Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 02/25/17 in all areas

  1. 3 likes
    /\/\ Has Sean Spicer joined the LA team, tRumpffy?? I hope the IOC rewards LA for "controlling the conversation," "for keeping its eyes on the prize"? Like LA's the only one who can stage the Games???
  2. 3 likes
    But, again for the umpteenth time, taxpayer-funded public housing is not as anathema outside the US as it seems to be in the US. It's common. It's expected. It's demanded. So are public-private joint developments. People don't mind spending public money on housing developments. It's usually a positive selling point for a games. If people are shying away from a games, it's not the village that's putting them off - it's the bobsleigh runs, velodromes and white-water canoeing centres.
  3. 3 likes
    It's called playing both sides. If LA wins, it's because they have the better bid and the IOC made the smart decision because it will be a new games for a new era! And if Paris wins, that's okay too because screw the IOC, let them drown in a pool of their own crap LA will sneer at them because they're above all that.
  4. 3 likes
    My letters,official reports, maps of villages and sports rules of Mexico 1968
  5. 2 likes
    Way to further the stereotype that Americans are horrible with geography.
  6. 2 likes
    IF basically LA is the only Olympic Agenda 2020 compatible city, I fail to understand how a LA 2024 Games will ensure the sustainability of the Olympic Movement: which ciy, besides LA, has everything (but 25% of the Olympic Village, the stadium for the Opening Ceremony, the IBC) built and ready?
  7. 2 likes
    Grasping at straws, are we? LA was going to build a new housing development for their Olympic village. Then they weren't. No one is going to remember any of that inconsequential bullshit when it comes time to vote. Only the peanut gallery in a forum like this (and the occasional reporter like your BFF) think such things would mean anything. They don't. This is the IOC you're dealing with. You can keep telling yourself how clear it is that LA has the better bid or all these supposed warning signs about Paris and their bid and the people they'd be working with. Take a serious look at the situation and tell me you honestly think the IOC voters - the only 100 people out there whose opinions actually carry any value - will actually see what you want them to see. If you're holding out for that, start marking 2028 on your calendar because that's the earliest the Olympics in LA will be.
  8. 2 likes
    Maybe the IOC should talk to Casey Wasserman about playing unfairly. Nothing the Paris guys have done is against the rules. Who gives 2 shits if they've been wishy-washy. You talk about bluffs, but this very much is a game of poker on a political level. LA may have the superior bid (in no way is has that become clear except through the rose-colored glasses you don't want to take off), but that may not be enough to win this for them. Again, same thinking here since day 1.. technical merit is not what wins Olympic bids. We've seen that play out before. If LA loses this because Paris fought dirty (and I'd hardly what they're doing fighting dirty), I have no sympathy for them. And if Paris' bluff works, kudos to them.
  9. 2 likes
    Correct, it is "la cité du cinéma". It's not a joke! (and also some shools and existing sport facilities)
  10. 2 likes
    But in Paris it's evidently not deemed a problem. So LA isn't "showing" Paris anything as you confidentally claimed earlier. What LA is in fact doing is reacting to what its own taxpayers think. The dorms solution is a Plan B (albeit a very smart one) because Plan A couldn't be sold with an Olympics attached. Paris, on the other hand, is still going ahead with Plan A. The conclusion we've basically reached is that of the two bidders remaining, only one has had to substantially change an aspect of its plans because of anti-Olympic mistrust - the city that we're told has Olympic blood running through its veins like no other. Sorry, couldn't resist the little dig. In truth, LA is right to change its plans in reaction to what people living there think. But can we drop the idea it's setting some kind of example to its rival. Paris and Parisians seem perfectly happy to have a new housing project as part of their plan.
  11. 2 likes
  12. 2 likes
    Ok here again: s and sports rules of Mexico 1968
  13. 2 likes
    Would love to see Toronto host and also Singapore. It would be great to see London host - if only so I could volunteer & post brexit and psot UK - I think I may need cheering up - lol!
  14. 2 likes
    The London stadium is still an athletics stadium. The new lower tier seating bringing the crowd closer for football is just fancy scaffolding and will be removed each summer when the stadium hosts athletics. The stadium is actually hosting the World Athletics Championships this summer. It's quite similar to your Etihad Stadium in Melbourne when it's in soccer configuration:
  15. 2 likes
  16. 2 likes
    Gawd, should we start calling you AbPaulhamson now, too? Cuz that's exactly where that pile of projecting drivel belongs. Again, this thread is only "consistent" mainly bcuz of truff & truff alone, so don't translate that to mean anything more than simply a troll trolling in this thread. It's NOT bcuz you seem to think that everyone is secretly in "love" with L.A. Last time I checked, L.A. was bidding for the Olympics (that you claim to hate so much), so of course that's going to be discussed here. As far as an "allegiance" to Paris - isn't that what you & truff have with L.A.? Even if that was the case (which it isn't) how is that any different with what you & tRuff are doing with L.A.? Anything that is challenged on a point-by-point basis is misconstrued by you (& other L.A. supporters) as "L.A. hate". Again, why is that? If you & tRuff don't want any criticism on your "fantastic" city, then L.A. shouldn't be bidding in the first place. And if you think it's bad now, just wait 'til L.A. finally does host another Olympics (be that 2024 or 2028), cuz the world's media will then criticize "fantastic" L.A. to the minutia of details. What will you do then, paul. If there's any "suppression" going on it's by tRuff (& Co) against Paris, as if somehow they think they're not as worthy enough as L.A. & act like somehow Paris is some afterthought, which is totally absurd. And when tRuff has no more footing to stand on with their OTT saleswoman L.A. pitch, then tRuff gets nasty & insulting. So if you can "never understand" after all that (especially after like what, 17 months that tRuff's been here), why tRuff gets under everyones skin, then you're either blind as a bat (bcuz of the same L.A. is all sunshine & roses colored glasses), &/or condone her childish (to say the least) & bombastic behavior. It has nothing to do with positivity & support of L.A. No one is ripping truff for that. But rather how she nauseatingly & insultingly goes about it with that "positivity & support". So you're just as ridiculous if you can't "understand" why.
  17. 2 likes
    No one hates LA at all, much less "so much". There are thousands of posts in this thread.... I many have missed one or two, but I can't recall any hating on LA. Not sure what you are talking about. There is some disgust for 1-2 posters who make idiotic arguments for why LA should win. But the vast majority of posers have said both LA and Paris would make fine hosts.
  18. 2 likes
    My question is, though, to all the L.A. boosters (which they've never come up with a feasible answer), if Europe is "so wrong" for 2024 with all the referendums & so forth, then how would 2028 be any better?! How is a "low-cost" Games in L.A. be beneficial to Europe when they "publicly fund" all of their Games?! Cuz I don't see how L.A. changes that one way or the other, other than showing how L.A. can perhaps stage cost effective Games, but that would only pertain to L.A. The IOC actually needs Europe more than ever, & it's literally now or never if they have any interest in restoring their image across Europe.
  19. 2 likes
    LOL Keep it up Trump and show the Olympic "spirit" http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/paris-mayor-fires-back-at-trump-for-insulting-her-city-1.3300142 Paris mayor fires back at Trump for insulting her city Hidalgo keeping it classy
  20. 2 likes
    Ah, I was out for a few days. What did I miss??? Lol.
  21. 1 like
  22. 1 like
    The land over which Paris 2024 Village would be built has been identified as a high value piece for housing development in the Seine St-Denis Department: it is to become a central public transport hub in the scope of the new Paris Express Metro and the Local Housing Plan of Plaine Commune (where the village will be located) fixes an objective of 4,200 new housing units a year for the 2026-2021 period alone. Therefore, should Paris not be awarded 2024, the development plan will keep going on and the land won't be availble for 2028, just like the land that had been identified for the Olympic Village for 2012 is now a fully developed new neighbourhood of Paris.
  23. 1 like
    Actually, Paris 2024's plans for its OV are an augmentation of some existing buildings already there. If I read the docs right, I think like 15%-20% of the essential bldgs for the OV are already there; except they will be re-purposed to serve as admin areas, common sites, i.e., cafeterias, etc. The site happens to have some free land on which to then build the other residential units. So it's NOT an entirely built-from-scratch project that LA's Miss Piggyback projects would have been. What's often not mentioned is that UCLA will also have to build MORE dorms in order to accommodate 10,500 athletes. But if they can find good housing closer to the Perris Lake Rowing site, then UCLA housing for the est. 800 rowers won't have to be built and they would have the right # of beds, but broken up as it was in 1984 when the rowers were housed at UC-Santa Barbara. Or LA 2024/8 and UCLA will have to find more creative ways in squeezing all the athletes in there if no NEW dorms are being built. But if there is satellite housing, then things wouldn't be too crowded in the UCLA-OV.
  24. 1 like
    "For reference, neither New York nor Chicago had appetites to follow-up their recently lost campaigns. " Context needs to be put behind this sentence. There were other factors at play why New York 2012 & Chicago 2016 didn't follow with other bids (i.e. the revenue sharing dispute working against the 2016 bid, which wasn't resolved in time for a 2020 bid, for starters). Factors that wouldn't be present for a follow-up L.A. 2028 bid. "LA 2024 is privately financed, and while those investors want the Olympic Games, they may not be interested in the IOC’s political games." Political games is how the "game" is played, though. And these private entities should know all to well about that type of strategy, since they're guilty of it themselves. With that said, I still call L.A.'s bluff. Let's see them not back for 2028 if they lose 2024. I'd say the greater risk is Paris not coming back than L.A., considering that Paris' efforts are indeed "publically" financed. And whether or not Paris can repackage their plan to accommodate a 2028 Games instead really is a secondary concern at this point, really. Since the primary issue (which is being overlooked here) is that the IOC needs to make inroads again in Europe sooner rather than later. And Paris going first for 2024 takes care of both of those concerns at the same time, & also reduces the "risk" of discontent among Parisians with an 11-year lead time that could construe into a rocky relationship of all places in Europe, where the IOC doesn't need that type of headache anymore.
  25. 1 like
    It's not surprising that both cities are coming out now with these positions, since the IOC just set up a task force to look into the matter last week. What's funny, is that most, in general, are up for this unprecedented move (well, within the last 100 years anyway). But I can see where Paris' & L.A.'s cages are starting to get rattled now that this double-award scenario is starting to get that much more serious. I think it's safe to say that neither city is going to budge, so then it needs to come down (as usual) which city best fits the IOC's best interests for 2024, & I still believe that's Paris 2024, for all the reasons that have already been citied all over these forums for the past 18+ months. So then, have the 2024 vote as normal. And whichever city loses, then afterwards approach them - "2028 is yours if you want it". Then let's see what their tune will be. If it's L.A., I don't believe for a nano second that they'll say - "NO, screw you! We wanted 2024", unless they're absolute morons.
  26. 1 like
    I use to think the same, but it's all a matter of perspective. If the IOC believes that you have the "right", then you'll get the Olympics. If they don't think you have that "right", then you won't get the Olympics. It's certainly a strategy that worked for Lula da Silva & Putin. But for Erdogan, not so much.
  27. 1 like
    "They did not give us the Olympics even when we had the right. They gave the Olympics for the second time to those who hosted it before." This man is an egomaniac. "the right" - no nation has a "right" to the Olympics. 2020 was close for Turkey, but they never stood a realistic chance for 2000 or 2008.
  28. 1 like
    Having been consistently defeated by the British and/or the Germans on almost every possible occasion over the past 300 years (most spectacularly on the one occasion when they picked the winning side, only to find the winners allying themselves with the theoretical losers during the peace process), the French have always had to promote a "cultural empire" rather than a meaningfully political one.
  29. 1 like
    The Melbourne Cricket Ground did it without major issues in 1956 and 2006:
  30. 1 like
    This. Olympic bidding is always winner-take-all (except this one, where it may not be) where the chosen city gets an Olympics and everyone else has absolutely nothing for their efforts after spending years of people's time and money. And I agree 100% that any city that isn't aware of that going in shouldn't bid. Tokyo, Pyoengchang, Rio, Beijing, Athens, Salt Lake.. all examples of cities that went through the process more than once and wound up with an Olympics. The IOC can only choose 1 of Paris and LA (again, barring something with 2028 being involved). So someone is going to lose. If that city wants to consider it a snub, that's on them. But that's how the game is played.
  31. 1 like
    The IOC is carrying its negative message into LA and I could see support dropping. For better or for worse giving LA 2028 would be what the IOC has always done, used LA to right its poor reputation. In bidding, in sport, in the Olympics, Los Angeles has held the values of the Olympics higher than the IOC itself has. And in turn the IOC has snubbed Los Angeles, in 1932, in 1984, and now, possibly in 2024/2028. Also, in the bidding process LA2024 practiced restraint when Paris2024 was touring venues. In the follow the sun, everywhere has the sun marketing LA2024 practiced restraint and good sportsmanship. Olympic values are at the core of LA2024 and the people of Los Angeles, that's why Angelinos love the Olympics. I believe the movement itself is letting Angelinos and California know that the IOC and the Olympics aren't what they once were. I can see the story of the Olympics don't deserve Los Angeles gaining traction. That said Paris is an excellent candidate and deserves a win, 2024 or beyond. But Los Angeles does not deserve to be the savior of the Olympics and the snub of the Olympics at the same time.
  32. 1 like
    Not sure the headline is complete on the money. Offering to "help" sounds fairly non-committal, maybe they just want to offer Liverpool options at this stage (e.g. if Liverpool wants to bid but doesn't want to build a velodrome). Let's wait and see...
  33. 1 like
    No actual announcement about that staidium, but looks like Jim Royle could be booked for the opening ceremony if this tweet from Liverpool's Mayor is anything to go by
  34. 1 like
  35. 1 like
    I'm with you on this one. Basically the IOC does "give" the city large allocations of sponsorship money and TV rights money but could be doing better. Bottom line - the IOC should have a US$2 billion or so grant that they give to each host city. This should be allocated to venue works, security and Games specific administration and infrastructure. the host cities find the rest and the IOC shares in any profit. The IOC could easily afford this - they have raked in billions and billions over the years. In 2012 they were conservatively valued at $47 billion - http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/25/sport/olympics-london-2012-google-apple/ - and that is just on the money they publically confirm in the annual reports. Thus there is really no reason the IOC can't come to the party in this way with a set level of funding. If a city like Melbourne can pull of a Games for less than US$2 billion the remainder goes back to the IOC and AOC. Since they earn more and more the pot they use is pretty much self-funding. It really is time to put their money where their mouth is and if they want better bids make it affordable.
  36. 1 like
    Morocco has roughly the same population as Canada, and significantly more large football stadiums. I'll believe they will solo host before I believe Canada will.
  37. 1 like
    In celebration of International Women’s Day, Paris 2024 hailed the inaugural La Lyceenne Run calling it a success after more than 5000 school girls took to the streets of France. La Lycenne is supported by Paris 2024 official partner MAIF and is a race specifically aimed at young women from high schools across France. The run […] View the full article
  38. 1 like
    Basically, 4 of the main presidential candidates support the bid (their party also): Le Pen, Fillon, Macron, Hamon, and one doesn't: Melenchon. (I confirm Le Pen's party really doesn't like the slogan is in english!)
  39. 1 like
    Does anyone have any Paris-related thoughts to this Paris-related post here in the Paris thread? I don't think there's any imminent danger of Paris dropping out of the race. It goes without saying the political situation there is something worth watching and this news is notable, but I'd be very surprised if Paris fell out of the running for the final vote in September.
  40. 1 like
    i don't blames the Olympics for Rios problems at all.....they confidently ran toward their commitments and promises to the IOC. It's not the Olympics fault that Rio staggered through to the finish line as so many more critical problems and priorities piled up and took focus from the event. However, I really don't think the IOC did Rio any favors by egging them on to take on un-achievable commitments like cleaning the bay, city wide crime pacification, legacy plans for unnecessary/unused sports venues like an Olympic golf coarse (built from scratch no less), whitewater stadiums, and velodrome. neither LA nor Paris would experience any of these problem......unless there was some terrible economy issue or they take a bath with some horrendous development deal.......it probably wouldn't happen but it could. It did in Vancouver. Paris is a greater risk simply because their village is a more complex project with greater risk. LA......just shove em in a dorm where they belong....smarter.
  41. 1 like
    Please don't confuse what goes on in that thread with what goes on in your bedroom. One of those places has people offering worthwhile discussion. The other is just you, your right hand, and probably a drawer of old socks. And it's true what they say that you are what you eat. Which explains why you're such a dick
  42. 1 like
    What I actually find hysterical is for one, for as much as you criticize Baron that he doesn't know what he's talking about, that you're now wanting to use a point-of-reference from him in order to "suit" your hypocritical argument(s). And two, that meant that you actually had to venture out into other threads (besides your bubble here) to find that it. I'm sure that was quite difficult for you to do, Truff!
  43. 1 like
    Probably because it's got nothing to do with the Paris or LA bids - it has it's own thread in news.
  44. 1 like
    Tulsa at paris 2024!
  45. 1 like
    The Commies aren't particularly bloated - only 17 sports allowed, only four of them mandatory, the rest up to the discretion and convenience of the host (hence why no cycling planned for Durban - something they were already getting stick for in some quarters). The problem isn't size for Durban - which always had as its main selling point that it already had a pretty good equipped sports hub park and many of the big ticket facilities. More South African domestic politicking, and a pretty laid-back (or rather non-existent) approach to actually taking them on and organising them. It's sad - I was really glad they were awarded them and still wish for some ever-shrinking hope they may get a reprieve, though that's looking unlikely. I haven't seen any statements from the CGF on "nationwide" games - I'd like to see those sources. As for Rugby 7s, how could anyone suggest they get dumped from the Commies? They are the Commonwealth sport par-excellence (and one of the compulsories). It's still a Commonwealth dominated sport (at Rio, only one semi-finalist in both the men's and women's - the Japanese men - were from a non-Commonwealth country) and as such the CWG's 7s tournament is one of its real world-class attractions and ticket sellers.
  46. 1 like
    That's my point. The biggest selling point for Los Angeles is that it is the center of the film and entertainment industry. Even for productions filmed outside of LA, the people making the film/show/documentary are mostly coming from Los Angeles. LA is where the industry wants to do its stuff. But the film studios will go wherever they think they can make the most money. In the recent past they moved productions to whichever place would give them the best bid for tax breaks. They played one state against another to win good deals. And now that they have won big tax concessions from California they are moving back. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fi-film-tax-brown-20140828-story.html The major film studios only support Los Angeles and California as far as they can make money using them. If LA 2024 can get some money or services out of them then great, but I don't expect a whole lot of selfless volunteerism.
  47. 1 like
    ^Oh wow, really?! I never knew that! I've never really gone that far back to check into the details of host city selections. I always thought L.A. got 1932 by default, just like 1984. Ohh, but wouldn't that be an irony that both Paris & L.A. get awarded both at the same time again, & with Paris going first again, too!! I agree about the "rules" thing. These are very tumultuous times & the IOC obviously needs some elbow room to try & figure out their next step. And this move would definitely do that. There's really only one person here that's vehemently against a double-award. Everyone else is for it, or at the very least, indifferent or undecided on it. The IOC could say that this is what they need to do now considering all of the dire circumstances over the past few years with potential, credible bidders. And that for 2032, everyone else is welcomed to place viable bids. There's been many instances in other areas of the world where "traditional" protocol has been broken bcuz things sometimes need to be seriously overhauled. So I don't see why the IOC needs to be held to a stronger hold in that regard. Case in point, last years U.S.' presidential election. Bcuz of a VERY outdated "electoral college", where now stuck with Mr. Cheetoh until 2021, at least.
  48. 1 like
    I always support LA because it is a fantastic city for me. Just got back last night from dirty NYC and it's like heaven here, even though it was freakishly hot in NY and cool and crisp here it still felt fresh....like always, it actually smells like flowers when you get off the plane at LAX. You guys do sort of suppress anyone who speaks favorable about the great city of Los Angeles, and you are fast to criticize anything about LA and act like it's not a global city....never understand that. You seem to have some allegiance to Paris......rarely (maybe never) will you criticize anything about Paris but LA is somehow a small town in your eyes, still trying to find it's significance among real cities.........that is pure fiction and you know it. I can not support an LA Olympics purely because I would not want this great city in ANY WAY to be subjected to the demands of the IOC or Sports Federations. I think many athletes have become celebrity assholes, and I'm not interested in supporting their interests, glory or families either. All in all it's a lot of "partners" who are in business to (at best) get other people to pay for all their stuff and experience. And at worst individuals and groups are colluding to skim and steal as much money (for years) leading up to and during the party. The entire organization is entirely UNTRUSTWORTHY. I also see absolutely nothing wrong with RUFF and his support of LA24, and never understand why his positivity and support of LA24 seems to get under everyone's skin sooooo much.......he certainly has a point when he noted correctly that anyone who voices much support for LA24 will find themselves on the receiving end of an almost immediate pile on... scolding them about how wrong they are about whatever positive take they have on LA. It's also strange how everyone hates LA so much but the thread is the only consistently active one on GB..........kinda like how so many people in general say they hate LA but then everybody goes out of their way to visit or live here. Birds peck at the best fruit.
  49. 1 like
    Where do you think the money comes from that pays for the Olympics? Broadcast rights, sponsorships, ticket sales. A lot of that money already comes from the IOC, not the host city. In an ideal world (which is to say this almost never happens), the IOC and the host city have a mutually beneficial relationship. That "party" represents a lasting legacy that benefits the host city after the Olympics are gone. Of course, that rarely happens. Without question, the IOC isn't helping matters imposing demands upon the host city, and not just keeping sports whose facilities and operations cost more than they're worth. You can't expect the IOC to pay for the privilege of using a city's resources while the city is just along for the ride. If the IOC was actually serious about Agenda 2020 (which we know they're not), they'd put more effort into making the Olympics less of a risky proposition for the host city. That however would require the IOC to tone done on the excess, which we know they're not going to do. That's where they need to make the first strides in making hosting the Olympics more affordable (and less repulsive for so much potential host cities).
  50. 1 like
    Not on the official website yet but looks like we have the design of the torch http://hankookilbo.com/v/47eca54e5eeeeebfb016ea60b82fc9f6?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Also this tweet from Aroundtherings account