Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

Yep...I think this is the basic idea circulating around Lausanne.

Do I think LA would win...eh...probably not.

I'm sure there's many ideas circulating in Lausanne right now...certainly they also had a basic idea what should happen with 2022, but look how that turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a SOG race is a different thing. I don't think any city offcially bidding for 2024 will drop out before the final vote in 2024. The only reason they would is because of a referendum. But only Hamburg is doing that as of now. And since any city submitting a bid by September 15 will be officially candidate for 2024, then we can pretty much say this race will include: LA, Hamburg, Rome, Budapest, Paris, and probably Baku and Toronto. I do hope that some of those cities don't get shortlisted in the process, cause otherwise the presentation and voting process in Lima in 2017 will be a nightmare for the IOC voters (and the first city presenting wouldn't stand a single chance, no matter how good their bid is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a SOG race is a different thing. I don't think any city offcially bidding for 2024 will drop out before the final vote in 2024. The only reason they would is because of a referendum. But only Hamburg is doing that as of now. And since any city submitting a bid by September 15 will be officially candidate for 2024, then we can pretty much say this race will include: LA, Hamburg, Rome, Budapest, Paris, and probably Baku and Toronto. I do hope that some of those cities don't get shortlisted in the process, cause otherwise the presentation and voting process in Lima in 2017 will be a nightmare for the IOC voters (and the first city presenting wouldn't stand a single chance, no matter how good their bid is).

I wonder if Paris can insist that they should NOT go first this time since that's where they were last time, and lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we can pretty much say this race will include: LA, Hamburg, Rome, Budapest, Paris, and probably Baku and Toronto. I do hope that some of those cities don't get shortlisted in the process, cause otherwise the presentation and voting process in Lima in 2017 will be a nightmare for the IOC voters (and the first city presenting wouldn't stand a single chance, no matter how good their bid is).

Out of a preliminary applicant roster like this, it's safe to say that both Budapest & Baku will be tossed. That would still leave the IOC with four or five really solid choices to move forward with for the 2024 short-list, & a typical number for a Summer Olympic short-list, going back to 2004, 2008 & 2012 numbers.

The IOC would be very happy with a list like that, considering the dwindling numbers of recent past races.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but once they know they have a solid few, they can drop a few of the hopeless ones. It's just a less formal cut-off stage.

Pretty sure I heard they're making a cut off in June of next year.

I'm pretty sure the IOC cut it and has said all applicants will make it to the final vote.

How? LA and the USOC haven't even made a formal annoncement for 2024? How can the IOC be liking it??

Don't act like they are not going forward. If they weren't then the LA City Council would not be doing everything they have done in the past week. The US will bid with LA. And if we can speculate, why must the IOC wait until everyone is official? It's not like the IOC lacks free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the IOC cut it and has said all applicants will make it to the final vote.

Yes, but they went on to say "however, under 'special circumstances', the Executive Board could decide to 'drop a city' if it fails to live up to requirements."

So in a way, there's still a short-list (& an out) of some sort for the IOC to shake off the undesirables. As Baron noted, it's just going to be a less formal-process one. The IOC is not going to wanna have all seven cities (or possibly even more) in Lima. That would make for a really LONG day & very tedious affair. IOC members (& everyone else for that matter) would be falling asleep by the time of the seventh or eighth presentation. And then you'd still have all those rounds of voting to go through!

A move like that should make a city like Paris skeptical anyway. But I think once the IOC sees that by this time next year they still have four or five solid options, two or three of the remaining others are going to be cut. Plus, having all those cities still continue, really is going against the "cost effectiveness reforms" of trimming down the costs of bid campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but they went on to say "however, under 'special circumstances', the Executive Board could decide to 'drop a city' if it fails to live up to requirements."

So in a way, there's still a short-list (& an out) of some sort for the IOC to shake off the undesirables. As Baron noted, it's just going to be a less formal-process one. The IOC is not going to wanna have all seven cities (or possibly even more) in Lima. That would make for a really LONG day & very tedious affair. IOC members (& everyone else for that matter) would be falling asleep by the time of the seventh or eighth presentation. And then you'd still have all those rounds of voting to go through!

A move like that should make a city like Paris skeptical anyway. But I think once the IOC sees that by this time next year they still have four or five solid options, two or three of the remaining others are going to be cut. Plus, having all those cities still continue, really is going against the "cost effectiveness reforms" of trimming down the costs of bid campaigns.

I don't think the concern is necessarily having too make presentations in Lima, but what odds do the 6th or 7th city in the running have of winning? Not good. Best to cut them off earlier in the process. And remember, the IOC originally had 6 candidates for 2020 (5 once Rome dropped out). They still cut off 2, leaving just 3 for the vote. No reason to think they wouldn't do something similar this time rather than drag along candidates they know have little to no shot of winning. So long as they're not in danger of cities dropping out of the running, I think they'll feel comfortable with that.

How? LA and the USOC haven't even made a formal annoncement for 2024? How can the IOC be liking it??

As bernham said, so what? If you're going to have an organization like the IOC that has a president who constantly throws out "we would love to see a bid from country X/city Y," why shouldn't they be excited over the prospect of a US bid, even if it's not official yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Applicant and Candidate City Stages should stay IMO. If all 6 bidders did stay in the bidding for 2022, then the weakest bids like Lviv and Almaty would have been eliminated. The same should happen for 2024, with bids like Doha's and Istanbul's being eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the concern is necessarily having too make presentations in Lima, but what odds do the 6th or 7th city in the running have of winning? Not good. Best to cut them off earlier in the process. And remember, the IOC originally had 6 candidates for 2020 (5 once Rome dropped out). They still cut off 2, leaving just 3 for the vote. No reason to think they wouldn't do something similar this time rather than drag along candidates they know have little to no shot of winning. So long as they're not in danger of cities dropping out of the running, I think they'll feel comfortable with that.

Yeah, & that's why I said that I could still see cuts done, despite the IOC saying that they've done away with the short-list process (for this cycle anyway [which was the thrust of the conversation]) but taking a further look in "special circumstances" when certain bids 'do not meet the requirements'.

The presentations were merely an incidental of such. If all seven potential bids here were solid options, then I could see all seven going through, & the IOC would have to deal with the headache of going through a very lengthy process. But since having a long-list of good, feasible options is hardly the case (as is here), then that's where I see the IOC just trimming the fat so as not to make things even more cumbersome. As it is, the IOC is looking to have at least four or five solid options for 2024, unlike 2020. Where the two that were cut were Baku & Doha. So no surprise there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA got suckered in again.

I hope the IOC doesn't tire of LA's slightly re-tweaked plans for rounds 2028 and 2032.

You are assuming that Los Angeles will want to bid multiple times. Everyone in California seems to think 2024 will work the same way that 1984 did. They don't understand that the Olympics have ballooned in the last 25 years, and that even Los Angeles is going to have to spend several billion dollars of public money to make this happen. Once they realize they are going to have to pay taxes to subsidize the Olympics I think public support will begin to decline.

BOR-ING! I don't know why the USOC is going along with this mess. Let Paris host the '24 games and spend the next four years looking for the best candidate for '28.

It's not about the USOC. It's about the USOC leadership. No competent 2024 bid = no Larry Probst as USOC head in a year or two.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOR-ING! I don't know why the USOC is going along with this mess. Let Paris host the '24 games and spend the next four years looking for the best candidate for '28.

Mess? You didn't seem to mind when that "mess" was Boston. L.A. in comparison is a well-oiled machine. And the USOC already "spent years looking for the best candidate" for 2024, & look where that got them. So I wouldn't put much faith in that again. Plus, I doubt that the results would be any much different fours years from now than they are now anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe New York & Chicago have better things to do than to continue groveling over the IOC. Some cities actually think that civic matters are much more important than an extravangantly expensive three-week sport orgy. Just ask Boston (& Oslo) about that one, too, which I say was still a respectable U.S. choice had things worked out much differently as far as they were concerned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York and Chicago are the only options better than LA, but neither city seem to have big boy pants after being rejected during their respective turns. No more Atlanta's in the foreseeable future!

Always amuses me when people here look at a big city not bidding for an Olympics and that must mean they lack the courage to bid or the drive and ambition to go after an Olympics. Has nothing to do with being rejected. New York bid for 2012 because an Olympic bid made sense for them in that time and place. Bidding for the Olympics is not about having "big boy pants." It's about putting a plan together that work with the city's vision for its future of urban development. Smaller cities jump at that opportunity because they think it's they're chance to play with the big boys. While the big boys like New York and Chicago don't want to go through the trouble and that's a perfectly acceptable stance to take. Not their responsibility to try and make an Olympics work so the USOC can have their bidder.

Ask yourself this question.. why should New York or Chicago bid for the Olympics? What's in it for them? How will that effort benefit the city, and that's assuming they win the bid? Answer that for 1 or both cities and then start talking to us about big boy pants.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about the USOC. It's about the USOC leadership. No competent 2024 bid = no Larry Probst as USOC head in a year or two.

No one is irreplaceable. Plus, he's already in the IOC; unless he commits malfeasance, he's going to be there until his knees give way. Besides, the USOC Chairman usually sits on two Olympiads. He will be replaced by 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always amuses me when people here look at a big city not bidding for an Olympics and that must mean they lack the courage to bid or the drive and ambition to go after an Olympics. Has nothing to do with being rejected. New York bid for 2012 because an Olympic bid made sense for them in that time and place. Bidding for the Olympics is not about having "big boy pants." It's about putting a plan together that work with the city's vision for its future of urban development. Smaller cities jump at that opportunity because they think it's they're chance to play with the big boys. While the big boys like New York and Chicago don't want to go through the trouble and that's a perfectly acceptable stance to take. Not their responsibility to try and make an Olympics work so the USOC can have their bidder.

Ask yourself this question.. why should New York or Chicago bid for the Olympics? What's in it for them? How will that effort benefit the city, and that's assuming they win the bid? Answer that for 1 or both cities and then start talking to us about big boy pants.

What is even more amusing is before the IOC vote in 2005, NY2012 stated their commitment to bid again for 2016 and possibly even 2020. That was an unfair tactic to use as one of their selling points during the domestic race against SF, they said they were in it for the long haul, but after placing 4th in the IOC vote their tune suddenly changed. I believe every city has a right to change their mind and do what's best for their city, I just don't like misleading statements especially when it works to their favor and then back out when things don't go their way...hence, "big boy pants"!

To be fair, Chicago never mentioned bidding again and the IOC clearly had an agenda against the USOC during the 2016 vote that Chicago got caught in the middle of so I understand why they stayed away. I just think there's a missed opportunity because Chicago is an amazing city that tends to get overlooked and the Olympics would truly bring the city it's shining moment, at the same time reinvigorating the parts of Chicago that are depressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Long Beach cluster would've provided some nice scenery, but I'm going to say eliminating it is actually an improvement. The IOC likes a compact bid, and even with all the talk about greater distances to use existing venues, if a city comes along and can offer that compact bid with minimal travel times, the IOC is going to go for it. The only criticisms I see is Lake Casitas is awfully far away and I don't understand moving water polo from the old swim stadium to the L.A. Tennis Center. I also think it's just a matter of time, likely by the end of the year, that an NFL team is going to be relocating to L.A. most likely with a retractable roof stadium which will come into play somehow. The Carson plan put forth by the Chargers and Raiders would be a nice addition to the bid.

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...