Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Athensfan

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

There is too many people here that are pushing for a Las Vegas bid. It is too unrealistic. America has better option and therefore Vegas will likely never beat them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing Vegas has going for it is an abundance of billionaires with the vision and experience for grand plans...

Here's the scenario... Bucks and Jags go to LA. Raiders can't get a deal done in Oakland. Vegas would be the perfect home for them (and they don't give a frack what the NFL thinks of Vegas). Wynn or Adelson put together a plan that not only moves the Raiders to Vegas, but incorporates the Olympics into the stadium plan.

As for SF... they have a stadium. It's in Santa Clara. 49ers going to be there a long time. And if SF wouldn't build a stadium for the 49ers, they sure aren't building one for anyone else.

Note - we have already going through 188 pages in this thread, with 5 more years to go before the 2024 host is announced. If we don't want to talk about long-shot bids such as Vegas, it's going to get extraordinarily dull rehashing NY/Chicago/LA for hundreds and hundreds of pages.

America has better option and therefore Vegas will likely never beat them out.

Those other cities are only options if they but forth a strong bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Vegas hosted the NBA All-Star game once. Needless to say, I think they have the money, experience, and know-how to get a PROPER bid done. As for you little "white elephant" problem, simply tear the stadiums down afterwards and convert the land to parks/hotels/casinos.

Once? Wow, I'm sold. Las Vegas Olympics, here we come!

Las Vegas has a lot of things going for them to host a major international event.. they have a lot of space, certainly plenty of hotel rooms, a large-scale airport in close proximity to the city, not to mention their ability to handle crowds. But there's no sporting culture there and I don't think the Olympics would leave that type of legacy there.

And as for that little white elephant problem, how's that working out for Athens? And that's a city with a sporting culture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as for that little white elephant problem, how's that working out for Athens? And that's a city with a sporting culture.

Guess you didn't read where I said to simply tear the stuff down afterwards. You know what else Vegas is famous for? Implosions. Imagine an implosion of a stadium once a week after the Olympics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing Vegas has going for it is an abundance of billionaires with the vision and experience for grand plans...

I was in Vegas a couple of months ago, first time I had been there in a number of years. I was amazed at the amount of new construction there was there. I was also greeted with this..

scaled.M-Circus.010_t653.JPG?214bc4f9d9bd7c08c7d0f6599bb3328710e01e7b

That was a grand plan and vision that has been left half-completed for about 4 years now because of the financial meltdown. So let's not assume that grand plans are going to come to fruition, let alone for some sort of Olympic Park that doesn't generate money the way a hotel and casino can.

And again with the NFL.. look what's happened with Los Angeles. They can't get a team there, so it's going to be the same deal with Las Vegas. No team will move there unless the stadium is in place and you're not going to get the stadium in place with a tenant to occupy it. Las Vegas is not going to be a good NFL market, not because of the gambling, but because you'll have trouble building a fanbase from the local population. And you can't rely on corporations to buy up all the tickets to give to hotel guests.. again, that's not the way to build up a following for a professional sports team that you're trying to fill a 60,000+ seat stadium with.

Guess you didn't read where I said to simply tear the stuff down afterwards. You know what else Vegas is famous for? Implosions. Imagine an implosion of a stadium once a week after the Olympics.

I did see that part. So now you want Las Vegas to spend billions of dollars to host a 2-week event and then tear it down afterwards? I'm sure the IOC will be really inspired by that and it sounds like a great use of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at this the wrong way mate. They easily make that money back because of all the tourism of people going there for the implosions. Not to mention that it's Las Vegas, the biggest money maker in the world. They would make that billion back in two weeks, tops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echelon is where I'm putting the Olympic village. My god it's perfect. In what other city in the world do you have the groundwork and foundations in place just waiting for the OV to be built on top of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imploding Olympic venues as a money making trap for tourists?

And people like to say the Bird's Nest as a post-Olympic tourist site for the Chinese is a disgrace....

You guys are funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jags are going to London, not Vegas.

The Pats and the Rams game tickets in October in London are sold out already. I have to admit that having London on the NFL map sounds exciting but it’s really up to the British sports fans whether they choose to embrace American Football.

Can you stop building new “stuff” and try to invest in the facilities we already have? Building a new Olympic Village with units that can be turned into apartments and facilities that can be turned into community centers should be the goal. I kinda feel that this will be the trend in the Olympic movement (I hope).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Vegas hosted the NBA All-Star game once. Needless to say, I think they have the money, experience, and know-how to get a PROPER bid done. As for you little "white elephant" problem, simply tear the stadiums down afterwards and convert the land to parks/hotels/casinos.

Vegas has no chance of hosting the olympics. They may have money but what's this experience? They have one sports venue in the whole city, and it's not even that big. They don't have any sports team so no one will be dying to build a stadium there just to have it knocked down. On top of that, do you think the USOC will allow them to bid after Las Vegas disobeyed their orders and tried to bid for 2020?

Bottom line, why Vegas when more cultural and interesting cities in America could bid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at this the wrong way mate. They easily make that money back because of all the tourism of people going there for the implosions. Not to mention that it's Las Vegas, the biggest money maker in the world. They would make that billion back in two weeks, tops.

So that's the key to making money in Las Vegas? Build something, use it for a couple of weeks, and then make a big event out of the implosion? Again, good luck selling that to the IOC that you're basically going to leave no legacy for them.

And if Las Vegas is already the biggest money maker in the world, what is the Olympics going to do for them? It's not like they're lacking for a reason for people to come there. If they're going to spend billions of dollars on something, do it on hotels and casinos, the types of venues that will continue to generate money outside of a 2 1/2-week window like the Olympics. Do you really think that many people are going to come to Vegas (that wouldn't otherwise) to watch a couple of implosions? You're not making a billion dollars off of that.

Echelon is where I'm putting the Olympic village. My god it's perfect. In what other city in the world do you have the groundwork and foundations in place just waiting for the OV to be built on top of it.

I'm sure that's what those folks want.. for the first people staying in their hotel to be 10,000 non-paying customers who probably aren't going to touch the type of high end amenities any decent hotel on the strip is going to have. Let alone that by 2024, if they haven't continued construction, you're talking about a structure that will have sat there unfinished for more than a decade. Either way, I don't think athletes village and high end Las Vegas hotel are all that compatible with each other, so who has to compromise there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vegas has no chance of hosting the olympics. They may have money but what's this experience? They have one sports venue in the whole city, and it's not even that big. They don't have any sports team so no one will be dying to build a stadium there just to have it knocked down. On top of that, do you think the USOC will allow them to bid after Las Vegas disobeyed their orders and tried to bid for 2020?

Bottom line, why Vegas when more cultural and interesting cities in America could bid?

Let's be fair for a sec to what Vegas has in place already. Sporting culture no, but we know they're capable of handling large crowds (although the Olympics probably pushes that to a new level since you're talking about them staying around for 2 weeks, not bachelor parties in town for a weekend). There's Sam Boyd Stadium and Thomas & Mack Center. MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay both have fairly large scale venues. They have, what I believe is the 3rd largest convention center in the country, comparable in size to the Georgia World Congress center.

So it's not like Las Vegas doesn't have a lot in place already. Doesn't mean I give them any shot at landing an Olympics, especially after the 2020 bid fiasco though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean...Vegas hasn't even hosted a national political convention and people here are even considering it for the Olympics?? :rolleyes: Of the large convention cities of the US, even Orlando is non-Olympic material.

Apart from the rogue episode...which I don't think reflected on the USOC since the guy acted NOT knowing how it's done...and the IOC had the courtesy to reply to him politely, don't you Vegas-boosters think that if the city were even remotely Olympic material, the USOC would've already made them a finalist even in the last two rounds?? :blink:

Please get real people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Las Vegas probably will never be selected as the US bid for any future Olympics, unless of course there's really poorer choice US cities wanting the games.

Which is somewhat of a shame, because of their 2020 faux pas and the fact that an Olympics in Las Vegas will essentially get what that LV business man wanted, a new major stadium.

LasVegasVenues.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Seems the only condescension, arrogance and presumption is from you. I always find it fascinating how someone is prepared to post something as 100% fact, when it is not founded in any reality. You were not on Chicago 2016 exec committee and privy to the technical evaluation. You did not have personal 1 on 1 meetings with 49 IOC members AFTER the vote to understand the true views on Chicago's bid. Yet SOMEHOW, you think you are qualified to state the above BS as fact? The only think that is a fact now, is your lack of credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds pretty clear to me, that perhaps u don't know the difference between "technical N legacy". And/or, sorry to say, suffer from the "hear what you wanna hear" syndrome

Let me be clearer then. Both technically and legacy wise the stadium was highly applauded. But you're right, the entire Chicago 2016 exec was probably completely naive. I mean with all the really in depth analytics of practically every IOC meeting, with representation on the exec that covered every winning bid from 1988 to 2008 we clearly had ZERO insights into the evaluation meeting. I mean, we should all just rather of asked FYI, MVP armchair quarterback, to come and tell us we might as well pack up and go home.

Let me also be clear on this: Debate and opinions are great. But trying to sell something as fact of which you have zero knowledge is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One city had to go out first in the vote and sadly for the US it was Chicago. If I'm honest I don't like the use of the word 'snubbed' either. But to be fair Athensfan only used it once and in passing. I don't think we need to have a great big debate about it. He's been clear in numurous other posts that he feels 2016 wasn't the right time for the US in hindsight, he's hardly what I'd call a blind patriot when it comes to these things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One city had to go out first in the vote and sadly for the US it was Chicago. If I'm honest I don't like the use of the word 'snubbed' either. But to be fair Athensfan only used it once and in passing. I don't think we need to have a great big debate about it. He's been clear in numurous other posts that he feels 2016 wasn't the right time for the US in hindsight, he's hardly what I'd call a blind patriot when it comes to these things.

I think 'snubbed' is the wrong word as well and like you, I know where Athensfan is coming from. Hindsight is 20/20 as we know. Was New York destined to win 2012? Clearly not. Was Chicago destined to beat out Rio for 2016? Not so much. I remember in 2005 watching the NYC presentation on a big screen at Rockefeller Center. A lot of people there were convinced we were going to win. As soon as the presentation was over, I turned to my friend there and said "there's no way we're winning." And supposedly the only reason New York didn't go out in the first round was that enough voters picked them over Moscow to avoid the embarrassment. I imagine a similar scenario played out in 2009 with Chicago, the only difference there being that they did go out in the first round.

So there is an aura of entitlement where some people view the USOC having won 1996 when the Olympics had been in this country just 12 years prior and perhaps people were expecting to see that again, especially with New York and Chicago as the bid cities, as opposed to Atlanta (which beat out the likes of Cleveland and Minneapolis for the nomination for 1996.. certainly not a field a heavyweights). I think a lot of us would agree that it was a wake-up call for the USOC and maybe in the long run it wasn't such a bad thing that they got the door slammed in their face like that. If the USOC feels snubbed by those 2 losses (along with the folks in NYC and Chicago), that's understandable, but they made their own bed with that one. And it's not like, say, Paris 2012 which made a great case to win and only loses by a few votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a hidden fact. The IOC doesn't like the USOC. Was that the reason that Chicago and New York lost to Rio and London?

New York had many problems with their bid. -Their stadium idea was turned down by the neighborhood council. 2010 olympics were go to be in North America. Their competition was much harder then usual. And it was their first time bidding.

Chicago lost because their relationship with the IOC was awful and the other cities had great ideas, much better then Chicago's.

This is my opinion and known fact, however if any of this is false information please tell and correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a large city on the East Coast because the Games have never been there: New York, Boston, Washington or Philadelphia.

Afterwards in thirty years, San Francisco or Florida (Orlando ? Miami ?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago lost because their relationship with the IOC was awful and the other cities had great ideas, much better then Chicago's.

I'd like to see an objective view of how other cities had "great ideas, much better than Chicago's"?

Here are the facts.

1) Chicago lost because

- It was Rio's time

- Chicagoan support for the Games was abysmal

- The transport plan was mediocre

2) Chicago came dead last in the voting because of the USOC/IOC relationships.

Two different causes, but both with the same result - there was no way Chicago would have won.

Now, for those who seem to think Chicago should waste another $75m on a bid. Yes, cause 2 is fixed. However, other than the Rio issue, the other two points of cause 1 remain, and if anything they are even bigger obstacles today. Chicago's transport situation in 2024 will be substantially worse than it will be in 2016. Citizen's are even more anti-games now they they were in 2009 - I don't see this changing by 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me be clearer then. Both technically and legacy wise the stadium was highly applauded. But you're right, the entire Chicago 2016 exec was probably completely naive. I mean with all the really in depth analytics of practically every IOC meeting, with representation on the exec that covered every winning bid from 1988 to 2008 we clearly had ZERO insights into the evaluation meeting. I mean, we should all just rather of asked FYI, MVP armchair quarterback, to come and tell us we might as well pack up and go home.

Let me also be clear on this: Debate and opinions are great. But trying to sell something as fact of which you have zero knowledge is ludicrous.

Interesting how you only quoted the first two sentences of my post, when the rest of it clearly defined where I stood on this. I'm not presenting anything here as 'fact'. The only one doing that here is you, simply bcuz you were a "member" of Chicago's bid team. So I guess that means you know everything about the IOC & can infiltrate into their minds & know exactly what they're thinking 24/7. So since you seem to know everything here & all of the 'facts', & the rest of here are so naive & clueless, please enlighten how the stadium would've been a legacy, besides being turned into a 5,000 seat ampitheater post-Games. What other legacy aspects did Chicago's bid have to compete against the others?

If you guys studied past winning bids, then you would've noticed a trend that appeared to be going on. Especially in Beijing's case. Again, you don't think that Toronto's 2008 bid team heard similar "applauds" when they were having meetings with the IOC brass about their bid? Toronto 2008 was dubbed by many pundits at the time as "one of, if not, THE best Olympic bid(s) ever conceived". But how did that one turn out again. N do you also think that we should by Jacques Rogge's lip-service a few months after the 2016 vote that Rio won solely based on "merit" & had absolutely nothing to do where they were located, in South America? Gimme a fricken break.

But in the end, I'm not saying that Chicago 2016 would've won if they had a stronger legacy case. But I'm willing to bet money that had they, they would not have been out first. N they probably could've made it to the final round with Rio. N maybe we could be seeing another Chicago bid unfoliding bcuz they wouldn't have had the "snub" complex.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...