Jump to content

Sacramento Studies 2022 Winter Olympic Bid


GBModerator

Recommended Posts

Yes and no. Remember that the process of funding a bid in the United States is different than it is elsewhere. The USOC isn't going to underwrite the costs of the bid, let alone what it costs to actually stage the Games. Therein lies the problem for Denver. It's not so much the public support they need as it is a guaranteed funding source. If they have that, they're fine. Without it (and I don't think they get off the ground otherwise), then yes, 1972 could be an issue. The IOC took a chance on Denver once before and left with egg on their face. They need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt there's no way that could happen again. If that's the case, then 1972. But I still believe there's no bid if that's even a possibility.

So what would the procedure be to guarantee that support. I mean, obviously there's got be some federal commitment, at least for security and cooperation and such. But after that is it just up to the Governor and State cabinet to approve, or would they need to take it to the people via ballot first? And then, if the Governor does commit to guarantees, is there a procedure where the people could overturn it in a referendum (you call em ballot propositions or whatever, don't you?). What's a US bidding state or city gotta do to make its funding guarantees rock solid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No one will go through all that trouble and expense to bid for a Games if they aren't serious about it.

Denver and the surrounding counties are even BIGGER now than they were 40 years ago. Who's to say that the pros and the cons for such an event in these hard times, haven't stayed at the same levels? And the only way to prove to the IOC and everyone is with honest, reliable polls.

World Wars have happened twice. American presidents have been assassinated how many times? They tried to bring down the World Trade Center twice... A century after the Titanic and radar and all that, another superliner strays from its route and gets gashed by a rock this time, luckily in shallow waters. Ever heard of "lightning striking twice"? I think the IOC is past its naive, dewy-eyed days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\ And that's a Summer-Games person talking...

No; even if I supported some other city, the fact is that Denver has to deliver credible numbers doubly hard because they precisely pulled this sh*t 40 years ago, leaving the IOC holding an empty bag. Do you think the USOC (who was also duped) and the IOC would not want iron-clad guarantees so that they don't appear like fools a 2nd time? You young 'uns want to write it off as 'forgiven' or some 'schoolyard prank;' but it isn't. This is a big deal for the IOC which owns the property you want to stage ...and you (Denver) f*cked them up the first time. Y should they easily believe you on the surface when there are other suitors to dance with?? So if Denver wants to be looked at seriously again, then they have to prove there is maybe an 80% majority support in order for a 1972 not to happen again and to gain the confidence of the IOC again. It's just simple, common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago 2016 could not get the federal government to pledge any guarantees for cost overruns, but the president and secretary of state released statements expressing the federal government's full commitment to security and ease of travel to the U.S.

The state of Illinois and City of Chicago offered $750 million in guarantees for cost overruns, and the city lined up insurance policies that would have covered $1.48 billion. It was unprecedented and touted as a "model" for future U.S. bids. Denver and Reno would have to do something similar since the federal government will not provide those guarantees, and likely the state wouldn't be willing to foot the bill.

Chicago 2016 did not come up with the coverage until two months before the election. Denver would need this in place before they even submit their application file IMO. Otherwise, they would likely be dealing with opposition like Chicago 2016 was during the months leading up to the election, and a skeptical IOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\ And that's a Summer-Games person talking...

Baron, that's unfair.

MY FIRST CHOICE: Summer Games in 2024, 2028, or 2032.

MY SECOND CHOICE: Denver 2022 or 2026.

I can be enthusiastic about any of the above.

I agree with Soaring's assessment of required guarantees for Denver. They need to get that squared away as early as possible. Not sure they'll be able to work on it until the USOC announces them as the candidate. That's assuming the USOC chooses to bid.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ Uh-huh. yeah... :rolleyes: Sure cud've fooled me.

Whatever, Baron. I've been consistent for many months saying that I would support Denver if they bid. You've just been ignoring it.

If you can cast me as a Summer-only fanatic, I'm guessing you think you can discredit my ReNO posts. Sorry.

Yes, I'd prefer Summer Games, but if Denver bids, I'll totally support them. Not so with regard to the other place.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever, Baron. I've been consistent for many months saying that I would support Denver if they bid. You've just been ignoring it.

If you can cast me as a Summer-only fanatic, I'm guessing you think you can discredit my ReNO posts. Sorry.

Yes, I'd prefer Summer Games, but if Denver bids, I'll totally support them. Not so with regard to the other place.....

Fine, I read you. But that doesn't mean I can't counter you every time. This is a free and OPEN forum; isn't it?? If Denver can't muster an 80% citizen support, then you can support them till you're blue in the face because they ain't going nowhere WITHOUT a high citizen support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, I read you. But that doesn't mean I can't counter you every time. This is a free and OPEN forum; isn't it?? If Denver can't muster an 80% citizen support, then you can support them till you're blue in the face because they ain't going nowhere WITHOUT a high citizen support.

You know, an IOC member contacted me today and said he would not support Denver if they only muster 79% public support, but he would if it were 80%. Man, you must have a great read on the IOC to know the exact threshold it takes to win them over. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, an IOC member contacted me today and said he would not support Denver if they only muster 79% public support, but he would if it were 80%. Man, you must have a great read on the IOC to know the exact threshold it takes to win them over. :rolleyes:

If I were an IOC member, I would certainly want to see at least an honest 75% support plus ANOTHER 5% for extra comfort and security. Why would they go back to a place where they were turned away last time...when there are others who would welcome them with open arms? I mean Denver placed itself in the difficult position it's in; they have no one to blame but themselves. And naturally, it'll be a harder road to hoe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if any US bid cracks 70%. Denver, Reno, Chicago, NYC, LA...any of them.

I don't believe the IOC will need an astronomical figure to vote for Denver. However, it's possible they may want to see more than one bid for insurance.

I still rate Denver's chances better than any other American Winter candidate's. The Games they'd deliver would be superior too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Athens. Tokyo (a probable 2020 frontrunner) likely won't crack any higher than the low 60's, if that, since they were in the 50's during the latter part of the 2016 bid race, and some Japanese are bound to think the country should focus more on reconstruction which would lower their support figures.

Chicago was in the low 60's at the end of their bid. It is nice to have support in the 80's, but it is not a bid killer to have it in the 60's, as long as a fair majority support the Games, and it has strong government support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any concept including Sacramento, Tahoe and Reno is way too spread out. Tahoe cannot be the site of the ceremonies. There isn't enough infrastructure, much less a venue. If they could somehow make the Games Lake Tahoe 2022/2026 it would be better, but that looks totally impossible. Tahoe cannot be the central hub. Drive times to Sacramento are far too long. Theyre grasping at straws and it's not going to work.

Perhaps but could Lake Tahoe be the center of the skiing events and use a new ski jumping venue for the Opening and Closing ceremonies and utilize either Reno or Sacramento for the ice events much like Pyeongchang is doing with 2018 by holding the ceremonies at Alpensia and the ice events in Gangneung?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...