surely hoping that his statements or plans won't rock our world when we lost in July. But after certain very improbable proposals he stated the past few months, why worry? He's just proving to me, every statement he's releasing that I don't have to worry about him and it's looking very much that his tactic of promoting a Summer Games in Chicago is just a diversion from corruption charges against him.

I just can't stress NYC's readiness much more than I already did. New York is already almost there in completing most of what we've promised in 2012. We're even doing more. And we're ready to do even more if the need arises...  :)  :unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you think that the USOC will nominate Chicago instead of NYC?

I honestly do not know.  NYC has an advantage for sure.  But Chicago and Los Angeles, IMHO, are the biggest threats to NYC if they do indeed bid again.  

NYC is a known entitey worldwide.  Chicago is Americas Barcelona/Turin - from industrial town to worldwide tourist destination.  The ever-ready Los Angeles has hosted two highly successful Olympics and London has opened the door for it to possibly land a third Olympics.  

Those are my three picks -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you think that the USOC will nominate Chicago instead of NYC?

I honestly do not know.  NYC has an advantage for sure.  But Chicago and Los Angeles, IMHO, are the biggest threats to NYC if they do indeed bid again.  

NYC is a known entitey worldwide.  Chicago is Americas Barcelona/Turin - from industrial town to worldwide tourist destination.  The ever-ready Los Angeles has hosted two highly successful Olympics and London has opened the door for it to possibly land a third Olympics.  

Those are my three picks -

At least we agree on something...  :;):  :unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you think that the USOC will nominate Chicago instead of NYC?

If any of us knew for sure, we'd go to Vegas and place a wager on the winning city.  That's what makes this whole forum fun, the speculation and debate.  If it was set in stone, it would be boring and we'd do something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you think that the USOC will nominate Chicago instead of NYC?

I honestly do not know.  NYC has an advantage for sure.  But Chicago and Los Angeles, IMHO, are the biggest threats to NYC if they do indeed bid again.  

NYC is a known entitey worldwide.  Chicago is Americas Barcelona/Turin - from industrial town to worldwide tourist destination.  The ever-ready Los Angeles has hosted two highly successful Olympics and London has opened the door for it to possibly land a third Olympics.  

Those are my three picks -

At least we agree on something...  :;):  :unclesam:

Notice how with the U.S. members, it's a friendly rivalry between cities.  A little bit of bitchiness but not much else.  Whereas if it is between European cities they are out for blood?  :blues:  :unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...