los angeles 2024

[zekekelso]

The IOC is an organization that worships tradition and doesn't like change. They aren't going to do a double 2024/2028 award unless they have a darn good reason. What's the darn good reason? 

[Ansem]

54 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I disagree.  There is no obligation.  There's a lot of different ways this could go down.  Maybe the IOC does inquire and still goes with LA anyway.  My gut feeling is that 2028 will not be awarded in Lima, but it wouldn't surprise me if the IOC makes it apparent that they're looking at the 2024 runner-up and would consider awarding them 2028 at some point without a formal bid process.  At the same time, like I said, that would be somewhat un-IOC like, so who knows if they'd do it.

The IOC is an international organization, it's not an American organization nor does it answers to America alone. International means they would have to consult from within (international members) before going forward with something like that because this is creating a HUGE precedent that would piss off all the past runner-ups and potential bidders. The IOC is unlikely to start another controversy because that's exactly what it would be, certainly not without some kind of vote or consultation.

Again, if no one is interested in 2028 or no serious viable bids step forward than it makes sense, but just doing that unilaterally would send a very bad message and hurt their image, contrarily to what you may believe, the IOC worldwide image matters more than the LA bid president and mayor.

[Ansem]

58 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What IOC rules?  They have no obligation to inquire about 2028 and offer that opportunity to other cities.

It's an International organization. They don't answer to the US alone, they answer to all and it's unlikely something like that would fly without the rest of the world not taking issue with it without a transparent process to amend how they do business. They are "talking" that's it.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

They've made it clear they'll cut a city off if they don't think it's worthy of a bid, so why not cut off every city and give it to one that's right in front of them if they have an opportunity?  Of course that's something the IOC has to decide upon internally, but it's not really changing the rules if they award 2024 as they normally would and then after that, award 2028 as well.

You just want LA to host and I understand that, but even you must realize how much it doesn't make sense to proceed that way. I'd say the same even if it was Toronto in that situation. The winter games are way more likely to see something like this before the summer games ever do. Summer games always attract more bidders. Also don't dismiss how much a very strong bidder like Paris just make other cities skip their turn and wait for the next time. That's an important factor. Most city would rather bid against Chicago than freakin Paris...doesn't mean they aren't viable bidders, sometimes, recognizing that you stand no chance is wise.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Gee.. could it be so they could save the time and expense of competing for it?  US bids are not as heavily backed by government funding as other cities/countries.  So yea, no kidding they would jump at the opportunity to not have to go through that process again and spend tens of millions of dollars to do it. 

The IOC doesn't answer to the US alone, FYI

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Not to mention what you're saving other cities from not having to do the same. 

I doubt you care about the other cities

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Not to speak for FYI, but I have every faith in LA to come back and win 2028, especially with Asia, South America, and Africa all likely out of the mix and probably little from Europe if Paris is 2024

Good for you and as you should

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

So bring on Brisbane and maybe Toronto and whatever other hangers-on want to bid.  LA would likely win that contest in a landslide.

That's disrespectful... Have you even been to one or both location you think LA would smash in a landslide? At least I claim my city would be competitive, I don't arrogantly claim that "Toronto would smash all it's competitor...Canada F Yeah!" Why do you have to act like that. If anything, Chicago should remind you to stay humble and not underestimate the rest of the world just because your media tells you America is #1 and the rest of the planet is crap next to the US.

Seriously

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

The IOC is an international organization, it's not an American organization nor does it answers to America alone. International means they would have to consult from within (international members) before going forward with something like that because this is creating a HUGE precedent that would piss off all the past runner-ups and potential bidders. The IOC is unlikely to start another controversy because that's exactly what it would be, certainly not without some kind of vote or consultation.

Again, if no one is interested in 2028 or no serious viable bids step forward than it makes sense, but just doing that unilaterally would send a very bad message and hurt their image, contrarily to what you may believe, the IOC worldwide image matters more than the LA bid president and mayor.

Guess what.. the IOC has something of an image problem right now.  As evidenced by all the cities/countries that have either dropped out of bidding or didn't enter in the first place.  Not to mention recent/future hosts include the likes of China, Russia, Greece, and Brazil, all of whom have led to a lot of negative press for the IOC.

Let's be clear about something here.  This is not about the United States, because if LA were the favorite for 2024, we'd be talking about the same scenario with Paris for 2028.  That the IOC is considering this has nothing to do with what order these 2 cities might host.

You're right it might send a bad message, but at the same time, it might not be such a terrible idea.  I sincerely doubt past runners up (Istanbul 2020, Madrid 2016, Paris 2012, Toronto 2008) are going to cause a stink, and if they did, the difference here (potentially) is that this might be a 2-city field, something none of those races were.  More importantly, who might bid for 2028 that would be put off by this?  We mentioned a couple of potential cities, but the rest the IOC would be happy to write off.  You keep saying how they need to consult from within and that's exactly what they're doing.  And they'll either decide this is a bad idea and proceed as normal, or maybe they'll think it's a good idea.  I think it'll probably be the former because it would be unlike the IOC to do this, but that said, I wouldn't put it past the IOC to do something like this if they felt it was in their best interests.

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Guess what.. the IOC has something of an image problem right now.  As evidenced by all the cities/countries that have either dropped out of bidding or didn't enter in the first place.  Not to mention recent/future hosts include the likes of China, Russia, Greece, and Brazil, all of whom have led to a lot of negative press for the IOC.

and awarding 2028 to the 2024 would help better their image how exactly?

5 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Let's be clear about something here.  This is not about the United States, because if LA were the favorite for 2024, we'd be talking about the same scenario with Paris for 2028.  That the IOC is considering this has nothing to do with what order these 2 cities might host.

You're basing that on 1 article that hasn't be reported by anyone else.

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I sincerely doubt past runners up (Istanbul 2020, Madrid 2016, Paris 2012, Toronto 2008) are going to cause a stink, and if they did, the difference here (potentially) is that this might be a 2-city field, something none of those races were.

Why woulndn't they. I'm pretty sure that all of those city who spent millions to put up a bid would have like to get automatically awarded the following games assuming no one else with a viable bid steps forward...And now that I'm writing this, it makes even less senses.

8 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

More importantly, who might bid for 2028 that would be put off by this? 

Oceania and the rest of North America. Assuming no one from Africa can bid, North America is the most overdue continent. It's too soon for cities to express their intention to bid, yet you want LA to just be awarded the 2028 games without waiting to see if Canada or Mexico would want to bid. By doing that, you're screening them out for like over 20 years and that's not right. There's absolutely no ground to do that unless there's a clear indication that no one serious is bidding in 2028.

13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

We mentioned a couple of potential cities, but the rest the IOC would be happy to write off.  You keep saying how they need to consult from within and that's exactly what they're doing.  And they'll either decide this is a bad idea and proceed as normal, or maybe they'll think it's a good idea.  I think it'll probably be the former because it would be unlike the IOC to do this, but that said, I wouldn't put it past the IOC to do something like this if they felt it was in their best interests.

IOC would be happy? Right...whatever you say. You sure make a lot of assumptions for someone who's not even remotely close to any sphere of influence within the IOC. Nice find on that article but that's my last comment on the topic until something more official comes out

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

It's an International organization. They don't answer to the US alone, they answer to all and it's unlikely something like that would fly without the rest of the world not taking issue with it without a transparent process to amend how they do business. They are "talking" that's it.

No fuckingshit.  But again.. they're talking.  How seriously they're considering doing this is a mystery and this could be all smoke and no fire.  Stop spinning this though as if I'm talking about it from the sole standpoint of benefiting the United States.  And I still disagree how much the "rest of the world" would take issue with you can already count out a great deal of countries as likely bidders, particularly if Paris wins 2024.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

You just want LA to host and I understand that, but even you must realize how much it doesn't make sense to proceed that way. I'd say the same even if it was Toronto in that situation. The winter games are way more likely to see something like this before the summer games ever do. Summer games always attract more bidders. Also don't dismiss how much a very strong bidder like Paris just make other cities skip their turn and wait for the next time. That's an important factor. Most city would rather bid against Chicago than freakin Paris...doesn't mean they aren't viable bidders, sometimes, recognizing that you stand no chance is wise.

This isn't about me wanting LA to host.  Although this is GamesBids, so of course that's always the default position.

The Summer games have attracted fewer and fewer bidders every cycle going back to 2004.  If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  And remember.. we're not talking about this because 1 of us suggested it here.  It's being reported that the IOC is talking about this.  Like I said, maybe it's nothing.  But you can't so easily dismiss this as a possibility.

As for your point about Paris, thank you for making my case for me.  LA is likely to have a very strong bid if they were in for 2028.  That's different than going up against Chicago.  LA could scare off prospective bidders as well.  And if somehow LA wins 2024, you're left with a scenario where Paris is there for 2028 (and who wants to go up against freakin Paris) or maybe they're so distraught they don't bid again? (Yes, the same could be true of LA.. although I don't think it would be).  That's the reason to consider 2024/2028 together.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

That's disrespectful... Have you even been to one or both location you think LA would smash in a landslide? At least I claim my city would be competitive, I don't arrogantly claim that "Toronto would smash all it's competitor...Canada F Yeah!" Why do you have to act like that. If anything, Chicago should remind you to stay humble and not underestimate the rest of the world just because your media tells you America is #1 and the rest of the planet is crap next to the US.

Seriously

I don't give 2 shits if it's disrespectful.  It's a statement of opinion and I stand by it.  And if it comes off as arrogant, I'm happy to own that.  Yes, I have been to Toronto before.  I know they put on a very solid Pan Am Games.  They would make a very worthy Olympic host and if the powers that be believe it's a worthwhile effort, they should bid.  And I think they would lose to LA in a landslide.

You keep trying to tell me how capable Canada is of doing what the United States could do in terms of hosting a major sports event.  But if you put them up side by side, then it's a matter of comparison where 1 is going to be better than the other.  Chicago is not LA so far as the Olympics are concerned.  New York (my home city, for which I will be belligerently snobbish about) was not up to snuff as an Olympic bidder, particularly compared to LA.

Not every comment I make about America is designed to belittle Canada, even though you seem to take it that way.  If I bring up things like population and NBC's rights fees, those are matters of fact.  It doesn't imply that Canada is unworthy or incapable.  It's not an insult to a city not to be considered Olympic material.  I certainly don't think less of New York for that.  Don't turn this into something where my arguments are based on what I've been spoon-fed by the media about America's place in the world (I'm fully aware what a laughingstock we're quickly becoming) as if the rest of the planet is inferior by comparison.  I didn't vote for the troll doll.  If we were to get an LA vs. Toronto showdown for 2028 (and don't confuse me with FYI here where he's rooting for that just to see the back-and-forth here), I think LA has a huge upper hand there.  Not because I'm rooting for them or because I think the United States is owed an Olympics or anything like that.  It's not to say Toronto doesn't have a case to make.  They'd have a good one and who knows where the U.S.'s perception lies after 4 years (hopefully less) of Drumpf.  Still putting my money on LA though.

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

Exactly, how can you know about who's "suitable" for 2028 if you don't inquire first. I do however agree that if LA loses in 2024 and no suitable bids are made for 2028 than they should be awarded the games. 

If Paris wins 2024, does it make sense for any European country to come forward with a serious attempt for 2028? As you yourself have said, if L.A. was to win 2024, then Toronto wouldn't bid for 2028, which would make rational sense. So I don't why why any European countries wouldn't heed the same kind of prudence. So in that sense, I don't see where the IOC has a "duty" to inquire about it, especially when there's nothing about that in the Olympic Charter about it, & when they're seeing first-hand how many cities are refraining from even bidding in the first place, & yes that also includes the Summer Games. 

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

Calgary? With Switzerland becoming serious about it, Calgary should forget about it. Too close from Vancouver 2010 and Alberta's economy has been hit very hard due to the oil price crashing. They are struggling right now and I doubt the province would think about committing billions over winter games.

Umm, considering that Switzerland has had two previous failed referendums & were forced to pull out bcuz of them, I'll believe in a SERIOUS Swiss bid when one actually comes to fruition. But to quote you, right now it's just "talk & ideas". And since like you said, it's the Winter Games that are especially having a hard time in finding suitable candidates.

And since the Canadian Federal government will also flip the bill with a Canadian Winter Games, the province of Alberta struggling shouldn't really matter. And the contrary, they could argue that it could help the Albertan economy. And considering that you also enjoy to harp how good the Canadian economy is in reference to a World Cup 2026, then it's a moot point. 

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

LA bid and mayors aren't members of the IOC...FYI. And if Los Angeles is as strong of a bid as you keep singing about, why do you need this so bad and why are you hoping this bad they won't have to go through another bid? That's kind of implying that you have limited faith in LA after all...

No sh!t sherlock, that LA's bid chairman & mayor "aren't" IOC members. So thanks for pointing out that obvious observation. 

But here's the thing, while the bid chairman & mayor aren't IOC members, they ARE, however, DIRECTLY involved in a process that does INVOLVE the IOC. So they *could* be PRIVY to information that us here are not, "FYI". So it does take to reason why they're saying this now, especially when less than a month ago they were saying pretty much the opposite.

And lets get one thing clear here; I can give two sh!ts if L.A. hosts a Games or not. So I'm not "singing" about anything on their behalf, or "hoping that they don't have to bid again" or "need this so bad" (unlike you, obviously with Toronto), so don't put words in my mouth. That's someone totally different here that's doing that (who's not even worth mentioning). But that doesn't mean that if some information is coming out about it, that I'm just going to conveniently dismiss it as "talk & ideas", when again that talk is coming from a couple of HIGHER-UP people DIRECTLY involved with the process. 

[Sir Rols]

4 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

Labor still one the popular vote. 

 

No they didn't. Final voting was LNP 50.36% of the vote and Labor on 49.64%.

[Quaker2001]

1 minute ago, Ansem said:

and awarding 2028 to the 2024 would help better their image how exactly?

By locking in 2 solid host cities and not running the risk that 2028 could be without a compelling bid city, just as they were stuck with for 2022.

1 minute ago, Ansem said:

You're basing that on 1 article that hasn't be reported by anyone else.

IOC president doesn’t rule out awarding 2028 Olympic host in 2017

..unless you don't think a direct quote from the head of the IOC counts for anything.  And yes, I'm more than aware how little weight that statement of his carries, but this is not the first time we've heard about it and if it was, why are 2 of the most important people in LA mentioning it?

4 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Why woulndn't they. I'm pretty sure that all of those city who spent millions to put up a bid would have like to get automatically awarded the following games assuming no one else with a viable bid steps forward...And now that I'm writing this, it makes even less senses.

Were there more than 2 bidders in each of those cycles?  Were there 2 clear alphas at a time where the IOC already has an image problem?  This is specific to this cycle and this cycle alone.

5 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Oceania and the rest of North America. Assuming no one from Africa can bid, North America is the most overdue continent. It's too soon for cities to express their intention to bid, yet you want LA to just be awarded the 2028 games without waiting to see if Canada or Mexico would want to bid. By doing that, you're screening them out for like over 20 years and that's not right. There's absolutely no ground to do that unless there's a clear indication that no one serious is bidding in 2028.

I've brought up Oceania and North America several times.  I agree they obviously have a stake in this and could be an influence on the decision.  We are in agreement on this, except where I won't go so far as to say there's no ground to do this.  This is the IOC.  They're going to do whatever the hell they please and deal with the consequences later.

7 minutes ago, Ansem said:

IOC would be happy? Right...whatever you say. You sure make a lot of assumptions for someone who's not even remotely close to any sphere of influence within the IOC. Nice find on that article but that's my last comment on the topic until something more official comes out

How many cities were interested in 2024 that the IOC told not to bother?  Doha, Baku, likely among others.  Yes, the IOC has made it very clear they will tell cities not to bother if they don't want them to participate.  That's not opinion.  That's all but a matter of fact.

[Sir Rols]

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

How many cities were interested in 2024 that the IOC told not to bother?  Doha, Baku, likely among others.  Yes, the IOC has made it very clear they will tell cities not to bother if they don't want them to participate.  That's not opinion.  That's all but a matter of fact.

Actually, we do know (from one of GBMod's articles last year) that at least Doha and Toronto were told by the IOC not to bother.

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, zekekelso said:

But those two bids are from two "A" or "A+" cities. What the bidding lacks are the long-shots. Perhaps because the IOC is discouraging such bids, or because cities are realizing they have no chance and bidding along doesn't bring prestige. In the end, as long as the IOC has a great candidate, they aren't struggling. 

How'd that work out for them for 2022?  They were left with a giant douche and a turd sandwich.  Hasn't happened on the summer side yet, and yea, it doesn't matter if there are only 2 cities left here since they're both very strong candidates.  But again, what happens if the 2024 runner-up doesn't return for 2028 and no other A or A+ cities bid?  Far from implausible to see that happen.

2 hours ago, zekekelso said:

The IOC is an organization that worships tradition and doesn't like change. They aren't going to do a double 2024/2028 award unless they have a darn good reason. What's the darn good reason? 

What happened to the IOC being a bunch of corrupt weasels?  The reason is that they have an image problem where several recent hosts have given them a bad look and locking in 2 much safer and more solid hosts might help with that issue.  You said it before and I agree that this probably isn't likely to happen because the IOC won't want to skip out on the process for 2028 where they get cities to sell themselves to the IOC and make promises they may or may not be able to keep in order to beat the competition.  But at the same time, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing for the IOC to reverse course on that and give the prize to a highly interested city without having to make them jump through hoops for it.  Of course, that's probably exactly why it's not going to happen.

[mr.bernham]

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

I'd give globalization a bit more credit here. All I'm saying is that the US has brought great things to the world, but interfering with other nations interior affairs has been the plague and ongoing plague of the 20th century. And that applies in reverse.

If you look at the 1945 Bretton-Woods agreement, the institutions that have defined globalization were created by the United States of America and agreed to by European and Asian powes. Essentially it was because of how the US responded at the conclusion of WWII that enabled modern globalization as we know it to take place. Of course there were movements beforehand within European Empires, but America really cemented the movement of globalization with that agreement. But I completely agree with you.

[Ansem]

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And I still disagree how much the "rest of the world" would take issue with you can already count out a great deal of countries as likely bidders, particularly if Paris wins 2024.

That an opinion, we'll leave it at that

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

LA is likely to have a very strong bid if they were in for 2028.  That's different than going up against Chicago.

That article said LA wants 2024 or nothing. So LA 2028 is pure speculation at this point

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And I think they would lose to LA in a landslide.

LOL, seriously doubt that and I'll leave it at that.

12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You keep trying to tell me how capable Canada is of doing what the United States could do in terms of hosting a major sports event.  But if you put them up side by side, then it's a matter of comparison where 1 is going to be better than the other.  Chicago is not LA so far as the Olympics are concerned.  New York (my home city, for which I will be belligerently snobbish about) was not up to snuff as an Olympic bidder, particularly compared to LA.

I don't take offend to that. Everyone thinks to some extend that their city/country is better than the next. I don't fault you for thinking that LA can't be touch.

14 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

If I bring up things like population and NBC's rights fees, those are matters of fact.

Yeah...That's why Chicago lost...by a landslide to Madrid, Tokyo and Rio...Guess they had more population and better TV rights...oh wait...

 

16 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

If we were to get an LA vs. Toronto showdown for 2028 (and don't confuse me with FYI here where he's rooting for that just to see the back-and-forth here), I think LA has a huge upper hand there.  Not because I'm rooting for them or because I think the United States is owed an Olympics or anything like that.  It's not to say Toronto doesn't have a case to make.  They'd have a good one and who knows where the U.S.'s perception lies after 4 years (hopefully less) of Drumpf.  Still putting my money on LA though.

Fair enough...See? I don't mind you cheering for your home. I just disagree with the outcome but hey, that's normal. At this time, it's just speculations as LA said they wont go for 2028 if they lose and Toronto hasn't started the process of exploring 2028 yet, which is next since we said no to Expo 2025 last year

[FYI]

14 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

This isn't about me wanting LA to host.  Although this is GamesBids, so of course that's always the default position.

(and don't confuse me with FYI here where he's rooting for that just to see the back-and-forth here), 

Oh, come on now. If your "memes" are anything to go by, you know that you'd likely enjoy it just as much! 

I mean seriously, it looks like both you & I could care less if L.A. hosts an Olympics or not. But we're automatically being labelled "singing" for L.A. or "needing this so bad". And this is just coming from one Canadian. Now imagine about a dozen just as insufferable as Phlegm (which that was what it was like back in 2001 when Toronto was bidding, & that was against Beijing) in a "New" L.A. vs "New" Toronto showdown?! Then add tRuffmp & his "groupies", then COME on, tell me that wouldn't good!! It would perk up these boards, to say the least, since some are complaining how they're losing their flare lately! 

[FYI]

6 minutes ago, Ansem said:

That article said LA wants 2024 or nothing. So LA 2028 is pure speculation at this point

Well, duh. Of course L.A. "wants" 2024. But so does Paris! But only ONE of them is going to get it. So what else would you expect L.A. to say. But that was LAST month. 

But now L.A. is saying that they'll "support" whatever changes the IOC may make. So no, it's NOT "pure speculation". It's OBVIOUSLY something that they're at least thinking about.

[Ansem]

21 minutes ago, FYI said:

If Paris wins 2024, does it make sense for any European country to come forward with a serious attempt for 2028? As you yourself have said, if L.A. was to win 2024, then Toronto wouldn't bid for 2028, which would make rational sense. So I don't why why any European countries wouldn't heed the same kind of prudence. So in that sense, I don't see where the IOC has a "duty" to inquire about it, especially when there's nothing about that in the Olympic Charter about it, & when they're seeing first-hand how many cities are refraining from even bidding in the first place, & yes that also includes the Summer Games. 

All I'm saying is there's an existing process in place. Not saying they can't do what they want as an organization, saying that it's not as simple as the article (not a major media) is implying. Logically, that kind of change would be a big deal and we'd hear more of it

https://www.olympic.org/all-about-the-candidature-process

Also there's something called : The International Olympic Committee

That committee holds the IOC Session which is the general meeting of the members of the IOC, held once a year in which each member has one vote. It is the IOC’s supreme organ and its decisions are final.

Extraordinary Sessions may be convened by the President or upon the written request of at least one third of the members.

Among others, the powers of the Session are:

• To adopt or amend the Olympic Charter.
• To elect the members of the IOC, the Honorary President and the honorary members.
• To elect the President, the Vice-Presidents and all other members of the IOC Executive Board.
• To elect the host city of the Olympic Games.

So...not as simple as you want it to be...

30 minutes ago, FYI said:

And since the Canadian Federal government will also flip the bill with a Canadian Winter Games, the province of Alberta struggling shouldn't really matter. And the contrary, they could argue that it could help the Albertan economy. And considering that you also enjoy to harp how good the Canadian economy is in reference to a World Cup 2026, then it's a moot point. 

You just know everything...do you? So you know Canadian politics than Canadians themselves... Interesting... Well that's really not how it works here. In Canada, ALL level of government must be all in. If Alberta's out, it's dead. The city's interest was surprising but Alberta hasn't said anything yet as their economy took a it. No bids if Alberta says no.

The World Cup is different. It's the whole country. Meaning the investment burden is split among all the provinces and Ottawa already showed support. That bid will go forward.

As for the rest of your argument, refer to my point above. There's an existing process for what that article is talking about and you should ask yourself why other major medias haven't mentioned it yet.

 

[Ansem]

33 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

By locking in 2 solid host cities and not running the risk that 2028 could be without a compelling bid city, just as they were stuck with for 2022.

IOC president doesn’t rule out awarding 2028 Olympic host in 2017

..unless you don't think a direct quote from the head of the IOC counts for anything.  And yes, I'm more than aware how little weight that statement of his carries, but this is not the first time we've heard about it and if it was, why are 2 of the most important people in LA mentioning it?

Were there more than 2 bidders in each of those cycles?  Were there 2 clear alphas at a time where the IOC already has an image problem?  This is specific to this cycle and this cycle alone.

I've brought up Oceania and North America several times.  I agree they obviously have a stake in this and could be an influence on the decision.  We are in agreement on this, except where I won't go so far as to say there's no ground to do this.  This is the IOC.  They're going to do whatever the hell they please and deal with the consequences later.

How many cities were interested in 2024 that the IOC told not to bother?  Doha, Baku, likely among others.  Yes, the IOC has made it very clear they will tell cities not to bother if they don't want them to participate.  That's not opinion.  That's all but a matter of fact.

Refer to post above. Thank you

[FYI]

30 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What happened to the IOC being a bunch of corrupt weasels?  

Exactly. Gotta love their flip-flooping. But then again, maybe they're trolling again. 

[Ansem]

32 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Actually, we do know (from one of GBMod's articles last year) that at least Doha and Toronto were told by the IOC not to bother.

The City said no, they weren't told to drop it. Time was way too short to submit a bid

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/olympics-toronto-bid-tory-1.3228434

Quote

The IOC was supportive of Tory's decision.

"We realize that time was too short for such a detailed project to get the necessary support in just a few weeks following the successful Pan Am Games," IOC spokesman Mark Adams said. "The International Olympic Committee highly appreciates what Toronto has done as it continues to work on a future candidacy."

 

[Sir Rols]

5 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The City said no, they weren't told to drop it. Time was way too short to submit a bid

 

Quote

 

The third potential candidate advised by the IOC not to submit a bid was likely Toronto as the Mayor of the Canadian city said on the eve of the application deadline that he decided not to move forward after discussions with the IOC.

Too Many Olympic Bid Losers, IOC Chief Says; Vows Further Changes To Come

 

 

[FYI]

12 minutes ago, Ansem said:

All I'm saying is there's an existing process in place. Not saying they can't do what they want as an organization, saying that it's not as simple as the article (not a major media) is implying. Logically, that kind of change would be a big deal and we'd hear more of it

https://www.olympic.org/all-about-the-candidature-process

Also there's something called : The International Olympic Committee

That committee holds the IOC Session which is the general meeting of the members of the IOC, held once a year in which each member has one vote. It is the IOC’s supreme organ and its decisions are final.

Extraordinary Sessions may be convened by the President or upon the written request of at least one third of the members.

Among others, the powers of the Session are:

• To adopt or amend the Olympic Charter.
• To elect the members of the IOC, the Honorary President and the honorary members.
• To elect the President, the Vice-Presidents and all other members of the IOC Executive Board.
• To elect the host city of the Olympic Games.

So...not as simple as you want it to be...

Here we go again!  It's not about what I "want". "All I'm saying is that you can't conveniently dismiss the "talk" about it simply bcuz you don't agree with it. 

And yes, thank you for pointing out what goes on at an IOC session. But how do you know that they won't take care of that exact business at the Lima Session? Like Quaker said, the IOC most likely won't do it there on that day (if they're gonna do it at all), but they can at least set up the framework to do so at a later date, hence "Extraodinary Sessions". 

[FYI]

21 minutes ago, Ansem said:

You just know everything...do you? So you know Canadian politics than Canadians themselves... Interesting... Well that's really not how it works here. 

I never said that I did. I'm just going by your incessant "singing" on how "great" Canada is. 

[Ansem]

24 minutes ago, FYI said:

Here we go again!  It's not about what I "want". "All I'm saying is that you can't conveniently dismiss the "talk" about it simply bcuz you don't agree with it. 

And yes, thank you for pointing out what goes on at an IOC session. But how do you know that they won't take care of that exact business at the Lima Session? Like Quaker said, the IOC most likely won't do it there on that day (if they're gonna do it at all), but they can at least set up the framework to do so at a later date, hence "Extraodinary Sessions". 

This is pointless, we're arguing over speculation. Let's just see what happens

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

If anything, Chicago should remind you to stay humble and not underestimate the rest of the world just because your media tells you America is #1 and the rest of the planet is crap next to the US.

Seriously

Yeah, the same could be said about Toronto & Canada back in 2001. When the Canadians were saying things like "how can the IOC in their right mind go to such a lacking place like China, when they can come here instead? There's no comparion, we have the superior bid", yada yada. So please spare us the "humble" talk. 

[Ansem]

23 minutes ago, FYI said:

I never said that I did. I'm just going by your incessant "singing" on how "great" Canada is. 

Well It is great, no arguing there.