Boston 2024

[tangent]

New post for new news:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...4Vqx4K/story.html?p1=ClickedOnBreakingNewsBox

What do you think the odds are that Eric Garcetti can sign the agreement now? It's the agreement, or a US Olympics. The IOC can't have both.

Should be zero chance of LA committing to a bid that hasn't received much if any public scrutiny, but I am not familiar with the level of public corruption in LA.

That certainly takes the pressure off Governor Baker quite a bit.

USOC and IOC are losing a lot of credibility in this process and undermining any potential US bid for 2024 or even 2028. Especially if they vote to switch horses at the 11th hour and go with the "safe" bid.

Why should any city spend even this much time and effort on a bid when the process is so uncertain.

I know the USOC has been burned by Chicago and New York's bids falling apart in the recent past, but the issues there were nearly the same as they are here in Boston. At some point you have to stop blaming the Cities and take a hard look at the USOC and the IOC process.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Coincidentally, Walsh's presser blowing up across the national/international news wires just as IOC members in Kuala Lumpur are checking their phones for the last time on the way back to the hotel to get some sleep.

 

[Equilibria]

Coincidentally, Walsh's presser blowing up across the national/international news wires just as IOC members in Kuala Lumpur are checking their phones for the last time on the way back to the hotel to get some sleep.

Might want to walk that back a bit. So far, I only see it on the LA Times sports section (outside of Boston, of course).

 

[JumboBuc]

Might want to walk that back a bit. So far, I only see it on the LA Times sports section (outside of Boston, of course).

It's a "top headline" on the ESPN homepage

 

[West]

Walsh's statement this morning had all the signs of a man kissing the Boston bid good-bye. And its pretty lame to say you need to study the economics of the bid more, but apparently haven't yet gotten around to asking your staff to do that.

I'd say it's a lot more than just a matter of the signs or impressions that he's creating. In the eyes of the IOC and by extension the USOC, he very specifically kissed it goodbye with:

"I'm not signing an agreement that's going to cost the taxpayers if there are overruns," he said.

As far as the IOC is concerned in this bidding round (as of current circumstances) their answer is "Oh yes you will, if you want to be considered a real bid." This is not the 1984 bid process, where one of the two original bidders (Tehran) had dropped out. There are multiple credible bidders with Toronto apparently about to lengthen the list. So signing the city guarantee is an absolute non-negotiable right now. If the voters of Hamburg were to say Nein, and the voters of Roma did likewise, and Toronto .... etc, etc, you get my drift: circumstances could change to re-create a 1984 scenario, wherein the IOC is down on bent knee begging someone like Paris to pleeeeaaase host the Games. Under current circumstances, however, Walsh making such a firm statement, even with all his caveats about how he'd be on board with sufficient insurance, just will not cut it. The IOC can still demand a guarantee, and will. If his press conference quotes have been conveyed to the IOC, and I assume they either have been or will be, then the IOC will be telling the USOC in blunt terms "get Boston out of there now". And the USOC will want to be ahead of that.

The LAST thing the IOC wants is those German / Italian / French / Canadian / Hungarian voters to be getting negative ideas about city guarantees on overruns. Of course, Munich/Bavaria voters already got such ideas and acted upon them re 2022 Winter Games, and an opposition group has sprung up in Hamburg. I will pause to note that Munich's a very different place than Hamburg in all sorts of ways, so the politics do differ. At the other end of the spectrum, it's not clear Hungarian voters would be allowed the chance to express negative ideas.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Might want to walk that back a bit. So far, I only see it on the LA Times sports section (outside of Boston, of course).

Step back for a sec on what you're insinuating there.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/usoc-talk-mass-gov-decide-step-boston-bid-32703234

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...wont-sign-contract-2024-olympic-bid/30727333/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/sports/olympics/mayor-casts-doubt-on-boston-2024-olympics-bid.html

http://time.com/3973023/boston-olympics-2024-marty-walsh/

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-boston-olympics-bid-jeopardy-20150727-story.html

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/27/boston-mayor-2024-olympic-bid-doubt

http://olympictalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/27/boston-2024-olympic-bid-marty-walsh-mayor-usoc/


I could go on and on to Page 2 of the Google results, if you want?

 

[Equilibria]

Step back for a sec on what you're insinuating there.

You did a Google search. I looked at front pages. This is also a stupid argument, and I'm sorry for starting it.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

You did a Google search. I looked at front pages. This is also a stupid argument, and I'm sorry for starting it.

Yes, it was a stupid argument. And you need to rein it in a bit this morning.


It's breaking across news wires, not front pages. Everyone who's got their push notifications set to Olympics news has seen it now, less than an hour after the presser concluded.

 

[Equilibria]

The LAST thing the IOC wants is those German / Italian / French / Canadian / Hungarian voters to be getting negative ideas about city guarantees on overruns. Of course, Munich/Bavaria voters already got such ideas and acted upon them re 2022 Winter Games, and an opposition group has sprung up in Hamburg. I will pause to note that Munich's a very different place than Hamburg in all sorts of ways, so the politics do differ. At the other end of the spectrum, it's not clear Hungarian voters would be allowed the chance to express negative ideas.

Let's be realistic about who matters here: Paris, Hamburg, and Los Angeles. I believe that Walsh has made LA a lost cause for the IOC, and two consecutive refusals by US mayors frankly makes the entire US a lost cause to some degree. It's unlikely that the IOC can bully the US into accepting a bid out of national pride, since the nation is so broken up by regional allegiance.

Paris and Hamburg are interesting questions. Paris, in particular, has a large amount of public support, centered around memories of being "robbed" for 2012. I'm dubious that the anti-HCA movement would make much headway there. Hamburg seems more promising, but let's be honest: this was already going to Paris. It's theirs to lose.

 

[tangent]

Let's be realistic about who matters here: Paris, Hamburg, and Los Angeles. I believe that Walsh has made LA a lost cause for the IOC, and two consecutive refusals by US mayors frankly makes the entire US a lost cause to some degree. It's unlikely that the IOC can bully the US into accepting a bid out of national pride, since the nation is so broken up by regional allegiance.

Paris and Hamburg are interesting questions. Paris, in particular, has a large amount of public support, centered around memories of being "robbed" for 2012. I'm dubious that the anti-HCA movement would make much headway there. Hamburg seems more promising, but let's be honest: this was already going to Paris. It's theirs to lose.

Switching to LA would completely undermine the credibility of the USOC and IOC process. Really the question is whether they think they know enough now to drop the 2024 US bid before September.

 

[stellarfun]

Should be zero chance of LA committing to a bid that hasn't received much if any public scrutiny, but I am not familiar with the level of public corruption in LA.

That certainly takes the pressure off Governor Baker quite a bit.

USOC and IOC are losing a lot of credibility in this process and undermining any potential US bid for 2024 or even 2028. Especially if they vote to switch horses at the 11th hour and go with the "safe" bid.

Why should any city spend even this much time and effort on a bid when the process is so uncertain.

I know the USOC has been burned by Chicago and New York's bids falling apart in the recent past, but the issues there were nearly the same as they are here in Boston. At some point you have to stop blaming the Cities and take a hard look at the USOC and the IOC process.

The process is not that uncertain. What made B24 unique was its (and the governor's and city's) insistence that no public funds would be used in support of the games.

(b) The Governor [of California] may agree in a joinder agreement that the state shall, in accordance with law and subject to Sections 5 and 6 of this act, do the following:
(1) Provide or cause to be provided any or all of the state government funding, facilities, and other resources specified in the OCOG's bid to host the games.
(2) The state will be liable, solely by means of the funding mechanism established by Sections 5 and 6 of this act, for:
(A) Obligations of the OCOG to a site selection organization, including obligations indemnifying the site selection organization against claims of and liabilities to third parties arising out of or relating to the games.
(B) Any financial deficit relating to the OCOG or the games.
(3) The state's liability shall not exceed the amount of funds appropriated to the Olympic Games Trust Fund established in Section 5 of this act. Any liability above this amount shall be the responsibility of the OCOG.
(4) Acknowledge that the OCOG will be bound by a series of agreements with the site selection organization as set forth in the joinder agreement.
(C) The Governor shall execute a joinder undertaking and a joinder
agreement, provided the parties conform with this act.
(D) A games support contract may contain any additional provisions
the Governor requires in order to carry out the purposes of this act.

[Bolding mine]
Excerpt from legislation introduced in the California state legislature by Democrats, who, I believe, have a supermajority in the legislature.
OCOG means Organizing Committee Olympic Games, as the legislation applied to the San Francisco and Los Angeles bids. Anyone see/hear/read anything close to this coming out of Massachusetts?

Its the height of naivete to think that because Boston may feel it got shafted, that other bid cities would hold the USOC and IOC at arm's length. Boston tried a moonshot when it came to financing, and basically, can't pull it off.

Case in point. IIRC, 1.0 had budgeted about $500 million for the press center and the broadcast center, which was to be new construction, paid for by B24. In 2.0, the cost is a tenth of that, and Davey now wistfully ruminates about trying to find, in 2015, 600-700,00 gsf of space that he can lease in 2023-2024, and admitting he hasn't found the space and suggesting he probably won't. If B24 continued to include the $500 million cost, then Boston's budget would be in the red. In my book, that's B24 playing with the financial numbers.

 

[tangent]

The process is not that uncertain. What made B24 unique was its (and the governor's and city's) insistence that no public funds would be used in support of the games.

...

Its the height of naivete to think that because Boston may feel it got shafted, that other bid cities would hold the USOC and IOC at arm's length. Boston tried a moonshot when it came to financing, and basically, can't pull it off.

The process would be uncertain if they can willy nilly introduce arbitrary deadlines at random times after the process was supposed to be Boston or no US bid at this point. Seriously did the USOC have a cocktail party and have someone slip them some pills last week?


Not just Boston. This happened in Chicago and in New York to some degree. Chicago eventually the mayor relented and agreed to sign the agreement but only after it soured the bid. New York refused pay for the decking costs of their version of Widett Circle, which killed the bid by forcing the stadium to relocate at the 11th hour.

Deciding on Boston using a bid process and then pulling a switch at the last minute based on uncertainty isn't a win for the USOC no matter how you look at it. LA wouldn't win against Paris. Boston might have a shot if it can get its shit together.

 

[West]

I am really curious about Walsh's thinking this morning. He knew there was a 9:30 conference call in which the USOC seemed to pretty clearly be trying to position the Governor into saying yea or nay, RIGHT NOW. That really smelled to me like the USOC trying (lamely) to position Baker as The Guy Who Said NO. This would allow the USOC to say "Gosh ok, if you feel THAT way, then we'll go off ever so sadly and look at other options, sniffle, sniffle". (All of which is lameness IMO)

So Walsh throws together a press conference to occur damn near concurrently, in which he repeatedly says things that will kill Boston's bid in the IOC's eyes. And sure enough, in most of those stories that F-Line linked, the gist is "Boston Mayor Says NO". I am simplifying those articles, but not by a lot. The Governor's conference call is mentioned only as an aside in several of them.

If Walsh's goal was to elbow Baker aside and lay claim to the title of The Guy Who Said NO, it's looking this morning like Mission Accomplished.

Did he mean to do that? If so, why? I am perplexed as to why he'd want to look like the guy who killed it, after having been so clearly gung ho earlier on. Really horrible internal polling maybe? (And I refer to polling about HIM, not the Olympics)

Anyhow, if Baker wanted all this to go away (very possible) then he must be ecstatic at how the day has played out. If Baker truly was impartial still and truly just wanted more time to study it (also very possible, though I lean away from this idea towards the first one), then he can very easily shrug it off as no harm no foul.

It looks to me like Walsh took a partial PR hit for Baker, unless Walsh saw some gain to driving a stake in the thing's heart. Someone help me out here, this isn't making sense.

 

[tangent]

I am really curious about Walsh's thinking this morning. He knew there was a 9:30 conference call in which the USOC seemed to pretty clearly be trying to position the Governor into saying yea or nay, RIGHT NOW. That really smelled to me like the USOC trying (lamely) to position Baker as The Guy Who Said NO. This would allow the USOC to say "Gosh ok, if you feel THAT way, then we'll go off ever so sadly and look at other options, sniffle, sniffle". (All of which is lameness IMO)

So Walsh throws together a press conference to occur damn near concurrently, in which he repeatedly says things that will kill Boston's bid in the IOC's eyes. And sure enough, in most of those stories that F-Line linked, the gist is "Boston Mayor Says NO". I am simplifying those articles, but not by a lot. The Governor's conference call is mentioned only as an aside in several of them.

If Walsh's goal was to elbow Baker aside and lay claim to the title of The Guy Who Said NO, it's looking this morning like Mission Accomplished.

Did he mean to do that? If so, why? I am perplexed as to why he'd want to look like the guy who killed it, after having been so clearly gung ho earlier on. Really horrible internal polling maybe? (And I refer to polling about HIM, not the Olympics)

Anyhow, if Baker wanted all this to go away (very possible) then he must be ecstatic at how the day has played out. If Baker truly was impartial still and truly just wanted more time to study it (also very possible, though I lean away from this idea towards the first one), then he can very easily shrug it off as no harm no foul.

It looks to me like Walsh took a partial PR hit for Baker, unless Walsh saw some gain to driving a stake in the thing's heart. Someone help me out here, this isn't making sense.

Most likely just looking to appear strong ahead of a potential loss of the bid. If it is the USOC being unreasonable then don't blame Walsh for the failure.

And for the other half of the electorate, Walsh is standing up for fiscal responsibility... PR win-win either way. Versus looking like the guy who was willing to move forward irresponsibly and still couldn't get it done which wouldn't look good to either the no, yes or maybe sides.

Also, if for some reason the bid does get to September and beyond then it positions Walsh to be more credible in the public eye in judging the merits of any host city agreement.

Either way, it was a good move by Mayor Walsh.

 

[Equilibria]

It looks to me like Walsh took a partial PR hit for Baker, unless Walsh saw some gain to driving a stake in the thing's heart. Someone help me out here, this isn't making sense.

Unless he doesn't see it as a negative. Remember, he is much more associated with this than Baker is. It's better to be the "guy who said no" than "the Mayor who got condescended to by the Governor on his most visible initiative."

He also positions himself as the "Responsible Mayor of Boston Who Rejected the Olympics" on any medium if LA's bid (or Rio's, or Paris') hits any difficulties.

 

[George_Apley]

Oh please. You really think a stadium at Beacon Yards or Suffolk Downs would have had a different fate? It doesn't matter where they pitched the bid, it would have run into the same vehement opposition.

I'm talking about what led to MY opposition. And the opposition of high information people who may have supported a smarter bid.

 

[stellarfun]

West,

The mayor was a principal presenter when the USOC heard presentations from the four finalist cities, and supposedly did a fine job. Subsequently, it was learned he hadn't read the bid documents, but supposedly his staff had. Walsh himself make a representation to the USOC that was consistent with the language in the bid document that there was minimal opposition to the bid in Boston.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...-nomination/MoS7il3858AK6yT9MHXIcI/story.html

In the intervening seven months until now, has Walsh made any serious effort to get up to speed on the specifics of the bid, and more directly, with the economics of the bid? For example, how much time did he spend reviewing 2.0 before it was released?

He only intervened to get 1.0 released because the City Council was in full revolt about the bid, and the lack of transparency, even to the council.

IMO, Walsh in this whole episode looks like a person out of his league, who either allows a process to go on without becoming too engaged, or doesn't know the right questions to ask, or doesn't have staff who know the right questions, or has let B24 pull the wool over his eyes, or a combination of the above. From January until today, he has been in reactive mode, and i can't think of a single, significant pro-active step that he's taken to get out in front of the train.

His remarks today are simply another manifestation.

 

[Equilibria]

IMO, Walsh in this whole episode looks like a person out of his league, who either allows a process to go on without becoming too engaged, or doesn't know the right questions to ask, or doesn't have staff who know the right questions, or has let B24 pull the wool over his eyes, or a combination of the above. From January until today, he has been in reactive mode, and i can't think of a single, significant pro-active step that he's taken to get out in front of the train.

His remarks today are simply another manifestation.

I don't know what Walsh has or hasn't read or studied, but I think you could make this comment about any of the major players here. Everyone was in over their heads. In most cities, they'd have years to get their head above water. Here, Walsh was under heavy fire from January on.

I've been frustrated with the "well, you didn't sound prepared in January, so how can you be prepared now?" rhetoric for a while. It's the same rhetoric that leads Chris Dempsey to keep trashing the 1.0 Bid when 2.0 has made it a meaningless document. This is a learning experience, and it's been a trial by fire. Please, let's accept that these people have learned something.

How different from 2014 Walsh did Francois Hollande sound? I have less confidence that he read Paris' bid than I have in Walsh reading the 2.0 Bid, and he was promising that the French Government would guarantee funds.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I am really curious about Walsh's thinking this morning. He knew there was a 9:30 conference call in which the USOC seemed to pretty clearly be trying to position the Governor into saying yea or nay, RIGHT NOW. That really smelled to me like the USOC trying (lamely) to position Baker as The Guy Who Said NO. This would allow the USOC to say "Gosh ok, if you feel THAT way, then we'll go off ever so sadly and look at other options, sniffle, sniffle". (All of which is lameness IMO)

So Walsh throws together a press conference to occur damn near concurrently, in which he repeatedly says things that will kill Boston's bid in the IOC's eyes. And sure enough, in most of those stories that F-Line linked, the gist is "Boston Mayor Says NO". I am simplifying those articles, but not by a lot. The Governor's conference call is mentioned only as an aside in several of them.

If Walsh's goal was to elbow Baker aside and lay claim to the title of The Guy Who Said NO, it's looking this morning like Mission Accomplished.

Did he mean to do that? If so, why? I am perplexed as to why he'd want to look like the guy who killed it, after having been so clearly gung ho earlier on. Really horrible internal polling maybe? (And I refer to polling about HIM, not the Olympics)

Anyhow, if Baker wanted all this to go away (very possible) then he must be ecstatic at how the day has played out. If Baker truly was impartial still and truly just wanted more time to study it (also very possible, though I lean away from this idea towards the first one), then he can very easily shrug it off as no harm no foul.

It looks to me like Walsh took a partial PR hit for Baker, unless Walsh saw some gain to driving a stake in the thing's heart. Someone help me out here, this isn't making sense.

These guys are all PR puppetmasters for a living. The title currently on their office doors is interchangeable; what they do for a living isn't. I'm not sure there's any insight to be gained trying to figure out who was giving cover to whom. Everything they do in their waking lives involves playing the angles like that. Why chalk up to eight-dimensional chess that which is attributable to just the lizard brains of any born politician?

If, in hindsight, the initially debunked reports from Friday afternoon of the USOC seeking an up/down answer today were accurate...they knew at least 3 days ago that it was over, and that today was the day it was going to be made over. That's a whole weekend to call heads-or-tails on who creates the first diversion. What the diversion is isn't all that important. One guy has 2-1/3 years to reelection to bury it and move onto other endeavors that aren't a reminder, one guy has 3-1/3 years to reelection to bury it and move onto other endeavors that aren't a reminder. The path they take to delivering that message isn't something many people are going to remember in 2-1/3 and 3-1/3 years.

 

[stellarfun]

equilibria, Walsh said today that the opposition in Boston consists of ten people on Twitter.