Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, the thing is, if there are any worthwhile cities out there that might be interested for 2024, now is the time to start getting the gears in motion. Especially that Denver & Reno have now contacted the USOC about a possible 2022 Winter bid. I can't see the USOC doing both winter & summer. Unless the USOC acknowledges from the get go to the interested cities, that if they lose their respective races that they're going to move on to the step.

And frankly, I can't see that scenario. I would think with the way the USOC is trying to mend relationships with the IOC, that the USOC would stick to just one strategy & not be all over the place with winter & summer bids. I think that the USOC is going to have to choose which way they want to go. Or maybe the decision will be made for them with the lack of good summer candidates.

I couldn't have said it any better, FYI. I think I agree with everything you wrote.

Barcelona, of course I'm hoping for a summer bid. It's in my signature. Given the choice, I do think the USOC might prefer Summer. Note: I used the word "might." Not only because of recent bids, but because of popularity, money-making potential, prestige and the fact that the US last hosted Winter Games.

As FYI pointed out, it really depends on which cities come forward when.

Barcelona, I do agree that 2026 v 2028 would be an even tougher choice than 2022 v 2024. I think 2026 would be as close to a slam dunk as the US will get. I still think we can get Summer Games if that's the priority, but it might require waiting a few years longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny...the self-delusional games people play.

Just a month ago, some folks here were praying for a Toronto 2020 or a USA 2020 bid....even though Vancouver 2010 is an OBVIOUS impediment and the USOC already said in NO UNCERTAIN terms that they weren't putting forward a 2020 bid.

Now people are saying...maybe 2024 isn't a certainty for Africa/Durban. Again, such stupid, wishful thinking...thinking they can sneak in a North American win there. I mean it's in BIG, BLINDING headlights...Durban is the heavy favorite for 2024. RSA is sitting 2020 out--just to have a breather from 2010 and to line up more things for 2024--but have dropped strong hints that 2024 is the next target. So after 128 years of being left out, all of a sudden, Africa/South Africa/Durban will sit out another 4 years -- because some folks here are feeling that its time is NOT ready therefore maybe creating a crack for Toronto/Chicago to sneak in there?

R people fvcking blind or what? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I think USOC should wait until the 2030's at the least. After Comcast experience's the huge losses from overbidding for the games located in stupid places like Russia and Brazil, then South Africa, they'll bid more reasonably. The US public will have moved onto the upcoming college super-conference's and their respective basic cable networks to get their fill of swimming and track sports. Then they'll be begging for a back-to-back Summer-Winter or Winter-Summer US games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand you.

Given the choice, I think the USOC might prefer Summer Games. After all, that's what they've been bidding for. It seems to me like they may choose either a 2022/2026 long term plan or a 2024/2028 long term plan. I really think that either track would have a high chance of success - if not with the firs bid, then with the second. They just have to choose which they want more. For a mere 2-6 years more I really think they could land Summer Games.

What do others think? Is there much likelihood that the USOC would do 2022/2024 back-to-back bids? Or 2024/2026? Or is it more likely that they would do a 2022/2026 or 2024/2028 pairing instead?

It was late when I typed it lol, I meant they should just focus on a bid not the debate over if it should be a summer or winter bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now people are saying...maybe 2024 isn't a certainty for Africa/Durban. Again, such stupid, wishful thinking...thinking they can sneak in a North American win there. I mean it's in BIG, BLINDING headlights...Durban is the heavy favorite for 2024. RSA is sitting 2020 out--just to have a breather from 2010 and to line up more things for 2024--but have dropped strong hints that 2024 is the next target. So after 128 years of being left out, all of a sudden, Africa/South Africa/Durban will sit out another 4 years -- because some folks here are feeling that its time is NOT ready therefore maybe creating a crack for Toronto/Chicago to sneak in there?

Right baron, because you can tell us 4 years out from even submitting bids what a certainty it is that South Africa will bid after they passed over 2020 and saying they would bid. Need a breather? The 2020 Olympics are a full decade after the World Cup, I think that's enough of a breather. Did Rio need a breather after failing to shortlist for 2012 and then hosting the 2007 Pan Am Games? You can look into your crystal ball or call as many psychic hotlines as you want, but you're kidding yourself and everyone else here if you think you can tell us that Durban 2024 is a certainty, especially with the volatile world economy. Like you said.. they'll have waited 128 years, so what's another 4. They skipped 2020 when all indications were that they were going to bid and win, so what makes you so sure they won't decide to skip 2024? Don't give us this wonderful little hindsight that you knew South Africa wouldn't bid for 2020 when they were dropping hints for a year that they would. Yes, Durban is still the early favorite (and I mean VERY early favorite) for 2024, but you being Mr. "I take a side and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong," whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the possibility does exist that it won't happen, and if it doesn't, you're darn right there's a crack that Toronto or Chicago or someone else could slip in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Toronto bids it will be in the same situation as Rio Was in 2007 (which is right after hosting the Pan American Games). That was another sticking point for the proposed Toronto 2020 bid which never went through. I really can't see them justifying a bid for the 2022 CWG and the 2024 SOG when they said spending the funds on the 2020 Games would be too much, now they want both games? I just don't see it happening. The World Cup/Olympics are completely different things, so I believe RSA will go after the 2022 CWG and win then bid for the 2028/2032 SOG. That leaves a proposed Toronto/Chicago/New York/LA/Tulsa :lol: a wide open field to possibly win the 2024 SOG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right baron, because you can tell us 4 years out from even submitting bids what a certainty it is that South Africa will bid after they passed over 2020 and saying they would bid. Need a breather? The 2020 Olympics are a full decade after the World Cup, I think that's enough of a breather. Did Rio need a breather after failing to shortlist for 2012 and then hosting the 2007 Pan Am Games? You can look into your crystal ball or call as many psychic hotlines as you want, but you're kidding yourself and everyone else here if you think you can tell us that Durban 2024 is a certainty, especially with the volatile world economy. Like you said.. they'll have waited 128 years, so what's another 4. They skipped 2020 when all indications were that they were going to bid and win, so what makes you so sure they won't decide to skip 2024? Don't give us this wonderful little hindsight that you knew South Africa wouldn't bid for 2020 when they were dropping hints for a year that they would. Yes, Durban is still the early favorite (and I mean VERY early favorite) for 2024, but you being Mr. "I take a side and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong," whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the possibility does exist that it won't happen, and if it doesn't, you're darn right there's a crack that Toronto or Chicago or someone else could slip in.

Oh please...U get soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo pedantic!!

I am just paraphrasing what RSA did. I called it a "breather"....I don't what u want to call it Does it really matter? That was THEIR CHOICE -- you so FVCKING LOVE to jump down everyone's throat if they DON'T use the words you have in mind.

GO TO HELL!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has to focus on running their own race as well as possible. They need to choose a strategy and commit to it until it pays off. It's foolhardy to suggest that every move the US makes should be a response to their would-be competitors. They would always be three steps behind. Their actions cannot be solely reactions to hypotheses about what will or won't happen with South Africa. Durban may or may not materialize as an unbeatable opponent. That's out of the USOC's hands. All they can do is decide what they want and use all their resources to go after it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please...U get soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo pedantic!!

I am just paraphrasing what RSA did. I called it a "breather"....I don't what u want to call it Does it really matter? That was THEIR CHOICE -- you so FVCKING LOVE to jump down everyone's throat if they DON'T use the words you have in mind.

Not surprisingly, you completely missed the point of my post, and then of course accuse me of being pedantic. It's not about what South Africa did that I was bringing up. You keep telling us that you're soooooooooooooooooooooo certain that Durban will bid and probably win 2024. And you "FVCKING LOVE" to jump down the throat of anyone who would dare bring up the possibility that they don't bid, even though that's exactly what happened for 2020, that they "dropped strong hints" that those Olympics were there target. I won't go so far as to quote old posts of yours since I know how much you hate that, but stop telling us that we all need to accept your prognostication about Durban 2024 when all you can offer about 2020 is hindsight after you were DEAD FREAKING WRONG about it. It pisses me off that you continue to act like you run the joint here and then get angry when someone calls you out on it or, heaven forbid, disagreeing with your assertions. Or is the policy here not to correct your elders? :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly, you completely missed the point of my post, and then of course accuse me of being pedantic. It's not about what South Africa did that I was bringing up. You keep telling us that you're soooooooooooooooooooooo certain that Durban will bid and probably win 2024. And you "FVCKING LOVE" to jump down the throat of anyone who would dare bring up the possibility that they don't bid, even though that's exactly what happened for 2020, that they "dropped strong hints" that those Olympics were there target. I won't go so far as to quote old posts of yours since I know how much you hate that, but stop telling us that we all need to accept your prognostication about Durban 2024 when all you can offer about 2020 is hindsight after you were DEAD FREAKING WRONG about it. It pisses me off that you continue to act like you run the joint here and then get angry when someone calls you out on it or, heaven forbid, disagreeing with your assertions. Or is the policy here not to correct your elders? :lol:

SO FVCKING WHAT? Is it w/in my control that anyone changes their mind? No, I get what u're saying but as I said, I would rather bet that a certain bid will happen, taking everything I know INTO account, rather than just post for days...will they? won't they? Should I get up today or should I just stay in?

Obviously, you missed the point as well.

So if I'm wrong, so what? Did I ever say I'm infallible? Like you don't make mistakes? :rolleyes:

U're such an argumentative prick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just worry that the scenario you describe is not practically feasible. Whenever the USOC bids again they'll focus solely on the current bid. I don't really see them working on an insurance policy to pull out of their back pocket. Because the turn around time is so short it seems almost impossible to pull off the second bid. The only country that's tried it recently is Russia with Moscow 2012 and

Sochi 2014. Amazingly, it paid off. I'm still not sure the USOC would try something similar. Of course, I would be thrilled to see an American Summer bid under any circumstances...

No, Spain with Jaca 2010, 2014, Seville 2008, Madrid 2012, 2016. But I think the USA want olympics the dont care winter or summer they just want the games! I personally think summer ones will be better.

Reaponding to oter things I've seen here Durban wil not win 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO FVCKING WHAT? Is it w/in my control that anyone changes their mind? No, I get what u're saying but as I said, I would rather bet that a certain bid will happen, taking everything I know INTO account, rather than just post for days...will they? won't they? Should I get up today or should I just stay in?

Obviously, you missed the point as well.

So if I'm wrong, so what? Did I ever say I'm infallible? Like you don't make mistakes? :rolleyes:

U're such an argumentative prick!

Yea, you're still missing the point though. You can bet on whatever and maybe be wrong all you want, but that's not the issue here. You've taken a position here and are saying to the rest of us we shouldn't even look at any other possibilities because you're so sure that you're going to be right. And it wouldn't be such a big deal except you seem to do this all the time. Should we just not have this discussion for the next 4 years because you can see into the future? Do you realize how ridiculous it is when people are trying to have a discussion and someone jumps in with something like "you guys are idiots, you don't know what you're talking about, why are you even bothering to talk about it"? If you want to tell us that you think we're idiots for believing that the United States has a shot at 2024, I have no problem with that. But if the rest of us want to talk about the possibilities, however far away 2024 is and with as little information as we have, why is that so darn irritating for you? Since you're so sure you're right and anything to the contrary is just wishful thinking? Give it a rest. Stop trying to pretend like this forum should be a dictatorship and that the rest of us aren't welcome to discuss a topic because you don't want to listen to us look into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Spain with Jaca 2010, 2014, Seville 2008, Madrid 2012, 2016. But I think the USA want olympics the dont care winter or summer they just want the games! I personally think summer ones will be better.

Reaponding to oter things I've seen here Durban wil not win 2024.

No. You're not reading my post carefully. I'm talking about back-to-back bids for Summer and Winter Games that are only two years apart. Most of your examples don't qualify. The only one that does is Seville/Jaca, but it doesnt count as "recent" with Seville being over ten years ago and it's hardly a positive examplevsince neither bid was shortlisted.

I don't know what makes people so sure the US has no preference for Summer over Winter Games. I haven't read anything that supports that theory. Of course, I think it's time for Summer, but that's beside the point. When did anybody in the USOC say "we don't care - we'll take any Games we can get?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what makes people so sure the US has no preference for Summer over Winter Games. I haven't read anything that supports that theory. Of course, I think it's time for Summer, but that's beside the point. When did anybody in the USOC say "we don't care - we'll take any Games we can get?"

When did the USOC ever say "we're solely focused on the Summer Olympics?" They skipped 2006 and 2010 because of Salt Lake and then probably decided to skip 2014 and 2018 in large part because of Vancouver. We don't know that they won't be there for 2022, especially if there's 1 or more pursuers. Now they could just as easily say they're not interested and want to focus on 2024, but where have they said that either? Obviously a Winter Olympics is a lot different in respect to the fact that it's a much more limited range of cities that could even offer to bid, but I think the bottom line is that we don't know what the USOC's strategy is going forward. I agree that they need to come up with a strategy and stick to it, but again, we don't know what that strategy is or what it will be. And either way, they have to address 2022 before 2024, whether it's endorsing a bid from Reno, Denver, whoever.. or launching a full-scale bid process for 2024 and beyond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 2024 could be held in the US simply because South Africa might not be ready. Only Durban has a venue which could easily be used for Athletics and there will be significant infrastructure requirements if Cape Town were to be successful.

I think the USA needs to stop considering just the big 3 and consider the likes of Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas and Minneapolis as I think they could all be excellent candidates and be able to localise a presentation to the IOC (Birthplace of the Nation, New England, Texas, Thousand Lakes) etc

The main stadium is the big problem especially the USOCs demand for a 80,000 capacity when the IOC only stipulate 60,000 seats.

MSP might be in pole position ... it has enough sporting facilities, a legacy option of a new city wide public transport system, international connections to Europe, Latin American and Asia. The following facilities could be used

Target Center

Target Field

Xcel Energy Center

Metrodome or Vikings stadium replacement

Williams Arena

Ridder Arena

Mariucci Arena

The new TCF stadium has been designed to be expanded to 80,000 seats and even if they use the solution of putting in a raised athletics deck, it would still be 73,000-75,000 seats. There is also a warm track at Siebert Field within a short distance.

Add the National Sports Center at Blaine and presto.

The USOC part of the USA, have almost everything in place but can still offer a legacy and facilites already in use.

Minneapolis 2024

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main stadium is the big problem especially the USOCs demand for a 80,000 capacity when the IOC only stipulate 60,000 seats.

So, are u "David" from Minneapolis now using a different name? :lol:

It's the IOC and the IAAF that demand an 80,000 stadium. (The USOC would gladly settle for a 60,000 stadium.) Why did London and Beijing build 80,000 seaters? How could the USOC have demanded that when London and Beijing are not U.S. cities? :blink: (Athens and Barcelona got away with 73,000 and 72,000 main Olympic Stadia respectively because the IOC let it go...overruling the IAAF.)

Besides, it's that super-ambitious IAAF that wants 55,000 stadia for its biennial World T&F championships.

You mske some good arguments, kernoboy...but pls get your other facts straight on other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are u "David" from Minneapolis now using a different name? :lol:

It's the IOC and the IAAF that demand an 80,000 stadium. (The USOC would gladly settle for a 60,000 stadium.) Why did London and Beijing build 80,000 seaters? How could the USOC have demanded that when London and Beijing are not U.S. cities? :blink: (Athens and Barcelona got away with 73,000 and 72,000 main Olympic Stadia respectively because the IOC let it go...overruling the IAAF.)

Besides, it's that super-ambitious IAAF that wants 55,000 stadia for its biennial World T&F championships.

You mske some good arguments, kernoboy...but pls get your other facts straight on other things.

No I'm not.

Actually I think you'll find the IOC only need 60,000 for the Athletics. Which is why Rio are able to use Joao Havelange athletics stadium, whilst Athens only held 71,500.

Looking at this

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/dflpdf/Venues11-8-05.pdf

It clearly states that 80,000 is a USOC requirement

When you consider Paris (Stade de France 75,000) and Madrid (Aoerta 73,000) their athletics stadiums come in at under 80,000 and that was never mentioned as concern. Why are Baku bidding with an Olympic main stadium of 64,000 if that automatically is not big enough

Below is the official IOC briefing document for the 2012 candidates. If you look at Page 34 it states

Athletics/Opening Ceremonies - 60,000

http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_809.pdf

PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the USOC ever say "we're solely focused on the Summer Olympics?"

Of course the USOC hasn't said they're solely interested in Summer Games. I never said that and I don't appreciate being misrepresented.

The USOC hasn't publicly voiced a preference for Summer or Winter and they haven't announced a strategy. That's why I would never say they're only interested in Summer Games. For the same reason, others cannot support the claim that the USOC has no preference and will take anything they can get. There isn't data to support that.

I am not making a rigid declaration of what the USOC is thinking. I would not be surprised to discover that they prefer Summer Games for the reasons I've listed many times. However, I don't think that preference is strong enough to prevent them from weighing their options where Reno and especially Denver are concerned. Obviously, I hope they will focus on Summer Games, but there is a possibility that they will simply evaluate the opportunities and challenges of each bid cycle on their own terms. In other words, their "strategy" may simply be to take each race one at a time, evaluate whether there's a bid with a chance of winning and forge ahead with no thought of the future ramifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think you'll find the IOC only need 60,000 for the Athletics. Which is why Rio are able to use Joao Havelange athletics stadium, whilst Athens only held 71,500.

Looking at this

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/dflpdf/Venues11-8-05.pdf

It clearly states that 80,000 is a USOC requirement

My God, you're quoting a losing domestic U.S. bid. I mean Minneapolis-St. Paul (another one!!) bid didn't even make a U.S. shortlist. How reliable is that? Besides, of course it would say USOC because they are going thru a "USOC" filter...NOT an IOC filter at that stage.

When you consider Paris (Stade de France 75,000) and Madrid (Aoerta 73,000) their athletics stadiums come in at under 80,000 and that was never mentioned as concern. Why are Baku bidding with an Olympic main stadium of 64,000 if that automatically is not big enough

Below is the official IOC briefing document for the 2012 candidates. If you look at Page 34 it states

Athletics/Opening Ceremonies - 60,000

http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_809.pdf

I did state that Barcelona and Athens were below 80,000. I KNOW THAT!!! But Barcelona is the IOC President's hometown -- so nobody's going to say anything; and Athens also slipped by since that was the original homes of the Games.

But you still didn't address my earlier question: why did Sydney put up a stadium of over 100,000? Beijing of some 81,500 (thereabouts)? and London a round 80,000?

Madrid is NOT an Olympic city; Baku is a joke. Of course, they'll put up a stadium of 64,000 -- that's what they presently have.

If there are existing stadia of 70-80,000, I believe that would do. What's give or take of 5,000 seats or so between friends?

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the USOC hasn't said they're solely interested in Summer Games. I never said that and I don't appreciate being misrepresented.

The USOC hasn't publicly voiced a preference for Summer or Winter and they haven't announced a strategy. That's why I would never say they're only interested in Summer Games. For the same reason, others cannot support the claim that the USOC has no preference and will take anything they can get. There isn't data to support that.

I am not making a rigid declaration of what the USOC is thinking. I would not be surprised to discover that they prefer Summer Games for the reasons I've listed many times. However, I don't think that preference is strong enough to prevent them from weighing their options where Reno and especially Denver are concerned. Obviously, I hope they will focus on Summer Games, but there is a possibility that they will simply evaluate the opportunities and challenges of each bid cycle on their own terms. In other words, their "strategy" may simply be to take each race one at a time, evaluate whether there's a bid with a chance of winning and forge ahead with no thought of the future ramifications.

I never meant to imply that they said that or that you made the argument that they did. You said..

When did anybody in the USOC say "we don't care - we'll take any Games we can get?"

No one ever said that. But like you said, they never publicly they're solely interested in a summer games. We don't know what their preference is and there's not enough evidence out there to support it save for 2 failed bids that largely caused them to go back to the drawing board. But you also said in a previous post..

I don't know what makes people so sure the US has no preference for Summer over Winter Games.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm piling on here again, but it's your last paragraph that rings true. They're going to weight their options and see if Reno/Denver 2022 is the way to go. They're absolutely going to look at 2022 before 2024 with no regard to the future. I know you would love to see them forge a strategy rather than looking at it 1 Olympics at a time. It still seems like it's too early in the game for that to happen.

And since you brought up Russia with back-to-back bids.. you also seem to be forgetting Toronto 2008-Vancouver 2010. So it's happened multiple times before with a country making back-to-back bids. Doesn't set precedent for that to happen here, but as we all know, the USOC works much differently in terms of funding than virtually every other country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why did Sydney put up a stadium of over 100,000? Beijing of some 81,500 (thereabouts)? and London a round 80,000? [/size]

Same reason Seoul built a stadium to hold 110,000 people.. because they chose to. Beijing (original capacity: 91,000) did everything to excess, so I'm almost surprised it wasn't bigger. The idea is to beat out the competition, so all things being equal, if 1 bid has a stadium holding 80,000 seats and another has 90,000, who is more likely to win. Maybe there's a loophole/exception that says if you're using an existing stadium rather than building a new one, the seating capacity isn't a sticking point. That would apply to Barcelona and Athens, but then what about Rio? If the IOC and IAAF were that strict about a seating requirement, then why is Athletics being held at João Havelange instead of at the much larger Maracanã? Not to mention that's a huge departure from tradition that somewhat diminishes the marquee sport of the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gawd! Not another fricken delusional Minneapolis bolster on here. :rolleyes: Which btw, Minneapolis city officials did NOT "express interest" for 2020. That was an error on the part of the Associated Press which even the Minneapolis Star Tribune clarified in a June 2011 article.

And if you think "that Reno would be the Winter version of Atlanta", how do you think the IOC would view Minneapolis & Dallas: "Atlanta II", that's how. Why would they even choose to go there. Nothing compelling about them, not unless they want to throw an all-out extravaganza the likes of Beijing, London & Sochi for those royal-wannabe IOC'ers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the IOC and IAAF were that strict about a seating requirement, then why is Athletics being held at João Havelange instead of at the much larger Maracanã? Not to mention that's a huge departure from tradition that somewhat diminishes the marquee sport of the Olympics.

Simple. Because Rio is in South America, where the Olympics have never been held before. So the IOC made an "exception" in their case.

Let's see another nation try that, particularly one that's already hosted before, & see how quickly that gets shunned down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...