Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GBModerator

Support For Boston 2024 Olympic Bid “Tepid�

Recommended Posts

A poll for WBUR, Boston’s NPR radio station, shows that half of Boston residents want the city to host the 2024 Summer Olympic Games while a third do not. Steve Koczela, President of the MassINC Polling Group that conducted the survey said, “there’s a belief among proponents that support is higher than it appears to […]

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it will be LA2024

No it won't. It's Boston or bust for the USOC at this point. They made their choice and I doubt something like this is news to them. It won't make them change course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it will go to a referendum in November. If I'm the USOC, I'm working behind the scenes with LA. Unless Boston has a fabulous PR campaign, this bid is on very shaky ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it will go to a referendum in November. If I'm the USOC, I'm working behind the scenes with LA. Unless Boston has a fabulous PR campaign, this bid is on very shaky ground.

Well, November's PAST the September deadline. So??? :blink:

The USOC, for all its inexperience, should've REQUIRED poll surveys BEFORE picking their city. Those dumb CEOs don't learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC, for all its inexperience, should've REQUIRED poll surveys BEFORE picking their city. Those dumb CEOs don't learn.

Surveys without details and time to discuss are useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But supposedly, the USOC was going about this more pragmatic this time around. Citing that they'd only bid if they had a solid (& winnable) partner to work with. Doesn't seem like that's turning out to be the case here.

At least since the USOC short-list was announced back in June, shoulda been enough time to discuss any details (which assumingly the USOC had by that point anyway) & start to gauge the publics interest. Having it questioned now when the bid candidate has already been selected contradicts a lot of the USOC's rhetoric over the past two years.

Looks like their fears of L.A.'s 'been there, done that' angle are coming back to bite them in the rear-end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped caring what happened with our bid when they picked Boston. If they win great we get another US games, if we loose who cares I'll see a games here eventually in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't get the point of a referendum *after* the deadline, given that there could be alternative options on stand by...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? I thought you said that you were coming around & getting excited about Boston. But no matter which city the USOC chose, I have no vested interest. Whether is was L.A. or Boston, win or lose, it wouldn't have matter to me one bit.

Although, I will say that out of the four finalists, L.A. (especially with their "leaked" plans) & all the revitalization they have planned & all by 2024, seemed to me the most to get excited about out of the lot. Oh well,

^

I stopped caring what happened with our bid when they picked Boston. If they win great we get another US games, if we loose who cares I'll see a games here eventually in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But supposedly, the USOC was going about this more pragmatic this time around. Citing that they'd only bid if they had a solid (& winnable) partner to work with. Doesn't seem like that's turning out to be the case here.

At least since the USOC short-list was announced back in June, shoulda been enough time to discuss any details (which assumingly the USOC had by that point anyway) & start to gauge the publics interest. Having it questioned now when the bid candidate has already been selected contradicts a lot of the USOC's rhetoric over the past two years.

Looks like their fears of L.A.'s 'been there, done that' angle are coming back to bite them in the rear-end.

It'd be interesting to hear the USOC respond to all this, because as much as we're treating this as new information, I have to imagine that in all the months the USOC was considering candidates, they knew that Boston had less than enthusiastic support for an Olympic bid. Maybe now that they've been announced as the candidate, some more of the opposition is beginning to mobilize, but that shouldn't come as a surprise either.

I'm sure the USOC knew what was up before they made their pick. Is it possible they may come to regret this decision? Absolutely. We do have a baseline of some of the reasons they picked Boston. We have fewer reasons why they shied away from other candidates other than our own speculation. I don't doubt for a second that the USOC took a long look at the support numbers. Yet they still chose Boston. Again, might be a regrettable choice, but for those of us in the peanut gallery who have been second-guessing them from the moment they got on the plane, let's not pretend like this all is new information that is going to cause the USOC to suddenly reverse course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think Gamesbids should just be renamed the "peanut gallery", since that's all this website really is anyway. Go figure. But I'm not suggesting that any of this information is "new", nor that the USOC should 'reverse course' now (I know others have though). They made their choice already, & that's what they have to deal with now.

I'm merely just pointing out that after their painstaking rhetoric these past two years really doesn't fall in-line with their ultimate decision. I think it's safe to say why they bypassed the others, mainly San Fran (very likely to have been the same situation, if not worse, than Boston. Not to mention their lack of a more solid plan & shaky political landscape) & DC. But it appears that their only fear with L.A. was the "too soon" factor. I just don't feel like that was reason enough to cut them considering all of the bigger obstacles that the others faced. Either way, either of them probably would've finished in the same place (depending on the international competition). So why not at least have picked the more solid of picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think Gamesbids should just be renamed the "peanut gallery", since that's all this website really is anyway. Go figure. But I'm not suggesting that any of this information is "new", nor that the USOC should 'reverse course' now (I know others have though). They made their choice already, & that's what they have to deal with now.

I'm merely just pointing out that after their painstaking rhetoric these past two years really doesn't fall in-line with their ultimate decision. I think it's safe to say why they bypassed the others, mainly San Fran (very likely to have been the same situation, if not worse, than Boston. Not to mention their lack of a more solid plan & shaky political landscape) & DC. But it appears that their only fear with L.A. was the "too soon" factor. I just don't feel like that was reason enough to cut them considering all of the bigger obstacles that the others faced. Either way, either of them probably would've finished in the same place (depending on the international competition). So why not at least have picked the more solid of picks.

Perhaps what Gamesbids needs an upgrade so that when people post, it allows you to put 2 sections.. "things I'm suggesting" and "things I'm not suggesting" Seems that would often save a lot of time around here since that tends to be a source of confusion

There's nothing wrong with second-guessing the USOC here. Clearly there are some questions out there whether they made the right decision. But again, that several people here thought that LA was an obvious choice and a less obvious choice got picked, maybe we're not so in tune with what the USOC's rhetoric was or what went into making their ultimate decision. And what I was saying about the USOC.. maybe they knew Boston was going to face this type of scrutiny and they picked them anyway. If they truly did their homework - and I think we both agree that they did - there must have been some basis behind that decision that they favored Boston over LA. Plus, if what you're saying is true that no matter what candidate the US put up, they would finish in the same place, then it's hard to make a justification either way that they picked the wrong city.

The takeaway for me is this.. many of us were surprised that Boston got picked and not LA. And because of that, in the search for the reasoning behind that decision, the tendency is to look more from the standpoint of why they got it wrong rather than why they got it right. Certainly, we can question whether or not they made a wise choice, but perhaps their reasoning goes beyond what we think we know as if we were making the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, if what you're saying is true that no matter what candidate the US put up, they would finish in the same place, then it's hard to make a justification either way that they picked the wrong city.

That's assuming both bids being equal, though. But if you're already having the issues that they already knew would come up, strengthen & magnify more than they anticipated, then that only would weaken Boston's chances even more, (which many seem to question their chances in the first place). And in worse case, could wind up imploding ala Munich, Krakow or Oslo style. Whereas a stronger, bigger player, even though repeat host, L.A. bid would likely be able to go further in the campaign.

Certainly, we can question whether or not they made a wise choice, but perhaps their reasoning goes beyond what we think we know as if we were making the decision.

Right, bcuz not making the decisions ourselves has stopped us here on Gamesbids, of all places, from being able to reasonably speculate about these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? I thought you said that you were coming around & getting excited about Boston. But no matter which city the USOC chose, I have no vested interest. Whether is was L.A. or Boston, win or lose, it wouldn't have matter to me one bit.

Although, I will say that out of the four finalists, L.A. (especially with their "leaked" plans) & all the revitalization they have planned & all by 2024, seemed to me the most to get excited about out of the lot. Oh well,

^

I am getting excited about the bid and think it will be good, but I don't really care if they win or loose. Now, I will be devastated if Paris looses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's going to be a referendum (I'm not knowledgeable on Boston city politics) do they have to wait for November for a referendum? Surely there's a way they can get one done earlier given the applicant city date is September (I had no idea it was that close). Hold a referendum earlier so if the public does reject it, the USOC can gage interest from another candidate city. If a referendum rejects the Olympic bid in November leaving the USOC without a bid for 2024, then the entire USOC should turn in their resignations immediately.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's going to be a referendum (I'm not knowledgeable on Boston city politics) do they have to wait for November for a referendum? Surely there's a way they can get one done earlier given the applicant city date is September (I had no idea it was that close). Hold a referendum earlier so if the public does reject it, the USOC can gage interest from another candidate city. If a referendum rejects the Olympic bid in November leaving the USOC without a bid for 2024, then the entire USOC should turn in their resignations immediately.

I think the USOC made a foolish choice by picking Boston I have a bad feeling that Boston voters will vote No it it and it could very well take place in November being rejected by Boston voters if so it will leave them with out a bidding city. If so then the USOC should make a bid for Miami to host the 2023 Pan American Games and the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If so then the USOC should make a bid for ... the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics Games.

Which is what the Board of Bozos should have done for 2022 in the first place -- but which no-choice-but-2026 also then aligns with the 2026 World Cup.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit premature but let's just suppose the Boston bid is rejected by voters or is eliminated in either the first or second round of voting. That would give the USOC three massive SOG bidding failures out of the last four SOG bid cycles. If Boston goes down, perhaps the USOC finally takes stock of Denver and Reno and says OK we'll give the winter games a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Boston goes down, perhaps the USOC finally takes stock of Denver and Reno and says OK we'll give the winter games a shot.

By which time, European winter cities will be back in full force bidding as well. They (the USOC) are so dumb and I've sent them that message as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By which time, European winter cities will be back in full force bidding as well. They (the USOC) are so dumb and I've sent them that message as well.

Very true. After the farce that the 2022 race has become, I expect there will be an even greater desire in the IOC to return to a traditional European winter power for the 2026 Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×