Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The problem is that none of this stuff matters for an Olympic bid even if you believe LA somehow beats out Paris in beauty. IOC voters base their decisions of what works for their sports, NOC's, etc. Not on films.

The economic arguments for sporting events are total nonsense. The analysts usually count all money connected to the event as profits, assume that all of the money will be added to the local economy instead of coming out of the pocketbooks of the locals buying tickets, and finally ignore the loss of revenues from people staying away from the city and business being displaced due to the event.

Similarly I handled over a million dollars last year, but I did not earn a wage anywhere near that high because some of the money went to business expenditures, lots of money went to other peoples wages and the remainder went to the business itself. If you count the total amount of money you come into contact with as money gained then the figure will look great, but that is not how net income works in the real world.

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

Gamesbids publishes many articles "referencing" many things about many different bids. That is. after-all, the nature of the website. However, that doesn't mean that GB's publishing an article about L.A. makes it seem "extra special"(other than the mere fact that all GB's is doing is just reporting on it), when they publish articles all the time when it comes to things that can relate to ANY particular bid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about this thread yesterday when, leaving work, I stumbled on the première of 'La La Land', on the Champs Élysées, and saw Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. It was quite cool.

- End of pointless contribution about the The Film That Must Not Be Named - ^_^

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FYI said:

Gamesbids publishes many articles "referencing" many things about many different bids. That is. after-all, the nature of the website. However, that doesn't mean that GB's publishing an article about L.A. makes it seem "extra special"(other than the mere fact that all GB's is doing is just reporting on it), when they publish articles all the time when it comes to things that can relate to ANY particular bid. 

I was complaining about Ruff, not gamesbids. Gamesbids is simply reporting on what the bid is doing, Ruff is trying to say that by Gamesbids reporting on it those actions can now be defined as game-changing.

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

Context.  LA has not closed the door on 2028.  They're merely stating publicly they're all in for 2024.  What if they lose?  Do we think they're not going to bid for 2028?  Do you honestly think that if the IOC said to them "we're awarding 2024 to Paris, but we will name you host for 2028" that they would say no to that?  No one knows how LA would react to losing the 2024 bid, but let's not pretend that this news means they wouldn't try for 2028, let alone if the IOC literally handed it to them without a fight.  They'd be utter fools to reject that deal (same goes for if LA wins and Paris loses), which is why the IOC should consider it.  Whether they will or not is a different story.

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

Context.  LA has not closed the door on 2028.  They're merely stating publicly they're all in for 2024.  What if they lose?  Do we think they're not going to bid for 2028?  Do you honestly think that if the IOC said to them "we're awarding 2024 to Paris, but we will name you host for 2028" that they would say no to that?  No one knows how LA would react to losing the 2024 bid, but let's not pretend that this news means they wouldn't try for 2028, let alone if the IOC literally handed it to them without a fight.  They'd be utter fools to reject that deal (same goes for if LA wins and Paris loses), which is why the IOC should consider it.  Whether they will or not is a different story.

Isn't it ultimately the USOC's decision if the US will put a bid in for 2028?  LA can decide it wants to bid for any year it wants, but only if the USOC allows it to.  

For all we know, the USOC will sit out 2028, or choose another city.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap that appears to be some bad reporting. Unless there are different quotes that didn't make it into the story, it should have been reported as "USOC makes vague statements that leave the door wide open for 2028." I don't know where the reporter got the idea the USOC said it wouldn't accept 2028. 

Meanwhile, everyone knows it's just posturing. They can be as Shermanesque as they want... if offered 2028 the USOC would take it in a heartbeat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what other city would that? For all the hype that L.A. is the best prepared U.S. city (for the time being) for an Olympic bid to keep "costs" down, I see no other viable, renowned U.S. city stepping up to the plate anytime soon. Unless of course, the USOC would like another Boston debacle.

The USOC would also be oh-so-stupid to refrain from 2028 simply bcuz they "didn't get" 2024. They'd be biting their nose just to spite their face, "messages" or no messages, when a 2028 bid would position North America even better than 2024 does. There's always Canada or even Australia in the waiting if the USOC were to play the sore loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

Isn't it ultimately the USOC's decision if the US will put a bid in for 2028?  LA can decide it wants to bid for any year it wants, but only if the USOC allows it to.  

For all we know, the USOC will sit out 2028, or choose another city.  

1 minute ago, RuFF said:

I think that is the message. The USOC will sit out 2028.

What zeke said.  This is all empty rhetoric.  Although I'd like to see the IOC call that bluff.  Let alone if the idea to award 2024 and 2028 at the same time actually does start to gain any traction and the 2024 loser is essentially being handed 2028.  It made sense for the USOC to take a step back after the 2016 loss to re-evaluate things and get their house in order (and not simply because they or Chicago were butthurt over the loss).  If Paris wins 2024, by far the most likely outcome for 2028 is that there is a U.S. bid and it comes from Los Angeles.  Does anyone honestly think the USOC wouldn't bid for 2028 simply because of what happened with New York and Chicago?  Don't throw that out there just to acknowledge a possibility

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

I was complaining about Ruff, not gamesbids. Gamesbids is simply reporting on what the bid is doing, Ruff is trying to say that by Gamesbids reporting on it those actions can now be defined as game-changing.

My post had absolutely nothing to do with yours. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I agree that LA2024 and the USOC should refrain from drawing such a hard line. However, the other part of your statement comes off as added filler you just threw in there for some added effect.

No different from you just throwing in the Paris 2012 overconfidence filler in there, in the first place, for some added effect.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What zeke said.  This is all empty rhetoric.  Although I'd like to see the IOC call that bluff.  Let alone if the idea to award 2024 and 2028 at the same time actually does start to gain any traction and the 2024 loser is essentially being handed 2028.  It made sense for the USOC to take a step back after the 2016 loss to re-evaluate things and get their house in order (and not simply because they or Chicago were butthurt over the loss).  If Paris wins 2024, by far the most likely outcome for 2028 is that there is a U.S. bid and it comes from Los Angeles.  Does anyone honestly think the USOC wouldn't bid for 2028 simply because of what happened with New York and Chicago?  Don't throw that out there just to acknowledge a possibility

Empty rhetoric?  But the LA Times headline is "U.S. Olympic Committee puts full weight behind LA2024 bid, ruling out 2028 as consolation prize." 

And there's also this:  http://www.dailynews.com/events/20170111/if-la-2024-olympic-bid-fails-usoc-wont-pursue-2028

“After a full and frank exchange of ideas, issues, and possibilities, there was general agreement that the LA 2024 bid is specifically configured and calculated for 2024 rather than 2028 activation; neither LA 2024 nor the USOC have focused at all on the possibility of any bid other than for the 2024 Games; and the USOC Board does not foresee pursuing any bid other than for the 2024 Games.”

And this:  http://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php/articles/1045704/usoc-and-los-angeles-rule-out-bidding-for-2028-olympic-and-paralympic-games

Doesn't sound like empty rhetoric; there's the logistics of bidding for a Games after all.  

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with FYI on the effects of over-hyping or over confidence.

For all LA has to offer and the strength of their bid, Paris is a more picturesque city, something I have never denied.

I am excited to see the transformation that LA is going through at a remarkable rate, but, like you mentioned, Paris 2012 had a similar approach and attitude and in the end it was London who bagged the games.

It is a fine line to walk for LA 2024. Be excited, be visible, but don't be overly confident.

Agreed,



 

Link to post
Share on other sites

EJ, the USOC needs to tread very carefully. Using words like "won't accept or ruling out the consolation prize" of the 2028 Games (as if getting an Olympic Games is a "consolation prize" TBW), or "warning" that they won't bid again "if not awarded" 2024, is borderlining very, very much on arrogance & entitlement (& some people think that the French are the only ones with these traits). Much like Greece when they were bidding for 1996, "we won't bid ever again if we're not awarded the Centennial Olympic Games". And we all know how that one turned out.

Bottomline, the USOC can harp all they want about how they're solely focused on 2024, but in the end, it's the IOC's call whether or not to award both Games simultaneously. And I share the sentiment that if push came to shove, the USOC would GLADLY accept the "consolation prize of 2028". I also find it interesting that the inside the games article states that if the IOC were to go the combo-deal route, that it seems they prefer Paris to go first with 2024. At least that's how the article reads. Also gives a good impression on what seems immediately important for the IOC to address, & that looks like their home continent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation is bidding for 2028 is out because they will nearly get it (2028) without having to bid again.  After 2 decades of trying with NYC 2012, Chicago 2016,  Boston and LA 2024, they are now going to pout and play prima donna if the IOC isn't quite in sync with their timing?  Really??

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

Empty rhetoric?  But the LA Times headline is "U.S. Olympic Committee puts full weight behind LA2024 bid, ruling out 2028 as consolation prize." 

“After a full and frank exchange of ideas, issues, and possibilities, there was general agreement that the LA 2024 bid is specifically configured and calculated for 2024 rather than 2028 activation; neither LA 2024 nor the USOC have focused at all on the possibility of any bid other than for the 2024 Games; and the USOC Board does not foresee pursuing any bid other than for the 2024 Games.”

 

 

As I said, unless there are other quotes we aren't aware of, that headline is bullshit. "Does not foresee pursuing" isn't anywhere close to "ruling out". 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, on that same token, Paris may also feel offended if L.A. was awarded a Games because the IOC is playing favorites. Afterall, Paris' 2024 bid ALSO costs money & more than likely would not return for 2028. Especially considering that 2024 is their fourth bid, as oppose to L.A.'s first this time around. So if you wanna play the "offended" card, L.A. also loses that battle. They knew the stakes before they went in this, so they shouldn't act all surprised now that of course there's also the prospect of losing their bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading between the lines the USOC is basically just saying they are focused on winning 2024 and that this  race is not a half-hearted effort. The USOC is working to win 2024, it wants 2024, and if they bid in 2028, LA may not be the U.S. city. 

On another note, it's a little difficult to take these claims seriously when the US has submitted a bid for the past bid cycles except for 2020. Paris actually stayed out for quite some time and it is reasonable to expect them to stay out even longer if they loose again. 

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...