Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Actually, it was closer to $2 Billion. And that was still at a time when the Games weren't as large & complex as they are now. Yet still, Atlanta 1996 was almost 4x's that of Los Angeles 1984. Then we move on to Salt Lake 2002, where the cost there was $2.5 Billion on a Winter Games. So I can't see any future costs going lower. Even if the IOC were to cut costs on venues & so forth, you still have to come up with the operating & security budgets.

But here in the US, the Feds pay the security costs. It's something the host city does not have to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the LA river, I don't see the point in spending money revitalizing what is essentially a drainage ditch when Boston already has a beautiful waterfront (both riverside and harborside). Boston's bid proposed revitalization of underutilized tracts at the Beacon Park railyard that are owned by Harvard (and meshed very nicely with Harvard's master plan for the area).

LA already approved the river revitalization. The LA bid would have just sped up the process and intertwined the games with the river. And there is no point in touting Boston's water if there are no plans to use it.

Governor Baker calls in the reinforcements, claims that the next draft of the bid will abandon the walk-able Olympics in favor of a low-cost games spread throughout the state:

Well there goes Boston 2024.

Well, there goes what was the "main" selling point to Boston's 2024 bid then.

Exactly. Way to go USOC...they should threaten the Boston committee now. Threaten to terminate or go back to the original plan that the USOC approved.

Indeed, can they stuff this up any more? Did they really think through this bid carefully before putting it forward? How closely did the USOC study the details before selecting Boston?

No. They just said "Hey it would be cool to have the Olympics here". They came up with something that looked interesting and the USOC went with them, afraid that by going with LA they would look stale. Boston had the 'NEW!' tag, LA didn't.

I swear, Chicago should have bid.

Buzzards Bay in New Bedford announced as the selection for sailing for Boston 2024

Are you f*cking kidding me? Doesn't Boston have a bay right outside their door? This is ridiculous.

I guess this is a full Titanic.

Except it's taking slower to sink.

Looks like not close enough, I'm afraid.

The original plan had a good backbone, but now they are throwing it out of the door for a 'state wide' games.

I miss Chicago. :(

How great would it be to see Mayor Michelle Obama accept the Olympic flag at the closing ceremony in Stade de France in 2024?

It would have been AMAZING.

What are the Bostonians thinking? Or NOT thinking in this case? I think any pronouncements from the Governor's office will be tempered with what the team's findings are, after the trip to Lausanne.

They are not thinking...which...for Boston...is bloody ironic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here in the US, the Feds pay the security costs. It's something the host city does not have to worry about.

That was at a time when security costs for U.S. Games were between $250-$500 million. Let's see now how much of that security costs the Feds are willing to asborb when we're talking BILLIONS these days. And at the end of the day, all of us will be paying for it with the current, exorbant security price tag anyway.

Are you f*cking kidding me? Doesn't Boston have a bay right outside their door? This is ridiculous.

The original plan was to have sailing at Boston Harbor. Boston 2024 relocated it to make the Games plan have more "state appeal".

The original plan had a good backbone, but now they are throwing it out of the door for a 'state wide' games.

Maybe on paper, but the USOC still should've known better that perhaps it was still too good to be true. It's not like they're amateurs at this game, but then again..

Remember, it's not like it was a total secret that many Bostonians were not really keen on a Boston 2024 bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was at a time when security costs for U.S. Games were between $250-$500 million. Let's see now how much of that security costs the Feds are willing to asborb when we're talking BILLIONS these days. And at the end of the day, all of us will be paying for it with the current, exorbant security price tag anyway.\

Good point, but they did foot the bill for SLC and that was at least a billion. For Boston we are looking at 2 billion conservatively...I think in the governments 4 trillion dollar budget they can make room for that.

The original plan was to have sailing at Boston Harbor. Boston 2024 relocated it to make the Games plan have more "state appeal".

Yeah, I remembered that. So much better of an idea then their new one. It seems that expanding the footprint of the games will only help the NO group grow. Especially if they can tap into the Mass. Conservatives.

Maybe on paper, but the USOC still should've known better that perhaps it was still too good to be true. It's not like they're amateurs at this game, but then again..

Remember, it's not like it was a total secret that many Bostonians were not really keen on a Boston 2024 bid.

But it's not as if Boston's plan was that unrealistic. I mean sure the stadiums are outdated, and the budget was unrealistic, but given the team was promising state and private money I can see why the USOC would opt for Boston. It was a city close to the nations largest city, beautiful in the summer time, a backbone to build on, a new city, and a venue concept that was somewhat new. Of course, the idea that the final plan would look anything like that was very amateur of them. Also keep in mind that it has been nearly twenty plus years since we last won a bid, and we were lucky as hell to win that one. The current leadership has never submitted a successful bid. Chicago was their best chance.

Oh, Boston even beat San Francisco in having a formalized opposition group...and that happened a few months before the vote. The USOC should have never picked Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, but they did foot the bill for SLC and that was at least a billion. For Boston we are looking at 2 billion conservatively...I think in the governments 4 trillion dollar budget they can make room for that.

Not when the nation is Trillions in debt. And Salt Lake's security was $500 million, not anywhere near a billion. And the last two times the U.S. hosted the Games (Atlanta & Salt Lake) our economy was very good. Now, not so much to be asking for Billions on a three-week circus for elite cronies.

But it's not as if Boston's plan was that unrealistic. I mean sure the stadiums are outdated, and the budget was unrealistic, but given the team was promising state and private money I can see why the USOC would opt for Boston.

If the budget was unrealistic & a lot of work has to be done, then that makes it unrealistic. A bid team can't "promise" state & private money when they're not in any position to do so. That's up to those particular entities. But remember that no U.S. branch of government "guarantees" to secure the finance of the Games anyway, as much as the IOC likes to demand as such from other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not when the nation is Trillions in debt. And Salt Lake's security was $500 million, not anywhere near a billion. And the last two times the U.S. hosted the Games (Atlanta & Salt Lake) our economy was very good. Now, not so much to be asking for Billions on a three-week circus for elite cronies.

Yes, this is true, but we still would have given it had Chicago won.

If the budget was unrealistic & a lot of work has to be done, then that makes it unrealistic. A bid team can't "promise" state & private money when they're not in any position to do so. That's up to those particular entities. But remember that no U.S. branch of government "guarantees" to secure the finance of the Games anyway, as much as the IOC likes to demand as such from other countries.

I never said it wasn't unrealistic only that it wasn't as unrealistic as it is now. The Boston team had no idea what they were doing and the USOC was laughably stupid for choosing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Buzzards Bay, Boston 2024 is in talks with Rhode Island, most likely for the Dunkin Donuts Center in Providence. Regardless of how they restructure their bid (really the USOC should pull the plug now) Boston has always needed a second 10,000 plus seat arena which Boston doesn't have and doesn't need. I've speculated it could be either Providence or the DCU Center in Worcester. My guess is the traffic would be easier to manage between Boston and Providence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Buzzards Bay, Boston 2024 is in talks with Rhode Island, most likely for the Dunkin Donuts Center in Providence. Regardless of how they restructure their bid (really the USOC should pull the plug now) Boston has always needed a second 10,000 plus seat arena which Boston doesn't have and doesn't need. I've speculated it could be either Providence or the DCU Center in Worcester. My guess is the traffic would be easier to manage between Boston and Providence.

I think it way premature to say the USOC should pull the plug. They may, eventually, but from what I hear, there is an updated bid in the works that B2024 and the USOC have been working on (expected to be detailed toward the end of June). Let's see what comes out of that before we remove life support.

Putting some prelims in Providence would be better for the spectators (downtown Providence has much more charm than downtown Worcester), but it would cause Boston 2024 to deal with 2 state legislators, 2 city halls... I think the people of Providence would enthusiastically jump through hoops to have a few Olympic events in their city, but their state and city leaders could make this a tricky thing to negotiate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those outside of the USA, how does it sound to have a major event like gymnastics or basketball in a separate state?

Rhode Island is tiny (only a bit larger than Luxembourg) and the two cities are only as far apart as Amsterdam and Rotterdam with a high speed train (the only one in the USA) connecting them. If they can figure out a solution to the political problems and the need for a satellite village it should work. But for Americans it will look really bad even if it is practical.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those outside of the USA, how does it sound to have a major event like gymnastics or basketball in a separate state?

Rhode Island is tiny (only a bit larger than Luxembourg) and the two cities are only as far apart as Amsterdam and Rotterdam with a high speed train (the only one in the USA) connecting them. If they can figure out a solution to the political problems and the need for a satellite village it should work. But for Americans it will look really bad even if it is practical.

Oh, your arguments are so silly. EVERY Summer Olympics (in the US) works with different states. Uhmm, football prelims are parceled out to different states..

LA 1984 - Actually, Boston and DC (and Stanford).

Atlanta 1996 - DC, Alabama and Florida

NONE of those had any jurisdictional problems. So what are you talking about? Rhode Island would be honored to host a major event like Gymnastics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlanta 1996 - DC, Alabama and Florida

Don't forget Tennessee, I believe they had whitewater canoeing/kayaking!

For those outside of the USA, how does it sound to have a major event like gymnastics or basketball in a separate state?

Rhode Island is tiny (only a bit larger than Luxembourg) and the two cities are only as far apart as Amsterdam and Rotterdam with a high speed train (the only one in the USA) connecting them. If they can figure out a solution to the political problems and the need for a satellite village it should work. But for Americans it will look really bad even if it is practical.

Do you think those outside the USA can distinguish between Rhode Island and Massachusetts? Do think really give a crap? When crossing from 1 state to the other, would they even notice if not for signs?

If you're talking about the distance/accessibility from Boston, that's a valid concern. But that it's in a different state means nothing. NYC's 2012 bid slated indoor volleyball to be held in New Jersey. Don't seem to remember that being an issue. Nor was it when the NYC area hosted the Super Bowl last year with parts of the event held in both states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, your arguments are so silly. EVERY Summer Olympics (in the US) works with different states. Uhmm, football prelims are parceled out to different states..

LA 1984 - Actually, Boston and DC (and Stanford).

Atlanta 1996 - DC, Alabama and Florida

NONE of those had any jurisdictional problems. So what are you talking about? Rhode Island would be honored to host a major event like Gymnastics.

There's a big difference between putting the preliminary football events in another state (or mountain biking, sailing, etc) and putting basketball or gymnastics in another state. Even for countries like the UK care that about football/soccer the Olympics is not important for that sport.

Gymnastics and basketball (particularly in the USA) are very high profile sports with a lot of leverage in the Olympics. If they aren't happy with being shoved off into Rhode Island I assume they have the power to hurt the bid. So it seems important to ask whether they will be OK with it or not.

NONE of those had any jurisdictional problems. So what are you talking about? Rhode Island would be honored to host a major event like Gymnastics.

You are ignoring the issue of money. Who pays the transportation and administration costs of any events in Providence?

LA 84 and Atlanta 96 were easy because they didn't require getting money from lots of different governments. This time around the games will require public funding.

Do you think those outside the USA can distinguish between Rhode Island and Massachusetts?

I don't know, which is why I asked.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those outside of the USA, how does it sound to have a major event like gymnastics or basketball in a separate state?

Rhode Island is tiny (only a bit larger than Luxembourg) and the two cities are only as far apart as Amsterdam and Rotterdam with a high speed train (the only one in the USA) connecting them. If they can figure out a solution to the political problems and the need for a satellite village it should work. But for Americans it will look really bad even if it is practical.

It wouldn't change anything for those who aren't familiar with the US political system if it's a different state, 50 miles is 50 miles whether it's inside Massachusetts or between MA and Rhode Island.

Anyway, Dunkin Donuts Center will not host Gymnastics or the Basketball finals, it's too small for that and Boston already has TD Garden. I think the biggest finals Providence could host is Handball (along with Basketball prelims maybe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming Providence becomes part of Boston's game plan, there's no way Boston will give away the marquee events of gymnastics and the basketball finals. No way. Echoing DamC's post, I could see Providence's use as limited to smaller sports or prelims in other arena sports.

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...