Jump to content

Recommended Posts

* 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

Let's tackle this piece by piece..

Don't see an Asian bid happening for 2028 regardless of who wins 2024. And we might get a European bid, but hard to see them winning. Nor do I see much chance of South Africa reversing course. Not impossible, but I'd count them out for 2028.

LA is not a shoo-in for 2028, but if Paris wins 2024, I like their odds. If another city wins 2024, that makes things a lot more interesting for 2028, but it depends who bids. I would get any thought out of your head of any city in France other than Paris bidding. It's them or no one.

As for the claim this is LA's last shot for a while.. why? Yea, it's curious that some brass at the USOC initially chose Boston over LA. But if the USOC is going at this again for 2028, what makes you think LA is going to drop out? NYC and Chicago gave it their 1 shot and were no longer interested after that for various reasons. I don't see that happening with LA. They'll be back, IMO, just as they have been in the past. And if they were to lose, it won't be because they are not fit to represent the United States. That's not why New York or Chicago lost. Those were a matter of poor timing. So too would it be with LA. Remember.. New York hasn't hosted an Olympics. Atlanta has.

You have a really low opinion of the people of LA if you think this is their only attempt at an Olympics in the foreseeable future. Past history (which doesn't mean much) tells us otherwise. If they're getting people to rally around it now and have a plan that could work as well for 2028 as it does for 2024, they'll be back. 1 loss isn't going to turn the people of LA off to the Olympics. It didn't before. New York and Chicago are different. And that LA was really to immediately jump in after Boston's bid fell apart tells you something about their hopes for an Olympics. 1 loss isn't going to change that, especially if it's to a city like Paris (speaking of cities/countries that have been rejected multiple times)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure a few wizened heads w/in the USOC and LA24 know that Paris has the edge in this round. (They'd be stupid not to acknowledge that.)

If anything, they're probably treating this as a dry run for 2028...when a couple of other projects in LA would've seen fruition already ...and aren't just blueprints.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to forget LA's storied past as the city itself took a new direction early in its existence. The first LA boasted 1,100 miles of street cars, more than any other city on earth. Via yellow and red cars people reached their homes in what would be its first suburbs. With them came a collection of craftsman, Victorian, and other types of homes spread throughout the region. The movie Changling captured the era well. This era also saw LA break into the 10th most populous city in the US. The second Los Angeles saw the arrival of the Freeway, the jet age ushered in science and aerospace into the region and during that time the 1984 Olympics which brought signal prioritize toon and smart highways into existence. Semi custom to cookie cutter homes arrived in a massive boom that continued LA's population explosion. It saw LA become the nations second most populous city with often predictions that it would overtake New York to become the US's most populous. It brought to the world space shuttles, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, the epicenter of the American automobile engineering and design with nearly every auto manufacturer having a presence in the region. The third LA, arriving now and what I said is reminiscent of 1920's New York, is seeing a global cultural explosion, heavy support and construction of public transportation systems, a renewed interest in its historic features from the first LA, entrepreneurial spirit with new start ups, and growth that is disproportionately moving to the center. There is a strong renewed interest in urbanity, greater civic pride. LA right now could easily be where the next little black dress arrives or as will Farrell puts it, where flying cars will arrive. Policy supports driverless cars, there is a real feel that new culture is taking birth. However, a lot of people outside of LA still don't know this because television has created a solid vision of the second LA. But media outlets are catching on and that vision is rapidly changing. LA2024 is on a clock and to Paris' worst fears they may accomplish that goal... But we'll see come 2024.

I have to agree. LA is becoming an entirely new city at a feverish pitch.

It seems like everywhere you go there's Metro Construction projects, Artwalks, Farmers Markets, Festivals, Breweries, Concerts, Museums, it's pretty freaking exciting to be in LA right now.

And the introduction of Uber/Lyft has probably had a more profound change on LA than any other city on earth. Even those that are not serviced by Metro Rail can now ditch their cars.

It would be pretty awesome if LA created a kind of driverless Uber/Lyft system for the 2024 games. Maybe a joint venture between Uber/Lyft and Tesla??? All California companies, so you know they wouldn't shy away from the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure a few wizened heads w/in the USOC and LA24 know that Paris has the edge in this round. (They'd be stupid not to acknowledge that.)

If anything, they're probably treating this as a dry run for 2028...when a couple of other projects in LA would've seen fruition already ...and aren't just blueprints.

The majority of projects in LA have a completion date well before 2024 with the only exception being the Purple Line extension to Westwood.

However, Metro has stated that a winning 2024 bid for the games would green light an acceleration of the project to have it done in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. * Asia and certainly Europe will be out of the 2028 race if Paris wins 2024.

2. 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.

3. 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!!!

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

5. 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.

1. Well, that's a given. However, many of the geopolitics within the IOC point to Europe for 2024 nonetheless.

2. It's far more foolish, though, to think that France in general would even be back for 2028. It took A LOT of convincing for the French politicians to launch this 2024 bid as it was, especially after their stinging 2012 defeat. So in the event that were to happen again, France ain't coming back for 2028.

And considering how many European countries have shied away from wanting to even bid for the Olympics as of late (Munich, Oslo, Stockholm St. Moritz, Kraków 2022 & one directly Involving this race, Hamburg 2024), I don't believe it would be in the best interest of the IOC to shun, yet again, a top quality European bidder that actually wants the Olympics this time around, again, after so much convincing of the French to even bid in the first place.

3. This is pretty mellow dramatic. Especially since the USOC was actually torn between L.A. & Boston. And we saw first-hand what a mistake Boston was as an "initial" choice. So they ain't coming back for 2028. Nor do I see any of the other top-tier U.S. cities coming forth either. At least not for 2028. So that only leaves Los Angeles once again. And I can only see the USOC going again with them for 2028 than trying to find someone else that either A. Is not interested, or B. won't cut the mustard. It'd be foolish for the USOC not to take L.A. up again for another run. But then again, the USOC has a history of making foolish decisions.

4. And how many times has the IOC rejected Paris already? Let's count - 1992, 2008 & 2012. And if we want to get technical & include all French bids, that also includes Lille 2004 & Annecy 2018. So if we want to include the number of "rejections" into the equation here, then France wins this hands down.

5. Again, we can say this about Paris. If the French were to lose this, yet again, they are NOT coming back anytime soon. It would be decades, I'm sure. So someone is going to get butthurt here, whether that'd be France or the U.S. But someone is going to go home from Lima in 2017 with poopy panties. And that all is going to depend on what the IOC deems important to THEM come vote day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found another LA2024 bid video that has not been officially released but appears to have been produced by the same group that released the "Where Will You Be in 2024!" clip.

Interestingly enough it was posted on Vimeo on May 2015, well after LA had been eliminated in favor Boston, and several months before the ball was back in LA's court.

Anyway, here's the link, enjoy!

https://vimeo.com/126643764

Let me know if the link is broken or not loading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Well, that's a given. However, many of the geopolitics within the IOC point to Europe for 2024 nonetheless.

2. It's far more foolish, though, to think that France in general would even be back for 2028. It took A LOT of convincing for the French politicians to launch this 2024 bid as it was, especially after their stinging 2012 defeat. So in the event that were to happen again, France ain't coming back for 2028.

And considering how many European countries have shied away from wanting to even bid for the Olympics as of late (Munich, Oslo, Stockholm St. Moritz, Kraków 2022 & one directly Involving this race, Hamburg 2024), I don't believe it would be in the best interest of the IOC to shun, yet again, a top quality European bidder that actually wants the Olympics this time around, again, after so much convincing of the French to even bid in the first place.

3. This is pretty mellow dramatic. Especially since the USOC was actually torn between L.A. & Boston. And we saw first-hand what a mistake Boston was as an "initial" choice. So they ain't coming back for 2028. Nor do I see any of the other top-tier U.S. cities coming forth either. At least not for 2028. So that only leaves Los Angeles once again. And I can only see the USOC going again with them for 2028 than trying to find someone else that either A. Is not interested, or B. won't cut the mustard. It'd be foolish for the USOC not to take L.A. up again for another run. But then again, the USOC has a history of making foolish decisions.

4. And how many times has the IOC rejected Paris already? Let's count - 1992, 2008 & 2012. And if we want to get technical & include all French bids, that also includes Lille 2004 & Annecy 2018. So if we want to include the number of "rejections" into the equation here, then France wins this hands down.

5. Again, we can say this about Paris. If the French were to lose this, yet again, they are NOT coming back anytime soon. It would be decades, I'm sure. So someone is going to get butthurt here, whether that'd be France or the U.S. But someone is going to go home from Lima in 2017 with poopy panties. And that all is going to depend on what the IOC deems important to THEM come vote day.

Lost Paris Bids - 1992, 2008, 2012

Lost Los Angeles Bids - 1924 (To Paris), 1928, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1976, 1980 (To Moscow), 2016 (Eliminated by USOC to Chicago)

The only two times LA hosted was because it was the only bidder left 1932, 1984. 1932 was held during the Great Depression and it STILL managed to profit. 1984 almost did not happen and despite a Soviet led boycott went on to be the most successful games in Olympic history.

LA as been defeated way more times than Paris and would have certainly been denied the 1932 and 1984 games if literally anyone else put a bid.

It would be nice to have the IOC just ONCE to not default onto LA. I get it, they always have LA in their back pocket, but I think the stakes are much higher this time.

NY and Chicago were both more embarrasing that Paris losing twice. Hell, President Obama was there to see his own hometown eliminated in the first round of voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA as been defeated way more times than Paris and would have certainly been denied the 1932 and 1984 games if literally anyone else put a bid.

Tehran was considering a bid for the `84 Olympics. Please tell me you don't honestly think that if they hadn't withdrawn that they would have beaten LA. We all know the history that LA has only hosted an Olympics when no one has gone up against them, but that's ridiculous to think that "literally anyone" would have beaten them, especially when LA had bid for the previous 2 Olympics. And if you know your history, you know why they lost 1976 and 1980.

It's been discussed here but the level of "embarrassment" from NY and Chicago is way over-stated. New York had to deal with the last minute collapse of their stadium deal. And with Chicago, the media were the ones who took it the worst when they got eliminated in his first round. History doesn't look at those as embarrassing, and in spite of that, the USOC took 1 cycle off to get their house in order and then jumped right back in. If they lose this one, I'm confident we'll see another bid for 2028 and I'd bet it'll be from LA. These NOC's and organizers are not so petty and childish as they're made out to be. Paris got screwed over in the `92 bid by Samaranch. 2008 was a mis-timed bid, then 2012 they looked to be the front-runner only to lose out to 1 of their biggest rivals. After that they were a mess for years to come.

Contrast that with the United States. 2012 was perfect timing for New York, but less so for another U.S.-hosted Olympics. That they didn't bid for 2016 had nothing to do with embarrassment. Similarly, Chicago give it 1 shot for 2016. Yes, they did take it personally, and we saw the result, but with the USOC-IOC relations at the time, they weren't going to win.

But now we have LA. The city that is perennially interested in the Olympics. Where there seems to be little opposition to their hosting efforts in comparison to a city like Boston, let alone others in Europe. If they lose 2024, chances are they're not going to be embarrassed by it. Especially if the loss is to Paris, they'll understand the situation, realize it wasn't their time, and come back for 2028. Right now, I don't see too many reasons to think it'll be otherwise.

Well, LA plays the eager-beaver game only all too well. That has its pitfalls and drawbacks. They're so easy to read.

It's still interesting though that as we get closer to where the timing is right for another U.S.-hosted Olympics, there they are. NYC and Chicago were there are the wrong time. They didn't lose in the past because they were over-eager. If they lose 2024, it's more likely because Paris is the more compelling option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to have the IOC just ONCE to not default onto LA. I get it, they always have LA in their back pocket, but I think the stakes are much higher this time.

NY and Chicago were both more embarrasing that Paris losing twice. Hell, President Obama was there to see his own hometown eliminated in the first round of voting.

You're right, the stakes are much higher this time. Which then goes to the original post that you initially quoted, the IOC could have its cake & it eat too, in this scenario, with Paris 2024 & Los Angeles 2028. The IOC's relationship in Europe is currently very strained, which in effect is why we're gonna have an unprecented three straight Olympics in Asia (2018. 2020 & 2022). I'm sure the IOC would like (& needs) to repair that very important relationship sooner rather than later.

That's probably a matter of opinion. Whether right or wrong, I'm sure many in the IOC would view it differently. While it was expected for Chicago to do better, Rio's win shouldn't have been a surprise, either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NY and Chicago were both more embarrasing that Paris losing twice. Hell, President Obama was there to see his own hometown eliminated in the first round of voting.

I don't know why you regard NYC's loss as embarrassing. They were in a stellar field, the US had had fairly recent Summer and Winter Games, and their preferred stadium plan fell through only months before the vote. Going out 2nd was fair enough.

Chicago's loss was harder because of how poorly they did and it shocked even the IOC going by the gasp in the room. But one bid had to lose, and if the IOC didn't "embarrass" Obama they would've had to have embarrassed the Japanese PM, Brazilian President, or the King of Spain. The IOC can't make their decision based on who they don't want to embarrass!

Paris' loss was hard to take because they lost to a big rival who came in and took a Games everyone thought would be there's. Chicago's was hard because it went out first. It's a toss up as to which was worse. But NYC's loss doesn't even factor in the shocks department, because it wasn't one.

It's interesting reading your posts because they directly contradict what another LA supporter says here. Namely that support in LA is so strong that they would control the narrative in a way other cities couldn't. Your insistence that LA is fragile and wouldn't bid again for decades if they lost '24 is the opposite of what RuFF has been saying....Interesting. I wonder which is closer to the truth.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, LA plays the eager-beaver game only all too well. That has its pitfalls and drawbacks. They're so easy to read.

I think historically it has, but this bid definitely has a different feel/approach to it.

Agenda 2020 almost instantly made LA the most logical and most affordable place.

If the IOC really votes based on the new Agenda 2020, then I really do believe LA has an edge over Paris.

But if they will vote based on the whole "Oh, Paris lost twice, Europe has not hosted blah, blah, blah," then LA should just withdraw now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they will vote based on the whole "Oh, Paris lost twice, Europe has not hosted blah, blah, blah," then LA should just withdraw now.

But isn't that your argument, though? That can the U.S. be denied a third time, & L.A. has lost "the most bids" than anybody else & "blah, blah, blah". That's totally contradictory to say the very least. And if that's the case, then Paris (not to mention Rome & Budapest) should all just withdraw now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you regard NYC's loss as embarrassing. They were in a stellar field, the US had had fairly recent Summer and Winter Games, and their preferred stadium plan fell through only months before the vote. Going out 2nd was fair enough.

Chicago's loss was harder because of how poorly they did and it shocked even the IOC going by the gasp in the room. But one bid had to lose, and if the IOC didn't "embarrass" Obama they would've had to have embarrassed the Japanese PM, Brazilian President, or the King of Spain. The IOC can't make their decision based on who they don't want to embarrass!

Paris' loss was hard to take because they lost to a big rival who came in and took a Games everyone thought would be there's. Chicago's was hard because it went out first. It's a toss up as to which was worse. But NYC's loss doesn't even factor in the shocks department, because it wasn't one.

It's interesting reading your posts because they directly contradict what another LA supporter says here. Namely that support in LA is so strong that they would control the narrative in a way other cities couldn't. Your insistence that LA is fragile and wouldn't bid again for decades if they lost '24 is the opposite of what RuFF has been saying....Interesting. I wonder which is closer to the truth.

An LA2024 loss would be tough because it finally got the USOC nomination (not by choice) only to lose.

Agenda 2020 may very well make the case that LA should bid again in 2028 should its efforts fail for a 2024 games, but what else can they possibly do to sweeten the deal? What can be offered in 2028 that LA can't already offer in 2024?

Just thinking out loud, haha.

BTW, new here guys, read through some of the past posts on here. RuFF and I seem to be on a similar page, and this thread's healthy dose of doubt for a 2024 games in LA is actually nice to see/read about. It gives me a more well rounded and grounded perspective since I am obviously a LA2024 supporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agenda 2020 almost instantly made LA the most logical and most affordable place.

If the IOC really votes based on the new Agenda 2020, then I really do believe LA has an edge over Paris.

And that only happened when they reverted to plan B after they abondaned the $2 Billion price tag piggyback yard project. So I wouldn't say that it now makes it the most "logical" choice when their initial attempt wasn't the most cost effective.

Even if the IOC votes with agenda 2020 in mind, having an "edge" doesn't necessarily translate into more votes, since by that in terms mean that the two are more or less equal in that aspect.

Agenda 2020 may very well make the case that LA should bid again in 2028 should its efforts fail for a 2024 games, but what else can they possibly do to sweeten the deal? What can be offered in 2028 that LA can't already offer in 2024?

The timing. Virtually every other continent would have been taken care of by then, & barring South Africa promise that they're not bidding 'til 2032, North America would be ripe for 2028. The only possible threat there could only come from Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't that your argument, though? That can the U.S. be denied a third time, & L.A. has lost "the most bids" than anybody else & "blah, blah, blah". That's totally contradictory to say the very least. And if that's the case, then Paris (not to mention Rome & Budapest) should all just withdraw now!

I am only bringing that up because, if I understood correctly, the IOC intends to vote based on who more closely aligns with Agenda 2020.

If that change is indeed in effect, then it wouldn't matter how many times LA or Paris have lost in the past, it will matter over who puts out the best bid.

Based on some of the responses I have read here so far, the general consensus from many of the people on this thread is that they will vote based on geopolitical reasons ("Europe has not hosted" "Paris lost twice" "France won't bid again".

Basically, Paris was already the favorite before LA even joined the race for non Agenda 2020 related reasons.

Right now, being able to meet that at every level is LA's strongest point.

SO, with that said, if the IOC will vote based on political reasons and not for who has the strongest bid, then clearly LA is a very weak contender to Paris.

And that only happened when they reverted to plan B after they abondaned the $2 Billion price tag piggyback yard project. So I wouldn't say that it now makes it the most "logical" choice when their initial attempt wasn't the most cost effective.

Even if the IOC votes with agenda 2020 in mind, having an "edge" doesn't necessarily translate into more votes, since by that in terms mean that the two are more or less equal in that aspect.

The timing. Virtually every other continent would have been taken care of by then, & barring South Africa promise that they're not bidding 'til 2032, North America would be ripe for 2028. The only possible threat there could only come from Canada.

Yes, the original bid to the USOC had the piggy back yards to sway the vote away from Boston, SF, DC. When it found itself back in the race it really had no time for modifications.

From a conversation I had with an elected official in LA, they knew Piggy Back yards plan was not a solid one because Pacific Railway had no real desire to sell, at least not for cheap.

Agenda 2020 just made it easier for LA to abandon Piggyback yards with not as much backlash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, new here guys, read through some of the past posts on here. RuFF and I seem to be on a similar page, and this thread's healthy dose of doubt for a 2024 games in LA is actually nice to see/read about. It gives me a more well rounded and grounded perspective since I am obviously a LA2024 supporter.

1 thing to note about here.. there have been more than a few times in the past where a supporter of a city has become a little too "rah rah" and then anyone who disagrees with him is against that city. There is a case to be made for and against a lot of these cities. That someone such as myself thinks that Paris is going to win isn't necessarily doubting LA's potential. It's merely addressing the reality that there are other strong candidates out there.

An LA2024 loss would be tough because it finally got the USOC nomination (not by choice) only to lose.

Agenda 2020 may very well make the case that LA should bid again in 2028 should its efforts fail for a 2024 games, but what else can they possibly do to sweeten the deal? What can be offered in 2028 that LA can't already offer in 2024?

FYI alluded to this, but Olympic bidding is a matter of timing. Why did Atlanta win in 1996 where New York lost in 2012? It wasn't just about the quality of their respective bids. Plenty of cities (including recent winners Tokyo, Rio, Beijing, and Athens) all lost at least once before they won. If LA loses 2024, it's probably not because their bid is no good and they shouldn't come back again. It'll be a different field of cities they'd be up against for 2028. Look at Pyoengchang on the winter side. Almost beat Vancouver and Sochi. Then they come back for 2018, maybe learned a thing or 2, and won the vote easily. Of course the LA folks are going into this expecting to win. But if they lose, I fully expect them to dust themselves off, maybe make some improvements to the bid, and come back stronger the next time around.

I am only bringing that up because, if I understood correctly, the IOC intends to vote based on who more closely aligns with Agenda 2020.

If that change is indeed in effect, then it wouldn't matter how many times LA or Paris have lost in the past, it will matter over who puts out the best bid.

Based on some of the responses I have read here so far, the general consensus from many of the people on this thread is that they will vote based on geopolitical reasons ("Europe has not hosted" "Paris lost twice" "France won't bid again".

Basically, Paris was already the favorite before LA even joined the race for non Agenda 2020 related reasons.

It remains to be seen how much the voting will fall in line with Agenda 2020 reforms. That's been a big topic of discussion here and really we won't know the answer until a host city is named in 2017, if even then. This is still the IOC we're talking about, a highly politicized organization. They can talk all they want about reforms, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I absolutely think Paris is the favorite. But it's not because of their past losses or the thought they might not bid again if they lose this one. The IOC is on shaky ground in Europe. They desperately need to restore their reputation there. They can go a long way towards accomplishing that by choosing a nice big, traditional European city and having them host a successful Olympics. Does Paris line up as well with Agenda 2020 as LA does? Maybe, maybe not. The IOC voters are likely to make their pick based on what is best for the future of their organization. Again, a good case can be made for LA in that regard, but I still think it's more important to them to put an Olympics in Europe, especially when they have a city like Paris on offer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am only bringing that up because, if I understood correctly, the IOC intends to vote based on who more closely aligns with Agenda 2020.

If that change is indeed in effect, then it wouldn't matter how many times LA or Paris have lost in the past, it will matter over who puts out the best bid.

Basically, Paris was already the favorite before LA even joined the race for non Agenda 2020 related reasons.

Right now, being able to meet that at every level is LA's strongest point.

SO, with that said, if the IOC will vote based on political reasons and not for who has the strongest bid, then clearly LA is a very weak contender to Paris.

IOC president Thomas Bach has already stated that ALL four 2024 bids are "well inline with agenda 2020". Tailoring their bids to best fit THEIR cities. So in essence, it sounds to me by his statements, that any of the four cities are neither at a disadvantage or an advantage when it comes to agenda 2020 & the race for 2024.

Based on some of the responses I have read here so far, the general consensus from many of the people on this thread is that they will vote based on geopolitical reasons ("Europe has not hosted" "Paris lost twice" "France won't bid again"..

So you really think that geopolitics will never again play a role within the IOC? They have been a geopolitical organization ever since their inception way back in 1894. And I don't see that drastically changing simply due to agenda 2020. Especially since like I mentioned above, the IOC president says that all of the 2024 align well with agenda 2020. So other intangible things then have to be the differentiating factors.

Besides, your counter argument is that L.A. won't bid for 2028 cuz the support wouldn't be there then. And that they lost many more times than Paris has. But what does that have to do with agenda 2020, besides absolutely nothing, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the consensus seems to be that they will vote for political reasons and not really based on Agenda 2020.

We can repackage this however we want, but the general consensus from almost everyone here is that they will vote for Paris for Europe's sake.

It would restore Europe's reputation at the cost of America's.

1 thing to note about here.. there have been more than a few times in the past where a supporter of a city has become a little too "rah rah" and then anyone who disagrees with him is against that city. There is a case to be made for and against a lot of these cities. That someone such as myself thinks that Paris is going to win isn't necessarily doubting LA's potential. It's merely addressing the reality that there are other strong candidates out there.

The IOC is on shaky ground in Europe. They desperately need to restore their reputation there. They can go a long way towards accomplishing that by choosing a nice big, traditional European city and having them host a successful Olympics. Does Paris line up as well with Agenda 2020 as LA does? Maybe, maybe not. The IOC voters are likely to make their pick based on what is best for the future of their organization. Again, a good case can be made for LA in that regard, but I still think it's more important to them to put an Olympics in Europe, especially when they have a city like Paris on offer.

Again, the consensus seems to be that they will vote for political reasons and not really based on Agenda 2020.

We can repackage this however we want, but the general consensus from almost everyone here is that they will vote for Paris for Europe's sake.

It would restore Europe's reputation at the cost of America's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IOC president Thomas Bach has already stated that ALL four 2024 bids are "well inline with agenda 2020". Tailoring their bids to best fit THEIR cities.

THAT'S the key! You can't necessarily say LA more closely aligns to Agenda 2020 than Paris because LA won't be putting its venue plan in Paris (and visa versa). Agenda 2020 is about making sure cities DON'T bugger up and leave themselves white elephants. It's not about having a starting blueprint and saying "match this".

That said, there are always certain minimum requirements and i find it odd that Bach has said what he's said given that Budapest has only half the required hotel capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it's been already established by Thomas Bach that ALL 2024 bids ALIGN with agenda 2020. So it's really a moot point to keep drilling that aspect as much as you're trying to do for "L.A.'s sake". I also don't see how choosing Europe would be at the expense of America. But yet I'm sure you'd think that choosing America at the expense of Europe would be totally okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agenda 2020 almost instantly made LA the most logical and most affordable place.

Agenda 2020 is mostly a PR change after the European public has been scared by the massive cost of the Beijing and Sochi games.

The Olympics are basically an auction with the highest bidder winning. As long as the bid process remains the same, the most luxurious bid will win over the most affordable option and geopolitics will also play a key role. The USA used aid to African countries to help win the rights to Atlanta 1996, for example.

If Los Angeles wins I think it would be a solid host. But people in Los Angeles need to understand that what happened in 1984 and 1932 were aberrations.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

Again, the consensus seems to be that they will vote for political reasons and not really based on Agenda 2020.

We can repackage this however we want, but the general consensus from almost everyone here is that they will vote for Paris for Europe's sake.

It would restore Europe's reputation at the cost of America's.

Again, the consensus seems to be that they will vote for political reasons and not really based on Agenda 2020.

We can repackage this however we want, but the general consensus from almost everyone here is that they will vote for Paris for Europe's sake.

It would restore Europe's reputation at the cost of America's.

^

Again, it's been already established by Thomas Bach that ALL 2024 bids ALIGN with agenda 2020. So it's really a moot point to keep drilling that aspect as much as you're trying to do for "L.A.'s sake". I also don't see how choosing Europe would be at the expense of America. But yet I'm sure you'd think that choosing America at the expense of Europe would be totally okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT'S the key! You can't necessarily say LA more closely aligns to Agenda 2020 than Paris because LA won't be putting its venue plan in Paris (and visa versa). Agenda 2020 is about making sure cities DON'T bugger up and leave themselves white elephants. It's not about having a starting blueprint and saying "match this".

That said, there are always certain minimum requirements and i find it odd that Bach has said what he's said given that Budapest has only half the required hotel capacity.

LA's white Elephants = 0

Paris' White Elephant = Olympic Village(s)

Again. At least at this point, LA should by technicality be the strongest most responsible and safest bid....and certainly the most easiest to execute of the 4 cities.

However, it could all mean nothing if they are determined to take the games back to Europe.

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...