Quaker2001 Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.