Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Soaring

Recommended Posts

Eventually it is City Hall, but it most likely doesn't start there. The local government's name may be on the contract, but it's NOT the local government that delivers the Games or launches the Organizing Committee. Without powerful backers in the business community, nothing gets done. You talk to the movers and shakers first, then the movers and shakers get City Hall on board. Much of this is a political game and it is indirect. If you call up any mayor and ask if he wants the Games, it's a pointless question because he cannot possibly answer it on his own. It's all about the deep pockets and the people who make things happen. Those people are very rarely members of local government (though they certainly have great influence over it). It wouldn't even surprise me if Rahm Emanuel changed his tune (though I am not expecting this). If several of his powerful buddies wanted to put their backs (and pocketbooks) into an Olympic bid, I think Emanuel would go for it.

I agree with this. It doesn't always work this way, but look at NYC. Dan Doctoroff spear-headed that bid and yes, he eventually got politicians involved, but that was always his project more than it was the city's. Any Olympic bid is going to need funding and other backing in addition to city support. I think it's easier to take that to the city than for someone within the government to search for support, especially in the type of big city that would be interested in an Olympics.

Salt Lake is in a different position because they've already hosted an Olympics. The city and the government (not to mention the citizens) have seen what an Olympics can do for the city, so if they support it, that's easier for them to back. Not like a city like a New York or a Chicago where there's so much going on and an Olympics may not seem like such a worthwhile investment, especially if it's not going to be privately backed.

I see some things don't change, though. The only difference is that this particular issue has moved from the 2800+ pages of the USA 2024 thread to here. As been said there as well. I can't see how having such high-profile contacts with all those key people could be held under wraps for too long, like some here are suggesting. That doesn't make too much sense. Something, some detail would be unvailed before too long, especially in this day & age of social media. It's like trying to keep the senior prom at a high school all hush-hush two weeks before its' suppose to be held.

If anything, any interested city in 2024 would at least form an "exploratory committee" just like Salt Lake & Denver did, And especially when a bid also needs citizenry support just as much as it needs City Hall & it's civie leaders. And keeping things that "top secret" would only accomplish the opposite whenever they did come public.

This I also agree with. I've just spent all this week at the Baseball Winter Meetings. A couple of people I've talked to have joked how Twitter has changed the whole dynamic of an event like this because it's so hard to keep rumors from getting started.

As it applies to an Olympics, and this is nothing different than what I've said before.. we've seen reporters talking about their cities' prospects for an Olympics. Often, these are very empty articles containing little to no information (and yes, that lack of information CAN sometimes be telling). So I'm still of the belief that if someone is reporting and if something is happening behind the scenes (whether it's public or not), we're going to hear something. Even if it's just a person or a company saying that they would consider backing an Olympic bid, I don't see why that needs to be secretive. And if it is happening, that someone would find out about it.

I really disagree with this. Sure we live in the information age, but not everything is public information. Timing is everything. Success demands perfect timing. Successful people know how to control the flow of information to get the timing they want. That's a key part of who they are and what they do. It's not as impossible as some would argue.

I don't know who is interested in 2024, but lack of information simply doesn't indicate a lack of interest.

We don't know what the USOC will do. Despite the buzz that seems to favor 2024, I don't think one can make a safe prediction one way or the other at the moment.

Timing is not necessarily everything. How many cities out there would look at 2024, but also think long term to 2028 and beyond? There's no expectation that you have to come up at the right moment to get the job done. Even the NYC bid had originally targeted 2008, but then found themselves in the 2012 race. Far too many cities (NYC and Chicago most notably) seem to be viewing Olympics bids as a 1 shot deal. I know we've argued (and I'm pretty sure we agree on this) that it would be better for a city and/or the USOC to formulate a long-term strategy.

And yes, this is the information age. There's only so much you can control the flow of information (and I still don't see that being a necessary step to a successful Olympic bid). All it takes is 1 rumor or 1 report and that's it. Either way, I just don't get the advantage of keep things hush-hush and why if there are rumblings, that someone is going to realize it rather than staying under wraps. Again, not that everyone is Salt Lake, but look how open they are about all they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm not arguing that the USOC should "go behind City Hall's back." I'm saying that City Hall is just one part of the conversation and not necessarily the most important part.

There were a couple posts asking who the USOC should call to find out if a city is interested in bidding. It's not that simple. It's multiple calls, each of which will require massaging and diplomacy, ongoing conversations and relationship. Obviously you can't have a successful bid without both the city government and the business leaders on board. Everybody needs to get excited, feel special, catch the vision, believe that THEY are the ones hatching the idea. It is very political and it takes place behind the scenes. I'm sure the situation is different in each city too.

One of the things this exploratory committee should be doing is evaluating the prime contenders to determine who has critical mass. Critical mass is going to be composed of three primary criteria: 1.) Is there enough will among the people who can make this happen? 2.) Is the city technically capable of hosting outstanding Games? 3.) Is the city electable by the IOC considering who the identities of the likely competitors?

They won't announce plans to target any edition of the Games unless they are convinced that at least one city has critical mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timing is not necessarily everything. How many cities out there would look at 2024, but also think long term to 2028 and beyond? There's no expectation that you have to come up at the right moment to get the job done. Even the NYC bid had originally targeted 2008, but then found themselves in the 2012 race. Far too many cities (NYC and Chicago most notably) seem to be viewing Olympics bids as a 1 shot deal. I know we've argued (and I'm pretty sure we agree on this) that it would be better for a city and/or the USOC to formulate a long-term strategy.

And yes, this is the information age. There's only so much you can control the flow of information (and I still don't see that being a necessary step to a successful Olympic bid). All it takes is 1 rumor or 1 report and that's it. Either way, I just don't get the advantage of keep things hush-hush and why if there are rumblings, that someone is going to realize it rather than staying under wraps. Again, not that everyone is Salt Lake, but look how open they are about all they're doing.

You're looking at this through a narrow Olympic lens. In business, timing can be everything. If you think that all information is publicly available and ripe for the plucking, then obviously you're not one of the ones controlling its flow. I'm not either (and don't pretend to be), but I am certain that privacy still exists and many people make their living's out of protecting it. It is possible to keep things "off the grid" if you want to, particularly if you are an extremely wealthy and powerful person.

You seem to feel that if the USOC is in conversation with a potential bid city that we should all know about it because it will show up in a Yahoo headline. Let me ask you this, Quaker: How will you explain it if the USOC decides to bid for 2024? They just made a decision without talking to anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that all information is publicly available and ripe for the plucking, <snip> You seem to feel that if the USOC is in conversation with a potential bid city that we should all know about it because it will show up in a Yahoo headline.

Once again, you are engaged in hyperbolic exaggeration. Please stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, you are engaged in hyperbolic exaggeration. Please stop.

I'm going to politely decline your request.

That's just a bit of color. You get the point. Several posters have repeatedly cited the lack of information on the internet as support for the idea that no American cities are interested in hosting. When I have posted links to stories suggesting certain cities may be interested they are dismissed as inconsequential. So, I really don't think there's much more than a pinch of hyperbole in my statement. It does seem as though some people want to read internet news article before they open themselves to the possibility that a 2024 bid could be in the works. If I have misunderstood those posters, they are free to clarify their positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to politely decline your request. That's just a bit of color. You get the point.

Fine. But next time you start to write one of your posts complaining that everyone is picking fights with you, understand *why* everyone ends up arguing with you. It's because you choose to hyperbolically exaggerage (also know as "lie) about what other people have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. But next time you start to write one of your posts complaining that everyone is picking fights with you, understand *why* everyone ends up arguing with you. It's because you choose to hyperbolically exaggerage (also know as "lie) about what other people have said.

You just called me a liar. I did not lie. You are picking a fight. Me pointing out that you are picking a fight does not constitute a complaint, merely a statement of fact. You have such a knack for derailing things into the most meaningless, fruitless territory.

How about we wait and see what the USOC does?

I'm going to politely decline your request.

That's just a bit of color. You get the point. Several posters have repeatedly cited the lack of information on the internet as support for the idea that no American cities are interested in hosting. When I have posted links to stories suggesting certain cities may be interested they are dismissed as inconsequential. So, I really don't think there's much more than a pinch of hyperbole in my statement. It does seem as though some people want to read internet news article before they open themselves to the possibility that a 2024 bid could be in the works. If I have misunderstood those posters, they are free to clarify their positions.

Thought it might be useful to see my entire post since it was conveniently truncated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I have posted links to stories suggesting certain cities may be interested they are dismissed as inconsequential.

Those "stories" merely mentioned these cities as potential candidates. They didn't cite much more than that. Although, there have been stories that have included direct quotes from Chicago's mayor's office, for example, that they're not interested in bidding for the Olympics anytime soon, but then it is those type of artlcies with more substance that are "dismissed inconsequentially".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me be clear: we just don't know what will happen. The Emanuel story wasn't inconsequential. I think it's possible that he'll change his mind. If he doesn't, obviously that's a problem.

For me, a "mere mention" does qualify as buzz. For others it's still not enough to open them to the possibility that perhaps there's a decent candidate for 2024 waiting in the wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're looking at this through a narrow Olympic lens. In business, timing can be everything. If you think that all information is publicly available and ripe for the plucking, then obviously you're not one of the ones controlling its flow. I'm not either (and don't pretend to be), but I am certain that privacy still exists and many people make their living's out of protecting it. It is possible to keep things "off the grid" if you want to, particularly if you are an extremely wealthy and powerful person.

You seem to feel that if the USOC is in conversation with a potential bid city that we should all know about it because it will show up in a Yahoo headline. Let me ask you this, Quaker: How will you explain it if the USOC decides to bid for 2024? They just made a decision without talking to anyone?

That's absolutely not at all how I feel at all. I'm still trying to figure out how you're getting that from what I said. It doesn't have to be 1 extreme or the other (i.e. we're not hearing anything because people want it to be kept secret versus we hear everything because it's the information age) Surely we can find some middle ground between nothing being reported and everything showing up in a Yahoo headline.

I understand the whole scenario and sequence of events you're trying to set up here, but I disagree that these things need to happen in private and those potentially working on a bid in secret are actively trying to keep things quiet. That's a far cry from something showing up in a Yahoo headline because in order for that to happen, someone has to report on it. And that goes back to my point from earlier.. if there is a bid being worked on from whatever city and there is a journalist in that city reporting on the potential for an Olympics, don't you think he would write a story about that somewhere? Do you think he would simply not report on what he knows to protect someone? I still don't get why that would be so advantageous, especially when you have Salt Lake doing the exact opposite of all that.. being very open and public about their plans long before the USOC has even hinted at what their plans are for 2026.

I acknowledge there are conversations going on between the USOC and whomever in the cities they're targeting. I thought I made that pretty clear. And no, we won't hear about those exchanges. But at some point, someone is going to step up and say "we are interested" and that's going to get the ball rolling. Again, we still won't hear about that. But if any sort of organizing committee is former or those talks are getting more serious, then yes we will probably hear someone reporting on that. And again, to my earlier point.. it would be very helpful to those prospective cities for the USOC to make a definitive statement on 2024 so that they know what they're shooting for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those "stories" merely mentioned these cities as potential candidates. They didn't cite much more than that. Although, there have been stories that have included direct quotes from Chicago's mayor's office, for example, that they're not interested in bidding for the Olympics anytime soon, but then it is those type of artlcies with more substance that are "dismissed inconsequentially".

Yes, 100% agree with this.

Let me be clear: we just don't know what will happen. The Emanuel story wasn't inconsequential. I think it's possible that he'll change his mind. If he doesn't, obviously that's a problem.

For me, a "mere mention" does qualify as buzz. For others it's still not enough to open them to the possibility that perhaps there's a decent candidate for 2024 waiting in the wings.

Buzz is different from legitimate interest and planning efforts though. If that's the case, a thread on this forum about Minneapolis could be construed as buzz. It doesn't mean anyone in that city is actually planning an Olympic bid simply by the mere fact that someone is talking about it. Yes, buzz can turn into actual interest and planning. But this goes back to what I've been saying and I think zeke agrees with.. if there's a "mere mention" article that doesn't give any impression of actual planning, then maybe there's a reason they're not reporting on actual planning.. because there is nothing to report. That's not filling in the "lack of information" gaps with whatever we see fit. It's reading between the lines to try and figure out what is or isn't going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, you described two polar opposites: A.) a calculated, clandestine Olympic operation (which is not really what I'm suggesting) vs. B.) total transparency with explicit public announcements of bid plans. Then you plead for something moderate in between. But when I bring up buzz, you say, "that's not an indication of interest." The reality is that buzz is in between. It's not a total secret and its not a detailed news story. It's in the middle. But it doesn't seem to be quite the middle you have in mind. The shades of grey are getting a bit subtle here...

There have been plenty of posts over the years arguing that if the USOC were talking to cities about Summer Games and if there were any cities that were interested we should see more news stories than we have so far. The reality is that we could well hear the USOC announce that they're going for 2024. That would poke a few holes in this theory about insufficient public information. In that scenario, although we wouldn't have heard any news, obviously the USOC would have been talking to someone who is interested and that someone would have chosen not to make headlines.

I am not saying that prospective bidders are zealously guarding secret plans, but I do think it's totally possible that they've just decided keep things in-house and not to go public for the time-being. Discretion is the better part of valor. I think that's true of Olympic races as well.

As many posters have pointed out, there are all kinds of intriguing potential bidders out there who could change the landscape significantly for the 2024 race. Why should the USOC tip their hand any earlier than necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, you described two polar opposites: A.) a calculated, clandestine Olympic operation (which is not really what I'm suggesting) vs. B.) total transparency with explicit public announcements of bid plans. Then you plead for something moderate in between. But when I bring up buzz, you say, "that's not an indication of interest." The reality is that buzz is in between. It's not a total secret and its not a detailed news story. It's in the middle. But it doesn't seem to be quite the middle you have in mind. The shades of grey are getting a bit subtle here...

There have been plenty of posts over the years arguing that if the USOC were talking to cities about Summer Games and if there were any cities that were interested we should see more news stories than we have so far. The reality is that we could well hear the USOC announce that they're going for 2024. That would poke a few holes in this theory about insufficient public information. In that scenario, although we wouldn't have heard any news, obviously the USOC would have been talking to someone who is interested and that someone would have chosen not to make headlines.

I am not saying that prospective bidders are zealously guarding secret plans, but I do think it's totally possible that they've just decided keep things in-house and not to go public for the time-being. Discretion is the better part of valor. I think that's true of Olympic races as well.

As many posters have pointed out, there are all kinds of intriguing potential bidders out there who could change the landscape significantly for the 2024 race. Why should the USOC tip their hand any earlier than necessary?

now u're making more sense than that other know-it-all snot from PA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just called me a liar. I did not lie. You are picking a fight.

Fine, we'll stick to your term and call it hyperbolically exaggerating. Whatever you call it, when you misrepresent what people say, they are going to push back against you. If you aren't willing to stop hyperbolically exaggering, don't get upset when you get pushback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upset? How about just continuing the conversation?

You want to call it pushback? Ok. I just call it a conversation.

Hyperbole is a figure of speech. It's obvious amplification for dramatic effect. Most people recognize it and don't take it literally. Most people.

Moving on, Zeke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hyperbole is a figure of speech. It's obvious amplification for dramatic effect. Most people recognize it and don't take it literally. Most people.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here.... I'm honestly trying to provide you with useful feedback:

You aren't a good enough writer for that. Your "hyperbolic" posts don't come across as obviously done for dramatic effect. They come across as you lying about what other people believe so you can attack straw men, rather than what others actually believe.

What makes you think "most people recognize it"? Does the fact that you are constantly getting in arguments with everybody tell you anything? Is there any part of you that is able to consider the possibility that it's your posts causing trouble... instead of it being everyone else's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's tell the truth for a moment: you are not trying to help me. I don't "constantly get in arguments". There are 3 people on this forum who ardently champion views opposed to my own: you, Baron, Quaker and George. I consider the source when I read your posts. Your opinions of me are not reinforced in any other aspect of my life and I don't see your views as indicative of any bigger picture. Anyone who is so obviously trying to knock someone else down a peg should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Typo: 4 people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's tell the truth for a moment: you are not trying to help me. I don't "constantly get in arguments". There are 3 people on this forum who ardently champion views opposed to my own: you, Baron, Quaker and George. I consider the source when I read your posts. Your opinions of me are not reinforced in any other aspect of my life and I don't see your views as indicative of any bigger picture. Anyone who is so obviously trying to knock someone else down a peg should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Typo: 4 people.

I'm not going to get into a big reply on this here and will instead save most of it for a PM, but I will say this.. This forum has a tendency to bring out the worst in a lot of us. We all know this. So I'd like to hope how most of us conduct ourselves here is not indicative of any of us are outside this forum (there is at least 1 exception to that though, and no Athens, I don't mean you). That said Athens, if you're really going to take the bolded part to heart, then I guess who have to take yourself with a grain of salt, because that's EXACTLY what you tried to do to baron, less you forgot already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zeke, this is childish and stupid.

There is a HUGE difference between what I wrote about Baron and what you wrote about me.

Baron is an armchair enthusiast and isn't the reigning deity of Olympic Ceremonies. What I said was simply a reminder that he, like all of us, is just a guy with an opinion. Just because Baron hated Athens' OC doesnt mean it was actually the piece of trash he thinks it was. I offered a tempering reality check. That's it.

By contrast, you've called me a liar, told me I'm a poor writer, offered to explain the difference between tenses to me and accused me of not understanding most of the words I use. None of these points has basis in fact. Each one is a petty low blow designed to cut me down and elevate you. From my perspective, personal ego appears to be your primary motivation.

For the foreseeable future, I won't be responding to your posts. In my opinion, these exchanges do nothing to contribute to the quality of this forum. They are tedious and unworthy of anyone's time or energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^

Ah, Quaker, didn't realize you had picked up Zeke's argument there. These days you and he are difficult to tell apart -- aside from the length of your posts, that is.

The core of the above response stands for both of you. My responses to Baron were intended to show why his opinion should not be afforded the extra weight he seemed to believe it deserved -- particularly where Athens 2004 was concerned.

By contrast, Zeke's words to me are small, personal jabs that do not advance or defend any Olympic argument. The sole aim is personal insult. I'm not voicing a complaint -- as you or he might say -- just a fact. But whatever you choose to call it, it's enough to render this conversation fruitless. I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is a HUGE difference between what I wrote about Baron and what you wrote about me.

2. Baron is an armchair enthusiast and isn't the reigning deity of Olympic Ceremonies. What I said was simply a reminder that he, like all of us, is just a guy with an opinion. Just because Baron hated Athens' OC doesnt mean it was actually the piece of trash he thinks it was. I offered a tempering reality check. That's it.

3. . Each one is a petty low blow designed to cut me down and elevate you.

4. For the foreseeable future, I won't be responding to your posts. In my opinion, these exchanges do nothing to contribute to the quality of this forum. They are tedious and unworthy of anyone's time or energy.

1. And how different is that from the round when you plainly UNDERCUT me, regardless of my qualifications, a couple of weeks ago JUST BECAUSE I happen to view Athens 2004 vastly different from you and denigrate its merits of lack thereof for people whose views on Olympic ceremonies may not be fully formed?

2. Yes, I am an armchair enthusiast -- just like you are. And no, I am NOT the reigning deity on the subject -- only that I have a commercial product out there (which you don't) and I do have to defend MY INTEGRITY and product as well. I NEVER attacked you personally because you are, like al Qaeda, well hidden and veiled. I have only criticized Athens OC -- which I never said was "...trash..." but really a subpar product. Your disagreement with that doesn't make YOUR opinion any more or less valid than mine. But since you cloak and hide yourself in anonimity then all I can do is emphasize the failings of that event and push down the remarks of some UNKNOWN, uncredentialed poster who presumes to think that the 2004 ceremony was the be-all from the gods which it CLEARLY wasn't, denigrating me in the same stroke and pushing me in the corner. And you know that I am NOT going to sit idly by and take crap from you or anyone else.

3. How does that feel now that someone else has given you a taste of your own medicine? :P

4. Ha! Now you play the HIGH GROUND card. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...