Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, when the US city is eliminated in the 1st round this time, do you think there will be any real repercussions? I'd hope so, getting punched in the face with NY and then the sucker punch with Chicago, should have taught us something but apparently we're like a battered wife, who keeps going back for more and more IOC "beatings."

It's a "when" now that the US city will get knocked out first instead of an "if"? Hard to tell what would happen if that was the case, but again, as noted.. the United States hosted 4 Olympics in a span of less than a quarter of a century. They've bid twice since and lost. So it's not like these "beatings" have been going on forever. I think it's being over-played just how harsh these losses were. New York was the wrong bid in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hardly consider that a punch in the face unless you expected New York to waltz into that race and pull off the win against that field of heavyweights. No one here will have more good things to say about NYC than myself and I had no delusions that we were going to win that one. Then Chicago 2016.. yes, they got eliminated first when no one saw that coming. Again, I think the media and others made too big a deal of that fact and over-analyzed that early departure as some sort of insult. The revenue deal obviously hurt matters and we're still only talking 20 years on from Atlanta. At the end of the day, especially if a city and a country isn't going to bid again in the following cycle, did it really make a difference to go out first versus making it to the final 2?

Sometimes you're going to bid and lose. It's as simple as that. The USOC caught a break with Atlanta in 1996. Salt Lake nearly won on their first try less than a year after the Atlanta vote. That doesn't sound like a battered wife to me just because they followed that with 2 losses. This is the same country that bid and lost in 8 consecutive cycles, only to then win by default when no one else was interested. Other countries out there have tried a lot more than 2 times before they finally found success (see Spain, Madrid). Hindsight aside, it was probably a smart move at the time for the USOC to back off from 2020. They may very well sit out 2024. But if they do bid then and don't win, will it really be that much of an insult, especially if the winning city is a Paris or a Durban?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the USOC is just knocking at the wrong door at the wrong time. Insisting on a SOG when the IOC has other clients to satisfy first with that...and ignoring the Winter Games when that is ALMOST there for the taking. But as u said, maybe the USOC is a masochist at heart.

Oh come on, Baron. The US would not have fared any better landing 2010, 2014 or 2018 than they did with 2012 and 2016. And you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on, Baron. The US would not have fared any better landing 2010, 2014 or 2018 than they did with 2012 and 2016. And you know it.

Up through 2018, no. 2022 though? Would of course require a qualified candidate.. that's the tough part no matter how ripe for the taking a Winter Olympics might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a "when" now that the US city will get knocked out first instead of an "if"? Hard to tell what would happen if that was the case, but again, as noted.. the United States hosted 4 Olympics in a span of less than a quarter of a century. They've bid twice since and lost. So it's not like these "beatings" have been going on forever. I think it's being over-played just how harsh these losses were. New York was the wrong bid in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hardly consider that a punch in the face unless you expected New York to waltz into that race and pull off the win against that field of heavyweights. No one here will have more good things to say about NYC than myself and I had no delusions that we were going to win that one. Then Chicago 2016.. yes, they got eliminated first when no one saw that coming. Again, I think the media and others made too big a deal of that fact and over-analyzed that early departure as some sort of insult. The revenue deal obviously hurt matters and we're still only talking 20 years on from Atlanta. At the end of the day, especially if a city and a country isn't going to bid again in the following cycle, did it really make a difference to go out first versus making it to the final 2?

Sometimes you're going to bid and lose. It's as simple as that. The USOC caught a break with Atlanta in 1996. Salt Lake nearly won on their first try less than a year after the Atlanta vote. That doesn't sound like a battered wife to me just because they followed that with 2 losses. This is the same country that bid and lost in 8 consecutive cycles, only to then win by default when no one else was interested. Other countries out there have tried a lot more than 2 times before they finally found success (see Spain, Madrid). Hindsight aside, it was probably a smart move at the time for the USOC to back off from 2020. They may very well sit out 2024. But if they do bid then and don't win, will it really be that much of an insult, especially if the winning city is a Paris or a Durban?

Speaking as a supporter of Chicago 2016, I can only hope when the US bids again it doesn't have that attitude.

The NYC bid had venue difficulties at the last minute and was in the toughest field in living memory. Not getting in a final round which included London and Paris and being beaten by a technically excellent Madrid bid WAS NOT a punch in the face - it was a fair reflection on where the bids stood. The Chicago defeat was publically horrible for them (I think making the defeated cities' fates so public as if it's the Weakest Link is not good for the IOC personally even if it does make good TV), but one city had to leave first, and I don't see why the US should consider itself too big for it not to be one of theirs.

The USA hosted four Olympics in recent decades. It's hardly the beaten wife you portray it as. Have a word with certain Madrid supporters, or Istanbullers, or Paris fans. Even the UK lost three bids on the bounce before London, a fact that's often forgotten. Pyeongchang, host of the 2018 Games, had to bid three times before they got the nod. None of them spoke of hoping for "repercussions".

The attitude which is what? That it's a waste of time to deal with people who obviously dislike the United States, and the attitude that it's a huge waste of resources and money to bid for something you have no actual shot at winning? How many more times are cities going to dump money in to a black hole before they realize these "kingmakers" are basically underhanded who reward their friends and whoever gives them the biggest gifts.

It's a "when" now that the US city will get knocked out first instead of an "if"? Hard to tell what would happen if that was the case, but again, as noted.. the United States hosted 4 Olympics in a span of less than a quarter of a century. They've bid twice since and lost. So it's not like these "beatings" have been going on forever. I think it's being over-played just how harsh these losses were. New York was the wrong bid in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hardly consider that a punch in the face unless you expected New York to waltz into that race and pull off the win against that field of heavyweights. No one here will have more good things to say about NYC than myself and I had no delusions that we were going to win that one. Then Chicago 2016.. yes, they got eliminated first when no one saw that coming. Again, I think the media and others made too big a deal of that fact and over-analyzed that early departure as some sort of insult. The revenue deal obviously hurt matters and we're still only talking 20 years on from Atlanta. At the end of the day, especially if a city and a country isn't going to bid again in the following cycle, did it really make a difference to go out first versus making it to the final 2?

Sometimes you're going to bid and lose. It's as simple as that. The USOC caught a break with Atlanta in 1996. Salt Lake nearly won on their first try less than a year after the Atlanta vote. That doesn't sound like a battered wife to me just because they followed that with 2 losses. This is the same country that bid and lost in 8 consecutive cycles, only to then win by default when no one else was interested. Other countries out there have tried a lot more than 2 times before they finally found success (see Spain, Madrid). Hindsight aside, it was probably a smart move at the time for the USOC to back off from 2020. They may very well sit out 2024. But if they do bid then and don't win, will it really be that much of an insult, especially if the winning city is a Paris or a Durban?

What else would you conclude based upon their recent dealings with the US? It is entirely conceivable that they will thumb their noses again. Had I been alive and seen 8 consecutive losses I would have said the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, especially if a city and a country isn't going to bid again in the following cycle, did it really make a difference to go out first versus making it to the final 2?

Other countries out there have tried a lot more than 2 times before they finally found success (see Spain, Madrid).

We'll never know, will we. Perhaps 2020 was still out of the question with the revenue deal & all still in limbo. But 2024, who knows. But a first-round exit, especially when you were expected to do better, certainly doesn't help the self-esteem of a city who had just spent mega millions on a bid to just be shown the door the very minute they walked in.

And Madrid is hardly an example of constantly losing. Like New York, they're a wrong bid, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. It's as they're glutton for punishment. And as recently being admitted by their mayor, they're simply jealous of Barcelona & that's their main driving force behind their incessant bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attitude which is what? That it's a waste of time to deal with people who obviously dislike the United States, and the attitude that it's a huge waste of resources and money to bid for something you have no actual shot at winning? How many more times are cities going to dump money in to a black hole before they realize these "kingmakers" are basically underhanded who reward their friends and whoever gives them the biggest gifts.

As I said, the US is hardly unique in losing more than one bid. It is unique in hosting four Games in 20 years in modern times. I guess the IOC obviously dislikes the French, the Turkish, the UK (before the 2012 bid) etc etc as well?

Not much sympathy from me for this point of view. And as I said, I was a Chicago supporter.

If you think the bid is a waste of resources, fair enough. Olympics are needless luxuries in many, many ways. The US knows this, it's hosted a lot more times than most nations.

Edited by RobH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, can we please put things in 'perspective'. Before 2012, the U.K. bid with Manchster & Birmingham. Neither of which were London, which even the IOC gave hints at some years prior to the BOA.

And like New York, Istanbul was always bidding in a field filled with heavyweights, i.e. Beijing, Sydney, Athens, Rome, Beijing again, Paris, & then their last time, 2012 which had all the European glamor capitals at play. Which was again, what New York was facing against, too. And at least Paris 2012 lost by 4 votes, & weren't shoved out of the way so fast.

It looks like most of us can agree that the New York 2012 bid had it's major flaws, especially when up against such a high, competitive filed. But Chicago 2016 didn't face such huge hurdles. The bid was more solid (some even dubbing it the best American bid ever conceived), & the competition wasn't as fierce with the geopoltics not looking very favorably for Madrid & Tokyo. Not to mention, when the 2016 race first started, Rio wasn't looked at as a major threat. So this "someone must go out first" mentality isn't as black-&-white as you're painting it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attitude which is what? That it's a waste of time to deal with people who obviously dislike the United States, and the attitude that it's a huge waste of resources and money to bid for something you have no actual shot at winning? How many more times are cities going to dump money in to a black hole before they realize these "kingmakers" are basically underhanded who reward their friends and whoever gives them the biggest gifts.

What else would you conclude based upon their recent dealings with the US? It is entirely conceivable that they will thumb their noses again. Had I been alive and seen 8 consecutive losses I would have said the same thing.

It's also entirely conceivable that they won't. Would you rather see the United States just forget about trying to host an Olympics entire? And for how long? Again, we're going to take 2 losses after 4 hostings in a 22-year span as "no actual shot of winning?" We all know that this is a highly politicized process where anti-American sentiment has clearly played a part. But it's not like that wasn't the process before when the United States was winning after they had suffered those 8 consecutive losses and kept at it.

Let's be fair about 2012 and 2016.. is that evidence of people's obvious dislike for the United States? The 2016 vote was at the height of the revenue disagreement and came when the IOC had a new frontier candidate they seemed to favor. I don't see how you can extrapolate that into the results of future votes. We have no idea what the attitude towards the United States and the USOC will be come 2017, the next possible vote that could involve an American city. The IOC not picking the American city though is hardly thumbing their noses. And if the city that does get picked is a Paris or a Durban, is that really going to be a surprise to anyone? If you're disheartened by New York and Chicago losing and the repercussions of that (i.e. neither city has shown interest since), I'll grant you that one, but part of that is on the USOC for entering them in races they probably weren't going to win in the first place. Either way, it shouldn't discourage the USOC bidding for an Olympics if they think (and they've clearly gotten smarter about the process, certainly at least from an internal standpoint) they have a shot at winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on, Baron. The US would not have fared any better landing 2010, 2014 or 2018 than they did with 2012 and 2016. And you know it.

Of course, because it just had 2002 and it was the turn of the other continents. It's Europe, No. America and Asia - pretty much it. And with the 2022 Euro candidates also dropping out like flies, and Canada out of the picture for that round, I am sure even a flawed US bid would be frontrunner -- and what? Having just settled the percentage of sponsorship monies resolved to the IOC's favor? R u kidding? You have to compete with FIVE OTHER continents for the Summer Games, and there's still one more there that is just chomping at the bit. So unless a US city is in there for at least 3 summer tries, the next ill-timed one will again be traumatic for US summer chances.

I just don't understand your brain farts sometimes.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Let's get this back to the thread where it belongs, not an April Fools thread on Chicago..

I think London did set a precedent by hosting such a great games. The fact that London has hosted before wasn't in any way a negative - in fact, it provided lots of history and color. After London, IOC voters (and NBC) are going to be more focused on choosing great host cities, and less worried about new cities vs old. Personally, I think Paris will be the biggest beneficiary of this change. But it helps LA too.

It depends how the IOC views it. London prior to 2012 had never hosted a modern Olympics on its own terms with a decent budget or a normal amount of preparation time. 2012 gave the city that chance, despite it being its third hosting. Paris hadn't hosted since 1924 - generations ago - and they also had a good showing in the final vote, a two vote swing away from hosting 2012. LA might not be viewed in quite the same way. That's not to take anything away from LA84, but those games were within most people's lifetimes, and certainly within the lifetimes and memories of most voting IOC members.

LA has the weight and experience few other US cities offer though. They should definitely go with them if no comparative city puts its hand up. I'm more inclined to agree with Zeke's point. Big, big cities like London and LA fill stadiums and make sponsors happy. Whilst London might've set a three-peat precedent, I think the big-city aspect of London's Games would be the more important thing for them to take from 2012. Because, let's face it, whilst there might be a precedent for a three-time host, its not a strong argument FOR LA, simply a ray of hope. It won't get anywhere versus a big World map with an empty African shaped hole in it.

Yes.. that is exactly how I view it. Sure, London did host a wonderful and memorable Olympics. But to say that since London has hosted 3 times, why shouldn't Los Angeles.. that's like a little kid saying "Joey got 3 candy bars, why don't I have a 3rd candy bar?" Rob laid out the difference between London and Los Angeles very well. London's previous 2 hostings were in 1908 as a late replacement for Rome and in 1948 in the aftermath of WWII. So 2012 might as well have been their first true hosting. Not to mention of course (as if we haven't mentioned this before) that it had been 64 years since 1948.

So then there's Los Angeles. As Rob noted, a game many current IOC members were alive for. So the 3-time host deal could be a negative in that regard if the IOC doesn't want to return to a city they've been to in recent memory (which was not the case with London and wouldn't be with Paris). It's definitely not something I think Los Angeles should push as part of their narrative.

As usual, I think we here are probably over-analyzing this and thinking in terms that IOC voters won't consider. I do agree with zeke that it won't be about new versus old. But again, that's still somewhat the issue with Los Angeles.. how to differentiate a 2024 bid from what they offered in 1984. Easier said than done. They can't rest on their laurels and say "we were great in 1984, we'd be great again." I don't see that being enough to convince the IOC to come back after just 40 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, because it just had 2002 and it was the turn of the other continents. It's Europe, No. America and Asia - pretty much it. And with the 2022 Euro candidates also dropping out like flies, and Canada out of the picture for that round, I am sure even a flawed US bid would be frontrunner -- and what? Having just settled the percentage of sponsorship monies resolved to the IOC's favor? R u kidding? You have to compete with FIVE OTHER continents for the Summer Games, and there's still one more there that is just chomping at the bit. So unless a US city is in there for at least 3 summer tries, the next ill-timed one will again be traumatic for US summer chances.

I just don't understand your brain farts sometimes.

So, Baron, if it's so obvious what ought to happen, why isn't the USOC taking your advice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a non-American, I just don't see the appeal of a repeat hosting from Los Angeles so soon after the 1984 hostings. If the United States doesn't get a legitimate contender then they should just pass it up in favor of a Winter Olympics bid for 2026. From what I've read so far it's been said and I share the same sentiments, the only cities I can see competing on the international stage are Chicago, New York and Los Angeles(still too soon but is one of the big US cities), possibly San Francisco. A Dallas, Philadelphia, Seattle, Houston etc. won't cut it. They can't compete with the likes of the other 2024 candidates like Paris, Toronto and South African city

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a non-American, I just don't see the appeal of a repeat hosting from Los Angeles so soon after the 1984 hostings. If the United States doesn't get a legitimate contender then they should just pass it up in favor of a Winter Olympics bid for 2026. From what I've read so far it's been said and I share the same sentiments, the only cities I can see competing on the international stage are Chicago, New York and Los Angeles(still too soon but is one of the big US cities), possibly San Francisco. A Dallas, Philadelphia, Seattle, Houston etc. won't cut it. They can't compete with the likes of the other 2024 candidates like Paris, Toronto and South African city

I disagree.

I think if marketed appropriately, and there was the civic will, a city like Philadelphia could be a formidable Olympic candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

I think if marketed appropriately, and there was the civic will, a city like Philadelphia could be a formidable Olympic candidate.

Not against Paris it probably wouldn't.

The USA has better to offer (ie Chicago and NYC) the IOC knows this and will not be content being stuck with a lower tier city when it knows it can get more.

Edited by intoronto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA has the advantage of having a lot of venues built, besides being a world alpha city... But they've already hosted twice.

SFO or Chicago will be the more appealing choices, NYC too but I don't see it happening.

Phille is a great cultural option, though they lack other international impact aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so amazing at the moment about Paris? It's a little bit of a bore don't ya think??? Been there done that, just another bad-economy mega-euro capitol doin’ it for a third time...I mean we REALY just did that to death. I'm not so sure about developing Durban either, yes you could clean up the Stadium park area and build some 90s style hotels or this and that temporary arena but it's not really very amazing, it sorta looks like a (very) undeveloped less scenic San Diego with 1/3 the population. Seriously?? I can see why they didn’t bid! I think Durban is overestimated, but it'd be fun to watch play out!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metropolitan wise, Durban is larger than San Diego & slightly smaller than Rome's & Athens'. While it may not be one of the most glamorous cities in the world, it's not like there's many cities on the African continent that can boast that title anyway.

An African Olympics would mainly be about finally bringing the Games to the last continent that's yet to stage them than being about the most beautiful prom queen. It's mainly going to be assessed on its capabilities rather than its beauty.

And with all things be equal, if Paris, Durban & the U.S. are going through some sort of global "slump", the point is that someone is going to win. So the U.S. shouldn't stay away from bidding simply on that one factor alone if it won't be alone in that category tbw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't compete with the likes of the other 2024 candidates like Paris, Toronto and South African city

At the moment, these aren't "other 2024 candidates." They are just possibilities. You don't know what the rest of the world is going to do. You put forth your best candidate and hope for the best.

Personally, I think 2nd-tier US cities match up nicely with Toronto. Paris would be tough to beat, but RSA is only a worry if they can put forth a great bid. We don't know if they can do that.

B The IOC always goes for the best city symbolically for that Olympiad -- no matter how raw a state that city is in.

Which is why the IOC picked Atlanta over Athens. Athens over Cape Town, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...