Once again a city doesn't want to spend so much for the Olympics. Budapest joined Rome and Hamburg in pulling out of the race for the 2024 Olympics. Choices left are Paris and Los Angeles.

Paris seems to be a near lock as they have never gone more than 12 years without being in Europe and there is still a lot of antipathy towards the US. Even Obama couldn't save a superior NY bid from getting dropped in the first round.

(02-22-2017 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Once again a city doesn't want to spend so much for the Olympics. Budapest joined Rome and Hamburg in pulling out of the race for the 2024 Olympics. Choices left are Paris and Los Angeles.

Paris seems to be a near lock as they have never gone more than 12 years without being in Europe and there is still a lot of antipathy towards the US. Even Obama couldn't save a superior NY bid from getting dropped in the first round.

Let the French have it.

Are you talking about New York's bid to host the 2012 Games? That decision was in 2005 when Bush was President. Maybe you're talking about 2016 or 2020 bids, but I don't believe NYC has really gone after an Olympics since then?

In any case, the IOC is a disaster and putting blame on Obama for any failed bid is ridiculous. It will have been almost 30 years since the U.S. hosted a Summer Games and 2024 would be 40 years after one of the most successful Summer Games (Los Angeles). We're due to host, but I don't think LA can handle it anymore with its current gridlock.

I'm with Tom - let Paris have it.

(02-22-2017 06:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Once again a city doesn't want to spend so much for the Olympics. Budapest joined Rome and Hamburg in pulling out of the race for the 2024 Olympics. Choices left are Paris and Los Angeles.

Paris seems to be a near lock as they have never gone more than 12 years without being in Europe and there is still a lot of antipathy towards the US. Even Obama couldn't save a superior NY bid from getting dropped in the first round.

Let the French have it.

Damn straight. I don't want to spend one dime on an LA Olympics.

Olympics are a tremendous waste of money. All these facilities being built and never used again. Agree with those above me, let the French have them.

The Olympic park in Sydney (Homebush) is an incredible facility that seldom gets used. That's about par for the course.

The Olympics should be rotated among places that have the necessary facilities--London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, maybe Lisbon, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, Denver, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta, Sydney, Melbourne, Tokyo, Beijing, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Durban, Johannesburg, that's about it. I'm probably omitting a couple, and there are probably a couple on the list who wouldn't make it. From that list, maybe pick two cities per continent and rotate it. Or maybe do like FIFA and IRB, pick a host country and let it spread the sites out around the country. UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, maybe Portugal, USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, China, Japan.

Do the same for winter games. USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, maybe Chile although the timing would be different.

(02-22-2017 06:35 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Are you talking about New York's bid to host the 2012 Games? That decision was in 2005 when Bush was President. Maybe you're talking about 2016 or 2020 bids, but I don't believe NYC has really gone after an Olympics since then?

In any case, the IOC is a disaster and putting blame on Obama for any failed bid is ridiculous. It will have been almost 30 years since the U.S. hosted a Summer Games and 2024 would be 40 years after one of the most successful Summer Games (Los Angeles). We're due to host, but I don't think LA can handle it anymore with its current gridlock.

I'm with Tom - let Paris have it.

Maybe I'm confusing NY's bid with Chicago's. Obama endorsed. They still got dumped quickly.

They are. They need to start going after cities that already have most of what they need.....

(02-22-2017 07:07 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Olympics are a tremendous waste of money. All these facilities being built and never used again. Agree with those above me, let the French have them.

I look at some areas, like the twin cities, where you already have a huge supply of

Major Venues -

Closed Arenas * NHL arena, an NBA Arena, an NCAA college basketball Arena, an NCAA hockey arena

Bat Venues * A nice minor league field, a major league field, an NCAA baseball field, and NCA softball field

Big Fields * A domed NFL stadum big enough for soccer, an MLS field (in construction), an NCAA soccer field.

Pools * Big 10 venue pool

This plus a ton of small private colleges and their facilities around means you really would not need to build a whole lot.

It would really limit the Olympic locations but this is what they need to start looking for. Maybe a dozen places in the US, several in Canada, many in Europe, China, Australia and Japan/Korea already have most of whay they would need.

But doing that way would make it hard to get rich running the IOC

IOC wants new venues, US would rather use pre-existing venues.

(02-22-2017 06:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Once again a city doesn't want to spend so much for the Olympics. Budapest joined Rome and Hamburg in pulling out of the race for the 2024 Olympics. Choices left are Paris and Los Angeles.

Paris seems to be a near lock as they have never gone more than 12 years without being in Europe and there is still a lot of antipathy towards the US. Even Obama couldn't save a superior NY bid from getting dropped in the first round.

Let the French have it.

+1

And I agree with Owl's suggestion that the whole thing move toward the World Cup model. An entire country "hosts" it, not just one city, and the events are spread around different cities and their existing venues.

I saw a news story today, will try to find it, about how the facilities in Rio are already falling down, vandalized and, in the case of the ones that aren't already useless, are just sitting there. Only the golf course is being used.

Let the French have it. Besides we wouldn't want to deny anyone entry into our country that's on a ban list.

F*ck you if you can't take a joke.

(02-22-2017 07:45 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  IOC wants BILLIONS IN PAYOFFS, US would rather use pre-existing venues.

FIFY

(02-22-2017 11:00 PM)banker Wrote:  I saw a news story today, will try to find it, about how the facilities in Rio are already falling down, vandalized and, in the case of the ones that aren't already useless, are just sitting there. Only the golf course is being used.

Rio also put themselves billions in debt just to host the thing. Plus they made the double stupid decision to host a World Cup 2 years earlier.

IOC is going to have to change its approach to choosing a location in the future, because more and more places are realizing how costly it is to host. At the current rate, we'll be welcomed to a future Summer Olympics in the beautiful UAE, where every facility was built with the best slave labor imaginable.

(02-22-2017 07:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Olympic park in Sydney (Homebush) is an incredible facility that seldom gets used. That's about par for the course.

The Olympics should be rotated among places that have the necessary facilities--London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, maybe Lisbon, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, Denver, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta, Sydney, Melbourne, Tokyo, Beijing, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Durban, Johannesburg, that's about it. I'm probably omitting a couple, and there are probably a couple on the list who wouldn't make it. From that list, maybe pick two cities per continent and rotate it. Or maybe do like FIFA and IRB, pick a host country and let it spread the sites out around the country. UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, maybe Portugal, USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, China, Japan.

Do the same for winter games. USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, maybe Chile although the timing would be different.

This is what makes the most sense - stage it in places where there are already enough venues in place so that none/little money has to be spent on it.

Of course, the IOC doesn't want that - they need bidders funneling money into their pockets. The IOC or FIFA, whose more corrupt??

Yep, let the French deal with that security nightmare.

Another approach might be to give a city two Olympics. Either two consecutive or two 12 years apart while the facilities should still be in good condition.

(02-23-2017 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  Another approach might be to give a city two Olympics. Either two consecutive or two 12 years apart while the facilities should still be in good condition.

There would be no graft, no kickbacks, no corruption and thus, no point.

(02-23-2017 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  Another approach might be to give a city two Olympics. Either two consecutive or two 12 years apart while the facilities should still be in good condition.

There would be no graft, no kickbacks, no corruption and thus, no point.

Well, more accurately, the graft would be cut in half