Field of Schemes
sports stadium news and analysis

  

This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.

November 13, 2006

S.F. withdraws Olympic bid

Apparently a personal appeal by Nancy Pelosi didn't do the trick: In the wake of Friday's announcement by the San Francisco 49ers that they plan to explore moving to Santa Clara, the city of San Francisco today withdrew its bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics, which includes a new football/Olympic stadium as its centerpiece. The Associated Press reports:

Scott Givens, managing director and chief executive officer of the bid committee, said the 49ers' decision created a "perceptual gap" that hurt the city's reputation in the eyes of the Olympic committee.
"The damage has been done and the damage can't be pulled back," he said.

Presumably somebody got the word that the U.S. Olympic Committee wouldn't be too happy with a repeat of the New York debacle. The U.S. 2016 candidates are now down to Los Angeles and Chicago, which has its own dubious stadium plan to worry about.

COMMENTS

Wasn't the biggest problem with the NYC2012 bid the lack of a publicly financed gurantee? NYC2012 was proposing a privately financed plan that violated the Olympic charter.
The West Side stadium seemed to be more of a vehicle to drive the Hudson Yards project and had very little to do with the Olympics. Seems that the proposed NYC2012 stadium would not have accomodated the Olympic-sized track & field configuration, in the same way the newly remodeled Soldier Field cannot.

Posted by Jonathan on November 13, 2006 07:07 PM

Jonathan I would say you may be right to charter of the IOC and the private funding of the NYC2012 bid.
The IOC is comprized of old world noble men who want to take hold of a city, state or countrys treasury and bring it back to europe. Time after time the IOC and other sports festivals rape and pillage north america for our blind illusions for huge money.
THe IOC does not want an atlanta 1996 , los angeles 1984 or calgary 1988. All those games were done with logic, control and the strong leadership that said no to the airy fairy demands of western europeans.

The standards for olympic veneus has gone beyond the reasonable. A speed skating today for the olympics is a ice level tolerance of less then 20 mm over 200 meters. that is only the thickness of
two CD jewel cases.

The 49ers are a longtern franchise with a fraction ot the financial commitment of the olympics.
A real baseball stadium in montreal in 1976 would probably have montreal with a MLB franchise today.
Instead montreal has a building cost 30 million a year for maintenance and no tennant.

paul taylor

Posted by paul on November 14, 2006 10:30 AM

The lack of an open-ended financial guarantee was certainly going to be an issue for New York's bid. But it was the lack of a coherent stadium plan that ultimately torpedoed it, and proved most embarrassing to the USOC.

As for the Atlanta Games, they may have featured "logic and control," but they also featured more than $1 billion in red ink for the public, so I wouldn't go touting them as an example of New World superiority just yet.

Posted by Neil on November 14, 2006 11:01 AM

Given how much the Olympics have changed over the last 20 years or so, I think not having an Olympics is vastly superior to having an Olympics. SF was a longshot anyway (where would they have held their bicycle road races, for Pete's sake?), but I get the feeling the Olympics was the enticement the 49ers dangled to get Someone Else to pay for their new stadium.

It's too bad that it cost SF the 49ers, but if the 49ers are just using the promise of an outside shot at the Olympics as a tool to get a new stadium, that's pretty crass.

I don't really care if the 49ers end up in Santa Clara. It's pretty much the same thing to me either way. I was priced out long ago, and my television works well enough for the 2-3 games a year I watch.

The Olympics, though... I think the sports federations should pay for the facilities. Maybe they should just rotate between 6 permanent global sites... The thing that changed in the Olympics is the inclusion of professional athletes. Sounds like the money's there for the individual federations to pay for the facilities now.

Posted by MikeM on November 14, 2006 01:18 PM

Well Neil I certainly did not know of a 1 billion dollar debt with the Atlanta Olympics and I dont doubt your figures however what I elude to is that overwhelming commericalizing of atlanta was the big complaint for the european blue bloods that year. I would rather see the a committee try and succeed at making a profit as opposed to the socialist european thought that we should provide our treasury to their wims and will. Atleast with Atlanta you did not see a perminent velodrome which is a very wasteful investment in north america for a city. New York was wise as open ended public funding for an olympic games is giving to much to foriegn interests. IT is the eastern thru pacific time zones and the united state tv networks that provide the IOC with the bulk of their income.
My belief is that one of three cities will win the bid. Los Angeles, Chicago or Rio De Janiero. The reason is the increased rates for broadcast rights the IOC will get for the games being in the americas. Atlanta was the last summer games with the time zone advantage. Rio may have the advantage being two time zones earlier then the eastern time zone. The IOC president Jacques Rogge has stated a desire to locate the games in south africa and africa in the near future.

paul

Posted by paul on November 14, 2006 01:27 PM

mike m you are right in regards to the olympics . It is getting too expensive and the problem is the european demands are insane and neverending. The Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee gets the european based world ice hockey federation off their backs to spend 20 million on bc place to expand the ice surface (gee where do all the players who play for the olypmics play for the 4 years between games,the NHL)and then comes the ski federation demanding expanding the number of events at Vancouver 2010. Didnt Vancouver win the bid and sign the contract with a set number of events included??? The IOC is a big game of French Nobility vs Citys, States and Countries. You buck the europeans and they will try to screw you some other way. Until North American cities wake up and walk away it will be the same old routine of the european blue bloods trying to rip off north american cities for all they can grab out of our treasuries. We have the tools to send these people packing with our TV rights which are the greatness part of their revenues. The olympics are just a revolving door of bad cirque de soliel opening and closing ceremonies with pauses of boring european sports . Netball anyone ??? The value even for TV is decreasing as torino showed. American Idiol thumped the winter games this year for the same time spots.

It is bad enough we have billionares and millionares having their sport palaces subsidized by government but atleast the money stays in the continent. I am sure Neil you will correct me but my point is that the demands of the pro sports leagues are nothing compared to the IOC or the other european carpet baggers like Bernie Echelstone of Formula One.

Mike M I predict York and SF will be back at the table and hammer out a deal. Santa Clara is probably a faint on Yorks part. The need for San Francisco to not lose the team is probably greater in some minds in city council with the loss of the summer games bid. York has played the relocation hand the best way it has been played in recent history. He can thank the local olympic bid committee for that one. With a sutor in Santa Clara he has the best of situations. San Francisco looking at the ass end for two sports franchises potientially leaving the city. The IOC SF might be hard to lose but the 49ers might be too much considering the NFL has been absent from LA for nearly a decade. York has made a point that San Francisco can entertain a multi-billion dollar olympic bid so why cant the city entertain the 49ers new stadium paid for by the taxpayers?? That is the question York has laid down and this chapter may be a new one opening the battle between cities, states, sport festivals and pro sport franchises. Very very smart playing of politicians on Yorks part. I bet nancy palossi gets involved.

paul

Posted by paul on November 14, 2006 09:37 PM

Re: the Olympics.

Aren't these elitists the same people who constantly whine and complain about "American arrogance, dominance and hegemony"? Hey, if we're such bad people, then they can take their Cirque du Soleil act and send it to a more deserving place...say, Caracas or Zimbabwe. I'm sure those authoritarians would love to have a grand stage to showcase how great their leaders are while their own population starves and live in shacks.

As for the 49ers, so much for the "San Francisco Liberal" label. That Feinsteinn and Pelosi get involved in the way they are right after winning an election is so laughable that I almost split myself! But I thought football was a macho sports that's too rough for the evolved classes of the Bay Area.

Posted by mad bomber on November 15, 2006 04:26 PM

Latest News Items

CONTACT US FOR AD RATES