Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Look, I understand my subjective opinion of LA is rather extreme. Nobody needs to agree with me. However, there are way too many people who are too starry eyed about that bid when there were serious skeletons in its closet. Boston's biggest problem is that taxpayers don't want to fund what is essentially a two week party for the IOC. There is zero indication that LA's taxpayers are more willing to foot that bill.

While I agree that taxpayers would still be on the hook for some of the money in Los Angeles, the taxpayer's share of the bill would probably end up being 1/5th that of Boston. Example:

BOSTON LOS ANGELES

Capital Cost: $10 billion $2 billion

Games Cost: $5 billion $5 billion

Total Cost: $15 billion $7 billion

Revenue: $5 billion $5 billion

Deficit: $10 billion $2 billion

Unfortunately I couldn't get the forum to accept BB code for a table for that. Hopefully the text shows up correctly.

The point is that the taxpayers in Massachusetts would likely get stuck with a far, far higher bill than California due to the fact that Los Angeles has almost all of the venues it needs while Boston will either need to go on a construction spree or farm out venues to neighboring states.

I've never seen a river, in real life, that has not been constrained by cement in someway in SoCal. Are waterfronts and grassy rivers suppose to be very common around the world? :blink:

I know you were just joking, but one thing I really love about my own city is the number of houseboats on the city's network of canals and lakes. People rent them out during large events, and it is a great way for the city to temporarily expand its hotel capacity.

A great waterfront really is a fantastic asset. Would Rio have won the right to host 2016 without its beautiful (albeit sometimes smelly) beaches and lagoons?

MG_9685_6_7_8_9ToneMapDE_1306251.jpg

A floating stadium has been proposed a few times:

http://www.archdaily.com/138162/floating-offshore-stadium-stadiumconcept/

While I doubt it would technically feasible, it would be awesome and more socially defensible than building a white elephant for a single Olympics or World Cup. You could add cruise ship docks to it, create restaurants on barges and let people moor houseboats on log beams around it to create a temporary Venice.

If Boston is going to fail I would prefer it to fail at doing something creative and wonderful like that. The IOC would probably kill a plan with a floating stadium, but they are never going to choose this Boston "plan" anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I understand my subjective opinion of LA is rather extreme. Nobody needs to agree with me. However, there are way too many people who are too starry eyed about that bid when there were serious skeletons in its closet. Boston's biggest problem is that taxpayers don't want to fund what is essentially a two week party for the IOC. There is zero indication that LA's taxpayers are more willing to foot that bill. This is true even if the bill would be a bit smaller in LA. Also, just because LA may indicate that it wants to spend money on an appetizer, doesn't mean it wants an entree as well.

Before the USOC made the decision, the sense I got between Boston and LA is that LA seemed to have a more solid plan. I was never sold on Boston's. Plus, there was already an anti-Olympic effort forming in Boston. I don't seem to recall anything similar happening in LA.

That back then was foresight. What we have now is hindsight. The worst fears about Boston's bid are coming to fruition, perhaps even worse than we had expected because of the bozos leading the bid and all the political nonsense they're dealing with that is certainly not helping their cause.

You (and others) say we have zero indication LA's population would be more willing to pay for an Olympics than Boston. Well, we also had zero indication that they WOULDN'T be more willing. The idea behind a successful Olympic plan is that it's more than just a two week party for the IOC. It's about spurring on infrastructure improvements that will be beneficial for the city. You call LA's plan lame, and I understand that somewhat in the context of what the IOC is looking for. But in terms of what's best for the city, that's where LA's plan looks better to me than Boston's.

LA has been interested in the Olympics before. They were in the running for the USOC's nomination for 2016 (which was even closer to 1984) and they seemed ready to jump at this. If they lose and the USOC regroups for 2028, I'm confident they'll be back there then. I agree there's a thinking that because LA was so successful in 1984 that they would have no trouble repeating that feat this time around. It should go without saying that's not necessarily the case, but that's why it comes down to having a sensible plan, not just a willingness to spend money. That's what will make an Olympic city seem at least somewhat enticing to the citizens of a city. I think LA could have pulled that off. Boston, as we know for sure since we're seeing it play out, cannot. And that's probably going to be the end of them for a while because of this poor effort.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen a river, in real life, that has not been constrained by cement in someway in SoCal. Are waterfronts and grassy rivers suppose to be very common around the world? :blink:

Yeah, I got a nice bayou that runs near my house and of course the mighty Mississippi that is about five or so minutes away :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigger thinkers would have married the Olympics with a true North-South rail link between North and South Stations which would bolster a new permanent stadium for the Revolution near South Station. Bigger thinkers would have envisioned the Olympics as Boston's coming out party as we crawl out of New York's shadow. Stuff like that could have inspired Bostonians to support the bid with their tax dollars. Of course it could have backfired, but we have zero indication Californians would pay for an LA Olympics either.

The problem is that Boston, despite being an amazingly intelligent city, has bid leaders that are not big thinkers. They have failed to realize that the Olympics are an opportunity for cities to get big projects done that leave behind very positive legacy's. Their entire focus has been that the games may be expensive, but temporary. As a voting citizen that approach would make me want to vote no in a referendum even more...if my city is getting nothing out of these games, then why the hell host. Boston's bid could have been an amazing bid, an opportunity to come out to the world and bring the games back to the US. Boston's natural beauty combined with being a hotbed of American history, education, culture, and business would have created one of the most spectacular settings for the Olympics next to San Francisco or Chicago. Unfortunately Boston's bid leaders didn't dream big.

They have a few more months to dream big and inspire Boston, but as of now the team is failing. Given that they have shown almost no signs of changing either, I think Boston is doomed.

BR - I'm not sure I get your idea. Are you saying the USOC should switch their 2024 bid from Boston to LA?

I'm saying that with Boston's bid as it is shaping up to be this nation stands no chance in winning the bid. Atlanta would be more compact at this point.

I think it would be wise of the USOC to consider opening up a dialogue with LA in case September comes and Boston is in an even worse position. Or they could drop. My problem with dropping is that it could turn the IOC off in 2028 (especially if Africa decides to jump in), and sticking through with a bid could help the USOC engage in a more positive way with the IOC, grow their connections, and really start bidding for 2028 a good four years in advance. As we saw with Chicago, having good relations with the IOC is crucial and our 2028 bid is really going to need it.

Now if Boston can clean up its act and propose a plan that dreams big and leaves behind a true positive legacy for the city then we need to stick with Boston, but if not it would be better to go with the safer city and not look like a fool if Boston fails a 2016 referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the USOC made the decision, the sense I got between Boston and LA is that LA seemed to have a more solid plan. I was never sold on Boston's. Plus, there was already an anti-Olympic effort forming in Boston. I don't seem to recall anything similar happening in LA.

That back then was foresight. What we have now is hindsight. The worst fears about Boston's bid are coming to fruition, perhaps even worse than we had expected because of the bozos leading the bid and all the political nonsense they're dealing with that is certainly not helping their cause.

You (and others) say we have zero indication LA's population would be more willing to pay for an Olympics than Boston. Well, we also had zero indication that they WOULDN'T be more willing. The idea behind a successful Olympic plan is that it's more than just a two week party for the IOC. It's about spurring on infrastructure improvements that will be beneficial for the city. You call LA's plan lame, and I understand that somewhat in the context of what the IOC is looking for. But in terms of what's best for the city, that's where LA's plan looks better to me than Boston's.

LA has been interested in the Olympics before. They were in the running for the USOC's nomination for 2016 (which was even closer to 1984) and they seemed ready to jump at this. If they lose and the USOC regroups for 2028, I'm confident they'll be back there then. I agree there's a thinking that because LA was so successful in 1984 that they would have no trouble repeating that feat this time around. It should go without saying that's not necessarily the case, but that's why it comes down to having a sensible plan, not just a willingness to spend money. That's what will make an Olympic city seem at least somewhat enticing to the citizens of a city. I think LA could have pulled that off. Boston, as we know for sure since we're seeing it play out, cannot. And that's probably going to be the end of them for a while because of this poor effort.

Not to mention, many citizens in LA have very fond memories of 1984. From the traffic apparently being very pleasant to just the sheer excitement of the games, LA citizens like 1984. Whose to say that they wouldn't be willing to host again and experience the games again. Nostalgia can always work, and I think that in LA's case it would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention, many citizens in LA have very fond memories of 1984. From the traffic apparently being very pleasant to just the sheer excitement of the games, LA citizens like 1984. Whose to say that they wouldn't be willing to host again and experience the games again. Nostalgia can always work, and I think that in LA's case it would have.

See, that's the thing though.. to say they're "willing to host again and experience the games again" says nothing of whether or not they're ready to take on the risks and costs of doing that. And those costs and risks are much greater this time around as compared to 1984. All the nostalgia in the world would be enough to account for that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no "getting LA ready". LA's bid was lame, just like Madrid's, which is why they weren't chosen last January. The IOC wants exciting gold-plated hosts which isn't what LA has to offer.

If Boston's 2016 referendum fails, then the USOC won't bid. However, until referendum day, the USOC is married to this bid. Shutting it down now won't save the careers of anyone with the USOC. However, a successful turnaround (even though the possibility is very remote) would definitely bolster the USOC's reputations.

How is LA not a gold plated host? It has the charisma and its economically sound - it's a good fit for the IOC in the post GFC Agenda 2020 era - just like it has been twice before in tough times.

That said - i doubt any U.S. city would prevail over Paris or a new frontier like Durban if it's bid isn't completely watertight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the US wants to bid just to start circulating around IOC circles and start forming some more connections and get stronger for 2028

Uhmmm...there's a certain continent with 54 NOCs; and a temperate seaside city with a ready-made Olympic stadium just chomping at the bit. Methinks 2028 is in their cross-hairs. So....??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that's the thing though.. to say they're "willing to host again and experience the games again" says nothing of whether or not they're ready to take on the risks and costs of doing that. And those costs and risks are much greater this time around as compared to 1984. All the nostalgia in the world would be enough to account for that issue.

The risks are still tremendously smaller than those of Boston. Would LA have 100% support, no I'm sure not. At most I could see it reaching into the 60s and thats a very liberal estimate, but I still think that the people of LA would be more willing to experience the games again and help take on the risks and costs than the city of Boston at this point would. LA took on those risks and costs when it was the worst time to take on the risks and costs. Taking that risk only benefited the city. Are there any polls from LA that showed what the LA population thought about hosting the games before Boston won?

How is LA not a gold plated host? It has the charisma and its economically sound - it's a good fit for the IOC in the post GFC Agenda 2020 era - just like it has been twice before in tough times.

That said - i doubt any U.S. city would prevail over Paris or a new frontier like Durban if it's bid isn't completely watertight.

And Boston is far from watertight.

Uhmmm...there's a certain continent with 54 NOCs; and a temperate seaside city with a ready-made Olympic stadium just chomping at the bit. Methinks 2028 is in their cross-hairs. So....??

Am I the only one here that doesn't think Durban could really win against very stiff competition? Durban is probably in an even worse condition than Rio was and I doubt the IOC would be willing to risk another blow to their reputation so soon after the likes of Sochi, the 2022 games, and to very limited extents Rio. Rio was in the right place at the right time, but I don't think Durban will be that lucky. The consensus on this board seemed to be that Edmonton would beat Durban until Durban got lucky and Edmonton dropped. I think 2028 has as good a chance coming to the US as it does going to Durban. Not to mention, Africa does not have as many IOC members as the Anglo-sphere or Europe do...or I'm reading the IOC member lists incorrectly.

Not to mention if Durban does a horrible job preparing for the CWG's, then they don't stand a chance against the likes of the US, Canada, and Australia.

Except that LA doesn't have almost all the venues it needs.

It still has more than any other city here in the US that submitted a bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The risks are still tremendously smaller than those of Boston. Would LA have 100% support, no I'm sure not. At most I could see it reaching into the 60s and thats a very liberal estimate, but I still think that the people of LA would be more willing to experience the games again and help take on the risks and costs than the city of Boston at this point would. LA took on those risks and costs when it was the worst time to take on the risks and costs. Taking that risk only benefited the city. Are there any polls from LA that showed what the LA population thought about hosting the games before Boston won?

Again, if you're making a comparison to 1984, keep in mind that LA didn't have to beat out any other cities to win the rights to host those games. They were unopposed, so the IOC basically handed the games to the United States and said "give us what you've got." The result was obviously a very successful Olympics, but that was a different time and place, where costs for things like security didn't reach into the billions. LA could have the most spectacular plan ever offered, but it's expenses like that which they have no hope of recouping. And that's if they beat out the competition in the first place. While I believe the support behind an LA bid would be stronger than it would be in Boston, that's where you need to be careful about past memories and what LA did in 1984. The financing and the costs of an Olympics this time around would be worlds apart and I don't think they'd be as eager to take on that risk once they saw what the costs would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one here that doesn't think Durban could really win against very stiff competition? Durban is probably in an even worse condition than Rio was and I doubt the IOC would be willing to risk another blow to their reputation so soon after the likes of Sochi, the 2022 games, and to very limited extents Rio. Rio was in the right place at the right time, but I don't think Durban will be that lucky. The consensus on this board seemed to be that Edmonton would beat Durban until Durban got lucky and Edmonton dropped. I think 2028 has as good a chance coming to the US as it does going to Durban. Not to mention, Africa does not have as many IOC members as the Anglo-sphere or Europe do...or I'm reading the IOC member lists incorrectly.

Not to mention if Durban does a horrible job preparing for the CWG's, then they don't stand a chance against the likes of the US, Canada, and Australia.

Comparing Durban to Sochi is totally a non-comparison. If you're gonna compare them to anyone, compare them to Rio. But Durban (nor anyone else for that matter) is going to spend another $51 Billion on an Olympics.

People's subjective opinion about who would've won the 2022 commonwealth games if Edmonton was still in the picture is neither here nor there. Edmonton withdrew for a reason, so it couldn't have been as much of a no-brainer as some people thought. Not to mention that those same people automatically associated "commonwealth" moreso with Canada than South Africa.

I also don't see the IOC members having more "Anglo-Euro" members than African ones has to do with anything, other than nothing. It's these very same members that ultimately got Rio the 2016 Games. It certainly wasn't the very few South American ones.

And of course it goes without saying that Durban's 2022 commonwealth preparations would've have to be going smoothly in order for them to be in good position for a 2028 bid. But we don't know how those are going to go at this point, unless of course you're looking at TELA's crystal ball again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed FYI. Also I want to add the Commonwealth Games was expecting a South African bid since the end of the World Cup, after their succesful goal as a host in 2010. And we need to remind Africa was the only region left by these Games and got experience hosting international events.

Also, leaving aside the African vote, there's a good block of voters inside the IOC who came from the Commonwealth. Unless South Africa makes a mess like India, they can present nicely a competent bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, if you're making a comparison to 1984, keep in mind that LA didn't have to beat out any other cities to win the rights to host those games. They were unopposed, so the IOC basically handed the games to the United States and said "give us what you've got." The result was obviously a very successful Olympics, but that was a different time and place, where costs for things like security didn't reach into the billions. LA could have the most spectacular plan ever offered, but it's expenses like that which they have no hope of recouping. And that's if they beat out the competition in the first place. While I believe the support behind an LA bid would be stronger than it would be in Boston, that's where you need to be careful about past memories and what LA did in 1984. The financing and the costs of an Olympics this time around would be worlds apart and I don't think they'd be as eager to take on that risk once they saw what the costs would be.

What should having to beat out other cities have to do with anything? Sure LA is actually going to face competition, but I don't see how competition is supposed to turn the people of LA off. If it does then that say's more about their ego than anything else.

Now in terms of planning, yes LA would have to adhere to more strict standards than what they dealt with in 1984, but their plan addresses many of those issues and still proposed a plan that with a little adjustments could still deliver a great games. Will it be more expensive? Hell yes, but again we have not seen anything come from LA that says they are not ready for that commitment, and none that they are ready.

Comparing Durban to Sochi is totally a non-comparison. If you're gonna compare them to anyone, compare them to Rio. But Durban (nor anyone else for that matter) is going to spend another $51 Billion on an Olympics.

People's subjective opinion about who would've won the 2022 commonwealth games if Edmonton was still in the picture is neither here nor there. Edmonton withdrew for a reason, so it couldn't have been as much of a no-brainer as some people thought. Not to mention that those same people automatically associated "commonwealth" moreso with Canada than South Africa.

I also don't see the IOC members having more "Anglo-Euro" members than African ones has to do with anything, other than nothing. It's these very same members that ultimately got Rio the 2016 Games. It certainly wasn't the very few South American ones.

And of course it goes without saying that Durban's 2022 commonwealth preparations would've have to be going smoothly in order for them to be in good position for a 2028 bid. But we don't know how those are going to go at this point, unless of course you're looking at TELA's crystal ball again.

I was comparing the media coverage of Sochi not being ready. If Durban messes up the planning big time for the Olympics the IOC is going to take another reputation blow and be painted as an incompetent organization that doesn't care who they give the games to as long as the IOC gets a big extravaganza, it's the same beautiful PR Fifa got in 2010. I still believe South Africa has to prove themselves more until they host.

Rio still proved itself and Brazil is a much bigger global player than South Africa. While it goes without saying a South African games would firmly bring the Olympics into Africa, the IOC needs to ask if now is truly the right time. I think the IOC needs to do some damage control and for that reason I can't see a South African games until at least 2032. Though who knows, Rio barely made the shortlist and won...no sense in trying to make sense out of the IOC.

Agreed FYI. Also I want to add the Commonwealth Games was expecting a South African bid since the end of the World Cup, after their succesful goal as a host in 2010. And we need to remind Africa was the only region left by these Games and got experience hosting international events.

Also, leaving aside the African vote, there's a good block of voters inside the IOC who came from the Commonwealth. Unless South Africa makes a mess like India, they can present nicely a competent bid.

We don't need to remind anyone the games haven't been to Africa and that Africa is a huge market for the games, but is South Africa ready to take on the weight of the Olympics and is the IOC willing to neglect North America for such a long time and risk their reputation by giving the games to a nation not ready.

Why look to polls, facts, things like that. Why not just make up what you think the people of LA want. Much easier.

Maybe because, like you, I don't feel like putting that much time into my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was comparing the media coverage of Sochi not being ready. If Durban messes up the planning big time for the Olympics the IOC is going to take another reputation blow and be painted as an incompetent organization that doesn't care who they give the games to as long as the IOC gets a big extravaganza, it's the same beautiful PR Fifa got in 2010. I still believe South Africa has to prove themselves more until they host.

You're hyperboling here. Again, do you have a crystal ball or something to predict that South Africa could mess up "big time". And must you be reminded how well the USOC is handling their own big-time 2024 mess. If you want to talk about the media, then they're having a field day reporting on the USOC's 'incompetence'.

And FIFA didn't really get bad PR for 2010. That was one of the most successful World Cups ever, so South Africa has proved a lot already. Not every host is going to be this "utopian" locale where everything is going to be picture perfect. If it was, then the Olympics would never get to trek around the world.

While it goes without saying a South African games would firmly bring the Olympics into Africa, the IOC needs to ask if now is truly the right time. I think the IOC needs to do some damage control and for that reason I can't see a South African games until at least 2032.

And what makes you think they haven't been asking themselves that already? You think they came up with the idea just yesterday. The IOC for as clumsy as they can be sometimes, they're not stupid, though. They'll jump when the moment is ripe. And I'd say that'll be sooner rather than later.

We don't need to remind anyone the games haven't been to Africa and that Africa is a huge market for the games, but is South Africa ready to take on the weight of the Olympics and is the IOC willing to neglect North America for such a long time and risk their reputation by giving the games to a nation not ready.

Again, hyperboling here. You don't know any of that. Besides, the IOC has already done a bang-up job on their reputation all on their own. Oslo, Stockholm, Krakow, Munich & St. moritz didn't want the Games. The people of Boston don't want the Games, either. None of that was South Africa's fault. And none of that would speak about their readiness. The IOC has also "neglected" North America for much longer than the dry spell we're in now. So another 4-8 years isn't going to break the IOC on that one aspect alone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And beside that, South Africa only bid once (In 2004). They aren't sturborn like the Castillians or Qataries. They want to bid in the perfect moment and they are preparing these events. If any case, that showed more political intelligence and diligence to make the things right. Beside all the problems and worrisome related for the World Cup, the football event resulted as a big nice surprise in technical and logistical aspects. If we want to know a bad rep for a World Cup, let's go to Korea-Japan which was a full nightmare for many visitors and travelers (And no one would questioned the host abilities of Korea and Japan). And still South Africa has received international events related to the different IOC groups.

Part of the appeal of the IOC is accepting new frontiers (Italy 1960, Japan 1964, Mexico 1968, Korea 1988, Spain 1992, China 2008, Brazil 2016). The ironic part of the SOG history is some of the "worst" events for hosts happened in developped and prepared countries (Like Finland 1952, Germany 1972 or Canada 1976)

For rejecting North America, well they rejected before for almost 60 years, so 4-8 years won't affect a lot that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're hyperboling here. Again, do you have a crystal ball or something to predict that South Africa could mess up "big time". And must you be reminded how well the USOC is handling their own big-time 2024 mess. If you want to talk about the media, then they're having a field day reporting on the USOC's 'incompetence'.

I said IF Durban messes up preparing the media will have a field day. Just like they did for Sochi and Rio, and even all the cock-ups going on in Boston.

And FIFA didn't really get bad PR for 2010. That was one of the most successful World Cups ever, so South Africa has proved a lot already. Not every host is going to be this "utopian" locale where everything is going to be picture perfect. If it was, then the Olympics would never get to trek around the world.

FIFA got plenty of bad PR in the lead up and aftermath of both South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014. From venue preparation to mingling in national politics, and of course the post games legacy. The IOC has already experienced similar coverage due to Athens, Beijing, Sochi, and Rio so why would the IOC take the risk of shooting themselves in the foot again? Again there is not gaurentee that South Africa would mess up preparations, but there is no gaurentee they will not.

And what makes you think they haven't been asking themselves that already? You think they came up with the idea just yesterday. The IOC for as clumsy as they can be sometimes, they're not stupid, though. They'll jump when the moment is ripe. And I'd say that'll be sooner rather than later.

I just think 2032 is still too soon.

Again, hyperboling here. You don't know any of that. Besides, the IOC has already done a bang-up job on their reputation all on their own. Oslo, Stockholm, Krakow, Munich & St. moritz didn't want the Games. The people of Boston don't want the Games, either. None of that was South Africa's fault. And none of that would speak about their readiness. The IOC has also "neglected" North America for much longer than the dry spell we're in now. So another 4-8 years isn't going to break the IOC on that one aspect alone.

I'm asking a question. Yes I don't know is South Africa is really capable, I hope they would be with everyone throwing their name around left and right. The IOC did a bang-up job on their reputation because they were stupid when selecting hosts and the media had a field day with it. Athens, Beijing, Sochi, and Rio have all hurt the IOC because of those cities ridiculous spending and/or lackluster preparation. Again, there is no way of truly knowing how Durban would handle preparations, but it is very likely given their nations level of development that they could be another blow to the IOC.

And the longest the games have not come to North America is two decades, one of which only had one games. After Mexico 1968, North America has had at least one game every decade for the rest of the 20th century (Mexico City 1968, Montreal 1976, LA 1984, Atlanta 1996). In that regard you could say that North America should wait longer, but North America is one of the most critical continents to the Olympic Movement and given Europe will have hosted three times and Asia twice by 2028 I would say it is North America's turn. It's not going to hurt South Africa to wait until 2032.

Part of the appeal of the IOC is accepting new frontiers (Italy 1960, Japan 1964, Mexico 1968, Korea 1988, Spain 1992, China 2008, Brazil 2016). The ironic part of the SOG history is some of the "worst" events for hosts happened in developped and prepared countries (Like Finland 1952, Germany 1972 or Canada 1976)

For rejecting North America, well they rejected before for almost 60 years, so 4-8 years won't affect a lot that.

Well Italy is Europe, Japan had previously been awarded the games but WWII messed that up, Mexico City is also in North America, Spain is in Europe, and China and Brazil are probably the only two you could correctly call a new frontier, but even then two previous games in Asia already opened up the continent. China simply was more of a welcoming party for the nation into a new global order.

Um, the longest spells for the games in North America would have been 1904-1932 and 1932-1968 that's not 60 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said IF Durban messes up preparing the media will have a field day. Just like they did for Sochi and Rio, and even all the cock-ups going on in Boston..

"Messing up" on preps is not something exclusive to developing nations, though. Barcelona, Lillehammer & Sydney all experienced media paranoia. But all of those Olympics are well-c

-regarded as some of the best Olympics EVER. And for all of Sochi's mess-ups, they wound up delivering in the end. As for Rio, final judgment can be made on Aug 22nd, 2016.

The ironic part of the SOG history is some of the "worst" events for hosts happened in developped and prepared countries (Like Finland 1952, Germany 1972 or Canada 1976).

Exactly, & lets not forget to add Atlanta 1996 to that list!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIFA got plenty of bad PR in the lead up and aftermath of both South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014. From venue preparation to mingling in national politics, and of course the post games legacy. The IOC has already experienced similar coverage due to Athens, Beijing, Sochi, and Rio so why would the IOC take the risk of shooting themselves in the foot again? Again there is not gaurentee that South Africa would mess up preparations, but there is no gaurentee they will not.

Again, this happens with EVERY host city. That doesn't mean though, that Beijing, Athens & Rio was the IOC "shooting themselves in the foot". That's the IOC spreading "Olympism" around the world.

Even if Chicago had won 2016, I'm sure that preps there wouldn't have gone as "smoothly" as you might want to think. The same could be said for Boston if they actually happen to get 2024. They have A LOT to do. And let's not forget how well-executed Atlanta 1996 was.

I'm asking a question. Yes I don't know is South Africa is really capable, I hope they would be with everyone throwing their name around left and right. The IOC did a bang-up job on their reputation because they were stupid when selecting hosts and the media had a field day with it. Athens, Beijing, Sochi, and Rio have all hurt the IOC because of those cities ridiculous spending and/or lackluster preparation. Again, there is no way of truly knowing how Durban would handle preparations, but it is very likely given their nations level of development that they could be another blow to the IOC.

No, you're not merely asking a question. You're projecting with a typical first-world mentality to suit your argument in favor of the bid of your choice. That's why the IOC has evaluations & sends technical teams to evaluate potential hosts on the ground, & then they make their own judgement call, with the various members from all around the world. Again, the IOC is not stupid. If they truly feel that South Africa is not ready, then they'll be the ones to determine that. You merely "asking" doesn't.

And the longest the games have not come to North America is two decades, one of which only had one games. After Mexico 1968, North America has had at least one game every decade for the rest of the 20th century (Mexico City 1968, Montreal 1976, LA 1984, Atlanta 1996). In that regard you could say that North America should wait longer, but North America is one of the most critical continents to the Olympic Movement and given Europe will have hosted three times and Asia twice by 2028 I would say it is North America's turn. It's not going to hurt South Africa to wait until 2032.

Well one of those though, 1984, was "won" by default. The major difference here however, is that South Africa isn't going to incessantly bid like some other countries do (including the U.S.). If South Africa finally decides to come out & play for 2028, & the IOC does indeed deem them 'ready', then I seriously don't see the IOC bypassing them, even if it's for the U.S. The likelihood of South Africa coming back & spending more millions on another exhaustive bid is very small compared to the United States. And that I could see as the tipping scale towards the African continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this happens with EVERY host city. That doesn't mean though, that Beijing, Athens & Rio was the IOC "shooting themselves in the foot". That's the IOC spreading "Olympism" around the world.

Spreading Olympism to regions that were already deeply involved with the movement. The only exception is Rio, and Rio has only a year left and the main cluster is barely ready. Hopefully it will be done before the games come, but still these cities either spent way too damn much and made the IOC look obsessed with pageantry or made the IOC look irresponsible for giving the games to a nation that can't handle them, though in the IOC's defense they do not have much control over the organizing committee or the the city/national governments and most delays or overspending comes from those entities not within the IOC's control. In that case it is within their interest to give the games to a government they know they can trust to deliver the games on time and on budget. In the case of the 2022 this nation is China and 2024 it increasingly appears to be France, though Paris will be no cake walk.

Even if Chicago had won 2016, I'm sure that preps there wouldn't have gone as "smoothly" as you might want to think. The same could be said for Boston if they actually happen to get 2024. They have A LOT to do. And let's not forget how well-executed Atlanta 1996 was.

When and where did I ever say Chicago would have gone "smoothly"? Chicago would have been a bitch had they won. You would have had city hall fights, protests, construction delays, the whole nine yards and probably a 15 billion dollar price tag to cap it off. Chicago's 2016 plan was great, but far from water tight and it would have been crucial to have made it so.

In hindsight Atlanta was probably one of the better games in terms of legacy, sure traffic was horrible and the bombing, but compared to other cities in recent years Atlanta brought more good to the city than bad. It might not having been the extravagant show the IOC and Baron like, but they still pulled it off and left behind a great legacy.

Also, I'm sure I oppose Boston 2024 more than any person here. I think Boston would be the worst US games if they won, it would make Atlanta look like a utopia. And I only recomend the USOC bid with LA not to bring the games there, but instead as a general national warm-up for a bid for either 2028 and/or 2032.

No, you're not merely asking a question. You're projecting with a typical first-world mentality to suit your argument in favor of the bid of your choice. That's why the IOC has evaluations & sends technical teams to evaluate potential hosts on the ground, & then they make their own judgement call, with the various members from all around the world. Again, the IOC is not stupid. If they truly feel that South Africa is not ready, then they'll be the ones to determine that. You merely "asking" doesn't.

Yes, I'm asking if South Africa is ready. In my opinion I do not think they are, I do not think Durban has enough infrastructure and sporting venues to insure a positive post games legacy or to realistically host without having to spend billions to get the city ready. I think it would be wise for South Africa to use the 2022 CWG's to build up their infrastructure and further prepare for an Olympic bid and then come along and bid for 2032.

Also, the IOC is stupid whenever they give the Olympics to a city that ranked dead last in the technical evaluation. That's asking for six years of hell.

Well one of those though, 1984, was "won" by default. The major difference here however, is that South Africa isn't going to incessantly bid like some other countries do (including the U.S.). If South Africa finally decides to come out & play for 2028, & the IOC does indeed deem them 'ready', then I seriously don't see the IOC bypassing them, even if it's for the U.S. The likelihood of South Africa coming back & spending more millions on another exhaustive bid is very small compared to the United States. And that I could see as the tipping scale towards the African continent.

"won" by default or not, it's not as if Tehran would have beat LA. That is probably the best point you have made and the only way I could see South Africa winning without the IOC being able to judge their hosting of 2022. The US has the money and enough cities to bid endlessly, where as South Africa has to bid at the right time and with the right city. If in the end South Africa can prove they are ready and they can host, I think with US endless bidding ability will ultimately give Durban the games.

"Messing up" on preps is not something exclusive to developing nations, though. Barcelona, Lillehammer & Sydney all experienced media paranoia. But all of those Olympics are well-c

-regarded as some of the best Olympics EVER. And for all of Sochi's mess-ups, they wound up delivering in the end. As for Rio, final judgment can be made on Aug 22nd, 2016.

Though none on the scale of Rio or Athens. Yes Sochi did wound up delivering but they also helped the IOC scare Europe away and give Putin a great platform to advance his political agenda.

Exactly, & lets not forget to add Atlanta 1996 to that list!

Wow. So we are going to blame terrorist attacks on cities now? Montreal was completely their fault, but to blame the Munich and Atlanta attacks on those cities is sinking to a new low. Atlanta had a lot of problems with looking cheap and traffic, but they shouldn't be blamed for the terrorist attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When and where did I ever say Chicago would have gone "smoothly"? Chicago would have been a bitch had they won. You would have had city hall fights, protests, construction delays, the whole nine yards and probably a 15 billion dollar price tag to cap it off. Chicago's 2016 plan was great, but far from water tight and it would have been crucial to have made it so.

You're making the implication that the IOC is foolish in selecting developing nations to host their extravagant show, when right here, you're admitting that a large city in one of the worlds most developed countries would've also faced those great challenges. Even London 2012 had their great critics before Games open. So in essence, the point you're trying to make is pretty much moot.

1. Yes, I'm asking if South Africa is ready. In my opinion I do not think they are, I do not think Durban has enough infrastructure and sporting venues to insure a positive post games legacy or to realistically host without having to spend billions to get the city ready. I think it would be wise for South Africa to use the 2022 CWG's to build up their infrastructure and further prepare for an Olympic bid and then come along and bid for 2032.

2. Also, the IOC is stupid whenever they give the Olympics to a city that ranked dead last in the technical evaluation. That's asking for six years of hell.

1. The thing is, the Olympics would cost Bilions anyway no matter they're held these days. And your opinion is short-sided if you think that Durban doesn't already have many of the crucial pieces already in place. They have the main stadium & a sports precinct that would house many of the sports-related venues. Durban has as much on the ground, if not more, than Almaty does comparatively in their campaign, yet you seem to use that as a positive for them. Go figure.

2. Well, what would you suggest then? That they had given it to Doha then, which "ranked" higher? Yeah, that would've been real smart, wouldn't it. Rankings are usually guidelines, & not something that should always be taken with a black-&-white mentality.

1. "won" by default or not, it's not as if Tehran would have beat LA. That is probably the best point you have made and the only way I could see South Africa winning without the IOC being able to judge their hosting of 2022. The US has the money and enough cities to bid endlessly, where as South Africa has to bid at the right time and with the right city. If in the end South Africa can prove they are ready and they can host, I think with US endless bidding ability will ultimately give Durban the games.

2. Wow. So we are going to blame terrorist attacks on cities now? Montreal was completely their fault, but to blame the Munich and Atlanta attacks on those cities is sinking to a new low. Atlanta had a lot of problems with looking cheap and traffic, but they shouldn't be blamed for the terrorist attacks.

1. Well, that's precisely the point. Had the IOC more credible options to choose from for 1984, would they still have chosen L.A. Probably not. Having Tehran in there would've been more akin to the farce we have now between Beijing & Almaty.

2. I'm not just talking about the terrorists attacks. You're going on & on about how the worlds media is portraying some of these recent new hosts & "damaging the IOC's reputation", yet you're quick to forget how the worlds media was also not very kind in the least with Atlanta. And no, it wasn't just the cheap, carnival atmosphere & traffic. But it was also very logistical glitches, like computer failures causing delays & actual bus drivers getting lost & not getting the athletes to their competitions on time. All big embarrassments that happened in a host city in again, one of the most developed countries in the world. And the irony of it all, (since you brought up Athens), many of the things the worlds media was worried about Athens 2004, actually happened in Atlanta 1996. Some food for thought.

And sorry everyone. Tried looking for the Durban thread to put this under, since it drifted to that subject, but couldn't find the thread anymore in this forums pages.

  • Like 1
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...