Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JO2024 said:

Both Paris and LA bids are equally strong. The only difference is that the IOC can't really afford to refuse a strong european bid (and even more after today), while they know they can get the US whenever they want.

I wouldn't go that far.  To say "the IOC can't really afford" to refuse Paris is us making the assumption they might not come back again for 2028.  We don't know that for sure.  The IOC doesn't know that for sure.  They have to make a calculation based on what is best for their future, and I agree that yes, selecting Paris seems like the better option.  But I'd be careful to think that Paris would and should play that card when they can still win this one on merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I wouldn't go that far.  To say "the IOC can't really afford" to refuse Paris is us making the assumption they might not come back again for 2028.  We don't know that for sure.  The IOC doesn't know that for sure.  They have to make a calculation based on what is best for their future, and I agree that yes, selecting Paris seems like the better option.  But I'd be careful to think that Paris would and should play that card when they can still win this one on merit.

After 4 failed bids, do you really think Paris would be back for 2028? Don't count on that.

And I didn't say Paris 2024 would be playing that card. That was just my opinion there. But I have to agree on one thing, they sure can win on merit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

Luckily for Abrahamson, the terrorism angle is only a small part of his argument, given that the article was published on 15 September. It would probably have looked a bit different if it had been published after last weekend.

I haver no idea who the Abrahamson guy is, but half his points are asinine, the others are just incorrect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RuFF said:

Just curious Rob. Let's discount Alan Abrahamsen to dirt. But what about the other article? Are you prepared to discount an Olympic Scholar? A current member of the International Society of Olympic Historians? Is what he is saying also pathetic? 

Its rather interesting that the credentials of people on a public forum are greater than those who have real skin in the game, which for better or for worse would include Alan. 

I was responding to the article you posted and what was written. I didn't take any account of who wrote it. But it was not much more than boosterism. A Paris bid will give the IOC 7 years of headlines about terrorism. Maybe. But it's naive or dishonest to assume an LA victory will see cynical Western media suddenly giving the IOC good headlines. The same old stories will still rear their heads; local businesses who might be affected, Olympic lanes, ticket prices, drug scandals, sponsorship controversies. The one thing LA DOES have is that it doesn't have to construct much. Paris has that as well though. This forced narrative, that Paris will give the IOC seven years of doom and gloom headlines whilst LA will come to the rescue with sunshine and rainbows is very silly. I'm sorry if I decided not to take it wholly seriously. It was the writer's way of coming to the conclusion that LA should get 2024 with Paris following in 2028, not a real attempt at serious journalism.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

Just curious Rob. Let's discount Alan Abrahamsen to dirt. But what about the other article? Are you prepared to discount an Olympic Scholar? A current member of the International Society of Olympic Historians? Is what he is saying also pathetic?

"Olympic scholar" or not, Idy's opinion is still only ONE man's opinion. He doesn't have an actual vote nor does he speak for the greater IOC membership. I'm sure that we could find just as many, if not more, "Olympic scholars" that would totally disagree with Uyoe's assessment.

The only reason why you would want to give it more credit than it actually deserves is bcuz it simply lines up with your L.A.-centric "opinion".

1 hour ago, JO2024 said:

After 4 failed bids, do you really think Paris would be back for 2028? Don't count on that.

Exactly - yeah, "we don't know for sure" that Paris wouldn't come back, but odds are that they wouldn't. It took a lot for this French 2024 effort to get off the ground, so another one right away after yet another stinging loss, I would say would be a big, fat NO.

If the IOC wants to gamble, they'd have a much better shot placing that type of bet with L.A. Like it's been said before, but the IOC could have its cake & eat it, too, with Paris 2024 & L.A. 2028 (totally opposite of what a certain buffoon at a certain L..A. newsppaper says).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JO2024 said:

After 4 failed bids, do you really think Paris would be back for 2028? Don't count on that.

And I didn't say Paris 2024 would be playing that card. That was just my opinion there. But I have to agree on one thing, they sure can win on merit.

If the competition is paper thin, they might.  I know there's a feeling there that it's a slap in the face every time they lose and I'm sure they would take 2024 pretty hard.  But of those 4 failed bids, 1992 was rigged against them, 2008 was a matter of poor timing, 2012 was a close call between a big rival city, and who knows what 2024 will bring.  If LA wins 2024, who does that leave for 2028?  Certainly won't see a bid from North America or South America.  Probably not from Asia.  South Africa is waiting until 2032.  Australia?  Otherwise it's all Europe.  If Paris is still smarting from a 2024 loss and doesn't want to try, I understand that.  But given that European bids are dropping like flies, they should pick themselves up and go after it again.  I know that's easy for me to say when it's not my money and my resources on the line, but if this is about Parisians being emotionally spent from losing, you're not helping your cause by waiting another few cycles because who knows what the circumstances will be then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given I'm pretty neutral in this race, unlike yourself, I have no reason to take it personally. He raised that silly Twitter "controversy" about people posting pictures of Paris in the sun and tried to make it into a big deal (again) - and from this he's tried to conclude Paris doesn't have an original narrative. And like I said, he's using (and 'using' is the right word here) the Paris attacks to suggest LA's biggest rival can't give the IOC with positivity they would want right now. It's really, really stretching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Wouldn't this be where you would present the case? I mean if that's what you're preaching why not get to it. JO2024 could do the same thing. 

Because I don't claim to know all the details of Paris to make an informed case on their behalf.  And especially that JO2024 is here, let him offer support of Paris since he's undoubtedly more knowledgeable about their bid than I am.  I know this forum is set up that there's an LA thread and a Paris thread that don't necessarily inter-mingle.  But again, for as much as I poke fun at you sometimes for not stepping outside the LA thread to engage in discussion, just because the discourse here is all about LA should not ignore that there is a Paris camp out there that may want to stay in their bubble.  If you're surrounding yourself with news and information that is all about LA, that information about Paris is not going to present itself for you.  You have to go seek it out and/or venture outside your comfort zone to engage with those who feel about Paris the way you do about LA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

 If LA wins 2024, who does that leave for 2028?  Certainly won't see a bid from North America or South America.  Probably not from Asia.  South Africa is waiting until 2032.  Australia?  Otherwise it's all Europe.  

The same can be said for those that say L.A. won't bid again if they lose 2024. 2028 would be North America's to lose & the USOC & L.A. would be stupid if they felt 'smartened off' by a 2024 loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RuFF said:

But one can be civilized and discuss how Paris and LA compare. He presented his view, if you're civil enough maybe that's a place to start with yours.

This is utterly laughable coming from you, who's resorting to personal name calling & snide insults bcuz the rest of us don't wear the same kind of L.A. sunglasses as you do. But I digress. 

"His views" are one thing, but when you take them as Holy Scared, then there's a problem. The NBC contract, for one, as noted, is already a done deal. It can be certain that one of the next three Summer Olympics is coming to the U.S. but it doesn't have to be 2024, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

The same can be said for those that say L.A. won't bid again if they lose 2024. 2028 would be North America's to lose & the USOC & L.A. would be stupid if they felt 'smartened off' by a 2024 loss.

That's just the thing (and yes, I know exactly what poster I'm about to sound like).. we don't know.  We can make those assumptions, but we have the benefit of not actually having a dog in the fight and freely posting on an Internet forum what we think.  I do agree with the rhetoric that Paris is likely to be more butthurt by a loss than LA, but I'm not sure the IOC will base their decision on that.  And from what we've heard from some French posters here (not to say they represent the collective feelings of the Paris organizers), this is more about emotion than it is reason.  New York took a shot and didn't come back again.  Ditto with Chicago.  That they didn't return was not an emotional decision, nor was the USOC's decision to sit out 2020.  The sense I get here (which again, may or may not represent those who actually matter in all this) is that Parisians might be emotionally destroyed by another loss and how could they pick themselves up to try again and risk more disappointment.  That doesn't sound like something motivated by reason.  Reason is the approach LA would likely take where they know 2028 is still a good opportunity and try again.

Either way, I don't think that perception is what will drive this.  it'll be in the back of the minds of IOC voters, I'm sure.  Insomuch as they can't always be trusted to make a forward-thinking decision, I still see them making a choice by reason and not nonsense.  In the end, it probably still points to Paris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, RuFF said:

You're absolutely right. It doesn't have to be 2024. But as we are discussing here Paris has a great opportunity in 2028, as LA does. And while NBC has been reduced as a done deal let's examine what he is saying. NBC received disappointing ratings from Rio. There is at least a 6 hour time difference if Europe wins 2024 and the next three Olympics are going to have an about 11 hour delay for primetime. None of that is good for NBC, and while it is a done deal there will sooner or later be another deal that needs to be made by NBC. In this particular instance 7.75 Billion was paid for the broadcasting rights of the games from 2022 until 2032. 2022 - 2014 is 8 years. 2032 - 2024... 2024, if it looks anything like 2014, presents a key opportunity for the IOC to negotiate a lucrative contract with NBC. 

Remember something if you're going to make the "Europe is 6 hours ahead" argument.  The London Olympics with primetime all on tape did better ratings than Rio with primetime predominantly live (to the East coast, at least), when it was hyped up that it would do better because of the smaller time difference.  There's a lot more to that than simply time zones, but remember also that the 2022-2032 deal was a pre-emptive strike by NBC and the IOC to lock that in long time.  If this was any sort of open bidding or negotiation, they would have probably waited a little longer, so that 8 year gap (which is really 10 since the first Olympics available is 2034), would probably be something less if they wanted other networks to be involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RuFF said:

True. But a US games in 2028 would narrow that gap to 6 years. 

Which might be exactly the gap the IOC is looking for.  At least then, the 2034 host city would be known and the 2036 bid process would be underway.  10 years out seems like a long time to ask for networks to commit their resources, especially if they want other networks involved.  6 years seems more reasonable to get that done.  Regardless of what the host cities for 2024/2026/2028 are, I think we won't see the next TV negotiation go down until after the 2028 Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FYI said:

 

If the IOC wants to gamble, they'd have a much better shot placing that type of bet with L.A. Like it's been said before, but the IOC could have its cake & eat it, too, with Paris 2024 & L.A. 2028 (totally opposite of what a certain buffoon at a certain L..A. newsppaper says).

Of course. Because L.A. is always willing to be sloppy seconds or the city of "we have nowhere else to go". Which is what L.A. always has been. Has L.A. ever been a first choice for the IOC? Never. L.A. is the fat girl that thinks the high school stud really likes her, but in reality, she's just the one that's always desperate, and lapping at the studs heels, and is willing to put out when the stud has no other options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the current crisis in Europe, and seeing that an european city has resigned from the race using economic issues as a justification, I think the L.A. bid will get much stronger now. I don't mean to say Paris has zero chances, only that now both cities have the same posibilities of winning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ikarus360 said:

With the current crisis in Europe, and seeing that an european city has resigned from the race using economic issues as a justification, I think the L.A. bid will get much stronger now. I don't mean to say Paris has zero chances, only that now both cities have the same posibilities of winning. 

More like Europe's chances got bigger, while L.A.'s road just got a lot harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC has come out & said before, that if it was "all about the money", then Chicago would've won the 2016 Olympics instead. I'm sure it's all relative, but unless the Olympics are held in some sort of bubble town, any Summer Olympics would make the IOC money. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Aquatic said:

Of course. Because L.A. is always willing to be sloppy seconds or the city of "we have nowhere else to go". Which is what L.A. always has been. Has L.A. ever been a first choice for the IOC? Never. L.A. is the fat girl that thinks the high school stud really likes her, but in reality, she's just the one that's always desperate, and lapping at the studs heels, and is willing to put out when the stud has no other options.

Aftet 1984, that couldn't further from the truth.

Such a terrible analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I do agree with the rhetoric that Paris is likely to be more butthurt by a loss than LA, but I'm not sure the IOC will base their decision on that.  And from what we've heard from some French posters here (not to say they represent the collective feelings of the Paris organizers), this is more about emotion than it is reason.  New York took a shot and didn't come back again.  Ditto with Chicago.  That they didn't return was not an emotional decision, nor was the USOC's decision to sit out 2020.  

Can't speak much for New York, but how do you know that Chicago didn't come back for "emotional reason", at least partially to that effect. Even when the Rio Games were about to start, there were quite a few articles in the Chicago Tribune about "what could've been & the 'stinging' defeat to Rio de Janiero".

Unlike New Yorkers (that can mainly just brush things aside with a nonchalant attitude), Midwesterners are much more conservative, & take things more at face value. The first-round exit was a blow (at least to the city of Chicago), & was reason enough for them to not even bother with another expensive bid after that kind of megher result.

I'll agree though, that the decision of the USOC not to return for 2020 had more to do with "re-examining" what went wrong than about emotion. And I've said it before & I'll say it again, but had Chicago been in the final round with Rio & still lost but by a smaller margin, the city probably would've been much more receptive to another bid & the USOC most likely would've been onboard. But the unexpected first-round elimination is what really put everything else after that on deep hiatus. 

But with that said, no one is saying that the IOC "will base their decision" on who would be the most "butthurt". But at the same time, the IOC is a calculated sporting organization, & while in the end, the IOC really only cares about themselves, is reason enough that it would likely register in there somewhere VS just being "nonsense".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aquatic said:

L.A. is the fat girl that thinks the high school stud really likes her, but in reality, she's just the one that's always desperate, and lapping at the studs heels, and is willing to put out when the stud has no other options.

:lol: Them can be fightin' words with some of the L.A. "groupies" on here! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RuFF said:

The cities, however, are spending a lot and that's the money we are talking about. 

Other than Budapest, though, NONE of the other cities would be spending that much more, nor that much less from one another (& that was true even when Rome was still in the race). So that's a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aquatic said:

Of course. Because L.A. is always willing to be sloppy seconds or the city of "we have nowhere else to go". Which is what L.A. always has been. Has L.A. ever been a first choice for the IOC? Never. L.A. is the fat girl that thinks the high school stud really likes her, but in reality, she's just the one that's always desperate, and lapping at the studs heels, and is willing to put out when the stud has no other options.

L.A. helped save the Olympic movement in 1984.  We all know they were the only choice the IOC had, but the results speak for themselves.  Yes, that is a really bad analogy.  Remind us.. how many Olympics has the Bay Area hosted?

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...