Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No American city will have the a national financial backing for that matter... and if this is a decisive factor in who will be granted the Olympics, then all US cities would be out of this process.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, that was certainly one of several factors that worked against the last two U.S. Summer bids.

LA has proven that can run an effective and successful games without any national financial backing and make profit. This actually only forces American cities to be much more creative than their counterparts that require heavily financial backing from their governments.

L.A. ran an effective & successful Games without any national financial backing & made a "profit" BACK in 1984. Those Games had a cost of a mere $584 million. That's chump change in comparison to the BILLIONS (& more likely tens of Billions by the time 2024 rolls around) that an Olympic Games really costs nowadays.

There is no way in the world that L.A. could replicate the success of 1984 so easily in 2024. And all the rhetoric that is said otherwise by some out there on the subject is basically a fallacy & only talking nostalgically on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Yea, I hate to break it to you but I don't think LA is warming up. It's already warm.

2. Any self respecting Angelino would not call being born in Brea being from LA. No offense.

1. Oh hell no! It was a couple degrees above freezing just a couple days ago >.>

2. I hate to break it to ya, but Brea's considered as part of the LA Metropolitan Area :/ OC is an integral part of Southern California culture, too, so you can't really ignore them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, the Olympics are NOT about "making money". If anything, they should be seen as an investment & any city looking to bid for the Olympics needs to look at how they can make that investment work best for them.

I NEVER claimed that a Paris Olympics would be raking in the money. That's basically your argument with your notion of "the general attitude is that a 2024 Games would make 1984 look like peanuts". Yeah, by whom? The L.A. politians & business people & L.A. bid committee? Yeah, okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in case you haven't noticed, that was certainly one of several factors that worked against the last two U.S. Summer bids.

L.A. ran an effective & successful Games without any national financial backing & made a "profit" BACK in 1984. Those Games had a cost of a mere $584 million. That's chump change in comparison to the BILLIONS (& more likely tens of Billions by the time 2024 rolls around) that an Olympic Games really costs nowadays.

There is no way in the world that L.A. could replicate the success of 1984 so easily in 2024. And all the rhetoric that is said otherwise by some out there on the subject is basically a fallacy & only talking nostalgically on the matter.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, that was certainly one of several factors that worked against the last two U.S. Summer bids.

L.A. ran an effective & successful Games without any national financial backing & made a "profit" BACK in 1984. Those Games had a cost of a mere $584 million. That's chump change in comparison to the BILLIONS (& more likely tens of Billions by the time 2024 rolls around) that an Olympic Games really costs nowadays.

There is no way in the world that L.A. could replicate the success of 1984 so easily in 2024. And all the rhetoric that is said otherwise by some out there on the subject is basically a fallacy & only talking nostalgically on the matter.

And LA being able to produce a game in 1984 at $584 million with the profit was admirable since Montreal 1976 left the city bankrupt and with over one billion $ in debt. Wouldn't you consider that creative?

LA is not talking about $584 million budget. It would be ridiculous to even think that. The LA bid its over 4 billion dollars. What make you think that LA can't replicate its previous successes? Who had said it would easy to replicate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be the case but the general attitude is that a 2024 games could make 1984 look like peanuts. But since we are on that argument, how much money will Paris make with a federally financed games? How would that fly in the face of the Olympic Brand and Agenda 2020. If you think LA can't produce a profit you might be sharing the same sentiment about Paris no? And Paris doesn't have a recent history showing a profit. A failure in Paris would likely result in a future failure in LA. The argument would be there. A heavily prepared city with taxpayer dollars did not produce a cost effective games. How would the minds of Angelino's change? If anything, the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction could seriously damage the Olympic Brand, far more than what Europe thinks of it now. So, using your own logic how would a financial catastrophe in Paris bring Europe back on board? And all that at this critical juncture when a cost effective games are of the utmost importance. How would Paris perform any better than LA?

I think you've misinterpreted the argument on this point. If the Games are a financial disaster in Paris then the legacy for the Olympic movement and Europe won't be good.

Nobody is predicting that, however.

Not making an overall profit ≠ financial disaster, and Agenda 2020 isn't about aiming for purely profitable Games anyway, it's about lessening the burden.

So I think you've unwittingly set up a straw-man there.

It's Sochi which has caused problems with their hugely profligate, not to mention arguably corrupt spending. London and Vancouver before that did no harm to the Olympic brand and I got the feeling after both that the Games were in rude health. Paris will be a modern Games much like London with spending manageable for a city its size. I can't see it being anything but a good example of how to do things.

The one argument you do have, going back to your earlier posts, is that LA is a better fit if the IOC really does want to emphasise new/extreme sports, try to bring in the juggernaut that is the American entertainment industry, and hammer home the youth message. I really think you're onto something there and LA should push that. But that's going to be up against a marketer's (not to mention broadcaster's) dream of volleyball under the Eiffel Tower, a triathlon on the Seine, cycling in Versailles etc. That "something else" you were asking about with Paris, it's all that stuff. It's its.....je nes se quoi.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And LA being able to produce a game in 1984 at $584 million with the profit was admirable since Montreal 1976 left the city bankrupt and with over one billion $ in debt. Wouldn't you consider that creative?

Montreal 1976 came on the heels of the civil unrest of Mexico City 1968 & the terrible terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics. So Montreal had to scramble to up the ante on security (which as you're always quick to point out, the U.S. Gov't covers anyway). They had no real time to think things through cost effectively. It was something that was just thrown at them & they had to respond accordingly to make sure that the 1976 Olympics were well propected. Not to mention some of the other shortfalls they encountered along way.

LA is not talking about $584 million budget. It would be ridiculous to even think that. The LA bid its over 4 billion dollars. What make you think that LA can't replicate its previous successes? Who had said it would easy to replicate?

I never said that L.A. is talking about a $584 million budget. But you guys keep referencing 1984 as if it were some sort of sacred model & therefore that it could be replicated in 2024. So I merely citied how much those Games had actually cost back then. Even at $4 Billion, that's still a very modest budget, which is basically just for operational functions.

Tokyo 2020 estimated $4.5 Billion, but that's likely to go out the window once the 2020 Games have come & gone. There more realistic figure is likely to be $10 Billion in both cases, especially by 2024 dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And LA being able to produce a game in 1984 at $584 million with the profit was admirable since Montreal 1976 left the city bankrupt and with over one billion $ in debt. Wouldn't you consider that creative?

LA is not talking about $584 million budget. It would be ridiculous to even think that. The LA bid its over 4 billion dollars. What make you think that LA can't replicate its previous successes? Who had said it would easy to replicate?

What makes you think they can? Past history tells a good story, but as noted earlier, the operating costs of the 1984 Olympics are fraction of what the 2024 Olympics would cost. The success of 1984 was that they got so many contributions from the private sector to cover what - especially in comparison to the 2 Olympics before them - were modest costs. That's not going to be the case this time around. Beijing's outrageous price tag aside, how much is an Olympics going to cost LA? If the bid is talking about $4 billion, we know the final costs will be a lot more than that. They're not going to be able to get away with very modest upgrades to the Coliseum or student housing like they did last time around. Not to mention the exorbitant security costs that they - and yes, every bid - will have to deal with.

So if the reference point is 1984, remember how they made that work. Can they rely on those types of contributions again? Boston tried to play the "don't worry, it won't be taxpayer money" card and no one bought it. zeke brings it up a lot but he's absolutely right.. as much support as there may be for an Olympics in LA, is there support for the BILLIONS of dollars it would require to host it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what's it's worth, LA 1984 cost around $400m and received $75 million in government financing. It has essentially zero relavence in how LA 2024 would be financed.

London 2012 is probably the closest comparison we have. London is a financial juggernaut far ahead of LA, yet didn't come close to self-finacing. The thought that LA could self finance because it'll get a lot of business support is just fantasy.

Any modern Olympics is going to need $billions in government financing. Which to be honest, shouldn't be that big a deal. But until you have that funding lined up, you don't have it. And you don't have a viable bid .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psst. RuFF... that's exactly what Boston said (we are already spending the needed money anyway.) How'd that work out?

The Olypics aren't going to be free. Somebody is going to have to pony up $billions in government money... above and beyond all the other spending. If the LA organizers are as deluded about this as you (and as the Boson organizers were) the bid is going no where.

Hopefully they are quietly working behind the scenes to line up the needed funding (see Romney comma Mitt).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, that's is a great argument and I agree. How do taxpayers swallow the billions of dollars pill. Paris, I think will face the same thing and this I'll leave up to Paris boosters to explain. I understand there is a Grand Paris Initiative. LA, however, has already swallowed that pill. LA right now is similar to New York in the 1920. Major investments of infrastructure are moving forward on the taxpayer buck, independent of the Olympc Bid. If anything the Olympics would be a good return on investment to Angelino's. And that's a huge part of LA's low costs. It has already begun and allocated funds for projects that would be required by an Olympic city. Again, 7 billion dollars for Los Angeles International Airport. Half of those improvements are done right now. 40 billion for mass transit and again, half of those investments are done right now, with 2 more pieces of it coming online in 2016, one of which would connect spectators by rail to Santa Monica. Right now, a connector for a downtown rail is under construction. Right now NBC is deep in their evolution Plan. Right now the Crenshaw Line is under construction to LAX with an expected opening in 2018. And that plays a huge role in LA's bid. It doesn't have to count those major investments in its Olympic budget. A renovated Coliseum, a new soccer stadium, a new NFL stadium, all underway independent of the Olympics. Billions of Chinese investment flooding downtown with new housing, an explosive creative and food scene, right now. Taking the Olympics out of the picture LA right now could benefit the games with a cost effective approach. On the flip, the Olympics could benefit LA as a coming out as Riverfront Property that uses mass transit to a host of new Venues. Many people in LA are waking up to this new LA of sorts and after decades of broadcasting an LA that everyone expects, it would be interesting to see the way the world would react to an LA that it doesn't expect.

And again I emphasize the strategy, welcome to the New LA. A younger city with a booming young creative class deeply submerged in sport and technology with unanimous support at all levels of government. And 81%. And for the fella that grew up in Brea, if you went to any public school you lived the Olympic Spirit. That very last point controls the Olympic Conversation that the Olympic brand has lost control of. And by 2024 LA will have had 40 years of experience creating a positive Olympic brand in Southern California. If anything, lacking that brand reinforcement the task of swallowing the multi billion dollar/euro bill would place a far greater burden on Paris.

Easy with the "New LA" line of thinking. I think that's some hyperbole there. You keep talking about how strong the Olympic brand is in the United States and especially in Los Angeles. So isn't the flipside of the argument that maybe they need to strengthen that brand where it isn't so strong (i.e. in Europe)? Certainly it's a risk, but if you have a big city like Paris interested in bidding, perhaps it benefits the "brand" more to improve there as opposed to here where it remains strong.

So the big question when you talk about this new LA is will that populace get behind the bid and what it will take to back it? In comparison to 1984 where almost everything was in place and costs were kept to a minimum, that's not the case this time around. Saying that there's a lot of infrastructure projects already in place is EXACTLY how Boston tried to sell their Olympic bid and we know how that turned out. If LA needs housing, build housing. Is an Olympics going to help that cause? If you want people to invest in an Olympics, you have to convince them that an Olympics is a wise investment.

Like you said, a lot is going on independent of an Olympic bid. So is it worth it to drop that on top of everything else that's already there? Saying that LA has culturally changed since their last Olympics (which I don't doubt) and talking about an explosive creative and food scene is not going to sway IOC voters. It's a nice talking point in a presentation, but it's not going to win them points when it matters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. IF Los Angeles can get behind their plans and IF they make sense for the city and IF the support and the funding are there, they've definitely got something going. But those are a lot of ifs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that the race is as "close" as you seem to think. I've said it before & I'll say it again, but the only thing at this point that could stop Paris in its tracks is Paris itself. While L.A. is merely the back-up plan. Thomas Bach (IOC president) himself has said that "Paris has presented an exemplary application". And that they "will be a very, very strong candidate".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record. I don't think LA is a shoe in. I certainly think Paris is the natural front runner. Paris has plenty to be boastful of. But at the same time I know LA like the back of my hand and I know that if Paris slips, even in a small way, they'll lose the games to LA. Paris may be a front runner but LA is dangerously close to upsetting a lot of people.

RuFF, this is the problem here. No one doubts your knowledge and your passion for wanting to see an Olympics in LA. But you're so over the top for them and then with Paris it comes off as "yea, I guess they're pretty good too." I think that blinds you somewhat to who the IOC who and what their voters are looking for. So much of this is geo-politics, much moreso than who has the strongest bid. Rio had the lowest evaluation scores of the 4 candidates that made the shortlist for 2016 and they won. Because the IOC felt it was time to put an Olympics in South America. You scoff at the rest of us who think the political will is pointing to Paris. Most of us don't think that alone will get the job done for them, but if it's even close on the technical side between the 2, that might be enough to give it to Paris, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might I add, for not being sure LA is that hot on Paris' a$$, it's crazy to think you would have missed the billions already under construction. How can you say one bid is strong and miss huge financial components of the LA bid? Oh, that's right. They're not a part of the budget. But just as I'm peeling your eyes back, you can count on LA 24 doing the same to the IOC. Nobody is expecting this LA, and that's what will make the bid far stronger than what people are initially thinking. It almost purposefully avoids tradition, something that Paris might walk into. (I.e. Volley ball under the Eiffel Tower). Tradition may be like acid if an edgier, cost effective, youth oriented games is what the IOC wants.

I agree with you here. On the technical side alone Paris wins. But LA is making the story. Just as Rio made the South American story. Geo politics are absolutely important, and from my view I think LA 24 is playing it well. It won't be about how LA can make a profit, it won't be about how it's safe or better than Paris, LA 24 would be doing something really stupid if it sold that. But a little humility and whispers of a new LA, while Paris remains confident, slowly peeling back the historical layers of what people think LA is, can be devastating to a Parisian bid. In this thread I am

Peeling eyes back because some thing LA needs financing for these projects many of which are already underway. I would venture to say LA is reinventing itself, and it's proposing to the Olympic Brand to reinvent itself along side LA.

And one more point about the new... There is nothing new about the Eiffel Tower. Paris, in general, is rooted in tradition. If I were a part of LA 24 I would hope Paris use iconic venues because I would then be able to say, we already know these places of Paris, but have you seen the Spring Street Financial District? Most would probably be baffled, then I'd peel back a layer. The New LA.

Ugh, come on RuFF, posts like these are really disingenuous and patronizing. Are you seriously comparing the Eiffel Tower to the Spring Street Financial District? Do you get why we're talking about boosterism with you? Do you honestly thing the IOC is going to look at the Eiffel Tower, 1 of the world's most iconic structures, as a negative because LA has Spring Street? You're bordering on trolling again here. If you're going to wax poetic about LA, there's nothing wrong with that. Just remember that the city you're comparing them to is Paris. And if someone was as passionate about Paris as you are about LA (and maybe there is in the Paris thread, I don't know), I'm fairly confident they could make a lot of the same arguments in favor of Paris and poo-poo LA the same way you're doing to them.

And with regard to Rio, the story was that it opened up the Olympics to a new continent that had never hosted them before. LA doesn't have that. There's a story to tell and you are doing a good job of trying to translate that into a concept to further the Olympic brand. You're still talking about a city that hosted an Olympics in fairly recent memory though. Can you convince the IOC voters that LA has changed that much in the past 30+ years that it is significantly different than the version that hosted the Olympics in 1984. That's their task and it's a lot more difficult than you're making it sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for what it's worth I am asking that specific question because you're implying no profit, which means losses anywhere from minor to catastrophic... And being as both cities are almost equally prepared, wouldn't that argument hold true for Paris too? So again, assuming that logic Paris, if it wins 2024, will prove to European cities that they're right. The games are too expensive. Even worse, it would prove it to LA. It would hand the keys of the conversation to the anti Olympics crowd and give them an unprecedented platform to **** down an LA bid.

The issue is that the national government of France is going to be willing to lose the equivalent of $10 billion dollars hosting the Olympics. I do not believe that the people of Los Angeles (or the Los Angeles metro area, if you think my own origins in Orange County are not really LA) are going to be willing to "waste" $5+ billion in taxpayer money hosting the Olympics.

I fully agree that host cities losing money is bad for the Olympics, but that means very little to the people voting on who hosts the Olympics right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, you haven't lived in LA since it last hosted the games.

This is what I'm talking about. I'd bet LA 24 is counting on mindsets like this one and complacency in Paris. It hands them control of the conversation. It would be wise of LA 24 to prolong this conversation by educating them about LA one or two projects at a time.

So, just to be clear, only people who are currently residing in downtown Los Angeles are allowed to talk about the Los Angeles bid?

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't said that. What I am saying is that you are lacking credibility in your statements because they're based on preconceptions and not what's really already going on. But again, this is my point. These preconceptions allow me to educate and take control of the conversation. And it looks like that's what LA 24 intends on doing.

Well shoot, maybe the committee should hire you to be their pitch man!

You can control LA's message. You can't control the 'conversation' (which sounds more like something on an Internet forum than what goes on in the real world). You certainly can't control what's coming out of Paris' camp and if your strategy is to try and control the conversation, then FYI is right and it's going to come off as extremely obnoxious. That people are familiar with the Eiffel Tower and not as much with some of the unknowns of LA, that's not something to play up in LA's favor. Misconceptions are 1 thing, but that sounds like trying to take a knife to a gun point and think you have the confidence to control it.

LA needs to flaunt what they have. It would be an enormous mistake to do that in response to what Paris is offering. Rio didn't try to control anything. They put up the map of South America and that resonated with the IOC. That's what LA needs to do. But even still, remember who your IOC voters are. Do they want the new LA or do they want beach volleyball in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower or the cycling road race to finish on the Champs Elysses. Just because LA is fresh and new in many ways doesn't mean it trumps the City of Light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But again, this is my point. These preconceptions allow me to educate and take control of the conversation. And it looks like that's what LA 24 intends on doing.

In case you haven't noticed, you've failed to convince a single person here of anything. Every single poster so far disagrees with you. This is a truly remarkable feat, as we normally can't agree on anything. You haven't peeled backing any eyeballs. And if you are "controlling the conversation" that hasn't done a bit of good in changing minds.

I hope and pray this *isn't* what the LA 2024 folks intend to do. If there arguments are anything like yours, LA will get creamed in the voting.

LA has the ability to connect with surfing, skateboarders, rock climbers.

I'll take "Sports the IOC has rejected" for $300 Alex .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...