Pure facts Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 5 hours ago, RuFF said: https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-la-paris-2028-story,amp.html I think it's become clear that Los Angeles has the superior bid. I have to side with Livingston that the Paris2024 team is bluffing on the OV only being available for 2024, too. LA2024 continues its professional streak steering clear of harsh words or wishywashiness seen in the Paris team. Also, Alan Abrahamson made mention that the IOC should speak to Tony Estaunget about playing fairly. Bid week notes the OV as being LA's key to 2024 being the same thing (bluff) Paris is using to win the prize. http://gamesbids.com/eng/robs-bidblog/bidweek-race-not-to-host-the-2028-games-is-on-as-olympic-bids-navigate-new-twist/ The land over which Paris 2024 Village would be built has been identified as a high value piece for housing development in the Seine St-Denis Department: it is to become a central public transport hub in the scope of the new Paris Express Metro and the Local Housing Plan of Plaine Commune (where the village will be located) fixes an objective of 4,200 new housing units a year for the 2026-2021 period alone. Therefore, should Paris not be awarded 2024, the development plan will keep going on and the land won't be availble for 2028, just like the land that had been identified for the Olympic Village for 2012 is now a fully developed new neighbourhood of Paris. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 ^I've always said that that the land proposed for the Paris 2024 OV is prime real estate. So how could they hold onto to that indefinitely? It is Paris afterall, home to some of the most expensive real estate in the world, just like New York, London & Tokyo. And even L.A. So there's Livingston's "truth serum". Which I found to be a peculiar mentioning, if not kinda ridiculous. But it couldn't have been outlined better than how PF's just did. Paris has major urban infrastructure plans, & "just like L.A." (& like New York did after their 2012 loss), they're moving forward with them, with or without the 2024 Olympics. Maybe had L.A. held onto their original piggyback yards OV site, they could've also used the same type of "bluff"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 7 hours ago, Roger87 said: This. I mean, who cares if Anne Hidalgo changed of idea for Paris 2024. There's the OMG possibility she thought it can be better a 2024 bid. External and internal factors are reasons for change every time. This is now a full level of trying hard at level of TRuff. I've said before that the French being so uncertain about a 2024 bid at first, but now are full gung-ho on one, only reinforces how far & strong Paris 2024 has come. It only demonstrates how serious Paris & the French are involved with this 2024 endeavor, & the IOC has taken notice of that. All the Truff spin that "L.A. has been serious from the very beginning" means diddly-squat in the bigger picture. The IOC already knows that L.A. is "always" serious. They've been "serious" since the forums existed. And they'll keep on being serious 'til 2028, 2032 or beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, RuFF said: Paris would gain more from increased contributions from the IOC being as the items left to build are amongst the bigger ticket items. So is this another straw that you're grasping at? Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Roger87 said: Even as pretending rationale, this is classic pettiness for a potential disappointment as happened with Toronto 2008 or Madrid 2020. Then better to keep calendar for 2028. Yep, anyone citing that Estaunget is "not playing fair" are really "tense" themselves. I mean what about all the "ultimatums" coming from the L.A. camp. All the "if the IOC really is serious about 'change', then they 'must' come to the only city that can be that answer". Or my favorite - "L.A. is the game changer" nonsense, & the other exclusivity mumbo-jumbo coming from them. Seriously, they need to practice what they preach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, RuFF said: Or the IOC may see that the French have been wishywashy, are probably bluffing, and rather than run a professional bid are pretty much willing to go in the direction that benefits a win, rather than the city. Placing it squarely in the danger zone of continuing the same Olympic trends of negative news as these wishy washinesses bubble to the surface. I think it was a bold move, and perhaps not a very smart one, that Cassy Wasserman said that if the IOC is really serious about Agenda 2020 it needs to pick LA. But I think it's pretty spelled out at this point. LA was Agenda 2020 in 1984. And while Paris may have many features of what one would see as Agenda 2020, if they drop the ball (note: wishywashy) the effects could be long lasting damage for the IOC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, RuFF said: Or the IOC may see that the French have been wishywashy, wishy washinesses bubble to the surface. (note: wishywashy) What's "wishy-washy" are how you change your arguments from one month to the next (i.e. the piggyback yards, L.A. is "America's bid" before Frump, "L.A. is "California's bid" after Frump, etc, etc, etc) in order to tailor-make your arguments with your L.A. is all sunshine & rainbows "wishy-washiness" colored glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 "LA 2024 is literally the only Olympic Agenda 2020 city," Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, Agenda 2020 is a **process** which allows cities to work with the IOC so bids can closer match the city's development goals. It is not a criteria which cities meet or don't meet, or one which will be used to compare bidding cities directly with one another. Who is Wasserman to say Paris' bid isn't compliant with what Paris' development goals are, given that it has full support of the Mayor and decent public support? LA trying to redefine Agenda 2020 to make it "who has most stuff already built" might be convenient for their narrative, but it's quite dishonest."We think it defines the future of Olympic hosting." Sigh....how does LA being in the fortunate position of having everything already built change anything if the IOC doesn't change the demands put on cities? Assuming LA wins 2024, how can a city which doesn't have a stadium gain anything from LA's blueprint? How can a city which needs a new 20k seat Arena take anything away from it? LA is not offering anything "new" or radical that'll suddenly make hosting for future cities easier, it just happens to be in a fortunate position few other cities are in. LA offers a stable, solid bid (so does Paris btw), but it isn't going to be "rescuing" the Games as its supporters like to claim. It's not in a position to do so. If the Games need rescuing only the IOC can make changes which will last in the long-run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 ^I hope that Prince Albert really grills L.A. in the final presentation on all that spin (as he's been known to do on throwing bids curveballs lmfao). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 24 minutes ago, RuFF said: Or the IOC may see that the French have been wishywashy, are probably bluffing, and rather than run a professional bid are pretty much willing to go in the direction that benefits a win, rather than the city. Placing it squarely in the danger zone of continuing the same Olympic trends of negative news as these wishy washinesses bubble to the surface. I think it was a bold move, and perhaps not a very smart one, that Cassy Wasserman said that if the IOC is really serious about Agenda 2020 it needs to pick LA. But I think it's pretty spelled out at this point. LA was Agenda 2020 in 1984. And while Paris may have many features of what one would see as Agenda 2020, if they drop the ball (note: wishywashy) the effects could be long lasting damage for the IOC. I think we need to start calling you Charlie Brown, because this sums you up pretty well.. If you're holding out hope for the IOC to see this through the same lens as you are, pretty good chance you're going to be disappointed. Absolutely no one is going to give a crap about the attitude of the host city. Only the results. And do not forget that the city LA is up against is not an authoritarian big spender like a Beijing or a Sochi. Or a city/country with political and economic hurdles to overcome. You're talking about Paris, one of the most notable cities in the entire world. Even LA's bid has said they use London's Olympics as a basis for comparison on things like ticket prices rather than looking at Rio. That says volumes. There has been and will continue to be a lot of chatter here in what as a very unique Olympic bid cycle. Both sides have expressed "you have to pick us" and/or "you must pick us now and only now" but that's all going to be background noise. There is some truth to your last point, but that's a risk the IOC takes every time out. It would be a risk if they chose LA, and how damaging do you think that would be to pick such a sure-fire success story, only to have it not turn out that way. The IOC needs Europe back on board. Hard to tell if choosing Paris will even necessarily help bring other cities back into the fold. But I like the IOC's odds of repairing their reputation with a Paris 2024, which I think will be successful. LA 2024 (and they would still have to award 2028 well in advance of those Olympics) simply kicks the can down the road and then they're in no better shape then as opposed to now. The argument can be spun both ways. You have no "control" here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 13 hours ago, RuFF said: I think it's become clear that Los Angeles has the superior bid. That's exactly what Toronto 2008 cheerleaders kept saying, & we all know now how that one turned out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Let me amend with 1 thought.. some of the chatter in the lead-up to the vote could make a difference. Probably did for the 2012 vote. But we're still several months out from that. It will be old and forgotten news by the time we get to September about Paris checking out LA venues or their tweets about the sun or most of that other nonsense. It bears repeating that for us to constantly be tracking these things makes us treat the bid like stock prices (hint hint Gamesbids). Different story if the vote was happening today. It's not. And we need to remember that as the discussion goes along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said: You're talking about Paris, one of the most notable cities in the entire world. Even LA's bid has said they use London's Olympics as a basis for comparison on things like ticket prices rather than looking at Rio. That says volumes. This is one of the many things what so irks me about the L.A. camp with their hypocrisy (like AbraTwatson for starters) - when they wanna put a positive spin on the Olympics for the sake of their '24 bid, they wanna talk about London 2012. But when they wanna put a negative spin on the Olympics, in an (futile) effort to try & ding their main (& only) rival (now) in this contest, Paris, they wanna talk about Rio 2016. Talk about disingenuous & hypocritical POS. If any city can most resemble London 2012, that's Paris 2024. Not even "L.A." could, cuz their "ready-made" plan is so different than what even London's was. 19 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said: There is some truth to your last point, but that's a risk the IOC takes every time out. It would be a risk if they chose LA, and how damaging do you think that would be to pick such a sure-fire success story, only to have it not turn out that way. To quote paul here, I'd LMFAO!!! 10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said: It will be old and forgotten news by the time we get to September about Paris checking out LA venues or their tweets about the sun or most of that other nonsense. I'd already forgotten about that inane stuff It's really only Truff who keeps bringing L.A. nuances like that up & wanting to cling on to it like some dingy, old smelly blanket, like Linus in Charlie Brown! Besides, what's wrong with checking out your competition every now & then. It happens in business all the time & is considered a smart move. It also means that you're not taking your strong position for granted (which was part of the criticism with Paris' 2012 attempt). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 47 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said: You have no "control" here. That must fog up her pink L.A. glasses, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure facts Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 hour ago, RuFF said: Or the IOC may see that the French have been wishywashy, are probably bluffing, and rather than run a professional bid are pretty much willing to go in the direction that benefits a win, rather than the city. Placing it squarely in the danger zone of continuing the same Olympic trends of negative news as these wishy washinesses bubble to the surface. I think it was a bold move, and perhaps not a very smart one, that Cassy Wasserman said that if the IOC is really serious about Agenda 2020 it needs to pick LA. But I think it's pretty spelled out at this point. LA was Agenda 2020 in 1984. And while Paris may have many features of what one would see as Agenda 2020, if they drop the ball (note: wishywashy) the effects could be long lasting damage for the IOC. IF basically LA is the only Olympic Agenda 2020 compatible city, I fail to understand how a LA 2024 Games will ensure the sustainability of the Olympic Movement: which ciy, besides LA, has everything (but 25% of the Olympic Village, the stadium for the Opening Ceremony, the IBC) built and ready? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger87 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 hours ago, RuFF said: Or the IOC may see that the French have been wishywashy, are probably bluffing, and rather than run a professional bid are pretty much willing to go in the direction that benefits a win, rather than the city. Placing it squarely in the danger zone of continuing the same Olympic trends of negative news as these wishy washinesses bubble to the surface. I think it was a bold move, and perhaps not a very smart one, that Cassy Wasserman said that if the IOC is really serious about Agenda 2020 it needs to pick LA. But I think it's pretty spelled out at this point. LA was Agenda 2020 in 1984. And while Paris may have many features of what one would see as Agenda 2020, if they drop the ball (note: wishywashy) the effects could be long lasting damage for the IOC. Or maybe, just maybe, you are only mad and niptick every small detail to put down Paris 2024 in an empty speech of "objective value and opinion". If you just recognize your clear bias and say: "I want LA 2024 to win no matter what" and "Europe sucks", at least people will respect your honesty, but in this chedar cheese of logic it's just alternative facts. Also, you still confuse the principal fact of Agenda 2020. Paris 2024 is also Agenda 2020 - This strategy is adapted of the necesities of the host city. A city can build a OV but it may be a rational and factical public project for housing. The real issue is how to spend, not if spend money. It's simple ridiculous thinking otherwise. But then, coming from the big defender of Abrahamson here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 28 minutes ago, RuFF said: Lol. How funny that you're on a soapbox proclaiming this when pretty much the same thing could be said about you. Haha, nice try though Roger. They may or may not be so in Roger's case. But in YOUR case, it is absolutely 110% accurate! There's no denying that, & virtually everyone else here can finally see that now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger87 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 28 minutes ago, RuFF said: Lol. How funny that you're on a soapbox proclaiming this when pretty much the same thing could be said about you. Haha, nice try though Roger. I wish your preferred winner luck. No dear, the difference between me (and others) and you is, beyond having our favorites cities, we're trying to balance all the qualities and values related to the race and trying to find a mostly objective analysis. If any case, I never spoke badly of Los Angeles as a host city or how incapable is the city. Beside that, I dare you to find a sole post from my part which I written badly of LA (Beyond of Trump as President). If you can found it, then post it and call me a liar. Instead, you're only a troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger87 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 At least right now you begin to recognize your personal bias... well, that's a nice beginning TRuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Roger87 said: No dear, the difference between me (and others) and you is, beyond having our favorites cities, we're trying to balance all the qualities and values related to the race and trying to find a mostly objective analysis. Exactly - & that's precisely the main difference between most others in this thread & tRuffmp. Everyone else takes all the qualifiers into account. Truff (& his favorite "journalist" AbraTwatson) can only see things with their rose-colored L.A. glasses on. 6 minutes ago, Roger87 said: If any case, I never spoke badly of Los Angeles as a host city or how incapable is the city. Beside that, I dare you to find a sole post from my part which I written badly of LA (Beyond of Trump as President). If you can found it, then post it and call me a liar. Instead, you're only a troll. Yep - no one here has really said any negative things about L.A. And as a matter of fact, many of us have acknowledged that L.A. has a solid bid, & can just as easily host in 2028 than it could in 2024. But regardless, bcuz we merely don't concur with the year with them, we're still labeled as "anti-L.A. haters". Go figure. 7 minutes ago, Roger87 said: At least right now you begin to recognize your personal bias... well, that's a nice beginning TRuff. Not so sure on that one, considering how truff "prides themselves on being a d!ck". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 hour ago, FYI said: They may or may not be so in Roger's case. But in YOUR case, it is absolutely 110% accurate! There's no denying that, & virtually everyone else here can finally see that now. He sure is a pro.. a pro-jector that is! Then again, he's also a troll, so maybe we shouldn't be taking the bait. I guess that makes him a master-baiter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 tRuffmpy somehow can't view the race objectively. I understand his boosterism for LA but this website is for analyzing and dissecting the chances of each bidding city. And when one takes his posts apart, he takes it personally -- which shouldn't be. Ruff, re-examine the thrust of this website, and all will be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger87 Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 4 hours ago, FYI said: Exactly - & that's precisely the main difference between most others in this thread & tRuffmp. Everyone else takes all the qualifiers into account. Truff (& his favorite "journalist" AbraTwatson) can only see things with their rose-colored L.A. glasses on. Yep - no one here has really said any negative things about L.A. And as a matter of fact, many of us have acknowledged that L.A. has a solid bid, & can just as easily host in 2028 than it could in 2024. But regardless, bcuz we merely don't concur with the year with them, we're still labeled as "anti-L.A. haters". Go figure. Not so sure on that one, considering how truff "prides themselves on being a d!ck". Right, I have forgotten. My optimism nubilizes that. But still, these rose-colored LA glasses can be perfectly reflects when TRuff mentioned President Trump actions won't have impact. That shows certain level of fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, RuFF said: LA was Agenda 2020 in 1984. But here is the problem that you don't seem capable of understanding. The IOC is only an umbrella organization for a lot of other self-interested organizations: the national olympic associations, the sporting federations and all of the people who give the IOC money. And the reason the Olympics has grown bigger and bigger is that all of those other groups want/need it to. Agenda 202 has already failed for the 2020 Olympics because the interested parties don't want to be downgraded. The cycling and rowing federations do not want to use existing venues that is further away from Tokyo. The volleyball and swimming/diving federations do not want to use a smaller existing venues. All of the national teams want an expensive new village. Los Angeles is not the only city in the world that understands the value of using existing infrastructure. The reason that it was able to use only existing infrastructure in 1984 is that it was the only bidder. The sporting federations and NOC's could take what LA gave them or the Olympics would be cancelled. Edited March 24, 2017 by Nacre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 I missed this in the Newswire section, which is odd because usually a certain poster wants to discuss such things here. Would love to get some thoughts on this one.. State Analyst Reports LA 2024 “Low Risk”, But City Remains “Primary Financial Guarantor” State analyst calls L.A. Olympic bid 'fairly low risk' but warns of possible pitfalls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.