If.....?

[Faster]

If New York City and specifically City Hall get their things together and protest the USOC to be let into the competition, with the state of the other 3 bids, would the USOC bow to pressure and a more sure bet in NYC and let them enter the competition late, and most likely give the candidacy to New York.

I know many (those from LA, SF and Chicago) would argue this is completely unfair to the bids that did follow what the USOC originally want and had been working with the USOC for more than a year now, but its not like any of the three have things together, and most members here have pointed out multiple flaws (both minor and major) within each of the bids. NYC’s bid in 2012 was technically very good, the only problem was the stadium and it’s not like that will reappear.

[SOlympiadsW]

no, and I can tell you right now where this thread is going to end up lol....I think NYC just didn't want to go through all that again, and were ticked off for whatever reason by the way the USOC went about setting up things for 2016.....I honestly think the USOC race to this point for 2016 has been pretty much predictable, and yea some of those cities (SF and Chicago, which both have problems that ironically make NYC's last minute stadium switch look like a walk in the park) really don't have things put together and have major problems right now....and I would normally say that if they couldn't get them solved the USA would probably not bid...but LA is in there, and it's connections to those USOC members and the recent visit and remarks prove that they'll go with that third time city before withdrawing from the race (which in my opinion would be a real shame and mistake), or switching over to NYC if they were interested.....

I think if the USA stumbles for 2016 for whatever reason they'll have to start over again, and then and only then would we see a possible return from NYC....

it's a shame that the city didn't go for 2016, they certainly deserved it and whether it was primarily their decision, the USOC, or a combination of both (which I suspect it was), if they had they would have been the one's to beet in both the national and international races and the 2016 race would have been some what more predictable than it is now....

[LA84]

If New York City and specifically City Hall get their things together and protest the USOC to be let into the competition, with the state of the other 3 bids, would the USOC bow to pressure and a more sure bet in NYC and let them enter the competition late, and most likely give the candidacy to New York.

I know many (those from LA, SF and Chicago) would argue this is completely unfair to the bids that did follow what the USOC originally want and had been working with the USOC for more than a year now, but its not like any of the three have things together, and most members here have pointed out multiple flaws (both minor and major) within each of the bids. NYC’s bid in 2012 was technically very good, the only problem was the stadium and it’s not like that will reappear.

New York didn't have their act together for the 2012 bid - the USOC does't want to go through that again.

Yes there are glitches for all three cities right now but that happens with all bids. The problems are all addressable (is that a word?)

[SOlympiadsW]

New York didn't have their act together for the 2012 bid - the USOC does't want to go through that again.

Yes there are glitches for all three cities right now but that happens with all bids. The problems are all addressable (is that a word?)

yes they did have their act together for 2012, except for the unforseen stadium "glitch" which was solved as best and quickly as possible (showing just how much they were together).....and the problems facing two out of the three current cities are much more then "glitches" that can jsut be quickly fixed....and the USOC knows it

[Faster]

Hopefully this topic becomes hot

I think if the US doesn't get it together combined with a European win in 2014 will see Tokyo get 2016, the US will be gifted 2018, Toronto and Melbourne will fight it out for 2020, Paris and Berlin will fight it over 2024 and NYC will finally host in 2028. Unless there is the Miracle of Madrid and Madrid wins in 2016

[LA84]

yes they did have their act together for 2012, except for the unforseen stadium "glitch" which was solved as best and quickly as possible (showing just how much they were together).....and the problems facing two out of the three current cities are much more then "glitches" that can jsut be quickly fixed....and the USOC knows it

There is a big difference between getting down to the wire and saying *oops* sorry IOC but that stadium thingy we promised - not gonna happen, as opposed to 10 years out finding problems and addressing them.

Granted, I blame the USOC as much as NYC for the stadium problem. They should have exercised more control over the NYC organizing committe than they did. We still wouldn't have won for 2012 but would have at least placed higher than Madrid and be in a good position for 2016.

Hopefully this topic becomes hot

I hate you. j/k

[Faster]

The only thing that is certain about the years 2012 to 2028, its likely that the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy theories will continue and become more solidified, well at least in Cordi's unscrewed head.

[arwebb]

2020 promises to be an even more wide open contest than 2012.

[SOlympiadsW]

There is a big difference between getting down to the wire and saying *oops* sorry IOC but that stadium thingy we promised - not gonna happen, as opposed to 10 years out finding problems and addressing them.

Granted, I blame the USOC as much as NYC for the stadium problem. They should have exercised more control over the NYC organizing committe than they did. We still wouldn't have won for 2012 but would have at least placed higher than Madrid and be in a good position for 2016.

I hate you. j/k

hahaha so it's NYC's fault the USOC has issues within the IOC...yea ok....regardless the city was on the ball from the very START unlike two cities in particular in the 2016 race, and at least they had two viable stadium options...that's more than some cities bidding can say....yea and the USOC's control idea seems to only be benefitting LA, which conveniently has strong ties to many of the USOC members...those who support SF and Chicago who are quick to discredit and put down NYC especially after what the USOC had to say this week

[Mainad]

"The stadium debacles hurt, but the lack of a public guarantee was the fatal flaw guaranteeing defeat."

This is the opinion posted at NewYorkGames.org and it has prompted me to ask the question of how this issue will be resolved with the current three contenders?

Without a public guarantee,it could be that whoever does get the nod from the USOC (if anyone) will get no further than New York did last year!

http://www.newyorkgames.org/news/

[SOlympiadsW]

"The stadium debacles hurt, but the lack of a public guarantee was the fatal flaw guaranteeing defeat."

This is the opinion posted at NewYorkGames.org and it has prompted me to ask the question of how this issue will be resolved with the current three contenders?

Without a public guarantee,it could be that whoever does get the nod from the USOC (if anyone) will get no further than New York did last year!

http://www.newyorkgames.org/news/

I think the USOC will not bid if they had no such guarantee...but we have to remember LA (as far as I know) has one...so

[Mainad]

I think the USOC will not bid if they had no such guarantee...but we have to remember LA (as far as I know) has one...so

In that case,I am becoming more convinced than ever that if the USOC does decide to go with one of the three cities,it is going to be Los Angeles!

[Stu]

In that case,I am becoming more convinced than ever that if the USOC does decide to go with one of the three cities,it is going to be Los Angeles!

Do you think that the IOC will choose LA? It doesn't even seem to be a popular choice among the American members here.

[Rafa]

melbourne toronto 2020? while i have major respect for both cities...i think not. lets get to africa by 2020 and if not 2024...or even rio ...

[Mainad]

Do you think that the IOC will choose LA? It doesn't even seem to be a popular choice among the American members here.

Well,that's a different question of course.The main thing counting against LA seems to be "the been there,done that" factor but that's been there right from the start of course and the USOC at least is obviously not prepared to rule out the city on that basis,otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to shortlist it in the first place,I guess!

In every other respect,it seems to be fitting the bill.The other two seem to be throwing up too many potential problems as far as I can tell! I get the feeling that the USOC and probably the IOC would prefer to see a San Francisco bid if possible but are becoming resigned to it being LA.It would be a hard sell to the IOC but maybe the USOC are calculating they have a fighting chance with the example of London before them and especially if the other leading contender turns out to be Tokyo which has also hosted before (albeit not so recently)!

Those are the vibes I'm sensing at the moment anyway!

[NewYork2016]

"The stadium debacles hurt, but the lack of a public guarantee was the fatal flaw guaranteeing defeat."

This is the opinion posted at NewYorkGames.org and it has prompted me to ask the question of how this issue will be resolved with the current three contenders?

Without a public guarantee,it could be that whoever does get the nod from the USOC (if anyone) will get no further than New York did last year!

http://www.newyorkgames.org/news/

Brian Hatch, the webmaster of that site is considered one of the most knowledgeable people I've known about Olympic Bids. And he presented a lot of great suggestions for another possible for for NYC in 2016. Unfortunately, the city didn't went with it.

Now, of the 3 cities in the running, only LA qualifies for all what the IOC wants, including the Public Guarantee. You can maybe include SF with "Governator's" guarantee of full support whichever California city gets the nod. Chicago is not even close with a public guarantee. They've been trying to play around it. New York did it once, and I don't think the USOC will buy into it.

But, in NYC's case, the IOC accepted their terms. The only question that lie ahead is if the IOC would allow this to happen again. Specially when the USOC is dead serious in giving everything what the IOC wants, and desperately needs another games in the USA. I feel that the USOC is willing to choose whichever city completes whatever the IOC wants, regardless if its a 2-time host city.

[LA84]

Now, of the 3 cities in the running, only LA qualifies for all what the IOC wants, including the Public Guarantee. You can maybe include SF with "Governator's" guarantee of full support whichever California city gets the nod. Chicago is not even close with a public guarantee. They've been trying to play around it. New York did it once, and I don't think the USOC will buy into it.

Chicago got the same guantee of full support from the State of Illinois over two months ago. So in essence, all three cities have that issue covered - Los Angeles moreso however.

That said, as I posted in the LA thread a long time ago, I think it will probably come down to Chicago and L.A. and in the end, Los Angeles will get it.

[SOlympiadsW]

That said, as I posted in the LA thread a long time ago, I think it will probably come down to Chicago and L.A. and in the end, Los Angeles will get it.

I agree with you one 100%

[Faster]

But the question is will the IOC award back-to-back games to a two time hosting English city when they have Tokyo as an option?

[ChicagoFan90]

There is also the question, will Chicago just cave in and build a peremenant stadium?

Pat Ryan, like the USOC, might be just bluffing, to build time for a final plan, due in September with the 85 page question packet.

In my opinion, I think Ryan knows the two stadium plan is utterly stupid and will not sway the USOC or the IOC. Even a temp, won't do.

So we just have to wait and make our decision later on.

San Francisco on the other hand......has to get out of this maze of red tape or they'll be caught and have to quit by next month. Not enought land, no good stadium, and now the USOC is calling it's beauty..a handicap

Los Angeles, to me, and I think it's just me, a conspiracy. It's had more time than anyone to prepare, has all the venues necessary, BECAUSE it hosted two Olympics, which none of these cities can benefit from, and half the board members are from Southern California!

Well, I hope this new board will vote unbiased in March , and make the best decision.

[Faster]

There is also the question, will Chicago just cave in and build a peremenant stadium?

Pat Ryan, like the USOC, might be just bluffing, to build time for a final plan, due in September with the 85 page question packet.

In my opinion, I think Ryan knows the two stadium plan is utterly stupid and will not sway the USOC or the IOC. Even a temp, won't do.

So we just have to wait and make our decision later on.

San Francisco on the other hand......has to get out of this maze of red tape or they'll be caught and have to quit by next month. Not enought land, no good stadium, and now the USOC is calling it's beauty..a handicap

Los Angeles, to me, and I think it's just me, a conspiracy. It's had more time than anyone to prepare, has all the venues necessary, BECAUSE it hosted two Olympics, which none of these cities can benefit from, and half the board members are from Southern California!

Well, I hope this new board will vote unbiased in March , and make the best decision.

Can Chicago support two major stadiums, Soldier Field and persumably a 70 to 90,000 seat stadium? Even if they build say an 70,000 seater, is it possible to have have around 35,000 in temp seating so the venue could be used for the Chicago MLS team?

[NewYork2016]

Chicago got the same guantee of full support from the State of Illinois over two months ago. So in essence, all three cities have that issue covered - Los Angeles moreso however.

That said, as I posted in the LA thread a long time ago, I think it will probably come down to Chicago and L.A. and in the end, Los Angeles will get it.

Sad to say LA84, Chicago doesn't. There was a story a few weeks ago about Mayor Daley's proposal on the financial guarantee and Brian Hatch of www.newyorkgames.org pointed it out clearly that it is not even close. Mayor Daley proposed a regional conglomeration of governments to support a Chicago Games, but it is still a proposal. And it is not even close to a public guarantee for the games cost, similar to an insurance NYC2012 proposed. Mayor Daley also suggested in 1997 that the Financial Guarantee is a roadblock for Chicago to host a games. How is he going to turn that around now?

The State of Illinois only stated their full support of the games, no specifics on the financial guarantee though. They are even insisting that no public money in any way would be used to fund the cost of the games.

Brian Hatch even went as far as saying there were rumors circulating Chicago would be cut, but that would be too obvious for the USOC, that's why Chicago is there.

SF and LA don't have the exact guarantee the IOC Charter requires every bid city to cover, but at least, the Arni guaranteed full public financial backing from the State whichever city gets it.

[LA84]

Can Chicago support two major stadiums, Soldier Field and persumably a 70 to 90,000 seat stadium? Even if they build say an 70,000 seater, is it possible to have have around 35,000 in temp seating so the venue could be used for the Chicago MLS team?

No, they can't. The only way they would build a new second stadium is if they thought another NFL team might move in. I suppose that is possible - you know how NFL owners get a hardon if they think they can get a new stadium somewhere. But at this point, Los Angeles is first in line to get a new team, whether it be an expansion team or existing one.

Besides, there is no way the Bears would let another team into the city, despite my thinking it might be doable to have a second NFL team at one point.

And Soldier Field is an icon in the city, despite its UGLY rebuild.

There is also the question, will Chicago just cave in and build a peremenant stadium?

Pat Ryan, like the USOC, might be just bluffing, to build time for a final plan, due in September with the 85 page question packet.

I have heard rumors that they might do a temporary reconfig of Soldier Field for the games (not from a real reliable source however). For this to occur the city would have to get approval from the Bears. I don't know if this would mean the Bears would have to play in Champaign for a season or what.

SF and LA don't have the exact guarantee the IOC Charter requires every bid city to cover, but at least, the Arni guaranteed full public financial backing from the State whichever city gets it.

You mean like this?

From Mr. Hatch's website:

June 29, 2006

Governor backs bid for Olympics

Chicago Tribune

Christi Parsons and Gary Washburn

"We're in the mix," [Gov. Rod] Blagojevich said. "Chicago is up against cities like San Francisco and a few others. ... But we're interested in being as helpful as possible."

As for financial assistance, "The state would be prepared to help if that was necessary," the governor said.

[NewYork2016]

You mean like this?

From Mr. Hatch's website:

June 29, 2006

Governor backs bid for Olympics

Chicago Tribune

Christi Parsons and Gary Washburn

"We're in the mix," [Gov. Rod] Blagojevich said. "Chicago is up against cities like San Francisco and a few others. ... But we're interested in being as helpful as possible."

As for financial assistance, "The state would be prepared to help if that was necessary," the governor said.

That was the whole message from the governor, but it doesn't emphasize the full financial backing of the State. Even Brian Hatch questioned the financial assistance the Governor is willing to make, and as of now, that question hasn't been answered. Here is the whole text of that part of the site, including Brian's comments...

Governor backs bid for Olympics

Chicago Tribune

Christi Parsons and Gary Washburn

"We're in the mix," [Gov. Rod] Blagojevich said. "Chicago is up against cities like San Francisco and a few others. ... But we're interested in being as helpful as possible."

As for financial assistance, "The state would be prepared to help if that was necessary," the governor said (including this?)....

The University of Illinois at Chicago campus and the South Side property owned by Michael Reese Hospital could be candidates for the village, which would house thousands of athletes, though other sites throughout the city also are being discussed, Daley said....

"The hospital is interested in resizing itself and consolidating its operations," he said. "We clearly don't need the 37 acres. The hospital would only need about 10 acres to operate. That would free about 27 acres for development."

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Brian's Comments

Way too small. The typical village has been 200 acres, or part of a larger Olympic park. And their stadium plan is also shoehorned onto another small parcel nearby. And both sites are hemmed in by roads, rails and tall buildings that would complicate security. Not a strong proposal. They're following NYC2012's failed attempt to jam things into the center, instead of London's (Sydney's, Bejing's, Columbian Exposition etc.) example of a cluster several miles away where there's plenty of room.

It's looking more and more like LA, with SF the back-up.

Of course, the State of Illinois is "prepared to help" so to speak. But are they willing to put their "full financial support" like what Governor Arni did for the 2 California Cities in the running? It still hasn't been answered by the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, same question Brian posted on his site. Atlanta provided this guarantee for 1996.

If Tokyo is in the mix, together with other interesting cities, and these types of problems that are being experienced by the interested US cities, the IOC might still have a reason to pass the USA again.

[dave199]

Can Chicago support two major stadiums, Soldier Field and persumably a 70 to 90,000 seat stadium? Even if they build say an 70,000 seater, is it possible to have have around 35,000 in temp seating so the venue could be used for the Chicago MLS team?

There is no need for another major stadium in Chicago. It would undoubtedly become a big WHITE ELEPAHNT.

It doesn't look like another NFL franchise will be coming into Chicago anytime in the near future. Los Angeles is next in line. After Los Angeles, sometime into the future it looks like the league will expand outside the U.S. to Toronto. The city has been interested in getting an NFL franchise for quite sometime already. It's only a matter of time before they do get one be it in 10 years, 15 years, whatever. I doubt Chicago will get a 2nd NFL franchise.