Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

And not only that, but the new revenue deal is for Games all the way 'til 2032. So while the IOC could feel compelled to give the U.S. a Games bcuz of it, doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be the 2024 ones. They would still have another two Summer slots after that to make do.

And/or they could've given it to a Winter Games as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And not only that, but the new revenue deal is for Games all the way 'til 2032. So while the IOC could feel compelled to give the U.S. a Games bcuz of it, doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be the 2024 ones. They would still have another two Summer slots after that to make do.

Plus, how many times has it been said here (and even by people with a clue) that the ideal 2024 candidate for the USOC would be the one most willing to stick it out until they win it. So maybe there's an element of that with Boston that they get the sense that if they don't win for 2024, they'll come back again for 2028. Who knows what the USOC's thought process will be at that point, whether or not they'll run through this whole process all over again. The USOC definitely has a great chance at landing one of the next few Summer Olympics. I'm sure they're well aware 2024 may not be it. But you don't shy away from a bid because you're concerned about the competition (which is theoretical at this point anyway) and you give it a shot. And hopefully if it doesn't work out, you come back stronger the next time around.

And/or they could've given it to a Winter Games as well.

Hindsight being 20/20, the USOC would have probably been handed the 2022 Winter Olympics on a silver platter, and then 2032 would have looked pretty reasonable for them (I can say that confidently knowing a certain former poster is not here to tell us how improbable that is). Sadly that didn't work out, but the USOC needs to think about their priorities right now. Can they responsibly run this process again (or even a slimmed down version of it) for a Winter candidate while still working closely enough with Boston to put them in the best possible position. My thought at this point with that is, from a strategic position.. let Canada make a run at 2026 if they want and if they win, no need to worry about Toronto mucking up the USOC's plans to try and land the big prize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And not only that, but the new revenue deal is for Games all the way 'til 2032. So while the IOC could feel compelled to give the U.S. a Games bcuz of it, doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be the 2024 ones. They would still have another two Summer slots after that to make do.

Funny...I made this point when the deal was made.

If Berlin or Paris can present strong bids then its going to Europe. In my opinion the IOC cares more about getting Europe more involved than keeping the US on board, especially when there are two more summer slots we could get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny...I made this point when the deal was made.

If Berlin or Paris can present strong bids then its going to Europe. In my opinion the IOC cares more about getting Europe more involved than keeping the US on board, especially when there are two more summer slots we could get.

Not even about additional slots. I almost don't want to bring this up because I don't think these type of political tactics are that valid.. we know the United States will jump back in the fray if the lose, even if they take a cycle or 2 off to re-evaluate. But what about Paris? Can they withstand another loss and still come back? Again, that's not a reason I think the IOC will use to vote for or against a candidate, but in a cycle where they need European cities to bid more than virtually ever before, I would think they'd rather satisfy their desire to return there rather than to come here and put that off at least another cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even about additional slots. I almost don't want to bring this up because I don't think these type of political tactics are that valid.. we know the United States will jump back in the fray if the lose, even if they take a cycle or 2 off to re-evaluate. But what about Paris? Can they withstand another loss and still come back? Again, that's not a reason I think the IOC will use to vote for or against a candidate, but in a cycle where they need European cities to bid more than virtually ever before, I would think they'd rather satisfy their desire to return there rather than to come here and put that off at least another cycle.

I agree with this all, but if Berlin and Paris both do not bid then its Bostons to loose. Unless hell freezes over and Italy's economy picks up in the next two years I can't see Rome winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC HAD to choose that line of thinking for 2020, not because they wanted to. They felt that Tokyo was their safest bet for 2020 because they felt they had no other credible choice in the matter. The other two bids had big issues to deal with. One had great economical challenges & the other faced great political challenges. The IOC obviously didn't want to take the risk with either of them. Doesn't necessarily mean that they'll choose that way for 2024, though. Each race has it's own sort of circumstances & dynamics, so who knows how the 2024 field will finally shape up, IOC "reforms" or not.

Well, Tokyo had its very own economical and political issues too. It was indeed just the least evil choice for the IOC. Looking at the 2024 potentials, both France and Italy have internal issues which could pose a risk, Germany has a less than lukewarm public (and the Euro 2024), Baku/Doha are certainly not what the IOC can really want at this stage and South Africa as everybody's darling has a lot of question marks as well. So, it might indeed be the right moment in time for Boston.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but even like you pointed out with Tokyo's own problems, even with a Paris bid with it's own issues, they would still be workable enough for the IOC to deal with just like Tokyo's. And in Paris' case, & probably unlike it was for Tokyo, the IOC most likely would be much more excited about returning to the French capital after a century versus returning to the Japanese one (& Asia for that matter) much, much sooner.

I think the only way Boston has a real fighting chance is if Paris (& South Africa) don't bid. But put either one, or worse yet, both of them in there, I'd say that Boston is pretty much done for. But they could hold their own, I'd say, if it's between them, Berlin or Hamburg, Rome, Istanbul, etc. But we won't have a better inkling of knowing of which of the two ways it could go until we at least see the official 2024 applicant line-up come September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope a vote doesn't happen. Let Boston work on their plan and build something up, judging their most recent renderings on their site Boston might just have been our best choice.

I do agree that if a vote happens Boston will not happen and the USOC would either not bid or have to find a new city. If they don't have a vote and the public maintains their current approval ratings of the bid then I don't think the IOC will be impressed come the international phase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if a vote did happen, it could still go through. Boston has hundreds of thousands of people, and only a small amount are involved in surveys and in total a couple hundred have spoken against it online. That leaves many people whose opinions we don't know, and those opinions could be in support rather than against as the opposition makes it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if a vote did happen, it could still go through. Boston has hundreds of thousands of people, and only a small amount are involved in surveys and in total a couple hundred have spoken against it online. That leaves many people whose opinions we don't know, and those opinions could be in support rather than against as the opposition makes it out to be.

If the "silent majority" doesn't vote, the minority will win. Munich 2022.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "silent majority" doesn't vote, the minority will win. Munich 2022.

Oh, now that the effort has the USOC imprimatur, the pro-forces can mobilize and marshal their forces which could be formidable. They will use the pro teams' fan bases, the student bodies, all the local gov'ts, obviously use the great popularity of the Boston Marathon, the ex-Olympians, all their families and friends. Just wait what they will unveil for this April's Marathon. Oh, the pro- forces can mobilize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if a vote did happen, it could still go through. Boston has hundreds of thousands of people, and only a small amount are involved in surveys and in total a couple hundred have spoken against it online. That leaves many people whose opinions we don't know, and those opinions could be in support rather than against as the opposition makes it out to be.

I'm not sure, many of the polls say that the majority does not want it, but it's a very slim margin.

Here is a map I made using the one provided by the Boston Herald. The major venues look too far from each other to me, but in short I hope it changes to become more 'walkable'. Could anyone from Boston explain how much the city parks could be used as venue locations? Personally I would like to see more venues along the harbor or in the parks and by the Charles River.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zqlAYFuHE5Xg.knvHWJ6b-NI8

Also, according to a poll by the Boston Herald:

Yes - 13%

No - 63%

Maybe - 2%

Indifferent - 23%

source: http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/01/where_do_you_stand_on_the_2024_summer_olympics_possibly_being

So I'm thinking that if a vote were held in the next month or so, 'No' would win. The yes is just too small of a number, even if you add those who are up in air about it. Still, I hope that Boston is our candidate. We may not win with her, but it would be more humiliating to try and find a new city and send the wrong message to the IOC. But if they do pull out...we should have gone with LA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, many of the polls say that the majority does not want it, but it's a very slim margin.

Here is a map I made using the one provided by the Boston Herald. The major venues look too far from each other to me, but in short I hope it changes to become more 'walkable'. Could anyone from Boston explain how much the city parks could be used as venue locations? Personally I would like to see more venues along the harbor or in the parks and by the Charles River.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zqlAYFuHE5Xg.knvHWJ6b-NI8

Also, according to a poll by the Boston Herald:

Yes - 13%

No - 63%

Maybe - 2%

Indifferent - 23%

source: http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/01/where_do_you_stand_on_the_2024_summer_olympics_possibly_being

So I'm thinking that if a vote were held in the next month or so, 'No' would win. The yes is just too small of a number, even if you add those who are up in air about it. Still, I hope that Boston is our candidate. We may not win with her, but it would be more humiliating to try and find a new city and send the wrong message to the IOC. But if they do pull out...we should have gone with LA.

If a 'No' vote prevails, the USOC should just gear up for Winter 2026.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people compare what could happen in Boston only to games that have had bad things happen to them, and it makes them look really close minded towards the benefits of hosting that they're labeling as impossible even though they've been done before.

Could you elaborate on the benefits of hosting?

The problem as I see it is that the negatives are objective (diverting money from education/transport/etc to stadiums, disruption of commerce and tourism, etc) while the benefits are subjective (pride, prestige, etc.) It's inevitable that people are going to focus on economics rather than self-confidence.

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...