Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, we haven't heard anything about Dallas, Boston and Philadelphia either.. only about Los Angeles and San Diego.

Not to repeat FYI's post here.. we've seen more formal plans from Los Angeles and San Diego. There have still been rumblings from the other 3 cities you mentioned, but we've definitely heard a little about what's going on (as noted, moreso Dallas and Boston than Philadelphia). That we're getting close to the 'put up or shut up' portion of this process, Boston's exploratory efforts need to churn out a plan or else the USOC probably won't want anything to do with them. Dallas seemed to have the workings of a plan involving Fair Park, so I'm betting they'll move along in the process. Them and LA should be there. If there's a 3rd city, anyone's best guess who that will be.

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....

Here's something with a bit more sourcing from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/sports/olympics/us-cities-vie-to-carry-the-olympic-torch-in-2024.html?ref=sports&_r=0

Looks like they spoke to someone in the San Francisco mayor's office, but it was pretty noncommittal. I'm surprised she didn't just deny they were in the process - she certainly didn't make it clear that they WERE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they're, explain in every news article why it says seven cities are in contention to be the US candidate. And then they mention the cities that are in the seven and San Fran is one.

They also said Atlanta, NYC, and Chicago were bidding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They also said Atlanta, NYC, and Chicago were bidding.

There's nothing in that article about Atlanta, NYC or Chicago.

To be fair, the articles mentioning those cities came out much earlier in the process when the picture was murkier.

Now the list is clear. All sources are publishing basically the same thing:

LA

Boston

Dallas

Philadelphia

San Diego

San Francisco

Washington DC

Link to post
Share on other sites

The older articles did. But again, the most RECENT news pieces (within the last month or two) have only mentioned the seven cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Dallas, Boston, Philadephia & Washington, DC.

We know now that New York, Chicago & Minneapolis have all said 'no' already. We know that the USOC has said that they're talking to "more than a handful of cities, but less than ten". We know that Los Angeles now has ambitious plans & is an extremely likely contender. We know that San Diego is trumpeting their tune. We know that Dallas & Boston have/are exploring their options. We know that Tulsa was always a pipedream.

So it's a pretty safe assumption at this late point in the game that those seven cities being named in articles, as of late, are pretty much who the USOC is actually dealing with right now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet you wanna cite info from articles that are months old? So which should be more accurate at this stage in the game. What about process of elimination is not being understood here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention we have not heard ANYTHING from San Francisco (I don't even recall an exploratory committee), the most cities we are hearing from are Dallas and LA (which appear to be neck and neck at this point), Boston, San Diego, and DC, that still fits the bill of the USOC's hand-full of cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cities don't really need to say anything. This bid process isn't open, so a public announcement isn't necessary. Heck, we don't even know if the USOC is planning to tell us the "2 or 3 cities" they're going to select. The New York Times, however, has provided some information on the 7 "interested" cities (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/sports/olympics/us-cities-vie-to-carry-the-olympic-torch-in-2024.html)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why bring up New York, Chicago & Atlanta. And I agree about San Francisco, which is why I said earlier, if there's any cities that I still remain skeptical about on that list are San Francisco & DC. Precisely bcuz we haven't heard that much from them, cuz they're usually bureaucratic, red-tape messes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why bring up New York, Chicago & Atlanta. And I agree about San Francisco, which is why I said earlier, if there's any cities that I still remain skeptical about on that list are San Francisco & DC. Precisely bcuz we haven't heard that much from them, cuz they're usually bureaucratic, red-tape messes.

We have heard more from DC than cisco, I brought up NYC, Atlanta, and Chi-town because they were all mentioned as bidding cities in articles I have read.

The cities don't really need to say anything. This bid process isn't open, so a public announcement isn't necessary. Heck, we don't even know if the USOC is planning to tell us the "2 or 3 cities" they're going to select. The New York Times, however, has provided some information on the 7 "interested" cities (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/sports/olympics/us-cities-vie-to-carry-the-olympic-torch-in-2024.html)

Yes the NY Times is credible, but at the same time, much of their news comes from other sites (especially in articles that are focused on topics they do not normally report on).

San Francisco may or may not be in the running, I just doubt it actually is. They don't even have a site, which can determine how far a project is.

The only concrete thing I could find pertaining to a bid was this: http://lda.ucdavis.edu/people/2013/MChagniot.pdf

Which appears to be a school project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the most cities we are hearing from are Dallas and LA (which appear to be neck and neck at this point)

What are you basing this on?

I have not read any story anywhere that makes an attempt to rank the cities. The USOC hasn't ranked the cities.

There's absolutely zero evidence to support the claim that "LA and Dallas are neck and neck."

LA has a very impressive proposal, but we have no idea what other cities do or don't have or what the USOC thinks about them.

I brought up NYC, Atlanta, and Chi-town because they were all mentioned as bidding cities in articles I have read.

Not recent articles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought up NYC, Atlanta, and Chi-town because they were all mentioned as bidding cities in articles I have read.

"Recent" ones?! Again, older articles mentioned those cities. But we're talking about right NOW. And now those cities aren't mentioned in recent articles bcuz we already know where they stand on the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernham, stop trying to read tea leaves. This is a private, quiet conversational process. Apart from LA's leak (I suspect it was that, since the document disappeared so quickly), we know nothing and evidently that's the way the USOC wants it. So just calm down and wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't even have a site,

So now you have to have a site to bid for a games. Just because there haven't been thatmuch news out of San Fran, doesn't mean they're not interested. And to repeat what WooHoo said, Philly doesn't have a site either.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor does Philadelphia, and I don't see anybody doubting Philadelphia.

I'm doubting it...

What are you basing this on?

I have not read any story anywhere that makes an attempt to rank the cities. The USOC hasn't ranked the cities.

There's absolutely zero evidence to support the claim that "LA and Dallas are neck and neck."

LA has a very impressive proposal, but we have no idea what other cities do or don't have or what the USOC thinks about them.

Okay I'll admit, this one was more of a personal view of the cities at this point.

Bernham, stop trying to read tea leaves. This is a private, quiet conversational process. Apart from LA's leak (I suspect it was that, since the document disappeared so quickly), we know nothing and evidently that's the way the USOC wants it. So just calm down and wait.

At this point you would have expected things to leak, something from the mayor, an exploratory committee, something...San Francisco has had none of that. At this point nothing points to the fact that they are in talks other than articles whose information primarily comes from each other, everything points to the idea that they were, but no longer are.

So now you have to have a site to bid for a games. Just because there haven't been thatmuch news out of San Fran, doesn't mean they're not interested. And to repeat what WooHoo said, Philly doesn't have a site either.

Sites are a fabulous way of looking at a cities progress and a fantastic tool for marketing and gaining public support. Every city bidding domestically has a site: LA, San Diego, Boston, Dallas, DC - all of them.

All in all, from what I have seen The USOC has dropped some cities, they visited the cities in November and it seems like the list has been made smaller and that they eliminated at least two cities. I'm calling that Philly and the Bay were recently dropped and that DC, Dallas, LA, Boston, and San Diego remain, those cities then turned in a mini applicant file (LA's leaked) and using those the USOC will decide who the final two or three cities will be. Everything the USOC has said has hinted at this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there haven't been thatmuch news out of San Fran, doesn't mean they're not interested.

A city expressing "interest" & then actually being able to come up with a winnable plan are two entirely different things.

Anyone could be interested in a certain job position. But without meeting ALL (or at least most) of the criteria needed for that position, then that 'interest' means absolutely nothing in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A city expressing "interest" & then actually being able to come up with a winnable plan are two entirely different things.

Anyone could be interested in a certain job position. But without meeting ALL (or at least most) of the criteria needed for that position, then that 'interest' means absolutely nothing in the end.

Precisely, there could be people in San Francisco that are interested in hosting the games, I mean how many cities have "expressed interest" in hosting but simply can't? This is why I'm starting to believe that behind the scenes the USOC is already telling cities that they are out.

To follow up on this, didn't the USOC say they were going to decrease the number to around five and then down to around three and finally decide if they will bid? If that's correct then this is how I think the past two and a half years have played out in Colorado:

February 2013 - USOC sends letters to 34 cities attempting to gauge interest

Fall 2013 - That list has now become 10 cities interested in the bidding

November 2013 - The USOC has now decreased the list to seven cities and visits all seven to inspect each cities plans

Late Winter 2014 - The list is decreased to five

April 2014 - The five remaining cities submit their Applicant files which detail their bids and plans

June 2014 - USOC will shorten the list to around three cities

Late 2014 - The USOC will decide whether or not to bid and select the city they will bid with

The above timeline was based on news stories from February 2013 to May 2014.

Link to post
Share on other sites

February 2013 - USOC sends letters to 34 cities attempting to gauge interest

Fall 2013 - That list has now become 10 cities interested in the bidding

November 2013 - The USOC has now decreased the list to seven cities and visits all seven to inspect each cities plans

Late Winter 2014 - The list is decreased to five

April 2014 - The five remaining cities submit their Applicant files which detail their bids and plans

June 2014 - USOC will shorten the list to around three cities

Late 2014 - The USOC will decide whether or not to bid and select the city they will bid with

I suppose that is plausible. After all, the lack of information from the USOC can suggest anything, really. Until the USOC gives solid info, all we can do now is just speculate.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I'm not sure where you got the information that "the list was decreased to five" in "late winter of 2014" (since you know, you did say the timeline was based on news articles between February and March)

If you look at the Philadelphia Facebook page all activity went dead after February 4th, and while Social Media is not always the best indicator it is the only direct source from the bid. Most of the other bids have had increased activity and I'm suspecting it's because they are still trying to interest people, Philly on the other hand looks like it has closed shop.

This is not surprising, especially when you consider their early drop during the 2016 race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A city expressing "interest" & then actually being able to come up with a winnable plan are two entirely different things.

Anyone could be interested in a certain job position. But without meeting ALL (or at least most) of the criteria needed for that position, then that 'interest' means absolutely nothing in the end.

I have interest in spending a night having glorious sex with Kate Upton.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...