Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looking at another version of the Philly story, I'd guess it was announced at a press conference, and the other guy quoted, Larry Needle, is probably the go-to man. Though, again, I think it's a bit too premature to expect that bid leaders be appointed already for what is, at best, a very preliminary phase:

Will Philly Host the Olympics?

Will the city of Brotherly Love be home to the Olympic Games? That’s what Mayor Michael Nutter is hoping for. The Mayor sent a letter to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) expressing interest in hosting the 2024 Summer Games.

Documents

“The Philadelphia region has enthusiastically embraced the prospect of bidding on and hosting a future Olympic Games, and we look forward with great anticipation to the opportunity to work with the USOC on this project,” said Mayor Nutter. “The City of Philadelphia shares the USOC’s dedication to building a spectacular experience for the Olympic athletes, the Olympic family, and the watching world. We have had great success partnering with other organizations to host world-class events and we are committed to working cooperatively and effectively under the direction of the USOC in the months – and hopefully – years ahead.”

Back in February, the USOC sent a letter to 35 cities, including Philadelphia, to gauge interest for the 2024 games.

The USOC has two years before they will decide whether they even want to submit a bid for 2024, but for now they are exploring the possibility.

"We would like to begin having discussions with interested cities about possible bid themes as well as the infrastructure, financial resources and other assets that are required to host the Games," said USOC CEO Scott Blackmun in the letter.

After first receiving the letter, Mayor Nutter said that Philadelphia had an incredible array of facilities, and a unique location with easy access by road, rail, air and water, but also called everything "prematurely premature."

"Other than the wonder and the spectacle of it, we're talking about something that is 11 years away, that the United States Olympic Committee has to first decide to bid or not," said Nutter last February.

Philadelphia has been down this road before, reaching the top five U.S. cities in the running for 2016, before being beat out by Chicago, who was ultimately passed over for Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
Larry Needle, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Sports Congress talks with pride about making the top five list for 2016 and says the feedback they received from the Olympic Committee and consultants back then is that Philadelphia is a viable choice.

"I think we've got a great story to tell as this modern renaissance city and there's no question that I think we could and should be a player in this," said Needle.

He said the idea is not just to land the event, but to explore what the city's Olympic legacy would be, like leaving behind improved transportation infrastructure, neighborhoods, and venues to be used on a regular basis and to look at the ultimate impact on international tourism for Philadelphia.

So what would it take?

The Olympic Committee says the operating budget would be around $3 billion dollars, not including costs associated with venue construction.

The USOC letter also lays out these requirements for cities:

  • 45,000 hotel rooms
  • An Olympic Village that sleeps 16,500 and has a 5000-person dining hall
  • Operations space for over 15,000 media and broadcasters
  • An international airport that can handle thousands of international travelers per day
  • Public transportation service to venues
  • Roadway closures to allow exclusive use for Games-related transportation
  • A workforce of up to 200,000

The last time the U.S. hosted the Olympics was the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, and the last Summer Games held here was Atlanta in 1996.

"It's a long way from here to there, but we're excited to at least be talking about the possibility," said Needle.

NBC

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But "we're interested" is all the USOC have asked for. And I think:

is pretty unequivacle.

I really don't think there's any great rush for a bid committee yet until the USOC moves to the next step and says: "Okay, you're interested. What are you going to propose?".

It's fair enough to be cautious. And so much of what gets talked about here is speculation or musings. But I think a lot of you are expecting far too much locked in from potential US bidders at this point - the process there seems far ahead, at least publicly, than what we're seeing from any other countries at the moment.

Come on Rols, give me a little latitude here..

The USOC asked for an authorized representative to contact the USOC. Certainly Michael Nutter is authorized to speak on behalf of Philadelphia, but the USOC is asking to speak to the person they might wind up working with. And they specified "Your representative does not necessarily need to be affiliated with your city government."

Maybe there isn't a rush to form a committee (although it certainly will help), but there needs to be something. That's my skepticism with Nutter. His letter makes it sound like he's gonna wait for the USOC to tell him what the next step is. He shouldn't need to wait for that. Now is the time for someone in Philadelphia to stand up and take charge of this, not later on when the USOC starts returning phone calls.

I'm not expecting anything to get locked in. I'm the guy who keeps pointing to the cities that are preparing themselves that they could be the best positioned to make their case to the USOC. This is a long drawn out process.. you know I've said that plenty of times before. But the time to start working on this is now. "Chance favors the prepared mind" as the famous saying goes. Philadelphia and these other cities would be well served to start preparing sooner rather than later.

Alright, perhaps I spoke too soon. Now we're getting somewhere. From the story Rols just posted..

Larry Needle, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Sports Congress talks with pride about making the top five list for 2016 and says the feedback they received from the Olympic Committee and consultants back then is that Philadelphia is a viable choice.

"I think we've got a great story to tell as this modern renaissance city and there's no question that I think we could and should be a player in this," said Needle.

There we go, that's what I'm looking for. Now I'm a little more energized about this one.

Edit: Sorry Rols, just realized you bolded that exact part of the article. Regardless.. good find

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, I don't think the type of statement Nutter's made is one anyone could make without having a lot of their plans in order. I'd have been more sceptical if he had said what he did two months ago. The delay would lead me to expect they've done their homework.

And it's Philly - they've at least been through part of this process before - and even progressed further than many would have credited. They know what they have to do. It's not like a bunch of Las Vegas hotel owners or the Tulsa chamber of commerce.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC asked for an authorized representative to contact the USOC. Certainly Michael Nutter is authorized to speak on behalf of Philadelphia, but the USOC is asking to speak to the person they might wind up working with. And they specified "Your representative does not necessarily need to be affiliated with your city government."

How was Dallas moved forward after the USOC letter? How about all the months of groundwork they've already put in. The USOC sent that letter to gauge interest. They already knew there's interest from Dallas. They didn't need a letter to confirm that.

Well, gee. When should Dallas make it official then, if the USOC "already knows" that there's interest there anyway? Like a presidential candidate, they still need the "official" endorsement from their particular before they can even run. So what is Dallas waiting for if they have all this "groundwork" running. And like Rols just pointed out, Philly has done this before & looks like they have their man & the mayor sent their intent. So why can't Dallas do the same.

*from their particular *party*, that was suppose to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a whole strange exercise because it'll come down really to just the Big 5 (I include Philly in that). I think the USOC just wanted to gauge fresh interest in who might want to host. What is interesting is what the USOC left out in that letter: that it is the aspiring city that will HAVE to finance its own bid, and have a warchest of at least $50 mil for the first round. Obviously that came up in succeeding conversations with the USOC, and which is why only Dallas and now Philly, have moved on to the "reply in letter" stage. I don't know why the USOC didn't just state that initially in their memo. It would've just taken one more line. Plus, there is the final 'on-hold' status that matters won't proceed on a 'green-light' unless the intentions of South Africa are known; but the interested city, if the USOC thinks its feasible, must be ready to proceed at a moment's notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, gee. When should Dallas make it official then, if the USOC "already knows" that there's interest there anyway? Like a presidential candidate, they still need the "official" endorsement from their particular before they can even run. So what is Dallas waiting for if they have all this "groundwork" running. And like Rols just pointed out, Philly has done this before & looks like they have their man & the mayor sent their intent. So why can't Dallas do the same.

*from their particular *party*, that was suppose to read.

To me, this whole "official" vs. not official thing is being over-blown here. What makes you assume that Matt Wood doesn't have the endorsement of Dallas city officials? Because they haven't made a big public statement about it? I'm still baffled that you're viewing them as some sort of rogue grassroots effort that shouldn't be taken seriously until the mayor of Dallas goes on the record about it. Sure, they could go on record if they want to. But they don't have to. Just because they haven't made a big public pronouncement doesn't mean they're any less interested in bidding for the Olympics than Philadelphia or Los Angeles.

And your political party analogy is flawed. You need endorsement from your party to show up on the ballot, but that comes long after prospective nominees announce their candidacy publicly. Hillary Clinton, for example.. she announced in January 2007 that she intended to run for president and that she was forming her own exploratory committee. I'm no expert on politics, but pretty sure she didn't need anything official in place to make that announcement.

So we have Dallas.. the USOC sends their letter to the mayor. The letter clearly states for an "authorized representative" (that need not be affiliated with city government) to contact the USOC. Isn't it reasonable to think that Mike Rawlings called Matt Wood and authorized him and his group to be their representative? And that Wood is working with the USOC on behalf of Dallas which is why Rawlings hasn't gone on the record about it? I know this is speculation (just in case someone wants to play the "we don't know" game here), but I don't see why there's so much fuss over Philadelphia's "interest" as opposed to Dallas' "groundwork." It takes more than interest to form a bid. Even with Los Angeles.. good to hear they're interested, but what does that really mean? Does that mean someone there is actively working towards a bid for the 2024 Olympics? Someone in Dallas is. This fact in indisputable. When someone in a city like Los Angeles or Philadelphia to known to be working towards a bid, I think it will be much more serious. But IMO, for the time being, "interest" and "official" aren't as important as they're made out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this whole "official" vs. not official thing is being over-blown here. What makes you assume that Matt Wood doesn't have the endorsement of Dallas city officials? Because they haven't made a big public statement about it? I'm still baffled that you're viewing them as some sort of rogue grassroots effort that shouldn't be taken seriously until the mayor of Dallas goes on the record about it.

So we have Dallas.. the USOC sends their letter to the mayor. The letter clearly states for an "authorized representative" (that need not be affiliated with city government) to contact the USOC. Isn't it reasonable to think that Mike Rawlings called Matt Wood and authorized him and his group to be their representative? And that Wood is working with the USOC on behalf of Dallas which is why Rawlings hasn't gone on the record about it? I know this is speculation (just in case someone wants to play the "we don't know" game here), but I don't see why there's so much fuss over Philadelphia's "interest" as opposed to Dallas' "groundwork."

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. And bcuz even the Dallas2020.org site in the "about Dallas 2024" sections describes them as a "grassroots" organization.

If Matt Wood is "working" with the USOC, then this would imply that there's a bid already in the works & that Dallas is already been anointed the candidate, or at least being taken very seriously. If this is so, why haven't we heard more about it then. This scenario that you're painting is almost akin to a certain someone's argument over the years that the USOC is could be working 'secretly' behind-the-scenes with a bid city already & "we just don't know about it. It just doesn't make sense.

If Dallas is so far ahead than everybody else, it's so bewildering then that we've hardly heard anything from them other than "Matt Woods is behind the efforts". In the end, a bid will alyways needs it's mayor's endorsement whether it's a yay or a nay. That's what Boston's group is still trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Dallas is optimistic about 2024 Summer Olympics bid

Matt Wood, a Dallas lawyer who has been laying the groundwork for a local bid for three years, said most of the work will continue in the background for now. USOC officials expect it will take about two years to decide whether they will submit a bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics. The name of its bid city is due to the International Olympic Committee by August 2015.

...........

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings was both positive and cautious in his reaction to the letter. He said the city’s central location, transportation network, fundraising ability and other assets make it a contender.

But any contender would need to raise about $3 billion in public and private dollars just for the operating costs. That doesn’t include infrastructure improvements or construction.

“We’ve got to be very careful before we get into this in a major way,” Rawlings said.

Several other council members contacted about the possible bid were at least as enthusiastic as the mayor.

Tennell Atkins, deputy mayor pro tem, said some were skeptical when Wood started organizing a few years ago.

“People thought he was crazy, but I never thought that,” Atkins said. “We are a great city, and we are booming.”

That article is from February 23rd, just a few days ago the USOC letter was sent. With all due respect to the folks that run this website because they do a good job of it, it's getting old that we seem to want to to limit ourselves to information that has been posted and/or linked to here and that anything else added to the conversation is pure speculation. All it took was a quick Google search to find this. You said to me at least a couple of times that the early reports about Dallas after the letter was sent were vague and lacking in information. Your exact words were (in regards to another article) "if the article simply mentioned that he was tied to the mayors office &/or if he was their official spokesperson, or something of the like, then that would've been the end of it" I get that you're looking for something more than we're getting, but again, I just don't get how you continue to say this lacks substance because we haven't been told the mayor or whomever else responded to the letter.

"Working with the USOC" merely implies he responded to their inquiry as Dallas' authorized representative. Clearly there is involvement from city officials going right to the mayor's office. So again, at some point, yes Mike Rawlings will need to state publicly that he is behind this. Remember where we are at this point in the process now. We know the USOC is not publicly and openly accepting bids like they have at the past. Right now there's just trying to gauge what's out there. I'm fairly certain that Dallas (be it Matt Wood or someone else) was 1 of the first cities to respond to the letter. That's all they needed to do. And again, because that letter went to the mayor, if Matt Wood did respond to it, he could only do so with the mayor's approval. So, like the Dallas Morning News article states, now's the time to work in the background and wait for the USOC to make the next move. What exactly do you expect they would have done in the past 2 months that we would hear about? I've said it before.. there's a fine line between something being done in secret and something we simply don't hear about. I think the USOC has a good handle of what they may have to work with in Dallas. When they move to the next step of the process (meaning that they're choosing which cities THEY'RE interested in talking to), we'll hear more about Dallas. And when that day comes, I think Dallas will be ready for them whether the mayor has said so to the world or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so how is that any different from the Boston front, where the mayor there is also being "cautious", but yet it seems that there's still skepticism as far as their efforts are concerned.

I don't see much difference here. If more still needs to be look at, like the article suggests, then I still don't see how that's being "far ahead" than everybody else. If anything, lets just say that a lot still needs to be addressed, & just leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone risk In saying Boston 2024 bid is hurt by the latest worldwide news terror events, or will it boost bc the city and population dealt/overcame with it pretty well?#BostonStrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone risk In saying Boston 2024 bid is hurt by the latest worldwide news terror events, or will it boost bc the city and population dealt/overcame with it pretty well?#BostonStrong

I'd say Boston's chances are not hurt, but I don't Boston will benefit from it, in terms of votes. The actual vote is not until 2017 - so by then the current intensity and rawness will have passed over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so how is that any different from the Boston front, where the mayor there is also being "cautious", but yet it seems that there's still skepticism as far as their efforts are concerned.

I don't see much difference here. If more still needs to be look at, like the article suggests, then I still don't see how that's being "far ahead" than everybody else. If anything, lets just say that a lot still needs to be addressed, & just leave it at that.

You really don't discern between the two? They're both equal? First off, Dallas's mayor said "cautious." Boston's mayor said "far-fetched." So there's a pretty key difference right there.

Other than that, it's the same info we've had for awhile now. Dallas has a bid committee (take that for what it's worth) led by someone with prior experience with Olympics. He started to work on it in advance of the 2020 bid (presumably). He has at least some backing from local city officials. And they do have some semblance of a potential plan in terms of Fair Park (again, take that for what it's worth). What does Boston have? An exploratory committee that just formed a couple of months ago. A mayor that clearly was not happy with how that committee has gone about their business, not to mention that he's already questioning what it would cost simply to apply.

I'm not trying to predict what the end result will be here. Dallas may or may not be the most likely city to be chosen to bid. All I'm saying is that right now I feel like they're probably the most prepared for it. That might change by whenever the USOC starts more formally dealing with these cities. But as of today, IMO Dallas has laid more of the groundwork for an potential bid than most if not all other cities. If you're going to base it on who is considered to be "official," I still think that's the wrong way to view it and yes, we will have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone risk In saying Boston 2024 bid is hurt by the latest worldwide news terror events, or will it boost bc the city and population dealt/overcame with it pretty well?#BostonStrong

The fact that their mayor called the idea of a Boston Games "far-fetched" means there's not much for the terrorist attacks to hurt on that front. If anything, in a perverse way, this could unite the city and - who knows? - lead to a renewed enthusiasm from those at the top to pursue something like an Olympics. Certainly this hasn't harmed the prospect of a Boston Games, because that prospect was already looking dead in the water before last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that their mayor called the idea of a Boston Games "far-fetched" means there's not much for the terrorist attacks to hurt on that front. If anything, in a perverse way, this could unite the city and - who knows? - lead to a renewed enthusiasm from those at the top to pursue something like an Olympics. Certainly this hasn't harmed the prospect of a Boston Games, because that prospect was already looking dead in the water before last week.

Uniting the city is 1 thing, but I don't see this turning into something where Boston will want to invite the world to come to their city. In terms of an Olympic bid, the timing for this I think is pretty bad. You already have a mayor questioning whether or not it's a worthwhile pursuit and now this gets thrown on top of that. So I think it's possible it did harm their prospects, at least in the short term while they're still very much in the exploratory stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. And bcuz even the Dallas2020.org site in the "about Dallas 2024" sections describes them as a "grassroots" organization.

If Matt Wood is "working" with the USOC, then this would imply that there's a bid already in the works & that Dallas is already been anointed the candidate, or at least being taken very seriously. If this is so, why haven't we heard more about it then. This scenario that you're painting is almost akin to a certain someone's argument over the years that the USOC is could be working 'secretly' behind-the-scenes with a bid city already & "we just don't know about it. It just doesn't make sense.

If Dallas is so far ahead than everybody else, it's so bewildering then that we've hardly heard anything from them other than "Matt Woods is behind the efforts". In the end, a bid will alyways needs it's mayor's endorsement whether it's a yay or a nay. That's what Boston's group is still trying to do.

I've got you on ignore, but looked at this post because I wrongly assumed it wouldn't have anything to do with me.

For the eight millionth time, I never argued there were secret deals with a bid city. I simply said (and still believe) that its totally possible for the USOC to have private conversations with key players in potential bid cities without it showing up in the media.

I'm tired of you inventing a viewpoint for me, claiming I advocated it and then taking me to task for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Houston doesn't have the culture and history of London or Paris or have the star power that L.A. has but Houston can compete and hold it's own with Dallas,New York or Chicago and Tokyo. Of course, our city is famous for "Houston, We have a problem" because of Apollo 13 and we are home of NASA but everyone is thinks we can't pull off a big international event like the Olympics or an Pan American Games which many people believe that Houston should be better off hosting before the city bids for an Olympics. But, Houston can put on big events like a Super Bowl which were bidding for now in 2017. Houston to many people eyes believe that all we do is ride horses and our roads are dirt and the only international sport we care about is the NFL. But, Houston is not Atlanta because Atlanta was too heavy commercialized for the games by IOC standards and plus Coca Cola is a Olympic Sponsor but Houston has more Fortune 500 companies beside New York and Chicago so Houston has financial incentive to host but there are a lot of things to do in Houston.

Again, it's not a question about Houston's capabilities. When I think of Houston, I certainly don't think of people "just riding horses & dirt roads". Houston is one of the country's largest cities & metro areas & certainly can have the merits of pulling off a Games. But like has been pointed out here many times before, you're competing for the most coveted prize in international sporting events, & one needs more than just a "capable" bid in order to win over those fastidious IOC members to award their big prize.

Atlanta's "heavy commercialized Games" certainly didn't help, but that's not the real crux of the matter here. Atlanta was merely at the right place at the right time. Their competition for the '96 Games wasn't as intense as recent Olympic bidding races. And the sentimental favorite, at the time, was deemed not ready. I think if similar circumstances arose now, perhaps a city like Houston could make a case. Especially when we're seeing that Chicago is not interested & New York hasn't said a peep. So that's less domestic competition that could make the first path easier. But you would still need a good bid to try & sell.

Which leads to the first & seemingly most important question; is the City of Houston even interested again? I haven't heard anything from them since their last attempt at the 2016 Games & were cut from further consideration. Plus, is there any area of the city that could use some revitalization? Any venues that need refurbishing or rebuilt? And these questions are just for starters. I'd mention earlier that I think that any future U.S. bid would need to include some type of urban renewal of somekind in order to at least grab the attention of the IOC, Especially in a country that's hosted the most Olympic Games than any other. I think that it would still be tough even for cities like Chicago or New York. And especially when you still have places like South Africa & Turkey that have never hosted yet, & places like France & Germany that haven't hosted in over half of century. Not to mention the internal poltics within the IOC that could make or break a bid. With all that said, it's really much more complex than coming on here & saying, "yeah, so Houston isn't as cultured or has the history of Paris & London, but can still hold it's own to New York, Chicago, Dallas or Tokyo".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the grand scheme of things, I think unless the USA go with one of the Big3, then they will struggle mightly against Toronto supported with government guarantees let alone the draw of potentially Paris or Durban. Even LA might have an aura of been there seen that.

Whilst its nice to talk about Dallas and Philadelphia, I think they'll struggle when going up against either a major global city or the draw of the first African games. Realistically only NYC or Chicago can hold their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston could certainly bid and win, but it’d require some special circumstances. It’s a fabulous city NO DOUBT if you have money and reason to be there, but for the international community it’s not particularly intriguing. However, it would be interesting to see a serious Houston bid and proposal that brought the power and glamour of Houston to a broad audience. It’s a hard city to warm to, but it’s an exciting city that may be a bit too separatist for the world to embrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston could certainly bid and win, but it’d require some special circumstances. It’s a fabulous city NO DOUBT if you have money and reason to be there, but for the international community it’s not particularly intriguing. However, it would be interesting to see a serious Houston bid and proposal that brought the power and glamour of Houston to a broad audience. It’s a hard city to warm to, but it’s an exciting city that may be a bit too separatist for the world to embrace.

I understand what you're trying to say but I don't think separatist is the word you're looking for, maybe far-flung would be better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Houston offers would be a compact bid of central venues.

There would be the Reliant cluster with Reliant Stadium, the Astrodome, and Rice Stadium ... which could be developed into an Olympic Stadium (?) within 2.5 miles of each other.

You then have Minute Maid Park, the BBVA Stadium and the Toyota Center virtually on top of each other, about 8 miles away, and in between is the new Robertson Stadium for the Houston Cougars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we even taking what the current mayor says too seriously? He has had a number of health problems, and has publicly announced that he is not seeking reelection. I think that right there says something. The guy likely doesn't care about landing the Games.

I don't see Boston moving forward with a bid, regardless of the city becoming united with the recent tragedy. I also agree that Bostonians are going to be more concerned now about hosting such a large scale sporting event which increases the potential for another attack to occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USOC: 10 cities interested in hosting 2024 Games

The U.S. Olympic Committee is talking to 10 cities about a possible bid for the 2024 Summer Games, including a joint proposal from San Diego and Mexican neighbor Tijuana.

Following failed bids for the 2012 and 2016 Olympics, the USOC sent out letters to 35 American cities in February to gauge interest in a potential run for 2024.

"We're in discussion with about 10 cities actively now," USOC chief executive Scott Blackmun said in an interview after speaking to the Associated Press Sports Editors in New York. "The process is really working the way it was supposed to."

Los Angeles, which hosted the 1932 and 1984 Olympics, and Philadelphia have announced their interest. Blackmun said San Diego and Tijuana have also approached the USOC about a joint bid.

Blackmun declined to identify the other cities considered as potential candidates, saying they preferred to keep it confidential for now. He said three cities, including Chicago, have formally said they are not interested in bidding.

Blackmun said he would be surprised if any other cities came forward at this point.

"We don't want to submit a bid we don't think we can win," Blackmun told the APSE gathering. "We have to assess our chances. ... We want this bid to be a national bid, an American, bid, not just a city bid. We want to make sure we have been as inclusive as possible."

The United States hasn't hosted a Summer Olympics since the 1996 Atlanta Games. New York mounted a failed bid for the 2012 Games, which went to London, and Chicago suffered a stinging first-round defeat in the IOC vote for the 2016 Olympics, which were awarded to Rio de Janeiro.



The USOC has since reached a revenue-sharing agreement with the IOC, ending a long-running dispute that contributed to the failed bids. With relations back on track and the USOC working to increase its international presence, the chances for a successful U.S. bid in 2024 are considered vastly improved.

"We've got plenty of time," Blackmun told the AP. "There are no specific deadlines on this process."

The USOC official said a joint bid can work in some geographical areas, citing the Bay Area and the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose as a "natural" possibility.

As for San Diego and Tijuana, he said, "That would have its challenges. We haven't looked at it carefully. We just learned about it."

Blackmun said he understood why Chicago is not interested in bidding again. The city spent about $90 billion on the 2016 bid and not even the presence of President Barack Obama at the IOC session in Copenhagen, Denmark, was enough to prevent the humbling defeat.

New York, meanwhile, could be a strong contender in 2024, Blackmun said.

"New York is a global iconic city with a very diverse population and could do a fantastic job of hosting the games," Blackmun said, adding a bid will likely depend on the result of the Big Apple's mayoral election in November.

The USOC has said it plans to decide by the end of 2014 whether to submit a bid. The International Olympic Committee will select the 2024 host city in 2017. Other potential 2024 contenders include Paris and a city in South Africa.

"The games should definitely go to Africa someday," Blackmun said. "If we bid for 2024, I hope they don't go to Africa in 2024."

On other issues, Blackmun said he supports keeping wrestling in the Olympics after the sport was removed from the program of the 2020 Games by the IOC executive board in February. Wrestling is now competing against seven other sports for an opening on the 2020 program.

Blackmun said he also supports the inclusion of women's softball. Baseball and softball, which have been out of the Olympics since the 2008 Beijing Games, have merged to mount a joint bid for 2020 reinstatement. The IOC board will decide next month which sport or sports to recommend for inclusion, with a final vote by the IOC assembly in September.

"Softball needs the Olympics," Blackmun said. "I feel strongly that both wrestling and women's softball should be in the games. You can't get both. It's not a perfect world."

Blackmun said he's confident NHL players will take part in the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia. NHL players have participated in the past four Winter Games, shutting down the league for two weeks.

Negotiations between the league and international ice hockey officials have yet to produce an agreement for Sochi, though the signs are positive.

"I know the players want it—both the players who would go to Sochi and those that would get two weeks off," Blackmun said.

AP

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_23113921/usoc-10-cities-interested-hosting-2024-games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city spent about $90 billion on the 2016 bid.

It's obviously a typo. And even $90 million is rounded off. I don't know why they included about $14 mil worth of donated goods and services, PLUS the $1,050,000 that 300 supporters paid $3,500 each out of their own pockets for a 4-day charter flight, junket to Copenhagen.

It seems they are in talks with NYC, the Bay Area (I think that obviously includes SF-Oakland-San Jose-Santa Clara...so that already accounts for FOUR cities), Philly, Dallas, LA, San Diego-Tijuana makes TEN.

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...