Jump to content

If.....?


Recommended Posts

Guest ChiIn2016

I would not count on a second NFL team to Chicago. Too much talk of expanding into LA for one reason. The second being Chicago is loyal to it's Bears franchise, even though they are not currently "The Monsters of the Midway". Chicago is, if nothing, very loyal. Just ask a CUBS fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Not according to this item from NewYorkGames.org posted on July 27:

Daily News Jul.27

"We are one step closer to realizing our dream to host the 2016 Olympic Games in our city at no cost to Los Angeles taxpayers," Villaraigosa said.

Comment:

"The IOC requires a public guarantee for organizing committee overruns, venues, the village, the press center ... everything. Thinking 2009 will be like 1978, SCCOG will only "guarantee" the opposite: "these games come at no cost to the taxpayers." Unless this requirement is met, the USOC's bid city will be dead on arrival. Again."

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not according to this item from NewYorkGames.org posted on July 27:

Daily News Jul.27

"We are one step closer to realizing our dream to host the 2016 Olympic Games in our city at no cost to Los Angeles taxpayers," Villaraigosa said.

Comment:

"The IOC requires a public guarantee for organizing committee overruns, venues, the village, the press center ... everything. Thinking 2009 will be like 1978, SCCOG will only "guarantee" the opposite: "these games come at no cost to the taxpayers." Unless this requirement is met, the USOC's bid city will be dead on arrival. Again."

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

I was referring to the stadium and things like that....if the cities don't have a guarantee they are done with the USOC, and the USOC will not bid if all three of them fit that description (which they won't, because LA unlike the other two has one and it's act together)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

All speculation of course, which I am sure you will agree with. BTW - what makes Mr. Hatch such an expert in your opinion, outside of opening up a website to cover NYC 2012? ?

Since I live in San Francisco I can safely say, unlike Mr. Hatch, that I have seen no news reports whatsoever that Arni has promised anything outside of the cursory promises of full support by the state for either Los Angeles or San Francisco. And as you, or Mr. Hatch do not live in California or have lived in Illinois, I can clue you into the fact that there is a huge difference between the State of Illinois works and the State of California. In Illinois, if Daley and Blago say something is going to happen, it will. In California, Arni and The Gav can say something will happen and then there will be a state or city voter initiative to determine whether it will happen or not. Don't believe me - check last November's initiatives. Arnie lost every one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatch played a large role in the Salt Lake City bid, as well as being Deputy Mayor for the city in the 90s. (noti involved in the controversy), and is an expert in Olympic bids. The guys knows what he's talking about. I keep in touch with him a lot, and he knows his stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All speculation of course, which I am sure you will agree with. BTW - what makes Mr. Hatch such an expert in your opinion, outside of opening up a website to cover NYC 2012? ?

Since I live in San Francisco I can safely say, unlike Mr. Hatch, that I have seen no news reports whatsoever that Arni has promised anything outside of the cursory promises of full support by the state for either Los Angeles or San Francisco. And as you, or Mr. Hatch do not live in California or have lived in Illinois, I can clue you into the fact that there is a huge difference between the State of Illinois works and the State of California. In Illinois, if Daley and Blago say something is going to happen, it will. In California, Arni and The Gav can say something will happen and then there will be a state or city voter initiative to determine whether it will happen or not. Don't believe me - check last November's initiatives. Arnie lost every one of them.

Here are some of Brian Hatch's credentials, from his website www.newyorkgames.org. He might not be an insider but his opinions will surely help, not hurt, any bid from the USA. It's just how you'll accept the facts he's presenting, will you use it to improve your bid? Or you'll just ignore it and try to say he's not qualified to present those facts. And honestly, if the City had followed his suggestions, we wouldn't even be talking about these 3 cities for USOC2016, it would be NYC, hands down.

See that's the problem with Chicago, they haven't organized or headed a committee close to this. Mayor Daley said in 1997 that bidding for a games has its roadblocks and one of them is the financial guarantee. How is he going to turn that around and claim that the State and the City will in fact, guarantee to cover all the cost overruns, if there is any with Chicago hosting? The State of Illinois and City of Chicago's official's track records won't matter here IMO. They have to at least blow the competition away and complete all IOC requirements in order to convince the USOC they can compete internationally. Now they have a few more months to repair their plan. If they do present a better plan and complete all IOC requirements, State and City officials will build a great track record at least with the USOC and they would have no choice but to choose Chicago.

In California's case or specifically LA, they've already hosted it in 1984. They don't have the problems SF and Chicago are experiencing. Initial plans (the compactness and 2-stadium plan) for Chicago are horrific in my opinion (Brian believes it will kill Chicago's bid) which shows how inexperienced and bad planners the city has for their 2016 bid (although the video was great and New Yorkesque). And in LA's case, they have the SCCOG (Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games) which has been there since they hosted in 1932. Although it could be a problem for most people, it would be the best asset that LA has in the domestic race, experience. And having the games in 1984 proved how LA can turn a profit with a games, so guarantees won't be an issue with them, IMO.

LA has a lot of aces left on its sleeves, including the IOC board make up of mostly Southern Californians. It's up to SF and Chicago, on how they'll manage to beat those advantages, so far, SF and Chicago are far behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...