Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

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

Los Angeles used to have both the Rams and Raiders prior to 1995, when they both left.  

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

1 hour ago, ejaycat said:

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.  

Your exact words earlier were..

5 hours ago, ejaycat said:

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?

So is 2028 a consolation prize or not?  We get that all these cities are solely focused on 2024 right now.  As well they should be.  But 2 of those cities are going to lose.  Which means they'll have to make a decision whether or not to return for 2028.  How will they view 2028 then?  Again, that's why this is empty rhetoric to me.  Good for LA (and Paris) that they're responding to the reports about 2024/2028 being awarded at the same time that they're not interested in that.  And you're right that this is potentially changing up the parameters of bid, a little like what FIFA did with 2022 although that came after the fact.  I'll re-iterate what I said earlier.. when the dust settles from the 2024 vote, if the IOC decided to offer up the 2028 Olympics to the 2024 loser (and yes, I'm excluding Budapest in that argument) as a "consolation prize," let's see whether they'd actually turn that down or not.

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

Just for reference. At no time have I mentioned 1992, I think I was very clear I referencing this cycle. Also, I wrote "cooked" not "crooked" and I was referencing a phrase President Obama used to describe the process and the IOC.

You responded to a post earlier specifically about 1992.  I know you're referencing this cycle, but even if you believe this cycle is rigged or cooked (surprised you would reference Obama since LA is your Trump to Paris's Clinton), that still bears little similarity to the scenario you replying to that another poster had brought up.  If LA loses because of "geopolitics," then yes, maybe the decision is a little cooked.  But, semantics aside here, to call it rigged (which is very much what the 1992 result was from the start.. again, that's what you were replying to) is a bit of a stretch.  Except if you're viewing this as Trump viewed the election, which you probably are.

 

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

Your exact words earlier were..

So is 2028 a consolation prize or not?  We get that all these cities are solely focused on 2024 right now.  As well they should be.  But 2 of those cities are going to lose.  Which means they'll have to make a decision whether or not to return for 2028.  How will they view 2028 then?  Again, that's why this is empty rhetoric to me.  Good for LA (and Paris) that they're responding to the reports about 2024/2028 being awarded at the same time that they're not interested in that.  And you're right that this is potentially changing up the parameters of bid, a little like what FIFA did with 2022 although that came after the fact.  I'll re-iterate what I said earlier.. when the dust settles from the 2024 vote, if the IOC decided to offer up the 2028 Olympics to the 2024 loser (and yes, I'm excluding Budapest in that argument) as a "consolation prize," let's see whether they'd actually turn that down or not.

I guess I have to connect the dots for you.

None of the cities are bidding for 2028, they're all bidding for 2024.  Now that there's the possibility that this bid cycle will include awarding the 2028 Games also, *which no city is bidding for*, whichever city gets 2024 is the winner of this current bid cycle, while the (I assume runner-up) will get 2028, which again, no city is bidding for.  That's what would make it a consolation prize.

Again, Tokyo lost 2016, not being able to beat the other cities that were bidding for 2016; it lost that bid to the competition.

Again, Tokyo's winning 2020 was not a consolation prize; it beat out the other cities that were bidding for 2020. Tokyo was the winner of the 2020 bid, and the other cities who were bidding for 2020 did not win 2020.  Tokyo did not get 2020 as a consolation for not winning 2016; it scored high for 2020 on its own merits and beat the other cities.

 

 

Edited by ejaycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

I guess I have to connect the dots for you.

None of the cities are bidding for 2028, they're all bidding for 2024.  Now that there's the possibility that this bid cycle will include awarding the 2028 Games also, *which no city is bidding for*, whichever city gets 2024 is the winner of this current bid cycle, while the (I assume runner-up) will get 2028, which again, no city is bidding for.  That's what would make it a consolation prize.

Again, Tokyo lost 2016, not being able to beat the other cities that were bidding for 2016; it lost that bid to the competition.

Again, Tokyo's winning 2020 was not a consolation prize; it beat out the other cities that were bidding for 2024. Tokyo was the winner of the 2020 bid, and the other cities who were bidding for 2020 did not win 2020.  Tokyo did not get 2020 as a consolation for not winning 2016; it scored high for 2020 on its own merits and beat the other cities.

Again, here's the contradiction.. Whoever loses 2024 may or may not bid for 2028.  So potentially (and it's very much speculation at this point, let's not pretend that the IOC privately discussing awarding both 2024 and 2028 means it's seriously being considered, regardless of what Paris or LA has said in response) that city could be handed the 2028 Olympics without having to spend another 4 years of blood, sweat, and tears going through the process again.  If LA or the USOC were to come out and publicly say they're not interested in 2028 as a consolation prize, how is that going to go over if they decide to bid for 2028 when they've basically stated it's a lesser "prize" than what they first bid for.  To say nothing of the fact that if the IOC were to award 2024/2028 together (which is a massive "if"), they're basically giving the 2024 runner-up an Olympics they might bid for anyway and could wind up losing.

Maybe this is all semantics here and who knows what the IOC might do, but I still say if they offered 2028 as a "consolation prize," either Paris or LA would be fools to say no to that.  Even if they're publicly stating now this is all about 2024, which is the line they should take.  But tread carefully when mentioning 2028 in case they're bidding then.  No reason to even acknowledge that right now.

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

WTF are you talking about? I was not referencing 1992. And your Trump and Clinton crap is a heaping second helping of crap you fabricate to make stupid points about things I am not talking about.  Whack j*b.

My goodness, you're even dumber than I thought.  I guess if you respond to someone else's post with something completely unrelated, it doesn't matter what they were saying.  I figured out the issue here.. someone made a point about something that has nothing to do with LA or their 2024 bid.  Which limits your knowledge since you know very little about Olympic bidding when it isn't specifically about LA or 2024 bid.  That's okay though.  My fault for forgetting that you like to live in a little insulated bubble where anything and everything must be about LA or the 2024 Olympics, or else you're like a lost little child.  Leave the serious discussion here to the adults and those of us who actually have knowledge and insight and objective opinions, of which you have nothing of value to offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2017 at 7:02 PM, RuFF said:

In a sudden turn of events, as some formers (which I think we can clearly label now as anti LA for 2024) have dismissed La La Land, the Golden Globes, and likely the Lucas Museum to follow..., GamesBids publishes an article referencing... of course, the Golden Globes, Lucas Museum, and... La La Land. 

For the record.. those of us who are talking about Paris winning 2024 aren't doing so because we're rooting for them or rooting against LA.  It's because we think (based on knowledge of following the IOC and past Olympic bids) that Paris will win the bid for the 2024 Olympics because the IOC voters may not view LA as some "awesome treat" that they'd get to go there.

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

My goodness, you're even dumber than I thought.  I guess if you respond to someone else's post with something completely unrelated, it doesn't matter what they were saying.  I figured out the issue here.. someone made a point about something that has nothing to do with LA or their 2024 bid.  Which limits your knowledge since you know very little about Olympic bidding when it isn't specifically about LA or 2024 bid.  That's okay though.  My fault for forgetting that you like to live in a little insulated bubble where anything and everything must be about LA or the 2024 Olympics, or else you're like a lost little child.  Leave the serious discussion here to the adults and those of us who actually have knowledge and insight and objective opinions, of which you have nothing of value to offer.

That's precisely the problem since day one of Truffs presence here. One can't argue with *confirmation bias*, aka Truff (& Co), & if one isn't a good little "L.A. cheerleder", like Alan Abramhamson, then one is automatically branded as "anti-L.A. for 2024". Let objective criticism be damned here. Truff is like a b!tchy Trump. She's right & everybody else is "wrong". So its pretty much pointless with her, & always has been. 

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

Convince yourself of whatever you'd like to label me. The trend continues. Even with a constant flow of media sources validating what you dismiss, this very site inclusively, you know better. We might as well have our very own Allan Abrahamson in this thread. Lol. 

I thought we did have our own Abrahamson here?.. you. 

You're the one who is throwing out labels, and not just that but "we can clearly label."  What exactly are media sources validating?  That LA has a good bid and they're doing an excellent job of marketing?  I agree completely with that sentiment.  I have not once denied that LA2024 is running a great campaign and is a very worthy candidate for an Olympics (and if I'm pushing back against anything, it's your overly rosy opinion of LA and their chances at winning).  I still think in the end the IOC is going to pick Paris as the winner of this competition. 

If you want to view that as rigged or however you want to call it, you're not wrong, but again, that's where those of us who have followed Olympic bidding for years understand what goes into all this because we've seen it play out before.  If this same LA bid was in the 2020 field against Tokyo, Istanbul, and Madrid, I bet that most of the people you want to call "anti LA for 2024" would probably be picking them to win.  Not so much in this bid against Paris.  That's my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't go to the Paris 2024 thread very oftwn, but it doesn't seem nearly as hostile to its "boosters"

People post similar development or event updates that would help showcase Paris, most recently the Handball match, and I am like "cool!"

I Am not sure why LA's is a battleground. You cant post anything on here without it getting dismissed at lightning speed.

Oh well.

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

^That's bcuz there's no one like Truff in the Paris 2024 thread. It's also called "projecting", like Truff & Co. does best. 

I can see where RuFF can sometimes incite that kind of response. But I, on numerous occasions, innocently posted something about LA and how it would tie into or strengthen its bid (projects, current events, sporting events, etc) and I get your run of the mill, answers from the same 3 or 4 people.

 "All the more reason for 2028" or "LA is Ugly" or "That will turn off IOC voters" or "That has nothing to do with the votes"

Responses that are largely absent on the Paris forum for similar posts.

Just an observation.

 

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

One could argue that you have overly rosy opinions about Paris. And just because you say I have no knowledge outside of LA2024 doesn't make that true. That's what you tell yourself to validate the authority you think you are. However, if indeed you carried the weight you think you would pound for pound compare the bids, not shoot one down while condemning those that present opposing views. But if anybody wants to see how much bull you are spewing as Mr. Authority and knowledge they don't have to go any further than the Paris thread, where you don't carry the same objectivity. That applies to your groupies as well. SO cut the crap, you're a troll, deliberately derailing this thread because you want Paris to win. 

Is anyone actually arguing that?  Pretty sure it's not in my head that a number of people here have said that about you and LA.  Tell us though.. what have I (or FYI) posted in the Paris that that isn't objective or that makes me a groupie?  Other than the fact that I'm calling you out for it (not like I'm the only one).  That's cute that you think I'm a troll though.  I don't *want* Paris to win.  I think they're going to win.  Big difference.  Don't assume (and we know what happens when you assume) that I want Paris to win just because I'm shooting you down.  I'm not rooting against LA so much as I'm rooting against you.

And once again, let's remember the very first post you ever made here, as if you think FYI or me or baron started this and think I'm the one trying to project false authority..

 

On 9/28/2015 at 7:09 AM, RuFF said:

New to the forum and read a few pages back to get up to speed on the thread. Some things I noticed in the Paris/LA back and forth that I thought were misinformed or might also deserve consideration. First, Paris represents the country of France and the bid put fourth by the CNOSF. LA represents the country of the United States of America and is put forth by the USOC. Both countries have been rejected for previous games and both have exercised their right to not bid for the next available Olympic Games. Saying that LA will bid after defeat is not very substantial because in 2020, the USOC did not bid. At the same time both Olympic Organizing committees have come back and bid again. I don't see much truth to an argument there either way.

Second, taken as a whole, Europe has just over twice the population of the United States, and France twice that of the State of California. The United States has significantly more people than France. Europe has many national Olympic organizing committees and the US has 1. It is not unreasonable that the US disproportionately host games given those figures because 1 body represents significantly more people. A more balanced approach would have all of Europe represented by 2 NOC's but since that is not the case it's not hard to see why the USOC has a strong presence. Then consider the even greater disproportion in the revenue side. I'm not sure this articulately works in either city's favor but it may explain 100 years on no Paris. The same argument could be used by a major US City that has never hosted the games (NYC)

Third. This has to do with the LA budget. Nearly 2 billion is not included in LA's bid because the Fedshandle that. 7 billion is not included because with or without the Olympics, LA already has a major renovation of its International Airport underway. 1 billion is not included because LA already has a major revitalization of the LA River underway. Billions more (40) are not included in LA's budget because of major expansions to public transit in the form of rail and highway improvements are already underway. 500 million are also not included because USC already is moving forward with a Colesium renovation on the heels of a 300 million upgrade to the Rose Bowl. LA's modest budget is that way not so much because of a low ball, but more so because LA initiated, on its own, plans to modernize the city and the Olympics could benefit from those plans, and not the other way around. The legacy is there, it was built into LA before the Olympics were on the table. LA has actively engaged in modernizing its public and sporting infrastructure independent of the Olympic Bid.

Last. I'm not sure people realize how many venues LA has. Previous Olympics in LA have been woven into the city's fabric. Sport is alive and thriving in LA. So much so that there is a list of major venues that are all new or heavily renovated since 1984. LA of 2024 is not LA of 1984. LA is more urban, it's more public transit, more density, more diverse. An LA of 2024 would be more like a Beijing of 2008. A coming out party. LA would showcase itself as an urban riverfront city with public transit. I struggle to think anybody would expect that and regardless of this Bid, LA is doing this on its own. I can't say that Paris is not a strong contender or a front runner, but if Paris doesn't offer more than the expected Paris, LA might swoop in for the win. I don't think anybody is expecting this, and from the video LA 24 has put out I think this is what they're going for. Literally, a city reinvented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Again, that is bcuz there is no one like Truff (thank goodness) in the Paris 2024. If certain posts trigger certain responses, it's bcuz of the nature that Truff has made this thread out to be. If one doesn't buy into the hyperbole that they're delivering, one is automatically branded as an "anti LA cheerleader". There is no room for objective criticism here when it comes to Truff.

But at the same time, that's not entirely unusal here at Gamesbids. Usually every bid cycle has their over-zealous partial supporters. 2020 had it with several crazy Madrid supporters, 2018 had the loon Annecy supporter by the name of Tulsa. Not to mention previous older bid races &  the other outside chance X-city supporters that think their city is being "attacked" when the general consensus here doesn't agree with their general city's chances. Needless to say, that none of those cities panned out in the ene & those "supporters" then disappeared into the wind. 

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

I can see where RuFF can sometimes incite that kind of response. But I, on numerous occasions, innocently posted something about LA and how it would tie into or strengthen its bid (projects, current events, sporting events, etc) and I get your run of the mill, answers from the same 3 or 4 people.

 "All the more reason for 2028" or "LA is Ugly" or "That will turn off IOC voters" or "That has nothing to do with the votes"

Responses that are largely absent on the Paris forum for similar posts.

Just an observation.

 

^post above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I get those responses because I challenge his preference of Paris 2024. So rather than discuss the topic he will discuss me because he can't really dispute facts so he poisons the well by placing the source in question. The problem is that on the face it can appear to have value, but in reality is falls flat. Take the Purple Line topic for example. On one end you have a substantially funded project approved by voters and already receiving substantial matching funds and loans from the federal government. One can poison the source of that information all one would want, but it's not going to change that story other than in the face of those that buy into it. Quaker feels an authorative figure on the subject, particularly in the case of LA to argue ridership, demographics, cost, speeding up the project, etc., there are fundamental flaws in what he is saying, but the source is poisoned and he will believe he knows something that even the people of LA don't. 

If that source is you, then yea, it's already poisoned.  Especially when you present "facts," but then have to add the "LA is so awesome, everyone!" context to it.  Tone it down every once in a while so that we can talk about those facts rather than your personal take on it.

9 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Quaker just proved my point by posting my alleged first post. I continue to strongly stand behind it as well. Now in addition to that we have a multi billion stadium on the way, a Bank of California Stadium on the way, a 120 billion Measure M on top of the 40 billion measure R. If anything my statement has become stronger with even more meat, far beyond even what I though the people of LA would buy into. Anybody who truly understand politics and development in LA veer far from my initial assessment? 

You guys see? Quaker is in Quaker land thinking he knows LA and it's policy better than LA, and rather than be constructive and discuss the topic he will discuss anybody who challenges what he thinks LA actually is. Anybody who is objective would speak about Mayor Hidalgo looking to make Paris more bike friendly or Grand Paris. 

74675480.jpg

LOL.  Much like any time someone brings up the idea of geopolitics (which are a part of virtually every Olympic bid) or past bidding history, you want to brush it aside.  You want this to be all about LA.  You don't want to discuss Paris.  You want to - to use 1 of your favorite phrases in a different context than you intended it for - "control the conversation."  If you have opinions or thoughts about Paris, post it in the Paris thread.

There's nothing "alleged" there.  That WAS your first post.  You basically came to this forum saying "hey, I've been reading what these threads, but let me set you straight because you are mis-informed."  Again, forgive us if we don't react so kindly to that.  Maybe you're right that I don't know what LA is truly about (although if you're going to refer to LA as "we", maybe you should change your location from Miami, FL.. and you wonder why you're labelled as a groupie if a city you don't live in is "we"), but I'm pretty sure you don't know what the IOC is all about.  You can wax poetic about LA until you're blue in the face and you have facts to support you.  Doesn't mean it will end up with them hosting the 2024 Olympics.

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

I am not RuFF.

You've had moments, but yes, we know you are not RuFF.  Again, it's the nature of these forums that posters sometimes get grouped together.  Not your fault, but something you need to expect about this site.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

 

If that source is you, then yea, it's already poisoned.  Especially when you present "facts," but then have to add the "LA is so awesome, everyone!" context to it.  Tone it down every once in a while so that we can talk about those facts rather than your personal take on it.

Pretty much sums it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^You're certainly not as bad as Truff, but "to be fair", you also haven't been exactly innocent from a bit of the hyperbole yourself. But I digress. This has gone far enough without the need to further indulge in personal attacks, which seems what you know who is mainly interested in ATM.

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...