Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Pretty much what I also stated earlier. Since when are the Olympic Games a 'consolation prize' no matter when they're held. 

All one has to do is look at Athens 1996, Rome 2004 & even Beijing 2000 to see how such distasteful remarks fall on deaf ears. I say let them keep opening their petulant mouths. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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." 

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.  

Good for the LA freaking Times.  That's a misleading headline by them and especially by the Daily News.  This is not Mission Impossible where it's "this bid will self destruct if not selected for 2024"  All that's being reported is that the LA committee is not thinking about 2028 *right now* as a contingency plan.  Doesn't say anything about what might happen if they lose.  There's no implication IMO that they've already made a decision about what they'll do if that happens.  Of course they're not thinking about that now.  Nor should they.  But between Paris and LA, at least 1 of them is not going to be awarded the 2028 Olympics.  So someone is going to have to lick their wounds and decide if they want to bid again for 2028.  And yes, I think it's extremely empty rhetoric to think this is any indication of what the LA committee might do if they don't win 2024, especially that 2028 is being thrown around as a "consolation" prize.  That's the only reason they've made this statement, which IMO says very little and means even less

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Personally I don't think it shows good sportsmanship to put out a statement like that, but at the same time I do think the LA group could end up offended. One could say that the people and City of LA are always ready to nominate themselves for an Olympics, which is largely true. But an Olympic bid comes at a cost, and in the case of LA it's a private cost. That is not saying other cities bids don't come at private cost or that LA's bid is superior because of it. But someone put up money here and if they feel that Paris is awarded a games because the IOC is playing favorites, they may very well be offended and the scenario of not returning for 2028 may be the case. 

Let's be clear about something here.. the LA committee hasn't put out any statement.  News outlets are publishing these reports and they're basing it on minutes from a meeting that took place a month ago.  Not LA 2024's fault that a USOC board meeting is being dissected like this.

LA and Paris both knew what they were getting into when they bid for the Olympics.  They both put time and resources and money into this effort knowing it's possible they might lose and all that effort would be for nothing.  Someone is going to walk away from this unhappy.  Doesn't mean they're going to walk away butthurt though.  Both cities know how this works.  Wouldn't Paris be just as offended over losing to LA?  They're both taking a risk and everyone involved knows that and I'm sure LA of all cities knows that sometimes you don't get it with your first shot and you need to try again.  Paris already knows that.  Yes it's discouraging to lose, but if LA really wants the Olympics as much as they say they do, then is this really a 1-shot deal for them like it was with New York and Chicago?  IMO, I don't think it will be for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

Wow - what a douche thing to say.  So the 2028 Games - simply by not being in 2024 - are a lesser event?

That kind of position loses bids.

Very douchy sounding of the USOC indeed, but something tells me this was well thought out and calculated response. (Much like Paris 2024's)

 

 

 

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

Let's be clear about something here.. the LA committee hasn't put out any statement.  News outlets are publishing these reports and they're basing it on minutes from a meeting that took place a month ago.  Not LA 2024's fault that a USOC board meeting is being dissected like this.

LA and Paris both knew what they were getting into when they bid for the Olympics.  They both put time and resources and money into this effort knowing it's possible they might lose and all that effort would be for nothing.  Someone is going to walk away from this unhappy.  Doesn't mean they're going to walk away butthurt though.  Both cities know how this works.  Wouldn't Paris be just as offended over losing to LA?  They're both taking a risk and everyone involved knows that and I'm sure LA of all cities knows that sometimes you don't get it with your first shot and you need to try again.  Paris already knows that.  Yes it's discouraging to lose, but if LA really wants the Olympics as much as they say they do, then is this really a 1-shot deal for them like it was with New York and Chicago?  IMO, I don't think it will be for them.

I was kind of amused the other day when I realized that LA has been seeking the 2024 Games for sometime, well before Paris. It lost the 2016 bid to Chicago, and originally the 2024 bid to Boston.

Paris was not even interested and then back peddaled. 

I am sure that both cities are tired of losing. Paris has no real competition in France, but LA has twice the work to put in. LA's fall will be much harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read it again. This is what the article said: 

"According to U.S. Olympic Committee documents made public Wednesday, if a rival candidate is chosen for 2024 — Paris and Budapest are also in the running — L.A. would not accept the consolation prize of hosting in 2028."

So that's not the L.A. Times  "take". It's reporting some of what those USOC documents said.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

 I was kind of amused the other day when I realized that LA has been seeking the 2024 Games for sometime, well before Paris. It lost the 2016 bid to Chicago, and originally the 2024 bid to Boston.

Paris was not even interested and then back peddaled. 

All the more reason why Paris wouldn't be back for 2028. This 2024 effort of theirs was not all there in the beginning, & their total about face now only demonstrates even more their utmost commitment to this 2024 endeavor. 

8 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

 I am sure that both cities are tired of losing. Paris has no real competition in France, but LA has twice the work to put in. LA's fall will be much harder.

How "harder" L.A.'s fall would be is only a matter of opinion. I also don't see how L.A. has "twice the work to put it" when all I constantly hear is how L.A. has "less work to do" than Paris. Can't have it both ways, ya know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

I was kind of amused the other day when I realized that LA has been seeking the 2024 Games for sometime, well before Paris. It lost the 2016 bid to Chicago, and originally the 2024 bid to Boston.

Paris was not even interested and then back peddaled. 

I am sure that both cities are tired of losing. Paris has no real competition in France, but LA has twice the work to put in. LA's fall will be much harder.

Don't forget 2012.  They were in the running for that one too.  So yea, LA has been trying to land another Olympics for some time now.  This is hardly a new endeavor for them.  They've been rejected before, just at the domestic level rather than the international level.  You're not wrong that LA has a work a little harder in that they have to secure the domestic nomination (as opposed to Paris which is more than likely the default candidate from France).  And there is definitely some credence to the argument that they're funding their bid privately and a re-bid would be costly.  But based on the history, that's why I wouldn't expect this to be a one and done for LA.  They've been at this for a while.  1 of the selling points of their bid is how they have so much in place and ready to go.  We hear about how they're timing this for 2024 and I expect them to be focused on that at the moment.  But if they lose, no reason to think they aren't equally as prepared to go for 2028, even though that means more money spent.  If the USOC is smart (which, yea, is not likely), then they'll forgo the domestic process and hand the nomination to LA and save them the trouble.  That said, Paris having lost 3 times already on the big stage (once in a rigged vote and another in a narrow loss to a big rival city) is probably going to take it harder if they lose a 4th time if LA did to lose this one.  That's not going to be a reason to vote for/against either city, but if we're talking about who will take it harder, then there's arguments there on both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, FYI said:

Read it again. This is what the article said: 

"According to U.S. Olympic Committee documents made public Wednesday, if a rival candidate is chosen for 2024 — Paris and Budapest are also in the running — L.A. would not accept the consolation prize of hosting in 2028."

So that's not the L.A. Times  "take". It's reporting some of what those USOC documents said.

I'd like to see them actually hold to that promise.  In the event Paris wins 2024 and the IOC did decide to go with awarding 2028 at the same time, would LA seriously not accept that?  "Hey USOC, here's an Olympics if you want it?"  "Nah, we're not interested."  No freaking way the USOC is going to turn that down.  Because if they did that, then how could they possibly bid for 2028.  And then how could the IOC take them seriously 4 or 8 years down the road?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

That said, Paris having lost 3 times already on the big stage (once in a rigged vote and another in a narrow loss to a big rival city) is probably going to take it harder if they lose a 4th time if LA did to lose this one.  That's not going to be a reason to vote for/against either city, but if we're talking about who will take it harder, then there's arguments there on both sides.

To be fair - Barcelona put in a very, very strong and competitive bid, one rated by many as one of the best the IOC ever saw.  

Yes the IOC awarded Albertville the Winter Games in the same session prior to the Summer vote - a move that pretty much scuppered Paris' chances for the Summer Games - however it was not "rigged" - it was just manufactured to play out in a way that two powerful NOCs both walked away with a Games.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

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. 

This is my thought too, and is basically what I said in my previous post.  Their aim is to host in 2024, not 2028.

 

8 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

Wow - what a douche thing to say.  So the 2028 Games - simply by not being in 2024 - are a lesser event?

That kind of position loses bids.

I don't see it as douchey at all.  It would be different if the cities were bidding for both 2024 and 2028 from the get go, but instead, there's supposedly now the possibility of the IOC changing the rules mid-game.  The three candidate cities' goals are to host in 2024; so, going by that logic, wouldn't 2028 be seen as a consolation prize by any of the cities?  And being that Budapest isn't seen as a front-runner, it totally labels them as the loser.  Even if Budapest were seen as a strong contender, would the IOC award two summer Olympics in a row to two European capitals?  

If the IOC does indeed change up the rules for this bid process, I think that would be more douchey on *their* part.  

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

Read it again. This is what the article said: 

"According to U.S. Olympic Committee documents made public Wednesday, if a rival candidate is chosen for 2024 — Paris and Budapest are also in the running — L.A. would not accept the consolation prize of hosting in 2028."

So that's not the L.A. Times  "take". It's reporting some of what those USOC documents said.

 

If this is the case...could this mean the USOC wants another city to truly host? They see LA as a stop-gap/save face after the pipe-dream bomb that was Boston? Could these documents reveal the USOC doesn't expect to win 2024 and if they do not win, they want another city to be the candidate in 2028?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

To be fair - Barcelona put in a very, very strong and competitive bid, one rated by many as one of the best the IOC ever saw.  

Yes the IOC awarded Albertville the Winter Games in the same session prior to the Summer vote - a move that pretty much scuppered Paris' chances for the Summer Games - however it was not "rigged" - it was just manufactured to play out in a way that two powerful NOCs both walked away with a Games.

Semantics.  We both have the same idea.  Barcelona proved itself to be an extremely worthy host.  Doesn't change the fact the IOC manipulated the vote(s) to get the result they wanted.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

 If this is the case...could this mean the USOC wants another city to truly host? They see LA as a stop-gap/save face after the pipe-dream bomb that was Boston? Could these documents reveal the USOC doesn't expect to win 2024 and if they do not win, they want another city to be the candidate in 2028?

IDK how "reading between the lines" makes you come up with this. No, I absolutely don't think that is what the USOC is thinking. The USOC's take is being an "all or nothing" (which is another douchey thing to say. It's like geez, have they lost all dilplomacy here) approach.

The IOC has been scracthing at the idea as of late that they might consider awarding two Games come this September. An "idea" that was supposedly started by our "buddy" Alan Abramhamson a few months ago (although, in his complete bias view, he names L.A. as the one which should go first). Now according to the recent Inside the Games article, it seems the IOC would rather prefer Paris to go first in such an awarding. So now it seems that the USOC is not liking the "combo-deal" as much & is now making some hefty lip-service. That's the "take" I see.

In any event, if L.A. does lose 2024 (which the USOC needs to start getting in its mind if it didn't before, that there is a good possibility of losing), it only makes the most sense to go with L.A. again. There is no other renowned U.S. city ATM (at least for the next couple of bidding cycles) with the political & citizenry will & resources that L.A. has to take on such an endeavor. And the USOC should totally know that by now, unless they really do want another Boston 2.0. So for the time being, it truly is L.A. or bust. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RuFF said:

The idea that the selection of a host city is rigged is not something missing in this cycle. Geopolitics has been thrown around here as a reason Paris would win and President Obama is on record with his belief that "these things are cooked." 

It may not be a big thing now, but if you're one of those people that threw your money behind the LA bid come losing time, it might change your opinion. 

What the 1992 bid was is not similar in any way to what we *might* be dealing with here.  If a majority of IOC voters have a preference for Paris based on whatever their interests are, that's not being rigged or crooked.  That's simply choosing the city they have a preference for based on the criteria they believe is important.  Saying geopolitics are involved is a world of difference from being "crooked."

But this is the game that LA chose to play.  They knew the IOC isn't exactly the most transparent organization out there and yet they decided to enter the competition anyway.  And yea, a lot of people invested time and money into it, but guess what.. so did Paris.  Look on the bright side though.  You seem to be very much setting this up as a Clinton vs. Trump type of race.  And LA is clearly the Trump versus Clinton as Paris.  You think the vote is probably rigged against you against the other "meh" candidate and don't seem like you're too willing to accept an outcome where you lose.  Of course, we know how that worked out for Trump, so maybe LA will be just fine! B)

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

I don't see it as douchey at all.  It would be different if the cities were bidding for both 2024 and 2028 from the get go, but instead, there's supposedly now the possibility of the IOC changing the rules mid-game.  The three candidate cities' goals are to host in 2024; so, going by that logic, wouldn't 2028 be seen as a consolation prize by any of the cities?  And being that Budapest isn't seen as a front-runner, it totally labels them as the loser.  Even if Budapest were seen as a strong contender, would the IOC award two summer Olympics in a row to two European capitals?  

If the IOC does indeed change up the rules for this bid process, I think that would be more douchey on *their* part.  

Did Tokyo view 2020 as a consolation prize after 2016?  Did Beijing view 2008 as a consolation prize after 2000?  Did Athens view 2004 as a consolation prize after 1996?  More than any of those.. was 1984 a consolation prize for LA after not getting 1976 and 1980?

Again, let's say Paris beats LA for 2024.  The IOC goes to the USOC and says "we will award you the 2028 games right now with no bid process."  Do you honestly think they'd say no to that?  We know that right now Paris and LA are fully committed to their 2024 bids.  But that's any city bidding for an Olympics.  When LA hosted in 1984, does anyone view those Olympics as something less than they were because they had bid twice previous and lost?  Of course not.  In the immediate aftermath of whoever doesn't get 2024, there will be some hurt feelings.  If that city is LA, you have 2 options.. 1) Be all butthurt about it and tell the IOC you're not longer interested, which means no Olympics in LA.  Or 2) Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go at it again for 2028.  That's not something they need to think about now, nor should they.  But come September, 1 of these 2 cities will have to consider that.  And if the IOC wants to offer 2028 as a "consolation prize" to whoever that losing city is, they'd be foolish IMO not to say yes to it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RuFF said:

Of course. Not surprising that you still read it as a comparison and made it about losing battles. Anybody else who isn't a Paris cheerleader would have read exactly what I wrote. Boo hoo, boo hoo FYI.

It's a comparison because afterall, it is a COMPETITION between TWO (well, technically three) cities. The fact that you always try to deny that fact by solely only focusing on L.A. just proves how bias you (& your other L.A. "cheerleaders") really are. Like it or not, the IOC will definitely "read it" as a comparison, bcuz unlike you, they won't have on the "L.A. is all sunshine & rainbows" glasses on. So boo hoo hoo, Trump-y T-ruff.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth noting for those who didn't see the news.. The San Diego Chargers announced today they're going to be relocating to LA.  Likely to play in the StubHub Center for the next 2 years (yes, that would make it by far the smallest stadium in the NFL) and then presumably move in with the Rams.

What does that mean in the context of LA's Olympic bid?  Absolutely nothing.  But since every new development in LA of this sort needs to be posted in this thread, I figured I'd get out in front of this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Did Tokyo view 2020 as a consolation prize after 2016?  Did Beijing view 2008 as a consolation prize after 2000?  Did Athens view 2004 as a consolation prize after 1996?  More than any of those.. was 1984 a consolation prize for LA after not getting 1976 and 1980?

Of course those weren't consolation prizes, they won the bids for those specific years and beat the other cities that were also trying to host for those specific years.  Example, the IOC felt Tokyo wasn't the best choice for 2016 over its competition for those Games, but felt it was the best choice for 2020 over its competition for those Games.  Why would winning 2020 be a consolation prize?

1984 was not a consolation prize for LA, it was the only city left bidding for those games after Tehran bowed out---and Tehran had excellent-looking facilities, at least from the few photos I've seen, so it's too bad they dropped out.  I'm aware of what was going on in Iran at the time of course, but apart from that, I think it would have been a good competition between the two cities.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Seem arrogant to try and host two NFL teams. That'll surely turn off the IOC voters. 

Nonsense. Confirmation bias tells us the IOC will be very happy with this since it shows that LA is that place to be if you're an NFL team!  So if the Rams and Chargers want to be there, surely that means the Olympics belong there as well

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...