USA 2024

[PyroKinesis]

If Dallas makes it to the bidding, they will make it through the first 3 rounds, only to lose in the final round, sort of like the Cowboys.

[PotatoChips]

If Dallas makes it to the bidding, they will make it through the first 3 rounds, only to lose in the final round, sort of like the Cowboys.

I'm not sure if you're serious? Or if you just were making a joke???

[PotatoChips]

If Dallas makes it to the bidding, they will make it through the first 3 rounds, only to lose in the final round, sort of like the Cowboys.

If you're not joking, I don't think that Dallas will get far.

[Quaker2001]

1. Dallas is horrible in the summer.

2. It's too much like Atlanta.

3. Besides, Durban is going to get 2024 anyway.

1. I wasn't posting in support of Dallas, merely to imply there's interest.

2. See point 1

3. STFU about Durban. Seriously. This is why these threads turns toxic, because all you had to say was you don't think Dallas will do it. You proclaimed South Africa would definitely bid for 2020 are you were WRONG. Give it a rest.

If Dallas makes it to the bidding, they will make it through the first 3 rounds, only to lose in the final round, sort of like the Cowboys.

Final round? If Dallas makes it through 3 rounds, that's 2 rounds longer than the Cowboys have survived TOTAL in the past 15 years

[baron-pierreIV]

. You proclaimed South Africa would definitely bid for 2020 are you were WRONG. Give it a rest.

No, YOU STFU!!

Excuse me. When did I say that?

I never said it. Rogge did! And even if I did, so sue me!

There is topic for Durban if you like, please

Don't be an IDIOT. All these threads cross-over at some point or another. It's NOT like you starting totally idiotic, unconnected threads!

[George_D]

does anyone know sth for the new santa clause stadium in San Fransisco ?

[baron-pierreIV]

does anyone know sth for the new santa clause stadium in San Fransisco ?

I'd answer your question if you spoke English somewhat articulated what the hell u wanted to ask.

[Quaker2001]

Since this all has much more to do with 2024 and less to do with 2022/2026, let's move this to the thread where it belongs (which could use some reviving anyway)...

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?

Athens, I'm not pleading for anything. I'm trying to explain how I view the situation so you don't have to say "you seem to feel that.." without you completely missing the mark, which you did in your previous post.

The thing to keep in mind is that these stories don't report themselves. Given that we're in the very early stages of future Olympic bidding (we're only 15 months removed from the USOC passing over a 2020 bid and, for now, still in limbo about their plans for 2024), it's not like you're going to have a ton of journalists seeking out information on Olympic bidding. Now if the USOC comes out and says they're definitely bidding for 2024, you can bet that will get the attention of many reporters and they'll probably start asking some questions. There's little reason for them to be too many reporters interested in doing that now, so yes, if someone is being done under the radar, there's a good chance we won't hear too much. And you're absolutely right that the USOC could be thinking that they don't make a big deal about their 2024 plans if they don't want to attract too much attention, even though there is some upside to doing that.

Also, keep in mind there's a vast difference between a city "making noise" with public declarations and a reporter chasing a story. There's little reason for organizers (in a city like Dallas, for example, where there ARE organizers who we know for a fact were on the ground in London) to make anything public if they don't want to. But if someone from Dallas or wherever is reporting on their Olympic bid prospects, we're going to hear about it. That's why when I see an article with the tone of "our city would be great for the Olympics" without referencing anyone or any sort of planning, I'm somewhat skeptical if there is actual planning going on. As opposed to a more serious journalistic article which says "I talked to so-and-so and he told me.." The former reveals little and often leaves more questions than it answers and to me. The latter is where you get your information from. The former, to me, is not "buzz" and certainly isn't really an indication of interest. The latter is both.

So, to your earlier point.. yes, there is a definitely an element of all this, both from the USOC's perspective and the cities they might be dealing with, where timing is important. And all indications are that the USOC wants to handle the whole bid process a lot differently than they have in the past. But, as you like to remind me.. we don't know what the USOC's intentions are. Regardless of what those intentions are, there's only so much they can control the flow of information. There are upsides and downsides to both strategies, either announcing their intentions for 2024 earlier or waiting on it until later. A lot can and probably will happen behind the scenes (how else would the Salt Lake folks know about what the USOC is thinking for 2024) in the meantime. I still maintain though that if there is information out there AND someone is looking to report that information, we're going to hear about it. Where we don't hear anything simply means those 2 elements haven't come together.

[Athensfan]

I think you underestimate the power players and over-estimate the media's reach/interest.

The point is that the USOC isn't going to announce that they're targeting 2024 unless they know they've got at least one solid contender. They will have gotten that sense without any journalists picking up the story. That will mean it's got to be possible to begin planning a bid without the media covering it.

Of course if the USOC targets 2026 instead it'll be a totally different matter with different points to debate.

[Quaker2001]

I think you underestimate the power players and over-estimate the media's reach/interest.

The point is that the USOC isn't going to announce that they're targeting 2024 unless they know they've got at least one solid contender. They will have gotten that sense without any journalists picking up the story. That will mean it's got to be possible to begin planning a bid without the media covering it.

Of course if the USOC targets 2026 instead it'll be a totally different matter with different points to debate.

Over-estimating their interest, maybe. Over-estimating the media's reach?.. I doubt it. Maybe it's just that it was just baseball winter meetings week, but I've seen too many instances of rumors and reports coming out about a player or team because someone sought the story. Now with something like the Olympics, maybe there's no one out there interested in the subject matter so it's not going to get reported. Maybe he hears about a phone conversation between whomever and it's not worth the column space. But when I see what got reported in Dallas (which, once again, I'll continue to bring up until someone acknowledges that there's very specific interest from that city), it seems like a cop out to say that just because nothing is being reported from another city isn't a signal there isn't interest. Especially since I still don't buy into this concept that a city would try to keep their plans under wraps for the sake of keeping their plan under wraps. And considering we're only 4 months removed from a lot of media thinking about talking about the Olympics, it would have been hard to not notice a city planning for the Olympics, particularly one like Dallas which has an organizing committee and had people on the ground in London. If it got reported that they were there but nothing got reported with, say, New York and Chicago, I don't think it's that far of a leap to think maybe neither of those cities was actively planning anything.

Aside from all that.. of course the USOC can do their research without the media keying into it. But there's a big step from the USOC gauging interest to a city planning a bid. That's not so easy to keep quiet and I don't see why it needs to be kept quiet. It's easy for someone in a particular city to say "yea, we'd like to take a look at 2024." That's different from active planning. I don't want this to get lost in semantics here (and not just because I'll hear it from baron), but to me that's an important distinction to make because without active planning, how is the USOC supposed to know if they have a solid contender? The flip side of that is which cities will actively plan without the USOC making their announcement. It's almost a chicken and the egg dilemma that they need to figure on.

[zekekelso]

The flip side of that is which cities will actively plan without the USOC making their announcement. It's almost a chicken and the egg dilemma that they need to figure on.

There's no need for a city to wait on the USOC to start planning/campaigning for a bid. In fact, it's just the opposite. There is every reason for a city to be loud and vocal. That's the whole point... the committees are trying to drum up support... locally, with the USOC and worldwide.

Look at the cities on the Winter side. They sure aren't waiting on the USOC.

[paul]

It’s prestigious for the IOC to have any US city bid, and it’s prestigious for the IOC to reject the US bids in a vote, that’s a lose-lose scenario for us. I just don’t see that attitude ending for a long time, or until a future host city screws up their games and the IOC needs a big American games to get back on track.

[Quaker2001]

There's no need for a city to wait on the USOC to start planning/campaigning for a bid. In fact, it's just the opposite. There is every reason for a city to be loud and vocal. That's the whole point... the committees are trying to drum up support... locally, with the USOC and worldwide.

Look at the cities on the Winter side. They sure aren't waiting on the USOC.

Yes and no, I think. Whatever cities are thinking about 2024 should be planning/campaigning, but I don't think they necessarily need to be all loud and vocal. They certainly don't need to take it so far as to what Salt Lake and Reno have done and made very public announcements. Again, Dallas (which once again, I'll continue to bring up) is a good example of how to go about these things. They have an organizing group in place. The leader of said group was in London. I'm sure he got some good information from an in-progress Olympics. He did a couple of interviews, nothing major. It's not like he had to issue press releases over what they are doing. But now, whenever the USOC makes their intentions for 2024 known (and I think they're better served doing that sooner rather than later.. there needs to be at least some transparency in the process), then Dallas can come forward and say "we've been working at this for a while now, we're ready to work with the USOC."

It’s prestigious for the IOC to have any US city bid, and it’s prestigious for the IOC to reject the US bids in a vote, that’s a lose-lose scenario for us. I just don’t see that attitude ending for a long time, or until a future host city screws up their games and the IOC needs a big American games to get back on track.

I don't think they take pride in rejecting U.S. bids. As we've said plenty of times over here, New York 2012 wasn't destined to happen. Neither was Chicago 2016. And we saw what that did that it somewhat scared off the USOC from bidding for 2020 (not to mentioned that it lowered the odds the 2 biggest U.S. cities never to host an Olympics will be interested in entering the fray again). There might still be some lingering anti-American attitudes within the IOC, but with the revenue deal in the rear-view mirror and as more time passes from 1996, the chances of a U.S. host getting selected for a Summer Olympics increase. I don't think it's going to take a revelation like that from the IOC before an American host gets selected. But there is a lot of competition out there, so it's always going to make it difficult for an American city to win.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\/\ Uh-huh.

[zekekelso]

Whatever cities are thinking about 2024 should be planning/campaigning, but I don't think they necessarily need to be all loud and vocal. They certainly don't need to take it so far as to what Salt Lake and Reno have done and made very public announcements. Again, Dallas (which once again, I'll continue to bring up) is a good example of how to go about these things. They have an organizing group in place.

You don't have to be "loud and vocal," but I think you have to be public. The whole point of an organizing committee is to drum up support. Getting support is the hard part. Plans are relatively easy; no need to do that in secret.

What was the last US city to have an organization doing work and planning behind the scenes, while keeping themselves and activities 100% secret?

[FYI]

I've also brought up the point of citizenry support, which is also an important element for any Olympic bid. I just don't see how you would be able to garner good levels of that if things are kept under wraps for too long. Just doesn't make too much sense.

[paul]

I've read many times around here how most if not all the past US hosts won by default or desperation or cheating, so have any past US hosts won in a multi city race that went to vote? I have the impression that US cities only win if there is no other alternative, at least on many occasions in the past.

When you are #1 at anything there are a lot of people gunning for you and very happy to try to tear you down, that’s just a fact of human nature; somebody else always wants what you have. I chalk up most of the anti-Americanism to that even though people justify their hatred on so many other issues. It’s especially pathetic to see people from countries the US has liberated, supported or subsidized lashing out like spoiled children often do during those immature years. It’s a bit tedious but expected, like a flying bug at a picnic.

[George_D]

I've read many times around here how most if not all the past US hosts won by default or desperation or cheating, so have any past US hosts won in a multi city race that went to vote? I have the impression that US cities only win if there is no other alternative, at least on many occasions in the past.

When you are #1 at anything there are a lot of people gunning for you and very happy to try to tear you down, that’s just a fact of human nature; somebody else always wants what you have. I chalk up most of the anti-Americanism to that even though people justify their hatred on so many other issues. It’s especially pathetic to see people from countries the US has liberated, supported or subsidized lashing out like spoiled children often do during those immature years. It’s a bit tedious but expected, like a flying bug at a picnic.

If all these are true then how you explain that USA has been awarded 4 times the summer olympics and 4 times the winter olympics far many times than any other country??

[aquablue]

I think NYC should bid. They don't need it at all, but they are the best chance the US has IMO if the games are all about glitz and prestige.

L.A has had it twice, it just doesn't seem fair for them to get it again.

Dallas is too vapid, dull and has no international appeal with poor transport-- OUT.

San Francisco is too small and cramped, too many NIMBY's and a lack of land to develop.

DC could do it (being the capital) but it is governmental, dull, vapid and culturally uninteresting city and it is just too small as well.

NYC is supposed to be an Alpha world City, along with London and Tokyo. It is only right that they become an Olympic City and they probably have the best chance of swaying emotions of voters. NYC has global cache.

No other city in the country should even attempt.

I must correct something.. DC is culturally interesting in certain areas, but not when it comes to culture that has a global appeal.

Also, I forgot Chicago, but then again, they were never going to bid again so soon..

I also meant that no other city other than those on that list I wrote should attempt.

Another point: NYC would have a huge challenge to try and put the Olympics on, i.e, lack of land for devel, security, etc... they really shouldn't attempt at all. . However, they still have more to offer than the other choices, including plenty of industrial areas to develop, transport links that need updating, airports that need new rail links, etc... The games might be an incentive to invest in thse areas that never see any funding in NYC.

[aquablue]

Oh, and I'm not a NY'er nor do I live there. I'm just being realistic. When cities like London, Paris, Rio, etc.. are winning, does anybody really think Dallas, or even DC has a chance in the new era of big glitzy prestige games? Not a chance.

[Quaker2001]

NYC is supposed to be an Alpha world City, along with London and Tokyo. It is only right that they become an Olympic City and they probably have the best chance of swaying emotions of voters. NYC has global cache.

No other city in the country should even attempt.

Another point: NYC would have a huge challenge to try and put the Olympics on, i.e, lack of land for devel, security, etc... they really shouldn't attempt at all. . However, they still have more to offer than the other choices, including plenty of industrial areas to develop, transport links that need updating, airports that need new rail links, etc... The games might be an incentive to invest in thse areas that never see any funding in NYC.

New York IS an alpha world city. It's not in dispute for a second that they have the global cache to host the Olympics. But they still need a plan in place that will make it work. They need a person (or persons) with the vision and resources to execute that plan. It's easy to say that an Olympics would provide an opportunity for New York. That's harder to put to practice in reality, especially given what it takes merely to bid for an Olympics. As someone who does live in NYC (and has since the day I was born), I would love to see a New York Olympics in my lifetime. But I'm not exactly holding my breath that it's going to happen, especially by 2024.

[Athensfan]

it seems like a cop out to say that just because nothing is being reported from another city isn't a signal there isn't interest.

It's not a cop out. Why do you insist on interpreting absence of information as evidence? Perhaps you're right, perhaps not. Absence of information is absence of information.

As for the noisy Winter candidates. They all were gearing up for 2022. That's why they were making noise so early. Plus, when one became vocal the other two felt they had to keep pace. Reno is clearly trying to improve its image and make some sort of a name for itself. Denver and SLC felt they had to match them.

The USOC made it so clear that Summer bidding was tabled that only a crackpot hopeful (such as Tulsa or Las Vegas) would bother going public. The missing revenue deal, New York and Chicago's lossess, the USOC working so hard to mend relations with the IOC and to control the domestic evaluation -- all of it reinforces the idea that Summer bids are risky and delicate matters -- more so than Winter bids. I don't know what is or isn't in the works for 2024, but I think its a mistake to expect 2024 hopefuls to behave the same way that the 2022 hopefuls did.

[Quaker2001]

It's not a cop out. Why do you insist on interpreting absence of information as evidence? Perhaps you're right, perhaps not. Absence of information is absence of information.

See, that's just it though. When I see reports from 1 city that there is interest in the Olympics and then reports from another city give no indication of interest, why is that such a stretch to assume that maybe that 2nd city is not all that interested in the Olympics? You're trying to frame a city's approach to the Olympics (i.e. generally keeping things under wraps, not being very public, etc.) as an explanation why we're not hearing anything from a particular city. I don't assume that absence of information is merely absence of information. I'm still going with the theory that if a city is interested in hosting an Olympics (and more importantly if they're actively planning since that's a big step) that there's a pretty good chance we're going to know about it. Let me pull up my post from a few weeks ago, I think this helps illustrate my point. It also helps show the difference between a city that is VERY clearly interested in 2024 and one where a lack of evidence IS an indication that the city isn't interested...

In an effort to get some substance back into this thread (as those of us on the East coast hunker down in preparation for the arrival of Sandy), I thought we could revisit everyone's favorite question of who is interested in the 2024 Olympics. And I think we have an answer. These articles are a little dated, but I didn't see them posted elsewhere here (which is a little surprising knowing this crowd) and they definitely deserve to be shared, because sports fans.. THIS is what actual interest in an Olympic bid from a city looks like...

http://www.wfaa.com/...-166479916.html

http://www.nbcdfw.co...pics-/165202666

So what do we have here? A well formed organizing committee, including someone to lead it (that has been involved with previous Dallas efforts, not to mention bids from other cities). Evidence of planning. Carryover of efforts from previous bids. And as if that all weren't enough, the guy running the show (Matt Wood) was in London during the Olympics to survey what was going on there. I think we can very much consider Dallas an interested party for the 2024 Olympics. I'm sure we'll continue to debate the merits of our bid here, but these are the types of planning efforts a city needs to make in order to go after an Olympics. And it's all very much out in the open, as it should be.

This all is in stark contrast to what we've seen from Chicago (as posted earlier this month)..

http://www.suntimes....s-a-chance.html

http://chicago.cbslo...or-the-l-of-it/

http://www.nbcchicag...html?fullSite=y

These strike me more as opinion pieces than any sort of news to report. It's more 3 writers asking the question "gee, wouldn't it be swell if Chicago could host the Olympics?" No mentions of any people they talked to or any planning efforts that were occurring. No indication whatsoever that these things are occurring or will be occurring to their knowledge. It's where I would say that these articles not only fail to indicate there's any interest from Chicago in 2024, the way they were written suggests to me there is no interest. Either that or these writers aren't so good at gathering and reporting facts, less we're led to believe that not 1, but all 3 of them know something and don't want to share it with us.

1 more article from the folks around DC..

http://articles.balt...ition-dan-knise

Again, like the Dallas articles, it mentions people by name. It cites some key figures and says "There have been some informal discussions with people" We all know that the USOC's stance (we haven't decided on 2024 and 2026 yet) might cause some hesitation amongst potential host cities. But clearly a city like Dallas, which is actively preparing, is going to have an edge over a city that is not preparing. It might not be enough for Dallas to win the USOC's approval over a Chicago or a New York, but you have to be in it to win it. As far as I can see, Dallas is in it. Chicago, at the current time, does not appear to be.

[zekekelso]

Dallas is too vapid, dull and has no international appeal with poor transport-- OUT.

Not that I'm pushing for a Dallas bid, but it's a better option that people give it credit for. It's got decent transportation options (especially out to the fairgrounds / Cotton Bowl area) and surprisingly high international appeal thanks to the TV show.

The USOC made it so clear that Summer bidding was tabled that only a crackpot hopeful (such as Tulsa or Las Vegas) would bother going public.

Dallas had a serious committee that went public for 2020. They might not be a strong option, but they are far from crackpots.

FYI - Website for the Dallas 2024 committee - www.dallas2020.org.

[PotatoChips]

Not that I'm pushing for a Dallas bid, but it's a better option that people give it credit for. It's got decent transportation options (especially out to the fairgrounds / Cotton Bowl area) and surprisingly high international appeal thanks to the TV show.

Dallas had a serious committee that went public for 2020. They might not be a strong option, but they are far from crackpots.

FYI - Website for the Dallas 2024 committee - www.dallas2020.org.

Decent isn't good enough. If the USOC really wants the games, everything must be perfect.