los angeles 2024

[Quaker2001]

26 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I pride myself in being a dick.  thank you again for the acknowledgement. One thing I can guarantee you is that you won't be running me off and you will probably remain butthurt responding to my every post as if your phone dings to let you know I have posted until at least the end of this bid cycle. Again, thank you.

Well, practice makes perfect then, I guess.  If that's your goal, you're doing an excellent job.  Thankfully for FYI and myself, we can go to other threads.  You seem to lack that ability.  So if we're here, I guess we're stuck with you.  Keep on trolling though.  Those notifications we get when you post have nothing on the ding your vagina gets every time you see someone talking up LA.

[paul]

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

  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).

 

...your really are overthinking this just a bit.

[Quaker2001]

26 minutes ago, RuFF said:

The reason that other cities do not get insurance is because their insurance is usually the taxpayers (federal government) as is the case in Paris. Also, as the Olympics has a history of cost overruns and most cities have significantly more risk they are probably uninsurable. I'm sure if Paris had its budget as strong as they'd like the IOC and all of us to believe they would also seek insurance. But let's be honest, there is significant more risk in Paris, likely rendering it uninsurable. Insurance companies aren't so stupid as to place themselves on the position to guarantee paying out a claim. 

But that's pretty much it, the viability of being insurable. Paris is very likely NOT insurable. 

Cost overruns are cost overruns.  Someone winds up holding the bag and every bid - including LA - is at risk.  Again, the hypocrisy here is that it gets talked about, including by your BFF AbRuFFamson how LA would need to go back to all these private backers and ask for more money if they lose 2024 and have to go back at it for 2028.  But when it comes to insurance and private backing for the Olympics themselves, it's more like 'no problem, we've got it all covered.'

[Quaker2001]

11 minutes ago, paul said:

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

So.. I'm over-thinking, but you're under-thinking?  Good

Bach is German, so we know they like their beer.  Don't know about the rest of the IOC though. Not like he's some sort of fat blob though.  The man is in his 60s, after all

[FYI]

Just now, Quaker2001 said:

Cost overruns are cost overruns.  Someone winds up holding the bag and every bid - including LA - is at risk. Again, the hypocrisy here is that it gets talked about, including by your BFF AbRuFFamson how LA would need to go back to all these private backers and ask for more money if they lose 2024 and have to go back at it for 2028.  But when it comes to insurance and private backing for the Olympics themselves, it's more like 'no problem, we've got it all covered.'

Gotta love that hypocrisy, don't we. 

[FYI]

5 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Those notifications we get when you post have nothing on the ding your vagina gets every time you see someone talking up LA.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!! 

[FYI]

3 minutes ago, RuFF said:

But seriously though you, FYI and I know pretty damned well that it's not a matter of if, but when LA is going to host again. Regardless of the outcome of 2024 I think a safe wager would be that LA hosting is eminent. 

Like I keep saying dummy, L.A. 2028 it is then!! 

[FYI]

^yada, yada, yada. 

[Quaker2001]

4 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Well, if LA is attractive and holds out for the ultra rich, there has to be a damned good reason. And by coincidence, or not, the rich bastard is the IOC. But seriously though you, FYI and I know pretty damned well that it's not a matter of if, but when LA is going to host again. Regardless of the outcome of 2024 I think a safe wager would be that LA hosting is eminent imminent. 

I don't disagree with that for a second.  I've said for a while - and I know FYI has as well - that LA (or at the very least the United States) is likely to land themselves an Olympics at some point in the not too distant future.  I would be surprised if there wasn't an Olympics in the United States by the end of NBC's current deal in 2032.  But (get ready FYI, here comes more hypocrisy)..

If you believe that to be true, then you can't make the argument that LA is just as likely as Paris to not return for a 2028 bid.  Not that it will necessarily be the deciding factor here, but it could tip the scales just a little if the IOC is worry about Paris coming back.  According to this, they should have few if any concerns about an LA return.  And I agree that they're going to keep at this until they win it, whenever that day comes.

[FYI]

^According to that "logic", then ANY other city in the world would be at greater risk than Los Angeles, bcuz after L.A., Paris' 2024 bid is damn well as risk-free as you can get! And therefore, if no other cities can match that after these two, then might as well just cancel the Olympics altogether now, cuz every other city out there will present "significant risk". 

[FYI]

13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

But (get ready FYI, here comes more hypocrisy)..

Yeah, really. (S)he's just of it all the way around.

[FYI]

*just full of it

[FYI]

^But your buddy AA says that all those European cities could still be "lining up" for 2028. Wouldn't any of those cities, including Paris, still run into those same issues that your describing? So how is 2028 different to 2024 (besides L.A. bidding here) in that regard? And don't tell tell cuz "L.A. will be sustainable", bcuz when the 2028 vote was to happen in 2021, the 2024 Games would have yet to take place.

That logic that your describing doesn't make sense, cuz no matter what year L.A. was to host, it would still present challenges to other cities no matter what. And actually, $14 Billion for a Parisian 2024 Games is still reasonable, considering London 2012 spent like $18 Billion. 

And also, don't compare Tokyo 2020 to Paris 2024. Tokyo still had a lot more to build than Paris, like the big ticket item main stadium, for starters. And considering how Istanbul's 2020 budget was massive, since they had to build virtually everything, the IOC voted accordingly. Perhaps L.A. should've bid in that cycle instead.

[FYI]

*I'm also willing to bet that an L.A. Olympics would also hover around the $9-$12 Billion mark, no matter how "conservative" & how "ready" L.A.'s bid says they are. 

[FYI]

^You don't know that! And quite frankly, I find the whole $5.3 Billion figure disengenuous, just like Madrid's 2020 "$1.9 Billion" price tag. Not buying it. Ready venues or not, there's still a lot of other expenses that are associated with an Olympic Games like logistics, security & venue upgrades, etc that still have to be done nontheless. 

Plus again, though, you're still neglecting the previous point that your favorite "journalist" still says that Europe would be "lining up" for 2028 if L.A. was to get 2024. How does a "cost effective" Games in L.A. benefit Europe (or anywhere else, for that matter), when the issues that burden these cities now will still be there four years from now? How is L.A. an answer for cost effective Games elsewhere when there are no other cities out there as "ready" as L.A. Especially when you're touting the difference between private funding here vs public funding anywhere else. 

[baron-pierreIV]

With 3 Olympics in a row in Asia, then 2024 most possibly back to Europe in Paris; I don't think the IOC wants to go back to Sapporo for 2026.  So their hopes for WOG 2026 will either be Calgary, Innsbruck, Sion, or Oslo/Stockholm.  There hasn't been a Swiss or Scandinavian WOGs in a long time.  Therefore, Canada will have to choose in the next 2 years if they want to bid with Calgary 2026 or Toronto 2028.  And if there were a North American candidate for 2028, that would be its year geo-politically. 

And what does Canada want to do for FIFA 2026?  Will it mount a bid on its own (a very weak bid I think), or will the US let it join in a continental bid; and if so, will that weaken a Toronto 2028 bid?  

[mr.bernham]

I'll be blunt, some of the recent rumblings from LA over the past few months have made me hesitant they would actually be cost-effective. They seem interested in going real big. At least Paris has a shitty enough economy to keep them in the black. 

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, RuFF said:

Blah blah blah. 

But really, Paris isn't insurable. Whether you like that or not an insurance company would see significant risk in Paris that it didn't see with LA, even though there is risk. Nobody can deny that cost overruns are likely but at the same time you're arguing out of control costs on a temporary Swim Stadium and the Coliseum. 

Also, bare in mind that the Coliseum and its events are probably insured separate of the Swim Stadium or a temporary beach volleyball stadium in order to reduce risk. So the failure of one venue doesn't necessarily fall across the board to the entire event. 

Yea, blah blah yourself.  You telling me "whether you like that or not" doesn't actually mean the thing you're saying true.  Paris isn't insurable?  You seem to be an expert on what is or isn't insurable.  I'm just supposed to take your word for it, I guess.

7 hours ago, RuFF said:

You don't think that an insurance company taking on the risk doesn't say anything? Insurance companies are in the business of making money, not losing money. The simple fact that they take on the risk is a huge nod on that budget. I don't think Paris can do that on the Athletes Village alone, let alone a permanent non legacy Swim stadium. IF Paris could do it they would and should have already done it being as Paris likes to copy the marketing of their competitors and make surprise stops at competitor venues. 

But Paris can't, and with its organizers making similar promises of keeping a budget in check with Tokyo 2020 before moving over to Paris 2024 and making the same promises while everyone is saying cost over runs like they say trump, it's not hard to see Paris indeed has significantly greater risks than Los Angeles. And I keep hearing you guys play down the risk as not that much more than LA but I'm sorry, the risk is significant. 

No need to apologize.  I would just love for someone who isn't you to make this argument and explain what Paris is significantly more risky than LA.  Because there's a village they have to build as opposed to a temporary overlay to the Coliseum?  It's really getting over-played how much Paris has to build versus how little LA has to build.  The difference isn't as great as it's sometimes made out to be.  The budget for LA is still over $5 billion.  That's not a small amount of money, even if in Olympic terms it's pretty conservative.

Don't over-state how small the risks are for LA and how big the risks are for Paris because.. well, because you're you.  Look beyond this mindset you have where LA2024 is so good at what they're doing that all these layers of protection prevent problems from occurring.  And by the same token, that because Paris has to build a couple of things (as if a permanent swim stadium is a huge financial liability versus a temporary one), that it can't be insured.  

7 hours ago, RuFF said:

Um, isn't that the current issue? That's not exactly hypothetical at this point. Tokyo started with a similar budget to Paris and is now around 26 billion even after the alleged effort to cost cut. So let's suppose Paris has 1/2 that luck and we stick to a 180% historical cost overrun. You do the math. Paris may be much safer than most cities but what message will the Olympics send Europe if one of the worlds most capable cities balloons to 14 billion? There is an incredible amount of precedent here, including an active winner. So if you are Rome or Hamburg or Budapest and set your sights in a subsequent cycle how are you going to really believe that you would fare better than Paris? So you answer that. What do you really think Paris will pay for 2024? And after that figure who do you think will line up to host and feasibly come in on a lower budget?

What do you really think Los Angeles will pay for 2024?  If you're assuming Paris could go so far over budget, why aren't we doing the same math with Los Angeles?  Again, I ask the question of why Paris is so significantly more risky than LA.  Because if you're going to envision their Olympics going way over budget, isn't it fair to do the same with Los Angeles.  Don't blow the risk and the consequences so far out of proportion just because you presume that's what I'm doing the other way around.  For both Paris or LA, things could go really well.  Or they could go not so well.  An "incredible amount of precedent" applies to LA just as much as it does with Paris and you've yet to make a sensible argument to treat them so differently.

7 hours ago, RuFF said:

So for what it's worth LA is indeed less risky than Paris, not just in the venue, Athletes Village and international broadcast center, but it's a more commercially viable market. You assert cost overruns for LA so now apply to Paris that is certain to have more. Using historical reference Paris will hover in the 12-14 billion zone effectively telling everyone if you are not Paris your Olympics WILL cost more than 14 billion. 

And you're still confident LA won't hover in that zone?  So.. you want us to apply to Paris what you think we're applying to LA.  But you don't want us to go in reverse where we posit that maybe (not definitely, but maybe) LA could have cost overruns just like so many past host cities have had to deal with.  There are a thousand things that could go wrong with either bid.  LA had almost everything go right in 1984.  Much harder to pull that off this time, especially if they have to beat another city to get there.

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

I'll be blunt, some of the recent rumblings from LA over the past few months have made me hesitant they would actually be cost-effective. They seem interested in going real big. At least Paris has a shitty enough economy to keep them in the black. 

Here's some food for thought..

LA is promoting that they can combine sport with an entertainment spectacle that would be uniquely LA.  It's a good sell, but are they paying a premium for that?  Which is to say would LA really stick to their budget or do they have to go the extra mile to impress the IOC to get the win (and then potentially have to stick to those promises).  After all, they do have to win the bid and beat out a formidable opponent.  How much extra are all those private backers willing to put out there to make the Olympics that much bigger and better.

[JesseSaenz]

Ah, I was out for a few days. What did I miss???

Lol.

 

 

[TorchbearerSydney]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Here's some food for thought..

LA is promoting that they can combine sport with an entertainment spectacle that would be uniquely LA.  It's a good sell, but are they paying a premium for that?  Which is to say would LA really stick to their budget or do they have to go the extra mile to impress the IOC to get the win (and then potentially have to stick to those promises).  After all, they do have to win the bid and beat out a formidable opponent.  How much extra are all those private backers willing to put out there to make the Olympics that much bigger and better.

They can try with the show biz angle, but the days of The US being the benchmark of spectacle are gone....look at Beijing, Sochi,  and every other Chinese event (yes at a huge cost). The world has caught up.

Baku even had Lady Gaga...

[JesseSaenz]

13 minutes ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

They can try with the show biz angle, but the days of The US being the benchmark of spectacle are gone....look at Beijing, Sochi,  and every other Chinese event (yes at a huge cost). The world has caught up.

Baku even had Lady Gaga...

I have unsuccesfully tried to bring ththisoint across.

Got shot down within seconds.

[Pure facts]

11 hours ago, RuFF said:

So for what it's worth LA is indeed less risky than Paris, not just in the venue, Athletes Village and international broadcast center, but it's a more commercially viable market. You assert cost overruns for LA so now apply to Paris that is certain to have more. Using historical reference Paris will hover in the 12-14 billion zone effectively telling everyone if you are not Paris your Olympics WILL cost more than 14 billion. 

Could you clarify how is the IBC less risky in LA than in Paris?

Paris proposes an existing exhibition centre with one hall to be rebuilt (as part of a planned expension project, privately funded) while LA proposes a new IBC (4 new halls to be built as part of planned expension of Universal Studios + 1 temporary hall to be built by LAOCOG).

[Ansem]

12 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

And what does Canada want to do for FIFA 2026?  Will it mount a bid on its own (a very weak bid I think), or will the US let it join in a continental bid; and if so, will that weaken a Toronto 2028 bid?  

The intention was always the solo bid until the USSF started talking "co-bidding", first with Mexico, then adding Canada. The CSA stays silent at the moment so no one knows. A 2026 WC Bid would be far from weak actually and all this talk about "co-bidding" just shows the lack of confidence that USSF have of securing all the necessary votes, especially since you guys unleashed Trump on the world.

It's not about the US "letting" Mexico and/or Canada joining their bid, it's about needing/using it's neighbours to get the votes they normally wouldn't get on their own.

A FIFA WC would not weaken Calgary 2026 or Toronto 2028. The IOC and FIFA are unrelated

[FYI]

What Pure Facts just illustrated is even more proof that Truffmp doesn't have a single clue of WTF she's talking about. Not that she ever did anyway.