Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pure facts

USOC reaching out to US cities for potential 2024 bid

Recommended Posts

LA was lucky to host in 84 due to having private sector backing. [/font][/color]

I think you mean that the IOC was lucky that LA was willing to stage the Games when no other place on earth would. I think you also mean that the IOC was lucky that LA introduced an innovative financial model for the Games that breathed new life into an Olympic movement that was on life-support at the time.

It's true that LA has hosted twice after bidding unopposed, however, the LA Games were hugely successful, not some mediocre band-aid.

When people write that there are other ways to stage American Games, I think they mean they can imagine other ways to stage American Games. For 2024 at least Chicago is not one of those other ways. Who knows what will happen with NYC, SF, etc? Who knows if any other city will want to mount a competitive bid in 2028 or 2032? Sure we can IMAGINE all sorts of alternatives to LA, but the reality is that the USOC and IOC must evaluate the options that are available to them in the present. It's not wise to make decisions based on unsubstantiated hypotheticals that may or may not become reality.

It would be a shame to ignore a strong LA bid in the hope that New York or Chicago would offer an equally strong one a few years later. What if that pipe dream doesn't pan out? Should LA sit out these races indefinitely despite being a world-class city with great venues, a sterling Olympic legacy and oodles of enthusiasm just in case some other city can eventually warm to the idea of bidding?

Don't get me wrong. There are other cities I'd like to see host the Games, but I don't think that's a reason to handicap LA. If LA dishes out a slick, top-drawer bid, the USOC shouldn't hesitate to submit them as the candidate and the IOC shouldn't hesitate to award them their third Games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why it can't be both. I mean, yes, it would have to be a strong contender. It's indisputedly one of the USA's alpha cities, and ticks so many of the boxes in terms of existing infrastructure and political support that hamper most other US potentials to a greater or lesser degree.

But, while my view on its threepeatability is entirely subjective (like others here who have posted similar opinions), and none of us know what goes through IOCers minds really, I'd be surprised if such views weren't reflected in at least some sections of the IOC.

I didn't realise you were an Angeleno. I just assumed you were from Chicago. I hope you don't take my dissing of LA too much to heart. It's my taste, and I will concede there's parts I do indeed like - I've probably have been a bit too exaggerated and dismissive in some of my past comments.

No offense taken at all, Rols. Like runningrings wrote, I'm not bothered and I probably agree with you about many of your criticisms. LA's a mixed bag -- like anywhere.

I guess what I was trying to say in that earlier post aimed at you was that either LA can seriously compete or its two previous Games are an Achilles heel that will never be overcome. I don't really think it works both ways there.

My feeling is that LA can seriously compete and need not be hobbled by its glowing Olympic history. I still think the odds would be better in 2028 or 2032, but here we are.

Incidentally, of all the cities in the country, I think its very fair to say that LA is the only one that has consistently shown enough enthusiasm to suggest they could lose one race and still return four years later to bid again. That's got to count for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles

Dallas

San Diego

San Francisco

Phoenix

Sacramento

Denver

Washington

Jacksonville

Orlando

Miami

Atlanta

Baltimore

St. Louis

Las Vegas

New York City

Boston

Charlotte

Columbus

Tulsa

Portland

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Memphis

Nashville

Austin

Houston

San Antonio

Seattle

Rochester

Minneapolis

Detroit

Chicago

San Jose

Indianapolis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blue area should still be amended. If anything, at least Boston (& Miami) should be added to that category. We been hearing things coming from Boston (a lot of it can be found right here in the Boston 2024 thread).

Their mayor has been speaking out about a bid (even though his skeptical for now)..There's also a low-key group, ATM, trying to get things in motion. Which would account for more of a "positive response" than the crack-pot San Diego mayor wanting to go for it with Tijuana. They should really go in the yellow category, right behind Austin, another crack-pot mayor who thinks that bidding alongside with all the other Texas big cities "is a great idea".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, of all the cities in the country, I think its very fair to say that LA is the only one that has consistently shown enough enthusiasm to suggest they could lose one race and still return four years later to bid again. That's got to count for something.

Probably just a few brownie points...that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how many times do we here that the USOC should come up with a bid city that's not going to run-away (like New York & Chicago have) on their first loss. That a strategy of at least bidding twice is the best course of action. How do we know that if L.A. runs & losses 2024 that they won't run again for 2028? How do we know that the USOC may not ask L.A. "are you prepared to bid again if we lose 2024"?

It's a double-edged sword. Yes, the USOC should come up with a city that will stick it out and I believe Los Angeles would. But that doesn't necessarily make them the most electable bid city if the IOC isn't so keen on returning there and/or they're looking for another American city to come to. Again, they have that luxury, especially if there's a Paris or a Durban out there that they can choose instead of the U.S. offering.

Like I've been saying, this is just 1 scenario I'm envisioning. I'm not predicting it will play out like this and I have no idea what the IOC's reaction would be to seeing Los Angeles presented to them as an option. But we know the rhetoric here (and the voting members of the IOC may see it differently) that says that Los Angeles is a great place to host an Olympics, but is 40 years too soon after the last one there?

From the USOC's standpoint, at least for 2024, they should put forth the most electable bid city. A part of that factor could mean what the long-term aspirations for a city like Los Angeles is. But, and I'm going to use Athensfan's logic against him here.. how many times have we heard him say if the USOC is going to bid for 2024 that there shouldn't even be a whisper about 2026 as a supposed back-up option. Well.. if Los Angeles bids for 2024 but makes it apparent they'd come back for 2028, wouldn't that be a reason to potentially go against them and for vote someone else?

So here's the short of it.. there are a ton of possibilities as to how this all could play out. It's a game of politics that the USOC needs to play. There are positives for Los Angeles and negatives against them. If they're leaning towards putting LA up as their candidate, I would hope they'd do their due diligence and make sure the IOC is receptive to repeat LA hosting. It's not so simple as if they have the most sound bid. We all know how the game is played better than to think otherwise.

For me, I think an Olympics in Los Angeles would be great. But by the same token, if the United States is only going to see 1 Summer Olympics in the next half century or so, there is something in waiting for another candidate to emerge if Los Angeles is going to be hindered by 1984, and it's not that far-fetched to say it might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were declarations of intent from NYC Chicago, SF, I could understand the USOC submitting one of those other cities instead of LA -- provided that the other city's bid was at least as strong technically as LA's. Just for the sake of variety.

However, any conversation about which city is electable is purely hypothetical at this point. If they don't bid, they're not electable. Period. I believe Chicago would be awesome, but they're not bidding. Therefore, they're not electable.

Based on the indications we have to date, LA is by far the most electable option available to the USOC. And LA is a really exciting, powerful possibility. It would be a phenomenal host.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were declarations of intent from NYC Chicago, SF, I could understand the USOC submitting one of those other cities instead of LA -- provided that the other city's bid was at least as strong technically as LA's. Just for the sake of variety.

However, any conversation about which city is electable is purely hypothetical at this point. If they don't bid, they're not electable. Period. I believe Chicago would be awesome, but they're not bidding. Therefore, they're not electable.

Based on the indications we have to date, LA is by far the most electable option available to the USOC. And LA is a really exciting, powerful possibility. It would be a phenomenal host.

Hypothetical for us, sure. But at some point, the USOC is going to have to make a decision and it's something they're going to have to take into account. It's like we've been saying.. even if the USOC has a willing candidate city, they still need to evaluate how that city will fare when put in front of the IOC. You're right that a city that isn't interested can't be put up to the IOC. I agree that LA would be a phenomenal host. But in order for them to host, the IOC has to select them over the competition. And 1984 may be a reason to vote against them just as it might be a reason to vote for them. IMO, yes it CAN be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a double-edged sword. Yes, the USOC should come up with a city that will stick it out and I believe Los Angeles would. But that doesn't necessarily make them the most electable bid city if the IOC isn't so keen on returning there and/or they're looking for another American city to come to. Again, they have that luxury, especially if there's a Paris or a Durban out there that they can choose instead of the U.S. offering.

But if the IOC would rather go to Durban or Paris anyway, it doesn't matter who the U.S. bid is then. A return to Paris after a hundred years or the very first African Games is a very compelling component that ANY U.S. city would have to contend with.

AF is right. Right now other cities are simply not electable bcuz they don't wanna play, & LA is bcuz they do indeed want to bid. To me, this is almost akin to the whole Denver pro & con arguments. Some say that the whole 1976 debacle would doom them, while others say that it wouldn't. So in relavance, I don't think that 1984 hinders LA anymore than 1976 hinders Denver. If LA can come up with a great narrative & project, they could be just as competitive as anybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if the IOC would rather go to Durban or Paris anyway, it doesn't matter who the U.S. bid is then. A return to Paris after a hundred years or the very first African Games is a very compelling component that ANY U.S. city would have to contend with.

AF is right. Right now other cities are simply not electable bcuz they don't wanna play, & LA is bcuz they do indeed want to bid. To me, this is almost akin to the whole Denver pro & con arguments. Some say that the whole 1976 debacle would doom them, while others say that it wouldn't. So in relavance, I don't think that 1984 hinders LA anymore than 1976 hinders Denver. If LA can come up with a great narrative & project, they could be just as competitive as anybody else.

The big difference there, however, is that Denver has good reason to be embarrassed by the way they handled '76. '84 was a monster success for LA. I don't think there can be much doubt that shame is more of a handicap than success -- even if that success happens a bit more recent than some might wish. 40 years is still a big gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA would be a great candidate for let's say 2032.... I am not convinced 2024 would be enough time since '84. There are still quite a few IOC members that were members or participated in the '84 Games. That was not the case with London winning 2012, or if Tokyo gets 2020. If NYC and SF decide to sit out, my support would be behind LA, but in a field vs. Paris and a South African bid, I would not put money on LA coming out victorious, especially if Tokyo wins 2020.

Edited by Soaring
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't talk much, so.....

Everything all depends on who wins the race going on right now. If Tokyo wins (which looks more likely as the days pass), then LA damn sure isn't getting it in '24 (or any other American city for that matter). If one of the other two win, then the chances better, depending on who bids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference there, however, is that Denver has good reason to be embarrassed by the way they handled '76. '84 was a monster success for LA. I don't think there can be much doubt that shame is more of a handicap than success -- even if that success happens a bit more recent than some might wish. 40 years is still a big gap.

That's what I'm trying to get at. The people that argue that 1976 shouldn't necessarily negate a future Denver bid, seem to be the same ones that argue that 1984 doesn't do LA any favors. Yet Denver is the one that pulled the rug from under the IOCs feet.

I agree with you, that just bcuz no other alpha cities are interested night now (& who knows when they'll ever be) that we shouldn't automatically shove LA to the wayside simply bcuz of it. And it still beats a second-tier city from bidding. Granted though, that any future LA has to have that "noomph", otherwise we can forget about that, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Istanbul would block many European options, but I can still see Paris having the ability to mount a strong (albeit not formidable) 2024 bid, even with Istanbul potentially hosting 2020 and the possibility of Munich 2022. It would be like the early 90's again... But spread right across Europe.

That would surely free up the rest of the world to stake competitive claims for everything up til 2032, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA would be a great candidate for let's say 2032.... I am not convinced 2024 would be enough time since '84. There are still quite a few IOC members that were members or participated in the '84 Games. That was not the case with London winning 2012, or if Tokyo gets 2020. If NYC and SF decide to sit out, my support would be behind LA, but in a field vs. Paris and a South African bid, I would not put money on LA coming out victorious, especially if Tokyo wins 2020.

Nawal(possible president) won gold in LA84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, a Tokyo 2020 win eliminates the possibility of a U.S. Summer Games in the 20s unless South Africa can't put together a competent bid for 2024 or 2028. Europe has never gone more than 12 years without a Summer Games. I could see the IOC breaking that tradition for the first time if South Africa mounts a strong bid for 2024, but if South Africa gets 2024, Europe will get 2028. No way the IOC goes 20 years without granting the Summer Games to Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no competent and financially stable European option, which is quite a likely factor over the next decade, then Europe may go up to 20 years between Summer Games.

2020 Istanbul / Tokyo

2024 USA / SA

2028 SA / USA

2032 Europe (Paris? Rome? Moscow? Madrid?)

Is not an unlikely scenario.

Edited by runningrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no competent and financially stable European option, which is quite a likely factor over the next decade, then Europe may go up to 20 years between Summer Games.

2020 Tokyo

2024 USA / SA

2028 SA / USA

2032 Europe (Paris? Rome? Moscow? Madrid?)

Is not an unlikely scenario.

Fixed that for you because Istanbul is in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if the IOC would rather go to Durban or Paris anyway, it doesn't matter who the U.S. bid is then. A return to Paris after a hundred years or the very first African Games is a very compelling component that ANY U.S. city would have to contend with.

AF is right. Right now other cities are simply not electable bcuz they don't wanna play, & LA is bcuz they do indeed want to bid. To me, this is almost akin to the whole Denver pro & con arguments. Some say that the whole 1976 debacle would doom them, while others say that it wouldn't. So in relavance, I don't think that 1984 hinders LA anymore than 1976 hinders Denver. If LA can come up with a great narrative & project, they could be just as competitive as anybody else.

That's what I'm trying to get at. The people that argue that 1976 shouldn't necessarily negate a future Denver bid, seem to be the same ones that argue that 1984 doesn't do LA any favors. Yet Denver is the one that pulled the rug from under the IOCs feet.

I agree with you, that just bcuz no other alpha cities are interested night now (& who knows when they'll ever be) that we shouldn't automatically shove LA to the wayside simply bcuz of it. And it still beats a second-tier city from bidding. Granted though, that any future LA has to have that "noomph", otherwise we can forget about that, too.

Let's clear up a few misconceptions here. We're all playing armchair quarterback here. We can only guess at what is or isn't truly important. But if we're going to try and play the role of the USOC here, they need to view this thing from every conceivable angle. It may turn out that the IOC is receptive to coming back to Los Angeles after just 40 years. It would be foolish though to not take into account how that will affect their chances. When I talk about Los Angeles as an electable city, it may very well be that they're the strongest offering the USOC has for 2024. However, if the field of contenders is strong, it may behoove the USOC to save their energy (and Southern California's money) and not submit a bid. I've never suggested Los Angeles be shoved by the wayside. All I'm saying is taking some caution and make sure both the USOC and Los Angeles know what they're getting into if they do decide to bid, regardless of who else was a part of whatever competition or decision on the domestic front (which at that point is moot if Los Angeles is the best of the lot). And if 2024 doesn't look favorable, then maybe you do sit it out until 2028 and see what else emerges.

Not to rehash the whole Denver debate, especially since I know I'm in the minority on that one.. there are probably similarities, but 1 situation isn't related to the other. I've always argued about Denver that 1976 is a problem and that it should not negate a future bid. How much of a problem is where we disagree and I believe there are steps Denver could take (whether they succeed is a different story given all of the present day issues they have to deal with) to try and minimize how much of a negative it is. With L.A. 1984, the question is 1 of perception. Will IOC voters be receptive to a return to a relatively recent host city. I'm not making a case for or against that argument. I'm merely asking the question just like you and others do with Denver. But if we're going to make a comparison between the 2, the real question is.. does the IOC want to go to Los Angeles? Does the IOC want to go to Denver? Past history aside, that's what really matters. That's what the choice comes down to for them. You said it yourself.. the future LA bid needs to have that "oomph." If the USOC thinks their the best by any or all of the criteria they have to go with, then who they beat out in the United States becomes irrelevant and all that matters is who they would go up against on the big stage.

If there is no competent and financially stable European option, which is quite a likely factor over the next decade, then Europe may go up to 20 years between Summer Games.

2020 Istanbul / Tokyo

2024 USA / SA

2028 SA / USA

2032 Europe (Paris? Rome? Moscow? Madrid?)

Is not an unlikely scenario.

Glad to hear you think the economy in Europe won't rebound anytime soon. I would be shocked if we didn't see a European Summer Olympics during the 20s. As Joe already pointed out, Istanbul would be it. But behind then, you still have Paris and whomever else from another stable country wants to jump into the mix. Europe going 20 years without a Summer Olympics seems pretty unlikely to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may turn out that the IOC is receptive to coming back to Los Angeles after just 40 years. It would be foolish though to not take into account how that will affect their chances. When I talk about Los Angeles as an electable city, it may very well be that they're the strongest offering the USOC has for 2024. However, if the field of contenders is strong, it may behoove the USOC to save their energy (and Southern California's money) and not submit a bid. I've never suggested Los Angeles be shoved by the wayside. All I'm saying is taking some caution and make sure both the USOC and Los Angeles know what they're getting into if they do decide to bid, regardless of who else was a part of whatever competition or decision on the domestic front (which at that point is moot if Los Angeles is the best of the lot). And if 2024 doesn't look favorable, then maybe you do sit it out until 2028 and see what else emerges.

No one is suggesting that their previous hosting status wouldn't be taken into account. But like you argued with Denver, that aspect alone certainly wouldn't make an L.A. bid 'DOA'.

And yes, I've always said (& even AF has too), that another L.A. bid can't be the "we have everything ready & could host tomorrow" card like they have used before. Like any other bid, it has to have that special factor in order for it to be electable anyway.

It's too early to tell right now what another L.A. bid could offer. But I at least would like to see what that is first before the USOC were to play on the side of caution & simply just "save their energy" & not bid. I think the USOC & LA both know enough about the process by now that they would exactly know what they would be getting themselves into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the IOC were to take an LA bid seriously again (say, without a Durban bid), they would be losing their Option B city. I have always thought that the IOC likes to keep LA in its back pocket because it always needs a city to run to if the chips are down with their first choice. If LA came forward again, they would lose their Plan B. So long as they know that LA is eager to host again, ANOTHER new city will always be more attractive, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the great things about an American bid is that the Olympic Stadium would not be a "white elephant" after the games. That city would find some use for it after games, whether for sports or non-sports. However an American Olympics is bad for the sport of track and field in the United States because USA Track and Field knows full well that the Olympic Stadium would prevent an American bid to host a future IAAF World Championships. Instead, the Olympic Stadium would be used as a future home for one of three sports: NFL, MLB or MLS (depending on who needs a new stadium the most) or a non-sporting venue (which I think was Chicago 2016's plan). Same situation for the Canadian City of Toronto. Toronto would use the Olympic Stadium post Olympics to either try to lure an NFL team North of the Border or turn it into a brand new venue for the Argonauts (which in turn helps the Blue Jays renovate Rogers Centre into a baseball only venue, if they choose to do so).

Another great thing about an American bid is the arena that hosts the Olympic basketball games. In many of the bid cities, the basketball arenas are already home to NBA (and sometimes NHL) teams as well as major concerts. Los Angeles would obviously use the Staples Center, which already hosts 123 games (41 Lakers, 41 Clippers and 41 Kings games) a year plus major concerts. No white elephants there. New York would probably use the Garden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is suggesting that their previous hosting status wouldn't be taken into account. But like you argued with Denver, that aspect alone certainly wouldn't make an L.A. bid 'DOA'.

And yes, I've always said (& even AF has too), that another L.A. bid can't be the "we have everything ready & could host tomorrow" card like they have used before. Like any other bid, it has to have that special factor in order for it to be electable anyway.

It's too early to tell right now what another L.A. bid could offer. But I at least would like to see what that is first before the USOC were to play on the side of caution & simply just "save their energy" & not bid. I think the USOC & LA both know enough about the process by now that they would exactly know what they would be getting themselves into.

I've never once argued that a Los Angeles bid is DOA. If others here are implying that, take up that argument with them because it's not coming from me.

It seems to me that we're pretty much on the same page here. I'm not saying that Los Angeles shouldn't try or that the USOC shouldn't listen to them or that they'd be foolish to pursue this. I'm not trying to make a case for or against them, merely that this is something that needs to be considered. I too want to see what Los Angeles has to offer. I certainly want to see and hear what their narrative is before I pass judgment. Obviously there are a seemingly limitless number of 'ifs' involved and we're very early in a process that's going to develop over the next 4 1/2 years. And I think we need to temper our expectations just a tiny bit and remember that Los Angeles at this point is only interested (well, "enthusiastically interested" according to their mayor) in bidding for an Olympics. At the risk of sounding like Athensfan here, an intention to bid is not an official bid. I'm not trying to say whether it will or it won't happen, only to remember that, like you said, it's too early to tell right now what's out there.

If the IOC were to take an LA bid seriously again (say, without a Durban bid), they would be losing their Option B city. I have always thought that the IOC likes to keep LA in its back pocket because it always needs a city to run to if the chips are down with their first choice. If LA came forward again, they would lose their Plan B. So long as they know that LA is eager to host again, ANOTHER new city will always be more attractive, IMHO.

I get where you're coming from with this, but is that reason to reject a Los Angeles bid? We're not going to pick you until we're desperate for you guys to come in and save our collective asses again? Besides, wouldn't another Olympics make Los Angeles that much more up-to-date and capable of being that backup option? That's what Innsbruck was just a few years after their 1964 hosting.

If this type of logic is what puts Paris or Durban or whoever else ahead of Los Angeles, that's a reasonable argument. But I still think it's a stretch to say the IOC will turn down Los Angeles to host an Olympics simply so they can keep L.A. in position to take another city's sloppy seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baron, I think the Chinese would be fully willing to provide a "fill in" city. I don't know if I fully agree that the IOC would have that mindset toward LA, and would in turn penalize it. Then again, the IOC turned down LA for many years until finally they had no choice but to award the '84 Games to them.

I think LA could be a viable bid under certain conditions for 2024, but I am skeptical and feel there is too much potential for the cards to be stacked against it. If I were in the USOC, I would be hoping another alpha city steps to the plate, so that they have more options. But if no other viable cities step up, I think putting LA in the mix for '24 would only strengthen future U.S. summer bids. I mean, if they turn down the top three U.S. cities, it only adds more sentiment to award the U.S. the Games for 2028 or 2032. The main problem of course is that is going to be all the more discouraging for other U.S. cities to bid.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...