baron-pierreIV Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 OK, youse palookas -- another poll for you!! Which U.S. city do you think it will be if the USOC decides to bid? Since we are a democracy, yes, even you slimeball mudda-f*ckas (Bungee and Mikel) can vote. I'd rather you didn't but even Moussaoui didn't get death and he'll probably be logging on here while he rots in Leavenworth. :unclesam: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suit U Sir !!! Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 No chance of a New York 2016 bid? NYC is the USA's best bet if they want to beat Tokyo. Chicago might stand a chance. Los Angeles has already hosted twice, so difficult to sell that bid to the IOC, the others don't have the world status to compete with Tokyo. SF is a great city and would host a gr8 games, but Tokyo has major world status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 i dont care for any of these cities to put it plainly they all go to bloody hell...the decision by USOC will open the doors majorly for other cities, a strong new frontiers bid has its best chance now that new york is out, bambi panda go istanbul and rio.. screw u philly, screw u chicago, screw u san frangay screw l.a. screw u whitney... if usoc do lobby like hell and win...can we expect another atlanta? i want big 110,000 athletic stadium with four tiers like invesco field at mile high, and dramatic out of this world venues... shortlist L.A and chicago...then kick out chicago,...then have L.a win and have arnold schowdkjfsdfnegger present the bid to the IOC...he shud scare them into voting for L.A oh bambi panda, go istanbul and rio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Mo...you didn't take your medication again this morning. Bad boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Mo...you didn't take your medication again this morning. Bad boy. indeed. Here - take this. It might help your disposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 the motivation to have a games in the US again in any other city but new york is poor and you know it. salt lake atlanta and the possibility of new york i didnt mind..arguably the best city in the world..but seriously good luck to the consolation prizes...a new york games would have been an immense success for the IOC if not only in financial terms....good luck with atlanta part II. seriously even madrid seems like a better option at this stage. anyhow good luck to this batch... whitney houston 2016 here we come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 seriously even madrid seems like a better option at this stage. exaclty, Mo. you're in the right way. in fact, i think all the other candidates can beat those US cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Except it still won't be Madrid's time. So u know absolutely nothing about anything. Just keep your gillipolas* shut, slut. THat's 'arsehole' for those who don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAP Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Any space for one to write in NYC? None of the above cities, really provide any excitement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suit U Sir !!! Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I think it'll be a case of Chicago vs. San Francisco for 2016. But NYC's elimination means that the chances of the US hosting the 2016 summer games has decreased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I think it'll be a case of Chicago vs. San Francisco for 2016. But NYC's elimination means that the chances of the US hosting the 2016 summer games has decreased. well, yes and no. The fact that it might still be in the US still means the BIGGEST broadcast dollar returns -- regardless of whether it's going to be on an Eastern, Central or Pacific time zone. Still big buckaro$$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 well like many of you I am pretty disappointed and surprised by there being no NYC or even Washington D.C. in the race.... I really don't know which one of those cities I will support...they, like the cities in the 2014 race just don't really do much for me....even though we know they can all host the Olympics While I don't think this will completely wipe out a USA 2016 win, I DO think that the USOC has definately just made the chances of them being selected less (I am not saying unlikely), definately opening up the possibilities for Tokyo, Rome, Madrid, Istanbul, and Toronto (and I am not saying that the other geopolitical factors that I have pointed out in other posts on here won't be issues for them)....2016 is hardly a "surething" for the USOC anymore, and just put them on the same level as the other big names...I would even say many of those USA cities willl struggle to compete against world class cities like Tokyo and Rome......this decision ahs completely opened the USA to the exact same criticism by the international community that NYC saw in 2012 that could have been avoided if NYC bid As for these remaining US cities SF had MAJOR technical problems that many don't know how would be fixed (rememebr the bay area bid), LA won't happen based on the third time thing (especially after London), Houston-forget about it, Philly and Chicago both will unquestionably have many new constructions that resemble the major project NYC proposed for 2012 that failed.....in other words all have problems that could have been avoided with an NYC bid, and really are nothing "exciting"...and honestly are on that same level with Atlanta oh well, maybe the USOC won't bid...if they do, good luck...I won't be shocked if they win....but now I also won't be shocked if they lose As for Tokyo and even Toronto...bid, your chances just skyrocketed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 seriously even madrid seems like a better option at this stage. exaclty, Mo. you're in the right way. in fact, i think all the other candidates can beat those US cities. Except you boys are forgetting one little detail - The U.S. television contracts, which supply the IOC with 70% of their television revenues, are up for renogotiation soon which will include 2016. As the ratings were down for Torino, I doubt that the rights will go for as much as they did through the Vancouver games unless there is a North American Olympics in there somewhere. And you know how the IOC loves their money. :wink: As far as excitement - just think Barcelona. Prior to those games people were I was like, "Barce what? Spain couldn't even bid with their capital city? Who cares about a dirty old industrial city." The rest is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suit U Sir !!! Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I think it'll be a case of Chicago vs. San Francisco for 2016. But NYC's elimination means that the chances of the US hosting the 2016 summer games has decreased. well, yes and no. The fact that it might still be in the US still means the BIGGEST broadcast dollar returns -- regardless of whether it's going to be on an Eastern, Central or Pacific time zone. Still big buckaro$$$. True...the IOC will always be interested in the USA because of theings like money, sponsorship etc. But I think Philadelphia, Houston or LA would be a mistake by USOC. Philadelphia and Houston don't have the world status or attractions to compete with Rome and Tokyo, and it would be a similar case of picking Atlanta over Athens- a decision which the world media heavily criticised before and after the 1996 games took place. Los Angeles - if they hadn't hosted 1984 (and last hosted in 1932) would have been a very strong candidate, but difficult to justify a 3rd LA games over Cape Town, Tokyo etc. A 3rd London games was different scenario as the UK hadn't hosted since 1948, plus no winter olympics. So it boils down to Chicago and San Francisco- if USOC wants to win the 2016 games, these are the only 2 cities with a very good chance, San Fran is an icon with it's GG.Bridge, Bay Area, Alcatraz etc. Chicago is an important economic centre in North America, plus a world transport hub. These are the only 2 options. Philadelphia and Houston is asking a lot of the IOC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 It's not so much prestige and appearances. With an Olympics happening every 2 years now, I think the IOC is fully aware that it must be a compleat (no, that is not a typo) host city -- and who knows, with 10 years' lead time, if say Philly (that's my dark horse) wins, who's to say it cannot deliver the necessary goods? It's the #4 or #5 city in the US. If Atlanta (something like #17 in terms of population) hosted the Centennial Games), and San Francisco is #lucky 13 -- who's to say cities #4 and 5 - Philly or Houston- can't deliver? Calling Prince Albert, Caroline and Stephanie, your Momma's hometown needs ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Except you boys are forgetting one little detail -The U.S. television contracts, which supply the IOC with 70% of their television revenues, are up for renogotiation soon which will include 2016. As the ratings were down for Torino, I doubt that the rights will go for as much as they did through the Vancouver games unless there is a North American Olympics in there somewhere. And you know how the IOC loves their money. :wink: I think that you're overestimating the importance, even to NBC and other US television networks, of a US Olympics live over the prime time period. NBC seem to be wholly content recording the event and showing a highlights bulletin later in the day - and from what I've read of American opinion on here, there seems to be no problem with that either. Even if the Games were to be held in a US city there would still be the same pre-recorded highlights show - most US television viewers would not notice the difference. Ebersol said last year, when London won, that what his network needs is an iconic venue that is instantly identifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox334 Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Well, no US bids would certenely help Rio de Janairo, since it is in a very US (and Canada :love: ) friendly time zone. But I tink that Chicago would have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatsnotmypuppy Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I voted for Los Angeles just because the idea of back to back triple hosts would annoy everyone no end! Oh and Ejaycat and LA84 would have lots of hot athletes to perve locally! :shocked: Either way, this seems a perfect set up for NYC2020! More importantly - Baron - use your grandpappies connections to get the USOC to force the applicant cities to post their bid books online during the USOC candidacy phase - OK? Ta! :wwww: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic USA Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 in other words all have problems that could have been avoided with an NYC bid, and really are nothing "exciting"...and honestly are on that same level with Atlanta I'm sorry, I know you are really pissy because of NYC possibly not bidding but NYC could have very well had problems if they were to bid. We hadn't even seen the plans yet for a possibly 2016 bid from NYC so who are you to say that all of these problems that LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, and Philly will "present" would be avoided if NYC were to present a bid that you hadn't even seen? Besides, looking at the 2012 race Houston actually had a pretty good technical bid, it was their international recognition that blew them out of the running. As far as these cities being on the same level as Atlanta........I beg to differ. Philadelphia and Houston I could possibly see but L.A., Chicago, and San Francisco are definitely on a higher level. Sure they are not on the same level as NYC but they are still at a higher level than Atlanta. Anyways, i'll have to wait to see the bid plan but as of right now I see it being between Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Houston and L.A. I think will be the first two out. Don't get me wrong I love both Houson and L.A. but Houston just doesn't have the international recognition and L.A. hosting a third time is unlikely. If San Francisco presents the whole "Bay Area" plan then it will go out. If it came between Chicago and Philly I think Chicago would ultimately win though Philly would be unique with the history and culture that Barron mentioned. Anyway, good luck to all the cities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Nice to have you back Adam! Missed your postings. :grinning: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic USA Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Nice to have you back Adam! Missed your postings. :grinning: Thanks! School has just been kicking my a$$ this semester....LOL. But classes ended yesterday so I have a little breathing room though i'm taking summer school so it will start back up in a couple of weeks. But thanks, I appreciate it I'll PM you sometime soon......have some stories to tell you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 I would like to see Chicago get it as it's one of my favourite American city. Though I wouldn't mind San Francisco. The rest no thanx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 in other words all have problems that could have been avoided with an NYC bid, and really are nothing "exciting"...and honestly are on that same level with Atlanta I'm sorry, I know you are really pissy because of NYC possibly not bidding but NYC could have very well had problems if they were to bid. We hadn't even seen the plans yet for a possibly 2016 bid from NYC so who are you to say that all of these problems that LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, and Philly will "present" would be avoided if NYC were to present a bid that you hadn't even seen? Besides, looking at the 2012 race Houston actually had a pretty good technical bid, it was their international recognition that blew them out of the running. As far as these cities being on the same level as Atlanta........I beg to differ. Philadelphia and Houston I could possibly see but L.A., Chicago, and San Francisco are definitely on a higher level. Sure they are not on the same level as NYC but they are still at a higher level than Atlanta. Anyways, i'll have to wait to see the bid plan but as of right now I see it being between Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Houston and L.A. I think will be the first two out. Don't get me wrong I love both Houson and L.A. but Houston just doesn't have the international recognition and L.A. hosting a third time is unlikely. If San Francisco presents the whole "Bay Area" plan then it will go out. If it came between Chicago and Philly I think Chicago would ultimately win though Philly would be unique with the history and culture that Barron mentioned. Anyway, good luck to all the cities they all need major construction (whihc could have been avoided with NYC) and several just flat out don't have the international appeal to run.... no matter how you slice it, the USOC has lowered the bar for other world class cities like Tokyo, Rome, etc. to possibly snatch 2016....which I guess isn't the worst thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatsnotmypuppy Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 From what limited info I have, the LA2012 plan was using all existing infrastructure - no new venues - a fair few alterations (Coliseum, temporary pool and stands, etc) - but a decent plan. Considering NYC2012 had a number of new venues (least of all a hugely expensive stadium), I think the LA criticism is a bit dim. Also London just got their third Games - so why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOlympiadsW Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 From what limited info I have, the LA2012 plan was using all existing infrastructure - no new venues - a fair few alterations (Coliseum, temporary pool and stands, etc) - but a decent plan. Considering NYC2012 had a number of new venues (least of all a hugely expensive stadium), I think the LA criticism is a bit dim. Also London just got their third Games - so why not? sorry I should have clarified that...all but LA.....I however think London just getting their thrid Games, and LA just having had their second Games only in 1984 will kill them as it did for 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.