Quaker2001

Members
  • Content count

    5940
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    104

Quaker2001 last won the day on March 18

Quaker2001 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1093 Excellent

About Quaker2001

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NYC

Recent Profile Visitors

18959 profile views
  1. Let me amend with 1 thought.. some of the chatter in the lead-up to the vote could make a difference. Probably did for the 2012 vote. But we're still several months out from that. It will be old and forgotten news by the time we get to September about Paris checking out LA venues or their tweets about the sun or most of that other nonsense. It bears repeating that for us to constantly be tracking these things makes us treat the bid like stock prices (hint hint Gamesbids). Different story if the vote was happening today. It's not. And we need to remember that as the discussion goes along.
  2. I think we need to start calling you Charlie Brown, because this sums you up pretty well.. If you're holding out hope for the IOC to see this through the same lens as you are, pretty good chance you're going to be disappointed. Absolutely no one is going to give a crap about the attitude of the host city. Only the results. And do not forget that the city LA is up against is not an authoritarian big spender like a Beijing or a Sochi. Or a city/country with political and economic hurdles to overcome. You're talking about Paris, one of the most notable cities in the entire world. Even LA's bid has said they use London's Olympics as a basis for comparison on things like ticket prices rather than looking at Rio. That says volumes. There has been and will continue to be a lot of chatter here in what as a very unique Olympic bid cycle. Both sides have expressed "you have to pick us" and/or "you must pick us now and only now" but that's all going to be background noise. There is some truth to your last point, but that's a risk the IOC takes every time out. It would be a risk if they chose LA, and how damaging do you think that would be to pick such a sure-fire success story, only to have it not turn out that way. The IOC needs Europe back on board. Hard to tell if choosing Paris will even necessarily help bring other cities back into the fold. But I like the IOC's odds of repairing their reputation with a Paris 2024, which I think will be successful. LA 2024 (and they would still have to award 2028 well in advance of those Olympics) simply kicks the can down the road and then they're in no better shape then as opposed to now. The argument can be spun both ways. You have no "control" here.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. You keep saying "core" for some reason. You're right that many people are saying no to the Olympics, particularly across Europe (but also in Boston). Guess what city that's not happening in? Paris. They're confident they can make this plan work and who's to say they can't, as past cities have? That's part of the issue here that everyone looks at when the Olympics have cost too much, either by choice (Beijing, Sochi) or by unforeseen circumstances (Athens). Few people seem to recognize when an Olympics is done right, and it's usually in larger more developed cities like a Sydney or a London. Paris certainly falls into that category. So yes, good for LA that they have something different to offer. They and they alone could pull that off, so it's not a case where they're trying to show the rest of the world how to handle the issue of an athletes' village and try to create a new model for hosting the Olympics. For all the rhetoric that's what the Olympic movement needs, you could just as easily make the same argument that what it really needs is for a city like Paris to propose and build an athletes' village and turn that into a successful legacy project so that other cities could follow suit. And that neat thing about that is that if Paris gets 2024 and LA gets 2028, the next round of bidding wouldn't open up until 2023, so prospective bid cities would get a good look at how Paris is doing and wouldn't have to put their plan into action until after Paris has hosted.
  6. You say taxpayers are the problem. What happened to "But if you asked them to fund the LA River, even if it would benefit the Olympics, you'd still be asking them to fund the River, which I think Angelinos want to do." We all understand why LA changed course on this one and it makes sense. If that you argued then that LA taxpayers would have been happy to fund a project like that, maybe you shouldn't argue now that the issue is how to pay for it and that's the reason they backed out. And no.. no one argues that "there's no way LA can pull off an Olympics with its budget." Several of us here are just a little skeptical of their confidence that it's so much less risky to go over budget. If everything goes well, as it did for 1984, they can probably keep costs minimal. But if not everything goes so well, what then? Maybe Paris will cost more than anticipated. That happened with Sydney. Happened again with London. Both of those Olympics and their legacies seem to be doing pretty well. Specific to the housing argument though, it's really difficult for you to make a case that their Olympic village plan is an issue when once upon a time, LA was planning on doing something very similar and you were fully behind it.
  7. Let's take a trip in the wayback machine, shall we? Then I have an interesting thought to piggyback these posts (pun totally intended).. Again, let it be said of Agenda 2020.. it's supposed to be about a city doing what's best for them rather than to follow a template. That's exactly what's happening here. Paris is proposing their village. LA decided on something completely different because they felt it suited them better. And whichever one the IOC chooses is probably not going to be any sort of commentary on the future of the Olympics but rather simply about the here and now of the 2024 race. Food for thought though. Let's say it's Paris 2024 and LA 2028. Would this allow and perhaps encourage LA to tweak their bid knowing they have 11 years lead time rather than 7. 7 years is not a lot of time to push for a major urban infrastructure project (speaking of things that might be scaring away potential bid cities). Give them an extra 4 years and that opens up some possibilities. We know Paris has said they don't want that extra 4 years and that they're not in a position to wait until 2028. Maybe that's an idle threat, but the flip side here is that maybe it's opportunity for Los Angeles. That's not to imply they'll revisit their housing/village plans, but especially with more private backing rather than public backing, perhaps they moreso than Paris would benefit rather than be hurt by it.
  8. Not entirely. Corruption and mistrust are bigger culprits. It's not like taxpayer money hasn't been part of Olympic bidding for a long time now. No one objected before. The problem these days is increasingly more people don't want their tax dollars spent on the Olympics and to benefit the plutocrats of the IOC. They don't trust their city or their country's government to get intertwined with the Olympics. It's why we've seen many cities enter the bid process only to come to the realization that it's not such as smart idea. Taxes exist for a reason, but the people paying them want that money to benefit them, which the Olympics don't always do. To that end.. Rob brought up a good point. Spending money on a housing project is not something people object to. There are benefits to building housing. The issues come in when that is planned for and around the Olympics and then a post-games plan has to be executed. That can be money well spent if it's done right. The problem lies in dealing with the IOC. They'll often make it difficult for a city to do it right. And when we're talking about sports venues, that's even harder. You mention lining the pockets of development interests.. would that not happen if private money is used instead of public? Should those private interests put their money out there knowing the IOC is calling the shots? This all goes back to what fundamentally needs to change about the Olympics. The financial model is a problem. But it's not THE problem. The problem is the IOC. They can do more to self-correct the problem than any city could.
  9. I almost hate to give Abrahamson for bringing up a good point, but in this case he did.. when you're talking about a national government with a GDP in the billions or the trillions, line items on an Olympic budget aren't quite as significant. For a private entity with a much smaller bottom line, it's going to stand out a lot more when something goes over budget and there will be executives who pay for that, as opposed to with the government where there's a different level of oversight.
  10. Well in that case, make Michael Phelps can show me how to swim and maybe in 4 years I still won't be good enough to compete in the Olympics. Again, that LA can offer a much more privately financed Olympics isn't going to help Paris make that work the same way if they don't have college dorms at the ready to make available. What LA is doing is what's best for LA. They're certainly not doing it for the benefit of helping out other bid cities, let alone the one they're up against. And we'll remind you how impressed you were by LA's original plans with Piggyback Yards to help spur on housing development if you're going to point out another city doing the same. Building a new village is a risk, but that doesn't mean it's going to turn out poorly if it's probably planned, managed, and executed.
  11. Yes, I'm aware what they said. But when there are qualifiers like "we believe" and "I think," that's anything but a formal/official statement. What is said now is hardly a binding agreement. If Paris loses 2024, let's see what happens if the IOC offers them 2028. They might have to think about that in order to see if they can make it work, but it's easy for us to talk about compelling reasons. Much harder to put that into action.
  12. "Perhaps LA can host a cost effective games" = Maybe, but maybe not We all know LA's history with the Olympics. Perhaps history repeats itself for a 3rd time. But that's still a risky proposition. If everyone does their job well and there are few, if any, variables out of their control that come along, then yes LA will likely do themselves and the IOC proud. Those are a lot of if's though. While I have confidence they can pull off a successful Olympics, 2 things continue to stick with some of the rhetoric, especially that of Alan A-Twat's-Fat-Son.. 1) The notion that because LA's Olympics are privately-funded means that they can't go over budget is nonsense. There's more than a billion dollars in venues and infrastructure specifically tied to the bid (as opposed to the notion that LA has nothing of note to build). What's to prevent cost overruns? That there's less government involve means the odds for corruption and other issues are less, but they're far from non-existent. 2) LA continues to push the "game changer" notion. As it has been said, that's all well and good for them, but it's not necessarily something that other cities/countries can follow. The only thing it accomplishes is that it gives a tiny bit of credence to Agenda 2020 where the line of thinking is to do what's best for a particular city. And my line of thinking on this remains the same.. LA can boast all they want about how they'll be the new model for the Olympics going forward, but the minute they win the right to host an Olympics, I bet you that notion instantly gets thrown out the window and LA is immediately in it for themselves and to protect their best interests and doesn't give a crap what it might mean for the IOC and future host cities.
  13. Beware of misleading headlines. LA and Paris did not "Reject IOC’s 2024 Olympic Bid Consolation Plan." They said they're all in for 2024. And someone won't get it, in which case they may be offered a consolation prize and yea, I'd like to see what happens if that city is LA. I get why they're saying (as they should) that their bid is about 2024 and only 2024, because to hint they might return for 2028 could give IOC voters incentive to vote for the other city. And yes, I very much agree with FYI that this is a reaction to the IOC creating a task force. Still, let's see how this plays it. If the loser for 2024 is offered 2028, let's see them turn that down. Paris might, for reasons we know. Not sure I see LA doing that. They'll accept that "consolation prize" in a heartbeat if it's offered to them. They'd be foolish not to
  14. Old news. They mentioned that about the land for the Olympic Village a while ago. That's been out there for awhile.
  15. Considering later statements made with regard to 2028, I'm pretty sure LA will be happy to take that one and not view it as a consolation prize. I agree as well they need to do this. Because if they don't, 1 of 2 things happens. Either the city that doesn't win 2024 isn't back for 2028 and they've scared that city off. Or that city does come back having not been given a free pass, but how does that look for the other cities in the running (if there are other cities in the running). As it has been said, if there were more than 2 cities still in this, it might be a different story. That it's just Paris and LA, probably 2 of the strongest cities out there they could possibly hope for, reward both of them here and worry about the optics of that move later.