Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, paul said:

@ FYI 

It seems like you just twist everything to try to create some false narrative that LA has a crap bid? You are piling on every comment or news and non news-bit and stiring it round till it's part of your prefered perspective. No offense but we get it.......YOU think the LA bid is one of the worst ever and a total fantasy. 

I think you are one of the very few who feel that way. 

Are you kidding me with all of this two-face garbage? Aren't you the one that constantly says that "we shouldn't trust" what the bid committees have to say, including L.A.? And now you're saying that L.A. has "great potential" in doing what they say they can do? So which is it, cuz it can't be both.

And what you're FALSELY claming that I'm doing with L.A. is EXACTLY what Truff is doing with Paris, & has been since day one since they got here. But no, you'd much rather make this outrageous claim that somehow I'm saying that L.A. is a "crap bid" (which is complelty false). I've always said they'd be a perfect host for 2028! :lol::P

You don't even want the Olympics in L.A. Even Baron called you out on it that why are you even here if you're "soooooooo negative" about the Olympics. But no, you rather take issue on something that's not even about the Olympics, but rather on what you determine that is a "criticism" on what is the grand utopia of L.A. (according to you two). And that becomes much more obvious when you LICK, excuse me "like", everything Truff has to say & don't call her out on it when your accusation perfectly describes Truff. So "no offense" when I say this, but you're nothing but a total 110% HYPOCRITE. 

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

25 minutes ago, paul said:

Paris will be London at VERY best, and did London stop the wave of European cities deserting the IOC? I think LA has a great potential to do what they say they will do.....it's a fantasy to pretend LA is anything but an amazingly appealing bid. 

The main problem that caused European cities deserting the IOC was Sochi. And that was AFTER London. You know that old saying in marketing, that it takes 100 good reviews to offset one very negative review. 

Plus, all the hyperbole & misinformation (which you also feed into, with your constant negative Rio & Tokyo inserts), that some of the media make about the Olympics when they don't have all the facts &/or simply have an agenda.

As for the last part, the one who's more or less called the L.A. bid a "fantasy" is you, not me. Again, you're the one incessantly on record here, who's cited that the IOC, or any bidding committee associated with those "greedy, corrupt Euro-holes", can't be trusted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paul said:

@ RuFF

It seems like you just twist everything to try to create some false narrative that Paris has a crap bid? You are piling on every comment or news and non news-bit and stiring it round till it's part of your prefered perspective. No offense but we get it.......YOU think the Paris bid is one of the worst ever and a total fantasy. 

I think you are one of the very few who feel that way.

Fixed that for you :D

This is typical Gamesbids where 1 person makes arguments that are so hyperbolic and out of whack that the responses from the other side need to be equally out of whack in order to balance things out.  I'll forgive FYI on that one (cue the troll to squawk at us "Paris groupies" because I'm in the same camp that he is that I think both bids are excellent but that the IOC is likely to choose Paris (or at least give them 2024 and give LA 2028).  Especially when this thread has been filled with all sorts of "hey, look at what Paris is doing" bullshit coming from 1 and only 1 poster.  And you're going to pile on FYI for calling that one out?  I don't disagree that maybe there's a narrative to try and downplay LA's strengths, but that only comes in response to another poster who has his own fantasy view on LA's bid.  It may be amazingly appealing, but it's not without flaws that it's not out of line to call them out.  And at the end of the day, even you think Paris is going to win this.  So you tell us how that's going to work where LA is so appealing and yet they may still not wind up with the 2024 Olympics.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rob. said:

It really depends how they do it. There was an article on ITG last week (I think) saying they could change it so members vote for both 2024 and 2028 at the same time. That way it won't look like a consolation prize, it'll look like a considered vote. And actually, it could throw up some interesting dynamics if they do this e.g. an Italian might've voted for LA2024 maybe to give Rome (yes, I know) a chance but with a double-vote they could vote for Paris 2024 because it'd be in their interest to put the European host earlier.

I think that's how they have to do it.  They need to get both Paris and LA on board with whatever changes they're making to the process rather than awarding 2024 and thinking 2028 will just fall into place.  And I agree that it would help the cause (again, it needs to be agreed on) to have the voting options be Paris 2024/LA 2028 and LA 2024/Paris 2028

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

I think that's how they have to do it.  They need to get both Paris and LA on board with whatever changes they're making to the process rather than awarding 2024 and thinking 2028 will just fall into place.  And I agree that it would help the cause (again, it needs to be agreed on) to have the voting options be Paris 2024/LA 2028 and LA 2024/Paris 2028

couldn't paris refuse/decline to agree to being listed as an option at all for 2028?

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

And I agree that it would help the cause (again, it needs to be agreed on) to have the voting options be Paris 2024/LA 2028 and LA 2024/Paris 2028

That could be a problem with the dyslexic members lol.

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

couldn't paris refuse/decline to agree to being listed as an option at all for 2028?

Sure.. that's why this all needs to be agreed upon beforehand.  But the flip side of that is would IOC members shun Paris and vote LA if they weren't on board with that.  The IOC can't change up the bid process this late in the game unless both cities are okay making that change.  Even then, the cities that dropped out could take issue with that, although somehow I doubt the IOC will care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krow said:

couldn't paris refuse/decline to agree to being listed as an option at all for 2028?

I think both sides would object to being listed as an option for 2028. Up until the moment the other city has been picked for 2028, both cities will say they are only interested in 2024. The IOC can vote ahead of time to change the rules allowing them to offer the 2028 games to the runner up. Neither city could object to that since they both, at least publicly, think they are going to win. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the race for 2028 will not start before 2019, the loser could be given the option to think about it and revise their for the coming two years. IOC members could be asked in Lima to vote on whether to give the loser this option or not.  IOC would then have the power to "freeze" a bid and, after two years, decide whether to go ahead with it or start considering other candidates for 2028. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^That's already been discussed before. Vote on 2024 as it currently stands, then give the runner-up the option of 2028, or if the IOC doesn't receive any other *credible* bids for 2028, then automatically offer the 2024 runner-up the 2028 Games, if they still want them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, zekekelso said:

I think both sides would object to being listed as an option for 2028. Up until the moment the other city has been picked for 2028, both cities will say they are only interested in 2024. The IOC can vote ahead of time to change the rules allowing them to offer the 2028 games to the runner up. Neither city could object to that since they both, at least publicly, think they are going to win. 

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

^That's already been discussed before. Vote on 2024 as it currently stands, then give the runner-up the option of 2028, or if the IOC doesn't receive any other *credible* bids for 2028, then automatically offer the 2024 runner-up the 2028 Games, if they still want them.

Here's the potential pitfall with that though..

If 2028 is something being offered to the runner up, then it's going to be viewed as a consolation prize.  And that "offer" is something that city may choose to reject.  More than that, if the IOC is offering something, what's to prevent that runner up from saying "we'll accept your offer, but we have a few conditions before we say yes."  And if that potential 2028 host waits a couple of years and the IOC doesn't have any other credible bids (if you think about it, who would want to go up against Paris or LA in that situation), now that city really has leverage on the IOC.

So that's the bind the IOC is in.  I know I said earlier that it would probably play out this way, but that the IOC is giving more weight to this, maybe the strategy needs to be to lock in both 2024 and 2028 rather than for 2028 to be more of a "hey, sorry you didn't get 2024.. would you like 2028 instead?"  If the whole idea is to make 2028 a done deal sooner rather than later, then letting that linger could be more of a problem rather than a solution.  I know it's easy for us to say that city like LA would just lick their wounds, re-calculate their plans and say they're on board for 2028.  Easier said than done though.

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

Here's the potential pitfall with that though..

If 2028 is something being offered to the runner up, then it's going to be viewed as a consolation prize.  And that "offer" is something that city may choose to reject.  More than that, if the IOC is offering something, what's to prevent that runner up from saying "we'll accept your offer, but we have a few conditions before we say yes."  And if that potential 2028 host waits a couple of years and the IOC doesn't have any other credible bids (if you think about it, who would want to go up against Paris or LA in that situation), now that city really has leverage on the IOC.

 

But they can lock things up in a Host City Contract signed ASAP.

Quote

So that's the bind the IOC is in.  I know I said earlier that it would probably play out this way, but that the IOC is giving more weight to this, maybe the strategy needs to be to lock in both 2024 and 2028 rather than for 2028 to be more of a "hey, sorry you didn't get 2024.. would you like 2028 instead?"  If the whole idea is to make 2028 a done deal sooner rather than later, then letting that linger could be more of a problem rather than a solution.  I know it's easy for us to say that city like LA would just lick their wounds, re-calculate their plans and say they're on board for 2028.  Easier said than done though.

LA, sharpen your front teeth.  The other option is for the IOC to offer a juicier carrot to the 2028 runner-up; say, they get to keep 40% of TV revenues or an outright $750 million more subsidy from the IOC, over what the 2024 city will be gifted.  I think for LA alone, that should salve a bit of wounded pride.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

But they can lock things up in a Host City Contract signed ASAP.

LA, sharpen your front teeth.  The other option is for the IOC to offer a juicier carrot to the 2028 runner-up; say, they get to keep 40% of TV revenues or an outright $750 million more subsidy from the IOC, over what the 2024 city will be gifted.  I think for LA alone, that should salve a bit of wounded pride.  

That's what they may need to do.  You can't ask Paris or LA to sign a host city contract for 2028 until they've had time to reconfigure their bid for 2028 or at least have been given an opportunity to explore it.  I know that's something neither city will do before September, but again, that's the dilemma the IOC and the cities have that needs to be worked on beforehand, not after the fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

LA got so much rain this year, that the SuperBowl will be moved from 2021 to 2022.

Well at least it is out of the drought.

I went to the Sierras three freaking years hoping for rain for amphibians and got drought again and again. So naturally when I chose to go to Alaska and New Mexico this past year SoCal finally gets some water. And to add insult to injury I got stuck working to help out the crew of the stupidest reality TV show in the world.

Oh well. At least I saw about 200 bears.

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 3:06 PM, paul said:

I think the IOC is the problem party, not Los Angeles or Paris. But Paris certainly plays into the old IOC hosting narrative more traditionally than LA.

The problem is not the IOC. It is the sporting federations and national Olympic committees, and I think this is where LA boosters are being naive.

Awarding the Olympics is the only time that the head of the International Canoe Federation or the head of the Senegal Olympic Committee have any real power. And they use that power to advance their interests and the interests of their sport or national OC. This is not a good thing, but it is the way every organization in the world operates. Our domestic leagues (the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc) do even worse stuff to our cities to get the stadiums and arenas they want.

But I suppose this is simply an ought vs is problem. LA boosters see the Olympic Games as they ought to be, while LA skeptics see the games as they currently are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Nacre said:

I went to the Sierras three freaking years hoping for rain for amphibians and got drought again and again. So naturally when I chose to go to Alaska and New Mexico this past year SoCal finally gets some water. And to add insult to injury I got stuck working to help out the crew of the stupidest reality TV show in the world.

 

There are reality shows stupider than Oak Island ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nacre said:

The problem is not the IOC. It is the sporting federations and national Olympic committees, and I think this is where LA boosters are being naive.

Awarding the Olympics is the only time that the head of the International Canoe Federation or the head of the Senegal Olympic Committee have any real power. And they use that power to advance their interests and the interests of their sport or national OC. This is not a good thing, but it is the way every organization in the world operates. Our domestic leagues (the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc) do even worse stuff to our cities to get the stadiums and arenas they want.

But I suppose this is simply an ought vs is problem. LA boosters see the Olympic Games as they ought to be, while LA skeptics see the games as they currently are.

If the sporting federations and the NOCs think they have power, guess who their enablers are?  The IOC.  Therefore, the IOC very much is the problem that they let that happen.  If they were actually being sincere in their Agenda 2020 goals where they are trying to do right by the host cities and helping them out, then they wouldn't be allowing those other entities to have that kind of power and make the types of demands they could use as leverage when the vote for the host cities is going on.

Think of it this way.. in order to solve the problem, what needs to happen?  Are you expecting the sport federations and NOCs to change how they operate?  Or is it on the IOC to lay down the law?  I would think it's the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

If the sporting federations and the NOCs think they have power, guess who their enablers are?  The IOC. 

Well, what is the IOC going to do? Throw cycling out of the Olympics for demanding a velodrome in Tokyo proper instead of Izu? Kick countries out of the Olympics if their national committees demand a "real" Olympic Village instead of campus housing?

The only feasible way of reigning in the federations and national committees is to award the Olympics without a vote; and that's precisely what the IOC wants to do for 2028.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nacre said:

Well, what is the IOC going to do? Throw cycling out of the Olympics for demanding a velodrome in Tokyo proper instead of Izu? Kick countries out of the Olympics if their national committees demand a "real" Olympic Village instead of campus housing?

The only feasible way of reigning in the federations and national committees is to award the Olympics without a vote; and that's precisely what the IOC wants to do for 2028.

That's not power, though.  That's the illusion of power.  Let me throw the opposite question at you.. what would the sport federations and NOCs do if the IOC actually made an effort to reign them in?  Is Senegal not going to send a team?  Does the UCI (cycling's governing body) have any recourse if the IOC tells host cities to be more responsible in what they're offering?

Obviously this is a political game, but the problem is that certain cities are making irresponsible decisions in what they're offering in an attempt to earn votes.  And the IOC is letting that happen when what they should be doing is acting as the proper intermediary between the sport federations and the cities.  To that end, yes there are often unreasonable demands being made, but you almost can't expect the federations to temper their expectations for the good of the Olympic movement or the bid cities.  But again, blame the IOC for not managing those expectations and instead making the problem worse by adding their own list of demands on top of everything else and asking the cities to play by their rules.

I don't know what the solution to all that is other than the IOC looking in the mirror and realizing the reprecussions of the decisions they've made.  Of course, that's unlikely to happen because they think they're in a wonderful place with 2 bid cities that they can hopefully lock in.  Not having a vote is not something the IOC would do all that willingly if the circumstances were different.  And depending on how this all goes down, it'll be an interesting give-and-take if indeed the 2024 runner up is looked at for 2028.  Let's see if that city is smart enough to realize they have leverage and use it to their advantage.

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

Does the UCI (cycling's governing body) have any recourse if the IOC tells host cities to be more responsible in what they're offering?

Yes. As we have seen with Atlanta before and Rio now, the federations can attack host cities and countries who fail to deliver on "suitable" facilities and services with negative publicity and a less cooperation on future projects. Such as stripping the Tour of California of UCI sanction.

I agree that Senegal in particular couldn't do much to hurt the IOC. But Russia has a smaller economy than New York city and look at how weak the IOC's response has been to a state run doping program in Russia.

The IOC does not really exist as an independent body. Even its president is inseparably tied to Germany and the sport of fencing. I don't think the IOC has much independent power because the IOC's voters and the athletes, NOC officials and federation heads are in fact the same people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC has 100% of the power over the federations. They could easily tell the federations the get whatever venue they get and if they don't like it they can go fkuk themselves. But they will never do that because it's all one big incestuous family. The federations get this super gold plated venue and the IOC gets to blame the federations. Ridiculous. 

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

Yes. As we have seen with Atlanta before and Rio now, the federations can attack host cities and countries who fail to deliver on "suitable" facilities and services with negative publicity and a less cooperation on future projects. Such as stripping the Tour of California of UCI sanction.

I agree that Senegal in particular couldn't do much to hurt the IOC. But Russia has a smaller economy than New York city and look at how weak the IOC's response has been to a state run doping program in Russia.

The IOC does not really exist as an independent body. Even its president is inseparably tied to Germany and the sport of fencing. I don't think the IOC has much independent power because the IOC's voters and the athletes, NOC officials and federation heads are in fact the same people.

Couldn't we say the same thing about the United Nations?  It's still true, but that misses the point with the IOC.  There's usually a lot of negative press surrounding Olympic hosts that "attacks" by the federations are probably the least of a city's concerns.

I'm with zeke here.. the IOC has plenty of power.  They could lay down the hammer if wanted to.  They CHOOSE not to wield that power because if they're asking the federations to scale back, how can they justify all the perks they ask for.  Everyone involved will continue to make those requests so long as they have cities willing to offer it (of which they now have 2).  No question it's a long term problem that the IOC could pay down the line (moreso than they are already).

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...