los angeles 2024

[CITYofDREAMS]

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

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

So the comments are not in the Paris 2024 thread... this a new thread. Thank you!

[FYI]

Just for kicks. Aside from running a cost efficient games what can Paris do to change the Olympic brand that LA can't. How would Paris integrate extreme sports better than LA? Is an efficient games and it's been 100 years or its europes turn the real Parisian platform or is there more. Cuz if it's more than ho hum it's time to get into the nitty gritty, cuz on all threads those topics dominate the Parisian bid discussion. And veering off that in the LA discussion is apparently tarnishing Paris, because they aren't having this discussion yet.

See, this is a big part of your problem. The "nitty gritty" has already been discussed in many of these threads ad naseum. But you either a) ignore all the things legitimate that anyone else says on behalf of the Paris bid, & then just conveniently revert back to your L.A. cheerleading mode. And/or like others have pointed out, you don't bother to go to any of the other threads to read up on what's going on with the others bids. But whatever. Can't really have a dialogue with people that are so blinded with their own bombastic rhetoric. So knock yourself out.

*And or B.

So the comments are not in the Paris 2024 thread... this a new thread. Thank you!

This further illustrates that It helps when one actually goes beyond the Los Angeles 2024 thread & read up on other threads throughout the forum to be more & better informed.

[Quaker2001]

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

South Africa Will Skip Next Two Olympic Bids; Will Be Poised For 2032

[CITYofDREAMS]

This further illustrates that It helps when one actually goes beyond the Los Angeles 2024 thread & read up on other threads throughout the forum to be more & better informed.

See, this is a big part of your problem. The "nitty gritty" has already been discussed in many of these threads ad naseum. But you either a) ignore all the things legitimate that anyone else says on behalf of the Paris bid, & then just conveniently revert back to your L.A. cheerleading mode. And/or like others have pointed out, you don't bother to go to any of the other threads to read up on what's going on with the others bids. But whatever. Can't really have a dialogue with people that are so blinded with their own bombastic rhetoric. So knock yourself out.
*And or B.

This further illustrates that It helps when one actually goes beyond the Los Angeles 2024 thread & read up on other threads throughout the forum to be more & better informed.

But in all honestly I specifically mentioned the article not being discussed in the Paris 2024 Thread. So technically I was correct. Thanks for the advise. I'm willing to go to other threads as well although my main objective here would to discuss the LA bid and share my opinion of how this compare to the others in a respectful manner.

[Quaker2001]

So in this thread I choose to talk about how LA could edge out Paris. I choose topics that reflect the current state and where LA could score a victory if Paris doesn't consider these things. I draw lines (which you could call bolstering) to show the connection between the current state and where LA 24 is making active inroads to address in an attempt to undermine a safe Parisian bid.

So I have to ask these questions. How will Paris embody extreme sports to attract a younger generation. This is what the IOC wants. How will Paris help the IOC gain control of the conversation because the conversation that's happening just took Hamburg with it and looks to be headed to Budhapest. This isn't pie in the sky stuff, it's a conversation Paris boosters should be having, but they're not. It's just run of the mill Olympic planning and it's Paris turn or Europe is going to be mad.

But let's not talk about any of that. It's easier to say someone is putting Paris down and troll than it is to say, well, Paris has started a program to reach out or any of that stuff.

Once again.. as someone who only posts in the LA thread and only reads the Paris thread, how knowledgeable are you on Paris? Because I'll certainly never fault you for being in tune with what LA's bid is all about.

We don't really know what the IOC wants. We will only know that what the votes come out. And this being the IOC, it's tough to tell what they say they're about and what direction they're actually going with. If this 2024 vote were about the ideals of Agenda 2020, then yes, LA would have a very strong case to make vis a vis Paris. I'm just not sure that's what we're going to see. You're asking questions about Paris, but that's what we have a Paris thread for. If you want to know the answers to what Paris's bid is about, ask over there rather than searching for the answer here. And as a couple of people have noted, some of those points have been addressed there.

That's not the only thing that's recent. This thread and any discussion of the LA bid is pretty much extinguished by the same people. Anti LA sentiment is a hard core part of LA. It's history is loaded with being the underdog. So to me, or most any native of LA, this isn't new. But that's the very story of LA, and unlikely story that comes out on top. It's consistent status of a place undermined.

Who is trying to extinguish LA discussion? Now who's hearing voices in his head. I know you're trying to put LA into perspective versus Paris and have differing opinions than some of us here. That's fine. That's discussion. But LA is an underdog? An unlikely story that comes out on top that's being undermined? That's hyperbole, and that's where you start to lose the rest of us.

[FYI]

Except that I have visited the other threads and the discussion is the same. It's europes turn, Paris is last... They'll be fresh on their mind, it's been 100 years, the IOC won't see Germany for a long time. Then, of course the bid details... Which for better or worse aren't head over heels that much better than LA.

First of all, you're taking many of those aspects out of context. Especially the presentation order one. That one is mostly made in jest, at least by some. You haven't been here nearly at all long enough to decipher all the nuances that some long-time members have to say.

But there you have it at the very last part of your paragraph, which more or less emphasizes that both Paris & L.A. bids are more or less equal with one another. So when that's the case, & other things THEN have to be the deciding factors, like the 100 years & Europe's turn (which you always want to trivialize). This is where IOC members idiosyncrasies will come into play & then vote accordingly, which a crucial element that either you don't see or just want to gloss over it.

So I have to ask these questions. How will Paris embody extreme sports to attract a younger generation. This is what the IOC wants. How will Paris help the IOC gain control of the conversation because the conversation that's happening just took Hamburg with it and looks to be headed to Budhapest. This isn't pie in the sky stuff, it's a conversation Paris boosters should be having, but they're not. It's just run of the mill Olympic planning and it's Paris turn or Europe is going to be mad.

The IOC wants a lot of things, but as with everything else, no one can have it all. Of course the IOC wants to attract the youth of the world. With that said, they also want their "brand" as you keep putting it, to appeal to as many people as possible. You keep citing that Hamburg's exit, & presumably Budapest now, is somehow a negative against Paris. But as this has been pointed out to you by not just me, but I see that as more of an element in favor for Paris. The IOC is losing steam in its home continent of all places (not to mention the European exodus from the 2022 winter race). To help restore faith in the movement within the continent is what the IOC wants, too. And a European Olympics ASAP will help promote that.

Besides, you really think that Paris is not going to promote it's youth? I remember when some people were using that element against Tokyo 2020, especially the Madrid 2020 boosters. Citing that Japan has an older, declining population, while Spain has a much younger, invigorating population for the Games. Needless to say who in fact wound up with the 2020 Olympics.

But in all honestly I specifically mentioned the article not being discussed in the Paris 2024 Thread.

Not everything on any respective bid is talked about in that particular respective bid thread. Doesn't matter what your main objective of discussion is poised for.

[FYI]

And how in the world is that "a potentially Paris damaging article"?! I see nothing in there that would even imply such a thing. Obviously every 2024 bid in the contest is going to have the Olympic Village in place at the end. So I don't see what you're trying to accomplish with this.

But instead, I see that you again just completely gloss over every legitimate point in the previous two posts before yours & then just simply revert back to outta context facetious commets like 'it's Europe's turn & Paris presents last'. I'll take that tactic as your way of conceding with any further counterpoints & therefore "extinguishing" the L.A. conversation yourself.

[Nacre]

That's not the only thing that's recent. This thread and any discussion of the LA bid is pretty much extinguished by the same people. Anti LA sentiment is a hard core part of LA. It's history is loaded with being the underdog. So to me, or most any native of LA, this isn't new. But that's the very story of LA, and unlikely story that comes out on top. It's consistent status of a place undermined.

Los Angeles has never won a bid as the underdog. It has only won when it was handed the games without winning a bid race. It hosted in 1932 because no one else wanted them during the great depression. It hosted in 1984 because it was the only bidder after the financial disaster of the 1976 games in Montreal. It lost all of the other six times it has bid.

If you are talking about LA in general and not the Olympics, it still isn't true. Los Angeles outgrew San Francisco because it had oil and the film industry. Los Angeles has an extremely top heavy economy, and remains heavily dependent upon the film industry. It is neither an underdog (it has been given several golden geese in its history) nor is it outperforming other cities like San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, or New York. Chicago is probably the best "succeeding against the odds" candidate in the USA. It has few natural resources and little international prestige, and yet it has stayed strong while most other cities in the Midwest have declined.

You are seeing this in a religious context, viewing anyone who questions Los Angeles as the predestined winner as an "anti-LA" bigot. I doubt anyone posting here hates LA. (I was born there, so I certainly have no reason to hate it.) We are just rational skeptics.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Nacre

[zekekelso]

It's history is loaded with being the underdog. So to me, or most any native of LA, this isn't new. But that's the very story of LA, and unlikely story that comes out on top. It's consistent status of a place undermined.

And now you've crossed my limit on stupidity. The very story of LA is "Underdog"?? You could give people a hundred words to describe LA; I'm pretty sure underdog wouldn't be on it.

Look, if you want to change the subject away from your posts and back to LA 2024, I'll throw out my favorite question for the LA games: "Who's going to pay for it?"

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

Chicago ain't jumping in. And as for LA saying no to 2028, it's that what you fancy logo is promoting

[baron-pierreIV]

South Africa Will Skip Next Two Olympic Bids; Will Be Poised For 2032

Oh, wasn't aware of that. OK, so LA can go for jugular then!!

[FYI]

where do you guys come up with this stuff?

Probably from the same place where certain highfalutin L.A. verbosity comes from.

[woohooitsme83]

Probably from the same place where certain highfalutin L.A. verbosity comes from.

Geee! Who could that be???

[Quaker2001]

A potentially Paris damaging article about LA narrowing down the locations for a possible athletes village. I didn't find that on another thread but it's europes turn and Paris presents last.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1032574/los-angeles-2024-narrowing-down-potential-olympic-village-sites-with-decision-expected-soon

If there was any lingering doubt whether or not you are a troll, now we are convinced. Thank you for clearing that up for us. If you wanted to discuss this story and what it means for the bid, you might be taken seriously if you didn't lead with calling it "a potentially damaging article" as if we're going to see this and think less of Paris. Even though they're not mentioned anywhere in the article except at the end merely to note that they're bidding.

[Nacre]

An AP poll from back in June showed 90% of Americans support bringing the games back to the US. The Olympic brand is strong in the US, but only 61% favored hosting locally in their home towns.

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/findings-from-our-latest-poll-20

What this shows is that Americans like the Olympics, but don't want to pay for them. And that's why -having grown up in Los Angeles, knowing lots of people there and having gone back there this summer- I am skeptical of the huge public support.

Los Angeles is the only city with high levels of support for the games, but that's because people think LA2024 will be like LA1984, with no public money spent. It simply isn't possible for a city to host the games today without losing at least a few billion in tax dollars. If it becomes apparent that Los Angeles will lose $5 billion in public money I think support will plummet.

And for those who see the flip side the trolls self exposed.

An insensitive article about security.

http://www.ibtimes.com/los-angeles-2024-olympics-security-concern-officials-amid-global-terror-threats-2228042

Los Angeles Public 'Firmly' Behind LA24

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/los-angeles-public-firmly-behind-la-2024-olympic-095640268--oly.html

Athletes are at the heart of the LA bid.

http://m.themalaymailonline.com/sports/article/athletes-heart-of-los-angeles-bid-says-former-us-olympic-swim-champ

The problem with this stuff about "athletes are at the heart of the bid" and so on is that there are no specifics. Los Angeles needs to figure out:

• How it is going to build an international broadcasting center. There is no chance the IOC will select a bid without one.
• How it is going to build the athletes village.
• How the inevitable public debt will be paid off.
• How it will provide an aquatics center.

Those are the things that make people question the bid.

[Nacre]

The issues:

1. AFAIK none of the film studios have agreed to suspend their operations to let the LA organizing committee take over their land.
2. They are planning to use the convention center as a sports venue.
3. FINA won't accept a stadium without a roof for the Olympics, and it will be a hell of an engineering challenge to get a diving pool in a soccer/football stadium.

[baron-pierreIV]

It's got a retractable roof, NBC has the US Broadcast rights.

Yeah, but so what? THe Federation has final say on certain matters -- usually.

[baron-pierreIV]

It was the Euro's turn.

Which 2024 will be.

[FYI]

but Athens lost to Atlanta for the Centennial Olympics. It was the Euro's turn. Haha.

This is where you lose the little credibility that you had left. You can't honestly compare Athens 1996 to Paris 2024 (to which Athens went later on to win 2004 anyway). Athens 1996 was an arrogant & very disorganized bid that solely sold it's itself that it's the "centennial Games & they deserved the right to host them" with nothing solid as far as their bid was concerned.

That's not the case here with Paris. They've done this before & last time missed out by only four votes. Not to mention that the preceding 1992 Summer Olympics were already slated for Europe. So no, 1996 was not "Europe's turn" anyway. I'm going to venture to say that this is Paris' to lose. With L.A. as the back-up plan. Rome back-up plan # 2. And Buda-pest the "well, better than no host at all!" bid.

But when it's not I'm going to laugh.

But when it is, I'm going to laugh my fu@king a$s off! :-P

[FYI]

You're right, I don't have to wait. I lmfao everytime I see your twaddle on here. 'Haha' :-P

[Nacre]

It's got a retractable roof, NBC has the US Broadcast rights.

I don't see a retractable roof on the team's own website. (https://lafc.com/stadium/) Where have you seen a retractable roof?

NBC may have the broadcast rights, but even so that doesn't mean they will be willing to hand over their studios and/or lots to the organizing committee. I am not saying that they will not. I am saying that it is a question mark right now. Paris can spend government money to get around these problems, but Los Angeles cannot, and that makes these unknowns a bigger problem for Los Angeles.

I think LA is a good bid, and clearly a favorite over "normal" cities like Hamburg, Boston, etc. Paris is one of the few cities better placed to host the Olympics than LA, though.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Nacre

[Nacre]

And why is that? Explain that. Nobody has taken the time to engage in a serious conversation on that so you have the floor. Why is Paris better suited to host than LA?

I've already said it several times. Paris can spend national government money. Los Angeles cannot.

Paris can simply spend government money to build an athletes village, a media center, etc. Los Angeles needs to find property developers to do that. Now consider that London was not able to get the private sector to build the village.

If you have not seen LA recently, you might want to look again. It's a city that is experiencing serious cultural growth and the minds of Angelino's are embracing urbanity and a new LA at an unprecedented rate.

I was there in July visiting family. I was born in Brea.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Nacre

[Rob2012]

Paris can simply spend government money to build an athletes village, a media center, etc. Los Angeles needs to find property developers to do that. Now consider that London was not able to get the private sector to provide all the security and build the village.

London is a very poor example to use on both these counts.

The private contractors who were meant to provide security (G4S) messed up completely and we ended up having to use the army. Whilst the army did a fine job, there's no reason why that pre-Games mess should be repeated by another city.

The London Village was intended to be built by a private developer and indeed one was on board and ready to go. Then the credit crunch happened, the Western World's economies almost collapsed, and the developer couldn't raise the funds needed. So it switched to a public project in order to get built at all. Unless there's a one in a hundred year recession in the build up to 2024, this shouldn't be repeated by whichever city wins the bid. It's easy to forget just how difficult the financial conditions became during London's preparations.

I find it hard to believe LA would struggle when it came to private financing or development, so I don't think this is a minus against it really. However, the security of having government money as a fall-back is always a bonus - as London found - you're right there.

RuFF, the question of which city between LA and Paris is better suited is a good one. But it's absolutely not the same as predicting who will win. I don't have the energy to do a venue v venue comparison - and maybe that's worth a whole thread in itself. The intangibles point to Paris for me though, but I could be wrong.

[CITYofDREAMS]

I've already said it several times. Paris can spend national government money. Los Angeles cannot.

Paris can simply spend government money to build an athletes village, a media center, etc. Los Angeles needs to find property developers to do that. Now consider that London was not able to get the private sector to provide all the security and build the village.

I was there in July visiting family.

But I thought that Government spending is why

I've already said it several times. Paris can spend national government money. Los Angeles cannot.

Paris can simply spend government money to build an athletes village, a media center, etc. Los Angeles needs to find property developers to do that. Now consider that London was not able to get the private sector to provide all the security and build the village.

I was there in July visiting family.

I thought this is precisely why the movement is encountering a hurdle and why citizens are battling with the idea or holding the Olympics in their cities.

Like Rob said its hard to believe that LA will struggle with private financing or development. Out of all the cities bidding for 2024 LA has the largest economy and I can assure the private sector will be very engaged.

As an example LA didn't have any problems raising 35 Mill from the private sector to fund their bid in just a week.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1030307/los-angeles-flexes-its-financial-muscle-by-raising-bid-budget-in-a-week

[Nacre]

London is a very poor example to use on both these counts.

The private contractors who were meant to provide security (G4S) messed up completely and we ended up having to use the army. Whilst the army did a fine job, there's no reason why that pre-Games mess should be repeated by another city.

The London Village was intended to be built by a private developer and indeed one was on board and ready to go. Then the credit crunch happened, the Western World's economies almost collapsed, and the developer couldn't raise the funds needed. So it switched to a public project in order to get built at all. Unless there's a one in a hundred year recession in the build up to 2024, this shouldn't be repeated by whichever city wins the bid. It's easy to forget just how difficult the financial conditions became during London's preparations.

Perhaps they shouldn't happen, but there are problems with major staffing and property development schemes all the time.

Rio has labored through its own issues, and Japan is currently struggling with a labor shortage which will affect the cost of Olympic venues. http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/Labor-shortage-threatens-Japan-s-construction-projects

The problem for Los Angeles is that they don't have the national government as a fall back if anything goes wrong. If it encounters a major crisis Los Angeles could become another Denver, whereas Paris would likely be able to soldier on through public debt.

But I thought that Government spending is why

I thought this is precisely why the movement is encountering a hurdle and why citizens are battling with the idea or holding the Olympics in their cities.

Like Rob said its hard to believe that LA will struggle with private financing or development. Out of all the cities bidding for 2024 LA has the largest economy and I can assure the private sector will be very engaged.

As an example LA didn't have any problems raising 35 Mill from the private sector to fund their bid in just a week.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1030307/los-angeles-flexes-its-financial-muscle-by-raising-bid-budget-in-a-week

It is the major reason there is a revolt in democratic countries. And that's why I think people in LA will react negatively if it eventually becomes clear that hosting means spending $4-5 billion in taxpayer money.

I agree that LA will probably find private financing for the major projects. But it isn't certain that they will.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Nacre

[CITYofDREAMS]

Perhaps they shouldn't happen, but there are problems with major staffing and property development schemes all the time.

Rio has labored through its own issues, and Japan is currently struggling with a labor shortage which will affect the cost of Olympic venues. http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/Labor-shortage-threatens-Japan-s-construction-projects

The problem for Los Angeles is that they don't have the national government as a fall back if anything goes wrong. If it encounters a major crisis Los Angeles could become another Denver, whereas Paris would likely be able to soldier on through public debt.

It is the major reason there is a revolt in democratic countries. And that's why I think people in LA will react negatively if it eventually becomes clear that hosting means spending $4-5 billion in taxpayer money.

I agree that LA will probably find private financing for the major projects. But it isn't certain that they will.

No American city will have the a national financial backing for that matter... and if this is a decisive factor in who will be granted the Olympics, then all US cities would be out of this process.

LA has proven that can run an effective and successful games without any national financial backing and make profit. This actually only forces American cities to be much more creative than their counterparts that require heavily financial backing from their governments.