Pure facts Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Here is the list of cities that USOC sent a letter to today. 1 Phoenix Arizona 2 Los Angeles California 3 Sacramento California 4 San Diego California 5 San Francisco California 6 San Jose California 7 Denver Colorado 8 Washington D.C. 9 Jacksonville Florida 10 Miami Florida 11 Orlando Florida 12 Atlanta Georgia 13 Chicago Illinois 14 Indianapolis Indiana 15 Baltimore Maryland 16 Boston Massachusetts 17 Detroit Michigan 18 Minneapolis Minnesota 19 St. Louis Missouri 20 Las Vegas Nevada 21 New York New York 22 Rochester New York 23 Charlotte North Carolina 24 Columbus Ohio 25 Tulsa Oklahoma 26 Portland Oregon 27 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 28 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 29 Memphis Tennessee 30 Nashville & Davidson County Tennessee 31 Austin Texas 32 Dallas Texas 33 Houston Texas 34 San Antonio Texas 35 Seattle Washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Interesting. How did you learn this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotosy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 from AP COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) - The U.S. Olympic Committee is looking for cities interested in bidding for the 2024 Summer Olympics.The USOC says it is sending letters Tuesday to the mayors of 35 cities to gauge interest in a potential Olympic bid.The USOC says the letter "does not guarantee" the committee will submit a bid but is an "initial step" in evaluating the possibility. The letter went to the country's 25 largest cities, plus 10 others.The USOC says it has 2 1/2 years to decide and will only enter a bid that has the "right alignment of political, business and community leadership."Chicago failed in a bid for the 2016 Olympics and New York fell short for the 2020 Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure facts Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Around the rings, Inside the Games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Cities: • 45,000 hotel rooms.• An Olympic Village that sleeps 16,500 and has a 5,000-person dining hall.• Operations space for over 15,000 media and broadcasters.• An international airport that can handle thousands of international travelers per day.• Public transportation service to venues.• Roadway closures to allow exclusive use for Games-related transportation. • A workforce of up to 200,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBModerator Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Full text of USOC letter here... http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/index.php?news=1216136491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Hey, Tulsa, Minneapolis, Atlanta and Vegas are on the list!! Wonders never cease!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 A few thoughts here.. Somewhat odd list of cities where San Jose and Sacramento are included (not to mention the T-word, but I think we all saw that coming). Of course, that they laid out the requirements and mentioned some of the numbers, no doubt that's going to scare almost everyone off. Because I can't see too many cities on that list that have 45,000 hotel rooms available. Even the Super Bowl only has 25,000 and some cities have had trouble with that. Either way though, it's starting to get very real now. I think we're going to find out sooner or later who actually is interested in playing ball with the USOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 All cities that expressed interest + top 25 were sent letters. I think Sacramento and San Jose were sent letters because both probably will have roles in a San Francisco bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Well, you have to applaud them for trying to minimize the cost of a bid by dispensing with an expensive domestic campaign. Some of those cities are head-scratchers. I suppose they're trying to be inclusive and avoid any uproar later, but realistically, quite a few of those cities are non-starters. I also think its intriguing that they are no longer discussing 2024 and 2026 jointly. Obviously 2026 is still an option, but the existence of this letter suggests that after reviewing the likely contenders for 2026, the USOC would still prefer to mount a 2024 bid -- assuming a competitive city wants to bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 This also shows that there was never really any "secret" behind the scenes workings, like some liked to have thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 San Jose actually makes some sense. It's reasonably big (bigger than San Francisco) and has great facilities. Probably deserves to make the list even if only 10 cities were contacted. But I'll give you Sacramento... that one's baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 San Jose actually makes some sense. It's reasonably big (bigger than San Francisco) and has great facilities. Probably deserves to make the list even if only 10 cities were contacted. But I'll give you Sacramento... that one's baffling. But even if it's San Jose, the new 49er Stadium is still in the City of Santa Clara, so...either the IOC has liberalized its rules...or Costa Rica will be hosting 2024 without their knowing it!! As of now, realistically viable - 5 or 6 Truly interested and capable - 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Go Rochester! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 This also shows that there was never really any "secret" behind the scenes workings, like some liked to have thought. Ugh. I've had you on ignore for months and I stupidly peeked at this post. I won't do it again. I never argued for "secrecy". I only said that it was entirely possible that private conversations were taking place that were not made available to the media or the public. I stand by that statement and I don't think the existence of this letter disproves it. Do you really think that the USOC has had ZERO communication with ANYONE from any of the cities on that list regarding a possible bid? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I noticed they did not list an "...80,000 T&F stadium" as a requirement. Hmmmm...does the USOC know something we don't? I mean I like that trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I never argued for "secrecy". I only said that it was entirely possible that private conversations were taking place that were not made available to the media or the publicway. Uh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proposition Joe Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I noticed they did not list an "...80,000 T&F stadium" as a requirement. Hmmmm...does the USOC know something we don't? I mean I like that trend. They know track and field is the next thing out after wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 They know track and field is the next thing out after wrestling. Don't say that.. baron might think you're serious and then get really really excited and that would be mean to give him such a false sense of hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Don't say that.. baron might think you're serious and then get really really excited and that would be mean to give him such a false sense of hope. lol... No city outright needs a stadium to bid, because that would be dumb if they lost (by building it before the winner is announced). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I also think its intriguing that they are no longer discussing 2024 and 2026 jointly. Obviously 2026 is still an option, but the existence of this letter suggests that after reviewing the likely contenders for 2026, the USOC would still prefer to mount a 2024 bid -- assuming a competitive city wants to bid. The existence of this letter suggests that 2024 will occur before 2026. But we knew that already. I don't know why you're reading anything into 2026 from this (that's not true, actually.. I think we all know why). The USOC has to address 2024 before they look into 2026. I think it's as simple as that. None of this says anything about the field of contenders for 2026. Not sure why you assume they've reviewed that field of contenders, yet here sent out a blanket letter to 35 cities to gauge their interest. Which is to say.. are you sure you're not just reading this latest revelation as what you want this latest revelation to be? That being a preference of Summer over Winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 It'll be Interesting, to say the least, how these will take to this 'invitation' over the next few days & weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 It'll be Interesting, to say the least, how these will take to this 'invitation' over the next few days & weeks. What I'm interested to see and it goes back to what we've been saying here.. this letter has very quickly become a matter of public record. We heard about it the day it was sent. We know the full text of it. And we know precisely the list of mayors it was sent to. So it begs the question.. how much will we hear about the responses from those cities? Because it's going to be pretty hard to act in private now. If this were a game of poker, the USOC just asked everyone to show their hand. No hiding anymore.. this is where you have to put your cards on the table. So I have a feeling if any cities do show genuine interest, there's a pretty good chance we're going to know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 The existence of this letter suggests that 2024 will occur before 2026. But we knew that already. I don't know why you're reading anything into 2026 from this (that's not true, actually.. I think we all know why). The USOC has to address 2024 before they look into 2026. I think it's as simple as that. None of this says anything about the field of contenders for 2026. Not sure why you assume they've reviewed that field of contenders, yet here sent out a blanket letter to 35 cities to gauge their interest. Which is to say.. are you sure you're not just reading this latest revelation as what you want this latest revelation to be? That being a preference of Summer over Winter. He is. I don't know how anyone can decide 2026 before seeing what 2024 will yield. It doesn't even say the USOC will actually submit a bid for 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 He is. I don't know how anyone can decide 2026 before seeing what 2024 will yield. It doesn't even say the USOC will actually submit a bid for 2024. Of course it doesn't say the USOC will bid for 2024. They intentionally left it very open. But this is not just a matter of chronology. If all talk of 2024 is totally pointless, why did the USOC bother with the letter? If the 2026 options were so obviously superior to the 2024 options, then why didn't the USOC bypass 2024 completely? The USOC is under no obligation to put on a show. They didn't have to send out this letter. The USOC convened a committee to evaluate whether the US should pursue 2024 or 2026. Clearly the USOC sees something worth exploring for 2024. That's not a guarantee of a bid, but it does mean that the 2026 offerings weren't so strong and the 2024 offerings weren't so weak to convince them to bypass a 2024 bid as so many on these boards argued they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.