mr.bernham Posted April 14, 2014 Report Share Posted April 14, 2014 Los Angeles has always been an trusted partner to the IOC and Los Angeles saved the Olympics Movement two times with out that city there would be no Olympics Games today Los Angeles is hosting the 2015 Special Olympics World Summer Games and an well loved city by the international city. LA is the same thing as Paris don;t need an Olympics park they got most of the venues in place and they will just need upgrading also Los Angeles is different now back in 1984 they don't have a rail system now they do. France is uncertainty right now the economy there is failing now and looks like the new mayor of Paris is anti Olympics Bid so Paris may not run in 2024 like Rome Italy so the race is between Berlin Germany and Los Angeles USA for the 2024 games. But LA was only a trusted partner back then because of the Cold War, most of LA's venues are now out-of date. The games have grown larger and so an LA games would not be this huge money saver, quite the contrary. The IOC is also not too fond of spread out venue plans, something LA would have. Not to mention how excited would the IOC be to go back to LA, which based on opinions here would signal that the IOC is in trouble...in a very public way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted April 14, 2014 Report Share Posted April 14, 2014 If the allegations affect the popularity of the bid to the extent that they lose the referendum, then this is huge news. If the referndum wins through (and with 68% in favour the most recent polls it ought to) then this doesn't need to be anything other than an early campaign glitch if handled correctly. I don't know how many people here remember this person.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted April 14, 2014 Report Share Posted April 14, 2014 Rob, I'm curious as to how the Brits thought about having an American run their campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 14, 2014 Report Share Posted April 14, 2014 Remember, Gianna also left after Athens won 2004; but they called her back in to eventually set up and run the actual Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 But LA was only a trusted partner back then because of the Cold War, most of LA's venues are now out-of date. The games have grown larger and so an LA games would not be this huge money saver, quite the contrary. The IOC is also not too fond of spread out venue plans, something LA would have. Not to mention how excited would the IOC be to go back to LA, which based on opinions here would signal that the IOC is in trouble...in a very public way. That's really not true. Plus there are a lot of new venues that weren't here in '84. LA's venues would not be that spread out. The difference is that there wouldn't be a big Olympic Park. But if the IOC would give up their (unofficial) demand for Olympic parks, staging the Games would be much more affordable. Both LA and Paris could stage the Games with minimal new construction within a reasonable radius, but the IOC needs to come back to earth and accept that they can have great Games without ungodly expenditures. LA '84 was a huge success. People LOVED attending those Games. And then the IOC decided that LA's reliance on existing venues was out of vogue. It makes no sense. LA WORKED. It's the IOC that decided to complicate everything with their love of glittery new construction and huge parks. It's time to go back to the LA model. That doesn't mean the Games HAVE to be in LA, but the IOC seriously needs to rethink the whole model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 That's really not true. Plus there are a lot of new venues that weren't here in '84. LA's venues would not be that spread out. The difference is that there wouldn't be a big Olympic Park. But if the IOC would give up their (unofficial) demand for Olympic parks, staging the Games would be much more affordable. Both LA and Paris could stage the Games with minimal new construction within a reasonable radius, but the IOC needs to come back to earth and accept that they can have great Games without ungodly expenditures. LA '84 was a huge success. People LOVED attending those Games. And then the IOC decided that LA's reliance on existing venues was out of vogue. It makes no sense. LA WORKED. It's the IOC that decided to complicate everything with their love of glittery new construction and huge parks. It's time to go back to the LA model. That doesn't mean the Games HAVE to be in LA, but the IOC seriously needs to rethink the whole model. I agree, it's nice to have a main cluster with a good number of venues in relatively close proximity, but LA did work and needs to be repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Coast Lions Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 That's really not true. Plus there are a lot of new venues that weren't here in '84. LA's venues would not be that spread out. The difference is that there wouldn't be a big Olympic Park. But if the IOC would give up their (unofficial) demand for Olympic parks, staging the Games would be much more affordable. Both LA and Paris could stage the Games with minimal new construction within a reasonable radius, but the IOC needs to come back to earth and accept that they can have great Games without ungodly expenditures. LA '84 was a huge success. People LOVED attending those Games. And then the IOC decided that LA's reliance on existing venues was out of vogue. It makes no sense. LA WORKED. It's the IOC that decided to complicate everything with their love of glittery new construction and huge parks. It's time to go back to the LA model. That doesn't mean the Games HAVE to be in LA, but the IOC seriously needs to rethink the whole model. Plus many IOC memeber were young Adults and Teenages back when Los Angeles hosted the 1984 games Thomas Bach was 30 years old there are 6 members still around that are IOC memebers when LA hosted the 84 games they have fond memories of the Los Angeles 1984 games they were the magical games after the bad time that the Olympic movement went through from 1968 to 1980, They restored faith in them the Olympic Movement today is having troubles and I think many of them will want to go back to Los Angeles in 2024, Paris will host there first multi sporting event in 60 years in 2018 with Gay Games X Los Angeles is hosting a big one next year with the 2015 Special Olympics World Summer Games a s great lead up to an Olympics Bid for 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Uh, sorry, I thought I was reading about Kraków. Instead I ended up in California, apparently the dreamland of all IOC members since the day they were born. I definitely agree with Athens that the IOC must come off its high horse in terms of (unwritten) expectations. Having a Games staged with some events across the border, like in case of Poland/Slovakia, would probably go against those expectations, but do they really want to swallow Chinese smog or Kazakh Sochi-lite situations rather just because they promise so much on paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 I think there are two big questions for Krakow: 1.) will the referendum pass? 2.) is the quality of the bid high enough that the IOC will entertain the possibility of Alpine events in Slovakia or is it a relatively weak bid even without the Slovakia issue. If Slovakia is the only real strike against Krakow, they have a shot. If the bid has other weaknesses as well, they're in trouble and possibly in danger of missing out on the short list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 If the IOC is going to be picky about Krakow in their current situation then they deserve to be in trouble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 I wouldn't say they are being picky, just that they haven't and don't want to try the multi-country Hosting until necessary (With the exception to the 1956 Summer Olympics, where the Equestrian events were held in Stockholm, Sweden and the 2008 Summer Olympics when the Equestrian events where held in Hong Kong, although that was decided after Beijing was chosen as Host City). Of course, if it's Lviv VS Krakow, then the IOC will turn a blind eye to the multi-country debate, but at this moment in time, you can understand why they are a bit sceptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Although, I do respect your view on the matter and can see where your coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 I wouldn't say they are being picky, just that they haven't and don't want to try the multi-country Hosting until necessary (With the exception to the 1956 Summer Olympics, where the Equestrian events were held in Stockholm, Sweden and the 2008 Summer Olympics when the Equestrian events where held in Hong Kong, although that was decided after Beijing was chosen as Host City). Of course, if it's Lviv VS Krakow, then the IOC will turn a blind eye to the multi-country debate, but at this moment in time, you can understand why they are a bit sceptical. Uh, no. Why should they be skeptical? They've done it before when it was necessary. It worked fine. They written the provision into their rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 In a field including Munich, Stockholm and St Moritz, the IOC could have allowed itself the luxury of being sceptical towards Poland/Slovakia, but not with the current line-up. And if they still let their scepticism win and they'll end up with Beijing or Almaty hosting, that's their problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 In a field including Munich, Stockholm and St Moritz, the IOC could have allowed itself the luxury of being sceptical towards Poland/Slovakia, but not with the current line-up. And if they still let their scepticism win and they'll end up with Beijing or Almaty hosting, that's their problem. Exactly, their field has been cut down so badly that if they want the games back in Europe Krakow is their only choice. They do not have the luxury of criticizing Poland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 In a field including Munich, Stockholm and St Moritz, the IOC could have allowed itself the luxury of being sceptical towards Poland/Slovakia, but not with the current line-up. And if they still let their scepticism win and they'll end up with Beijing or Almaty hosting, that's their problem. Maybe the IOC is genuinely ok with Beijing or Almaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 More like they'll HAVE to be okay with Beijjng or Almaty, Otherwise, Bach, Heiberg & Co. wouldn't have been working so feverishly on behalf of the Norwegians behind-the-scenes that the Winter Olympics "must go back to basics". Being 'genuinely' okay with those last two, poor options would be the IOC merely being in complete denial of their true dismal situation at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 I really doubt they are honestly happy about facing these two as the last ones standing for 2022. In that case, the IOC (as a whole) would have already kissed goodbye to making any efforts to get credible European bids at least for WOG in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Maybe the IOC is genuinely ok with Beijing or Almaty. It's possible, but I doubt it. The IOC might consider those options acceptable, but to me it just seems like Beijing or Almaty is settling for a less than ideal options. If either of the 2 win, we'll have 3 Winter Olympics that go Eastern Europe-Asia-Asia (not to mention 3 straight Asian Olympics). That's not so much a choice as a lack of option. Add in Vancouver 2010 and we're looking at 20 years without a Winter Olympics in traditional Western Europe. During which time we'll have seen Salzburg bid twice and lose, Munich bid and then drop out, Stockholm dropping out of a race, and well you get the idea. I know we're in an age where the Olympics are becoming more global and all, but that has to be alarming that the options have become so thin in Western Europe that they'll have gone so long without it. This all is not to say Oslo is the only sane choice for 2022, but I think it speaks to the idea that the IOC is not getting bids from a region of the world that there have never been a lack of bids from. I don't know what the solution to that problem is or whether they need to do anything about it at all. If 2022 is awarded to Beijing or Almaty though, I have a feeling a lot of IOC members will look around and think "this is the best we can do?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Sochi is and always will be the pain that brought them down. Pyongchang should have won, and Munich 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Or majestic, practical Salzburg 2014, with PyeongChang 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 ANNECY!! Where's poster Tulsa??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Annecy sure bid for the wrong cycle, didn't they. I mean how attractive would they be looking right now considering this 2022 line-up with all their shortcomings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 Maybe the IOC is genuinely ok with Beijing or Almaty. It's not like the IOC has shown any love toward traditional European hosts. They picked Turin, which only had other European cities to compete with. They picked Albertville and Lillehammer over other European cities + impossible bids from Anchorage. Unless I'm missing something, the last time the IOC choose a traditional European host over a viable non-European city was Grenoble over Calgary for the '68 games. That's 50 years ago. We all think it's a crisis if no traditional European city wants to host. I'm not sure the IOC voters agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted April 15, 2014 Report Share Posted April 15, 2014 It's not like the IOC has shown any love toward traditional European hosts. They picked Turin, which only had other European cities to compete with. They picked Albertville and Lillehammer over other European cities + impossible bids from Anchorage. Unless I'm missing something, the last time the IOC choose a traditional European host over a viable non-European city was Grenoble over Calgary for the '68 games. That's 50 years ago. We all think it's a crisis if no traditional European city wants to host. I'm not sure the IOC voters agree. Are you kidding? If Europe is out that means they have lost a HUGE base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.