Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

The USOC has a tricky choice. I do think that with the right candidate, they'd prefer Summer Games. But the competition is tougher.The Winter candidates seem more organized and focused at this point, but they aren't particularly strong contenders.

So will the USOC risk spending their newly earned IOC capital on a so-so winter candidate that will face less competition, or will they risk an as yet unknown Summer candidate that may face stiffer challengers?

They need to do some serious reconnaissance fast. If nobody steps up to the Summer plate they'll probably move on 2022 unless they really have zero confidence in the winter contenders. If some juicy city like Chicago says they want to try for 2024, however, the winter folk will be left out in the cold.

I think the ideal situation would be for the US to bid for 2022, lose with extraordinary grace and come back right away to win 2024. The three failed bids coupled with a potential desire to return to a reliable, strong host could be just the ticket. Of course that's quite the fairy tale and the chances of back to back bids are super slim.....

The worst case scenario would be for the US to lose 2022, try again and win 2026. That would certainly postpone the next American SOGs to the 40's -- 50 years after Atlanta. To me, that would be a brutal blow to the state of Olympic sports, athletes, sponsors and audiences in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summer Olympics will be the best choice for the USOC and we need to return to that "American-styled games" :) we need them... That will be to change the routine of selecting "new horizons".

Let's go Chicago!!! :D Toronto even though is not USA will be a great choice too!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) 2020 still has a massive influence. If 2020 goes to Tokyo then there is no way the IOC will not give 24 to Europe.

2) Expect all of Europe, Africa and Asia to host before the next North American games

3) Chicago and NYC will not bid again. Those ships have sailed. Expect LA, SF and a host of others.

Probably most likely scenario's, but I also think it pushes the Olympic brand in the US in to obscurity being outshone/outmarketed by the professional sporting leagues, and other domestic forms of entertainment. American's are fickle, and get distracted, along side the fact that they have almost no interest in the Olympic sports outside of the actual Olympic games. Hosting games on every other continent while pushing the US to end of the line, only hurts the Olympic brand in the US, they got lucky with the NBC contract this round, if NBC doesn't shape up and makes losses in the hundreds of millions continuously is Comcast going to keep investing in a loss leader like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC has a tricky choice. I do think that with the right candidate, they'd prefer Summer Games. But the competition is tougher.The Winter candidates seem more organized and focused at this point, but they aren't particularly strong contenders.

So will the USOC risk spending their newly earned IOC capital on a so-so winter candidate that will face less competition, or will they risk an as yet unknown Summer candidate that may face stiffer challengers?

The problem, for better or worse, is that 2022 comes before 2024. So they can't base their 2022 decision on what may or may not happen for 2024. And like you said, the field of candidates on the winter side has their act together moreso than on the summer side, although obviously that could change. Of course, the other problem is that even though the winter candidates seem less-than-stellar, the summer candidates could be equally as unimpressive unless a bigger city steps up.

I think the USOC needs to continue to take these elections 1 by 1. They can afford to be entertaining winter and summer aspirations at the same time, especially if there's interest. I know you think that winter bidding should ideally take a backseat to summer bidding, especially since a winter win could hurt a future summer bid. I just don't think the USOC is best off thinking that way. 2022 seems like it's not in the cards, but 2026 could be a better shot. However, I have a strong feeling the United States is going to be pursuing a World Cup in 2026, so will the IOC not want them to host an Olympics in the same year, even though the US could probably handle both with ease. So maybe there's your silver lining at holding off a Winter Olympics in order to land a Summer Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem, for better or worse, is that 2022 comes before 2024. So they can't base their 2022 decision on what may or may not happen for 2024. And like you said, the field of candidates on the winter side has their act together moreso than on the summer side, although obviously that could change. Of course, the other problem is that even though the winter candidates seem less-than-stellar, the summer candidates could be equally as unimpressive unless a bigger city steps up.

I think the USOC needs to continue to take these elections 1 by 1. They can afford to be entertaining winter and summer aspirations at the same time, especially if there's interest. I know you think that winter bidding should ideally take a backseat to summer bidding, especially since a winter win could hurt a future summer bid. I just don't think the USOC is best off thinking that way. 2022 seems like it's not in the cards, but 2026 could be a better shot. However, I have a strong feeling the United States is going to be pursuing a World Cup in 2026, so will the IOC not want them to host an Olympics in the same year, even though the US could probably handle both with ease. So maybe there's your silver lining at holding off a Winter Olympics in order to land a Summer Olympics.

Thats a wild idea. I hadn't thought about the WC. The Olympics and WC do seem to follow each other around a bit (Brazil, Russia).

Yes, 2022 comes first. However, we've seen stories where Blackmun and others weighed pros and cons of winter vs. summer (without taking sides). I think they're aware that they need to look at the big picture.

It is more likely that they'll look at 2022 first UNLESS a very sexy summer candidate expresses interest in 2024.

Unfortunately, I do think it's possible the US could win 2022. The IOC isn't likely to have a ton of candidates and it's an opportunity to throw the Americans a bone while still withholding the big prize for a few more decades. I really hope this doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I do think it's possible the US could win 2022. The IOC isn't likely to have a ton of candidates and it's an opportunity to throw the Americans a bone while still withholding the big prize for a few more decades. I really hope this doesn't happen.

Would that really be such a bad thing though? Probably puts 2024 out of the question, but then 2028 or 2032 could easily be possible. As the story goes, there's only 3 continents that can host a Winter Olympics. There's now 6 for the Summer. South America is probably off the board for a while, Oceania who knows about at this point, and then of course there's Africa. After all that, just on the North American front, there's Toronto. As we've gone over so many times before.. tough to tell what the USOC's best tact is, but the road to a Winter Olympics looks much easier right now than a Summer Olympics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that really be such a bad thing though? Probably puts 2024 out of the question, but then 2028 or 2032 could easily be possible. As the story goes, there's only 3 continents that can host a Winter Olympics. There's now 6 for the Summer. South America is probably off the board for a while, Oceania who knows about at this point, and then of course there's Africa. After all that, just on the North American front, there's Toronto. As we've gone over so many times before.. tough to tell what the USOC's best tact is, but the road to a Winter Olympics looks much easier right now than a Summer Olympics

I think you hit on the problem: Toronto. If the US gets 2022, Toronto could easily get 2028 or 2032.

Plus your theories about 2028 and 2032 seem unrealistically optimistic to me.

I think that recent trends make it very clear that the IOC wants to move the Games around as much as possible. This isn't the late 20th century anymore. The days when the US could land two Games six years apart are long gone. Expect a minimum of 14 years. That would mean that if the US got 2022, they wouldn't have a shot at SOGs until 2036 -- at the EARLIEST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst case scenario for the U.S. having a chance for 2024 is if Tokyo wins 2020. 2024 will certainly be a shoe-in for a European city, but even if South Africa throws in a bid, and tugs the heart strings to win '24, then '28 will surely go Europe's way - pushing back any hope of the U.S. getting an SOG. I am also not going to discount Toronto's capability, but I have not been too impressed with what has transpired with the 2015 PanAm preps.

I think it is very likely the USOC gives the green light to 2022 bids. Of course, it will all be "exploratory" at first, but my bet is they would rather get something, rather than nothing while they are still around in the USOC. I am with Canis on this. I do not see Chicago bidding anytime soon, although I certainly would be elated if they did.

If I were in the USOC, I would secretly be pushing for NYC to prepare a bid for 2024, and hope for a Istanbul or Madrid victory. I think they would be seen as the most formidable, and "sexy" candidate on the international stage. I think their bid plans would not be the strongest, but they are certainly one of the premier world cities to have never hosted an Olympics. I would tell Denver and Reno to prepare bids for 2022/2026 in the meantime in the event Tokyo wins 2020.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst case scenario for the U.S. having a chance for 2024 is if Tokyo wins 2020. 2024 will certainly be a shoe-in for a European city, but even if South Africa throws in a bid, and tugs the heart strings to win '24, then '28 will surely go Europe's way - pushing back any hope of the U.S. getting an SOG. I am also not going to discount Toronto's capability, but I have not been too impressed with what has transpired with the 2015 PanAm preps.

I think it is very likely the USOC gives the green light to 2022 bids. Of course, it will all be "exploratory" at first, but my bet is they would rather get something, rather than nothing while they are still around in the USOC. I am with Canis on this. I do not see Chicago bidding anytime soon, although I certainly would be elated if they did.

If I were in the USOC, I would secretly be pushing for NYC to prepare a bid for 2024, and hope for a Istanbul or Madrid victory. I think they would be seen as the most formidable, and "sexy" candidate on the international stage. I think their bid plans would not be the strongest, but they are certainly one of the premier world cities to have never hosted an Olympics. I would tell Denver and Reno to prepare bids for 2022/2026 in the meantime in the event Tokyo wins 2020.

I agree that Tokyo would be the worst of the options for US Summer aspirations. Either Madrid or Istanbul would help the US geopolitical claim more.

I also think think that the USOC is going to have to seriously weigh the possibilities with regard to potential candidate cities. They have more information to work with than we do. Lets hope they make a wise choice.

I hate to say it, but if the revenue deal is anything to go by, wisdom may be in short supply. This is not a great deal for the US. It's a whole lot less money and suddenly we are the only nation underwriting the IOC's administrative costs. The IOC just held the United States' feet to the fire and Blackmun and company gave in. I'm disgusted and frankly its going to take me a while to get excited about anything the USOC does -- including future bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were in the USOC, I would secretly be pushing for NYC to prepare a bid for 2024, and hope for a Istanbul or Madrid victory. I think they would be seen as the most formidable, and "sexy" candidate on the international stage. I think their bid plans would not be the strongest, but they are certainly one of the premier world cities to have never hosted an Olympics. I would tell Denver and Reno to prepare bids for 2022/2026 in the meantime in the event Tokyo wins 2020.

i could get excited about a sexy NYC bid. i think a lot of people could actually. it may be our best bet against paris.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IOC, USOC deal stokes talk of new Chicago Olympics bid

By Kathy Bergen, Philip Hersh and Kristen Mack Tribune reporters

11:00 p.m. CDT, May 25, 2012

The conversation about Chicago hosting a summer Olympics is rising from the ashes after one of the biggest hurdles to another U.S.-based games was overcome this week.

The International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee agreed on Thursday to a revised deal for sharing television and marketing revenue -- ending an often testy seven-year standoff that played a role in Chicago's last-place finish in the competition for the 2016 Summer Games.

The resolution re-opened the door for a possible U.S. games bid, for the winter of 2022 or the summer of 2024.

"It's something we'll have to talk about and give a lot of careful thought and consideration to," said Sam Stark, executive director of the Chicago Sports Commission, an organization spawned by the city's convention bureau last fall to bring sporting events to the city.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is not interested in making a bid for the 2024 Olympics, according to his spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton, who asked him about it on Friday.

"We haven't engaged in any conversations and have no plans to," Hamilton said.

His predecessor, Richard M. Daley, also was against seeking an Olympics for a number of years, citing the expense. But he later changed his mind and went for it full throttle -- aiming to project the city further onto the world stage.

The USOC first will have to decide whether to go for a winter or summer games, a discussion that should begin at the June board meeting, said USOC spokesman Patrick Sandusky, who led the communications effort for Chicago's 2016 bid.

After that, it will begin initial discussions with prospective cities, he said, noting it's premature to discuss potential bidders.

Chicago and New York have taken bids to the international phase in recent years, potentially giving them a headstart on other possible rivals, including San Francisco.

And Emanuel has shown his appetite for burnishing the city's image as a global city by landing the recent NATO summit. The fact that the city pulled it off without major problems would be a selling point, some observers say. But as long as the city and state are coping with deep financial problems, it likely would be a tough sell.

Read Full Article

Edited by Soaring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my recollection, Daley "changed his mind" after he was so dead-set againt the Olympics, mainly bcuz he wanted to thwart-off any bad publicity about corruption in his adminstration with re-election, & this was a great distraction.

But without Emmanuel's blessing, this is nothing but talk. Like Paris, Chicago is gonna be one of those ambiguous cities that we talk about here, but without any real fruition about a possible bid anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why people get/got so excited about a Chicago bid. I didn't find those lakeside venues all that exciting. And I guess so did 75 other IOC members. I don't think Chicago will ever host.

Reno or Denver will be the next US Olympic candidate city. And frankly for summer, Philadelphia, SF or LA would be more viable than Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my recollection, Daley "changed his mind" after he was so dead-set againt the Olympics, mainly bcuz he wanted to thwart-off any bad publicity about corruption in his adminstration with re-election, & this was a great distraction.

But without Emmanuel's blessing, this is nothing but talk. Like Paris, Chicago is gonna be one of those ambiguous cities that we talk about here, but without any real fruition about a possible bid anytime soon.

Hold on just a minute. You've been declaring Chicago and NYC DEAD FOR YEARS NOW.

Now that we have a revenue deal there are murmurings -- as I said all along there could be. You said I was being foolish by suggesting the missing revenue deal had anything to do with their silence.

Maybe Chicago and/or NYC will bid and maybe they won't, but it's starting to look a heck of a lot more possible than your dire .02% prediction or whatever it was.

After enduring YEARS of you telling me what a foolish Pollyanna I am, I think you should at least concede that there is some potential for an Alpha bid outside LA, that I was right about the effect of the missing revenue deal quieting potential Summer bidders, and that I am right about the severe limitations of the information available to us on GB. There is far more going on than we are privy to. Me saying we should simply wait and see is not some sort of misguided cock-eyed optimism, it's just common sense.

It could well be that no US city wants 2024, but that certainly is not set in stone yet.

The thing is, what would Chicago offer that is different or better than 2016? Will it be a rehash of the 2016 bid with just a new logo? Or will it be something more?

Most agree that Chicago's 2016 bid was the best bid ever put forth by an American city. The bid did not lose on the grounds of technical merit. It list because the IOC wanted to go to South America, because the IOC were bitter about the revenue deal and because the USOC shot themselves in the foot by being difficult to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why people get/got so excited about a Chicago bid. I didn't find those lakeside venues all that exciting. And I guess so did 75 other IOC members. I don't think Chicago will ever host.

Reno or Denver will be the next US Olympic candidate city. And frankly for summer, Philadelphia, SF or LA would be more viable than Chicago.

I strongly disagree. Chicago is without question the best potential Summer host. The city is stunningly beautiful (watch Source Code), full of cultural and ethnic diversity, amazingly clean, packed with art, theater, music and architecture. The city is a jewel waiting to be discovered by the world.

Whether they bid or not is highly questionable, but I stand firm by my belief that Chicago has more Olympic potential than any other American city. I wasn't born there, I don't live there now, but I did live there for several years. As someone who knows LA, NYC and San Francisco well (sorry, I don't know Philly), I have no hesitation whatsoever about giving Chicago my unqualified blessing as by far the strongest option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have to say that after Chicago's ugly dismissal from 2016, I believe they would be by far the most competitive American bid internationally.

It's almost a dare. We dare you to say no again, IOC. Say no to the city you slapped in the face so unceremoniously. Say no to the country that pumps more money into the Games than any other. Say no to a sports powerhouse. Say no to an outstanding technical bid. Say no to the country that let you take them to the cleaners with this new revenue deal. Say no to the only country that's paying your administrative bills. We dare you.....

Of course that would be a lousy strategy that would just turn people off. (I'm venting at the moment. Can you tell how I feel on this subject?) The thing is that the USOC doesn't have to make any of those points. They don't have to say a single word. It's all self-evident.

That's why I don't think American Summer Games haveto be as far off as some others have suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i could get excited about a sexy NYC bid. i think a lot of people could actually. it may be our best bet against paris.

I'd love a NYC bid or even a chicago bid

I dont think Chicago was bad compared to world powerhouses of Madrid and Tokyo and a brand new region aching for the games Chicago was fighting a hard race.

I don't know much about the bid but i'm sure that it was pretty good.

I'd love to see a more popular city go for the games (sorry blacksheep with philadelphia) NYC or Chicago are huge cities but also haven't hosted the games. Plus it might be a safer bet. I'll be looking forward to the bid race for sure!

Well everything i said Athens said 1000 times better so i'll simply say read what he said :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have to say that after Chicago's ugly dismissal from 2016, I believe they would be by far the most competitive American bid internationally.

It's almost a dare. We dare you to say no again, IOC. Say no to the city you slapped in the face so unceremoniously. Say no to the country that pumps more money into the Games than any other. Say no to a sports powerhouse. Say no to an outstanding technical bid. Say no to the country that let you take them to the cleaners with this new revenue deal. Say no to the only country that's paying your administrative bills. We dare you.....

Of course that would be a lousy strategy that would just turn people off. (I'm venting at the moment. Can you tell how I feel on this subject?) The thing is that the USOC doesn't have to make any of those points. They don't have to say a single word. It's all self-evident.

That's why I don't think American Summer Games haveto be as far off as some others have suggested.

I can tell you're venting :lol:

How's this for a scenario: Paris, Chicago and Istanbul all in it for 2024. A trio of snubees! And an African bid snatches it from them all when they borrow Rio's map for a few hours.

Sorry, I'm being mean.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you're venting :lol:

How's this for a scenario: Paris, Chicago and Istanbul all in it for 2024. A trio of snubees! And an African bid snatches it from them all when they borrow Rio's map for a few hours.

Sorry, I'm being mean.

No that's not mean. It's totally plausible. I certainly dont feel the US is entitled to Games (it remains to be seen if we even have a quality Summer candidate). I'm just really bothered by the anti-American bias that seems to have taken root in the IOC. I feel like the terms of the revenue deal are just the latest evidence of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on just a minute. You've been declaring Chicago and NYC DEAD FOR YEARS NOW.

Now that we have a revenue deal there are murmurings -- as I said all along there could be. You said I was being foolish by suggesting the missing revenue deal had anything to do with their silence.

Maybe Chicago and/or NYC will bid and maybe they won't, but it's starting to look a heck of a lot more possible than your dire .02% prediction or whatever it was.

After enduring YEARS of you telling me what a foolish Pollyanna I am, I think you should at least concede that there is some potential for an Alpha bid outside LA, that I was right about the effect of the missing revenue deal quieting potential Summer bidders, and that I am right about the severe limitations of the information available to us on GB. There is far more going on than we are privy to. Me saying we should simply wait and see is not some sort of misguided cock-eyed optimism, it's just common sense.

It could well be that no US city wants 2024, but that certainly is not set in stone yet.

ARRGH - WTF, don't fricken put words in my mouth, AF! Stop "misrepresenting me" yet again! I NEVER "declared" that New York & Chicago were "dead for years now"! Perhaps others on here have, but I certainly didn't! I have always said that it was UNLIKELY which is totally DIFFERENT from "dead"! I even "conceded" with you that there was as much as a 20% chance (& not "0.2%") that there could be a bid from someone else other than Los Angeles, but I didn't C it *likely*.

But really, you're getting all excited bcuz someone, from a newly-founded organization in the city that's not even a year old, is opening his yap?! Quite frankly, if the major & governor R not on-board, it might as well be dead. "Murmurings" coming from the lower-ends of the totem-pole doesn't equate to BID! Nor even "a heck of a lot more possible". It's just some people talking.

This kinda reminds me of some local woman politician over there in Minnesota that was SO gung-ho in Minneapolis bidding for the Olympics that she tried everything that she could to get that going. Even taking it to the Minnesota Legislature to try & get them to consider it, too. But in the end, the major & the governor there weren't interested, so it was "dead in the water". So this little article of talks maybe flying around in Chicago by some people doesn't make you "right" on everything nor does it make me "wrong" since it doesn't really prove anything other than some people are opening their mouth.

The same could be happening in New York, too. Some people could be "talking", but if Bloomberg ain't interested, it ain't happening. Even Quaker has been more than firm on that belief. But does that make him "wrong"? No it doesn't. It's just "common sense" that's he's come to that conclusion based on the different variable & how things have panned out throughout the years. The same can be said with Chicago. N of course nothing is "set in stone". I've never made such claims, but one can make educated guesses on the matter based on what is out there. That's what most of us here do anyway, including yourself. That's what these boards R for, afterall. This website isn't about who's right & who's wrong. It's about discussion & hypothesis'.

And you're one to talk about "years of enduring" this & that. What about all the years that I (& whoever else) have had to endure your self-righteous, condescending, pompous attitude especially when it comes to this topic?! So please, get off your fricken high-horse already! The thin air up there is making you hallucinate! Can you tell that I'm fricken "venting" now! UGH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have to say that after Chicago's ugly dismissal from 2016, I believe they would be by far the most competitive American bid internationally.

It's almost a dare. We dare you to say no again, IOC. Say no to the city you slapped in the face so unceremoniously. Say no to the country that pumps more money into the Games than any other. Say no to a sports powerhouse. Say no to an outstanding technical bid. Say no to the country that let you take them to the cleaners with this new revenue deal. Say no to the only country that's paying your administrative bills. We dare you.....

Of course that would be a lousy strategy that would just turn people off. (I'm venting at the moment. Can you tell how I feel on this subject?) The thing is that the USOC doesn't have to make any of those points. They don't have to say a single word. It's all self-evident.

That's why I don't think American Summer Games haveto be as far off as some others have suggested.

But there were other outstanding technical bids regarded even more highly than Chicago.

No that's not mean. It's totally plausible. I certainly dont feel the US is entitled to Games (it remains to be seen if we even have a quality Summer candidate). I'm just really bothered by the anti-American bias that seems to have taken root in the IOC. I feel like the terms of the revenue deal are just the latest evidence of it.

I don't think there is anti-American bias, especially after Bush/Cheney left.

However the issue of overly restrictive passport and visa policies, more so than any other contender is going to factor into IOC members minds .... do the American govt make a special circumstance for 2024, because if they don't then it will be a struggle against major contenders like Paris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there were other outstanding technical bids regarded even more highly than Chicago.

N yet the least "outstanding" technical bid won in the end. So your point is neither here nor there since the IOC didn't vote on which bid had technical superiority.

N as has also been pointed out countless times on these boards, once the IOC has declared the candidates for the short-list, outstanding technical merit is then thrown out the window. Bcuz then it is deemed that ANY of the candidate cities could successfully host the Games. Which makes your point even more moot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my recollection, Daley "changed his mind" after he was so dead-set againt the Olympics, mainly bcuz he wanted to thwart-off any bad publicity about corruption in his adminstration with re-election, & this was a great distraction.

I have a different opinion on that. I think Daley's prime reason for becoming so gun-ho to bid was because he saw the end of his time as mayor nearing, and he wanted to leave with a bang. If anything, the bid would open him up to more scrutiny (which it did), and it ended up hurting him in the end. It also helped that NYC lost in 2005, and basically said they weren't going to bid for 2016. He would have loved to win something NYC couldn't get. Chicagoans have a bit of resentment for New Yorkers with the whole "Second City" thing.

I don't think Chicago will bid for 2024. The political climate here is just not ready for that. The mayor and governor are facing big challenges with their budgets, and are having to make some pretty serious cuts. Public support won't be as high, and Mayor Emanuel knows it can hurt him politically. The last thing he wants to do is lose focus or support early in his career as mayor. I think Emanuel has the ego to want to host the Olympics some day, but I just don't think the stars are aligned as perfectly as they were for 2016 (with exception to the issues between the USOC and IOC). I won't say it can't happen, but I think it is unlikely to happen.

I think it is much more likely that the USOC will put forth a bid for 2022, and stands a good chance at winning.

Edited by Soaring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, you jumped down my throat repeatedly for writing that I wasn't willing to call time of death on Chicago or NYC. You've said over and over again LA and Philly are the only possibilities. Im on an iPhone now and it's not convenient at the moment to scroll through your posting history, but perhaps you might want to. There have been many times when you said that if a city was interested there would be a whiff of publicity. You've also said there isn't enough time for a Summer bid to prepare and you've dismissed the idea that Chicago or NYC would have a leg up due to their previous bids.

Now we are reading about all of those things. If you don't want to say, "maybe I was a bit hasty and prematurely dismissive", fine. I'm not going to pry it out of you. But I am going to point out that some of what we are reading now contradicts many of your posts.

As for arrogance or self-righteousness... Wow. A bit of pot and kettle I think.

So I hope to see a Summer bid. When you insist there's next to no chance, I suggest we wait and see. Then you harp on me for being foolish and unrealistic. Now it turns out there are some tiny glimmers of possibility for a Summer bid-- glimmers you repeatedly said we would never see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...