zenica Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 War good choice of cities, but in the sense IOC unrealistic when the IOC do not, no, not decide on a town in vorschlag.Warum is so, you ask members and IOC President, and then you get un / clear answer, what is passion . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 At this stage, there has been absolutely no indication whatsoever that Paris could bid for 2020.The only potential bid mentionned of for 2024. You have to admit though that a Tokyo win would propel the Europeans to think they have a chance and Paris would be stupid to not go for 2020 when Rome, Madrid and Berlin are all possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 You have to admit though that a Tokyo win would propel the Europeans to think they have a chance and Paris would be stupid to not go for 2020 when Rome, Madrid and Berlin are all possibilities. Should Tokyo win 2016 though, it would make it even more imperative for a 'new frontiers' or another North American try (i.e., Guadalajara or Toronto if the US decides to sit that one out) to shoot for 2020. But I think at this time, much as I do not like the senator from Illinois, it just appears that the 2016 stars are lining up for Chicago (bite my tongue...). So, on this 1st week of June 2008, I see 2020 as a head-on fight between Capetown and Rio; with Istanbul or Delhi coming in 3rd. Then Paris, Berlin, Rome, Prague should all start making noises for 2024 right after Sochi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 A Chicago or Rio win would also propel the Europeans to think that they have a chance @ 2020 (unless Munich won 2018, which is not a sure thing). To suggest that only Tokyo would present such a scenario seems not that well thought out, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin/news/view...p;id=1214075951 LOLOLOLOL The mayor is DREAMING!!!! First of all, if Chicago gets 2016, 2020 for North America is absolutely over with. Secondly, Birmingham is too close to Atlanta, distance wise. Thirdly, if the USOC said no to even Houston & Philadelphia, then certainly Birmingham has no chance whatsoever. Fourthly, Birmingham is too small (ala Leipzig) for a mega event like the Olympics. And fifthly, even if by some huge miracle the USOC stupidly put them forward, no way would the IOC pick them over the glamor capitals of Paris, Rome, Berlin or even Moscow & Tokyo. But one can dream, can't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Well, Melbourne of course. But if Chicago fails in 2016, I'd like to see a bid from the cities of Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario. A joint Detroit-Windsor 2020 bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 No way is a bid from Detroit gonna get any further than the drawing board, when the likes of Paris, Tokyo, Rio, etc, etc. are wanting the Games. Like I said earlier, the only way a city like Detroit or Houston, etc, stands any sort of chance, is if we go back to secondary cities bidding, like Belgrade, Melbourne, Seville, Lyon & Manchester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 No way is a bid from Detroit gonna get any further than the drawing board, when the likes of Paris, Tokyo, Rio, etc, etc. are wanting the Games. Like I said earlier, the only way a city like Detroit or Houston, etc, stands any sort of chance, is if we go back to secondary cities bidding, like Belgrade, Melbourne, Seville, Lyon & Manchester. You mean some other US city would be selected over Detroit-Windsor? Should the US bid for 2020 after a potential Chicago fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Whether the USOC should bid for 2020 if they don't clench 2016, is debatable, to say the least. There's several viarables thay would need to be looked at first. But that issue aside for the moment, I just don't see the USOC selecting Detroit for anything when they even turned down Houston & Philadelphia (cities with a bit more international clout than Detroit) in the last domestic race. There's no way Detroit would hold up against the like of Paris, Rome, Rio, Tokyo, or even Moscow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 You mean some other US city would be selected over Detroit-Windsor? Should the US bid for 2020 after a potential Chicago fail? What are you talking about? Bi-national bids are a no-go. Lake Placid-Montreal, San Diego-Tijuana bids have never advanced past the initial talking and press release stage. Why should the 2 countries join up for a joint Games? They are both big enough to stage them on their own. Where do you get these ideas, Lord David? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 clench 2016, ...clinch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Granted that if Windsor were to bid with Detroit, they would be considered an auxiliary host city merely adding a couple of potential venues alongside with Detroit and more importantly, providing accommodation opportunities, it still would be an interesting bid, and one that could work. Well I guess the biggest hurdle of this unique bid would be the Canadian Olympic Committee and if they want Toronto to be the next Canadian host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Granted that if Windsor were to bid with Detroit, they would be considered an auxiliary host city merely adding a couple of potential venues alongside with Detroit and more importantly, providing accommodation opportunities, it still would be an interesting bid, and one that could work.Well I guess the biggest hurdle of this unique bid would be the Canadian Olympic Committee and if they want Toronto to be the next Canadian host. No, the biggest hurdle is the IOC is NOT going to choose a bi-national-bid, so why would either the US or Canada consider it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 No, the biggest hurdle is the IOC is NOT going to choose a bi-national-bid, so why would either the US or Canada consider it anyway. Cause it's a unique bid? Cause it's 2 geographically close cities? Cause funding can come from both governments and public populations? Cause there's already an ease of travel between cities by both citizens? (Which shouldn't be a problem during the games for visitors and locals alike) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Regardless of all of your "reasons" why such a joint-bid would work, LD, a Detroit bid is never gonna come to fruition. So all of your reasons are all moot anyway. The "joint-bid" issue aside, what would kill the bid to begin with is Detroit's lack of international appeal (exactly what sank Houston's & Philadelphia's attempts). So unless Timbuctu Frace, Italy, Germany, Russia or whatever are bidding for the Games, all of your points are pointless. So no sense in arguing a moot arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Cause it's a unique bid? Cause it's 2 geographically close cities? Cause funding can come from both governments and public populations? Cause there's already an ease of travel between cities by both citizens? (Which shouldn't be a problem during the games for visitors and locals alike) So naive . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Cause it's a unique bid? Cause it's 2 geographically close cities? Cause funding can come from both governments and public populations? Cause there's already an ease of travel between cities by both citizens? (Which shouldn't be a problem during the games for visitors and locals alike) There are such things as 'jurisdictions' and 'sovereignity issues.' Sigh. The IOC awards its Games to a 'city' (and its satellite venues) belonging to ONE soveregin nation. There is a matter of 'national identity,' the host country flag and anthem being played at the OC, etc. The 2002 Korea-Japan WC was a compromise and experiment of sorts. FIFA has said that it is not crazy to repeat the scenario any time soon. That right there should say it all. If there were NO OTHER bidders at all for a certian year except joint bids, THEN and ONLY THEN might there be a chance ofhte IOC choosing a joint bid -- but otherwise, David, it's really a non-issue. Not even worth pursuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsh Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 ok in my opinon I think the bids for 2020 will be: Busan Delhi Buenos Aires Monterrey Cape Town Auckland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Cause it's a unique bid? Cause it's 2 geographically close cities? Cause funding can come from both governments and public populations? Cause there's already an ease of travel between cities by both citizens? (Which shouldn't be a problem during the games for visitors and locals alike) Jeez. What brought on your Detroit-Windsor fixation now? I see you're pusghing it in a few threads now. Get it out of your mind, it's just not going to happen. We've been over the whole bi-national bid issue before. If Helsinki-Lillehammer, San Diego-Tijuana and (one of my ridiculous favourites) Hiroshima-Manila aren't gonna fly, what makees you think some dowdy rustbucket bid is now a great chance?As Baron said, sovereignity issues alone make it a massive headache the IOC wouldn't want to consider unless they had absolutely no other option to take (and even then they'd probably try to arm-wrestle some recent previous host to do it rather than go the bi-nation option). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Jeez. What brought on your Detroit-Windsor fixation now? I see you're pusghing it in a few threads now. Get it out of your mind, it's just not going to happen. We've been over the whole bi-national bid issue before. If Helsinki-Lillehammer, San Diego-Tijuana and (one of my ridiculous favourites) Hiroshima-Manila aren't gonna fly, what makees you think some dowdy rustbucket bid is now a great chance?As Baron said, sovereignity issues alone make it a massive headache the IOC wouldn't want to consider unless they had absolutely no other option to take (and even then they'd probably try to arm-wrestle some recent previous host to do it rather than go the bi-nation option). Well Helsinki-Lillehammer didn't fly because of Helsinki's dependence of Lillehammer's mountains. San Diego-Tijuana might work, though your considering a bid with Mexico here. Hiroshima-Manila won't work on account of distance. As for Detroit-Windsor, given the already present events jointly held or associated with both cities, why not? That is of course assuming Detroit wants to bid in the first place and is selected as the USOC bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 That is of course assuming Detroit wants to bid in the first place and is selected as the USOC bid. Which in itself if unlikely is the USOC gets at least one other half-decent and more glamorous city to choose from. Like the IOC, the USOC's certainly not going to pick a bi-national bid to go with if they have any other choice. Forget multi-national bids _ they're an option of last resort, if they're even an option at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcden Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Birmingham Alabama in 2020? I think whoever thought that up must be smoking crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Either that or they completely lost their mind, literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoUSA2016 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 As for a Detroit-Widsor bid, wouldn't Canada also have to agree and forget about a possible Toronto bid??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 As for a Detroit-Widsor bid, wouldn't Canada also have to agree and forget about a possible Toronto bid??? Of course. Everything bi-lateral, if its put together correctly (NOT that that's an assurance of feasibility/acceptability) should of course have agreements for all parties concerned. These days, an accredited NOC cannot put forward more than one candidate city portfolio in any Olympic Games year. But you know, even if there were no Detroit-Windsor bid (which of course there won't be), Canada will probably hold off on a Toronto 2020 or 2024 bid because: 1. Vancouver is already hosting a Winter Games in 2 years' time (so that's Canada Olympic allotment for the 2nd decade of the century); and 2. if Chicago gets 2016, then that's it for a North American Summer Games for probably the next 6 Summer rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.