intoronto Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 How convenient for Toronto. Who puts forward a 'near-perfect' bid anyway, and who are you to prescribe that expectation on South Africa when it is not expected of other nations - Brazil case in point. Yea eight years after 2024 (2032 a year you think Toronto should wait till) vs South Africa. Totally convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Yea eight years after 2024 (2032 a year you think Toronto should wait till) vs South Africa. Totally convenient. 8 is realistic. 20 is absurd (as he mentioned). No way the African continent is waiting until 2044. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 LA can certainly contend for a very strong bid along with New York and Chicago but those two aren't biding. I believe that LAs bus will be strong along with San Francisco's or DCs maybe. Based on what do you think will make their bid weak I'm basing it on the fact that the 2 largest cities in the country are out of the running (1 definitely, the other more than likely) and the other options may or may not have the goods. Los Angeles maybe can put a fresh Olympic face on their city, but if they're going up against Durban or Paris or other cities in Europe that haven't had an Olympics in the past 30 years, almost by default those other bids will be stronger. This is a competition where there are a lot of intangibles and the geopolitics certainly do not favor a USOC bid. Again, the fact that Toronto dropped out of the running where they had a lot more focus is probably a very telling sign over what they think their chances are. I know there are other circumstances involved, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSG1 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Toronto didn't bid for one very simple reason. WE CAN NOT AFFORD IT. It's not that we don't want to host it, but no one here wishes to even try to bid and THAT IS A FACT. The Pan American bids have probably made it possible that an Olympic bid will never happen in this city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Toronto didn't bid for one very simple reason. WE CAN NOT AFFORD IT. It's not that we don't want to host it, but no one here wishes to even try to bid and THAT IS A FACT. The Pan American bids have probably made it possible that an Olympic bid will never happen in this city. Yea an expo at $3 billion is more affordable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 It's TOO expensive for a city like Toronto. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Yea an expo at $3 billion is more affordable. You do it the Brisbane way (or mostly). You get the nations involved to fund their own pavilions, just provide the suitable land to host the event, and add some of your own infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic Fan Darcy Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 South Africa should bid for the 2022 commonwealth games. (they'd win hands down and it would be the first comm games in Africa) They could then bid for 2028... the host city would be announced a year before the comm games but if the preparations are on track it could work in there favor. Or wait for 2032 and see if the games were a success or not. Or simply just bid for 2024 and see how it goes. What would I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I'm basing it on the fact that the 2 largest cities in the country are out of the running (1 definitely, the other more than likely) and the other options may or may not have the goods. Los Angeles maybe can put a fresh Olympic face on their city, but if they're going up against Durban or Paris or other cities in Europe that haven't had an Olympics in the past 30 years, almost by default those other bids will be stronger. This is a competition where there are a lot of intangibles and the geopolitics certainly do not favor a USOC bid. Again, the fact that Toronto dropped out of the running where they had a lot more focus is probably a very telling sign over what they think their chances are. I know there are other circumstances involved, but still.I think based in the USOC race, the top three cities that come down are going to be DC LA and San fransisco. And as regards to your comment about LA hosting as a third time, how is paris going to do this too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I think based in the USOC race, the top three cities that come down are going to be DC LA and San fransisco. And as regards to your comment about LA hosting as a third time, how is paris going to do this too? FORGET San Francisco. Unless some outsider pays for the Olympic Stadium, the people of SF will NOT fund the IOC's party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I think based in the USOC race, the top three cities that come down are going to be DC LA and San fransisco. And as regards to your comment about LA hosting as a third time, how is paris going to do this too? Oh for crying out loud.. why do people actually think that's a valid comparison? Are you seriously equating Los Angeles who last hosted in 1984 to Paris who last hosted in 1924? What is it about people being obsessed with this third time host concept as if these 2 cities are comparable in that regard? Los Angeles has hosted twice since Paris last hosted. The problem with LA is that there's a lot of IOC members out there old enough to remember those 1984 Olympics. Successful as they were, how does Los Angeles present another Olympics that are unique and distinct from the last one? That's the challenge they have and if they can't figure that one out, they're doomed to failure. Paris has no such problem. You'd have to be almost 100 years old to have any memory of their last Olympics. Likewise with London.. their previous 2 Olympics came in 1908 where they stepped in for Rome and in 1948 where they were picking up the pieces from WWII. That's a completely different scenario that asking a city in relatively recent memory to offer themselves up as host again. Unless they can put a new face on the Olympics, I don't see LA having a real shot at winning. I know the 2020 vote was one about choosing a safer more reliable host, but unless LA is up against equally weak competition in 2024, their odds of winning are slim to none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Oh for crying out loud.. why do people actually think that's a valid comparison? Are you seriously equating Los Angeles who last hosted in 1984 to Paris who last hosted in 1924? What is it about people being obsessed with this third time host concept as if these 2 cities are comparable in that regard? Los Angeles has hosted twice since Paris last hosted. It's called the teenage, newbie syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 It's called the teenage, newbie syndrome. I know, was just trying to be kind and not point it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Why would you assume my thoughts are based on something in my personal life? I have nothing against South Africa personally or nothing against Africa at all and I have said in the past that I would love to see the Olympic Games there. But I don't believe they are ready. Not now. Their time will come but with all the things I just don't see it being 2024. My opinion based on my observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 It was mainly made in jest, but it does seem like you have a very big bias making your 'observation' for whatever reason. Many proponents of South Africa also are making their opinion based on observation, so I don't understand why you're being so vehement when it's not as cut-&-dry as you're trying to portray it. Many said the same types of things when Brazil & China were bidding, but that didn't mean anything in the end. Again, what country ever provides a "near perfect bid", & why make that only a criteria for South Africa & no one else. It's statements like that, that clearly make it seem that you're just against (South) Africa no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Oh for crying out loud.. why do people actually think that's a valid comparison? Are you seriously equating Los Angeles who last hosted in 1984 to Paris who last hosted in 1924? What is it about people being obsessed with this third time host concept as if these 2 cities are comparable in that regard? Los Angeles has hosted twice since Paris last hosted. What about dc you haven't said anything about the olympics in dc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 What about dc you haven't said anything about the olympics in dc The DC plan is far toooo spread out between DC, Baltimore & Annapolis. It's more a regional bid that a one-city bid AND there are far TOO MANY security considerations for a DC bid. That's how the USOC rejected DC in the 2012 and 2016 domestic competitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 The DC plan is far toooo spread out between DC, Baltimore & Annapolis. It's more a regional bid that a one-city bid AND there are far TOO MANY security considerations for a DC bid. That's how the USOC rejected DC in the 2012 and 2016 domestic competitions. I agree with that, it is to spread out. But dc can probably host it within the city Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 DC's problem isn't security (they already have much security in place, so that's actually a positive for them) but government control. DC isn't allowed to govern itself. It has to get permission from congress for anything. Way, way too much red tape to get done what needs doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 What about dc you haven't said anything about the olympics in dc I've said plenty about the Olympics in DC. zeke beat me to it, but that. Congress (and by congress, we mean representatives of every other state in the union) has the ultimate authority over the Washington, DC and can overturn any decision made by the council that governs the city. Hence the license plates that read "taxation without representation." So in order for DC to bid for the Olympics, they'd need to come up with a plan approved by the city and then to have congress not overrule them. Is this possible? Sure, but the burden on them is much greater than on other cities who can ask their state to back them. DC can do no such thing. As such, even the best venue/security plan probably isn't going to cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I've said plenty about the Olympics in DC. zeke beat me to it, but that. Congress (and by congress, we mean representatives of every other state in the union) has the ultimate authority over the Washington, DC and can overturn any decision made by the council that governs the city. Hence the license plates that read "taxation without representation." So in order for DC to bid for the Olympics, they'd need to come up with a plan approved by the city and then to have congress not overrule them. Is this possible? Sure, but the burden on them is much greater than on other cities who can ask their state to back them. DC can do no such thing. As such, even the best venue/security plan probably isn't going to cut it.Thats bs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Thats bs Which part? Congress has supreme authority over the District of Columbia. Now if you want to argue what would happen if DC were to bid for an Olympics and there was large sums of money involved, go right ahead. But Congress DOES have the ability to overturn local laws and exercise their oversight over the city. That's not a debatable point. That's a simple fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Which part? Congress has supreme authority over the District of Columbia. Now if you want to argue what would happen if DC were to bid for an Olympics and there was large sums of money involved, go right ahead. But Congress DOES have the ability to overturn local laws and exercise their oversight over the city. That's not a debatable point. That's a simple fact.Just the part that congress has ruling over dc. I think that it should just be the mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Just the part that congress has ruling over dc. I think that it should just be the mayor. Again, it's not a matter of should, that was a statement of fact. Many DC residents would probably agree with you on that point. Doesn't change the fact that it's true. Only because of the nature of these forums, I feel obligated to ask.. how old are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Again, it's not a matter of should, that was a statement of fact. Many DC residents would probably agree with you on that point. Doesn't change the fact that it's true. Only because of the nature of these forums, I feel obligated to ask.. how old are you? Why does this matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.