Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Athensfan

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

i wonder if USA will sell the parts of torch relay to multinationals again in their next Olympics. Eternal olympic spirit...

No longer possible. It is now mentioned in the Torch Relay contracts with the IOC and the HOC that the 1984 fund-raising technique will not be allowed. ANd that is why they get bigger suckas like Coke and Samsung and Lloyds Bank to foot the relay bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's extremely tyrannical. And no, it is not possible, especially in the United States. It's not the way to put together a winning bid.

Let's say the USOC has their heart set on New York. They can't make that decision and worry about the details later. If there's no interest from the city and no one who wants to lead the bid efforts, it's not like the USOC can say "work with us" and make it happen that way. Now if they find someone from the city, either a business owner and/or someone from a government agency, then maybe you have something. But the decision needs to come from the city to initiate the planning process. Then the USOC can get involved. Unlike other countries (case in point, Australia) where the NOC is going to fund the bid and do most of the dirty work, we know with the USOC a lot of it is on the city. So the USOC needs a willing partner, not just the city they feel like targeting. That's why the Australian NOC could say "we're going with Sydney" whereas the USOC can't say "we're going with New York." Again, if there's no real interest from the city in question (and who knows.. maybe somewhere that's a person or an organization that will hear the USOC calling and that will spark their intrigue), the USOC is not in a position to run the bid for them.

Yeah, precisely. As most of us have already discussed to tears in the first two hundred pages of this thread, that if the major players/cities aren't interested, then there's not much that the USOC can do to make a city bid, no matter how much the USOC could be interested in them. It has two be a two-way street.

No matter how much desire that the USOC could have in New York, Chicago or San Francisco, if these cities won't budge, the USOC's desires mean nothing. They can't make cities bid, just like the cities can't make the USOC bid, much like we had just seen by the USOC declining on 2022 even thought they had three interested cities. It has to be a mutual desire on both ends for anything worhwhile N winnable to take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's extremely tyrannical. And no, it is not possible, especially in the United States. It's not the way to put together a winning bid.

Let's say the USOC has their heart set on New York. They can't make that decision and worry about the details later. If there's no interest from the city and no one who wants to lead the bid efforts, it's not like the USOC can say "work with us" and make it happen that way. Now if they find someone from the city, either a business owner and/or someone from a government agency, then maybe you have something. But the decision needs to come from the city to initiate the planning process. Then the USOC can get involved. Unlike other countries (case in point, Australia) where the NOC is going to fund the bid and do most of the dirty work, we know with the USOC a lot of it is on the city. So the USOC needs a willing partner, not just the city they feel like targeting. That's why the Australian NOC could say "we're going with Sydney" whereas the USOC can't say "we're going with New York." Again, if there's no real interest from the city in question (and who knows.. maybe somewhere that's a person or an organization that will hear the USOC calling and that will spark their intrigue), the USOC is not in a position to run the bid for them.

Well, of course it requires two to tango. No NOC can force a city top bid, or a national government to support a bid - as the South African Committee found when it was trying to push Durban against Government reluctance. But, if there is a willing city, and the NOC is backing it and thinks it's a good winning chance, they can sure turn away any other interested domestic parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's extremely tyrannical. And no, it is not possible, especially in the United States. It's not the way to put together a winning bid.

Let's say the USOC has their heart set on New York. They can't make that decision and worry about the details later. If there's no interest from the city and no one who wants to lead the bid efforts, it's not like the USOC can say "work with us" and make it happen that way. Now if they find someone from the city, either a business owner and/or someone from a government agency, then maybe you have something. But the decision needs to come from the city to initiate the planning process. Then the USOC can get involved. Unlike other countries (case in point, Australia) where the NOC is going to fund the bid and do most of the dirty work, we know with the USOC a lot of it is on the city. So the USOC needs a willing partner, not just the city they feel like targeting. That's why the Australian NOC could say "we're going with Sydney" whereas the USOC can't say "we're going with New York." Again, if there's no real interest from the city in question (and who knows.. maybe somewhere that's a person or an organization that will hear the USOC calling and that will spark their intrigue), the USOC is not in a position to run the bid for them.

No one is saying the USOC will try to fabricate interest in a city that doesn't care about the Games.

The USOC will work behind the scenes with a city that already wants the Games and is capable. Together -- away from the public spotlight -- they will develop a unified strategy for landing the Games. The USOC won't waste their time making comparisons between other cities. They'll pick one and focus all their energy on building the strongest bid possible with a solid partner.

This is not tyrannical and it is the way to develop a winning bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC won't waste their time making comparisons between other cities. They'll pick one and focus all their energy on building the strongest bid possible with a solid partner.

How can you be so sure it will be only one? What if there is more than one?

Of course, they have to draw comparatives studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you be so sure it will be only one? What if there is more than one?

Of course, they have to draw comparatives studies.

The whole point of this strategy is to streamline the process and focus on improving the bid itself. Why would the USOC spend time grooming NYC and Philly? It doesn't make sense and defeats the purpose of the new system. After their initial evaluation, they'll go forward with one city or none.

Of course, they have to choose Summer or Winter first.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC will work behind the scenes with a city that already wants the Games and is capable. Together -- away from the public spotlight -- they will develop a unified strategy for landing the Games. The USOC won't waste their time making comparisons between other cities. They'll pick one and focus all their energy on building the strongest bid possible with a solid partner.

This is not tyrannical and it is the way to develop a winning bid.

I still don't see how this can work in practice. Americans love transparency, they hate things being done in secret. There are simply too many "special interest" groups for a "behind the scenes" bid process, which presumably involves city government and business to work. Chicago's biggest weakness was low citizen support. A secret bid process will only aggravate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see how this can work in practice. Americans love transparency, they hate things being done in secret. There are simply too many "special interest" groups for a "behind the scenes" bid process, which presumably involves city government and business to work. Chicago's biggest weakness was low citizen support. A secret bid process will only aggravate that.

The whole point though is to avoid a big circus.

Perhaps the elimination process might be "secretive," after all, the USOC is a private entity. And then, once a choice is made, just have the selection proceedings be available for anyone interested in them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point though is to avoid a big circus.

Perhaps the elimination process might be "secretive," after all, the USOC is a private entity. And then, once a choice is made, just have the selection proceedings be available for anyone interested in them?

That's not what AF seems to be alluding to, though. He clearly states your latter point. I agree with CM (& which has been cited in this thread before), that there's simply way too many groups that R involved that are needed for a "unified strategy" for anything to remain "behind the scenes" for too long. Especially in today's age of the media & social media. Something is bound to leak much sooner rather than later. And particularly when a bid needs a large portion of the citizenry support TBW to really show that " a city that already wants the Games".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see how this can work in practice. Americans love transparency, they hate things being done in secret. There are simply too many "special interest" groups for a "behind the scenes" bid process, which presumably involves city government and business to work. Chicago's biggest weakness was low citizen support. A secret bid process will only aggravate that.

I don't see any problem. The USOC are not elected government officials who are accountable to an electorate. They are a private governing body and they're entitled to make the choice any way they see fit. The IOC totally backs them up.

They HAVE been transparent about their plan to eliminate the lengthy public campaign. Their VOTES were never transparent -- and that's all that matters here. They've just dispensed with the side-show that was the domestic campaign.

As for the bid itself -- the process of developing the nuts and bolts of a bid and the process developing bid strategy are not something the public has ever been involved with or needs to be involved with. Once there is a plan, it will be available for public review and comment just like all other bids. If at some point a key detail requires public evaluation (such as a stadium location) it will get it.

I see no problem with any of this. It's totally practical and there's nothing "un-American" about it. It's just efficient.

Baron understood me better than Canis or FYI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're only making the "candidate" award. If the US candidate gets selected by the IOC, then many Olympics-related projects are put up for open bidding. That's when it should become very transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're only making the "candidate" award. If the US candidate gets selected by the IOC, then many Olympics-related projects are put up for open bidding. That's when it should become very transparent.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the bid itself -- the process of developing the nuts and bolts of a bid and the process developing bid strategy are not something the public has ever been involved with or needs to be involved with. Once there is a plan, it will be available for public review and comment just like all other bids. If at some point a key detail requires public evaluation (such as a stadium location) it will get it.

That's the thing.. this isn't going to be some secretive process that the public is going to be shielded from. We're still going to hear rumblings from the USOC and/or from prospective cities just like we have in the past and I wouldn't chalk those up to so-called leaks. The difference in the process now is that instead of a city getting their ducks in a row and then campaigning to the USOC, instead it's the USOC contacting the city (or cities.. I don't think they'll zero in on 1 city) to get their ducks in a row, ask what they can offer, and then begin their own internal process. To me, it's less about avoiding the public spotlight (after all, any bid will need all sorts of support, both from the population and financially) and more about the USOC trying to run the show rather than having open bidding dictate what's going on. And to your earlier point.. it makes the whole thing a lot more efficient because it allows the USOC and prospective cities to work together more rather than for any and all cities to fight for votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to your earlier point.. it makes the whole thing a lot more efficient because it allows the USOC and prospective cities to work together more rather than for any and all cities to fight for votes.

That is my point. And it sounds like you agree with it.

I don't have the impression that the USOC is trying to be secretive. I think they're trying to get more control over the process. I think they want freedom to separate the wheat from the chaff as soon as they are ready to do so instead of waiting to the end of a public bid process. I also think they want to maximize the amount of time they have to partner with the anointed bid city.

The result of this approach is that less information is available publicly. We don't know who the USOC is talking to or what those cities are thinking. If this were the former domestic bid process, we would know those things. As it is, we just wait for the USOC to let us know what's going on.

The whole point of this process is to put the bid first. This new approach will insure that the USOC gets the best city early in the Game. It also gives them maximum time to work with that city on the bid.

I stand by my statement that this is not tyrannical. It's just the way to put together a winning bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my point. And it sounds like you agree with it.

I do. The 'tyrannical' part of it was in response to that original question, but like you, I don't believe that's what will occur.

I think the simplest way to look at the process is this.. in the past, the bid cities would tell the USOC why they should get picked. Now, it'll be the USOC asking the bid cities (whichever ones they choose to contact in the first place) why they should get picked. It's exactly like you said.. they want more control and to form a better relationship with whatever city they might choose to bid with. And I think it's a very smart strategy to go with.

That said, we'll still have plenty to talk about here (as from the usual rampant speculation, of course). If the USOC is courting a city, say Chicago, there's a good chance someone will report on it. If businesses and government officials are responding to the USOC, we'll probably hear about that as well. The difference will be that since you don't have cities fairly openly campaigning, there's no need for them to create websites and make public statements in an attempt to win votes. Sure, whoever gets selected will have to drum up public support, but the onus will be on the USOC to make the decision rather than having the whole thing look and feel like a popularity contest. And again, hopefully the sum total of all this is a more prepared bid that has a better chance of winning the big prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do. The 'tyrannical' part of it was in response to that original question, but like you, I don't believe that's what will occur.

I think the simplest way to look at the process is this.. in the past, the bid cities would tell the USOC why they should get picked. Now, it'll be the USOC asking the bid cities (whichever ones they choose to contact in the first place) why they should get picked. It's exactly like you said.. they want more control and to form a better relationship with whatever city they might choose to bid with. And I think it's a very smart strategy to go with.

That said, we'll still have plenty to talk about here (as from the usual rampant speculation, of course). If the USOC is courting a city, say Chicago, there's a good chance someone will report on it. If businesses and government officials are responding to the USOC, we'll probably hear about that as well. The difference will be that since you don't have cities fairly openly campaigning, there's no need for them to create websites and make public statements in an attempt to win votes. Sure, whoever gets selected will have to drum up public support, but the onus will be on the USOC to make the decision rather than having the whole thing look and feel like a popularity contest. And again, hopefully the sum total of all this is a more prepared bid that has a better chance of winning the big prize.

Yes! Amen to that.

It will also save these cities a lot of unnecessary expense and effort on a domestic process. They can focus on the international part of the campaign instead. Smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it really comes down to asking interested, Summer-eligible cities (I mean, really only 5) the following:

1. Can you finance an 80,000 Olympic stadium?

2. Can you finance a 2,800-3,000-unit village (or campuses if need be)?

3. Can you build/revamp/present 25 various other stadia, arenas?

4. Do you have $40- 50 million seed money to throw away?

5. Can you (and your state) afford all of the above? B)

6. Share with us your after-Games scenario.

That's really it. The USOC will judge and determine the city's marketability.

Even with those questions, I think the USOC would only be talking to 3 eligible cites (NYC, LA and Philly. San Francisco and Chicago are out for the most part in the next few rounds.)

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it really comes down to asking interested, Summer-eligible cities (I mean, really only 5) the following:

1. Can you finance an 80,000 Olympic stadium?

2. Can you finance a 2,800-3,000-unit village (or campuses if need be)?

3. Can you build/revamp/present 25 various other stadia, arenas?

4. Do you have $40- 50 million seed money to throw away?

5. Can you (and your state) afford all of the above? B)

6. Share with us your after-Games scenario.

That's really it. The USOC will judge and determine the city's marketability.

Even with those questions, I think the USOC would only be talking to 3 eligible cites (NYC, LA and Philly. San Francisco and Chicago are out for the most part in the next few rounds.)

I agree. SanFran is out for 2024. Its a beautiful city and the olympics would be great there, but i don't think that financially it would be the smartest idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. SanFran is out for 2024. Its a beautiful city and the olympics would be great there, but i don't think that financially it would be the smartest idea.

Well, it really comes down to asking interested, Summer-eligible cities (I mean, really only 5) the following:

1. Can you finance an 80,000 Olympic stadium?

2. Can you finance a 2,800-3,000-unit village (or campuses if need be)?

3. Can you build/revamp/present 25 various other stadia, arenas?

4. Do you have $40- 50 million seed money to throw away?

5. Can you (and your state) afford all of the above? B)

6. Share with us your after-Games scenario.

That's really it. The USOC will judge and determine the city's marketability.

Even with those questions, I think the USOC would only be talking to 3 eligible cites (NYC, LA and Philly. San Francisco and Chicago are out for the most part in the next few rounds.)

Also, there are many other questions that need to be answered before a city even thinks about bidding.

-Does the city have an international airport in the area?

-Do they have public transportation?

-Do they have any major league sports teams?

-Is the city large enough?

-Are they an international city?

These questions should be answered before they start bidding. And if they don't go 4/4 then they should not even have a chance at bidding.

Well, it really comes down to asking interested, Summer-eligible cities (I mean, really only 5) the following:

1. Can you finance an 80,000 Olympic stadium?

2. Can you finance a 2,800-3,000-unit village (or campuses if need be)?

3. Can you build/revamp/present 25 various other stadia, arenas?

4. Do you have $40- 50 million seed money to throw away?

5. Can you (and your state) afford all of the above? B)

6. Share with us your after-Games scenario.

That's really it. The USOC will judge and determine the city's marketability.

Even with those questions, I think the USOC would only be talking to 3 eligible cites (NYC, LA and Philly. San Francisco and Chicago are out for the most part in the next few rounds.)

Also, there are many other questions that need to be answered before a city even thinks about bidding.

-Does the city have an international airport in the area?

-Do they have public transportation?

-Do they have any major league sports teams?

-Is the city large enough?

-Are they an international city?

These questions should be answered before they start bidding. And if they don't go 4/4 then they should not even have a chance at bidding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it really comes down to asking interested, Summer-eligible cities (I mean, really only 5) the following:

1. Can you finance an 80,000 Olympic stadium?

2. Can you finance a 2,800-3,000-unit village (or campuses if need be)?

3. Can you build/revamp/present 25 various other stadia, arenas?

4. Do you have $40- 50 million seed money to throw away?

5. Can you (and your state) afford all of the above? B)

6. Share with us your after-Games scenario.

That's really it. The USOC will judge and determine the city's marketability.

Even with those questions, I think the USOC would only be talking to 3 eligible cites (NYC, LA and Philly. San Francisco and Chicago are out for the most part in the next few rounds.)

For the most part, I agree. I do think that the USOC will dig into potential corporate sponsors.

Of course my main point of divergence is Chicago. I have no EXPECTATION that they will be in the conversation, but I certainly HOPE they will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there are many other questions that need to be answered before a city even thinks about bidding.

-Does the city have an international airport in the area?

-Do they have public transportation?

-Do they have any major league sports teams?

-Is the city large enough?

-Are they an international city?

These questions should be answered before they start bidding. And if they don't go 4/4 then they should not even have a chance at bidding.

They shouldn't even have to ask those. Those are all givens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yeah......i forgot

I mean outside of LA, NYC and maybe Philly, they won't waste their time. Dallas, Houston, DC, down the line are no-go's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...