Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mr.bernham

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

Interesting that it was LA that contacted SF about the joint bid idea. I had thought this might happen, because LA has to realize that the government guarantee it needs could only come from the State, and not from a cash-strapped city government in California where most of the tax money goes to Sacramento. That was a main problem with Denver's 1976 bid. It was the State that had to pay, so activists put it on the ballot state-wide. Most people in Colorado don't live in Denver, so why should they pay? California is another state where it is easy to put things on the ballot. Any demand for State (or City) money is immediately going to generate a ballot initiative from people who don't want the Olympics. California's state government has the money to back it, but voters across the state would not approve that for LA. So it would almost have to be a statewide bid, or sellable as such, to get enough people to approve it. And even then, it's dicey of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that it was LA that contacted SF about the joint bid idea. I had thought this might happen, because LA has to realize that the government guarantee it needs could only come from the State, and not from a cash-strapped city government in California where most of the tax money goes to Sacramento. That was a main problem with Denver's 1976 bid. It was the State that had to pay, so activists put it on the ballot state-wide. Most people in Colorado don't live in Denver, so why should they pay? California is another state where it is easy to put things on the ballot. Any demand for State (or City) money is immediately going to generate a ballot initiative from people who don't want the Olympics. California's state government has the money to back it, but voters across the state would not approve that for LA. So it would almost have to be a statewide bid, or sellable as such, to get enough people to approve it. And even then, it's dicey of course.

Like how Boston spread their venues all over Massachusetts in their 2.0, except Massachusetts is a much smaller region. Especially in contrast to California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see how a joint L.A-San Francisco bid would even be approved by the IOC. It sounds similar to the talk a couple of months ago about Melbourne co-hosting with Sydney or Gold Coast. As for L.A. it will be interesting to see what plan they do put forth. I imagine it would be very similar to the plans that were leaked back in 2014. The article below details some possibilities.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/07/29/53456/what-would-a-los-angeles-2024-olympics-look-like/

What I found interesting here is no mention of the Farmers Field project whereas the leaked documents had Farmers Field (assumed with a retractable roof) as the main basketball venue. If L.A. does get an NFL team, if you have a retractable roof stadium whether in Carson, Inglewood, or anywhere else, you have a venue for basketball. If not, it's not a deal breaker as the article proposes Staples Center for gymnastics and basketball while the secondary venue could remain Pauley Pavilion or even the Honda Center in nearby Anaheim.

One other venue possibility to throw around. The original plan centered around a revitalization of the L.A. River including a canoe/kayak course. IMO the canoe/kayak course is the SOG equivalent of the bobsleigh track in the WOGs - an expensive project that gets little use post-Games to justify the cost. I remember in L.A.'s 2016 plan to use the rapids ride at Raging Waters as the venue for canoe/kayak. Would that be feasible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC pretty much said right after the IOC's annoucement of agenda 2020 that the U.S. doesn't need to co-host with other cities because the major cities in this country have all of the necessary infrastructure to do it alone. So I don't see that changing simply because the USOC is in a pickle now. Not when the competion has much more "compact" offerings on the table, especially Paris & Hamburg, the top two cities the USOC needs to worry about a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC pretty much said right after the IOC's annoucement of agenda 2020 that the U.S. doesn't need to co-host with other cities because the major cities in this country have all of the necessary infrastructure to do it alone. So I don't see that changing simply because the USOC is in a pickle now. Not when the competion has much more "compact" offerings on the table, especially Paris & Hamburg, the top two cities the USOC needs to worry about a lot.

For that aspect the USOC is in a deep hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#LA2024

Why bother? The bid will likely fail against Paris and then leave the last remaining viable (and willing) American city bitter and unwilling to bid in the cycle (2028/32) that it has the greater chance of winning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USOC does decide to continue to go with L.A., it surely can't give the illusion that they have good chances for 2024. They should let them know that it could likely take a couple of times & be prepared if another bid is needed.

I agree that Paris is the favorite, but we already have JO for example, all up in arms that Beijing won 2022 & declaring that "Paris should pull out now!" So playing devils advocate here, what if others (& politicians) in France start to feel the same way & change their mind once again to actually bid.

Without Paris (& without South Africa), that really would open up the race. I'd still give the edge to Europe, with/if Hamburg & Rome still in the picture, though not as much without Paris in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USOC does decide to continue to go with L.A., it surely can't give the illusion that they have good chances for 2024. They should let them know that it could likely take a couple of times & be prepared if another bid is needed.

I agree that Paris is the favorite, but we already have JO for example, all up in arms that Beijing won 2022 & declaring that "Paris should pull out now!" So playing devils advocate here, what if others (& politicians) in France start to feel the same way & change their mind once again to actually bid.

Without Paris (& without South Africa), that really would open up the race. I'd still give the edge to Europe, with/if Hamburg & Rome still in the picture, though not as much without Paris in there.

Should Paris pull out (which seems highly unlikely at this point), it would be between Rome and Hamburg then. Rome would, of course, be the classical choice and douchebags like Ottavio CInquanta will turn off voters; and Hamburg looks to me like the Munich 1972 plan -- we're more than Berlin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USOC has any balls they need to tell the IOC to shove it and drop all plans for a 2024 bid. Boston is now the 3rd US city in a row to refuse to commit to the host city contract before formally sending its bid to the IOC. Popularity for hosting the summer Olympics at taxpayer expense is low throughout the entire country. The Olympic Movement needs serious reforms beyond the 2020 agenda if there will ever be a successful US games again. It is the USOC's responsibility to try to catalyze those necessary changes with the IOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USOC has any balls they need to tell the IOC to shove it and drop all plans for a 2024 bid. Boston is now the 3rd US city in a row to refuse to commit to the host city contract before formally sending its bid to the IOC. Popularity for hosting the summer Olympics at taxpayer expense is low throughout the entire country. The Olympic Movement needs serious reforms beyond the 2020 agenda if there will ever be a successful US games again. It is the USOC's responsibility to try to catalyze those necessary changes with the IOC.

The US should absolutely do what's right for them now regardless of what the IOC thinks. But Bach's words were unexpectedly strong. I do wonder - if Bach's words are anything to go by - if USOC made a binding promise they couldn't be certain they could keep to the IOC.

More fool them if so.

Should the IOC change just because the US is the only developed country in the world unwilling to commit public funds into things like venues though? Moves towards efficiency, cost effectiveness and better legacies are always welcome, but there comes a point where someone has to pay for things. And if cities like Paris, London, Rome, Sydney, Tokyo (not the Dohas of this world but big cities in democracies) are happy with the model for the Summer Games how much should it actually be changed?

Let me ask you this: What reforms, exactly, would you want to see that would substantially lower the cost to the point where - say - Boston's bid survived?

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this: What reforms, exactly, would you want to see that would substantially lower the cost to the point where - say - Boston's bid survived?

They have to bring down the size of the Games. Even before he became head of the USOC, Peter Ueberroth opined that a manageable SOGs would be 17-18 sports; and he would have cut out redundant, borderline sports (the taekwando-judo-wrestling, ping-pong, etc. which were just put in to appease the Asian nations). And of course that strong stand of his kept him out of the IOC because the IFs and nations strong in those sports would blocked his entry one war or another. Cut out the 4 sites for football as well -- ridiculous.

Now they've thrown in rugby on the excuse that well, the venues are already in place...so let's throw in one more sport. Well, there are some 20 venues in place. Why not double up the sports -- to, like the ridiculous Asian Games -- so there would be at least 40 sports? SO, it's more like Agenda 1920, rather than Agenda2020. If the TOPs start dropping out, maybe the IOC will really institute reforms.

And that set of theirs yesterday? I don't think that was such a great design? Kinda pretentious, if you ask me.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting out football which is extremely profitable - if an odd bedfellow with other Olympic sports - will only makes things worse. And the combat sports can be farmed off to a convention centre. Again, not a huge cost saving there I wouldn't think.

There are other sports which you'd cut first if you wanted to save some money. Ones with more awkward venue requirements.

Why would the TOPs start dropping out though? Tokyo is showing there's a huge appetite for sponsoring the Olympics still.

I didn't see the set (I chose sleep over the Beijing-Almaty battle royale). But the IOC pretentious?! Never?!

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me ask you this: What reforms, exactly, would you want to see that would substantially lower the cost to the point where - say - Boston's bid survived?

LA 1984 went well despite the lack of a taxpayer guarantee. Let other American cities do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles 1984 also cost a mere $584 million. That doesn't even buy you security these days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA 1984 went well despite the lack of a taxpayer guarantee. Let other American cities do the same.

And who pays for any construction overruns then? The problem Boston had wasn't simply the guarantee existed, but the fact Bostonians knew it would be needed. They know the days of a completely privately funded Games are over despite the assurances from bid leaders. Removing a clause in a contract doesn't change that.

So what would materially have to change for Boston's bid to have survived? How would the Games have to change, in your opinion for not just Boston but US cities outside of LA to be interested again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, many sports don't cost much (football, sports that can easily be held in convention centers). But somehow, football in the Olympics is absurd to me. I have no idea who got gold in London 2012? Who does? But I'm pretty sure we all know who won the World Cup last year. You can't beat World Cup regarding football. And it's like meaningless during Olympics. Who watches the football competitions during the Olympics? The only nice thing about it is that it's generally held outside of the hosting city, like sailing, so it gets people who cant' afford to go to the host city to watch an Olympic competition...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, many sports don't cost much (football, sports that can easily be held in convention centers). But somehow, football in the Olympics is absurd to me. I have no idea who got gold in London 2012? Who does? But I'm pretty sure we all know who won the World Cup last year. You can't beat World Cup regarding football. And it's like meaningless during Olympics. Who watches the football competitions during the Olympics? The only nice thing about it is that it's generally held outside of the hosting city, like sailing, so it gets people who cant' afford to go to the host city to watch an Olympic competition...

Women's football is a better fit than men's. Getting gold is a huge thing for female footballers. For many, even competiting in front of crowds of 50k+ is a huge thing for their careers. So I think you need to separate the women's competitions from the men's when making such comments.

Both competitions are profitable,however. So neither will be dropped.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USOC does decide to continue to go with L.A., it surely can't give the illusion that they have good chances for 2024. They should let them know that it could likely take a couple of times & be prepared if another bid is needed.

I agree that Paris is the favorite, but we already have JO for example, all up in arms that Beijing won 2022 & declaring that "Paris should pull out now!" So playing devils advocate here, what if others (& politicians) in France start to feel the same way & change their mind once again to actually bid.

Without Paris (& without South Africa), that really would open up the race. I'd still give the edge to Europe, with/if Hamburg & Rome still in the picture, though not as much without Paris in there.

I guess before this happens, Bach will try to make amendments and promises. One thing was Boston but the European cities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to bring down the size of the Games.

There's no way to do this without causing massive problems for key partners. The gigantism of the games is due to the need to keep so many groups -broadcasters, fans, corporate sponsors, sporting federations, athletes, and the media- all happy. For example reducing the size of the venues is not viable because of the outrage from fans who want to buy tickets, organizing committees who want ticket revenue, corporate suits and media personnel who want comped tickets, sporting federations who want fans to see their competitions, etc.

I know people hate the idea, but the best way forward is to divide the summer games into individual sports and team sports. That should reduce the cost by roughly half while at the same time increasing revenue, and also reducing the number of white elephant venues dramatically.

I don't want to derail this thread with my crazy ideas, though, so here's my plan:

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/25154-team-sport-olympics/

Los Angeles 1984 also cost a mere $584 million. That doesn't even buy you security these days.

That was a completely different era, and the IOC had no choice but to agree to any demands that LA 84 made since they were the only bidder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in the 80's there were 5 billion people on earth, so the venues were kind of smaller. But by 2020, there probably will be 8 billion people on earth, and it's all the more people interested in the Games, so the venues HAVE TO be bigger. That's, the main reason to explain the "gigantism' of the Games". This planet is being seriously crowded, and that's also why the estimated people watching the Games on TV is getting higher and higher (like almost 1 billon for the London Opening Ceremony).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in the 80's there were 5 billion people on earth, so the venues were kind of smaller. But by 2020, there probably will be 8 billion people on earth, and it's all the more people interested in the Games, so the venues HAVE TO be bigger.

I didn't realise venue capacity was pegged to global population growth - thanks for the clarification. I'd always wondered how they came up with the number of seats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realise venue capacity was pegged to global population growth - thanks for the clarification. I'd always wondered how they came up with the number of seats.

I always thought it was egos...some venues though...I think, do you really think ten thousand people want to watch Judo?

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...