Ueberroth's 2016 Bid Conditions

[Sir Rols]

Interesting article I stumbled across on what Ueberroth is exactly demanding of any US city planning a bid.

By Philip Hersh

Chicago Tribune

(KRT)

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. - He calls them ``non-starters.'' They are the approximately 12 conditions Peter Ueberroth says must be met by any U.S. city wanting to avoid being a non-starter in the contest to play host to the 2016 Olympic Games.

Ueberroth, the board chair of the U.S. Olympic Committee, will spell out all the conditions privately during upcoming visits to the cities, including Chicago, that have expressed preliminary interest in bidding for 2016. While the USOC has not committed to putting forth a bid, all signs point in that direction.

A few days ago, sitting in the offices of his investment company, the Contrarian Group, Ueberroth revealed the most significant conditions.

The first concerns stadiums for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and track and field events.

There can be two stadiums, Ueberroth said, eliminating the need to have the ceremonies stadium include a track, which would make it less suitable for a sport like football after the Games. The track stadium can be configured for post-Games downsizing.

But, in his words, these facilities either must be ``existing or fully committed to'' before the USOC's 11-member board picks a bid city late in 2007.

The second condition is the city also must be ``fully committed''

to building an Olympic Village that can accommodate 15,000 people.

Other sports venue arrangements can be more flexible, in an effort to eliminate unnecessary expense.

Chicago could use the existing whitewater canoe facility in South Bend. It is the same distance from the city as were the rowing/canoeing venues from Los Angeles (1984) and Barcelona (1992).

It would be a stretch, but rowing and canoeing could go to the University of Wisconsin, which has the premier rowing program in the Midwest. After all, quarantine issues had the 1956 Melbourne Games equestrian events take place in Sweden, and the sailing events at the  1972 Munich Olympics were 540 miles away in Kiel.

Condition three? The city must show its bid is fully backed by its city, county and state governments. That will help assure support from the state's members of Congress when the USOC works to get the full support of the federal government,

Federal cooperation will be necessary for the USOC to resolve nagging international relations issues, particularly frustrations about obtaining U.S. entry visas since 9/11, that could affect any U.S. bid for 2016 when it goes to an International Olympic Committee vote in the summer of 2009.

As Ueberroth nears the apparent end of his USOC leadership role after the 2008 Olympics, international relations has become his primary focus. Ueberroth said that during the 2006 Winter Olympics, he saw only two sports events but had 61 meetings with IOC members.

The USOC's decades of haphazard international relations - Ueberroth grades its performance over the past several years as ``D-minus'' - have created significant problems, both tangible and symbolic. Many are linked to years of constant turnover in USOC leadership that erupted into a scandal drawing the attention of Congress three years ago.

``There have been a lot of good people, but the turnover meant none of them had a chance to engage other international sports leaders for a length of time,'' Ueberroth said.

A possible solution to one symbolic issue might lead Ueberroth,  68, to extend his stay as USOC chair. His continued presence in such a prominent role would make utmost sense if the U.S. does have a horse in the race for 2016 because Ueberroth brings the experience of having run the enormously successful 1984 Olympics.

Every other country but the U.S. calls the top two officials of its national Olympic committee ``president'' and ``secretary general.'' The USOC's top two are ``chair'' and ``chief executive.''

To the rest of the world, that singularity smacks as arrogant. By changing the top two titles but keeping the position of chair for a third person with lesser responsibilities, especially reduced travel, the USOC would show its willingness to play by the same standards and create a way for Ueberroth to remain as more than an elder statesman.

Ueberroth and CEO Jim Scherr already have made personnel moves to bolster an international relations department soon to have its headquarters in Newport Beach.

First was the February hiring of 15-year Olympic movement executive Bob Fasulo, who speaks three foreign languages, as international relations chief. Three-time volleyball Olympian and IOC member Bob Ctvrtlik, fluent in two foreign languages, came on as international relations vice president in March. Next will be the naming of three-time water polo Olympian Chris Duplanty as the international relations staff liaison.

The most divisive international issue facing the USOC is resentment over how much money it receives from the IOC contract with the Olympic TV rights-holder in the U.S. (12.5 percent) and from the IOC's global sponsorship program, TOP (20 percent). The IOC is under considerable pressure to try to renegotiate of those deals, which represent 50 percent of USOC revenues.

Those percentage agreements have been in place nearly 25 years, during which the TOP program has gone from having all U.S.-based companies to a 50-50 split between U.S. and foreign companies among the current 12 sponsors. The foreign companies, however, would not want anything to jeopardize U.S. marketing rights that come with the sponsorship.

``We always want to do what is fair,'' Ueberroth said, declining to comment further on the issue other than to say, ``We are having good dialogue with a lot of smart people.''

---

© 2006, Chicago Tribune.

[baron-pierreIV]

Newport Beach, huh?  Hmmm...  :suspect:

[nykfan845]

What would the IOC members think about separating the Ceremonies venue from the athletics venue?

And Milwaukee IS a stretch. IMO, it's jus too far.

I wonder what his other points are.

[NewYork2016]

By reading this article, it looks like the USOC has a lot of negotiating to do with the IOC. The USOC would not want add more to those problems (i.e. breaking Olympic Tradition and stretching out some venues) if they want to accomplish something with them.

[NewYork2016]

But, in his words, these facilities either must be ``existing or fully committed to'' before the USOC's 11-member board picks a bid city late in 2007.

Huh? Does this writer really telling us the truth? Ctvrtlik stated they want to decide by the end of this year. Next year would be too late. The IOC would want the NOC's to inform them of their bid cities by Summer of next year (If we'll follow the 2012 schedule).

[barrack]

The first concerns stadiums for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and track and field events.

There can be two stadiums, Ueberroth said, eliminating the need to have the ceremonies stadium include a track, which would make it less suitable for a sport like football after the Games. The track stadium can be configured for post-Games downsizing.

But, in his words, these facilities either must be ``existing or fully committed to'' before the USOC's 11-member board picks a bid city late in 2007.

I had asked in another thread about the viability of separating the ceremonies stadium with the t&f stadium and was told that it couldn't happen. Yet, I'm reading in this quote that it *can* happen, pretty much for the very reasons why I tossed up the idea to begin with.

What is the real rule on this? Does the t&f stadium have to be 60k or more *just* because ceremonies are also done there? Or can the ceremonies take place at a larger existing stadium and a smaller, dedicated t&f complex house the athletic events?

[NewYork2016]

The first concerns stadiums for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and track and field events.

There can be two stadiums, Ueberroth said, eliminating the need to have the ceremonies stadium include a track, which would make it less suitable for a sport like football after the Games. The track stadium can be configured for post-Games downsizing.

But, in his words, these facilities either must be ``existing or fully committed to'' before the USOC's 11-member board picks a bid city late in 2007.

I had asked in another thread about the viability of separating the ceremonies stadium with the t&f stadium and was told that it couldn't happen. Yet, I'm reading in this quote that it *can* happen, pretty much for the very reasons why I tossed up the idea to begin with.

What is the real rule on this? Does the t&f stadium have to be 60k or more *just* because ceremonies are also done there? Or can the ceremonies take place at a larger existing stadium and a smaller, dedicated t&f complex house the athletic events?

What I think Ueby is doing here is to lure more cities as possible, specially a heavyweight like Chicago. It won't look good though if Chicago will present that plan. That will add to more negotiations with the IOC and the USOC is already busy, based on this article, in negotiating a lot of more important matters with the IOC. We're talking about changing tradition with that suggestion.

This article actually contradicts what most news organizations posted a few days ago. Statements from Ueby that specifies, any interested city should have an existing or fully approved stadium that will host the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and Track and Field Events. So, this is a questionnable report on what Ueby really said.

Granting though Chicago proposes this idea, and NYC, LA, SF or Houston would present a fully approved stadium for the Ceremonies and the Athletics Competitions, Chicago would not look like a good suitor. Other cities will present the USOC and the IOC with "brand-new huge luxury cars", then Chicago could present a certified "pre-owned Toyota Echo" (or Yaris if you're don't live in the USA).

[Sir Rols]

The first concerns stadiums for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and track and field events.

There can be two stadiums, Ueberroth said, eliminating the need to have the ceremonies stadium include a track, which would make it less suitable for a sport like football after the Games. The track stadium can be configured for post-Games downsizing.

But, in his words, these facilities either must be ``existing or fully committed to'' before the USOC's 11-member board picks a bid city late in 2007.

I had asked in another thread about the viability of separating the ceremonies stadium with the t&f stadium and was told that it couldn't happen. Yet, I'm reading in this quote that it *can* happen, pretty much for the very reasons why I tossed up the idea to begin with.

What is the real rule on this? Does the t&f stadium have to be 60k or more *just* because ceremonies are also done there? Or can the ceremonies take place at a larger existing stadium and a smaller, dedicated t&f complex house the athletic events?

I think as NYKfan and NewYork 2016 said, this would require some negotiating with the IOC. I"m quite surprised Ueberroth has made such a statement. As far as I'm aware, as the IOC charter basically stands at the moment, it is a requirement for the main ceremonies at a Summer Games to be held at the T&F stadium (and also there's conditions about the cauldron having to be in sight at all times from the T&F stadium etc). Even if it isn't a strict legal or protocol requirement, it sure is a major leap away from tradition, and there are sure to be purists in the IOC who'd be against it.

[Rafa]

goooo istanbul. hehe :grinning:  :laughlong:

[LA84]

I wish I had more time to post but I'm out of town at trial and we are working ungodly hours.

However - Mr. Ueberroths statement just substantiates what I have said all along.

The U.S. wants the best possible bid and is setting out  guidelines under IOC rules that gives a level playing field to all interested cities. And as the head of the most financially successful games ever, I think he knows more about the process and what the IOC will and will not accept than we armchair quarterbacks.  

However, I must say that his statements seem almost custom tailored for a successful Chicago bid!  :unclesam:

Well back to work now.  :cry:

[nykfan845]

I wish I had more time to post but I'm out of town at trial and we are working ungodly hours.

However - Mr. Ueberroths statement just substantiates what I have said all along.

The U.S. wants the best possible bid and is setting out  guidelines under IOC rules that gives a level playing field to all interested cities. And as the head of the most financially successful games ever, I think he knows more about the process and what the IOC will and will not accept than we armchair quarterbacks.  

However, I must say that his statements seem almost custom tailored for a successful Chicago bid!  :unclesam:

Well back to work now.  :cry:

Custom-tailored to Chicago? I don't agree to that. I just think that this decision opens up the bidding process to more American cities, giving the USOC more options to choose from.

But I do agree that it does provide some sort of level playing field for interested cities.

However, I do not agree with the idea at all. This would surely not sit well with many IOC members and Olympians themselves. It's Olympic tradition, and I feel there is something wrong about separating the Ceremonies from the athletics events.

[NewYork2016]

I wish I had more time to post but I'm out of town at trial and we are working ungodly hours

You're not involved in Curtis Sliwa's case, are you? j/k  ::  :blues:

However - Mr. Ueberroths statement just substantiates what I have said all along.

The U.S. wants the best possible bid and is setting out  guidelines under IOC rules that gives a level playing field to all interested cities. And as the head of the most financially successful games ever, I think he knows more about the process and what the IOC will and will not accept than we armchair quarterbacks.

Sudden change of your stance huh? Now, you're believing this story from the Tribune when most news organizations from the NY Times, LA Times, Reuters, AP, etc etc, reported the opposite of what was said by Ueby and you didn't believed it?

In fact, it's only the Tribune who's reporting Ueby is allowing 2 separate stadiums for the ceremonies and athletics. Plus the details on this story is really questionnable like the writer is saying the USOC will choose a candidate by late next year, they can't. Using the same routine the IOC is doing every year, they want to know the candidate city from the NOC's in the summer 2 years before they decide on that race. Meaning, summer of 2007, the USOC must inform the IOC of a bid city at that time, so they must decide on their city at least spring next year, at the latest.

And Chicago would asking for a lot here if it wants to be considered. Chicago is asking the USOC and the IOC to:

a) stretch the schedule out in order for Chicago to bid

change tradition by having 2 stadiums for the ceremonies and the athletics competition

c) stretch out the venues when other cities will showcase lesser distances for their venues

If this happens, I'll put LA, Philly, SF or anyone who'll build something better than a Chicago bid. This needs a really great relationship with the IOC for this happen. And at the present moment, the USOC is not in that position.

The USOC is already busy negotiating and fixing a lot of matters with the IOC. The USOC would not want another matter to discuss with the IOC. I think it's best for the USOC to try and get an upper hand with the race, than have another stone to hit your own head.

I just couldn't emphasize it more. Which city would you choose? The City that can afford and showcase new and modern stadiums and arenas without breaking the bank and instead make money? Or the one that wants to do it in the cheap, insulting the IOC by insisting on breaking tradition and stretching out venues far and way?

[LA84]

I know you all have missed my posts so I will respond while they are in conference:

You're not involved in Curtis Sliwa's case, are you? j/k  ::  :blues:

I would love to tell you but alas, 'da judge would have a hissy fit.  But just watch the news for any court decisions out of Texas in the next few weeks.   :wink:

Sudden change of your stance huh? Now, you're believing this story from the Tribune when most news organizations from the NY Times, LA Times, Reuters, AP, etc etc, reported the opposite of what was said by Ueby and you didn't believed it?

In fact, it's only the Tribune who's reporting Ueby is allowing 2 separate stadiums for the ceremonies and athletics. Plus the details on this story is really questionnable like the writer is saying the USOC will choose a candidate by late next year, they can't. Using the same routine the IOC is doing every year, they want to know the candidate city from the NOC's in the summer 2 years before they decide on that race. Meaning, summer of 2007, the USOC must inform the IOC of a bid city at that time, so they must decide on their city at least spring next year, at the latest.

Phil Hersch reports only on the Olympics for the Chicago Tribune and his stories are picked up by news organizations across the U.S. Check the San Jose Mercury News website as an example.

But besides Hersch, there are also other stories that reports on Ueberroth's recent meeting.

USOC's Meeting in Korea

a) stretch the schedule out in order for Chicago to bid

change tradition by having 2 stadiums for the ceremonies and the athletics competition

c) stretch out the venues when other cities will showcase lesser distances for their venues

This isn't Chicago or any other city asking for the concessions.  This is a preliminary outline by the USOC as to what the guidelines will be.

As for this "changing of tradition" thing that people are glamming onto - there is a change of tradition in almost every Olympics!  Vancouver is moving to an indoor arena - change of tradition.  Montreal used two runners to light the flame - change of tradition. Live doves are no longer used at Opening Ceremonies - change of tradition.  A lot of the ice events in the Winter Games have been moved indoors - change of tradition. Etc. etc. etc.  And most of these changes of tradition have been adapted by the IOC for subsequent games.

Besides, this protocol set out by the USOC will also help meet the IOC's desire to cut back the expenses on the games.  

:unclesam:

I just couldn't emphasize it more. Which city would you choose? The City that can afford and showcase new and modern stadiums and arenas without breaking the bank and instead make money? Or the one that wants to do it in the cheap, insulting the IOC by insisting on breaking tradition and stretching out venues far and way?

Are you from Paris originally per chance?  Becuase I recall people, during the 2012 race, making similar egotistical comments to knock down other cities chances by claiming cultural, financial, etc. superiority.

But of course that argument, in the end, didn't work for Paris.     ::

New York has already hosted two Olympics and has the ability of hosting another Winter Games in the future.  Chicago, Philly,DC, LA, etc. don't have that ability, nor have their states ever hosted a games. Which is one of the reasons I think London got the nod over Paris for 2012 as England can't host a winter games whereas France has the ability and has already hsoted numerous times already.

[baron-pierreIV]

LA, in all honesty though, the article was written by a Chicago Tribune staffer -- so it was geared for a Chicago angle.  What the USOC is trying I think is not to make it too easy for NYC and for the others to step up to the plate if they really want this thing.

[NewYork2016]

As for this "changing of tradition" thing that people are glamming onto - there is a change of tradition in almost every Olympics!  Vancouver is moving to an indoor arena - change of tradition.  Montreal used two runners to light the flame - change of tradition. Live doves are no longer used at Opening Ceremonies - change of tradition.  A lot of the ice events in the Winter Games have been moved indoors - change of tradition. Etc. etc. etc.  And most of these changes of tradition have been adapted by the IOC for subsequent games.

Besides, this protocol set out by the USOC will also help meet the IOC's desire to cut back the expenses on the games.  

Not as drastic as this one though. As what roltel has said, there are a lot of purists in the IOC that will take this plan down in the USOC level.

As what I've said all along, if cities have one brand-new stadium for Athletics and the Ceremonies, what would Chicago look like? It's just not going to look good for someone who's trying to lure the games.

Phil Hersch reports only on the Olympics for the Chicago Tribune and his stories are picked up by news organizations across the U.S. Check the San Jose Mercury News website as an example.

But besides Hersch, there are also other stories that reports on Ueberroth's recent meeting.

That's what I was pointing out LA. It's only him who stated the possibility of 2 stadiums and late 2007 for the USOC decision. When most articles, even the one you've posted indicated stadiums for ceremonies and athletics, and Ctrvtlik stating they'll have a clear view on whether to bid by the end of the year. Clearly, not to decide by the end of next year. It would be too late.

Are you from Paris originally per chance?  Becuase I recall people, during the 2012 race, making similar egotistical comments to knock down other cities chances by claiming cultural, financial, etc. superiority.

But of course that argument, in the end, didn't work for Paris.

Honestly, I'm stating a fact. And I was merely asking a question to someone who observes the bidding process for a games. Maybe you just need to answer the question and make sure your city, Chicago, can come up with something that can overcome those odds.

Also, it's an insult to Parisians to equate them to a very arrogant action by the bid team, and some of their supporters. I can't believe you've stereotyped Parisians to that type of action. Although, I never lived in Paris, or would ever plan to live there.

LA, in all honesty though, the article was written by a Chicago Tribune staffer -- so it was geared for a Chicago angle.  What the USOC is trying I think is not to make it too easy for NYC and for the others to step up to the plate if they really want this thing.

And that's the bottomline...  :unclesam:

Ueby knows that NYC and LA are way too prepared to fight for the USOC nod. They have to loosen the rules a little bit in order for some heavyweights like Chicago would be able to compete. They don't want this to be a technical victory for LA or NYC, they want some competition. But at the same time, save the cities expenses so that if the USOC feels a city can't win the international competition, they can easily tell them and stop them from competing.

And some Chicago supporters here think that the USOC is now customizing the rules to make Chicago the candidate...   :laugh:  :wwww:

How can Chicago be the bid city and build the necessary venues when they can't even afford to pay the employees corruptly hired by their officials...  ::

Oh and by the way, our Mayor won't be able to run again for office. So the years left in his term would be spent in trying to leave a legacy to the city. Unlike someone out there who's trying to save his monarchy with elections coming up next year. Whoa!?!?!? Isn't that a mere coincidence to decide to bid for the games?  ::

[SOlympiadsW]

LA, in all honesty though, the article was written by a Chicago Tribune staffer -- so it was geared for a Chicago angle.  What the USOC is trying I think is not to make it too easy for NYC and for the others to step up to the plate if they really want this thing.

exactly

and I don't care what anyone says, a separate stadium for ceremonies and athletics and long distance venues is just asking to lose with the IOC in 2009......but the USOC I am sure knows this

yea and I am sure the USOC is purposely losening their requirements (that would significantly weaken a bid) just so Chicago can win...hahahaha more like so they come out and run, and then are dismissed for anything

[LA84]

Ueby knows that NYC and LA are way too prepared to fight for the USOC nod. They have to loosen the rules a little bit in order for some heavyweights like Chicago would be able to compete.

:laugh:  

OMG!  Now your saying that the USOC is a charity organization and making these rules because NYC and LA are too prepared?

Although I must send congrats your way on acknowledging that another city besides NYC could, in fact, host 2016.  Your making progress!

Oh and by the way, our Mayor won't be able to run again for office. So the years left in his term would be spent in trying to leave a legacy to the city.

I hope so becuase right now your mayors legacy is heading towards one of his ineffectiveness in using whatever influence he supposedly has with Albany to get the WTC project moving.  

Anywho - on to more problems in NYC:

Speaking of stadiums, looks like once again a New York stadium,  is caught up in politics - and once again, a stadium that would be used for an Olympics - if they bid:

Queens Councilmen Threaten To Hold Up Met's Stadium Deal

How in the world can we rely on NYC to host a successful Olympics when everytime we turn around politics is holding up construction on various projects?

[SOlympiadsW]

NYC's venues (if they bid) will surely be reliable (at least more so then one's haphazardly made by other cities to bid)...and as has been pointed out the WTC site is a difficult thing on many levels, but when it is done it will be worth it.....and Mayor Mike is known to get exactly what he wants in the city and is very effective in lobbying Albany

and LA stop saying people are "twisting" your words and that you are unbiased...you are just as biased as anyone else, and your words are not being twisted....

[nykfan845]

Ueby knows that NYC and LA are way too prepared to fight for the USOC nod. They have to loosen the rules a little bit in order for some heavyweights like Chicago would be able to compete.

:laugh:  

OMG!  Now your saying that the USOC is a charity organization and making these rules because NYC and LA are too prepared?

Although I must send congrats your way on acknowledging that another city besides NYC could, in fact, host 2016.  Your making progress!

Oh and by the way, our Mayor won't be able to run again for office. So the years left in his term would be spent in trying to leave a legacy to the city.

I hope so becuase right now his national legacy is that he has proven ineffectual in using whatever influence he supposedly has with Albany to get the WTC project moving.  

Anywho - on to more problems in NYC:

Speaking of stadiums, looks like once again a New York stadium,  is caught up in politics - and once again, a stadium that would be used for an Olympics - if they bid:

Queens Councilmen Threaten To Hold Up Met's Stadium Deal

How in the world can we rely on NYC to host a successful Olympics when everytime we turn around politics is holding up construction on various projects?

The Mets Stadium would not likely be used as an Olympic Stadium in the 2016 Olympic Games, and there is a better alternative for a home of the Olympic Stadium, if a proposal goes through. The Mets Stadium is basically dead.

[LA84]

and LA stop saying people are "twisting" your words and that you are unbiased...you are just as biased as anyone else, and your words are not being twisted....

You yourself said that some people were twisting my words!  Not to mention some of the PM's I have received from other members on this board.  :glare:

As far as being biased *BEEP!!!  I'm sorry, that's an incorrect answer but thank you for playing our game.  :grinning:

Of course I support Chicago right now - I made that clear last fall.  But I also recognize that there are several other cities out there who also hope to host the games and may very well be capable of doing so.  If one of them comes up with a plan that is better than the rest then that is who will get my final support.  I could be DC.  It could be LA.  It could be Philadelphia.  It could be NYC.  Or it could be Chicago.  We have to wait and see.

The Mets Stadium would not likely be used as an Olympic Stadium in the 2016 Olympic Games, and there is a better alternative for a home of the Olympic Stadium, if a proposal goes through. The Mets Stadium is basically dead.

Then where is the T&F events supposed to be held if NYC goes for 2016?

[baron-pierreIV]

The Mets Stadium would not likely be used as an Olympic Stadium in the 2016 Olympic Games, and there is a better alternative for a home of the Olympic Stadium, if a proposal goes through. The Mets Stadium is basically dead.

so which would it be then?  The main Olympic Stadium, that is?

[nykfan845]

Bloomberg, and others have said that the new model of the Mets Stadium would not be able to expand into an Olympic Stadium. However, Dan Doctoroff and other city officials have continued talks of a 2016 Olympic bid, which means that they City probably has something up their sleeve.

And here is my theory.

First is a Q&A with thw Commissioner of the MLS Commissioner Don Garber:

MLSnet.com: There has been a lot of talk about the potential of a second New York-area team. What can you say about the sale of the MetroStars to Red Bull and how it affects the potential of that second team in the area?

DG: We've seen the success of Chivas in L.A. Some of our best games are the derbies that take place at The Home Depot Center, so I think [Red Bull] knows. Being a European company (they understand) the excitement you can have when two teams play each other within the same market, so we've been able to put together an agreement that a second team can come into New York as early as 2010, but not before that.

To make a long story short, A 2nd MLS team is coming to New York. Which would mean that a stadium would be needed for the team. They probably won't play in Giants Stadium, as the team will probably have New York in the title, without the New Jersey. This is a problem with the New York Red Bulls, as they left New Jersey out of their name, which angered the New Jersey Sports and Entertainment Authority. Our theory is that NYC would build a stadium in Flushing, where the Jets were thinking about building a stadium, and create it Olympic-sized. However, when the Olympics are over, shrink it down to MLS stadium size.

It's only a theory, though.

I just know Bloomberg has something up his sleeve, though.

[baron-pierreIV]

OK, then.  That would be the big surprise.  But wasn't the Jets plan to have their own stadium in Flushing also KO'ed?  What if it's a Jets-MetroStars-Reb Bull-Olympic stadium?  Is that feasible?  But that also means that these 3 teams would have to wait another 3 years before anything is definite for them, would it not?

[Mikel]

The IOC's deadline to present applicant cities in July 2007, so when will begin the selection process in the USA? :help:

[nykfan845]

OK, then.  That would be the big surprise.  But wasn't the Jets plan to have their own stadium in Flushing also KO'ed?  What if it's a Jets-MetroStars-Reb Bull-Olympic stadium?  Is that feasible?  But that also means that these 3 teams would have to wait another 3 years before anything is definite for them, would it not?

The Jets have signed a contract to remain in the Meadowlands. They're not moving. Yeah, they've been looking at a stadium in Queens for a little bit, but they've intended to stay in New Jersey all along after the NYSCC fell through.

Red Bull New York (formerly the MetroStars) are planning to open their new stadium in Harrison, New Jersey in 2008. So they're not going anywhere.

It would be a stadium solely for soccer.