Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

USOC not bidding for 2020? No problem, we'll start concentrating on 2024.

Exactly. Just look at Tulsa?! :lol:

But seriously. I think if someone wants something really bad, but yet they still need someone else's, they still keep working at it 'til they get it.

*but yet they still need someone else's 'approval'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not cities "should have to wait for the green light from the USOC", I think that may be what's happening. After two huge defeats that were due largely to mistakes made by the USOC, I think cities see the USOC as responsible for righting the ship.

The USOC only has to 'right the ship' with the politics with the IOC, not with the cities & any potential plans that they could come up with for an Olympic Games. That's the cities responsibilities, & that's what they should be working on while the USOC does their part with the IOC. This is a two-party agreement here.

And can we really sit here & say that the 2 Summer losses were "largely" due to mistakes made by the USOC? At the time, almost everyone agreed that Chicago had a rock-solid bid, much more solid than New York's. The USOC painstakenly went through the 2016 process because of the debacle of the New York bid. New York's 2012 bid imploding only one month before the 2005 IOC vote didn't help at all. And then the better lobbying of London & then simply just having a mega of glamour European capitals to compete with also didn't help New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And can we really sit here & say that the 2 Summer losses were "largely" due to mistakes made by the USOC? At the time, almost everyone agreed that Chicago had a rock-solid bid, much more solid than New York's. The USOC painstakenly went through the 2016 process because of the debacle of the New York bid. New York's 2012 bid imploding only one month before the 2005 IOC vote didn't help at all. And then the better lobbying of London & then simply just having a mega of glamour European capitals to compete with also didn't help New York.

That's why a lot of times, winning and losing is a matter of circumstance. Let's say that New York had bid for the 1996 Olympics getting chosen over Atlanta. Would they have won? Hypothetical of course, but it stands to reason they probably would have. Now take the Atlanta bid and put them in the 2012 race. Again, obviously a hypothetical, but they probably wouldn't have stood a chance given the competition they were up against.

I've said this a couple of times and I'll bring it up again.. I remember the presentations in 2005 for the 2012 vote. I came away from NYC's presentation (led almost solely by NYC 2012 officials, not the USOC) thinking less of their bid than I had before. Yes, they had the debacle over the stadium to deal with, but it simply wasn't a technically sound effort. Still goes to my theory that New York is a world class city in every sense, but that doesn't make it the right place to hold an event like the Olympics.

Going forward, 2012 and 2016 are certainly cautionary tales that other prospective cities will be looking at. No question it's a shame that they may have largely scared off New York and Chicago from bidding in the near future. But that's the risks. Is it worth spending all these millions of dollars on an Olympic bid and then have to spend millions more if they wind up winning? In these economic times, that's the question of valuing what an Olympics will do for a city/region versus the costs of hosting. That's why even if the USOC was as determined as Athens wants them to be to land a Summer Olympics, they need a city that is not only going to shoulder the costs and burdens of bidding, but that they and the USOC can come together and make it worth the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of the recent losses were for summer Games which are more competitive and higher profile contests. It makes perfect sense that potential winter candidates wouldn't feel so dissuaded. Summer candidates look at the losses and are afraid they see themselves in a mirror. Winter candidates assume (rightly or wrongly) that they're in a different boat and will be less affected by the issues that plagued 2012 and 2016.

I say all the more reason then, for potential Summer candidates to start even earlier if the Summer Games are the "more competitive & higher profile contests". Since that would require a lot more work than Winter candidates would need to do.

And you're taking about cities being "afraid" of the Summer losses, so they stop to ponder? Sorry, but this doesn't sound like the usual; "America, still follow your dreams & don't be 'afraid' to carry on in the difficult times"! If American cities want Summer Games, then they need to show us that they want Summer Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're taking about cities being "afraid" of the Summer losses, so they stop to ponder? Sorry, but this doesn't sound like the usual; "America, still follow your dreams & don't be 'afraid' to carry on in the difficult times"! If American cities want Summer Games, then they need to show us that they want Summer Games.

Yeah... I think most Americans today would remorsefully pine for the days of "America following her dreams..." Reality of our fiscal nightmares have hit home... Virtually every major city and 48/50 states are broke... the national government is $15,000,000,000,000+ in debt and now 48% of Americans are at or near the poverty level... Numbers don't lie... we are in serious trouble and hosting the summer Olympics seems both silly and irresponsible in this context... I can't think of any place in America except the possibility of LA where it could be pulled off anymore... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\ Then truly, the reality is it's easier AND cheaper to put on a Winter Games; so that's what the good old USA should go for...NOT the sweaty, expensive SOGs!!

Still costs money to put on a Winter Olympics though. That's money that the states of California and Nevada (let alone Colorado) may or may not want to spend to try and land an Olympics. They could have all the desire in the world to bring the Olympics there, but can they risk the possibility of losing and having all the money go for nothing. And even if they do win, is it going to be something useful and helpful for them. Just because the geopolitics of landing a Winter Olympics seem favorable doesn't mean it's a mere formality the USOC and an interested city are going to come together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U may be right, BP. But wouldn't hosting even the Winter Olympics still cost Reno a pretty penny, since they would still need to build a number of venues. The Olympics, even the Winter Games, R still not cheap.

I'm sure it would but still a lot less than a SOG; and even the bidding is going to be more restrained now since the IOC seems to want to keep things in check now. Hey, maybe that Vegas maverick guy can get his rocks off farther north rather than in Vegas! :lol:

Let him attach his name to the stadium!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling is Europe will host either in 2020 or 2024. Not only has Europe never gone more than two cycles without hosting a summer games, it hasn't hosted a SOG in the years ending in a 6 or 8 since London 1948.

If Tokyo gets 2020, I don't think the US should put in a bid for 2024, especially if South Africa enters a city for '24. Those two big factors diminish any chance the US has in IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only has Europe never gone more than two cycles without hosting a summer games, it hasn't hosted a SOG in the years ending in a 6 or 8 since London 1948.

That's bcuz the 8's Are reserved for Asia! :lol:

So it was really futile then, for Madrid to have gone after 2016 since the last European Summer Games ending in '6' were Berlin 1936. Not to mention that Europe was already hosting the preceding Games! The Spaniards should've seen the non-Olympic signs! All their European neighbors did!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still costs money to put on a Winter Olympics though. That's money that the states of California and Nevada (let alone Colorado) may or may not want to spend to try and land an Olympics. They could have all the desire in the world to bring the Olympics there, but can they risk the possibility of losing and having all the money go for nothing. And even if they do win, is it going to be something useful and helpful for them. Just because the geopolitics of landing a Winter Olympics seem favorable doesn't mean it's a mere formality the USOC and an interested city are going to come together.

True... California's budget situation is arguably the most dire of any of the 50 states right now... their annual budget hole is in the tens of billions of dollars and they have already cut, and cut, and cut some more... short of eliminating public education and state prisons altogether, there is not much left for California to cut... And Nevada's fate is directly tied to the prosperity of the Las Vegas area (where 85%+ of Nevada's population lives) and Vegas is suffering the worst foreclosure and unemployment of any metro area in the entire United States... thus I see no honest attempt for either of these states to put forth a bid for the games no matter how much the USOC may want them to...

To go back to the prom analogy of a couple pages back, the problem is not that the USOC cant decide whether to try and get a pretty or not-so pretty girl to go to prom, the problem is the parents of every girl in town are unemployed and broke and so there are no girls in the town who can even afford a prom dress to go to the prom in... so the prom gets cancelled from a lack of tickets being sold... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True... California's budget situation is arguably the most dire of any of the 50 states right now... their annual budget hole is in the tens of billions of dollars and they have already cut, and cut, and cut some more... short of eliminating public education and state prisons altogether, there is not much left for California to cut... And Nevada's fate is directly tied to the prosperity of the Las Vegas area (where 85%+ of Nevada's population lives) and Vegas is suffering the worst foreclosure and unemployment of any metro area in the entire United States... thus I see no honest attempt for either of these states to put forth a bid for the games no matter how much the USOC may want them to...

Even worste... maybe the'll bid but will not being selected by trhe USOC, cuz even the IOC will not thrust on Denver, the USOC might think its the most logical choice...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

??? huh? :huh: :huh: :huh:

I was saying that the USOC will not select Reno, cuz of economical problems in Nevada, they will go with Denver as the US candidate. But Denver will not win the 2022 rights... the IOC will not thrust in them after quiting in 1976...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC only has to 'right the ship' with the politics with the IOC, not with the cities & any potential plans that they could come up with for an Olympic Games. That's the cities responsibilities, & that's what they should be working on while the USOC does their part with the IOC. This is a two-party agreement here.

And can we really sit here & say that the 2 Summer losses were "largely" due to mistakes made by the USOC? At the time, almost everyone agreed that Chicago had a rock-solid bid, much more solid than New York's. The USOC painstakenly went through the 2016 process because of the debacle of the New York bid. New York's 2012 bid imploding only one month before the 2005 IOC vote didn't help at all. And then the better lobbying of London & then simply just having a mega of glamour European capitals to compete with also didn't help New York.

I think we can hold the USOC primarily responsible for both losses. Not only was the lack of relationship with the IOC guaranteed to doom any bid, both bids were extremely ill-timed. The USOC is responsible for making the choice to submit both bids before sufficient time had passed since the last American Games. Those were the two biggest factors in both losses and both of them were under the USOC's control.

As for the stadium issue, New York wouldn't have won anyway. Yes, Chicago's bid was technically far better, but the quality of the relationship with the IOC was so abysmal that it really had no chance.

Because the USOC played a significant role in derailing recent bids and because it is clearly up to the USOC to determine the approach to future bids, I think it is reasonable to assume that potential bid cities are simply waiting to see what the USOC decides and whether the USOC can be trusted as a reliable partner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying that the USOC will not select Reno, cuz of economical problems in Nevada, they will go with Denver as the US candidate. But Denver will not win the 2022 rights... the IOC will not thrust in them after quiting in 1976...

Ahh, thank you, that makes a bit more sense. Although I believe the word you are looking for is 'trust' not 'thrust'. English is so much fun in that one letter can completely change the meaning of a word... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the USOC played a significant role in derailing recent bids and because it is clearly up to the USOC to determine the approach to future bids, I think it is reasonable to assume that potential bid cities are simply waiting to see what the USOC decides and whether the USOC can be trusted as a reliable partner.

Again, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at all. Are Denver and Reno waiting to see what the USOC decides? They're both in the early planning stages with no guarantee of what the USOC is thinking about 2022. And that's not an assumption, that's very public knowledge at this point.

Now obviously they can't do anything unless the USOC is interested in pursuing a 2022 bid. But clearly it hasn't stopped them from exploring the idea. Cities don't wait for the USOC to declare their intentions, especially those cities who start their planning years in advance (case in point New York.. NYC 2012 I believe was formed around the time the Atlanta Olympics were taking place). They can't afford to wait and see if the USOC is ready to start the bid process. If they do that, especially if it's a city that hasn't looked into the Olympics before, they probably don't stand a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans are not defined by our circumstances. We are defined by how we choose to respond to them. Now is the time for courage, for hope, for hard work, for faith in the future. Now is not the time to come to terms with fading glory. Our glory only fades if we choose to believe that no other story is possible. Don't ever let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her.

I just dont want you or anyone else eon here to think I in any way disagree with that view... I don't... I do believe that my beloved country is in for a very painful 15-20 years... but 40-50-60 years down the road I am optimistic that after most of the Arab states have run out of oil (and any other useful resources like water) and after China has reverted to a third world famine-stricken ecological wasteland, America will experience a renaissance of invention, spirit, and prestige. We just have to get past a slumping economy, what will be a 20 trillion dollar (plus) debt and the ensuing fall of the American economic system... after a few years of this society most likely reverting to something resembling the USA in "The Postman" and the subsequent elimination of "The 1%" through public hangings and/or deportation to Canada... America will again be the "Shining city on the hill" and ready to host the 2092 Summer Games...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, thank you, that makes a bit more sense. Although I believe the word you are looking for is 'trust' not 'thrust'. English is so much fun in that one letter can completely change the meaning of a word... :rolleyes:

:lol: Hahaha sorry! I learned english talking... I mean i speak it good but... writing is not my strong :P and yes, actually it was trust :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, I've already addressed the fact that Summer candidates look at 2012 and 2016 and are afraid they're seeing themselves in the mirror. The summer contests are much more competitive, much higher profile and there's a whole lot more at stake. It's not surprising at all that aspiring Winter candidates would be far less dissuaded by the losses. Rightly or wrongly, they assume the winter Games are different enough that the issues surrounding the Summer contests will simply not apply to their bids. They don't see themselves in New York and Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...