Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Why are you soooooo negative -- yet you hang around here so?

Personal experience; some of my recent friends have visited Southern California and they came with some negative comments. If paul is the classic representation of the average joe/jane, then I understand their points lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

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

Exactly, the Olympics is the "root of all evil", according to them, but yet here they are, passive-agressively still cheerleading for L.A., trying to "regain their pride".

Like I've said twice before, they suffer from the narcissist guy, fat girl syndrome. They don't want the fat girl anyway, but are still bitching that how dare the fat girl doesn't want them, either.

What's even funnier is when a silly Californian is talking about the "desperate" French lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FYI said:

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.

totally not accurate. that dude with the huge nose running the Paris bid has been stomping his feet about "it's 24 or nothing is available" from the begining and continuing. It's really not necessary since we all know Paris HAS to win 24.....it would be crazy to think anything else would happen.

 

19 minutes ago, FYI said:

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.

LA bid 7 time and won 2 because everybody was afraid to bid (like now)....so yes LA has bid many more times than proud Paris. they are just more crestfallen when they loose......and the French bid just feels like a desperate bid to restore glory after defeat. I don't think LA would feel like it's the end of the world if they loose.

also, at a glance it looks like other US cities have bid 22 times to host and lost, not including LAs bids.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, paul said:

totally not accurate. that dude with the huge nose running the Paris bid has been stomping his feet about "it's 24 or nothing is available" from the begining and continuing. It's really not necessary since we all know Paris HAS to win 24.....it would be crazy to think anything else would happen.

 

LA bid 7 time and won 2 because everybody was afraid to bid (like now)....so yes LA has bid many more times than proud Paris. they are just more crestfallen when they loose......and the French bid just feels like a desperate bid to restore glory after defeat. I don't think LA would feel like it's the end of the world if they loose.

So you didn't want to return to Wasesman's comments? How wonderful (And hypocritical) for your cause :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, paul said:

totally not accurate. that dude with the huge nose running the Paris bid has been stomping his feet about "it's 24 or nothing is available" from the begining and continuing. It's really not necessary since we all know Paris HAS to win 24.....it would be crazy to think anything else would happen.

It is accurate, cuz Wasserman (with the beer gut) has been doing the same damn thing. Saying the L.A. "saving the Olympics" plan "HAS to be activated now". Otherwise, POOF, it's magically gone beyond 2024! Even though L.A. "has bid many time before". :rolleyes:

7 minutes ago, paul said:

LA bid 7 time and won 2 because everybody was afraid to bid (like now)....so yes LA has bid many more times than proud Paris. they are just more crestfallen when they loose......and the French bid just feels like a desperate bid to restore glory after defeat. 

The thing is though, Paris is NOT afraid. They're still in this contest, unlike the other two times L.A. "won". 

10 minutes ago, paul said:

I don't think LA would feel like it's the end of the world if they loose.

Right, if Paris wins 2024, a certain L.A. "journalist" (& other L.A. "groupies") will be throwing a hissy fit & "stomping his feet". Count on it. 

10 minutes ago, paul said:

...i agree it's silly here, and super laid back.......that's different than desperate. HA!

And don't forget stuck up. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roger87 said:

So you didn't want to return to Wasesman's comments? How wonderful (And hypocritical) for your cause :rolleyes:

....honestly dude i don't remember his comments, I think they keep saying they are open to whatever but 24 is the economically viable move for the IOC and LA......and who can argue with that...of course throwing several more years on it makes the budget more questionable......i think the other thing they say is it's in the IOCs best interest to have a NO risk games. And yes.....i know Paris's claim is no risk too.

I think the general vibe has been that Paris is WAAAAAAYYYYY more resistant to discussing or acknowledging 28 cold be an option for them....and I'm not saying they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RuFF said:

I have to agree. Paris is desperate. From having 3 sites in consideration to its 2024 or nothing. 

And even though the Paris cheer camp ladies will talk about how this is not 1984, it's 2017 and LA could absorb an Olympics with minimal risk, and substantially lower risk than Paris. There is absolutely nothing to support Paris will do better than the average 156% cost overrun. That bid is going to explode, and you'd have to be purposely blinding yourself not to see that. 

And then you'll have the Paris paumpaums talking about how LA can't possibly produce a surplus, and somehow everyone is to buy into the concept that Paris will fare better when it starts with heavy disadvantages. Amongst them are lower corporate sponsorship dollars, lower average ticket sales, lower ticket sales. I won't even start with greater infrastructure costs and an athletes village. The pie in the sky stories running in the Paris thread are laughable at best. 

I have to agree. Paris is desperate. From having 3 sites in consideration to its 2024 or nothing. 

Which it's exactly what Wassesman said in another medium, but how lovely they tend to forgot him

it's 2017 and LA could absorb an Olympics with minimal risk, and substantially lower risk than Paris.

Not according with the recent reports from the IOC sources, or some of the cost reports related to both cities made by serious associations. Or we need to return posting these points again...

There is absolutely nothing to support Paris will do better than the average 156% cost overrun. That bid is going to explode, and you'd have to be purposely blinding yourself not to see that. 

You only proposes the village issues or how the projects will be upgrading, but guess what, the majority of the infrastructure and transport proposed has been approved and is currently made. Still, since the beginning, you haven't proposed a key consistent argument for your reclamations, which ended with the IOC even going in favor of Paris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RuFF said:

There is a substantial difference. Rail in Rio for example was from one area that would have little ridership to an area where most people are too affluent to consider riding public transit. The taxpayers say was not considered and the line was poorly conceived.

In Los Angeles Wilshire Blvd is the literal spine of the region, the most dense region with ridership above on Wilshire Blvd extremely strong, allowing the line to compete for federal funds. Unlike Rio, and pretty much any other case in recent history, the Purple Line isn't about screwing the taxpayers. The taxpayers voted, by an over 2/3 vote, to tax themselves for this critical line, and more broadly for a transit network of many Lines to the tune of 120 billion on top of an already existing 40 billion. Taxpayers have had their say and essentially they said this. We will tax ourselves to compete for federal funds to get this done. The urgency exceeds the Olympics, and this is what Los Angeles wants. The reach of Measure M in effect said that Los Angeles not only wants the Purple Line and expediently, but also the regional connector, the Crenshaw Line, a Valley Line, a Sepúlveda Pass line, an extension into the San Gabriel valley, and much much more. And the amount of the self tax said they want as much as possible today. In a very democratic way Los Angeles' people had a voice that emboldens the Mayor to go to the Federal Government and say, we are ready today. 

Compare that to Paris and you have at the helm someone who is on the government dime with close to zero political and or administrative experience. 

Sweet Lord, it's telling how you can be perfectly rational and logical in the first part of the argument (Perhaps your best argument since the beginning of the race, I may add - Congratulations) and then ending with an irrational Abrahamsonian shade with zero ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RuFF said:

And even though the Paris cheer camp ladies will talk about how this is not 1984, it's 2017 and LA could absorb an Olympics with minimal risk, and substantially lower risk than Paris. There is absolutely nothing to support Paris will do better than the average 156% cost overrun. That bid is going to explode, and you'd have to be purposely blinding yourself not to see that.

....I think that might be the fun part to watch..sorry so mean.

3 minutes ago, FYI said:

And don't forget stuck up. :P

I know.....;)but I try to use my powers for good not evil in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I have to agree. Paris is desperate. From having 3 sites in consideration to its 2024 or nothing. 

And even though the Paris cheer camp ladies will talk about how this is not 1984, it's 2017 and LA could absorb an Olympics with minimal risk, and substantially lower risk than Paris. There is absolutely nothing to support Paris will do better than the average 156% cost overrun. That bid is going to explode, and you'd have to be purposely blinding yourself not to see that. 

And then you'll have the Paris paumpaums talking about how LA can't possibly produce a surplus, and somehow everyone is to buy into the concept that Paris will fare better when it starts with heavy disadvantages. Amongst them are lower corporate sponsorship dollars, lower average ticket sales, lower ticket sales. I won't even start with greater infrastructure costs and an athletes village. The pie in the sky stories running in the Paris thread are laughable at best. 

 
I, like everyone else who isn't a RuFF groupie scrolled past that post. "No offense".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

How convenient of you. Yet you remember all of Estanguet's comments. :rolleyes:

....cuz that dude has been repeating them NON-STOP......reading you comments over the weeks it is quit obvious you have a blind passion about one side of this contest but if you are actually trying to say the LA team has been less flexible on this issue it's hard to take anything you say or have said seriously.

We do agree that Paris will win 24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Nice try Roger, but Wasserman hasn't said LA can't accept 2028. He's said that the timing for a cost effective Games is good for 2024 and the Olympic Movement. That's a huge difference from now or never.

Yeah because nothing express right consensus than "this is an small opportunity but the windows can close briefly", "2024 is now  L.A.'s "cost effective" plan will be lost in the wind", yeah right, full concialition message jan. You can have a direct threat without sounding aggresive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Nice try Roger, but Wasserman hasn't said LA can't accept 2028. He's said that the timing for a cost effective Games is good for 2024 and the Olympic Movement. That's a huge difference from now or never.

Yeah because nothing express right consensus than "this is an small opportunity but the windows can close briefly", "2024 is now or  L.A.'s "cost effective" plan will be lost in the wind" You don't need to sound violent to get a direct message.

And let me add, I don't mind Wassesman's comments per se. It's part of the game and it's job of both trying to win. The problem is the double measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, FYI said:

How convenient of you. Yet you remember all of Estanguet's comments. :rolleyes:

...I don't remember his comments at all.......I'm summarizing because I've heard and read it repeatedly for so long it's just the vibe from Paris that it's 24 or else......the city may vanish.....I mean the OV.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, paul said:

reading you comments over the weeks it is quit obvious you have a blind passion about one side of this contest but if you are actually trying to say the LA team has been less flexible on this issue it's hard to take anything you say or have said seriously.

You mean like reading Truff's comments over the past 20 months, where it's quite obvious that s/he has a "blind passion" about one side of this contest, & that's L.A. & only L.A.?

But no, let's not take that into the equation, bcuz then it conveniently doesn't take into consideration the total hypocrisy in your post, & also takes away from the "L.A. is so wonderful & rosey" mantra that you two trip yourselves over.

40 minutes ago, paul said:

....cuz that dude has been repeating them NON-STOP.

He hasn't said it anymore than Wasserman has. But please, tell us more about your double standards.

41 minutes ago, paul said:

We do agree that Paris will win 24.

Tell that to your buddy, Truff, though. Cuz s/he is "worried & desperate" that L.A. might not win afterall.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Nice try Roger, but Wasserman hasn't said LA can't accept 2028. He's said that the timing for a cost effective Games is good for 2024 and the Olympic Movement. That's a huge difference from now or never.

Don't spread lies, Joseph.  Wasserman never said that.  It was hinted that they "wouldn't" accept 2028 as a consolation prize.  Never said can't.  If that's ever been hinted, it's only in response to Paris making a similar claim.  And if that is the official line from Wasserman, apparently Garcetti didn't get the message..

LA mayor opens door slightly to 2028 Games if 2024 is no go

Wasserman and company saying that now, they're all about 2024 and nothing else does NOT imply that's all they'd be willing to accept.  If 2028 was offered to them, they would need some time to re-calculate, but I am extremely confident they'd jump on that with few reservations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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 is it about desperation?  They're in 2 city race where they have the best shot we've ever seen at landing an Olympics.  Of course LA isn't worried because they haven't been this close post-1984 and they weren't supposed to be here in the first place.  Boston was.  Those losses are a long time ago.  Most Angelinos probably don't even realize how long they persisted to get the `84 Olympics or that they won them by default.  The irony here is that it's a somewhat similar situation should they get 2028, only it will have taken 1 serious bid campaign to get it rather than 3.

To be fair to Paris, look at their history.  `92 was rigged against them.  2008 was bad timing.  And 2012 was a contest against a rival city that may or may not have turned on a seemingly innocuous comment by their president.  It took them a while to lick their wounds, but here they are.  A couple of posters here have noted how Parisians don't have it in them to go through this process again if they lose.  I can't entirely blame them.  That's not desperation.  If you want to make this about ego versus LA's "we'll take whatever happens and deal with it" attitude (sounds a lot like NYC 2012), that I understand.  Don't paint a picture of Paris as desperate just because you think they're a bunch of freaking idiots to still want the Olympics.

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...