Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, paul said:

@FYI 

I think it's because the bids like Paris set up the same old scenario that brought the IOC to their knees the last few cycles and when it almost failed before 84, so if we just giving that as the example of what it takes to win then its like the 2020 thing is just more bullshit lip service which it is. 

Was Sydney 2000 a fail? No. Was Turin 2006 a fail? No. Was Vancouver 2010 a fail? No. Was London 2012 a fail? No. I see Paris 2024 being no different from anyone of those. You're simply buying into the Abrahamson school of thought "lip service", where everything in L.A. is hunky-dory & the rest of the world sucks.

I don't buy into the logic that L.A. would be the answers to the IOC's problems like the L.A. supporters (& even you) are trying to spin. This is not 1984 anymore, & the rosey-colored days of that era are long gone. L.A. would be extremely lucky to pull that off again, & I wouldn't bet any money on it that they could do that again in 2024, 2028 or 2032. The Olympics have gotten way more expensive & much bigger to fall for the nostalgic fallacy of 1984.

11 minutes ago, paul said:

p.s. i like Paris a lot......I think they should host. i also think there might be some huge problems which I;ll be honest will be fun to watch from afar. There's little respectable happening with the Olympics now.....it's not like it has done anything to bring world peace......as it sometimes pretends to do. the whole IOC organization is the most hypocritical thing imaginable not much else compares. we need less of that.

But the thing is, L.A. could also see some huge problems, which I'll be honest, will also be fun to watch from afar. Especially when L.A. is suppose to be the answer to everything. 

But what you describe about the IOC really can pertain to anything in the world right now really, like governements, banks, drug companies, the NFL, special interest groups, Hollywood, etc, etc, etc. The world is not a pretty place anymore (& quite frankly), it probably never was. So the IOC is basically just blending in to all that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I'll agree with most of that. I'm not sure all those Olympics were so "successful" and didn't PILE up waaaayyyyy to much debt for their people........ But people will argue they were. Spin is king before during and after and Olympics......

and several left white elephants and or doubled their budgets.........THE USUAL!!!!! GO PARIS!!

24 is totally unnecessary for for LA.......28 would be the worst idea ever!! I dread it.

 

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, paul said:

 .....it's not.

Try telling that to our biggest L.A. booster here (& Abrahamson).

14 minutes ago, paul said:

....i never said i hate showing off, if you have something to show off I'm all for it!! LA and Paris have tons to show off.

You've said one of the things that you hate about the Olympics, is bcuz many cities want to simply use them to show off (i.e. China/Russia). 

16 minutes ago, paul said:

....i think they were mostly chosen because they looked rich at the moment......too bad that fell through! Dumb greedy IOC, got what they deserved.

Brazil's economy back in 2009 was booming. Don't know if I'd necessarily call that rich, though. But don't be that naive that Rio's location in South America wasn't part of the equation. Even Jacque Rogge cited if the 2016 decision was all about money, then Chicago would've won the bid instead.

19 minutes ago, paul said:

.....it's totaly fair to compare the IOCs flexibility is allowing the use of Maracana for ceremonies.

Not when it's taken outta context, it's not. The IOC made a concession with Brazil with that one bcuz of the circumstances. Circumstances that aren't present here in this race, & which besides, L.A. doesn't need to do bcuz they can still do the ceremonies only in the Colesium anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, paul said:

...I'll agree with most of that. I'm not sure all those Olympics were so "successful" and didn't PILE up waaaayyyyy to much debt for their people........ But people will argue they were. Spin is king before during and after and Olympics......

Yes, I hear ya. And it's also exactly what L.A. (& all it's boosters) are doing right now as well. Spin, spin, SPIN! Weeeeeee!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

Not when it's taken outta context, it's not. The IOC made a concession with Brazil with that one bcuz of the circumstances. Circumstances that aren't present here in this race, & which besides, L.A. doesn't need to do bcuz they can still do the ceremonies only in the Colesium anyway.

...and they will do ceremonies in a legendary and loved proper Olympic Stadium......but they can also sell 90000 seats to the ceremony in one of the globes newest and most spectacular new mega arenas and entertainment complex. Maybe a nice transition from the classic model to the future?....spin-spin... sugar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And what about the extra added cost to do that, paul? Remember, the COST argument? That would come with an extra pricetag. And don't talk about the "extra ticket sales", bcuz that extra revenue will just get eaten up by the EXTRA costs in logistics & security buy not just having to safeguard one prime location, but TWO. Plus, how would it all be choreograhed with the ceremonies? Who gets to see what at which stadium? Cuz you're not gonna be able to sell both stadiums at the full-ticket prices. That idea is a total farce, & again it just falls under the "look at me" show off category. Yeah, have some hypocrisy with that sugar, spin-ny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, paul said:

 

@FYI 

I think it's because the bids like Paris set up the same old scenario that brought the IOC to their knees the last few cycles and when it almost failed before 84, so if we just giving that as the example of what it takes to win then its like the 2020 thing is just more bullshit lip service which it is. 

p.s. i like Paris a lot......I think they should host. i also think there might be some huge problems which I;ll be honest will be fun to watch from afar. There's little respectable happening with the Olympics now.....it's not like it has done anything to bring world peace......as it sometimes pretends to do. the whole IOC organization is the most hypocritical thing imaginable not much else compares. we need less of that.

Bids like Paris?  No.. if "bids like Paris" are the problem, then the Olympics are officially FUBAR and the IOC might as well close up shop.  Paris is not the problem.  Right now, the 2 most recent Olympics held were the most expensive Olympics in history followed by a country that fell into some political and economic turmoil, especially in comparison to when they were selected.  Not to mention the most recent selection of a recent host was a largely undesirable pick brought on by everyone fleeing from the high costs of Sochi and Beijing before it.  That's what brought the IOC to their knees and here's Paris that might help right the ship a little bit.

Do us a favor though.. please don't tell us who you think should host the Olympics.  No one cares, because you have an agenda.  Which is funny because you like to talk about Los Angeles as "we" even though LA2024 has a strong amount of support.  So perhaps you're not in the majority on that one.

Paris is unlikely to turn out like a Rio or an Athens where the legacy of those Olympics are far from a success story (yes everyone, I know Rio's post-Olympics story is still being written, but so far, it's not looking good).  More likely they'd be like a London or a Sydney where you can argue the benefits of the Olympics having been there, but it would hardly be a disaster.  Either way, get ready for an Olympics in LA, because there's a pretty good chance it's going to happen in the next 11 years.  At which point, learn to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Bids like Paris?  No.. if "bids like Paris" are the problem, then the Olympics are officially FUBAR and the IOC might as well close up shop. 

....that kinda where i am. you know their budget will explode. i can only speak for myself, which is all anyone here is doing.

LA is fantastic and fun.....but it's also a social mess. the LAST distraction we need is an Olympics. Plus lets be honest......the elephant is the room "that we are not allowed to talk about" is.......some games soon is going to explode......literally. Until terror is under better control globally the Olympics are too risky in the United States.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, FYI said:

^And what about the extra added cost to do that, paul? Remember, the COST argument? That would come with an extra pricetag. And don't talk about the "extra ticket sales", bcuz that extra revenue will just get eaten up by the EXTRA costs in logistics & security buy not just having to safeguard one prime location, but TWO. Plus, how would it all be choreograhed with the ceremonies? Who gets to see what at which stadium? Cuz you're not gonna be able to sell both stadiums at the full-ticket prices. That idea is a total farce, & again it just falls under the "look at me" show off category. Yeah, have some hypocrisy with that sugar, spin-ny. 

I think the budget is already inclusive of ceremonies at Rams Stadium and simultaneous viewing party/events/entertainment at the Coliseum.......and the torch will travel from the coliseum to Hollywood Park to light the cauldron at the the new stadium.

The rams stadium tickets would be the BIG typical ceremony tickets culminating in the lighting of the new LA24 cauldron.....the Coliseum will probably be VERY desirable i would say.....you get exposition park access, pre-cerimoney entertainment in the stadium..., Olympic vibe, totally immersive fun experience, view the proper ceremony on (likely GIGANTIC) state of the art screens...at night......in gorgeous outdoor legendary venue, the historic cauldron gets lit live in front of you, them the flame is passed  on to the relay that progresses to the Hollywood Park Ceremony.......and you see the 2nd cauldron lighting of the night life.

I'd say a decent reason to pull the "look at me" card.......when you have something worth looking at.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paul said:

if you are bidding for an Olympics an extra 3billion dollar state of the art sport stadium and entertainment complex is probably the kind of "problem" bids dream of....don't cha think?!B)

Why wouldn't a double ceremony go down well with the IOC, they just had a ceremony in a soccer stadium with limited logistical access and didn't seem to mind?

The problem is that American football is not in the Olympics. Where LA is behind Paris is in the sports requiring specialty venues (athletics, track cycling, rowing, etc) and the new Rams stadium does nothing to address that. The same thing is true for the baseball stadiums. The new Rams stadium would be useful. It just does not address any of the weaknesses in LA's bid.

As for the double ceremonies idea, the IOC wants everything to happen at a single location in view of all of the foreign dignitaries. The Olympic flame has to be within view of the stadium, the athletes and officials have to be in the same stadium, the cultural segments and the athletes ceremony have to be in the same stadium, Rio had to use Maracana instead of the Sambadrome, etc. LA could have a second "celebration zone" in the Rams stadium but the second stadium could not have any athletes, officials or the flame.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

To be fair here..

The new Rams stadium is privately funded.  If that winds up costing $4 billion, Stan Kroenke gets the bill for that, not the city of LA or the LA2024 organizers.  Ditto for the Coliseum renovations.

I don't know why the Paris folks are including those items in the budget.  But the difference is that Roland Garros and that renovation are a part of the Olympic bid and perhaps the Paris organizers view that as an enhancement for the city that's tied to the Olympics.  The new Rams stadium really isn't.  The Coliseum renovations are separate from the $300 million that's in the LA budget for a completely different and separate renovation that's specific to the Olympics.

Sorry, maybe I was misunderstood . I do not feel like I'm not fair.

What I want to say is that it's not possible to compare apples to apples Paris and LA on the basis of the bid books.

Again, Paris has provided a table which contains all of the costs of all what is needed for the Games (tables 22 and 23 here: http://www.paris2024.org/medias/bidbook/bb2_en_2017-digital150.pdf)

And Los Angeles has not provided such a table . For instance I even didn't know that the IBC has to be built before Purefacts tells us about it. I guess this kind of table for LA (including all what is needed even if it's not bid dependant and not part of the budget) would be useful if we really want to compare the needed infrastructures to be built and evaluate the risks. Hope the IOC will do so...

In other words, it is not because it is not part of the budget that there is no risk.

Anyway, I beleave the risk is really low on both sides....but as every day it can be read here how risky the Paris bid is, it was needed to remind there's no more to be built in Paris than in LA (maybe less).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, neige said:

And Los Angeles has not provided such a table . For instance I even didn't know that the IBC 

People have not spoken much about LA's planned IBC at Universal City.  That location is problematic.  Unless they will be building direct access to the freeways, Universal City is very hard to get to and from--especially from USC.  And of course, they won't be closing down the Universal Studios theme park during the Olympic period, so that location for the IBC is NOT the most ideal.  I'm surprised no one (well, until the Evaluation Committee comes to town, no one IOC members (other than the US members) has pointed out that commute from the USC Media Village to the Universal City-IBC location is going to be a treacherous one.  If it were up to me, I would find another location for the IBC, preferrably one closer to USC/Media Village and downtown.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, exactly. But it's much more convenient for the Truff's & AbraTwatson's out there to merely pitch "Paris would be more of the same", cuz if they didn't, then it would go against their bias, agenda-driven L.A. narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paul said:

....that kinda where i am. you know their budget will explode. i can only speak for myself, which is all anyone here is doing.

Yes, but your opinion still goes strongly against all the Truff-(& AbraTwatson)-ism going around here. So somebody is lying. So who is it.

2 hours ago, paul said:

LA is fantastic and fun.....but it's also a social mess. the LAST distraction we need is an Olympics. 

And that's what I don't get. Who in their right mind would want to live in L.A. (or anywhere else in Southern California for that matter) these days.  A lot of peopke there are actually doing a mass exodus to places like Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico & Texas, where their money can take them a lot further.

L.A. (& actuallly all of California really) is becoming more characterisitc of a third-world city (country), especially with the huge discrepencies that are becoming more blatant with the haves & have nots, along with the big number of homelessness. Then pile on mega-traffic, smog, crime, congestion & a slew of natural disasters, water shortages, etc, that doesn't sound fantastic & fun anymore. All too high of a price to pay just to be "near" the beach & "hollywood".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paul said:

....that kinda where i am. you know their budget will explode. i can only speak for myself, which is all anyone here is doing.

LA is fantastic and fun.....but it's also a social mess. the LAST distraction we need is an Olympics. Plus lets be honest......the elephant is the room "that we are not allowed to talk about" is.......some games soon is going to explode......literally. Until terror is under better control globally the Olympics are too risky in the United States.

Then congratulations, the terrorists have won.  Every Olympics, especially post-9/11, has had terrorist concerns.  Does that mean we should just stop holding the Olympics out of fear?  Of course not.  And don't give me too risky in the United States.  Where else are they not risky?  Certainly France has a great deal of risk there as well.

Security costs have spiraled out of control and if you're making a case against the Olympics, that's where I'd do it.  But there will be no safer place on planet Earth during the Games than an Olympic venue.  The rest of the city, maybe not so much, but is the risk that much great than any other day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, paul said:

LA is fantastic and fun.....but it's also a social mess. the LAST distraction we need is an Olympics. Plus lets be honest......the elephant is the room "that we are not allowed to talk about" is.......some games soon is going to explode......literally. Until terror is under better control globally the Olympics are too risky in the United States.

39 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yes, but your opinion still goes strongly against all the Truff-(& AbraTwatson)-ism going around here. So somebody is lying. So who is it.

And that's what I don't get. Who in their right mind would want to live in L.A. (or anywhere else in Southern California for that matter) these days.  A lot of peopke there are actually doing a mass exodus to places like Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico & Texas, where their money can take them a lot further.

L.A. (& actuallly all of California really) is becoming more characterisitc of a third-world city (country), especially with the huge discrepencies that are becoming more blatant with the haves & have nots, along with the big number of homelessness. Then pile on mega-traffic, smog, crime, congestion & a slew of natural disasters, water shortages, etc, that doesn't sound fantastic & fun anymore. All too high of a price to pay just to be "near" the beach & "hollywood".

Yea, someone clear this up for me.  On one hand, we have Herpes telling us LA is this emerging metropolis that the world needs to know about that as progressive as cities come these days.  And then there's paul telling us it's a social mess.  Which is it?  Can't be both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Then congratulations, the terrorists have won. 

they kind of are winning at the moment.

 

23 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

 

Yea, someone clear this up for me.  On one hand, we have Herpes telling us LA is this emerging metropolis that the world needs to know about that as progressive as cities come these days.  And then there's paul telling us it's a social mess.  Which is it?  Can't be both.

Yes it can be both and it is. Welcome to California! Oh and everything you hear about the sun is true too.

Just cuz I say it's a social mess doesn't mean everything about LA is a mess.......many things are fantastic and EVERYTHING could be more fantastic if we learn to control ourselves just a bit. The social mess part can be cleaned up with the right policies, but that's a complex process and hosting an Olympics would be counter productive to what needs to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

L.A. (& actuallly all of California really) is becoming more characterisitc of a third-world city (country), especially with the huge discrepencies that are becoming more blatant with the haves & have nots, along with the big number of homelessness. Then pile on mega-traffic, smog, crime, congestion & a slew of natural disasters, water shortages, etc, that doesn't sound fantastic & fun anymore. All too high of a price to pay just to be "near" the beach & "hollywood".

...come on.....your just a wee bit dramatic no?

LA is a FANTASTIC place to live!!!!!!!!......but the Olympics (and extra tourists) are not needed. The bid graphics are SO amazing though and Paris graphics really suck. It's a shame we wont get to see an LA look-of-games, that would be almost worth it......but we can't let the trashy IOC romance us with our own body of work.....it's gotta be NOLosAngeles Games. And nothing would be worse that being shackled to the IOC till 2028.....GOD NO.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, paul said:

The social mess part can be cleaned up with the right policies, but that's a complex process and hosting an Olympics would be counter productive to what needs to happen.

Right, & that's what many anti-Olympic grassroot movements cite as a reason not to host. That the city's efforts would be better served elsewhere. But the reality is, that even without the Olympics, the "right policies" never come to fruition.

Like I just mentioned (& you conveniently just glossed over), but L.A. & Southern California is not in as such a rosey position like you (& other L.A. supporters) paint it to be. Politicians there are hardly doing anything to make the lives of the citizens there to be better. Even with no Olympics there at all, L.A. would still be in the same (if not worse) dilemma that it finds itself now a decade later. Bcuz all politicians do (& ever do) is lip service.

19 minutes ago, paul said:

Just cuz I say it's a social mess doesn't mean everything about LA is a mess.......many things are fantastic and EVERYTHING could be more fantastic if we learn to control ourselves just a bit. 

Right - just curious, though. Are you speaking as a have or a have not in L.A.? Cuz I'm willing to bet that the have nots in L.A. would totally disagree with your assertion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, paul said:

...come on.....your just a wee bit dramatic no?

LA is a FANTASTIC place to live!!!!!!!!

I'm not being anymore wee bit dramatic than you are spiraling to the other side of the "FANTASTIC" spectrum. Again, L.A. these days is for the "Hollywood" elite (you know the type, the kind you claim to hate [i.e. pompous IOC members, & self-entitled, self-absorbed athletes]), or for the very poor. The middle-class there is rapidly becoming extinct at a much faster pace than almost the rest of the country. 

12 minutes ago, paul said:

it's gotta be NOLosAngeles Games. And nothing would be worse that being shackled to the IOC till 2028.....GOD NO.

Better start getting use to the idea then. Cuz it's very well possible that's how it's going to pan out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, FYI said:

Like I just mentioned (& you conveniently just glossed over), but L.A. & Southern California is not in as such a rosey position like you (& other L.A. supporters) paint it to be. Politicians there are hardly doing anything to make the lives of the citizens there to be better. Even with no Olympics there at all, L.A. would still be in the same (if not worse) dilemma that it finds itself now a decade later. Bcuz all politicians do (& ever do) is lip service.

Psst.. hey Ruff, this is your cue to chime in and tell him how wrong he is. Fight exaggeration with more exaggeration. Isn't that what this thread is about?!?

FYI, I think I have to agree with paul somewhat here. You are being a little overdramatic. Politicians in LA are hardly doing anything?  Do you actually believe that or is that just the best way to respond to LA boosters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^That sounds negligable if anything. The most interesting thing that I read in the article is that the session might be moved away from Lima. Haven't heard anything about that, & where would it be moved to if that was the case.

Another that I didn't agree with was the;

"It would clearly suggest the IOC believe cities such as Budapest and Hamburg, both of which withdrew from the race for the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics, are not good enough now and might never be."

..in the event of a double award. It's not like Budapest had much of a chance to win 2024 anyway if they were still in the race. And like Budapest, Hamburg would also need to construct A LOT if any of these two cities were to ever host an Olympic Games. So how would that suggest anything negative on the IOC's part, in reference to small or midsize cities when that wouldn't be cost effective anyway. Not every city in the world is going to be able to host the Olympics, nor should there be a munipulation of standards simply for the sake of smaller to midsize cities to host. The Olympics aren't a charity, they're a luxury. And that's what many people don't seem to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

FYI, I think I have to agree with paul somewhat here. You are being a little overdramatic. Politicians in LA are hardly doing anything?  Do you actually believe that or is that just the best way to respond to LA boosters?

Like I said to paul, I'm not being anymore a little overdramatic than him claiming "L.A. is a 'FANTASTIC' place to live!!!!" Talk about 'exaggeration'.

I know that L.A. is doing a lot of civic improvements throughout the city, but what about for the everyday, poor Angelino. Why are so many of the middle-class leaving California in droves, etc. 

If you think otherwise, fine. But like you told your buddy ZK the other day, if you're going to disagree with me about something, then cite your reason, instead of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RuFF said:

I believe the concept is that the official opening ceremony, which would have the flame, dignitaries and athletes would be at the new Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park. The Coliseum would be a celebration zone seeing the flame pass through the stadium on its way to Hollywood Park for the lighting of the cauldron. The Closing Ceremonies would be in reverse with the Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park being the celebration zone and the Coliseum being the office cloaking ceremony venue.

The lighting of the cauldron must be visible from the ceremonies stadium. The cauldron can be moved afterwards, though. So they could light the cauldron in the Coliseum and then put in on a float to parade around Los Angeles. But that would still leave the Rams stadium as a glorified concert venue rather than an actual Olympic venue.

8 hours ago, FYI said:

And that's what I don't get. Who in their right mind would want to live in L.A. (or anywhere else in Southern California for that matter) these days.  A lot of peopke there are actually doing a mass exodus to places like Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico & Texas, where their money can take them a lot further.

That isn't because people hate Los Angeles, though, it's because real estate, water and electricity are all in high demand. (Well, many people outside of Los Angeles hate the city, but the people who live there do not.) The real estate cost issue also forces people with lower incomes out of Manhattan and San Francisco, yet no one calls them "third world."

Los Angeles does have climate and economic problems, but both of those are exacerbated by simple overpopulation. And they don't have anything to do with an Olympic bid.

Edited by Nacre
  • 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...