Not only were they already trailing other bids (primarily London/Paris, and about the same as Madrid), but now potential funding for the NYC Olympic/Jets stadium was killed today, which is pretty much a knife in the back.

Just look at the enthusiasm behind the different bids and it's clear that NY just doesn't show the excitements other cities have shown. Madrid and Paris have the strongest backing among their citizens and countrymen.......with New York coming in at the lowest.

And over the weeekend Paris and Madrid both did large celebrations for their bids, both very impressive and hundreds of thousands attended.

New Yorkers probably don't want to make themselves a target. And who can blame them.

Just skimmed the Evaluation report from the IOC. I definitely agree that NYC doesn't have a prayer to win. Well, maybe they stand a better chance than Moscow. The report points out the dependency on the stadium and the lack of solid commitment to construction, which signifies the importance it plays with regards to evaluation.

The report praised Paris for doing all the right things. Based on the report it looks like Paris finally has it down after failed bids in prior years. London is the only city to give them competition.

Even sentimental response will do nothing to save NYC at this point.

[ June 06, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: RBear78240 ]

New Yorkers don't want to make themselves a target?

I don't know about that. I just don't think Americans in general have the enthusiasm and pride in the Olympics as other countries. When they do these announcements on who wins the bid, you always see scenes of thousands of people anxiously awaiting in front of a screen in these countries and in the U.S., many people don't even know what's going on.

I don't think 'terrorism' is the biggest concern for New Yorkers. If I was in a New Yorker, I wouldn't want the thousands of extra visitors on top of the regular amount. It's a madhouse.

I think we have pride- we just take for granted that we are the USA and will get these bids handed to us on a silver platter.

I think future bids should be more compelling- in terms of creativity and structure- and what hosting the Olympics is meant to do- to change a city forever- New York wouldn't be changed from hosting the Olympics...

I think the revenue and commitment for a city should be to make a long-term commitment to be a true Olympic city worth of the spirit of the Games....

I went to Paris last year and as far as I'm concerned my vote goes to the City of Lights! I absolutely loved it and I think they can do a great job hosting the Games. London is another favorite city so if Paris doesn't get it, I hope London does.

It would have been interesting to see how San Francisco would have fared with their bid instead of NYC. I think it would have been a stronger bid.

EXACTLY! I was shocked when the USOC chose NYC. I personally thought SF had a way better plan and had a far better chance of succeeding. Hopefully next time they'll pick the correct city and not let sentiment get in the way.

San Francisco would have won--our illustrious former mayor here--the "Honorable" Willie Brown, and if you knew him, you'd have second thoughts about calling him "honorable", is the master politician and would have pulled in favors from everyone he knows to get the games here

it would have truly been a bay area Olympics with venues stretching from Sacramento to San Jose

it would have been great!

How much influence would he have with those making the decision -- from so many different countries, not from the USA?

you'd be surprised

His Williness is known far and wide.

I think SF would have been a much more formidable candidate city, only the USOC let post-9/11 sentiment get in the way and picked NYC. Now they're stuck with a city that hinged its hopes on an as-of-yet inked stadium deal with absolutely no stadium backup plan. Very bad judgment, IMO. I do not weep for NYC's loss. If any city did not need the Games, it's NYC.

But even if SF was the US choice, I really think it would be a stretch for any US city to get the Games in 2012. We had the 1984 and 1996 Summer Games and the 1980 and 2002 Winter Games. Furthermore, with Calgary in 1988, Sydney in 2000 and Vancouver in 2010, the English-speaking world has really been dominating the Games for the past 30 years. Continental Europe is due a Summer Games, the last ones being in Barcelona in 1992. In 2016, the IOC will be under pressure to send the Games to Africa or South America for the first time assuming they present decent bids. Cape Town, Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires have all expressed interest in hosting the Games over the past few cycles.

The odds for a US city will be better in 2020 or 2024. In addition, the US will likely be putting forth bids for future Winter Games in the mean time.

Couldn't have said it better myself Aquaman Then again you always were good with the words wink

Which is why I think its preposterous for Reno to even be LOOKING at 2014. Total waste of money. Look further down the road, not 4 years after Vancouver!

I'd say a 2016 summer bid or 2020 would be better for a US city to win, not sooner.

Watch out guys, Bill O'Reilly will be after you for being anti-American for not supporting New York!!


I think Chicago would be a great (major) city to host an Olympics. As many big cities as the U.S. has that are able to host Olympics, the troublespot has been that public transportation has become such a big factor and most U.S. cities don't offer such (and I'm talking Summer, not Winter games here). You go around the world in Europe and eastern Asia and their transportation systems are almost flawless in several cities.

Chicago going for an Olympics would at least give it a chance to have an excuse to improve the el.


Before another U.S. Olympics though I would like to see one in South America or Africa first. Obviously there are very limited choices, but it's due time they have one. Also, I would not be surprised to see the next North American Olympics go to a Canadian city. Toronto put forth an effort in 2008, so I would not be surprised to see it happen for 2016.

Vancouver is getting the 2012 Winter games so Canada is off the list for a while

The U.S hosted the 96 Summer and 02 Winter.

Athens hosted the games in 2004. They don't go long without putting a games in Europe.

Greece is arguably not really a part of 'continental Europe'. It's very far away from the more 'traditionally' thought of Europe.

To find two back-to-back Summer games in Europe you'd need to go back to London '48 - Helsinki '52 so it's not unprecedented. However, since then they've always alternated Europe - North America - Asia (when possible). Sydney, Athens, Peking.....

Greece is Europe, not arguable at all. It's continental Europe, a member of the EU and the Greeks would tell you no one is more European than they are. Paris is approximately as far from Athens as New York is from Salt Lake City.

The games should really go to NYC. If they don't, it'll be because they just aren't ready. The stadium issue is a big one.

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some decline in interest in hosting the games. Although the Athens organising committee ended operation with several million dollars in surplus, Greece and probably the City of Athens ended up many millions in the red. Increased costs are largely attributable to increased security needs. This broke the trend, as up until then (since 1976) they'd been profitable. They're not anymore.

Why NYC? Paris has done the best job getting ready for the games. Greece was given the games for the sentimental value of bringing the games back to the birthplace country and the originating city. Athens tried for 1996 (the centennial) and 2000 (they weren't close to ready).

Paris has tried before and missed their chance. They now have the best plan of all the cities. Every authority who follows games bids agrees that Paris is the city to beat. NYC was considered due to a lot of lobbying with the USOC.

I say put the games where the best organization is. It's only best for the games to continue.

I couldn't agree with you more. Out of all the bids, I do think Paris has the best bid, followed by London. I'll be shocked if Paris doesn't win to be honest.

I'd say Paris is definitely the favorite and judging from the enthusiasm shown during their recent program of public events in support oof their bid they have the stronger backing of the populace. NYC doesn't. I think New Yorkers are somewhat ambivalent about the idea (traffic, parking, new stadium, security, costs, crowds) and I think it shows in the overall quality of their bid. Given the established paractice of geographically rotating the site selection, I think it was theirs to lose and they have - at least this go around.

I don't know to what extent lingering bitterness at the IOC over the Salt Lake citing scandal is still a factor.

Many cities have had to bid two and three times before finally being selected, Athens, Peking two notable recent cases.

Torgauer-

Using the Athens games as an example for a typical Olympics isn't the smartest idea.

If an Olympic Games is done well, it is just a mass advertisement for the city.

Since the L.A. games, I think it's hard to make an argument that cities have not reaped in great benefits. I believe Los Angeles & Seoul both profited from their games. Barcelona did not, but like Seoul, it created a new place in many minds. And if you look at Barcelona today, it is a huge tourist spot and the Olympic stadium is still a tourist destination. In the long run, Barcelona definitely profited from the revitalization of the city. With Atlanta, it TREMENDOUSLY revived that city, without a doubt. Atlanta and Barcelona are 2 great examples of taking a city that needs a lot of things done and the Olympics makes those things happen. For example, Atlanta had plans to renovate the airport terminal.........but it did not happen until the Olympics.

And as for Sydney, I don't think I need to explain much there. It pretty much portrayed Sydney as the perfect little place far, far away. Tourism has significantly grown since (although the whole 9/11 events hampered that growth obviouslY).


With Athens, obviously there is a financial shortfall after the games and the games had a lot of negative media in terms of preparation and security, but you can't judge an overall games within a year of it happening, it's a very long term process. The games did end up being a success in terms of hosting it. It'll be interesting to see how the tourism goes over the next several years. But the whole 'nightmare' of having this unstable Athens/Greece having the Olympics never really came true.

Beijing will definitely be an interesting one. Obviously in terms of the business sector, I can't see it NOT being a success. It will be interesting to see how openly the international world is welcomed into Beijing and the impact of it afterwards (Beijing is a similar situation with Seoul, and how Seoul tried to brand itself away from the mis-perceptions of North Korea and such, Beijing needs to create a positive image). Obviously the political tension is getting higher with China and who knows what it will be like come 2008.

Whoops -- good catch, Good Hands. 2004 was so recent that I had completely forgotten about it.

Illini:

You point to Atlanta as a Games success story. I suppose the Games generated a bit of infrastructure spending, but Atlanta was growing rapidly before they even bid on the '96 Games. I see things like added airport terminal space as the natural result of that growth trend and not that the growth trend started because of the Games.

I see Atlanta as the only recent host city that failed when it comes to the global PR platform that a Games can offer. Barcelona used thee Games to go from a second tier city within Spain to a major global tourism destination, one of the "must see" cities of Europe. Sydney, already a gem, really burnished its image and that of Australia, as well. Athens got hours and hours of positive media coverage for the city. Commentators coudn't believe how nice the city is, how beautiful the countryside is, how surprisingly efficient the notoriously inefficient Greeks were, etc.

The impression I have of Atlanta after the '96 Games is that it is a city that's, to misquote Hannibal Lecter in describing Agent Clarisse Starling, "one generation away from the trailer park." It came over as too honky tonk and as being more interested in making a quick buck than in offering quality deserved by the Centennial Games. I know Atlantans have a lot of pride in their town, so I am not stating that impression is reality, rather it's just the impression the Games' organizers left in their wake after they pocketed their loot. Atlanta could have profited so much more had the Games been done right.

Out of the 4 Games Ive been to, Atlanta has been my least favorite. The peoples hearts were in the right place but bless their souls, it was just not a favorable memory of an Olympics for me.

Minneapolis/St Paul was the other US city bidding for the rights to be the US city bidding for the Games for that year back in, I think 1988. I wonder how they would have done had they become the US bid city and had won the rights to host the 96 Games. It'd have certainly been a hell of a lot cooler there than in Atlanta in July! And Northwest would have certainly been the official airline

The Atlanta games were criticized for being far too 'corporate'. Something the IOC now I think does not want to see to a certain extent.

There's a chart out there that shows tourism growth before/after a games.......and Atlanta is the only one that really did not see a nice jump afterwards.

As for the airport terminal, no the project itself was not solely based on the Olympics. But the plan had long been around before the Olympics with no action taken. Having the Olympics pretty much forced the city to do it. Keep in mind the games were announced in like 1990, so gains the Olympics brings is not only after say 1996, they start well before.

But in private, the IOC was overjoyed with the financial success of the Atlanta Olympics: it balanced the IOC's budget for the next 10 years. See Richard Pound's book, Inside the Olympics.

A new twist: now the mayor is now proposing a new stadium for the Mets next to where Shea Stadium is now, in order to get the Olympics.

Wonder what Steinbrenner says about that?

When I heard the report on the radio, they said the Mets would have to play all their homes games in 2012 in Yankee Stadium, should New York get the Olympics with this revised plan, since they would need the whole baseball season to set it up as an Olympic stadium.

Although I'm guessing this is not going to give NY the 2012 Olympics, it is definitely worth a shot. The Mets and NY wanted to have a new stadium anyway.

It looks like the Jets are now left out, and stuck with sharing a stadium with the Giants.

[ June 12, 2005, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

This is really more about the mayor trying to save face in the wake of his original stadium disaster. The IOC is entirely too conservative in their evaluations to even consider this Plan B which hasn't had much forethought. It's really a shame that the USOC went with the sentimental selection instead of San Francisco. We might have actually had an Olympics in the U.S. if they had evaluated the plan more closely.

There's no question the Mets need a new stadium, with or without the Olympics. There's no arguing that Shea is a dump. If memory serves me, there were plans on the table for new stadiums for both the Mets and Yankees just before 9/11. After that, everything was put on hold.

So that makes the timing of this announcement even more suspicious. Amazing how cozy a politician can become to something or someone if his first love dumps him. If it will get a new Shea Stadium more power to it, but don't make out like it was always in the plans just to salvage an Olympic bid.

Looking at the Olympic style design of the new stadium, it would be the crappiest Olympic stadium I've seen in years. It's a baseball stadium. Don't try to make it something more.

Whyizzit....when an American city wants to host the games that they have to have the main stadium be a converted baseball park.

Remember Atlanta, and now this....haven't we learned??