Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Many Londoners felt that way before the Olympics. They were wrong. The 2012 games showed that no matter how great your city is, it can be even better. No matter how positively the rest of the world sees you, that can be improved.

Oh yea, I agree the Olympics could make New York better, just like it did for London. But they had a plan how the Olympics would improve their city and they pulled it off. The funny thing is that a lot of the projects that were suggested as part of the Olympics bid happened anyway even without the Olympics getting awarded to New York. My point to PotatoChips was that the narrative of a New York bid can't just be "we're a great city, we deserve the Olympics." That's the sense I felt in 2005 and it was very uninspiring. A future bid would need to be something along the lines of "we're a great city and here's how the Olympics will make us even better."

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....

That's all well and good, but what's in it for New York? That's the first question any potential bid city needs to ask themselves before they even think about jumping into the bid waters. You can't just say 'have them in New York' as if they don't require incentive to bid. Not to sound like an arrogant New Yorker here, but we don't need to show the rest of the world how great a city we are. We would love the opportunity, but unless it works for the city (and we know how that turned out in 2005), you can't expect New York to bid simply because the USOC would like them to. You need a much better story than "the game of dreams." (what the heck does that even mean anyway?)

Lol. I don't know what it means however NYC could try to used Londons bid idea to fuel their own. They could try to reclaim the Flushing Meadows Park area and turn it into a beautiful park. The park is already nice, but there is a lot of things that could be improved.

They took it from the Indians? Somehow I don't see that going well with the IOC crowd.

Where is the most successful downsized Olympic stadium?

Probably Turner Field, Atlanta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A future bid would need to be something along the lines of "we're a great city and here's how the Olympics will make us even better."

But more than that, the IOC is going to be interested in hearing what the city could do for the Olympic Movement. And unless the other bidding cities are seriously lacking in their own proposals, I don't think they're going to want to vote for an American bid team that stands in front of them and talks about huge revenues and nothing more.

It's going to have to be, "We're a great city, here's how the Olympics will make us even better, and here's how the Olympic Movement will benefit."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately the IOC will need more than a good intellectual argument. They want to be excited. Which city and which bid leaders can make them giddy about voting for the US? That's the only way the US wins. A good argument won't get them further than second place -- first loser in Olympic host city races. They have to sense the magic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People were happy to consider Rome for 2020 even though we had Turin in 2006, and in many ways Rome was looked on almost as one of the favourites. That is 14years, the same difference that would exist between Vancouver and Toronto.

Sorry, but this is also an incomparable comparison. Italy is also a sporting prowess at the Summer Olympics, Not like the U.S., China or Russia, but certainly moreso than Canada. Plus, Italy has been waiting longer for another Summer Olympics than Canada has.

Italy, along with Switzerland, also has the most IOC members than any other NOC. Therefore, that equals clout within the organization & other sporting federations. Rome is also one of the world's most iconic & historical cities. So Rome associated with the Olympics would equal novelty & very much interested viewership much like London 2012 did.

The legacy would be a similar draw as to the one that took the Olympics to the East End of London. A major run down inner city area where the IOC could be a catalyst for a major revitalisation and redevelopment, not only in the form of stadia and facilities but also in infrastructure, post games housing created from the village etc

This could also be replicated with any large American city as well. If the initiative & innovation can be found, than I believe it can be achievable.

What is the difference for Coca Cola of Atlanta sponsoring a games in a) San Francisco or B) Toronto?

If there's no difference, then the Games can go to Paris, Durban, Istanbul or whereever else & the sponsors will still be happy. When this argument is used for American bids, it is quickly shot down, by some arguing that the sponsors R more interesting in reaching new global markets than anything. So I C no difference how Canada would exactly benefit from such an angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Toronto and an unnamed US city go head to head (even NY or LA), the Americans are going to need one hell of a bid to trump Toronto - Toronto offers everything a US city can, but with the budget guarantees the IOC likes, the recent multi-event experience before we even to discuss any residual anti-Americanism which may exist.

Ummmm, really? Other than the federal goverment guarantees, I see no other big element whereas the U.S. would need "one hell of a bid to trump Toronto". Anti-American sentiment may always be there regardless. But considering how the IOC got their way with the USOC with the recent revenue deal, I can't see a good American bid being so easily discarded next time around. Unless the IOC wants to go back to square one with the USOC, & I can't see that as being too likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm, really? Other than the federal goverment guarantees, I see no other big element whereas the U.S. would need "one hell of a bid to trump Toronto". Anti-American sentiment may always be there regardless. But considering how the IOC got their way with the USOC with the recent revenue deal, I can't see a good American bid being so easily discarded next time around. Unless the IOC wants to go back to square one with the USOC, & I can't see that as being too likely.

Except with Toronto being in the same timezone, barely across the border, and already holding some American sports events like NCAA events, it is virtually American.

Then when you look at the technical bid, the redevelopment legacy of a major city centre area, the compactness of a bid if 2008 is a basis and the fact there is a main stadium which would be kept largely in place because of ready made tenant, the only thing going for a USA bid could be the fact that it is American

Italy is not a sporting giant in many Olympic sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Toronto posing any threat to the US at at all for 2024.

2 reasons:

Vancouver 2010

1 gold medal in London

Well four reasons Toronto WILL be a threat is

1) The compact bid and post games usage of venues without massive downsizing of the main stadium

2) Recent and operational multi-sports games organising experience

3) Vancouver 2010 is irrelevent. There are only so many countries that can hold a winter event so Canada won't be penalised by this.

4) Team GB won 1 gold in 1996 - in London it was 29 golds. Do you give a games to a country that owns a massive amount of golds or to a country which might energise the populace to go out there and raise their sporting achievements? Every host develops an 'own the podium' mentality in the years before the cauldron is lit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if Toronto doesn't get a future NFL franchise, expect a 100,000 seater stadium halved. Or whatever capacity the upper tier is removed. For mainly CFL use.

100,000 being said. Would a US city be bold enough and propose such a large capacity venue?

They didn't even propose that for the Centennial Olympics, which might have been a nice symbolic number.

Edited by Lord David
Link to post
Share on other sites

3) Vancouver 2010 is irrelevent. There are only so many countries that can hold a winter event so Canada won't be penalised by this.

This argument is so weak. Talk about twisting and distorting facts to delude yourself into a non existent truth? "Wont be penalised by this"--- according to who??

The Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics are NOT arbitrary to one another, they are the same event in tandem to one another. IOC members vote on how they feel. You cannot say that 2010 won't have an impact on at least a substantial portion of voting members.

This expectant attitude is easily turned around to say that because Canada is able to host both events it should consider itself lucky, and it was not forced to bid for 2010. If Canada really wanted a Summer Olympics, it should not have gone for 2010, and the COA could have stuck by Toronto and put it forward for 2012 2016 or 2020 and I'm quite sure it would have been successful, and deservedly so.

Furthermore, if we're going to be so dramatic as to claim it unfair for the IOC to "penalise" Canada; why is it then acceptable for Canada to be awarded a FOURTH Olympics (and second Summer) Games potentially within 50 years, at the expense of a potential first time country/continent hosting?

Actually, if Toronto doesn't get a future NFL franchise, expect a 100,000 seater stadium halved. Or whatever capacity the upper tier is removed. For mainly CFL use.

100,000 being said. Would a US city be bold enough and propose such a large capacity venue?

They didn't even propose that for the Centennial Olympics, which might have been a nice symbolic number.

100,000 seater stadiums won't dazzle a contemporary IOC. Temporary or not. Even Stadium Australia was bordering on excessive.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

100,000 more seats that can be filled vs 80,000? More revenues that's what!

Stadium Australia posed the opportunity to break the record for largest Olympic Stadium and given the sports mad nature of the country, it was close to filled for major events during the Olympics. A 100,000 seater venue (from scratch) is a good thing, as it won't obviously be permanent in that capacity post Paralympics.

Edited by Lord David
Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is so weak. Talk about twisting and distorting facts to delude yourself into a non existent truth? "Wont be penalised by this"--- according to who??

The Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics are NOT arbitrary to one another, they are the same event in tandem to one another. IOC members vote on how they feel. You cannot say that 2010 won't have an impact on at least a substantial portion of voting members.

This expectant attitude is easily turned around to say that because Canada is able to host both events it should consider itself lucky, and it was not forced to bid for 2010. If Canada really wanted a Summer Olympics, it should not have gone for 2010, and the COA could have stuck by Toronto and put it forward for 2012 2016 or 2020 and I'm quite sure it would have been successful, and deservedly so.

Furthermore, if we're going to be so dramatic as to claim it unfair for the IOC to "penalise" Canada; why is it then acceptable for Canada to be awarded a FOURTH Olympics (and second Summer) Games potentially within 50 years, at the expense of a potential first time country/continent hosting?

Respectfully it is your argument that is weak.

Considering the countries capable of hosting both events - USA, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, China, Japan etc. do you really believe that some of these countries will even consider bidding for the Winter version if they are then told they can then forget the summer edition for 30years+ ?? That would be like the IOC cutting the throat of the Winter Games because the only countries bidding would be marginal ones .... a bit like the competition for Euro2020 which is exceptionally weak. With the number of countries contending for the Olympics seemingly declining especially in the winter version, national Olympic committees simply won't offer a contender and the IOC will get to eventually choose between Slovakia v Kazakstan whilst the larger countries keep their powder dry for the summer version.

The IOC could find the Winter Games in the same boat as the Winter Youth Olympic Games ... desperately hoping someone will come forward offering to host.

If there is a notion of continental rotation, then North America is left with either the USA or Canada .... do people believe that the IOC does not want to see a Winter Olympics in North America for half a century? Over the last 40years it has gone North America - Europe - North America - Europe/Europe - Asia - North America - Europe - North America - Europe - Asia - Europe? ... imagine no North American Winter Olympics bid for 2026, 2030, 2034, 2038, 2042, 2046, 2050 ... if you say you rule yourself out for the Summer Games if you help the IOC offer a Winter Games ......

Winter Games and Summer Games are seperate. The requirements to be a host are so different that the IOC would be incredibly foolish trying to link the two.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well four reasons Toronto WILL be a threat is

1) The compact bid and post games usage of venues without massive downsizing of the main stadium

2) Recent and operational multi-sports games organising experience

3) Vancouver 2010 is irrelevent. There are only so many countries that can hold a winter event so Canada won't be penalised by this.

4) Team GB won 1 gold in 1996 - in London it was 29 golds. Do you give a games to a country that owns a massive amount of golds or to a country which might energise the populace to go out there and raise their sporting achievements? Every host develops an 'own the podium' mentality in the years before the cauldron is lit.

1.) the most compact bidder has not won the right to host in any of the recent races.

2.) the US comfortably surpasses Canada in sports organization experience.

3.) just because there is a limited number of countries that can hold Winter Games does not mean the IOC will award Canada 2 Games within 14 years. That would go against all current voting trends and would require the IOC to snub their most important financial partner through the 40s.

4.) the single gold medal is a clear reminder that Canada is simply not much of a summer sports nation. Own the Podium was intended to improve summer performances as well and obviously it didn't. Contrast that with the top medal winning nation and it's extremely unlikely the IOC would choose Canada over the US. It doesn't appear to have made Summer sports much of a priority.

Here's what it all boils down to: there are 2 nations in North America capable of hosting Summer Games.

One has a population of 311.6 million, is a sporting and economic powerhouse, the IOC's top financial partner, and has been snubbed twice. The second country has a population of 34.5 million, won only 1 gold medal in London, is not a big economic force, is not a major financial contributor to the Olympic movement, and hosted the last Olympic Games held in North America -- which occurred just two years ago.

If Toronto bids against the US for 2024 either the US will win or neither country will win and the Games will go to South Africa or France. There is no way Toronto will beat the US to host 2024. If the IOC made that choice, they would put a bullet in their relationship with the US. The only way Toronto can win 2024 is if the US doesn't bid -- and even then I think it's a longshot.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at history, having both SOG and WOG in the same country in close time frames is common. If you look at "recent voting history" you'll see Salt Lake and Atlanta. If the IOC is so fickle that you are going to argue that everything has changed since 2002, then everything could change again tomorrow. No matter how you look at it, there is simply no way to state with the slightest level of confidence the IOC will hold 2010 against 2024.

The fact that you think Canada's one gold in 2012 is a deal killer shows your way of thinking is out of touch with the IOCs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say that picking Toronto over a US city will put a bullet in the IOCs relationship with the US, what US are you talking about? The sponsors? Heck, Coke etc. would rather see the games in Delhi (or Glascow) than in the US anyway. Toronto's just fine with them. With NBC? They care about time zone. With the USOC? Who gives a frack about them? If they get their fees fees hurt by the IOC, so what? Are they going to stop sending athletes to the games?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) the most compact bidder has not won the right to host in any of the recent races.

2.) the US comfortably surpasses Canada in sports organization experience.

3.) just because there is a limited number of countries that can hold Winter Games does not mean the IOC will award Canada 2 Games within 14 years. That would go against all current voting trends and would require the IOC to snub their most important financial partner through the 40s.

4.) the single gold medal is a clear reminder that Canada is simply not much of a summer sports nation. Own the Podium was intended to improve summer performances as well and obviously it didn't. Contrast that with the top medal winning nation and it's extremely unlikely the IOC would choose Canada over the US. It doesn't appear to have made Summer sports much of a priority.

Here's what it all boils down to: there are 2 nations in North America capable of hosting Summer Games.

One has a population of 311.6 million, is a sporting and economic powerhouse, the IOC's top financial partner, and has been snubbed twice. The second country has a population of 34.5 million, won only 1 gold medal in London, is not a big economic force, is not a major financial contributor to the Olympic movement, and hosted the last Olympic Games held in North America -- which occurred just two years ago.

If Toronto bids against the US for 2024 either the US will win or neither country will win and the Games will go to South Africa or France. There is no way Toronto will beat the US to host 2024. If the IOC made that choice, they would put a bullet in their relationship with the US. The only way Toronto can win 2024 is if the US doesn't bid -- and even then I think it's a longshot.

1) Rio's bid was the most compact out of the four.

2) What world championships/ world events has the USA recently hosted? Canada would have hosted the 2005 World Aquatic championships. 2010 IAAF world junior championships, fifa events, Pan Am Games. That builds relationships with potential IOC voters.

3) NBC/Sponsors will give ridiculous amount of money regardless.

4) Own the Podium did not have the full 4 year run in that the Vancouver Games had in 2010. Coupled with bad luck in London in 2016 a top 10 overall medal total (going by here maybe a top 11 is realistic) is very good for the size for Canada, the same as where its economy stands in the world.

5) Economic powerhouse - $10.6 trillion in debt, and continuing to pile it on, slow economic growth. It has been snubbed twice- due to its cockiness and unwillingness to agree to a fair deal

Is not a big economic force- tenth largest economy in the world, and the largest economic growth among G8 nations is not a economic force? What world do you live in? The USA has hosted the last two summer games in North America and 2024 would make it the third, while the rest of the continent and a country just to the north that could host continue to wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Madrid had sailing in Seville/Valencia, Tokyo had equestrian 120km away, Chicago had an event in other states (cycling)

Having one or two far-flung events is par for the course. Rio's topography gave it the longest average travel times of any of the bids. If memory serves, Tokyo's bid was the most compact.

Even if you were correct, the IOC did not choose Rio for the compactness of their bid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say that picking Toronto over a US city will put a bullet in the IOCs relationship with the US, what US are you talking about? The sponsors? Heck, Coke etc. would rather see the games in Delhi (or Glascow) than in the US anyway. Toronto's just fine with them. With NBC? They care about time zone. With the USOC? Who gives a frack about them? If they get their fees fees hurt by the IOC, so what? Are they going to stop sending athletes to the games?

Do you think the IOC really wants to test that theory? Do you really think that a favorable relationship with the USOC is worthless to them? Do you really think there would be ZERO financial/PR repercussions for them? Everything would go on as usual while the USOC sulked in the corner?

Sounds extremely unlikely to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having one or two far-flung events is par for the course. Rio's topography gave it the longest average travel times of any of the bids. If memory serves, Tokyo's bid was the most compact.

Even if you were correct, the IOC did not choose Rio for the compactness of their bid.

But Rio did had all venues in Rio Proper. + New transportation links will reduce time. Off course not but the compact plan helps. Toronto is going to have to propose something very compact or there won't be a chance of winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) the most compact bidder has not won the right to host in any of the recent races.

2.) the US comfortably surpasses Canada in sports organization experience.

3.) just because there is a limited number of countries that can hold Winter Games does not mean the IOC will award Canada 2 Games within 14 years. That would go against all current voting trends and would require the IOC to snub their most important financial partner through the 40s.

4.) the single gold medal is a clear reminder that Canada is simply not much of a summer sports nation. Own the Podium was intended to improve summer performances as well and obviously it didn't. Contrast that with the top medal winning nation and it's extremely unlikely the IOC would choose Canada over the US. It doesn't appear to have made Summer sports much of a priority.

Here's what it all boils down to: there are 2 nations in North America capable of hosting Summer Games.

One has a population of 311.6 million, is a sporting and economic powerhouse, the IOC's top financial partner, and has been snubbed twice. The second country has a population of 34.5 million, won only 1 gold medal in London, is not a big economic force, is not a major financial contributor to the Olympic movement, and hosted the last Olympic Games held in North America -- which occurred just two years ago.

If Toronto bids against the US for 2024 either the US will win or neither country will win and the Games will go to South Africa or France. There is no way Toronto will beat the US to host 2024. If the IOC made that choice, they would put a bullet in their relationship with the US. The only way Toronto can win 2024 is if the US doesn't bid -- and even then I think it's a longshot.

Snubbed? There is always a condescending arrogance and presumption that NY and Chicago offered the best bid and therefore there was some sense of residual anti-Americanism which was the dominant deciding factor in the decision. Sorry for raining on your parade but neither bid was the best in either bid cycle so there was no snubbing. If they were the best bid, this would be true but they simply were not.

1) With the exception of the sailing, London was at least if not more compact than NY, Paris and Madrid.

2) The last multi sport events the US has organised occured in 1996 and 2002. Canada has hosted multi sport events in 2010 and 2015 (Pan Ams)

3) Huh? If you link the two then countries capable of hosting both - USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, China etc - tsimply won't bid for the WOG keeping their powder dry for SOG bids especially if they are going to be penalised for doing so. This will damage the WOG for the IOC and they simply are not going to do that.

4) So what? Brazil is hardly an Olympic giant. There is no reason why a country cannot turn around its performance in medals in 5 years let alone 12. And one of the issues between the IOC and USOC was that the large slice of money the US got meant their athletes had much better funding, creating an artificial playing field. So awarding the game to a city in a nation which has underperformed leading to investment is likely to level that particular playing field.

What does the size of America's population have to do with? Will all of them travel to support the games? the award goes to a city of sufficient size to effectively host. Canada is a G8 member currently like the USA and Canada's economy is in better shape. Where is all this private money to host a US games going to come from considering the current state of the US economy

And if Toronto bid against a US city who offered a mediocre plan with limited legacy and simply expect to get the games, and the IOC think that Canada offers the best bid, then there is no reason why Toronto should not be selected to host the 2024 Olympiad

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...