los angeles 2024

[Athan]

13 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

Never thought of this...could European members be spiteful and vote for LA in hopes their nation could host in 2028? If Paris lost odds are they wouldn't be back, no Asian city could realistically bid, Africa has pledged to stay out, and North America would be out opening the door wide for any European city like Rome or Madrid. 

That's always discussed when there's a European city bidding, but I don't think it happens, at least not as a general rule. Otherwise, Europe wouldn't have hosted the Olympics so many times.

Regarding Rome and Madrid in particular, I actually think the best for them is Paris getting 2024. Right now, Italy and Spain are in a somewhat similar delicate situation due to an economic crisis that's lasting more than it should have. As the mayors of Rome and Barcelona have said when asked about Olympic bids, there may be other priorities at the moment for their cities, and although I have supported previous bids from Madrid and would support another one, I also believe that's a very sensible point of view. If Italy and Spain can solve their current problems, Rome and Madrid can be very strong contenders for Europe's next Olympics (2032? 2036? I'm leaning towards the latter), so if Paris gets 2024, that's a very important potential opponent they'd get rid of.

[FYI]

And there you have it. So much for bernham's "spiteful Europeans" theory.

[Rob2012]

8 hours ago, HenryOaks said:

I think Madrid won't be interested in bidding for a long time. The Olympic stadium is under construction as a football one with no track for Atletico de Madrid

At risk of taking this off-topic, I never understood how this would work. Even when they were bidding the stadium was always intended to be football only with the track being installed on a temporary platform. But it would've reduced capacity severely so I speculated at the time that perhaps extra temporary seating like Sydney's stadium might be used, installing the rest of the roof at a later date after the Olympics. I don't think it was ever properly explained how Madrid's stadium would work in Olympic configuration. Maybe even the bid team didn't know and were going to cross that bridge when they came to it.

[baron-pierreIV]

25 minutes ago, Rob. said:

At risk of taking this off-topic, I never understood how this would work. Even when they were bidding the stadium was always intended to be football only with the track being installed on a temporary platform. But it would've reduced capacity severely so I speculated at the time that perhaps extra temporary seating like Sydney's stadium might be used, installing the rest of the roof at a later date after the Olympics. I don't think it was ever properly explained how Madrid's stadium would work in Olympic configuration. Maybe even the bid team didn't know and were going to cross that bridge when they came to it.

 

I think had they gotten the nod, they would've belatedly upgraded the stadium to a full-scale T&F venue; and then think about shrinking it to a football venue afterwards.  But since it didn't happen, then they just stuck to its soccer dimensions.  

[zekekelso]

1 hour ago, Rob. said:

At risk of taking this off-topic, I never understood how this would work. Even when they were bidding the stadium was always intended to be football only with the track being installed on a temporary platform. But it would've reduced capacity severely so I speculated at the time that perhaps extra temporary seating like Sydney's stadium might be used, installing the rest of the roof at a later date after the Olympics.

And once you've gone through all that, wouldn't a temporary stadium be cheaper and easier? But for some reason temporary stadiums are deemed wasteful. Boo. 

[yoshi]

It would be a great shame if the Olympics lose a perfectly capable host city in a European democracy just because their domestic rivalry trumped any sense of logic when they picked which bids to go for

[zekekelso]

When's the last time we thing "strategic voting" actually tipped the IOC choice to an inferior city? 

[stryker]

14 hours ago, zekekelso said:

And once you've gone through all that, wouldn't a temporary stadium be cheaper and easier? But for some reason temporary stadiums are deemed wasteful. Boo. 

It's a proven failed concept. See the huge white elephant in Incheon that served as the main stadium for the Asian Games

Dedeaux Field. I know the renderings aren't the actual plan, but I wonder if FINA would something like this and cringe, mainly because there's no roof over the pool. FINA lashed out at Rio when it was announced no roof would cover the Maria Lenk Aquatic Center.

[baron-pierreIV]

7 hours ago, stryker said:

Dedeaux Field. I know the renderings aren't the actual plan, but I wonder if FINA would something like this and cringe, mainly because there's no roof over the pool. FINA lashed out at Rio when it was announced no roof would cover the Maria Lenk Aquatic Center.

 

Beggars can't be choosers.  Since LA 1984, the main swimming venues in Barcelona 1992, Athens 2004 and Rio 2016 have all been roofless -- and still set world records.  And these are in warmer, more temperate climes -- so tough titties for FINA. 

The only drawbacks to roofless swim venues are that you can't stage meets when the sun is high (so run them at night); and there can be no overhead cameras (for which there are drones now to do that).  

[TeamBlakeUSA]

We're Almost To One Year To Go.

[zekekelso]

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Beggars can't be choosers.  Since LA 1984, the main swimming venues in Barcelona 1992, Athens 2004 and Rio 2016 have all been roofless -- and still set world records.  And these are in warmer, more temperate climes -- so tough titties for FINA. 

The only drawbacks to roofless swim venues are that you can't stage meets when the sun is high (so run them at night); and there can be no overhead cameras (for which there are drones now to do that).  

While I'm a big fan of open-air venues, it's worth pointing out that (a) water polo, sync swimming and diving were outdoors in Rio; swimming was indoors and (b) it (essentially) doesn't rain in Athens or Barcelona. Rain being another drawback of outdoor arenas. 

[krow]

On 9/2/2016 at 0:39 PM, zekekelso said:

When's the last time we thing "strategic voting" actually tipped the IOC choice to an inferior city? 

how about the one that just ended?

[Quaker2001]

13 hours ago, RuFF said:

LA2024 is committed to using city's workforce to deliver games. 

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1041348/los-angeles-2024-committed-to-working-with-citys-workforce-to-deliver-safe-and-low-risk-olympic-games

please beware, the article references Wasserman calling LA the New LA, and we all know how that discussion turned out. Quaker, Mrs. FYI, take it from here ladies.

Are the rest of us supposed to be as excited or impressed when your hero Casey Wasserman says "new LA?"  Good for LA2024 that they're committed to use the city's workforce.  I would like to hope that's a given.  Yes, I'm aware that Paris and France had some issues with striking workers during Euro 2016, so perhaps that's their modus operandi for pointing this out.  Once again, thank you for pointing out that LA is doing what they should be doing in terms of campaigning for their bid.  Please beware that the IOC voters may not be as excited by this innovative new LA as you are.  Which is a shame since this thread was a lot less assholey the past 2 weeks without you.  You should go into the 2028 US City Options thread where another poster was dumping on LA.  Wait, nevermind.. that would require you to go outside your comfort zone and make your case on someone else's turf and I know that causes anxiety for you.  Hence why you stay here where you think you can "control the conversation."  But that's okay, continue to be an asshole and we'll treat you as such.

(cue the obligatory line about projecting or narcissism or some bullcrap like that)

(cue the line how I'm 

[TeamBlakeUSA]

2024 Security Would Stop Terrorist Attacks InsideTheGames Said.

[Jesse Saenz]

Come on now guys.

Lets focus on the topic of this thread.

Enough of the trading blows at one another.

 

[stryker]

With the Rome bid on shaky ground (it's likely just a matter of time before Rome withdraws) and now the distinct possibility of a referendum on Budapest, we're looking at the likelihood of two consecutive host city elections where there are only two candidates. Now this wouldn't be the fiasco that 2022 was. In fact if both Rome and Budapest do drop out, I'm sure you will here Thomas Bach say while he was disappointed in the withdrawals, that the IOC still has two great candidates for the 2024 Olympics. There won't be the IOC backlash like there was against Oslo. It still however masks a bigger problem, that Agenda 2020 is not being viewed as the solution to lower costs and make th eOlympics a more affordable venture.

[Quaker2001]

10 hours ago, stryker said:

With the Rome bid on shaky ground (it's likely just a matter of time before Rome withdraws) and now the distinct possibility of a referendum on Budapest, we're looking at the likelihood of two consecutive host city elections where there are only two candidates. Now this wouldn't be the fiasco that 2022 was. In fact if both Rome and Budapest do drop out, I'm sure you will here Thomas Bach say while he was disappointed in the withdrawals, that the IOC still has two great candidates for the 2024 Olympics. There won't be the IOC backlash like there was against Oslo. It still however masks a bigger problem, that Agenda 2020 is not being viewed as the solution to lower costs and make th eOlympics a more affordable venture.

It's not just a matter of costs.  The IOC is stilll a press less than reputable organization.  Cities and NOC's are less than enthusiastic about working with them.  Agenda 2020 is all well and good, but there's still that really long list of demands that makes bidding for and hosting an Olympics not only costly, but less than desirable as well.  LA and Paris seem to be more comfortable with that than a Rome or possibly Budapest for obvious reasons.  The issues isn't just making the Olympics more affordable so much as the IOC presenting itself as an organization that these cities actually want to get in bed with.

[FYI]

On September 8, 2016 at 8:38 PM, RuFF said:

Quaker, Mrs. FYI, take it from here ladies.

And krow thinks that Quaker is a "sexist"! I'd be more concerned about Truff's (actual) "wife" than Quakers (hypothetical) "sister"! 

[Quaker2001]

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

And krow thinks that Quaker is a "sexist"! I'd be more concerned about Truff's (actual) "wife" than Quakers (hypothetical) "sister"! 

Hey, Ruff has said before I sound like his wife.  Considering how he talks to me, I'm concerned how he treats his wife.  I hope the answer to that isn't "ruff."

[Jesse Saenz]

29 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Hey, Ruff has said before I sound like his wife.  Considering how he talks to me, I'm concerned how he treats his wife.  I hope the answer to that isn't "ruff."

Hahaha. 

[alphamale86]

In light of the now slight yet serious possibility that both Rome and Budapest might drop out of the race due to referendums should the IOC just accept all possible applicants and stop trying to de-suade possible cities from doing so? It was noted earlier that after Baku showed interest in 2024 but that the IOC told them don't bid this time around, focus on 2028. Doha was flatly told no. But in a race that might see only two candidates, should they just get off their high horse and just accept all the willing keeping in mind the recent trend in referendum killings?

Furthermore if the USOC had sat 2024 out as most might have suggested then we might possibly have seen Paris handed the games completely unopposed. What would we be left to talk about then?  

[zekekelso]

57 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

In light of the now slight yet serious possibility that both Rome and Budapest might drop out of the race due to referendums should the IOC just accept all possible applicants and stop trying to de-suade possible cities from doing so? It was noted earlier that after Baku showed interest in 2024 but that the IOC told them don't bid this time around, focus on 2028. Doha was flatly told no. But in a race that might see only two candidates, should they just get off their high horse and just accept all the willing keeping in mind the recent trend in referendum killings?

Furthermore if the USOC had sat 2024 out as most might have suggested then we might possibly have seen Paris handed the games completely unopposed. What would we be left to talk about then?  

I completely disagree. The IOC has a moral obligation (IMO) to be straight with cities. If they have no change, the IOC needs to say this up front. Otherwise, you just have the cities wasting millions of $$$. And,why? So the IOC can say "We have three cities bidding" instead of saying "We have two"?

If the IOC has only one bid, and that bid is Paris, good. A bit of a bummer to GamesBids, but otherwise good. 

[FYI]

I absolutely don't see how having Baku being included for 2024 from the get-go would've changed anything in the final outcome. The IOC ultimately winding up with only Paris & L.A. as 2024 candidates is not as a dire circumstance as some might make it out to be, especially when comparing Paris & L.A. to an "inferior" candidate such as Baku.

And certainly still a MUCH more desirable outcome than what the IOC had to choose from for the 2022 race, which was a "damn if you do, or damn if don't" decision between two less than ideal candidates (Beijing & Almaty). So leaving out Baku for 2024 was certainly not the IOC being on their "high-horse". Baku-koo makes even Budapest seem like a grand locale for the Games.

[alphamale86]

43 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

I completely disagree. The IOC has a moral obligation (IMO) to be straight with cities. If they have no change, the IOC needs to say this up front. Otherwise, you just have the cities wasting millions of $$$. And,why? So the IOC can say "We have three cities bidding" instead of saying "We have two"?

If the IOC has only one bid, and that bid is Paris, good. A bit of a bummer to GamesBids, but otherwise good. 

I'm going to play devils advocate on this one. Isn't the point of any major organization to make money? And please don't tell me that isn't the number 1 goal of the IOC and NOC's. You need to put yourself in the IOC position. Everyone there is trying to make money by capitalizing on the publics desire for spectacle through sport. They don't have moral obligation to anyone unless it suits their interest. If that was the case Beijing would never have been awarded the games based on human rights issues alone. They simply need to make sure they make enough money compared to the output while not completely harming their brand. So in a case like this where your last 3 bids 2024 2022 and 2020 got upstaged by so many drop outs, you can't now as an organization go forward saying we still are going to tell cities no they can't even put in an initial bid. We aren't in the golden age of bidding anymore. Cities are dropping left right and center and in order for me to make sure I make my money, the number one goal of the IOC, before I think of television rights, ticket sales and sponsorship, I need to make sure I have enough options in the event that that most of my choices fall by the wayside during the candidate process.

Cities are dropping out during the process, deep into evaluations not even getting kicked out by the IOC in that discontinued Shortlist process. They are eliminating themselves so they might as well accept all who are willing and then decide later on.  

26 minutes ago, FYI said:

I absolutely don't see how having Baku being included for 2024 from the get-go would've changed anything in the final outcome. The IOC ultimately winding up with only Paris & L.A. as 2024 candidates is not as a dire circumstance as some might make it out to be, especially when comparing Paris & L.A. to an "inferior" candidate such as Baku.

And certainly still a MUCH more desirable outcome than what the IOC had to choose from for the 2022 race, which was a "damn if you do, or damn if don't" decision between two less than ideal candidates (Beijing & Almaty). So leaving out Baku for 2024 was certainly not the IOC being on their "high-horse". Baku-koo makes even Budapest seem like a grand locale for the Games.

Here's the problem with your statement. You're looking at the race as it is right now and I am saying you need to plan for the race down the line. The final outcome as you've stated has not happened. So while it looks ok that even if Rome and Budapest drop out you still have strong bids from Paris and LA, we can't, with 100% certainty say that something will not come up in the foreseeable future that will cause both Paris and LA to drop out. I mean could anyone truly have predicated last year that LA and Paris might be the only two left in the race with 1 full year of campaigning to go? When we started out with Boston Budapest Hamburg Rome Paris possible Doha, possible Baku and possible Toronto no one could have imaged the state of the race as it is now when you look back at the treasure trove that started this cycle. We can't just say well Paris and LA were then best of the lot so it doesn't matter who drops out because it is possible that both LA and Paris could also drop out and that is the outcome you plan for at the beginning of these races. I need good option but in the event of the recent trend of cities dropping out, because we can safely say this is a major trend now, I just need options. 

[alphamale86]

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

I completely disagree. The IOC has a moral obligation (IMO) to be straight with cities. If they have no change, the IOC needs to say this up front. Otherwise, you just have the cities wasting millions of $$$. And,why? So the IOC can say "We have three cities bidding" instead of saying "We have two"?

If the IOC has only one bid, and that bid is Paris, good. A bit of a bummer to GamesBids, but otherwise good. 

1 more thing, 2022 is the perfect example of why you don't tell someone not to bid if you don't think they stand a chance. At the beginning of that race Beijing and Almaty were 5 and 6 on the totem pole compared to Stockholm Krakow, Oslo and Lviv. They weren't even on the radar. so if 4 cities dropped out for whatever reason in 2022 then the immediate next cycle we could possibly see another 4 drop out (Boston Hamburg Rome Budapest) I would definitely be rethinking that policy.