Triffle Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Historical value? Melbourne has plenty of historical value and our population is ever growing. We'd have to settle for September, which was the same as Sydney's hosting. Melbourne's historical value from a world perspective is insignificant (unlike Athens, Beijing, London) so that's not going to be a "draw card" (and it wasn't for Sydney either). Almost every major city is also growing, most at a faster rate (outside Europe). Yes we'd have to settle for September, but is offering 18-20 degrees weather really going to pull the votes in? I was replying to FYI's assertion that if my opinion was applied to Australia's case, he would only support a Sydney bid. And I can completely see justification for that because Sydney has the spectacular panoramic views which makes it appealing and famous internationally. Melbourne lacks this and any WOW! factor so I can understand why people would be ho-hum about Melbourne but actually it surprises me how much support Melbourne seems to get on this forum from non-Australians. Just to be clear, I DO think Melbourne is worthy of hosting another Olympics and preferential to Sydney for our next Games, but not for a very long time. Likewise, I have a similar view with the US. SF, Chicago, LA are worthy hosts but I don't believe sufficient time has past between US hosts considering the likely opposition, so if the US want an Olympics earlier than I (emphasis on I) believe they should have, than I'd only support New York. And I can't see MYSELF supporting SF, LA, Chicago against many cities recently touting interest in the Games unless the timing was right. We'll only fail (aside from the argument that 24 years is too soon) if a far superior US or Toronto bid comes along. But not if Tokyo, Paris, South Africa bidded? Going by your compatriots U.S. logic, Melbourne is not good enough. Y would I wanna see Melbourne, when I could rather have Paris, Rome, Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow, or here's the great irony; New York! Well yes, why the hell would a non-Australian want to see Melbourne ahead of Paris, Rome, New York? I really don't understand the enthusiasm non-Australians have for Melbourne on this forum. One MUST unquestionably support a bid from their country if they are to be deemed patriotic? Is it unAustralian of me NOT to support the idea of Melbourne 2024? I would be very sad, especially from this forum, if the answer was "yes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic Fan Darcy Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Woah why is this about Melbourne i do believe there is a thread for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 But not if Tokyo, Paris, South Africa bidded? Well if Tokyo gets 2020, then they're not bidding for 2024. Paris will unlikely get their 3rd games for 2024 in spite of sentimentality for their centennial. South Africa might not be ready (particularly Durban). If Toronto offers something largely similar to their 2008 bid, using some of the new venues built for the 2015 Pan American Games, then they'll be real tough to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triffle Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Well if Tokyo gets 2020, then they're not bidding for 2024. But if they don't, then they may Paris will unlikely get their 3rd games for 2024 in spite of sentimentality for their centennial. And why is it unlikely South Africa might not be ready (particularly Durban). But then they might be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Unlikely since the 3rd games of Paris comes a little too soon for London's 3rd hosting. Not to mention that why should the IOC give the games to Paris just on account of an opportunity to celebrate their centennial, which is not in a particular a celebration for the Olympics as a whole. If they come up with a good bid, then why not? But if a city like Toronto comes with something far superior, then it's easy to just brush Paris aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triffle Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Well maybe for you but i very much doubt Paris would just be "brushed aside". Your right. Why should the IOC give the games to Paris just on account of an opportunity to celebrate their centennial, when they could give the games to Paris for the city being one of the world's most famous, iconic and popular; foor it being a highly developed city of 10 million+; and for France being a major political and sporting power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 That was of course, if Toronto were to bid and produce a strong bid for that matter. What would preoccupy most IOC member's mind is that this will be Paris' centennial and their bid will be promoting that fact. You can easily forget all the notable things you mention and think of a Parisian games as being too focused on a centennial celebration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deawebo Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 If the USOC desides to bid for SOG first... Then Chicago will be the city With WOG I think that Denver won't be a bad option... Anyways... an intresting race will be Toronto vs an American city! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hektor Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 I don't think Paris will bid. But if Paris were to bid I highly doubt they would be stupid enough to base the bid on the Centennial concept. We, French, have a lot of shortcomings, but generally stupidity is not among them. 2012 has proven they can provide excellent technical files. Of course some elements will have to be changed because the options are no longer available (e.g. Olympic village location) but nonetheless I would expect an excellent technical file from Paris. And not a bid based on Centennial sentimentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotatoChips Posted August 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 If the USOC desides to bid for SOG first... Then Chicago will be the city With WOG I think that Denver won't be a bad option... Anyways... an intresting race will be Toronto vs an American city! Chicago has shown no interest in hosting the games and if NYC or SanFran are bidding Chicago will be behind them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Seriously, Paris isn't going to be stupid enough to make a bid focused on their centennial. That would be extremely dumb of them, like when Athens did it. Munich really didn't sell their bid by potentially becoming the first city to become host to Summer N Winter Games. The French will focus on their strengths, lobbying N come up with some sort of strategy/story to sell their bid. The centennial might be mentioned but only in a very subtle way, if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Perhaps not. But IOC members will remember well that it will be Paris' centennial. Besides, the fact that London is a recent 3 time bidder will be a huge factor anyways, no matter how good a Paris bid is. Athens? Didn't all cities bidding for 1996 made heavy lobbying with regards to the opportunity to celebrate the Centennial Olympics? Not just Athens? Perhaps Athens did it more, rightfully so. Munich probably didn't want to sell their games as a chance to be the first Summer and Winter hosts, perhaps opting for the next time (2022), where they can promote the fact that it's their 50th anniversary instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Chicago has shown no interest in hosting the games and if NYC or SanFran are bidding Chicago will be behind them When it comes to the level of interest, you have a point. However, IF Chicago threw their hat in the ring, I strongly feel they would be the favorite among American bidders. Their 2016 plan was technically excellent -- superior to NYC 2012. Returning to the IOC with the same city would show perseverance and in Chicago's case I believe would result in greater respect and more serious consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 Perhaps not. But IOC members will remember well that it will be Paris' centennial. Besides, the fact that London is a recent 3 time bidder will be a huge factor anyways, no matter how good a Paris bid is. Athens? Didn't all cities bidding for 1996 made heavy lobbying with regards to the opportunity to celebrate the Centennial Olympics? Not just Athens? Perhaps Athens did it more, rightfully so. That is neither here nor there. What difference would it make if it's on their mind. Also, what difference would it make again if London's already a 3-time host against Paris. Twelve years seperation is hardly what I would call "recent" & would have no bearing whatsoever on the decision. It would be totally stupid to dismiss a very good Paris bid on the basis of such trivialities. N no, not "all" the cities bidding for 1996 make arrogant claims that it was their "right as birthplace" to host the Centennial Olympics & that the IOC "should grant" them that honor, like Athens did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksheep Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 It will be a US city hosting the Winter Games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triffle Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 That was of course, if Toronto were to bid and produce a strong bid for that matter. What would preoccupy most IOC member's mind is that this will be Paris' centennial and their bid will be promoting that fact. You can easily forget all the notable things you mention and think of a Parisian games as being too focused on a centennial celebration. well thats just a totally baseless assumption i don't agree with. Perhaps not. But IOC members will remember well that it will be Paris' centennial. Why then is THAT a hindrance? If Paris avoid lobbying this point, then I can only look on that comment with bemusement. Its not as if its a bad thing, just a coincidence that, if anything, might be slightly beneficial; if the French allow the IOC members to discover this centennial on their own accord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksheep Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 well thats just a totally baseless assumption i don't agree with. Why then is THAT a hindrance? If Paris avoid lobbying this point, then I can only look on that comment with bemusement. Its not as if its a bad thing, just a coincidence that, if anything, might be slightly beneficial; if the French allow the IOC members to discover this centennial on their own accord. It won't be the focus of the bid. I have no doubt Paris will deliver an outstanding technical bid as they did in 2012 with an additional emphasis on legacy. However if it comes down to the wire - the centennial may positively sway one or two voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston2024 Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Boston 2024 http://www.boston-2024.org http://www.facebook.com/boston2024 ' class="bbc_url">@boston_2024 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stark Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Boston isn't bad, but first I want to see what are they planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohemianrsdy Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Any news on a San Francisco 2024 bid? What were the main reasons why it wasn't the most successful US bid last time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Any news on a San Francisco 2024 bid? What were the main reasons why it wasn't the most successful US bid last time? I don't think there's been any whispers on the first part. The main issue for the second part, though, was that SF's 2012 proposal was incredibly spread out across the Bay area, with major events hived off to the likes of San Jose. Maybe not a deal breaker, but not particularly attractive either. And what FYI says below: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Their stadium proposal fell through, so San Francisco 2016 had to withdraw from further USOC consideration. And now that they 49'ners are building their brand new stadium near San Jose instead, that leaves San Francisco in limbo again, as far as the stadium goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohemianrsdy Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I know this is a lame question, but does the stadium absolutely need to be in the same city as the "host" city? Santa Clara (where the new 49ers stadium is) isn't THAT far away from San Francisco. The city itself can still host many events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 The Olympic Charter states that the Olympic stadium must be in the designated Host City. That's why the "San Francisco's 2012" plan, that called for the central action of the Games in Palo Alto, wasn't going to fly. I'm actually surprised now, that the USOC even contemplated it as long as it did when it finally chose New York 2012 as their bid candidate. The new stadium in Santa Clara could host soccer as a venue, but it could not be the main stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotatoChips Posted January 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 The Olympic Charter states that the Olympic stadium must be in the designated Host City. That's why the "San Francisco's 2012" plan, that called for the central action of the Games in Palo Alto, wasn't going to fly. I'm actually surprised now, that the USOC even contemplated it as long as it did when it finally chose New York 2012 as their bid candidate. The new stadium in Santa Clara could host soccer as a venue, but it could not be the main stadium. Then how would Paris bid. Their main stadium and probably olympic stadium, Stade de France, isn't in Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.