Jump to content

Athensfan

Members
  • Posts

    8054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Everything posted by Athensfan

  1. Did you see any of the torch relay? I did. I don't even know who sponsored it. Show some proof of LA's out of control commercialism please. A picture of sponsor logos plastered all over the torch, torch bearers uniforms, accompanying vehicles, etc. You can't make this claim unless you can show evidence of rampant commercialism in action. Considering the Games had just about zero commercial influence prior to 84, it's hardly surprising that some would balk at the change. But the reality is that LA looked and felt far less commercial than present day editions of the Games despite being entirely privately funded.
  2. I thought Chicago's presentation sucked, but I didn't think it was arrogant at all. Just amateurish and boring. "We need your Games." That wasn't arrogant in the least. Obama wasn't arrogant either.
  3. Beijing will win. I just can't see the IOC risking Almaty. Both are duds. I don't care. Rob must be bummed as this ensures that these boards are not going to have any real fodder for discussion and are quite likely to totally degenerate into nothing but pointless, petty quarrels. I can't see anyone taking great interest in the hallowed Bid Index either.
  4. It's not unfortunate at all if you're aware of the history of his entries, several of which it turned out were not really his.
  5. Even if some are embarrassed by the statement, there's no way to close Pandora's box now. It's out there. For the time being they'll ride it out and try (unsuccessfully) to save face. Like I said, what they DO matters a lot more than what they SAY.
  6. Perhaps, but that doesn't change the morality of the situation. Unless the IOC breaches the terms of the contract in a major way, Norway has no viable excuse to withdraw. I would think a lot less of them if they did.
  7. To me, the key issue is that the Games cannot lose money for the host and the people must be left with some functional post-Games legacy. I don't think LA2024 can be guaranteed to produce the same surplus that LA84 did, but I do think it's possible to achieve the goals I outlined above. However, it is incumbent on the OC to ensure that all expenditures are kept in check and targeted primarily at major legacy projects rather than Olympic-only budget items. Until they get a crack at it we're all guessing.
  8. I see where you're coming from, but ethically I have a problem with that. If you say you're going to do something, you ought to keep your word. Period.
  9. I can't tell what Bach and company really believe. Yes, they're making stupid public statements, but I think that's because on some level they realize the seriousness of the problem. They may not have owned up to it yet, but I think they must be aware that they need to change. It's hard to know for sure. Agenda 2020 has become very important. If there are no meaningful reforms then we'll know that the IOC is hopeless and I think the Games would certainly be in crisis. However, if there are substantive changes that lighten burdens on bidders and reduce the scale and cost of the Games, that will be encouraging. Actions speak louder than words. We've got a lot of disappointing words right now, but perhaps the actions will be more positive.
  10. Good for Norway. Despite the IOC's flustered fuming, the politicians honored the will of the people. That was the only moral and responsible decision they could make. The IOC had only themselves to blame. I'm sorry Norway found itself in the position of delivering the @slap in the face," but they've done it well and it was high time.
  11. The US should say no to those demands, but saying no to the Games is another question. Let's see if the IOC cleans up their act. If they're willing to let the US put on the Games the way the US wants to, it might work. If they're going to be entitled sticks in the mud, then I agree the US shouldn't bid.
  12. Except LA84 was totally privately funded and those Games were quite free of commercialism. If you put the right checks and balances in place, I don't see this as a problem. As I've mentioned in the past, my father coordinated his company's sponsorship of the Games. There were very strict guidelines regarding commercialism and branding. It worked well and everybody was happy. Atlanta threw those restraints out the window and it was a disaster. It's is entirely possible to have privately funded Games without allowing the sponsors' brands to take over.
  13. Tokyo was definitely the best available choice for 2020. The problem is that the IOC should have already started restructuring the process and soliciting different types of bids that were more fiscally responsible and legacy-minded. Unfortunately they didn't do that. Now it feels like there's an impossible mountain to climb. They should have started reforming the process much earlier. As for LA, the city would do a great job and just saying it would be "f*cked up" is no argument. The thing that worries me is that the US may not go far enough in re-envisioning the Games and may still give the IOC too much of the prodigality and spectacle that they crave. This is NOT the time to kowtow to the IOC.
  14. Tokyo 2020 will be grand and impressive, I have no doubt. It's friendlier government, but I wouldn't expect a frugal, workable reboot of the Games. Look at the stadium alone. Frankly, of the 2020 bidders, Tokyo was always likely to stage the flashiest Games. Plus there's the fact that few people will be able to afford to go to these Games because costs in Tokyo are astronomical and the exchange rates are quite unfavorable.
  15. How Olympic of you. "You trained your whole life for this moment, but you're going to have to sit in gridlock and watch the moment pass you by because the Atlanta organizers couldn't be bothered to develop reliable means of getting you to your competition on time." There is NO excuse for that. I don't care if it's only one athlete. Rather than telling those victims of Atlanta's lackluster disorganization to "f*ck themselves," I think that perhaps you ought to contemplate following your own advice. But then something tells me that you're the sort of man who ..,,, ah well, never mind.
  16. Bernham: You weren't alive for 1984. You have NO grounds for saying they "involved a bit of ego." You're just assuming that because it was during the Cold War. LA just really wanted to host. They had bid multiple times previously and lost. When they finally got the Games, no one else wanted them. They were not seen as any kind of a windfall or point of pride, but rather an albatross that the rest of the world wanted to avoid. So no, LA84 was not about ego, it was about hosting a great sport festival. If LA cared about ego and international respect, they wouldn't have bid. And NO, the present looks NOTHING like the 80s. Just because the IOC has alienated all but two bidders and is doing a bang up job of shooting themselves in the foot with their present PR campaign, that doesn't mean the world remains unchanged. The US is not going to waltz away with four Olympics in a 22-year period. That's just ridiculous. Only a child with no grasp of history would argue that 2014 looks like the 80s.
  17. Someone needs to be accountable, yes. But not the federal government. Not in the US. The world is FAR too preoccupied with insurance policies.
  18. Yes. That was a typo. Sorry. Lake Placid, LA, Atlanta, Salt Lake. Except that the ONLY reason Almaty is bidding is because they want to show off their schlong. I actually think American Games have really been about our love for sport. I don't think the US has ever used the Games to puff itself up the way that China and Russia have.
  19. I think the "balance" between public and private funding is totally irrelevant. The degree to which the Games are or are not not publicly funded should correspond to the will of the people. As long as the bills are paid, I have no problem with 100% private funding and the IOC shouldn't either. There is absolutely no reason why governments should be required to invest financially in Olympic Games unless that is the only way the bidder in question is able to fund the project.
  20. I agree. I think this letter is a bit of a slap in the face to Almaty and Beijing. It sounds like the IOC CLEARLY wanted Oslo and Oslo gave up a sure thing. The IOC wouldn't be so upset if they liked either of the other choices.
  21. The IOC encouraged the spiral. They only reason they are questioning the prodigality of the Games now is that everyone is abandoning ship. Make no mistake though, they love the lavish spectacle. If that were not true, they would've voted for different hosts and fostered a different type of delivery of Olympic projects.
  22. "New age" Olympics? Does that involve crystal worship? Seriously, this is the whole problem. The bloated glamour Games approach is exactly what got the IOC into this mess. The pattern needs to change. Neither LA nor any other city who might host 2024 should attempt to produce extravagant Olympic parks, etc. Far from being "forced" (your word) to follow the pattern of Beijing, the next host MUST find another less expensive way. It's their JOB to do it differently because that's what the Olympic movement needs. Keep in mind that LA84 followed Montreal and Moscow -- both of which were very expensive and grandiose. LA did not follow suit. They did something different that proved far more profitable and successful. It is a gross misrepresentation to say that because of Athens, Beijing and London, LA would be "forced" to spend vast sums. Not true.
  23. That's not quite true. Yes, the IOC's requirements for government guarantees pose challenges in the US, but Chicago 2016 did (eventually) meet those demands. The USOC has never cited government guarantees as an insurmountable stumbling block or as a primary reason for the defeats of the last two bids. If they felt it was a major worry, I seriously doubt they would be working so hard on preparing a 2024 bid. Anyone with a modicum of common sense is going to know that of course the US is going to be able to successfully finance the games without guarantees that the federal government will cover any shortfall. I hope the IOC does revise their policy. For some bidders, government guarantees are essential. For others, they are not.
  24. I seriously doubt it. Their odds for 2024 are very favorable and they made it clear they strongly preferred Summer Games. They're positioned well to have a good shot at their dream scenario. They were clear that the objective was not "any Games we can get ASAP." That's Baron's view, not the USOC's. Plus, the USOC wanted to put a lot of time into evaluation -- something that was much more possible for 2024 than it was for 2022 at the time that decision was made.
×
×
  • Create New...