PotatoChips 11 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Los Angeles would be great if they can 1) Redevelop the coliseum 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. Los Angeles has hosted the games twice. Personally I don't think they should host them a third time when better known international cities have never hosted them. Also, I don't see LA being on the same level of prestige as London or Paris in hosting the games a third time. Link to post Share on other sites
Quaker2001 1248 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 There is also a 16,000 seat indoor arena which we have discussed. As the Arena does not have a tenant anymore, the Trojans planying in the Galen Center, the UCLA Bruins back in Pauley Pavilion, it is just an empty unused building A 16,000 seat indoor arena which just underwent renovations. Why would they have renovated it if there was no reason to? And if they didn't do it now, why do you assume they'll do it later? I don't see why the Coliseum needs to have a NFL tenant - there are proposals like Farmers Field for the NFL It doesn't need an NFL tenant, but I doubt they're going to do a full scale makeover without one because USC certainly isn't going anywhere, even if Farmers Field gets built. If the Coliseum gets renovated, I'm betting capacity gets reduced somewhat since the current design is not all that friendly for football Link to post Share on other sites
PotatoChips 11 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 LA has hosted the games before. They should give other American cities that deserve them a chance to host. Link to post Share on other sites
Athensfan 1081 Posted August 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 LA has hosted the games before. They should give other American cities that deserve them a chance to host. The USOC's applicant city should be the city with the most compelling bid. It is entirely possible that city could be Los Angeles. If Chicago doesn't want to bid, NYC can't find a decent stadium location and San Francisco lacks political will (all of which is entirely possible), then there's really no conversation. If one of those three cities hatches a brilliant plan spearheaded by top-flight leadership, then I would tend to agree that the USOC should not offer LA. Right now it's very unclear who is ready and willing to step up to the plate. This decision must be based exclusively on merit. I can envision several scenarios where LA wins that contest. I can also envision scenarios where another city comes out on top. We have to wait and see. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Rols 1900 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Give me street vendors over mega-crowded Megastores with 45 minutes queues to get inside. Except you couldn't get the "Official" merchandise from the stalls - the ones in Atlanta were where you'd get all the knock off t-shirts of the "My Mom went to the Olympics and only got me this lousy t-short" ilk. Link to post Share on other sites
zekekelso 794 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 If Chicago doesn't want to bid, NYC can't find a decent stadium location and San Francisco lacks political will (all of which is entirely possible), then there's really no conversation. We go with Tulsa, right? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
baron-pierreIV 1693 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) BS, all your arguments about Atlanta are total HOOEY because the IOC came back to the US in 2002 at Salt Lake; and came away with a STUNNING Games and another profit-making Games, a $56 million profit...to be precise. If they were so burned by Atlanta, then why did they come back just SIX short years after, huh? Edited August 23, 2012 by baron-pierreIV Link to post Share on other sites
Mainad 203 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 BS, all your arguments about Atlanta are total HOOEY because the IOC came back to the US in 2002 at Salt Lake; and came away with a STUNNING Games and another profit-making Games, a $56 million profit...to be precise. If they were so burned by Atlanta, then why did they come back just SIX short years after, huh? Good point. Just out of interest, did old JAS give his 'Best Ever' accolade to Salt Lake? Link to post Share on other sites
Daze 64 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 Because the games of 2002 were awarded in 1995?! One year before Atlanta. And no, good old JAS didn´t give his "Best Ever" to SLC, cause Mr.Rogge was already IOC president. Btw, I can imagine Olympics either in L.A., Chicago or NYC. I´m sure all would deliver wonderful games. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Quaker2001 1248 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 Good point. Just out of interest, did old JAS give his 'Best Ever' accolade to Salt Lake? I think JAS was out of the picture by then. Sydney was his final Olympics and Salt Lake was the first under Rogge, who of course has never made a "best games ever" proclamation. Link to post Share on other sites
Mainad 203 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 I think JAS was out of the picture by then. Sydney was his final Olympics and Salt Lake was the first under Rogge, who of course has never made a "best games ever" proclamation. Of course. He left office in 2001. Plus I recall there was a scandal over bribery allegations when Salt Lake was awarded the Games. Wasn't JAS summoned to testify about it before Congress? That probably wouldn't have improved his mood...lol! Link to post Share on other sites
PotatoChips 11 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 We go with Tulsa, right? No. Tulsa is not an international city, it's barely a national city.(no offense) Some cities may want the games but the IOC would never want them there. The olympic committees around the world need to think about that. Link to post Share on other sites
zekekelso 794 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 No. Tulsa is not an international city, it's barely a national city.(no offense) Some cities may want the games but the IOC would never want them there. The olympic committees around the world need to think about that. As a general rule, you should assume that any post about Tulsa from anyone on this board is at least slightly tounge-in-cheek. Link to post Share on other sites
FYI 1191 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 I don't think JAS made those declarations to the Winter Games, anyway. If I recall correctly. Link to post Share on other sites
nu4m 13 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 Because the games of 2002 were awarded in 1995?! One year before Atlanta. And no, good old JAS didn´t give his "Best Ever" to SLC, cause Mr.Rogge was already IOC president. I think the IOC would have opted to leave SLC - especially after the bribery scandal Link to post Share on other sites
FYI 1191 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 ^Why?! It took two parties for the "bribery" scandal to occur in the first place. The SLC bidding committee AND the IOC! N besides, it's not like other bidding cities at the time weren't doing it as well, like even Sydney. The only difference is that SLC got caught. Even Canadian IOC member, Dick Pound, came out afterwards that SLC didn't even have to go through such tactics, when they were the best bid outta the candidates anyway. N SLC delivered great Winter Olympic Games, which is something that should be looked at favorably, not negatively. Link to post Share on other sites
baron-pierreIV 1693 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Because the games of 2002 were awarded in 1995?! One year before Atlanta. And no, good old JAS didn´t give his "Best Ever" to SLC, cause Mr.Rogge was already IOC president. So? They still could've rescinded the award after August 1996. They still would've have had 6 years to give it to somebody else. They only had 4 when Denver bowed out; so Atlanta gave them an extra 2 years!! Thus, the 'exceptional' Atlanta experience wasn't all that traumatic for the IOC as some sour-grapes and half-wits here claim. Edited August 23, 2012 by baron-pierreIV Link to post Share on other sites
nu4m 13 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 'exceptional' being the 'exception' of being the 'BEST'. Juan said it all really. Link to post Share on other sites
baron-pierreIV 1693 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 /\/\ Boring. Link to post Share on other sites
nu4m 13 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 However a future Olympics in the USA will happen, it is just a question of when. So many other countries are eager to host the games, so why would they want to return the games to the USA so soon. it would show the IOC has a bias to the US - and in recent voting results for USA bids to host the games shows it obviously doesnt. considering the next SOG will be held in the America's, i imagine it might be in the 2030's or 2040's when we will see the games back in the USA. not sure if this has been posted before, but this is an interesting article about the above: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-12/return-of-olympics-to-u-s-hangs-on-a-risky-deal.html Link to post Share on other sites
Athensfan 1081 Posted August 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 As a general rule, you should assume that any post about Tulsa from anyone on this board is at least slightly tounge-in-cheek. Amen to that. It is way past time to move on from these Atlanta debates. They just are not relevant to an American bid for 2024. Link to post Share on other sites
Rob. 2038 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) I know certain poster(s) might have overstated their case, but do you really think Atlanta has no bearing whatsoever on a future US Games? Isn't that taking the opposite extreme? As time passes, the "Atlanta effect" (whatever that may be) will get less and less, but it was still an American Games, warts and all, and I'm sure it will probably still be on the minds of some voting members. I can't say to what extent, I'm not in-the-know, but isn't it just as naive to say Atlanta will have no bearing as it is over-the-top to say it'd really hamper the US' chances? Probably time to move on nonetheless! You're right that we've discussed it to death for now. Edited August 24, 2012 by RobH Link to post Share on other sites
Crusader 12 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Atlanta will probably be on the edge of the IOCs consciousness when considering a bid from the USA, as it likely was in 2012 with New York and in 2016 Chicago, because of the way in which the Americans fund their Olympic Games, privately and without public government support. Atlanta was the last exclusively privately funded games and therefore is the most relevant benchmark despite the successes and problems in subsequent games, Atlanta was a very good games but over time it is only human nature to recall key events and unfortunately the human condition is to often place greater and distorted emphasis on negative issues. A number of people asked to recall Vancouver 2010, will likely mention the death of the Georgian Luger, whilst Salt Lake City 2002 will be linked to the bribery scandal and the figure skating judging scandal, despite all of these being isolated incidents trumped by the outstanding sporting achievements witnessed. I think the question any American bid faces is whether to ignore Atlanta and hope the 100 IOC voting members display professionalism, integrity and conscientiousness in consider an American bid on its own merits or whether the applicant city should mention the legacy of Atlanta, both positive and negative and address directly any prejudice any IOC member might hold. Link to post Share on other sites
baron-pierreIV 1693 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) . Atlanta was the last exclusively privately funded games and therefore is the most relevant benchmark despite the successes and problems in subsequent games, 1. Welcome, Crusader. 2. If I may correct you...and I thought you read the other parts of this thread. No, the last privately-funded Games on US soil was Salt Lake 2002. ALL Olympic Games that have been and will be HELD on US soil have to be privately-funded. That is in the USOC Charter. That is something the IOC has to live with, and is one of the main sticking points of getting a big Summer Games again from them. Because it is cheaper to mount a Winter Games, I think that issue, which flummoxed the recent Chicago bid, will be easier to get around with in a Winter bid. But oddly enough, the last 3 Olympic Games held on US soil closed with NOT show a single red cent to show for. I know that's NOT important to the conscience-less IOC since all they care about is that their party comes off well. At least the USOC has the conscience NOT to lay its sports extravaganza on US taxpayers who have no interest in the Olympic Games, even if it doesn't win some recent bids. For that, I commend the USOC over the soulless IOC. 3. Samaranch's assessment of Atlanta's success was one coming from a senile old man. The guy was already losing his marbles at that time. Edited August 24, 2012 by baron-pierreIV Link to post Share on other sites
zekekelso 794 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 2.. If I may correct you...and I thought you read the other parts of this thread. No, the last privately-funded Games on US soil was Salt Lake 2002. ALL Olympic Games that have been and will be HELD on US soil have to be privately-funded. HEY! A chunck of my tax dollars when to Salt Lake 2002. I want credit for that. "Without question, we simply could not host Games in Salt Lake if it were not for the enormous spending and services of the federal government," Mitt Romeny, 2001 Congressional Testimony Roughly $342 in direct federal spending on Salt Lake, with another $1.1b in indirect. Not to mention all the state and local spending. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts