Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Content Count

    6814
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    140

Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. Quaker2001

    Tokyo 2020 Media Updates

    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.
  2. Quaker2001

    Stockholm/Åre 2026

    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.
  3. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    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.
  4. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    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.
  5. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    Los Angeles Plans To Hold 2028 Olympics In Toronto For The Tax Incentives
  6. Quaker2001

    Tokyo 2020 Media Updates

    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.
  7. Thank you for clearing that up. Makes sense now. Sort of
  8. 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).
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    Oh, and a quick Google search of the phrase "Los Anjealous" leads to this as the first hit https://doseofcolors.com/products/los-anjealous
  13. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    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
  14. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    NBC and Team USA Combine Olympics Ad Drives in Pursuit of Billions NBC, LA 2028 to combine to sell sponsorships, ad time
  15. Quaker2001

    Tokyo 2020 News - General

    TOKYO 2020 OLYMPIC GAMES DETAILED EVENTS SCHEDULE ANNOUNCED
  16. Quaker2001

    Paris 2024

    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.
  17. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    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.
  18. 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.
  19. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    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.
  20. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    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.
  21. Quaker2001

    Los Angeles 2028

    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.
  22. 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."
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
×