Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How did Boston have the least chance outta the four, when even the bookies had Boston at 2-to-1?

Well, I felt they had the least chance of hosting out of the others.

Now there's a thought-provoking, sound-reasoning analysis. You truly are an inspiration to us all. :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just giving my opinion.

That's not giving an opinion, though. You're just making blanket statements without any explanation or information about WHY you've come to your "opinions". Rols tried to get you to talk about Rome, but you conveniently dodged that one as well. And no, telling us that you "just felt" doesn't cut the mustard at all. It doesn't tell us anything informative other than you just spouting your mouth with empty rhetoric.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still going to give my opinion.

Except that you never give an INFORMATIVE opinion. And whenever anyone asks you for any basis or foundation for your arguments, you conveniently gloss over it & merely continue with your "I'm just giving my opinion" twaddle.

Again, saying things like "I felt" & "no chance" are nothing but trivial generalizations that don't tell us anything in how you came about your "opinion". You've said in other threads before that you've "improved" or "want to improve" but when you continue to behave this way, like some typical ignorant, know-it-all teenager, then nothing of the sort is being displayed here. But I'm sure you'll just conveniently gloss over this again, or go with your typical "sorry, I will try to improve from now on" story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to give Marty Walsh's opinion

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but according to the article, Walsh said "the pursuit of the games represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the city and would not leave taxpayers shouldering a massive bill."

Once-in-a-lifetime? Is that to imply he's still surprised Boston got the nod and/or is this an implication that, much like New York and Chicago, they wouldn't return to the fray if they lost? Only time will tell what the answer is to that one, but I'd like to hope, probably for Boston's sake more than the USOC's that this is not a one-shot attempt for them, although I'm starting to think more and more that's exactly what this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but according to the article, Walsh said "the pursuit of the games represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the city and would not leave taxpayers shouldering a massive bill."

Once-in-a-lifetime? Is that to imply he's still surprised Boston got the nod and/or is this an implication that, much like New York and Chicago, they wouldn't return to the fray if they lost? Only time will tell what the answer is to that one, but I'd like to hope, probably for Boston's sake more than the USOC's that this is not a one-shot attempt for them, although I'm starting to think more and more that's exactly what this is.

Don't read to much in to just one sentence. After all he is a politician, half of his job is selling an image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but according to the article, Walsh said "the pursuit of the games represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the city and would not leave taxpayers shouldering a massive bill."

Once-in-a-lifetime? Is that to imply he's still surprised Boston got the nod and/or is this an implication that, much like New York and Chicago, they wouldn't return to the fray if they lost? Only time will tell what the answer is to that one, but I'd like to hope, probably for Boston's sake more than the USOC's that this is not a one-shot attempt for them, although I'm starting to think more and more that's exactly what this is.

There was never any talk when the USOC announced their choice that it was in for the long haul with ONE partner. My feeling is, if Boston loses, then the USOC will now try for the Winter slate...which is what they should have done so in the first place.

Or could Boston, with all the snow it's getting, have a secret WOG plan underneath its belt? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wbur.org/2015/02/11/bostons-2024-olympics-bill-transparent

Legislators File Bill To Make Boston’s 2024 Olympics Bid More Transparent
Two state legislators are seeking to create a commission to oversee Boston’s quest to host the 2024 Olympic Games and disclose any public and private money involved in the city’s bid. State Reps. Aaron Michlewitz and Michael J. Moran, both of Boston, jointly sponsored a bill filed Wednesday that they say will bring transparency to the Olympic bid process. “The feeling is if we’re going to invest state dollars into an Olympics in Boston, then we need to create a process that allows for accountability and transparency,” Michlewitz said in a phone interview. “My biggest fear is that we could be creating a debt long-term through these Olympics that will force future generations to have the burden of cleaning up — similar to the one the MBTA is currently dealing with right now because of the Big Dig.” The bill would create a seven-member Olympics commission appointed by various state officials, according to Moran. The commission would be tasked with maintaining a website where the public could track any private or public money spent on the Games using the state’s open checkbook program. The commission would also assess the social, economic and public safety impact of bringing the Games to Boston, Michlewitz said. The day after the U.S. Olympic Committee picked Boston to be the American bid to host the Games, Mayor Walsh promised to have the “most open, inclusive and transparent process in Olympic history.”Two major issues the bill seeks to address — transparency and funding — have been the main points of criticism regarding Boston’s Olympics bid. The group’s plan calls for utilizing existing facilities as well as infrastructure and transportation projects already in the pipeline. And while there have beenpledges to privately fund the Games, critics have expressed concerns about the use of public funds and additional costs outside Boston 2024’s proposed $4.7 billion operating budget.However, Boston 2024, the private nonprofit overseeing the city’s Olympic bid, did not release the documents andrenderings it presented to the U.S. Olympic Committee until two weeks after securing the bid. Both Michlewitz and Moran said they have not decided whether they are for or against bringing the Olympics to Boston. The commission would provide a source of information that is independent from the groups who have “already decided what side of the aisle they’re on” regarding bringing the Games here, Moran said. “What we’re trying to put in place in this process is an impartial commission that can just simply look at this and ask the basic question: Is this or is it not a good deal for Boston, for the commonwealth and for the taxpayers?” Moran said. Boston’s Olympic plans will continue to develop over the next several months. Final applications from all cities vying for the Games are due to the International Olympic Committee in January 2016 and the host city will be determined in 2017. Moran said he hopes the commission’s work will provide — prior to Boston 2024’s final bid — some sort of statement “by stakeholders at the state level that they either support this venture or they don’t support this venture.”

This is kind of old but I found it hypocritical. The government wants to spend taxpayer money to make sure no taxpayer money is spent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feeling is, if Boston loses, then the USOC will now try for the Winter slate...which is what they should have done so in the first place.

I'm of the same opinion here. If Boston is unsuccessful (especially if the bid falls apart due to low public support or is out on the first round of voting) that would make three straight SOG defeats for the U.S. Meanwhile, likes of Reno and Denver have been quietly biding their time. Perhaps the USOC finally says let's see what they can do.

Of course I also wouldn't rule out that the USOC remains stubborn and decides to try for 2028, and finally relents and let's Los Angeles give it a go. As for Boston, I'll be interested to see what their complete venue plan looks like. I would think they'd be releasing it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but according to the article, Walsh said "the pursuit of the games represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the city and would not leave taxpayers shouldering a massive bill."

Once-in-a-lifetime? Is that to imply he's still surprised Boston got the nod and/or is this an implication that, much like New York and Chicago, they wouldn't return to the fray if they lost? Only time will tell what the answer is to that one, but I'd like to hope, probably for Boston's sake more than the USOC's that this is not a one-shot attempt for them, although I'm starting to think more and more that's exactly what this is.

It probably wouldn't be so much a case of Boston not returning to the fray, as of the USOC not necessarily picking the city for another bid in the short term, given the number of viable alternative candidates who would be learning from Boston's failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then I hope you like talking to a wall.

Well, obviously I'm not talking to a wall, because you keep talking to my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the same opinion here. If Boston is unsuccessful (especially if the bid falls apart due to low public support or is out on the first round of voting) that would make three straight SOG defeats for the U.S. Meanwhile, likes of Reno and Denver have been quietly biding their time. Perhaps the USOC finally says let's see what they can do.

Of course I also wouldn't rule out that the USOC remains stubborn and decides to try for 2028, and finally relents and let's Los Angeles give it a go. As for Boston, I'll be interested to see what their complete venue plan looks like. I would think they'd be releasing it soon.

I think Durban is now aiming for 2028...so it would be even MORE SUICIDAL to bid then Durban's in there. I mean you would have some sort of Death Wish then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the same opinion here. If Boston is unsuccessful (especially if the bid falls apart due to low public support or is out on the first round of voting) that would make three straight SOG defeats for the U.S. Meanwhile, likes of Reno and Denver have been quietly biding their time. Perhaps the USOC finally says let's see what they can do.

Of course I also wouldn't rule out that the USOC remains stubborn and decides to try for 2028, and finally relents and let's Los Angeles give it a go. As for Boston, I'll be interested to see what their complete venue plan looks like. I would think they'd be releasing it soon.

The problem is that the USOC just spent nearly 2 years trying to determine a Summer candidate for 2024. They probably won't need such a process to determine a Winter candidate should they be interested, but that process still has to run concurrently with Boston's bid. So is that something they can responsibly do.. work on both at the same time and give them their best chance to succeed?

Hindsight tells us that a United States bid for the 2022 Olympics would have had a good chance for success (although they couldn't have known all the Euro candidates would drop out) but they probably didn't have enough time to prep after the revenue sharing deal was reached. They have their eyes on the big prize. I've always said - and I still maintain - that it doesn't need to be about one versus the other, but rather landing as many Olympics as possible in the long term. Still, hosting a Winter Olympics makes it more difficult to subsequently land a Summer Olympics. If they go after 2026 and get that, how much longer might it take to get that elusive Summer Olympics? I'm not going to take the Athensfan tact on that one, but it is something they need to consider.

And beyond that.. 2026 may not set up that favorably for the United States. We're coming off 2 straight Olympics in Asia. The last Olympics in Europe will have been in Sochi, and it will be going on 20 years that the Olympics will have been in Western Europe. If the IOC had their druthers, I think they'll want Western Europe for 2026. In more than 30 years since Lillehammer, they'll have only been there once compared to 3 times in Asia and twice in North America. Obviously the IOC doesn't always get want they want, but much as we're saying that 2024 favors Europe over North America, I think the 2026 bid could land exactly the same way. Plus, if the United States pursues the 2026 World Cup, is the IOC really going to want to come here in the same year? Not that the country couldn't handle both events, but I doubt it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the US is almost guaranteed a games in 2028 if they loose 2024. Europe and Asia (the most plausible challengers) will be out and the only competition could come from Canada or South Africa. Even then I suspect the IOC will be itching to return to the US and the USOC will be more than happy to open the doors and let them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the US is almost guaranteed a games in 2028 if they loose 2024. Europe and Asia (the most plausible challengers) will be out and the only competition could come from Canada or South Africa. Even then I suspect the IOC will be itching to return to the US and the USOC will be more than happy to open the doors and let them in.

Yea, let's see if they scratch that itch if South Africa is out there. Guaranteed a games in 2028? Come on!

The problem with the United States is that they're always going to be out there. If Boston gets rejected for 2024, pretty good chance the USOC will try again in 2028. If they lose that, probably again in 2032. That shouldn't be license for voters to choose against the United States, but this is still the IOC we're talking about. If they see South Africa in the mix and think that's the time and place they want to hold an Olympics there, they are going to win. Africa might not always be there, so they may need to jump on that chance when it's presented to them.

The one thing I feel confident about is that if the United States is committed to landing a Summer Olympics, they will get one sometime during the life of NBC's contract. Because that contract extends until 2032, there's no rush to return here. The history of Summer bids from the United States is that they have only won given the right circumstances. Not sure I feel that about 2024 (although the competition could have a large say in that). If it's North America versus South Africa for 2028, I don't like that one either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the US is almost guaranteed a games in 2028 if they loose 2024. Europe and Asia (the most plausible challengers) will be out and the only competition could come from Canada or South Africa. Even then I suspect the IOC will be itching to return to the US and the USOC will be more than happy to open the doors and let them in.

Hmm, I don't know about that. With Paris considering aiming for the 2028 Olympics, and Brisbane/Gold Coast checking to see if it's possible, and of course there's a possible Durban bid, the US is facing stiffer competition in 2028 than in 2024. the US has a better chance right now even with Boston if its only serious contender is Rome for 2024. If for some ungodly reason Rome wins, or a German bid wins, then I can't see a US bid winning against an Australian bid or Paris. Durban, I can see it beating that. Sure yes the IOC wants to go to Africa, but not if it doesn't have its s**t together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If for some ungodly reason Rome wins, or a German bid wins, then I can't see a US bid winning against an Australian bid or Paris. Durban, I can see it beating that. Sure yes the IOC wants to go to Africa, but not if it doesn't have its s**t together.

You think Paris would be even foolish enough to bid for 2028 if Rome (Europe) was already slated for 2024?! I don't think that the French are that dumb like one of their particular southern neighbors. I also don't see an Australian bid being that much of a threat to a U.S. 2028 bid either. Not when since they lasted hosted after the U.S. did last. Not with a nation of only 25 million. Out of the ones you listed, the only one I see being a big threat is the one you outright dismiss.

It goes without saying that of course South Africa would have to have their "sh!t together". But I also don't think that the IOC would even shortlist them if they didn't. I think the 2022 CWG's will also serve as a good indicator of whether or not they'll be able to handle the Olympics. Which is why it starting to look like they might also refrain from 2024. So if preparations for those are going smoothly by the time the 2028 vote rolls around, & they finally decide to go for the Gold, then it'd be quite naive to just downright dismiss them by that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Rome and Boston bid, Rome will host. America won't be hosting until at least 2032 IMO. 2024 is looking like Europe will host, while Africa will host 2028 with Durban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I don't know about that. With Paris considering aiming for the 2028 Olympics, and Brisbane/Gold Coast checking to see if it's possible, and of course there's a possible Durban bid, the US is facing stiffer competition in 2028 than in 2024. the US has a better chance right now even with Boston if its only serious contender is Rome for 2024. If for some ungodly reason Rome wins, or a German bid wins, then I can't see a US bid winning against an Australian bid or Paris. Durban, I can see it beating that. Sure yes the IOC wants to go to Africa, but not if it doesn't have its s**t together.

The only person aiming for 2028 from France is Tulsa. If France was aiming for 2028 then Hidalgo would not be proposing a 2024 bid to the city.

And no Australia is not going to jump in and have two summer games in the first three decades of this century while North America will not have hosted at all. Africa has to bid in the first place and given 2022 CWG will still not have happened by the 2028 vote I don't see them winning. I also fail to see how you expect Europe to have two consecutive summer games?

The bottom line is that even if Rome beats Boston, the US has a damn good chance of hosting 2028. South Africa would have to pull off an act better than Rio's to win.

You think Paris would be even foolish enough to bid for 2028 if Rome (Europe) was already slated for 2024?! I don't think that the French are that dumb like one of their particular southern neighbors. I also don't see an Australian bid being that much of a threat to a U.S. 2028 bid either. Not when since they lasted hosted after the U.S. did last. Not with a nation of only 25 million. Out of the ones you listed, the only one I see being a big threat is the one you outright dismiss.

It goes without saying that of course South Africa would have to have their "sh!t together". But I also don't think that the IOC would even shortlist them if they didn't. I think the 2022 CWG's will also serve as a good indicator of whether or not they'll be able to handle the Olympics. Which is why it starting to look like they might also refrain from 2024. So if preparations for those are going smoothly by the time the 2028 vote rolls around, & they finally decide to go for the Gold, then it'd be quite naive to just downright dismiss them by that point.

Well I think even then the IOC is taking a big gamble, at least the IOC was able to look at Rio's complete performance. With Durban the IOC will have to hope everything goes well for the CWG's and then hope that things go well with 2028. I simply do not see the IOC taking that gamble with a much safer and stronger bid from the US after the messes that were Athens and Rio.

If only Rome and Boston bid, Rome will host. America won't be hosting until at least 2032 IMO. 2024 is looking like Europe will host, while Africa will host 2028 with Durban.

Tony you are truly stupid. That's all I will say because if I say more I'll be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...