Jump to content

The United States and the 2016 Summer Olympics


Hank

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If the New York Times is correct, Bloomy still hasn't read the newspaper lately:

According to a Bloomberg administration official who was granted anonymity because Bloomberg has not yet made a decision, the mayor's hesitance stems from three things: the loss of the West Side stadium; the fact that the failed 2012 bid had already jump-started several of his administration's development plans; and the fact that the International Olympic Committee's choice of the 2016 city would not come until 2009, after he would be out of office.

:hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem it seems is that New York just futzed around all this time.  It appears it didn't take the USOC seriously.
NYC did. That's why they've followed suggestions from the USOC to not issue statements or do a case study on how to go with a bid. They've been in the same position as the USOC was, undecided if they'll bid again.
OK, they had a mayoral election last November -- but they had to hold on to the momentum of last summer AND prove to the USOC that they were still interested.  From what I'm reading, I think...and I could be wrong...NYC probably thought they had it in the bag again and the USOC would come and ask them.  Too bad.

NYC showed interest. Betts, Bloomy and Dan stated it seriously. Being the 2012 candidate, it's not hard for the USOC to at least leave a note or a message to inform NYC that they're still undecided about a 2016 bid but if they do open it up, will you be interested? In this situation, NYC was left out of the dark by following what the USOC wants and all of a sudden, boom!!! You're eliminated because you never contacted us. Heck! Even Bloomberg was caught by surprise over this decision from the USOC.

On the other hand, maybe Ueby and NYC officials are continously talking and couldn't come up with a plan that will satisfy the USOC. What could those misunderstandings be? It's really hard to find out.

Not unless NYC changes its tune and makes a last-ditch effort to the USOC that it still has the best package available -- and with something that the other 5 cannot match

I guess it's the only way NYC could really come in. Although Ueby had said NYC's time is up, NYC could always come in and present a plan. They must a) satisfy the USOC first, and B) beat other cities' plans

With all the infrastructure in place for NYC, requirement b is very much possible and probable, it's up to the USOC they'll accept it though. They're on the driver's seat now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem it seems is that New York just futzed around all this time.  It appears it didn't take the USOC seriously.

NYC did. That's why they've followed suggestions from the USOC to not issue statements or do a case study on how to go with a bid. They've been in the same position as the USOC was, undecided if they'll bid again.

OK, they had a mayoral election last November -- but they had to hold on to the momentum of last summer AND prove to the USOC that they were still interested.  From what I'm reading, I think...and I could be wrong...NYC probably thought they had it in the bag again and the USOC would come and ask them.  Too bad.
NYC showed interest. Betts, Bloomy and Dan stated it seriously. Being the 2012 candidate, it's not hard for the USOC to at least leave a note or a message to inform NYC that they're still undecided about a 2016 bid but if they do open it up, will you be interested? In this situation, NYC was left out of the dark by following what the USOC wants and all of a sudden, boom!!! You're eliminated because you never contacted us. Heck! Even Bloomberg was caught by surprise over this decision from the USOC.

On the other hand, maybe Ueby and NYC officials are continously talking and couldn't come up with a plan that will satisfy the USOC. What could those misunderstandings be? It's really hard to find out.

Not unless NYC changes its tune and makes a last-ditch effort to the USOC that it still has the best package available -- and with something that the other 5 cannot match

I guess it's the only way NYC could really come in. Although Ueby had said NYC's time is up, NYC could always come in and present a plan. They must a) satisfy the USOC first, and B) beat other cities' plans

With all the infrastructure in place for NYC, requirement b is very much possible and probable, it's up to the USOC they'll accept it though. They're on the driver's seat now.

NYC2016, you're too close to this.  Regardless of how you defend Bloomberg and NYC, the point is they didn't dance to the USOC's tune.  Why would the USOC lie?

THe USOC wanted a stronger working relationship.  I guess NYC did not show any signs of that.  I cannot believe that New Yorkers being New Yorkers, they could not have imparted to the USOC that they are still interested.  

But the statements coming out of NYC right now are pretty dumb.  

The thing is, with the other cities knocking at the gate, and the clock running, NYC, with all its 2012 experience, just didn't seem to measure up to the USOC's timetable.  But if the other cities can't quite fulfill the USOC wish list, and NYC can -- then there's still that slim chance the USOC could still re-consider NYC.  If they're persistent enough and can come up with a soild stadium plan that will knock the socks off of everyone!  The USOC has been known to waffle and wane sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is an unfortunate situation for both NYC and the USOC and a real shame...but oh well the best news is 2016 is much more unpredictable as we see another stellar line up of international cities from Europe and Asia, and the chances of the Games in a new fronteir in 2016 increase significantly rise by this sudden change.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC2016, you're too close to this.  Regardless of how you defend Bloomberg and NYC, the point is they didn't dance to the USOC's tune.  Why would the USOC lie?
I'm just pointing out what the reasons could be. I have to lay out possibilities that are unbiased for both parties.
THe USOC wanted a stronger working relationship.  I guess NYC did not show any signs of that.  I cannot believe that New Yorkers being New Yorkers, they could not have imparted to the USOC that they are still interested.

I agree that the USOC needs to revamp its process, and they've clearly pointed it out yesterday. NYC and USOC officials judging on what came out yesterday, could've had something they can't agree on. Or there's something that the USOC wants and NYC can't provide it.

But the statements coming out of NYC right now are pretty dumb.  
As you say, I'm too close to this, but I have to give Mayor Mike the benefit of the doubt here. It seems Mayor Mike wasn't even contacted or was never even informed on what the USOC's intentions were. And being the 2012 candidate, Mr Ueberroth could've at least told them of their intentions, but where are they now? Left hanging and shocked that the USOC will be visiting other cities and didn't even included them.

But as you've commented, it really looks dumb specially if we'll literally listen to their statements. I'm just not comfortable with the USOC being too inclusive in running a city's bid.

The thing is, with the other cities knocking at the gate, and the clock running, NYC, with all its 2012 experience, just didn't seem to measure up to the USOC's timetable.  But if the other cities can't quite fulfill the USOC wish list, and NYC can -- then there's still that slim chance the USOC could still re-consider NYC.  If they're persistent enough and can come up with a soild stadium plan that will knock the socks off of everyone!  The USOC has been known to waffle and wane sometimes.

Totally agree... And I think it's the only way the USOC would even consider another NYC run if a) NYC presents a great plan B) easily defeats all the other 5 cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just not comfortable with the USOC being too inclusive in running a city's bid.

It's their show.  You/NYC (& the other cites) don't have a choice.

I guess it's really a different USOC now than before. One thing that will really benefit the USOC here is that it will really force the cities to follow everything by the IOC book now which means, the more US cities capable of following everything the IOC wants, more chances of the US hosting the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just not comfortable with the USOC being too inclusive in running a city's bid.

It's their show.  You/NYC (& the other cites) don't have a choice.

I guess it's really a different USOC now than before. One thing that will really benefit the USOC here is that it will really force the cities to follow everything by the IOC book now which means, the more US cities capable of following everything the IOC wants, more chances of the US hosting the games.

yea I am sure it is for the better...the USOC is doing a great job cleaning up their image...but it may be a while before they get their Games to prove it....but we shall see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.the USOC is doing a great job cleaning up their image...

Huh?  "... clean up their image..." for what?  :rolleyes:  They've committed no wrongdoing.  FYI, it was the Salt Lake Bid Committee, or well, 2 men from the Committee that engaged in so-called 'dirty tricks' and called on the carpet by the self-righteous US Justice Dept.  A federal judge found them not guilty and threw out the charges -- so what the hell are you talking about?   

but it may be a while before they get their Games to prove it..
 

It may and may not be.  It doesn't happen overnight.  This is precisely what the USOC is going to emphasize to the cities.  It will be a long 10-year road to hoe if they are committed.  And even by then, Mr. Uebe will be like 70, and probably won't be USOC Chairman anymore.  Bob Ctvrtlik's IOC term ends by Beijing -- 1 year before the Copenhagen vote.  But 'olympism' and the Games go on -- and the chosen US City must see the process through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all NYC supporters

It's high time that we end our hopes for 2016 now and move on with our life. The city has been blessed with a lot of great things that had resulted in our 2012 bid. All the new arenas and stadiums, the #7 extension, Javits expansion, etc, etc are a direct result of our bid from 2012.

Mayor Mike had just commented on his radio program about the USOC's decision to go forward without NYC. He stated that although the stars were aligning and the timing was right for a succesfull NYC bid, he regretted that the city wouldn't be able to submit a bid that would satisfy what the USOC wants. He also mentioned that he will support a bid from the USOC and he'll be helping whichever city, if the USOC decides to go forward with a candidate city.

This just proves to me one of my theories is right that NYC officials and the USOC are continously talking and tried to find a middle ground on a possible USOC bid. It's just unfortunate that NYC can't meet that demand.

One thing that NYC2012's failure will bring to the bidding process is change. It will change how the USOC run the bidding process to closely resemble what the IOC demands on its charter. So cheer up New Yorkers, even though we haven't brought home the bacon, our 2012 effort will impact a lot of future bids from the USA, and it could possibly bring more games into our country.

For me, it's the closure I've been waiting for. I apologize for everybody that I offended here, and I thank everyone here for every good memories I had here. It's not neceesarrily goodbye, but, it will be for a while.

I think I have to hibernate a little bid from the Olympiics and focus on other things NYC is involved in...  :)

God Bless everyone and thanks....  :)  :unclesam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all NYC supporters

It's high time that we end our hopes for 2016 now and move on with our life. The city has been blessed with a lot of great things that had resulted in our 2012 bid. All the new arenas and stadiums, the #7 extension, Javits expansion, etc, etc are a direct result of our bid from 2012.

Mayor Mike had just commented on his radio program about the USOC's decision to go forward without NYC. He stated that although the stars were aligning and the timing was right for a succesfull NYC bid, he regretted that the city wouldn't be able to submit a bid that would satisfy what the USOC wants. He also mentioned that he will support a bid from the USOC and he'll be helping whichever city, if the USOC decides to go forward with a candidate city.

This just proves to me one of my theories is right that NYC officials and the USOC are continously talking and tried to find a middle ground on a possible USOC bid. It's just unfortunate that NYC can't meet that demand.

One thing that NYC2012's failure will bring to the bidding process is change. It will change how the USOC run the bidding process to closely resemble what the IOC demands on its charter. So cheer up New Yorkers, even though we haven't brought home the bacon, our 2012 effort will impact a lot of future bids from the USA, and it could possibly bring more games into our country.

For me, it's the closure I've been waiting for. I apologize for everybody that I offended here, and I thank everyone here for every good memories I had here. It's not neceesarrily goodbye, but, it will be for a while.

I think I have to hibernate a little bid from the Olympiics and focus on other things NYC is involved in...  :)

God Bless everyone and thanks....  :)  :unclesam:

Nice, NY2016.

Yeah, if none of the other 5 can deliver AND NYC can show that it's still in a fighting mood for 10 years -- including hosting that over-rated 2011 gig, then maybe there may be a crack in the door.

2 questions though -- and this is to the other 2 or 3 rabid NYC supporters:

- if NYC is so flush with cash, why can't it just go ahead AND build an Olympic stadium where IT can determine the terms?

and

- I would change my moniker to something else.  I think this "NewYork1995 this or "NYC-that" are jinxes.  Maybe Buffy or Tiffany?  :wwww:  

But if NYC re-focuses and realizes that they have to run everything by the USOC, then maybe there is a chance.  Bottom line: the USOC has to call the shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all NYC supporters

It's high time that we end our hopes for 2016 now and move on with our life. The city has been blessed with a lot of great things that had resulted in our 2012 bid. All the new arenas and stadiums, the #7 extension, Javits expansion, etc, etc are a direct result of our bid from 2012.

Mayor Mike had just commented on his radio program about the USOC's decision to go forward without NYC. He stated that although the stars were aligning and the timing was right for a succesfull NYC bid, he regretted that the city wouldn't be able to submit a bid that would satisfy what the USOC wants. He also mentioned that he will support a bid from the USOC and he'll be helping whichever city, if the USOC decides to go forward with a candidate city.

This just proves to me one of my theories is right that NYC officials and the USOC are continously talking and tried to find a middle ground on a possible USOC bid. It's just unfortunate that NYC can't meet that demand.

One thing that NYC2012's failure will bring to the bidding process is change. It will change how the USOC run the bidding process to closely resemble what the IOC demands on its charter. So cheer up New Yorkers, even though we haven't brought home the bacon, our 2012 effort will impact a lot of future bids from the USA, and it could possibly bring more games into our country.

For me, it's the closure I've been waiting for. I apologize for everybody that I offended here, and I thank everyone here for every good memories I had here. It's not neceesarrily goodbye, but, it will be for a while.

I think I have to hibernate a little bid from the Olympiics and focus on other things NYC is involved in...  :)

God Bless everyone and thanks....  :)  :unclesam:

stick around, no need to leave we have a very interesting race to talk about now....as it will be very close

also, what it boils down to is whats done is done...whether it was NYC who decided not to bid, or the USOC that decided not to go with NYC someone screwed up big time and lost a perfect oppurtunity....but this is great news for the other cities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- I would change my moniker to something else.  I think this "NewYork1995 this or "NYC-that" are jinxes.  Maybe Buffy or Tiffany?  

I was thinking about that... Buffy or Tiffany is too gay for me though. I'm not that gay baron as you have probably proven when you saw me in Lincoln Center last year...  :;):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, what it boils down to is whats done is done...whether it was NYC who decided not to bid, or the USOC that decided not to go with NYC someone screwed up big time and lost a perfect oppurtunity....but this is great news for the other cities

It's very clear to me now SOW. It's more NYC's decision of being unable to complete the USOC's demands than any reasons one can come up with. Mayor Mike emphasized that we won't be able to fulfill what the USOC is looking for right now and also said to give other cities a chance.

"I suppose we would submit a bid if we want to." - Mayor Michael Bloomberg on his weekly radio show

Although I'm extremely disappointed at NYC's decision, it's probably the best for NYC to just move forward with its business and let other US cities suck up to the IOC...  :;):  :P

Anyway, it's going to be an interesting race for USOC2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, what it boils down to is whats done is done...whether it was NYC who decided not to bid, or the USOC that decided not to go with NYC someone screwed up big time and lost a perfect oppurtunity....but this is great news for the other cities

It's very clear to me now SOW. It's more NYC's decision of being unable to complete the USOC's demands than any reasons one can come up with. Mayor Mike emphasized that we won't be able to fulfill what the USOC is looking for right now and also said to give other cities a chance.

"I suppose we would submit a bid if we want to." - Mayor Michael Bloomberg on his weekly radio show

Although I'm extremely disappointed at NYC's decision, it's probably the best for NYC to just move forward with its business and let other US cities suck up to the IOC...  :;):  :P

Anyway, it's going to be an interesting race for USOC2016.

I think Bloomberg's priorities are matters that he can get done during his administration.  And since 2016 is 10 years away, and he and Doctoroff don't seem themselves sticking to the project once they are gone from City Hall, then the USOC can't depend on 'short' commitments.  This is how I read what all the Bloomberg administration can promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ryan04
Well that sucks, hopefully the USOC will re-look it's chances, do they not see that NYC and if even Chicago are the only cities that will be able to go against some of these 2016 canidates. LA would just be bad, and the rest are 2nd rate US cities. It is a shame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that sucks, hopefully the USOC will re-look it's chances, do they not see that NYC and if even Chicago are the only cities that will be able to go against some of these 2016 canidates. LA would just be bad, and the rest are 2nd rate US cities. It is a shame.

But Ryan, it has to come from the City.  Starting today, it is a 10+ year road to hoe... That is what the USOC wants to sound out the cities for...and will they have the 'stick-to-it-iveness' to carry the commitment through?  

From what we can piece together, it appears they did not get that sense from Bloomberg.  I have heard no: "We will see it through September 2016 -- even after we/I'm gone from Gracie Mansion" from Bloomberg and Doctoroff.  I think those are the words the USOC is looking for.  From what I can guess, they did not hear any words to that effect.  Ueberroth and Mr. Scherr might not be around for all that time either -- but the commitment must carry through.  So I believe they are looking for the passionate group of city leaders who are ready to give 10 years of their lives NOW to (i) wage an international campaign and win a bid; and (ii) execute the contract if won.  

It just appears that NYC has other priorities now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what we can piece together, it appears they did not get that sense from Bloomberg.  I have heard no: "We will see it through September 2016 -- even after we/I'm gone from Gracie Mansion" from Bloomberg and Doctoroff.

See, Chicago got around that whole issue by just anointing King Richie the Mayor For Life.   :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what we can piece together, it appears they did not get that sense from Bloomberg.  I have heard no: "We will see it through September 2016 -- even after we/I'm gone from Gracie Mansion" from Bloomberg and Doctoroff.

See, Chicago got around that whole issue by just anointing King Richie the Mayor For Life.   :P

well he sure isn't king anymore....he will be the USOC bitch now  :laughlong:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I suppose we would submit a bid if we want to." - Mayor Michael Bloomberg on his weekly radio show

OK, knowing that much of NYC2012 was funded by Messrs. Bloomberg and Doctoroff's private funds, it now makes total sense why they were hedging for a 2016 run -- and why the NYC mayor is pretty much focused on projects that will happen within his immediate timeline.  I don't know that the 10-year commitment the USOC is looking for in the other cities will be as well funded.  

And that is why PU also said that in order for the US to mount another formidable bid, it must involve federal monies since indeed it is only the rare types like Messrs. B and D (and Billy Payne) who have put their own private finances on the line, to try to secure the Games.  Perfectly understandable.

Also, it was either Mr. B or DD that said that New York's 2012 bid was a 'one-time' thing.  I guess they weren't kidding.  If you're using your own money, of course, it's a one-shot deal.

So instead of bashing NYC, I think we should thank Messrs. Bloomberg and Doctoroff, as Mr, Ueberroth did, for the excellent work they did for 2012.  From their private pockets vs. the coffers of England, France, Spain and Russia, it also makes sense why NYC only placed 4th.  

Now, I imagine not only will the USOC be looking for a 10-year commitment from the cities but I'd say a $25-30 million war chest just leading up to 2009.  Of course, if Bloomberg and Doctoroff are bitten by the Olympic bug again, and decide they can throw another $50 mil at it, I am sure the USOC will be very willing to talk.  But I believe that's the real story behind NYC's non-return.  Even the deepest pockets have their limit apparently.    

So, dear fellow NYC supporters.  I, too, was very disappointed.  But I hope this rationalization eases the disappointment.  To me it does.  It's not anyone's fault.  It's just the way it is.  

God, I'm good.   :D   God bless America!   :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

baron, there's actually a ... after that, I just forgot to post it.  :)

Anyway, it doesn't matter, but I'll try to at least transcribe the Olympics portion. Totally agree with you on this one though.

A lot of people are quick to criticize and blame the NYC Bid Committee for the missteps that happened in 2012. In fact, some even want to punish these people, but before some would want that to happen, just a reminder. The NYC Bid Committee will at least be a part of the 2016 evaluation and bid process. Most probably not as a candidate, but there'll be some consultations and conferences with them to help the probable city for 2016. Mayor Mike said that on his radio show this morning.

Like what I've said on my last post, even though NYC2012 wasn't able to bring home the bacon, the USOC will benefit from the lessons of that international race. It exposed a lot of loopholes in the USOC process and the way the USOC handles its bid city. NYC2012's failed candidacy will change the way the USOC does it's bidding business and will affect the process for years and years to come.

And I agree baron, it's going to be really hard for these 5 cities to overcome the hurdles they're facing now that's why the USOC is pushing for more Government involvement, may it be Federal, State or City. NYC was lucky it had a Billionaire Mayor, and a private sector that is the richest in the world to pursue its bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...