baron-pierreIV Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 I just heard from Ruff. She's either entering into a partnership with the short-lived Anthony "Corleone" Scaramnga; or entering a nunnery of defrocked French Benedictine nuns. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al in NYC Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 59 minutes ago, Shadowriver said: Hehe this will be first time since long time US citizens will be able to see opening ceremony live ;p Well, Rio should have been live, since it's only one hour later than New York, but the goofballs at NBC decided differently for some stupid reason. Congratulations to L.A.! I will look forward to going back there for the Olympics, 44 years after my family's great time at the '84 Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseSaenz Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 The IOC has voted to give LA 100% of any surplus/profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtrevino Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 Wow. New details are emerging and the LA deal is way better than I predicted. http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-2028-olympics-deal-20170731-story.html The IOC will contribute $1.8 billion, but could exceed $2 billion dollars if current sponsorship deals are renewed or new market deals are made to replace old ones. The minimum seems low risk and unlikely considering the strength of US sponsorship when Olympics are hosted on its soil. The big one is that the IOC will surrender their share to any surplus (including the $488 million contingency which is considered surplus) In addition, LA gets flexibility to profit from any domestic sponsorship deal unclaimed by IOC’s partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 3 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said: I just heard from Ruff. She's either entering into a partnership with the short-lived Anthony "Corleone" Scaramnga; or entering a nunnery of defrocked French Benedictine nuns. Is AbraTrollson also joining her?! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtrevino Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 IOC is also waivering possibly tens of millions of “unspecified” payments that LA needs to make to the IOC, but who knows what that means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 If y'all wanna get a good laugh, check out the posts about the story on the CNN and ABC News facebook pages and the trumptards thanking mango mussolini for being responsible in bringing the games back to the US. It's hilarious! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejaycat Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 Is it true to say, that for all 3 times that Paris and Los Angeles have hosted/will have hosted the Olympics, none of those times was the result of a vote? If so, I find that very interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, FYI said: Is AbraTrollson also joining her?! Well, since you brought up it's name.. LA for 28, Paris for 24: how it came to be Some cringe-worthy stuff in there, including the 1 I called out in the comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 52 minutes ago, ejaycat said: Is it true to say, that for all 3 times that Paris and Los Angeles have hosted/will have hosted the Olympics, none of those times was the result of a vote? If so, I find that very interesting... No. For 1924, the French (and gran-grandpere was still alive then) colluded with the Dutch to try and go Paris 1924-Amsterdam 1928 over LA and Rome. There were only 19 IOC members then. Just like today, a tandem vote was presented Paris 1924-Amsterdam 1928. 14 members voted for it; 4 against, 1 abstention. Then there was a revote, with exactly the same results. But LA 1932 got thrown into the mix; and won because it was paired with Lake Placid 1932. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ejaycat said: Is it true to say, that for all 3 times that Paris and Los Angeles have hosted/will have hosted the Olympics, none of those times was the result of a vote? If so, I find that very interesting... It is worth noting that both cities' strategy towards the Olympics has been to bid often but to stick to their principles and avoid lavish spending. That makes them unattractive compared to cities offering grand Olympic parks and results in lots of failed bids, but it has also resulted in both cities hosting very successfully when the IOC needs a safe pair of hands. People can make fun of Madrid and Turkey for bidding frequently, but to me this seems like the wise way to handle the games. Edited August 1, 2017 by Nacre 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseSaenz Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, Nacre said: It is worth noting that both cities' strategy towards the Olympics has been to bid often but to stick to their principles and avoid lavish spending. That makes them unattractive compared to cities offering grand Olympic parks and results in lots of failed bids, but it has also resulted in both cities hosting very successfully when the IOC needs a safe pair of hands. People can make fun of Madrid and Turkey for bidding frequently, but to me this seems like the wise way to handle the games. Good on Paris and LA. They were the last two standing because they were both the silver bullet to the IOCs lavish ways. A great partnership will emerge from this, and I couldn't be more excited!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 6 hours ago, Shadowriver said: After 18 years is "long time" (well if Calgary gets 2026 it might be earlier) and live streaming requires cable subscription anyway, where i in my small Poland i could watch Olympics live on terrestrial TV and have full access to 14 OBS international feeds on internet for free. Even Discovery deal have much lesser approach and it sell sublicences to local broadcasters an i still be able to watch live, even if it's gonna be EuroSport, probably because they can't pull this kind of BS (sorry i can't call it other way) in european countries. Sorry but this NBC deal is disaster for US viewer imo. NBC's coverage has more flaws than I could count, but you know what would be a bigger disaster for the US viewer? Not having NBC. There's no guarantee another network wouldn't repeat some of these mistakes and issues that NBC is having. That's simply the nature of a country of this size where there is so much money in the media rights for the Olympics. Yes, it can be anti-consumer at times, but 1 thing you can't accuse NBC is promoting the Olympics as if they're the biggest deal in the world. That's something I don't know that another TV network would be able to do so well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger87 Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said: Well, since you brought up it's name.. LA for 28, Paris for 24: how it came to be Some cringe-worthy stuff in there, including the 1 I called out in the comments I mean, even with an excellent deal, Abrahamson can't get rid of being an obnoxious man-child crying. Srly, that man is fucked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejaycat Posted August 1, 2017 Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 11 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said: No. For 1924, the French (and gran-grandpere was still alive then) colluded with the Dutch to try and go Paris 1924-Amsterdam 1928 over LA and Rome. There were only 19 IOC members then. Just like today, a tandem vote was presented Paris 1924-Amsterdam 1928. 14 members voted for it; 4 against, 1 abstention. Then there was a revote, with exactly the same results. But LA 1932 got thrown into the mix; and won because it was paired with Lake Placid 1932. OK... My understanding was always that though there were 6 bid cites for 1924, Paris, LA and Amsterdam among them (Barcelona too, and Rome and Budapest), gran-grandpere wanted them in Paris, in his mind, to make up for the 1900 debacle, plus he wanted to see them in Paris once more before he retired... so that was that, with the agreement that Amsterdam would host 1928, which pissed LA off, but LA got 1932 anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoNutz Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 On 8/1/2017 at 1:43 AM, Quaker2001 said: NBC's coverage has more flaws than I could count, but you know what would be a bigger disaster for the US viewer? Not having NBC. There's no guarantee another network wouldn't repeat some of these mistakes and issues that NBC is having. That's simply the nature of a country of this size where there is so much money in the media rights for the Olympics. Yes, it can be anti-consumer at times, but 1 thing you can't accuse NBC is promoting the Olympics as if they're the biggest deal in the world. That's something I don't know that another TV network would be able to do so well. This is true. NBC lost most of their other sports rights so they poured a ton of money and attention into The Olympics. With ABC/ESPN (NBA,) FOX, and CBS (NFL,) anyone else would have put the Olympic sports behind their main sports rights programming. Sure NBC is money grubbing and they make their money from affiliate's rights fees, retrans fees, and advertising, so it would be nice if they viewed broadcasting the Olympics as a public service, but they do offer a product for money, which is kind of the American way lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowriver Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 On 8/1/2017 at 7:43 AM, Quaker2001 said: NBC's coverage has more flaws than I could count, but you know what would be a bigger disaster for the US viewer? Not having NBC. There's no guarantee another network wouldn't repeat some of these mistakes and issues that NBC is having. That's simply the nature of a country of this size where there is so much money in the media rights for the Olympics. Yes, it can be anti-consumer at times, but 1 thing you can't accuse NBC is promoting the Olympics as if they're the biggest deal in the world. That's something I don't know that another TV network would be able to do so well. I know that but what is disaster is fact that this won't change for very long time and has nothing to do with size of US but nature of US television industry which turns everything in to show and this is not only BS i seen. I guess somebody coming from outside and being sports fan it's terrifying prospect for me. In Poland during volleyball world championships the private brotcaster with got right to it Polsat because of "fund issues" paywalled live access to all matches including ones with Poland while there satellite platform network user got it for free (or rether "in cost of service") everyone was mad at them for doing this, ironically Poland got to final and won and "by intervention of president" Polsat broadcasting live final match in open air. After this incident parlament issued law that all "importent public or sports events" (world cups, Olympics there specific list) with perticipents from Poland need to be broadcast in FTA in Poland. And yes that means Discovery was actually forces to sell sublicence to FTA broadcaster (private or national TVP) or broadcast FTA themselves to legally broadcast Olympics at all in Poland (but they don't have issues to do so in other contries so they still on plus for me). I don't know i guess it's mentality difference, for it's supper strange that Americans don't have problem with that but i guess they didn't expariance anything better ;p 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.