Jump to content

Usoc Will Bid For 2016 Olympic Games


Recommended Posts

The IOC would have preferred San Francisco because they have said so all along. Many senior IOC members publicly expressed surprise when New York beat SF for the 2012 nomination (in what can only be seen as a MASSIVE sympathy vote that clearly clouded the judgment of the USOC). I know that NY thinks that the whole main stadium issue lost them the Games, but in reality even with the original westside stadium plan they were never viewed as a front-runner. The entire duration of the bidding process saw Paris out in front with London as the only city capable of challenging for the prize. If San Francisco had been in the running instead of NY, who knows what might have happened (one thing is certain: SF wouldn't have only beaten Moscow). The IOC always saw New York as a little bit patronising and Atlanta-ish (you know what I mean) whereas San Francisco is laid-back, casual and didn't act as though they were owed the Games. In short, to an organisation as Eurocentric as the IOC, San Francisco is a little piece of Europe in paradise. Besides its an American city that more closely resembles Sydney (which holds good memories for the IOC) than Atlanta (which holds nightmares for the IOC).

Like 2012, 2016 is again shaping up as a battle of the supercities: LA/Chicago vs Rome vs Tokyo vs Madrid vs Rio. Personally, I hope the USOC goes with the sophistication of Chicago instead of the flashiness of LA. Going with LA would be TOO obvious. TOO "look at me". LA has already left a lasting positive legacy on the Olympics. Its time to give someone else a go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the USOC goes with the sophistication of Chicago instead of the flashiness of LA. Going with LA would be TOO obvious. TOO "look at me". LA has already left a lasting positive legacy on the Olympics. Its time to give someone else a go.

Hopefully that will be the sane rationalization in picking Chicago. Now, argee, I wish you'd also refrain from the Monday AM quarter-backing on SF/NY's failures. Finished. Finito. En fin. Done with. Let's move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as baron pointed out about another topic in this particular forum, let's move on. Besides, on the confirmation of America bidding for the 2016 Olympic Games, it will cool down a bit about the USOC putting forward a bid for the 2018 Olympic Winter Games. But, who knows. If this bid fails, we have already know that there are US cities/areas interested in bringing back the Winter Olympics to the country in the background. As I pointed out in another topic, will this bid be the frontrunner amongst other international cities, regardless of whether it is LA or Chicago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I pointed out in another topic, will this bid be the frontrunner amongst other international cities, regardless of whether it is LA or Chicago?

I think a bid by Rio would certainly be the sentimental favourite for 2016 as the IOC are longing to be able to send the games to South America!

The big question of course,will be whether Rio can come up with a plan sufficiently technically sound to make it a viable proposition!

It doesn't necessarily have to be technically better than the US candidate,just technically sufficient.Because I think sentiment amongst the IOC members (who understand it is the turn of the Americas but who I suspect would love an excuse to avoid giving it to another US city),would then carry them over the finishing line!

Just my opinion. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a bid by Rio would certainly be the sentimental favourite for 2016 as the IOC are longing to be able to send the games to South America!

The big question of course,will be whether Rio can come up with a plan sufficiently technically sound to make it a viable proposition!

It doesn't necessarily have to be technically better than the US candidate,just technically sufficient.Because I think sentiment amongst the IOC members (who understand it is the turn of the Americas but who I suspect would love an excuse to avoid giving it to another US city),would then carry them over the finishing line!

Just my opinion. B)

Ah, but remember Brazil is supposed to host the 2014 World Cup -- to be formally awarded later this year -- so certainly the big question in IOC members' minds, as 2009 approaches, can Brazil sustain the one-two wallop in a span of 2 years?

Methinks not.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC would have preferred San Francisco because they have said so all along. Many senior IOC members publicly expressed surprise when New York beat SF for the 2012 nomination (in what can only be seen as a MASSIVE sympathy vote that clearly clouded the judgment of the USOC). I know that NY thinks that the whole main stadium issue lost them the Games, but in reality even with the original westside stadium plan they were never viewed as a front-runner. The entire duration of the bidding process saw Paris out in front with London as the only city capable of challenging for the prize. If San Francisco had been in the running instead of NY, who knows what might have happened (one thing is certain: SF wouldn't have only beaten Moscow). The IOC always saw New York as a little bit patronising and Atlanta-ish (you know what I mean) whereas San Francisco is laid-back, casual and didn't act as though they were owed the Games. In short, to an organisation as Eurocentric as the IOC, San Francisco is a little piece of Europe in paradise. Besides its an American city that more closely resembles Sydney (which holds good memories for the IOC) than Atlanta (which holds nightmares for the IOC).

Like 2012, 2016 is again shaping up as a battle of the supercities: LA/Chicago vs Rome vs Tokyo vs Madrid vs Rio. Personally, I hope the USOC goes with the sophistication of Chicago instead of the flashiness of LA. Going with LA would be TOO obvious. TOO "look at me". LA has already left a lasting positive legacy on the Olympics. Its time to give someone else a go.

SF, NYC, Houston, LA, Tampa, Chicago, etc. the USA wasn't going to get 2012...and as Baron said it's time to move on from this pure speculation, most of which we will never come to know as fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but remember Brazil is supposed to host the 2014 World Cup -- to be formally awarded later this year -- so certainly the big question in IOC members' minds, as 2009 approaches, can Brazil sustain the one-two wallop in a span of 2 years?

Methinks not.

Just my opinion.

That is indeed the 64,000 dollar question!

But if they can convince the IOC that they can,then it's their's!!

Again,in my humble opinion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is indeed the 64,000 dollar question!

But if they can convince the IOC that they can,then it's their's!!

Again,in my humble opinion. :)

$64,000 question? It'll be more like a $50 BILLION dollar question for Brazil when all is said and done.

Except for the US, NO other nation in history has done a Summer Olympics and/or a World Cup within 5 years of each other. With Brazil's tentative dance for the 2014 World Cup, I doubt that they can put on a braggadaccio show convincing enough for the IOC.

I don't hear too rosy reports for the 2007 Pan Ams in 3 months' time. But I can already hear unsatisfactory reports from sports writers covering the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$64,000 question? It'll be more like a $50 BILLION dollar question for Brazil when all is said and done.

Except for the US, NO other nation in history has done a Summer Olympics and/or a World Cup within 5 years of each other. With Brazil's tentative dance for the 2014 World Cup, I doubt that they can put on a braggadaccio show convincing enough for the IOC.

I don't hear too rosy reports for the 2007 Pan Ams in 3 months' time. But I can already hear unsatisfactory reports from sports writers covering the event.

Well, that is the other issue. Rio appears to be on the Athens plan in completing everything for the Pan Am's, a much smaller event.

Slow preparation for the 2007 Pan Am's + hosting 2014 World Cup = good prep for hosting an Olympics in the future

I could see them shortlisted for 2016 and coming back in 2020 and taking the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, to be accurate you also have to include:

Mexico (1968 SOG, 1970 WC)

Germany (1972 SOG, 1974 WC)

U would have to bring it up! :D Actually, I did recall Mexico. But the WCs and WOGs were much smaller then; and didn't require all the new infrastructure and billion-dollar security bill that comes with these events now. And Brazil doesn't really have the robust economy yet of China or India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U would have to bring it up! :D Actually, I did recall Mexico. But the WCs and WOGs were much smaller then; and didn't require all the new infrastructure and billion-dollar security bill that comes with these events now. And Brazil doesn't really have the robust economy yet of China or India.

You're right.

And one other thing you could point to is that those WCs were held AFTER the Olympics. Which could show that FIFA has nothing against using Olympic stadiums for their showpiece. The IOC, however, hasn't appeared to be as keen to use WC final stadiums for their carnival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction...

Brazil - 2014

Chicago - 2016

US - 2018 (And I don't give a rat's ass for all these floozies who say ' predictable.' Nyah - nyah -nyah. :P

wherever - 2020

don't care - 2022

2014,2016 and 2018 for the Americas? Tut tut...now who's being greedy?? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...