Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If LA is the best, it's the best. That should not be viewed as any sort of shortcoming. It should be celebrated and submitted to the IOC with confidence.

I am not necessarily saying LA is the best. We don't know who else is in the running or what they're offering. However in any case, we must abandon completely the idea that LA is a consolation prize and cannot be a compelling, competitive candidate.

It has nothing to do with being a consolation prize. But it also brings up the idea what is the "best" option? If it were about having the most technically sound bid with the most public support and the IOC was looking for a safe, reliable choice, then L.A. would be in a great position. But we know that's not how the game is played and that geopolitics often trump everything else. And yes, you may disagree, but I think that puts L.A. at something of a disadvantage.

Now, if L.A. can come up with an X-factor, something that makes a future Olympics different from the 1984 version and leaves a new legacy, then that can help mitigate the idea that Los Angeles is 'been there, done that.' Again, having hosted a highly successful games could make them a nice choice, but not if the city they're up against offers a better legacy because they've never had it before and going there for the first time does more than returning to L.A. for a r3d. Plus, it's different than a London or a Paris or a Tokyo where the options to come to those countries make those cities the only option. Of course over time you're going to have repeat hosts, but the IOC is usually going to be looking for newer options.

Let me state this again, because I really don't want to get into a stupid argument over semantics and lead this thread down a bad path. I am not dismissing L.A. I am in no way saying they CAN'T be the candidate. I'm merely asking the question of whether they should be the candidate UNLESS they can come up with a hook. In other words, it's SHOULD they be the candidate? And there's plenty of time for them to plan that one out, especially given all the positives like venues in place and public support which then work in their favor. Either way, and again, maybe we have to agree to disagree on this one, but I still think the IOC (in the short term, who knows about decades down the road) may look at Los Angeles as an offering from the USOC that they're not overly excited about, especially if their interests in bigger and more glamorous haven't changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

Here are my thoughts on LA's qualifications and why they could well turn out to be the best option:

Having a stadium and many other venues is a good thing.

Higher public support than anywhere else in the country is a good thing.

International renown as the entertainment capital of the world is a good thing.

Great weather is a good thing.

Outstanding sports organization experience is a good thing.

Rich multi-cultural citizenry is a good thing.

Building on the legacy of the past is a good thing. (What's the point of a legacy if you don't make use of it?)

That said, it all depends on the story LA chooses to tell. Without a compelling story they're dead in the water. Personally, I'd like to see that story focus on reinventing the city through new and improved mass transportation as well as other green initiatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my thoughts on LA's qualifications and why they could well turn out to be the best option:

Having a stadium and many other venues is a good thing.

Higher public support than anywhere else in the country is a good thing.

International renown as the entertainment capital of the world is a good thing.

Great weather is a good thing.

Outstanding sports organization experience is a good thing.

Rich multi-cultural citizenry is a good thing.

Building on the legacy of the past is a good thing. (What's the point of a legacy if you don't make use of it?)

That said, it all depends on the story LA chooses to tell. Without a compelling story they're dead in the water. Personally, I'd like to see that story focus on reinventing the city through new and improved mass transportation as well as other green initiatives.

Completely agree with your post, AthensFan!

If Los Angeles is the best candidate for a future bid from the United States, then why not? Internationally renowned and a reliable partner who helped regenerate the viability of the Olympic Games in 1984. Scenic vistas, multicultural (with people from across the world) and reliably brilliant weather.

You rightly said that it's the message that L.A. chooses. It can't be "Inspire a generation" - that's old hat now. It certainly can't be "Welcome Home" - the Athenians would be incensed. It can't be "One World, One Dream" - that sounded too vague and unrealistic...the "one world" element that is. We all know California for its image as the place where people start afresh and pursue their dreams. And L.A. has hosted the Games twice already. So, my suggestion for a theme would be "Where the dream lives" - the Olympic dream, the dreams of athletes, the dreams of Californians, the dreams of children across the world...that would be a message combining the state's creed and the Olympic ideal. Combine that with a legacy plan that positively touches the lives of L.A. residents in the not-so-fortunate parts of the city, and you got yourself a winner.

Just my two cents...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, Michael Phelps wouldn't make a particularly good bid leader - he's a character, but doesn't strike me as leadership material. Contrast this with someone like Usain Bolt, who in his interviews appears poised, confident and authoritative (even though he puts up a showman persona in front of the crowds).

I think L.A. should stick to what worked best for it back in 1984 and what worked quite nicely for Salt Lake City as well in 2002. Get someone of the calibre of Peter Ueberroth and (this is relates strictly to the context of Salt Lake 2002) Mitt Romney - an accomplished businessman, with the commercial acumen and (as a bonus) some interest in sport to carry the project through to a successful conclusion.

Such a person would also know to balance the legitimate business concerns of sponsors and the need to avoid excessive commercialism during the Games.

I know Phelps' failings in the non-swimming field. I just nominated him as a figurehead. Of course, more savvy technocrats like a Ueberroth or a Romney would of course wield the major power behind the throne. I did think of Usain Bolt but (#1) he is NOT a US citizen; and #2 - his being a showman can be a turn-off for many. You should read a lot of readers' comments in many of the news reports -- I was surprised how high the negative reaction was to his showboating and perceived "arrogance." And when I said Phelps, I also qualified that with "...or someone of his calibre."

It should be LA 2032, the 3-quel...in Living 3-D!! That should wow 'em!! :lol:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never said that Chicago's lack of legacy was the "primary" reason for their loss. I was merely making a comparison to other bids that had a stronger legacy case, like London N indeed Rio.

Although, I would go as far as saying, that had Chicago had more of a legacy plan in their bid, they probably would've faired much better than going out in the first round. Cuz all Chicago needed to do was to impress 3 more IOC members n they would've been at least in the second round.

N yeah, I've been saying all along that if LA can't come up with some sort of "x-factor", then it's a no-go. It can't be the "we have everything in place" strategy, cuz that'll get them nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S.Olympic Committee names a five-member committee to explore whether to bid for the 2024 Olympics – or some other Games in the future.

...

“Today the USOC announced the members of the board who will be part of our previously announced bid working group. This group of individuals will be tasked with looking at the process and timetable of a potential Olympic bid from the United States. Given the experience this group of people bring to the table, we are confident that they will make great progress on this issue by our December board meeting,” said USOC chief executive Scott Blackmun.

All five on the panel serve as members of the USOC board of directors:

Anita DeFrantz and Angela Ruggiero, both IOC members; USA Hockey chief exec Dave Ogrean; Mike Plant, executive with the Atlanta Braves MLB team; Susanne Lyons, former chief marketing officer for Visa USA.

The establishment of the committee to explore a new U.S. bid is the next step in a process announced in June, just a month after the USOC and IOC came to terms on a new revenue sharing agreement. The prior agreement was seen as an impediment to future bids after losses by New York City for 2012 and Chicago for 2016.

...

ATR

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the logic that Blacksheep tried to push, but it's not going to work. There's no room in or around Temple's campus to put that large of a stadium, so that's a complete non-starter. Even if they were to build a new stadium down by the sports complex or Navy Yard, then what good is that to Temple when they're responsible for the upkeep of the stadium as opposed to using the Linc the few times a year they need it. Philadelphia does not need a new football stadium and probably won't for a while. They have one that's less than a decade old right now. They just built the soccer stadium in Northeast. And they knocked down the Spectrum to create space for a retail complex (which, to note, is similar to what's being planned around Citi Field in New York). These projects aren't going to wait for the Olympics to come to town and maybe get built.

Here is the specs for the Lincoln Financial Field (68,532 seats) in Philadelphia

seatingchart-football.gif

By 2024, the stadium will be only 21years old, so due an upgrade rather than replacement. Whilst in its current form it cannot fit an athletics track, there is always talk of raised platforms like they are using in Glasgow 2014 and proposing for Madrid 2020 etc. With a current capacity of 68,500 seats, a platform might take away 10-12,000 seats leaving 56,500 seats only. However if you look to the bottom right, there is a gap in the stands that could accommodate temporary seating, whilst to the left is a stand which does not fit the other stand designs as well as gaps to the bottom left and top left.

Could Philadelphia temporarily convert 'The Linc' into an athletics stadium, using the 6months from the end of the NFL season to erect an athletics platform, as well build the new stand sections? Post games the NFL team might need to play a season in this temporary arrangement until time was found to remove the 'temporary' elements of the design and leaving the city with a heavily upgraded stadium?

As for Temple University, I have looked at the map of Philadelphia, and notice there is an Athletics track area in the middle of what appears to be the main campus. As the MLS stadium and 'Franklin Field' might be needed for Football, could this area be used to build a 'Hockey Stadium' of 15-20,000 seats? After the games, the extra seats removed from the Linc / Olympic Stadium could be added to this 'Hockey Stadium' to create a 30,000 seat stadium for the Owls. At the moment they use the Linc but their lease ends in 2018 according to Wikipedia. Last season the Owls averaged 28,021 a game (23,123 if you take out the Penn St game) and 20,514 (2010) and 17,379 (2009) so although increasing the crowds probably get lost in the Lincoln Financial Field Stadium with the stadium a third full. The larger stadium will always be there for games when a huge crowd is expected.

And addition to this new stadium for Temple, the legacy for a bid would still include a Velodrome, an Aquatics Centre, an Olympics Village converted into housing, and it would create an Olympic Park focused on an existing sports complex as there is both an indoor arena and baseball stadium in this area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the specs for the Lincoln Financial Field (68,532 seats) in Philadelphia

seatingchart-football.gif

By 2024, the stadium will be only 21years old, so due an upgrade rather than replacement. Whilst in its current form it cannot fit an athletics track, there is always talk of raised platforms like they are using in Glasgow 2014 and proposing for Madrid 2020 etc. With a current capacity of 68,500 seats, a platform might take away 10-12,000 seats leaving 56,500 seats only. However if you look to the bottom right, there is a gap in the stands that could accommodate temporary seating, whilst to the left is a stand which does not fit the other stand designs as well as gaps to the bottom left and top left.

Could Philadelphia temporarily convert 'The Linc' into an athletics stadium, using the 6months from the end of the NFL season to erect an athletics platform, as well build the new stand sections? Post games the NFL team might need to play a season in this temporary arrangement until time was found to remove the 'temporary' elements of the design and leaving the city with a heavily upgraded stadium?

As for Temple University, I have looked at the map of Philadelphia, and notice there is an Athletics track area in the middle of what appears to be the main campus. As the MLS stadium and 'Franklin Field' might be needed for Football, could this area be used to build a 'Hockey Stadium' of 15-20,000 seats? After the games, the extra seats removed from the Linc / Olympic Stadium could be added to this 'Hockey Stadium' to create a 30,000 seat stadium for the Owls. At the moment they use the Linc but their lease ends in 2018 according to Wikipedia. Last season the Owls averaged 28,021 a game (23,123 if you take out the Penn St game) and 20,514 (2010) and 17,379 (2009) so although increasing the crowds probably get lost in the Lincoln Financial Field Stadium with the stadium a third full. The larger stadium will always be there for games when a huge crowd is expected.

And addition to this new stadium for Temple, the legacy for a bid would still include a Velodrome, an Aquatics Centre, an Olympics Village converted into housing, and it would create an Olympic Park focused on an existing sports complex as there is both an indoor arena and baseball stadium in this area.

That won't work for Lincoln Financial Field. A track would go well into the lower level seats. You would essentially have to gut the entire lower level. But that still wouldn't work because all of the loge and upper level seats would have obstructed views. Those stands are just too close to the center of the field to make a temporary fix work. That goes for all of the stadiums built in the past 20 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That won't work for Lincoln Financial Field. A track would go well into the lower level seats. You would essentially have to gut the entire lower level. But that still wouldn't work because all of the loge and upper level seats would have obstructed views. Those stands are just too close to the center of the field to make a temporary fix work. That goes for all of the stadiums built in the past 20 years.

That is why a mentioned the Platform Deck that was originally planned for Wembley Stadium and is being used at Hampden Park for the Commonwealth Games. Madrid are doing this with the Olympic Stadium

Unlike some NFL stadiums, the Linc can accommodate a full size FIFA regulation surface without any problems. Putting a running deck down - a platform - would swallow about 12,000 seats.

And if you look at the overhang at the second and third tier levels, the rake of the stand is very steep and the overhang surprisingly small

lincinside.jpg

Having not been to the Lincoln Financial Field, I cannot personally testify to this, but the number of seats with a poor view would not be as bad as at other stadiums.

Flickr-6969720497.jpg

Again this shows the lack of a overhang between second and third tiers

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why a mentioned the Platform Deck that was originally planned for Wembley Stadium and is being used at Hampden Park for the Commonwealth Games. Madrid are doing this with the Olympic Stadium

Unlike some NFL stadiums, the Linc can accommodate a full size FIFA regulation surface without any problems. Putting a running deck down - a platform - would swallow about 12,000 seats.

And if you look at the overhang at the second and third tier levels, the rake of the stand is very steep and the overhang surprisingly small

lincinside.jpg

Having not been to the Lincoln Financial Field, I cannot personally testify to this, but the number of seats with a poor view would not be as bad as at other stadiums.

Flickr-6969720497.jpg

Again this shows the lack of a overhang between second and third tiers

The point is if you can't do a first class job for the main stadium, you have no chance at winning a bid. There would be very few seats in the second and third decks where you can see the entire track. The IOC will not be impressed at all with a plan like that. If I had a cross section of the Linc, I would show you exactly what I mean. The track alone would take up seats past the tunnel and you need additional space for the "track cameras on the outside perimeter of the track. The end seats end the upper deck couldn't be used as 3/4 of the view would be obstructed. Plues, it looks like there isn't even enough room on the ends to fit in an IAAF regulation track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hampden park is only losing 6,000 seats to add a track from the Commonwealth games. It has a pitch of 115x75, the exact same size that fits in modern NFL stadiums (Gillette for instance.) If they can make a great Athletics Stadium out of Hampden, I'm not convinced they couldn't do it with the Linc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hampden park is only losing 6,000 seats to add a track from the Commonwealth games. It has a pitch of 115x75, the exact same size that fits in modern NFL stadiums (Gillette for instance.) If they can make a great Athletics Stadium out of Hampden, I'm not convinced they couldn't do it with the Linc

and as London showed, the IOC aren't necessarily expecting a Birds Nest Stadium, just something that has a use afterwards. If you say that the temporary stands will be used post games to improve other sporting arenas in the area, that ticks all the boxes that the IOC would want to have ticked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting a platform too was part of SF's 2016 bid had those deranged Yorks not moved the new 49ers stadium to the boondocks of their choice, Santa Clara. I remember visiting the SF-2016 offices just after those plans were drawn up; and apparently an int'l track expert consultant had just come to town that weekend to tweak the plans and say that it would pass muster with the IOC and the IAAF. So just imagine the Opening Ceremony stage of London extended all the way to the seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, it all depends on the story LA chooses to tell. Without a compelling story they're dead in the water. Personally, I'd like to see that story focus on reinventing the city through new and improved mass transportation as well as other green initiatives.

The story LA (and any other American city for that matter) is going to have to tell shouldn't be focused on what the Games will do the city.

IOC members will be much more moved by what the city can bring to the Olympic Movement. What's going to be LA's "inspire a generation?" What's going to be their "finally bring the Games to the world's most populated country" or "touch one continent that has yet to be touched by the Games"...?

New and improved mass transportation and green initiatives will only get so many pants wet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah...just present a lot of grand, bombastic renderings in the bid and presentation. They love that. And after winning the bid, just discard the original bombastic renderings and say that reality has forced things to downsize. That's the way to win an Olympic bid. Things always change from the drawing board anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting a platform too was part of SF's 2016 bid had those deranged Yorks not moved the new 49ers stadium to the boondocks of their choice, Santa Clara. I remember visiting the SF-2016 offices just after those plans were drawn up; and apparently an int'l track expert consultant had just come to town that weekend to tweak the plans and say that it would pass muster with the IOC and the IAAF. So just imagine the Opening Ceremony stage of London extended all the way to the seats.

I think Madrid 2020 is proposing this but with a year long conversion.

The irony is, the Lincoln Financial Field Stadium has a greater ability to add temporary seating to make up for any seating lost through the platform, and that temporary seating after the games can be used to upgrade other stadiums, creating a different sort of legacy :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

and as London showed, the IOC aren't necessarily expecting a Birds Nest Stadium, just something that has a use afterwards. If you say that the temporary stands will be used post games to improve other sporting arenas in the area, that ticks all the boxes that the IOC would want to have ticked.

London promised a legacy of a 25,000 seat Athletics stadium. While the IOC may have to accept one of these temporary adaptations, I still think they would strongly prefer a legacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

London promised a legacy of a 25,000 seat Athletics stadium. While the IOC may have to accept one of these temporary adaptations, I still think they would strongly prefer a legacy.

Well some of the 20,000 temporary seats added to the Linc to meet the USOC requirements could possibly be used to build a stadium around the 400m warm up track leaving you with a stadium for Athletics within the sports complex:

Wells Fargo NBA/NHL - 20,000 seats

Citizen Bank Park - 45,000 seats

Lincoln Financial Field - 70,000 seats (post games)

New Athletics stadium - 20,000 seats (post games)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The story LA (and any other American city for that matter) is going to have to tell shouldn't be focused on what the Games will do the city.

IOC members will be much more moved by what the city can bring to the Olympic Movement. What's going to be LA's "inspire a generation?" What's going to be their "finally bring the Games to the world's most populated country" or "touch one continent that has yet to be touched by the Games"...?

New and improved mass transportation and green initiatives will only get so many pants wet.

The irony of that is, a lot of the time the two go hand-in-hand. Sure, the IOC is interested moreso on what the host city can do for the Olympics. However, this will also include, indirectly of the IOC's desires, what the Olympics R actaully going to do for a host city.

I seriously doubt that the IOC got their "pants wet" over London's "insipre a generation". They salivated much more over that brand-new, gleaming Olympic Park in Stratford. N also while going to the world's most populous country was a good argument, the IOC also knew that the Chinese were going to throw everything at the Games, including the kitchen sink. Same thing with Sochi, the IOC was all in awe over that grandiose, new Olympic Park that the Russians R going to build for their party N the legacy it will leave behind for their citizens N Russian winter athletes.

N besides, regardless of what U.S. city a bid can be from, none of them R going to have the "bringing the Games to the most populous country, or to an untouched continent" card to trump. So whatever the American city could be, any of them R going to have to struggle to find that 'x-factor', not just L.A. So they'll have to start from somewhere, so Y not start where the IOC does in fact get all excited about N get their panties all tangled up over, N that's in the physical legacy that the Olympics has the potential to leave behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Madrid 2020 is proposing this but with a year long conversion.

The irony is, the Lincoln Financial Field Stadium has a greater ability to add temporary seating to make up for any seating lost through the platform, and that temporary seating after the games can be used to upgrade other stadiums, creating a different sort of legacy :rolleyes:

Hampden Park and Lincoln Financial Field are to completely different stadiums. There is nothing about the two that is similiar. There is a lot more open space at Hampden Park between the field and the stands than at the Linc. Also, the lower level stands at Hampden stretch farther back. All you have to do is plop a 40

linc_track.jpg

As you can see I have superimposed the practice track from London over the football field. The north upper deck obviously could not be used as you wouldn't see the turn closest to it at all. Also, the superimposing doesn't take into account the jumping pits which are normally outside the track not inside (expect for Atlanta). And there needs to be more room for the track cameras and the photographers pits. That will easily take up another 50 feet. And if you're in the upper deck, there is no way you'd be able to see the straight aways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hampden Park and Lincoln Financial Field are to completely different stadiums. There is nothing about the two that is similiar. There is a lot more open space at Hampden Park between the field and the stands than at the Linc. Also, the lower level stands at Hampden stretch farther back. All you have to do is plop a 40

linc_track.jpg

As you can see I have superimposed the practice track from London over the football field. The north upper deck obviously could not be used as you wouldn't see the turn closest to it at all. Also, the superimposing doesn't take into account the jumping pits which are normally outside the track not inside (expect for Atlanta). And there needs to be more room for the track cameras and the photographers pits. That will easily take up another 50 feet. And if you're in the upper deck, there is no way you'd be able to see the straight aways.

You say you can't see the straights. Actually looking at interior photos taken from the top tier you can see the parts of the bottom of the tier because the rake of the stands at the Lincoln is so steep

And at London,

1) a large part of the track camera was run around the inside of the interior

2) the final 30m of the home straight 100m was set aside for media and photographers - what photographer pits?

Seating has been lost but can be replaced with a rebuilt North Stand and additional temporary seating.

Here is a image of Madrid's Olympic Stadium which will be home to Athletico, temporarily converted into a Track and Field Venue, and then back into a football stadium

Nuevo-Estadio-Atletico-de-Madrid.jpg

How are the Spanish able to do that, but not Americans?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you can't see the straights. Actually looking at interior photos taken from the top tier you can see the parts of the bottom of the tier because the rake of the stands at the Lincoln is so steep

And at London,

1) a large part of the track camera was run around the inside of the interior

2) the final 30m of the home straight 100m was set aside for media and photographers - what photographer pits?

Seating has been lost but can be replaced with a rebuilt North Stand and additional temporary seating.

Here is a image of Madrid's Olympic Stadium which will be home to Athletico, temporarily converted into a Track and Field Venue, and then back into a football stadium

Nuevo-Estadio-Atletico-de-Madrid.jpg

How are the Spanish able to do that, but not Americans?

Here's more evidence.

linc_field.jpg

The red lines represent the angle of the second and third decks. Where the line ends on the field represents the sight line. Anything behind there can't bee seen from that stand. As you can see the line goes straight to the near sideling. You would have to fill the entire lower stands with dirt to get a track in there and then you have to worry about the weight of all that dirt on the stands, especially the lower rows since they will have to bear more pressure from the dirt. Plus that's removing about 20,000 seats. Plus the endzone upper decks couldn't be used. Explain to me why the IOC would be remotely interested in such a half-baked setup?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you can't see the straights. Actually looking at interior photos taken from the top tier you can see the parts of the bottom of the tier because the rake of the stands at the Lincoln is so steep

And at London,

1) a large part of the track camera was run around the inside of the interior

2) the final 30m of the home straight 100m was set aside for media and photographers - what photographer pits?

Seating has been lost but can be replaced with a rebuilt North Stand and additional temporary seating.

Here is a image of Madrid's Olympic Stadium which will be home to Athletico, temporarily converted into a Track and Field Venue, and then back into a football stadium

Nuevo-Estadio-Atletico-de-Madrid.jpg

How are the Spanish able to do that, but not Americans?

Just looking at the photo and the first and second decks, it looks like it might be similar to Stade France. There the lower stands on both sides and both ends slide under the stands to reveal more space. I'm assuming that's the same with Madrid's stadium. Look up Stade France and you'll see what I'm talking about for both track and soccer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at the photo and the first and second decks, it looks like it might be similar to Stade France. There the lower stands on both sides and both ends slide under the stands to reveal more space. I'm assuming that's the same with Madrid's stadium. Look up Stade France and you'll see what I'm talking about for both track and soccer.

No. The Stade de France has sliding stands where the lower tier retracts to reveal the track.

With the stadium they are going to put in a temporary platform which will occupy at least a half if not more of the lower tier. The end stands are actually rebuilt to make them close to the pitch.

The Stade de France was built to accomodate rugby so always had a larger ingoal area.

Here's more evidence.

linc_field.jpg

The red lines represent the angle of the second and third decks. Where the line ends on the field represents the sight line. Anything behind there can't bee seen from that stand. As you can see the line goes straight to the near sideling. You would have to fill the entire lower stands with dirt to get a track in there and then you have to worry about the weight of all that dirt on the stands, especially the lower rows since they will have to bear more pressure from the dirt. Plus that's removing about 20,000 seats. Plus the endzone upper decks couldn't be used. Explain to me why the IOC would be remotely interested in such a half-baked setup?

there is no image

The Spanish are using dirt.

The Scots are using Jacks which bear the wait which is what I believe San Francisco proposed for 2016

The IOC probably want to avoid the embarassment of barely used Olympic stadiums like in Seoul, Barcelona, and Beijing so will accept a compromise.

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

×
×
  • Create New...