Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am not that thrilled with the colesium renovation. There is so much greater potential for the venue.

To serve what means though? Is it a matter of the design or the functionality? Or neither of the above. What potential is there for the Coliseum that you don't believe is being achieved with these current plans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Los Angeles Times:



State Senate leader proposes $250-million bill to cover 2024 Olympics overruns

BY DAVID WHARTON

March 18, 2016, 8:25 p.m.

The leader of the California Senate has introduced a bill that would provide up to $250 million in financial guarantees as part of Los Angeles’ bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) has proposed the creation of an “Olympic Games Trust Fund” to help cover any potential cost overruns if L.A. were to be selected as host and hold the Games.

Mayor Eric Garcetti and the private LA 2024 bid committee have estimated the 17-day sporting event could generate enough money from broadcast rights, corporate sponsorships, ticket sales and other sources to cover a proposed budget that could exceed $6 billion.

However, some past hosts have accumulated massive deficits and the city must sign a contract with the International Olympic Committee promising to cover any costs that exceed revenues.

In a report issued Friday, city staff said de Leon’s bill -- SB 1465 -- is “consistent with the State’s prior practice of supporting California bid cities.”

Los Angeles is competing against Paris, Rome and Budapest for the 2024 Games. The IOC is scheduled to select a host in September 2017.

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\ Ill-advised. That's playing directly into the IOC's cop-out strategy again. Let them COVER The cost overruns. It's their party. And if they don't want to, then tell 'em to shove it. They can always run to Baku.

Putting on mega-events is ill-advised.

Putting financial responsibility into local hands is common sense, because it's best to keep money lost through corruption in the local economy, as far as possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting on mega-events is ill-advised.

Putting financial responsibility into local hands is common sense, because it's best to keep money lost through corruption in the local economy, as far as possible.

Pretty much. This could be what sets them apart from the Paris bid if they don't have a similar government backing to take care of cost overrun, and give them an edge for a win. Right now, financial backing is extremely important in the games after what Rio is currently going through, and what we had to endure with Sochi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\ Ill-advised. That's playing directly into the IOC's cop-out strategy again. Let them COVER The cost overruns. It's their party. And if they don't want to, then tell 'em to shove it. They can always run to Baku.

So if the IOC pays for, say, half a stadium's cost, presumably they get half of any future ticket revenue from that stadium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the IOC pays for, say, half a stadium's cost, presumably they get half of any future ticket revenue from that stadium?

If the IOC wants to pay for half the cost of the velodrome or aquatics stadium, I'm sure LA2024 would be happy to promise them half the future revenue from those venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the IOC wants to pay for half the cost of the velodrome or aquatics stadium, I'm sure LA2024 would be happy to promise them half the future revenue from those venues.

That would be a great deal for LA2024 with the aquatics stadium.. considering it's temporary and there will be no future revenue from it as an aquatics venue. For non-temporary venues, it might make some some to do something like that. Not so much for a temporary venue where there wouldn't be a sensible ownership deal to be put in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the IOC pays for, say, half a stadium's cost, presumably they get half of any future ticket revenue from that stadium?

I understand your point.

But the funding issues are problematic precisely because the Olympics require the construction of non-revenue facilities. There would not be any profits to share, and whatever meager revenue brought in by one major swimming meet every six years or so would not matter much to either the city or the IOC. The Olympics can be a good deal for host cities, but only through non-commercial means. They are a financial boondoggle unless the city uses the "no new construction" model of LA 1984.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point.

But the funding issues are problematic precisely because the Olympics require the construction of non-revenue facilities. There would not be any profits to share, and whatever meager revenue brought in by one major swimming meet every six years or so would not matter much to either the city or the IOC. The Olympics can be a good deal for host cities, but only through non-commercial means. They are a financial boondoggle unless the city uses the "no new construction" model of LA 1984.

Actually USC has a very strong swimming and diving program where a natatorium wouldn't have been a complete waste of money. The current venue was the host of the 1984 Olympics. It would have been nice to give that venue a renovation for the 2024 Olympics, but they just finished doing a renovation and I think it has since been downsized. That's probably why it wasn't even considered as a venue this time around.

UCLA also has a swimming and diving facility that just opened in the 2000s, but it's much smaller and only has a capacity of over 2,000. And their swimming isn't as strong as USC's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually USC has a very strong swimming and diving program where a natatorium wouldn't have been a complete waste of money. The current venue was the host of the 1984 Olympics. It would have been nice to give that venue a renovation for the 2024 Olympics, but they just finished doing a renovation and I think it has since been downsized. That's probably why it wasn't even considered as a venue this time around.

That's precisely the point, though. Major universities in the USA already have their own facilities on campus, and college swimming does not attract crowds of 15,000+. USC's current facilities are fine for their needs. And as you mentioned, UCLA has their own aquatics center too. As do Stanford, Cal, etc.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's precisely the point, though. Major universities in the USA already have their own facilities on campus, and college swimming does not attract crowds of 15,000+. USC's current facilities are fine for their needs. And as you mentioned, UCLA has their own aquatics center too. As do Stanford, Cal, etc.

The message for the future, perhaps, is- if you are providing a prestigious sport facility in a city which might, at some time, be capable of hosting an Olympic Games, consider designing it with the potential for temporary conversion to Olympic standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA to host 2018 NBA Allstar Game

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1035669/los-angeles-to-host-2018-nba-all-star-weekend-in-boost-for-2024-olympic-bid

LA is also a finalist for the Ultimate Sports City Award by SportBusiness.

30 cities to contest Ultimate Sport City of 2016 title

Final Shortlist for Ultimate Sports Cities 2016 (in alphabetical order):

Amsterdam

Auckland

Baku

Beijing

Berlin

Calgary

Cardiff

Copenhagen

Doha

Dubai

Durban

Glasgow

Gold Coast

Kazan

Kuala Lumpur

Los Angeles

London

Manchester

Melbourne

Moscow

New York

Paris

PyeongChang

Rio de Janeiro

Singapore

Sochi

Stockholm

Sydney

Tokyo

Vancouver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup- they had a shortlist-shortening event in Paris last week:

www.cityevents-sport.com/actualites/480-sportbusiness-ultimate-sports-cities-2016-shortlist-announcement-made-at-city-events-in-paris

(here's the very complicated chart from the foot of the linked article):

SHORTLISTS_FOR_SPORTBUSINESS.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\ How odd that New York shows up in nearly ALL categories, but didn't even cause a beep in the USOC's list this time around. And tiny Copenhagen is in a lot of the categories? And Los Angeles is in the "Best Newcomer" category? London is not in the Best Transportation category but Mancester is? That's the one Category Paris shows up but Sydney, Rio, Rome (and Doha) are NOWHERE to be found???? :blink: What an odd list.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York didn't cause a blimp on the USOC radar because the city was not interested in hosting the games.

New York definitely did not cause a blimp on the USOC radar.

/\/\ How odd that New York shows up in nearly ALL categories, but didn't even cause a beep in the USOC's list this time around. And tiny Copenhagen is in a lot of the categories? And Los Angeles is in the "Best Newcomer" category? London is not in the Best Transportation category but Mancester is? That's the one Category Paris shows up but Sydney, Rio, Rome (and Doha) are NOWHERE to be found???? :blink: What an odd list.

..or a beep? I think blip is the word you're both looking for :P

I don't know why that should strike you as odd though. The NYC area is home to 9 teams in the 4 major pro sports. 1 of the world's most prestigious tennis tournaments is held here every year. Ditto for a triple crown horse racing. Not to mention plenty of history. And there was no interest in an Olympic bid. Doesn't make New York any less of a sports city. Those 2 don't have to go hand in hand. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a major sports city and a major world city simply isn't interested in bidding for the Olympics.

That all said, for all we joke about the uselessness of lists like these, I don't get some of the categories and designations either. That Sochi and Pyeongchang were on the original shortened list of 30 simply by virtue of being Olympic hosts, I'm ready to dismiss this all already. But Calgary makes the top 10? Copenhagen? I know I'm the oft arrogant New Yorker, but if those guys are on the list, I'm definitely taking this with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\ London is not in the Best Transportation category but Mancester is?

That may be to do with transport access to the venues themselves. Old Trafford Football Stadium, Old Trafford Cricket Ground, the Etihad Campus, all have their own rail / light rail stations (the "Velopark" station for the National Cycling Centre should really be called "Eastlands Shopping Centre" and is further away from the venue, but still only 400 metres or so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been willing to give a bit of kudos to the Ultimate Sports City awards. Sports Features is a pretty reputable site, and the methodologies they use seem pretty sound - recent big hostings help contenders score highly, but it also takes in the depth of local sports franchises and big regular events. Hence why the likes of Melbourne and London always finish high in the tables. I've felt the reason US cities haven't fared so highly in them in the past (as a few Americans grumbled about here last year) is the insular nature of much of the sporting highlights in the country - the US is rarely, if ever, interested in hosting the mayor world sports championships like in athletics or swimming, and its major sports, like gridiron and baseball, are minnows in terms of interest outside the US. In the case of LA, it's probably been hampered by lack of an NFL franchise in recent years.

Looking at this Shortlist, I assume Copenhagen must be there on the back of some events I haven't really noticed from here Down Under, I'm not surprised that Doha and Dubai figure (and expect them to rank highly at the end), but I do wonder why Toronto isn't there on the back of its Pan Ams.

At the end of the day it's a list that's always going to be subjective and fodder for arguments and debates over the merits of its winners and high rankers - that's the fun of such lists. I remember it being great colouful debate starter here back in the mid-noughties when Melbourne topped it to the chagrin of some proud Britishers here. But it's no wonder since then that London has shined in the list in recent years.

That may be to do with transport access to the venues themselves. Old Trafford Football Stadium, Old Trafford Cricket Ground, the Etihad Campus, all have their own rail / light rail stations (the "Velopark" station for the National Cycling Centre should really be called "Eastlands Shopping Centre" and is further away from the venue, but still only 400 metres or so).

Yeah, I figured that's exactly why Manchester figured in the short list. It's comparing general sports-related transport options, not ranking world transit options as a whole and discrete entity. Otherwise they'd be the "Ultmate Transportation Cities" awards. Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, only one city can win each time so you'll always "alienate" someplace, and the IOC has some wriggle room now that the US TV deal is signed up to 2032. As long as one of those three Games is on US soil I don't think there will be a major problem.

As far as I can see, the IOC can have its cake and eat it if LA is happy to bid for 2028, which Paris would be unlikely to do. USOC and LA will be acutely aware of this too.

As far as I can see LA's best chance of snagging an Olympics in the 2020s is for Paris to win 2024 giving LA an almost clear run at 2028.*

The second best chance LA has of getting a Games is if they claim during this bid cycle that they won't bid again for 2028. Then the IOC has a real conundrum.

---

* Asia and certainly Europe will be out of the 2028 race if Paris wins 2024. And even if South Africa u-turns and does go for 2028, that bid could well be taken as a warm up for 2032 with the IOC wanting to see how the Commonwealth Games goes in 2022 before awarding them the Big O. c.f. Rio 2012.

It is foolish to think that somehow LA would be a shoe in for 2028. Paris 2028 seems more likely because France really has no other city to put forth. Maybe Marseilles, but that's a stretch.

This is LA's last shot for several decades. As a reminder, IT WAS NOT THE USOC's original choice! As losing LA2024 bid would only reassure the USOC that LA is not fit to represent the US and will look elsewhere for 2028. If a bid as strong as LA's is not a good enough American bid for the IOC, then what is?

LA's story is already more dramatic than anyone else's because of the fact that the US elimination process is already brutal. I mean, it lost to BOSTON!!!

Paris has no other French city to compete with, while LA has at least two (Chicago and NY)

If LA 2024 bid is denied, that means that the IOC has now rejected the United States three summer bids NY2012, Chicago2016, and LA2024.

The people of LA will not rally in the numbers that they do now, and the idea of an LA Olympics will be shelved for at least the rest of my life.

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...