Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Durban is unlikely to be bidding for both events. The 2022 CWG's are likely headed their way so I don't see why they will jump at 2024, knowing the 2022 CWG can push them over the bar when they do eventually bid.

I disagree. It's a perfect alignment for Durban to have:

2022 - CWG

2023 - test events

2024 - the Big One and they're done with it. Village sold off. No need to build ANOTHER Village for 2028.

They will have the key organizing personnel in place for at least 4 years. Unlike what Athens says, 2024, if it happens, would probably be the smoothest run Games in recent memory because they would have a 1-2-3 punchlist for it.

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

I disagree. It's a perfect alignment for Durban to have:

2022 - CWG

2023 - test events

2024 - the Big One and they're done with it. Village sold off. No need to build ANOTHER Village for 2028.

They will have the key organizing personnel in place for at least 4 years. Unlike what Athens says, 2024, if it happens, would probably be the smoothest run Games in recent memory because they would have a 1-2-3 punchlist for it.

Of course, Baron's argument is totally predicated on his quixotic desire to see Reno host in 2026. The more he sells Durban as the "smoothest" Games ever (laughable), the more he thinks he might dissuade the USOC from biding for 2024, thereby clearing the way (he thinks) for his beloved Reno.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, Baron's argument is totally predicated on his quixotic desire to see Reno host in 2026. The more he sells Durban as the "smoothest" Games ever (laughable), the more he thinks he might dissuade the USOC from biding for 2024, thereby clearing the way (he thinks) for his beloved Reno.

How wrong you are. What makes you think I am prognosticating Durban will have a good Games just to 'position Reno'? You must've just borrowed Tony E's cracked crystal ball.

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

A.) The WC is a totally different type of event -- as Rio is learning. Success with the WC does not ensure success with an Olympic Games.

B.) I'm not forgetting it would be the first African Olympics and that many African nations would be on board. Some posters have alleged that the rest of the continent is experiencing a degree of "SA fatigue," but I don't know how much validity there is to that claim. If Rio continues to be problematic, I can imagine the Africans saying "The last thing we want to do is subject ourselves to the same position." You forget that it's all about 50% plus one in the voting -- not the number of nations. I think a great deal depends on how much of a problem Rio turns out to be.

C.) Just as the WC is diverting attention from Olympic planning in Rio, CWG could detract from SA's focus where the Olympics are concerned -- particularly if they try to do a 2022/2024 double. I suspect the IOC would be ESPECIALLY wary of this scenario based on Rio's issues. Granted, there's considerably more overlap between the needs of a CWG and an Olympics than there is between a WC and the Olympics -- provided the CWG and Olympics are hosted by the same city. Even so, I think it will be a consideration.

If the IOC experiences too many problems (not just with Rio, but with 2022 as well) they may just reach a level of fatigue that motivates the majority of them to target "safe and reliable."

you just validated the points i made a couple of post ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It's a perfect alignment for Durban to have:

2022 - CWG

2023 - test events

2024 - the Big One and they're done with it. Village sold off. No need to build ANOTHER Village for 2028.

They will have the key organizing personnel in place for at least 4 years. Unlike what Athens says, 2024, if it happens, would probably be the smoothest run Games in recent memory because they would have a 1-2-3 punchlist for it.

Not necessarily. Alot of the Venues for the Commonwealth Games would be re-used for the Olympics, so it's killing two birds with one stone as such. They are preparing for both at the same time.
Cities spend 7 years preparing for the Olympics. Is the IOC going to be content with that same city preparing for another large event concurrently? Yes, to have the venues for one helps the other, but if the goal for Durban is the Olympics, it's costing a lot more money to add another large scale event on top of that they're not likely to benefit more from. Again, there are costs associated with the 2 events that aren't killing 2 birds with 1 stone. If Durban's main motivation to host a CWG is to make them more appealing to the IOC, then a better analogy is a restaurant special where you get an appetizer and an entree at a cheaper price than if you paid for them separately. But that's still going to cost more money than if you just get the entree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the amortization is for TWO events...not just for one major use.

So what? 2 events is obviously going to cost a lot more than the 1. Are Durban and RSA going to have more to show for it afterwards because they hosted 2 events instead of 1 in terms of infrastructure or finances? If the idea of a CWG is to act as a warm-up to the Olympics, they're still building the same number of facilities, but spending more money to do it than if they just hosted an Olympics. I doubt it's gonna be a good sell to the people of South Africa for their country to say that they're hosting 2 large scale sporting events, but it's okay because the price tag per event is lower. Why have 1 when they can have 2 at a much higher price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? 2 events is obviously going to cost a lot more than the 1. Are Durban and RSA going to have more to show for it afterwards because they hosted 2 events instead of 1 in terms of infrastructure or finances? If the idea of a CWG is to act as a warm-up to the Olympics, they're still building the same number of facilities, but spending more money to do it than if they just hosted an Olympics. I doubt it's gonna be a good sell to the people of South Africa for their country to say that they're hosting 2 large scale sporting events, but it's okay because the price tag per event is lower. Why have 1 when they can have 2 at a much higher price.

I'm scared. I agree again. Can't argue with the above logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm scared. I agree again. Can't argue with the above logic.

I guess you're on a roll this week or something.

In baron's defense, I don't think his arguments for Durban have anything to do with his desire to see a Winter Olympics in Reno. I think he's just so convinced Durban is an automatic winner whenever they want it and that as soon as they officially declare they're in the race, every other prospective bidder (save for the crazy ones like Doha and Baku) are going to tremble in fear and run away from the race as fast as they possibly can. They didn't bid for 2020. May very well not bid for 2024, despite a couple of rumblings that said they're interested. That said, do I like the USOC's chances against South Africa in a 2024 race? Not so much. Doesn't mean they should shy away in fear should South Africa be there. It's all going to come down to that all important factor which we don't seem to discuss enough here.. does the USOC have a compelling candidate they are interested in bidding with? If not, it doesn't make the slightest different what SASCOC or any other country out there does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of now, there's no telling who the "threats" will be because there aren't any official bids. These days. Even when there are official bids, there's no telling if they'll stick. The US only has a shot if several other key players opt not to bid -- which is VERY possible. Even if Durban bids, their bid could well be greeted with anxious uncertainty rather than unbridled enthusiasm. This is a challenging season for the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the IOC got too excited when cities actually wanted the games. They chose the cities that would spend the most and put on the best show. Now they are confronted with the problem of having to find cities that want the games, and there are not a lot. The biggest problem for them will be Europe, after what the world saw happen to Greece and the SOCHIETRAVAGANZA, no city in the Eurozone will want the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the IOC got too excited when cities actually wanted the games. They chose the cities that would spend the most and put on the best show. Now they are confronted with the problem of having to find cities that want the games, and there are not a lot. The biggest problem for them will be Europe, after what the world saw happen to Greece and the SOCHIETRAVAGANZA, no city in the Eurozone will want the games.

Doesn't that post totally contradict what you just said about the biggest threat coming from Europe? How can there be threats from Europe if, as you say "no one in the Eurozone will want the Games." Your logic leaves a lot to be desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? 2 events is obviously going to cost a lot more than the 1. Are Durban and RSA going to have more to show for it afterwards because they hosted 2 events instead of 1 in terms of infrastructure or finances? If the idea of a CWG is to act as a warm-up to the Olympics, they're still building the same number of facilities, but spending more money to do it than if they just hosted an Olympics. I doubt it's gonna be a good sell to the people of South Africa for their country to say that they're hosting 2 large scale sporting events, but it's okay because the price tag per event is lower. Why have 1 when they can have 2 at a much higher price.

Obviously, we disagree. So what it does it cost to use & dress-up an already existing venue the 2nd time? Peanuts compared to what it cost to put it up BUT, to my mind, the justification benefits are huge to say that these huge white mastadoons (it's a different term in the actual land of elephants) saw action at least twice-esp in a developing country. What personnel costs are there going to be? A lot of it is volunteer work for the 2 uses. My point is, "2 uses" always looks better on a resume regardless of how you parse it. And again, this is just us agreeing to disagree in how we size these things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, we disagree. So what it does it cost to use & dress-up an already existing venue the 2nd time? Peanuts compared to what it cost to put it up BUT, to my mind, the justification benefits are huge to say that these huge white mastadoons (it's a different term in the actual land of elephants) saw action at least twice-esp in a developing country. What personnel costs are there going to be? A lot of it is volunteer work for the 2 uses. My point is, "2 uses" always looks better on a resume regardless of how you parse it. And again, this is just us agreeing to disagree in how we size these things up.

And how much is it going to cost for security for 2 mega events? You mentioned personnel costs. I'm sure there's plenty more out there.

Let's do a hypothetical here (I'm making up numbers here, so bear with me). Let's say an Olympics would cost RSA $10 billion. And let's say a CWG on it's own would cost them $5 billion (again, making up these numbers here). Now let's say for Durban to host both would only cost them $12 billion. Obviously there's value derived from hosting the 2 events instead of just the one, but Durban and South Africa probably aren't better off in terms of a legacy with things like venues and infrastructure having hosted 2 events than the 1. But the city/country will have spent an extra $2 billion for it.

Now you can say it's money well spent (although far be it from us to tell a country that's hardly got a booming economy how to spend their money). But you're still left with the predicament that you're asking the IOC to award the Olympics to a city that would be hosting another event across most of the usual 7 years of prep time a city is afforded. Not so sure how much they'll be into that, particularly from a new frontier host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America should just sit out of the 2024 race IMO. 2024 is coming back to Europe.

So in other words, the USOC shouldn't even bother because it's already pre-destined where the 2024 Olympics are going to be? Don't buy that logic.

Once again.. what should determine whether or not the United States bids for 2024 is if they have a compelling candidate to bid with, not merely what the competition looks like. If they believe they have a good city with a solid plan and some of the intangibles going for them, they should bid. If they don't have that, they should sit out. And if they're on the fence as to if they have a strong enough candidate, then maybe they assess the competition and factor that into the decision. But as usual for this site, this comment is focusing way too much simply on who the United States MIGHT be up against and very little on who the USOC's candidate might be. In that regard though, it does seem like the USOC might have trouble coming up with a compelling bad. And yes, if that's the case, they should sit it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how much is it going to cost for security for 2 mega events? You mentioned personnel costs. I'm sure there's plenty more out there.

Let's do a hypothetical here (I'm making up numbers here, so bear with me). Let's say an Olympics would cost RSA $10 billion. And let's say a CWG on it's own would cost them $5 billion (again, making up these numbers here). Now let's say for Durban to host both would only cost them $12 billion. Obviously there's value derived from hosting the 2 events instead of just the one, but Durban and South Africa probably aren't better off in terms of a legacy with things like venues and infrastructure having hosted 2 events than the 1. But the city/country will have spent an extra $2 billion for it.

Now you can say it's money well spent (although far be it from us to tell a country that's hardly got a booming economy how to spend their money). But you're still left with the predicament that you're asking the IOC to award the Olympics to a city that would be hosting another event across most of the usual 7 years of prep time a city is afforded. Not so sure how much they'll be into that, particularly from a new frontier host.

It really can't be that much. OK, a CWG doesn't attract the TV revenues numbers that the O does; but delegations will still pay for their stay at the Village; tickets will still be sold, etc. What other big-ticket items does RSA/Durban need to stage a 1-2 CWG/SOG? The stadium is up; so just a Village and 2 or 3 major indoor arenas. Their big problem is lack of filling the IOC's # of desired hotel rooms. But then again, they are looking at attracting some 6 behemoth cruise ships to fill that gap and not be stuck with a Sochi-like ghost town post-Games.*

And really, it's the prestige and intangible benefits that RSA is buying here if they went on a 1-2 run here for itself and for Africa. But then again, that's an outsider seeing this thru rose-colored glasses. The reality might be far different on the ground; obviously I'm not privy to a lot of the numbers the RSA is considering in these projects.

*I think this is their one big obstacle:, how to get the commitment from 2 or 3 cruise lines to get their 2,000 room vessels down there for and make it worth the cruise lines' while, too -- considering southern Africa isn't really amongst the heavy-travelled cruise lines areas yet like Alaska, the Caribbean and the Med.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words, the USOC shouldn't even bother because it's already pre-destined where the 2024 Olympics are going to be? Don't buy that logic.

Once again.. what should determine whether or not the United States bids for 2024 is if they have a compelling candidate to bid with, not merely what the competition looks like. If they believe they have a good city with a solid plan and some of the intangibles going for them, they should bid. If they don't have that, they should sit out. And if they're on the fence as to if they have a strong enough candidate, then maybe they assess the competition and factor that into the decision. But as usual for this site, this comment is focusing way too much simply on who the United States MIGHT be up against and very little on who the USOC's candidate might be. In that regard though, it does seem like the USOC might have trouble coming up with a compelling bad. And yes, if that's the case, they should sit it out.

I'm pretty sure 2024 is coming back to Europe. I can't see there being 3 Non-European Summer Olympic Games in a row (Rio 2016, Tokyo 2020 and 2024)? I believe 2024 is Rome VS Paris VS Berlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure 2024 is coming back to Europe. I can't see there being 3 Non-European Summer Olympic Games in a row (Rio 2016, Tokyo 2020 and 2024)? I believe 2024 is Rome VS Paris VS Berlin.

I have trouble seeing that myself, but it's not impossible. Granted, I'd probably put my money on Durban preventing that from happening than a North American entry, but still.. maybe it will be those 3 European heavyweights. But if you're basing your "2024 is coming back to Europe" on the assumption those 3 cities will all be bidding, you're really putting the cart before the horse to throw those cities out there to more easily make a case for Europe 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all going to come down to that all important factor which we don't seem to discuss enough here.. does the USOC have a compelling candidate they are interested in bidding with? If not, it doesn't make the slightest different what SASCOC or any other country out there does.

Actually, we do, though. It should go without saying, but the discussions go hand-in-hand with what the USOC actually has availiable to them. So ATM, they have seven cities that they're "talking to"; San Fran, L.A., San Diego, Dallas, DC, Boston & Philadelphia. Out of those, the USOC says that they'd like to "trim" that list to "two or three" by the end of next month.

Now, just quickly glossing over that list, it's clear that San Francisco would make the most "compelling" candidate outta that list. But when we start to look a lot closer & look at all the other crucial variables & technical merits, then that pretty much puts them, & a few others on that list, into great question.

So with that, in a couple of months, after the USOC trims the fat, we're gonna be talking about L.A., Dallas & either Boston or Philadelphia. So outta those left, which one is most compelling. And would it be compelling enough. And if in the end it still isn't, then the USOC needs to decide if they still wanna be in the 2024 mix or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with that, in a couple of months, after the USOC trims the fat, we're gonna be talking about L.A., Dallas & either Boston or Philadelphia. So outta those left, which one is most compelling. And would it be compelling enough. And if in the end it still isn't, then the USOC needs to decide if they still wanna be in the 2024 mix or not.

To me, the fact that there is this little clarity tells a story. This indecisiveness from the USOC seems to be born out of the fact that there isn't a compelling candidate out there and that the end result is that their best option is Los Angeles. And if that's their best option, is that who they want to put forward. It's natural for us to want to hear more from a Dallas or a Boston or a San Diego just so it gives us something to talk about. It still surprises me a little at this point in the game that the USOC isn't able to trim the list further or at least find a way to trim the fat from this list and figure out if there's a city or 2 on that list they know they don't want to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...