Jump to content

Let's say NYC does pursue a 2016 bid......


Recommended Posts

There is no rule that you have to be pro-NYC to participate in this forum or in any particular thread.   Try to be a bit more civilized.  The Olympics is about participation, right?

There are no right and wrongs, except may be the IOC.  For today, London is right, and everybody else is wrong.  And NYC is almost as wrong as Moscow.

It is my opinion that NYC is a terrible place for the Olympics.  

As bad as Atlanta, widely regarded as "below average".  Only SFO and LA are good site in the USA.  Since LA will never get another chance within my life time, all my hopes are in SFO.  I wish the USOC will open up 2016 to all cities in the USA.  I also wish that the USOC will learn from 2012 and try to think more like the IOC members who are voting.  (I admit that Vancouver 2010 simply doomed NYC, and SFO would have zero chance in 2012.)  I hope that the USOC wil conclude that NYC2016 is not a good choice.

Again, there's no rule that says everyone must be pro-NY.

You haven't said "WHY" NYC would not be a good venue for a Summer Olympic Games?!

I'm willing to take any and all bets right now that in 2009, NYC will win the vote to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games!

Any bets?!!

I'm your huckleberry.  Should we use an escrow service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I would like to make some sincere observations and hope they will be taken as such.

1) When I see phrases like "it's the USA's turn in 2016" and "The IOC needs the US" it kind of reminds me of how Paris came across in it's first two bids at least. The IOC is a very different animal these days. It doesn't find arrogance attractive and that's how this comes across.

2) There in no inevitability about the US winning a bid, just because it puts up a candidate city from the Americas. There are emerging nations in Brazil and Mexico and they may well be in stronger more advanced positions in 4 years time.

3) Whatever you may think, the IOC voting is done by individual members, who make their own judgements based on many criteria -from where the wife likes to shop to what is the country of their favourite football team, and then there is the merits of the technical evaluation of the bidding cities as well! There is no definite fairness or justice built into the system, it is just how the majority of IOC members happen to place their vote at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to make some sincere observations and hope they will be taken as such.

1) When I see phrases like "it's the USA's turn in 2016" and "The IOC needs the US" it kind of reminds me of how Paris came across in it's first two bids at least. The IOC is a very different animal these days. It doesn't find arrogance attractive and that's how this comes across.

2) There in no inevitability about the US winning a bid, just because it puts up a candidate city from the Americas. There are emerging nations in Brazil and Mexico and they may well be in stronger more advanced positions in 4 years time.

3) Whatever you may think, the IOC voting is done by individual members, who make their own judgements based on many criteria -from where the wife likes to shop to what is the country of their favourite football team, and then there is the merits of the technical evaluation of the bidding cities as well! There is no definite fairness or justice built into the system, it is just how the majority of IOC members happen to place their vote at that time.

That's exactly what I think should be the USOC's mindset. 2016 might be the Americas' turn, but we shouldn't be overconfident, complacent and arrogant. We should still put forth a bid that will win and a better one than whoever our competition would be. That's the reason why I think the USOC is opening up the race. They want, whoever wins this time, to really duke it out with other interested Cities, so that their plan will definitely be the best the USOC can submit to the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to make some sincere observations and hope they will be taken as such.

1) When I see phrases like "it's the USA's turn in 2016" and "The IOC needs the US" it kind of reminds me of how Paris came across in it's first two bids at least. The IOC is a very different animal these days. It doesn't find arrogance attractive and that's how this comes across.

2) There in no inevitability about the US winning a bid, just because it puts up a candidate city from the Americas. There are emerging nations in Brazil and Mexico and they may well be in stronger more advanced positions in 4 years time.

3) Whatever you may think, the IOC voting is done by individual members, who make their own judgements based on many criteria -from where the wife likes to shop to what is the country of their favourite football team, and then there is the merits of the technical evaluation of the bidding cities as well! There is no definite fairness or justice built into the system, it is just how the majority of IOC members happen to place their vote at that time.

That's exactly what I think should be the USOC's mindset. 2016 might be the Americas' turn, but we shouldn't be overconfident, complacent and arrogant. We should still put forth a bid that will win and a better one than whoever our competition would be. That's the reason why I think the USOC is opening up the race. They want, whoever wins this time, to really duke it out with other interested Cities, so that their plan will definitely be the best the USOC can submit to the IOC.

That's a great attitude to have. Maybe you should be involved in a future US bid!

But really, the USOC has to open up the bidding process. If it allows New York to bid again unchallenged, it may well miss out again because of the kind of thing that happened this time with the stadium. It's not an exam you can take as many times as you like when you fail. You have to get the best start that you possibly can to give yourselves the best chance of winning. Choosing the right city in the first place, rather than blindly assuming New York is the right choice, is the only way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the IOC MUST allow on-site visits by the IOC members.  No wonder they dismiss the Evaluation reports (as I probably would too) because it's somebody else filtering their impressions for me.  This is the one thing we must have the IOC change: they must let the IOC members see the actual environment for themselves.  If they are tempted by offers and succumb, then they have no business being IOC members.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to make some sincere observations and hope they will be taken as such.

1) When I see phrases like "it's the USA's turn in 2016" and "The IOC needs the US" it kind of reminds me of how Paris came across in it's first two bids at least. The IOC is a very different animal these days. It doesn't find arrogance attractive and that's how this comes across.

2) There in no inevitability about the US winning a bid, just because it puts up a candidate city from the Americas. There are emerging nations in Brazil and Mexico and they may well be in stronger more advanced positions in 4 years time.

3) Whatever you may think, the IOC voting is done by individual members, who make their own judgements based on many criteria -from where the wife likes to shop to what is the country of their favourite football team, and then there is the merits of the technical evaluation of the bidding cities as well! There is no definite fairness or justice built into the system, it is just how the majority of IOC members happen to place their vote at that time.

That's exactly what I think should be the USOC's mindset. 2016 might be the Americas' turn, but we shouldn't be overconfident, complacent and arrogant. We should still put forth a bid that will win and a better one than whoever our competition would be. That's the reason why I think the USOC is opening up the race. They want, whoever wins this time, to really duke it out with other interested Cities, so that their plan will definitely be the best the USOC can submit to the IOC.

That's a great attitude to have. Maybe you should be involved in a future US bid!

But really, the USOC has to open up the bidding process. If it allows New York to bid again unchallenged, it may well miss out again because of the kind of thing that happened this time with the stadium. It's not an exam you can take as many times as you like when you fail. You have to get the best start that you possibly can to give yourselves the best chance of winning. Choosing the right city in the first place, rather than blindly assuming New York is the right choice, is the only way to go.

eusa_clap.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also posted on the other thread:

I think the USOC is just going to be using other cities just for its own ends -- and still end up with NYC.  If New York didn't quite bring home the bacon this round, how can the rejected cities of the last round -- which obviously did NOT go ahead with their Olympic plans because they were bypassed and therefore have MOVED on to other things -- now all of a sudden be expected to have the whole deck of cards and be ready to present an EVEN stronger bid that New York?  Huh?  :shocked: That is most ludicrous, daffiest 'reasoning' I have seen.

I hope the other cities see through the USOC's ploy and NOT play their game.  THe USOC should be ashamed of this.  And if other cities take the bait -- then they deserve what they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...