Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's in part because there are 4 tennis majors every year, all with very extensive television coverage, that also happen to be at the same 4 venues every year. I'm amazed sometimes at the crowds they get for the U.S. Open, but a lot of that is being in New York City with all sorts of sponsors lined up to get a piece of the action. Contrast that with say, a FINA World Championships which are a 1 shot deal that isn't as guaranteed to be a success.

And Potato.. you said if they have small championships in a city, it will get attention. baron is talking about having the Figure Skating World Championships at a city in the United States and how it could be a successful. Gymnastics I bet could have some success as well. Beyond that though, a swimming worlds or a track & field worlds get to the point where they may be more trouble than they're worth. Hence why they're a tough sell for any U.S. city to take on.

Well, some cities/metropolitan areas have hosted IAAF and FINA tournaments, even if they weren't the major ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why USA hasn't hosted a FINA Aquatics WC? Every city that host it constructs a temporary major venue usually

From what I remember reading, FINA was less than happy with Montreal back in 2005. I believe they built a temporary outdoor venue (as opposed to most cities now which build a pool into an existing arena) and it didn't go over well. Supposedly that made FINA less than excited about returning to North America. But as noted, hosting an event like that is an expensive proposition that most cities won't find it being worth the expense. Let alone that it probably holds little value as a springboard (pun intended) towards bidding for an Olympics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. I don't know what you'er talking about anymore

Pls connect that post with your post immediately preceding it. I qualified your comment about (holding) "...small (world) championships." Perhaps of the major annual world championships, the US has hosted the Figure Skating one most of the time even in...as you alluded to...small cities like Hartford, Cincinnati, Oakland...because it is a relatively easy event to stage WITH a very large guarantee of financial success--something already explained by Athens & Quaker that FINA or IAAF championships cannot do.

And which is why I also posit that it is much easier for the US to host a Winter Olympics like clockwork every 20 or so years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pls connect that post with your post immediately preceding it. I qualified your comment about (holding) "...small (world) championships." Perhaps of the major annual world championships, the US has hosted the Figure Skating one most of the time even in...as you alluded to...small cities like Hartford, Cincinnati, Oakland...because it is a relatively easy event to stage WITH a very large guarantee of financial success--something already explained by Athens & Quaker that FINA or IAAF championships cannot do.

And which is why I also posit that it is much easier for the US to host a Winter Olympics like clockwork every 20 or so years.

The summer games are the more popular and are more well known. If the US puts up a compact bid for a summer games but they come in second, why go for winter bid, when the next summer would be almost guaranteed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I remember reading, FINA was less than happy with Montreal back in 2005. I believe they built a temporary outdoor venue (as opposed to most cities now which build a pool into an existing arena) and it didn't go over well. Supposedly that made FINA less than excited about returning to North America. But as noted, hosting an event like that is an expensive proposition that most cities won't find it being worth the expense. Let alone that it probably holds little value as a springboard (pun intended) towards bidding for an Olympics

Montreal used its 1976 Olympic venue and the event was successful. However what FINA did not like was it had to strip Montreal of the event in January of the same year because there were no financial guarantees, and it gave it back later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The summer games are the more popular and are more well known. If the US puts up a compact bid for a summer games but they come in second, why go for winter bid, when the next summer would be almost guaranteed

Uh-huh. And with only really 3 prospective US candidate cities perhaps in the next 3 rounds, what chances are there of that happening? :blink: Over 260 pages of discussion have already been expended here on the subject.

Realistically, the only possible US summer bid cities are New York (perhaps in Flushing) and if Philly can scrape together a decent bid (and if the USOC thinks it is battle-worthy). LA, with its same old venues, you put up against a weak competition (Busan, Kiev, Tirana, etc.) -- but not up vs. Paris or St. Petersburg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh-huh. And with only really 3 prospective US candidate cities perhaps in the next 3 rounds, what chances are there of that happening? :blink: Over 260 pages of discussion have already been expended here on the subject.

Realistically, the only possible US summer bid cities are New York (perhaps in Flushing) and if Philly can scrape together a decent bid (and if the USOC thinks it is battle-worthy). LA, with its same old venues, you put up against a weak competition (Busan, Kiev, Tirana, etc.) -- but not up vs. Paris or St. Petersburg.

But Baron, you're staring your personal hypotheses as fact.

We have no idea what American cities are interested in 2024. We don't know who the competition will be.

You are making informed guesses, but they are most definitely guesses.

The truth is we have to wait for more definitive information.

Typo. Read: "stating your personal opinion"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no idea what American cities are interested in 2024.

C'mon, tune your deductive reasoning more finely...

Do u really think the USOC will put Dallas, DC or Houston forward and hope to win?

And anything after that, down the line, is also winnable material?? :rolleyes:

Don't you *hate* it when people do that.

Yeah, doncha?? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I remember reading, FINA was less than happy with Montreal back in 2005. I believe they built a temporary outdoor venue (as opposed to most cities now which build a pool into an existing arena) and it didn't go over well. Supposedly that made FINA less than excited about returning to North America. But as noted, hosting an event like that is an expensive proposition that most cities won't find it being worth the expense. Let alone that it probably holds little value as a springboard (pun intended) towards bidding for an Olympics

A FINA WC or an IAAF WC are more expensive than Olympics??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I acknowledged you offered an educated guess. The FACT is that there is no public information available on the USOC's plans for 2024 -- if such plans even exist.

Well, it's a either a go or no. Now, just imagine which cities it would put up? Boston? Seattle? Cleveland? Vegas? etc. etc. Which of those would have a CHANCE of winning, and which one would they put through to spend $40 - 50 million for a 1-in-4 shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They honestly shouldn't waste their energy on a 2024 bid. It's too early after Rio, and it's Europe's time in '24. Instead, they should face off against whatever other bids there are in 2028. By then, the USOC will have had enough time to prepare a quality bid that will convince the IOC. Concerning the choice of cities: Please, not another comparable backwater like Atlanta (with apologies to all Georgians in the forum) - they ought to go with a city with high name ID like San Francisco, Los Angeles or NYC.

Washington DC is well-known, but given the city's problems and its bad reputation throughout Middle America, you can't sell it to the USOC (let alone the IOC). After all, every American politician worth his salt has at some point campaigned against "Washington". So, there is a negative connotation. Just like a Detroit bid today would stand for urban decay and a failing economy.

Like it or not, the coastal cities just have that certain "extra": NYC is the city that never sleeps, whilst SF and LA bask in the Californian sunshine. I'd probably favour LA, just to see how they would re-imagine the Olympic Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They honestly shouldn't waste their energy on a 2024 bid. It's too early after Rio, and it's Europe's time in '24. Instead, they should face off against whatever other bids there are in 2028. By then, the USOC will have had enough time to prepare a quality bid that will convince the IOC. Concerning the choice of cities: Please, not another comparable backwater like Atlanta (with apologies to all Georgians in the forum) - they ought to go with a city with high name ID like San Francisco, Los Angeles or NYC.

Washington DC is well-known, but given the city's problems and its bad reputation throughout Middle America, you can't sell it to the USOC (let alone the IOC). After all, every American politician worth his salt has at some point campaigned against "Washington". So, there is a negative connotation. Just like a Detroit bid today would stand for urban decay and a failing economy.

Like it or not, the coastal cities just have that certain "extra": NYC is the city that never sleeps, whilst SF and LA bask in the Californian sunshine. I'd probably favour LA, just to see how they would re-imagine the Olympic Games.

I don't think it would be too early. 2004 and 2012 both in Europe. 2002 and 2010 both in North America. I don't think the continents will effect in an American 2024 bid, unless 2022 is held in NA, but that's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They honestly shouldn't waste their energy on a 2024 bid. It's too early after Rio, and it's Europe's time in '24. Instead, they should face off against whatever other bids there are in 2028. By then, the USOC will have had enough time to prepare a quality bid that will convince the IOC. Concerning the choice of cities: Please, not another comparable backwater like Atlanta (with apologies to all Georgians in the forum) - they ought to go with a city with high name ID like San Francisco, Los Angeles or NYC.

Washington DC is well-known, but given the city's problems and its bad reputation throughout Middle America, you can't sell it to the USOC (let alone the IOC). After all, every American politician worth his salt has at some point campaigned against "Washington". So, there is a negative connotation. Just like a Detroit bid today would stand for urban decay and a failing economy.

Like it or not, the coastal cities just have that certain "extra": NYC is the city that never sleeps, whilst SF and LA bask in the Californian sunshine. I'd probably favour LA, just to see how they would re-imagine the Olympic Games.

That's it. Superficially, you'd think the US would have a dozen cities to offer. Yes, on a cloudy day. But on a bright, clear sunlit day, it--as I have often said -- is only down to possibly 5 (NYC, Chicago, LA, SF and maybe Philly) -- realistically, logistically, popularity-wise. Now to cut it down to size even farther:

1. NYC is the best possibility. If they can angle for a fuller Olympic Park in Flushing w/ Village closeby, it would be all but unbeatable. IF.

2. Chicago - badly burned after 2009. Probably, their wounds might heal by the mid-20s, but will the populace really be razzed for another try? Doubtful.

3. LA - an also ran. Would only emerge strong if the rest of the field is weak (maybe a Busan, a Kiev, a Delhi, a Nairobi) but against Paris, Msocow or St. Pete, even a Toronto -- I don't know. Restoring the track to the Coliseum & then taking it out again (USC really has no use for it long-term) would be another $1.2 million for that task alone. And the IOC would rather have LA as their back-up city.

4. SF - always a beautiful bridesmaid but never the bride. There is no compelling reason for them to build an Olympic stadium...even a cheaper $250 million temporary one might be a hard sell in a very contentious, self-righteous 'liberal' city. The 49ers have sailed away. If Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg and Sergey Bringy contribute $250 million each, SF could have an Olympic stadium. But what are those chances?

5. Philly? Again, discussed ad infinitum. If Comcast is willing to front Olympic stadium costs, and Pennsylvania's economy is in the pink again, maybe,

Any others after the above aren't even worth discussing.

So, in effect, realistically there are only 2.5 choices within the next decade. And all the crucial pins are very IFFY!

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

That's it. Superficially, you'd think the US would have a dozen cities to offer. Yes, on a cloudy day. But on a bright, clear sunlit day, it--as I have often said -- is only down to possibly 5 (NYC, Chicago, LA, SF and maybe Philly) -- realistically, logistically, popularity-wise. Now to cut it down to size even farther:

1. NYC is the best possibility. If they can angle for a fuller Olympic Park in Flushing w/ Village closeby, it would be all but unbeatable. IF.

2. Chicago - badly burned after 2009. Probably, their wounds might heal by the mid-20s, but will the populace really be razzed for another try? Doubtful.

3. LA - an also ran. Would only emerge strong if the rest of the field is weak (maybe a Busan, a Kiev, a Delhi, a Nairobi) but against Paris, Msocow or St. Pete, even a Toronto -- I don't know. Restoring the track to the Coliseum & then taking it out again (USC really has no use for it long-term) would be another $1.2 million for that task alone. And the IOC would rather have LA as their back-up city.

4. SF - always a beautiful bridesmaid but never the bride. There is no compelling reason for them to build an Olympic stadium...even a cheaper $250 million temporary one might be a hard sell in a very contentious, self-righteous 'liberal' city. The 49ers have sailed away. If Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg and Sergey Bringy contribute $250 million each, SF could have an Olympic stadium. But what are those chances?

5. Philly? Again, discussed ad infinitum. If Comcast is willing to front Olympic stadium costs, and Pennsylvania's economy is in the pink again, maybe,

Any others after the above aren't even worth discussing.

So, in effect, realistically there are only 2.5 choices within the next decade. And all the crucial pins are very IFFY!

I couldn't agree more. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Times change though. The landscape will not look the same in ten years. Chicago is not going to be gunshy forever. LA is NOT an also ran. Whose to say what will happen with SF or NYC or Dallas or Philadelphia? It's just too soon to make blanket statements about future American Summer Games.

I absolutely do not believe 2024 is reserved for Europe. They could get 2020 and 2022, making Europe 2024 a very tough sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Times change though. The landscape will not look the same in ten years. Chicago is not going to be gunshy forever. LA is NOT an also ran. Whose to say what will happen with SF or NYC or Dallas or Philadelphia? It's just too soon to make blanket statements about future American Summer Games.

I absolutely do not believe 2024 is reserved for Europe. They could get 2020 and 2022, making Europe 2024 a very tough sell.

That would still leave Africa and Asia. And if Tokyo doesn't get the games in 2020, they'll probably be in the race for 2024. Not to some African countries that may be interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas

With the new $1.2 billion A/C'ed Cowboys stadium, they're going to put up another $750 million T&F stadium? :blink: They aren't that rich!

Besides, any of the southeastern American cities smell...'Atlanta.' I wouldn't vote for them if I were on the USOC board. Total waste of money.

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

With the new $1.2 billion A/C'ed Cowboys stadium, they're going to put up another $750 million T&F stadium? :blink: They aren't that rich!

Besides, any of the southeastern American cities smell...'Atlanta.' I wouldn't vote for them if I were on the USOC board. Total waste of money.

I agree. Nothing appeals to me about Dallas, and what would be there olympic legacy? No teams in Dallas need a new stadium, and no teams are planning to move there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...