Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Boston 2024 dream moves ahead

http://www.necn.com/02/11/14/Boston-2024-dream-moves-ahead/landing_business.html?blockID=862744&feedID=11106

(NECN: Peter Howe, Boston) - Boston putting in a bid to host the Summer Olympics in 2024? Maybe it's not a completely and utterly nutty idea after all.

That seems to be the consensus a special 11-person state commission is moving towards after several months of intense but under-the-radar work reviewing what would need to go into a Hub Olympics, including a Tuesday session where commissioners brought in two British officials to get more insight into how London pulled off its 2012 games.

"This is beyond a sporting occasion -- this is life-changing for people in London and around the world,'' British consul general Susie Kitchens said at the State House hearing.

As in Boston when the idea began bubbling up last year, when the idea of a London Olympics first came up more than a decade ago, many Britons immediately considered the idea ridiculous or un-doable, a traffic and security nightmare.

Then, London just began working to make it happen, Kitchens said, "setting out a really consistent, regular plan of communication that this is what we're doing, these are the issues that we're addressing … having it very open to the public so that people were able to see, transparently, what was going on.''
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....

From Olympic Agenda 2020:

'Allow possibility for joint bids (either from several cities in one country or from several cities in two or more countries)

Seattle-Vancouver?

Seattle only makes sense for the winter Olympics, in which case they wouldn't need Vancouver. The city council rejected making a bid for 2012 and traffic has only gotten worse since then. Seattle also doesn't have enough hotels to accommodate its regular summer tourists, and has struggled to build up infrastructure for cruise traffic.

Additionally, Vancouver and Seattle are pretty far away and across an international border. It's a three hour drive between the two without traffic and without a customs delay at the border.

There's also no possible use for a summer Olympic stadium in either city, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HUH? Seattle for a Winter Olympics? Building venues (such as the sliding track and ski jumps) which can easily be found 3 hours north? I think not.

As for no possible use for an Olympic Stadium, Seattle could do a London, after all it's modified Husky Stadium to be fully football, from its once athletics track field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles is America's 3rd best bet, after New York City (1st) and Chicago (2nd), and as them two don't want to Bid, Los Angeles is Usa's best chance, but 2024 is going to Europe, probably Rome, Italy IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles is America's 3rd best bet, after New York City (1st) and Chicago (2nd), and as them two don't want to Bid, Los Angeles is Usa's best chance, but 2024 is going to Europe, probably Rome, Italy IMO.

Tony.. we get it. We know who you think will host the 2024 Olympics. You don't need to keep reminding us as if you haven't told us before.

US will have to regroup until 2019.

I don't think it's a bad idea to keep discussions open for now, but they need to make it clear to all the prospective cities they're dealing with that the South Africa news WILL factor into any sort of decision regarding a potential 2024 US bid

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US chooses to go forward with a 2024 bid now, they have to know their odds of winning have just dropped considerably with news of South Africa entering the race. I wouldn't take the gamble.

I wouldn't take the gamble if I were Paris either.

Here's the reasoning: yes, it's possible that South Africa will not field a competent bid, but it's more likely that their bid will meet the IOC's minimum benchmark (even if the IOC has to lower that benchmark to make it happen). Both Paris and the US have a great deal to lose from a failed bid. Three consecutive losses for the US would almost certainly mean that a future Summer bid would be a very tough sell. Another loss for Paris could mean the French don't bid again for 30 years.

This is where the IOC really owes potential bidders clear, truthful information. If you're going to all charge over to South Africa, fine. But let the rest of the world know so that they don't waste their time and energy. It's not fair to make everyone else jump through hoops just so the IOC has an insurance policy they're virtually certain they'll never use.

Let South Africa bid against Doha and Baku and see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Durban 2024 is official now?

They publicly declared their bid and the government's support. The IOC hasn't invited bids for 2024 yet, so until they do that and South Africa responds, you could say that technically it's not "official," but their statement was definitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US chooses to go forward with a 2024 bid now, they have to know their odds of winning have just dropped considerably with news of South Africa entering the race. I wouldn't take the gamble.

I wouldn't take the gamble if I were Paris either.

Here's the reasoning: yes, it's possible that South Africa will not field a competent bid, but it's more likely that their bid will meet the IOC's minimum benchmark (even if the IOC has to lower that benchmark to make it happen). Both Paris and the US have a great deal to lose from a failed bid. Three consecutive losses for the US would almost certainly mean that a future Summer bid would be a very tough sell. Another loss for Paris could mean the French don't bid again for 30 years.

This is where the IOC really owes potential bidders clear, truthful information. If you're going to all charge over to South Africa, fine. But let the rest of the world know so that they don't waste their time and energy. It's not fair to make everyone else jump through hoops just so the IOC has an insurance policy they're virtually certain they'll never use.

Let South Africa bid against Doha and Baku and see what happens.

I partially agree and that last comment made me laugh, because Doha and Baku can waste their corrupt money on a wasted Bid. I still believe Rome and maybe Paris can put up a strong Bid VS Durban.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Durban 2024 Bid will be stronger than Cape Town's 2004 Bid, seeing as though the Infrastructure and Stadium from the 2010 Fifa World Cup is in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for no possible use for an Olympic Stadium, Seattle could do a London, after all it's modified Husky Stadium to be fully football, from its once athletics track field.

There isn't anywhere in the US that needs the sliding venues, though. The same thing can be said for Reno, Denver, etc. All of the other venues make sense and actually fit needs of the city. The city needs replacements for 50+ year old venues Key Arena, Mercer Arena, Memorial Stadium (could build an outdoor stadium/speed skating rink if they also used the adjacent parking lot), etc. The state also wants to expand its ski areas to accommodate local demand. A winter Olympics make sense for Seattle because it is already talking about doing most of the work required to host.

Seattle is really suited for neither Olympics. There are other, better strategicaly placed US cities.

It's actually reasonably well placed for the winter games. It's the closest major US city to Asia, is close to Europe if you fly over the north pole and closer to Europe than California, and is no farther from New York, Philadelphia, etc than LA is. There are a few other reasons Seattle won't want to host the games, though: money, transportation, bad memories of the SLC scandal, etc.

As for no possible use for an Olympic Stadium, Seattle could do a London, after all it's modified Husky Stadium to be fully football, from its once athletics track field.

Husky Stadium was modified because they wanted to get RID of the track. Why build a multi-billion dollar stadium just to convert it back again?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't anywhere in the US that needs the sliding venues, though. The same thing can be said for Reno, Denver, etc. All of the other venues make sense and actually fit needs of the city. The city needs replacements for 50+ year old venues Key Arena, Mercer Arena, Memorial Stadium (could build an outdoor stadium/speed skating rink if they also used the adjacent parking lot), etc. The state also wants to expand its ski areas to accommodate local demand. A winter Olympics make sense for Seattle because it is already talking about doing most of the work required to host.

It's actually reasonably well placed for the winter games. It's the closest major US city to Asia, is close to Europe if you fly over the north pole and closer to Europe than California, and is no farther from New York, Philadelphia, etc than LA is. There are a few other reasons Seattle won't want to host the games, though: money, transportation, bad memories of the SLC scandal, etc.

Husky Stadium was modified because they wanted to get RID of the track. Why build a multi-billion dollar stadium just to convert it back again?

What has the Salt Lake City scandal got to do with a possible Seattle Bid? If there were such bad memories from the scandal that it made American Cities not want to Bid, then why did New York City Bid for 2012 and Chicago Bid for 2016?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where the IOC could show real change in the bidding process, as somebody else said, to say to other cities like Paris & Rome, & to USOC, 'you're wasting your time, as long as it's above board, 2024 is Durban's, everyone else would be better saving their time, money, & emotion for 2028, because this is Africa's time'. Obviously they'd do it more diplomatically than that, but an IOC that is honest about which way it's likely to want to go in a particular cycle is surely better for everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for no possible use for an Olympic Stadium, Seattle could do a London, after all it's modified Husky Stadium to be fully football, from its once athletics track field.

Nacre beat me to the obvious, but.. no. Work within the confines of reality, you'll be taken a lot more seriously if you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What has the Salt Lake City scandal got to do with a possible Seattle Bid? If there were such bad memories from the scandal that it made American Cities not want to Bid, then why did New York City Bid for 2012 and Chicago Bid for 2016?

It provides ammunition for Olympic critics who argue that the games are corrupt. Progressively minded cities like San Francisco and Seattle look at things like Salt Lake City's corruption and human rights issues with Russia and China and ask why we would want to be connected with the Olympics if that's what they stand for.

As for New York and Chicago . . . compare their interest to that of Madrid and Istanbul. I don't think they are good examples of cities that are ardently enthusiastic about the IOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the IOC can really say "all you others don't bother, cuz 2024 belongs to (South) Africa". Bcuz there will always be someone crying foul, "hey, no fair!" Plus, unless the IOC adopts a continental rotation procedure like FIFA did, I don't think it can work. Bidding is always a gamble anyway. There's only one winner & a whole bunch of losers. As usual, it's gonna come down to who has the most appeal. And any prospective bidder should gauge their chances TBW.

Again, had Paris bid for 2020, I'd bet we'd be talking about them instead of Tokyo 2020. A new frontier isn't always a given. It took the Chinese two tries before they got, & it took PyeongChang three times. South Africa could potentially lose by a very small margin like both the Chinese & South Koreans did at first, or win by a very large margin like the two formers did at the end. With that, you can never know for sure. Yes, (South) Africa has that great narrative & potential to take it all, but unless you, as the competition knows that your bid may be not up to snuff anyway, then stay home (Boston, Dallas, 3rd Los Angeles, USOC). But if you can come up with a formidable oppontment & plan (Paris, Rome, maybe Hamburg), then by all means, don't wimp out & give it your best shot! That's what really makes winners! Cuz as the old saying goes, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the IOC can really say "all you others don't bother, cuz 2024 belongs to (South) Africa". Bcuz there will always be someone crying foul, "hey, no fair!" Plus, unless the IOC adopts a continental rotation procedure like FIFA did, I don't think it can work. Bidding is always a gamble anyway. There's only one winner & a whole bunch of losers. As usual, it's gonna come down to who has the most appeal. And any prospective bidder should gauge their chances TBW.

Again, had Paris bid for 2020, I'd bet we'd be talking about them instead of Tokyo 2020. A new frontier isn't always a given. It took the Chinese two tries before they got, & it took PyeongChang three times. South Africa could potentially lose by a very small margin like both the Chinese & South Koreans did at first, or win by a very large margin like the two formers did at the end. With that, you can never know for sure. Yes, (South) Africa has that great narrative & potential to take it all, but unless you, as the competition knows that your bid may be not up to snuff anyway, then stay home (Boston, Dallas, 3rd Los Angeles, USOC). But if you can come up with a formidable oppontment & plan (Paris, Rome, maybe Hamburg), then by all means, don't wimp out & give it your best shot! That's what really makes winners! Cuz as the old saying goes, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!"

I agree, in this case though whose the fat lady? :P I think it's very likely for the IOC to pull another '2000' and the games go back to Europe, but I hope SA wins. Above all I pray that Paris does not bid now, because I really do not want to see that city loose again. I don't expect them to because of South Africa's announcement, the French are smarter then that. Yet I think we all know what's going down in Madrid right now: 2013-09-12T093619Z_1_CBRE98B0QOQ00_RTROP"Guys, I really think we have a great shot of winning with Paris out..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, in this case though whose the fat lady? :P I think it's very likely for the IOC to pull another '2000' and the games go back to Europe, but I hope SA wins. Above all I pray that Paris does not bid now, because I really do not want to see that city loose again. I don't expect them to because of South Africa's announcement, the French are smarter then that. Yet I think we all know what's going down in Madrid right now: 2013-09-12T093619Z_1_CBRE98B0QOQ00_RTROP"Guys, I really think we have a great shot of winning with Paris out..."

Hahahaha very funny, but madrid already said no to the olympica
Link to post
Share on other sites

USOC talking with IOC officials

Associated Press | February 12, 2014

SOCHI, Russia -- U.S. Olympic leaders are sounding out international officials in Sochi about a potential American bid for the Games -- and the feedback is positive.

The U.S. Olympic Committee is currently weighing a possible run for the 2024 Summer Games. If that's ruled out, the 2026 Winter Olympics would be an option.

Sochi is giving USOC chairman Larry Probst and CEO Scott Blackmun the chance to talk informally with the voting members of the International Olympic Committee.

"We can get some really good input: Is it time for a U.S. bid and, if so, where should it come from?'' Blackmun said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. "I think people genuinely would like to see a U.S. bid. There are some that think winter would be better than summer and some who think summer would be better than winter.

"There's a recognition that the U.S. is an important market, and at some point in the future, the Games should go back there.''

The U.S. hasn't hosted the Summer Olympics since the 1996 Atlanta Games. The last Winter Games in the U.S. were held in 2002 in Salt Lake City. The IOC may be eager to encourage another bid from the U.S. because it would bring a high-profile player into the race and boost interest in the Olympics.

Whether IOC members want the U.S. to win is another matter. The U.S. was shot down by the IOC in its two most recent bids, with New York rejected for the 2012 Olympics and Chicago for 2016. The USOC has been consulting with cities interested in going for 2024, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Dallas, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington. Los Angeles has hosted the Games twice, in 1932 and 1984.

The USOC hopes to make a decision by the end of this year. The IOC bid process begins in 2015, with the host city to be selected in 2017. Other potential bidders for 2024 include Paris, Rome, Doha and a city in South Africa.

"The last thing we want is to bid and lose,'' Blackmun said.

The USOC resolved a long-standing revenue-sharing dispute with the IOC in 2012, paving the way for a potential new bid. Blackmun and Probst have continued to work to improve ties with the IOC. Probst's election to the IOC on the eve of the Sochi Games and U.S. member Anita DeFrantz's elevation to the policy-making executive board would seem to boost the chances of an American bid.

If the USOC decides not to go forward for 2024, the 2026 Winter Olympics would come into consideration. Denver and Salt Lake City could be potential U.S. contenders. Blackmun, however, insisted the focus is solely on 2024.

"We're not currently engaged in a process of weighing summer vs. winter,'' he said. "We're engaged in a process of looking at what our options would be for a summer bid and assessing the viability of a summer bid.''

The process comes as the IOC is considers changes to the bidding system, including ways of reducing costs run up by the candidate cities. Blackmun said New York and Chicago each spent nearly $100 million on their failed bids. Other cities spent more than $10 million just trying to be chosen as the U.S. candidate.

"We really don't want cities to go through that anymore,'' Blackmun said.

Also in play is the cost of hosting the Games -- a major issue in light of the $51 billion that Russia spent preparing for Sochi. Most of the money went to long-term infrastructure projects like roads, railways and hotels, not the games themselves.

"We're going to take a close look at that,'' Blackmun said, noting that Los Angeles and Salt Lake City have more of the infrastructure already in place because they've hosted the Games before.

http://m.espn.go.com/extra/olympics/story?storyId=10444404&src=desktop

The very last paragraph of that article is such a catch 22, that it almost makes Blackmun seem not realistic. Yeah, that's a benefit. But at the same time, that could very well be your Achilles heel, especially in Salt Lake's case.

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

×
×
  • Create New...