Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I made a brief return to ask a gymnastics question in another thread and I thought I'd poke my head in here to see what's up.

You guys don't change!

Here are my two cents:

Either LA or Paris could host very competent, memorable Games that would pose a strong contrast to the build-up surrounding Rio and the string of Asian hosts awaiting their turn.

I believe the Eurocentric IOC is going to favor Paris. The good ol' boys club gets their way. It's just how the world works. There's been a longer gap in hosting for France and after multiple unsuccessful bids they barely lost 2012. It won't be that the IOC doesn't like L.A. I just think they'll have a soft spot for Paris and I think that will be enough to deliver a French victory.

In addition to a highly competent, achievable and reliable bid, plus local and national enthusiasm for the Games, the thing that keeps LA in the mix is financial and therefore political leverage. The IOC gets more money from the US by far than any other country. Politically, it will look bad for the IOC to shoot down the top three American cities -- particularly since the LA bid is arguably by far the strongest and most solid of the three. Basically it will look like the IOC is biting the hand that feeds them. It looks LESS bad if Paris wins by only one or two votes, but that will be difficult to engineer.

In the IOC's dream world, I suspect they'd like to see Paris 2024 and LA 2028, but there's no guarantee LA would want to try again and there's no guarantee that the USOC would nominate them if they did. Of course if they only lose by one or two votes the odds are better.

Despite the fact that I'm an Angeleno, I still believe the Games will be heading to Paris in 2024.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Los Angeles doesn't win 2024 (& the city does decide for another 2028 run), what other U.S. city could the USOC nominate that would have the political will & mostly public support that L.A. currently has. As we saw what was Boston 2024 for the short time that it was the USOC's pick, their bitter attitude towards the Olympics (that ultimately brought their bid down in the end) seems to resonate in most of the U.S. major Alpha cities that could honestly compete in the international arena (& which is why we ultimately wound up with Los Angeles again bcuz most of the major cities weren't interested in the first place). And I don't see that negative attitude changing anytime soon. At least not for 2028 anyway. 

I also still would see L.A. being interested in another run (they're always seeminly interested), & I'm sure they'd make their case very strongly to the USOC for another shake at it. By how many votes Los Angeles could lose by wouldn't really matter IMHO. Whether by just a couple of votes or by a couple of dozen, as we've come to learn over the years, these Olympic bid races are distinct in their own way by the relativeness of the dynamics of any given bid race.

Example, Almaty lost 2022 by a mere four votes, but does that mean that would make their odds that much better for 2026? Unless their only other competition is Lviv, I certainly wouldn't bet on it. Put them in with Calgary & a Swiss bid, & their previous vote performance would mean nothing. The only way I could see L.A. (& the USOC) packing it up & going back home with their tail between their legs, is if once again, the U.S. bid was the first one to be dropped, as was the case for 2016. But I don't see that scenario again too likely this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except those negative factors you mentioned really wouldn't be part of an LA Games. LA Olympics would stand in stark relief to some of these other examples. 

LA has to see 2024 all the way through to the end, but if they lose, I think the USOC should think long and hard about how much sense it makes to keep bidding. If they do bid again, LA is the city that makes sense. It has the venues and the public support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I'm starting to think that LA should drop out of this race or not run again. Not because I don't think LA is an ideal city for the Olympics or because it can't win, but because what the Olympics have become. I'm not sure LA should be in the business of supporting what the movement has come to mean, corruption, greed, displacement of the poor, lining of the pockets of the few at the expense of the many, outrageous demands ala Rio Olympic Village. And don't get me wrong, this has always played a role in one form or another, but these issues are so pointed now. 

I got there a while back. We do not need the headache, we do not need the hassle, we do not need more tourists, we do not need more sports arenas (temporary or permanent), we do not need the unexpected cost, we do not need the distraction from other issues, we do not need to align our growth with the needs an organization of declining prestige and relevance, we do not need the IOC EVER involved in anything because they care NOTHING about what is good for LA. They are more ridiculous every day, they are heading in the wrong direction...nations associated with them are drug down into their spiral of self importance as those nation's treasure and reputation flies out the window as they are pinned under the thumb of an ever more irrelevant group of old self-important inconsequential ass clowns. I think the jig is up. 

Thankfully this is likely a Paris party, but I would feel much better if LA could just drop out NOW to ensure there is no chance we get stuck if they get desperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Athensfan said:

I'm a bit shocked that these boards are still thriving

You think so?

I still don't think the site's as lively as it was in its heyday, and no doubt the nature of the most recent bid campaigns has a lot to do with it. But that said, as you can see, the LA 2024 thread attracts a lot of traffic - and the same old type of too-and-froing between the "true believers" and the hard-headed cynics. And I reckon Paris V LA is likely to prove a hotly debated campaign up until the vote.

And then we have Rio. A games always provides a boost to board activity and brings Back a lot of lapsed GBidders - you yourself have come back! I'm hoping the next month or so will bring back a bit of the spirit of the good times on the board.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Athensfan said:

I'm a bit shocked that these boards are still thriving when there has been next no no suspense in any of the recent bid races and when that appears unlikely to change any time soon. 

Athensfan!  Yea, you know better than to think things would change around here.  Even though there's been little suspense in recent Olympic bids, there isn't a lack of topics to discuss here, particularly with the sections that focus on the Olympics rather than the bidding.  There's some intrigue in the lead-up to 2024, and if nothing else at least here we have 2 strong cities to look at.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

If Los Angeles doesn't win 2024 (& the city does decide for another 2028 run), what other U.S. city could the USOC nominate that would have the political will & mostly public support that L.A. currently has. As we saw what was Boston 2024 for the short time that it was the USOC's pick, their bitter attitude towards the Olympics (that ultimately brought their bid down in the end) seems to resonate in most of the U.S. major Alpha cities that could honestly compete in the international arena (& which is why we ultimately wound up with Los Angeles again bcuz most of the major cities weren't interested in the first place). And I don't see that negative attitude changing anytime soon. At least not for 2028 anyway. 

I also still would see L.A. being interested in another run (they're always seeminly interested), & I'm sure they'd make their case very strongly to the USOC for another shake at it. By how many votes Los Angeles could lose by wouldn't really matter IMHO. Whether by just a couple of votes or by a couple of dozen, as we've come to learn over the years, these Olympic bid races are distinct in their own way by the relativeness of the dynamics of any given bid race.

Example, Almaty lost 2022 by a mere four votes, but does that mean that would make their odds that much better for 2026? Unless their only other competition is Lviv, I certainly wouldn't bet on it. Put them in with Calgary & a Swiss bid, & their previous vote performance would mean nothing. The only way I could see L.A. (& the USOC) packing it up & going back home with their tail between their legs, is if once again, the U.S. bid was the first one to be dropped, as was the case for 2016. But I don't see that scenario again too likely this time around.

There's not a doubt in my mind that the USOC will return for 2028, probably with LA as its candidate.  NYC and Chicago's bids were ill-timed.  NYC's bid was almost always intended to be a 1-shot deal.  To an extent, similar with Chicago, although I can't entirely blame them for not wanting to come back.  That's not going to be the case here.  A Paris 2024 win couldn't leave the door more wide open for a US city to take 2028.  They'd be fools not to pursue it.  And LA, unlike its predecessors, seems like they're in this for the long haul.  I agree I don't think the circumstances of a 2024 loss would necessarily affect that.

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

I'm starting to think that LA should drop out of this race or not run again. Not because I don't think LA is an ideal city for the Olympics or because it can't win, but because what the Olympics have become. I'm not sure LA should be in the business of supporting what the movement has come to mean, corruption, greed, displacement of the poor, lining of the pockets of the few at the expense of the many, outrageous demands ala Rio Olympic Village. And don't get me wrong, this has always played a role in one form or another, but these issues are so pointed now. 

Serious?  Why the sudden change of heart?  You've been so high on this bid since they got back in the game, even to the extent you were saying Rio's issues might put LA in a position to help change the narrative with the IOC.  Where'd this realization come from that the IOC and the Olympics maybe aren't worth working with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RuFF said:

I'm starting to think that LA should drop out of this race or not run again. Not because I don't think LA is an ideal city for the Olympics or because it can't win, but because what the Olympics have become. I'm not sure LA should be in the business of supporting what the movement has come to mean, corruption, greed, displacement of the poor, lining of the pockets of the few at the expense of the many, outrageous demands ala Rio Olympic Village. And don't get me wrong, this has always played a role in one form or another, but these issues are so pointed now. 

Cities can do what they want of course but a load of European cities took that attitude and we've ended up with a Winter Games in Beijing. Not our problem, they might say, but collectively it sort of is if we want the Olympics to be a continued success and not a play-thing for authoritarians wanting to project a fake positive image of themselves. If we're to move away from the stink bomb left by the now discredited Sochi Games, we need cities like LA to step up to the plate. Otherwise the IOC will simply have no choice but to kowtow to Putin and his ilk.

Of course, in the case of Sochi they did have other choices. But at least make the IOC choose! Don't leave them with the excuse of "well, you lot didn't want it, we had to go to IslamaPutinsville didn't we?!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For once, I have to agree with you Ruff. And interestingly, I've been thinking lately that Paris should drop out of the 2024 race. The Olympics are no longer what they used to be. The IOC is very lucky to have cities such as LA, Paris and Rome in this race. I actually think they don't deserve this.

I suppose we all have this reaction after what the IOC decided regarding Russia and the 2016 Games. The IOC has no balls.

Just give the Games to Budapest already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Clippers do get a new arena (and I think it's a matter of when not if) then I think it's likely that the Forum gets demolished. I cannot see Los Angeles with three arenas plus the City of Champions stadium. Having a new Clippers arena (surely by 2024) and the City of Champions stadium helps Los Angeles significantly. Not sure where a new Clippers arena would be located though? Maybe somewhere along the waterfront?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballmer said that he has no intention of moving the Clippers out of LA. 

The Forum is more of a concert venue, and staying on the West side of LA is a challenge because, well, there is no more space. They would have to demolish existing structures.

One place that interestingly I thought of, was the old proposed site for the LA Olympic Village that was abandoned. The "Piggy Back" yards. 

Ballmer would also benefit from the LA River restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine a new arena anywhere in West LA.  The Westside is notoriously full of NIMBYs, too.  And too traffic-choked.  Public transportation would have to be way improved, too, in that part of town.  

 

If they do put an arena on the Westside, maybe the Playa Vista area, which is undergoing construction anyway?  Or maybe the Santa Monica Airport area?  If the Santa Monica Airport closes, maybe they could build it there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

One place that interestingly I thought of, was the old proposed site for the LA Olympic Village that was abandoned. The "Piggy Back" yards.

And why would that make any sense at all, when one of the main reasons why the Piggy Back yards site was abandoned in the first place, was because it would intially cost too much just to clean up the area for redevelopment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

And why would that make any sense at all, when one of the main reasons why the Piggy Back yards site was abandoned in the first place, was because it would intially cost too much just to clean up the area for redevelopment.

For the Olympic bid, god yes. Way too much money for an organization that is already under the microscope.

But we're talking Steve Ballmer money.

Just hear me out.

Steve Baller's net worth is approximately $25 Billion. He bought the Clippers for an unprecedented $2 Billion. $2 Billion! That's crazy for a team that shares their court with the Lakers.

So for me, $1 Billion to clean up the land and relocate the facilities, plus another $1 Billion for the site and construction itself doesn't seem entirely out of reach or far fetched.

If he partners up with other developers for hotels, restaurants, housing and such, the costs can be spread out.

I am just saying, for the Olympic movement, Piggy Back Yards was a loud and resounding "No"

For a private developers and Ballmer who already paid for the team, it sounds a lot more doable.


Also, was watching the DNC Live and caught LA Mayor wearing the LA2024 Bid Pin. Haha. 


Coe-_BRVYAAZorV.jpg:large
 

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...