Jump to content
Team USA

BREAKING:BOSTON ENDS 2024 BID

Recommended Posts

Wow, so I'm on vacation for nearly 2 weeks and this is what I could home to. Good for all involved they pulled the plug on this. Right decision because Boston was sinking faster than the Titanic.

Now the question is will the USOC look toward Los Angeles. I think they will, but whether or not they put that bid forth will be debated here in the coming days and week for sure. Sounds like LA is willing to settle for the USOC's sloppy seconds. Good for them, but if they want to make a serious Olympic push and not bid just for the sake of bidding, they should tell the organizers this cycle doesn't look so good, but we're ready for you in 4 years if you want to bid for 2028. Obviously a lot of people involved on both sides here look bad. Take some time to regroup and don't feel compelled to rush LA into this as a face-saving move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am on cloud 9 right now and I am not ashamed to say it. Yes we all knew this would happen so I don't need to state that part but I am shocked at how many of you forget how much time there is left in the process. So many things can happen in the next 2 years. Do I have to even remind you all how the front runner Rome crashed out of 2020? Lets not coronate Paris just yet.

Now I don't know how familiar you all are with regards to LA but let me fill you in. LA is a major sports town! People spend a lot of money on so many different types of sports here and I am not even talking about spectators. Money from sports flows through LA's veins these people know how to acquire major events and more so how to pay for them and get the city excited to have them here so don't write LA off just yet. They know what they are doing in regards to sports management, hosting, logistics etc, if it's any city in the US who can break this down to dollars and cents for the IOC it's LA. Especially now in this era vs 1932 and 1988

Further more you have a populace here that quite frankly is accustomed to the city spending money on major sporting and entertainment events so they are not going to run into the same massive opposition to the Games like Boston did. However there are so many companies and private entities here that would pay good money to be attached to the games that funding will be the least of LA'S worries.

I agree with BYTHEBAY, Paris should now be worried if LA is in fact chosen. All the arguments used in Paris' favor can be used for LA. They both have hosting experience, they both are major cities, both should technically have the money to pay for it, both have international appeal both have experience with large scale events. Paris actually would have competition now.

As for Toronto. I think they have a great shot at it as well. Toronto is an amazing city with great hosting potential as well, so 2024 will be an exciting race to follow. The most exciting we've seen in a while but it's going to come down to the back room campaigning. With the profit sharing deal out of the way I really can't see any major hurdles in LA being, at least, a true contender. Well I guess at this point the only hurdle is that they haven't been chosen yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...kind crazy to think at this very moment the Olympic cauldron is burning again over LA!

55b3cf3379dc4.image.jpg

gettyoly.1800x1200-824x549.jpg

Edited by paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gettyoly.1800x1200-824x549.jpg

I WAS THERE!! THE LIGHTING WAS SO EPIC!!! :D (though, getting into the coliseum was a total headache but totally worth it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically the only North American city that can host is LA.

Despite all the lovely comments from the IOC, without a main stadium you are doomed. Look at London 2012. A main stadium of 80,000 ready to be downsized to 25,000 turns into a 54,000 seat stadium with a regular football Tennant and available for athletics into an Alpha+ city where the previous largest capacity for athletics was 17,000 for a Diamond League regular.

Unless you can do a Hampden Park and put a deck in reducing the capacity but still leaving you the minimum 60,000 you are going to seriously struggle. The Chicago model of building a 80,000 capacity stadium downsized to 10,000 post games leaves you with the worlds most expensive seat per capacity stadium which would beat the now abandoned Tokyo stadium hands down. There's the cost of building it, of the reducing it and then having a capacity so small the income to recoup money is minimal, all done without public subsidy.

Therefore you are left with a city with a large enough central stadium to accommodate decking like Dallas or Miami as decking takes at lkeast 14,000 seats if following the approach was pursued. Unless a NFL franchise or college football team can be persuaded to be a resident in a large but compromised stadium, despite all of the honey talk from the IOC, North America's realistic hopes begin and end in LA

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Los Angeles is the only immediate, short term option. And while the SOCOG boosters will be keen it is also a bit futile. Of course those wacky nutjobs in Vegas will probably throw their hat into the ring as well. Can the USOC sit out this cycle? Yes. Should they? No. They need to show that the flexibility the 2020 Agenda has offered can be applied with an LA bid. Can LA beat Rome, Bucharest or maybe Toronto? Probably. Toronto would be a tough competitor. Paris looks like a done deal right now though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I Agree With San Francisco To Host The Games of The XXXIII Olympiad/XVII Paralympic Games In 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically the only North American city that can host is LA.

Despite all the lovely comments from the IOC, without a main stadium you are doomed. Look at London 2012. A main stadium of 80,000 ready to be downsized to 25,000 turns into a 54,000 seat stadium with a regular football Tennant and available for athletics into an Alpha+ city where the previous largest capacity for athletics was 17,000 for a Diamond League regular.

Unless you can do a Hampden Park and put a deck in reducing the capacity but still leaving you the minimum 60,000 you are going to seriously struggle. The Chicago model of building a 80,000 capacity stadium downsized to 10,000 post games leaves you with the worlds most expensive seat per capacity stadium which would beat the now abandoned Tokyo stadium hands down. There's the cost of building it, of the reducing it and then having a capacity so small the income to recoup money is minimal, all done without public subsidy.

Therefore you are left with a city with a large enough central stadium to accommodate decking like Dallas or Miami as decking takes at lkeast 14,000 seats if following the approach was pursued. Unless a NFL franchise or college football team can be persuaded to be a resident in a large but compromised stadium, despite all of the honey talk from the IOC, North America's realistic hopes begin and end in LA

What was the Olympic stadium for Chicago going to be downsized for? Just into a smaller athletics stadium?

And Chicago would still be a choice for an Olympics with the idea of downsizing the Olympic stadium into a new stadium for the Chicago Bears. Currently Soldier Field, which is where the Bears play, is the oldest in the NFL, being built in 1924. And it's also currently the 3rd smallest stadium in capacity. But I'm not sure how successful a downsize from an Olympic athletics stadium into a football stadium would be where it involves removing the track altogether and bringing the seats closer together into the dimensions of an NFL stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC should just sit out 2024.

I was a big supporter of the Boston bid, but it pained me to see the mis-steps, one after another, that its leadership committed. Someone on local TV last night attributed it to the fact that the B24 leadership was all corporate types who have never needed to consider politics and winning over people. I'm not sure that's 100% true, but there is an element of truth to it. Boston's bid really started to fall apart due to factors beyond its control: this past winter's record snowfalls and the impact on local transportation was more than enough for the No campaigners an opening. I hoped, but never truly believed Boston would have won (especially against Paris), but I was hoping we'd have at least gotten a decent bid together, gotten some good urban planning out of it, and perhaps set us up for a repeat bid in 4 years. Oh well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> Money from sports flows through LA's veins these people know how to acquire major events and more so how to pay for them and get the city excited to have them here so don't write LA off just yet.

Which is why LA lost its NFL franchises to Oakland and St Louis and has been trying, and failing, to get replacements for 20 years.

The "No LA 2024" movement is going to ask one question. Will the LA taxpayers guarantee to pick up the tab for any cost overruns or revenue shortfall??

I suspect Angelinos like the concept of hosting. I'm not sure they are willing to pay for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the Olympic stadium for Chicago going to be downsized for? Just into a smaller athletics stadium?

And Chicago would still be a choice for an Olympics with the idea of downsizing the Olympic stadium into a new stadium for the Chicago Bears. Currently Soldier Field, which is where the Bears play, is the oldest in the NFL, being built in 1924. And it's also currently the 3rd smallest stadium in capacity. But I'm not sure how successful a downsize from an Olympic athletics stadium into a football stadium would be where it involves removing the track altogether and bringing the seats closer together into the dimensions of an NFL stadium.

In 2002-2003, Chicago spent $632million updating Soldier Field so the Bears using any Olympic Stadium is a non-starter.

The 2016 stadium was to be downsized to a 10,000 seat community athletics stadium. Realistically to convert post games you either compromise the ideal athletics view or the ideal football/gridiron view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically the only North American city that can host is LA.

Despite all the lovely comments from the IOC, without a main stadium you are doomed. Look at London 2012. A main stadium of 80,000 ready to be downsized to 25,000 turns into a 54,000 seat stadium with a regular football Tennant and available for athletics into an Alpha+ city where the previous largest capacity for athletics was 17,000 for a Diamond League regular.

Unless you can do a Hampden Park and put a deck in reducing the capacity but still leaving you the minimum 60,000 you are going to seriously struggle. The Chicago model of building a 80,000 capacity stadium downsized to 10,000 post games leaves you with the worlds most expensive seat per capacity stadium which would beat the now abandoned Tokyo stadium hands down. There's the cost of building it, of the reducing it and then having a capacity so small the income to recoup money is minimal, all done without public subsidy.

Therefore you are left with a city with a large enough central stadium to accommodate decking like Dallas or Miami as decking takes at lkeast 14,000 seats if following the approach was pursued. Unless a NFL franchise or college football team can be persuaded to be a resident in a large but compromised stadium, despite all of the honey talk from the IOC, North America's realistic hopes begin and end in LA

And this a long standing problem for almost everybody that bids today, what to do with the stadium post-Games. It was a problem for both Chicago and New York and I suspect it will likely be a question in Toronto as well. If you have a regular tenant that can move into the stadium post-Games, then you have a viable legacy, If not, you have a white elephant that is a major drain on local taxpayers (unless you're China or some other dictatorship)

I've commented before on the whole idea of a temporary stadium or downsizing a stadium to a smaller size. Both are concepts that are either unproven or failures. The most recent attempt involved Incheon's main stadium at the Asian Games which is 60,000. Plans to scale it down to a 20,000 seat athletics stadium have been cancelled so now the city has a huge white elephant on their hands. It's easy for a city to come and say this stadium is temporary or will be downsized post-Games, but the reality of that happening is highly unlikely. That was one of the biggest problems for Boston and San Francisco. Los Angeles has the Coliseum which needs some work, but the costs will be much less than building a new stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> Money from sports flows through LA's veins these people know how to acquire major events and more so how to pay for them and get the city excited to have them here so don't write LA off just yet.

Which is why LA lost its NFL franchises to Oakland and St Louis and has been trying, and failing, to get replacements for 20 years.

The "No LA 2024" movement is going to ask one question. Will the LA taxpayers guarantee to pick up the tab for any cost overruns or revenue shortfall??

I suspect Angelinos like the concept of hosting. I'm not sure they are willing to pay for them.

Yeah, and that's why there are three teams eyeing LA: the Rams with Inglewood and the Raiders/Chargers with Carson, both already well underway in their prep, with NFL backing (kindof) and everything. The city desperately needs an NFL team. Why? Just because. The city is desperate. Numerous plans have come and gone, and that only adds to the desperation list. LA has a desire, a need, for sports and entertainment (even more than better schools!) and really if the games can implement a solid legacy, taxpayers would probably agree to it. Especially in terms of transportation infrastructure, greenspace, affordable housing, and street/sidewalk improvements (too many potholes!) - things the city really needs. By reading some Reddit comments, it seems like most people support the games, but also expect the feds to pay a sufficient amount. Apparently, federal funding is a common thing for LA to lobby for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say provide a field and a track, and let everybody (press included) just bring their chairs or lawn blankets. And Top price for the Opening Ceremony would be only $100.00.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2002-2003, Chicago spent $632million updating Soldier Field so the Bears using any Olympic Stadium is a non-starter.

The 2016 stadium was to be downsized to a 10,000 seat community athletics stadium. Realistically to convert post games you either compromise the ideal athletics view or the ideal football/gridiron view

LMFAO what????? For $632 million they almost could have built an entirely new stadium!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMFAO what????? For $632 million they almost could have built an entirely new stadium!

Hence why it's now referred to as "the mistake by the lake."

For argument's sake, in the U.S. a bidder needs either an NFL team, major college football team, or a MLB team to take over the stadium. Both the NFL and MLB have seen a boom in new stadiums over the past 15 years so when you break it down, there's not a lot of choices. I've listed some cities in need of new or seeking new stadiums but obviously not all would be Olympic host material.

Miami - The Miami Hurricanes have played off campus at Sun Life Stadium since the demolition of the Orange Bowl where they regularly drew crowds of 70,000. They want an on campus stadium but apparently Miami politics are nearly as messy as Boston's.

New Orleans - The Saints have tossed around the idea of a river front stadium to replace the aging Superdome

Oakland - Coliseum City has been discussed but appears to have fallen though

San Antonio - They had discussions with the Oakland Raiders about a possible move to San Antonio where they'd play in the Alamodome until a new retractable-roof stadium is built.

Las Vegas - UNLV wants a new stadium for their football team

St. Louis - The city has proposed a riverfront stadium for the Rams though that may not happen soon enough if their owner follows through on the move to Los Angeles

Obviously Los Angeles and San Diego have been discussed. Realistically though, that's it. And how many of those cities are actually capable of hosting an Olympics so your options are limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence why it's now referred to as "the mistake by the lake."

For argument's sake, in the U.S. a bidder needs either an NFL team, major college football team, or a MLB team to take over the stadium. Both the NFL and MLB have seen a boom in new stadiums over the past 15 years so when you break it down, there's not a lot of choices. I've listed some cities in need of new or seeking new stadiums but obviously not all would be Olympic host material.

Miami - The Miami Hurricanes have played off campus at Sun Life Stadium since the demolition of the Orange Bowl where they regularly drew crowds of 70,000. They want an on campus stadium but apparently Miami politics are nearly as messy as Boston's.

The hurricanes and Dolphins are renovating Sun Life. Basically they're gutting it and placing new seats and placing a roof on it. Looks like it will be pretty nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

soldier.jpg

They basically did get a new stadium.

Saw it last year. What an idiotic abomination -- just so football fans could be close to the action?? It brought Chicago down in my eyes from a world-class city to just a regional powerhouse. I mean Zaha Hadid could not have done worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that's why there are three teams eyeing LA: the Rams with Inglewood and the Raiders/Chargers with Carson, both already well underway in their prep, with NFL backing (kindof) and everything. The city desperately needs an NFL team. Why? Just because. The city is desperate. Numerous plans have come and gone, and that only adds to the desperation list. LA has a desire, a need, for sports and entertainment (even more than better schools!) and really if the games can implement a solid legacy, taxpayers would probably agree to it. Especially in terms of transportation infrastructure, greenspace, affordable housing, and street/sidewalk improvements (too many potholes!) - things the city really needs. By reading some Reddit comments, it seems like most people support the games, but also expect the feds to pay a sufficient amount. Apparently, federal funding is a common thing for LA to lobby for.

Just because? That's bullcrap. LA does not NEED an NFL team. There have been franchises showing interest in moving to LA for years and so far.. nothing. The league was all but ready to hand them the 2002 expansion franchise, but it didn't happen and Houston got it.

The advantage of an LA Olympics is that they have a lot of facilities in place. Not all of them are ready-made for an Olympics, but it's easier to find a large scale stadium where there are already 2 in the city (meaning if they wanted to completely demolish one and rebuild it, there's another available). To say nothing of the deals to build a new stadium for an NFL team, although I'll believe that when I see the first shovel put into the ground.

Hence why it's now referred to as "the mistake by the lake."

The mistake by the lake is Cleveland Municipal Stadium. Soldier Field has never been referred to by that nickname. And I see Usa2024Olympics beat me to it, but essentially the Bears did build a new stadium almost from scratch. Considering there are teams out there that have spent (or will spend) over a billion dollars for a new stadium, $632 million for theirs doesn't seem that crazy. Although I agree with all the rhetoric that talk about a spaceship having landed there in terms of what the new stadium looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because? That's bullcrap. LA does not NEED an NFL team. There have been franchises showing interest in moving to LA for years and so far.. nothing. The league was all but ready to hand them the 2002 expansion franchise, but it didn't happen and Houston got it.

By need, I meant that the city wants it so bad that it seems like they need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting there is an athletics stadium which did successfully convert to a football type stadium

Manchester's Commonwealth Games Stadium, aka the Etihad Stadium

Here they took a 38,000 seat horseshoe configuration and after the games, removed the track, dug down a level, filled in the horse shoe and brought the other end in, to leave a 48,000 seat football stadium, now being expanded to 62,000 seat.

What you might to do is scale this up so built a 65,000 seat athletics stadium with the notion of converting it into an 80,000 seat football stadium?

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

×