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

6 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Just got into LA from Paris.

Saw these on the trains.

Not as cool as flags on the buses, but still nice to see that the LA transit system is on board (no pun intended) with the bid.


zJiJtk8.jpg 

Yep, it's a great gesture.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question for Quaker...

Not to go off-topic, but I've been seeing more and more spots for the Olympic Channel, premiering in July.  Of course, it's replacing Universal Sports HD.

Is this something you've looked into?  How does one get their foot in the door?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are better links:

David Wallechinsky, president of the International Society of Olympic Historians, tells NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro that the Rio Olympics wasted money and were plagued by corruption.

After Rio Olympics, Gutted Venues, Broken Promises

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/28/530447128/after-rio-olympics-gutted-venues-broken-promises

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RuFF said:

The headline is "An agreement taking shape would put the Summer Games in Paris in 2024, with Los Angeles to follow in 2028"  Far from a done deal, just something that's being considered right now.  Sounds like they are indeed trying to offer LA incentives to get them to accept this, so it could be a scenario where LA has some leverage to make demands in order for them to go along with this plan and cede 2024 to Paris.

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

The headline is "An agreement taking shape would put the Summer Games in Paris in 2024, with Los Angeles to follow in 2028"  Far from a done deal, just something that's being considered right now.  Sounds like they are indeed trying to offer LA incentives to get them to accept this, so it could be a scenario where LA has some leverage to make demands in order for them to go along with this plan and cede 2024 to Paris.

It does sound like LA will take 28' with some serious incentives. What I wouldn't do to be a fly on the wall of those negotiations.

Paris' "weakness" of needing a village and relying on public funds doubled as a strength this time because it's only standing competitor did not and was privately funded.

While I was hopeful for a 24 games in LA, can't say I didn't see this coming.

Donny winning in November only cemented the fate of the 24' games.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really all about the other dynamics that we've discussing here for the past two years. While the village is certainly an element of consideration for Paris, & while Trump winning doesn't necessarily help L.A.'s cause, but to imply that this was coming simply bcuz of those two factors alone is simply looking at it short-sighted & not looking at the entire picture.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm missing this, but what incentives the IOC can provide the LA2024 committee? Reduce the demands on the LAOC for hotels and similar? They were ready to accept and run the games based on the current requirements, so I'm not understanding what benefit they can get from saying "we'll sit out for an extra 4 years". 

I'm sure the Trump election and his policies are driving some of this discussion but I think it's just Paris using the olympic housing availability as their "bluff" (not in that it's not really an availability issue but more that there is no other option available for 2028 if they lose) and the IOC has decided to not call them on it and also try to prevent having a 2028 race with no real bids. 

Lastly, I'm not buying the whole "it would help the movement to have the games back in Europe again". Look at the recent fames and continent impacted in the 40 years before 2024, and also how many Winter games hosted since they would also help keep "the movement" fresh in the public's mind:

Europe - Barcelona ('92), Athens ('04), London ('12) - (5 Winter games in this time, I gave them Sochi which could also be argued as Asia)

NA - LA ('84), Atlanta ('96) - (3 Winter games)

SA - Rio ('16) - (Nope)

Asia/Oceania - Seoul ('88), Australia ('00), Beijing ('08), Tokyo ('20) - (3 Winter games)

If the IOC considers a 12+ year gap as an issue for Europe, then a 28 year gap in North America is ridiculous. I know that there are reasons for why the US hasn't had a winning bid since Atlanta (the revenue sharing problems, international backlash to the Iraq war, general sense that the US has had enough olympics, etc.), but if the entire Olympic Agenda 2020 movement is about holding realistic games that will not bankrupt cities or leave them with venues that are left to rot afterwards, then LA should be seen as a stronger candidate.

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

It does sound like LA will take 28' with some serious incentives. What I wouldn't do to be a fly on the wall of those negotiations.

Paris' "weakness" of needing a village and relying on public funds doubled as a strength this time because it's only standing competitor did not and was privately funded.

While I was hopeful for a 24 games in LA, can't say I didn't see this coming.

Donny winning in November only cemented the fate of the 24' games.

The political winds (and for better or worse, that's what decides these things more than anything) have been blowing in Paris's direction for a long time now.  So yea, them getting 2024 has been somewhat predictable, regardless of the village plans or election results.  The latter especially just confirmed what was already likely in the first place.  And way too much has been made of the village and its effect on the outcome here.  In a different time and place, it would come into place.  With these 2 cities and the way the IOC is facing the world these days, it's neither here nor there, IMO.  If we're talking about a "weakness," it's LA and their flexibility to accept 2028 whereas Paris was holding firm.  Nothing about that is really that surprising, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, josejose50 said:

I guess I'm missing this, but what incentives the IOC can provide the LA2024 committee? Reduce the demands on the LAOC for hotels and similar? They were ready to accept and run the games based on the current requirements, so I'm not understanding what benefit they can get from saying "we'll sit out for an extra 4 years". 

I'm sure the Trump election and his policies are driving some of this discussion but I think it's just Paris using the olympic housing availability as their "bluff" (not in that it's not really an availability issue but more that there is no other option available for 2028 if they lose) and the IOC has decided to not call them on it and also try to prevent having a 2028 race with no real bids. 

Lastly, I'm not buying the whole "it would help the movement to have the games back in Europe again". Look at the recent fames and continent impacted in the 40 years before 2024, and also how many Winter games hosted since they would also help keep "the movement" fresh in the public's mind:

Europe - Barcelona ('92), Athens ('04), London ('12) - (5 Winter games in this time, I gave them Sochi which could also be argued as Asia)

NA - LA ('84), Atlanta ('96) - (3 Winter games)

SA - Rio ('16) - (Nope)

Asia/Oceania - Seoul ('88), Australia ('00), Beijing ('08), Tokyo ('20) - (3 Winter games)

If the IOC considers a 12+ year gap as an issue for Europe, then a 28 year gap in North America is ridiculous. I know that there are reasons for why the US hasn't had a winning bid since Atlanta (the revenue sharing problems, international backlash to the Iraq war, general sense that the US has had enough olympics, etc.), but if the entire Olympic Agenda 2020 movement is about holding realistic games that will not bankrupt cities or leave them with venues that are left to rot afterwards, then LA should be seen as a stronger candidate.

Again, long before all this discussion of the village became a hot button topic here, the question was raised about the respective cities' willingness to make another run if they had lost.  It was always going to be the case that Paris likely wouldn't return for 2028.  The village just made for a convenient excuse to push that narrative.

As for the Europe issue, don't look at recent hosts.  Look at even more recent bids, or rather the lack thereof.  Where you have all the cities in Europe who have basically told the IOC to piss off, what would the message be if the IOC told Paris they're not interested and instead gave it to the United States for the 3rd time and to LA for the 2nd time in 40 years.  Continental rotation doesn't dictate that a 28 year gap in North America is ridiculous, especially when there are only 3 countries on the continent capable of hosting.  And if you extend your list 16 years earlier, now you're adding as many North American cities are you are European cities.  Suddenly the disparity doesn't look as big.

More than that, we are now 3 years removed from the most recent European Olympics (and Sochi is not in traditional Europe).  The IOC desperately needs to get back there, less they send the message to other cities/countries there that Europe can't handle an Olympics anymore.  LA and the United States will be back.  They can wait more easily than Paris can.  It's not about the gap back to the last Olympics there.  It's about restoring confidence in the Olympic movement on the continent.

LA is an extremely strong candidate.  No one would deny that.  But the intangibles of this one are where Paris has the edge and where if there is a double award, it makes more sense IMO to go Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, long before all this discussion of the village became a hot button topic here, the question was raised about the respective cities' willingness to make another run if they had lost.  It was always going to be the case that Paris likely wouldn't return for 2028.  The village just made for a convenient excuse to push that narrative.

As for the Europe issue, don't look at recent hosts.  Look at even more recent bids, or rather the lack thereof.  Where you have all the cities in Europe who have basically told the IOC to piss off, what would the message be if the IOC told Paris they're not interested and instead gave it to the United States for the 3rd time and to LA for the 2nd time in 40 years.  Continental rotation doesn't dictate that a 28 year gap in North America is ridiculous, especially when there are only 3 countries on the continent capable of hosting.  And if you extend your list 16 years earlier, now you're adding as many North American cities are you are European cities.  Suddenly the disparity doesn't look as big.

More than that, we are now 3 years removed from the most recent European Olympics (and Sochi is not in traditional Europe).  The IOC desperately needs to get back there, less they send the message to other cities/countries there that Europe can't handle an Olympics anymore.  LA and the United States will be back.  They can wait more easily than Paris can.  It's not about the gap back to the last Olympics there.  It's about restoring confidence in the Olympic movement on the continent.

LA is an extremely strong candidate.  No one would deny that.  But the intangibles of this one are where Paris has the edge and where if there is a double award, it makes more sense IMO to go Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028.

With regards to extending the time frame by 16 years, I was thinking of that but thought that would enter into a lot of the East/West politics that could muddle the logic, but your point is fair.

I don't think the Europe issue is that the IOC is afraid they are telling the cities they are not capable of hosting, but that most of the candidate cities are saying they don't want to to host it (losing referendums, etc.).  Madrid and Paris had good bids early in the 2000's and they were not picked by the IOC (in one case for another European city), so they have themselves to blame as much for this issue. 

Let's say the IOC's deal works out and Paris hosts 2024, what happens if there are cost overruns or organizational issues leading up to the games? Will the IOC be willing to accept egg on their face if their "Agenda 2020" model changes nothing?  I'm not wishing ill on the Paris bid, and I would be there for the games in 2024 in a heartbeat, but as an American I'm a little frustrated that their bid may win because it's inherently "weaker" than what LA put together.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Madrid & Paris didn't bid for the Olympics in the early 2000's. 

And Paris' 2024 bid is not inherently "weaker" than L.A.'s. The IOC evaluation committee head has cited that both bids can't be rated anything below a "10". And I wouldn't equate L.A. getting 2028 on a silver platter as losing, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FYI said:

Madrid & Paris didn't bid for the Olympics in the early 2000's. 

And Paris' 2024 bid is not inherently "weaker" than L.A.'s. The IOC evaluation committee head has cited that both bids can't be rated anything below a "10". And I wouldn't equate L.A. getting 2028 on a silver platter as losing, either.

Sorry meant that as their bids were ongoing in the early 2000's to show they bid for 2012 and 2016. 

Don't misconstrue my use of "weaker" as saying its a bad bid, theres a reason the word is in quotation marks. My comment saying inherently "weaker" is based on the idea that when the IOC asked "can you do 2028?" Paris is saying "No, the land for the village is only available for 2024", while LA is saying (at least from what I can find on the web) that they are able to handle going to 2028. Both bids are a "10", but one bid says they can be flexible, while one is saying they are not setup to do so. To me, I read that as one bid is not as robust as the other, even if its not on a critical point, hence one is "weaker".  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, josejose50 said:

With regards to extending the time frame by 16 years, I was thinking of that but thought that would enter into a lot of the East/West politics that could muddle the logic, but your point is fair.

I don't think the Europe issue is that the IOC is afraid they are telling the cities they are not capable of hosting, but that most of the candidate cities are saying they don't want to to host it (losing referendums, etc.).  Madrid and Paris had good bids early in the 2000's and they were not picked by the IOC (in one case for another European city), so they have themselves to blame as much for this issue.

We've seen plenty of times where the "best" bid (based on the technical scores) didn't win because there were other political motivations.  Rio is the perfect example of that.  Paris may or may not have lost 2012 because of an otherwise innocuous comment by the French president.  That's how the game is played.  Madrid's first bid came only 20 years following Barcelona and had to contend with 2 other strong European cities (3 if you want to count Moscow).  Their 2016 bid therefore was ill-timed.  And 2020 was hurt by the Spanish economy.  Paris' history is well noted, starting with the `92 loss to Barcelona in a completely rigged election.

The issue here is that the IOC has seen a massive decline in quality of their bids from Europe.  That's not really true of any other continent.  The IOC has about as strong a European bid as they might see for a while.  So if they say no to them now, it could be a missed opportunity.  I know that shouldn't be the criteria to choose a bid, but to swing the argument to "well, North America hasn't hosted in 28 years" loses some steam when it's the United States and Los Angeles that are bidding.

19 minutes ago, josejose50 said:

Let's say the IOC's deal works out and Paris hosts 2024, what happens if there are cost overruns or organizational issues leading up to the games? Will the IOC be willing to accept egg on their face if their "Agenda 2020" model changes nothing?  I'm not wishing ill on the Paris bid, and I would be there for the games in 2024 in a heartbeat, but as an American I'm a little frustrated that their bid may win because it's inherently "weaker" than what LA put together.

It's not going to win because it's weaker.  It's likely to win because it's the political move that the IOC - a highly political organization - should make for their long-term interests.  And here's the alternative to your scenario.  What if there aren't cost overruns or organizational lssues?  What if everything runs smoothly?  Wouldn't that be a great message to other cities and countries who might show interest in the Olympics?  I think the IOC needs to take that risk.  And besides, who is to say there wouldn't be issue with LA's organization of the games?  We all know their history and what they did before.  It's far from a guarantee they could do that again, just like it's not Paris is some major risk simply because they're government funded.  If Paris can't pull off a successful Olympics, then the IOC is doomed anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, josejose50 said:

Sorry meant that as their bids were ongoing in the early 2000's to show they bid for 2012 and 2016. 

Don't misconstrue my use of "weaker" as saying its a bad bid, theres a reason the word is in quotation marks. My comment saying inherently "weaker" is based on the idea that when the IOC asked "can you do 2028?" Paris is saying "No, the land for the village is only available for 2024", while LA is saying (at least from what I can find on the web) that they are able to handle going to 2028. Both bids are a "10", but one bid says they can be flexible, while one is saying they are not setup to do so. To me, I read that as one bid is not as robust as the other, even if its not on a critical point, hence one is "weaker". 

You're making a similar point as Jesse in that you're trying to create a definition of weakness.  When this whole thing started, I could have told you that Paris was all about 2024 and nothing else whereas LA would be more willing to come back and try again for 2028.  So this all is nothing new.  The IOC has wound up in this position where a double award seems like a smart decision, but Paris 2024 was the more likely outcome from the start, IMO.  LA's flexibility doesn't necessarily make then "stronger" in comparison to Paris being "weaker."  That they push that aspect as a part of their bid definitely creates a number of selling points for their bid.  But at the same time, in the context of who does the IOC want to choose for 2024, then yes it maybe hurts them a bit because it gives the IOC an excuse to say they'll offer them 2028 instead.  And makes their decision easier where if they're determining an order for these 2 cities to host, Paris 2024/LA 2028 makes more sense than LA 2024/Paris 2028.  Either way, a case could have been made for that 2 years ago, long before 3 cities dropped out of the running and a double award was being considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, josejose50 said:

Both bids are a "10", but one bid says they can be flexible, while one is saying they are not setup to do so. To me, I read that as one bid is not as robust as the other, even if its not on a critical point, hence one is "weaker".  

Well, that's only a matter of opinion, though, & not really about the quality of the bids.

How many times have we heard that L.A. "could host the Games tomorrow", & it's a luxury that not very many cities could boast about. But yet Paris comes in at a good close second in that regard, & then when you factor in that it's a European city that can still offer all that, then Paris becomes an outstanding candidate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FYI said:

It's really all about the other dynamics that we've discussing here for the past two years. While the village is certainly an element of consideration for Paris, & while Trump winning doesn't necessarily help L.A.'s cause, but to imply that this was coming simply bcuz of those two factors alone is simply looking at it short-sighted & not looking at the entire picture.

Yep, there were points in consideration before - Geopolitics, French debt for SOG, Sochi-gate, the new voting structure inside the IOC, the costs and adaptations of venues... Paris had always the edge (Especially after the mastermind Mike Lee came to work with them). Trump's alienation against other countries and Macron being chosen as President of France only add more weight of the Parisian defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Past our discussions yesterday when the story broke, my original question is still out there "What incentives can the IOC offer LA to accept 2028?" 

I guess I'm not understanding all the requirements from the IOC to LAOCOG and vice versa. Is there somewhere that lists them? I remember from 2012 that there was a big deal about the requirements from the IOC to LOCOG for setting up accommodations and parties/hospitality suites, but I can't find those references now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, josejose50 said:

Past our discussions yesterday when the story broke, my original question is still out there "What incentives can the IOC offer LA to accept 2028?" 

I guess I'm not understanding all the requirements from the IOC to LAOCOG and vice versa. Is there somewhere that lists them? I remember from 2012 that there was a big deal about the requirements from the IOC to LOCOG for setting up accommodations and parties/hospitality suites, but I can't find those references now.

 2028 will get $300 million more than what the IOC will give to 2024.   IOC would also contribute unspecified amounts to sports in LA. Bare minimum I’m guessing as LA is now in a good position to negotiate with the IOC if Paris doesn’t suddenly decide to budge from 2024. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2017/05/31/paris-devrait-accueillir-les-jo-en-2024-et-los-angeles-en-2028_a_22118951/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roger87 said:

Oh the full irony for Abrahamson

He was too busy writing his latest diatribe on the sport of track and field to make note of this.  That article actually got a number of comments, most of which telling Alan he's a schmuck, although my personal favorite..

Darth Nogus says:

u r sucha dork

2 hours ago, jtrevino said:

 2028 will get $300 million more than what the IOC will give to 2024.   IOC would also contribute unspecified amounts to sports in LA. Bare minimum I’m guessing as LA is now in a good position to negotiate with the IOC if Paris doesn’t suddenly decide to budge from 2024. 

As much as LA has been all about 2024, they need to look at the big picture for them.  What's better for the city and their Olympics in the long term?  Is it hosting in 2024 as planned?  Or is it hosting in 2028, which certainly involves some recalculations, but comes with a bonus of "hey, here's a few hundred million dollars for your troubles" from the IOC.  That's a potentially wonderful deal there and one that IMO works a lot better offering it to LA than to Paris.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LMFAO, what a great shade after Abrahamson's lies :D

BTW, reading some press articles and tweets, no everything is great in La La Land after all (As opposed of rose vision glasses), considering some angelinos are having strong criticism against Garcetti and his administration (And not only classical trump-fans but also from liberals). It looks like a cosmic karma.

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...