Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

San Francisco and Boston are talked about because they have major challenges in trying to get a major stadium built.

Washington DC already has a site for its main stadium. (RFK Stadium.) We just haven't heard anything about what they would use the stadium for after the games or how they would fund it. There isn't much to argue about.

Well, if this was the standard, then we wouldn't be talking about LA, either. But we are.

"Speculation" are what these boards are all about. But there's quite a difference between 'mere' speculation, & speculation based on what we already know. The amount of "talk" certain cities get here is neither here nor there, either.

We know that both SFC & DC are bureaucratic messes. And DC in particularly would especially be, since it would require total cooperation between two states & a distinct district. A tall order in itself. I don't see neither of these two as the USOC's final pick.

DC would also need to work with a rather difficult Congress, which essentially lords over the District. It would be one thing to authorize federal funds for security at an LA Games, it would be an entirely different thing for some of these guys to create the impression that they were spending billions in taxpayer money to host Georgetown cocktail parties for the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well, if this was the standard, then we wouldn't be talking about LA, either. But we are.

Los Angeles (temporarily) released details of their plans, and there has been discussion for years about adding an NFL stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late this year or early next year. But they will most likely have another cut where they eliminate 2 cities.

What are you basing that on? I haven't read anywhere that they plan to make another cut before announcing the candidate (if there is a candidate).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people have said it in multiple forums, and also multiple articles state USOC will make their decision on whether or not to bid for 2024.


sorry I miss read it, the USOC said back in May maybe or April that they want to cut the candidates down to two or three cities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people have said it in multiple forums, and also multiple articles state USOC will make their decision on whether or not to bid for 2024.

sorry I miss read it, the USOC said back in May maybe or April that they want to cut the candidates down to two or three cities

Of course they're going to make a decision on whether or not to bid on 2024. How mind-numbingly obvious can you get?

I still don't see where you've gotten this notion that they are going to cut the shortlist again before picking the candidate. I have seen nothing to substantiate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people have said it in multiple forums, and also multiple articles state USOC will make their decision on whether or not to bid for 2024.

sorry I miss read it, the USOC said back in May maybe or April that they want to cut the candidates down to two or three cities

Oh well, many people in multiple forums.. because people in forums certainly know what they're talking about.

So when the USOC said they wanted to go down to 2 or 3 cities, was that before or after they announced the initial shortlist of 4? They've already gone from 7 to 4. Are they formally going to go from 4 to either 3 or 2? Or would it be more like the USOC to more informally stop working with 1 or more of the cities they decide they're no longer interested in? Don't assume it's their stated goal to get to a specific number. They already made a shortlist. I don't see them making another shortlist from this shortlist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For 2012, there were initially eight U.S. cities vying for the USOC nomination. Then the USOC went on to 'short-list' four of them. Then they went further & made another cut of two finalists (New York & San Francisco) later on. So there's precedence. Before the 2024 USOC short-list was made, it was expected that Dallas would be part of that equation, based on that they seemed to have all of their bases covered. But they were cut.

On Friday, the USOC is to "meet" with the four U.S. cities that they did short-list. So it's not totally inconceivable, that at some point, if the USOC feels that some of the remaining cities still can't get their acts together, that there can't be any further cuts. Especially in SFC's & WDC's case, where their plans are so much more in the air, & never seem to pick up any steam, unlike L.A., for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the "most likely" aside from the one poster, "absolutely no reason" is also an extreme in the other direction, akin to "impossible". Because there IS plausibility that the USOC could trim more of the fat. With all their talk all along, that they won't want this 2024 process to be unnecessarily expensive for cities that just won't cut the mustard in the end, then why continue to the contrary if there's still not the ingredients of a "winnable" bid from some of these remaining cities. So it wouldn't be that surprising if there was another trim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC hasn't kept their word of "two to three" short listed cities. Could that be a possible hint of another short list? It could mean that they're willing to see if one of the cities can make something. It's plausible but definitely not the most possible idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that strange. The fact there's a long thread on Boston isn't because they're more interesting or news-worthy than the other candidates. It's more that there are a number of people here that want to discuss it. Similarly, San Francisco only got brought up because someone decided to mention them. There don't seem to be any DC supporters here. Even LA only seems to get mentioned these days in the context of other bids.

I'm a DC supporter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, can you DC supporters explain what DC has going for it. It's the capital of the US and has a few icon buildings (that won't be incorporated into the games). What else?

Like you said, has a great backdrop. Also, it has a very good spot for an olympic park and village.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you said, has a great backdrop. Also, it has a very good spot for an olympic park and village.

For a stadium and Olympic park, maybe. For a village? I'm not so convinced about that. But yes, the politics of DC make this extremely difficult at best. I don't think the narrative is enough to overcome that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, can you DC supporters explain what DC has going for it. It's the capital of the US and has a few icon buildings (that won't be incorporated into the games). What else?

They have a site for an Olympic Park. It's not much, but it's more than Boston and San Francisco have right now.

Just bcuz DC may have a 'good spot' for the stadium & the village, doesn't necessarily mean that they also have the other means to make it happen. DC isn't exactly known for cohesive politics.

Neither are Boston and San Francisco, though. All of those three seem like extreme long shots. What's perplexing to me is the fact that the USOC could theoretically choose a bidder without getting approval from the local government. There's a part of me that would love to see them choose Boston and then have the city and state vote no on funding and whatever land use plan they choose for the stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither are Boston and San Francisco, though. All of those three seem like extreme long shots.

And I'm not arguing nor disagreeing with that. But DC was singled out in the last few posts by some posters. And as a matter of fact, I also mentioned San Francisco in my earlier posts in this thread as also not be very convincing as far as coming up with a credible plan anytime soon.

Of the three though, I'm willing to give Boston the most benefit of the doubt. They at least seem to be exploring their options more thoroughly, which is more than I say for SFC & WDC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have a site for an Olympic Park. It's not much, but it's more than Boston and San Francisco have right now.

Neither are Boston and San Francisco, though. All of those three seem like extreme long shots. What's perplexing to me is the fact that the USOC could theoretically choose a bidder without getting approval from the local government. There's a part of me that would love to see them choose Boston and then have the city and state vote no on funding and whatever land use plan they choose for the stadium.

Why would the USOC shoot themselves in the foot like that? It doesn't make any sense. I really don't know why you would want to see it happen either. Based on everything the USOC has done so far, it seems like there are way too smart to do something so supremely stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...