Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Logan Plans On U.S. Bid For 2015 Worlds [split]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Logan Plans On U.S. Bid For 2015 Worlds [split]

    The text of Logan's closing remarks now posted to front page.

    I like this one best (even if I haven't the vaguest idea how it will be accomplished):

    <<.... We will not be taken seriously in the corridors if the IAAF until we host an outdoor World Championship competition on our shores. Therefore, we pledge to find both a venue and financing and will successfully bid on the outdoor World Championships for 2015....>>

  • #2
    Originally posted by gh
    The text of Logan's closing remarks.

    <<.... we pledge to find both a venue and financing and will successfully bid on the outdoor World Championships for 2015....>>
    If i recall correctly this has come up multiple times here with the conclusion that no sign of a solution is on the horizon.

    What are the chances that Obama's new deal will include world class athletics stadium throughout the US? It might be our only hope.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by gh
      The text of Logan's closing remarks now posted to front page.

      I like this one best (even if I haven't the vaguest idea how it will be accomplished):

      <<.... We will not be taken seriously in the corridors if the IAAF until we host an outdoor World Championship competition on our shores. Therefore, we pledge to find both a venue and financing and will successfully bid on the outdoor World Championships for 2015....>>

      It's conceivable if there's a tie-in to Chicago 2016(assuming they get the Games).
      There are no strings on me

      Comment


      • #4
        One scenario that seems reasonable regarding a WC worthy facility -

        The RCA Dome is scheduled for demolition this month. Right now Indianapolis only plans to use some of the land for an expansion of the convention center. Considering it's proximity to Chicago, as well as being the home base for USATF, it's not a stretch to see a multi-use stadium capable of hosting a track WC, among other sports(but not needed for football), going up in Indy. Again, Chicago winning 2016 in likely integral to this scenario coming to fruition.
        There are no strings on me

        Comment


        • #5
          Indy might be an intriguing possibility, but not sure how its "proximity" to Chicago means anything. Or are you envisioning that it's close enough that the Chicago people would be willing to place a facility there for staging, say, soccer prelims, that could also be used as a track stadium? Of course that would require Indianapolis to have an ongoing use for a 50,000-seat stadium.

          Comment


          • #6
            We've been down this road before, but just to lay out in black & white the difficulties faced in getting a WC bid, let me throw these "requirements" at you. I use the quote marks because there's no hard and fast IAAF rule on much of it; this is just based on having wandered the grounds at every WC ever held, being on the IAAF Press Commission for 20-odd years and having done the announcing at the last four, so have had the freedom to wander the bowels of the stadia.

            •The stadium would have to have seating for about 50,000. That's base configuration. You've got to sell enough tickets to crack your nut. If you've noted that attendance hasn't always been that high at some sites that's because you've got to factor in that the IAAF is going to steal some 10,000 seats off the top for press/TV, VIPs and athletes (all the best seats, of course).

            •The infield (which must be grass) can't be crowned, meaning that if its use before or after WC includes football, you're taking away August and much of September for that use. It'll be tough to find any gridiron organization that would agree to that.

            •Inside the stadium structure, there have to be dozens and dozens of room that can be used by officials, testing, etc., etc., to say nothing of a luxury area for the VIPs (this last would be most integral to any winning bid, whether the IAAF cares to admit it publically or not) Actually, that's luxury areas, plural, for VIPs and VVIPs. Corporate sponsorship and all that.

            •Within a radius of about 5 minutes max from the stadium there needs to be a full-sized practice track that has 100% security setup.

            •Right next to the stadium there has to be an area of 2-3 acres (a couple of football fields) for the broadcast center.

            •Almost right next to the stadium (if not in the stadium itself, and that's rare) there has to be a building with floor space about the size of a football field for the press center.

            Bottom line is that getting the stadium built is going to be a tough enough job on its own. Getting one with all these ancillary essentials really compounds the problem. Sadly, I don't see it happening other than in conjunction with something in Chicago. And, like Atlanta, I'd expect that the stadium wouldn't host a meet ever again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Here are some thoughts--

              LA has the coliseum sitting empty except for USC football.

              Buffalo is afraid the Bills might go to Toronto.

              As far as the RCA Dome in Indy--currently, it is too small for track.

              The pricetag for a huge vacant space of land, a world-class warm-up facility, a world class stadium with luxury boxes, retractable roof, real grass infield with no crown, two PV runways, two LJ & TJ runways, two HJ pits, two Shot rings, a JT, HT, and DT impact area will run roughly 500 million.

              It is a hefty pricetag--but, if Chicago does get the 2016 games, then perhaps the organizers would consider building a national facilities and it would host every USATF event, bid on IAAF and NCAA events, etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Edited for accuracy :lol:

                Originally posted by nokick
                The pricetag for a huge vacant space of land, a world-class warm-up facility, a world class stadium with luxury boxes, retractable roof will run roughly 500 million.

                A real grass infield with no crown, two PV runways, two LJ & TJ runways, two HJ pits, two Shot rings, a JT, HT, and DT impact area will cost next to nothing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why waste money on a retractable roof? This isn't NFL/MLB Pansyball...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gh
                    Indy might be an intriguing possibility, but not sure how its "proximity" to Chicago means anything. Or are you envisioning that it's close enough that the Chicago people would be willing to place a facility there for staging, say, soccer prelims, that could also be used as a track stadium?
                    Not so much for the Games themselves(though certainly that's a possibility the first week), but various Olympic sports to hold pre-Games competitions(aside from the track Worlds in 2015) in conjunction with whatever Chicago is doing. It would definitely help in getting some of the funding from the USOC instead of USATF having to do all the heavy financial lifting by themselves.



                    Of course that would require Indianapolis to have an ongoing use for a 50,000-seat stadium.
                    Indeed, but as Columbus has shown with Crew Stadium there are infinite uses for such a facility. Indy's role with the NCAA would definitely be a plus in this area.

                    Of course, the long term viability of such a stadium mght be contingent on what Chicago's plan for it's Olympic Stadium, and it's configuration, would be following the Games.
                    There are no strings on me

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Except for USC football, I agree, the Los Angeles Coliseum looks good. Minor problem: The Los Angeles Coliseum has no track. There is a track at USC which could be used as the "practice track". What I do like about the Los Angeles Coliseum is that it will seat well more than 50,000 people and you don't have to worry about the weather in Los Angeles. It may be warm, but you probably won't have any rain. In July and August you might have a 10% chance of some rain. There was zero rain during the 1932 and the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games.

                      Another "minor" problem is the Los Angeles Coliseum is old and would need a lot of work. I admit I like the Coliseum because I grew up in Southern California and have a lot of great memories in that stadium. Oh well, I realize it will probably never happen.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by guru
                        .....
                        Of course, the long term viability of such a stadium mght be contingent on what Chicago's plan for it's Olympic Stadium, and it's configuration, would be following the Games.
                        I've seen several plans floated and my recollection, sadly, is that almost all of them involved a stadium that would mimic Atlanta and be downsized for baseball or other use. Was even one plan, as I recall, that has them building a "temporary" stadium that will disappear completely!

                        What's really scary is the London situation. I mean this is a nation where track still has a very high profile (at least compared to the U.S.) and the "legacy" promises have proven hollow with every likelihood of the stadium being converted to soccer only. And Rogge has even signed off on such a plan, meaning that if Chicago gets a bid, unless Diack turns out to be successful into shaming Rogge over his gutless stance, is that there will be zero pressure on Chicago to produce any kind of ongoing stadium presence.

                        Another Chicago fear is that if they do get the OG and wanted to stage the WC as a warmup the year before, what's the chances the stadium will be ready in time? Has any new Olympic stadium ever been ready to go a year out? Certainly not in recent memory.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          D'oh! I knew there was something important I was forgetting in the laundry list, and I'm now reminded of it by the Edmonton vs. Stanford war for the '01 WC bid: a TV contract.

                          The deal-breaker was that Edmonton had a guaranteed (by the government of course) TV deal. Stanford did not. And under normal circumstances, it's hard to imagine one of the networks ever signing on to be the host broadcaster as many years in advance as the bid process requires.

                          It's not impossible to imagine NBC stepping up to the plate for a Chicago-based bid, however.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If the much-discussed Olympic Network (USOC) ever sees the light of day, would that be a possibility?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This from an Inside The Games story linked to the front page yesterday:

                              <<....The USOC has signed deals with 35 NGBs to include their content on the network, but that does not include swimming, track and field, gymnastics or figure skating, which have their own television deals....>>

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X