Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

There may be an "organizing committee," but they've been in place for decades. I can promise you they're not fine tuning their bid book on a daily basis. As of now LA has less of a plan than Chicago does. There's no telling what the mayor, governor, state legislature or local corporations would have to say either.

A successful bid is about more than a good bid book, especially in the United States. That's not what needs attention on a regular basis. As you alluded to, the key is getting local corporations and politicians involved in the process to help secure funding. Someone could come up with the greatest bid plan in history, but it's not so useful if he doesn't have the means to fund and organize it, especially in the United States where the NOC doesn't exactly do that for you. That's where Los Angeles is ahead of the game there. They have a long-standing organizing committee that presumably has ins with some of the entities they'd need to be involved with in order to take a bid to the next level. Chicago may have left bits and pieces from the 2016 campaign for someone to take over, but that next big visionary would still have to establish a new identity and do it with a city that's probably less than gung ho over another Olympic bid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A successful bid is about more than a good bid book, especially in the United States. That's not what needs attention on a regular basis. As you alluded to, the key is getting local corporations and politicians involved in the process to help secure funding. Someone could come up with the greatest bid plan in history, but it's not so useful if he doesn't have the means to fund and organize it, especially in the United States where the NOC doesn't exactly do that for you. That's where Los Angeles is ahead of the game there. They have a long-standing organizing committee that presumably has ins with some of the entities they'd need to be involved with in order to take a bid to the next level. Chicago may have left bits and pieces from the 2016 campaign for someone to take over, but that next big visionary would still have to establish a new identity and do it with a city that's probably less than gung ho over another Olympic bid.

Yuppers again... I voted this up (feel free to do the same for my comments :D )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with spreading the cheer and cost. That's happening. I'm a lot less fine with a 50 year gap between American Summer Games.

Who's talking about 50 years?!

If the US doesn't win one of the next 6 Summer bid I'd be astounded! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A successful bid is about more than a good bid book, especially in the United States. That's not what needs attention on a regular basis. As you alluded to, the key is getting local corporations and politicians involved in the process to help secure funding. Someone could come up with the greatest bid plan in history, but it's not so useful if he doesn't have the means to fund and organize it, especially in the United States where the NOC doesn't exactly do that for you. That's where Los Angeles is ahead of the game there. They have a long-standing organizing committee that presumably has ins with some of the entities they'd need to be involved with in order to take a bid to the next level. Chicago may have left bits and pieces from the 2016 campaign for someone to take over, but that next big visionary would still have to establish a new identity and do it with a city that's probably less than gung ho over another Olympic bid.

I'm not arguing for Chicago. If they dont want to bid, thats the end of the story.

Several posts have suggested that LA has a plan ready to go. I think that's overstating it. As you say, you presume that LA has connections in place. I wouldnt necessarily make that presumption. This committee has not been actively campaigning for/strategizing about the Games for the last few decades. There's a group of people who keep their toe in the water. It's anybody's guess as to how prepared and connected they actually are.

The whole reason I brought this up is not that I want to take anything away from LA -- I don't. I just think it's clear that many assumptions are being made on a wide variety of topics. LA gets the benefit of the doubt while other cities are dismissed as non-starters for decades. I maintain that "wait and see" is the only approach we can take. Again, Tokyo 2020 is a prime example if how things can turn on a dime. Hypotheses are fun, but they shouldn't be represented as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's talking about 50 years?!

If the US doesn't win one of the next 6 Summer bid I'd be astounded! :lol:

Many posters have said they don't see the US hosting Summer Games until the 40's. That would be approximately 50 years after Atlanta.

If the US gets 2022 or (more likely) 2026, I believe it's totally reasonable to think the next American SOGs will be in the 40s.

I do not believe this is a desirable scenario for the US or the IOC in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling is Europe will host either in 2020 or 2024.

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.

I would have to agree with this. It could be virtually futile for the U.S. (or any North American bid) to overcome two powerful obstacles like these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several posts have suggested that LA has a plan ready to go. I think that's overstating it. As you say, you presume that LA has connections in place. I wouldnt necessarily make that presumption. This committee has not been actively campaigning for/strategizing about the Games for the last few decades. There's a group of people who keep their toe in the water. It's anybody's guess as to how prepared and connected they actually are.

Haven't been active for decades?! They submitted a bid to the USOC for both 2012 (less than 30 years after last hosting the games) and in 2016. It's not like they exist for the sake of existing. Considering the last 2 domestic races have both included LA, I think it's a fair assumption to say that for the next domestic race, they'll be in it as well. They've been through this before and unlike New York and Chicago, it's likely to be the same committee and a lot of the same people involved. So it's easy enough for them to make a couple of phone calls and say "you helped us for 2012/2016, we're back at it again and we'd like your support." Contrast that with New York where it's new people doing the work that don't have those prior connections. You're absolutely right they're keeping their toes in the water. We know this to be true. I don't make the same claim about Chicago and New York so regardless of how prepared LA is, yes I believe that puts them a step ahead. I DO make that presumption.

The whole reason I brought this up is not that I want to take anything away from LA -- I don't. I just think it's clear that many assumptions are being made on a wide variety of topics. LA gets the benefit of the doubt while other cities are dismissed as non-starters for decades. I maintain that "wait and see" is the only approach we can take. Again, Tokyo 2020 is a prime example if how things can turn on a dime. Hypotheses are fun, but they shouldn't be represented as fact.

Well, you know what happens when you assume.. you make an ass out of u and me! Seriously though.. I agree that anyone who thinks they can predict the future as a matter of fact are idiots. And yes, things can change pretty quickly as we've seen so many over. But right now, in this time and place, I feel pretty confident in believing what I think about LA and New York and Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't been active for decades?! They submitted a bid to the USOC for both 2012 (less than 30 years after last hosting the games) and in 2016.

I know. That's what I said a couple of pages back when he said that L.A. "is not fine-tuning their bid on a daily basis". L.A. is there usally no matter what. They went for the slot available after Atlanta. Even though it was just the domestoc race, but it was obviously a bid that the USOC had to look into. N it's reasonable to "hypothesize" that they'll be in the mix again, N soon. Versus a city that suffered a very stingy defeat only a couple of years ago & likely have no plans to polish those blueprints up anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the US gets 2022 or (more likely) 2026, I believe it's totally reasonable to think the next American SOGs will be in the 40s.

Like I've said before, this is Y I think it's important if any worthwhile U.S. cities R interested in the Summer Games Y they should come out real soon to voice their desires. Since obviously a 2022 win would get in their way of a Summer Olympics in the near-term. So these Summer hopefuls can at least give hints to the USOC; "hey, want Summer Games instead? Then don't fall for Denver or Reno". If these cities R silent, then it's only natural to assume that the USOC's next move could be a Winter bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I've said before, this is Y I think it's important if any worthwhile U.S. cities R interested in the Summer Games Y they should come out real soon to voice their desires. Since obviously a 2022 win would get in their way of a Summer Olympics in the near-term. So these Summer hopefuls can at least give hints to the USOC; "hey, want Summer Games instead? Then don't fall for Denver or Reno". If these cities R silent, then it's only natural to assume that the USOC's next move could be a Winter bid.

It's the USOCs job to make it safe for cities to come forward. Right now there's no point in them taking the risk.

I've written several times that I wasnt arguing for Chicago over LA. I was saying that LA has not developed plans to the extent that Chicago did.

Yes LA was interested in 2012 and 2016, but we have no idea of the extent of their plans or connections. We just know that they were interested and weren't chosen (perhaps because the plans were lacking?). We do know Chicago had a strong plan based on their bid-book. I would be shocked if LA had thought things through to a remotely similar degree.

Again-- I'm not pushing for Chicago, I'm just saying that it seems like quite a leap to suggest LAs plans are all ready to go.

A handful of posters seem to share similar hypotheses on how all this is going to play out. You may all be right. Then again, you may not. Rather than slamming the door on certain possibilities, I'd like to wait and see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA also went to the IOC "workshop" for future bid cities this past year...

LA will always be looking for their next opportunity, and I think it is safe to say they have plans in place, albeit, maybe not the greatest plans, but plans nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole reason I brought this up is not that I want to take anything away from LA -- I don't. I just think it's clear that many assumptions are being made on a wide variety of topics. LA gets the benefit of the doubt while other cities are dismissed as non-starters for decades. I maintain that "wait and see" is the only approach we can take. Again, Tokyo 2020 is a prime example if how things can turn on a dime. Hypotheses are fun, but they shouldn't be represented as fact.

Who says that anyone is presenting these things as "fact"?! They're simply called 'educated guesses' based on other tangible evidence that is there, which would likely outline the outcome of such scenarios. It happens all the time in every aspect of life. You can't say that you've never done it yourself on other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes LA was interested in 2012 and 2016, but we have no idea of the extent of their plans or connections. We just know that they were interested and weren't chosen (perhaps because the plans were lacking?).

Well, based on previous media at the time; The USOC vote between L.A. & Chicago was "close". So apparently, L.A.'s plans seemed to have been somewhat on par with Chicago for that to have been the case. And also mentioned how Ueberroth was bias in wanting to have a west coast candidate (that was when San Francisco was still on the table).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the USOCs job to make it safe for cities to come forward. Right now there's no point in them taking the risk.

I still can't see this logic. It's still not stopping Denver & Reno from taking the 'risk'. You say the Winter hopefuls "don't count" because they don't have much to lose. I think they would disagree with that kind of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes LA was interested in 2012 and 2016, but we have no idea of the extent of their plans or connections. We just know that they were interested and weren't chosen (perhaps because the plans were lacking?). We do know Chicago had a strong plan based on their bid-book. I would be shocked if LA had thought things through to a remotely similar degree.

SMH.. Los Angeles 2016 Olympic Bid Book

I'd say that gives us a pretty good idea of their plans, especially that this is all what they very publicly presented to the IOC. Does this look like the work of a city/bid that didn't think things through?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where R my kudo points! :angry: Or is this a private kudo point online orgy! :P:lol:

Apparently I only get to use one point per day? <_<

Haven't been active for decades?! They submitted a bid to the USOC for both 2012 (less than 30 years after last hosting the games) and in 2016. It's not like they exist for the sake of existing. Considering the last 2 domestic races have both included LA, I think it's a fair assumption to say that for the next domestic race, they'll be in it as well. They've been through this before and unlike New York and Chicago, it's likely to be the same committee and a lot of the same people involved.

The current Southern Cali Olympic Bid Committee members:

Corporate Officers and Directors

CHAIRMAN

Barry A. Sanders

VICE-CHAIR

Casey Wasserman

PRESIDENT

David Simon

VICE PRESIDENT

Rhonda Brauer

Margaret U. Farnum

Daniel J. Jansen

Andrew W. Knox

John Light

Cathy Marino*

Marla Messing

John Naber*

Bruce Ramer

Marc Stern

Peter Vidmar*

TREASURER & CFO

David A. McGowan

CORPORATE SECRETARY

Connie Gray

DIRECTORS:

John M. Argue

Sheldon I. Ausman

Gene D. Block

John Bryant

John E. Bryson

Ronald W. Burkle

Jeanie Buss

Yvonne Chan

Jae Min Chang

Richard W. Cook

Ann Meyers Drysdale*

Robert A. Eckert

F. Patrick Escobar

Janet Evans*

Russ Hagey

Karen L. Hathaway

Joe R. Hicks

David Hill

Jeffrey Hill

Rafer Johnson*

Tommy Lasorda

Craig Levra

Mark L. Lipson

Dennis Mulhaupt

Charles D. Miller

Michael O’Hara*

Gerald S. Papazian

Richard B. Perelman

Christopher R. Pook

Elizabeth Primrose-Smith

Robert S. Rollo

Alan I. Rothenberg

Todd Rubenstein

Claude Ruibal

J. Eugene Salomon

Steven B. Sample

Nikki Stone*

Daniel L. Villanueva, Jr.

Phillip Wallace

Jack Weiss

David L. Wolper

Charles Woo

*= Olympian

From: http://www.sccog.org/webapp/officers-and-directors

Haven't been active for decades?! They submitted a bid to the USOC for both 2012 (less than 30 years after last hosting the games) and in 2016. It's not like they exist for the sake of existing. Considering the last 2 domestic races have both included LA, I think it's a fair assumption to say that for the next domestic race, they'll be in it as well. They've been through this before and unlike New York and Chicago, it's likely to be the same committee and a lot of the same people involved. So it's easy enough for them to make a couple of phone calls and say "you helped us for 2012/2016, we're back at it again and we'd like your support."

From the SCCOG:

Unique in the Olympic World is a civic organization, grounded in one of the world’s great cities, which has offered support for the Olympic Movement in good and in troubled times, since 1939. This is the continuing legacy of the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games (“SCCOG”).

SCCOG was formed in 1939 by civic and Olympic leaders William May Garland and Paul Helms, at the request of the United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”). In view of the success of the 1932 Games in Los Angeles, SCCOG was established to offer Los Angeles as an alternative to Tokyo for the celebration of the 1940 Games, as Japan was already at war in China. Although those Games ultimately were cancelled, SCCOG has continued to provide its support – and that of Los Angeles – to the Olympic Movement. Over the years, among other things, SCCOG sponsored the Coliseum Relays and regularly presented the William May Garland Award to Los Angeles volunteer leaders. The International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) recognized SCCOG with its Olympic Cup in 1965 and SCCOG membership rolls have included four Los Angeles-resident IOC members and six recipients of the Olympic Order: John C. Argue (1994), Tom Bradley (1984), Anita L. DeFrantz (1980), Peter V. Ueberroth (1984), Harry L. Usher (1984) and Paul Ziffren (1984).

In addition to its other activities, SCCOG institutionalized bidding for the Olympic Games as a regular feature of Los Angeles life. SCCOG presented bids for the Games – always on behalf of and in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles – directly to the IOC for the 1948, 1952 and 1956 Games and to the USOC to be its candidate city for the 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1984 Games. Los Angeles was the U.S. candidate city for the 1976, 1980 and 1984 Games. Under the leadership of SCCOG Chairman, John C. Argue, Los Angeles was the successful bidder for the Games of the XXIII Olympiad in 1984.

Those Games, chaired by Paul Ziffren and led by President Peter V. Ueberroth, made Olympic history with private financing, a substantial surplus at the end of the Games and the use of more than 33,000 volunteers to support and operate the Games. It left legacies that include the LA84 Foundation, a charitable foundation that continues to spend millions of dollars annually on amateur sports in Southern California.

From 1984 to 2001, SCCOG was less active, awaiting more opportune times to bid for the Games again. In 2001, with the unanimous support of Los Angeles’ City Council and Mayor, SCCOG submitted a bid for the 2012 Games. That bid was based on the 1984 concepts of a privately-funded Games which rely on existing infrastructure and yield fiscal benefits both to the Olympic Movement and to the Southern California community. Those concepts are the operating philosophies of SCCOG. Nevertheless, New York City became the USOC’s 2012 selection, and SCCOG actively supported the New York bid for those games at the international level. In July 2005 the IOC selected London as the 2012 host city.

In 2002, after the death of Chairman Argue, Barry A. Sanders became Chairman of SCCOG. The leadership of SCCOG has reorganized, bringing in a new and diverse group of Southern California civic and sports leaders to supplement those who have been involved for many years. SCCOG has renewed its efforts to bring sports championships of all kinds to Southern California, to support the Olympic Movement in all ways, and to stand ready to host the Olympic Games at the earliest opportunity.

Source: http://www.sccog.org/webapp/about-us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently I only get to use one point per day? <_<

The current Southern Cali Olympic Bid Committee members:

Corporate Officers and Directors

CHAIRMAN

Barry A. Sanders

VICE-CHAIR

Casey Wasserman

PRESIDENT

David Simon

VICE PRESIDENT

Rhonda Brauer

Margaret U. Farnum

Daniel J. Jansen

Andrew W. Knox

John Light

Cathy Marino*

Marla Messing

John Naber*

Bruce Ramer

Marc Stern

Peter Vidmar*

TREASURER & CFO

David A. McGowan

CORPORATE SECRETARY

Connie Gray

DIRECTORS:

John M. Argue

Sheldon I. Ausman

Gene D. Block

John Bryant

John E. Bryson

Ronald W. Burkle

Jeanie Buss

Yvonne Chan

Jae Min Chang

Richard W. Cook

Ann Meyers Drysdale*

Robert A. Eckert

F. Patrick Escobar

Janet Evans*

Russ Hagey

Karen L. Hathaway

Joe R. Hicks

David Hill

Jeffrey Hill

Rafer Johnson*

Tommy Lasorda

Craig Levra

Mark L. Lipson

Dennis Mulhaupt

Charles D. Miller

Michael O’Hara*

Gerald S. Papazian

Richard B. Perelman

Christopher R. Pook

Elizabeth Primrose-Smith

Robert S. Rollo

Alan I. Rothenberg

Todd Rubenstein

Claude Ruibal

J. Eugene Salomon

Steven B. Sample

Nikki Stone*

Daniel L. Villanueva, Jr.

Phillip Wallace

Jack Weiss

David L. Wolper

Charles Woo

*= Olympian

From: http://www.sccog.org/webapp/officers-and-directors

Uhmmm...that list is dated. John Argue and David Wolper have been dead for about a year or two...just off the top of my head. Margaret Farnum, their person with the LA Memorial Colisuem COmmission, must be about 84 or so today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty dated material. There's no way LA is perpetually ready to mount a world class bid at the drop of a hat. Their preparations for the domestic evaluation of 2016 were no where near as detailed as what Chicago had going into the final IOC vote.

I'm on their mailing list. I was invited to the '84 anniversary party. I went to the '84 Games, know all about the founding of SCCOG and I currently live in LA.

I'd love to see LA host again, but I still think the intensity of some posters opinions on this issue is really unsupported by fact. Apparently LA is poised to take on the world tomorrow and no other city in the country will make an attempt for decades.... I just don't see any of this being as definitive as others make it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty dated material. There's no way LA is perpetually ready to mount a world class bid at the drop of a hat. Their preparations for the domestic evaluation of 2016 were no where near as detailed as what Chicago had going into the final IOC vote.

I'm on their mailing list. I was invited to the '84 anniversary party. I went to the '84 Games, know all about the founding of SCCOG and I currently live in LA.

I'd love to see LA host again, but I still think the intensity of some posters opinions on this issue is really unsupported by fact. Apparently LA is poised to take on the world tomorrow and no other city in the country will make an attempt for decades.... I just don't see any of this being as definitive as others make it out to be.

Now who's taking someone else's thoughts out of context and saying what's "definitive."

I'm still trying to understand how you view(ed) their bid for 2016. Several cities made official presentations to the USOC (key word there - "official"), the field eventually got down to 2 candidates, both of whom submitted a bid book, and USOC visited both cities. They were ready to submit a bid to the IOC for the Olympics if they USOC had chosen them, so their level of preparation/readiness wasn't in question there. If you want to discuss the merits of LA 2016 versus Chicago 2016, go right ahead. But to say that we didn't know what the plans were for a city that submitted an official bid book and laid everything out in black and white is, at the risk of sounding blunt here, a pretty ridiculous statement.

As for 2024 and beyond.. LA isn't poised to take on the world tomorrow. What I keep saying is that they have certain elements in place that other cities like Chicago don't. And I THINK (that's called a statement of opinion, not of fact) that gives them a head start over any other city. Regardless, it is a FACT that even if that committee isn't all that active, they exist. Does New York have that? Nope. Does Chicago? Not to my knowledge. Other smaller cities do, but they also weren't in the 2016 race. Los Angeles was, just as they were for 2012. That leads me to believe they'll be the first city to step up if the USOC is looking like they'll field a bid for 2024. Now there's a chance it could be possible another city might think about maybe considering the prospect of their capability to potentially bid for the Olympics. I'm not writing them off entirely, but right now, on this the last day of 2011, I will say based on my guy that Los Angeles is a likely candidate for the next USOC bid, whenever that is, and I don't feel as confident about any other city.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Quaker... I think LA could transition and repurpose previous bid plans and experience into a bid easily enough... If they can find the right legacy issue.. i'm just guessing a real and useful public transport system or regeneration of one of the rundown sections of LA (like London has done with the Lower Lea area) might be a good start... then pulling together the corporate and private sponsors, I rally think LA could have a great bid to put forward.. but I just honestly cannot see these factors all coming together anywhere else in the USA in the next 10 years... not in NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, DC/Baltimore, Tampa, Orlando, Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, Seattle, San Francisco... did I leave any possible cities out... oh yeah.. or Tulsa... <_< I say go for a winter bid with Denver or Tahoe and if that goes down have LA ready to go on standby mode... LA has demonstrate a willingness to bid through multiple bid cycles more so than any other city besides Detroit form the 50's and 60's... hell, lets just use Detroit as a bid... the legacy can be tearing the whole place down and starting from scratch... (I grew up a hour south of Detroit and know how appalling it is in person...)

Oh, btw if you want to see a real mind-bender watch the official bid presentations from the USOC to the IOC from Detroit's official presentations... Present Kennedy talking about Detroit as America's shining city of tomorrow are hilarious, they are real gems from the past, the first time I saw these I was shocked to see that Detroit was once that nice and clean, or even intact...

Detroit: City on the Move (parts 1 and 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...