Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The intention was always the solo bid until the USSF started talking "co-bidding", first with Mexico, then adding Canada. The CSA stays silent at the moment so no one knows. A 2026 WC Bid would be far from weak actually and all this talk about "co-bidding" just shows the lack of confidence that USSF have of securing all the necessary votes, especially since you guys unleashed Trump on the world.

It's not about the US "letting" Mexico and/or Canada joining their bid, it's about needing/using it's neighbours to get the votes they normally wouldn't get on their own.

A FIFA WC would not weaken Calgary 2026 or Toronto 2028. The IOC and FIFA are unrelated

 

Are you a reject from the Trump "Lies" team.  You seem to be talking in semantics.  The US can handle the expanded 40-team 2026 portfolio by itself.  Why would it really need Mexico, much less Canada, to bolster the bid?  If anything, USSF probably was just playing nice with the 2 neighbors if it felt that that's what FIFA/Infantino wanted to hear initially. 

With over 200 voters now, the US will get enough votes on its own.  I know the IOC and FIFA are unrelated, but in the awarding of these big plums within the same year, don't you think the gnomes of Zurich and Lausanne, together with the CEO's of the major sponsors in their boardrooms, do link them, because the thinking for folks like Visa, Coke, Panasonice -- how do we leverage our promotional dollars between the 2 big (or in case of 2028), the 3 biggest sports events in the 2026-28 tandem.  I've followed this whole matter for over 40 years -- so DON'T you tell me you KNOW better, becuz you don't.  

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

9 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

What do you really think Los Angeles will pay for 2024?  If you're assuming Paris could go so far over budget, why aren't we doing the same math with Los Angeles?  Again, I ask the question of why Paris is so significantly more risky than LA.  Because if you're going to envision their Olympics going way over budget, isn't it fair to do the same with Los Angeles.  Don't blow the risk and the consequences so far out of proportion just because you presume that's what I'm doing the other way around.  For both Paris or LA, things could go really well.  Or they could go not so well.  An "incredible amount of precedent" applies to LA just as much as it does with Paris and you've yet to make a sensible argument to treat them so differently.

Don't think we can ever count on "sensible" arguments from truffmp. It's obvious she's a fu@king liar & can't be trusted with any of her manipulating "info" & trash talk, as just been proven a few posts ago.

It's quite clear now that Paris is NOT "significantly more risk" than L.A. But like the "fake" news these days, so is truffmp. :rolleyes:

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

They can try with the show biz angle, but the days of The US being the benchmark of spectacle are gone....look at Beijing, Sochi,  and every other Chinese event (yes at a huge cost). The world has caught up.

Baku even had Lady Gaga...

 

7 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

I have unsuccesfully tried to bring ththisoint across.

Got shot down within seconds.

That's an excellent point.  Or a ththisoint (whatever that is, Jesse :D).  I don't think it's so much about the rest of the world catching up as it is about the amount of spending on these spectacles and not just for the Olympics.  As much as many considered the `84 opening ceremony the gold standard of its time, other ceremonies have had elements of their own that have been more up to date with the times.  I'm sure LA 2024/2028 would open in spectacular fashion.  Don't know how they turn it into something that is uniquely and innovatively LA though.  

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

Are you a reject from the Trump "Lies" team.  

Nope, our "team" don't do "fake news"

2 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

The US can handle the expanded 40-team 2026 portfolio by itself.  Why would it really need Mexico, much less Canada, to bolster the bid?  If anything, USSF probably was just playing nice with the 2 neighbors if it felt that that's what FIFA/Infantino wanted to hear initially. 

How naïve are you? So if the US can host on it's own, why doesn't it go ahead with a solo bid? Playing nice with the neighbours? It's not in the US DNA to do so.

Regarding Infantino, how sure are you that it wasn't the USSF asking him to ok joint bids? Blatter didn't want any of those after Korea-Japan.

5 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

With over 200 voters now, the US will get enough votes on its own.  

Yeah...because after humiliating the Mexicans with the wall and recent BS, CONMEBOL and CONCACAF are way more likely to back Canada or Mexico

Yeah...Travel bans on Muslim nations and antagonizing China and their bloc would make most CAF and AFC votes not go the US way.

UEFA is the US best chance, but praising Brexit  and insulting Germany and other European nation is a bad way to go at it. That Confederation would consider Canada just as much.

Gulati, head of the USSF, said publicly that a Trump presidency would hurt/damage a USA bid. Google it.

13 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I know the IOC and FIFA are unrelated, but in the awarding of these big plums within the same year, don't you think the gnomes of Zurich and Lausanne, together with the CEO's of the major sponsors in their boardrooms, do link them, because the thinking for folks like Visa, Coke, Panasonice -- how do we leverage our promotional dollars between the 2 big (or in case of 2028), the 3 biggest sports events in the 2026-28 tandem.  I've followed this whole matter for over 40 years -- so DON'T you tell me you KNOW better, becuz you don't.  

I won't say "I know better" but I'll say, you don't either. Didn't stop them to award Brazil both events just recently

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Yeah, I think the argument that they're talking about that was "shot down within seconds" was about "U.S. star power". But like I said then, it's not like the rest of the world can't capitalize on that same 'star power' (if they wanted to). Case in point, Baku-koo getting Lady Ga-gag. So that moots that argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Gulati, head of the USSF, said publicly that a Trump presidency would hurt/damage a USA bid. Google it.

Don't you think I'm aware of that.  I don't envy the spot Gulati and the USSF spot are in.  But they have to dance around the issue.  Of course, unless Trump is impeached before presentations in 2019, they can just paste a non-moving image of Trump with the caveat "This is our nominal leader, who could not appear today because he is indisposed.  The USSF hopes that this pseudo-president will likewise be indisposed at the kick-off in 2026."  (And just give Indiannapolis an early venue so that Mike Pence can fill in for the Donald's appearance. 

I am sure the other FAssocs will understand the difficult spot the US bid will find itself in, but a knock-out technical bid should knock them out.  Besides, the existence of one erring leader should NOT be the basis for selecting a very demanding hosting portfolio.  On being the biggest FIFA World Cup ever by 2026, the voters should weigh the tehcnical pros & cons fo the bids -- not the cosmetic face of the "leader."  

Who knows, that unconventional opening gambit might just get them the winning votes?  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason you guys brought this discussion to the LA 2024 thread instead of the FIFA 2026 thread?  Come on you guys, how dare you ruin the flow of this thread where RuFF a.k.a. tRuFFump a.k.a. ARuFFamson a.k.a. that troll a.k.a.  the guy who prides himself on being a dick and won't go away a.k.a. based on that we should just start calling him Viagra makes a post where the rest of us do our best to try and pretend he knows what he's talking about, but instead we know it's the usual LA bullshit.  And in the new grand tradition of president #45, it doesn't matter what's actually true so long as you can convince yourself it's true!  On that note..

5 hours ago, Pure facts said:

Could you clarify how is the IBC less risky in LA than in Paris?

Paris proposes an existing exhibition centre with one hall to be rebuilt (as part of a planned expension project, privately funded) while LA proposes a new IBC (4 new halls to be built as part of planned expension of Universal Studios + 1 temporary hall to be built by LAOCOG).

You can ask, but you won't get a serious answer.  You're asking someone who has built it up in his mind (and only his mind) that LA is so ready to go and there's little to be done and they have geniuses running the campaign, so what could possibly go wrong, and it's okay if it does because they're insured.  Versus Paris which is this huge liability and has so much to build and how can they possibly take on that heavy burden without ruining themselves.

I'm sure his answer will be that the project in LA is going to be built anyway, so it doesn't matter what happens with it in regards to the Olympic budget.  Whereas with Paris.. actually, he knows very little about Paris since he is too afraid to leave the safety and comfort of this bubble that is the LA 2024 thread and won't venture elsewhere.

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

Is there a reason you guys brought this discussion to the LA 2024 thread instead of the FIFA 2026 thread?  Come on you guys, how dare you ruin the flow of this thread where RuFF a.k.a. tRuFFump a.k.a. ARuFFamson a.k.a. that troll a.k.a.  the guy who prides himself on being a dick and won't go away a.k.a. based on that we should just start calling him Viagra makes a post where the rest of us do our best to try and pretend he knows what he's talking about, but instead we know it's the usual LA bullshit.  And in the new grand tradition of president #45, it doesn't matter what's actually true so long as you can convince yourself it's true! 

:lol::lol:

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

Don't you think I'm aware of that.  I don't envy the spot Gulati and the USSF spot are in.  But they have to dance around the issue.  Of course, unless Trump if impeached before presentations in 2019, they can just paste a non-moving image of Trump with the caveat "This is our nominal leader, who could not appear today because he is indisposed.  The USSF hopes that this pseudo-president will likewise be indisposed at the kick-off in 2026."  

Gulati helping Infantino to get elected always meant that he "owed" him and it's showing today. Gulati being a very smart guy, most likely danced around the issue by having Infantino to support joint bids and sell that to the rest of FIFA. With that out of the way, proposing joint bids with Canada and/or Mexico dilutes the negative image of the United States and with FIFA saying CONCACAF must host, it guarantees the US to host some of the matches.

I always give credit when and where it's due and Gulati was brilliant here.

As for Impeachment, that's a big "if" and it's highly unlikely according to political analysts.

8 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I am sure the other FAssocs will understand the difficult spot the US bid will find itself in, but a knock-out technical bid should knock them out. 

No, they won't understand nor will they care to understand. That kind of "understanding" never goes their ways when they want something from bigger powers, you can't expect them to do that in return.

10 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Who knows, that unconventional opening gambit might just get them the winning votes?  

The USSF clearly won't risk a solo bid. The odds are against them this time and they know it 

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

Granted the IBC LA2024 proposes carries risk, greater than what Paris has proposed as far as the buildings themselves, but also let's not pretend that Universal Studios isn't a square mile of proven global television production owned by none other than NBC. Let's also not pretend that NBC didnt pay over 7 billion for the broadcasting rights of the games and has a personal stake in making this happen. But more important, Olympics aside, let's not pretend that the NBC Universal Evolution plan wasn't proposed prior to LA2024 entering either the domestic or international round and that NBC's real purpose of the expansion is to increase local in house production in the worlds capitol of motion picture content and production. So while that whole plan carries risk, its a private legacy laden project that ties into the Olympic Movements largest bank roller.  

I have absolutely prentented none of these, nor have I questioned the fact that NBC and LA  2024 can deliver the IBC.

I merely pointed out that claiming that, when it comes to the specific point of the IBC, Paris is more risky than LA is just not accurate.

And before you point out that some areas in Paris are risky: yes Paris plan to build a new Olympic Village carries a more significant risk than LA plans where UCLA only needs to increase its housing capacity by 25% to be ready to host the athletes and officials.

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

No, they won't understand nor will they care to understand. That kind of "understanding" never goes their ways when they want something from bigger powers, you can't expect them to do that in return.

 

And you know this because you polled the over 200 members?  You can read the minds of 200 delegations?  :lol:  Wake me again when you have a funnier story.  

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

And you know this because you polled the over 200 members?  You can read the minds of 200 delegations?  :lol:  Wake me again when you have a funnier story.  

There's nothing more political than FIFA but you have the right to keep dreaming and think that the world is in awww with the United States no matter what it does...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words, "let's not pretend" that Paris 2024 is "significantly more risk" than L.A. when it's actual not. Even "as a whole" they're both pretty much an even proposition playing field. Saying, exargerrating, manipulating otherwise to simply prop-up L.A. is merely kidding themselves. Especially when we know that if L.A. bid had their way, they would've gone forward with OV at the piggback yards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Projecting again, are you. I'm not in hopes of anything as much as you are in 'hope' of an L.A. Olympics. Again, Paris 2024 is NOT "significantly more risk" than L.A. But you can "spit it" however you see fit "to suit your (L.A.) hopes", but no one is buying your trash talk anymore. And you've yet to clear up how is L.A.'s "significantly less risky" bid is suppose to help other cities, bcuz obviously according to your logic, EVERY city out there poses "significant risk".

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how when tRuFFmp was asked to address the point about LA's IBC versus Paris, I pretty much nailed how he would respond..

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm sure his answer will be that the project in LA is going to be built anyway, so it doesn't matter what happens with it in regards to the Olympic budget.  Whereas with Paris.. actually, he knows very little about Paris since he is too afraid to leave the safety and comfort of this bubble that is the LA 2024 thread and won't venture elsewhere.

Not that it was hard to predict, of course.

12 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Um, no. In your words perhaps but in other words no. He zeroed in one one specific piece but I think it was clear. You can read what you'd like and other word it to suit your hopes but no, their is significantly more risk in Paris. Is it as significant as other bids, no, but compared to LA the risk is significant. 

He did zero in on 1 specific piece and you gave an answer to a completely different question.  And you wonder why we liken you to Trump.  You were the one who mentioned the IBC in Paris (which yes, you grouped with the athletes village and I think Pure Facts addressed that).  And when asked to compare that 1 specific piece in the 2 cities, you only talked about LA and didn't even acknowledge Paris by basis of comparison.  Giving us the old "whether you like it or not" or "let's not pretend" isn't worth $hit if your point isn't valid in the first place.  As if you should be talking about pretending, since that's what you like to do with LA in order to convince yourself of how superior they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/2/2017 at 11:45 AM, RuFF said:

It "seems" like you are running off the last of the LA supporters. Being as you and FYI like to be the only experts it won't be long before you and your groupies can circle jerk without any interruptions or opposing views. 

One thing is opposite views and another thing is delusion and negation.

But anyway, madrileños said the same in 2013, also Toronto stans... So we know how it can end...

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

Silly queen stop sniffing around and take your desperate ass to a gay bar. 

LMFAO - projecting yet AGAIN, are you "silly" truffump!! :lol: You know what they say about the guys (excuse me, gurl in your case) who keep throwing homophobic rhetoric around. Why don't tell your "wife" to finally strap-on the DILDO you so "desperately" want up your  dumb piehole. It's obviously what your fanticizing about! :lol:

But this is so TYPICAL of your truffump twat, though. Everytime you're back into a corner to refute your twaddle, you resort to insults like the pus$y that you are. You know you can't further your petty, bias arguments cuz you know damn well that they're baseless & only filled your "spin". But go ahead, keep showing your true cunt colors. What little credibility you had left, is now gone, you irrelevant POS. :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Roger87 said:

One thing is opposite views and another thing is delusion and negation.

But anyway, madrileños said the same in 2013, also Toronto stans... So we know how it can end...

Yep - truffump & Co definitely fall into that category. We've heard that "we are the best" mumbo-jumbo before, only to fall on the IOC's deaf ears in the end, lmfao! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

Keep it up Trump and show the Olympic "spirit" :D

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/paris-mayor-fires-back-at-trump-for-insulting-her-city-1.3300142

Paris mayor fires back at Trump for insulting her city
 

Quote

 

Trump evoked his friend Jim, "a very, very substantial guy," in an address Friday at the Conservative political Action Conference. Jim used to be a regular visitor to Paris, Trump said, but hasn't made the trip in four or five years because "Paris is no longer Paris."

 

Hidalgo keeping it classy

Quote

Hidalgo said American tourist reservations are up 30 per cent in 2017 so far compared to last year.

 

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

Hidalgo keeping it classy

 

Hidalgo tweeted a photo of herself alongside Mickey Mouse and Minnie and said: "To Donald and his friend Jim, from the Eiffel Tower, we're celebrating the attractiveness of Paris with Mickey and Minnie."

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...