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

Los Angeles 2024 Olympics: What’s Not to Like?

Quote

 

LA WATCHDOG--On Friday, the Ad Hoc on the Summer Olympics Committee will meet to review the City’s and Los Angeles 2024 Exploratory Committee’s (“LA24”) bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympics.  And without doubt, this seven member committee chaired by City Council President Herb Wesson will approve moving forward with submitting the well-conceived bid to the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) on Friday, February 3. 

After all, almost 90% of Angelenos support hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics. 

But there is the issue of the City’s exposure to losses as our cash starved City will be required to indemnify the IOC and the United States Olympic Committee against any losses.  

Based on the updated projections prepared by LA24 that have been reviewed in detail by KPMG and Miguel Santana, our trusted City Administrative Officer, the $5.3 billion Olympic budget has a Contingency Reserve of almost $500 million, representing over 10% of the $4.8 billion in expenditures.  And this is after other contingency reserves built into the development of individual venues. 

The updated budget is a vast improvement from the 2015 Budget as the Contingency Reserve increased to $491 million from $161 million.  

The new budget ditched the building of a de novo Olympic Village on the site of Union Pacific’s Piggyback Yard.  Instead, LA24 has made arrangements to use UCLA and USC dormitories, resulting in savings of an estimated $1 billion.  

There are also considerable savings that LA24 is able to achieve by using existing venues, ranging from the Coliseum, the Rose Bowl, Staples, StubHub, Pauley Pavilion, Galen Center, and numerous other locations throughout Southern California.  

The management has also fine-tuned its projections by developing a detailed, bottoms up financial model and benchmarked its “conservative” assumptions and results against the London 2012 Olympics and other mega events. 

The City and LA have developed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that protects the City’s coffers.  Importantly, it calls for a $250 million Contingency Reserve to be funded prior to the beginning of the Games.  

The MOU also requires LA24 to obtain insurance policies to cover natural disasters, terrorism, and event cancellation as well as coverage for “reduced ticket sales and other revenue sources should the events become less appealing.” 

As a side note, the State will reinsure the City’s exposure by agreeing to absorb $250 million of losses, but only after the City has taken a hit of $250 million. 

The City will also be reimbursed for its incremental out-of-pocket costs for providing “enhanced municipal services” such as police, fire, sanitation, traffic, and parking control. 

The MOU also allows the City to oversee the operations and finances of the Olympics by allocating one-sixth of positions on the Board of Directors and its committees to the City and by requiring LA24 to provide the City with timely financial information and other information. 

However, the City’s requirement that LA24 comply with all applicable City laws and ordinances may result in significant cost increases because of its prevailing wage and work rule requirements, especially if it involves city-specific venues.    

Hosting the Olympic Games will also increase economic output by around $11 billion, provide numerous full time jobs, and produce additional tax revenue according to a report prepared by Beacon Economics.  On the other hand, the State’s Legislative Analyst stated that “some short-term economic gains in 2024 and in the years before the Games are likely.  Lasting economic gains, however, appear unlikely.” 

LA has an advantage over Paris and Budapest because we are “Games Ready.” This allows us to use our existing world class infrastructure to meet the goals of the Olympic 2020 Agenda which emphasize environmental sustainability and minimizing financial risk.   

The IOC will announce its decision on September 13 in Lima.  

And assuming we win the bid, as well should, then the hard work will begin as preparing for this mega event with so many moving parts over the next seven years will be a monumental task requiring excellent management. 

But the City’s biggest risk is our own Elected Elite who do not have the common sense to leave well enough alone and let management do its job. Oversight is OK, but no day to day meddling, no interfering with operations, and no asking for favors or preferential treatment.  

We also need to wary of mission creep where City Hall decides to accelerate numerous infrastructure projects that have the potential for cost overruns and delays that interfere with the success and finances of the Olympics.   

LA24 has done a very good job of developing a plan that protects the City from financial loss.  But LA24 and Angelenos must also protect the City’s coffers from our Elected Elite.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris could get elected in one round -- especially if the Ballot were now tweaked to ask for Choice A; and then Choice B.  Granted there isn't a sudden massive support for Budapest, hopefully, the majority of voters will put Paris or LA in the A and B slots.  So, with all 3 cities' acquiescence, it can all be determined in one vote.  And possibly get commitments to abide by whatever the results are, without a revote and drama. 

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

The press is starting to rumor that the announcement of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, should LA be awarded the 2024 Olympiad, will be held at the City of Champions Stadium. 

 

Only for 2024?  And what if 2028 is dangled before them?

But seriously, it only makes sense.  It is so much closer to UCLA also than the Memorial Coliseum where the producers will be seriously hampered by its roofless setting.  And they can easily achieve early "darkness" in the venue by slapping tarp over the clear roof.  The tarp can easily be placed and removed if need be between Ceremonies.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Only for 2024?  And what if 2028 is dangled before them?

But seriously, it only makes sense.  It is so much closer to UCLA also than the Memorial Coliseum where the producers will be seriously hampered by its roofless setting.  And they can easily achieve early "darkness" in the venue by slapping tarp over the clear roof.  The tarp can easily be placed and removed if need be between Ceremonies.   

Also, as a football stadium, CoC follows the precedent set for summer Olympics by Rio, of not trying to fill a much larger athletics stadium with ceremony action ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Only for 2024?  And what if 2028 is dangled before them?

But seriously, it only makes sense.  It is so much closer to UCLA also than the Memorial Coliseum where the producers will be seriously hampered by its roofless setting.  And they can easily achieve early "darkness" in the venue by slapping tarp over the clear roof.  The tarp can easily be placed and removed if need be between Ceremonies.   

Actually, If I am not mistaken. The Coliseum and the new Inglewood Stadium are about the same distance from UCLA. Plus or minus less than a mile.

 

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

According to Google, right now it's 52 minutes from UCLA to the CoC site... 14.6 miles with (shocking) major delays on the 405

55 minutes from UCLA to the Coliseum... 12.6 miles

 

There will be devoted express Olympic lanes on the F-ways; and like what happened in 1984 and in Atlanta, the gen populace left the freeways for the Olympic vehicles and visitors.  So all of that would be cut down by at least 25 mins.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Transportation in LA should be a non isssue should they be awarded the games. I remember flying into LA during their 405 closure. I had never seen such widw open freeways in my life. It looked eerily empty.

But when I arrived downtown the trains were pretty busy.

People heeded the warning and the whole thing went off without a hitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I think this is one of the best assessments I've come across regarding the 2024 and 2028 races, and the chances and implications of an unlikely dual awarding:

The question of the moment in Summer Games host selection

 
 

It will come down to a question of American or Franco pride.  If Paris loses, I really don't think they will be back for 2028.  If LA loses, will the USOC really pout and cough up another $75 million to win 2028 in the traditional way -- or should it now, despite their early salvo, in backroom communications, say that, yeah, they would willingly accept the "leftover" of the 2028 award; and save itself, its citizens and the IOC another round of heartbreak?   And the IOC could respect LA's possible hurt and maybe just throw 2028 wide open to all comers again, with no guarantees from the provenance in the 2024 races?  And who would be the big loser then?? 

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

 I think this is one of the best assessments I've come across regarding the 2024 and 2028 races, and the chances and implications of an unlikely dual awarding:

The question of the moment in Summer Games host selection

I think a lot of that has already been assessed here as well, & in this very thread, over the past couple of months since the idea of dual-awardings came about. I think this article also reinforces that Paris coming back for 2028 would be much more difficult than it would be for L.A. Although, the possibility of "seriously angering Budapest" should be one of the last things on the equation. If the strength of Budapest's bid was actually on par with both Paris & L.A., then yeah, that would a problem. But as it stands now, it really isn't. 

Yeah, what would the line-up for 2028 look like if going through a normal 2024 bid cycle. Like I mentioned yesterday in the thread where Russia announces a "possible" 2028 bid, to me that only reinfoces the idea of double-awarding this September. Does the IOC REALLY want to deal with, let alone go back to, Russia? Not to mention the likes of Baku-koo & Doha-hah that im sure the IOC doesn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole, regardless.

Asia (already) for 2028? With the slew of the upcoming (& unprecedented) Asian Olympics 2018, 2020 & 2022, this is an area that the IOC will have had enough of, unless of course their viable options are limited once again. And yeah, unfortunately, it does look like (South) Africa (& other developing bids) might be postponed for quite some time now after Rio 2016. 

Europe I think is also still iffy for 2028, at least in terms of *strong & willing* bids. Which is why I still believe that the gamble would be greater by choosing L.A. over Paris, than Paris over L.A. this September. Even in the unlikely event that the USOC was not to come back for 2028, (& like the article also states), there's still Canada, Australia, & even Asia, & the other minnow bids from the likes of Russia, Doha & Baku that would come to play anyway no matter who won 2024. The real danger is not having Europe come back, & with all of the cancellations & referendums, etc that have scuppered so many Western European bids over the last couple of years, why in the world would the IOC squander away a sure (European) bid when it's right in front of their face. It's a no brainer when you calculate absolutely everything, IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

It will come down to a question of American or Franco pride.  If Paris loses, I really don't think they will be back for 2028.  If LA loses, will the USOC really pout and cough up another $75 million to win 2028 in the traditional way -- or should it now, despite their early salvo, in backroom communications, say that, yeah, they would willingly accept the "leftover" of the 2028 award; and save itself, its citizens and the IOC another round of heartbreak?   And the IOC could respect LA's possible hurt and maybe just throw 2028 to all comers again, with no guarantees from the 2024 races?  And who would be the big loser then?? 

My take outs from the article:

It solidifies my feeling that the IOC is highly unlikely to award both 2024 in Lima. For all the positives it would bring - well basically one - it would ensure two strong hosts for the 20s - it also has too many negatives - loss of exposure, bad blood from other NOCs who would be locked out of 2028, a humiliating acceptance that the Olympics have lost some of their allure.

I concur with the article that the US is more likely to back up after a defeat than France would be.

I agree that even if the loser of the Paris-LA 2024 stoush fails to back up for 2028, there's still a potential pool of acceptable candidates to fill in the starter line for 2028 and make viable and good hosts. The IOC's biggest concern is the winter games, not the summer games, and even then there seems to be some glimmers of light for some good potential WOG hosts to fill in the rest of the 20s.

Personally, I think what the IOC really NEEDS is a good games under its belt. It was the big pity for me that what should have been a glittering prize example for it - London - was overshadowed by the negatives of Sochi. Rio wasn't anywhere near a disaster, but it didn't do anything to overcome the negative perceptions that have fed the media sphere and social media chatter of recent years. Unfortunately, I don't see the bevy of upcoming hosts - the three Asian Olympiads - as being the ones that could turn perceptions around in the short term - Korea's unlikely to be frugal, Tokyo have so far been belying their "safe and assured" election tag and Beijing/ Well, I think 2022 was always destined to haunt the IOC from the moment all its "acceptable" candidates dropped out. Thank God the IOC, whoever they choose, will have either Paris or LA to follow those.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

- it also has too many negatives - loss of exposure, bad blood from other NOCs who would be locked out of 2028, a humiliating acceptance that the Olympics have lost some of their allure.

 

Altho look who is the first one to fire a 2028 salvo?  R-u-s-s-i-a!  I mean, they are pretty much telling the IOC "f*ck you" to its face!  Can they afford to keep a Russian bid out?  If Russia is allowed to bid for 2028, I think the IOC would have lost the greatest credibility in the history of world sport.  It would be a bigger sellout than FIFA's bungled 2018-2022 awards.  I think, IMHO, better for the IOC to lock in 2024 and 2028 . . . and keep the Putin crowd (his surrogates in Ashgabat, Baku, etc.)  at bay for awhile.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I agree that even if the loser of the Paris-LA 2024 stoush fails to back up for 2028, there's still a potential pool of acceptable candidates to fill in the starter line for 2028 and make viable and good hosts. 

It might look like that now, but didn't 2024 look that rosey, too, only four years ago?

7 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

The IOC's biggest concern is the winter games, not the summer games, and even then there seems to be some glimmers of light for some good potential WOG hosts to fill in the rest of the 20s.

Yeah, & this in fact is also another equation (not covered in the article) that could effect the 2028 pool, depending on who goes for & ultimately wins 2026.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Altho look who is the first one to fire a 2028 salvo?  R-u-s-s-i-a!  I mean, they are pretty much telling the IOC "f*ck you" to its face!  Can they afford to keep a Russian bid out?  If Russia is allowed to bid for 2028, I think the IOC would have lost the greatest credibility in the history of world sport.  It would be a bigger sellout than FIFA's bungled 2018-2022 awards.  I think, IMHO, better for the IOC to lock in 2024 and 2028 . . . and keep the Putin crowd (his surrogates in Ashgabat, Baku, etc.)  at bay for awhile.  

Exactly my take. Not to mention the subpar bids of Baku & Doha, which you know will make an appearance. I mean what a 2028 "starter" line-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Altho look who is the first one to fire a 2028 salvo?  R-u-s-s-i-a!  I mean, they are pretty much telling the IOC "f*ck you" to its face!  Can they afford to keep a Russian bid out?  If Russia is allowed to bid for 2028, I think the IOC would have lost the greatest credibility in the history of world sport.  It would be a bigger sellout than FIFA's bungled 2018-2022 awards.  I think, IMHO, better for the IOC to lock in 2024 and 2028 . . . and keep the Putin crowd (his surrogates in Ashgabat, Baku, etc.)  at bay for awhile.  

You forget that Australia beat them the first salvo, with Brisbane already have spent millions on pre-bid preps and due diligence and Melbourne also making the odd comment that they may not leave the field open to them. Personally, I don't have confidence those plans will last the distance, bu nevertheless, I think it would be a legal and PR minefield if the IOC were to say "pens down, give up on your plans".

As to Russia? Yeah, that's not ideal.  But if the west is gonna go all gun shy and huffy about hosting, it has itself as much to blame as the IOC if the authoritarians are ready to fill the void. 

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

Its settled then -

Buda-pest 2024

Kazan 2028

Sochi 2030

Baku-koo 2032

Almaty 2034 

Doha-hah 2036 

Kazan 2038

Beijing 2040

:P

Sochi 2030?  More like So-cheesy!

Almaty?  Nah, they're All mutts!

Don't have anything for Kazan.  I'll see what I can come up with.

  • Like 1
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...