Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

Are you antsy because you think the USOC needs to make a decision sooner rather than later? Or is this just that this is all a long, drawn out process and you're just impatient? I know we're sitting here saying to ourselves "why can't they make a decision already" and yes, maybe they don't need all 4 cities still to be in the running. But it's not like they're intentionally fucking with us by making us wait for a decision.

I think they need to at least cut the list down. At this point it should be obvious who the strongest and who the weakest candidates are and I would like to see the USOC acknowledge that rather than keep leading on cities that simply are not up to snuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they need to at least cut the list down. At this point it should be obvious who the strongest and who the weakest candidates are and I would like to see the USOC acknowledge that rather than keep leading on cities that simply are not up to snuff.

How do you know what they know? I think the final four have an equal number of negatives and positives. I am sure the USOC is weighing them against which other candidates might be declaring in the time remaining. Besides, what's the rush? The event is still NINE years away??? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is assuming that all four U.S. cities are logistically on equal footing, which I don't believe for a second that they are. At the very least one, or two of them, have to be far ahead than the rest of the pack. So it really doesn't matter what the international competition might be if a couple of the U.S. 2024 cities are not up to snuff in te first place. All one has to do is look at New York 2012 for precedence.

Doesn't matter if the competition is Paris, Berlin, Rome, or Baku & Doha, but if a San Francisco bid for example, is very weak logistically in several categories, then it won't matter in the least in the end anyway. Yet a very strong Los Angeles bid could go far in either 2024 bid race scenario.

I think they need to at least cut the list down. At this point it should be obvious who the strongest and who the weakest candidates are and I would like to see the USOC acknowledge that rather than keep leading on cities that simply are not up to snuff.

There is some validity to the idea that maybe some of the US candidates would fare differently depending on who the competition is. But that sounds better in theory than it would in practice. Nor do I think if behooves the USOC to think along those lines.

The USOC has already said they're bidding. If they have a change of heart on that one at some point before the application deadline, nothing wrong with that. I still find it hard to believe that all 4 cities are on equal footing at this point.

No; but the USOC is doing the local vetting for weaknesses and is presumed to present the strongest candidate that can withstand the strongest competition that might arise. If the USOC knows its marbles and feels that none is up to snuff, then they skip this round.

How do you know what they know? I think the final four have an equal number of negatives and positives. I am sure the USOC is weighing them against which other candidates might be declaring in the time remaining. Besides, what's the rush? The event is still NINE years away??? :blink:

The flip side of that.. what's the hold up? I know some here are antsy in the pantsy and need to know the USOC's choice sooner rather than later. But is the USOC really waiting to see who the competition is? They already said they're bidding. Sure, they can pull back if they don't like what they're seeing from the competition, but that's a separate matter from choosing their potential candidate city. If they're vetting is based on finding the candidate that can withstand the competition, it doesn't make sense to sit and wait to see who that competition is because will it really make a difference?

And yes, the event is 9 years away. The application deadline is only a few months away. Not sure what additional information they're looking for and they're expecting to get in the next few weeks that will help them make their decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about...support surveys?

They're just doing that now? It's been 7 months since they picked these 4 cities. They probably had the sense that a decision might have been made last month, so they had to be ready to go with whatever the USOC needs to make that decision. That was 6 months after the 4 city shortlist. What were they waiting for to do something like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're just doing that now? It's been 7 months since they picked these 4 cities. They probably had the sense that a decision might have been made last month, so they had to be ready to go with whatever the USOC needs to make that decision. That was 6 months after the 4 city shortlist. What were they waiting for to do something like that?

That's the only thing I haven't seen anything on. I hope they haven't forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't image a scenario where you would logically think something like, "If Berlin is in, we nominate Boston, if not, we nominate DC." You need to pick your best city and run with it. Nah, I suspect this is just a case of it's easier to delay a decision than to make one.

What's wrong with waiting? Your chosen city isn't doing everything they can, because they don't know if they will be chosen. Meanwhile, three other cities are wasting time and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the only thing I haven't seen anything on. I hope they haven't forgotten.

I doubt they have. And if there's 1 or more of the cities out there that hasn't considered that, I'm sure the USOC is taking notice and has either prodded them to get a general sense of how much support their bid will have and/or is holding it against them that they haven't done their homework. It's not like these bid cities have been working in secret. As much as the USOC has tried to suppress some information and keep these guys in check, it's well known who the 4 cities are and we've all started to get a sense of what they have to offer. Not that we have all the details, but I would hope at this point they do.

There's a fine line at this point between saying how the USOC needs to make a decision sooner rather than later because it's in their best interests (and/or dropping 1 or more cities from consideration) and those here who are sitting in the back of the car like impatient kids saying "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" The thing for me right now is that they've declared they're bidding. Which means clearly they're convinced they have at least 1 city they feel comfortable bidding with. So at this point, you would think they're ready to make the jump to where they've announced that city and are getting them ready for battle, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt they have. And if there's 1 or more of the cities out there that hasn't considered that, I'm sure the USOC is taking notice and has either prodded them to get a general sense of how much support their bid will have and/or is holding it against them that they haven't done their homework. It's not like these bid cities have been working in secret. As much as the USOC has tried to suppress some information and keep these guys in check, it's well known who the 4 cities are and we've all started to get a sense of what they have to offer. Not that we have all the details, but I would hope at this point they do.

There's a fine line at this point between saying how the USOC needs to make a decision sooner rather than later because it's in their best interests (and/or dropping 1 or more cities from consideration) and those here who are sitting in the back of the car like impatient kids saying "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" The thing for me right now is that they've declared they're bidding. Which means clearly they're convinced they have at least 1 city they feel comfortable bidding with. So at this point, you would think they're ready to make the jump to where they've announced that city and are getting them ready for battle, so to speak.

Well, also remember that the Agenda 2020 items were only approved a week BEFORE the USOC met December 16. So I am sure they are parsing that...and sifting through various scenarios that the 4 finalists are now going thru to refine their bids, including some Agenda 2020 clauses, and still present strong bids. I think that's the last puzzle to the piece.

Or maybe cut back on some items now to present a modest proposal; and when the other finalists are known, be capable of restoring a full plate to bolster the bid -- after all, it appears that with the 2024 selection process, the IOC will be consulting, refining, etc., with the finalists on the road to the vote.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, also remember that the Agenda 2020 items were only approved a week BEFORE the USOC met December 16. So I am sure they are parsing that...and sifting through various scenarios that the 4 finalists are now going thru to refine their bids, including some Agenda 2020 clauses, and still present strong bids. I think that's the last puzzle to the piece.

Or maybe cut back on some items now to present a modest proposal; and when the other finalists are known, be capable of restoring a full plate to bolster the bid.

That's actually a very fair point. I don't know how much these bids will necessarily be affected by Agenda 2020, especially since they already have some pretty extensive plans in the works. Nor do I know if this is a game changer in terms of the USOC's internal process to choose a candidate. We're talking a lot here about how Agenda 2020 means major changes in bidding, but I'm not sure that's the case. And even when the USOC does select a city, there's 2 1/2 years to craft their bid and make improvements to it. If there's a response to other candidates, that's the time to make those changes.. once the competition is known, not now when it's being speculated on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's actually a very fair point. I don't know how much these bids will necessarily be affected by Agenda 2020, especially since they already have some pretty extensive plans in the works. Nor do I know if this is a game changer in terms of the USOC's internal process to choose a candidate. We're talking a lot here about how Agenda 2020 means major changes in bidding, but I'm not sure that's the case. And even when the USOC does select a city, there's 2 1/2 years to craft their bid and make improvements to it. If there's a response to other candidates, that's the time to make those changes.. once the competition is known, not now when it's being speculated on.

Yeah, I am sure our four (the US) IOC members barely got home on Dec 10 or 11, before they had to get ready and meet with the 4 cities on Dec. 16. So Probst, De Frantz, Easton and Ruggiero are pooling the new IOC info with the rest of the USOC board and still talking to the cities to see where the Agenda 2020 items can improve their bids as of 12-16-2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt they have. And if there's 1 or more of the cities out there that hasn't considered that, I'm sure the USOC is taking notice and has either prodded them to get a general sense of how much support their bid will have and/or is holding it against them that they haven't done their homework.

>>> Considering that there are almost no details, and hasn't been any signifianct public discussion, how can there be any meaningful polling on public support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if the USOC decision really is taken on Thursday, maybe time to state everyone's own choice?

As a complete outsider who has never been to any of the cities concerned and not knowing too much about their infrastructure (general and sports), businesses etc., I would probably decide just very shallowly on what I think would be the nicest place to visit for two weeks - and I think there's more than just the odd IOC member out there who also doesn't care about bid books and details and just wants to spend their time at a nice location.

Looking at the four USOC candidates, this can only mean San Francisco for me. An East Coast Olympics would be nice, but I guess Boston would always be in NYC's shadow from a global perspective and seen as a secondary choice (as was Manchester for the UK in the 2000 race). Washington internationally (and nationally?) stands for all kinds of politics, and LA may be a great location, but it's been done twice before, while SF would be a new and iconic host city. And with SF in the ring, the USOC could easily face the likes of Rome, Paris, (Berlin) etc.

Just my uneducated opinion on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know who I want. DC could be nice but people view it as just politics. I think that Boston's lack of experience will be weighed against it considering its going up against all US bids with experience (not necessarily internationally) and also going up against other candidates who all have experience. Even though Boston is compact and has existing venues, some of their college venues are very old also Boston2024 faces very tough opposition from No Boston Olympics. Finally San Francisco. My second choice, the opposition group in SF is getting stronger but their is something about San Fran that make me fascinated. I don't know whether it's the beauty or not. I think that LA will present the strongest bid out of the four. LA symbolizes Agenda 2020 perfectly. Using existing venues, the revitalization of the LA river, and now the IOC doesn't care too much if the bid is spread out. Oh and the weather B) . People might think eh LA hosted twice, but so has Paris, even though the last time Paris hosted was in 1924. LA has dramatically changed in the last 30 years, especially the downtown area. Overall I obviously want the 2024 Olympics in America, so I want a winning bid, and the one I see doing that is LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read in-between lines from Larry Probst, it seems informally, his IOC colleagues are intrigued by San Francisco...which is totally understandable since it is the 'most European' of North American cities. So, despite the letter that idiot Chris Daly sent the USOC (OK, it was to clarify certain things), I think SF can still present the best challenge to Paris or Berlin, probably the 2 other strongest bids, if they come forward with those, in that it is a fresh, new face to the IOC....whereas P and B are ex-hosts, much like LA is. If Durban is in, then it will be between the US city and Durban...and I think we all know who will win that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^So what happened to your Reno winter wet dream all of the sudden?! :-P

But quite frankly, if the USOC chooses San Francisco as their candidate, they'd be doing so whimsically & would contradict all of their rhetoric for the past two years with this process. There's still so many question marks with them than with with any of the others, barring DC. And they don't fit the agenda 2020 angle as nicely as their competition directly to the south does. So if the IOC is really serious about their new "reforms", then it won't matter if a previous U.S. host becomes the next U.S. candidate.

And to the mention by someone earlier that there's the odd IOC member that doesn't care for bid books & details, there's just as many, if not more, IOC members that actually do care about those things & could easily just choose a more solid Paris or Berlin bid versus a not-so solid San Francisco one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^So what happened to your Reno winter wet dream all of the sudden?! :-P

What kinda question is that? :blink: Obviously, it's not Reno's time, so I don't harp on it. I only did so when there was a chance the USOC might go for a Winter bid. What do you think I am, a Tony? :rolleyes:

LA is just a little too soon after 1984; thus Paris and Berlin would have the edge in being repeat hosts since their last outing was before WW2.

And obviously, whatever decision the USOC makes on Thursday is what they think is the best bid. I/you/we may not agree but that is the reality of things.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And obviously, whatever decision the USOC makes on Thursday is what they think is the best bid. I/you/we may not agree but that is the reality of things.

Obviously, but that still doesn't refrain us to state what we think on the matter here on gamesbids of all places.

You've stated yourself that if they city was chosen as the candidate, then all the NIMBY's would come out in full force. And one of the lastest articles stated that it could come that these people would demand a referendum.

Let's not forget that the 2016 San Francisco bid got scuffled in the domestic phase when their stadium deal fell apart at the last minute. Does that not ring any bells to New York 2012? Does the USOC really want their bid to implode right in the middle of the international campaign? Did they not learn any lessons from their past attempts? But if so many unknowns are what they still think is their "best shot", then hey, who are we to say otherwise.

What kinda question is that? :blink:

A rhetorical one.

LA is just a little too soon after 1984; thus Paris and Berlin would have the edge in being repeat hosts since their last outing was before WW2.

Which is why In a scenario like this I wouldn't liken the U.S.' chances no matter what city it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're just doing that now? It's been 7 months since they picked these 4 cities. They probably had the sense that a decision might have been made last month, so they had to be ready to go with whatever the USOC needs to make that decision. That was 6 months after the 4 city shortlist. What were they waiting for to do something like that?

Maybe it could be more indirect? for example: local media position/opinion/portrayal of the prospect of the city bidding, Social media and hashtags (the USOC did include hashtags of the cities in the line-up release. local hate/opposition/action, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the 2016 San Francisco bid got scuffled in the domestic phase when their stadium deal fell apart at the last minute. Does that not ring any bells to New York 2012? Does the USOC really want their bid to implode right in the middle of the international campaign? Did they not learn any lessons from their past attempts? But if so many unknowns are what they still think is their "best shot", then hey, who are we to say otherwise.

So you're concerned that the stadium could implode on San Francsico and that makes them a liability? And that they didn't learn any lessons? Does it make a difference to you then that this stadium is completely different than the last one? That deal imploded because they tried to partner up with the 49ers and they pulled the plug because they decided they weren't interested. So it's not like history is likely to repeat itself in that regard and that it's some sort of major liability. And to answer your other question earlier..

In a way I'm glad if no US city gets big public support and the USOC's 2024 efforts go for naught. Goes to show how stupid and ill-advised their desire for a Summer Games over a Winter Games is. Ha!!

Sooo.. you don't want to jinx SF's chances and you're rooting them on? Or is that your way of hoping their bid will fall apart and the USOC will look into a Winter bid and potentially start pursuing Reno?

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...