Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I didn't say that. You're the one citing that lack of "interest" is just as bad here as in Europe. And that's not entirely accurate.

Besides, who's to say that Dallas couldn't have come up with a feasible plan that woulda worked for THEM. Before they were nixed, it was thought that they could have a chance bcuz of their technical merit, but it was their lack of international recognition that did them in.

And as been mentioned countless times already, "reasonable costs" is subjective to whatever the needs of the city are. That's what agenda 2020 is suppose to be about, & NOT about who can host the Games the "cheapest". Dallas, for example, also coulda had a cost effective plan that coincided with the city's needs just like L.A. does with their plans.

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

13 minutes ago, RuFF said:

So it sounds like you think dallas, Atlanta, charlotte and all those other cities you listed are capable of hosting the games at a reasonable cost. Of course because they're in the United States (duh) they would fare better than Rome or Hamburg.

All the USOC needs is 1 good city to put forward.  That they contacted 35 cities was more to gauge interest and to be inclusive (and to make it a more official communication), but I'm sure they knew from the start which cities were more serious than others and who they were likely to be more interested in working with.

As FYI noted, I was originally pretty high on Dallas because they have a large scale stadium that gets very little use that they could have turned into the centerpiece of a bid.  The USOC decided they weren't interested though.  Reasonable cost is a matter of circumstance. Again, the goal is not to put on the least expensive games.  The idea is to have the most sensible plan for the cities involved.  If the budget for Paris is greater than the budget for LA, that's not necessarily a knock on Paris, especially if that money is going towards leaving a legacy that the city can use.  That's why it's a double-edged sword with some of the things LA is proposing.  Using existing housing for their Olympic Village is smart.  Doesn't mean Paris proposing to build a village, so long as there's a use for it after the Olympics isn't smart.  It's all about what works for each city.  And then the IOC can choose which city furthers their organization in the best way.  You're still talking about an entity that values luxury and extravagance, no matter what common sense says they should be aiming towards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right. And if L.A. had their way, they'd also be building a brand, spanking new OV over at the Piggyback Yards, too. So don't start with that crap again.

And instead of know-it-all Alan conveniently looking at Rio's village, why not instead focus on the positive legacy of East London's Olympic Village & Park, which would be much more equilvalent to Paris' than Rio's (who's village btw, wasn't even originally built for the 2016 Olympics, but for the 2007 Pan Ams). But as usual, gotta love the disingenuousness, to say the least, with you & your 'buddy' Alan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume we're talking about this article (and if he's such a pal of yours, at least have the courtesy to spell Alan's first name correctly)..

More 2024 straight talk: the hits keep coming

To his credit, Abrahamson does bring up a few good points.  He acknowledges that the problems that we're seeing politically around the world (i.e. Brexit, Trump, etc.) are founded in the idea that people are rejecting elitism.  And what organization comes off as more elitist than the IOC.  He acknowledges (as we have here) that Agenda 2020 is largely lip service and no one is buying into it as a solution to the ills of the Olympics.

Here's where he starts to lose me though.  He cites the cost of recent Olympics (as if we're not all aware of that, although let's not pretend the $40 billion Beijing spent or especially the $51 billion Sochi spent is a real cost, even if the latter did scare off potential bidders) and says "the IOC simply cannot carry on the way it has been doing business since the 1992 Barcelona Games ushered in the notion of Games as catalyst for wide-ranging urban transformation project"  Understandable that many cities and countries are rejecting that, but not all cities are equal in that regard.  Perhaps, let's not try and use Rio as an argument against Paris, less anyone forget the political and economic strife Brazil has been dealing with.

But then it turns to laughable.  He's arguing that Paris is using the "if the IOC doesn't go to Europe in 2024, when are they coming back" card and Abruffamson (that one's for you, FYI) is saying how that they'll have all sorts of cities lining up.  His list includes Madrid, Budapest, Milan, St. Petersburg, and Paris.  Plus probably some city in Germany.  Gee, where do we even begin there.  Madrid is certainly possible, although that hinges on the state of the Spanish economy.  Budapest is still staring at a potential referendum.  Milan still has to deal with CONI wiping the egg off its face from Rome dropping out not once, but twice.  Is the IOC seriously going to entertain going to Russia?  And Paris has made their thoughts about 2028 known, so I'll believe that when I see it.

Then, as if that's not enough, there's this gem..  A privately funded bid has no wiggle room. When the LA24 people say the bid will be $5.3 billion, it will — just like Peter Ueberroth proved in 1984, when there was no room for error — be $5.3 billion, if not less.

Really, Alan?  If LA is so sure about their budget, why are they building a contingency fund to protect the city against cost overruns?  He does have a good point about the private funding and how it might be difficult for the LA organizers to ask for money to make another run, but let's not pretend private funding means they can't go over budget.  Good for Peter Ueberroth that he pulled it off.  That does not guarantee Casey Wasserman will automatically be able to do the same.

And of course, to top it all off, he argues that this is it for the United States.  If they don't win this, they're going to stay out for a long long time to come.  And is essentially warning of the consequences.  Come on Alan, I'm not sure even you believe all that.

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

and Abruffamson (that one's for you, FYI).

:lol::lol::lol:

And isn't it unny that a lot of the points here that we talk about for Paris, he belittles in his latest gibberish piece. It's as if he's actually coming on to GB's to read only the L.A. thread. I'm starting to think that tRuff is really Abruffamson incognito! :lol:

I love the double-standard bullshit, that one moment he argues why the IOC shouldn't go to France (Europe) in 2024 bcuz of the 'crisis', & even cites the Graubunden rejection in Switzerland over the weekend as more ammunition, but then at the very next paragraph, he cites there'll miraculous be so much more European "interest" for 2028. How does he even know that. Especially when the 2028 votes takes place in 2021, the "savior of the Olympic Games once again" wouldn't have taken place yet in 2024 to demonstrate anything significant, as far as interest & sustainability. What a pile of double-talk drivel there.

And my favorite part of all from that long-winded nonsense was this: 

"This is it. 2024. The United States is in for 2024. Only.

This is it.

This is the message that needs to get out, to percolate, to be readily and well understood and absorbed, not just the message but the consequence that the Americans are exceedingly likely not to bid again for a long, long time if 2024 doesn’t go their way.

This is a very different bid campaign than any of the past 20 years. The stakes could not be more significant, perhaps existential, for the modern Olympic movement.

This is it."

Yeah, Alan. You talk about the world rejecting "elitism", & how the IOC is just full of them, & yet you still want L.A. to get in bed with these very same elitist. And what's even worse, the "this is it. It's now or never for the U.S. or we'll never bid again" mentality couldn't be anymore elitist & arrogant. Just ask Greece how that type of strategy worked out for them with their 1996 Athens' bid. 

So yes, please. Get that "messge out there, so it can be well understood & absorbed". Better yet, why don't you also make the trip to Lima with the L.A. delegation, & read your latest elitist piece in front of that "elitist" bunch that you want L.A. to get votes from. :P:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having Alan Abrahamson as one of the key voices of defense for LA 2024 Olympic bid, I guess it's means bullshit to the angle: "New Modern America and California to the World". Yeah, what a nice, understanding and warming message to all other NOC :rolleyes: What a entitled, arrogant and biased man.

Anyway, considering RuFF is understimating the current international reaction and the other key elements of the LA bid, I won't be surprised if alone, he'll surpass the level of madrileños.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This AbRuffhamson is just as irritating with all his hypocrisy as our very own L.A cheerleading queen here. It's just utter bullsh!t to suggest that Paris would be back for 2028, but L.A. absolutely wouldn't bcuz their bid is privately financed.

On the contrary, if Le Pen was to win in France come spring, even like AA suggests, then there ain't no way in hell that she gives the approval for yet another bid, government backed or not. The French almost didn't come forward for 2024 as it was. So another Paris bid is out of the question.

I'd say call bluff on L.A. & the USOC. And if they don't/won't want to take a better opportunity like 2028, then let them pout in the corner. There's always Toronto or even Melbourne or Shanghai that would come out & play & take advantage.

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

This AbRuffhamson is just as irritating with all his hypocrisy as our very own L.A cheerleading queen here. It's just utter bullsh!t to suggest that Paris would be back for 2028, but L.A. absolutely wouldn't bcuz their bid is privately financed.

On the contrary, if Le Pen was to win in France come spring, even like AA suggests, then there ain't no way in hell that she gives the approval for yet another bid, government backed or not. The French almost didn't come forward for 2024 as it was. So another Paris bid is out of the question.

I'd say call bluff on L.A. & the USOC. And if they don't/won't want to take a better opportunity like 2028, then let them pout in the corner. There's always Toronto or even Melbourne or Shanghai that would come out & play & take advantage.

And not just that, if Benoit Hamon still stays as a key figure of the French PS, he'll follow the line of the recent center-left governments in Europe = NO money for these events, like 5S Mov. did in Italy, or the coallition government in Sweden. Bach must be stupid if he leaves Paris, because the legitimacy of the Olympics in Europe (Core center of the Olympic Movement and still being on the top sport powers with Germany, France, UK and Italy winning medals) is in doubt with the European bids starting to reject these events. People said Madrid would return this time or Barcelona would compete for 2022 WOG and here we are. Barcelona has a local government against these events and Madrid having a political inestability.

Adding with the full hypocrisy of calling France as "not attractive market" is perhaps the biggest hypocrisy from these people. Unless i'm missing something, France is still one of the five most powerful countries by GDP and with a population of 65 millions of potential consumers, including a younger population comparing their european neighborns. LA may have the products, but Paris itself is a full branch. One of the top 4 elite Global cities with some of the most recognizable places around the world, being the headquarters of fashion houses, film studios, international organizations and still being one of the top tourist destinations around the world. 

And still, the full irony of this is RuFF wants to sell how "California is a sanctuary against Trump" and "How the world can see Garcetti and other embracing the minorities". Well, with these messages like "The IOC NEEDS Los Angeles", "We are the best place and market", "You will regret for snub US!" - Doesn't this remind the classic shenanigangs of POTUS Donald Trump? This message will help with the votes.

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

Speaking of Olympic Villages everybody's favorite pal Allan, Allan Abrahamson over at 3wireSports, put out another shove it in the IOC face article, but that's not why I'm posting this. In the article there are clips of the Rio 2016's Olympic Village and Swim Stadium which are pretty much dead. Shame they're looking like duds in such a short time after the Olympics.

Rio has plans for all its venues and hopefully those plans will still happen. They didn't foresee the city being in such poor economic shape when they had to transition between Games and legacy however. Hopefully when their current economic crisis is over they can move ahead with the plans. I want to see the modular arena converted into a school, which was an innovative first in Rio's legacy plans. It'd be a shame if that couldn't happen.

How this impacts 2024 I'm unsure. Two reasonably conservative bids are favourites. LA has less to build and Paris won't have trouble making use of what it has to build. You do realise the Rio forum is still open and not everything you post has to go in this thread? ;)

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

Yeah, right. And if L.A. had their way, they'd also be building a brand, spanking new OV over at the Piggyback Yards, too. So don't start with that crap again.

And instead of know-it-all Alan conveniently looking at Rio's village, why not instead focus on the positive legacy of East London's Olympic Village & Park, which would be much more equilvalent to Paris' than Rio's (who's village btw, wasn't even originally built for the 2016 Olympics, but for the 2007 Pan Ams).

That's not right. They built, starting in 2011, a number of new tower blocks for the Rio Games villsge. A couple of venues existed from 2007 on the embryonic Olympic park but the village wasn't one. The rest of your post I agree with. It'd be incredibly pessimistic to believe Paris couldn't make good use of its venues afterwards or try to make that implication because of Rio's issues.

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rob. said:

That's not right. They built, starting in 2011, a number of new tower blocks for the Rio Games villsge. A couple of venues existed from 2007 on the embryonic Olympic park but the village wasn't one. The rest of your post I agree with. It'd be incredibly pessimistic to believe Paris couldn't make good use of its venues afterwards or try to make that implication because of Rio's issues.

And delusional. If so, why didn't they use the London example, as mentioned previously? You can build, but you need to build in a full knowledge of the necessities and adaptations of the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....this thread owns the GB forum. What about Paris......I'm sure they made a statement about how important the sun is recently?

p.s. Rio sucked, I remember Brazilians screaming on and on about how Rio would be the greatest games EVER, and how Brasilia should bid right away after.....what a joke.

Rio put a very specialized nail in the Olympic coffin, part of the reason they are in the bind they are now.

.....and now.....back to the LA hate...take it away guys!

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

Taken as a State California has leapfrogged France to become the worlds 6th largest economy. As a region Los Angeles is the worlds 3rd largest behind Tokyo and New York. Rising up that same list and potentially taking the 3rd spot from LA is Seoul. Paris, though a more globally connected city by information, exchange and policy trails Los Angeles by over 100 billion annually. 

Ive made this point before in reference to Los Angeles before. It is lacking in key traits of the other top global cities. It is not a capitol, it is not an exchange or financial center, and it is not influential in national and global policy, though that last part is changing. 

So I'm sorry tu burst your bubble but in terms of GDP both Los Angeles and California out rank Paris and France. 

That still won't guarantee LA a victory. It's about getting the votes and now even the Europeans don't like the US and aren't hiding it. Praising Brexit by Trump was a sure way to get there.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trudeau-says-eu-is-essential-for-world/ar-AAn091C?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp

Quote

Trump's ambassador designate to the EU, Ted Malloch, told the Associated Press earlier this week that the EU's "blatant anti-Americanism" is "problematic."

 

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

You do realise the Rio forum is still open and not everything you post has to go in this thread? ;)

No, they don't. 99.9% of their 'posts' (if that's what you want to call them) are only here. And the only reason they brought up the Rio village (bcuz their favorite "L.A. sportswriter" did) was to somehow put a fly in the ointment in Paris' proposed village, instead of using London's which would be a much better equivalent example. So what does that say. It was only meant to fluff-up the USC vilage concept, when that wasn't their original plan ITFP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roger87 said:

And delusional. If so, why didn't they use the London example, as mentioned previously? You can build, but you need to build in a full knowledge of the necessities and adaptations of the city.

Exactly - but that didn't matter to AbRuffhamson. It was much more conveinent to use Rio's as an example, in his shotty piece of bias "journalism" in order to prop up his preferential candidate, plain & simple.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth noting.. when the news came out about ticket prices for an LA Olympics, it was mentioned that they used London as the template, not Rio.  So it should be clear that if we're looking for a basis of comparison for both LA and Paris, they're each going to be looking back to London and not so much to Rio.

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

....this thread owns the GB forum. What about Paris......I'm sure they made a statement about how important the sun is recently?

That's mainly bcuz of Truff & only Truff, who's so L.A. obessed with her "sunshine & rainbows" L.A. glasses & doesn't venture out to any of the other GB threads with their gibberish. 

2 hours ago, paul said:

p.s. Rio sucked, I remember Brazilians screaming on and on about how Rio would be the greatest games EVER, and how Brasilia should bid right away after.....what a joke.

Rio put a very specialized nail in the Olympic coffin, part of the reason they are in the bind they are now.

Yeah, sure ms xenophobe. Yet L.A. still wants this highly expensive Olympic coffin. Go figure. 

We know all about your "Rio hate" already. You made that abundantly clear last summer. But what does any of that have to do with 2024, besides nothing. 

3 hours ago, paul said:

.....and now.....back to the LA hate...take it away guys!

Oh please. Such hypocrisy. 

3 hours ago, paul said:

what a joke.

Yes, you are.

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

Worth noting.. when the news came out about ticket prices for an LA Olympics, it was mentioned that they used London as the template, not Rio.  So it should be clear that if we're looking for a basis of comparison for both LA and Paris, they're each going to be looking back to London and not so much to Rio.

Now that's something worth "noting"! :lol: But of course use Rio when it's convenient to peg down Paris with it, AbRuffhamson :rolleyes: (which btw, I just luv, Q:lol:)!

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

As a region Los Angeles is the worlds 3rd largest behind Tokyo and New York. Rising up that same list and potentially taking the 3rd spot from LA is Seoul.

That's not true. Not that it matters in the context that you're trying to use it for (as usual), but there are like half a dozen 'regions' around the world that are already well ahead of L.A. in that respect, & Seoul is already. As well as Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Beijing, Shanghai, Delhi & Jakarta. And many of those are already ahead of NYC, too.

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

That's not right. They built, starting in 2011, a number of new tower blocks for the Rio Games villsge. A couple of venues existed from 2007 on the embryonic Olympic park but the village wasn't one. 

Then what happened with the village that was used for the 2007 Pan Ams? I thought that they were going to use that Pan Ams village for a later Olympic bid, which was primarily why they went after the Pan Ams TBW, to get more experience & have many venues already in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Roger87 said:

And not just that, if Benoit Hamon still stays as a key figure of the French PS, he'll follow the line of the recent center-left governments in Europe = NO money for these events, like 5S Mov. did in Italy, or the coallition government in Sweden. Bach must be stupid if he leaves Paris, because the legitimacy of the Olympics in Europe (Core center of the Olympic Movement and still being on the top sport powers with Germany, France, UK and Italy winning medals) is in doubt with the European bids starting to reject these events. People said Madrid would return this time or Barcelona would compete for 2022 WOG and here we are. Barcelona has a local government against these events and Madrid having a political inestability.

That's precisely why Alan's bias-sided logic is so flawed, that all these European cities are going to be "lining up" for 2028. He conveniently cites the European rejection against Paris 2024, but then in the his very next partial breath he says that Paris will be one of the European cities "lining up" for 2028! I mean seriously, how WACKY does that fu@king sound!!! :lol: 

Oh, & can't forget about that "German city" that miraculously will make some sort of a 180, after two failed German referendums of their own & get in "line", too. :rolleyes: And Budapest? They're already on the brink of pulling out on 2024, so yeah, I'm sure 2028 is going to be the first thing on the Hungarian agenda! And that's even before taking into consideration the big logistical challenges Budapest has in the first place even before anti-public support. 

And Milan? After two consecutive Roman bid withdrawals, CONI will be treading that thin ice very carefully. And St. Petersburg? REALLY?! After he cites the extravagance of Sochi 2014 & it's what got the IOC in this mess ITFP, that he thinks another Putin-ville sponsored Games is such a great idea??!! :blink: Gawd, wake the F-up, AA! "This is it" now for Paris & Europe. And only anyone with an objective POV can see that from a mile away. Partiality OTHO, only goes so far.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ansem said:

That still won't guarantee LA a victory. It's about getting the votes and now even the Europeans don't like the US and aren't hiding it. Praising Brexit by Trump was a sure way to get there.

 

Quote

"Trump's ambassador designate to the EU, Ted Malloch, told the Associated Press earlier this week that the EU's "blatant anti-Americanism" is "problematic."

This needs to be emailed to AA. Cuz it's obviously an aspect that they're clearly ignoring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One MAJOR flaw in that theory, though. The 2032 campaign will be starting in 2023, so that even if L.A. was to be awarded 2024 & in a double 24/28 award (which I know that's what you're trying to get at there), it's moot, bcuz that "highly successful games" would have yet to take place, bcuz the 2032 campaign will already be in full swing come the summer of 2024. So nice try, but still no cigar.

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...