Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, alphamale86 said:

If my memory serves me correct the rev sharing deal was handled by the time they needed to submit cities for 2020 I remember because LA was pushing for the USOC to bid and Las Vegas decided to jump in without the USOC. But public sentiment in general was too low for USOC to jump in after Chicago so maybe not butthurt but buttsore. 

The revenue sharing agreement was finalized in May of 2012.  Bids for the 2020 Olympics had to be submitted I believe by September of 2011.  Could the USOC have rushed the timetable to come to that agreement?  Perhaps, but that would have been a bad reason to do that just to get it in under the 2020 deadline, let alone how long it would have taken to vet out candidate cities like they did for 2024.  So no, not butthurt.  Not buttsore.  A thought out and calculated decision not to pursue the long and drawn out process of trying to find a candidate to work with.  This isn't France or Great Britain where there's 1 and only 1 obvious city to put forward.  The USOC needs a bigger internal process to find the right city.

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

13 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

I just read the article on LA's new MLS stadium. Is that - a 22k seat stadium - really the proposed site for Olympic football?? I can see it as a prefect hockey or rugby stadium, but shouldn't football go someplace with more seats - a LOT more seats?

Would be ideal for 7s. Otherwise, it could be a venue for early round football matches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

and to your point about Norway your example is purely perception. "they simply didn't want to deal with the IOC and their bullshit." what does that mean? If that was the case why even bid? They dropped out moments after Sochi's postmortem was conducted and moments before the IOC decided to chose a city. That kind of tells me they saw what went down in Sochi and said no I'm not going through that.

After they expressed interest, the list of requirements from the IOC got leaked to the press and killed the bid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alphamale86 said:

and to your point about Norway your example is purely perception. "they simply didn't want to deal with the IOC and their bullshit." what does that mean? If that was the case why even bid? They dropped out moments after Sochi's postmortem was conducted and moments before the IOC decided to chose a city. That kind of tells me they saw what went down in Sochi and said no I'm not going through that.

Get your timeline straight.  Sochi was February 2014.  Oslo was still in the running when applicant cities were accepted in July of 2014.  They didn't drop out until October of that year and all of that was well before the vote in the summer of 2015.  It was widely reported that it was the "7,000 pages of demands" from the IOC that played a large role in scaring them off.  Norweigans had every reason to be concerned after the fallout from Sochi, but that's not what turned the tide.  The final nail in the coffin was a vote over financial guarantees.  The IOC should have bent over backwards to keep Oslo in the race and then when they dropped out, they scolded the Norweigans as if this was on them.  That's what I mean when I say they didn't want to deal with the bullshit.

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

FYI isn't very self aware. He's not the only one though. A lot of the conversations on here are based on what it seems like. A load of projecting going on and I'd throw in some narssicistic behavior, too. A lot of conversations going on in some of these dudes heads and if you don't follow the script...

OMFG - who's "projecting" now!! :lol::lol:  And you would know all about narcissism. :P

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

 

Rio wasn't a "fiasco". It was only a fiasco by the people who enjoyed "bagging" those Games at every opportunity that they could get, especially on these boards. When the IOC awarded Rio those Games seven years ago, the picture in Brazil was a much prettier one than the one today. And economist were actually predicting a brighter future for the Brazilian economy. So can't really blame the IOC on the information that they had at the time.

Just bcuz there MIGHT be "a longer line" of European cities that could potentially go for 2028, if L.A. were to win 2024, doesn't necessarily mean that those cities are viable. Some people are still bitching that Rio was a "fiasco", but yet you're advocating the likes of Rome &  Madrid? There's a reason why Rome pulled out of 2020, & why there might be a danger of them pulling out of 2024, too.

But that one is not bcuz of the IOC's image or reputation, but rather it has moreso to do with the dire state of the Roman/Italian economy. Not to mention, Rome would need soooo MUCH work to do, infrastructure wise, & couple that with the natural corruption that goes on in Italy, & you could  have yourself Rio 2.0

And our German friends here have attested that Berlin is pretty much a non-starter, for internal political reasons. Their 2000 bid (at a time where the Olympics didn't have such a bad wrap) still faced very vocal domestic protest. Munich & Hamburg, which have both just recently rejected Olympic bids of their own, I don't see them returning anytime soon. Cuz it probably will take more than just a couple of smoothly run Olympics to turn around perception of the IOC within Germany.

Sure, Tokyo 2020 could host great Games & perhaps rekindle interest in the Games. But one major problem with that logic - the 2024 vote happens a full three years PRIOR to the 2020 Games. So the IOC has to think of the here & now. And I don't think that they would want to take that gamble, when they have the creme-de-la-creme of all the European capitals banging on their door right now that's ready & willing to showcase their expensive circus.

 

All you have said is valid and true but you forget the key factor of time. Things change. Rio 7 years ago was on the top of the world and then fell rapidly over the last 3 years. We all assume LA will keep bidding if they lose but Paris won't? What logic does that make, when Paris came back after losing to LONDON in a race Paris was supposed to win.

So my point is just to say economies, politics and public sentiment changes over time so we need to get out of this whole "Paris will never return, no European city will get it's act together to bid and the IOC will be screwed" thought because their will always be bidders and countries will always send teams to the olympics so what might be right for the IOC in 2024 quite frankly to me is evenly split between the two. You keep it in LA or you keep it in Paris, there are equal pros and cons to both and I will go as far as saying they are the same pro's and cons. Do you truly think voters will be like "Damn we made a bad choice choosing 1 over the other" when it comes to two extremely strong bids. Now if Paris were to lose to Boston I would see how they might say the system is rigged and be upset but it's LA the America's olympic city. Paris will be back and LA will be back and if they aren't then the IOC will just go to whoever shows up to bid. that's what happened in 2022 not ideal but Beijing is willing to pay. Oh well move on. If both Paris and LA don't show up next go around Doha is waiting in the wings to clean it up lol

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

All you have said is valid and true but you forget the key factor of time. Things change. Rio 7 years ago was on the top of the world and then fell rapidly. What logic does that make, when Paris came back after losing to LONDON in a race Paris was supposed to win.

Well, precisely. But what are you trying to say? That things can fall elsewhere "over time" but not in L.A.? And no, Paris did NOT come back after they lost to London. They skipped 2016 & 2020.

8 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

So my point is just to say economies, politics and public sentiment changes over time so we need to get out of this whole "Paris will never return, no European city will get it's act together to bid and the IOC will be screwed" thought because their will always be bidders and countries will always send teams to the olympics 

But "time" is something that the IOC doesn't have between votes. They have to make their decisions based on the HERE & NOW, not seven years from now.

I've never said that European cities will never get their **** together. I've also never said that Paris won't bid again (both of those are merely what you THINK you're reading). 

Although, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the French skipped another couple of cycles again. That's what the IOC I'm sure could probably take into consideration, too. As much as some like to say that the IOC is all about images, the Olympics attached to Paris is as iconic as you can get. Only London (which has already hosted recently) & New York (which is not bidding) can match that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jesse Saenz said:

 

The IOC needs to cut the crap with all the anti american bs... its what got them into the whole Rio fiasco to begin with.

 

I thought you were a bit more balanced Jesse.

Not voting for a city in a country that has already had four games in the past 36 years would not be anti-americanism. It was not anti-americanism that won 2016 for Rio. Rio was not a fiasco.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I thought you were a bit more balanced Jesse.

Not voting for a city in a country that has already had four games in the past 26 years would not be anti-americanism. It was not anti-americanism that won 2016 for Rio. Rio was not a fiasco.

The US has only hosted 1 summer and 1 winter Olympics in the past 26 years.

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

Santa Monica city council voted unanimously to close Santa Monica airport.

Did a site for the new LA Clippers arena suddenly popped up???

:o

Huge news!  And I mean about the Santa Monica Airport closing, not necessarily about the LA Clippers.  I don't give a flying turd about them.  

 

Edit:  Ah, not so huge news.  Apparently, the Santa Monica city council has voted to close down Santa Monica Airport two previous times.  The FAA say that the airport must remain open until at least 2023:  http://laist.com/2016/08/24/santa_monica_airport.php

 

 

Edited by ejaycat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

The US has only hosted 1 summer and 1 winter Olympics in the past 26 years.

Typo - 36

Even if we only count 2 in 26 years, that still shows anything but "anti-Americanism". Any more than France losing recent bids show the IOC is anti-French (as I've also seen some French suggest on these boards).

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Typo - 36

Even if we only count 2 in 26 years, that still shows anything but "anti-Americanism". Any more than France losing recent bids show the IOC is anti-French (as I've also seen some French suggest on these boards).

And if we were to look at it another way, too - anyone being born between 1965-1975 in the U.S., have already had the opportunity to see four Olympic Games within their life in this country. 

Or if we wanna do two Games, anyone born between 1985-1990 still have had the opportunity to see two Games in their life in this country. Not too shabby, I say, when most people in other host countries really only get what most would consider anyway, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And then there are those other countries, that never get the opportunity at all.

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

Well, precisely. But what are you trying to say? That things can fall elsewhere "over time" but not in L.A.? And no, Paris did NOT come back after they lost to London. They skipped 2016 & 2020.

But "time" is something that the IOC doesn't have between votes. They have to make their decisions based on the HERE & NOW, not seven years from now.

I've never said that European cities will never get their **** together. I've also never said that Paris won't bid again (both of those are merely what you THINK you're reading). 

Although, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the French skipped another couple of cycles again. That's what the IOC I'm sure could probably take into consideration, too. As much as some like to say that the IOC is all about images, the Olympics attached to Paris is as iconic as you can get. Only London (which has already hosted recently) & New York (which is not bidding) can match that. 

OK Maybe we're going at it the wrong way. what do you think will happen if Paris loses 2024?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I thought you were a bit more balanced Jesse.

Not voting for a city in a country that has already had four games in the past 36 years would not be anti-americanism. It was not anti-americanism that won 2016 for Rio. Rio was not a fiasco.

I'm just having a hard time believing that the Russina doping Russina rought to light by the US is somehow now a blow for the LA 2024 bid. It's on a ton of major news sites.

So lets protect the cheaters and punish the whistleblower?

"Growing anti-americanism amongst IOC voters"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys/Gals,

September is well over a year away.

 

I've made pro LA comments and anti IOC comments in the past week.

While I am hopeful that LA wins the bid, I am also well aware of the fact that Paris... freaking Paris...is in the running.

I'll be honest, that city has been good to me. So many great and drunken nights.

LA is in my heart. She is a young city with a giant heart...LA 2024 is a world away from 1984... but Paris...she too has been great to me.

LA or Paris 2024.... the world wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesse Saenz is very right. Sure there is the risk that Paris or LA will not bid again, but no matter who actually wins, the world wins. 2020 and 2024 will be a very solid series of games. Both will be held in reliable, responsible, and democratic nations with rich cultures that hold global influence. They will be held in cities that are cultural, sporting, and financial capitals of their nations and sometimes political. That alone will make the games, whoever wins, a great experience and fantastic opportunity for the IOC to showoff a new identity and better future for the movement.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Ruff, I was talking about both Paris and LA and pointing out their common strengths. You wanna be an ass and deny them to make Paris look stronger, be my guest. However, it confuses me. I thought you wanted LA to win?

The point of my post was that Paris and LA have much in common and could both host a games better than what the IOC deserves but games that would make the world and their host nations proud. So please. Stop being a know it all dick and take a compliment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, doesn't LA's prominence in all of those industries you listed only make it more of a financial and political capital of the US? Culture affects politics and all of the affects finance. Trillions of dollars are made in New York because of investments made in LA. As far as I'm concerned LA is both A (meaning one of many) political, cultural and financial capital not just of the US but also the world. Like Paris.

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

According to this article published in here, it seems that the Lochte debacle may affect the LA2024 bid.

BidWeek: How Rio 2016 Changed the 2024 Olympic Bid Race

http://gamesbids.com/eng/robs-bidblog/bidweek-how-rio-2016-changed-the-2024-olympic-bid-race/

 

That article is for the most part an opinion piece. And the idea that his appearance in a shitty reality show will affect the LA bid is ridiculous. None of the trash D-list "celebrities" on Celebrity Big Brother damaged London's bid for 2012 because no one cared about it. Same thing will be for DWTS. Besides, Ryan Lochte isn't even one of the more worse humans to have ever made it to the show. I would put Master P, Tom DeLay, Kirstie Alley, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Kim Kardashian, Toni Braxton, Lil' Kim, and Kate Gosselin just to name a few as far worse people to have ever made the show. The only difference with Ryan Lochte compared to the others is his scandal is fresh off people's mind.

Still, I think the show should remove him because it could potentially hurt their ratings. But if they plan on keeping him, I want to see them try and get Gabby Douglas on the show as the other athlete this season. I'd like to see what Olympian white trash America wants to put their support behind; the douchebag that falsified a police report and ended up vandalizing a business, or the 3-time gold medalist that didn't put her hand over her heart during the national anthem.

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...