Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan

Recommended Posts

Mmm I really think they might try Chicago again, its the perfect host in the US... Forget about the result in 2009, now the realationships USOC-IOC are better! But... I have the feeling that we might end up seeing Los Angeles (which isnt bad actually but the plan might be too speard)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

A little more meat here in this Insidethegames article:

USOC to start meeting potential Olympic bid cities for 2024 and 2026

December 20 - The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) have revealed that they will start meeting with cities across America next year that are interested in hosting either the 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympics or 2026 Winter Games.

The USOC Board of Directors met today at the Electronic Arts headquarters in Redwood City, California, where discussions on a bid for the Games was top of the agenda.

The full Board heard a report from the five-person bid Working Group that was set up in August this year to investigate whether the United States should bid in 2024 or 2026.

And although the Board confirmed that no firm decision has been made on which Games they will bid for, they revealed that they will be inviting cities interested in hosting either a Summer or Winter Olympics and Paralympics to speak to them next year.

"At this stage, we haven't identified a specific bid so we are still looking at both 2024 and 2026," USOC chairman Larry Probst said in a conference call following the meeting.

"The Working Group outlined a timeline for the bid process and how that will work.

"We also looked at the domestic process and from next year, we will be inviting any cities interested in hosting 2024 or 2026 to come and speak with us.

"We will be putting out a statement in the first quarter of next year about how cities can get in touch with us so that is where we are right now.

"What we want to do is put forward a bid that we feel has a strong chance of winning and now that we have settled the revenue sharing dispute with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), we are in a good place for a bid."

USOC chief executive Scott Blackman made it clear that the Board does not want to see the domestic host city selection process become too expensive.

In recent years, American cities have spent millions in bidding internally to become the US Applicant City.

New York were selected in 2012 and Chicago in 2016 but both bid cities lost out to London and Rio de Janeiro respectively.

"Selecting a bid city is subjective process and we really want it to be a cost effective domestic process," Blackmun said.

"In the past, that hasn't always been the case but we don't want to see cities spending too much.

"Our message is that we want to talk to anybody that wants to talk to us about a bid and we will provide more details on that process early next year.

"Even with a 2024 bid, we still have until 2015 until we need to make a firm decide so we definitely have time on our side.

"I don't think we will have made any final decision on a bid, even by next year, but we want to be more informed and smarter by the end of 2013 than we are at the beginning."

Probst and Blackmun made it clear that the Working Group will continue to exist in helping them evaluate a bid.

Many experts are predicting that the USOC will eventually decide on a 2024 Summer Games bid as it would be far more lucrative, if successful, than a winning 2026 Winter Games bid.

New York City, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles and Philadelphia are just some of the cities now likely to put their name forward to the USOC to host the 2024 event.

Meanwhile Denver, Reno-Tahoe and Salt Lake City are likely to approach the USOC about a 2026 Winter Games.

All three cities prepared bids for 2022 before the USOC ruled out a move for the 2022 Winter Games.

"We are looking around internationally at other cities that we might end up bidding against but this is still early on in the process," added Probst.

"Right now we our focus is very much on ourselves and on preparing the best possible United States bid."

Insidethegames

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given what we're seeing, I don't think this could come as a big surprise. Chicago and New York don't seem to be out there. California has money issues so that hurts both Los Angeles and San Francisco. And who knows what the USOC would seriously consider below that.

Reading between the lines here would seem to indicate that the USOC is probably not that confident about what they have to work with going into 2024. It's not like they have to make their intentions known at this point, let alone mention any cities, but this non-committal stance of theirs definitely has me wondering if they believe they have a decent shot at landing 2024.

I read it differently. If they felt they had no good candidates for 2024 and liked the choices for 2026, why recommend "ongoing exploration"? What's the point?

There are only two possible reasons for this decision:

1.) the situation is genuinely unclear which must mean they see real potential for both races.

2.) they don't want to tip their hand and want to see who else bids for what.

If they already thought 2026 was the only possibility, they would've decided to focus on that bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it differently. If they felt they had no good candidates for 2024 and liked the choices for 2026, why recommend "ongoing exploration"? What's the point?

There are only two possible reasons for this decision:

1.) the situation is genuinely unclear which must mean they see real potential for both races.

"We are looking around internationally at other cities that we might end up bidding against but this is still early on in the process," added Probst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the "potential" for both races is always there. But at this point, it appears that the USOC is wagering now.

That last article mentioned how they want to "invite" cities sometime next year who would like to hold either event. So it's very clear now that there was never any "behind the scenes" activities going on, like some here always liked to suggest, particularly in the summer category.

The thing is, they already have the cream of the crop for the winter category. I can't think of anyone else that could possibly be that much better than SLC or Denver. Perhaps maybe Portland, but they're likely not interested.

So it would appear that they're hoping that one of the Alpha cities have a change of heart for a summer bid & throw their hat in the ring. Considering everything else that's already been talked about, I'd still say that LA is the most likely one to come out & make a play if that were case..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's dissect some of the info in the article..

"At this stage, we haven't identified a specific bid so we are still looking at both 2024 and 2026," USOC chairman Larry Probst said in a conference call following the meeting.

"The Working Group outlined a timeline for the bid process and how that will work.

"We also looked at the domestic process and from next year, we will be inviting any cities interested in hosting 2024 or 2026 to come and speak with us.

"We will be putting out a statement in the first quarter of next year about how cities can get in touch with us so that is where we are right now.

........

"Our message is that we want to talk to anybody that wants to talk to us about a bid and we will provide more details on that process early next year.

"Even with a 2024 bid, we still have until 2015 until we need to make a firm decide so we definitely have time on our side.

"I don't think we will have made any final decision on a bid, even by next year, but we want to be more informed and smarter by the end of 2013 than we are at the beginning."

This definitely looks different than the bid process they've had in the past. But what it does infer is that they have little clue what's out there right now and are still feel things out. Athens, I think you're 100% right that the situation is unclear and they still don't know which direction to go. Almost seems like, for better or worse, they haven't necessarily done too much to figure things out yet that they haven't really even initiated the process. But I could see the logic in laying this all out now in order to get the gears turning in prospective cities before they start officially soliciting cities.

Here's the 1 part of the article that bothers me a little bit though..

New York City, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles and Philadelphia are just some of the cities now likely to put their name forward to the USOC to host the 2024 event.

And we're basing this on.. what? I still maintain that "a city" can't put its name forward. Someone within that city has to step up and make that phone call (since the USOC is accepting calls from any interested city rather than them making the calls). Again, hopefully this announcement is the encouragement needed to get that going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the 1 part of the article that bothers me a little bit though..

And we're basing this on.. what? I still maintain that "a city" can't put its name forward. Someone within that city has to step up and make that phone call (since the USOC is accepting calls from any interested city rather than them making the calls). Again, hopefully this announcement is the encouragement needed to get that going.

Exactly - it's like they're just taking the info from old AP articles. Until something more significant gets mentioned, this is nothing but rumor & mere speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, it's totally possible the USOC has had private conversations with some leaders and would still invite expressions of interest. It's also possible those expressions of interest could later become private conversations.

I'm surprised the USOC is being so open. To be honest, they're sort if changing their tune. They formerly said there would be no domestic bid process. This did suggest a fairly quiet, closed door approach. However, now they're saying they want the domestic bid process to be less expensive. That has a totally different ring to it. It sounds to me like they're changing their minds and not quite sure how to proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, is Dallas/LA/Philly crazy enuf to spend $50 mil for starters, for something that isn't sure? And if RSA or Rome or Paris throw down the gauntlet, what are the chances of LA or Dallas? :blink: You/they have to know who the competition will be before investing any more $$. blood. sweat & tears in this crazy quest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, is Dallas/LA/Philly crazy enuf to spend $50 mil for starters, for something that isn't sure? And if RSA or Rome or Paris throw down the gauntlet, what are the chances of LA or Dallas? :blink: You/they have to know who the competition will be before investing any more $$. blood. sweat & tears in this crazy quest.

That's all well and good, but you're not going to know going into the process. Sure you can wait until the last minute to submit the application, but if you're trying to prep these cities and pick a candidate in advance, that's a tough sell to say to a city they're going for it if it means you're going to pull the rug out from under them at the moment of truth. Especially if you're going all in for 2024 and not considering 2026, although at that point you have 2 years to get that in order and we know there are candidates there that are chomping at the bit for the USOC to invite their phone calls.

I'm surprised the USOC is being so open. To be honest, they're sort if changing their tune. They formerly said there would be no domestic bid process. This did suggest a fairly quiet, closed door approach. However, now they're saying they want the domestic bid process to be less expensive. That has a totally different ring to it. It sounds to me like they're changing their minds and not quite sure how to proceed.

This doesn't seem like changing their tune to me. They said the process would be different and this does seem different. It's not a formal bid process like we've had in the past. This seems much more quiet and self-contained than before. I think this is the right way to go though, where the cities come to them rather than them going to the cities (as if that's even that sensible in the first place). If someone from Tulsa or some other city does to them that they're not interested in, they can simply say "thanks, but no thanks" and we don't have to hear about them. The USOC can tell them not to waste their time rather than those wide-eyed Tulsa businessmen still trying to pitch themselves as if they have any chance of appealing to the USOC. For me, that's not so far off from what I thought we were expecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only two possible reasons for this decision:

1.) the situation is genuinely unclear which must mean they see real potential for both races.

2.) they don't want to tip their hand and want to see who else bids for what.

There are many other possibilities... they see little potential for both, there is disagreement within the members, they are incompetent idiots, etc.



IDK maybe to thwart other cities??? For ex, New York makes noise and then other cities decided to enter because of that.

I think you have it exactly backwards. If you want to thwart other cities, you *announce*, not keep things secret and have other cities see an opening.



Either way I think the USA is the favourite for 2024 or 2026

Any strong bid from the US may be a favorite. But until we see such a bid, it's hard to say we are anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only two possible reasons for this decision:

1.) the situation is genuinely unclear which must mean they see real potential for both races.

2.) they don't want to tip their hand and want to see who else bids for what.

There are many other possibilities... they see little potential for both, there is disagreement within the members, they are incompetent idiots, etc.

I think you have it exactly backwards. If you want to thwart other cities, you *announce*, not keep things secret and have other cities see an opening.

Let me address your alternate explanations:

1.) if there is little potential for either, why issue a press release and announce an ongoing process? Why did Anita DeFrantz, head of the exploratory committee, say a bid would be forthcoming we just didn't know when or with which city?

2.) Disagreement among the members falls under my first hypothesis. In that case it would be genuinely unclear how to proceed because there would be arguments (and potential) on both sides.

3.) If they are incompetent idiots, why are they doing so much careful research and planning 3 years before the application deadline? How have they managed to repair IOC relations in a relatively short period of time? How did they help maintain the US' high-caliber athletics during a prolonged economic downturn?

4.) as for your argument about it being better to declare early, I don't see the wisdom in that. For one, they clearly haven't settled on a candidate so they cannot declare early. Next, although I agree with Quaker that they cannot expect to get all the data they might want before submitting a bid, they can get more information than what they've got right now. For example, it definitely makes sense to wait until after the 2020 vote. The US faces a different scenario for 2024 depending on who wins 2020. Blackmun made it clear that there wouldn't be any public announcement in 2013 either, so it seems clear they are intent on making the most informed decision they possibly can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's better to choose a city in a domestic process though, because most of the cities do take it more serious... But if thry choose a "wrong" city such as Philly or Dallas, I can see Toronto emerging as a the front runner of this continet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's better to choose a city in a domestic process though, because most of the cities do take it more serious... But if thry choose a "wrong" city such as Philly or Dallas, I can see Toronto emerging as a the front runner of this continet

This is still a domestic process though, it's just conducted differently than in the past. Rather than a formal procedure of site visits and bid books and the like, the USOC is simply handling things differently and I'm encouraged from their end by this tone of "we'll let you know when we're ready to take your calls." Hopefully it means they do pick the correct city. Yes, there's a part of it where you have to wonder how they encourage businessmen and politicians in the various cities if it's not such a formal process, but again, if the aim of this is to keep costs a little lower from the domestic portion of this, hopefully that's exactly what they accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) if there is little potential for either, why issue a press release and announce an ongoing process? Why did Anita DeFrantz, head of the exploratory committee, say a bid would be forthcoming we just didn't know when or with which city?

2.) Disagreement among the members falls under my first hypothesis. In that case it would be genuinely unclear how to proceed because there would be arguments (and potential) on both sides.

3.) If they are incompetent idiots, why are they doing so much careful research and planning 3 years before the application deadline? How have they managed to repair IOC relations in a relatively short period of time? How did they help maintain the US' high-caliber athletics during a prolonged economic downturn?

4.) as for your argument about it being better to declare early, I don't see the wisdom in that. For one, they clearly haven't settled on a candidate so they cannot declare early. Next, although I agree with Quaker that they cannot expect to get all the data they might want before submitting a bid, they can get more information than what they've got right now. For example, it definitely makes sense to wait until after the 2020 vote. The US faces a different scenario for 2024 depending on who wins 2020. Blackmun made it clear that there wouldn't be any public announcement in 2013 either, so it seems clear they are intent on making the most informed decision they possibly can.

1) *IF* the USOC "has nothing" they aren't going to admit it. They are going to make a face saving statement, stall, and hope things change.

3a) What makes you think they are doing careful research 3-years ahead of time. We have no idea what they are up to or doing.

3b) They don't get credit for repairing something they broke

3c) How much of Team USA's success is the USOC's credit?

4) You misread the point. It isn't about the USOC, it's about committees that want to bring the Olympics to their city.

It's better to choose a city in a domestic process though, because most of the cities do take it more serious... But if thry choose a "wrong" city such as Philly or Dallas, I can see Toronto emerging as a the front runner of this continet

Just a reminder that Atlanta beat out Toronto. Not sure why a Philly or Dallas couldn't as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) *IF* the USOC "has nothing" they aren't going to admit it. They are going to make a face saving statement, stall, and hope things change.

3a) What makes you think they are doing careful research 3-years ahead of time. We have no idea what they are up to or doing.

3b) They don't get credit for repairing something they broke

3c) How much of Team USA's success is the USOC's credit?

4) You misread the point. It isn't about the USOC, it's about committees that want to bring the Olympics to their city.

Just a reminder that Atlanta beat out Toronto. Not sure why a Philly or Dallas couldn't as well.

1.) if they have nothing, of course they'll save face, but that doesn't explain why Anita would say a bid was forthcoming if she knew full-well it wasn't.

2.) thanks for conceding.

3a.) they formed an exploratory committee to study the options. I suppose you can assume they're sitting on their hands all day if you like. I'm going to take them at their word and believe they're doing the job they were tasked with.

3b) the current USOC is largely cleaning up after the messes of others. Even if they weren't, the fact that they've achieved success in a difficult climate is evidence they are not idiots. Everybody makes mistakes. The ability to repair them and regain favor takes finesse and know-how. "Idiots" can't do that.

3c) The USOC's prime directive is supporting and equipping American athletes. Sure the odd phenom can succeed all on their own, but you don't achieve consistently impressive national results without a well-oiled machine. Just ask Australia.

4.) the USOC and their bid city must have a united strategy and vision. It makes no sense to argue that one course of action will serve the bid city while another benefits the USOC. They have to be in lock-step with each other.

Personally, I don't think iconoclasm is all it's cracked up to be.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder that Atlanta beat out Toronto. Not sure why a Philly or Dallas couldn't as well.

Calgary hosted 8 years earlier and the election was a year after Calgary. Coupled with Coca Cola's influence Toronto wasn;t going to win even though it presented a more superior plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...