Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Actually I think they ran with a bid that regardless of what happens, those venues were still going to be built, with the exception of the temporary venues.

By the time 2032 comes around, the new venues that were built with 2020 in mind may have to be renovated if the IOC decides to revise its requirements for venues, or may have be replaced completely.

That was true of their 2012 & even 2016 bids. But by the time the 2020 bid rolled around, over 80% of those very venues were already built. Therefore, the "stimulating their economy with jobs" was a disengenuous tact on their part for the 2020 bid. Perhaps they shoulda left more things undone, then they actually would've had more of a case lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reminding people that Dick Pound is not talking on behalf of Canada or the Canadian Olympic Committee. His opinion is still valid but doesn't reflect on what the COC is up to between 2026 and 2028...or both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That's precisely the point! And that's why many hold his opinions to a higher regard. Bcuz again, he tells it like it is, even if it's against the majority of his colleagues a lot of the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IOC President Thomas Bach talks a good game, touting cost-efficient Olympics as the centerpiece of his Project 2020 Reforms. But Olympic leaders’ definition of cost-efficient is not exactly the same as that of normal people.

These, after all, are folks who have come to expect five-star hotels, first-class transport and per diems that run as high as $900. Try telling them a temporary stadium or a spiffed-up existing one is better than a shiny new jewel and see how well that goes over.

But countries are getting wise to the IOC’s game. They’ve seen too many venues sitting empty and unused in Athens, Beijing and Sochi, and lost track of how many zeroes are in the bills. They’ve heard the empty promises and seen the public rage that follows.

No longer are they willing to trip over themselves for the privilege of throwing the IOC a party. No longer are they willing to host at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, Los Angeles and Paris are among the world’s glamour cities, and either would allow the IOC to trumpet yet another turn on the grand stage. But it cannot disguise the fact the IOC is getting perilously close to the situation it faced in the early 1980s, when the Olympics were practically an orphan with no one willing to take them in.

“We’re seeing in city after city, citizens are asking big and important questions even before they get the Olympics,” Boykoff said.

“The word is out that the Olympics bring problems to your city,” he added. “They bring great athletes, they bring a lot of excitement, they bring a sugar high. But that’s just empty calories and that’s eventually going to hit you. And that’s what we’re seeing now in Rio.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to pull quotes from an article, at least have the integrity to share the source you got them from, less someone think these are your original thoughts..

IOC should have seen Rio wasteland coming

It still amuses me that Rio is going to be a point of comparison for Paris or LA.  Yea, no kidding Rio was a bad idea, especially in retrospect that Brazil's economy weakened from when they won in 2009.  No kidding an Olympics in the wrong city is going to be problematic.  But what about an Olympics in the right city?  Paris or LA could be it.  They know what they're dealing with when it comes to Bach and the IOC, but they're going after it anyway.  It goes without saying at this point that the IOC asks too much of a host city including a lot of ridiculous perks.  But they can't shoulder all of the blame for Rio's inability to find a legacy for their venues, particularly the centerpiece stadium that's supposed to be the most iconic sports facility in all of South America.  If Brazil ruined that, is the IOC really to blame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....nobody thinks that. I think I may not have wanted to post the title since I'm always bashing rio......but you did it for me. For me this was about how BAD the IOC is and how they piss all over everyone then go have a beer and some cake.

Edited by paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paul said:

.....nobody thinks that. I think I may not have wanted to post the title since I'm always bashing rio......but you did it for me. For me this was about how BAD the IOC is and how they piss all over everyone then go have a beer and some cake.

And yet you posted part of the article without giving a source.  If you want to cherry pick an article to look for the sections you agree with, at least let the rest of us see the whole thing so that it's not only about your point of view.  Less I give my thoughts on the sorry state of media in this country and probably around the rest of the world as well.  Let's be fair about something here.. the IOC is not going out to have a beer.  Probably more like bottles of champagne or whatever else they're demanding of the host city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FYI said:

Beer & cake?! YUCK!! 

I've done this combo before. I wouldn't say it was unpleasant, just very unusual. Definitely have a glass of wine with your desserts, or better yet milk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

I've done this combo before. I wouldn't say it was unpleasant, just very unusual. Definitely have a glass of wine with your desserts, or better yet milk!

This is the IOC we're talking about here.  If we're going to mock them for how they treat host cities, let's call it champagne and caviar, not beer and cake.  The IOC doesn't exactly strike me as a beer and cake crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, RuFF said:

PS: I think you think the 1/2 billion is 250 million from the city of LA followed by 250 million by the state of California, but if we take those figures into account that would make 1 billion available for cost over me before private insurers take over. So to be clear, 1/2 billion in the contingency would have to be depleted before LA taxpayers take on 250 million in taxes and the state of California taxpayers take another 250 million. And if it goes over that insurance policies would take the rest.

All true except that last part..

LA 2024 committee says it has a plan to protect taxpayer dollars in hosting the Olympics

City staff told council members the contingency fund serves as a “warning bell” – if organizers burn through the first $241 million, they must consult with the City Council on further expenditures.

But if organizers were to go bankrupt, the city would be responsible for the next $250 million and the state has pledged to pay $250 million after that. All remaining debt would revert back to the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, RuFF said:

It "seems" like you are running off the last of the LA supporters. Being as you and FYI like to be the only experts it won't be long before you and your groupies can circle jerk without any interruptions or opposing views. 

Only "seems" that way to you because you lack a grip on reality.  I'm not ripping on paul for his views.  I'm calling him out because he copied and pasted from an article and didn't give a source (and it's not like it was hard for me to find).  That's a somewhat sleazy move and then his response is that he didn't want to post the title because he's always bashing rio (his words, not mine).  But hey, sorry to you think I'm trying to run off 1 of your butt buddies and I'm confident that so long as you're still here, speaking of people I'd like to run off, we'll have plenty of opposing views.  And maybe 1 of these days you'll manage to come up with some sort of objective opinion not clouded with your usual bullshit bias.  Not counting on that.

Oh, and if this is a "supporter" if you're going to label paul, here's his support..

On 2/18/2017 at 9:17 AM, paul said:

.....it sounds like a trick for any city (particularly LA) to be awarded 2028 so long before it happens. The IOC would be hovering around for a decade...no thanks!? That sounds absolutely annoying. The opportunities for corruption sort of doubles, Way too long for a temporary party to try to influence a cities priorities. 2028 is a BAD idea for LA......so is 24. This whole charming event looks more lovely from afar, better to shove it back down Europe throat, everyone agrees they need to learn to love the Olympics again.

On 2/7/2017 at 1:51 PM, paul said:

it would be so funny to see GB burn down if LA won 24 but reality on the ground in LA is NOBODY CARES.

And my personal favorite..

On 8/24/2016 at 4:44 AM, paul said:

what are you not getting a-hole, I don't want the Olympics to come to LA.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I understand that, but the part reverting back to the city is insured. Part of the 5.3 billion not only includes a 500 million contingency that as you just pointed out would require the organizing committee to seek approval before burning past, but it also includes millions in underwriting the games in the event of catastrophic overruns. And again, we are talking about Los Angeles here, there is an incredible amount of precedent where California taxpayers do not fund sports. The NFL spend 20+ years trying it to no avail because of staunch taxpayer resistance. So let's be clear, if that 241 million is reached, the city is going to say no. 

Do you still not understand how this works with the Olympics?  The day they sign that host city contract, they are committed.  Someone has to pay for it.  If they can get private backers to cover all the cost overruns, good for them.  But it's not an option, once that $241 million is reached, to say "we don't have the money to deliver the track & field venue we promised" and hope the IOC will be okay with that.  You can't continue to make this case that because California taxpayers don't fund sports that the city won't be on the hook if the overruns are severe.  Let alone if the sources of funding they're counting on don't provide as much revenue as they were expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RuFF said:

Unless, of course, it benefits taxpayers. But let's Ben honest here too, instead of fictitious out of control budgets why not elaborate where these cost overruns are likely to occur? The Coliseum overlay? For real? How about the Athletes Village or Swim Stadium? The risk, all around, is significantly lower in Los Angeles than it is in Paris, and Paris right off the bat swallows up the contingency and state and city commitments right out of the gate. And let's not forget that members of the Paris bid team were also on the Tokyo bid team and have said that Tokyo's budget was pie in the sky from the get go. So from a financial perspective if you're seeing Paris being in good and or better shape, you're purposefully choosing to turn a blind eye.

There are risks for every host city.  You are of the mind that LA's bid is safer than others and you are probably right about that.  But it doesn't make them bulletproof.  How many past bids thought they weren't going to go over budget and then went way over their expected costs?  Why is LA supposed to be immune from that?  Are you that confident in the organizers to run these Olympics so well in comparison to past organizers who have failed in that regard?

The Coliseum overlay is expected to cost $300 million.  That's not a small amount of money, and because it's temporary, there is zero chance at any long-term windfall from it.  It keeps being brought up that LA has most of what it needs in place for the Olympics, but they still have it in their budget to spend more than a billion dollars on venue upgrades and necessarily operating costs.  That's not a small figure there.

How about we try to meet in the middle here for once.  Paris's budget is just as likely to blow up as any past host/bidder.  Don't think I'm trying to deny that.  I'm just wondering - and I know zeke is as well - as to why we shouldn't be concerned that the same thing might happen with LA.  Especially when you and others keep offering that there are so many layers of financial protection in place.  If it was that simple, why haven't other cities done the same thing in order to protect themselves?  And this can't be about 1984, because that was in a completely different of the Olympics where the overall budgets weren't anywhere near what is being spent now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

But hey, sorry to you think I'm trying to run off 1 of your butt buddies and I'm confident that so long as you're still here, speaking of people I'd like to run off, we'll have plenty of opposing views.  

ROTFLMFAO - bumping pu$sies is more like it!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, paul hates the Olympics so much & doesn't want them in L.A. anyway. But he's like that guy who can't stand it when the fat girl doesn't like him, even though he has no interest in the fat girl whatsoever. He's just miffed "how dare that fat b!tch (IOC) not want me (L.A.). She's has no clue & only sucks the life out of any guy she touches nontheless. But how dare she reject anyway!" :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

I've done this combo before. I wouldn't say it was unpleasant, just very unusual. Definitely have a glass of wine with your desserts, or better yet milk!

Wine & sweets? Even more gross, ICK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuFF said:

It "seems" like you are running off the last of the LA supporters. Being as you and FYI like to be the only experts it won't be long before you and your groupies can circle jerk without any interruptions or opposing views. 

And when are you finally gonna be runned-off. Cuz you're certainly BY FAR the worst of all the L.A. cheerleaders. Everyone here is now finally atuned to your completely bias, & utter bullsh!t. And how nasty & a total d!ck you become (as even proof here in this truff-troll of a post of yours) when objective posters challenge your valley girl drivel. Take a hint then, & finally just get the f@ck lost! :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I pride myself in being a dick. :) thank you again for the acknowledgement.

Well, if you "pride yourself" in being a d!ck (which is good to know, & glad that you finally put it out there for the record), then stop pretending that you're here to "discuss" anything. You're just here to be a typical L.A. douchebag. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And yet you posted part of the article without giving a source.  If you want to cherry pick an article to look for the sections you agree with, at least let the rest of us see the whole thing so that it's not only about your point of view.  Less I give my thoughts on the sorry state of media in this country and probably around the rest of the world as well.  Let's be fair about something here.. the IOC is not going out to have a beer.  Probably more like bottles of champagne or whatever else they're demanding of the host city.

i didn't think i was cherry picking but I wasn't really thinking much about it. As for Bach....he looks like a beer guy...with that belly and all.

Edited by paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RuFF said:

FYI doesn't realize this analogy is used to describe LA. The only problem is that before the fat girl was LA and the dude was the NFL. Precedent my friend, precedent. 

Well, L.A. 2028 it is then! :lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RuFF said:

FYI doesn't realize this analogy is used to describe LA. The only problem is that before the fat girl was LA and the dude was the NFL. Precedent my friend, precedent. 

Kinda like how we were supposed to view LA as some sort of scrappy underdog when it comes to the Olympics?  Even though, you know, 1984.

That's a bad analogy though with the NFL though.  LA is more like the attractive single girl who doesn't put out that no one had the balls to want to date.  Then one day, a guy with a ton of money walks up and says "hey, I want to get in bed with you" and it was a done deal.  I said it for years that we would have a team in LA as soon as the right situation with a team owner and a stadium came together.  And you're 100% right that the city wasn't going to back it and instead could wait for some billionaire owner to invest his own money and make it happen.  That certainly doesn't make LA the fat girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×