Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

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.

Well, going from one of our regular German members here as of late, Germany isn't a done deal either. It's still very up in the air much like Paris & South Africa are. The only confirmed European bid thus far is Rome. And even there, it could still change much like it did with their 2020 attempt. So unless they all come out & play, Boston could hold it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Many people even in France are expecting the city to bid just read thelocal.fr

Well, going from one of our regular German members here as of late, Germany isn't a done deal either. It's still very up in the air much like Paris & South Africa are. The only confirmed European bid thus far is Rome. And even there, it could still change much like it did with their 2020 attempt. So unless they all come out & play, Boston could hold it's own.

You do have a good point, but if it doesn't then Boston is screwed. Why are you so content with the US putting out a bid that relies on better cities to not run in order for it to win? Shouldn't we be putting our best foot forward? Shouldn't we have a bid that has a high chance of winning regardless who is in the race?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

San Francisco was also competing in the domestic phase for 1996. I'm sure the main reason they got bypassed there is that they didn't want to present yet another west coast Games only 12 years after Los Angeles.

And of course Atlanta didn't have a stellar field to compare with. That's what Phandrosis was saying anyway. If the 2024 field is weak, Boston then stands a chance. But if the field is strong, then no matter what city the USOC ultimately chose would it make any bit of difference anyway. And Boston is nothing like Atlanta. Boston is also nothing like Atlanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be a silly suggestion, but I wonder if after the shooting yesterday, the French are looking for an impetus for national pride, such as an Olympic bid? Although the 2016 Euros may serve that purpose, a successful bid could be a way for Parisians to show their strength and to heal. I know NYC's bid came off the heels of 9/11 for most likely the same purpose.


I'm wondering if Boston was chosen based on its historical significance, making it the best possible rival to other cities like Paris, Rome and Berlin who themselves have great historical ties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do have a good point, but if it doesn't then Boston is screwed. Why are you so content with the US putting out a bid that relies on better cities to not run in order for it to win? Shouldn't we be putting our best foot forward? Shouldn't we have a bid that has a high chance of winning regardless who is in the race?

And what was our best foot forward? Obviously the USOC thought that was Boston this time around. What do you know that the USOC didn't? I've said like a half a dozen times already, but I'll say it again since it needs repeating, but if the 2024 field is strong, then it wouldn't matter what city that the USOC would've chosen. Cuz I don't believe that it woulda made any bit of difference in the end.

Many people even in France are expecting the city to bid just read thelocal.fr

Until their mayor & the French NOC declare that they're bidding, it doesn't matter what some people say in the local paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be a silly suggestion, but I wonder if after the shooting yesterday, the French are looking for an impetus for national pride, such as an Olympic bid? Although the 2016 Euros may serve that purpose, a successful bid could be a way for Parisians to show their strength and to heal. I know NYC's bid came off the heels of 9/11 for most likely the same purpose.

The day of decision for these Olympic bids is more than 2 1/2 years away. As much as the shootings are gaining worldwide attention, is it still going to be fresh in everyone's minds come 2017? 9/11 was, so that's a different story. This one I doubt on that kind of level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be a silly suggestion, but I wonder if after the shooting yesterday, the French are looking for an impetus for national pride, such as an Olympic bid? Although the 2016 Euros may serve that purpose, a successful bid could be a way for Parisians to show their strength and to heal. I know NYC's bid came off the heels of 9/11 for most likely the same purpose.

I'm wondering if Boston was chosen based on its historical significance, making it the best possible rival to other cities like Paris, Rome and Berlin who themselves have great historical ties.

Very possibly. We'll see what the next few months bring.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

What bernham said. Except for number 3. That's stupid.

Most of the big cities didn't figure into the running for the `96 Olympics. Probably thought it wasn't worth the effort because LA had been so recent. Boston beat out some of the most notable cities in the country to get this nomination. Clearly the USOC sees something there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Ummm could it be that they saw San Fran as too much a risk & L.A. still a bit too soon? Those are two pretty big reasons right there. And it's not like Boston is chop liver anyway like some here are seeming to make it. U'd think that Tulsa was chosen they way some here are reacting about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is a way to keep top European contenders away

Germany- bids for 2024 Euro Cup, correct me if I'm wrong but im pretty sure the IOC doesn't allow two sporting events in on year (ie Istanbul)

Paris- Mayor not interested, the French seem more interested in 2025 World Expo

Rome- Crippled economy, (IMO I don't see them as a big threat anyway because of economy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Ummm could it be that they saw San Fran as too much a risk & L.A. still a bit too soon? Those are two pretty big reasons right there. And it's not like Boston is chop liver anyway like some here are seeming to make it. U'd think that Tulsa was chosen they way some here are reacting about it!

Love that we can still pull out the T-word as a way to make a point!

We don't know what the USOC sees in Boston or didn't saw in the others that led them to this. No, Boston is not chopped liver. I think they've got a lot going for them. I'm just surprised they got picked, because they seem like they could be pretty risky as well. And I've said it for 2 years since they came on the scene and I'll say it again.. I want to see what they have to offer in terms of the substance of their bid, because I'm still a little unconvinced they're the best chance the US has at hosting an Olympics, even though yes I know it almost might not matter depending on who the competition is from the rest of the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germany- bids for 2024 Euro Cup, correct me if I'm wrong but im pretty sure the IOC doesn't allow two sporting events in on year (ie Istanbul)

I actually didn't notice that. They have been in the running since 2013 which is way before their study into 2024, and until they announce their bidding intentions I think they're just gonna stick in there for the Euro Cup so if the Olympics don't go through for some reason they still have that going for 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is a way to keep top European contenders away

Germany- bids for 2024 Euro Cup, correct me if I'm wrong but im pretty sure the IOC doesn't allow two sporting events in on year (ie Istanbul)

Yes, but election of the host city of the 2024 Olympic Games is planned for September 2017. Euro host are chosen 5 years before the games, so it'll be in spring of 2019?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only think about

lol. Maybe a Boston Olympics isn't that bad. xD

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.)

oooh! Then maybe Boston will also be a dick during the race (like how they were before already IMO) and lose to Baku or something ^_^

*won't be that bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually didn't notice that. They have been in the running since 2013 which is way before their study into 2024, and until they announce their bidding intentions I think they're just gonna stick in there for the Euro Cup so if the Olympics don't go through for some reason they still have that going for 'em.

What stadium is that in your signature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what was our best foot forward? Obviously the USOC thought that was Boston this time around. What do you know that the USOC didn't? I've said like a half a dozen times already, but I'll say it again since it needs repeating, but if the 2024 field is strong, then it wouldn't matter what city that the USOC would've chosen. Cuz I don't believe that it woulda made any bit of difference in the end.

Until their mayor & the French NOC declare that they're bidding, it doesn't matter what some people say in the local paper.

I would say our best foot forward was LA.

Well the president backed a potential bid and the mayor said she would get behind it if it was though through carefully. The French NOC is expected to make an announcement/decision this month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love that we can still pull out the T-word as a way to make a point!

We don't know what the USOC sees in Boston or didn't saw in the others that led them to this. No, Boston is not chopped liver. I think they've got a lot going for them. I'm just surprised they got picked, because they seem like they could be pretty risky as well. And I've said it for 2 years since they came on the scene and I'll say it again.. I want to see what they have to offer in terms of the substance of their bid, because I'm still a little unconvinced they're the best chance the US has at hosting an Olympics, even though yes I know it almost might not matter depending on who the competition is from the rest of the world

Any city where it bid committee's representatives have not even read the full bid looks like chopped liver to me.

Then again I suppose I will have to wait and see what Boston does with their bid before I continue making such harsh judgments, I'm just not expecting much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do have a good point, but if it doesn't then Boston is screwed. Why are you so content with the US putting out a bid that relies on better cities to not run in order for it to win? Shouldn't we be putting our best foot forward? Shouldn't we have a bid that has a high chance of winning regardless who is in the race?

I don't think Boston (or rather (Massachusetts) is likely to approve public spending, but saying that it won't put the USA's best foot forward is pretty harsh. A temporary stadium will attract a lot of criticism, but San Francisco and DC would have used one too. Los Angeles has its own problems and NIMBY's as well. The USA's best foot is probably New York, but that was never an option.

Boston is a good city, and if they can figure out the funding, transportation and venue issues it would be a solid host. If they can't they probably won't be chosen. So either way a Boston bid should be a win for the IOC.

I do wonder if Thomas Bach was told that Boston would be the choice: in hindsight he may have written that article for the Boston Globe with the intent of addressing Boston in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the Tokyo National Stadium. I found new renders on a NY Times article and posted them in the National Stadium topic a few days ago if you want to see the full pictures.

Alright, I knew it looked familiar. I thought it was for Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the president backed a potential bid and the mayor said she would get behind it if it was though through carefully. The French NOC is expected to make an announcement/decision this month.

This is beside the point, though, Again, even if it was Los Angeles instead, the USOC's fears of presenting them again this soon was what kept them from picking them. In a strong 2024 field, I seriously doubt that Los Angeles woulda prevailed anyway.

Any city where it bid committee's representatives have not even read the full bid looks like chopped liver to me.

And you think that IOC members read the "full" bid books? Not really.

I would say our best foot forward was LA.

I agree. Odds were that it was going to be Los Angeles. But Boston was clearly the second choice. I'm not that surprised by the decision at all like some of you are. Apparently, the USOC felt that the "been there, done that" aspect of L.A. was probably still a bit too much for the IOC to swallow this soon. Considering their "agenda 2020", though, I woulda said, 'well tough. Let's put your own words into action now'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Boston (or rather (Massachusetts) is likely to approve public spending, but saying that it won't put the USA's best foot forward is pretty harsh. A temporary stadium will attract a lot of criticism, but San Francisco and DC would have used one too. Los Angeles has its own problems and NIMBY's as well. The USA's best foot is probably New York, but that was never an option.

Boston is a good city, and if they can figure out the funding, transportation and venue issues it would be a solid host. If they can't they probably won't be chosen. So either way a Boston bid should be a win for the IOC.

I do wonder if Thomas Bach was told that Boston would be the choice: in hindsight he may have written that article for the Boston Globe with the intent of addressing Boston in particular.

NIMYism is a way of life in LA ^_^

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...