Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Athensfan

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

Aren't you the one that pushes down the notion 14 years is too quick for Toronto to host in 2024. It clearly is you lol.

First off, I think it's unlikely that Toronto will win in 2024 against South Africa, Paris and a US city. That's a totally different hypothetical and one that you must agree has some serious challenges.

Second, I don't think the IOC will award ANYONE 2 games with in 6 years, so that part of the earlier statement I disagree with. I think 10 years is probably the closest that anyone can expect to host 2 Games and 14 is probably much more reasonable. The only countries I can imagine pulling off that double are the US, China, Canada, maybe France, maybe Germany.

Also, my Summer then Winter hypothetical order would hold true for all of those prospective bidders.

Canada's problem is that they did Winter first. If Toronto had hosted 2008, I can easily imagine them also hosting 2018 or 2022.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S has proven to be a very safe pair of hands, and a great host.

However for whatever reason there is an anti-u.s stance in the IOC currently.

Bid for a summer games for the 2028/2032 games and see what happens.

Australia probably won't host another one in my life time (or if they do, not until 2048/2052!)

Good luck to the u.s - you will eventually get to host an olympics again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to the u.s - you will eventually get to host an olympics again.

The IOC just has to tick off one more continent. After all, the US has already had the Summer (and Winters) 4x each--more than any other country. So, once RSA is out of the way, a US city will have a better shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference between the US and the others is the IOC isn't as dependent on other countries' money as it is on US broadcasting and sponsorship rights.

Thats why New York and Chicago won

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats why New York and Chicago won

No, its why the USA got to host four editions of the Olympics in a 22 year period from 1980 to 2002 (the last two winning in fiercely competitive bidding campaigns) - and why they can't be discounted from any future bidding considerations.

And if we were going to look at reasons for losing its latest two bids - NYC was never going to win when its stadium plan fell apart in the midst of the bid race. And there's a good argument to be made that Chicago was pitched out first in the vote precisely because it was seen by its rivals as the biggest threat and they did what they could to neutralise it.

Edited by Sir Rols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is 2028 the earliest that US could realistically get the Olympics?

And what are the chances then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, 2024 is the earliest could get the Olympics. As far as the chances go, we won't really know that until we see what around cities around the world will bid also. And it also depends what city the USOC has a chance to pick from & what their plans will be. Then it's up to the USOC if they want to bid on 2024 or not.

*what 'other cities around the world, that was suppose to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pittsburgh rules out bidding for 2024 Olympics

Pittsburgh has declined an invitation to bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympics after the Pennsylvanian city failed to secure enough local support.

It was one of 35 American cities invited to submit a bid for the Games by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

"We didn't feel that there was enough support from the community to successfully bid for this opportunity," admitted Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's spokeswoman, Marissa Doyle.

Her words were echoed by Allegheny County executive Rich Fitzgerald, who added that the financial commitments required were too much to be justified.

"My sense is the community wasn't excited," he said.

"It would cost two to three billion - with a 'b' - dollars.

"It's a big risk."

Insidethegames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like if Pittsburgh was ever a credible option to begin with anyway. So it looks like they were part of the "a little more than ten cities" (whatever the frick that was suppose to mean anyway) that the USOC is/was talking to.

I remember reading a bit about Pittsburgh when the USOC letter came out, but that was about it. So Tulsa, why don't you finally take fricken note! If even Pittsburgh deems the financial responsibility way outta their league as a "big risk", then what does that say about you! Come back to the Milky Way Galaxy & back to reality, wil'ya!

So now the USOC is talking to "a little more than nine cities"! Lmfao! :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U think...y waste the postage (or the B/S games) for 30 cities??

I'm NOT donating to the USOC next year!!

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U think...y waste the postage (or the B/S games) for 30 cities??

I'm NOT donating to the USOC next year!!

Last I checked, sending e-mail is free :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like if Pittsburgh was ever a credible option to begin with anyway. So it looks like they were part of the "a little more than ten cities" (whatever the frick that was suppose to mean anyway) that the USOC is/was talking to.

I remember reading a bit about Pittsburgh when the USOC letter came out, but that was about it. So Tulsa, why don't you finally take fricken note! If even Pittsburgh deems the financial responsibility way outta their league as a "big risk", then what does that say about you! Come back to the Milky Way Galaxy & back to reality, wil'ya!

So now the USOC is talking to "a little more than nine cities"! Lmfao! :-D

What makes you say Pittsburgh was one of the 10? We don't know that. Of the 35 invitees there are way more than 10 that made no declaration of any kind. Personally, I can't imagine the USOC ever looked at Pittsburgh as a real option anyway. This is sort of a non-story in my opinion.

At the end if the day, you only need one city that can win -- not 10. I'm not sure the USOC has that, but I seriously doubt anyone was pulling for Pittsburgh.

A Worhol look of games could have been brilliant.

I can totally see it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what? Let the remaining letterhead go to waste? R u kidding?? :blink:

The cycle of sarcasm continues!

And no.. if I was kidding, I would ask what do you do to an elephant with 3 balls... You walk him and pitch to the Rhino.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cycle of sarcasm continues!

And no.. if I was kidding, I would ask what do you do to an elephant with 3 balls... You walk him and pitch to the Rhino.

I think for legal reasons though, and to just make the whole exercise "complete," they probably sent both hard-copy and email solicitation letters. Anyway ...

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you say Pittsburgh was one of the 10? We don't know that. Of the 35 invitees there are way more than 10 that made no declaration of any kind. Personally, I can't imagine the USOC ever looked at Pittsburgh as a real option anyway. This is sort of a non-story in my opinion.

At the end if the day, you only need one city that can win -- not 10. I'm not sure the USOC has that, but I seriously doubt anyone was pulling for Pittsburgh.

Who says the USOC ever took Pittsburgh seriously. As I said before, it's not as though they were a credible option to begin with. And what makes you say that the USOC wasn't at least talking to them. That's all the USOC is doing right now anyway. It's not like San Diego (with Tijuana) was any more of a credible option but the USOC was "talking" to them nonetheless. And I'm sure that they've also chatted with Tulsa, too, but we all know here all too well that they're FAR from credible. So I don't see why Pittsburgh would've been such an outsider in that aspect. I'm sure the city made their decision not to pursue this on just more than the USOC letter.

And yeah, sure. There are more than 10 cities that made no declarations, but almost all of those wouldn't be credible anyway, right along the Pittsburgh category. So that doesn't leave anymore room to dechiper which cities the USOC could be talking to. Many reports have cited San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego & even Tulsa. And then we know of a few cities that have said no like Chicago, Minneapolis & Detroit. So after all those, that doesn't leave much room for thought, other than non-starter cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says the USOC ever took Pittsburgh seriously. As I said before, it's not as though they were a credible option to begin with. And what makes you say that the USOC wasn't at least talking to them. That's all the USOC is doing right now anyway. It's not like San Diego (with Tijuana) was any more of a credible option but the USOC was "talking" to them nonetheless. And I'm sure that they've also chatted with Tulsa, too, but we all know here all too well that they're FAR from credible. So I don't see why Pittsburgh would've been such an outsider in that aspect. I'm sure the city made their decision not to pursue this on just more than the USOC letter.

And yeah, sure. There are more than 10 cities that made no declarations, but almost all of those wouldn't be credible anyway, right along the Pittsburgh category. So that doesn't leave anymore room to dechiper which cities the USOC could be talking to. Many reports have cited San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego & even Tulsa. And then we know of a few cities that have said no like Chicago, Minneapolis & Detroit. So after all those, that doesn't leave much room for thought, other than non-starter cities.

A couple points.

First you didn't answer my question about how you concluded Pittsburgh was one of the ten.

Next, I never said "the USOC wasn't at least talking to them." I don't know if they were or weren't. That's the point.

Finally, let's look at the undeclared cities that could be contenders. The biggest one, I know you have dismissed. Again, I don't know if they're in or out, but I do think it's interesting that no statement has been made yet considering they are the country's number 1 market and a previous bidder. That, of course, is NYC.

You've also got the likes of Miami and Seattle lurking. I'm not as on top of this as Soaring and some others. I'd love to see the table reproduced. Haven't been able to find it.

Regardless, I wouldn't say that all the undeclared cities are non-starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First you didn't answer my question about how you concluded Pittsburgh was one of the ten.

This article: http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/2024/1014822-pittsburgh-rules-out-bidding-for-2024-olympics

Again, if the USOC can talk to San Diego, with their absurd Tijuana plan, why is so hard to fathom that they also couldn't have talked to Pittsburgh.

Finally, let's look at the undeclared cities that could be contenders. The biggest one, I know you have dismissed. Again, I don't know if they're in or out, but I do think it's interesting that no statement has been made yet considering they are the country's number 1 market and a previous bidder. That, of course, is NYC.

I haven't dismissed them. I just don't see how their silentness on the matter automatically means that they're talking to the USOC. Especially when the city is more preoccupied with their upcoming mayoral race, & their newspapers citing anything relating to the topic as "the USOC 'trolling' for bids".

I always find it interesting though, that you seemingly don't give much credence when something is reported, like this article, versus when nothing ever gets reported, like in New York's case.

Regardless, I wouldn't say that all the undeclared cities are non-starters.

I didn't say that "all" of them were. I said that *almost* all of the remaining ones are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC told San Diego a joint bid wasn't an option, so I wouldn't necessarily consider them one of 10 unless they're contemplating a solo run.

Next, I don't know what's going on with NYC. I didn't say their silence meant they were talking to the USOC. I find the silence curious and I can imagine that a dialogue may be taking place. Or not. Don't know.

I absolutely give credence to the story that says Pittsburgh isn't interested. I just don't particularly care about it because they were never a factor. So your accusation that I'm ignoring real news and inventing fictional stories of my own is unfounded.

A minimum of three reasonably credible cities still undeclared doesn't sound like "almost all" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like San Diego is the creme-de-la-creme of a compelling option either, with or without Tijuana. But the point is, they've been with talks with the USOC. And it doesn't matter if you never considered Pittsburgh a "factor", since that's not the point & that wasn't part of your initial question about them that you asked me.

It took Pittsburgh a whole 4 months to finally access that this wasn't a good opportunity for them. It doesn't make that much sense they came to that conclusion solely based on the USOC letter. I mean it only took Chicago & Minneapolis a few days to give a big, fat NO. Like Seattle, Pittsburgh probably asked the USOC that they wanted to learn a little more about the process. And probably once they did, they're Olympic ballon started to deflate.

As for New York, aren't you the one that consistently says that they're too big for the Olympics anyway. So their silence says more to me that the Olympics, is most likely, the furthest thing from their mind, considering their current, busy plate. Like Chicago, where we weren't hearing anything from them before the USOC letter, but some of us knew that their likely response to another bid, considering on what was out there, was going to be a no. But you used the same "we just don't know" argument then, too. Well, in the end, we called that one. Chicago stearnly said 'no, we're not bidding'. If you wanna continue that view with New York, then that's your call. But most of us like to be on one side of the fence or the other based on educated hypotheses.

And I didn't mean the remaining three of the ten as 'almost all'. I meant the ones from the remaining 25 "undeclared" cities, since you said "out of the 35 invitees there are 'way more than 10' that made no declaration of any kind".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...