Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Trump cost LA 2024 without a doubt.

LA and Paris being basically perfect 10s, it will boil down to the other stuff like politics and political climate. A lot can happen in 7 years, but Trump with his wild all over the place policies gave Paris a serious push to the front of the line.

LA not having to pay for a 2nd bid helps, and will put LA in a position ask for a bigger cut.

Paris going 2nd puts it in the same position.

It will be interesting.

No he didn't.  If LA and Paris are that even, the geopolitics of this race were still pointing towards Paris, regardless of the respective presidential elections.  Trump's win just made it a little easier to judge that political climate as favoring Paris, who was probably the favorite all along.

Something interesting here that RuFF alluded to.. earlier, AA brought up the point (a bullshit point, indeed) that the IOC was only hyping up both cities to make the race seem more interesting.  On the contrary.. perhaps they're hyping up both cities to more easily justify the double award.  If there was still a third city in the running, it would be more complicated.  But with just 2, this should be a no-brainer.  Then again, this is the IOC, so brains aren't a strong point of theirs, but I think they realize what needs to happen here.  At this point, it's just determining the logistics of how that all goes down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Yep! To put it into some perspective, British Airways paid £40m to be the official airline of London 2012. I'm sure LA will be selling their rights for even more. If UA want to be associated directly with the Games, they'll have to stump up a similar figure to what they've already paid for the naming rights again. And if they don't, they'll see another airline taking that gig, using images of the Coliseum to promote their brand at a time when the stadium in in the global spotlight. I hope whoever runs UA realises this!

It's really a non-Olympic related deal.  They'll get more visibility (certainly from a local standpoint) on USC football games and the Rams who will be there through the 2019 season.  Perhaps they're trying their fortunes to what will be a renovated venue, but this is definitely not a move they're making related to the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, and for a 15 year deal these naming rights don't look enormous (not pro-sports levels), so they obviously know what they're doing. I was being a bit facetious in my last post. That said, if UA don't go in for the Official Airline gig they will see another airline using 'their' stadium for a while in its promotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Sure, and for a 15 year deal these naming rights don't look enormous (not pro-sports levels), so they obviously know what they're doing. I was being a bit facetious in my last post. That said, if UA don't go in for the Official Airline gig they will see another airline using 'their' stadium for a while in its promotions.

Delta and United both have a strong presence in LA, so I could see them jockeying for position, although United has stronger ties to the USOC, so I think they'll probably win that battle if it came down to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Trump cost LA 2024 without a doubt.

LA and Paris being basically perfect 10s, it will boil down to the other stuff like politics and political climate. A lot can happen in 7 years, but Trump with his wild all over the place policies gave Paris a serious push to the front of the line.

LA not having to pay for a 2nd bid helps, and will put LA in a position ask for a bigger cut.

Paris going 2nd puts it in the same position.

It will be interesting.

 

This bid race has become so anticlimactic for me.  I'll admit my excitement for it started to go down once the other bid cities started dropping out.  I couldn't have cared less if LA got 2024 or not, I just wanted to see how LA would have fared in the vote when 5 cities were bidding, or even between Paris and LA for a sole 2024 bid.  So if indeed '24 and '28 will be awarded, there really is no excitement for me; it's more a matter of which city will go first, or to look at it another way, which city will have more time to prepare.  But I don't know, 11 years of preparation can also mean 11 years of inflation/costs going up.  

So instead of a vote, it's possible that now it'll just be a matter of negotiating which city will go first and second, without a vote at all, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JesseSaenz said:

Hope they don't drag people out of the Coliseum if they oversell seats. Lol.

I didn't even think it would be possible to have "naming rights" sold on the Coliseum; it is, after all, owned by 3 different government entities (State of California, LA County, City of LA).  But I guess the lease that USC secured for it includes naming rights?  

At least from what I've read, "Memorial Coliseum" has to be maintained in the name.  It's called the Memorial Coliseum because when it was built, it was dedicated to the World War I veterans of LA County, or something like that.  So it might become the United Airlines Memorial Coliseum.  

So tacky.  I hate commercialism.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I could have sworn I was saying that they were hyping up both cities for a double award and not the bull crap you just alluded to. Anything else's you see in that walls are closing in on me head of yours?

Quaker was refering to the "bull crap" that your gal pal Abrahamson was 'alluding' to, & even compared the bid campaign to a horse race. Your reading comprehension skils need improvement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

I just wanted to see how LA would have fared in the vote when 5 cities were bidding, or even between Paris and LA for a sole 2024 bid.  So if indeed '24 and '28 will be awarded, there really is no excitement for me; it's more a matter of which city will go first, or to look at it another way, which city will have more time to prepare.  

So instead of a vote, it's possible that now it'll just be a matter of negotiating which city will go first and second, without a vote at all, right?

It's still possible that there's a 2024 vote. And then after, the loser of that will then automatically be offered 2028. Now whether or not whichever city that is would automatically accept 2028, I suppose is another matter entirely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Either city will take the 28 games if they lose 24. 

 

LA and Paris both do not have the luxury of another bidding campaign.

In theory, yes.  But let's see how that works in practice.  That's why the IOC needs to be careful how they're handling this and getting both cities on board with whatever the plan is.  Or else they run the risk of having what happened with Australia with their 2022 World Cup bid (although this was eventually dismissed) where they complained about Qatar being able to move the World cup out of the traditional June-July window where it would have helped their cause greatly to be able to offer that themselves.

2 issues at hand here.  1 is whether or not a losing 2024 would so easily accept 2028.  Again, easier said than done.  I think they would, but not sure how automatic that is.  The second is if the IOC formally changes the process to say they're awarding both 2024 and 2028 together.  That's not what these cities began the bidding process for.  So there could be repercussions if 1 or both cities are not on board with that.  This is not so simple as to say that the losing city doesn't have the luxury of another bid, because there is another option.. tell the IOC to piss off.  I wouldn't put it past them to do that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RuFF said:

I could have sworn I was saying that they were hyping up both cities for a double award and not the bull crap you just alluded to. Anything else's you see in that walls are closing in on me head of yours?

Donald, is that you??  :blink:  Ivanka and Spicey are going to take away your toy!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Nick Butler has an interesting take on the Metro Purple Line. It's interesting that he calls people spin doctors.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1050523/los-angeles-mayor-calls-for-federal-transport-funding-to-be-fast-tracked-to-help-olympic-bid

gay-richard-simmons-thats-the-pot-callin

I hope you appreciate the irony in you pointing out someone calling people spin doctors (and in reading the article, I'm not sure that's even happening here)

So, do you think he's wrong?  Is his take on the Purple Line incorrect?  It's been discussed here before that it would cost additional money to get the Purple Line up and running by 2024.  Perhaps he's not so far off base that additional spending is somewhat tied to the Olympics whereas if this project was able to go on its own timetable, that wouldn't be the case.  And that Garcetti is dealing with Washington, that somewhat furthers the case here that LA can't completely separate themselves from all the politics in DC and that they are relying somewhat on the Trump administration to help them out.

If this report is accurate (and I'm guessing you think it is), more fodder for the IOC to go Paris 2024 followed by LA 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I'm sure they're correct in saying it's not essential but it'd be nice to have, the danger if they push to have it finished before 2024 is that it becomes perceived as part of the Games plan by everyone involved and by those not (i.e. journalists). It'd hardly be the end of the world if it's not done, this isn't close to being equivalent to Rio 2016's Olympic Park subway, but we've seen plenty of times in the past how public projects with deadlines in the Olympic hosting year become lumped in with Olympic infrastructure when it comes to how things are reported. LA wouldn't be immune to that.

Garcetti is of course right to push for this to be completed and right to use the Olympics as leverage in this way. He wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't try. Then again, if I'm looking at LA as an IOC member and seeing a shiny new subway line that might be ready for 2024 but will certainly be ready for 2028, that might play into my thinking about how the double award should work. Perhaps Garcetti is recognising that too, and therefore is pushing for more certainty re the 2024 completion date even if that does risk a change in perception to this being part of LA's 'Olympic' infrastructure.

An interesting one. In no way does it make LA's bid or its transport plan riskier, but on the other hand it could have an impact given the unusual circumstances in this race.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Whilst I'm sure they're correct in saying it's not essential but it'd be nice to have, the danger if they push to have it finished before 2024 is that it becomes perceived as part of the Games plan by everyone involved and by those not (i.e. journalists). It'd hardly be the end of the world if it's not done, this isn't close to being equivalent to Rio 2016's Olympic Park subway, but we've seen plenty of times in the past how public projects with deadlines in the Olympic hosting year become lumped in with Olympic infrastructure when it comes to how things are reported. LA wouldn't be immune to that.

Garcetti is of course right to push for this to be completed and right to use the Olympics as leverage in this way. He wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't try. Then again, if I'm looking at LA as an IOC member and seeing a shiny new subway line that might be ready for 2024 but will certainly be ready for 2028, that might play into my thinking about how the double award should work. Garcetti might be recognising that too, and therefore is pushing for more certainty re the 2024 completion date.

An interesting one. In no way does it make LA's bid or its transport plan riskier, but on the other hand it could have an impact given the unusual circumstances in this race.

I think it's one of those things where perception won't help them.  If the idea is "we don't need this, but if we spend money, we can make it happen for 2024," that's somewhat hurting the narrative that they have everything in place and no major construction is needed.  Obviously this subway extension is going to happen regardless, but where additional money is being spent to fast-track it, even if they can sell that as not being tied to the Olympics, some may perceive it that way.  And as you noted, if LA gets awarded 2024, then the pressure is really on to deliver, not that it would be a tremendous blow to their plans if that didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

gay-richard-simmons-thats-the-pot-callin

I hope you appreciate the irony in you pointing out someone calling people spin doctors (and in reading the article, I'm not sure that's even happening here).

Especially when you know Abratrollson (the queen of all spin doctors) would be trolling on Paris 2024 if this was the other way around, & which he does when it comes to their village plan which is going up regardless of their bid. 

23 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I think it's one of those things where perception won't help them.  If the idea is "we don't need this, but if we spend money, we can make it happen for 2024," that's somewhat hurting the narrative that they have everything in place and no major construction is needed.  Obviously this subway extension is going to happen regardless, but where additional money is being spent to fast-track it, even if they can sell that as not being tied to the Olympics, some may perceive it that way. 

Yep, & as we've discuss before in this thread, it's the perception what notably causes the bad press in the first place. And if L.A. wants to "rush" this, then that's exactly what's going to happen whether they like it or not, or right or wrong. And then people here in the U.S. will then start to think - "why are we giving 'federal' money for a transit line in L.A. for the Olympics. I thought 'they constantly said' that everything was going to be 'privately' funded".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will never happen like it did in 84 when LA controlled the games due the EPIC fail of the IOC to have any other bids. The only difference now is that the IOC is even less respected BUT they have 2 premier cities competing and trying to outdo each other....cities (especially Paris who is more desperate and has more to lose) are too quick to agree to the old tired requirements of the IOC. 1984 was the most successful games even, vs doubling or tripling budgets and leaving little or negative legacy as we have seen in Athens, Rio, Vancouver, Sochi, Beijing, and now Tokyo. This boondoggle serves the IOC family primarily, and then politicians using the games to increase their political or criminal take, then business leader trying to profit above and below the boards. 

Los Angeles Mayor happy to conduct meetings with IOC publicly-ITG

"It has been a little bit like dating in a straitjacket.

"It’s a little difficult to wrap your arms around each other, but we’re trying to do as much Houdini as we can."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, paul said:

 (especially Paris who is more desperate and has more to lose)

Right, that's why Wasserman claims that it "must" be 2024, or L.A.'s "cost effective" plan will be lost in the wind. And for a city that's not so "desperate", L.A. was sure ready to jump when Boston's bid fell apart. Not to mention that they're is always there everytime in the domestic process. No, L.A. is not desperate at all. :rolleyes:

21 minutes ago, paul said:

1984 was the most successful games even, vs doubling or tripling budgets and leaving little or negative legacy as we have seen in Athens, Rio, Vancouver, Sochi, Beijing, and now Tokyo. 

That's simply bcuz 1984 cost a mere $584 million in comparison. No way in hel! an Olympics will ever cost that again. And if you're including Vancouver in that list, that had a budget of like $6.3 Billion, which also had most facilities in place & for a Winter Olympics, then L.A. will definitely fall in there too, that's proposing a $5.3 Billion budget for a usually more expensive Summer Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

Nick Butler has an interesting take on the Metro Purple Line. It's interesting that he calls people spin doctors.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1050523/los-angeles-mayor-calls-for-federal-transport-funding-to-be-fast-tracked-to-help-olympic-bid

Wait, didn't LA2024 promised a "full private founding" Olympics and beyond securities they won't ask for federal money and they won't want to talk with Trump more of necessary? I wonder if Abrahamson saw this news LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

Right, that's why Wasserman claims that it "must" be 2024, or L.A.'s "cost effective" plan will be lost in the wind. And for a city that's not so "desperate", L.A. was sure ready to jump when Boston's bid fell apart. Not to mention that they're is always there everytime in the domestic process. No, L.A. is not desperate at all. :rolleyes:

That's simply bcuz 1984 cost a mere $584 million in comparison. No way in hel! an Olympics will ever cost that again. And if you're including Vancouver in that list, that had a budget of like $6.3 Billion, which also had most facilities in place & for a Winter Olympics, then L.A. will definitely fall in there too, that's proposing a $5.3 Billion budget for a usually more expensive Summer Games.

Oh the mantra of "Paris is desperate" again. Maybe we need to remind Wasesman full declarations again...

Anyway, from the bold part is true. Los Angeles 1984 came during a time when: a. The terrorism wasn't diversified and changed in strategies and "soft targets" like happens today; b. There were half of the current nations competing at the Olympics; c. The international flights weren't massive as they are currently (More tourists); d. The political implications... And these are just some points. Saying LA Olympics will have profit is one (reasonable) thing but saying it will gain billions or the inversment will be the same as 1984 is a hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paris is desperate because they are French, and the ego thing is EVERYTHING. Losing by a baguette to London was the ultimate shame, and this is their BIG CHANCE to regain their pride. 

You cant even compare.....LA is not as worried about it....whatever happen happens.......I mean get real....LA has bid and lost many more times that Paris.

Paris is desperate....always will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paul said:

Paris is desperate because they are French, and the ego thing is EVERYTHING. Losing by a baguette to London was the ultimate shame, and this is their BIG CHANCE to regain their pride. 

You cant even compare.....LA is not as worried about it....whatever happen happens.......I mean get real....LA has bid and lost many more times that Paris.

Paris is desperate....always will be.

LOL, coming from a Southern Californian, this level of cultural approach for another cultures is everything. You certain representates the best of Californian spirit paul, indeed LMFAO.

And ironically Wasesman and Abrahamson can be more French than Californian considering "that definition".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, paul said:

Paris is desperate because they are French, and the ego thing is EVERYTHING. Losing by a baguette to London was the ultimate shame, and this is their BIG CHANCE to regain their pride. 

You cant even compare.....LA is not as worried about it....whatever happen happens.......I mean get real....LA has bid and lost many more times that Paris.

Paris is desperate....always will be.

Why are you soooooo negative -- yet you hang around here so?  You make it sound like bidding is mere peanuts.  

Bidding is a BIG DEAL - the hours, the money, the enterprise poured in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that you're also taking some of those same hallucinogens that a certain someone else is trippin' on over there.

If ego is everything, then a certain agenda-driven L.A. "journalist" takes the Gold medal in that department then. 

L.A. "not worried about it"? Yeah, right, "get real". That's why Wasserman (& Abratrollson) are pretty much saying it's "now or never" about it. 

And L.A. has NOT bid & lost many times before. They've actually WON (by default) twice, & this is the FIRST time that the USOC has put them forward as an OFFICIAL bid to the IOC since then. So wrong there, too. 

If Paris is "desperate", then L.A. is trippin' all over themselves, & always will be until the IOC finally throws them a bone.

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...