Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

If there are already teams playing "home" games in London during the regular season, I'm sure there will be no problem with those two teams playing home games elsewhere.

Secondly, the Jets and Giants aren't even in fucking New York! They are in New Jersey! How about that?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Atlanta biggest flaw was the IOC had to sweat then GREAT! They may have been the "best games ever" after all.

The event itself was a huge success with NO white elephants, green before "green" was overhyped BS and Atlanta is a Magnificent city that has become even more so since the Olympics. That's legacy worth discussing vs some street peddlers and lost bus drivers. I try to understand why people here complain about Atlanta's successful games when we see pictures of deserted and crumbling venues from past hosts like Bejing, Athans. Even Sydney's park sound underused and often deserted and we all know they are never criticized.

It's probably more about the US hosting so often that makes it a target, and certainly Atlanta is the easiest target, probably because people know the least about it.

I've been lurking for sometime, but haven't commented and feel the need to agree with this.

I live about a two hour drive from Atlanta, and am in Atlanta a half dozen times a year. I can tell you that from the perspective of Atlanta and the region around it, the 96 Games are seen in a much different light than is usually seen from the International Press, or even the IOC. The impression of local history, from the Atlanta region, is that 96 Games were an immeasurably good thing for the city and region and that they were in large part a success.

I take it this is the minority on this board, but the fact that the Atlanta Games were privately funded and organized is considered a positive thing. You simply are not going to get an Olympic Games in the US that is centrally run and coordinated by a government (whether state or Federal) like even just happened in London.

The US Olympic team isn't tax payer funded, we have no silly, make work government job like "Minister of Sport", and we privately organize and fund major events like the Olympics.

Atlanta prides itself on that its venues were not white elephants. I've been to baseball games numerous times at Turner Field (the repurposed Olympic Stadium). The Braves average over 30,000 fans a game, and there are close to 100 events a year. Can any other recent Olympic stadium say that? And it was built with private funds, not public. Simply a great use for the facility.

The Atlanta Olympic ring - a new concept taken up by just about every city since then, worked very well. In the center is Centennial Olympic Park, a great facility that greatly revitalized that part of the city to becoming a great cultural center.

Georgia Tech turned the athletes village into needed university housing - no derelict, massive apartment complex.

The Olympic swimming venue, now Georgia Tech's Aquatic Center, is in almost daily use, and serves still as a local, collegiate, national, and international competition venue.

Last year, I rafted on the Olympic white water course in Tennessee, a center for adventure tourism to this day.

Amateur sports, through the creation of the Georgia Games, an yearly Olympic like festival, is a big deal.

Atlanta has capitalized on the incredible spirit of volunteerism through a great local sports and event volunteer network, run through the Atlanta Sports Council.

I hear the complaints about over commercialism. Could someone explain what that means? Is a complaint ACOG and the city did not coordinate as much as they should (largely the city's fault, not ACOG)? Or is it a complaint that Atlanta chose to privately fund the games rather than place a burden on the taxpayers for a generation for a 17 day event? What is the problem?

If the Olympic Family won't come to your town because you won't centralize it, and prop it up through tax funding, so be it. Let them go bankrupt some other community.

Atlanta did the 96 Games well.

Here is a good article from the Atlanta newspaper, and Atlanta's Olympic Legacy: http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2012/08/10/atlantas-olympic-legacy-its-there-even-if-not-always-obvious/?cxntfid=blogs_mark_bradley_blog

And its American Football, so its not like its real sport :P

Preseason football is only four games - two of them at home, so it's not a problem to rearrange the schedule to play the two home games at the end, to make room for an Olympics.

In 1984, the LA Dodgers hit the road for two weeks, and in '96, the Atlanta Braves hit the road for two weeks. It was an inconvenience for both teams, but not a real problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem...what will become of the three American football teams from NYC and Philadelphia that play preseason games in August?

To misquote a famous Phillidenphian...

I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about pre-season, not a real game, not a ... I know it's important, I honestly do but we're talking about pre-season

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it this is the minority on this board, but the fact that the Atlanta Games were privately funded and organized is considered a positive thing. You simply are not going to get an Olympic Games in the US that is centrally run and coordinated by a government (whether state or Federal) like even just happened in London.

The US Olympic team isn't tax payer funded, we have no silly, make work government job like "Minister of Sport", and we privately organize and fund major events like the Olympics.

I hear the complaints about over commercialism. Could someone explain what that means? Is a complaint ACOG and the city did not coordinate as much as they should (largely the city's fault, not ACOG)? Or is it a complaint that Atlanta chose to privately fund the games rather than place a burden on the taxpayers for a generation for a 17 day event? What is the problem?

Carolina

The problem is not so much whether spectators found it great or whether there was a good legacy.

It was that the IOC felt that throughout the 17days they were lurching from potential disaster to potential disaster - from the transportation system meaning athletes barely arrived on time for their events, to the IT system which apparently crashed every day to bus drivers still getting lost well into the second week

The issue was not so much that it was privately funded, but that the ACOG underestimated how much money they would raise and at the 11th hour had the begging bowl out trying to scrimp together as much as they could. That is why the IOC insist that there is a government pledge to make up any budget shortfall

As for over-commercialisation, it was because allegedly there was a free for all selling items associated with the Olympics by organisations who had nothing to do with the Olympics. The IOC protect its brand jealously, and for an example in London they cracked down hard on any non-sanctioned merchandise.

I think that the IOC are happy for a games to be privately funded, but want a guarantee that if the budget massively increases that either state or federal government will step in to cover a shortfall, rather than risk selling the Olympic brand to the highest bidder just to make ends meet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the IOC felt that throughout the 17days they were lurching from potential disaster to potential disaster

Sheep, I do think Atlanta made mistakes, but the above is a GROSS overstatement. It's so extreme that it makes it difficult to absorb some of your more valid points.

I think that the IOC are happy for a games to be privately funded, but want a guarantee that if the budget massively increases that either state or federal government will step in to cover a shortfall, rather than risk selling the Olympic brand to the highest bidder just to make ends meet.

The truth is that the IOC sells their own brand to the highest bidder. That's what they do with TOP sponsors (McDonalds, Coke -- these are promoting sport and healthy lifestyle?), with broadcasters (NBC -- quality of the coverage be damned -- it's all about the price tag), and the host cities themselves (Beijing, London, Rio, Sochi and Pyeongchang each proposed the most expensive Games in each of their respective contests). Atlanta may have seemed overly commercialized in 1996, but the IOC picked up that ball and ran with it. The Games as a whole are much more commercial than they used to be.

As for insisting on government guarantees, for most of the world this makes sense. Government subsidy in virtually every other country would be essential for the successful delivery of the Games. The United States is genuinely a special case. No US city will bid unless it is confident of hosting 100% privately funded Games. The USOC will not bid for Games if they believe they will require any governmental subsidy. Everyone will jump through hoops to get the IOC their required assurances, but these assurances are a mere formality. The financing of the Olympics will be different in the United States. That's just the way it is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheep, I do think Atlanta made mistakes, but the above is a GROSS overstatement. It's so extreme that it makes it difficult to absorb some of your more valid points.

With all due respect Athens, when events are at risk of being delayed or cancelled from their start time because the athletes have only just shown up, what term would you describe it as?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect Athens, when events are at risk of being delayed or cancelled from their start time because the athletes have only just shown up, what term would you describe it as?

How many events were delayed or cancelled? How many athletes showed up late? You make it sound as if nobody made it anywhere on time and the whole Olympic schedule was hanging by a thread. That is simply not true.

Disaster is an earthquake and tsunami in Japan, 9/11 in the US, Rwandan genocide.

A rescheduled Olympic event (which to my knowledge did not even take place in Atlanta) is not a disaster. It is a disappointing (and admittedly avoidable) logistical inconvenience.

And as I've said several times already, Atlanta is irrelevant to Games staged in a completely different city by a completely different group of people 28 years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop?

i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take.

i don't think the people who got lost in atlanta suffered as much as we have listening to you talk about it for a week straight. at least that ride came to an end.

It's useless. This blacksheep character thrives on misinformed, sweeping generalisations to make lopsided point after lopsided point. I've switched off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is the best place to link to it, but Atlanta also has a really good Olympic museum, celebrating the entire history of the modern games, though of course the main focus is on the '96 Games.

You should really check it out if you are ever in the area.

http://www.atlantahi...Museum/103.html

I checked out the Olympic Museum in Atlanta when I was there on a business trip recently. Very nice. I think Atlanta gets somewhat of a bad rap as well. Yes, Atlanta had its problems, but the Games weren't a complete disaster. The over commercialization argument is overhyped. The Olympics are just as commercial now as they were in 1996.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked out the Olympic Museum in Atlanta when I was there on a business trip recently. Very nice. I think Atlanta gets somewhat of a bad rap as well. Yes, Atlanta had its problems, but the Games weren't a complete disaster. The over commercialization argument is overhyped. The Olympics are just as commercial now as they were in 1996.

It wasn't so much the corporate comercialisation so much - as you say, the Games are probably even more formally commercialised now. More the fact that Atlanta City Hall in its wisdom licensed all those hordes of small vendors to set up stalls during the games which ended up making the place look like a big flea market and which made most of the streets around the main venues even more congested.

I'll admit, though, when I first saw all of them it wasn't a huge shock - these were my first Olympics in person and I figured all these small stalls was how it always was. But now I've seen how Sydney and London handled all the merchandising shops and limited it to their official stores, I can see how big a difference it was and how many people thought it made the street vibe tacky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't so much the corporate comercialisation so much - as you say, the Games are probably even more formally commercialised now. More the fact that Atlanta City Hall in its wisdom licensed all those hordes of small vendors to set up stalls during the games which ended up making the place look like a big flea market and which made most of the streets around the main venues even more congested.

I'll admit, though, when I first saw all of them it wasn't a huge shock - these were my first Olympics in person and I figured all these small stalls was how it always was. But now I've seen how Sydney and London handled all the merchandising shops and limited it to their official stores, I can see how big a difference it was and how many people thought it made the street vibe tacky.

And it was tacky. I can't see it ever happening again though. That was just a weird and disappointing Atlanta decision.

The thing that's odd to me is that street vendors are pretty universal and not especially American. Yet we hear so much about "American commercialization." It's corporate sponsorship that was an American concept. That's what has transformed the Games (starting in LA) and made them so strong.

To be fair though, many have complained that the corporate sponsors were too prominent in Atlanta as well. I've heard this concern more often than I've heard about the street vendors actually. The fact is that in this area Atlanta lines up well with current hosts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop?

i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take.

i don't think the people who got lost in atlanta suffered as much as we have listening to you talk about it for a week straight. at least that ride came to an end.

Will you stop sticking your head in the sand, and accept that many independent assessors as well as the IOC have said the same thing time and time again?

You make a statement based on comment .... you then get told that person is not good enough ... then get told to find another comment

Here you go just for your deluded little world

"ATLANTA 1996 was the GREATEST BESTEST EVER GAMES OF ALL TIME - NOTHING AT ALL WENT WRONG, IT WAS IN FACT BETTER THAN PERFECT"

It is in fact a massive set up by the jealous and anti-American IOC, encouraged by the marxist and muslim President Obama, who wasn't even born in the USA, so should be president?

Does this set better in your world Krow?

p.s # Shouldn't be President

It's useless. This blacksheep character thrives on misinformed, sweeping generalisations to make lopsided point after lopsided point. I've switched off.

Pot calling the kettle black

Misinformed comments - that would be direct quotes from IOC Members including VP Richard Pound

Sweeping Generalisations - with specific quotes and links to those individuals making those comments.

Find me quotes apart from ACOG members who are well informed that have said the opposite?

The GreenandBlue character seems to prefer living in a world where they can remain ignorant and uninformed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you stop sticking your head in the sand, and accept that many independent assessors as well as the IOC have said the same thing time and time again?

You make a statement based on comment .... you then get told that person is not good enough ... then get told to find another comment

Here you go just for your deluded little world

"ATLANTA 1996 was the GREATEST BESTEST EVER GAMES OF ALL TIME - NOTHING AT ALL WENT WRONG, IT WAS IN FACT BETTER THAN PERFECT"

It is in fact a massive set up by the jealous and anti-American IOC, encouraged by the marxist and muslim President Obama, who wasn't even born in the USA, so should be president?

Does this set better in your world Krow?

p.s # Shouldn't be President

i know you couldn't possibly read the posts you reply to, because i've never chimed in one way or the other regarding my feelings on atlanta, because, at the time, i was eleven years old and spent the summer in a remote camp in the middle of pennsylvania where i went water skiing every day like the go gos in that one video, and even learned how to canter on a horse, although the summer came to end before i could learn jumping.

i'm replying not just to let gamesbids.com know that i, krow, was both an accomplished waterskiier and equestrian in my halcyon youth, although that is certainly an important point for everyone to take notice of (i also participated in intramural archery and occasionally partook in flatwater rowing trips where we'd camp out by the river and we had to walk really far away to throw out our trash because of bears), but also to let you know in as plain a english as i possibly can that:

NO ONE IN THIS THREAD WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE 1996 ATLANTA OLYMPICS ANY LONGER EXCEPT YOU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO ONE IN THIS THREAD WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE 1996 ATLANTA OLYMPICS ANY LONGER EXCEPT YOU.

FALSE

Someone makes a comment, I respond back

If someone makes a further comment, I respond further

If someone responds to that response, I respond again

Do you see the pattern here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles would be great if they can

1) Redevelop the coliseum

3309_630x440.jpg

This image shows no running track but if they implemented a bottom tier where the stands could cover the track during USC games, then that would be ideal

2) Develop the area in the immediate vicinity of the games, to improve it as I understand its pretty run down, including maybe an Olympic Village which could subsequently be used for affordable housing, also creating the LA version of London's Olympic Park but with the main stadium already in place.

Whether California could afford to do this is another question.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Develop the area in the immediate vicinity of the games, to improve it as I understand its pretty run down, including maybe an Olympic Village which could subsequently be used for affordable housing, also creating the LA version of London's Olympic Park but with the main stadium already in place.

Whether California could afford to do this is another question.

Here's an overhead shot of that area.

2590418347_5dc03a9b00.jpg

So we're just going to knock down a perfectly viable 16,000 seat arena that just underwent a fairly extensive renovation? Aside from they money issue, "ideal" may not be what happens here even if (and that's still an 'if') a renovated Coliseum were to land an NFL team.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Coliseum already has a valid tennant in the USC Trojans

When I said 16,000 seat arena, figured it was implied I meant the Sports Arena.

As for the arena in the foreground, that would be the LA Memorial Sports Arena opened in 1959, which had to be updated recently only to make sure it met 21st century seismic standards. Realistically in 12 years they might look to replace it completely

Or.. they might not. Why upgrade an arena to bring it up to 21st Century standards if you plan on razing it a decade later? It's not like there's a lack of events being held there, even with the Galen Center nearby and Staples not too far away. You always like talking about "ideal".. there's a reason you don't see a running track in that rendering. I know the Coliseum Commission has addressed it, but a track is only ideal IF Los Angeles lands an Olympics. Otherwise, its unnecessary, especially if the idea is to lure an NFL team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...