Jump to content

Recommended Posts

U're so full of baloney!! Atlanta ended up with a $10 million surplus, HOW COULD THAT BE TERMED A DISASTER? U believe such exaggerated BULLSH*T. The transportation problems happened in only 2 instances; the Games info glitch was IBM's fault. That was really it. EVERYTHING ELSE WENT WELL; and as I said, it had a $10 million surplus.

Again, the family of Alice Hawthorne might beg to differ. Not to mention the Turkish camera man

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....

Atlanta was a financial success. No disputing that. However they did fall short organizationally as Barcelona pointed out. Therefore Atlanta isn't much help to my argument that the US has more to offer the IOC than just money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly a student in a film class or something. That doesn't even come close to resembling any sort of official presentation.

I agree.

I love Seattle, but as we've discussed before, their geography isn't conducive to the Games. Traffic would be a nightmare. Tree-huggers would oppose necessary construction. There's insufficient corporate presence in Seattle. There aren't enough pre-existing venues. It's a fun pipe dream, but I can't see it ever really getting off the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, sometimes this works, but more often than not it doesn't. I think the evidence doesn't necessarily support a repeat bid strategy. For example:

- London 2012 was preceded by UK bids from Manchester and Birmingham.

- Sydney was preceded by bids from Melbourne and Brisbane

- Barcelona was preceded by a bid from Madrid

- Atlanta last bid in 1920

- Seoul had no precedent

On the other hand, many repeat bidders like Detroit, Paris and Madrid remain unsuccessful.

I believe the key is bidding when geopolitical factors look likely to favor your country, and then put forward the best candidate you can at the time. When the IOC needs money, they will come back to the US. They won't care whether it is New York, LA or Seattle. As long as the bid is robust, they will take it.

Well, you have really misrepresented me in this one. You have taken the sentence when I mention a possible solution for the US to encourage cities to bid repetitively and presents it as a statement about the US chances to win. Really bad interpretation.

As my first sentence mentioned, the best (not the only) way to win is to have repetitive bids. The problem is how to finance it.

Then you make bad comparisons which indeed strengthen rather than weaken my arguments. Except for London, the remaining bidders were running agaist lame ducks or other non repeting bidders.

- Barcelona faced Paris, which was not bidding time after time.

- Sydney ran against Beijing (first-timer) and 3 European cities which were weaker in terms of continental rotation.

- Atlanta main competition was Athens, who was not a repetitive bidder as well.

- Seoul ran against Nagoya, which was also a first-timer.

London was the only first-timer which has beaten by a very narrow margin a repetitive bidder. Besides, recent campaigns have shown that repetitive bids help the city get momentum to evetually win.

But returning to the main point in my post, what you don't seem to grasp is that the way the American bids are structured makes it difficult for building up strength from the lost bids. The NY 2012 experience didn't seem to have added anything to the Chicago bid. Running against weaker competitors, it actually did worse. That happens mainly because the city seems to be the one really pushing the bid, instead of the NOC.

Mainly, what needs to change in the way the Americans run olympic campaigns is to understand that the USOC must have a leading role in the process, raher than just choose a city and support the bid during the campaign. When I say the USOC should lead the campaign it means mostly going after money to finance the enterprise and building relationship with the IOC to influence the votes. We are living a time when a successful bid campaign is a long term effort, not a single-cycle attempt.

Besides, there are also other aspects of the technical part of the process that can benefit a prospective olympic city which plans to bid time after time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly, what needs to change in the way the Americans run olympic campaigns is to understand that the USOC must have a leading role in the process, raher than just choose a city and support the bid during the campaign. When I say the USOC should lead the campaign it means mostly going after money to finance the enterprise and building relationship with the IOC to influence the votes. We are living a time when a successful bid campaign is a long term effort, not a single-cycle attempt.

Besides, there are also other aspects of the technical part of the process that can benefit a prospective olympic city which plans to bid time after time.

U r very right there...and that's essentially what I was also saying about the successes of Sydney and London--which were built on, if I am not mistaken, on your model.

However, in the case of NYC 2012 and Chicago 2016, I think the USOC (mainly Ueberroth and Cvrtlik) was sort of behind those 2 bids. The only problem was that Ueberroth had very little patience with the IOC and showed it; and Cvrtlik wasn't very far behind in lacking some warmth and charm -- and not to mention that de Frantz and Easton don't want to appear too gung-ho to their IOC colleagues.

But again the problem over the years, and I am surprised that Atlanta got it in 1990, was the ever-changing leadership at the USOC. Almost every 2 years in the last 2 decades, there were would be a change of leadership + that revenue issue. I think the USOC should have 2 chairmen: one to handle the entire sports side of things and be the liaison with the federations; and another to handle finances, international relations (including, as you said, riding herd over long-term (over 2 or 3 bid cycles) bidding ambitions) and the IOC. The U.S. got used to getting Games when nobody wanted them and/or just lucky as in the case of Atlanta. However, in fairness, LA did weather 3 bid cycles (for 1976, 1980 and eventually 1984 when no one else wanted the Games). And personally, the USOC wich gets no funds from Washington, should work in concert with NBC since the majority of its funds makes NBC its de facto sugar daddy. I don't know why they are both so afraid to work openly and together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the USOC is just now gaining enough stability to spearhead a bid. Previously, they were more of a liability than an asset thanks to the ever-changing leadership and their tendency to offend the IOC. I'd be interested in seeing how they might work with NBC on a bid. Of course, they wouldn't want to give the impression of twisting the IOC's arm...

Link to post
Share on other sites

But returning to the main point in my post, what you don't seem to grasp is that the way the American bids are structured makes it difficult for building up strength from the lost bids. The NY 2012 experience didn't seem to have added anything to the Chicago bid. Running against weaker competitors, it actually did worse. That happens mainly because the city seems to be the one really pushing the bid, instead of the NOC.

Mainly, what needs to change in the way the Americans run olympic campaigns is to understand that the USOC must have a leading role in the process, raher than just choose a city and support the bid during the campaign. When I say the USOC should lead the campaign it means mostly going after money to finance the enterprise and building relationship with the IOC to influence the votes. We are living a time when a successful bid campaign is a long term effort, not a single-cycle attempt.

Besides, there are also other aspects of the technical part of the process that can benefit a prospective olympic city which plans to bid time after time.

I think the big issue, and you alluded to it, is that these cities are mostly in it for themselves. Getting the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996 didn't do much for other cities. Likewise, how many people outside of New York cared whether they won or lost (Chicago was practically rooting for New York to lose to take their own shot at 2016). And then the other problem, and I brought this up earlier, is that sometimes these cities seem to be in it for 1 shot and 1 shot alone. NYC 2012 was never going to survive through to another cycle of bidding, and that would have been the case even without the West Side Stadium.

I agree that there needs to be a more long-term plan in place, but I don't know how you accomplish that. This isn't like the 1980s when Anchorage was positioned as the Winter candidate for the United States and was essentially given the green light to be the USOC's candidate until they won. Then when they lost interest, Salt Lake got a similar deal that they'd get 1998 and 2002 at the very least.

I don't know what the solution is for the USOC because how do you choose between a city like New York which is your best shot for that particular bid or another city with less of a chance but who may be in it for the long haul. Part of the issue with New York was that the bid was based around a new stadium for the New York Jets (and later using the Mets' plans for a stadium), so when they lost 2012, the Jets and Mets both moved ahead with their own plans. So it's a contradiction of asking a city to use an Olympics to spur development and construction versus a city not wanting to wait around for an Olympics to come. And of course the flip side of all that is a city like Los Angeles with the large majority of Olympic-related facilities already in place, but then where's the legacy in that the IOC is always looking for.

In short.. aluz, I agree with your assessment of what SHOULD happen in order to benefit the USOC's hopes at landing an Olympics, but the way the USOC and these bid cities approach the Olympics, I don't know that it can happen. It's different when you have a country like Italy or Japan or Turkey where there's really only 1 city legitimately trying for the Olympics and an NOC that's going to be there to fund them. The USOC is never going to be able to take that lead role with a bid unless they find a way to fund it (I know using NBC has been mentioned.. not sure that's going to work so well because we saw how the IOC reacted the last time NBC and the USOC tried to partner on something) and we know that's going to be a hard sell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the big issue, and you alluded to it, is that these cities are mostly in it for themselves. Getting the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996 didn't do much for other cities. Likewise, how many people outside of New York cared whether they won or lost (Chicago was practically rooting for New York to lose to take their own shot at 2016). And then the other problem, and I brought this up earlier, is that sometimes these cities seem to be in it for 1 shot and 1 shot alone. NYC 2012 was never going to survive through to another cycle of bidding, and that would have been the case even without the West Side Stadium.

Yes, exactly! And the best example of that issue is that the leader of the bid is usually somoeone from outside the Olympic movement, whereas in Rio it was Nuzman and in London Seb Coe.

As Baron said, the USOC has been behind the last bids. What I mean is that they should be in front of them.

I agree that there needs to be a more long-term plan in place, but I don't know how you accomplish that. This isn't like the 1980s when Anchorage was positioned as the Winter candidate for the United States and was essentially given the green light to be the USOC's candidate until they won. Then when they lost interest, Salt Lake got a similar deal that they'd get 1998 and 2002 at the very least.

It is a matter of setting the rules in that way. Mainly the USOC has to commit ti such a strategy and stay with it. The rest will end up aligning with it naturally.

After all, as you've said yourself, there were people in Chicago rooting for NYC to lose. This probably has kept NYC away from some potential investors, which had already been hooked to Chicago.

I don't know what the solution is for the USOC because how do you choose between a city like New York which is your best shot for that particular bid or another city with less of a chance but who may be in it for the long haul. Part of the issue with New York was that the bid was based around a new stadium for the New York Jets (and later using the Mets' plans for a stadium), so when they lost 2012, the Jets and Mets both moved ahead with their own plans. So it's a contradiction of asking a city to use an Olympics to spur development and construction versus a city not wanting to wait around for an Olympics to come. And of course the flip side of all that is a city like Los Angeles with the large majority of Olympic-related facilities already in place, but then where's the legacy in that the IOC is always looking for.

In short.. aluz, I agree with your assessment of what SHOULD happen in order to benefit the USOC's hopes at landing an Olympics, but the way the USOC and these bid cities approach the Olympics, I don't know that it can happen. It's different when you have a country like Italy or Japan or Turkey where there's really only 1 city legitimately trying for the Olympics and an NOC that's going to be there to fund them. The USOC is never going to be able to take that lead role with a bid unless they find a way to fund it (I know using NBC has been mentioned.. not sure that's going to work so well because we saw how the IOC reacted the last time NBC and the USOC tried to partner on something) and we know that's going to be a hard sell.

It's not entirelly true that the last countries which nailed the SOGs had a clear prominent city. China could have easily chosen Shanghai or Guagzhou, Brazil could have chosen São Paulo and has a few other options once you consider that Durban is viable, Australia has hosted with Melbourne and Sydney and both remain viable candidates. Italy can choose between Rome and Milan as Spain has hosted with Barcelona and is attempting now with Madrid. Soth Africa can also choose from, at least, 3 options. Either way, those countries chose a preferred city to bid and the NOC committed to it.

The reality is that chosing a city in advance makes it easier to build a well thought bid, to adapt the bid after successive losses and to design a proposal that is aligned to the city long-term plans, with the legacy that the IOC likes to see. London could have bid again with a similar proposal and even could have started the development of its Olympic Park even if they didn't win the SOGs. That's basically what Istanbul did.

I will come back later and write a thorough explanation about why I think that committing to a city will arrange the issues you see in an easier way than you think. Everything, from the technical plan to the financial aspects would adapt to the new reality producing better results in future bidding cycles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly think it would be best to stick with one city for multiple bids, and have the USOC take the lead, so long as they are stable and keep the same leadership that shows they want to cooperate with the IOC instead of spar.

But the climate and structure for our bids is not conducive to that happening with maybe the exception being Los Angeles. No other Alpha city is probably willing to commit to multiple bids, and will hand the reigns over completely to the USOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the climate and structure for our bids is not conducive to that happening with maybe the exception being Los Angeles. No other Alpha city is probably willing to commit to multiple bids, and will hand the reigns over completely to the USOC.

Well, the USOC too really provided only GUIDANCE in the NYC and Chicago bids. The USOC's philosophy is or seemed to be...since it is the city spending for it, their destiny is in their hands. The USOC could only advise and suggest.

It's NOT just the bidding. If Chicago, say, (or Cleveland or Boston or San Francisco) committed to a 2-3x bidding cycle, then they would have to BUILD the Olympic stadium by the 2nd bid -- like what Istanbul and Baku apparently have done -- win or lose. But NO US City, save Las Vegas and Tulsa, cares to invest $900 million for a permanent T&F stadium; let alone a new Village as well. So if we want to win again, it might have to be Vegas or Tulsa...seriously. None of this "on-paper, and if we win, we will build it" business.

In that case, the U.S. should only go after a Winter Games bid since that does not require a $1 billion stadium and/or a 3,000-unit Olympic Village (which also, from a real estate professional's POV, is always problematic--releasing some 3,000 units on the market all at once is just not sustainable for any for-profit developer).

(Even another LA bid will be equally problematic, Village-wise. They will only offer one of their university campuses as an OV. The IOC has been so spoiled with new mini-cities (Beijing, Vancouver, London, Sochi, Rio) springing up for their OVs, that I think a future LA bid against a Baku offering a spanking, brand-new village, will look pale, tired and skinflinty-- thus get passed over again.)

The problem is: the U.S. wants a Games with no deficits. The IOC doesn't care how cities finance their Games. And if there is a deficit afterwards, it is the city's (and the nat'l gov't behind it) business to take care of that. On that score, never shall the twain meet.

Thus, a Winter Games is really the U.S.' best bet since it is the lesser risk, $$-wise.

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

Likewise, how many people outside of New York cared whether they won or lost (Chicago was practically rooting for New York to lose to take their own shot at 2016).

Huh? How is that possible when Chicago's mayor Daley was so adament before 2005 that the city would "never" bid for an Olympics. And then in 2006, he did a complete 360, long after the 2012 vote. I don't think Chicago, nor any of it's citizens, ever rooted for New York to lose their 2012 bid. I think most could've cared less one way or the other. Especially when public support was never really one of Chicago 2016's big attributes. If anything, other lower-tier cities were rooting against Chicago 2016 so they could have their own (delusional) shot at 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not entirelly true that the last countries which nailed the SOGs had a clear prominent city. China could have easily chosen Shanghai or Guagzhou, Brazil could have chosen São Paulo and has a few other options once you consider that Durban is viable,

How many have argued here, though, that Sao Paulo isn't/wasn't "viable" for an Olympic bid. While I agree that Brazil could've gone with them, but I'm just stating the arguments here brought by some against Sao Paulo.

And Beijing was chosen over Shanghai & Guangzhou because it was the "capital", & more culturally representative, of the most populous nation on Earth, than the latter two cities. And not so much on "prominence". The Chinese Government wanted to have full control of the country's first Olympic Games, & that meant Beijing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's NOT just the bidding. If Chicago, say, (or Cleveland or Boston or San Francisco) committed to a 2-3x bidding cycle, then they would have to BUILD the Olympic stadium by the 2nd bid -- like what Istanbul and Baku apparently have done -- win or lose. But NO US City, save Las Vegas and Tulsa, cares to invest $900 million for a permanent T&F stadium; let alone a new Village as well. So if we want to win again, it might have to be Vegas or Tulsa...seriously. None of this "on-paper, and if we win, we will build it" business.

Okay, in Vegas' case, it could seem plausible. Since they have the accommodations & a huge international airport & to house & transport all the Olympic traffic. Not to mention they'd have the big bucks to finance the bids & eventually a Games. But fricken Tulsa doesn't have any of that. They're a little, tiny city well behind what needs to be implemented & constructed for an Olympic Games. Not in this century would the likes of Tulsa see or could handle an Olympic Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly think it would be best to stick with one city for multiple bids, and have the USOC take the lead, so long as they are stable and keep the same leadership that shows they want to cooperate with the IOC instead of spar.

But the climate and structure for our bids is not conducive to that happening with maybe the exception being Los Angeles. No other Alpha city is probably willing to commit to multiple bids, and will hand the reigns over completely to the USOC.

That's the thing.. it's a great idea in theory, but may not work so well in practice. To aluz and baron's point, it's tough for a city to commit to the USOC's plan when it's the city footing the bill. Similarly, if New York or Chicago is paying $50 million (or whatever the number is) largely on their own to finance a bid, how do you convince them to let the USOC take the lead when it's not necessarily their time and expense like it is during other countries. I know this is over-simplifying things, but the USOC can't say to a bid city "we'll handle everything even though its your money and if we screw it up, we'll let you spend that money all over again and hope we get it right the next time." Even if the USOC could find a way that they could finance a bid, it's not like virtually every other country where the NOC identifies the candidate city and it goes from there. In the United States, they almost have no choice but to have a domestic competition when you have multiple interested cities (some more serious than others). The USOC certainly has the option of choosing a city willing to commit to multiple bids, but then is that the best city for that particular election.

So then let's say a city is committed to multiple bids. Does it rely in existing infrastructure or new facilities that need to get built? Like baron said, it's not usually feasible for a city to say "we're building this stadium even if we don't get the Olympics." NYC had the right idea about making it a sustainable legacy, but we know how that turned out. Again, it comes down to a city like Los Angeles where much of what they need is in place versus a city like, say, San Francisco which is looking to build a new football stadium, but who knows how that would work into the plans of an Olympic bid. And as we know, 80,000-seat track stadiums aren't exactly something big cities in the United States need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC is never going to be able to take that lead role with a bid unless they find a way to fund it (I know using NBC has been mentioned.. not sure that's going to work so well because we saw how the IOC reacted the last time NBC and the USOC tried to partner on something) and we know that's going to be a hard sell.

Are you alluding to the Olympic Network? Because that doesn't really seem like the same sort of situation as what we're talking about here. The biggest problem with the Olympic Network was failing to sufficiently discuss it with the IOC before making an announcement. Getting NBC to back a bid seems like it would be a very different situation. I can imagine it might make the IOC a little nervous. NBC and the USOC would have to tread very carefully to try to avoid ruffling feathers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you alluding to the Olympic Network? Because that doesn't really seem like the same sort of situation as what we're talking about here. The biggest problem with the Olympic Network was failing to sufficiently discuss it with the IOC before making an announcement. Getting NBC to back a bid seems like it would be a very different situation. I can imagine it might make the IOC a little nervous. NBC and the USOC would have to tread very carefully to try to avoid ruffling feathers.

Just used it as an example, and on top of otherwise less-than-healthy relations between the USOC and the IOC (i.e. the revenue sharing issue), it probably didn't help. But you're right, I don't know how the USOC could safely involve NBC in the bid process. Part of the concern over the Olympic network was giving NBC an interest in a property they may not have rights to a few years down the line. Even now, NBC is only contracted with the IOC though 2020, so if they're backing a bid for 2024, how does that work for the IOC if they're trying to sell rights to another network. We've seen how over-commercialization has affected an Olympics before, and I can't imagine the IOC would be too thrilled for that to very visibly start from the beginning of the bid process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you alluding to the Olympic Network? Because that doesn't really seem like the same sort of situation as what we're talking about here. The biggest problem with the Olympic Network was failing to sufficiently discuss it with the IOC before making an announcement. Getting NBC to back a bid seems like it would be a very different situation. I can imagine it might make the IOC a little nervous. NBC and the USOC would have to tread very carefully to try to avoid ruffling feathers.

Gosh I really want the IOC to get taken down a rung or 3. Are they really so rich and powerful they just buy off all their enemies? I can't imagine that each and every member is innocent and pure as the driven snow. Where are the scandals, the cheaters, and the scoundrels. Come on World, you can do it, give the IOC a black eye! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least American host cities have plans to use the Olympic Stadiums after the games to prevent White elephants.

So does every city who bids for the games.

The problem is in most cases the design for an Olympic stadium isn't condusive to American sports.

If LA bid what would be the stadium? Would they compromise the NFL potential of Farmer's Field to include athletics? Would the Bears move from Soldiers Field? Who would use any NY stadium now that the New Meadowlands has been built? Would the 49ers accept the compromises necessary for a 49ers stadium?

Now consider the main European cities and stadiums::

Paris - Stade de France,already used by the national rugby,football teams and Stade Francais

Madrid - Olympic stadium will be used by Athletico Madrid

Rome - Olympic stadium already used by Roma and Lazio

Istanbul - Ataturk Olympic stadium already used by the Turkish National Team

Berlin - Olympic stadium, already used by Hertha Berlin

I think you find American bids have more post games Stadium use issues than other bidders

Link to post
Share on other sites

THe thing is: a new T&F stadium is almost an obsolete thing for the U.S. since there are enough of those in the major track universities. So why build another brand-new one?

The only thing I can think of is either turn it into a horse-race track or an Indy-type one afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So does every city who bids for the games.

The problem is in most cases the design for an Olympic stadium isn't condusive to American sports.

If LA bid what would be the stadium? Would they compromise the NFL potential of Farmer's Field to include athletics? Would the Bears move from Soldiers Field? Who would use any NY stadium now that the New Meadowlands has been built? Would the 49ers accept the compromises necessary for a 49ers stadium?

Now consider the main European cities and stadiums::

Paris - Stade de France,already used by the national rugby,football teams and Stade Francais

Madrid - Olympic stadium will be used by Athletico Madrid

Rome - Olympic stadium already used by Roma and Lazio

Istanbul - Ataturk Olympic stadium already used by the Turkish National Team

Berlin - Olympic stadium, already used by Hertha Berlin

I think you find American bids have more post games Stadium use issues than other bidders

If San Francisco were to be the host city in 2024, chances are that the 49ers will turn the SF Olympic Stadium into their home stadium after the games end, with a year in their current stadium as renovations to turn the Olympic Stadium into a football stadium get underway. The 49ers need a new stadium in the worst way as Candlestick Park is very old. Having the SF Olympic Stadium as their new home would mean that San Francisco can finally tear down Candlestick Park. Remember what happened in Atlanta with their Olympic Stadium? They tore down a part of that stadium, removed the track and it became Turner Field, the home of the Atlanta Braves, who were playing in Fulton County Stadium, which was very old.

Had New York won 2012, the plan for the Olympic Stadium afterwards was that it was going to be a new stadium for the Jets, meaning that the Jets would have only spent one season in the Meadowlands. If New York was to bid again, I think that Olympic Stadium would be the home of a second New York MLS team, which has been rumored for a very long time.

Farmers Field in Los Angeles isn't a done deal by any means. If Los Angeles bids again though, I wonder if they would try the Coliseum again like they did in 1984? Also, there had been talk of two NFL teams in Los Angeles, one at Farmers Field and one somewhere else in Los Angeles. Maybe if the Coliseum doesn't work out as an Olympic Stadium this time around and they build an actual Olympic stadium, the Olympic Stadium could host that second Los Angeles team. Or the Olympic Stadium could be reduced to be the home of MLS Chivas USA if they ever wanted to leave HD Center. Or the Olympic Stadium could be the home of USC or UCLA if either need a new stadium.

I think had Chicago won 2016, they would have used the Olympic stadium after the games for many uses like concerts, high school sports, smaller colleges, festivals, trade shows, etc.

If San Diego were to ever bid, the plan would be for the Olympic Stadium to become the home of the San Diego Chargers. Same would happen if Minneapolis ever bid and won, as their Olympic Stadium would become the new home of the Minnesota Vikings. Seating would be reduced and the track would be removed. Both Chargers and Vikings need new stadiums.

Likewise, if the Canadian city of Toronto was to make an Olympic bid, their Olympic Stadium will either be to lure an NFL team (possibily the Buffalo Bills) or be the home of the Toronto Argonauts of the CFL.

So there would likely be uses for Olympic stadiums in American cities, not all sports related though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If San Francisco were to be the host city in 2024, chances are that the 49ers will turn the SF Olympic Stadium into their home stadium after the games end, with a year in their current stadium as renovations to turn the Olympic Stadium into a football stadium get underway. The 49ers need a new stadium in the worst way as Candlestick Park is very old.

Not gonna happen. The 49ers (note: they will have to shed "San Francisco") will be getting their new home in Santa Clara. Projected move in date: 2015. So I was thinking, maybe San Jose (a city of 900,000) could lead the new Bay Area Olympic bid. But San Jose does NOT have the glamour nor the hotel rooms of San Francisco. So maybe the IOC could accept a SF Bay Area bid (which the 2012 bid essentially was.

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

×
×
  • Create New...