RedScare Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 So tell me why did Atlanta get it in 1996?Cold Hard Corporate Cash.Atlanta was the most commercialized Olympics in history, to the point of embarrassment...and you know how hard it is to embarrass the IOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ V Lawrence Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 So tell me why did Atlanta get it in 1996? Three words: Ted f*cking Turner. CNN, Atlanta Braves, Turner Field, Time Warner. If Ted Turner were not around, Atlanta wouldn't have a chance at hosting ANY event like the Olympics. Turner basically bought it in '96. Only reason why that can't happen not is that EVERYONE is trying to "buy" the Olympics now. Even a city like NYC almost won it. Know how? Nothing to do with being a good city. It was all about buying the Olympics out, and "investing". The U.S. Olympic Commitee showed that when they picked NYC over Houston AND San Fransisco, even though they came out and said Houston had the best financial plan. And Houston doesn't have international appeal, so we lost the Olympics? I heard the Commitee say that too, and I laughed my ass off at that hypocracy. How many people around the world knew where Atlanta was located before 1996? Hell, how many people around the world know where it's located NOW??? WTF!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I heard the Commitee say that too, and I laughed my ass off at that hypocracy.Never heard that. Gotta link?The story I heard was that Houston was too focused on it's sports infrastrucutre (which is top notch) and not enough our the cultural activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ V Lawrence Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Never heard that. Gotta link?The story I heard was that Houston was too focused on it's sports infrastrucutre (which is top notch) and not enough our the cultural activities.I'm not sure if I can find the archives, but I do remember the Houston Chronicle reporting something on this. It was an inside source from the U.S. commitee vote that they were refering to, because the Chronicle seemed baffled that we were not even in the top two for being the U.S. representative for the Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 There was a widely held belief that the USOC made a conscious decision to give serious consideration only to cities that had an `international' profile that would require no promotion, which to them meant New York, D.C. and San Francisco," said Greene, who is now regional director of the Environmental Protection Agency. "I think the first question the USOC will have to answer is why the other cities would expect anything to be different this time, and the answer to that will have to be to convince them that any city other than New York will have a chance.this was from july 7....might not be it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 close, but no cigar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 for 2012 bid (just a bunch of blah blah blah)The task force's decision, Moore said, "came down to the international strategies and international appeal, and the financial capacity for the city to manage and execute their programs. I will tell you that this was not simple. Our decision was a very difficult one, but we feel comfortable with our answer."We had four great cities. We picked two."The decision not to include Houston in that number came as a shattering disappointment to George DeMontrond III, chairman of Houston 2012, and Susan Bandy, the foundation's president, who attended the task force's news conference Tuesday afternoon."We would have hoped that this would have been decided more on quantifiable criteria. That is where we thought we were strongest," DeMontrond said. "Houston was strong on those quantifiable points, but when it came down to the more nebulous perceptions and opinions about cities, obviously we were not as competitive in those areas."I can differ with them on what I think was important, but this is what they thought would be important to the IOC. They truly placed more emphasis on the international appeal of the cities as destinations than I would have placed had I been judging."Houston got a proper hearing," said Kelley, who in 1994 founded the group that eventually became the Houston 2012 Foundation. "We had the best bid in terms of mechanics and infrastructure. But the USOC has elected to go with cities they think have more of an international ring." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ V Lawrence Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Sevfiv, BOOYAKASHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought I wasn't gonna find anything for a second, there. Thanx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.