josejose50

Past our discussions yesterday when the story broke, my original question is still out there "What incentives can the IOC offer LA to accept 2028?" I guess I'm not understanding all the requirements from the IOC to LAOCOG and vice versa. Is there somewhere that lists them? I remember from 2012 that there was a big deal about the requirements from the IOC to LOCOG for setting up accommodations and parties/hospitality suites, but I can't find those references now.

Sorry meant that as their bids were ongoing in the early 2000's to show they bid for 2012 and 2016. Don't misconstrue my use of "weaker" as saying its a bad bid, theres a reason the word is in quotation marks. My comment saying inherently "weaker" is based on the idea that when the IOC asked "can you do 2028?" Paris is saying "No, the land for the village is only available for 2024", while LA is saying (at least from what I can find on the web) that they are able to handle going to 2028. Both bids are a "10", but one bid says they can be flexible, while one is saying they are not setup to do so. To me, I read that as one bid is not as robust as the other, even if its not on a critical point, hence one is "weaker".

With regards to extending the time frame by 16 years, I was thinking of that but thought that would enter into a lot of the East/West politics that could muddle the logic, but your point is fair. I don't think the Europe issue is that the IOC is afraid they are telling the cities they are not capable of hosting, but that most of the candidate cities are saying they don't want to to host it (losing referendums, etc.). Madrid and Paris had good bids early in the 2000's and they were not picked by the IOC (in one case for another European city), so they have themselves to blame as much for this issue. Let's say the IOC's deal works out and Paris hosts 2024, what happens if there are cost overruns or organizational issues leading up to the games? Will the IOC be willing to accept egg on their face if their "Agenda 2020" model changes nothing? I'm not wishing ill on the Paris bid, and I would be there for the games in 2024 in a heartbeat, but as an American I'm a little frustrated that their bid may win because it's inherently "weaker" than what LA put together.

I guess I'm missing this, but what incentives the IOC can provide the LA2024 committee? Reduce the demands on the LAOC for hotels and similar? They were ready to accept and run the games based on the current requirements, so I'm not understanding what benefit they can get from saying "we'll sit out for an extra 4 years". I'm sure the Trump election and his policies are driving some of this discussion but I think it's just Paris using the olympic housing availability as their "bluff" (not in that it's not really an availability issue but more that there is no other option available for 2028 if they lose) and the IOC has decided to not call them on it and also try to prevent having a 2028 race with no real bids. Lastly, I'm not buying the whole "it would help the movement to have the games back in Europe again". Look at the recent fames and continent impacted in the 40 years before 2024, and also how many Winter games hosted since they would also help keep "the movement" fresh in the public's mind: Europe - Barcelona ('92), Athens ('04), London ('12) - (5 Winter games in this time, I gave them Sochi which could also be argued as Asia) NA - LA ('84), Atlanta ('96) - (3 Winter games) SA - Rio ('16) - (Nope) Asia/Oceania - Seoul ('88), Australia ('00), Beijing ('08), Tokyo ('20) - (3 Winter games) If the IOC considers a 12+ year gap as an issue for Europe, then a 28 year gap in North America is ridiculous. I know that there are reasons for why the US hasn't had a winning bid since Atlanta (the revenue sharing problems, international backlash to the Iraq war, general sense that the US has had enough olympics, etc.), but if the entire Olympic Agenda 2020 movement is about holding realistic games that will not bankrupt cities or leave them with venues that are left to rot afterwards, then LA should be seen as a stronger candidate.

Being in the London for the OC, the Mr. Bean and James Bond were definitely well received in our section. Both had a decent sense of comedy mixed in (which was a nice break from the big artistry in the first part), and flowed with the ceremony ( I personally don't like Mr. Bean but it worked if only for the Chariots of Fire section). The only part I think we were confused on was the four choruses singing the songs of Scotland, Wales, etc. at the beginning just because it wasn't really explained at first and the sound didn't come through well in our area.