los angeles 2024

[Rob2012]

14 minutes ago, RuFF said:

the Follow The Sun scandal

[FYI]

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

I have to agree that the Paris team needs to set their sights on 2024 and not LA. 

Who says that they're not. Again, the Paris 2024 bid team hasn't even made a peep about the whole facebook like nonsense. It's only you (& a couple of other L.A. cheerleaders) that our making a big deal about this cuz some in the French media have reported about it. So you couldn't be more wrong (as usual). 

[Rob2012]

Paris' team did take a trip to LA to have a nosey at some of their venues. So as far as we know they have taken a greater interest in LA than LA has in Paris. But Paris is nevertheless still pretty focussed on their own efforts. I see no evidence to contradict that.

In truth, there's been zero scandalous about this bid race. The sun thing barely even qualifies as cheeky, and the Facebook likes thing is so boring. They need to start slagging off each other's food.

[baron-pierreIV]

The only thing that can be kept secret in Olympic bids are the decor of the Olympic Village rooms, and the design elements (Torch, Look of the Games, uniforms of the staff) which will all be revealed at a much later date.  Other than that, everything is/will be available from the bid books.  

[ejaycat]

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Thank you.  Negative fucks should be given about this.  

Yeah, precisely.  

I'm with Pocahontas on this.

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, RuFF said:

The ONLY reason that LA can produce these numbers is because LA created a culture where sports have to pay to play in LA's strong sporting market. The city has stayed away from providing public funding for sports outside of surrounding public infrastructure. The history of pay to play is built in to, I believe, every single venue on the LA bid. That, I believe, is the direction the city will go with the Olympics. The precedent is too strong to believe the city will fold to cost overruns, and while LA1984 is dismissed as a one off that was during a different time, LA remains the same. You want to play, you have to pay. 

Oh boy, not this nonsense again.  If LA is awarded the Olympics, they will sign a host city contract with the IOC which they are obligated to deliver on.  That's a world of difference than telling the NFL the city won't pay them to bring a team to town.

So what happens if there are cost overruns with the Olympics?  There's still a project budget of $5 billion.  What prevents that from increasing if, say, operating costs are higher than expected or revenues are lower?  Don't give us this "LA remains the same" bullshit when the amount of spend on venues and infrastructure alone is money than the entire operating budget of the 1984 Olympics.  Yea, it was a different time and maybe LA can be just successful this time around.  Not a guarantee though. Taxpayers are still potentially on the hook, not matter how much the organizing committee says otherwise.

[neige]

11 hours ago, Pure facts said:

 

• the planned rennovation by USC (irrespective of the Games) for which a budget of $300 million is foreseen -> this is not included in the bid as -just for like the other venues to be built as well as the expension of UCLA accommodation or the construction of the IBC- it is not bid dependant and therefore not included in the $5.3 billion budget

That's the problem. All what is not bid dependant is not included in the budget. Thus, it is said there is no risk for LA project. but it's not true!

Why the $1.8 Billion Housing construction for the Paris OV(which has started and will be done irrespective of the Games) would be a risk whereas the $2.6 Billion Hollywood Park stadium construction (which has also started) wouldn't be a risk?

Why the $400 Million Roland Garros renovation (which has started and is not really needed for the Games) would be a risk whereas the construction of 4,169 new dorms at UCLA from 2020 to 2023 wouldn't be a risk?

Why the $100 Millon Paris Arena 2 (2019-2021: not bid dependant) would be a risk whereas the $270 Million Coliseum renovation (2017-2019) wouldn't be a risk?

And so on....

Paris has included all of the needed constructions (even those which are not bid dependant) in its bid file (see tables 22 and 23 here: http://www.paris2024.org/medias/bidbook/bb2_en_2017-digital150.pdf). I guess it is also to increase the legacy of the Games ($3.2 Billion of investments for the city).

It's not so clear and transparent in LA bid file (not so easy to find all what is really needed for the Games)

 

 

 

[FYI]

^It's called hypocrisy on part of L.A. & it's supporters. Bcuz without it, then they wouldn't have a narrative to try & sell. Luckily, the IOC & others who aren't in the L.A. "all is hunky-dory here" sphere can see right through that double-standard mumbo-jumbo.

[ejaycat]

20 minutes ago, neige said:

 

Why the $1.8 Billion Housing construction for the Paris OV(which has started and will be done irrespective of the Games) would be a risk whereas the $2.6 Billion Hollywood Park stadium construction (which has also started) wouldn't be a risk?

 

I didn't realize that Paris' Olympic Village was gonna be built anyway, Olympics or not.  Apart from the time sensitive issue, then there is no risk in building it, if it's going to be used for housing, whether Paris gets the Olympics or not.  So, in my opinion, this shouldn't have been included in the budget.

You brought up the Roland Garros renovation, the Paris Arena... if those were gonna be done regardless whether Paris gets the Olympics or not, my question is, then why were these included in the budget?  Aren't some other entities gonna pay for them anyway, and not Paris2024?  Why *were* these projects included in the budget?  

[JMarkSnow2012]

7 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I would guess that the OV in the Paris bid is included because the housing still hasn't been sold. Perhaps the same scenario as Rio. UCLA is building housing to keep up with student housing needs. The entirety of the UC system is lacking in student housing. Despite the housing being built on the University of California system, it's not going to be sold. The demand and need is existing of the University and in turn has built in legacy. 

Paris and Rio are very different cities. Rio's Olympic village was about 20 km from the city centre; the proposed Paris village is about 7km from the centre of Paris. It will be worth developing, Olympics or no Olympics (but the Olympics may be needed to make it possible).

[neige]

14 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

I didn't realize that Paris' Olympic Village was gonna be built anyway, Olympics or not.  Apart from the time sensitive issue, then there is no risk in building it, if it's going to be used for housing, whether Paris gets the Olympics or not.  So, in my opinion, this shouldn't have been included in the budget.

You brought up the Roland Garros renovation, the Paris Arena... if those were gonna be done regardless whether Paris gets the Olympics or not, my question is, then why were these included in the budget?  Aren't some other entities gonna pay for them anyway, and not Paris2024?  Why *were* these projects included in the budget?  

 Why *were* these projects included in the budget?

Good question....maybe to show the Games will bring a strong legacy (even if a part of this legacy would have been brought irrespective of the Games)

But at least, it's clear if you look at tables 22 and 23 at the end of the bid file: http://www.paris2024.org/medias/bidbook/bb2_en_2017-digital150.pdf

You can clearly see the what is private/public, permanent work/overlay and all costs.

[FYI]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

 

Exacty.

[Nacre]

11 hours ago, paul said:

Paris is sounding like a huge baby. Desperate. Give them the damn game or we will never hear the end of their complaining. LA is better to stay far away from this broken europrise. 

......I love how the new stadium in LA is now being lumped into LAs budget. It's all just too good to be true.....a free state of the art "extra" stadium....just cuz. No fuss no muss. The LA team is making it look easy, while the Paris team is letting their sweat show. 

The problem is that the new stadium in LA does not address any of the areas where LA has problems. Los Angeles already had the Rose Bowl for the football/soccer finals anyway, and the whole "double ceremonies" thing will not go down well with traditionalists in the IOC. Similarly the Coliseum renovations are good for USC's football program but will be pretty bad for the stadium in an athletics configuration.

I don't mind people promoting the positives of LA's bid (of which there are many) but the willful ignorance of any of the downsides is simply moronic.

The fact that Parisians accept the negatives of their own city and/or bid is being spun by LA boosters as some kind of negative for Paris. Meanwhile the complete ignorance of LA's partisans (see here) of any flaw in their bid is almost indistinguishable from North Korean propaganda.

[baron-pierreIV]

3 hours ago, Nacre said:

. . .  the whole "double ceremonies" thing will not go down well with traditionalists in the IOC.

If anything, it would be an LA OCOG that could sell the idea to the IOC -- and there is legitimate reason for that in LA's case.  The new stadium is more suitable for ceremonies, but the history is in the old one, so LA will have the know-how to merge both.  

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, RuFF said:

The problem with your analysis, Los Angeles has a stronger sporting industry than Paris, as is evident with larger capacity and newer venues constantly in use with existing tenants just about every day. So while the city is signing a host city contract that word missing in the Paris bid comes up, private. LA2024 is a private entity, like the NFL. For some reason you think LA is going to give away the bank to the IOC. The city has a reputation of slamming the brakes on taxpayer funds being used for sport, and the Olympics is no different. LA, and California have a pay to play culture. You want to associate your brand with Los Angeles and/or California, you're going to pay. Lakers, kings, Chargers, Raiders, Rams, etc have all fallen directly under this category, pay to play. The Raiders went to Nevada because they couldn't get taxpayer funds to fund their new stadium. The Chargers are in LA because Stan Kroenke put up his own 3 billion dollar dime. But I guess, if you really believe LA is going to pay, you can run right along with that story. I'd challenge you to find a single instance where LA went against this. I don't think you're going to find it.

Wow, you actually are that naive.  You've definitely been drinking that Abrahamson kool-aid (which for you probably tastes a lot like semen).  You're buying into this idea that it's impossible for LA to fail.  Tread carefully with that one.  No, I don't believe LA is going to pay.  But they could.  And clearly the organizers believe that or else why else would they set up contingency funding?

You're absolutely right that private funding lessens the risks of cost overruns.  It does not eliminate those risks entirely.  Ask Atlanta how that worked out for them.  Having a lot of existing infrastructure (not that Paris isn't in the same category) lessens the risks.  It does not eliminate then entirely.  You keep telling me how LA would never use public funding for sports.  That's all well and good when you have a choice, like they did with the NFL where they could hold out until the right combination of an ownership group and a stadium deal came along.  Not so easy with the Olympics.  Once that host city contract is signed, you have officially made a deal with the devil.  You are now obligated to deliver everything you promised under a very strict deadline for which there is zero wiggle room.  That's what LA is signing up for.

Since you like to cite 1984.. yes, if LA gets an Olympics and everything runs smoothly and there are no surprises, then they may very well turn a profit.  That's what the organizers are banking on when they're telling taxpayers not to worry and that they is no risk to them.  Most of the budgets and projections are best case scenario.  So what if everything doesn't run smoothly?  Guess who is on the hook if that happens.  The city of Los Angeles.  And that will fall on the taxpayers.  They have absolutely no input into that decision and no control over the situation if things go awry.  Unless you can find someone to underwrite those deficits and save the city, there is risk there and it is dangerously ignorant to think otherwise.

Former Montreal mayor Jean Drapeau once famously said "The Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby."  Yea, that didn't work out so well for them, did it.  $5.3 billion (including over a billion on venue infrastructure) is not a small amount of money.  It's a lot more than the 1984 budget, and those Olympics didn't require putting up a bid to beat out other competition to get it.  The LA2024 can give all the assurances in the world to the people of LA, but they cannot shield taxpayers from risk like some seem to think.  Private versus public doesn't solve that.

So let me say this again, even though you're obviously only going to hear what you want and convince yourself I'm saying something different.  I think LA has a good chance at succeeding.  But you cannot ignore the risks involved in this and pretend like precedent exists to where LA has this "pay to play" ideal going and therefore the taxpayers are protected.  Again, that's ignorant.  The IOC will want all sorts of financial assurances to protect their own ass and if they don't get them, guess what happens.. "And the 2024 Olympics, the Games of the XXXIII Olympiad, are awarded to the city of.. Paris"  Because if we're going to talk about precedent, remember your history.. LA has never won a bid where they had any competition.  If they did that here, it would be a first.

[Quaker2001]

8 hours ago, neige said:

That's the problem. All what is not bid dependant is not included in the budget. Thus, it is said there is no risk for LA project. but it's not true!

Why the $1.8 Billion Housing construction for the Paris OV(which has started and will be done irrespective of the Games) would be a risk whereas the $2.6 Billion Hollywood Park stadium construction (which has also started) wouldn't be a risk?

Why the $400 Million Roland Garros renovation (which has started and is not really needed for the Games) would be a risk whereas the construction of 4,169 new dorms at UCLA from 2020 to 2023 wouldn't be a risk?

Why the $100 Millon Paris Arena 2 (2019-2021: not bid dependant) would be a risk whereas the $270 Million Coliseum renovation (2017-2019) wouldn't be a risk?

And so on....

Paris has included all of the needed constructions (even those which are not bid dependant) in its bid file (see tables 22 and 23 here: http://www.paris2024.org/medias/bidbook/bb2_en_2017-digital150.pdf). I guess it is also to increase the legacy of the Games ($3.2 Billion of investments for the city).

It's not so clear and transparent in LA bid file (not so easy to find all what is really needed for the Games)

To be fair here..

The new Rams stadium is privately funded.  If that winds up costing $4 billion, Stan Kroenke gets the bill for that, not the city of LA or the LA2024 organizers.  Ditto for the Coliseum renovations.

I don't know why the Paris folks are including those items in the budget.  But the difference is that Roland Garros and that renovation are a part of the Olympic bid and perhaps the Paris organizers view that as an enhancement for the city that's tied to the Olympics.  The new Rams stadium really isn't.  The Coliseum renovations are separate from the $300 million that's in the LA budget for a completely different and separate renovation that's specific to the Olympics.

[Roger87]

18 hours ago, Rob. said:

No, it's not. Anyone can get big numbers, it's whether those numbers are converted to extra sales and engagement which is key. Ten thousand good followers built up over a long period is far more describable than 100,000 followers who don't act on any of your posts.

This is an interesting approach related to Hollywood. Films like "Scott Pilgrim", "Jennifer's Body" and others have a lot of social network numbers (Hence, check the numbers of people like Tila Tequila, Lindsay Lohan or Megan Fox) and still flop at BO. These numbers aren't actually reliable of the real support from a cause. Let's also keep in mind, UK Labour Party has still the upper grade in these resources and it still lose elections lol. These numbers tend to be misguided in the majority of the times.

[Roger87]

9 hours ago, RuFF said:

I would guess that the OV in the Paris bid is included because the housing still hasn't been sold. Perhaps the same scenario as Rio. UCLA is building housing to keep up with student housing needs. The entirety of the UC system is lacking in student housing. Despite the housing being built on the University of California system, it's not going to be sold. The demand and need is existing of the University and in turn has built in legacy. 

And again that Rio comparaison. And you came into the criticism we repeat the same arguments over and over again. If it wasn't as funny to see making your points destroyed in little pieces, it would have been a really sad situation from your lack of novelty

[Roger87]

And this is becoming tiresome, why are these LA cheerladers (Like TRuff and Abrahamson) always keep Paris at the same level as Rio, while neglecting the comparaison with London and Barcelona, which are the closer examples from Paris situation (And closer to Paris itself as a city)? I mean, there's must be at this level a sense of delusion, lack of rational logic or pathology from that argument. 

[paul]

12 hours ago, Nacre said:

The problem is that the new stadium in LA does not address any of the areas where LA has problems. Los Angeles already had the Rose Bowl for the football/soccer finals anyway, and the whole "double ceremonies" thing will not go down well with traditionalists in the IOC. Similarly the Coliseum renovations are good for USC's football program but will be pretty bad for the stadium in an athletics configuration.

if you are bidding for an Olympics an extra 3billion dollar state of the art sport stadium and entertainment complex is probably the kind of "problem" bids dream of....don't cha think?!

Why wouldn't a double ceremony go down well with the IOC, they just had a ceremony in a soccer stadium with limited logistical access and didn't seem to mind? This is supposed to be project 2020 (or whatever that failing fencer called it).......where bids do what is right for them and what makes sense. And what makes more sense (and American dollars (see IOC salivating in corner)) than being able to sell 2 stadiums full of tickets twice?

Paris will win, they need it.....we do not. it will be more fun to watch than deal with the IOC in our fine city.

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by paul

[FYI]

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Wow, you actually are that naive.  You've definitely been drinking that Abrahamson kool-aid (which for you probably tastes a lot like semen).  

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You keep telling me how LA would never use public funding for sports.  That's all well and good when you have a choice, like they did with the NFL where they could hold out until the right combination of an ownership group and a stadium deal came along.  Not so easy with the Olympics.  Once that host city contract is signed, you have officially made a deal with the devil.  You are now obligated to deliver everything you promised under a very strict deadline for which there is zero wiggle room.  That's what LA is signing up for.

But you cannot ignore the risks involved in this and pretend like precedent exists to where LA has this "pay to play" ideal going and therefore the taxpayers are protected.  Again, that's ignorant.  The IOC will want all sorts of financial assurances to protect their own ass and if they don't get them, guess what happens.. "And the 2024 Olympics, the Games of the XXXIII Olympiad, are awarded to the city of.. Paris!"  

Yep! I guess our little troll (I mean truff) friend here has never heard of a legally binding "contract" before.

[FYI]

11 minutes ago, paul said:

if you are bidding for an Olympics an extra 3billion dollar state of the art sport stadium and entertainment complex is probably the kind of "problem" bids dream of....don't cha think?!

Why wouldn't a double ceremony go down well with the IOC, they just had a ceremony in a soccer stadium with limited logistical access and didn't seem to mind? This is supposed to be project 2020 (or whatever that failing fencer called it).......where bids do what is right for them and what makes sense. And what makes more sense (and American dollars (see IOC salivating in corner)) than being able to sell 2 stadiums full of tickets twice?

And see, this is where the total hypocrisy comes in. Why is it now you (& I mean that in the general L.A. argument sense) can argue that agenda 2020 is about what works best for the city (bcuz that's what the rest of us have said about Paris 2024), when other L.A. boosters claim that agenda 2020 is all about "cost-effectiveness" & that "if the IOC really believes in it's own reform policy" then L.A. is the only city with that answer.

Which then brings forth the question, if L.A. is the only "answer", then how does that translate with cost-effectiveness going forward when other cities around the world would still need much to build for an Olympics in their city. And besides, a double ceremony wouldn't be about agenda 2020 anyway. It would be about just showing off, which is what you claim you hate about the Olympics anyway. So more hypocrisy there on your part.

And don't be silly with comparing Rio to L.A. The IOC choosing Rio had MUCH more to do with the fact that Brazil & the continent of South America never hosting an Olympics before, rather than it was simply about hosting a ceremony in a soccer stadium. L.A. & the United States doesn't have that card to play here. Far from it actually. 

27 minutes ago, paul said:

Now.....p.s.IOC.........we don't want you here. Paris will win, they need it.....we do not.

And yet here is L.A. (& you for that matter) trying to sell L.A. to the world (& the IOC).  But don't worry, 2028 will be all yours!! 

[FYI]

7 hours ago, Roger87 said:

And this is becoming tiresome, why are these LA cheerladers (Like TRuff and Abrahamson) always keep Paris at the same level as Rio, while neglecting the comparaison with London and Barcelona, which are the closer examples from Paris situation (And closer to Paris itself as a city)? I mean, there's must be at this level a sense of delusion, lack of rational logic or pathology from that argument. 

And you've only recently have come into this discussion. Try putting up with the bullsh!t for the last 18 months & you'd really be tired by now. Truff & Co know no logic or rationale. And yes, they are completely delusional, bias & hypocritial in every one of their arguments. 

[paul]

 

@FYI 

I think it's because the bids like Paris set up the same old scenario that brought the IOC to their knees the last few cycles and when it almost failed before 84, so if we just giving that as the example of what it takes to win then its like the 2020 thing is just more bullshit lip service which it is. 

p.s. i like Paris a lot......I think they should host. i also think there might be some huge problems which I;ll be honest will be fun to watch from afar. There's little respectable happening with the Olympics now.....it's not like it has done anything to bring world peace......as it sometimes pretends to do. the whole IOC organization is the most hypocritical thing imaginable not much else compares. we need less of that.

[paul]

38 minutes ago, FYI said:

Which then brings forth the question, if L.A. is the only "answer",

.....it's not.

38 minutes ago, FYI said:

And besides, a double ceremony wouldn't be about agenda 2020 anyway. It would be about just showing off, which is what you claim you hate about the Olympics anyway. So more hypocrisy there on your part.

....i never said i hate showing off, if you have something to show off I'm all for it!! LA and Paris have tons to show off.

38 minutes ago, FYI said:

And don't be silly with comparing Rio to L.A. The IOC choosing Rio had MUCH more to do with the fact that Brazil & the continent of South America never hosting an Olympics before, rather than it was simply about hosting a ceremony in a soccer stadium. L.A. & the United States doesn't have that card to play here. Far from it actually.

....i think they were mostly chosen because they looked rich at the moment......too bad that fell through! Dumb greedy IOC, got what they deserved.

.....it's totaly fair to compare the IOCs flexibility is allowing the use of Maracana for ceremonies.

Edited April 8, 2017 by paul