Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. I agree as well, but there are risks that come with choosing Sweden. I don't think they are as dire as some here want to believe, but it needs to be a well-managed bid. If they have their act together, everyone involved will be fine. If not, then that may not be the best look for the IOC.
  2. More commentary on the issue of homeless issue.. Welcome to Garcetti’s L.A.: heaps of trash, hordes of rats and very little leadership
  3. "Ever" is a long time. LA got this one and Salt Lake will undoubtedly get theirs. Wouldn't assume they'll get it again 20 or 30 or 40+ years down the road.
  4. One of LA's big goals is to combat the homelessness crisis. Thus far, not going so well.. Homelessness has gotten worse in LA county despite huge investment. Some other cities see a decrease Hopefully this won't continue to rear its ugly head in the lead up to the Olympics, because that may invoke memories of how certain sects of the population were treated in the years leading up to 1984. Wouldn't necessarily want a repeat of that.
  5. Non-story. Salt Lake will be the U.S. Winter Olympic host. Denver has no shot of hosting anything for at least the next 20 years
  6. Yes, that is plausible, although at the risk of turning this into an issue of semantics, Stockholm would not "lose the games." They would have to hand them back rather than to have them taken away from them. Keep in mind though.. with all the private backing this bid has, it will likely be less reliant on government funding than other non-U.S. bids. So if Stockholm is selected as the host, that's going to make it difficult for the government to back out after they already pledged support. Possible, sure. But that creates an awkward situation for everyone involved where I don't know that their response would be to say "just kidding, we're not supporting this anymore" and just pull the plug on it.
  7. What is a "Denver situation?" What happened in 1972 bears little to no resemblance to what's happening now in Stockholm, so the 2 are not comparable. And on a website like this, we should be smarter than to try and draw a correlation between the 2 and understand what happened back then rather than to create a broad definition. Yes, there are concerns with the Stockholm bid that may give voters reason to pick Milan-Cortina instead. I would like to think those voters will do their due diligence however rather than to say "we can't pick Stockholm, because Denver." At this point, the new horizons concept is meaningless IMO. The question is does the IOC want to return to a country they fairly recently visited with a bid that still leaves a lot of questions. Milan-Cortina may be safer than Stockholm, but it's hardly an ideal option, even in a scenario where that IOC has less than ideal options to choose from. Bookmakers generally aren't trying to predict an outcome. Their goal tends to be to split the money in such a way that they make a profit no matter who wins. So those odds are more a reflection of who people are betting on rather than which city they think will be chosen.
  8. My heart says Sweden by about 5. My head says Italy by even less than that. Either way, I think we're looking at a pretty tight vote.
  9. It's a hypothetical, but it's one based on the organizers waking up one morning and deciding they don't want to host the Olympics anymore after they already agreed to host the Olympics. It's not going to be as simple as public support dropping and the organizers coming to a sudden realization. You're skipping ahead to where that's already happened and say "it'd be a stain," but wouldn't that be cause to NOT make that decision in the first place? I just can't envision the issue of public support (which isn't exactly that high right now) being the breaking point that would compel them to tell the IOC no thank you. There would have to be something more than that. And in reference to Denver, here's some good reading for you.. 'Colorado Would Be Laughing Stock of the World': Remembering Denver's Disastrous 1976 Olympic Bid The simple view of history is that it was NIMBY-ism and backlash from environmentalists that got the games cancelled. That's largely true, but it ignores the efforts of the Denver organizers who promised the host the games on a laughably small budget and were piss poor and planning the games. The result was massive changes to the venue plan which led to skyrocketing rockets and emboldened the Olympic opposition movement. In that regard, it's not unlike Boston's 2024 bid which made promises they weren't going to be able to keep, so it was easy for anti-Olympics movement to make the case against them. So back to Stockholm. Seems like they're well managed. They have a plan that doesn't require much new construction. Most importantly, there is a good amount of private financing. So what case to the citizens of Stockholm and Sweden have to oppose it? If it's just a general anti-Olympics sentiment, is that going to mean much for the organizers who obviously remain committed to the effort and certainly wouldn't back down anytime after Bach opens the envelope that says "Stockholm" on it.
  10. I don't see it. The Olympics are a different type of event than a World Cup. They're not meant to be spread all over the place the same way a World Cup is meant to touch as much of the country as possible. We may some more of what's being offered for 2026 where there are satellite locations from the main host city, but I doubt it will ever be held over an entire country so long as there are bidders holding to the more traditional formula of a main host city.
  11. That Milan is bidding as a regional concept and Stockholm is including another country, the cat is already out of the bag on this one. Has no bearing on the 2026 bids, but we'll see what it means for the future. However.. we saw elsewhere that the IOC wants to make sure these bids stay cohesive. So while this is an invitation and could encourage more bidding, it's not a concept that necessarily lends itself to a winning bid if a more suitable option is out there.
  12. LOL Durban. What's going on in your head that you would think the bring up #MeToo here? It's "only right" they recruited female athletes? This is like reading a bad version of Cliff Notes Next year is when they'll get more detailed. No use in doing that more than a year out. You should brace for a much bigger Olympics spiel next May (in case you forgot that you copied that line word for word from the article). The interesting question will be less about which sports go where and more about the programming schedule. This is slightly new territory since the last Summer Olympics in Asia was prior to the Comcast merger. There was no NBCSN during Beijing and as a result, no cable coverage during East coast primetime. I think we saw something of a template from Korea last winter where NBCSN will be up pretty close to 24 hours a day with Olympics coverage (although there will be bigger breaks for coverage of other sports, probably NASCAR in particular). The question here is what gets shown live and what doesn't? Will NBC repeat their "Primetime Plus" concept? Will the afternoon show be first run events or will it be games involving the U.S. that were shown on cable earlier? There's a lot of different ways they can go and streaming will be a key component. Would be nice to have some old events on there, but remains to be seen how much of a market there is for that. Have patience, though. I'm as eager as you are to get into more detail, but wouldn't expect too much of that until this fall at the very earliest, but more likely not until next spring when Tokyo is right around the corner.
  13. There's definitely cause for concern in that regard with Stockholm and it could absolutely shift a couple of votes in the direction of Milan. But it can't be so simplistic as "well, they could be Denver 2.0 and suffer the same fate." The IOC needs to have more foresight than that. There's more to the story of Denver then simply that they rejected hosting the Olympics and we tend to lost sight of that here when throw out the "R" word as a boogeyman for potential Olympic bidders. Because it's a much different story once a city has already been awarded an Olympics than trying to prevent a bid from happening in the first place. So let's say Stockholm wins the vote. How exactly could it come to pass that Stockholm attempts to reject the games? Again, the answer to that question is much more complicated than the word "referendum." What happened with Denver doesn't provide a template for other cities to follow. It took a certain sequence of events (and an element of poor management) that killed the Denver Olympics. Very little, if any of that, would relate to Stockholm.
  14. Venue infrastructure is listed in LA's budget as $1.463 billion. That's more than 20% of their total budget. So it's a misnomer to say there's a lack of new construction when it accounts for a pretty big chunk of the budget. Where LA's efforts may be less risky than other bids is that it's privately backed as opposed to most of the time where it's government backed. Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to stick to budgets, especially if a scenario comes up where LA's interests need to measured up against the IOC's wishes. That's where a lot of Olympic host cities tend to run into trouble, so it remains to be seen how they'll handle that in LA. When the Boston anti-Olympic folks started to gain traction, I said I thought it was likely to be a one-time thing and not necessarily something that would pop up elsewhere. Needless to say, I pegged that one wrong. There's a ton of animosity against the IOC and for good reason. It's not necessarily specific to one city (although I've seen the NOlympicsLA folks go after Eric Garcetti on several occasions), so it might be more of a determined effort to oppose the IOC rather than be something specific to one city.
  15. I agree there's a lot of mis-information from those guys, especially as I scroll through their Twitter account. And yes, maybe of their followers do believe there's $7 billion out there getting spent on the Olympics that somehow could be used on other projects. That said.. yes, there is a risk things will cost more than expected and/or revenues will be less than expected. Remains to be seen who is on the hook in that case. And that's to say nothing of all the socio-economic issues tied to the Olympics, for better or worse. If the NOlympicsLA folks were smart, they'd play up that negative aspect from `84 that often gets overlooked.
  16. Oh dear. So very much misinformation here, Durban. I know you like to summarize the articles you post and then try to offer up a couple of opinions, but be careful of poor reporting. Let's clear a few things up here. The start times for the swimming finals were known months ago, so this is not a new revelation. That's probably as much a FINA decision as it is for the organizers. They know where their bread is buttered, so they want those big U.S. audiences and the sponsorship dollars that come along with it. Yes, that comes at the expense of other viewers around the world. But any notion that it might affect athletes' performances was erased in Beijing when they followed a similar schedule and world records were broken left and right. I find it interesting you would infer that about the women's soccer final, as if that was the rationale behind the decision. It's noteworthy that the women's gold medal game will be held at Olympic Stadium. Normally that's an honor reserved for the men's final, but women's soccer being popular in Japan, they gave it to the women this time. As such, the stadium is being used every night during the 2nd half of the Olympics for track & field. Thus, the only time they could hold the women's final is in the afternoon. Has absolutely nothing to do with with the preference of NBC. You mention the track and field finals (of course you did, because they said it in the article). They're largely mirroring what the IAAF did in 2016 in Rio. They held some finals during the daytime sessions there (at least 1 per day) largely to appease European television interests, but also to help try and sell tickets to those sessions. So that they're doing it again here has less to do with American TV and more with the interests of the organizers and the IAAF. The basketball finals I'll grant you are odd, especially that the men's gold medal game happens before the bronze medal game. So that's probably not a coincidence. Although the women's final is on the day of the Closing Ceremony (as the men's final generally is at most Olympics), so that's not necessarily a major issue. Overall.. yes, there will be some criticism, mostly over swimming, the a lot of these decisions also come from the individual sport federations who are acting in their own self interests. Which happen to align with those of NBC.
  17. Fair points, particularly about the contingency funds. My fault for not seeing that as a specific line item under expenses. Could have skipped the condescending line about inflation though. I should know better than to reference original estimates which were all based on 2024 and not 2028. Still, why would the original estimates have been made in 2016 dollars, as if they didn't know from the start the Olympics were going to be in 2024 (and later in 2028).
  18. So let's recap here. What was initially projected to be a $5.3 billion budget has gone up to $6.2 billion and now to $6.9 billion. Venue infrastructure for a bid that has no new permanent venues to build is now close to $1.5 billion. And based on those numbers, they're expected to break even, NOT make a profit. Not trying to be negative here, but just looking to be realistic. What say our number 1 LA booster? Oh yea, that's right.. he got sent on permanent vacation for being a complete and total piece of sh!t.
  19. https://twitter.com/slc2030 I would say it's pretty clear what SLC prefers and they probably would have jumped at the chance for 2026 if the USOC had let them. Remains to be seen if the USOC will bid for 2030. They said they're interested. Yes, there's the matter of 2028 to deal with, but that didn't stop them from very publicly anointing Salt Lake as their candidate. As for NBC.. get your narratives straight. They already have their contract locked in for 2030. They did that not knowing the host city, just like 2028. So imagine how much more valuable those rights become relative to what they paid if Salt Lake is the host city. They would absolutely love that. It's the IOC that would potentially benefit from the 2034 Olympics being held in the United States. Since those rights haven't been awarded yet, they could raise the asking price for those Olympics if it's looking like they would be in the United States and pit the other networks against each other if they wanted to get in on that.
  20. I don't think that's safe to say at all. Given the twists and turns these bids have taken, I don't think we can hand it over to Stockholm just yet. I like their odds, but it's far from a done deal. If not all that much changes about the 2 candidates in the next 2 months, then yes, it's likely going to Stockholm. Their bid isn't without negative though. Not sure what the Italians will do if they lose 2026. Italy only hosted 20 years prior, so it's not as thought they've gone a long time without hosting. If Stockholm gets 2026, then the appeal of getting a more traditional Western European nation back in the fold isn't quite there anymore. So if Milan/Cortina were bidding for 2030 in a bigger field of candidates, I don't like their odds so much. Like you said, it's a much less appealing bid in comparison to Stockholm A double is not worthwhile here. These aren't compelling enough candidates that the IOC needs both of them right now. Especially so far as Stockholm is involved with a less than enthusiastic support level. There are candidates waiting in the wings for 2030. On that note.. I'm sure the USOC knows they're probably going to want to beat out other cities if they want 2030. That's how this game is played (usually). But are those cities so compelling as Salt Lake? Remains to be seen. If Salt Lake bids for 2030, regardless of who else is in the field, they stand a pretty good chance of winning.
  21. Oh, and a quick Google search of the phrase "Los Anjealous" leads to this as the first hit https://doseofcolors.com/products/los-anjealous
  22. Can I get some of what you're smoking? Please don't tell me you *actually* think LA has the most hated sports teams in America. The Rams? The Chargers? Where do you come up with that crap. Maybe try talking to fan bases not in the immediate vicinity of LA and ask them who they hate. Let's actually look at this one. The Lakers I'll give you. Although they haven't made the playoffs in 6 years, so at this point there's not that much hatred for them. And that's after a year with LeBron. In MLB, the Yankees are #1 and the Red Sox are #2. The Dodgers? At best, a distant 3rd. They're now more than 30 years removed from their last World Series title. And in the NFL? There's the Patriots. And then the Patriots. Not even close to a contest. So the correct answer is Boston. And I don't just say that because I'm from New York. No one outside of this thread believes that LA is some sort of punching bag for the rest of the country (or the world) that has to deal with an unfair amount of negative press. Guess what.. that's every city. Let alone that it extends to their sports teams as if the Rams and Chargers are hated teams outside of St. Louis and San Diego. Stop trolling. All of you
  23. NBC and Team USA Combine Olympics Ad Drives in Pursuit of Billions NBC, LA 2028 to combine to sell sponsorships, ad time
  • Create New...