Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For a rather compact area of only est 7 million people, the SF Bay Area has SEVEN professional sports teams in 3 of its cities. That averages to about 1 mil per team. I'd say those are pretty good sports fan bases for an anchor city of only 890,000 people.

I would attribute that more towards the wealth of the region than the level of passion the fans have for sports. If we were to use population as criteria, then Green Bay would whoop SF Bay any day on both fronts. A city of 100,000 with a metro of 300,000 filling up a 80,000 seat stadium to capacity week after week in one of the worst weather conditions, mad props to them! Levi's Stadium has shown that money can't always buy home field advantage. America's Cup was a great example, since it's an international event, the city was able to showcase it's ability of hosting an event similar to the Olympics but on a much smaller scale. It was rather disappointing, everytime I went I'd come across a bunch of Kiwis strongly supporting Team New Zealand, a country with a population about half the Bay Area, Team USA didn't seem to have much of a home field support, most people just went about their business, there really wasn't any excitement over it. I read somewhere that a lot more people were upset with Larry Ellison being a no show for Oracle's Convention happening in Moscone Center a few blocks away the exact same time as the race, where he was present as sponsor. Given that Larry chose another site for the next America's Cup after being held in SF says a lot about that event's outcome. The city ended up with a $10-20 million deficit, and some are asking Larry to fork up that money so that taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for it. So imagine that times 30 which is what the Olympics in SF would be.

Here's the question I'd wonder of the IOC with regards to Europe.. are they angry with the continent for how the 2022 Olympic bids have turned out and maybe shy away from them in 2024? Or are they so desperate to restore faith in the continent that they want to go back there for 2024? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. It's understandable they passed over Madrid for 2016 and 2020. Munich's loss in 2018 was understandable. But if they get a city from Europe in the running for 2024, particularly a Paris or a Berlin, I think they'll be extremely gung ho about going there. I've never a big fan of saying "it's city X's time," particularly when people make that argument in hindsight, but all things being equal, I imagine the IOC will be looking strong at Europe. That's the sentiment they have going for them moreso than how long it's been since a particular country has hosted. Doesn't mean the United States can't win this one, but if Europe puts up a strong front, it will be hard to beat.

I don't get why people think the IOC would be quick to kiss Europe's behind after what they did. They practically got shunned by an entire continent, it wasn't an isolated incident, country after country holding referendums and they all concluded that the Olympics in it's current state is a drawback for their region. So now we're left with 2 bids that were once considered longshots, in a continent that will now host back-to-back-to-back Olympics for the first time, so geopolitics is out the door for this one. From a business perspective, which is practically what the IOC is, that just doesn't make sense. What would make sense from this point on is to go with a tried and tested city with a lot of experience and a lot of success, while the Olympic brand repairs it's reputation. Do you go with a client that will give you a set of conditions (European NOC's) or a client who's willing to meet your conditions (USOC)? France and Germany are both expected to have referendums for 2024 before proceeding with a bid so that still shows a lack of confidence in the organization. If the USOC goes with LA, I think the IOC will take it as an opportunity to showcase to future host cities once again that the Olympics can prove to be a cost benefit venture. Europe will be back at the forefront for 2028, and the "new frontier" can get another shot after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Alex - this is bullying. Criticising someone's conduct by attempting to shame them will only make you look small.

Dang. I thought he had me on ignore!

I'm polarizing? You're not even extending the debate. You're just trying to suppress the debate (as usual) because it doesn't meet your lofty standard in regards to the amount of information or "evi

I don't get why people think the IOC would be quick to kiss Europe's behind after what they did. They practically got shunned by an entire continent, it wasn't an isolated incident, country after country holding referendums and they all concluded that the Olympics in it's current state is a drawback for their region. So now we're left with 2 bids that were once considered longshots, in a continent that will now host back-to-back-to-back Olympics for the first time, so geopolitics is out the door for this one. From a business perspective, which is practically what the IOC is, that just doesn't make sense. What would make sense from this point on is to go with a tried and tested city with a lot of experience and a lot of success, while the Olympic brand repairs it's reputation. Do you go with a client that will give you a set of conditions (European NOC's) or a client who's willing to meet your conditions (USOC)? France and Germany are both expected to have referendums for 2024 before proceeding with a bid so that still shows a lack of confidence in the organization. If the USOC goes with LA, I think the IOC will take it as an opportunity to showcase to future host cities once again that the Olympics can prove to be a cost benefit venture. Europe will be back at the forefront for 2028, and the "new frontier" can get another shot after that.

The EU aside, Europe isn't exactly 1 big political or business conglomerate. Yes, multiple countries in Europe turned their backs on the IOC. France did not. I guess maybe Germany did, but they had bigger aspirations involved. So why should they pay for the sins of other cities/countries?

You're absolutely right that the IOC acts in their business interests with geopolitics often the driving force behind it. But where you're talking about the need to repair their reputation, where their reputation is hurting the most is in Europe, not North America. If Paris or Berlin puts forth a 2024 bid (and yes, there are referendums that could make it tough), these are still pretty big, noteworthy cities. So I don't think the IOC needs to worry about their ability to put on a big event, particularly if they're serious about Agenda 2020 reforms (which could be a game-changer where you're talking about giving/meeting 'conditions').

Keep in mind also that the 2024 Olympics will not occur until the host cities for 2026, 2028, and 2030 have been determined and likely the application deadline will have passed for 2032. So even LA repeats their success of 1984 and restores faith in the Olympic movement, you won't see the effects of that in terms of future bidders until as much as 2 or 3 cycles later. And the fear could be that if you pass over good European candidates for LA for 2024, you're sending a message they're not welcome and they should shy away from future bidding.

It's not a case of kissing European ass, nor is it a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. The IOC should be thinking about what's best for their future (probably should have thought of that already, but too late for that night). If they care about getting European cities/countries to bid (and we all know they do), the safe play is giving 2024 to a European city they can trust. Again, not to say a good case can't be made for a US candidate, but if we're talking geopolitics in a field that includes the United States and Europe, all things being equal I think Europe gets the edge there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU isn't one big political entity, but they are financially. The Greek debt crisis and bailout surely had a major effect on the EU as a whole and became a trickle effect. I won't say the Olympics were to blame, but it surely contributed against Greece's financial well being. Because of Europe's rather complex economic system, the countries are sort of tangled together, and so as one goes the rest follows. I don't think the European people can be as quickly fooled by the IOC these days to believe that hosting the Games won't lead to debt.

I agree that the 2024 Games won't be felt until afterwards obviously, but their decisions now is the act of planting that seed for the future. It's all about righting the ship from here on out starting with Tokyo. Rio is still a result of the vanity within the IOC believing they were too big to fail considering Brazil already committed to the World Cup. But I think the European populace, not the governments, understand the Olympic Games as a big money trap that leads to huge debt and white elephants, and that's why European governments continue to proceed with bids while the electorate quickly turn them down. If Tokyo manages a successful games, I think it will restore Europeans faith in hosting, which is why I think 2028 will be perfect for Europe, but what LA can bring for 2024, I think it will create a lot of excitement and optimism for the Olympic movement all over again the same way LA did last time, showing other cities how hosting the games can have a positive transformative affect without breaking the wallet. And that will be felt decades on out. Just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU isn't one big political entity, but they are financially. The Greek debt crisis and bailout surely had a major effect on the EU as a whole and became a trickle effect. I won't say the Olympics were to blame, but it surely contributed against Greece's financial well being. Because of Europe's rather complex economic system, the countries are sort of tangled together, and so as one goes the rest follows. I don't think the European people can be as quickly fooled by the IOC these days to believe that hosting the Games won't lead to debt.

I agree that the 2024 Games won't be felt until afterwards obviously, but their decisions now is the act of planting that seed for the future. It's all about righting the ship from here on out starting with Tokyo. Rio is still a result of the vanity within the IOC believing they were too big to fail considering Brazil already committed to the World Cup. But I think the European populace, not the governments, understand the Olympic Games as a big money trap that leads to huge debt and white elephants, and that's why European governments continue to proceed with bids while the electorate quickly turn them down. If Tokyo manages a successful games, I think it will restore Europeans faith in hosting, which is why I think 2028 will be perfect for Europe, but what LA can bring for 2024, I think it will create a lot of excitement and optimism for the Olympic movement all over again the same way LA did last time, showing other cities how hosting the games can have a positive transformative affect without breaking the wallet. And that will be felt decades on out. Just my opinion.

A few things here..

The Olympics certainly didn't help Greece's financial situation. I don't know enough about the economics of the EU to know how much 1 country affects another, but I think it's a stretch to make the connection that Greece's issues with the Olympics led to issues with other countries' financial situations.

You keep saying how Europeans view the Olympics as a money trap. Understandable, but how is that different in the United States? Don't many American cities view the Olympics the same way? LA has their history of running a very successful and profitable games. Other cities have done the same. But those Olympics, even Salt Lake, seem like a long long time ago. Costs have skyrocketed in recent years, so I'm not sure how cost-effective a 2024 Olympics here in the Unitd States would be. I agree that white elephants and unused facilities would be less of an issue here than they might be elsewhere, but if we're talking about major cities in Europe, they're not as likely to repeat the mistakes of an Athens or a Beijing or a Sochi.

Also, look at recent history. We had London 2012 and Sochi 2014. Most European cities shied away from 2016 (except for Madrid).. understandable. France and Germany tried for winter in 2018 and lost to Korea.. also understandable. So for 2020, those 2 countries are regrouping. Spain is still there. Rome was in it, but dropped out due to economic issues. So not much else that would have jumped in there. Then of course there's 2022. I think Sochi scared some of those countries off. And for a Winter Olympics, you're talking about facilities like a sliding track that have little use. It's easier to put together a legacy plan for Summer venues for the most part. I think we need to see who's out there from Europe for 2024. Maybe it was a 1-time thing with this specific Winter bid and wouldn't repeat itself for the summer.

Again, the issue is that all these European bidders have been scared off. If they are in the field for 2024, you have them to choose from. If you pass them up, you don't know if they'll be back. For better or worse with the United States.. if they bid for and lose 2024, they'll be back. You'd be putting an awful lot of stock in hoping a North American city could provide an example for Europe if you pick Los Angeles as host. I think the IOC would rather take their chances and give Europe their shot for 2024 (depending on who the city is) instead of putting that off further and hoping it works out. When you're talking about restoring Europeans' faith in hosting.. the issue right now is their faith in bidding. That's step 1 in the process. Once they have that, I think they need to move to step 2 and award them an Olympics or else it's as if step 1 never happen. What LA did in 1984 was born out of the fact they were the only bidder. It was basically "you're all we've got, so help point us in the right direction." LA is not the only city that can host a successful 2024 Olympics and create the type of excitement and optimism for the IOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in:

A KPIX 5 / SurveyUSA poll found overwhelming support for a Bay Area Olympic bid. In a survey of 500 adults across the Bay Area, 70 percent said they would like the games to be held here. Seven out of 10 also said hosting the 2024 games would be a huge boost for the local economy.

The margin of error is 4.1 percent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...it really is starting to feel like there is momentum for SF.....but the least expected outcome happens so often.....could DC snag it.....or Boston...or will LA waltz in easily ready to run another games? How and when will the candidate city be announced?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...it really is starting to feel like there is momentum for SF.....but the least expected outcome happens so often.....could DC snag it.....or Boston...or will LA waltz in easily ready to run another games? How and when will the candidate city be announced?

Here are your answers:

1. No, DC is so out

2. Boston has a shot, but I'm not sure they have the international face to pull it off

3. LA is San Francisco's biggest challenger and if SF does not get it then I'm putting my money on LA

4. Tomorrow

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in:

A KPIX 5 / SurveyUSA poll found overwhelming support for a Bay Area Olympic bid. In a survey of 500 adults across the Bay Area, 70 percent said they would like the games to be held here. Seven out of 10 also said hosting the 2024 games would be a huge boost for the local economy.

The margin of error is 4.1 percent.

I think the most important part of this news article is the fact that the SF bid is now changing their plans (or coming up with a plan B) from a temporary T&F stadium in Brisbane to a permanent stadium in Oakland that will be intended as the future home for the Raiders. However, they're not exactly clear on who's going to spend for this, as Oakland's mayor is making it clear in that article that they don't want to put money on "hosting an event". It's hard to tell how the USOC will look at this, it could be a good thing that SF has other options, but it could look bad in a sense that SF's bid doesn't have a clear cut plan. We don't have to wait long to find out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most important part of this news article is the fact that the SF bid is now changing their plans (or coming up with a plan B) from a temporary T&F stadium in Brisbane to a permanent stadium in Oakland that will be intended as the future home for the Raiders. However, they're not exactly clear on who's going to spend for this, as Oakland's mayor is making it clear in that article that they don't want to put money on "hosting an event". It's hard to tell how the USOC will look at this, it could be a good thing that SF has other options, but it could look bad in a sense that SF's bid doesn't have a clear cut plan. We don't have to wait long to find out!

I wouldn't read too much into this last-minute change. Actually, earlier on, Lee and Baer had said there were other options for a main Oly site. Oakland was embroiled in a mayoral election thru November (plus all those protest marches) and the new OAK mayor still hadn't talked to her pro teams by Dec 16; which is why the SF team didn't lean too heavily on the Oakland plan (but which I suspected all along because it was the more logistically feasible one). Besides, ALL cities' plans (US and foreign) will now be fluid as they will be consulting with the IOC all the way until election day in 2017; so if anything, this is just a rehearsal for that process.

This SF plan change, IF SF is picked, also means that the Velodrome would have to be moved. That would require a new stand-alone facility... in which case the event could also be scrapped per Agenda 2020's new clauses.

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

Been following the bids and I agree with others that DC and Boston are done - while I love both cities I think the USOC is focused on winning and DC or Boston won't win. It's down to San Fran or Los Angeles - go back and forth on which one I think will win but I'm going to give San Fran the edge here. 1 - San Fran hasn't hosted, 2. San Fran is very popular with international visitors and could appeal nicely to the IOC, 3. San Fran is one of the most scenic areas in the USA and would provide a gorgeous backdrop.

That's my two cents - good luck to all cities!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Been following the bids and I agree with others that DC and Boston are done - while I love both cities I think the USOC is focused on winning and DC or Boston won't win. It's down to San Fran or Los Angeles - go back and forth on which one I think will win but I'm going to give San Fran the edge here. 1 - San Fran hasn't hosted, 2. San Fran is very popular with international visitors and could appeal nicely to the IOC, 3. San Fran is one of the most scenic areas in the USA and would provide a gorgeous backdrop.

That's my two cents - good luck to all cities!

GB just tweeted that it may actually be true that DC and Boston are out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct UA flight out of DIA for the rest of today:

airport - flight # - departure time

lax - 1235- 3:24

dulles - 1491 - 3:40

sfo- 1670 - 3:40

boston - 1698 - 3:57

sfo - 737 - 5:25

dulles - 1740 - 5:29

lax - 1123 - 5:47

lax - 765 - 7:05

sfo - 1057 - 7:08

dulles - 1733 - 7:45

lax - 1182 - 10:02

sfo - 1046 - 10:13

Edited by paul
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmfao - guess that we'll hear from teamrik tonight & for the next 2-1/2 years! So much for the premature "tweets" that suggested Boston & DC were "done".

Not that surprising, it must've been close between Los Angeles & Boston in the end, similar to the close vote between Los Angeles & Chicago for 2016. In the end, looks like the USOC still believes that it's still too soon for L.A., & perhaps having an east coast candidate could be a big positive.

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...