Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

The Facebook likes story was LA being caught with its pants down. Not far down, but a little way. Builder's bum territory, maybe. Touting a big number based on the grey-arts of getting low-hanging fruit on social media was never the amazing feat the marketeers in charge of LA2024 claimed it to be. But then, it's all part of the game, I can understand why LA did it. No biggie.

Ditto Paris being in LA. Cheeky, possibly bending the rules, but only a couple of LA supporters seemed to get worked up about it. Checking out the competition isn't unprofessional, it's wise. The fact they were caught doing it by the LA press was a bit awkward though, just as the French press catching :LA out with their Facebook likes was a bit awkward.

Paris saying they can't build what they intend for 2028 isn't an ultimatum though, it's a fact of their bid. When the bids were put together 2028 wasn't ever in the equation so I don't know why you continually find it hard to believe that Paris didn't consider 2028. Why would they have done? Rather than unfairly malign Paris as unprofessional, why not use this story as a demonstration of what you've been boasting about all along. Namely LA's bid is robust and less reliant on certain public works happening. So much so, that it can be copied and pasted straight into 2028. If I were an LA supporter that's how I'd see it.

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

Hey, could it be, that if LA does not get 2024 or 2028, that it won't bid again, at least not in the foreseeable future?

"While there remains confusion over the award process for these two Games, [Casey] Wasserman provided one point of great clarity – if LA is left empty-handed after its bid, the city would not be bidding again.

"'We won't bid again in Los Angeles. Because we have to pay for the bid privately. And raising 60 million dollars privately from individuals in Los Angeles is a tough road to go down once. I will tell you, twice it is not going to happen,' said Wasserman, the biggest contributor to that $60 million budget."

From Reuters:  Olympics: Joint 2024-2028 award 'the right idea', LA bid chief says

Speak for yourself, Casey.  You may represent the city of Los Angeles now, but that won't always be the case.  I'm sure that YOU will not go at it again, but I'm betting that someone else will pick up the pieces and make the effort shortly thereafter should LA wind up with nothing here.  I understand it requires raising tens of millions of dollars to bid again, but if the benefits of hosting an Olympics are still there in what is continually touted as a ready-made city for the Olympics, then isn't it worth the investment, even with the risks?

What these guys say now and how they feel or react afterwards may not be one in the same.  We've heard it plenty of times how both bids are committed to 2024 because that's what they entered this contest thinking about, with little thought given to 2028.  So we certainly can't fault then for having to address that, especially where there are still unknowns as to whats going to go down in September.

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

I was reading that Wasserman thinks a double award is right for the IOC. But, unlike Paris which threw and ultimatum (because of an obviously less controlled and calculated dialogue) LA is acting as a partner of the movement. While it's a fine line, again, LA is displaying a level of professionalism Paris 2024 has lacked. As a matter of fact Paris 2024 was caught with their pants down repeatedly just stepping over that line (being caught in LA, its fake Facebook like stories, 2024 ultimatum). If I had a multi billion brand on the line I would be concerned about these blunders.

Still only seeing what you want to see, aren't you?

Again, let it be said.. fairly confident that none of the voters will care or take into account that Paris leaders were in LA or how many social media likes they got, or especially 2024 ultimatums since they're very much coming from both sides.  These aren't "blunders" so much as they're the natural course of action with something very political like this, particularly when there are only 2 bidders in the running and it's very much a head to head contest.  

If you want to continue to spin this about how professional LA is being and what a great partner they would be for the IOC, that's all well and good.  Just keep in mind that represents how YOU feel and how YOU view this contest.  Instead, you should be doing what the rest of us are and looking at it from the standpoint of the IOC voters and how they're going to make their decision.  I know that's next to impossible for you because you can't step out of the LA bubble you're viewing everything from, but even a tiny smidge of objectivity would go a long way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

2032's pretty much a shoo-in for Tel Aviv.

LOL. 

And again TRuff going to watch the glasses under the rose Californian sunshine. I guess this is like when you posted an old link mentioned Melenchon against the Paris bid, when just a day before his party confirmed support. Yeah, call us biased while watching on the mirror :rolleyes:

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

The Facebook likes story was LA being caught with its pants down. Not far down, but a little way. Builder's bum territory, maybe. Touting a big number based on the grey-arts of getting low-hanging fruit on social media was never the amazing feat the marketeers in charge of LA2024 claimed it to be. But then, it's all part of the game, I can understand why LA did it. No biggie.

Ditto Paris being in LA. Cheeky, possibly bending the rules, but only a couple of LA supporters seemed to get worked up about it. Checking out the competition isn't unprofessional, it's wise. The fact they were caught doing it by the LA press was a bit awkward though, just as the French press catching :LA out with their Facebook likes was a bit awkward.

Paris saying they can't build what they intend for 2028 isn't an ultimatum though, it's a fact of their bid. When the bids were put together 2028 wasn't ever in the equation so I don't know why you continually find it hard to believe that Paris didn't consider 2028. Why would they have done? Rather than unfairly malign Paris as unprofessional, why not use this story as a demonstration of what you've been boasting about all along. Namely LA's bid is robust and less reliant on certain public works happening. So much so, that it can be copied and pasted straight into 2028. If I were an LA supporter that's how I'd see it.

There's an old proverb in Spanish: "Eso seria pedir peras al olmo". If that recognition happens in the future that would be historical.

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

I think it is good to challenge the city and ensure transparency, but I do think that the majority of LA area residents are ok with the Olympics in their town. The most recent survey was done independently of the bid organizers which showed even more support than the previous one.

Good on them though, and honestly, Paris with its sky high taxes should consider the same.

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

I think it is good to challenge the city and ensure transparency, but I do think that the majority of LA area residents are ok with the Olympics in their town. The most recent survey was done independently of the bid organizers which showed even more support than the previous one.

Good on them though, and honestly, Paris with its sky high taxes should consider the same.

From the article..

We want to challenge this idea that everyone in L.A. is excited about the Olympics,” DSA-LA member Jonny Coleman said.

Surveys and polls can be ambiguous and the data doesn't always tell the true story.  What exactly are they asking?  This is more complex than a simple yes/no question.  I certainly won't speak for LA residents, but even if they "are ok with the Olympics in their town," do they understand what that means?  Do they have a full grasp of what's involved with that and what the consequences to them or is it more "yea, 1984 was awesome, let's do it again!"  So that's where this group may be of some use, if nothing else to educate.

That said, little late in the game for this group to form.  This is completely different than the groups that took down bids in places like Boston.  This is less about opposing the Olympics and more about "know what you're getting into."  Should have happened well over a year ago.  I'll be curious to see if anything results from this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

This is less about opposing the Olympics and more about "know what you're getting into."  Should have happened well over a year ago.  I'll be curious to see if anything results from this.

I agree; my first thought was 'why are they just now opposing the Olympic bid?  If they were gung-ho against it, they should have raised up the issue from the beginning.

This group is the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), LA chapter.  I actually went to two of their meetings maybe 6 or 7 years ago, before I put more of my efforts into the FSP (Freedom Socialist Party) and signed a notarized affidavit so that I would be able to vote for a write-in candidate which was the FSP's candidate for President in 2012 (Stephen Durham), the only time I ever did a write-in ballot for President... this being while I was a registered voter in the Peace and Freedom Party.  I voted for the FSP candidate because the P and F Party nominated fricking Roseanne Barr as their Presidential Candidate.  I later left the Peace and Freedom Party and became a registered Green Party member.  

But anyway, that's how I know about the DSA.   

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

Paris not being able to figure out a village is jibberish. Nobody is buying that. I can buy that this particular site won't work for 2028. But if they're awarded 2028 I'm sure they'd go back to the drawing board and figure it out. Just like the River Plan didn't work for LA. But if UCLA didn't work LA would figure it out. 

Maybe, but maybe not. You should know that a complex project such as the Olympic Village is not just a matter of "going back to the drawing board" & figuring it out. If it was so easy to do that, then why didn't L.A. go back to the drawing board & "figure it out" when the initial Piggyback yards option blew up in their face. Why did they just take the easy way out then by simply going to UCLA instead. 

Paris' 2024 Olympic Village plan is what works for them as a city now, not 2028. And while perhaps they could find another site at a later point, who's to say that it can work for 2028 anyway. It may not be until much later. Not to mention that the 2024 OV site is ideally conveniently located to many of the proposed venues, something that another site won't necessarily offer. If Paris had a UCLA option of their own, then your argument would hold water. But since they don't, then it's 'jibberish', since it's not a fair comparion to the cut-&-paste model that L.A. (2028) can offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an OLYMPIC village plan in one of the globes most flourishing and successful cities is such a rare and fragile opportunity that no other options can even be imagined or considered beyond 24, it only goes to show that The Olympics present unreasonably difficult demands that almost no city in the future will be able to handle. Paris is reinforcing the fear that bidding for or hosting an Olympic Games is too complicated and beyond the reach of even the largest cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're also talking about one of the most expensive cities in the world, as far as real estate is concerned (alongside London, New York & Tokyo) which isn't going to sit idle simply for the fancy of an Olympics, so it's not just a matter of finding the space. 

Plus, no one is saying that it "can't ever" happen beyond 2024 (like you're alluding to), but rather that the plan now fits what works best for the city of Paris in connection with 2024 (think Agenda 2020), & that's how an Olympics can work even for large cities.

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

So, is LA ready and honest enough to think and accept 2028?  Or will it still play this posturing game??

I agree. With Macron's landslide victory today, that just tilts the scale even moreso towards Paris' 2024 favor. I also project the IOC vote having a similiar outcome as well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ejaycat said:

I later left the Peace and Freedom Party and became a registered Green Party member.  

   

So you voted for Jill Stein this past election? If so,

snooki-punched.gif

50 minutes ago, FYI said:

I agree. With Macron's landslide victory today, that just tilts the scale even moreso towards Paris' 2024 favor. I also project the IOC vote having a similiar outcome as well.  

At this point I want Trump to show his fat pimply ass in Peru? thinking he can convince the IOC into giving LA the games just to further humiliate us in what is sure to be a loss. I'm at the point that I want Trump to humiliate the US to the entire world so that people fear about making the same mistake in voting for someone so inexperienced and racist that at least there's the rest of the world left to salvage.

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

So, is LA ready and honest enough to think and accept 2028?  Or will it still play this posturing game??

They're going to be about 2024 until Bach opens the envelope.  Then and only then will they turn to 2028.  At which point they'll spend about 5 minutes getting over their disappointment and realize that they can make 2028 work and they'd be complete fools not to accept that offer.  Until then though, LA need not back down and throw in the towel for 2024.  Especially when that "consolation prize" is their fallback.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

They're going to be about 2024 until Bach opens the envelope.  Then and only then will they turn to 2028.  At which point they'll spend about 5 minutes getting over their disappointment and realize that they can make 2028 work and they'd be complete fools not to accept that offer.  Until then though, LA need not back down and throw in the towel for 2024.  Especially when that "consolation prize" is their fallback.

Exactly. Both cities will stick to their guns until in September when one of them is handed the short end of the stick.

 

To be clear, LA2024 never called it a "consolation" prize. That was an LA Times reporter. 

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

If an OLYMPIC village plan in one of the globes most flourishing and successful cities is such a rare and fragile opportunity that no other options can even be imagined or considered beyond 24, it only goes to show that The Olympics present unreasonably difficult demands that almost no city in the future will be able to handle. Paris is reinforcing the fear that bidding for or hosting an Olympic Games is too complicated and beyond the reach of even the largest cities.

Are you taking the same hallucinogens that RuFF is on?  It's not that Paris can't imagine another plan.  It's that they choose not to.  Or maybe it's the same BS that the LA folks said themselves about how it must be activated now to give LA 2024 and the IOC seven years to help stabilize the Olympic world.  New York could have tried again after 2012, but they chose not to.  You can make the argument that the difficulties of Olympic bidding played into that, but again, that's a problem of choice.

Fact of the matter is that the Olympics always present tough issues is that you need to make a plan 9 years ahead of time and wait 2 years before you know if you can execute it or not.  That's no different than it has been in the past.  It's not that cities can't handle it, it's that they choose not to make a deal with the devil that is the IOC.  If Paris wanted to bid for the 2028 Olympics, I guarantee you they could find a way to make that happen, although yes, they might need to find a different plan for a village.  You can't expect a city, let alone one such as Paris were real estate is valuable, to perpetually keep a plan available, particularly one that involves an influx of housing.  If Paris is awarded the 2024 Olympics, they'll run with the plan they have in place and I expect it to be successful.  If they don't get 2024, who knows if that's the end of the line for them, but if that's the case, it's not about can't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JesseSaenz said:

Exactly. Both cities will stick to their guns until in September when one of them is handed the short end of the stick.

 

To be clear, LA2024 never called it a "consolation" prize. That was an LA Times reporter. 

I know.  That whole story was begging to be misinterpreted and taken out of context.  Sadly, when you have a game as highly political as Olympic bidding, things like that are bound to happen.  Probably won't wind up making a difference either way on this one though since we're largely getting the same message from both sides and I doubt any voters will be swayed by that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumpy's NOT going to show up in Lima.  Otherwise, he will have to make nice with IOC members, a few of whom might lecture him.  A video is short and sweet; and no embarrassing confrontations.  LA 2028 should be s lucky as to not have him show up.  And of course, after losing 2024, they can blame the pus-filled Trumpkin for the defeat.  It's a win-win situation for everyone (for him NOT to come).  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuFF said:

I am inclined to believe Trump won't make an appearance and if he does he probably won't be a big presence. 

Macron will probably have a greater presence in the Parisian bid that Trump will on the LA bid. 

I disagree.  If he's in Lima, he'll only be there to have a yuuuuuuuge presence.  Otherwise, not worth the trip for him.  He'll probably be too busy golfing to go, anyway.

Yes, Marcon will likely have a big role in the Parisian bid, as opposed to LA's bid who neither needs nor wants Trump.  I'd say that might swing the pendulum somewhat towards Paris to have the president of the country in attendance.  I have a feeling you'll try to spin that as a bad thing because it emphasizes the evils of government involvement and goof for LA for nto wanting to deal with the trumpster fire.

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...