Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Is it possible to not have a USA bid for 2024 ?!?!

Calm the hell down. No we don't have to bid, but it is obvious that the USOC wanted to and they made a huge mistake in picking Boston. Is it possible to not have a French bid for 2024?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit early to think Boston was "obviously" a "huge mistake".

Agreed. Jury is not out on Boston yet and probably won't be for awhile. Not exactly filled with confidence right now, but let's not bury them just yet simply because of what we've seen with the 2022 bidders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm the hell down. No we don't have to bid, but it is obvious that the USOC wanted to and they made a huge mistake in picking Boston. Is it possible to not have a French bid for 2024?!?!

Wow! Chill the **** out! He was just asking. Is it possible to act like you're over 13, for f*** sake?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Chill the **** out! He was just asking. Is it possible to act like you're over 13, for f*** sake?!?!

I was being sarcastic. Tulsa was being a snarky jerk with his comment.

Personally I don't care if the US bids. Paris FTW!

you can't, mate, that post will scar you for the remainder of your time here.

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick Sandusky in the New York Times says that all four finalists were consulted as far as local support for a bid goes, and according to some, support in Los Angeles was close to 80%. Now I think that's probably an overestimation, but even so, I would have to think that Los Angeles had a higher support rate than Boston did at the beginning. I know it's easy to say there's a lot of time to turn around but the key numbers in the polls aren't 36% against the bid, it's the dwindling number of undecided (13%) that is the major alarm.

Alan Abrahamson just did a column for wiresports where he argues the USOC should just cut their losses and go with Los Angeles if they really want to bid for 2024 or just sit out the race entirely as Boston's bid looks closer to death each day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then sorry guys about that! :-)

I don't really know if Boston is a big threat for Paris. I mean, it's the US, so yes, but it's a kind of weak bid and doesn't have support, so no. We shall see then. Paris will officialize their bid this month!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then sorry guys about that! :-)

I don't really know if Boston is a big threat for Paris. I mean, it's the US, so yes, but it's a kind of weak bid and doesn't have support, so no. We shall see then. Paris will officialize their bid this month!

Boston isn't a big threat to Paris, asssuming Paris wants to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then sorry guys about that! :-)

I don't really know if Boston is a big threat for Paris. I mean, it's the US, so yes, but it's a kind of weak bid and doesn't have support, so no. We shall see then. Paris will officialize their bid this month!

Just because Boston is from the US does not mean it's a threat. The nation you are from only goes so far and given that our last games were only twenty years ago, Boston being from the US probably hurt it from the beginning.

Alan Abrahamson just did a column for wiresports where he argues the USOC should just cut their losses and go with Los Angeles if they really want to bid for 2024 or just sit out the race entirely as Boston's bid looks closer to death each day.

I agree. We either go to LA or sit out the race, no sense in wasting more time and money on a bid that has a very high chance of not making it out of a referendum, and if it were to make it out, it would loose those aspects that made the USOC pick them in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because Boston is from the US does not mean it's a threat. The nation you are from only goes so far and given that our last games were only twenty years ago, Boston being from the US probably hurt it from the beginning.

Ask yourself this question.. what if it was Los Angeles and not Boston. Does Los Angeles being from the US hurt or help them? Don't form a double-standard here just because you're down on Boston.

I agree. We either go to LA or sit out the race, no sense in wasting more time and money on a bid that has a very high chance of not making it out of a referendum, and if it were to make it out, it would loose those aspects that made the USOC pick them in the first place.

What would it lose if it survived a referendum? Wouldn't that be a huge show of support for Boston?

The USOC made their choice of Boston over LA. You can't already pass judgment on the referendum and pull the plug now just because of a lack of confidence they'll survive it. It's a risk the USOC is taking either way, but as much as the theory is that they'll look foolish if they have to drop out down the line, it's not going to make them look much better than they chose Boston and have a sudden change of heart and kick them to the curb in favor of LA. I know the logic says there's time to reverse course, but who's to say that's a smart move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself this question.. what if it was Los Angeles and not Boston. Does Los Angeles being from the US hurt or help them? Don't form a double-standard here just because you're down on Boston.

What would it lose if it survived a referendum? Wouldn't that be a huge show of support for Boston?

The USOC made their choice of Boston over LA. You can't already pass judgment on the referendum and pull the plug now just because of a lack of confidence they'll survive it. It's a risk the USOC is taking either way, but as much as the theory is that they'll look foolish if they have to drop out down the line, it's not going to make them look much better than they chose Boston and have a sudden change of heart and kick them to the curb in favor of LA. I know the logic says there's time to reverse course, but who's to say that's a smart move.

Yes LA being from the US hurts them given how recently we have hosted the games, that has hurt every bid we have made this century.

The only way it could survive the state-wide referendum is by the venue plan expanding the games outside of Boston so hosting the games would be a state-wide effort. This is going to make the bid loose its 'density' card, which according to the USOC was the big reason they were chosen.

And what you said in that last bit I have been saying for a while. Either road the USOC takes they will look bad, just which one makes them look worse and for the executives which one will let them keep their jobs. Boston failing in a referendum is guaranteed to get the exec's fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, just wait until the Boston Marathon. Maybe even starting on April 19, they will start to hammer the message, that the Boston Marathon has historic connections to the Olympic Games because it was the first major marathon staged after the 1896 marathon at Athens 1896; and then held annually ever since.

I don't know how much that would stir the heartstrings of the Bostonians vis-a-vis supporting a SOGs, but for me, that would be a historic connection with selling and celebrating.

Once Tsarnaev is sentenced in a few days, and as the city gets excited for the running of the 2015 race, maybe support will rise a few points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the face of the anti-Olympic movement in Boston. These guys are young, but they look serious. This isn't some grassroots effort trying to gain steam on social media..

How No Boston Olympics Has Steered the 2024 Bid Debate

There's this from a couple of days ago.. Boston 2024 tries to overcome some slips at starting block

Taxpayer risk is Boston 2024’s highest hurdle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being sarcastic. Tulsa was being a snarky jerk with his comment.

Personally I don't care if the US bids. Paris FTW!

I was serious about Boston. Munich dropped its bid... It could be possible for Boston too if the public doesn't support.

Paris doesn't care about the public support they won't do a referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Los Angeles, Boston doesn't even have a complete even preliminary venue plan. Even Governor Baker said Boston needs to hurry up and present something. Last I read it wouldn't be until the summer and that's way too late with poll numbers the way they are. Boston still needs a second 10,000+ arena (probably either the Dunkin Donuts Center in Providence or the DCU Center in Worcester). They have no chosen venues at all for handball and a secondary venue for volleyball. While it's not as pressing of an issue, Boston also needs to decide on secondary venues for football (my choices would be MetLifte Stadium, the Yale Bowl, Lincoln Financial Field, and FedEx Field)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Los Angeles, Boston doesn't even have a complete even preliminary venue plan. Even Governor Baker said Boston needs to hurry up and present something. Last I read it wouldn't be until the summer and that's way too late with poll numbers the way they are. Boston still needs a second 10,000+ arena (probably either the Dunkin Donuts Center in Providence or the DCU Center in Worcester). They have no chosen venues at all for handball and a secondary venue for volleyball. While it's not as pressing of an issue, Boston also needs to decide on secondary venues for football (my choices would be MetLifte Stadium, the Yale Bowl, Lincoln Financial Field, and FedEx Field)

Why hurry with all the venues if the whole thing could fall apart anyway? So what's the point of naming all 23 venues when the "Nays" wouldn't care if Boston 2024 only had 12 or a full 23?? (THe full list is only for the IOC. You DON'T need it for the referendum.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are keeping the venue plan (and the funding plan, and the transport plan, etc) as vague as possible precisely because it will fuel discontent when they commit to anything.

As long as they haven't laid out a specific plan they can try to have their cake and eat it too. They are promising no taxpayer funding to people opposed to government spending on the Olympics, that sports and transit projects will be built with government funds to get support from Boston, that venues will be spread out through the state to get statewide support, promising a compact games to get the approval of the USOC, etc. Then once the city and state are committed to the bid they can adjust the plan as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was serious about Boston. Munich dropped its bid... It could be possible for Boston too if the public doesn't support.

Paris doesn't care about the public support they won't do a referendum.

Apologies then. I must have read your comment wrong, sorry about that.

They are keeping the venue plan (and the funding plan, and the transport plan, etc) as vague as possible precisely because it will fuel discontent when they commit to anything.

As long as they haven't laid out a specific plan they can try to have their cake and eat it too. They are promising no taxpayer funding to people opposed to government spending on the Olympics, that sports and transit projects will be built with government funds to get support from Boston, that venues will be spread out through the state to get statewide support, promising a compact games to get the approval of the USOC, etc. Then once the city and state are committed to the bid they can adjust the plan as needed.

The problem is that they laid out a specific plan to the USOC and the USOC chose them because of that specific plan. Now if they change the plan and make it statewide they basically are slapping the USOC in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...