Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really think the USOC will base their decision largely on which cities are interested in 2022 or 2024.

The 2022 candidates all have rather vulnerable Achilles' heels, but one could get the nod in the absence of a compelling summer candidate.

If there is a very exciting Summer candidate, I think the USOC will take their chances against South Africa.

Even if Tokyo gets 2020, Africa 2024, Europe 2028, 2032 would still be too soon for the US if they host 2022. Chances are Toronto would sneak in and the US would have to wait for the 40's or 50's. That wait for Summer Games is just TOO LONG.

Best case scenario: Istanbul gets 2020, South Africa doesn't bid for 2024 or produces a lackluster bid, the IOC has wearied of new frontiers and experienced mixed results, the IOC is very pleased with their new revenue deal (as well they should be), the US presents a quality candidate and wins.

It's not impossible. But nor is the worst case scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the London Olympics the biggest Athletics stadium in the UK was Crystal Palace at 17,000 seats which was always packed for Athletics meets especially the Diamond League.

I am willing to bet a month's salary that once The London Olympic stadium is reduced to 60,000 seats for football, (and so 50,000 seats) when London holds its annual Diamond League meet, London will have attendances in the order of 50,000 at the Diamond League if held at the Olympic stadium (likely)

I don't see why this can't happen in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the London Olympics the biggest Athletics stadium in the UK was Crystal Palace at 17,000 seats which was always packed for Athletics meets especially the Diamond League.

I am willing to bet a month's salary that once The London Olympic stadium is reduced to 60,000 seats for football, (and so 50,000 seats) when London holds its annual Diamond League meet, London will have attendances in the order of 50,000 at the Diamond League if held at the Olympic stadium (likely)

I don't see why this can't happen in the US?

Because you can't host enough events there over the course of a year to make it worthwhile. The land is too valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you can't host enough events there over the course of a year to make it worthwhile. The land is too valuable.

London is one of the most expensive cities in the world as is Paris in terms of property prices.

What is their solution. Two large stadiums, used in the future for football (and rugby) but once a year they slide back the seats and used the track for athletics.

and these large capacity to be reduced after the games to a nominal size stadia will undoubtedly be far more expensive in reality than on paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

London is one of the most expensive cities in the world as is Paris in terms of property prices.

What is their solution. Two large stadiums, used in the future for football (and rugby) but once a year they slide back the seats and used the track for athletics.

A solution that works for European football and Rugby, but not the NFL. It's apples and oranges, even though you dispute that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A solution that works for European football and Rugby, but not the NFL. It's apples and oranges, even though you dispute that.

The NFL are almost orgasmic about using Wembley and the sightlines at the Stade de France are no worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL are almost orgasmic about using Wembley and the sightlines at the Stade de France are no worse

That has more to do with the location and capacity than the stadium. Europe doesnt have traditional NFL stadiums so its the next best option. If the NFL wanted to play in the likes of Wembley or the Stade de France, that's what we would have in the US. We don't have those types of stadiums because that's not what the NFL wants.

I'm amazed that you are making these protracted arguments about American football when you've never even been to an NFL game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that you are making these protracted arguments about American football when you've never even been to an NFL game.

Again another inaccurate and false remark. Do they never cease?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that you are making these protracted arguments about American football when you've never even been to an NFL game.

You know what they say - "Never argue with an idiot - they just drag you down to their level and best you with experience"

I have seen an NFL Game - I saw the Redskins beat the Lions like a drum in 2007 - October if I recall correctly, and it was at FedEx Field where I was a corporate guest if you must know.

I have also seen the Canucks beat the Kings in Vancouver on opening day in 1999 or 2000 (can't recall) and also the Blue Jays beat the Royals in Toronto in July the following year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what they say - "Never argue with an idiot - they just drag you down to their level and best you with experience"

I have seen an NFL Game - I saw the Redskins beat the Lions like a drum in 2007 - October if I recall correctly, and it was at FedEx Field where I was a corporate guest if you must know.

I have also seen the Canucks beat the Kings in Vancouver on opening day in 1999 or 2000 (can't recall) and also the Blue Jays beat the Royals in Toronto in July the following year.

Both other times I've asked you the question, you dodged it, so I assumed you hadn't been to a game. Thanks for answering me this time.

Regardless, the NFL is not rugby or European football and doesn't need or want stadiums like the Stade de France or Wembley in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both other times I've asked you the question, you dodged it, so I assumed you hadn't been to a game. Thanks for answering me this time.

Regardless, the NFL is not rugby or European football and doesn't need or want stadiums like the Stade de France or Wembley in the US.

Wembley stadium has got perfect sight lines for any Rugby/Football based sport - so why would it not be suitable for the NFL especially as American football has its origins in rugby. Yes, it is actually played on a slightly narrower field but most modern NFL stadiums have been built to FIFA standards hence most of them being in the USA2018/2022 bid.

Wembley, the Stade have full seating, luxury/executive boxes as do NFL stadiums etc.

Please explain why you think they are not suitable.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way, not with the railyard right next door. Not just for security, but it's unseemly. Just not a good idea.

I'm really torn on Washington Park. The University of Illinois-Chicago is prime location for both the stadium and the aquatics park, it raises the profile of the university and chances are the university is probably where Obama's presidential library will end up as well, which could tie in very well in a long term modernization of the university campus. The problem is looking at the headaches London is having with getting a permanent tenant for a downsized Olympic stadium makes me worry that similar problems will develop with Chicago.

We'll all just have to wait and see. I think after the success of the NATO summit in Chicago, Rahm's appetite for a big event to raise the city's profile is whetted. Plus, to try again and this time get the brass ring is emblematic of the city. After all, not only have they been denied the Games twice by politics, but it hosts a ball club that keeps trying to win a championship despite not having won one since 1906. We die hard in Chicago and we never give up.

I think it actually makes an excellent idea - unseemingly? well it gives the opportunity to complete spruce up that area as well.

Another idea might be a West Side solution - build the stadium on a platform above the Rail tracks. This has clearly been investigated. I do think however that as you have seen with London and the Olympic Park - despite it being very close to the Stratford Rail Station and multitude of commuter lines coming out of Liverpool St ... in London the stadium is just as close and they've taken the opportunity to make the entire area far more attractive.

As for a legacy, I think with such a centrally located stadium, you will have a community legacy. Also by 2024, Soldier Field will be 21years since it reopened and with a small capacity by NFL standards, the Bears could be interested in moving especially if it brings in an extra 20,000 fans per game. Soldier Field could be potentially be restored to its original grandeur. And alternatively if Chicago went for and won 2028 it makes it even more attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the revenue sharing deal, New York has been mentioned as a potential host.

Whilst the 2012 bid fell apart, partially because of the collapse of the West Side stadium deal, is it possible that this could be dusted off and the area opposite the UN along the East River, being used for an Olympics stadium where post-games it could be used by a) The Jets who can get out of the MetLife stadium deal after 15 years which I believe makes this 2025 or B) a second MLS franchise which many people have spoken about. Taking away the stadium from the Hudson River side of Manhatten could make the overall bid far more compact with more facilities in Queens and Brooklyn but Manhatten, the Bronx and Staten Island still being used.

On the initial bid evaluation, NY was 0.1pts behind London, and if they could look to build the Stadium around post-industrial land in much the same way as London did in the Stratford area, it could enjoy similar success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the London Olympics the biggest Athletics stadium in the UK was Crystal Palace at 17,000 seats which was always packed for Athletics meets especially the Diamond League.

I am willing to bet a month's salary that once The London Olympic stadium is reduced to 60,000 seats for football, (and so 50,000 seats) when London holds its annual Diamond League meet, London will have attendances in the order of 50,000 at the Diamond League if held at the Olympic stadium (likely)

I don't see why this can't happen in the US?

Without getting in the middle of what seems to be a lovely pissing match between Blacksheep and Athensfan..

It's not that it can't happen. It's that it won't happen. Take San Francisco, a city looking at building a new stadium and also in the discussion with regard to Olympic bids. Let's say the 49ers get their new stadium, whether it's in Santa Clara or wherever else it might be. If the 49ers are paying for the stadium, what's the incentive for them to spend that extra $50-100 million to include a running track if they're not going to see the direct benefit from that? Let alone what it might take away from the intimacy of the seating layout to include that provision (and please stop citing stadiums like Wembley in that regard which don't have a track, but more on that in a sec). To borrow another example, there was talk when MetLife Stadium was being built and the Jets and Giants were arguing on the design that maybe it should be a retractable roof stadium so that they could attract events like the Final Four. The problem with that is that if the Jets are putting all that money for something like a dome but they're not running the Final Four (and they wouldn't be, that would belong to the NJSEA), they're essentially spending money for someone else to profit off it. That's why you won't see a situation like you're suggesting, especially since the era of multi-purpose stadiums in the United States is gone and, according to most, happily forgotten.

Beyond all that though, what about London? What about all the talk over the legacy of their Olympic Stadium? They didn't do what you're suggesting an American city to do and it's not like they're lacking for sports venues in the greater London area. You keep asking why the United States should be awarded an Olympics without a pre-existing large scale athletics venue. London didn't seem to have that beforehand, so why should that hamper a US bid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for a legacy, I think with such a centrally located stadium, you will have a community legacy. Also by 2024, Soldier Field will be 21years since it reopened and with a small capacity by NFL standards, the Bears could be interested in moving especially if it brings in an extra 20,000 fans per game. Soldier Field could be potentially be restored to its original grandeur. And alternatively if Chicago went for and won 2028 it makes it even more attractive.

Oh no, 21 whole years, that place is going to ancient by then! (hopefully the sarcasm came across there). Yes it's small and who knows if the Bears regret that, but they spent $632 million on those renovations a decade ago. Do you really think that money was only supposed to last them 25 years before the moved on to something else so they could spent another billion? Come on, that's ridiculous. They essentially tore down the stadium stadium once (leaving only the exterior, and we know how that turned out.. the spaceship has landed!), so are they about to do it again? I doubt it. Again, this is one of those things where maybe it could happen if Chicago lands the Olympics. But short of that and even if they do land the Olympics, I wouldn't count on it.

After the revenue sharing deal, New York has been mentioned as a potential host.

Whilst the 2012 bid fell apart, partially because of the collapse of the West Side stadium deal, is it possible that this could be dusted off and the area opposite the UN along the East River, being used for an Olympics stadium where post-games it could be used by a) The Jets who can get out of the MetLife stadium deal after 15 years which I believe makes this 2025 or B) a second MLS franchise which many people have spoken about. Taking away the stadium from the Hudson River side of Manhatten could make the overall bid far more compact with more facilities in Queens and Brooklyn but Manhatten, the Bronx and Staten Island still being used.

On the initial bid evaluation, NY was 0.1pts behind London, and if they could look to build the Stadium around post-industrial land in much the same way as London did in the Stratford area, it could enjoy similar success.

And who exactly has mentioned NYC as a host? Let's not get into rampant speculation simply because the revenue deal has been reached and suddenly the floodgates have been opened. It took nearly a decade of planning to get NYC2012 to the vote in 2005. I haven't heard any rumblings of new planning since then, especially with all the construction and infrastructure upgrades that have happened in this city in the past 7 years in spite of not getting the Olympics. We moved on. Enough with this bulls*** about teams wanting to move, I'm getting really sick of this. The Jets spent $800 million to be a co-tenant in a stadium in New Jersey. So that was only supposed to last 15 years before they head elsewhere to spend another billion? I don't think so. Why do you think these teams are so desperate to move so soon after spending hundreds of millions of dollars like that?

As for the area across the East River waterfront.. I doubt that's going to be a stadium site. That land is useful for something more than an MLS stadium, let alone a hub of action for an Olympic Stadium since if you put it there, where would you put the village? I can't see the city being too high on that plan. It was 1 thing when they were going to build housing and commercial space into the area, but to put a stadium there seems like something of a waste. Is it possible a plan could be built that way? Maybe. Is it likely? Not by a longshot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, 21 whole years, that place is going to ancient by then! (hopefully the sarcasm came across there). Yes it's small and who knows if the Bears regret that, but they spent $632 million on those renovations a decade ago. Do you really think that money was only supposed to last them 25 years before the moved on to something else so they could spent another billion? Come on, that's ridiculous. They essentially tore down the stadium stadium once (leaving only the exterior, and we know how that turned out.. the spaceship has landed!), so are they about to do it again? I doubt it. Again, this is one of those things where maybe it could happen if Chicago lands the Olympics. But short of that and even if they do land the Olympics, I wouldn't count on it.

And who exactly has mentioned NYC as a host? Let's not get into rampant speculation simply because the revenue deal has been reached and suddenly the floodgates have been opened. It took nearly a decade of planning to get NYC2012 to the vote in 2005. I haven't heard any rumblings of new planning since then, especially with all the construction and infrastructure upgrades that have happened in this city in the past 7 years in spite of not getting the Olympics. We moved on. Enough with this bulls*** about teams wanting to move, I'm getting really sick of this. The Jets spent $800 million to be a co-tenant in a stadium in New Jersey. So that was only supposed to last 15 years before they head elsewhere to spend another billion? I don't think so. Why do you think these teams are so desperate to move so soon after spending hundreds of millions of dollars like that?

As for the area across the East River waterfront.. I doubt that's going to be a stadium site. That land is useful for something more than an MLS stadium, let alone a hub of action for an Olympic Stadium since if you put it there, where would you put the village? I can't see the city being too high on that plan. It was 1 thing when they were going to build housing and commercial space into the area, but to put a stadium there seems like something of a waste. Is it possible a plan could be built that way? Maybe. Is it likely? Not by a longshot.

Yes I know 21years (or 25years is not long) but The Falcons want out of the Georgia Dome which is only 20years old. If you're building a new stadium with an extra 20,000 seats within spitting distance then why not have the team move?. If they are going to be spending at least $750m on an Olympic Stadium, then another $100m to basically tear it down, why not keep it?

That is because as newer and newer stadiums get built even relatively modern ones fall behind. If we see new stadiums in San Diego, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Atlanta etc plus newer stadiums in Dallas and New York then even comparatively modern stadiums are not going to generate the same revenue streams and by building a smaller stadium Chicago will fall behind even more because despite the revenue sharing deal, teams keep revenue from certain seats and boxes, a reason that the Bills played some games in Toronto.

NY was mooted on Inside The Games, probably because it is an Alpha+ city and a recent candidate. Blame Tom Degun

http://www.insidethegames.biz/latest/17051-ioc-agrees-revenue-sharing-deal-with-usoc

Also I would add that industrial land is always a bit tricky because in some cases it cannot be used for certain types of development especially housing which therefore makes a sports facility an interesting possibility.

And if its such bullshit, why did the Jets insist on the 15 year break clause to get out of the Metlife stadium lease?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, it's not a pissing match at all. I am solely writing why the US will not build a football stadium that can also accommodate a track on an ongoing basis. The tone if Sheep's posts and mine is not the same.

Aargh. Read "The tone of..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I know 21years (or 25years is not long) but The Falcons want out of the Georgia Dome which is only 20years old. If you're building a new stadium with an extra 20,000 seats within spitting distance then why not have the team move?. If they are going to be spending at least $750m on an Olympic Stadium, then another $100m to basically tear it down, why not keep it?

That is because as newer and newer stadiums get built even relatively modern ones fall behind. If we see new stadiums in San Diego, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Atlanta etc plus newer stadiums in Dallas and New York then even comparatively modern stadiums are not going to generate the same revenue streams and by building a smaller stadium Chicago will fall behind even more because despite the revenue sharing deal, teams keep revenue from certain seats and boxes, a reason that the Bills played some games in Toronto.

Teams like the Falcons and the Redskins have talked about wanting to move, but talking and actually doing it are 2 completely different things. And if you want to throw the Rams into that discussion of a team with a not-so-old stadium that's looking for change, even they're talking more about renovating their existing stadium rather than building a new one from scratch. It it's not even anymore that stadiums from the 1990s lack capacity and amenities, but almost more that they're trying to emulate features of the newer stadiums, not to mention in the case of an Atlanta or a St. Louis, hoping the NFL will take notice and award them a Super Bowl. The Bills are a different situation.. they're trying to expand their fanbase beyond just Western New York.

As for MetLife Stadium.. it's both teams that have that clause in their lease, not just the Jets. Why not have that option instead of being locked into a contract that may, at some point, become undesirable. You may be right that a future Olympic Stadium could fall into their laps (unlikely.. they'd still probably have to pay for at least a good part of it) and maybe they'd want to move. I just disagree with the premise that the Jets just spent $800 million to be in their current situation and are already expecting 15 years down the road to get out of it just because of a clause in a contract.

NY was mooted on Inside The Games, probably because it is an Alpha+ city and a recent candidate. Blame Tom Degun

http://www.insidethe...-deal-with-usoc

So New York is a potential host because a blogger says "Los Angeles, New York and Chicago are just some of the cities thought to be interest in staging the event." Should we then consider every Alpha+ city on the planet as a potential host? I have no issue discussing the prospects of a New York Olympic bid, but let's wait until someone a little more official and more closely connected with New York actually says that they're looking into the Olympics before we move them into the 'potential host' category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athens, this one's for you...

Whilst the 2012 bid fell apart, partially because of the collapse of the West Side stadium deal, is it possible that this could be dusted off and the area opposite the UN along the East River, being used for an Olympics stadium where post-games it could be used by a) The Jets who can get out of the MetLife stadium deal after 15 years which I believe makes this 2025 or B) a second MLS franchise which many people have spoken about. Taking away the stadium from the Hudson River side of Manhatten could make the overall bid far more compact with more facilities in Queens and Brooklyn but Manhatten, the Bronx and Staten Island still being used.

New York 2028

Even though the Jets agree to share the MetLife stadium, the get out clause is 15 years and then 5 years after that.

The economic crisis will impact just as much upon residential property development as elsewhere so sites sold off may still be available.

A stadium built at Hunter's Point on the East River overlooking the UN Building and Manhatten would provide a spectacular back drop.

If the Jets were to agree to move in 2030 (15+5years) and the bid was to be successful in 2021, then New York could say that they had post legacy planning covered.

So odd that 2 completely different posters, neither of whom live in the United States, are so knowledgable about the lease terms of MetLife Stadium and share the same viewpoint on the Jets' current and future stadium situation. What a weird coincidence that is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athens, this one's for you...

So odd that 2 completely different posters, neither of whom live in the United States, are so knowledgable about the lease terms of MetLife Stadium and share the same viewpoint on the Jets' current and future stadium situation. What a weird coincidence that is.

Only dear, you appear to be turning into a Moron.

Anyone who looked up the New York Olympic Bid, will be aware of the Jets moving into the Metlife Stadium and anyone who reads the Wikipedia page can read the Jets (or the Giants) can move out after 15years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetLife_Stadium

So according to your increasinly cretinous opinions, anyone who can use the internet is me. Wow. Talk about having an IQ under 70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here comes the first turn of the screw for the US.

With Toronto voting to bid for the 2024 Games and growing rumbles from South Africa, I think it would be in the US's best interests to abandon any real bids for 2022 and at least assemble a bid for 2024. Even if the US loses in 2024 to SA (likely, let's admit it), at least we'll have a city in mind and in position for 2028.

For my money, it's between Chicago or LA if either city wants to try again, slight preference (obviously) to Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US CANNOT afford to let Toronto snag the next North American SOGs if we hope for anything less than a fifty year gap between American SOGs. Full stop.

According to the news stories, however, a discussion is very preliminary and uncertain regarding Toronto. Among other things they feel they need to choose between Olympuc and Expo bids. There appears to be no noise at the federal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here comes the first turn of the screw for the US.

With Toronto voting to bid for the 2024 Games and growing rumbles from South Africa, I think it would be in the US's best interests to abandon any real bids for 2022 and at least assemble a bid for 2024. Even if the US loses in 2024 to SA (likely, let's admit it), at least we'll have a city in mind and in position for 2028.

For my money, it's between Chicago or LA if either city wants to try again, slight preference (obviously) to Chicago.

I disagree... it is too dangerous to wait 2024 with a bid from South Africa, a possible bid from Paris and a strong bid from Toronto just a few years after the PanAm Games !

2022 is just waiting for them to bid... if they don't go for 2022 and will probably lost 2024 they will still have to wait for 2026 for winter games or 2028 for summer (depending if Toronto would have won 2024)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US CANNOT afford to let Toronto snag the next North American SOGs if we hope for anything less than a fifty year gap between American SOGs. Full stop.

According to the news stories, however, a discussion is very preliminary and uncertain regarding Toronto. Among other things they feel they need to choose between Olympuc and Expo bids. There appears to be no noise at the federal level.

For 2020 Federal and Provincial gvts gave support only the municipal did not. In 2015 when financial situation is better and coming of the momentum of the 2015 PAGS what do you think will be the end result? Bid or no bid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...