Jump to content

USOC reaching out to US cities for potential 2024 bid


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't see why a hypothetical "back up" scenario should rule out LA hosting! Olympic hosts don't fail these days; the closest we got recently was Athens and that turned out to be a great Games despit

When you type B followed by a parentheses, the board interprets it as an emoticon. Has happened to me plenty of times before

baron, it's fruitless to argue with him. Unless you can prove him wrong, he must be right! Even though I disagree with this statement.. if the USOC loved the 2026 candidates and saw slim pickings fo

Maybe they would find the map I made helpful....

With all due respect, that map is pretty worthless at this point. The USOC sent out their letter to the 35 cities, so unless we're talking about going forward beyond 2024 (which I know that map is largely doing that), I can't imagine any cities not among those 35 will be in the mix anytime in the foreseeable future. That said, we have runningrings' update list of where each city stands. Maybe it's worth doing another edition of your map to reflect that list and who the USOC is actually courting rather than the speculation on our part what cities might be viable since we're never going to come to a consensus on that list largely beyond the big 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the IOC has both Beijing and Seoul as potential backup hosts, I can't see them refusing to vote for LA because they feel they need to save it as yet another backup.

If anything LAs reliability is an asset.

London would be a good potential backup host too, depending on what happens to the main stadium. The other main thing to worry about would be the athlete's village.

Link to post
Share on other sites

London would be a good potential backup host too, depending on what happens to the main stadium. The other main thing to worry about would be the athlete's village.

No; it wouldn't be because:

1. Th units in the O.V. have already been sold, leased to others. You cannot boot people out of those units. Same thing for Beijing and Seoul -- and which is why L.A. is the most viable back-up because all they'll need is one school year to pre-empt the dorms that constitute an LA plan's Village.

2. The basketball venue and a few others have or will be dismantled as they were only meant to be temporary. The Aquatic Center has been reduced to its post-use form. So, no, London began with too many temporary venues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe we're going to be hearing from NYC anytime soon. The race for Mayor is approaching and I believe the city will be more focuses on that. They still have time to decide whether or not they want and/or will bid for the games. But one of the candidates who announced he will be running was VERY pro NYC-olympics. So if he were to become mayor, I do believe we could see a bid from the Big Apple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe we're going to be hearing from NYC anytime soon. The race for Mayor is approaching and I believe the city will be more focuses on that. They still have time to decide whether or not they want and/or will bid for the games. But one of the candidates who announced he will be running was VERY pro NYC-olympics. So if he were to become mayor, I do believe we could see a bid from the Big Apple.

Which candidate would that be? Even if a pro-Olympics mayor did win, he/she would not be taking office until January 1, 2014. So it might be a little difficult for him to pull an Olympic bid out of his ass by then.

That said, it usually takes more than a pro-Olympics mayor for an Olympics bid to be born. Look at Dallas and Boston.. those efforts began with someone taking charge of the project that had little to do with the local government. Dan Doctoroff, head of NYC's 2012 bid, eventually began working with Giuliani, but that didn't come later. The way that Olympic bids operate in the United States mean that it's more likely a private investor or some other backer will be who spearheads the effort. So a new mayor, like you said, will probably have a lot on his plate that goes ahead of a long-term project like an Olympics.

I know I'm the number one skeptic here when it comes to New York and the Olympics. The longer we go without hearing a peep from New York, the less and less likely it is we'll ever hear from them for 2024. That we haven't heard from them after a month since the USOC letter is a pretty damning sign. And if it might take until a November election for a pro-Olympics mayor to be in place, by then it might be too late to get this thing off the ground for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles



Dallas


San Diego


San Francisco


Boston


Miami


Seattle



Phoenix


Sacramento


Denver


Washington


Jacksonville


Orlando


Atlanta


Baltimore


St. Louis


Las Vegas


New York City


Charlotte


Columbus


Tulsa


Portland


Philadelphia


Pittsburgh


Memphis


Austin


Houston


San Antonio



Nashville


Rochester


Minneapolis


Detroit


Chicago


San Jose


Indianapolis



Should I have added Seattle to the blue list?


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No news is good news!! So, if we haven't heard from other cities, that means they are SECRETLY at work, hatching killer Olympic plans.

THey just don't want to show their hand yet. Right, AthensF?? :lol:

Garbage. The only case where I think that no news indicates possibility is NYC. Sure they could say no. But it's also reasonable to think that in a market that large any sort of declaration is going to carry weight and have political repercussions.

Seattle can say "tell us more" without anybody thinking too seriously about it. New York can't get away with that.

If New York knows already that there's zero chance of a bid, why haven't they come out and said so?

The above is all totally possible. There's no way of knowing. Personally, I've never liked the idea of New York Games anyway so it's not as though I've got some secret desire driving this opinion.

With Chicago saying no, I've switched my allegiances to LA. Personally, I don't care if any or none of the other cities decide to bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Garbage. The only case where I think that no news indicates possibility is NYC. Sure they could say no. But it's also reasonable to think that in a market that large any sort of declaration is going to carry weight and have political repercussions.

Seattle can say "tell us more" without anybody thinking too seriously about it. New York can't get away with that.

If New York knows already that there's zero chance of a bid, why haven't they come out and said so?

Once again.. New York is not a person or a corporation. So who is "they" you keep waiting to hear from? Mayor Bloomberg is under no obligation to answer the USOC's letter if he doesn't have any information to offer or he just doesn't think it's important enough.

If you want to hold out hope that the city of New York is going to pull a bid out of it's collective ass at the 11th hour, feel free to keep your hopes us. But (and largely by your own logic), the fact that we haven't heard a word from anyone connected with New York and the Olympics is an ever-increasing indication it's not going to happen. That you still take that as a possibility that someone is going to come out of the woodwork.. it still amazes me that you're trying to entertain that possibility.

Let me express again.. I would be in utter SHOCK if a serious and legitimate bid for the 2024 Olympics from New York City emerges.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If New York wanted to bid they would have said so already. Los Angeles already said so, so what is New York waiting for and what would they gain from waiting?

As I said in my last post, I'm not keen on the idea of NYC Olympics anyway, so it's fine by me if they sit it out.

However....

I can imagine a scenario where they simply want more time to talk amongst themselves privately and do a bit of quiet evaluation before telling everyone they're thinking about it. NYC is arguably the world's greatest metropolis. It's huge news if they're considering the Olympic Games. So to answer your question: they gain time and privacy by staying mum.

Think about the flip side though. If they have zero interest, why haven't they said so? It would be pretty simple to just follow Chicago's lead and say, "We're not interested."

I can think of a few explanations for no news from New York:

1.) They have so little interest they don't even feel the need to respond to Blackmun's letter. Rude, but conceivable. Might expect it more of a smaller city with no history of bidding.

2.) They're disorganized and nobody's quite sure whose responsibility it is to get back to the USOC. Also not far-fetched. Would be more inclined to expect this of a smaller city as well.

3.) They're undecided about what their answer will be and they're working it out. Possible, but who knows?

As I said, I don't care if NYC bids or not, but until they say "we're in" or "we're out", it's difficult to know. At some point I would expect the USOC to draw a line in the sand and say, "Ok, we're moving forward in conversation with the following cities." At that point, the non-responses all become "no's".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.

The other thing about NYC - is that its City Council is probably well aware of the power of its own brand. They know that if they commit to something (a bid), there is a high chance that they might actually have the event fall into their lap. This is not something that Dallas or Seattle can confidently say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can imagine a scenario where they simply want more time to talk amongst themselves privately and do a bit of quiet evaluation before telling everyone they're thinking about it. NYC is arguably the world's greatest metropolis. It's huge news if they're considering the Olympic Games. So to answer your question: they gain time and privacy by staying mum.

Think about the flip side though. If they have zero interest, why haven't they said so? It would be pretty simple to just follow Chicago's lead and say, "We're not interested."

I can think of a few explanations for no news from New York:

1.) They have so little interest they don't even feel the need to respond to Blackmun's letter. Rude, but conceivable. Might expect it more of a smaller city with no history of bidding.

2.) They're disorganized and nobody's quite sure whose responsibility it is to get back to the USOC. Also not far-fetched. Would be more inclined to expect this of a smaller city as well.

3.) They're undecided about what their answer will be and they're working it out. Possible, but who knows?

I can offer another explanation..

4.) They DID respond to the USOC and politely told them they're not interested and no one has reported on it.

They don't have to follow Chicago's lead and make a big public pronouncement. It's extremely possible that they quietly told the USOC they're not currently interested, but if anything comes up, we'll let you know. No one from New York (whether it be the mayor or whomever) has to address this publicly. Instead, they can just ignore it and wait for it to go away. That's even simpler than following Chicago's lead. Which I'm sure will lead to many people online speculating about NYC's interest and/or falsely thinking they were considered. As if we haven't gone through that song and dance before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.

The other thing about NYC - is that its City Council is probably well aware of the power of its own brand. They know that if they commit to something (a bid), there is a high chance that they might actually have the event fall into their lap. This is not something that Dallas or Seattle can confidently say.

Good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can offer another explanation..

4.) They DID respond to the USOC and politely told them they're not interested and no one has reported on it.

They don't have to follow Chicago's lead and make a big public pronouncement. It's extremely possible that they quietly told the USOC they're not currently interested, but if anything comes up, we'll let you know. No one from New York (whether it be the mayor or whomever) has to address this publicly. Instead, they can just ignore it and wait for it to go away. That's even simpler than following Chicago's lead. Which I'm sure will lead to many people online speculating about NYC's interest and/or falsely thinking they were considered. As if we haven't gone through that song and dance before.

This could very well be true. But it's still pure speculation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This could very well be true. But it's still pure speculation.

It's all speculation at this point. If we're having a discussion about New York though and trying to determine why we haven't heard any news regarding New York's response to the USOC's letter, which of the following is more likely.. that we haven't heard anything because someone, somewhere in New York they're working on a bid that 1 day they're going to announce completely out of the blue? Or that no one in New York is interested in the 2024 Olympics and that no one has bothered to respond to the USOC because there's no interest?

I don't claim to have any inside information here, but I do live in New York and know more than a few people that work in the media here, especially in sports. If there was some entity, be it a person or a corporation, interested in backing New York for the 2024 Olympics, I'm guessing someone would have figured that out by now and we would have heard about it here. Now is it possible there is someone or someones still mulling this over in New York? Sure there is. I still think that's pretty unlikely though because again, someone would have reported that. For my money, the more likely explain is that no one is interested in a NYC Olympics bid and that no one in the NY media deems it important enough to report.

Like I said upthread, I would be beyond shocked if New York offered up a serious bid for the 2024 Olympics. If certain posters here want to concoct scenarios where no news out of New York means they're still thinking about a bid, they're more than welcome to do that. I just find it very difficult to entertain these scenarios that will lead to an NYC bid simply because they haven't come out and said "we're not interested" when the far more likely scenario is that NYC is not interested, never was interested, never will be interested (at least for 2024), and simply doesn't feel the need for a big public pronouncement to tell everyone what we already know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This could very well be true. But it's still pure speculation.

I seem to remember a couple of posters on these boards who argued that its now impossible to keep anything quiet and that private conversations no longer exist. They claimed the media would get wind of anything -- particularly where the Olympics are concerned. I would think the stature of NYC would multiply this phenomenon exponentially if they were correct.

Personally, I do think its still possible to have a quiet, private conversation, but as you said, nykfan, there's just no way to know without more information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember a couple of posters on these boards who argued that its now impossible to keep anything quiet and that private conversations no longer exist. They claimed the media would get wind of anything -- particularly where the Olympics are concerned. I would think the stature of NYC would multiply this phenomenon exponentially if they were correct.

Personally, I do think its still possible to have a quiet, private conversation, but as you said, nykfan, there's just no way to know without more information.

And I seem to recall 1 poster here continually arguing that cities should keep their planning and their conversations private because "not going public" can be an advantage. If that's the case, then explain Seattle and Boston and Dallas and Los Angeles. All of these cites have an element where their intentions have become public. And why is that? Because someone decided to report on it. I've never claimed the media will get wind of anything. But you continue to argue that these cities can and would try and keep their affairs private. Well tell me.. what city is actually doing that? As opposed to what city or cities might be doing that because it helps fit your argument?

We've been having this argument for a year now, if not longer. You've always told us that a city might be best served not playing their hand too early. Well.. it's been a month since the USOC sent out the letter essentially saying now is the time to let us know if you're interested in working with us. The time for quiet, private conversations has come and gone. It's now time to get a little more active. If there were interest from New York, how long are they supposed to wait to tell them? How bad does NYC look if no one there is organized well enough to respond to the USOC?

You're right that we can't know for sure without more information. But if the 2 possibilities are that either 1.) something is going on in NYC, but no one knows about it or 2.) nothing is going on in NYC and that's what no one has said anything, which of those 2 is more likely? Again, if you want to hold out hope to New York to register its interest because someone will wake up 1 morning and say "let's do this", go right ahead. I just can't see it happening though.

1 other thought on the non-response.. Rahm Emanuel was very quick to announce that Chicago had no intention of bidding. Basically he was saying to anyone and everyone with Olympic aspirations on behalf of Chicago to forget about even considering it. "Not on my watch" is essentially what he's saying. Perhaps New York is taking a different tact. Maybe their non-response is more about a long term plan, the type of deal that Dan Doctoroff put together. If Bloomberg came out and said New York isn't interested (and as previously noted, he only represents the city of New York for the next year.. beyond that, it's someone else's city, so maybe he doesn't want to speak for the next mayor), then any Doctoroff types would probably give up hope for the future and we'd never hear from them again. But leave the door open just a little and there could be something there, probably not for 2024 since it's getting late for that, but perhaps for 2028 and beyond.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 other thought on the non-response.. Rahm Emanuel was very quick to announce that Chicago had no intention of bidding. Basically he was saying to anyone and everyone with Olympic aspirations on behalf of Chicago to forget about even considering it. "Not on my watch" is essentially what he's saying. Perhaps New York is taking a different tact. Maybe their non-response is more about a long term plan, the type of deal that Dan Doctoroff put together. If Bloomberg came out and said New York isn't interested (and as previously noted, he only represents the city of New York for the next year.. beyond that, it's someone else's city, so maybe he doesn't want to speak for the next mayor), then any Doctoroff types would probably give up hope for the future and we'd never hear from them again. But leave the door open just a little and there could be something there, probably not for 2024 since it's getting late for that, but perhaps for 2028 and beyond.

Good thinking. Maybe 2028 is better for NYC as the mayor would be more midterm than lame duck. It would also give time to make it into a long term regeneration project than a one shot glory hunt

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like NYC is more preoccupied with the Mayoral Election. Perhaps they are still in the "finding people to be a part of the Exploratory Committee" stage, and that is why they haven't said anything.

Now, I understand you could say that with Seattle. The way I understood the article is that they don't have a committee together like Boston and Dallas, and they are just waiting for another letter from the USOC with a few more bullet points of requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I

Now, I understand you could say that with Seattle. The way I understood the article is that they don't have a committee together like Boston and Dallas, and they are just waiting for another letter from the USOC with a few more bullet points of requirements.

What does that mean? It's either they can comply with the BASIC set of requirements in the first letter OR NOT. That's all the USOC is asking for. If they can't comprehend that...and 34 other cities can, the OBVIOUSLY, they are too dumb to host.

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...