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

Could the LA area (including the outlying cities) have a glut of stadia?  So 2028 will then be the right year for LA-III since there will be a maximum choice of state-of-the-art venues for those Games.  Also, if anything will be shifted to the SF Bay Area (which could probably be football only), the new Chase Arena (new home of the NBA champs, the GS Warriors) will be up and ready by 2019.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Am surprised there's no donation mentioned from Disney.  So Casey W. and his family are big behind this because aside from his present companies' involvement and his own donated services, Universal Studios (which his grandfather founded, and in which his family may still have stocks) also kicked in another $1 mil.  It would behoove him and LA to graciously accept the 2028 offer of the IOC, and not have to go through another round of this in another open round.  And if you were to parse the results another way, for a 2x campaign based on the $50 mil cost reported here, then it could've been $25 mil each if they lock in 2028 now.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

BREAKING:

Bach to meet with Trump in the White House to discuss Los Angeles' Olympic Bid.

So basically a ceremonial final nail in the coffin for LA's 2024 Bid. -_-

Oh great. So now not only will we lose LA 2024, we'll probably lose LA/US 2028, 2032, and maybe so on :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\  Too ambitious.  Even though it could be done, it will just require TOO MUCH effort when the competition, which is the heart of the Games, immediately begins the next day.  I am sure the IOC will want future hosts to stick to the original format -- just a sane OC at one venue to kick things off -- and then start the competition the next day.  The above was made just to get the Los Angelenos excited again about another Games for the City.  

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

/\/\  Too ambitious.  Even though it could be done, it will just require TOO MUCH effort when the competition, which is the heart of the Games, immediately begins the next day.  I am sure the IOC will want future hosts to stick to the original format -- just a sane OC at one venue to kick things off -- and then start the competition the next day.  The above was made just to get the Los Angelenos excited again about another Games for the City.  

Agreed- but seeing the intro picture on the video again, it occurs to me that in a city as sprawly as LA, it might be nice for every venue to have a share of the post-Cauldron firework display.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

/\/\  Too ambitious.  Even though it could be done, it will just require TOO MUCH effort when the competition, which is the heart of the Games, immediately begins the next day.  I am sure the IOC will want future hosts to stick to the original format -- just a sane OC at one venue to kick things off -- and then start the competition the next day.  The above was made just to get the Los Angelenos excited again about another Games for the City.  

Wait a sec here.. you of all people are asking for a more sane Opening Ceremony?  Who are you and what have you done with baron!!?!! :lol:B)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Wait a sec here.. you of all people are asking for a more sane Opening Ceremony?  Who are you and what have you done with baron!!?!! :lol:B)

I didn't mean a more "toned-down" OC.  Uh-ah.  Not sacrificing quality or knock-out punch.  Just that 2 venues would greatly reduce the energy for the evening.  How can you NOT make the audience @ one venue feel that they are the lesser one for that night?  Immediately, if you sell cheaper tickets for one -- how will that impact the sales for the Main Show?  Will headliners they approach say -- NO, I want to perform @ Venue A when the organizers had envisioned them for Venue B?  It's a whole can of worms that these early, amateur folks @ LA 2024, aren't equipped to deal with.  Besides, like in Chicago 2016's quest -- that 2-ceremony venue trial balloon they floated, was immediately shot down by the IOC.  I don't know why Wasserman and the Probst regime @ the USOC, didn't pass that on to their 2024 team right away?  Of course, it is all so preliminary at this point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

/\/\   The above was made just to get the Los Angelenos excited again about another Games for the City.  

Sorry, but I have to LOL at that.

Get Angelenos excited again? I don't even think they needed to see a video to get excited.

I think LA can easily execute a double venue opening, It has the space, the infrastructure, and the people to nail it.

With the main cauldron at the Rams stadium, I think it is safe to say that those who purchase tickets for the Coliseum will be well aware that they are seeing a scaled down version of the opening at a still great and iconic stadium.

Honestly, I think so many people will want to see an LA opening ceremony that tickets to the Coliseum will also sell quickly. No doubt in my mind.







 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Hold on, the main cauldron will be at Inglewood? Are you sure? I thought the whole reason for this potentially awkward two-stadium ceremony was because the Olympic cauldron is already at the Coliseum.

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

^^ Hold on, the main cauldron will be at Inglewood? Are you sure? I thought the whole reason for this potentially awkward two-stadium ceremony was because the Olympic cauldron is already at the Coliseum.

I thought so, but I could be wrong.

I thought they were going to light the Cauldron at the Coliseum and then have a torch relay through the streets of LA to the Inglewood Stadium.

That was my understanding, but, it is 7-11 years out. A lot WILL happen between now and then.

 

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

Sorry, but I have to LOL at that.

Get Angelenos excited again? I don't even think they needed to see a video to get excited.

Don't take everything so literally.  Sure, they need and put out those things -- not just for local consumption but to show the IOC (and the competition) that there are efforts to jazz up the local populace -- whether you guys smugly think you need jazzing up or not.  It's for the optics.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Don't take everything so literally.  Sure, they need and put out those things -- not just for local consumption but to show the IOC (and the competition) that there are efforts to jazz up the local populace -- whether you guys smugly think you need jazzing up or not.  It's for the optics.  

I don't "Smugly" think, I sincerely think that if its to get people excited, it is not that necessary.

Again, LA has the time, money and energy to pull off the dual stadium ceremony because it will have no other real issues to tend to for 7/11 years.

2024 or 2028 LA can easily pull that off.
 

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

Again, LA has the time, money and energy to pull off the dual stadium ceremony because it will have no other real issues to tend to for 7/11 years.

2024 or 2028 LA can easily pull that off.
 

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the IOC will allow it.   The Olympic Charter only specifies the focus (where the VIPs will gather in attendance) should be in one location.  I mean if you're going to do 2 locations, why stop there?  Why not 4?  8? 16?  How about all the Olympic cities?   :blink:

Not gonna happen.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RuFF said:

I know everyone seems to have subscribed to Paris 2024 and LA 2028, but I'm not sold on that idea yet.

You don't have to be sold on it. It's the IOC that does. And it very well looks that they're gonna buy that idea.

5 hours ago, RuFF said:

I feel Paris is being lured into negotiations and quite possibly we are looking at an upset in September. 

You keep telling yourself that, you just might believe it. That's why Garcetti & Wasserman are becoming more & more open to 2028 with each passing day (you've even said so yourself with "L.A.'s willingness to be more adaptive than Paris is").

5 hours ago, RuFF said:

That said, I have come to feel 2028 is better for LA, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Paris or LA's ability to host in 2024.

Uh huh.

29 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Again, LA has the time, money and energy to pull off the dual stadium ceremony because it will have no other real issues to tend to for 7/11 years.

L.A. has the money? But what about the "cost-effectiveness" that L.A. keeps touting then? Kinda blows that "idea" outta the water then if L.A. now wants to go all out Beijing/Sochi-style cuz they have the "money".

And no other real issues? What about the purple line extention that Garcetti now wants to ask the Feds for more "money" on it to speed up it's progress, in particular with a 2024 timetable. Sounds to me that's a real issue to contend with. Not to mention the Coliseum overlay that will also cost time, money & energy to get done for the Games.

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

I don't "Smugly" think, I sincerely think that if its to get people excited, it is not that necessary.

Again, LA has the time, money and energy to pull off the dual stadium ceremony because it will have no other real issues to tend to for 7/11 years.

2024 or 2028 LA can easily pull that off.

No other real issues?  Don't minimize the amount of effort and organization that goes into planning and executing something on the scale of the Olympics.  Pretty sure Casey Wasserman and everyone working on the Olympics for the next 7/11 years would take issue with that.  I agree LA can easily pull it off if they want to, but let's not pretend like there's not much else to be concerned about.

33 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the IOC will allow it.   The IOC Charter only specifies the focus (where the VIPs will be in attendance) should be in one location.  I mean if you're going to do 2 locations, why stop there?  Why not 4?  8? 16?  How about all the Olympic cities?   :blink:

Not gonna happen.  

Doesn't the IOC charter also specify that the ceremonies must be in the host city?  What city is home to the stadium that hosted the 2014 ceremonies.  I'll give you a hint.. it's not Sochi

As we're learning with the 2024/2028 double award, the IOC can amend/change certain things to suit their needs.  This would be one of them.  If you think the IOC won't go for this, that's one thing.  Although that still may not stop LA from going ahead with this plan if they think it's a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RuFF said:

I understand a lot do not agree with me but strategy wise I believe LA has positioned itself and its verbiage to paint a negative picture of Paris. 

Absolutely, & glad that you finally see it that way. But that type of "strategy" isn't going to sit well with many within the IOC. Especially when the negative painting is without merit & is merely a sales-pitch rhetoric gone hyperbole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RuFF said:

Paris really out-performed LA and the US for Olympic Day with over 1.1 million participants. Compare that to LA's modest 500 at the beach and 600,000 nation wide and Paris blew past the competition. Of course their budget blew past LA's too and was way over the top. 

I know everyone seems to have subscribed to Paris 2024 and LA 2028, but I'm not sold on that idea yet. I feel Paris is being lured into negotiations and quite possibly we are looking at an upset in September. That said, I have come to feel 2028 is better for LA, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Paris or LA's ability to host in 2024.

I understand a lot do not agree with me but strategy wise I believe LA has positioned itself and its verbiage to paint a negative picture of Paris. Take Olympic day for example, and the 2.8 million to host it in Paris. Is that in line with Agenda 2020? Or the ultimatum or however you'd like to frame it. On the surface these individual things can be looked over but these missteps, if you will, are going to help LA ask this question. Are you sure you want to partner with Paris? The obvious is yes, but if you bring to the front hints of wreckless spending backed by the government, or ultimatums, or other places where Paris lacked refinement you could potentially plant the seed of doubt and grow it. That is just my opinion, and I know it'll be shot down without discussion, but the words coming from LA2024, to me, are different that what the Media is reporting. For example, Casey Wasserman conceding to Paris. Did he concede? Or did he lay the ground work to frame the Paris committee as lacking in sportmanship and its ability to work with the IOC? 

So.. are you trying to say that LA's strategy now is to try and undermine Paris' credibility?  That's their strategy?  Perhaps that says more about their bid than it does about Paris.  And if that's really what they're doing, then they can't exactly take the high road when it comes to sportsmanship and being a good partner.

Good to see you're still following the Abrahmson gospel.  Fairly confident that if the roles were reversed and it was LA spending money and putting on the big display, you would not call it way over the top and instead would be praising LA's efforts and saying "look at how few people in Paris are excited about the Olympics."  But whatever, we've come to expect that from you.

As has been discussed many times before.. doesn't matter what we here think about Paris vs. LA.  Olympic hosts are not chosen by popular vote by the masses.  It's the IOC voters and only the IOC voters whose decisions matter.  We're trying to predict what THEY will decide, not as a matter of personal preference.  You've made it clear from day 1 that this is about personal preference for you and don't even attempt to try and view the bids objectively. 

So yea, keep telling yourself what you want to hear.  Maybe there will be an upset in September.  But I wouldn't count on it.

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

You don't have to be sold on it. It's the IOC that does. And it very well looks that they're gonna buy that idea.

You keep telling yourself that, you just might believe it. That's why Garcetti & Wasserman are becoming more & more open to 2028 with each passing day (you've even said so yourself with "L.A.'s willingness to be more adaptive than Paris is").

And not only the IOC needs to be sold, also the worldwide press is also buying that idea, from Nick Butler (The opposite of Abrahamson) and other reporters from InsidetheGames (With better contacts and information inside the IOC, regardless personal opinions), to other representative of the press like The Guardian (Including Op-ed), ESPN, El PaísMarca and recently TV in CBC have made headlines. Or the signature of signature of world mayors. Moment is key for creating value and narrative. 

I understand a lot do not agree with me but strategy wise I believe LA has positioned itself and its verbiage to paint a negative picture of Paris. Take Olympic day for example, and the 2.8 million to host it in Paris. Is that in line with Agenda 2020? Or the ultimatum or however you'd like to frame it. 

If this is Los Angeles team strategy (Undermining the credibility of Paris), well they are doing a terrible job considering the result on media is opposite of that. Unless this is a hidden strategy hoping for Abrahamson's mastermind lol.

And no other real issues? What about the purple line extention that Garcetti now wants to ask the Feds for more "money" on it to speed up it's progress, in particular with a 2024 timetable. Sounds to me that's a real issue to contend with. Not to mention the Coliseum overlay that will also cost time, money & energy to get done for the Games.

Or certain controversies for the costs in security mentioned in Los Angeles Times or the growth of homeless population and the recent high rise of prices in properties which is currently the biggest criticism to Garcetti's administration. 

The point is even without questioning the potential profit, current Olympics are different of 1984 and that was the principal point of criticism beyond the preferences. Both cities will need to create certain infrastructure but also both have venues ready and experience.

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...