Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 11/29/2016 at 8:48 PM, RuFF said:

Alan Abrahamson has a new article everyone will love:

http://www.3wiresports.com/2016/11/15/whats-really-doha-las/

Speaking of which someone's dream 2024 and 2028 games was LA 2024 and Dubai 2028. I thought that would be really spectacular.

(sigh)  Yea, I'm with Rob and zeke on this one.  There's a couple of decent tidbits in the article, including the point about having to ask the private sector to pony up more money for another bid (more on that in a sec), but it gets lost in all the nonsense he spews.  Good for him that he has no stake in LA's outcome and that he's covered Olympic bids before.  Doesn't mean his opinions are that much more respectable. 

Does he honestly think that "if LA gets dinged," that sponsor and broadcast interest is going to start to dry up?  That's ridiculous.  There's zero chance that LA can go back to business leaders and get them to get up for another round of bidding?  Didn't seem to hamper LA's enthusiasm when they got passed over for New York for 2012, passed over for Chicago for 2016, and then initially got passed over here for Boston.  After which they were all too willing to jump back into the fray.  I know there wasn't the same money on the table there, but should LA lose 2024, if these private entities aren't idiots, they'll assess the situation and realize LA has a good shot at winning.  There's no shame in losing to a city like Paris.  And after all, didn't LA stick it out in the past the same way they might have to this time?  Good for New York and Chicago that they were one and done.  Why would the assumption by that LA would drop off in the same fashion when they've been trying for this for years now?

Let it be said again.. LA presents a compelling case for an Olympics and I think their committee is doing an excellent job.  But Abrahamson comes off here (as he usually does) less like an insider/expert and more like a booster.  And you're eating up every last word he posts.  Which brings me to..

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

There is absolute value in LA not having the federal or local government financially back the bid or games. On this thread it's been touted that France financially backs Paris' bid. In the case of LA it's private, how do you go back and ask for more money in LA compared to Paris in order to bid again? It may be note worthy that the other 2 US Bids (New York and Chicago) that faced the same situation did not return for a second bid.

Come on, seriously?  There's a value in not having government backing for something like the Olympics?  Are you actually trying to spin that into a positive, just like you think virtually everything you see and hear works in LA's favor?  The IOC doesn't ask cities for money, at least not in a direct sense.  They'll welcome bidders and maybe or maybe not make it clear to them what the costs are (although they're getting better at cutting off cities they don't take seriously).  That's on LA if they want to bid again or not.  It's not as if that money goes directly to the IOC and they stand to benefit from it.

This is not a positive for LA.  It's a negative.  It works against any US city that's going to bid.  It is NOT to their advantage to say that this has to be a 1-shot deal for them because they might not come back.  You're only regurgitating what your BFF Alan is saying and I hope you appreciate the irony that you have tried to shoot down any claims posters have made here that Paris might not return if they're not picked here, yet now you're trying to use that argument in favor of LA.  Talk about disingenuous! :rolleyes::unsure::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, New York & Chicago didn't come back (but there was much more to that than just simply stating it as fact). But It's ALSO "noteworthy" that Paris did NOT come back right after they lost 2012, either. To suggest that they would, simply bcuz their bids are federally financed is also completely "disingenuous" & doesn't delve into any context other than to "support" this silly notion that bcuz L.A.'s bids are privately financed, they "won't" be back for 2028 & therefore should get "more consideration" bcuz of it. Short answer; who cares. I'm sure the IOC won't take that into account whatsoever, only silly Allan & his 'groupies' do. Especially whenever the argument is made that Paris won't be back if they were to lose, the L.A. supporters always try to spin it that aspect "shouldn't" matter. Talk about total hypocrisy now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, New York & Chicago didn't come back (but there was much more to that than just simply stating it as fact). But It's ALSO "noteworthy" that Paris did NOT come back right after they lost 2012, either. To suggest that they would, simply bcuz their bids are federally financed is also completely "disingenuous" & doesn't delve into any context other than to "support" this silly notion that bcuz L.A.'s bids are privately financed, they "won't" be back for 2028 & therefore should get "more consideration" bcuz of it. Short answer; who cares. I'm sure the IOC won't take that into account whatsoever, only silly Allan & his 'groupies' do. Especially whenever the argument is made that Paris won't be back if they were to lose, the L.A. supporters always try to spin it that aspect "shouldn't" matter. Talk about total hypocrisy now.

Dammit FYI, that's almost exactly what I said.  Now he's going to think we're the same person again! :D:lol:  I'll also add this, since you're probably thinking it..

60453768.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Dammit FYI, that's almost exactly what I said.  Now he's going to think we're the same person again! :D:lol:  I'll also add this, since you're probably thinking it..

60453768.jpg

LMFAO!! Yeah, I just read your post! And yeah, we'll get "accused" of being the same person again by you know who. :rolleyes: But I guess She would know about stuff like that, cuz she's such an expert. But if there's ever any doubt, the one differentiator between you & me is your LUV OF MEMES! Which BTW, I just LUV your latest one! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the point about New York and Chicago, something worth noting in comparison to LA..

New York's 2012 bid was the right timing for the city.  New stadiums were being built and it would have fit in pretty well with the NYC's development.  4 years later, that was no longer going to be the case.  Chicago to a lesser extent was about timing, but they still had the centerpiece stadium that was based on a temporary plan.

Then we have LA.  They like to boast (as they should) about how much is already in place and how little there is to build.  Well.. will that be any less true 4 years from now?  If they're trying to position themselves for long-term sustainability and for how little needs to be done (which isn't entirely accurate, but that's another debate), wouldn't that enhance the argument for them to be able to come back for another run?  Yes, it's asking for a lot more money to be spent, but that element aside, LA is well primed for a return for all the reasons that make them a solid bidder in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

To the point about New York and Chicago, something worth noting in comparison to LA..

Chicago to a lesser extent was about timing, but they still had the centerpiece stadium that was based on a temporary plan.

Well, there's also the point about how Chicago was the first one out of the vote. I know this has been discussed before throughout the years here (& how there's different view points from some other people here on that aspect) but if we're going to bring it up again, then it's also another noteworthy point their first-round exit more than likely also played a roled on whether or not to even bother again. Also, support for the Chicago 2016 bid was lukewarm at best from its citizens, so a 2020 run would've been futile.

Plus the USOC was still "reflecting" on what exactly went wrong with the 2016 bid, when bids for 2020 were due (so there was no time to start another worthwhile effort right away). Not to mention the revenue sharing deal that still needed to be ironed out, etc, so it's not just a case that (New York &) Chicago "just didn't come back" after their (respective) loss(es).

Not to mention, but Rio was just awarded the 2016 Games. And how many stories were written (& told, whether right or wrong), that the IOC's "old school" mentality that "the Americas" was really ONE continent in their view, & that 2020 coming back to the Western Hemisphere was unlikely then.

But none of that above would be the case for an L.A. 2028 run. They would be totally stupid not to go for it when every other continent (barring [South] Africa, which they're getting cold feet these days anyway), by the time 2028 rolls around, would've been taken care. So that means North America. And if L.A. were to refrain, then Toronto, & even Melbourne, I'm sure would jump on the virtual perfect opportunity to bid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Meanwhile, a Tokyo2020 which won based on reliability and being more financially sound is gobbling up the headlines and reinforcing the idea that the games have become an out of reach expensive endeavor. 

Let's put that in perspective, though, shall we. Compared to Istanbul 2020, yes Tokyo 2020 IS financially sound (not to mention politically sound). And compared to both Istanbul 2020 & Madrid 2020 (at the time), yes Tokyo 2020  IS reliable. So the IOC made the proper, adequate call there. That's not the case for 2024, though. They have TWO (not even gonna bother with Budapest), rock-solid 2024 bids on the table. And neither no worse, nor better than the other. So other tangible aspects will have to be differentiator, but they're not gonna be the "be-all, end-all" La la scenarios that you & "Alan" are painting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob. said:

Can you explain how a Paris bid would be followed by Bakus and Dohas whilst an LA bid wouldn't? That's one of the strangest suggestions I've seen on this forum to date.

I see you didn't get a response to your question, either, & probably never will, since as you said, it's a strange suggestion, to say the least. And what I find most hysterical about that oxymoron of a 'suggestion', is that "if the IOC goes with Paris 2024, then they'll get the Doha-hah's & Baku-koo's to follow, because the 'Europeans' are already getting squeamish".

Umm, but last time I checked, Paris (& Budapest, for that matter) ARE in Europe! And it's PRECISELY bcuz the Europeans are getting squeamish is why the IOC needs Europe sooner rather than later. You're sure right when you say that this Alan person hasn't thought this out at all, & never does!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RuFF said:

— Unlike in other nations, an American bid has no government money. None. It must all be privately funded. (. . .)

There is absolute value in LA not having the federal or local government financially back the bid or games. (. . .)

But that's not all that implies. That LA is coming in with initial cost estimates at 2 billion short of Paris 2024's bid, privately financed and lacking of government funding packs and Agenda 2020 punch, which is probably why Allan felt a Paris win would be followed by Doha's and Baku's. And while LA does not guarantee that outcome the stage is set to change that course and for that I agree with Allan.

You are ignoring the fact that Los Angeles' low cost model is entirely dependent on not building anything new rather than an alternative management or funding system.

1. Paris also has almost everything in place. They have a better athletics stadium than LA, a better velodrome, etc. LA has better arenas and might also be able to use its baseball stadiums somehow. It is roughly a stalemate there.

2. For cities that do not have access to the campus housing of UCLA and USC, NBC's studios, etc the Los Angeles bid does not offer a model that can be replicated. Cities like Toronto and Madrid are not going to be able to learn how they can host the Olympics affordably from Los Angeles.

3. If Los Angeles loses it might be the last USA bid for the Olympics for 20+ years. But the same thing is true of the Parisian bid and Western Europe.

4. LA has bid for the Olympics nine times before this. It has only won the right to host by default twice. And yet after being rejected seven times it has always been willing to come back. Why should this be any different?

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

I think the questions that need to be answered more are what are the IOC's needs right now and what can each city provide in reference to those needs? What do you guys think are the IOC's top 3 needs right now? 

My list would be:

1) Control costs

2) Connect to new Audiences

3) Promote Olympism and increase brand value

 

Yes, they'd have to be pretty high on the IOC's list of priorities. They should be blessing their good fortunes they have at least TWO bids that could do a great job meeting them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty good move by LA, just the sort of thing the Olympics needs to restore some confidence and interest from prospective bidders... IF they can stick to it. And that's the rub - you'd have to be an eternal optimist to think they could contain the cost at that figure. And if they can't, that's where real problems and headache headlines would start to arise if they're welded irretrievably to a total private-funded model.

Still, at this stage, I suppose just getting over the line is their biggest concern. And I;d have to give them props that this is a good message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, neige said:

heu...:blink: it is 6.2 Billion Euros for Paris! (about $6,6 Billion);)

Don't you just love it how the L.A. boosters have to LIE in order to try & bolster their "claims". That's why everything they say here has to be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least. Just like the "pretty impressive, especially if they are able to pull it off 'on or under budget' as they did 'twice' before."

For one, there aren't any real figures to go by for the 1932 Games, bcuz the organizing committee didn't really to that great a job to jot down all the #'s back then so there's no true way to know of the actual expense. And for 1984, those Games were a mere $584 Million in total, *1/10* the cost of their "proposed" 2024 budget. So one can't really rely on those old, very OUTDATED comparisons to the actual enormous costs that the Olympics are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RuFF said:

"We will never win this games or win this competition if we tell the world voters or members of the IOC choose us because we will be commercially successful. That will only build and reinforce resentment and skepticism they have about Americans. It's much better for us to say we have technology to offer you, we have creativity of our community, kids want to be here. My favorite statement for the people who ask me... if a voter is 70 years old is go ask your grandson or granddaughter where do they want to spend the summer. If they want to spend their summer in Budapest, or in Rome, or Paris, or LA? You don't even have to ask the answer because you already know. So, if you're looking toward the future and the next generation then LA has a really really good chance and that's what we're trying to prove." 

 

- Gene Sykes

62183740.jpg

There ya go, like he said, I'm basically FYI but with memes! :lol:

Seriously though.. what kind of nonsensical drivel is this?  I know a bigwig from the LA committee has to say certain things, but does this guy honestly think that grandkids of IOC voters (many of whom are European) would rather spend a summer in LA over Paris or Rome?  That's such an automatic answer to that question?  Who is he trying to kid!

I'll say again what I've said plenty of times before.. LA has a lot to offer.  The IOC would probably be perfectly content choosing them as their host for 2024.  But 1 of the other potential choices is Paris.  They have a lot to offer as well, so to pretend that LA is that obvious of a choice over Paris is one of the most preposterous things I've said.  Gene, here's a suggestion for you.. don't actually ask IOC voters where their kids and grandkids would actually want to spend the summer.  Pretty sure you wouldn't want to hear the answer.  I'll give you a hint, it's probably not Los Angeles if the other options include Paris.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

 

We Are Still One of The 3 Candidate Cities After Rome Was Out of The Bid.

There's still 16 candidates standing in the gamesBids Logo Winners Cup!

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners Cup - Pools A & B

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners Cup - Pools C & D

And we've got two candidates so far in the 10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Contest. Let's make it way more!

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Comp

diet_set_tib.jpg

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...