Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, paul said:

sorry, often you (and the paris guy) don't sound very "constructive" but more furious about anything positive regarding LA. I just chime in now and then when you seem to be bashing LA or ruff because I don't think I'm wrong. I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion I'm just giving one too.

.....and I do live here soooooo, ya know, maybe I know LA a little.

Welcome to Gamesbids.  I blame that on the site as much as the posters.  It's nothing new how fiercely some people defend their cities and how personally they seem to take it when anything negative is uttered.  To Rols' point, it's why I'm glad I wasn't a part of the discussions here when New York was bidding.  I'll gladly play the part of the arrogant New Yorker and defend my hometown as being the greatest city in the world.  But in the context of bidding for the Olympics?  I know how flawed their plan was and how easily it could be discredited, especially when Doctoroff made the presentations in Singapore and I wasn't impressed.  And therein lies the problem.. saying a city is flawed or that they may be less than the idea Olympic city is not an insult.  Yet some people take it that way as if the implication is that the person is saying the city sucks.  No question that happens some here and we all do it, but I think we know who is to blame for it, if we're going to talk about being furious and emotional moreso than constructive.

  • Like 1
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

i like LA better than Paris if that's what you mean.......for many reason...one being i like a beach in my backyard. B)

however; I am not an LA24/28/32/ever "Summer Olympics" booster, i think it's better to watch from afar.....it's too much of a mess and nobody can really afford to make it amazing anymore. and it's so obviously just an IOC rip off. I'm less opposed to a Winter Olympics in the US but the summer version is way too tedious.

Edited by paul
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, paul said:

i like LA better than Paris if that's what you mean.......for many reason...one being i like a beach in my backyard. B)

however; I am not an LA24/28/32/ever "Summer Olympics" booster, i think it's better to watch from afar.....it's too much of a mess and nobody can really afford to make it amazing anymore. and it's so obviously just an IOC rip off. I'm less opposed to a Winter Olympics in the US but the summer version is to tedious.

Same.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JesseSaenz said:

Same.

While rooting for LA, I am also rather enjoying the the convos and the scenarios play out from afar. Seeing people drool over both cities and say some interesting and sometimes ridiculous things, all over something that none of us here have a vote on. Lol. It's like fantasy football almost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like a concession, walks like a concession, & quacks like a concession. What exactly are the IOC voting on on Friday, the details of a double award or just the principle of one? Could the 24 & 28 games be signed & sealed by the end of this week?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yoshi said:

Well it looks like a concession, walks like a concession, & quacks like a concession. What exactly are the IOC voting on on Friday, the details of a double award or just the principle of one? Could the 24 & 28 games be signed & sealed by the end of this week?

Technically, they're just discussing a Working Group report on 2024 and 2028. Presumably though, if the LA and Paris bid teams have already been consulted, and the Working Group recommends a double award with their agreement, then it'll just leave contract details to be finalised.

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

Well it looks like a concession, walks like a concession, & quacks like a concession. What exactly are the IOC voting on on Friday, the details of a double award or just the principle of one? Could the 24 & 28 games be signed & sealed by the end of this week?

But it’s none of those things. His words basically say “We’re open to 2028, but we’re after 2024”, which is just reiterating the position they’ve kept anyway.  

This illustrates the minefield the city steps into when they show any inkling they would be open to 2028, because then the news headline becomes “LA Gives Up 2024” which cannot help their case in any way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a concession because that would imply they've been defeated somehow. That's really not the case because this looks like it's going to be win-win-win for Paris, LA and the IOC.

What it is is a strong indication of what's being discussed and agreed upon behind the scenes. And it's what everyone's been expecting for a while.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what exactly will happen in September then? It seems like it has been decided.

LA has not conceded, but is also not giving ultimatums. Paris' "now or never" ultimatum seems to have worked....and LA, while surely disappointed, will (apparently) walk away with more money and guaranteed the 28 games.

Color me confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lima session will probably continue (Unless an ultimate cancellation) for the final presentations but this can probably came with a final announcement as an agreement. As Rob said, for PR purposes, this must look as win-win-win for everyone.

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

LA has not conceded, but is also not giving ultimatums. Paris' "now or never" ultimatum seems to have worked.

:rolleyes:

It's obviously what the IOC wants, cuz "ultimatums" don't ever "work" with them.

2 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

Color me confused.

No problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://aroundtherings.com/site/A__60392/Title__An-Opportunity-to-Serve-(LA-2024-Press-Release)/292/Articles

Was Alan brought in to write this piece of mumbo-jumbo. But my favorite (so hypocrital) part was: 

"To be blunt, LA 2024 has never been only about LA or 2024. Even when the issue of a dual award for the 2024 and 2028 Games was initially raised, we didn’t say it’s “LA first” or it’s “now or never” for LA: that sounds like an ultimatum. We could have used that strategy, but we didn't because we thought it was presumptuous to tell the IOC what to do and how to think. We’re better partners than that. It has always been our contention that LA 2024 had to make as much sense for the Olympic Movement as it did for the people of LA. And we’ve stuck to that premise."

You guys weren't being presumptuous to tell the IOC what to do or how to think?!

Cuz saying things like "if the IOC is serious about 'their own' Agenda 2020, they 'must' pick L.A. ('first') for 2024 (& 'not' 2028) to 'stabilize' the Olympic world", or calling Paris 2024 "more of the same", or saying that L.A. 2024 "must be 'activated now' & isn't timeless" etc, etc. sounds exactly what you claim that you never did or said.

And having to say that you're "better 'partners' than that" actually has quite the opposite effect of the message that you're trying to give with that underhanded remark against your rival.

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

http://aroundtherings.com/site/A__60392/Title__An-Opportunity-to-Serve-(LA-2024-Press-Release)/292/Articles

Was Alan brought in to write this piece of mumbo-jumbo. But my favorite (so hypocrital) part was: 

"To be blunt, LA 2024 has never been only about LA or 2024. Even when the issue of a dual award for the 2024 and 2028 Games was initially raised, we didn’t say it’s “LA first” or it’s “now or never” for LA: that sounds like an ultimatum. We could have used that strategy, but we didn't because we thought it was presumptuous to tell the IOC what to do and how to think. We’re better partners than that. It has always been our contention that LA 2024 had to make as much sense for the Olympic Movement as it did for the people of LA. And we’ve stuck to that premise."

You guys weren't being presumptuous to tell the IOC what to do or how to think?!

Cuz saying things like "if the IOC is serious about 'their own' Agenda 2020, they 'must' pick L.A. ('first') for 2024 (& 'not' 2028) to 'stabilize' the Olympic world", or calling Paris 2024 "more of the same", or saying that L.A. 2024 "must be 'activated now' & isn't timeless" etc, etc. sounds exactly what you claim that you never did or said.

And having to say that you're "better 'partners' than that" actually has quite the opposite effect of the message that you're trying to give with that underhanded remark against your rival.

This is full Abrahamson's style (Otherwise it wouldn't have been enough), but anyway, his propaganda machine is losing stamina and perhaps he knows his credibility and propaganda is lost, so this is his last straw. Poor thing indeed.

The full irony is trying to call Butler as Paris stan, when he called Abrahamson as he was. This is a good laugh. Even if somehow Butler has a certain doses of Paris preference: a. Doesn't dismiss his point of criticism, b. He wasn't the only one of the press calling that (Even the British press like The Guardian mentioned that in a full op ed) and c. At the end, his allegedly stanning is becoming true at 100%, considering he has better connections with the IOC.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 Imagine how many other candidates might have thrown their hats into the rings if it had been clear from the start that the I.O.C. was going to award 2024 and 2028 simultaneously? -NYT

Or imagine if they still got the declining crop of bids and were forced to award both a bad bid and and an even worse bid.  If they double award this year, they could write this one as a one-off, or make this the model going forward but it may not really solve the problem of future bids. At the same time, they can't constantly make exceptions based on the field of bids. No city wants to be told they weren't good enough to open up a second award. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jtrevino said:

Or imagine if they still got the declining crop of bids and were forced to award both a bad bid and and an even worse bid.  If they double award this year, they could write this one as a one-off, or make this the model going forward but it may not really solve the problem of future bids. At the same time, they can't constantly make exceptions based on the field of bids. No city wants to be told they weren't good enough to open up a second award. 

A Jilted Paris Has Pined for the Olympics, but the Long Wait May End in 2024

Well, the thing about that.. 5 cities announced their intentions for 2024.  3 of them dropped out.  So even if additional cities were interested, how many of them would have stayed in the running?  And that's to say nothing of Boston, which should probably also count as a drop out.

This is definitely a one off, but it gives the IOC some time for a little introspection and a chance to assess their long time goals.  Instead of starting this process again 2 years from new to look for bids for 2028, now that timeline is 6 years into the future.  Prospective host cities are now looking 15 years down the line instead of 10.  That long-term planning will be important.

The rub is that the bidding process for 2032 will begin before the 2024 Olympics have taken place.  So it remains to be seen what the state of the Olympics are at that point, but I think potential bidders then will understand what happened in 2017.  The big question will be do they trust the IOC.  This move could be viewed as kicking the can down the road if the IOC doesn't improve their image.  That's the key and having 2 cities like Paris and Los Angeles on the calendar hopefully will encourage other cities to want to work with the IOC.  But the only way that happens is if the IOC recognizes situation they're in now where cities are dropping like flies, and does something about it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they could use it to increase the lead time. It is a win for the IOC as well as the cities, because it gives them a lot of options. And it gives the impression of an IOC willing to change & try something different - it shows they can be flexible when they need to be. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, yoshi said:

Or they could use it to increase the lead time. It is a win for the IOC as well as the cities, because it gives them a lot of options. And it gives the impression of an IOC willing to change & try something different - it shows they can be flexible when they need to be. 

Exactly. If any case, this is a clear opportunity as Bach mentioned, having two excellents countries, with long experience in making international events and keeping both regions without a clear rejection in a way to compensate the current crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

"Imagine how many other candidates might have thrown their hats into the rings if it had been clear from the start that the I.O.C. was going to award 2024 and 2028 simultaneously?" -NYT

This is a catch-22, since the IOC is only contemplating a double-award bcuz quality cities are dropping out left & right rather than lining up to bid. 

The deadline to place a bid likely woulda remained the same for both sets of Games anyway, & probably still woulda yielded the same number of viable bid results, since some cities cited that there wasn't enough time to launch a proper bid in the first place (like Toronto [right after the 2015 Pan Am Games]) or others still being in their exploratory stages (like Brisbane).

The only one that could possibly really b!fch about this is Baku, since the IOC told them to perhaps come back for 2028. But again, if we're talking about quality bid cities, then they wouldn't be at the top of the list anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2028 can be a better reason to host after all. Combine sports and film industry in just one year. Gold Rush 2028? Los Angeles May Host Olympics And 100th Oscars The Same Year.

Quote

he next California gold rush just might be coming in 2028.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, the International Olympic Committee is in talks that may result in the unprecedented awarding of two Summer Olympics at the same time. If the plan goes through, both cities currently vying to stage the world’s grandest sporting event will get their wish, with Paris hosting in 2024 and Los Angeles landing 2028.

According to the newspaper, Los Angeles’ bid committee, currently locked in a closely competitive race with Paris for the 2024 Games, is considering incentives that would sweeten the prospect of holding off until 2028. Such a move, a monumental first in Olympic history, would allow Paris to host the Games on the Centennial anniversary of its last Olympics in 1924. Los Angeles, meanwhile, would throw its next Olympic party 96 years after its first in 1932, and 44 years after its most recent in 1984. The IOC Executive Board is scheduled to meet June 9 to discuss the dual award.

But here comes the fun part for fans of once-in-a-lifetime spectacles: if LA is indeed wooed into waiting for 2028, it will mean there will be not one but two such spectaculars in the City of Angels that year. If you follow the math (or Oscar history) you’ll know that there’s already a landmark event set for LA in eleven years’ time: the 100th Academy Awards. The first Oscars were staged on May 16, 1929, making 2028 the year of the Oscarcentennial.

So the largest city in America’s Golden State may be gearing up for the next great gold rush in its history, with Oscar’s 100th birthday party and the Summer Olympics potentially happening within a few months of one another. Even in a city accustomed to mega-events and A-list affairs, it would have to be considered an unprecedented 1-2 punch of pomp and pageantry. But Tinseltown is surely up for the task. The 1984 Games, despite a Soviet boycott, were among the most profitable and best organized in Olympic history. And the Centennial Oscars, celebrating not only a century of gold statues but the evolution of motion picture artistry and achievement itself, should be one of the most joyous, nostalgic and emotional occasions ever in the entertainment industry.

We’re still a decade or so from knowing who the Centennial Oscar contenders might be, and many 2028 Olympians are just finishing grade school. But there might be a whole of of California dreaming in their collective futures… and glory in a place called La La Land.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\  I can also arrange to have the Solar Eclipse of 2027 postponed for Opening Ceremony day on July 28, 2028 -- at precisely 10:08 pm for the moment of the Lighting of the caldera.  So that's a 3rd reason to accept that 2028 is a more propitious year for LA!!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitate as always to give him a platform and to feed the troll, but in case anyone wants to see (and you all know what's coming)..

Now let’s see if IOC can get 2024/2028 right

It's more of the usual blather.  I imagine many people will stop reading once they see the first paragraph where he wants to take credit for the whole situation.  Except for the part where it's "no no wait, I meant for LA to go for, what are you doing IOC!?!!?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^OMFG - that Clown is back & sounds an awful lot like Donald Frump now: "when I became the first person on 'Planet Earth' to say, blah, blah & blah.." - I mean is this "gurl" for realz?! :blink: 

And yeah, seriously - just "more of the same" B.S. And still likening Paris 2024 to Rio 2016 is also so disingenuous. Not to mention "security", as if America is such a safe utopia these days. :rolleyes: Liked how you also gave her your ammo, Dave ;), & I agree 110% that regardless of the order, the IOC would still have to deal with Paris & French government either way. So then that makes all of his arguments against Paris 2024 MOOT points.

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...