baron-pierreIV Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 I really can't...Most of the potential bid cities need a stadium and you really can't fit an athletics track in an NFL stadium. Are Philly and Chicago and where ever else going to build new stadiums right after building or renovating others? Realistically? Of course not, but stranger things have happened!The stadium situation is in New York's favor, if they can get it done. But we won't know until it is over. OK, sorry, splinter if I misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were still asking about the general picture. At the risk of sounding repetitive, it will come down to NYC and Chicago. Granting that Rome and Tokyo will indeed throw their hats into two of the rings, that cuts all the other US cities out. Only Chicago or New York will have a fighting chance against the 2 ex-Axis capitals. (Don't forget to remind our readers of that dreadful fact, folks!! He-he) So, as has been said before, with the short time frame left, the advantage is really NYC's. It's got its plans in the cooker for 3+ years now; Chicago has a few weeks to scramble and assemble a fairly solid package that will pass USOC muster -- vs. an NYC template. And don't let that NYC quiet fool ya. When the time comes to go public, I'll bet ya dollars to donuts that the Big Applers will spring a few surprises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Twist, twist, twist! :laugh: My words have never been twisted around as much since this stupid attorney at work tried to twist my words around to get me in trouble for something I didn't do. Alas, she is no longer with the firm. And I am. :cool: I stand by everything I have written. There is more that I could have but frankly, this topic is starting to bore me until we hear exactly what the USOC is looking for. The bits and pieces we have heard are just parts of the puzzle for the entire picture. Each city bidding has negatives and positives. NYC is no exception. I am no more anti-NYC than those NYC supporters are anti any other city that is bidding. I agreed a long long time ago that New York has an advantage. But I also said that one city has a bigger advantage than NYC and is also in the bidding - Los Angeles. The site where Peter U organized the most successful financial Olympics ever and the alternate site for numerous Olympics when there was questions as to whether they would be ready. But that, as well as everything that has been written in this thread is pure conjecture until we hear from the IOC everything they expect a bidding city to have. :unclesam: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 LA isn't much of a threat IMO....their two past Olympics will kill the bid as it did for 2012....if the USOC went with them again that would just be boring, and the IOC wouldn't go for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 LA isn't much of a threat IMO....their two past Olympics will kill the bid as it did for 2012....if the USOC went with them again that would just be boring, and the IOC wouldn't go for it... I've said that all along about LA's chances. And I think more than anybody else my friend Pete Uebe should know that he and his moment of glory in 1984 will only serve to remind the IOC that they got outsmarted there dollar-wise, bigtime. So I would stay away from LA as far as possible. (LA would be good as a back-up city but only if the IOC asked.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYork2016 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Honestly, we don't need more press conferences to convice you. And it's just sad that you're still in denial and I didn't expect this from you. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Honestly, we don't need more press conferences to convice you. And it's just sad that you're still in denial and I didn't expect this from you. :glare: What's sad is is that you can't see beyond NYC's ego, understand that NYC has to go through a process just like everyone else and realize that NYC isn't a sure thing at this stage of the games. Did you answer my question, oh about 3-4 pages back? If NYC doesn't get the nod, will you support whomever the USOC feels is the better candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYork2016 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Honestly, we don't need more press conferences to convice you. And it's just sad that you're still in denial and I didn't expect this from you. :glare: What's sad is is that you can't see beyond NYC's ego, understand that NYC has to go through a process just like everyone else and realize that NYC isn't a sure thing at this stage of the games. Did you answer my question, oh about 3-4 pages back? If NYC doesn't get the nod, will you support whomever the USOC feels is the better candidate? And by the way, NYC's ego doesn't have to do anything about another possible bid. We're talking about what has come out from the USOC and the interested cities. So we're are talking about reality, not egos. And the reality of the situation is NYC is the best city that the USOC can put forward. May it be true 6 months from now or a year from now, we don't know. But what we're talking is the present. And you have to accept Chicago hasn't done anything and instead, it looks like they've blown a lot of chances to shine with missteps and blank press conferences. All talk, no action. Of course I'll support any city the USOC will put forward, other than NYC. But IMO, the chances to win internationally will be lesser and harder and could also insult the IOC by not going with its best city forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Once again I wouldn't say anyone on here (even the most die-hard NYC supporters) can't see past their "ego" and I do not think anyone believes NYC is "entitled" to just be awarded the 2016 USOC nod, without going through another process...I think the process for 2016 is good and necessary to ensure that the "best" US city is put forward...what i think people are saying (and are justified in saying) is that NYC will have an advantage over the other cities for several reasons, and will most likely be the one to beat int he domestic and probably international race.... As for supporting ANY other USA city that the USOC puts forth..I personally would have to see the bids first, but if I feel that another bid was stronger/better I personally will not support it (which I think is fair), and will hope it loses so the USA can host with a better qualified city at a later date Also LA84, I am sorry to keep going back and forth, I am just trying to clear things up (I do see how some people are twisting your words in areas) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 A lot of GamesBids is guessing - educated guessing. For the most part, we all do a pretty good job -- and of course personal choices and nationalism come into play. I put myself in a USOC mode; and of course, look at the foreign competition. If Rio and New Delhi make the short list, then the major contenders would at least be from 4 continents -- so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Dbl Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Once again I wouldn't say anyone on here (even the most die-hard NYC supporters) can't see past their "ego" and I do not think anyone believes NYC is "entitled" to just be awarded the 2016 USOC nod, without going through another process...I think the process for 2016 is good and necessary to ensure that the "best" US city is put forward...what i think people are saying (and are justified in saying) is that NYC will have an advantage over the other cities for several reasons, and will most likely be the one to beat int he domestic and probably international race....As for supporting ANY other USA city that the USOC puts forth..I personally would have to see the bids first, but if I feel that another bid was stronger/better I personally will not support it (which I think is fair), and will hope it loses so the USA can host with a better qualified city at a later date Also LA84, I am sorry to keep going back and forth, I am just trying to clear things up (I do see how some people are twisting your words in areas) ^^^^^^ Thank you SO. Most of what you wrote is all I have been saying all along, but the NYC fans find that "annoying" and in "denial" if you don't fall down on the floor and honor the ghost NYC bid for 2016 that we have heard nothing about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 I wouldn't exactly call it a "ghost" bid...the interet is definately there, and has been hinted and mentioned over and over again by high ranking NYC officials....also the USA delegation to Torino alone speaks volumes as to NYC's intentions...plus every USA city is merely a "ghost" bid....a few little press conferences mean nothing...we all know of cities and mayors that go "oh we are bidding for such and such Olympics" and it just never happens (just look at the initial list of "potential" bidders in any Olympic race)...plus the USA cities are supposed to stay less vocal (like NYC has done) so it is nothing out of the ordinary or anything if a city is interested at this point but hasn't had a little "official" and vague press conference....for anything this is bad, and most likley would just tick the USOC off....also I think in NYC's case we can all say actions speak louder than words at this point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Well, perhaps "ghost bid" was the wrong terminology but you are right - every bid right now is an unknown. San Francisco keeps getting mentioned as interested in a lot of publications but I have read nothing out here. Baron - perhaps you need to call your friend Anne Cribbs and get the 4-11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 you know LA84 I was wondering the same thing...we really have heard literally nothing from SF (except a few comments I think from Cribbs)...however they have been "speculated" as one of the cities the USOC will visit by the end of may in recent articles about the USOC deciding to bid or not and meeting various interested cities...so I guess they are interested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 you know LA84 I was wondering the same thing...we really have heard literally nothing from SF (except a few comments I think from Cribbs)...however they have been "speculated" as one of the cities the USOC will visit by the end of may in recent articles about the USOC deciding to bid or not and meeting various interested cities...so I guess they are interested? I have no idea. It's sort of like with NYC - you suspect they are going to bid and you kind of expect soundbites here and there but so far, I have seen nothing in the papers out here. A few days ago it was reported that the Giants have decided to forgo $100m of the public funding approved by the voters in '97 to build a new Candlestick which will also include housing and a mall but nothing was said in the article I read about it in anyway being tied to a future bid. Same with Oakland's new stadium. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork with what plans after the USOC sets out their requirements and agenda for 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 well as I said earlier in this thread (I think...I am too lazy to back and check lol)...the many USOC articles I read said that no more then "the number of cities you can count on one hand" are interested and getting visits....which doesn't match the lsit of every city that is suspected to be "interested"...I get more than that. Also, I wonder why Boston didn't make any Olympic rumblings this time around...especially considering Mitt (leader of SLC) is the governor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Also, I wonder why Boston didn't make any Olympic rumblings this time around...especially considering Mitt (leader of SLC) is the governor I don't think Mr. Romney wants to hang around the Massachusetts' Guv mansion for a long time. He has set his sights on a bigger prize -- that's why a Boston bid is not on his radar. If one thinks an SF or Houston bid is stretching it, I think more so for Boston. Again -- what's their main stadium -- the one out in Foxboro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Also, I wonder why Boston didn't make any Olympic rumblings this time around...especially considering Mitt (leader of SLC) is the governor I don't think Mr. Romney wants to hang around the Massachusetts' Guv mansion for a long time. He has set his sights on a bigger prize -- that's why a Boston bid is not on his radar. If one thinks an SF or Houston bid is stretching it, I think more so for Boston. Again -- what's their main stadium -- the one out in Foxboro? yea, true...although if Philly is going to bid, I certainly could see Boston...and yea Mitt is "retiring" from his stint as gov of MA this year....although, as you pointed out, we all know where is looking to....imagine of he was ever elected president...that would make quite a scene at the 2009 session lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Let's think simple: the USOC will "talk" to 9 cities but really will only consider 3 of those; Minneapolis may get no more than a teleconference. Too late for a Boston to jump in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Let's think simple: the USOC will "talk" to 9 cities but really will only consider 3 of those; Minneapolis may get no more than a teleconference. Too late for a Boston to jump in now. hahahaha don't let joseph/hank hear that! :laughlong: ....and I agree we won't see Boston jump in, and many of the cities will probably be set straight after their initial candid "chats" with the USOC by the end of May, setting things straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Also, I must say I sense the moral of your signature LA84 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 :grinning: I couldn't resist putting that in. I probably won't leave it for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 :grinning: I couldn't resist putting that in. I probably won't leave it for long. I don't know Chicago - what skyscrapers are shown on that logo? (of course I know that the Sears Tower is the blue one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 :grinning: I couldn't resist putting that in. I probably won't leave it for long. I don't know Chicago - what skyscrapers are shown on that logo? (of course I know that the Sears Tower is the blue one) It is a representation of the many different types of architecture located in the City. Chicago is known as the Birthplace of Modern Architecture, with examples all over the city of many world-reknown architects of the 19th and 20th century: Red = The condo buildings located on Lake Shore Drive that is near the Navy Pier complex Black = The NBC Tower. Note that in reality it only has one spire at the moment. At some point in the future another spire is going up: yellow and blue = the AT&T Corporate Center and the Sears Tower. The Sears Tower, btw, is set to loose it's distinction soon as the tallest building in North America as the Fordham Spire, also to be located in Chicago, is in the final stages of approval by the city planners: green = The Chicago Board of Trade, one of the largest commodities trading institutions in the world: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 I can't remember if this has been posted before but - It appears that the USOC is getting ready to take a little trip around the U.S.: USOC To Visit Interested Cities for 2016 (Second article down) One thing I just though of. D.C. has just gotton approval to replace RFK Stadium for the Nationals. I wonder if their plan is going to include a method for using it during 2016 or retrofitting RFK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.