Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Athensfan

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

1 other thing about LA and this goes to what Sir Rols said (and no, this is not me trying to downgrade LA, just trying to be realistic)..

Los Angeles hosted 2 very successful Olympics, 1 during hard financial times, the other following other cities that had experienced hosting troubles. Well, what happens if their 3rd Olympics doesn't go so well? What if it's not profitable or there are venue issues or whatever else you can come up with. As much as we can wax poetic about LA's love of the Olympics and the support they would receive, it could wipe away some of the good feelings left by 1984 if the next one isn't as successful. That's not an issue London had to dealt with, largely because of the circumstances of their 1948 Games. Again, this is a competition to win the hosting rights for an event occurring once every 4 years. Variety is the spice of life, so Southern California's ability to host another successful Olympics could easily get trumped by the IOC's desire to go someplace they've never been before. Sure, their past hosting experience could work in their favor in the right circumstances, but it could also work against them in the wrong circumstances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA is a great city but I think it's always good to have new cities added to that "very fancy" club of Olympic towns. I admit I'm bias and want the Games in the East Coast but at the same time I know the humidity (and sometimes the heat) in that part of the country makes it hard to picture a perfect Olympics there.

The Washington/Richmond idea by the Mayor of DC sounds exciting... an Olympics to celebrate American history with an eye on the future.

Philadelphia is another great option to deliver an Olympics with a solid history-related "theme".

Boston, of course, can turn its world-class universities and colleges into a big Olympic village. Millions of students would play sports in college athletic facilities that were used for the 2024 Olympics... nothing can compete with such legacy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles hosted 2 very successful Olympics, 1 during hard financial times, the other following other cities that had experienced hosting troubles. Well, what happens if their 3rd Olympics doesn't go so well? What if it's not profitable or there are venue issues or whatever else you can come up with. As much as we can wax poetic about LA's love of the Olympics and the support they would receive, it could wipe away some of the good feelings left by 1984 if the next one isn't as successful.

This is really crazy to me. There would be no attempt to recreate 84. It cannot be the same. Different venues. Different people. Different time. It will be apples and oranges.

How would life be if every time we experience success we abandon a given pursuit for fear we can't equal a previous accomplishment? This whole way of thinking doesn't hold water for me. Every day is a new day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 other thing about LA and this goes to what Sir Rols said (and no, this is not me trying to downgrade LA, just trying to be realistic)..

Los Angeles hosted 2 very successful Olympics, 1 during hard financial times, the other following other cities that had experienced hosting troubles. Well, what happens if their 3rd Olympics doesn't go so well? What if it's not profitable or there are venue issues or whatever else you can come up with. As much as we can wax poetic about LA's love of the Olympics and the support they would receive, it could wipe away some of the good feelings left by 1984 if the next one isn't as successful. That's not an issue London had to dealt with, largely because of the circumstances of their 1948 Games. Again, this is a competition to win the hosting rights for an event occurring once every 4 years. Variety is the spice of life, so Southern California's ability to host another successful Olympics could easily get trumped by the IOC's desire to go someplace they've never been before. Sure, their past hosting experience could work in their favor in the right circumstances, but it could also work against them in the wrong circumstances.

By that logic maybe Atlanta should go for its 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA is a better more modern city than in 84, if there was a spectacular plan there's no more perfect city for games. And I pray they develop a better bid logo than 2016. However as we all know LA is one of many options.

And as spectacular as the best coast is LA is not an easy place for tourists to get around, it can be very confusing to get around I'd you don't know the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really crazy to me. There would be no attempt to recreate 84. It cannot be the same. Different venues. Different people. Different time. It will be apples and oranges.

How would life be if every time we experience success we abandon a given pursuit for fear we can't equal a previous accomplishment? This whole way of thinking doesn't hold water for me. Every day is a new day.

You're not thinking like an IOC voter though (not that we're in their heads, but we do have some general sense of what they look for, even though that can change from bid to bid). First off, the 2016 proposal was centered around a re-modeled Coliseum. So that's at least 1 venue that would be largely the same. It's easy to say that it would be different, but how do you sell that to the IOC when you know they're looking for a brand new experience each time? (We can debate this point to death, but London 1948 vs. London 2012 is not the same as Los Angeles 1984 vs. Los Angeles 2024, especially if you can't spin a future LA bid into something brand new.. that's their challenge, and it's not impossible, but it's not automatic either) This isn't the type of organization that's going to say "we liked L.A. so much, we'd really like to go there again. If they were interested in that sort of thing, L.A. would be a lot more appealing to them. So that argument may not hold water for you, but I don't think the IOC will see it the same way. If it comes down to L.A. versus Paris or L.A. versus Durban, all things being equal, which one is more likely to get selected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaker, the IOC picks the option they feel is best for them. They aren't going to say "We don't want to go to LA because we're afraid it won't measure up to 84."

They could say, "We don't want LA because we still think it's too soon, because we want glitzy new Olympic parks, because we're worried about transportation, because we don't like the US." or they could simply say, "We like LA fine, but Paris is overdue." Or "we like LA fine, but it's time for Africa."

They will not say, "what if it's not as good as 84?" the comparison is to the other candidates in the same race -- not to totally different Games held 40 years earlier.

I do think the opposite position is true, though, i.e. "We DIDN'T like Atlanta the first time. Why would we go back?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the big 3 don't go for it, what do the USOC do?

Do they put forward a US city with the best technical bid, one prepared to find a biding fee of $30m even if their chances are limited because that city like Philadelphia or Minneapolis feel for example would benefit economically from raising their 'international' profile?

Or do the USOC simply not bid again until they 'think' they've got the optimum opportunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If none of the big 4 aren't interested, I could see the USOC bid with Philadelphia, DC, Dallas or maybe Houston (if any of those R interested, as well). Anything other than these, is too far down the totem pole to be competitive in the international arena (not to mention when smaller cities lack the adequate infrastructure when it comes to transportation & accommodations to comfortably handle the demands of a Summer Olympics). Especially if up against an extremely overdue Paris or a competent (South) African bid on the last continent to receive the honor, not to mention maybe Rome, Berlin, etc.

These secondary U.S. cities would have a hard enough time competing against such high-profile contenders as it is, let alone trying to do it with lower 3rd-tier cities like Minneapolis, Louisville, etc. I'm sure the USOC would also say no to 2024 if they believe that they didn't have a winnable bid to work with, just like they easily said no to 2022, even though they had 3 interested parties to maybe pick from, Denver, Reno & SLC..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berlin has been awarded the Games twice. The first time they screwed it up by starting a war before the Games began. The second time they were a bit smarter and at least waited till after the Games to start a war. So, I count it as two Games - the fact they only hosted once is their own fault.

Good point. Never thought of it that way.

Also, remember the circumstances of LA's first 2 hostings. The 1932 Olympics were awarded to Los Angeles in the midst of the Great Depression. No other city stepped up - Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1932. And the 1984 Olympics were held in the aftermath of a number of financial disasters, including Montreal 1976. Again, Los Angeles was a "default choice", and again Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1984.

Instead of disparaging Los Angeles, I think it deserves some credit for saving the Olympic Movement, and being prepared to risk everything - twice - for the IOC.

..

Plus, even though it may appear that LA won both 1932 and 1984 by default over London's being asked to step in for 1908 and 1948...(1) Isn't that about the same thing? London was the Miss Runner-up choice for '08 and '48 by an accident of geography. There were no commercial jets yet then; commercial aviation was non-existent in 1908; somewhat starting in 1948. So, of course, a European city would've been the logical choice. They deigned to come to the US West Coast in 1932.

(2) But LA's turns in 1932 and 1984 (funny...huh, '48 and '84, opposite of each other) simply turned out to be that there were NO other bidders. That certainly wasn't LA's fault. But despite that fact, they stayed in AND managed to turn in Games with a financial surplus. And especially because of 1984, made the Games what they are today. But I wonder if 'gratitude' has a long-term memory but using London as a 3xer, I think LA can make a good case out of that....especially if after Tokyo, a Summer Games would be simply too expensive for another economy to undertake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the big 3 don't go for it, what do the USOC do?

Do they put forward a US city with the best technical bid, one prepared to find a biding fee of $30m even if their chances are limited because that city like Philadelphia or Minneapolis feel for example would benefit economically from raising their 'international' profile?

Or do the USOC simply not bid again until they 'think' they've got the optimum opportunity?

If they think it's not going to happen, I could very easily see them not submitting a bid. It doesn't have to be an optimal opportunity, but if the odds are against them, it may be prudent to save the money if they don't have the right partner. Of course, the catch-22 is do you hold back from a race that could turn favorable and risk a missed opportunity? Easy for us to say when we're not the people responsible for an investment worth tens of millions of dollars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they think it's not going to happen, I could very easily see them not submitting a bid. It doesn't have to be an optimal opportunity, but if the odds are against them, it may be prudent to save the money if they don't have the right partner. Of course, the catch-22 is do you hold back from a race that could turn favorable and risk a missed opportunity? Easy for us to say when we're not the people responsible for an investment worth tens of millions of dollars

I think it depends what the case of what the $30m might go for ...

Take Minneapolis. They might make the shortlist. They probably won't win. But that $30m could easily be used almost as an international road show which might bring investment to the city from international business if not the games. If the games are privately funded, I assume the bid process is too?

And for the USOC, rather than refusing to participate, they build up experience of bidding in an increasingly competitive bid process, building on successes, identifying failures and that experience can be passed on to future cities.

Whilst sometimes a country wins first time around, on occasion you feel 2-3 successive bids are required to build up momentum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends what the case of what the $30m might go for ...

Take Minneapolis. They might make the shortlist. They probably won't win. But that $30m could easily be used almost as an international road show which might bring investment to the city from international business if not the games. If the games are privately funded, I assume the bid process is too?

And for the USOC, rather than refusing to participate, they build up experience of bidding in an increasingly competitive bid process, building on successes, identifying failures and that experience can be passed on to future cities.

Whilst sometimes a country wins first time around, on occasion you feel 2-3 successive bids are required to build up momentum.

2 things:

1. In waging an int'l Olympics bid campaign. they are GOING after some 70 or so IOC members. Forget about the obvious ones who are OPENLY known to be committed to the other cities. Forget those. You chase crucial committee members around the world...or it might be even more controlled by the IOC now. But it's still NOTHING on the scale of opening a Trade Office where anyone can walk in and what to know about you.

2. 2 or 3 successive bids in a row? Which citizenry do you have (in the US) who will put themselves thru that? Even LA, after that whole 1970-177 period, doesn't do that anymore. They just have a semi-dormant So. California Committee for the Olympic Games which can be mobilised for a serious effort, Olympic or World Cup, when necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things:

1. In waging an int'l Olympics bid campaign. they are GOING after some 70 or so IOC members. Forget about the obvious ones who are OPENLY known to be committed to the other cities. Forget those. You chase crucial committee members around the world...or it might be even more controlled by the IOC now. But it's still NOTHING on the scale of opening a Trade Office where anyone can walk in and what to know about you.

2. 2 or 3 successive bids in a row? Which citizenry do you have (in the US) who will put themselves thru that? Even LA, after that whole 1970-177 period, doesn't do that anymore. They just have a semi-dormant So. California Committee for the Olympic Games which can be mobilised for a serious effort, Olympic or World Cup, when necessary.

No

1) I mean any bid which makes the shortlist immediately raises its international profile hugely - by introducing a new city some of the IOC are not familiar with as well as a raft of dometic and/or international sponsors.

2) other countries do ... Spain, Turkey, Brazil etc do. What gives the US this sense of entitlement that they somehow don't have to do this but simply announce they are bidding and have the IOC drop to their knees in gratitude? I mean, if the citizenry can't be that bothered, why should the US ever get the games - after 2012, 2016 and 2020, Madrid are still likely to bid again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends what the case of what the $30m might go for ...

Take Minneapolis. They might make the shortlist. They probably won't win. But that $30m could easily be used almost as an international road show which might bring investment to the city from international business if not the games. If the games are privately funded, I assume the bid process is too?

And for the USOC, rather than refusing to participate, they build up experience of bidding in an increasingly competitive bid process, building on successes, identifying failures and that experience can be passed on to future cities.

Whilst sometimes a country wins first time around, on occasion you feel 2-3 successive bids are required to build up momentum.

Isn't that what NYC and Chicago were supposed to do for the USOC? How'd that work out for them.

It's easier for a city that's backed by their country's government to keep at it until they win. Much harder to ask a privately-invested U.S. bid to do that and then to do it repeatedly. Not every bid city had to go through the motions like that to win. London, Vancouver, Turin, Sydney, Nagano, Atlanta.. they all won on their first shot. The problem with bidding for an Olympics is that you have to create a plan that potentially dictates the direction of your city for the next decade. The thing about New York's bid is that a lot of the infrastructure projects associated with the bid occurred anyway in spite of the loss. I just don't think you can except a city to invest that kind of money in an Olympic bid and think they'll get a return out of it if the don't win, only to do it again 4 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

1) I mean any bid which makes the shortlist immediately raises its international profile hugely - by introducing a new city some of the IOC are not familiar with as well as a raft of dometic and/or international sponsors.

2) other countries do ... Spain, Turkey, Brazil etc do. What gives the US this sense of entitlement that they somehow don't have to do this but simply announce they are bidding and have the IOC drop to their knees in gratitude? I mean, if the citizenry can't be that bothered, why should the US ever get the games - after 2012, 2016 and 2020, Madrid are still likely to bid again

1. Maybe. I don't think you get that afterglow success until after you've actually hosted an Olympic Games. Easier to go for a World's Fair.

2. Well, if they are desperate...then maybe. It's NOT a sense of entitlement for the US. As Quaker says above, it's just how we (our USOC) does things. It's just the way Olympic bids are funded. Private in the US, therefore it ISN'T a bottomless pit unlike in other countries where whichever gov't is in power can be suckered into funding multiple bids. That's just NOT how it's done by our USOC. And the constant bidding isn't always a guaranteed sign of success, anyway.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that what NYC and Chicago were supposed to do for the USOC? How'd that work out for them.

It's easier for a city that's backed by their country's government to keep at it until they win. Much harder to ask a privately-invested U.S. bid to do that and then to do it repeatedly. Not every bid city had to go through the motions like that to win. London, Vancouver, Turin, Sydney, Nagano, Atlanta.. they all won on their first shot. The problem with bidding for an Olympics is that you have to create a plan that potentially dictates the direction of your city for the next decade. The thing about New York's bid is that a lot of the infrastructure projects associated with the bid occurred anyway in spite of the loss. I just don't think you can except a city to invest that kind of money in an Olympic bid and think they'll get a return out of it if the don't win, only to do it again 4 years later.

You could argue that the UK went with Birmingham and 2 Manchester bids, whilst Sydney had Melbourne bidding in 1996.

Winter Olympics are slightly different because of the requirements.

and Tarvision assembled an Italian bid for 2002 but weren't shortlisted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, the greatest threat to American Summer Games would be yet another edition of the Winter Games.

No, no, NO. What you mean to say is that your personal opinion is that the biggest threat is another Winter Games. That's fine. Other people disagree. None of us know.

It is sure as hell isn't "clear."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA is a great city but I think it's always good to have new cities added to that "very fancy" club of Olympic towns. I admit I'm bias and want the Games in the East Coast but at the same time I know the humidity (and sometimes the heat) in that part of the country makes it hard to picture a perfect Olympics there.

The Washington/Richmond idea by the Mayor of DC sounds exciting... an Olympics to celebrate American history with an eye on the future.

Philadelphia is another great option to deliver an Olympics with a solid history-related "theme".

Boston, of course, can turn its world-class universities and colleges into a big Olympic village. Millions of students would play sports in college athletic facilities that were used for the 2024 Olympics... nothing can compete with such legacy!

Except other cities doing the exact same thing.

If the big 3 don't go for it, what do the USOC do?

Do they put forward a US city with the best technical bid, one prepared to find a biding fee of $30m even if their chances are limited because that city like Philadelphia or Minneapolis feel for example would benefit economically from raising their 'international' profile?

Or do the USOC simply not bid again until they 'think' they've got the optimum opportunity?

Philadelphia is way more above then Minneapolis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philadelphia is way more above then Minneapolis.

From an external, non-American perspective, I'd agree. Minneapolis is more like an Atlanta or Orlando. Philadelphia isn't exactly NY or Chicago, but it seems like a peer of Boston, DC or SF. I think a Philadelphia bid would be well received by the IOC, it has a lot to offer and it would be a great city to represent the USA.

Edited by greenandblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they think it's not going to happen, I could very easily see them not submitting a bid. It doesn't have to be an optimal opportunity, but if the odds are against them, it may be prudent to save the money if they don't have the right partner. Of course, the catch-22 is do you hold back from a race that could turn favorable and risk a missed opportunity? Easy for us to say when we're not the people responsible for an investment worth tens of millions of dollars

I agree. They have to make their best guess and go for broke. Let the cards fall where they may.

It's not just a question of whether there's a high-caliber city. The capability of the bid team is just as important, if not moreso. A sloppily thrown together SF bid led by yahoos could lose to a super-well organized Philly bid led by savvy power-players.

If there is no good option, they won't bid. That's all there is to it. I'm betting somebody will come through though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philadelphia is way more above then Minneapolis.

I'd have to disagree.

What they have in common is both have the big 4 sports teams and have additional facilities from local universities which could be used. Both have areas which could be redeveloped as an Olympic Village for legacy purposes.

Where they diverge (and I will be a pro MSP in this assessment)

1) Minneapolis has more larger arenas than Philadelphia especially if the new Vikings Stadium is a dome

2) Minneapolis are more likely to be able to build a stadium and use it afterwards especially for an MLS team - Philadelphia don't have this option

3) MSP airport have flights to Asia which Philadelphia does not (though Newark Liberty is close). Minneapolis are currently expanding a light metro rail system throughout the Twin Cities whilst Philly doesn't have a metro I believe to move spectators

4) Both suffer from being in the shadow of larger neighbours though MSP is the largest city between Seattle and Chicago

5) Minneapolis has the fifth highest concentration of Fortune 500 companies in 2011 according to Forbes

NY 45

Houston 22

Dallas 10

Atlanta 10

MSP 9

Chicago 8

SF 8

LA 5

Philly 5

I am not advocating a MSP win for the Olympics but once you get outside of New York, LA and Chicago, every bidder has strengths and weaknesses.

Cities like Boston, San Francisco, Miami, Houston, Washington-Baltimore, Dallas, Philadelphia, Minneapolis and Detroit for example all have strengths and weaknesses be they climate, politics, infrastructure, and/or global recognition.

Some of these weaknesses are easier to overcome than others especially if there is the political will and the business will to put their hands in their pockets to overcome this.

The question for the USOC is do they stick with the Big3 or go outside of the box?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were an IOC member forced to choose between MSP and Philly, I'd pick Philly. Whakinda history does MSP have? NADA!!

At least Philly has the magnificent new Barnes Museum to see!! MSP had nothing of note.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Barnes Museum is awesome! And the Penn Museum as well! If Boston is not gonna put together a bid, I hope Philly will.

  • Like 1

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...