Jump to content

USOC reaching out to US cities for potential 2024 bid


Recommended Posts

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 never said that you did. But that seems to be the general impression I get when reading your posts. Yeah, the USOC should take their previous hostings into account (just like a Denver bid should have their debacle taken into theirs). But like in that case too, that doesn't mean that then we should be on the epitome of caution simply bcuz of one element of a bid.

Los Angeles needs & wants an NFL team. That could mean a brand-new stadium. Some transportation upgrades &/or new links. There are newer arenas in LA since the '84 Games. Come up with a narrative & a couple of other surprises & we could be in business. The U.S. has already had two of their four top cities rejected for whatever reasons. A new revenue deal has been worked out already, too.

And as far as the international competition goes; how many times has it been said, that there are some IOC members out there that would vote against a U.S. bid no matter what. So if it's NY or LA, it makes no difference to these particular members. They'll just shaft it to the U.S. simply bcuz they could. And/or if it's against Paris & South Africa, again there, if the IOC much prefers those other options, it won't matter there either if it's NY or LA. The IOC will vote according to what makes the most sense for them at the time. But I'm glad that it appears that we're on the same page here. But it seems though that we're at different parts of the page.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

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 think that's really crazy. You only need one bid city. Not two. Did Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London, Rio have "backups"? Does the IOC care about "backups"? Has any host city ever switched to a "backup" from the same country? The IOC is looking for one host city period. There are no "back pockets" where Olympic bids are concerned. It's all or nothing, fuul-speed ahead. You offer up your best candidate. End of story. The USOC gains nothing by "reserving LA."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the IOC really go for Tokyo in 2020? Geopolitics is a big topic on here and if Pyeong Chang is happening two years before, would they go back to Asia, a continent that only seems to host an Olympics once a decade (usually a year ending in 8)? I would like a Madrid Olympics because I think there is an easier shot of us getting in in 2024. LA does seem like a good choice for us, but to the IOC I feel they might see them as their back-up city as one of you have posted. NYC might be our best option because it is new and big, and these new hosts lately are new and big (or will be after).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that you did. But that seems to be the general impression I get when reading your posts. Yeah, the USOC should take their previous hostings into account (just like a Denver bid should have their debacle taken into theirs). But like in that case too, that doesn't mean that then we should be on the epitome of caution simply bcuz of one element of a bid.

Los Angeles needs & wants an NFL team. That could mean a brand-new stadium. Some transportation upgrades &/or new links. There are newer arenas in LA since the '84 Games. Come up with a narrative & a couple of other surprises & we could be in business. The U.S. has already had two of their four top cities rejected for whatever reasons. A new revenue deal has been worked out already, too.

And as far as the international competition goes; how many times has it been said, that there are some IOC members out there that would vote against a U.S. bid no matter what. So if it's NY or LA, it makes no difference to these particular members. They'll just shaft it to the U.S. simply bcuz they could. And/or if it's against Paris & South Africa, again there, if the IOC much prefers those other options, it won't matter there either if it's NY or LA. The IOC will vote according to what makes the most sense for them at the time. But I'm glad that it appears that we're on the same page here. But it seems though that we're at different parts of the page.

Don't think I'm trying to take this 1 point to the extreme. LA's past hosting is a factor. 1 of about 87 factors to consider. I'm not trying to blow it out of proportion because between now and the day of decision, we'll probably discuss some or all of those other 86 factors.

More than that.. it's the nature of this site and the people who are regular posters (I'm as guilty of this as anyone I'm sure) to see a headline and get really eager to try and jump several steps in the process. LA's mayor says their interested in bidding and we want to hear more from them. Well, I think we forget sometimes that this is a slow, long and drawn out process where we might not hear anything from them for awhile.

And 1 thing about the NFL.. Los Angeles in no way needs an NFL team. It's debatable whether they really want 1. I've had this discussion on other boards before. I believe the word to describe Los Angelinos' feelings towards the NFL is ambivalent. I think pro football would work well there given the right circumstances and yes, if Farmers Field gets built, that would only strengthen an Olympic bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's really crazy. You only need one bid city. Not two. Did Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London, Rio have "backups"? Does the IOC care about "backups"? Has any host city ever switched to a "backup" from the same country? The IOC is looking for one host city period. There are no "back pockets" where Olympic bids are concerned. It's all or nothing, fuul-speed ahead. You offer up your best candidate. End of story. The USOC gains nothing by "reserving LA."

Oh really? When they were on the verge of cancelling your favorite Games, 2004, the IOC was lining up a back-up city. Sydney said NO; and they were all but on the verge of de-sanctifying Athens and giving it to either Seoul or LA. LA had the villages, Seoul would have had to build one.

And how quickly we forget that again, YOUR desired city of Denver LEFT the IOC holding the bag whereby they had to scramble to find a replacement.

Unlike you, the IOC remembers and will try not to look foolish a 3rd time.

How quickly we forget those moments, don't we? Well, I guess one can't condemn early Alzheimer's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the IOC really go for Tokyo in 2020? Geopolitics is a big topic on here and if Pyeong Chang is happening two years before, would they go back to Asia, a continent that only seems to host an Olympics once a decade (usually a year ending in 8)? I would like a Madrid Olympics because I think there is an easier shot of us getting in in 2024. LA does seem like a good choice for us, but to the IOC I feel they might see them as their back-up city as one of you have posted. NYC might be our best option because it is new and big, and these new hosts lately are new and big (or will be after).

That's the same thing people said about Pyeongchang for the 2010 vote coming right after Beijing. And look how close they came to winning that contest. Continental rotation being what it is, Tokyo could win 2020 and I don't think anyone would be that shocked.

And on the subject of New York, not to repeat what's been said so many times before.. 2012 aside, yes I think it would be a great place to have an Olympics, but it's not an option if they're not interested in bidding. And right now, there's very little out there to lead me to believe there is any interest from New York in a future Olympics, let alone 2024.

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.

Very reasonable post. It's difficult to predict how the IOC would respond to an LA bid because they haven't seen one since the 1970s. Yes, they turned down LA repeatedly before then, but that was a very different IOC and then LA knocked their socks off with fantastic Games. I think one can argue that LA's success also really helped Atlanta to victory. I think it will still have significant IOC appeal.

If I were the USOC I would be inclined to offer up LA for 2024 with the knowledge that the bid could be defeated, but that a defeat would fortify the next American attempt. It also seems to me that LA shouldn't just take the fall for NYC or Chicago. If they pave the way with a 2024 bid, they should have first right of refusal for 2028 or 2032. Then there's always the very real possibility that LA could win 2024 and a repeat bid would be a non-issue.

Now that Chicago's off the table, LA is my first choice. I really believe LA Games would be better than Games anywhere else. That said, if NYC wants in, I would expect the USOC to move forward with them. I don't think New York Olympics would surpass LA, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh really? When they were on the verge of cancelling your favorite Games, 2004, the IOC was lining up a back-up city. Sydney said NO; and they were all but on the verge of de-sanctifying Athens and giving it to either Seoul or LA. LA had the villages, Seoul would have had to build one.

And how quickly we forget that again, YOUR desired city of Denver LEFT the IOC holding the bag whereby they had to scramble to find a replacement.

Unlike you, the IOC remembers and will try not to look foolish a 3rd time.

How quickly we forget those moments, don't we? Well, I guess one can't condemn early Alzheimer's.

I'm not forgetting any of those incidents. Read carefully. I wrote "backups from the SAME COUNTRY."

The last time the IOC used a "backup", was 1976 and it was a totally different country. Seoul never happened because Gianna got Athens back on track.

So are you seriously advocating that the USOC prevent LA from bidding so that they can offer it as an eleventh hour bandaid just in case some other host flakes out? That makes zero sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you seriously advocating that the USOC prevent LA from bidding so that they can offer it as an eleventh hour bandaid just in case some other host flakes out? That makes zero sense.

No, I am not. All I'm saying is that when looking for reasons why LA would've been passed over again, that certainly MIGHT be one of the reasons LA would always be a 2nd choice in some older voters' minds. That's all I'm saying. But if LA is ready for the pain-and-gain matrix that is Olympic bidding, then go for it...I say!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe Houston will response to the USOC's letter about hosting 2024 and say that they are thinking about the possibility of hosting. I think that the city is waiting on what to do with the Astrodome because the city government is not gonna spend over a billion dollars to renovate a building that's almost 50 years old so, i believe that they will tear it down and plan to say to build a stadium with a retractable roof on the same site with an adjacent arena other sports and add a hotel on to the park site. but they'll that the cost is too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe Houston will response to the USOC's letter about hosting 2024 and say that they are thinking about the possibility of hosting. I think that the city is waiting on what to do with the Astrodome because the city government is not gonna spend over a billion dollars to renovate a building that's almost 50 years old so, i believe that they will tear it down and plan to say to build a stadium with a retractable roof on the same site with an adjacent arena other sports and add a hotel on to the park site. but they'll that the cost is too much.

Houston wouldn't necessarily need a new stadium. They have Reliant Stadium and Rice Stadium. Both of them CAN hold 70,000 so they would both have to be incorporated into a bid somehow. Rice Stadium averaged less then 15,000 people at their football games last year, so doing some renovation to the stadium (installing a track) wouldn't hurt the fans as much as renovating Reliant Stadium. After the games, Rice university would be able to keep the stadium as is, or further renovate it so it makes the college happy. The arena is much harder. The city only has one 15k+ arena that is used for SPORTS so that could cause some trouble in the bid. But maybe the bid organizers could talk to the Lakewood Church and try to use Summit/Compaq center again. But I don't know how well the bid were look if boxing was held in a church.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am not. All I'm saying is that when looking for reasons why LA would've been passed over again, that certainly MIGHT be one of the reasons LA would always be a 2nd choice in some older voters' minds. That's all I'm saying. But if LA is ready for the pain-and-gain matrix that is Olympic bidding, then go for it...I say!!

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.

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.

Beijing and Seoul are distant 'back-up' cities. It would require at least 2.5 years for those cities to plan, build and sell a whole NEW Olympic Village -- at which time the laggard host city would've caught up already. LA would only require ONE school-year ahead in which to pre-empt dorm space at USC and UCLA for its Olympic Village plan. So, I disagree with you again. LA still remains the IOC's quick 'back-up' city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston wouldn't necessarily need a new stadium. They have Reliant Stadium and Rice Stadium. Both of them CAN hold 70,000 so they would both have to be incorporated into a bid somehow. Rice Stadium averaged less then 15,000 people at their football games last year, so doing some renovation to the stadium (installing a track) wouldn't hurt the fans as much as renovating Reliant Stadium. After the games, Rice university would be able to keep the stadium as is, or further renovate it so it makes the college happy. The arena is much harder. The city only has one 15k+ arena that is used for SPORTS so that could cause some trouble in the bid. But maybe the bid organizers could talk to the Lakewood Church and try to use Summit/Compaq center again. But I don't know how well the bid were look if boxing was held in a church.

Lakewood Church as a venue that's not going to happen. The only venue that boxing is going to held is George R Brown Convention Center

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beijing and Seoul are distant 'back-up' cities. It would require at least 2.5 years for those cities to plan, build and sell a whole NEW Olympic Village -- at which time the laggard host city would've caught up already. LA would only require ONE school-year ahead in which to pre-empt dorm space at USC and UCLA for its Olympic Village plan. So, I disagree with you again. LA still remains the IOC's quick 'back-up' city.

If the IOC is seeking a 'back-up' city, I'm guessing they'll be pretty open to ideas on how to sell a city to replace the original choice. And if the problems aren't severe enough that the laggard host city has a chance to catch up (like Athens 2004), then they're obviously not going to get stripped of the Olympics in the first place.

Again, I get your thinking of L.A. as the IOC's back-up city, but that's not going to stop the USOC from bidding with them and is it really a basis to reject them. "No thanks LA, we're not interested.. but if we're in a bind and get really desperate if we screw up, we'll give you the honor of cleaning up our mess." I'd almost like to hope Los Angeles would say no to that, especially if you're talking about a short time frame.

And also, keep in mind.. the L.A. Coliseum did away with the track. I don't know how easily they could re-configure the stadium to put the track back in, but that's not something that's going to be easily done on short notice. To say nothing of what USC and the Coliseum might do to renovate the stadium in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And also, keep in mind.. the L.A. Coliseum did away with the track. I don't know how easily they could re-configure the stadium to put the track back in, but that's not something that's going to be easily done on short notice. To say nothing of what USC and the Coliseum might do to renovate the stadium in the first place.

It would probably require 8-9 months for the Coliseum to clear other commitments (mainly its contract w/ USC) before putting in the track. But I am sure, with its Olympic history, the Coliseum must have it in its lease to USC that they would have the right to return the track on short notice should circumstances warrant it, i.e., filling in on short notice as a SOG host.

My point is, NOT that LA should hold back because it is the most logical standby city but that is something the IOC might not want to lose if they other, attractive, never-been-before cities to go to. LA, regardless of whatever new spin they can put in, should not go in there raring that they are the all-time favorite. Yes, the reliability, as Athens has pointed out, is there; but that wouldn't count for much if a new frontier like Durban beckons, or say another 3-peater wannabe, Paris, comes up with an equally dazzling plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed that for you because Istanbul is in Europe.

My inclusion of Istanbul was deliberate. I'm well aware that Istanbul is in Europe, but my point was that with Tokyo, it opens the possibility of up to 20 years.

Besides, when some people speak of a European Olympics they can be purists - considering Central and Western European cities traditional, over 'new frontier' non-EU Eastern European options.

There is a potential for a pattern when comparing 1968-1992 and what could likely happen between 2008-2032:

1968 - Mexico City/ 2008 - Beijing

1972 - Munich/ 2012 - London

1976 - Montreal/ 2016 - Rio de Janeiro

1980 - Moscow/ 2020 - Istanbul (both the two major European fringe cities)

1984 - Los Angeles/ 2024 - USA

1988 - Seoul/ 2028 - Asia/Africa

1992 - Barcelona/ 2032 - Europe ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the reliability, as Athens has pointed out, is there; but that wouldn't count for much if a new frontier like Durban beckons, or say another 3-peater wannabe, Paris, comes up with an equally dazzling plan.

Yeah, but that would be the case with ANY U.S. city really, if Durban & Paris were in the mix. Those two would be formidable no matter who was running against them, even New York.

Los Angeles, while not everyones favorite (but then again, what city ever has 100% of supporters & followers), is still a better option than a newbie-wannabe like Dallas, Houston or San Diego. Unless Boston doesn't get scared off, &/or if Philadelphia decides to give it a whirl, L.A. is the next best bet without the other two Alpha options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beijing and Seoul are distant 'back-up' cities. It would require at least 2.5 years for those cities to plan, build and sell a whole NEW Olympic Village -- at which time the laggard host city would've caught up already. LA would only require ONE school-year ahead in which to pre-empt dorm space at USC and UCLA for its Olympic Village plan. So, I disagree with you again. LA still remains the IOC's quick 'back-up' city.

Then why was Seoul on tap for 2004? Do you really believe the Coliseum, not to mention all the other venues could be ready in a single year? No possible way. There's a reason the IOC allows 7 years lead time. ANY "backup" would need more than one year.

This whole issue is moot anyway since you have no evidence that the IOC is thinking about it or that they view LA the same way you do.

I seriously doubt we'll ever see another "backup." That happened once in 1976 and is unlikel y to ever occur again. I think it's far more likely the Games would be cancelled altogether in response to a natural disaster or the outbreak of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought 'back-up' cities were an urban myth. I remember when Athens preparations were look its most grim, there was talk of Sydney's venues remaining in Olympics mode after the 2000 Olympics in case it needed to step in at short notice to host the 2004 Olympics. The same has even been said about Melbourne, that it would stage a fully fledged Olympics at short notice, probably one of few cities to be able to do so, that haven't hosted the Olympics post-1980.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why was Seoul on tap for 2004? Do you really believe the Coliseum, not to mention all the other venues could be ready in a single year? No possible way. There's a reason the IOC allows 7 years lead time. ANY "backup" would need more than one year.

This whole issue is moot anyway since you have no evidence that the IOC is thinking about it or that they view LA the same way you do.

I seriously doubt we'll ever see another "backup." That happened once in 1976 and is unlikel y to ever occur again. I think it's far more likely the Games would be cancelled altogether in response to a natural disaster or the outbreak of war.

The press picked up that after Sydney said "no;" (as had Vancouver-Garibaldi in 1972 (for 1976)), Then Seoul and LA came up. Seoul because it had the bigger complement of stadia (having also just co-hosted World Cup 2002). LA could possibly stage it in 1.5 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles

Toronto

Durban

Paris

Berlin

or

New York City

Toronto

Durban

Paris

Berlin

In which race do you think the Americans have a better chance?

But if the choices are say LA, St. Petersburg, Madrid and Doha. Now who ya going to go with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would probably require 8-9 months for the Coliseum to clear other commitments (mainly its contract w/ USC) before putting in the track. But I am sure, with its Olympic history, the Coliseum must have it in its lease to USC that they would have the right to return the track on short notice should circumstances warrant it, i.e., filling in on short notice as a SOG host.

My point is, NOT that LA should hold back because it is the most logical standby city but that is something the IOC might not want to lose if they other, attractive, never-been-before cities to go to. LA, regardless of whatever new spin they can put in, should not go in there raring that they are the all-time favorite. Yes, the reliability, as Athens has pointed out, is there; but that wouldn't count for much if a new frontier like Durban beckons, or say another 3-peater wannabe, Paris, comes up with an equally dazzling plan.

The actions surrounding the Coliseum Commission have been under tremendous fire over the past couple of years. As I understand it, USC used to sub-lease the Coliseum and the Sports Arena from the Coliseum Commission, but now USC has more control as they have agreed to assume more of the day-to-day operations involving the Coliseum. I don't know if it was in the finalized version of the agreement between the 2 parties, but it does note this..

6.3
Olympic Events
. Tenant shall make the Coliseum Property available for Events related to any Olympics hosted in the County of Los Angeles, subject to the negotiation of costs, required modifications to the Premises (including the temporary re-installation of track and field facilities), restoration of the Premises after the Olympic games by the relevant Organizing Committee, and other business issues to be negotiated with the organizers of such Events.

Obviously that doesn't mention anything in terms of a timetable, but that USC is now more directly involved in running the show at the Coliseum, I imagine they'd have something to say about transforming the Coliseum on such short notice. So it's not like the Coliseum Commission can just toss USC out of the building like that or at least without compensating them for the removal of thousands of the best seats for at least 1, probably 2 or more football seasons in order to make an Olympics work there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The actions surrounding the Coliseum Commission have been under tremendous fire over the past couple of years. As I understand it, USC used to sub-lease the Coliseum and the Sports Arena from the Coliseum Commission, but now USC has more control as they have agreed to assume more of the day-to-day operations involving the Coliseum. I don't know if it was in the finalized version of the agreement between the 2 parties, but it does note this..

6.3
Olympic Events
. Tenant shall make the Coliseum Property available for Events related to any Olympics hosted in the County of Los Angeles, subject to the negotiation of costs, required modifications to the Premises (including the temporary re-installation of track and field facilities), restoration of the Premises after the Olympic games by the relevant Organizing Committee, and other business issues to be negotiated with the organizers of such Events.

Obviously that doesn't mention anything in terms of a timetable, but that USC is now more directly involved in running the show at the Coliseum, I imagine they'd have something to say about transforming the Coliseum on such short notice. So it's not like the Coliseum Commission can just toss USC out of the building like that or at least without compensating them for the removal of thousands of the best seats for at least 1, probably 2 or more football seasons in order to make an Olympics work there.

Well, so there it is. Plus, USC would be involved in a big way anyway, with another Olympic bidding and hosting as well. So, there would be no problem...whether short or long-term notice. Both parties understand they may have no control over a timetable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 despite the deadlines that were looming scarily large in 2002. I can't imagine the IOC letting a host city get into a Delhi-esque mess. If LA is rejected it'll be for other reasons. The IOC isn't going to reject a host city because they might provide a useful (almost certainly never to be called upon) insurance.

  • Like 2
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...