Jump to content

Recommended Posts

with whole referendum process there are a number of things going in the favor of Boston 2024.

one is that this referendum vote will be happening next year during the presidential election, that will also give the committee time to change the concept to the final plan so all residence of the commonwealth know exactly what they are voting on.

second it is well believed that there will also be a question about legalizing marijuana on the ballot.

with both of those there should be a substantial voter turn out in November 2016

and thirdly most time when it comes to ballot question's the side that spends more has a much better chance of the results going there way and i do not foresee a scenario where members of the committee and other supporters of the Boston 2024 wont back it with large amounts of money.

that is why Chris Dempsey wants a limit on the amount of money spent on the ballot question and i believe it was two million dollars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with whole referendum process there are a number of things going in the favor of Boston 2024.

one is that this referendum vote will be happening next year during the presidential election, that will also give the committee time to change the concept to the final plan so all residence of the commonwealth know exactly what they are voting on.

second it is well believed that there will also be a question about legalizing marijuana on the ballot.

with both of those there should be a substantial voter turn out in November 2016

and thirdly most time when it comes to ballot question's the side that spends more has a much better chance of the results going there way and i do not foresee a scenario where members of the committee and other supporters of the Boston 2024 wont back it with large amounts of money.

that is why Chris Dempsey wants a limit on the amount of money spent on the ballot question and i believe it was two million dollars

Everything you described makes their odds of winning even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any correlation between legalizing marijuana and a referendum on the Olympics. Substantial turnout can be a good or bad thing depending on numbers. Right now, the numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of rejecting a bid, with more than 50% against and only 13% undecided. There's been no cohesive message from the bid team not to mention the leaking of salaries of bid team members really hurt. The referendum could pass statewide but if a majority of Boston residents say no it doesn't go forward. Even some in the IOC are questioning this move to have a referendum in 2016 a year after the deadline for submitting a bid. The bid committee is selling something and the people of Boston aren't buying and in the end it should cost the entire USOC their jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, (going to point out the obvious) Boston2024 needs to get the support up. Even if Boston gets their support up they can't beat Paris but IMO can beat Hamburg. If Boston doesn't get their support up in time for the September 15th deadline then I think the USOC has two options:

  1. if paris bids then pull boston before applicant deadline.
  2. if paris doesn't bid then remove boston and substitute it for LA. the second choice for the usoc can still beat hamburg IMO. LA has a great plan for legacy and sustainability. I think that if LA was elected over boston in the first place then they have a chance in beating paris but since the IOC knows that LA is the second choice then that lowers their chances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, (going to point out the obvious) Boston2024 needs to get the support up. Even if Boston gets their support up they can't beat Paris but IMO can beat Hamburg. If Boston doesn't get their support up in time for the September 15th deadline then I think the USOC has two options:

  1. if paris bids then pull boston before applicant deadline.
  2. if paris doesn't bid then remove boston and substitute it for LA. the second choice for the usoc can still beat hamburg IMO. LA has a great plan for legacy and sustainability. I think that if LA was elected over boston in the first place then they have a chance in beating paris but since the IOC knows that LA is the second choice then that lowers their chances.

From a German perspective, I hope USOC gets it all wrong - but I personally agree with you: LA would be far better than Boston, just in terms of name recognition from the 1984 Olympics. Boston can't compete with that. If Paris gets in, all bets are off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still maintain that LA is the only city in America that can win & host an Olympics. It has the aura that even NYC doesn't seem to have when it comes to Olympic sports.

NYC would have that aura if they had a decent plan to put together. That wasn't the case in 2012 and it may never be the case. LA has the advantage of having a lot of facilities (helped with 2 big-time sports universities.. NYC has none) and a lot more room to spread out. If NYC could ever come up with a compelling plan, they would be very enticing. Without it though, they're never going to look as appealing as LA.

That said, in the right time in place, that Chicago 2016 bid would have had a shot. I don't think LA is the only city that can win (hello, Atlanta.. yes, I know those circumstances are unlikely to present themselves again), even if they're the most likely.

As for Boston.. same deal with the other cities IMO. I'd take them more seriously if I bought into their plan. And I don't know they'd be able to do much better than this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA has the advantage of having a lot of facilities (helped with 2 big-time sports universities.. NYC has none)

This seems like an absolutely enormous issue, because it's the only plausible use of a large athletics stadium, aquatics center, etc in the USA. Not only would a track be more acceptable to a university than a professional team, but governments may also be able to coerce universities to accept a new Olympic stadium they don't see as ideal. (By threatening to withhold grant money or state funding.) Or in the case of Los Angeles to maintain a stadium that can be converted to an Olympic stadium.

And it's a problem not only for New York, but also for Boston. There are lots of universities, but the small to medium ivy league schools don't need a 70,000 capacity stadium or a 12,000 capacity arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Boston can implement a way to have the athletics track of their temporary stadium be used for local university matches after the games (or better yet, give off the place, or at least part of it, for a nearby Uni to deal with!). That way, the stadium won't entirely be forgotten and utter useless. The entire stadium is temporary anyway so might as well keep a few stands and recycle the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC would have that aura if they had a decent plan to put together. That wasn't the case in 2012 and it may never be the case. LA has the advantage of having a lot of facilities (helped with 2 big-time sports universities.. NYC has none) and a lot more room to spread out. If NYC could ever come up with a compelling plan, they would be very enticing. Without it though, they're never going to look as appealing as LA.

NYC had it in 1984. They should have stuck with a modernized version of that plan and sat out 2012.

I still maintain that LA is the only city in America that can win & host an Olympics. It has the aura that even NYC doesn't seem to have when it comes to Olympic sports.

I think Chicago can do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like an absolutely enormous issue, because it's the only plausible use of a large athletics stadium, aquatics center, etc in the USA. Not only would a track be more acceptable to a university than a professional team, but governments may also be able to coerce universities to accept a new Olympic stadium they don't see as ideal. (By threatening to withhold grant money or state funding.) Or in the case of Los Angeles to maintain a stadium that can be converted to an Olympic stadium.

It's really an issue of ownership. The problem with many pro stadiums is that they're owned by the person (or the associated corporation) who owns the team. Which also means they're often paying for most of it. So clearly they'll want control of what's going on with the stadium. Easier when the city/county/state own the stadium and are in a better position to dictate the terms of how it's used. And, especially in the case of Los Angeles, they have 2 large scale stadiums in the area, possibly a 3rd if a stadium for an NFL team ever gets built.

And it's a problem not only for New York, but also for Boston. There are lots of universities, but the small to medium ivy league schools don't need a 70,000 capacity stadium or a 12,000 capacity arena.

I've said it many times of Boston. It's a good college town. It's a good sports town. But it is not a good college sports town. Boston College isn't exactly a big time sports school. Sure, you have smaller schools in the area that can provide facilities, but it's far from the best a U.S. city can offer.

Maybe Boston can implement a way to have the athletics track of their temporary stadium be used for local university matches after the games (or better yet, give off the place, or at least part of it, for a nearby Uni to deal with!). That way, the stadium won't entirely be forgotten and utter useless. The entire stadium is temporary anyway so might as well keep a few stands and recycle the rest.

It's a nice thought, but that's the least of their concerns at this point. They're probably better off selling pieces of the stadium like the track so at least they can make some money back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC had it in 1984. They should have stuck with a modernized version of that plan and sat out 2012.

Any body have the plans for nyc1984? I would just like to see.

Little bit before my time, but I know next to nothing of New York's efforts to land the `84 Olympics aside from that they were the other city the USOC had the option of putting forth as the official bid. Enlighten us.. what was their plan for the 1984 Olympics and how could that plan have been modernized to work nearly 3 decades later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still maintain that LA is the only city in America that can win & host an Olympics. It has the aura that even NYC doesn't seem to have when it comes to Olympic sports.

You need to tell that to the USOC then, who was more afraid of L.A.'s "been there, done that" factor, than what they're going through with Boston now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little bit before my time, but I know next to nothing of New York's efforts to land the `84 Olympics aside from that they were the other city the USOC had the option of putting forth as the official bid. Enlighten us.. what was their plan for the 1984 Olympics and how could that plan have been modernized to work nearly 3 decades later?

It was actually a nice plan, would have worked well now and then.

Here are a few pictures from their USOC bid file:

zsx1z9.jpg

$_12.JPG

$_12.JPG

$_12.JPG

$_12.JPG

$_12.JPG

$_12.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was actually a nice plan, would have worked well now and then.

Here are a few pictures from their USOC bid file:

Wow, I've never seen this before. That's great.

So most of the action was centered around Flushing Meadows. Probably what they should have done from the start with the 2012 plan, although I understand why they had their sights set on Hudson Yards. Is that what you think was better about this plan than 2012? Because other than that, there are a lot of flaws with this plan. They needed 4 venues for handball? Come on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They needed 4 venues for handball? Come on!

Perhaps that was the democratic effect? IE, the need to give something to multiple communities and institutions to keep their politicians happy. So they would let Staten island host a few handball matches. That's one issue I like with having so many sports in the Pan American Games. Having lots of non-Olympic sports on the program lets the host committee throw a bone to the satellite communities and give them bowling, lacrosse, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I've never seen this before. That's great.

So most of the action was centered around Flushing Meadows. Probably what they should have done from the start with the 2012 plan, although I understand why they had their sights set on Hudson Yards. Is that what you think was better about this plan than 2012? Because other than that, there are a lot of flaws with this plan. They needed 4 venues for handball? Come on!

Yes. The focus on Flushing Meadows was this plans strong suit, the rest, as I said, could use some tweaking and improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of New York's problems is it will never kiss up enough to the IOC. The IOC wants to hear a city say it really, really wants the Olympics; it wants to hear the city say it needs it. But without being too needy (*cough*Madrid*cough*).

Is that a category in the evaluation scores? Butt-kissing.

I remember NYC's presentation very well. All style, no substance. The IOC isn't going to be taken in by that. They want a city that has a compelling argument, not just a city that says they really want the Olympics. I mean, if you're a city who is bidding and you don't really, really want the Olympics, what the heck are you doing there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a category in the evaluation scores? Butt-kissing.

I remember NYC's presentation very well. All style, no substance. The IOC isn't going to be taken in by that. They want a city that has a compelling argument, not just a city that says they really want the Olympics. I mean, if you're a city who is bidding and you don't really, really want the Olympics, what the heck are you doing there in the first place.

Agreed, the IOC is all about the convincing narrative and well-considered plans. Athens 1996 failed because it had nothing more to offer than sentimentality. Consequently, the team around Gianna Angelopoulos-Daskalaki learnt from that mistake for the 2004 bid and won.

As they say: It's about showing, not telling. If Boston wanted the Olympics earlier, why not apply for them earlier? That's one argument neither Paris, Hamburg or Rome will be exposed to.

With the impending entry of France, at least for the time being, Paris is the clear favourite to win this thing: then again, Paris 2028 could manage to screw it up for itself. Right now, at this early stage, Boston looks like it's running for #2. Given the increasing opposition in Boston, USOC might want to go for a Hail Mary like LA or NYC. Instantly recognizable, with a believable sporting tradition and (in LA's case) Olympic history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As they say: It's about showing, not telling. If Boston wanted the Olympics earlier, why not apply for them earlier? That's one argument neither Paris, Hamburg or Rome will be exposed to.

With the impending entry of France, at least for the time being, Paris is the clear favourite to win this thing: then again, Paris 2028 could manage to screw it up for itself. Right now, at this early stage, Boston looks like it's running for #2. Given the increasing opposition in Boston, USOC might want to go for a Hail Mary like LA or NYC. Instantly recognizable, with a believable sporting tradition and (in LA's case) Olympic history.

Would LA have that much better of a shot going up against Paris than Boston would though? Probably not. Yes, they'd have a better shot, but if they thought Boston was the pick before, Paris shouldn't change that mindset. It's not like they didn't know who the competition might be before.

Don't know why you're bringing up NYC. They said they're not interested, so that's not an option. LA, on the other hand.. the problem is that the USOC chose Boston over them. Only a few months ago. So they need reason to reverse course and dump Boston. Easy for us to say that from afar. But that doesn't help the USOC's cause for them to go with what, only 3 months ago, they thought was at best, the #3 choice. The USOC rejected LA. Obviously they saw something there where they weren't the right choice (and/or they thought Boston was better). Chances are LA will be back if the USOC bids again.

The question with Boston is whether or not this is a 1-shot deal with them like it was with NYC and Chicago. If it is, they probably shouldn't have been selected in the first place. But they were selected. So they and the USOC have to work on this together rather than scrambling to fix this perceived problem. I've questioned their narrative for the past 2 years since we first heard they're interested. I still question it. I don't put anything into the "why wasn't Boston interested earlier" argument. That's the nature of the United States where there are numerous big cities. Not like France or Italy where there is one and only one city that belongs in the discussion when bidding for a Summer Olympics.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...