Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quaker2001

  2. Don't count on it. As Rob and baron already noted, there will be more than a few very large donations that will cover it. The French government will likely need to spend little to nothing of their own money, let alone that it would affect Olympic budgets.
  3. I agree that voters tend to be self-interested rather than what is best for the IOC and the Olympic movement. But if you're going to cite history, you can't ignore changing mindsets with the IOC that they're starting to learn their lesson when it comes to wasteful spending (well, some more than others). More importantly, that made a bigger difference when there were more candidates in the running. Not so much now when there are fewer cities to choose from. What happened with Rio and the velodrome (and I had largely forgotten about that whole situation) is hardly a defining mark on Rio's Olympic legacy. At the end of the day, is the sport of cycling better off because the tore down what was originally thought to be a suitable venue and built a new one? When you're talking about the interests of IOC voters and sports federations, it's not just about shiny new venues. Because that means nothing if there's no legacy attached to it. If LA were to build a brand new swimming venue, it's the city that benefits from that moreso than FINA. What FINA cares about is generating revenue. They don't need a lavish new venue in LA to make that happen and outliers like UCI aside, I doubt we're going to see them lash out. The fact that you're expecting Atlanta-like treatment for LA (your words, not mine) is either hyperbole or just way off base. If you think LA is going to be on the receiving end of put-downs, then what Olympic host city wouldn't be. What exactly are athletes and sports fans going to see that is going to result in snide comments? I don't get what it is they're supposed to be expecting that they'll get there and think "this sucks." Do you remember the reviews of Rio's athletes villages? There were complaints it was like dorm rooms, but worse. Remember the reactions from the media about the hotels in Sochi that was a complete boondoggle? Okay, so what of LA. Forget the IOC bigwigs who expect 5-star luxury at every corner. That's their fault for setting expectations that high. Why would fans and athletes think that way? I know the concept of them using dorm rooms as their village may sound unappealing on the surface, but don't pretend like these will be some crappy college nothing rooms. USC and UCLA are major universities spending a lot of money on housing. I imagine athletes will find it more than adequate. As for the fans? You think they're going to throw a hissy fit if there are columns in the infield at the velodrome? If you want to rip on their plans for the track at the coliseum, that's probably fair. But I doubt there will be much beyond that. Why would the expectations be that it will be worse than any other recent host city? And forget the likes of Rios and other cities that didn't do it so well. I can't imagine too many people going to LA and having the kind of experience you seem to be convinced they'll have where they'll have all sorts of negative reactions. And if that's the case, then what city in the United States could possibly do it better that LA shouldn't be the host? There's next to nothing about LA's plan for the Olympics that fans and athletes and administrators need to worry about the world lashing out at them for. You're trying to create that narrative by making it seem like the only way that LA could impress visitors for the Olympics is if they had to work that much harder for it and therefore offer up more. It's a moot point and it's not something people will give a rats ass about come 2028. You think that way because you're trying to analyze the minutiae of Olympic bidding in ways most people don't. It's still a really shitty line of thinking that's not going to play out in reality. It's all in your head, not in the heads of would-be Olympic tourists.
  4. Too many words again? Maybe I'll draw the next one in crayon for you. Understandable though that you get dis-interested so easily when we're talking about something other than LA.
  5. And now you're being ignorant again. You're making way too much about the venues and not paying any attention to the politics. LA has never lost an Olympic vote because their venues weren't heavily state-subsidized (and even if that was the case before - again, it wasn't - that's not necessarily how the IOC would view things in a future voe). Politics cost them 1976 and nothing else. So let's say China put Shanghai up for 2028 against LA (a dubious hypothetical indeed since the vote would be just a few months out from Beijing 2022). How much more could they get out of China with a 2nd Olympics in just 20 years? Even if they pledged another 40 billion, what does that do for the IOC? Another stadium that becomes a tourist attraction like the Bird's Nest where maybe they get 1 IAAF World Championships out of it. Contrast that to LA where the surplus from the `84 games has been reinvested into sports and continues to fuel the Olympic movement today. Like hell they'd pick Shanghai over LA. Plus, let's not forget.. How much Tv Companies are paying for Broadcasting Deals for Olympics 2016 Broadcast rights in China are still peanuts compared to the US. CCTV paid $160 million in rights fees for 2014 and 2016. NBC paid more than $2 billion. It was a big deal for the IOC to go to China and their "one-fifth of humanity." CCTV paid all of $17 million for the TV rights to the 2008 Olympics. So that number has skyrocketed as a result. But not because they spent a lot of money on Beijing. The financial bump they'd likely get from China would pale in comparison to what they'd get from here. That wasn't a consideration back in the 70s. It's a major consideration these days and likely what would decide a winner. And the sports federations know that. Particularly one like FINA who now in 3 out of the last 4 Olympics made a point to make their schedule US primetime-friendly. You think they'd have voted for Shanghai over LA? No shot.
  6. I don't think LA is stupid. I think you're stupid. LA hosted 2 very successful Olympics. Time gave its person of the year award in 1984 to Peter Ueberroth for his efforts. There's a good chance they can do it again, but it's far from a guarantee. Can Casey Wasserman and his team manage as well as Ueberroth's team did? That's a much tougher task now than it was back then. No question LA has gotten themselves a good deal and set them up well to make a profit, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal they'll make a profit. Nor do I buy into the Abrahamson line (which you have human centipede-d here before) that because it all comes from the private sector, that it has to make a profit. As if it has never happened before that a private business promised to make money and couldn't come through. There's a lot that's out of the control of the organizers here. If they make smart decisions and things break the right way for them, they'll make a profit. But there's a thousand things that could go wrong in the next 9 years and just because it was done before in LA is not a guarantee it will happen again.
  7. I don't think I'm missing your points. You're just making bad points. Did you not following the 2024 bid process? Guess who had leverage yet again over the IOC and is once again in a position to host in a desirable/favorable way. It's not LA's fault things worked out for them yet again in that regard. You keep trying to create this narrative that LA couldn't measure up to other cities and if they ever had to go up against someone else in a vote, how could they possibly win with their "cheap facilities." Let's say there hadn't been a double and Paris gets 2024. Would LA likely have bid for 2028 and probably won it by a wide margin? I sure think so. If 1 of the bigger flaws you're finding with them is a slightly less than ideal velodrome, then I'd say they have a pretty darn good bid. It's true that LA is hosting the 2028 Olympics because they got favorable terms. You know what though. If they didn't get favorable terms.. they'd probably still be hosting the 2028 Olympics. That they didn't have to go through a vote isn't something Angelinos need to understand, and I doubt they're unaware of it anyway. It's a moot point now.
  8. I know why you said.. because you think everything Olympics revolves around LA. Sweden's bid was always private, so by that logic, the citizens never had a stake in it anyway. Yet until this week, it wasn't supported by the government. Every Olympics (and that will include LA 2028) has some element of resistance. Stockholm will not be an exception. So the question is how vocal will that group be. They don't cease to matter just because there's private funding involved. Nor is it a guarantee that - as you like to say - the IOC can "control the conversation."
  9. That's okay.. I know big words are difficult for you, so maybe it's just as well you skipped it. I'll use less words this time since I know excessive reading is difficult for you. So "Sweden has pulled off an LA" you say. What exactly is pulling an LA? Low approval voided? Yea, let's see if the IOC voters (because unlike with LA, this is going to come down to a vote) feel the same way. This is not a done deal for them just because you say it is. Might want to tell the folks in Calgary about that because they just shot down a regional bid in a city and a country that most wouldn't have expected that from. And unlike the majority of dropouts, they're not even in Europe. 2 bids and 1 winner isn't a trend. If Sapporo is the 2030 host, then regionally bidding is a one off. When Salt Lake inevitably hosts an Olympics (less you think Tahoe has any shot at being the next U.S. Winter host), that won't be regional. You've convinced yourself that regional bidding will become a trend. That could happen, but it doesn't mean the IOC is going to pick them over a non-regional bid. And we won't know how that plays out until there are both in competition with each other, which is not the case here. You're 100% right that this could - and probably will - open up more cities and countries to try and put a bid together. Okay to bid doesn't mean they're going to win.
  10. Yes, it is a very big deal for 2026. I know that. I know you know that. Still, to talk about risk and caution in another thread and then be "soooooo gung-ho" about them here is the definition of being wishy-washy and playing devil's advocate. Especially here in the context of talking about a double because it's a clear reaction to someone else (and especially that someone being me ) saying no about a double. The IOC now has 2 committed candidates to choose from for 2026 which is a very welcome turn of events for them. It's not going to lead to them suddenly saying "you know what.. let's give one of them 2026 and the other 2030." And now they have 2 much more serious someones to choose from. That doesn't mean it's going to lead to choosing 2030 now as opposed to 4 years from now. Looks like it was a smart move on the part of the IOC to wait out Sweden and hope they'd give support. Now they have, but does it make sense to take that news of support and decide to make a deal with them? I could see a case for that if it wasn't for an issue of the support level. We've still got people here questioning if they'll pull a Denver. I don't think that's necessarily a huge threat, but like you said, it's a cause for caution. If the Sweden bid wins a vote, then it's less of an issue. But it doesn't strike me as the kind of situation where the smart move is to make a deal with them behind closed doors. 2 issues with that parallel, though.. 1) Paris had lost multiple times, including the most infamous one where the election was all but rigged against them. The USOC had recently bid twice and lost, so this would have been 3 in a row for them. Italy and Sweden haven't lost bids. They've pulled out before they got there. So they don't necessarily get to play the same kind of "we're not bidding again after this if we lose" card that we talked about with Paris and LA. They don't have the same kind of leverage and they don't suddenly get it from simply committing to the bid and staying in it where others have fled. 2) How many people on here (mostly morons, but that's beside the point) were so convinced that Europe was a complete lost cause with regard to the Winter Olympics? And were so sure both Italy and Sweden would drop out and we wouldn't see a European candidate again for a long time. Yet here we are. Apparently it's not such a lost cause anymore. For all the rhetoric from the IOC about "less losers," there's still only 1 Winter Olympics every 4 years. There's only so many they can hand out. If they have 2 cities left in the running when they were probably fearful of having 0 (they said publicly there was no plan be, but clearly the USOC thought differently), it is necessary to assume they'll be screwed come 2030? Let alone knowing there's at least 2 solid bids and possibly more waiting in the wings? Stability is a good thing, but not if getting to that point means making deals with cities/countries that still have question marks. That wasn't the case with Paris and LA It's not like pivoting to a double here would be as neat and tidy as it was the last time. SLC in the background? Now you're just puling stupid on stupid. How's that dart board working out for you! "There is no double" is not an opinion. Right now, it's a fact. Yes, things can change and you don't have to remind me that for 2024, there initially was no double and then suddenly there was and that whole thing progressed pretty quickly. I know - and you keep saying it like I don't know - that you are not predicting a double is definitely going to happen. But if the roles were reversed here and you were saying definitively that something wouldn't happen and I was offering up a possibility, do you honestly mean to tell me you wouldn't say I was being wishy-washy? Because I'm pretty sure that has happened before. If I'm wrong on this one, I'll eat it. I don't think I'm going to be wrong. But go ahead and keep throwing sh!t against the wall to see if any of it sticks.
  11. No, I'm standing firm on this one rather than being wishy-washy and entertaining the idea there's another double coming. And as usual, not saying it's going to happen but making a vague case for why it could happen. It's the kind of random ideas that come from this site when people over-think things. "Hey, it happened last time, so let's talk about it maybe happening here." Once again, every time it gets brought up, no one can articulate how or why it would happen. Just the same empty rhetoric about "stability." Not a peep about how the IOC would alter the trajectory of this vote or how to make a deal with 2 cities/countries. Never a real cause for it. Nothing more than "bcuz" And LOL @ devil's advocate. I'm not opposing you for the sake of opposing you. I've held the same opinion this whole entire time because I think you're opinion (and same thing with anyone else who is talking about a double). But if anyone wants to see what playing devil's advocate actually looks like, let's recap.. To be fair, that caught a lot of us by surprise. Some folks were really eager to jump on the news as if it's "zzzzOMG, this changes everything I thought about Sweden's bid!" But then, as you have reminded us a couple of times.. So let's see if I have this one straight. A week ago, Sweden's bid was in real danger of not making to the finish line. Now they have the government behind them, but public support is still shaky. How is it that in another thread, you're saying be cautious about Sweden, but here it's "what better than to confirm them!" THAT, sports fans, is playing devil's advocate. You yourself give us a good reason not to do it and why it would be foolish. Good for Sweden (yes, I dropped a "good for" in there just for you) that the government is finally supporting the bid. Maybe let's not expect the IOC to take that news and immediately jump to "we have to give you an Olympics right now." Bcuz stability. What happens if that support level drops. Is that what the IOC desperately wants and needs? To deal with a less than fully supported Olympics. That potentially creates an even bigger problem than they have now. That was never a concern with Paris or LA. If Stockholm doesn't get 2026, will they still want to host 2030? No one had to question that for a split second about LA. Plus.. do you really think the Swedish government came on board because they're anticipating a double? Because that sounds an awful lot like a devil's advocate argument for the sake of fitting your narrative. Funny how you're first bringing that up here and not elsewhere. Isn't the simpler explanation that they're supporting the bid because the alternative was to let it proceed without support and risking embarrassment for the country and outrage from their citizens? If you and others want to continue to throw this idea around, fine. But I still think it's really fucking stupid. Thank you for the crystal ball line.. as if I'm trying to predict something that doesn't have an extraordinarily high probability of happening.
  12. Be careful where you're trying to retcon history like that. Let's say Stockholm hung in there and won 2022. Tough to tell who's in the 2026 race at that point. Who knows if we get the Italy bid. And perhaps Beijing seems less unappealing without immediately following PyeongChang and Tokyo.
  13. And what do you suppose that double would be? Because I've asked a certain other poster about that one and he doesn't seem to have a solid answer. He just likes to bring up the idea that it's possible (and when it inevitably doesn't happen, will tell us "I never said it was definitely going to happen"). I'm curious to hear how you think this could play out. The slim chances of the IOC entertaining a double largely got thrown out the window when both of their 2026 candidates confirmed they're staying in it. Far from impossible that changes in the next 2 months before the vote, but if they make it to June, it's hard to envision any scenario other than a head to head vote to determine the 2026 winner and that's it. I've said it for months that maybe depending on how circumstances played out, it might be possible. Those odds haven't changed IMO. There's no good reason for the IOC to decide to make this pair a 2026/2030. This is not the hand that the IOC was dealt for 2024, so there's no need to approach it the same way. And I think it would be extremely foolish of the IOC to do so.
  14. Every Olympic host city gets scrutinized. That's a given. But you brought up Atlanta. Now you're bringing up Rio. Why are you trying to draw comparisons to some of the worst examples of host city criticism as a projection for Los Angeles? Why not - as you noted - more like London where there were negative stories, but it didn't define them. I don't think it will be with LA. Because if the most negative thing you can come up with about LA is that they're using "cheap facilities," then they're in pretty good shape. As opposed to Rio where all people were talking about in the lead up were Zika and the water quality and those both turned out to be complete non-stories. Just like all the fears in the lead-up to 2018 in Korea about the potential of an incident involving Kim Jong-Un and North Korea. Again, complete and total non-story. If you want to question the confidence level of Angelinos and how sure some are that this will go off smoothly, that I'll give you. But at the end of it all, so what if the media reports negative stories. Does anyone think differently of London because they hosted an Olympics and there was negativity? Places like Rio, among others, are a different story because there was some truth to what was reported in terms of the effects the Olympics had there. 1 of the legacies of the `84 Olympics that doesn't get talked about much is how it emboldened the police force and may have led to some of the socio-economic issues LA faced in the early 90s. If history threatens to repeat itself here though, I doubt it will get much coverage in the press. That's probably a legitimate fear. Still, that has nothing to do with the quality of the venues. Yes, you are cherry-picking in order to make a point and it's still a really poor and ill-conceived point. What's wrong with the velodrome in Carson that UCI would have any issue with? They've had the world championships there before. It's the official US Olympic training site. It's the kind of venue that is good for the community and more than suitable for an Olympics. How are you finding a flaw in that? You bring up Olympic Stadium in Montreal.. how'd that work out for them? Yea, no kidding the private sector doesn't support that. When the public sector tried to deliver that for Canada, it was a disaster. How many other times have we seen similar scenarios where government subsidized venues didn't work out for the city and country involved. It's often wasteful spending. 10 years ago, we could count on the IOC going for that and encouraging cities to spend and ignore the inevitable consequences. These days, they've finally seen the light. Again, if there had been a head to head vote between Paris and LA, Paris probably wins it, but not because LA's venues are inferior. Let alone because they're delivered by the private sector and not purpose-built. And if you think the rest of the world is going to come to LA and think that, that's just really freaking ignorant.
  15. Or, just throwing this out there as a possibility.. we won't.
  16. There was so much of this I could agree with and then you have to throw this bit of hyperbole and you lost me. I was in LA 2 years ago. Among other things I did when I was there was go to a USC football game. How did I get there? Took the Metro. Went by the Staples Center and LA Live, and even without a reference point of what was there 20+ years ago, yes I am aware of the changing LA. Here's the thing though. Los Angeles has a lot going for it. Generally good weather, beaches, a great outdoor scene, and some excellent vistas from numerous points throughout the city. It's why Hollywood set up shop there once upon a time because of all the natural geography. There is plenty to offer there that will be inviting for prospective visitors during the Olympics. But what LA does not have is icons. They don't have the Eiffel Tower. They don't have the Louvre. They don't have the Champs Elysses. Paris has some of the most recognizable and well-known attractions on the planet. Don't get me wrong.. I think the Getty is a wonderful experience and the views from there are incredible. That's not the kind of tourist magnet that Paris can offer though. In no way is that a knock against LA. Like I said, LA shouldn't be trying to measure up against Paris (even though you continue to want to make it about that). They have enough going on their own and yes, I totally agree that the lifestyle will be perfect for the Olympics. Again though, be careful when you're trying to measure that up against the Eiffel Tower. Not that it should matter anyway. As to your first point.. understand the history of these discussions here. It has nothing to do with being unaware of LA. Those of us analyzing the race were looking at it from the standpoint of the IOC and who they were more likely to select. All the intangibles that often are more of a factor than the quality of the bids themselves are what pointed towards Paris. If it had come down to a decision between the 2 cities - and again, put it in context of where the IOC was 4 years ago and how they've evolved since then - Paris probably would have won. Not because dorm rooms were/are a bad idea and suddenly we'll all become aware, but because the IOC was still in a mode of wanting more out of an Olympic host. It's not that the IOC was unware of what LA had to offer, but that they're finally pivoting towards the kinds of solutions that LA offers (i.e. more of a reliance on existing infrastructure) and they also have the benefit of doing that without having to pick them over another city. In short - and this has been stated so many times before - those of us advocating for Paris over LA didn't do so because we thought the IOC was more likely to choose Paris over LA. And not because we believed Paris had a better plan or would offer a better Olympics.
  17. At least they avoid another dropout, so they save themselves the optics of having to deal with that again, especially this late in the game where it would have left them with only 1 city remaining.
  18. A lot. Which is why several posters have called you out for - as Jesse very accurately put it - a staggering amount of bullshit. Yes, the Soviet bloc boycotted 1984. What does that have to do with anything? The fact that you're trying to throw shade on LA by comparing them to Atlanta is just a petty insult and makes it hard to take anything you're saying seriously. It's basically the kind of generic "here's how much you suck" narrative that posters here like to throw out there to be mean. Do you honestly believe that the world's press is going to come to LA in 2028 and think it's like Atlanta, let alone because of the venue plan? I find it hard to believe you actually believe that. It's hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole. Here's the irony in your whole narrative. You refer to LA as using "cheap facilities" and now you're saying they have to make due with what the private sector provides. Well.. the private sector has provided LA the new stadium at Hollywood Park, Banc of California Stadium, Staples Center, Galen Center, Microsoft Theater, the sports park in Carson, plus massive renovations to the Coliseum, the Forum, and Pauley Pavilion. Yea, what a hardship for LA that they have to "make due" with all those excellent facilities. So what if they're not supported by the government. Who gives 2 shits if they're not "national" buildings as if that is a knock against Los Angeles or the United States in general. And I say that as an arrogant New Yorker who thinks LA is by far the ideal city in the United States for the Olympics, not here. And it's precisely because of the private sector investing in sports infrastructure that has made it that way. Not to mention 2 massive universities who spent about as much money on dorm rooms as another city might have to spend on an Olympic village, yet you're trying to spin that into a negative. Does any of this make Paris' venues better than LA's by comparison? Absolutely not. Does it make LA cheap? Hell no. Yes, Paris can offer up some iconic venues and vistas that LA doesn't measure up against (although by your own admission, LA does have a few of their own that Paris isn't on their level). But your narrative that the world is going to return to Los Angeles and that everyone is going to dislike the venues because they are "cheap" is completely full of horse manure. And some of the statements you tried to back it up with, particularly the ones where you claim LA has lost because they don't offer more extravagant bids, make you seem not only clueless, but extremely ignorant.
  19. He's not panicking. He's trolling. Poorly, at that. And yes, thank you for providing some perspective as someone who doesn't think the Olympic world revolves around Los Angeles and that everything is about them.
  20. There have been way too many instances in this whole saga we thought things were a done deal. Let's wait til we get to June before we consider the race over. A lot of people would have figured Stockholm would be dead in the water already. Thus far, they aren't. It would take far less than a miracle for them to wind up with the Olympics
  21. No.. not a thing we could see. There is no scenario that winds up with Jakarta hosting the 2028 Olympics. How would that thought even cross your mind? That's really stupid. I get that this is an internet forum where hot takes are encouraged, but maybe let's not be so damn reactionary to tweet as if it's "OMG, a political candidate has an agenda.. let's all run for the hills and entertain ideas of cancelling the Olympics!" This community looks foolish when we think like that. More than that.. the word referendum is nothing more than a bogeyman. Can't just throw that word out there and have it mean anything without some sort of basis behind it. It's overly simplistic to say "but Denver did it." Yea they did, but a specific question was put to vote. It was a fairly trivial amount of funding that did the Denver Olympics in, but the question the citizens of Colorado were voting on wasn't "should Denver tell the IOC to go screw themselves." And that was in the 1970s. Imagine how that would play out now. If there is any notion of a referendum on the Olympics for Paris, it needs to be well thought out and with specific purpose. Take a lesson from Brexit. Officials in the UK put it to their citizens a question that never should have been asked and now the resulting fallout is a complete and utter shitshow because it wasn't thought out. Paris was awarded the Olympics 2 years ago. What is the basis that all of a sudden that's no longer acceptable? Where were the naysayers for the past 2 years? Every Olympics has opposition. Every. Last. One. Paris is not unique in that regard. The only difference is that some people think they can throw around the R word and scare citizens into following their whims. Not a smart move. Let's not come up with stupid ideas to address 1 innocuous political candidate's tweet just so we have something to talk about here. Be smarter than that.
  22. Did the USOC move away from Salt Lake after 1998? No, they did not. Little history lesson for you.. Anchorage was the USOC's nominee for 1992 and 1994. The thinking was that it was equidistant from both Asia and Europe, so it would provide a good training location. Eventually, the USOC soured on that idea and decided to go with Salt Lake City and they were basically promised the USOC would stick with them until they won. History may not repeat itself in that regard, but do you honestly think that Salt Lake would come that close to winning and the USOC would go in another direction? Highly unlikely. New York decided not to bid again after 2012. That was their choice. Same thing with Chicago for 2016. There's no shot that Salt Lake is going to try once and then decide not to bid again. And I sincerely doubt the USOC is even going to think about trying another city if Salt Lake looks that solid. It is a very safe bet that the next Winter Olympics in the United States (and probably in North America) will be in Salt Lake City. Maybe it's 2030. Maybe it's 2034. And maybe it's even 2026. But there's little chance of any other city getting it.
  23. Barcelona 2026? How in thefuck could the stars possibly align where it would even occur to you to believe that's a possibility? Hosting an Olympics costs billions of dollars. Takes a little more than favorable political winds and some mystical astrology to make it happen. JAS Jr. can't snap his fingers and make it happen. I would like to think on a forum that discusses and analyzes Olympic bidding, we would be smarter than to offer a knee-jerk reaction that someone the son of the former IOC president could pull an Olympics out of his ass. It will be worth noting if this gains traction for 2030. I'm betting it won't.
  • Create New...