Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

I still answered your question didn't I? Rome didn't want the 1908 Games because of the natural disaster. How could their organizers have foreseen them hosting in 1960? When TWO World Wars came about in the meantime as well? So it wasn't really a raincheck. They simply bid again with a new organizing committee and won. Denver would no doubt do the same, this time of course ensuring the IOC that they won't back down. Similar to Lake Placid's assurances to the USOC for 1980 (even though they were the only bidders).

How exactly does a city ensure that? You can take steps to mitigate that factor, but I understand where that would be in the back of the voters' minds should a Denver bid get that far. I think there's a false equivalency to say that because it happened before that it might happen there again. As if circumstances are the same now as they were 40+ years ago. To that end..

I think that if Munich had been a roaring, happy success, far more Coloradans would have bought into the Olympic dream. And yes, spiralling costs do make it less likely for any city to be interested in hosting, as we are currently being made very much aware.

The environment was an issue in 1972, certainly, but by itself it could have been handled (a well-thought-out environmental plan could actually have had legacy benefits of its own). That vote was about allocating state tax dollars, and the voters very loudly said NO.

Bullshit that it was about tax dollars. Money was the least of the concern. That amendment they shot down was over a matter of $5 million. As if that small amount was what did them in. Or any lingering perceptions over Munich. Again, I think you're looking at history from the wrong perspective.

I certainly can't claim personal history of what happened then, but I like to think I've read up on the events surrounding what happened. Take a look at this story from a few years ago.. The Olympics that weren’t

That gives a lot of good background on what happened with Denver. It also helps illustrate how vastly different their situation is now than it was during the 1970s. baron (who, with all due respect, lacks a lot of objectivity here.. and you know that) and others seem to think that the IOC still holds a grudge and will hold it against them. Maybe that's true. But to make Denver out to be a non-starter simply because of the history just doesn't ring true to me. We've discussed this here plenty of times before (and will continue to do so because, well, that's what we do), but if you really want to assess Denver's chances, and obviously it's a total hypothetical until the USOC shows interest in a Winter bid, learn the history before before you bury them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet you've argued before that Rome is automatically disqualified from winning any future hostings because they withdrew their 2020 bid after, gasp!, they made a bid book!.

His double-standards are absolutely amazing, aren't they. Makes the IOC will "punish" Rome for bailing on 2020 even more laughable after reading that.

Was the bid book bound with ribbons or spirals?!

It had a fancy-schmancy bid book cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to ruin the topic drift with actual discussion of USA 2024, but..

U.S. Olympic bid picking up momentum and support

(Reuters) – The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) gave the clearest indication yet that it will make a pitch for the 2024 Summer Games, saying on Friday that next year it hoped to be in the final stages of preparing a bid.

After stunning rebukes to New York to host the 2012 Olympics and Chicago’s failed attempt for the 2016 Games the USOC has taken a cautious and methodical approach in its latest effort to land the sporting world’s biggest prize.

But prudence has slowly given way to confidence and the overwhelming buzz around the USOC’s annual general assembly that wrapped up Friday was that America’s time to stage a Games again has come.

“A year from now, hopefully we’ll be in the final stages of preparing a bid for the 2024 Games,” USOC chief executive Scott Blackmun told a receptive audience of sporting delegates. “We’re excited because the last time we hosted a Summer Games was 1996 which means there is a whole generation of Americans who haven’t been able to see the (Summer) Olympic Games on American soil and that is very, very important for us.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that has helped me enjoy this site more is reading all of Barons posts as outbursts of sarcasm...try it sometime, it works.


Sorry to ruin the topic drift with actual discussion of USA 2024, but..

U.S. Olympic bid picking up momentum and support

Really...you mean we're going to have to wait longer to see which city they pick?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to ruin the topic drift with actual discussion of USA 2024, but..

U.S. Olympic bid picking up momentum and support

Right, cuz this article would've been much more appropriate in the Beijing/Zhangjiakou 2022 thread, wouldn't it. :P Never mind that the topic thrift started by some of you guys talking about a hypothetical Denver WINTER bid anyway.

I think RSA has broadly hinted to the USOC that Durban will stay away for 2024; hence this bold statement from the USOC.

Yeah, primarily the "there is no Beijing out there, they were the 800 pound gorilla, the writing was on the wall that the Games had to go to China, so there is nobody like that out there". Especially when some people on here like to argue that hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to Beijing 2008. Apparently, this person in the article has never heard key senior IOC members, & other big sports officials, speak about on the importance of taking the Games to Africa sometime in the near future rather than later. Either they already know that South Africa is going to sit this one out, otherwise, those are very BOLD words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet you've argued before that Rome is automatically disqualified from winning any future hostings because they withdrew their 2020 bid after, gasp!, they made a bid book!.

No, I merely said that Rome was stupid to produce a bid book then bail last minute. If they go the whole way in 2024, they will make the candidate stage but won't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I merely said that Rome was stupid to produce a bid book then bail last minute. If they go the whole way in 2024, they will make the candidate stage but won't win.

Seriously - HOW DO YOU KNOW? Methods, please?

These crystal ball experts are really sucking the joy out of this site... What is with all the absolute statements? Some people need to add 'perhaps', 'could', 'maybe' and 'possibly' to their vocabulary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I merely said that Rome was stupid to produce a bid book then bail last minute. If they go the whole way in 2024, they will make the candidate stage but won't win.

Really? I would say it was smart planning. The team prepared for a yes by the prime minister, but go a no. If you ask me that is planning ahead, imagine how embarrassing it would have been if he said yes and they did not have a file ready to go?

Oh and one more thing: Can I have what your smoking because with all these predictions I could pass any test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That amendment they shot down was over a matter of $5 million. As if that small amount was what did them in. Or any lingering perceptions over Munich.

Lingering? The massacre was on 5 September, the vote was on 7 November.

And the £5 million was just a nominal amount, of course. Experience suggested that the full amount the state would have to spend could not even be calculated within a 300% margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I would say it was smart planning. The team prepared for a yes by the prime minister, but go a no. If you ask me that is planning ahead, imagine how embarrassing it would have been if he said yes and they did not have a file ready to go?

Not to mention that when the bid was being prepared, then PM Berluaconi was all onboard. It wasn't 'til he resigned & Monti became the new 'austerity measuring' PM that the Olympic bid became into serious questioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously - HOW DO YOU KNOW? Methods, please?

These crystal ball experts are really sucking the joy out of this site... What is with all the absolute statements? Some people need to add 'perhaps', 'could', 'maybe' and 'possibly' to their vocabulary.

3 simple letters.. IMO. I know some people think that's implied, but not so much.

And I wouldn't even call it crystal ball experts. To me, still more like Magic 8 Ball experts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I merely said that Rome was stupid to produce a bid book then bail last minute. If they go the whole way in 2024, they will make the candidate stage but won't win.

I seriously don't understand how some People can write off Rome 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, but think Almaty can Host the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics.

This sounds like one of Tony's notorious "predictions".

Trust Me, I think differently to Him with Rome 2024. Rome withdrawing from 2020 won't affect Rome 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously don't understand how some People can write off Rome 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, but think Almaty can Host the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics.

Trust Me, I think differently to Him with Rome 2024. Rome withdrawing from 2020 won't affect Rome 2024.

Almaty can host the 2022 Winter Olympics. They have most of the venues already there and the previous experience. Not to mention that they're willing to spend those billions that other cities/nations are not.

If there were more credible bidders than maybe Almaty wouldn't win this time, but there isn't.

As for Rome, as long as there's plenty of credible bidders, which there should be, that's more than enough to have Rome come last in the actual vote.

Edited by Lord David
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Rome, as long as there's plenty of credible bidders, which there should be, that's more than enough to have Rome come last in the actual vote.

Two years ago, many thought that there would be "plenty" of credible bidders for 2022. The all-out European "cat fight, winter version" of the 2012 race, as I recall it. The same could be said of 2024 now the way things are shaping up.

Paris is iffy at best at this point & Madrid has already said no to a 2024 bid (& it's not like they'd be in any better position than Rome anyway). And I can't see the IOC going to Russia again so soon after the PR fiasco that was Sochi 2014, not to mention their rogue politics as of late. South Africa is ambivalent. Berlin (or Hamburg) is far from a given either. And Asia is definitely out for 2024 (especially after today's big Olympic blowout news, & by default the Olympics are going yet again to Asia for 2022 [unless of course all you're left with is Asian bidders again for 2024]).

So who are all these "plenty of credible bidders" that you're talking about that you can make such a staunch claim against Rome like that. So after going through all the 'credible' possibilities, which all have their issues in going forward TBW, then that leaves only the U.S. And even there, I'd still say that Rome could hold it's own, especially going up against a three-peat wannabe like L.A.

Not to mention that they're willing to spend those billions that other cities/nations are not.

If there were more credible bidders than maybe Almaty wouldn't win this time, but there isn't.

Beijing is also very willing, since they're still in the race. So it's not like Almaty is left to compete with Lviv or hah, Lake Placid! :-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were the IOC, I'd pick LA over Rome in a heartbeat.

Italy is still struggling economically and is known for graft and corruption. The three-cycles out of Europe is no argument because now we've got three consecutive Games in Asia and Europe is CLEARLY disenchanted with the IOC.

By contrast, the Americans have been bending over backwards to win the IOC's favor. Turning down a third consecutive American bid (from the only one of the top three cities the IOC hasn't already rejected) would alienate the Americans and trample on the good faith they have shown with the revenue deal, renewed leadership, etc. If ever there was a time the IOC needed the US in their corner, this is it. Plus, LA looks very likely to produce fun, innovative, cost-effective and profitable Games.

To me it's a no-brainer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a Europe only problem right now. There doesn't seem to be too much anti-Olympic bid sentiment in the Americas or Asia or Oceania for that matter.

Well, do you really think that the IOC is going to be all that gung-ho in Asia after having three consecutive Olympics there (unless of course, like I said earlier, all they have is Asian bidders again). I'm sure after today news, the IOC is going to do all that they can to try & win their European base back ASAP.

And when you say "Americas", you really mean just the United States (since they're the only ones currently "exploring" the possibilities on this side of the world. It's not like South America is going to get another go so soon). And which the USOC still is yet to give the green light on a 2024 bid for that matter.

And when you also say "Oceania", it really means just Australia as far as the Summer Olympics are concerned. And even in that case when we get some news from down under on about a bid, it's generally for quite a bit far off like in the 2030's at the earliest. And even then, it's just mere small talk ATM. So no opportunity for any real opposition for the time being. What's really the point in saying "NO" as loud as you can at such a premature time. There really isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^The Americas also includes Canada. There's still some appetite to host here. Toronto recently completed an eval for 2024. They said no, but the interest was there. And a lot of folks in Quebec City and Calgary wouldn't mind having the Winter Games.

And yes, Oceania means Australia. Regardless of how far down the road the rumblings are about, there's still interest and some faith in the Olympic movement being shown there.

Edited by ofan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Interest" still doesn't equal a bid, though. You just said yourself, your city looked into it & then took a pass on 2024. Is the COC actively exploring the possibilities that you're speaking of like the USOC currently is?

Stockholm, Munich, Rome, Switzerland, Poland & even Oslo were all "interested" in bidding at one point. But look how all that interest turned out in the end. Until the time actually comes & the firm commitment is actually founded, any talk of "interest" in bidding is just that.. talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the problem with Europe is solely the IOC, Granted they made some big blunders they also had some big triumphs. I think the one thing that is really breaking these bids is the European economy. It has been in recession for the past six years and is showing no signs of be revived any time soon. With such a bleak economic and political outlook I probably would view the games as a waste of time, money, and resources too.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...