los angeles 2024

[Roger87]

I'm not so sure about that but ok. To be honest the more that the Olympic movement is tarnished by referendums, sporting scandals, fifa's and all the negative publicity sport has been getting, the more the 2024 games become Los Angeles' over Paris'. As Bach continues to open his mouth the shoe is sliding into LA in minor ways that Paris isn't fitting. That's just personal opinion but I'm going to predict now, that Paris is looking at another upset.

If it wasn't for your blind and obtuse stanning, this is perhaps one of the most illogical nonsenses thoughts I have even read (And coming from another posters here is a big pool of contenders).

[Nacre]

EDIT: Decided to self-censor my post. Move along.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Nacre

[Quaker2001]

Ooh, I want to get in on this. Let me pile on..

I'm not so sure about that but ok. To be honest the more that the Olympic movement is tarnished by referendums, sporting scandals, fifa's and all the negative publicity sport has been getting, the more the 2024 games become Los Angeles' over Paris'. As Bach continues to open his mouth the shoe is sliding into LA in minor ways that Paris isn't fitting. That's just personal opinion but I'm going to predict now, that Paris is looking at another upset.

I'm still taking virtually any opinion you have on LA with a grain of salt. You continue to try and spin everything into a positive for them and a negative for Paris. I don't get it. You're practically trolling us at this point with posts like these. Glad I'm not the only one who think so.

[woohooitsme83]

>.>

[Rob2012]

That's completely different from what you said in your last post, which seemed to very much imply that Paris was more tarnished by failed referendums and scandals like FIFA than LA - which is of course utter nonsense.

Thanks for your clarification anyway because the above makes more sense. I think LA does need to push the factors you mention above, present itself in a similar way to how London presented itself vs Paris back in 2005. But Paris will be more wise to this tactic and so, for its part, will the IOC. Paris won't turn up this time in grey suits with a heavily technical presentation lacking in oomph.

Nor, by the way, do I see LA doing what you claim to the extent you claim. It's not going to create a new business model or reset the movement any more than London did, but like London it could provide a breath of fresh air and a different vibe. The business model, based on TV rights and sponsorship, will be the same as always. LA will show how to put on a Games which makes a profit, but it won't be a blueprint of any kind because it won't be transferable to most others cities, as they don't have the advantageous starting conditions LA has. If LA does what it promises, how would that help cities starting from a lower base, those that Agenda 2020 is actually meant to attract?

Assuming this is a choice between Paris and LA, the IOC has a choice between two guaranteed successes. With LA almost certain to bid again during the current US TV contract, and with many European countries having a cynical attitude to multi-sport events, I think the IOC will want to shore up its base and return to Europe after two Games away. I still think this is Paris' to lose, but they've lost before when in this position two years out, so there's hope for LA.

[FYI]

In my opinion this cycle reeks of the cycle that culminated with an LA games in 1984. The games, and increasingly the sporting world, are calling for a reboot, and LA has a proven record of rebooting the games.

Except that for 1984, the only reason why those Games "culminated" in L.A. was because no one else wanted them. We don't know if L.A. would've still wound up with them if there had been other legitimate competition out there. So that is only a theoretical opinion on your part. It has nothing to do with fact.

I wasn't implying that Paris is more tarnished because of scandals and FIFA. I'm saying sports in general are tarnished.

No, but you're implying that the scandals & FIFA would somehow benefit L.A. moreso than Paris. Which quite frankly, I don't see how that even fits here, cause as you even say, sport in general is tarnished. And if that's the case, then 'IMO', that could "tarnish" L.A., since do we need to be reminded how exactly the U.S. got their last Olympics.

Not to mention, with the U.S. currently leading the charge against all of the FIFA corruption, some in the sporting world could call upon some retaliation against the U.S. 2024 bid since some of the members of those two sports organizations overflow with one another.

The way that Californians think of the Olympic brand is the way the IOC wants the world to think about the Olympics.

I think that this is a bit of hyperbole. But if that is the argument here, then the IOC's job has already been done over there. If the IOC wants the WORLD to think about the Olympics the way that Californians do, then wouldn't it make much more sense to go somewhere new (at least compared to very recent L.A.84) & promote that Olympism somewhere else (as even dictated in the Olympic Charter), where the Olympic values aren't that strong anymore, in a base that use to be the IOC's stronghold but is now in a dire state of repair where the organization needs to make headway again & fast. And much sooner rather than later.

The strategy here isn't existing structures and security. It's branding. And both LA and the Olympics stand to benefit from each other in this specific variable, one that I think, is going to be an influential one. More than the 100 years variable, more than the it's europes turn variable, and even more than a cost effective games. But we'll see come 2017.

Well, if it's the 'branding', then again here, the IOC needs to make a splash with their brand where it's needed the most & not necessarily where it's already well established. Sounds to me, by all of your arguments, that L.A. doesn't need it as much as the IOC needs to make a name for themselves again elsewhere.

And even when all things are "equal", relatively speaking, it is in fact the other minute details, like the 100 years & "Europe's turn" (which that aspect actually plays a much bigger role in this cycle as I mentioned above), that have the great potential to be the deciding factors.

[FYI]

Assuming this is a choice between Paris and LA, the IOC has a choice between two guaranteed successes. With LA almost certain to bid again during the current US TV contract, and with many European countries having a cynical attitude to multi-sport events, I think the IOC will want to shore up its base and return to Europe after two Games away. I still think this is Paris' to lose, but they've lost before when in this position two years out, so there's hope for LA.

Exactly, & unless the IOC wants the next European Olympics to be in bankrupt & decrepit Rome, or in dinky & irrelevant Buda-pest or Baku-koo, or another Putin-style Games (since we already know that Gemany won't be back for 2028, nor would Paris if they were to lose 2024), then I believe that the IOC can have its cake & eat it, too, with Paris 2024 & Los Angeles 2028.

EDIT: Decided to self-censor my post. Move along.

Darn, I missed it.

[baron-pierreIV]

Ruff, all that LA did is all well and good -- and again, if NO ONE else wants the Games, the IOC would go there in a heartbeat. But the IOC has other constituencies at this time. They've been to LA 2x already since 1932. Paris has been knocking on their door since 1924. Paris is a gorgeous city; and Paris embodies the other French-half of the IOC soul. Just as the College of Cardinals elected Karol Wojtijla (sp?) in 1978 to stick it to the Soviet bloc, I think it would behoove the IOC to pick Paris to stick it to the terrorists this time.

I hate to say this, but based on your thinking on this race, if LA can stage a grander terrorist attack than what happened to Paris on 11/13, then there might be validity in how you are assessing this race. But I don't think you want to go in that direction. The thing is, at this moment, the IOC has a glorious choice of 3 repeat hosts as they had in 2005 where one repeat Euro host city won by 4 votes. Paris seems to be doing the drill correctly this time around. LA can be more relevant in 2032; the IOC knows that LA will keep humping until they get it. Not so with Paris. And Paris can be glorious in 2024. Why can't the IOC have its gateau and eat it too?

Edited December 14, 2015 by baron-pierreIV

[baron-pierreIV]

In the end it's a matter of which variables we think are going to be important. Come 2017 we'll see.

It's the variables which a majority of IOC voters think are going to be important -- NOT us bystanders.

[Quaker2001]

Yea, the Olympic Brand just isn't what it used to be.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/approved-initiative-could-force-budapest-2024-olympic-bid-referendum-as-early-as-spring/

No it's not, but I still fail to see the logic how LA is the city to revive that, let alone to base that thinking on 1984. And it seems like your read here is that you think too many people are handing this to Paris, so your response is to go a little too far in the other direction as to say something like "Paris is okay, but LA is awesome!" Your sales pitch continues to sound like it comes directly from the LA organizers and wants to ignore anything Paris may have to offer. It's a lot of hyperbole and ignores what they're up against.

I'll say again what I've said before.. the IOC has a branding problem, but it's one mostly in Europe than anywhere. I know a big opposition effort came to be in Boston (who shouldn't have been selected in the first place and then was done in by incompetent management and poor planning), but the majority of cities we're seeing trouble with are European. So to me, the best thing for the brand is to pick the grand European city that still wants this and maybe restore some faith in some of the other cities and countries on the continent that are all rejecting the Olympics. That furthers the "brand" moreso than going to another continent where interest in the Olympics (Toronto 2024 notwithstanding) seems like it's still pretty strong.

And like baron brought up earlier, don't forget who is voting on this. Doesn't matter what we think. Only matters what they think.

[Quaker2001]

I hate to say this, but based on your thinking on this race, if LA can stage a grander terrorist attack than what happened to Paris on 11/13, then there might be validity in how you are assessing this race. But I don't think you want to go in that direction. The thing is, at this moment, the IOC has a glorious choice of 3 repeat hosts as they had in 2005 where one repeat Euro host city won by 4 votes. Paris seems to be doing the drill correctly this time around. LA can be more relevant in 2032; the IOC knows that LA will keep humping until they get it. Not so with Paris. And Paris can be glorious in 2024. Why can't the IOC have its gateau and eat it too?

While I agree with you on the outlook for 2024, why is LA about 2032? Why not 2028?

[FYI]

Your sales pitch continues to sound like it comes directly from the LA organizers and wants to ignore anything Paris may have to offer. It's a lot of hyperbole and ignores what they're up against.

Sums it up perfectly.

While I agree with you on the outlook for 2024, why is LA about 2032? Why not 2028?

Judging from his recent past posts, he seems to be under the impression that South Africa will bid for 2028, even though they came out a few months ago saying that 2032 is the more likely, practical timeframe. While granted South Africa could still change their mind, I'll believe it when I see it, though. But for now, I'll take them at their word that 2032 is much more appropriate for them to go for it until they have the 2022 Commonwealth Games comfortably under their belt as quote, unquote "experience".

[mr.bernham]

Sums it up perfectly.

Judging from his recent past posts, he seems to be under the impression that South Africa will bid for 2028, even though they came out a few months ago saying that 2032 is the more likely, practical timeframe. While granted South Africa could still change their mind, I'll believe it when I see it, though. But for now, I'll take them at their word that 2032 is much more appropriate for them to go for it until they have the 2022 Commonwealth Games comfortably under their belt as quote, unquote "experience".

If LA says no to 2028...hopefully Chicago will jump in.

[LatinXTC]

If LA says no to 2028...hopefully Chicago will jump in.

I highly doubt that will happen considering the current problems they have with the police force. And considering the amount of money they spent on those godawful renovations to Soldier Field, which considering the amount they spent on it they should have just built a new one, I highly doubt they'll want to spend money on a new stadium, regardless if it's a temporary one or permanent one.

[FYI]

I highly doubt that will happen considering the current problems they have with the police force. And considering the amount of money they spent on those godawful renovations to Soldier Field, which considering the amount they spent on it they should have just built a new one, I highly doubt they'll want to spend money on a new stadium, regardless if it's a temporary one or permanent one.

Yeah, like New York 2012, Chicago 2016 was a one-&-done deal. The city has too many other pressing matters to deal with at the moment to be thinking about the Olympics again. Emmanuel won reelection by a slight margin so I seriously doubt that he'll wanna touch that endeavor anytime soon.

Chicago at this point, like Boston 2024, would have to invest so much that it wouldn't surprise me that the people really would stand up against it much moreso than last time. For the U.S. at this juncture, & the next couple of cycles at least, it really is L.A. or bust.

[Quaker2001]

The teapot is calling the kettle.

It's funny how some people actively engage in the Paris thread but if anything about the LA bid is posted its dismissed and written off as boosterism and that's the extent of the engagement in the LA thread. And then those very same handles will say you're trolling.

The idiom is actually "Pot calling the kettle black." The teapot does not merely call the kettle.

It's equally funny how you mention the Paris thread and yet literally every single post you've made has been in either this Los Angeles thread or in the USA 2024 thread. So if you're going to accuse others of trolling (speaking of the pot calling the kettle black), maybe you should actually participate in more than 1 thread instead of telling us what's going on there. And yea, we're dismissing what you're offering as boosterism because that's pretty much what it sounds like. You seem to have a lot of opinions about LA's narrative and what they have to offer the IOC and the Olympic movement. It's a compelling case to make in a bid to host an Olympics. But there's much more to Paris' narrative than what's on the surface that they haven't hosted in nearly a century and narrowly lost the 2012 vote. Maybe you would know that if you didn't only post in this thread and actually made an attempt to learn more about Paris rather than try to make a straw man argument for them.

[Roger87]

In Mexico we have a similar use with: "El comal le dijo a la olla".

100% true.

[CITYofDREAMS]

The teapot is calling the kettle.

It's funny how some people actively engage in the Paris thread but if anything about the LA bid is posted its dismissed and written off as boosterism and that's the extent of the engagement in the LA thread. And then those very same handles will say you're trolling.

Totally agree... I don't see this negativism going on the Paris Bid thread. When and article about using Griffith Park as a venue was posted it got an immediate response in this thread. 2 days ago this was published about Paris but no one has made any comments about it.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/paris-2024-olympic-bid-fundraising-plans-in-jeopardy/

[LatinXTC]

Totally agree... I don't see this negativism going on the Paris Bid thread. When and article about using Griffith Park as a venue was posted it got an immediate response in this thread. 2 days ago this was published about Paris but no one has made any comments about it.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/paris-2024-olympic-bid-fundraising-plans-in-jeopardy/

I'm sensing this as brilliant sarcasm. Or complete and utter stupidity...

[baron-pierreIV]

While I agree with you on the outlook for 2024, why is LA about 2032? Why not 2028?

Well, unless they've changed course, Durban has set its sights on 2028 -- so I would make room for that.

[FYI]

Then you obviously must not be reading the same thread, cause there are EIGHT comments to that article that you're talking about. So don't say that "no one" has made any comments about it when that is an absolute lie.

And it's not "negativity" going on here about L.A. as much as a certain individual just wants to put L.A. on some sort of grandiose "Olympic pedestal" while at the same time, trying to give the impression that Paris is some sort of "ho-hum" contender in comparison. Those are the misguided elements that are being challenged here. That's NOT being "negative" about L.A.

But of course people with blinders on will always & only see that it's "negativity" going on when it comes to their choice of partial preference.

^

Totally agree... I don't see this negativism going on the Paris Bid thread. When and article about using Griffith Park as a venue was posted it got an immediate response in this thread. 2 days ago this was published about Paris but no one has made any comments about it.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/paris-2024-olympic-bid-fundraising-plans-in-jeopardy/

Well, unless they've changed course, Durban has set its sights on 2028 -- so I would make room for that.

I don't know where you get this from, cause the last announcement that came from South Africa about an Olympic bid was that they're more than likely looking at 2032 now, cause it would make the most practical sense for them at this time. So unless they changed their mind (again), which I guess they could do, then the only thing to make room for is for the U.S. to consider a 2028 bid if 2024 fails.

[CITYofDREAMS]

Then you obviously must not be reading the same thread, cause there are EIGHT comments to that article that you're talking about. So don't say that "no one" has made any comments about it when that is an absolute lie.

And it's not "negativity" going on here about L.A. as much as a certain individual just wants to put L.A. on some sort of grandiose "Olympic pedestal" while at the same time, trying to give the impression that Paris is some sort of "ho-hum" contender in comparison. Those are the misguided elements that are being challenged here. That's NOT being "negative" about L.A.

But of course people with blinders on will always & only see that it's "negativity" going on when it comes to their choice of partial preference.

^

I don't know where you get this from, cause the last announcement that came from South Africa about an Olympic bid was that they're more than likely looking at 2032 now, cause it would make the most practical sense for them at this time. So unless they changed their mind (again), which I guess they could do, then the only thing to make room for is for the U.S. to consider a 2028 bid if 2024 fails.

Maybe not but thanks for calling it out...

[CITYofDREAMS]

Then you obviously must not be reading the same thread, cause there are EIGHT comments to that article that you're talking about. So don't say that "no one" has made any comments about it when that is an absolute lie.

And it's not "negativity" going on here about L.A. as much as a certain individual just wants to put L.A. on some sort of grandiose "Olympic pedestal" while at the same time, trying to give the impression that Paris is some sort of "ho-hum" contender in comparison. Those are the misguided elements that are being challenged here. That's NOT being "negative" about L.A.

But of course people with blinders on will always & only see that it's "negativity" going on when it comes to their choice of partial preference.

^

I don't know where you get this from, cause the last announcement that came from South Africa about an Olympic bid was that they're more than likely looking at 2032 now, cause it would make the most practical sense for them at this time. So unless they changed their mind (again), which I guess they could do, then the only thing to make room for is for the U.S. to consider a 2028 bid if 2024 fails.

Can you tell me exactly where in the Paris 2024 thread are the comments in regards to the article I mentioned... I just checked there again and I can find them.

[Rob2012]

There is definitely an anti LA sentiment but that's nothing new.

1. So what if there's some anti-LA sentiment. Are people not allowed to dislike your favoured bid?

2. It's telling that the only person who's extrapolated the views of a handful of posters to the whole forum is an LA supporter. I'll put that down to coincidence shall I?

3. The reason this thread has been a bit livelier than the Paris thread lately is because you've come out with some controversial ideas about how events are moving things in LA's favour. For the most part RuFF, you've been able to hold your own when arguing your case, even if people don't necessarily agree with you. I like that. That you've now descended into paranoia about these threads and people's apparent agendas is a bit sad.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Rob.

[FYI]

The paranoia isn't something recent. It's been there pretty much from the very beginning since they arrived here. But I digress.

Can you tell me exactly where in the Paris 2024 thread are the comments in regards to the article I mentioned... I just checked there again and I can find them.

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/25493-paris-2024-olympic-bid-fundraising-plans-in-jeopardy/#entry488452

I don't know where you get this from, cause the last announcement that came from South Africa about an Olympic bid was that they're more than likely looking at 2032 now, cause it would make the most practical sense for them at this time. So unless they changed their mind (again), which I guess they could do, then the only thing to make room for is for the U.S. to consider a 2028 bid if 2024 fails.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0R20UO20150902