Nacre Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Which is why I'm pretty much done participating in this Boston anxiety that everyone has that the bid will fall apart. Anything can happen between now and September when bids are completely submitted, and even then anything can happen from this September to 2017 when the final vote happens. As the race for the 2022 WOG has shown us, it is futile to get this concerned right now as anything can happen, and that bid right there everything did happen. All the European countries dropped down and the 2 least likely bids to even be shortlisted became the only 2 in the running for the race. The difference is that the Boston bid is not just about whether the city really wants the Olympics (which is an issue with every bid) but rather the specifics of what the project is. The organizers are well connected political elites rather than sporting people and wealthy donors, and they've said numerous conflicting things. So who provides the funding? Which of the ephemeral transportation projects will get built and how? How does Boston resolve the issue of promising a compact Olympics while asking for money from the entire state of Massachusetts? And what will the Olympics leave behind that benefits Boston? With Paris, Oslo, Tokyo, etc the transit and venues are/were mostly in place. They just need/needed to convince the public to commit the taxes to fund the bid. The low level of public support is just one of several very high hurdles facing Boston. While it's possible they might solve one of those issues it seems incredibly unlikely they will solve all of the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 If internet was advanced as it is today back in the late 80s can you imagine how much we would be bitching on the ridiculousness of an Atlanta bid? Yet that bid won, over global cities Melbourne, Athens, Toronto and Manchester! So yea, never count the US out in anything, except for becoming World Cup champions lol. NOT hosting the games, but winning them. It's always a point of amusement of mine when we hear the choruses of #nbcfail and people complaining about Olympic coverage that they think that's something which only started a few years ago when the social media started becoming mainstream. As if people weren't making the EXACT same complaints 20 years ago. So yea, same thing here.. we only think this is something new because there's an Internet site to discuss it. That said.. the circumstances that led to Atlanta's win are unlikely to repeat themselves, especially if Paris is their competition. Atlanta shouldn't be considered the precedent for what can happen with Olympic bidding. Sure, the US hockey team beat the Soviets in 1980 and plenty of underdog teams since then have used that as inspiration. Doesn't mean that because it happened once, it might happen again. History is strange that way. The difference is that the Boston bid is not just about whether the city really wants the Olympics (which is an issue with every bid) but rather the specifics of what the project is. The organizers are well connected political elites rather than sporting people and wealthy donors, and they've said numerous conflicting things. So who provides the funding? Which of the ephemeral transportation projects will get built and how? How does Boston resolve the issue of promising a compact Olympics while asking for money from the entire state of Massachusetts? And what will the Olympics leave behind that benefits Boston? I'll buy that. As much as Atlanta fell into favorable circumstances, they also had a nice little trump card in Coca-Cola. That certainly didn't hurt matters. I have the same assessment of Boston.. as much as they're trying to sell it as someone that will improve the city, I'm not sure I get that. And I've been saying it for a while that where 1 of the leaders of the bid is a big-time contractor, it gives off a weird vibe where this might be more for him and his bottom line than for the city. I don't think the citizens of Boston are necessarily anti-Olympics in the sense we saw the 2022 bidders turn it down. I just think they're looking at what this group is proposed and they're not buying into it. An Olympic plan in the right time and place can be beneficial for a city and leave a lasting legacy. Not sure I see that though here. The risk might be too great to outweigh the potential rewards. So where Boston citizens are balking - and doing so in a manner that was probably unexpected - who can blame them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 So where Boston citizens are balking - and doing so in a manner that was probably unexpected - who can blame them. They're dealing with the terrible winter that's just going and also the pain of the Trasnaev trial, their own little 9/11. There's the World Figure Skating Championships to look forward to next March and Rio in July-August next year. So factors could still work out favorably. It's a long way to September 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 They're dealing with the terrible winter that's just going and also the pain of the Trasnaev trial, their own little 9/11. There's the World Figure Skating Championships to look forward to next March and Rio in July-August next year. So factors could still work out favorably. It's a long way to September 2017. Much as it has been a really bad Winter in New England, I'm not sure that's something where when the weather turns nicer that suddenly they'll be more receptive to hosting an Olympics. As for the Boston Marathon bombing.. I know we've seen them band together with Boston Strong and all that, but I still feel like that's more likely to turn them against the Olympics than it is to give them a reason for it. The aftermath of that was a security nightmare and I think that's going to weigh on the minds of a lot of people who won't be so willing to get behind the idea of an even more massive sporting event coming to town. More than that though, to me it's still about the sales pitch. The Boston organizers need to sell this as something that's going to have a long-term positive effect for the city and so far I'm not getting that message. They may see Rio next summer (and again, as has been brought up before, we spent a month last summer looking at the beautiful vistas of Rio, so it's not a complete unknown) and look at what the Olympics has done there, but I don't get the sense we're going to see that in Boston. With London, we know about the transformation of the East End as something the Olympics brought. Is Boston getting anything like that? If the issue here is getting the citizens on board, this has to be spun as a positive for them. Having other events in the city may or may not help. It needs to be about the tangible long-term benefits of bringing the Olympics to Boston. So the question is can opinions be turned on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Article on what some folks in Western Mass want. http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/western_mass_officials_to_pitc.html#incart_m-rpt-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plusbrilliantsexploits Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 It's always a point of amusement of mine when we hear the choruses of #nbcfail and people complaining about Olympic coverage that they think that's something which only started a few years ago when the social media started becoming mainstream. As if people weren't making the EXACT same complaints 20 years ago. So yea, same thing here.. we only think this is something new because there's an Internet site to discuss it. That said.. the circumstances that led to Atlanta's win are unlikely to repeat themselves, especially if Paris is their competition. Atlanta shouldn't be considered the precedent for what can happen with Olympic bidding. Sure, the US hockey team beat the Soviets in 1980 and plenty of underdog teams since then have used that as inspiration. Doesn't mean that because it happened once, it might happen again. History is strange that way. I'll buy that. As much as Atlanta fell into favorable circumstances, they also had a nice little trump card in Coca-Cola. That certainly didn't hurt matters. I have the same assessment of Boston.. as much as they're trying to sell it as someone that will improve the city, I'm not sure I get that. And I've been saying it for a while that where 1 of the leaders of the bid is a big-time contractor, it gives off a weird vibe where this might be more for him and his bottom line than for the city. I don't think the citizens of Boston are necessarily anti-Olympics in the sense we saw the 2022 bidders turn it down. I just think they're looking at what this group is proposed and they're not buying into it. An Olympic plan in the right time and place can be beneficial for a city and leave a lasting legacy. Not sure I see that though here. The risk might be too great to outweigh the potential rewards. So where Boston citizens are balking - and doing so in a manner that was probably unexpected - who can blame them. Atlanta was also helped by the fact that they had a disciplined and, ahem, resourceful bid team willing to "wine and dine" the IOC members (Billy Payne's words, not mine)...Also, Athens was a hapless opponent prattling on about the Acropolis and the legacy of the Olympic Games, but offering no intriguing plan for the future of the Olympic Games. And yeah, Coca-Cola sure helped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Article on what some folks in Western Mass want. http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/western_mass_officials_to_pitc.html#incart_m-rpt-1 It's funny when people extol the virtues of Agenda 2020 and talk about "this is now possible" and what a great thing that is. Well, meet an example of where Agenda 2020 may actually be working against a bid. So Western Mass wants to be included in this Olympic bid. Seems like they're using the idea that existing infrastructure is preferred, even if it's not in close proximity to the host city. Does this seems smart? Seems like pre-Agenda 2020, this would have even been a consideration. Now it is. But does it make Boston's bid better? Or is this just a ploy to get the rest of the state involved, regardless of how much better or worse it might make the bid look in the eyes of the IOC? This is where Boston needs to figure out what their message is. They've been promoting this nice compact bid where the majority of venues are easily accessible from one another. Start including venues in Western Mass. and suddenly that's not so true anymore. And if they're holding out to get cities like Springfield and Amherst to get included before they'll offer up funding, that's not going to end well. It's telling that the original Boston plans didn't even include venues at Boston College because it's a little further off the beaten path from Central Boston. So that's no good, but they should consider Springfield? Doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amorincognito Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 The Boston bid just needs to be clear in its arguments where the whole state stands to benefit, it's not just about where they put the competitions. Massachusetts is a small size state, it's not like you're trying to convince California to fund Los Angeles, the effects from Boston would seem to easily reach even into neighboring states. It's counterproductive to spread out venues to win local support when that spread out concept is likely to become a liability in the quest to ultimately win them. Agenda 2020 or not, you're not the only bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 The Boston bid just needs to be clear in its arguments where the whole state stands to benefit, it's not just about where they put the competitions. Massachusetts is a small size state, it's not like you're trying to convince California to fund Los Angeles, the effects from Boston would seem to easily reach even into neighboring states. How so? What are the benefits to Springfield, Fall River, etc from Boston hosting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted April 4, 2015 Report Share Posted April 4, 2015 How so? What are the benefits to Springfield, Fall River, etc from Boston hosting? Varying levels of exposure and a little extra money flowing around the place. Maybe if they're lucky they can get some infrastructure renovations and some new world class sporting facilities. I mean that's enough to get any small town a little interested, especially if the BC is planning on using the states money (which would come from those towns). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 4, 2015 Report Share Posted April 4, 2015 Varying levels of exposure and a little extra money flowing around the place. Maybe if they're lucky they can get some infrastructure renovations and some new world class sporting facilities. I mean that's enough to get any small town a little interested, especially if the BC is planning on using the states money (which would come from those towns). Still begs the question though.. is Boston's bid better off (in the eyes of the IOC) for including Springfield in their bid. Good for Springfield that they have something to gain from this. But is the IOC more inclined to choose Boston's bid if it includes a venue 90 miles and a 2 hour train ride outside of Boston. Or Amherst which is even more difficult to get to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted April 4, 2015 Report Share Posted April 4, 2015 If they include Springfield, will the Simpsons be in the Opening Ceremony? They are more famous than anything to come out of Boston! (I know that was just a silly comment).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted April 4, 2015 Report Share Posted April 4, 2015 Still begs the question though.. is Boston's bid better off (in the eyes of the IOC) for including Springfield in their bid. Good for Springfield that they have something to gain from this. But is the IOC more inclined to choose Boston's bid if it includes a venue 90 miles and a 2 hour train ride outside of Boston. Or Amherst which is even more difficult to get to. No the bid is not better off. The bid looses the only aspect that according to the USOC made them "the best choice". Boston was proposing a new type of games and now that the bid team has to spread the venues around to pass the referendum what they will propose is probably going to be even worse travel wise then LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.