Jump to content

The United States and the 2016 Summer Olympics


Hank

Recommended Posts

Just found this on the USOC website:

"Timeline for 2012 U.S. Candidate City Announcement

December 15, 2000 - Deadline for bid committees to submit bid file to USOC

December 15, 2000 - USOC staff reviews bid files for compliance with structural/technical requirements

March 1, 2001 - USOC provides bid committees with written feedback  

June 1, 2001 - Deadline for bid committees to submit revised bid file to USOC

June 1, 2001 - Sept. 30, 2001 - Evaluation Committee assesses merits of bid file and makes site visits

October 2001 - April 2002 - USOC reserves right to determine bid city finalists

November 2002 - USOC selects U.S. candidate city for 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

March 2003 - USOC nominates U.S. candidate city to IOC  

September 2005 - IOC selects host city for 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games (This one was off.) "

So, just add + 4 to everything, and you have the approx. timeline for the next race.  But the USOC already knows its 3 or 4 serious, viable candidates; so the lead time is cut down considerably from the 2000-05 round.

Now being April 2006, it looks like we are in the "USOC reserves right to determine bid city finalist" stage.  But we are definitely in the final inning for this race.  Certainly, by the full USOC Board meeting in June, something Official will emerge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Apparently Jacques Rogge has mentioned the United States as one of six countries that have so far indicated an interest

in bidding for 2016.The others being Japan,India,Spain,Italy and Brazil.

http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin....4428870

When has the USOC made any such statement? I know various US cities have already declared an interest but I thought the USOC was still keeping mum for the moment about any intention to bid,or not! Have I missed something?

Incidentally,if Sochi fails to win 2014,I am pretty sure Moscow will have another go for 2016.So make that seven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article . . .

U.S. Olympic Committee board members will meet today in Denver to discuss whether the United States should submit a candidate city to host the 2016 Olympics and, if so, how to structure a domestic campaign that likely will be different from the 2012 bid effort that included Houston among its four finalists.

George DeMontrond III, president of the disbanded Houston 2012 Foundation, said this week that Houston hopes to be a candidate if the USOC decides to proceed. San Francisco, which lost to New York in the 2012 race, is expected to try again, and officials in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Chicago have expressed interest in a 2016 bid.

"We had a great bid last time," DeMontrond said. "We feel our facilities are even more impressive, and we've had greater visibility because of hosting the Super Bowl (in 2004) and other events. We believe we would be competitive, and we'd like to do it."

USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said the 11-member board will meet today to discuss the prospects for 2016 in the wake of New York's failure to land the 2012 Games, which went to London, and discussions last week in Seoul with members of the Association of National Olympic Committees.

"If we go forward, we want to be certain that the city has an opportunity to be competitive," Seibel said. "Given how the bid landscape has changed, we need to be certain before we ask any U.S. city to do all that is required in the bid process."

If the USOC submits a candidate city, Seibel said: "The domestic process will be very different than in 2012. It will be a shorter process, and it will be much less expensive, which is a key concern. We want to help our cities more efficiently use their resources. We don't want waste."

Houston 2012 raised about $6 million in cash and services to promote its 2012 bid, which made it to the final four before being eliminated along with Washington, D.C. The USOC's 100-plus member board voted for New York over San Francisco, but New York was hampered by controversy over stadium plans in midtown Manhattan and finished fourth among five bidders in last year's vote by the International Olympic Committee.

Since then, the USOC has revamped its board, reducing it to an 11-member board chaired by 1984 Olympics organizer Peter Ueberroth.

If the board votes today to submit a 2016 candidate, Seibel said, "it's possible we will get into discussing timetables."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article . . .
U.S. Olympic Committee board members will meet today in Denver to discuss whether the United States should submit a candidate city to host the 2016 Olympics and, if so, how to structure a domestic campaign that likely will be different from the 2012 bid effort that included Houston among its four finalists.

George DeMontrond III, president of the disbanded Houston 2012 Foundation, said this week that Houston hopes to be a candidate if the USOC decides to proceed. San Francisco, which lost to New York in the 2012 race, is expected to try again, and officials in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Chicago have expressed interest in a 2016 bid.

"We had a great bid last time," DeMontrond said. "We feel our facilities are even more impressive, and we've had greater visibility because of hosting the Super Bowl (in 2004) and other events. We believe we would be competitive, and we'd like to do it."

USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said the 11-member board will meet today to discuss the prospects for 2016 in the wake of New York's failure to land the 2012 Games, which went to London, and discussions last week in Seoul with members of the Association of National Olympic Committees.

"If we go forward, we want to be certain that the city has an opportunity to be competitive," Seibel said. "Given how the bid landscape has changed, we need to be certain before we ask any U.S. city to do all that is required in the bid process."

If the USOC submits a candidate city, Seibel said: "The domestic process will be very different than in 2012. It will be a shorter process, and it will be much less expensive, which is a key concern. We want to help our cities more efficiently use their resources. We don't want waste."

Houston 2012 raised about $6 million in cash and services to promote its 2012 bid, which made it to the final four before being eliminated along with Washington, D.C. The USOC's 100-plus member board voted for New York over San Francisco, but New York was hampered by controversy over stadium plans in midtown Manhattan and finished fourth among five bidders in last year's vote by the International Olympic Committee.

Since then, the USOC has revamped its board, reducing it to an 11-member board chaired by 1984 Olympics organizer Peter Ueberroth.

If the board votes today to submit a 2016 candidate, Seibel said, "it's possible we will get into discussing timetables."

where'd u get the article, NYKfan?  (Quote a source if you can.  It would be helpful.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do you think -- the IOC leadership doesn't know?  Of course, informally they know.  Their members talk.

Yes,but I thought we were talking about formal expressions of interest here.The NOCs of all the other countries have each expressed formal declarations of interest to the IOC,have they not? It just remains for them to nominate their city.

The USOC,on the other hand,has made no such formal declaration so far.Are they about to?

I'm just wondering if Rogge has jumped the gun and spilled the beans again,like he did when he recently commented on the likely candidates for the 2014 shortlist before any formal decision has yet been made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article . . .
U.S. Olympic Committee board members will meet today in Denver to discuss whether the United States should submit a candidate city to host the 2016 Olympics and, if so, how to structure a domestic campaign that likely will be different from the 2012 bid effort that included Houston among its four finalists.

George DeMontrond III, president of the disbanded Houston 2012 Foundation, said this week that Houston hopes to be a candidate if the USOC decides to proceed. San Francisco, which lost to New York in the 2012 race, is expected to try again, and officials in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Chicago have expressed interest in a 2016 bid.

"We had a great bid last time," DeMontrond said. "We feel our facilities are even more impressive, and we've had greater visibility because of hosting the Super Bowl (in 2004) and other events. We believe we would be competitive, and we'd like to do it."

USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said the 11-member board will meet today to discuss the prospects for 2016 in the wake of New York's failure to land the 2012 Games, which went to London, and discussions last week in Seoul with members of the Association of National Olympic Committees.

"If we go forward, we want to be certain that the city has an opportunity to be competitive," Seibel said. "Given how the bid landscape has changed, we need to be certain before we ask any U.S. city to do all that is required in the bid process."

If the USOC submits a candidate city, Seibel said: "The domestic process will be very different than in 2012. It will be a shorter process, and it will be much less expensive, which is a key concern. We want to help our cities more efficiently use their resources. We don't want waste."

Houston 2012 raised about $6 million in cash and services to promote its 2012 bid, which made it to the final four before being eliminated along with Washington, D.C. The USOC's 100-plus member board voted for New York over San Francisco, but New York was hampered by controversy over stadium plans in midtown Manhattan and finished fourth among five bidders in last year's vote by the International Olympic Committee.

Since then, the USOC has revamped its board, reducing it to an 11-member board chaired by 1984 Olympics organizer Peter Ueberroth.

If the board votes today to submit a 2016 candidate, Seibel said, "it's possible we will get into discussing timetables."

where'd u get the article, NYKfan?  (Quote a source if you can.  It would be helpful.)

Here is that same article:

USOC Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

FYI, NYC2012 bid leader Dan Doctoroff has said in a phone interview with a New York Times reporter that NYC are still undecided on a 2016 bid. He claims that New York City will not officially announce their intentions until the national bid process is revealed. When the time comes, New York City will make their decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

FYI, NYC2012 bid leader Dan Doctoroff has said in a phone interview with a New York Times reporter that NYC are still undecided on a 2016 bid. He claims that New York City will not officially announce their intentions until the national bid process is revealed. When the time comes, New York City will make their decision.

Of those 7, 5 already were reviewed in 2001-03.  I don't really see the race changing much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lead story on Gamesbids...

USOC Stepping Towards 2016 Olympic Bid

Ueberroth pretty much sums it up on this one. The process will be cheaper, easier and faster. And judging on the characteristics Ueberroth is looking for a bid city, IMO, there'll only be 2 cities that they can come up with, NYC and LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC will definately go for 2016, and I believe this humble and neutral approach will prove significant in the end for any USA city that bids (helping them all to avoid Paris' fate caused by the bids arrogant approach)....for me the one thing that sticks out most in that article is it mentions that only "six" US cities have approached the USOC as being interested at this time.....who do you think they are exactly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the USOC will definately go for 2016, and I believe this humble and neutral approach will prove significant in the end for any USA city that bids (helping them all to avoid Paris' fate caused by the bids arrogant approach)....for me the one thing that sticks out most in that article is it mentions that only "six" US cities have approached the USOC as being interested at this time.....who do you think they are exactly?

I think most cities are yielding to the details the USOC has presented, specially after NYC's loss last July. The process will be easier, faster and cheaper.

I think the 6 interested cities for 2016 are... Chicago, DC/Baltimore, Houston, LA, NYC, and SD/Tijuana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm I don't know about that, because I think Philly is definately in there (they have had repeated reports that they were going to bid)...and what about SF?....I am assuming maybe they didn't count NYC or SF yet, since both have been the least vocal (not to say the least active) of the bunch media wise....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm I don't know about that, because I think Philly is definately in there (they have had repeated reports that they were going to bid)...and what about SF?....I am assuming maybe they didn't count NYC or SF yet, since both have been the least vocal (not to say the least active) of the bunch media wise....

Maybe... We can't really tell until they finish visiting all the cities by the end of May.

I totally forgot about Philly...  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lead story on Gamesbids...

USOC Stepping Towards 2016 Olympic Bid

Ueberroth pretty much sums it up on this one. The process will be cheaper, easier and faster. And judging on the characteristics Ueberroth is looking for a bid city, IMO, there'll only be 2 cities that they can come up with, NYC and LA.

:rock: Um, perhaps a better idea is waiting to see what the cities are offering before narrowing them down?  I'm sure you agree that the United States should only offer up the best bid, whether it be L.A., Chicago, Philly or New York?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I've said this before, but I really believe that the USOC has intended in bidding all along and that New York is their preferred choice.

2016 is perhaps the US's best chance to be awarded the Games since 1984, but it's not inevitable.  That's why I believe that they've already chosen New York - the city that the rest of the world thinks is the most exciting US city, afterall, the IOC is an international body, and the USOC will be aware of this.

I think that the USOC decided to choose New York with the intention of winning the 2016 bid since Vancouver was elected for 2010 (though I'm sure they expected to do slightly better in the 2012 campaign).  

Though I could be wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I've said this before, but I really believe that the USOC has intended in bidding all along and that New York is their preferred choice.

2016 is perhaps the US's best chance to be awarded the Games since 1984, but it's not inevitable.  That's why I believe that they've already chosen New York - the city that the rest of the world thinks is the most exciting US city, afterall, the IOC is an international body, and the USOC will be aware of this.

I think that the USOC decided to choose New York with the intention of winning the 2016 bid since Vancouver was elected for 2010 (though I'm sure they expected to do slightly better in the 2012 campaign).  

Though I could be wrong!

This officially and techically kills Minneapolis 2020.  Darn!  :angry:  

But yeah. Stu; I concur.  The article says -- as I've gleaned all along -- that the USOC does not want the interested cities going into full battle mode to win the nomination.  It'll all be done on an informal, backstage basis.  So, since NYC is far ahead of its plans from last year, and if they really want to (which I think they do) -- and I'm not biased, I just want the city with the best chances to win internationally -- it's theirs for the taking.  THe blueprints just need to be dusted off; tweaked here and there; and they're good as ready.  They'll learn from their mistakes the first time around, and they've made enough of an impression with the IOC to go in stronger this time.  

I just don't see how LA can be a better alternative at this time.  If Tokyo and Rome are running, why would the IOC want to go back to LA again if Tokyo and Rome haven't had their 2nd stabs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while I do think it is VERY important to not write any cities off at any stage I agree with Stu in many ways...NYC is interested in these Games, and I think they will spring for them again when the time is right...I also believe that the USOC is very likely to give the city a second chance, and are only holding a domestic race to put some fire under NYC and to show the IOC that this is truely the best bid they have....I think the USOC's intentions of using this selection process for this purpose is clearly indicated by the fact that the domestic race (as opposed to 2012) will be significantly scaled down in many ways (to save cities not likely to win due to pre-existing factors $)...

I also think the USOC would be stupid to not give NYC another shot provided that they eliminate the problems they ran into with 2012 (which was relaly just the stadium-which will be a non-factor for 2016)....many cities win on their second attempt, and there is no reason why a city like NYC doesn't deserve a second chance....I also believe NYC is the only city that will be able to lead to a likely win for the USA in 2016 due to the fact that the IOC is familiar with the bid and it's unique international appeal which will be vital in this race more than ever...

again this is just my opinion, and I am personally very excited to see how things play out regardless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SF's chances this time around are rather dicey.  

#1 - The main stadium.  I don't know if the new Candlestick can accommodate a track.  But it's designed for a possible SUper Bowl at around 75-78,000.  Now, although SF voters passed a $100 million bond for it in 1999, the 49ers and the City want to go to a judge to allow the terms of that original initiative to now include some housing-- which makes total sense to me.  But that makes it all very uncertain because the previous anti-stadium forces say they will challenge any changes to the original terms in court.    So, what else is new?

#2 - Stanford's stadium.  Much as NYC's West Side stadium was its boondoggle, the Stanford stadium isn't much of a sure thing too now because (a) it is still one-hour south of the host city; and (B) it is being reconfiugred for a smaller permanent capacity.  But they have contingency plans for additional temporary 45,000 seats.  So, again, it is a far-from-ideal complete T&F stadium that the IOC likes to see.  

#3 - SF is not as flush in cash as NYC is; but a Bay Area Olympics can bring a lot of jobs to the Bay Area.  

The Village site is even more tentative.  The Moffett Field offer I believe no longer stands for a 2016 run.  LA84 has mentioned Bay View-HuntersPoint.  I haven't heard anything about that; but that is equally problematic.  Bay Area real estate being what it is -- and while it may be stagnant in the next few years -- doesn't help either.  Treaure Island?  Maybe.  The only vialbe situation I see for a good Olympic Village is reclaimed land in the Bay.  And that would make a pretty good residential community after an SF Games.  

But see, all in all, that's why you haven't heard more from SF forces.  It holds a much weaker hand now than 3 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I am missing something, New York hasn't expressed any interest in bidding...At least, not publicly...

well, that's the way the USOC wants it -- unlike Houston and Philly.  So that may count against Houston and Philly.

Has the USOC publicly endorsed any candidate?  I am just getting fed up over everyone putting over NYC, when they haven't even announced that they are bidding.  

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...