Boston 2024

citylover94 said:
BU Nickerson? The soccer stadium that is proposed by Kraft? Fenway could potentially be used especially if baseball doesn't return to the olympics. Would the stadium in Franklin park work? The stadium at BC could potentially be used. The East Boston Memorial Stadium could probably be used if the stands are extended fully around the field. Russell field might work as well if seating is built/expanded. I don't know how many of these would work and many might need temporary expanded seating built but I think that is a start.

I know they are thinking of using Harvard's for field hockey. The stadiums honestly don't have to be as big as Gillette. It would be nice but I doubt that would be a deal breaker in and of itself.
Click to expand...

I think that would be a deal breaker for the IOC. Let's see, select a city willing to build state of the art stadiums or choose a city that would need to convert a baseball stadium into a soccer stadium, one that is over 100 years old and have very uncomfortable seats.
 
stellarfun said:
Counting Gillette as one site, where are the other five soccer sites to be found?
Click to expand...

Olympic soccer has a long history of being played in cities throughout the host country. If Boston 2024's soccer sites were spread around the Northeast that would be perfectly fine with the IOC.
 
I'm not sure what Atlanta did, but I know that L.A. did not host most of the soccer matches on site. Games were played in San Diego, Pasadena, Palo Alto, San Francisco, etc., using college and some pro football facilities. Some soccer could be hosted here, mostly thinking Gillete, Revolution SS stadium, and BC, whole others could be in places like New Haven (Yale), for example.
 
lexicon506 said:
Olympic soccer has a long history of being played in cities throughout the host country. If Boston 2024's soccer sites were spread around the Northeast that would be perfectly fine with the IOC.
Click to expand...

Indeed. In addition to BC, you'd see games at the Meadowlands, in DC, in Philly, and probably even at a few big college stadiums in Columbus, Ann Arbor, etc. Actually, all four candidate cities might host soccer games regardless of which one of them gets the bid.
 
lexicon506 said:
Olympic soccer has a long history of being played in cities throughout the host country. If Boston 2024's soccer sites were spread around the Northeast that would be perfectly fine with the IOC.
Click to expand...
First, Fenway Park is not going to be converted in the middle of baseball season to be a soccer field. And Nickerson Field is pathetically small. Which potentially leaves BC's Alumni stadium, but whether that field is wide enough for soccer I don't know.

Thus you are into the Yale Bowl, the Meadowlands, Franklin Field or the Linc in Philadelphia, and the Ravens field in Baltimore. There is zero indication that the Boston 2024 Committee has had conversations with the owners of these other venues. I very much doubt that the U S Olympic Committee is going to choose a city in a month's time and then figure out the venues after. And having most of the largest ticketed event at the Olympics sited outside of Massachusetts (with all that lost revenue) does wonders for the balance sheet.

The other candidate cities, BTW, have more soccer venues within a relatively short distance.

And add to the potential stadium needs a venue(s) for rugby (seven-a-side) which will be competed in the 2016 and 2020 Olympics. 12 men's and 12 women's teams.
 
stellarfun said:
Thus you are into the Yale Bowl, the Meadowlands, Franklin Field or the Linc in Philadelphia, and the Ravens field in Baltimore. There is zero indication that the Boston 2024 Committee has had conversations with the owners of these other venues. I very much doubt that the U S Olympic Committee is going to choose a city in a month's time and then figure out the venues after. And having most of the largest ticketed event at the Olympics sited outside of Massachusetts (with all that lost revenue) does wonders for the balance sheet.
Click to expand...

Stellar, every one of the four potential US bids will outsource Soccer. In fact, Boston and DC would probably use many of the same NFL and MLS facilities. In Boston, games would be held at Alumni Stadium, Gillette, the Olympic Stadium, and potentially the SSS next door if Kraft builds it in time. DC has their Olympic Stadium (which would replace RFK), FedEx, the University of Maryland, and a potential SSS. LA has a few more local venues, but would outsource to SD, SF, and elsewhere. SF has Stanford, Cal, Levi's, and the Earthquakes' Stadium. Other than LA, there isn't a big difference between the cities.

The USOC is choosing between four identical plans for hosting soccer - I would bet that no one has contacted every stadium owner in their region asking about this yet.
 
One of the four venues for the 1984 Olympics was Boston (Harvard); another was Annapolis. Harvard is downsizing its stadium to 23,000 seats.

At Atlanta, other than Washington DC, all the soccer was played in GA or within one state (FL and AL). Women's soccer was added for Atlanta, and there were five venues. The minimum number of venues since has been six. None of the U.S. venues used in either the 1984 or 1996 Olympics were owned by professional teams, and only RFK in 1996 was also in use by an NFL team.

Games in seven-a-side rugby are 15 minutes long, so one can squeeze more games in at the same venue. Howsever, the field is 122 yards by 74 yards, so very few existing football stadia would do.
 
lexicon506 said:
Olympic soccer has a long history of being played in cities throughout the host country. If Boston 2024's soccer sites were spread around the Northeast that would be perfectly fine with the IOC.
Click to expand...
^This.
Stellar? I don't know what ax you're grinding, but its nutty to be focusing on Northeast soccer venues as a leading criteria for anything at this stage.

Part of what made Rio plausible was that Brazil (the whole country) was hosting the World Cup. Most recently London and Beijing relied on venues far from the host city for its Soccer. So did Atlanta..as far north as DC. And Los Angeles? In 1984 they put Soccer at Harvard Stadium, Standford and Annapolis...ie, in 1984 every metro area now a cadidate--Boston, Bay Area, DC Area-- got a Soccer event.

Free your mind. The USOC is expecting that Soccer (and Rugby sevens) can throw a little Olympic Magic outside the non-host city/region, and is something that does not have to be settled to pick a US host winner. By the time it gets to the IOC, they need a national plan of venues, but as linked above, you see that the host city is *not* on the hook for providing them--the host Country is.
 
Last edited:
equilibria, Alumni does not appear wide enough for soccer. It was purpose built for football, and the soccer pitch is about 20 yards wider than a college gridiron. I am unaware that soccer has ever been played at Alumni Field. And MLS soccer stadiums generally seat between 20-25,000, and I would think are too small for Olympic soccer, Olympic soccer being a huge generator of revenue.

Brazil is doing with five venues, all 50,000+ (all built or renovated for the World Cup) and 19 training venues. In effect, the World Cup greased Brazil's bid.
 
I'm confused. You and Arlington just said the exact same thing, but are arguing against one another...
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
I'm confused. You and Arlington just said the exact same thing, but are arguing against one another...
Click to expand...

The issue is revenue dispersal, the more distant that big-attendance sports are played at venues far from Boston, the less amount of revenue Boston sees to help recoup the cost of hosting. If 1.5 million of the 2 million people who watch Olympics soccer never set foot in Massachusetts, how does Boston benefit financially?
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
I'm confused. You and Arlington just said the exact same thing, but are arguing against one another...
Click to expand...
You're confused? I'm confused. Who's "you"? {its Stellar, isn't it?} AFAICT, everyone but Stellar sees that Soccer is a "national" bid rather than a local one.
I guess this is the source of confusion
stellarfun said:
Brazil is doing with five venues, all 50,000+ (all built or renovated for the World Cup) and 19 training venues. In effect, the World Cup greased Brazil's bid.
Click to expand...
...in which Stellar admits that Soccer in "Rio" is exactly the sort of "nationally-hosted" sport (hosted by Brazil), that Soccer will be in Boston/SF/LA/DC, hosted by "the United States"

Lexicon says: "Olympic soccer has a long history of being played in cities throughout the host country."
Equilibria says: " [A]ll four candidate cities might host soccer games [in 2024] regardless of which one of them gets the bid...The USOC is choosing between four identical plans for hosting soccer [outsource them Nationally, including the losing-bid cities."
and HenryAlan's case was stronger than he knew "I'm not sure what Atlanta did, but I know that L.A. did not host most of the soccer matches on site. "(both outsourced vigorously)

Click my links. Atlanta's soccer venues spanned from DC to Miami to Birmingham, and LA's 1984 ones were transcontinental (Stanford, Harvard, & US Naval Academy, Annapolis).

As Equilibria suggests, at this stage, all 4 cities' Soccer/Rugby bid should read as follows:
the USA is a big, rich, country now with an established MLS circuit, and there are great venues coast-to-coast, including some in the losing bid cities [insert names of the other bidders here] which all precedents say we are free to use and to spread the Olympic magic as consolation prizes and to the hometown of you, Mr/Mrs USOC member, just like Atlanta and LA did. The IOC will love our nationwide soccer plan, like it always does, and FIFA did in 1994.
Click to expand...
or words to that effect.
stellarfun said:
If 1.5 million of the 2 million people who watch Olympics soccer never set foot in Massachusetts, how does Boston benefit financially?
Click to expand...
The host profits from the TV $ wherever the soccer games go, and I'm sure that there's a little bit of ticket $ left over after you've rented the venue (local Soccer-host towns/venues/schools cut good deals). The model for soccer is cost-minimization: using existing venues--usually college football stadia idle during the summer-- who are thrilled to get an Olympic bone thrown their way and host preliminary games for cheap. Soccer actually helps the host committee by being the 1 sport where you're permitted to tap fan $ outside the host area.
 
Last edited:
Also of note: DC United's soccer stadium was unanimously approved by the DC City Council yesterday and will be built as long as Congress doesn't f things up. Should be completed in 2017.
 
datadyne007 said:
Also of note: DC United's soccer stadium was unanimously approved by the DC City Council yesterday and will be built as long as Congress doesn't f things up. Should be completed in 2017.
Click to expand...
Perfect. Boston can use DC United, just like Atlanta used RFK. If DC wins, I'm sure they'll be happy to use Gillette or Harvard.
 
datadyne007 said:
Also of note: DC United's soccer stadium was unanimously approved by the DC City Council yesterday and will be built as long as Congress doesn't f things up. Should be completed in 2017.
Click to expand...

Not quite there yet. The city approved spending up to $140 million (mostly debt-financed) to buy the necessary land and clear the site. The stadium, seating 20,000, will cost above that (an additional $300 million?).
 
stellarfun said:
Not quite there yet. The city approved spending up to $140 million (mostly debt-financed) to buy the necessary land and clear the site. The stadium, seating 20,000, will cost above that (an additional $300 million?).
Click to expand...

The team is paying for it. The stadium is a go.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
I thought it was a 50-50 deal between the city and the team? One of those public money stadium boondoggles.
Click to expand...
There is cost-sharing involved, but WaPo describes it it is pretty clear that once the city delivers the site (which it has authorized and funded), the team builds the stadium from its own financing. The "$300m Stadium" is either $150m of public land and $150m of
private building or $150m of land and $300m of private building. So either 50-50 or 33-67.
 
lexicon506 said:
USOC, Walsh, and Fish come out strongly disputing rumors that Boston had the worst bid presentation of the 4 cities. SF news anchor reasserts that his sources are legit.

Sounds like there are at least a couple people at the USOC who thought Boston sucked. We'll see in January if that's enough to sway the group's decision..

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...sh_dispute_claim_boston_olympic_bid_was_a_dud
Click to expand...

I looked up the bios of the USOC Board of Directors.
(The first four names include the chair, and apparently the leadership group.)

Probst, lives and works outside San Francisco, attended Univ of Delaware
DeFrantz, Los Angeles, chair of committee to spend the surplus from the 1984 LA Olympics
Easton, native of Los Angeles, attended UCLA
Ruggeiro, from CA and MI, attended Harvard (women's ice hockey).
_____________________________________
Bach, MBA Stanford, Bellevue WA
Benson, MBA from Univ Southern California, currently resides in Boston
Bowlsby, commissioner of Big 12, formerly athletic director at Stanford
Burns, Xerox, NY
Hendricks, Discovery Channel (MD), attended U of Alabama Huntsville
Kempell, Alaska, attended Dartmouth
Lyons, lives and works in San Francisco, attended Vassar and BU
Marrolt, formerly athletic director Univ of Colorado, Colorado
McCagg, Massachusetts, Harvard (women's rowing)
Ogrean, Master's from BU, ice hockey, resides in Colorado
Ping, currently lives in Boston, previously lived in Los Angeles, attended Stanford.

Predominantly West Coast orientation. Washington DC under-represented if one was looking for a friend with geographic familiarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top