Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Well I guess the US can kiss 2024 goodbye. #2024fail

Quite frankly, no matter what city the USOC would've picked, it woulda been an uphill battle for 2024, unless of course they're solely up against Baku & Doha.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Boston will survive a referendum and I remain worried about the venue plan, but at least it's a nice, politically acceptable city with an agreeable summer climate.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Boston will survive a referendum and I remain worried about the venue plan, but at least it's a nice, politically acceptable city with an agreeable summer climate.

Are you expecting Boston to have a referendum? If there's no referendum for them to survive, it's a moot point

Well, I think Anchorage, Denver, Reno and Salt Lake can start prepping for 2026 now.

kw4ec5aea4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

What bid doesn't have opposition? The approval rating is never 100%, so we shouldn't expect it to be. Anyway, I think shooting over to the East Coast and specifically the Northeast is a good change of face from the past. Atlanta was on the east, but the South is a different place with a different culture.

Though, Boston and Montreal are kinda close ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you expecting Boston to have a referendum? If there's no referendum for them to survive, it's a moot point

There's no way politicians in Massachusetts are going to approve spending billions of dollars on the Olympics without going to the public. And even before the opposition campaign has had a chance to go after the organizing committee the public was vehemently opposed to that.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/06/26/olympic-size-split/x3YTGa4KR2u7XkufU58WoM/igraphic.html?p1=Article_Related

What bid doesn't have opposition? The approval rating is never 100%, so we shouldn't expect it to be. Anyway, I think shooting over to the East Coast and specifically the Northeast is a good change of face from the past. Atlanta was on the east, but the South is a different place with a different culture.

There's a big difference, though between an approval rating of 75% and 25%. Voting in favor of a widely unpopular plan will result in politicians losing elections, so they probably aren't going to vote for government funding if a vast majority of people in Massachusetts are opposed to hosting the games.

If only 25% of people in the state are really in favor of using government funds for the Olympics -and I see no reason to doubt the Boston Globe's polls- I can't see this working out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand why all the kiddies here are so up in arms over this. What do you guys know that the USOC doesn't? They voted accordingly & it's really not that surprising.

There's no way politicians in Massachusetts are going to approve spending billions of dollars on the Olympics without going to the public. And even before the opposition campaign has had a chance to go after the organizing committee the public was vehemently opposed to that.

Do you really think that the USOC is that dumb to select a city where their candidate could be in danger of dropping out before the international campaigning has even begun, or even worse, during it?

I'm assuming that's why they bypassed San Francisco, bcuz they saw the danger of such more there than in any of the other cities. But if you think that's the case, then the USOC maybe has no intentions of winning this whatsoever.

Though, Boston and Montreal are kinda close ;)

But the two are nothing alike, though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way politicians in Massachusetts are going to approve spending billions of dollars on the Olympics without going to the public. And even before the opposition campaign has had a chance to go after the organizing committee the public was vehemently opposed to that.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/06/26/olympic-size-split/x3YTGa4KR2u7XkufU58WoM/igraphic.html?p1=Article_Related

Haven't they been talking about not using public funds? We know that's probably a bunch of BS, but it's what they've said. And yea, with the public's stance fairly well known in that regard, Boston still got the USOC's nod anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't know, but I assume that Atlanta was seen in a similar light when it was chosen by the USOC. "Why would a city in the Deep South that half the world doesn't know about be chosen and how could they win" is what I imagine people thought... But they did win. Sure the bidding field wasn't as competitive and Athens was a dick and kinda thought they deserved them, but they still won and the gap since the US had last hosted was much smaller. If Boston can prove it wont use public funds (public from the city, because they're already planning using federal funds), will have some sort of economic turn around while still having everything they need to host "supaab games" as Mr. Takeda would say, they stand a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody have a horoscope on Boston's future?

People forget that Boston is also "the Athens of North America." So they probably have a solid financial plan; and the prestige of Harvard and MIT also helped. (Actually have a trip planned for Boston in the fall.)

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

I wouldn't know, but I assume that Atlanta was seen in a similar light when it was chosen by the USOC. "Why would a city in the Deep South that half the world doesn't know about be chosen and how could they win" is what I imagine people thought... But they did win. Sure the bidding field wasn't as competitive and Athens was a dick and kinda thought they deserved them, but they still won and the gap since the US had last hosted was much smaller. If Boston can prove it wont use public funds (public from the city, because they're already planning using federal funds), will have some sort of economic turn around while still having everything they need to host "supaab games" as Mr. Takeda would say, they stand a chance.

Exactly. If Paris & South Africa refrain, & all we have is Baku-ku & Doha-ha, & perhaps a weak Rome bid (due to their staggering economy), Boston would stand a chance then. It's how the stars aligned for repeat host Tokyo against the two new cities, they were competing with, that never hosted before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What bid doesn't have opposition? The approval rating is never 100%, so we shouldn't expect it to be. Anyway, I think shooting over to the East Coast and specifically the Northeast is a good change of face from the past. Atlanta was on the east, but the South is a different place with a different culture.

Though, Boston and Montreal are kinda close ;)

But Boston had the strongest of any of the other cities that bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a SMART choice by the USOC. DC has too many negatives from a political angle. SF will have MASSIVE local opposition and protests from their faux left, and LA sort of epitomises the worse of American culture to a lot of foreigners.

Whereas Boston is one of the gem cities of the US. Overseas visitors love it. Older, established city. Great access to Europe and decent access to Asia. Lots of hotels, and several of the best universities in the world. It's the sort of host city that IOC members will be pleasantly surprised with, if they've not been before.

Great sporting city too: Boston Marathon, Celtics (basketball), Bruins (real hockey), rugby union, Red Sox (baseball). Can't think of a US city that has a better chance against European and African bids (Doha ain't going nowhere).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. If Paris & South Africa refrain, & all we have is Baku-ku & Doha-ha, & perhaps a weak Rome bid (due to their staggering economy), Boston would stand a chance then. It's how the stars aligned for repeat host Tokyo against the two new cities, they were competing with, that never hosted before.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Has Rome's economy really changed since their 2020 bid? Not enough that they can justify hosting the games any better than before. Paris, even though everyone talks like they have already declared they're bidding, are far from it. We haven't really heard anything from South Africa about their bid either. Studies and all, until they present a bid that will benefit the people of South Africa and not just show off that they can do it and leave the population in extreme debt, we can't really assume that they'll be there in 2017.

I see Germany as being Boston's main opposition, and both would be great hosts, really. Maybe Germany will make a weird presentation that kinda just asks for the games like Helsinki did for the IOC session (which was painful to watch by the way) and Boston will have an emotional, oprah and obama-less presentation that puts them on top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't know, but I assume that Atlanta was seen in a similar light when it was chosen by the USOC. "Why would a city in the Deep South that half the world doesn't know about be chosen and how could they win" is what I imagine people thought... But they did win. Sure the bidding field wasn't as competitive and Athens was a dick and kinda thought they deserved them, but they still won and the gap since the US had last hosted was much smaller. If Boston can prove it wont use public funds (public from the city, because they're already planning using federal funds), will have some sort of economic turn around while still having everything they need to host "supaab games" as Mr. Takeda would say, they stand a chance.

Three things:

1. Atlanta's biggest opponent domestically was Minneapolis

2. Atlanta was up against a fairly weak group, the city would have never run in race Boston may likely find itself in.

3. Atlanta is also the reason many have concerns about Bostons ability to host in a way that would not embarrass the nation again.

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...