CrookedThumb Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 espn.comI remember a few years ago when Tampa was trying to get the 2012 Olympics. I was a little disappointed when we didn't make the cut. Anyway I want New York to get it, but I think it's a bit too busy to host the Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEAD! Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I chose Paris only because they have a lot of the infrastructre in place. London and New York does sound appealing, but transportation will be insane for the Olympics. I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waffles Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Good gravy, I hope we (New York) don't get it...it is not worth the cost, financially and security-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmee Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I think by the time 2012 rolls around, New York will be relatively calm again and able to play an excellent host to the Olympics. Plus, they'd be in my backyard (I'm a 45 minute drive from the city) so I'd actually be able to view the games in person. Nothing better than Olympic competition. Check it out:-Madison Square Garden-Nassau Colisuem-Continental Airlines Arena-Giants Stadium-Yankee Stadium-Shea Stadium-Armory (Indoor track facility and home of the T&F HoF)-Arthur Ashe Tennis ComplexThose are just the facilities already around. We'll also be building a new facility for the Jets on the West Side within the next few years, which will boost our cause, as will the arena that Bruce Ratner's building for the Nets in Brooklyn. New York is already home for the most important and highest level marathon in the world, so that course is already taken care of.Oh...I almost forgot. We're New Fluffing York. We do and get what we want. The world's foremost practitioners of professional tag-team wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfannova Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I think that after the 1996 and 2002 Olympics, they should take a break from the US. Paris is the best option in my mind, followed by London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 This will end up being a three-way race between London, New York City and Paris. Based on the outlines of the bids that I've seen, I'll put my money on New York being selected.As for Shmee's assertion that the New York Marathon is the "most important and highest level in the world"... fat chance. The "gold standard" by which all other modern marathons are measured remains the Boston Marathon. It is, quite simply, the most beloved, storied and tradition-rich marathon in existance.Brian in Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waffles Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I think by the time 2012 rolls around, New York will be relatively calm again and able to play an excellent host to the Olympics. Plus, they'd be in my backyard (I'm a 45 minute drive from the city) so I'd actually be able to view the games in person. Nothing better than Olympic competition. Check it out:-Madison Square Garden-Nassau Colisuem-Continental Airlines Arena-Giants Stadium-Yankee Stadium-Shea Stadium-Armory (Indoor track facility and home of the T&F HoF)-Arthur Ashe Tennis ComplexThose are just the facilities already around. We'll also be building a new facility for the Jets on the West Side within the next few years, which will boost our cause, as will the arena that Bruce Ratner's building for the Nets in Brooklyn. New York is already home for the most important and highest level marathon in the world, so that course is already taken care of.Oh...I almost forgot. We're New Fluffing York. We do and get what we want. Even with all these facilities, the City's still gonna have to spend tens of billions of dollars on an Olympic village, infrastructure improvments (subway extensions, road work), security, other facilities...Add to that the fact that the Olympics would effectively shut down the entire city for two weeks of hell and end up costing us even more money in lost business/productivity...And the increased terror risk...And the traffic...I sure as hell don't want the Olympics in my city.Spend the money on something useful or important, like public schools or the 2nd Avenue Subway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yh Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Eh, we had 'em here in St. Louis and it wasn't so bad.Of course that was in 1904 . . . . Apparently Paris is the unofficial front runner with NYC in fourth position, however the IOC has not yet received NYC's official bid book which apparently details in half-hour by half-hour increments how the entire transportation system will be able to work during the weeks of the Olympics. That is apparently the IOC's biggest concern at this point. Paris apparently has an edge because much of the needed infrastructure is already in existence and readily upgradeable. And NYC believes that they can put this whole thing together for $3.7B. That will be interesting, to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I think New York will when, because of NBC. NBC is paying the IOC tons of money for broadcast rights. They will make a push for New York because it's a US city, and the major media center. They already have studios and such. If it's in New York everything can be live in primetime. NBC is going to want New York and becuase of the oney they out out the IOC will listen. Also, New York metro area may have 2 new arena built in time for the Olympics. If the Nets new arena in brooklyn and the Devils new Arena in Newark is built on time then there will be 2 state of the art facility to holf events in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waffles Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 And NYC believes that they can put this whole thing together for $3.7B. Which, in New York, means it'll cost $13B and be finished 4 months late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmee Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 And NYC believes that they can put this whole thing together for $3.7B. Which, in New York, means it'll cost $13B and be finished 4 months late. I think you have New York and Athens confused. The world's foremost practitioners of professional tag-team wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilTownMVP Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 New York is already home for the most important and highest level marathon in the world, so that course is already taken care of. New York hosts the Boston Marathon? Dubya's thoughts on "terrorist" nations: "They never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfannova Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I personally think NYC doesn't have a chance for the reason I gave earlier: Atlanta 1996, SLC 2002, and even Vancouver 2010. Should we have every Olympics in North America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yh Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I personally think NYC doesn't have a chance for the reason I gave earlier: Atlanta 1996, SLC 2002, and even Vancouver 2010. Should we have every Olympics in North America? Well, the same can be said for Europe, in all fairness: Albertville & Barcelona in 92, Lillehammer in 94, Athens in 04, Turin in 06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfannova Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I personally think NYC doesn't have a chance for the reason I gave earlier: Atlanta 1996, SLC 2002, and even Vancouver 2010. Should we have every Olympics in North America? Well, the same can be said for Europe, in all fairness: Albertville & Barcelona in 92, Lillehammer in 94, Athens in 04, Turin in 06. Touché. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yh Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I personally think NYC doesn't have a chance for the reason I gave earlier: Atlanta 1996, SLC 2002, and even Vancouver 2010. Should we have every Olympics in North America? Well, the same can be said for Europe, in all fairness: Albertville & Barcelona in 92, Lillehammer in 94, Athens in 04, Turin in 06. Touché. Until S. Africa and Brazil can afford to support an Olympics, it's basically going to volley back and forth between N.America and Europe with Asia getting a Games here and there and perhaps occasionally Australia as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I personally think NYC doesn't have a chance for the reason I gave earlier: Atlanta 1996, SLC 2002, and even Vancouver 2010. Should we have every Olympics in North America? Yes, for the reason I mentioned before. Television wants them in North America because then they can have more live events in primetime which will translate into higher ratings which means more advertising money. Since NBC is paying tons of money they are probably calling the shots behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrivnak Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Speaking as one who lived it, having the Olympics in Atlanta was a huge boon to our economy. Turner Field, infrastructure improvements, noteriety, all came directly from the olympics. There really wasn't too much hassle for the two weeks it was here and the city didn't "shut down." In fact, tons of business came to our city for those two weeks. If I were in New York, I'd be tremendously happy to have the Olympics in my city... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfannova Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I personally think NYC doesn't have a chance for the reason I gave earlier: Atlanta 1996, SLC 2002, and even Vancouver 2010. Should we have every Olympics in North America? Yes, for the reason I mentioned before. Television wants them in North America because then they can have more live events in primetime which will translate into higher ratings which means more advertising money. Since NBC is paying tons of money they are probably calling the shots behind the scenes. Yeah, but more people watch the Olympics on television in other nations. Europe has more people to watch the Olympics then the US and Canada do. They probably get equivilant advertising dollars as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 This is a tough call, the IOC generally follows pattern when it comes to awarding games... but considering there is '04 Athens, '06 Turin, I see no reason why there can't be '10 Vancouver, '12 NYC.Now I'm not hoping NYC wins it (there's still hope in my Toronto Summer Olympics yet), but I think they will.So I can't answer the poll, because it asks two questions, and my answer is different for each one --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.a404f257af3474c759b82f8ac587eaff.gif)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.