Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have to second Canis' opinion on the likelihood of a Chicago bid for 2024. While I don't think it is by any means impossible, the climate here in the near future does not seem conducive to a bid.

Emanuel certainly has a big enough ego to take risks to make himself look good, and he has the power to pull strings to get a bid going if he really wanted to, but I think he is smart enough to not get caught up in a bid when the city and state are in financial crisis.

If the economy makes a 180 in the next 2-3 years, and he wins reelection by a landslide in 2015, he might be open to a bid for 2024, but we don't have a group of determined boosters with deep pockets who will step up to the plate to lead a bid right now. Plain and simple. By that time, it could be too late to get well organized for 2024, but the ground work was laid already, so again, it's not impossible, just improbable.

I would love to see Chicago bid again, but my head says it is probably not going to happen for quite some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

I really don't understand your remarks. It's not like Canis has unavailed anything new, that none of here haven't already covered before to no end, for you to now say that "your specifics 'help' with the 'data'. I'm still hopeful, but I 'recognize' it's quite the long-shot". Since a lot of us here, including Soaring (who is also right there on the ground), have said all along that the lack of public opinion & support, the lack of city officials & leaders working or even hinting around for such an endeavor, the huge sting the 2016 loss was to the city, etc, etc, gives us our strong inclination for our well-grounded insights that the chances for another Chicago bid anytime soon are "slim".

Exactly, and again, it's pretty much the same story in New York. NYC2012 (which, in doing some research, was largely formed in the mid to late 90's, so that's a lot more than 13 years out that they started planning) never really had much of a life after the loss in 2005 and nothing has come along to replace it since. So it's not like they'd even be building off that bid either. I feel like the best set of circumstances for a New York bid to materialize would be for it to be a long-term project, similar to what 2012 is. Which is to say that if the United States isn't destined to host another Olympics until the 40's, we could see New York then. But if the USOC is looking for a candidate for 2024, I hope for their sake they're not counting on it being New York

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. If a city really has no desire, nothing the USOC does will change their mind

I do think there might be some chance of the USOC leading by example -- something like, "we believe this is possible and we're going to stick it out until we win." If someone were on the fence, it could make a difference.

Still, that's a whole lot of "ifs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand your remarks. It's not like Canis has unavailed anything new, that none of here haven't already covered before to no end, for you to now say that "your specifics 'help' with the 'data'. I'm still hopeful, but I 'recognize' it's quite the long-shot". Since a lot of us here, including Soaring (who is also right there on the ground), have said all along that the lack of public opinion & support, the lack of city officials & leaders working or even hinting around for such an endeavor, the huge sting the 2016 loss was to the city, etc, etc, gives us our strong inclination for our well-grounded insights that the chances for another Chicago bid anytime soon are "slim".

Canis sounds like he's present and active in the Chicago scene rather than just basing his opinions on an absence of national media coverage - which in itself is not necessarily reliable. That's why I give his post more credence.

I agree it sounds quite unlikely right now, and I don't have high expectations. That doesn't mean a guy can't hope or pipe dream though. The 2016 bid was strong enough that if someone were to get the itch in the next four years the previous bid could serve as a starting point for the new one, cutting down on required prep time. With the right mouthpiece, I think another bid could win the public over. 2024 may still be too soon though...

I still don't think LA is a "boring" option as some have suggested. It really depends on how they package the story of the bid and the legacy. As I've mentioned before, a really cool transportation legacy could make the bid a standout. I admit that 2024 still feels a bit soon for LA, but not necessarily impossible....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't basing anything on the absence of national media coverage. Like Canis said, it's "pure logic" to look & gauge the situation to see that a Chicago bid coming off the heels of a highly spurnned 2016 one was rather dubious at best. And like I said earlier, there are other posters here that are also on the ground in Chicago that stated that another bid so soon was very unlikely.

And no one ever told you that you couldn't "pipe dream". But you never allowed yourself to even look at it that way. You seemed to always be convinced & rigorously argue that even in the "absence of media coverage", that somehow, somewhere, that "miracle" Chicago bid was secretly going to appear outta thin air, even when others did not see it in the same light as you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I do agree about L.A. With the right ingredients, an L.A. bid could be formidable. And right now, I'd say that they're the only ones outta the Alphas to give it a go with much ease compared to the other two cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't think LA is a "boring" option as some have suggested. It really depends on how they package the story of the bid and the legacy. As I've mentioned before, a really cool transportation legacy could make the bid a standout. I admit that 2024 still feels a bit soon for LA, but not necessarily impossible....

The domestic phase for 2016 was quite close between LA and Chicago. Many in the USOC saw LA as a safer, affordable option capable of putting on a better show than Chicago. However, in the end they recognized that a new city would be better so soon.

However, by the time the Games come around to the US again, it will be more than 4 decades (two generations) since LA'84. London proves that the IOC can be convinced to give a city 3 games. LA has a history of delivering when the IOC needed it most. So, I do agree that some time in the future LA will be a strong contender. However, by that time, new alpha cities may have emerged in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that you ever said that Chicago would "definitely" bid. I said that you always had the hopeless hope (& argue about it) that somehow that they would, when other signs were simply pointing in the other direction. Those are two vastly differently things, as well.

And what kind of information are you talking about. The WADA papers? That wasn't anything to base anything substantial on You had no more nor no less "information" than any of the rest of us had for you to vehemently counter anyone else's view on the subject, when even you yourself contradictorily have always said "we simply don't have enough 'data'". That can go both ways, ya know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK...did anyone definitely definitely say he definitely said it? Or maybe only indefinitely said it but with a 2% chance of having definitely said it? I definitely think it is infinitely possible that Athensfan will have a 2.5% probability chance of saying that Chicago may or may NOT possibly bid for 2024, but that the chance may or may not incrementally increase to 2.75% chance on the definite or indefinite oft- chance (depending on how the winds on Lake Michigan blow that day) and providing that the USOC may or may not decide to field a bid. Of course, there is a chance that the IOC may or may not host an Olympic Games in 2028 in which case, Athensfan may not commit but he may be committed.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok FYI, you're misrepresenting me again and I'm sick of it. I wrote repeatedly that I thought 2020 was both unlikely and unwise. I never even said I thought Chicago would bid. I only said it was too soon to rule out a US bid for 2020 based on WADA paperwork and Blackmun's comments, which you are free to research if you like.

2020 is done. I see no point in wasting time posting links to news stories just to adress your arguments about a race the US isnt even in. This thread is about 2024. I'm on these boards to talk about the Olympics -- not to enter into a perpetual, tediously repetitivel argument. My ego doesn't need or desire that. For some posters the desire to debate seems far stronger than any Olympic interest.

As for hoping Chicago will host the next American Summer Games, I see no reason why that desire needs any defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I really don't understand your 'intensity' here", Athens. And you know what. You're just as guilty of "misrepresenting" me & others on this board. So please stop with the hypocrisy & double standards.

And see, you're "misrepresenting" me here. Again, I've never questioned your 'hope or desire' for you wanting Chicago for hosting an Olympics. As a matter of fact, I have AGREED with you on that particular stance. But you get so worked up when you think others misquote you or simply question your "logic" or whatever, but that doesn't stop you from doing those very things like you've even done in your last post. I'm not arguing anything "repetitive or tedious", since your "ego" has done very well at taking it upon itself.

Seriously, there's no reason to get so patronizing & pretentious over these things. You say that you're here to "talk about" the Olympics, but I can't see that as the case when you simply throw such hissy-fits for no reason at all at times. All this is, is a discussion board. It's suppose to be fun & entertaining, but sorry to say, your abrasive & condensceding behavior sometimes makes that difficult to do.

We can all "pipe dream". I've NEVER taken that away from you, so please don't "misrepresent" me that I have, since that is far from the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, back to 2024.

Before the USOC can even address anything about 2024, they have to come out & make some sort of statement sometime soon about 2022 & their future strategies. Since both Denver & Reno are looking to throw a wrench into any 2024 aspirations, since they're clearly making headway, especially Reno, on their 2022 goals. The USOC is inevitably going to have to address them one way or the other.

I'd still say that Los Angeles is going to be the one that takes the bull by the horns without too much hesitation, if the USOC wants 2024 instead. They just have to make it a credible & compelling case. None of the "safer, affordable" option is going to cut it with the IOC. Not when other global cities/countries are still willing to give them cart-blanche bids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the USOC can even address anything about 2024, they have to come out & make some sort of statement sometime soon about 2022 & their future strategies. Since both Denver & Reno are looking to throw a wrench into any 2024 aspirations, since they're clearly making headway, especially Reno, on their 2022 goals. The USOC is inevitably going to have to address them one way or the other.

I'd still say that Los Angeles is going to be the one that takes the bull by the horns without too much hesitation, if the USOC wants 2024 instead. They just have to make it a credible & compelling case. None of the "safer, affordable" option is going to cut it with the IOC. Not when other global cities/countries are still willing to give them cart-blanche bids.

The picture is coming into focus for 2022 a lot more clearly than it did for 2020 (and probably would for 2024). You know who your main competition is (Munich), you know you have interested cities (Reno/Tahoe, probably Denver), and those cities are more likely to be in it for the long haul rather than dropping out if they lose on the first shot. As opposed to summer candidates.. Chicago and New York are probably no-go's so after that who do you solicit? I agree that L.A. would be the easiest of the alpha cities to get off the ground, especially in the short term rather than looking ahead awhile. Whether or not that's the smart play for the USOC remains to be seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the USOC and its candidates will have to be ready for at least 2 successive tries to win. That seems to be the pattern since nearly everyone is setting themselves up for repeat bids--except for the unchartered territories like South America and Africa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago and New York are probably no-go's so after that who do you solicit? I agree that L.A. would be the easiest of the alpha cities to get off the ground, especially in the short term rather than looking ahead awhile. Whether or not that's the smart play for the USOC remains to be seen.

Well, if the Alphas don't wanna play, & or an L.A. bid is the usual, generic "we have everything in place already" plan, then would the USOC be open to thoroughly explore the idea of 2nd-tier cities like Boston, Dallas, Houston or Philadelphia? Not to mention will these cities also be interested. Will the IOC be interested? And judgeing by recent precedence, they probably wouldn't be. Too bad that San Francisco is surrounded by such bureaucracy.

I would at least want to think that if the USOC was partial to L.A. again (like they were in the 2016 domestic process) that they'd know that they'd need something much more than a "safer, affordable" option. Since that's not gonna win over the IOC, especially when an L.A. bid would be seeking a 3rd Gamees. They can't just simply look at London & say "well, London got a 3rd Games". London brought something compelling to the table. And the IOC obviously was interested. The IOC is getting something outta the deal, & not just "ready venues".

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the USOC and its candidates will have to be ready for at least 2 successive tries to win.

This is something that I could see L.A. be more open to, as well. Can't see too many other cities wanting to throw away so many resources on multiple Summer Olympic bids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the Alphas don't wanna play, & or an L.A. bid is the usual, generic "we have everything in place already" plan, then would the USOC be open to thoroughly explore the idea of 2nd-tier cities like Boston, Dallas, Houston or Philadelphia? Not to mention will these cities also be interested. Will the IOC be interested? And judgeing by recent precedence, they probably wouldn't be. Too bad that San Francisco is surrounded by such bureaucracy.

I would at least want to think that if the USOC was partial to L.A. again (like they were in the 2016 domestic process) that they'd know that they'd need something much more than a "safer, affordable" option. Since that's not gonna win over the IOC, especially when an L.A. bid would be seeking a 3rd Gamees. They can't just simply look at London & say "well, London got a 3rd Games". London brought something compelling to the table. And the IOC obviously was interested. The IOC is getting something outta the deal, & not just "ready venues".

I think this speaks to the question of whether the USOC wants to think short term or long term. If they're interested in pushing for 2024, then Los Angeles is probably their best option. If they want to think long term though (and if they think landing a Winter Olympics with Reno/Tahoe or Denver is something they're interested in), then they should set forth a long-term plan and let interested cities start formulating their bids. That way, maybe you get New York or Chicago back in the fray in addition to getting some of the next level cities (San Francisco, Washington, Philadelphia, etc.) on board. I think the problem is that the cities (think Tulsa et al) are trying to push the USOC to bid, but it needs to work the other way around. Let the USOC say "this is our plan, this is when we're bidding, whoever wants in give us your best shot." 2012 and 2016 were very organized races. 2020 was never going to be and I'm not sure 2024 would be either. And if it is, good luck getting the best of the best cities to commit to running.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the ones that think that repetitve bids is the best way for securing an SOG for the US. However, the way bids are currently funded in the US makes it almost impossible to happen.

IMO, the only option is for the USOC to run a domestic process and choose a city that would bid until it wins. By doing that, it would be easier to get money from different sponsors as an nation-wide effort, instead of a city effort, like today. The way it works now, makes second attempts for the SOGs highly unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the ones that think that repetitve bids is the best way for securing an SOG for the US. However, the way bids are currently funded in the US makes it almost impossible to happen.

IMO, the only option is for the USOC to run a domestic process and choose a city that would bid until it wins. By doing that, it would be easier to get money from different sponsors as an nation-wide effort, instead of a city effort, like today. The way it works now, makes second attempts for the SOGs highly unlikely.

And of course, it appears that the IOC is taking steps to curb the so-far open-ended spending on a bid. So if they are serious about that, then that might help at least the Winter bidding (for US candidates) since there are really only 3 regions in play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the ones that think that repetitve bids is the best way for securing an SOG for the US. However, the way bids are currently funded in the US makes it almost impossible to happen.

IMO, the only option is for the USOC to run a domestic process and choose a city that would bid until it wins. By doing that, it would be easier to get money from different sponsors as an nation-wide effort, instead of a city effort, like today. The way it works now, makes second attempts for the SOGs highly unlikely.

To add to that....

Then the USOC would have a very limited pool to choose from if they did just that.

Only LA would provide assurances of their intentions to be repeat bidders, and that is based on their seemingly limitless interest and success at organizing. City governance and local support has the potential to change so frequently that it would be difficult for the USOC to predict who they will be working with for each try. I mean Chicago has a history of long mayorships and private money, and it would be difficult for even the USOC to trust us to be their go to bid try after try.

It is much easier for countries with one premier global city to put all of their support behind that city as their repeat bid, but the US has at least four cities who are truly global enough and capable enough to host. The general mindset here is also that if NYC or Chicago can't win, there must be something inherently flawed with the city's bid because of the early eliminations.

It also helps when countries can get universal federal government support, but that will not happen in the US. Obama had to walk a tight rope, and not appear to be "too enthusiastic" about his home town's bid, as not to appear to be "partisan" and unfocused on the greater challenges we were facing as a country.

Edited by Soaring
Link to post
Share on other sites

We should just get that dumb Comcast-NBC to throw down the gauntlet -- pick a U.S. city or else!! And I think it would work too! Only problem is is that Elredge and his successors are so chicken-sh*t sluts to the IOC.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...