Jump to content

The United States and the 2016 Summer Olympics


Hank

Recommended Posts

Is there even a plan for a stadium?  A renovated Shea?  A new stadium?  Anything?  Without a stadium, a US bid isn't going anywhere!  And that just isn't New York, that includes Chicago, San Fran, Philly and the rest of them.

And yes, New York has announced their interest in bidding. Ruy Giuliani, Dan Doctoroff and other NYC officials have claimed they will not make an official decision until the USOC process is revealed. And with Ueberroth claiming that the new process will be shorter, cheaper, and less laborious, I would think that NYC will bid.

And as mentioned probably a billion times already, NYC will probably use an expanded version of the Mets Stadium for the site of the Ceremonies and athletics.

O.K.  Then I am mistaken...I apologize.  Is they new Mets stadium a done deal, or just some pictures and a bunch of talk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Is there even a plan for a stadium?  A renovated Shea?  A new stadium?  Anything?  Without a stadium, a US bid isn't going anywhere!  And that just isn't New York, that includes Chicago, San Fran, Philly and the rest of them.

And yes, New York has announced their interest in bidding. Ruy Giuliani, Dan Doctoroff and other NYC officials have claimed they will not make an official decision until the USOC process is revealed. And with Ueberroth claiming that the new process will be shorter, cheaper, and less laborious, I would think that NYC will bid.

And as mentioned probably a billion times already, NYC will probably use an expanded version of the Mets Stadium for the site of the Ceremonies and athletics.

O.K.  Then I am mistaken...I apologize.  Is they new Mets stadium a done deal, or just some pictures and a bunch of talk?

The actual baseball park is a done deal. However, the expansion of the park into an Olympic Stadium would probably be made when the time comes, and when NYC puts together their bid again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from nykfan:

OK, the USOC has all but confirmed that they will bid for the 2016 Summer Games. As we know, no American city has officially announced their intention to bid. The USOC is not expected to reveal the bid process until June. Here is a list in interested bid cities, just for clarification, as reported by the Associated Press of America:

--New York City

--Philadelphia

--Washington, D.C.

--Los Angeles

--Chicago

--San Francisco

--Houston

Actually, my count is 9:

- Chicago

- Houston

- Los Angeles

- Minneapolis

- New York

- Philadelphia

- San Diego/Tijuana

- San Francisco

- Washington DC/Baltimore.

I include Minneapolis and San Diego because I think and hope that the USOC will straighten out those 2 misguided cities and save them further grief.  LA and San Francisco are weaker bids this time around for reasons already mentioned.  Definitely, the USOC will want to see what the 2 newcomers: Chicago and Philly can come up with, just to give itself and the process a few more choices.  

@splinterhead --

If NYC won for 2012, then it would've been a go.  However, everything  of course would have to be restarted depending on which way the USOC would go.  Now that it appears they want to proceed with a bid (why it took them such a long time to decide, I don't know -- but they must've had their reasons), NYC will probably line up 95% of its previously projected venues.  

Why is so hard to accept or think that most of the 2012 plans, which took some 16 months to put together, wouldn't basically be the same and can be put into motion once again?  It's not like, say an even lesser city like Wichita would be able to come up with 26 completely new venues, for a 2nd consecutive run?.?   :suspect:  Better get your head together, splinterhead.   :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even a plan for a stadium?  A renovated Shea?  A new stadium?  Anything?  Without a stadium, a US bid isn't going anywhere!  And that just isn't New York, that includes Chicago, San Fran, Philly and the rest of them.

And yes, New York has announced their interest in bidding. Ruy Giuliani, Dan Doctoroff and other NYC officials have claimed they will not make an official decision until the USOC process is revealed. And with Ueberroth claiming that the new process will be shorter, cheaper, and less laborious, I would think that NYC will bid.

And as mentioned probably a billion times already, NYC will probably use an expanded version of the Mets Stadium for the site of the Ceremonies and athletics.

O.K.  Then I am mistaken...I apologize.  Is they new Mets stadium a done deal, or just some pictures and a bunch of talk?

The actual baseball park is a done deal. However, the expansion of the park into an Olympic Stadium would probably be made when the time comes, and when NYC puts together their bid again.

I can't imagine a olympic stadium like that. It's a nice stadium, but its a retro baseball stadium. Not a sleek design like athens or london. With a bid name like new york,it can't afford to haf a atlanta-esqe stadium. I think with 2016, they should build a dedicated stadium, albeit somewhere where there will be land dedicated for it, mabey fresh kills, because they are making a park there 3x central park. That could be an olympic park, cause of plenty of room. And its on the site of the then gone dump, so I'm sure other people won't like to build there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even a plan for a stadium?  A renovated Shea?  A new stadium?  Anything?  Without a stadium, a US bid isn't going anywhere!  And that just isn't New York, that includes Chicago, San Fran, Philly and the rest of them.

And yes, New York has announced their interest in bidding. Ruy Giuliani, Dan Doctoroff and other NYC officials have claimed they will not make an official decision until the USOC process is revealed. And with Ueberroth claiming that the new process will be shorter, cheaper, and less laborious, I would think that NYC will bid.

And as mentioned probably a billion times already, NYC will probably use an expanded version of the Mets Stadium for the site of the Ceremonies and athletics.

O.K.  Then I am mistaken...I apologize.  Is they new Mets stadium a done deal, or just some pictures and a bunch of talk?

The actual baseball park is a done deal. However, the expansion of the park into an Olympic Stadium would probably be made when the time comes, and when NYC puts together their bid again.

I can't imagine a olympic stadium like that. It's a nice stadium, but its a retro baseball stadium. Not a sleek design like athens or london. With a bid name like new york,it can't afford to haf a atlanta-esqe stadium. I think with 2016, they should build a dedicated stadium, albeit somewhere where there will be land dedicated for it, mabey fresh kills, because they are making a park there 3x central park. That could be an olympic park, cause of plenty of room. And its on the site of the then gone dump, so I'm sure other people won't like to build there.

And who is going to pay for it?

Sorry - we don't build white elephants in the U.S. Either the facilities can be used after the games or we don't host them.

Besides - Atlanta did it (retro baseball stadium used for ceremonies and track/field)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K.  Here's my problem...I don't like the "New York Attitude".  I have seen it on these boards and in the city (I am in the city about a day every 3 or 4 weeks for business).  The feeling and belief that New York is entitled to major events (Olympic Games, Super Bowls, and others) because it is New York, and that New Yorkers are better than every one because they are from and live in New York.  I have seen and I don't like it.  No one is entitled to anything. I was always taught that from things are earned from hard work, not reputation or belief in one's superiority.

I don't like New York City.  I don't want them to win the Games.  I am not trying to flame anyone, or be oppositional.  I am here to discuss the Games and the bidding process, just like everyone else.    

That is my personal bias.  I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K.  Here's my problem...I don't like the "New York Attitude".  I have seen it on these boards and in the city (I am in the city about a day every 3 or 4 weeks for business).  The feeling and belief that New York is entitled to major events (Olympic Games, Super Bowls, and others) because it is New York, and that New Yorkers are better than every one because they are from and live in New York.  I have seen and I don't like it.  No one is entitled to anything. I was always taught that from things are earned from hard work, not reputation or belief in one's superiority.

I don't like New York City.  I don't want them to win the Games.  I am not trying to flame anyone, or be oppositional.  I am here to discuss the Games and the bidding process, just like everyone else.    

That is my personal bias.  I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

OF course we New Yorkers do not deserve anything!!!!

Anything we get is through very hard work!!!

But for many reasons we have what none of the other potentinal bid cities in the USA and the rest of the world  don't have: MONEY and INTERNATIONAL PRESTIGE!!!

And this wasn't something that was handed to us.

It came form HARD WORK!!!!!!!!!

Both of which the IOC is extermley fond of!!

Where do you think the IOC wants to have their  marquis event?: Houston, Philly, LA,  Chicago, Minniapolis,  Milan, Tokyo, New York?

We know what  the answer is!

:unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K.  Here's my problem...I don't like the "New York Attitude".  I have seen it on these boards and in the city (I am in the city about a day every 3 or 4 weeks for business).  The feeling and belief that New York is entitled to major events (Olympic Games, Super Bowls, and others) because it is New York, and that New Yorkers are better than every one because they are from and live in New York.  I have seen and I don't like it.  No one is entitled to anything. I was always taught that from things are earned from hard work, not reputation or belief in one's superiority.

I don't like New York City.  I don't want them to win the Games.  I am not trying to flame anyone, or be oppositional.  I am here to discuss the Games and the bidding process, just like everyone else.    

That is my personal bias.  I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

It's not a sense of entitlement. Picking a SUmmer Olympic host now requires 'critical mass'...Beijing, London, Sydney.  Look who else lost last year - Paris and Moscow,  WHo plan to run for 2016: Tokyo and possibly, Rome.  These aren't puny little cities of 500,000 or less.  Certainly an Atlanta or St. Louis or a Minneapolis would be no match for Tokyo or Rome.  So, if the US can't put up its best, biggest and brightest -- then why even bother?

You have a problem, sir, and you probably need to fix it.  I don't think New York or history will adjust to you.   :sniffle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok

1. i really think a baseball stadium being converted into a horrible olympic stadium is not good enough...especially not from new york which prob has the resources to build two stadia..just build a 80,000 stadium and reduce it to 20,000 after the games...using a baseball stadium would just be a horrible repeat of atlanta.....

2. i know using a baseball stadium is cutting costs..but certainly one can expect better from one of the best cities in the world...its just so cheesy to use stupid baseball stadiums..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok

1. i really think a baseball stadium being converted into a horrible olympic stadium is not good enough...especially not from new york which prob has the resources to build two stadia..just build a 80,000 stadium and reduce it to 20,000 after the games...using a baseball stadium would just be a horrible repeat of atlanta.....

o.k.  And what do you propose being done with said stadia after the two week party, a/k/a the Olympic Games?

2. i know using a baseball stadium is cutting costs..but certainly one can expect better from one of the best cities in the world...its just so cheesy to use stupid baseball stadiums..

With all due respect, that is sort of an elitist attitude.  Baseball is to the U.S. what soccer is to the rest of the world.  The baseball stadiums being built in the U.S. today are as interesting architecturally then some of the blobs being plunked down around the world for soccer.  To dismiss them as "cheesy," especially after Atlanta proved that a stadium can be used for track and field for two weeks and then be converted into a useful, fully paid for venue is not understanding how the process should work.

Where do you think the IOC wants to have their  marquis event?: Houston, Philly, LA,  Chicago, Minniapolis,  Milan, Tokyo, New York?

We know what  the answer is!

No we don't because we haven't seen a bid plan from any of the cities! :hmm:

This argument of the "prestige" factor is so overblown.  Essentially what some people on here is saying is that the United States is incapable of ever having another Olympics again unless it goes to New York. And that's b.s.  

Another argument might be that the IOC doesn't want to go to a city unless it is the capital of a country!  New York was the only country in 2012 that wasn't a capital of not only the country, but of their own state.  And placed very poorly.  Maybe the IOC was insulted because we didn't put forth D.C. since all the other countries in the 2012 race were capital cities.

So now Rome and Tokyo, the capitals of their respective countries, are talking about bidding.  The IOC will probably be insulted again that we are not putting forth D.C. and we will loose them again for 2016.     :cry:

To me, that is a more likely scenario than this supposed "prestige" thingy that apparently is being conjured up by a seance, reading into the minds of what the IOC wants.:hmm:  So it's up to the U.S. to put forth it's best bid that would top these capital cities, whether it be Chicago, L.A. or any of the other interested. cities that aren't NYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok

1. i really think a baseball stadium being converted into a horrible olympic stadium is not good enough...especially not from new york which prob has the resources to build two stadia..just build a 80,000 stadium and reduce it to 20,000 after the games...using a baseball stadium would just be a horrible repeat of atlanta.....

o.k.  And what do you propose being done with said stadia after the two week party, a/k/a the Olympic Games?

2. i know using a baseball stadium is cutting costs..but certainly one can expect better from one of the best cities in the world...its just so cheesy to use stupid baseball stadiums..

With all due respect, that is sort of an elitist attitude.  Baseball is to the U.S. what soccer is to the rest of the world.  The baseball stadiums being built in the U.S. today are as interesting architecturally then some of the blobs being plunked down around the world for soccer.  To dismiss them as "cheesy," especially after Atlanta proved that a stadium can be used for track and field for two weeks and then be converted into a useful, fully paid for venue is not understanding how the process should work.

Where do you think the IOC wants to have their  marquis event?: Houston, Philly, LA,  Chicago, Minniapolis,  Milan, Tokyo, New York?

We know what  the answer is!

No we don't because we haven't seen a bid plan from any of the cities! :hmm:

This argument of the "prestige" factor is so overblown.  Essentially what some people on here is saying is that the United States is incapable of ever having another Olympics again unless it goes to New York. And that's b.s.  

Another argument might be that the IOC doesn't want to go to a city unless it is the capital of a country!  New York was the only country in 2012 that wasn't a capital of not only the country, but of their own state.  And placed very poorly.  Maybe the IOC was insulted because we didn't put forth D.C. since all the other countries in the 2012 race were capital cities.

So now Rome and Tokyo, the capitals of their respective countries, are talking about bidding.  The IOC will probably be insulted again that we are not putting forth D.C. and we will loose them again for 2016.     :cry:

To me, that is a more likely scenario than this supposed "prestige" thingy that apparently is being conjured up by a seance, reading into the minds of what the IOC wants.:hmm:  So it's up to the U.S. to put forth it's best bid that would top these capital cities, whether it be Chicago, L.A. or any of the other interested. cities that aren't NYC.

Uhh, you're wrong according to one American IOC member:

"This is going to be a much shorter and efficient process," Ctvrtlik said. "We're going to try to find a city that has international appeal. We don't want a long, drawn-out process that will divide the country."
Also,
Cities must have an existing stadium or one whose funding is in place; an Olympic village for 15,000 athletes and officials; housing for 20,000 members of the media; and hotel rooms and convention space

Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok

Where do you think the IOC wants to have their  marquis event?: Houston, Philly, LA,  Chicago, Minniapolis,  Milan, Tokyo, New York?

We know what  the answer is!

No we don't because we haven't seen a bid plan from any of the cities! :hmm:

This argument of the "prestige" factor is so overblown.  Essentially what some people on here is saying is that the United States is incapable of ever having another Olympics again unless it goes to New York. And that's b.s.  

This is exactly my point.  The belief that all cities other than New York are incapable of hosting the games.  That is not true!  Please remember that their are other cities in the country and world that are just as capable (if not more) of hosting the games.

The bidding process is not over!  We don't know what the answer is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ splinter....as has been pointed out I don't think anyone on here is saying NYC is "entitled" to the Olympic Games and that they are the only US city that deserves them and can host them.....NYC will have to work as hard as ANY other USA city be it Philly, Chicago, whatever to win the USOC nomination (as they did for 2012) and once again even harder for the IOC if chosen by the USOC...by no means will any city just ever be handed the Olympic Games.....I also do not think everyone is writing off every other USA city (with the exception of a few that there is no way they will be chosen by the USOC)....but rather people are saying that NYC will have a little bit of an advantage due to 2012 if they bid, and I think that is definately true...will it be the winning factor, we will have to see.....I also think there is a line certain people cross (not everyone) where they just become frustrated that NYC may bid again, because they know the threat it will pose to maybe another USA city they support and/or feel NYC "had it's turn"...well that is complete garbage there is NO reason why NYC shouldn't be allowed to bid again, and if the best of the bunch chosen to represent the US again for 2016...and I also do think the cities unique international reputation will be a pivotal factor when comparing it to other US cities regardless of how YOU personally may feel about the city...if you don't like NYC on personal levels, that is completely irrelevant factor and will have no impact on the 2016 decision...lots of people don't like certain cities (I am sure people hate Sydney, SLC, Athens, Beijing, Torino, Vancouver, etc. for their own reasons)...that doesn't mean crap to the USOC and IOC...(I am sure you know this)....but we will have to see about the 2016 USOC race...as a staunch NYC 2012 supporter, I for one know it is important not to write off any city early, but if NYC comes back strong and is the strongest city, as a said before, they DESERVE to be chosen again (not entitled)....

@ the others...it is absolutely ridiculous for ANY city whether it is in the USA, Europe, etc. to build some big stadium that will look pretty for two weeks and then literally just sit there and serve absolutely no purpose for the rest of it's existence...any city that is willing to do such a thing certainly has no right to host the Olympic Games, and are going against everything the IOC is trying to do in "scaling down" the Olympic Games today...as for where NYC's stadium will be, I am not quite sure, I do know the city and surronding area have plans for several major new sporting facilities that will make a 2016 bid if it happens even better then the technically strong 2012 one we saw including the new Giants Stadium, a total revamping of the Meadowlands, the Brooklyn Arena, the new Yankee Stadium, and the Mets Stadium (announced last week)....I do not know who the city would look to, because they have several options..although for me personally I would say an extended Met's stadium would make the most sense for me...and it would work, Atlanta's stadium was fine and did the job.....NYC didn't lose 2012 necessarily because of the type and location of the stadium, but rather because of the last minute switch (which would make anyone nervous).....I think it would be great to have it there for 2016, btu we will have to see...but be assured NYC and any other USA city that bids for 2016 will surely avoid that mistake...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ splinter....as has been pointed out I don't think anyone on here is saying NYC is "entitled" to the Olympic Games and that they are the only US city that deserves them and can host them.....NYC will have to work as hard as ANY other USA city be it Philly, Chicago, whatever to win the USOC nomination (as they did for 2012) and once again even harder for the IOC if chosen by the USOC...by no means will any city just ever be handed the Olympic Games.....I also do not think everyone is writing off every other USA city (with the exception of a few that there is no way they will be chosen by the USOC)....but rather people are saying that NYC will have a little bit of an advantage due to 2012 if they bid, and I think that is definately true...will it be the winning factor, we will have to see.....I also think there is a line certain people cross (not everyone) where they just become frustrated that NYC may bid again, because they know the threat it will pose to maybe another USA city they support and/or feel NYC "had it's turn"...well that is complete garbage there is NO reason why NYC shouldn't be allowed to bid again, and if the best of the bunch chosen to represent the US again for 2016...and I also do think the cities unique international reputation will be a pivotal factor when comparing it to other US cities regardless of how YOU personally may feel about the city...if you don't like NYC on personal levels, that is completely irrelevant factor and will have no impact on the 2016 decision...lots of people don't like certain cities (I am sure people hate Sydney, SLC, Athens, Beijing, Torino, Vancouver, etc. for their own reasons)...that doesn't mean crap to the USOC and IOC...(I am sure you know this)....but we will have to see about the 2016 USOC race...as a staunch NYC 2012 supporter, I for one know it is important not to write off any city early, but if NYC comes back strong and is the strongest city, as a said before, they DESERVE to be chosen again (not entitled)....

@ the others...it is absolutely ridiculous for ANY city whether it is in the USA, Europe, etc. to build some big stadium that will look pretty for two weeks and then literally just sit there and serve absolutely no purpose for the rest of it's existence...any city that is willing to do such a thing certainly has no right to host the Olympic Games, and are going against everything the IOC is trying to do in "scaling down" the Olympic Games today...as for where NYC's stadium will be, I am not quite sure, I do know the city and surronding area have plans for several major new sporting facilities that will make a 2016 bid if it happens even better then the technically strong 2012 one we saw including the new Giants Stadium, a total revamping of the Meadowlands, the Brooklyn Arena, the new Yankee Stadium, and the Mets Stadium (announced last week)....I do not know who the city would look to, because they have several options..although for me personally I would say an extended Met's stadium would make the most sense for me...and it would work, Atlanta's stadium was fine and did the job.....NYC didn't lose 2012 necessarily because of the type and location of the stadium, but rather because of the last minute switch (which would make anyone nervous).....I think it would be great to have it there for 2016, btu we will have to see...but be assured NYC and any other USA city that bids for 2016 will surely avoid that mistake...

You are correct...That is a very good point.  I am aware that my beliefs are not going to effect the bid process.  Every city has the right to bid as many times as they see fit, also.

Maybe I have been misinterpreting things, but I don't feel all of the New York supporters share your attitude and humility.

If New York is chosen, then, that is fine.  I was just stating my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the 'disappearing Olympic stadium' (e.g., an Olympic stadium that only exists as such for only 2 weeks):  I think the IOC is fully aware that is the US way of doing things and it works for US.  They had a taste of it in Singapore; and if their eyes are only for magnificent stadia, then so be it.  But I also think the more mature, practical IOC members know that that is what New York can present.  (OK, Mr. Splinter, I will go on the line here and really think that to have a fighting chance, the US will have to present New York again.)  But how can a reconfigured baseball stadium, in principle, be any different from a scaled down London stadium; or a bloated Australia Telstra stadium which shrunk post-Olympic use?  

If the IOC is impractical and prissy enough to not accept those terms, then it's their loss.  As Mr. Pete Uebe said:  The IOC needs the US more than the US needs the next Olympics."

P.S. - Re the capital thing: well, Sydney and Barcelona aren't the capitals of their respective countries.  They certainly wouldn't stage the Games in Canberra, Brasilia or Islamabad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, you're wrong according to one American IOC member:

Quote  

"This is going to be a much shorter and efficient process," Ctvrtlik said. "We're going to try to find a city that has international appeal. We don't want a long, drawn-out process that will divide the country."

That can be interpreted several ways, including looking at Washington/Baltimore. The U.S. capital up against the Italian and Japanese.  

I know this hurts for some from NYC, but the city isn't the only one in the U.S. that has international appeal.   :shocked: Yes, I know that is a shock to many but it's true!  :hmm:

P.S. - Re the capital thing: well, Sydney and Barcelona aren't the capitals of their respective countries.  They certainly wouldn't stage the Games in Canberra, Brasilia or Islamabad.[/i]

True, but there are some on here that believe everything has changed since Sydney and Barcelona and based on the lineup for the 2012 bid, a city like Barcelona could never win again and that only the best will do.  Well, using that mindset, we also need to look at the 2012 race further and see that New York, the only non-capital in the race and placed dismally.  So what else are we to think?  Perhaps we can not win, with Tokyo and Rome bidding, unless D.C. is our candidate.  

I also think there is a line certain people cross (not everyone) where they just become frustrated that NYC may bid again, because they know the threat it will pose to maybe another USA city they support and/or feel NYC "had it's turn"...well that is complete garbage there is NO reason why NYC shouldn't be allowed to bid again, and if the best of the bunch chosen to represent the US again for 2016..

I absolutely, totally agree with you.  Competition is a good thing and the bottom line is that only the best bid should be put forth from the U.S.  All I am saying is that until we actually see the various bids, hand-wringing that unless we use NYC we will loose is ridiculous.  If New York has the best bid - hurrah!  I will stand totally behind it as I did in the 2012 race and support it as much as I can.  But if, say Philadelphia comes out with a better one than anyone else, I will stand behind that one as well.

I assume that all the U.S. members on this board will stand behind whichever city the USOC chooses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thiss is just my opinion on the "capital issue"...I think it is much different in the USA where there are several MAJOR cities that are obviously not "capitals".....in most nations (as in 2012) those capital cities are mostly the only cities in those nations that can grasp the attention of the IOC and hsot...while in the USA there are several cities that could easily do this....and LA84 I know you are just trying to make a point, but you know as well as I do that NYC didn't lose 2012 because it is not a "capital" city

as for backing any USA city that is a candidate for 2016...I will have to see the bids first and if they pick a technicaly weaker bid that leaves one scratching their heads I will not support it( like with Leipzig for Germany with 2012), and if they pick San Diego I definately will not lol....we will have to see, I think they have to be very careful with who they chose or the IOC is going to say no again until you give them a city they want.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also as for the "international reputation" thing...I think out of the line up for possible USA 2016 bids there are cities that OBVIOUSLY have a much more significant international reputation then the others (I am not naming them lol)....but I also do not think any American can possibly make a non-biased and truthful analysis of this, for we all see things much differently living here (and that perspective is much different then that of the IOC...the international community)....really only people living outside the USA can make a comment as to which city they believe/most believe is the most internationally well known and recognized....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, you're wrong according to one American IOC member:

Quote  

"This is going to be a much shorter and efficient process," Ctvrtlik said. "We're going to try to find a city that has international appeal. We don't want a long, drawn-out process that will divide the country."

That can be interpreted several ways, including looking at Washington/Baltimore. The U.S. capital up against the Italian and Japanese.  

I know this hurts for some from NYC, but the city isn't the only one in the U.S. that has international appeal.   :shocked: Yes, I know that is a shock to many but it's true!  :hmm:

P.S. - Re the capital thing: well, Sydney and Barcelona aren't the capitals of their respective countries.  They certainly wouldn't stage the Games in Canberra, Brasilia or Islamabad.[/i]

True, but there are some on here that believe everything has changed since Sydney and Barcelona and based on the lineup for the 2012 bid, a city like Barcelona could never win again and that only the best will do.  Well, using that mindset, we also need to look at the 2012 race further and see that New York, the only non-capital in the race and placed dismally.  So what else are we to think?  Perhaps we can not win, with Tokyo and Rome bidding, unless D.C. is our candidate.  

I also think there is a line certain people cross (not everyone) where they just become frustrated that NYC may bid again, because they know the threat it will pose to maybe another USA city they support and/or feel NYC "had it's turn"...well that is complete garbage there is NO reason why NYC shouldn't be allowed to bid again, and if the best of the bunch chosen to represent the US again for 2016..

I absolutely, totally agree with you.  Competition is a good thing and the bottom line is that only the best bid should be put forth from the U.S.  All I am saying is that until we actually see the various bids, hand-wringing that unless we use NYC we will loose is ridiculous.  If New York has the best bid - hurrah!  I will stand totally behind it as I did in the 2012 race and support it as much as I can.  But if, say Philadelphia comes out with a better one than anyone else, I will stand behind that one as well.

I assume that all the U.S. members on this board will stand behind whichever city the USOC chooses?

Fair enough, LA84. :)

But you do have to admit that the short process would be in New York's favor. New York would just have to touch up some of the old bid, and the bid would be fine. The other cities, however need to work harder to put together a bid, as many of the other cities had never attempted an Olympic bid before.

And I'd drop the "capital city theory". Yes, the odds were against NYC in 2012, but it's not because it wasn't a capital city. As baron said, it wouldn't make sense to use that mindset going into future races. I doubt that IOC members take whether a candidate city is a capital or not.

And you are being hypocritical. You claim that the best bid out forth from the US is the city you'd cheer for, and people shouldn't be choosing winners without seeing the bid first, and yet in seamus' thread asking where everyone is from, you directly stated that Chicago would be site of the 2016 Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point on the "capital candidate city."  Everyone here is handicapping that 2020 might go to a Southern hemisphere city.  But neither Cape Town nor Rio are the RSA and Brazil's capital cities.  As a matter of fact, RSA techically has 2 capitals: Pretoria and Bloemfontaine -- neither of which RSA will advance as an Olympic candidate.  So does that mean Cape Town will lose along with another non-capital city, Rio?  (God forbid 2020 should go to Madrid!)  The capital city thing is purely coincidental.  Most nations have their largest city as the capital; some don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

really only people living outside the USA can make a comment as to which city they believe/most believe is the most internationally well known and recognized....

I agree!

The US city with the greatest international stature is Little Rock!

They even already have their own theme tune.....

gentle5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really only people living outside the USA can make a comment as to which city they believe/most believe is the most internationally well known and recognized....

I agree!

The US city with the greatest international stature is Little Rock!

They even already have their own theme tune.....

gentle5.jpg

Why, Ensg. Nellie Forbush (of "South Pacific') and the Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are from cosmopolitan Little Rock!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...