Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They don't have to optimize the stadium for the Olympics, they merely have to allow the organizing committee access to the stadium for modifications at the organizing committee's expense. Theoretically they could remodel the stadium so it is no longer a bowl but rather a standard modern football stadium, and then require the organizing committee to build a platform in the stadium to add a track in order to host the Olympics.

This is what I think the bid committee has in mind. Since the stadium was kind of retrofitted better for football after 1984 when they got rid of the track, it's not as easy as it could be to just get rid of those new seats and put the track back. With this new renovation, even though they're keeping the empty bits by the cauldron for historical preservation, it's going to be suited more for football. What will happen if LA wins will probably be what someone said above that USC and the bid committee will hand off the stadium to one another for a specific time period in which a full roof will be added and what can be assumed a temporary track built a meter or two off the existing pitch.

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

This is what I think the bid committee has in mind. Since the stadium was kind of retrofitted better for football after 1984 when they got rid of the track, it's not as easy as it could be to just get rid of those new seats and put the track back. With this new renovation, even though they're keeping the empty bits by the cauldron for historical preservation, it's going to be suited more for football. What will happen if LA wins will probably be what someone said above that USC and the bid committee will hand off the stadium to one another for a specific time period in which a full roof will be added and what can be assumed a temporary track built a meter or two off the existing pitch.

That, however, would reduce seating capacity even further. (65,000?)

It's hard for me to believe that the LA 2024 committee sees all of this as a good thing. Simply adding suites around the top of the bowl would be preferable for athletics, and keep seating capacity competitive with Paris.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

That, however, would reduce seating capacity even further. (65,000?)

It's hard for me to believe that the LA 2024 committee sees all of this as a good thing. Simply adding suites around the top of the bowl would be preferable for athletics, and keep seating capacity competitive with Paris.

Personally, I think this is a good thing. There are a lot of seats at the back of the stadium that aren't used. I think that a capacity of 70,000 is very realistic. I think the roof will be added during the season after the VIP seats are added because it is a roof and roof renovations to existing bowls usually allow games to be played in the stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think this is a good thing. There are a lot of seats at the back of the stadium that aren't used. I think that a capacity of 70,000 is very realistic. I think the roof will be added during the season after the VIP seats are added because it is a roof and roof renovations to existing bowls usually allow games to be played in the stadium.

Surely you don't mean for the Olympics!?! Track and field/athletics is by far the most expensive event, and is always a sell-out.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/the-most-expensive-olympic-tickets-by-event/

Dropping from 93,600 seats to 65,000 means the loss of over $100 million to the organizing committee, to say nothing of the unfavorable comparisons with Paris' 81,500 seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you don't mean for the Olympics!?! Track and field/athletics is by far the most expensive event, and is always a sell-out.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/the-most-expensive-olympic-tickets-by-event/

Dropping from 93,600 seats to 65,000 means the loss of over $100 million to the organizing committee, to say nothing of the unfavorable comparisons with Paris' 81,500 seats.

It's NOT alway a "sell-out." It fills up only during some of the major events and towards the evening when people working show up. Otherwise, it's more than half-empty during the day...when most events are the prelims. They won't lose $100 million. You just double the prices for the marquee events...like the 100m, 200m, the relays, and a few others. The Org Committees have studied the data from the previous Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know perfectly well that the vast majority of those empty seats belong to the "Olympic family." The media, corporate drones, officials, etc may not show up, but for cities bigger than Athens the fans do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, LA should be aiming for the kind of attendances London had, not the kind Athens had in athletics. No reason at all why it won't be able to do that, so the aim should be getting the capacity of the stadium as high as possible within the constraints it obviously has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ I think 2016 will show whether 65,000 is feasible or not. Also, another way to sort of maintain high capacity is to break up more sessions and/or increase the days of competition. For example, if a regular T&F day is broken up into 2 sessions in terms of ticketing; make it 3 sessions instead. And then T&F usually runs 10 days of competition. Add 2 more days -- and in total you would get the same capacities for the traditional 10 days at 80,000. It'll come out the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ I think 2016 will show whether 65,000 is feasible or not. Also, another way to sort of maintain high capacity is to break up more sessions and/or increase the days of competition. For example, if a regular T&F day is broken up into 2 sessions in terms of ticketing; make it 3 sessions instead. And then T&F usually runs 10 days of competition. Add 2 more days -- and in total you would get the same capacities for the traditional 10 days at 80,000. It'll come out the same.

It won't come out the same for paying spectators though, as they'll presumably getting fewer minutes of action per dollar of ticket-price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't come out the same for paying spectators though, as they'll presumably getting fewer minutes of action per dollar of ticket-price.

Well, but they have the option of parting with their money or NOT--depending on what's offered. I mean it's an entirely voluntary thing. No one is forcing anyone to purchase tickets. Plus, they will probably be offered as part of a package or something. Each Olympics comes up with one more ingenious marketing plan than the last one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Not Joking USA Never Host The Olympics Since 2002 In Salt Lake City.

He (she?) is laughing because the USA has hosted as many times in the last 50 years as France, Germany and Italy combined. "It's our time" is not a reason to give the games to Los Angeles instead of Paris, Hamburg or Rome.

Meanwhile it is positively shocking that Germany has not hosted the winter games since 1936. I have nothing against Hamburg, but it does seem silly that Bavaria has everything in place for the winter games, yet Germany is proposing to spend 11.2 billion euros on a Summer Olympics with no certain plan for what Hamburg will do with many of the venues afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He (she?) is laughing because the USA has hosted as many times in the last 50 years as France, Germany and Italy combined. "It's our time" is not a reason to give the games to Los Angeles instead of Paris, Hamburg or Rome.

Meanwhile it is positively shocking that Germany has not hosted the winter games since 1936. I have nothing against Hamburg, but it does seem silly that Bavaria has everything in place for the winter games, yet Germany is proposing to spend 11.2 billion euros on a Summer Olympics with no certain plan for what Hamburg will do with many of the venues afterwards.

Unless they can find an area other than Garmisch to hold the outdoor events, Germany will never host another Olympics so long as the current residents of the area are still alive. With the vocal protests during the bid for the 2018 Olympics it's clear that the residents don't want that kind of impact on their land. So the German OC is wasting their time bidding on the WOG unless they can convince those residents it's in their best interest to have the games, or they find a new area for alpine skiing and other outdoor events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The IOC also empowers the OCOG to commercialize the Olympic rights in its home country through sponsorship and licensing programs and ticket sales, all of which produce significant revenues."

The French economy is closer to California's than it is to that of the USA. Assuming this is true, LA has incredible potential here that Paris is going to lack and already the Paris bid is priced higher than LA's. There are also rumors that the USOC is trying to be humble and play down the potential profit numbers. Of course, those are rumors. But given Agenda 2020 and the way the numbers can look I think Paris is going to need more than just a strong bid. I can't wait what story develops with each as we get closer to the vote in 2017.

This is overstated, IMO.

First, they can only sign on companies "in non-competing product categories to the TOP sponsors." They will not be able to sign Pepsi as the official soft drink because Coca Cola already sponsors the IOC. They can't sign a deal with Ford or GM because Toyota sponsors the IOC. They can't sign a deal with Starbucks because McDonalds is the official supplier of coffee.

Second, there's no national restriction on local sponsorship. American companies can sponsor Paris. (UPS was a local sponsor for London, among other American companies.) French companies could sponsor Los Angeles.

Moreover as we have seen in the past companies in the USA are not motivated by patriotism to the degree companies in Europe are. I can guarantee you that Microsoft and Boeing will not sponsor Los Angeles 2024 out of a sense of civic duty.

Altogether the local sponsors will not be nearly enough to make up for the disadvantage that American cities don't get funding from the national government.

Unless they can find an area other than Garmisch to hold the outdoor events, Germany will never host another Olympics so long as the current residents of the area are still alive. With the vocal protests during the bid for the 2018 Olympics it's clear that the residents don't want that kind of impact on their land. So the German OC is wasting their time bidding on the WOG unless they can convince those residents it's in their best interest to have the games, or they find a new area for alpine skiing and other outdoor events.

I know. It is just strangely . . . un-German to push against a sensible bid while accepting one involving a lot of risk and likely waste of resources. It's fine if Germans don't want to deal with the IOC. But all of the same issues in Munich (non-negotiable terms from the IOC, potential environmental damage, waste of money on temporary venues, etc) will also be forced upon Hamburg if they win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the la24.org website I ran into this regarding how the games are financed..

"The IOC also empowers the OCOG to commercialize the Olympic rights in its home country through sponsorship and licensing programs and ticket sales, all of which produce significant revenues."

The French economy is closer to California's than it is to that of the USA. Assuming this is true, LA has incredible potential here that Paris is going to lack and already the Paris bid is priced higher than LA's. There are also rumors that the USOC is trying to be humble and play down the potential profit numbers. Of course, those are rumors. But given Agenda 2020 and the way the numbers can look I think Paris is going to need more than just a strong bid. I can't wait what story develops with each as we get closer to the vote in 2017.

I think domestic sponsorship for an LA24 games could easily hit around 1.75 billion, if not 2B USD.

Obviously, that depends on the economy, and even with the projected 2017-19 recession, it will be a very strong performer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, dude. This is not the time to use this tragic event to benefit your argument as to why LA is "better." No one will ever know how prepared a city will be from terrorists until that time comes.

I don't even think LA is that prepared. If the city can't even contain the recent shootings and deaths that have happened over the past few weeks, then I don't know how LA will handle a full on attack and outright massacre.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

-Fox News: 90% of their reports are constant lies.

-This terrorist attack is with soft targets. Unless the LA Police department has a chrystal ball or cameras/microphones inside the rooms of the buildings of 14 mill. of people, no one can be prepared for that potential chaos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Up until yesterday, Paris also had a track record of no massive terror attacks. Not to disminish the CH attack back in January, but while terrible, it was nowhere near the scale of last night. But the point is, never say never.

And let's keep in mind, that when 9/11 happened, Los Angeles was well in the radar of the terrorists & was suppose to be hit as well. But the unprecendented move to shut down all U.S. airspace after the Twin Towers & the Pentagon were struck is what saved us from being even more battered.

Last night was also meant to be worse, with the assailants meaning to strike inside the stadium, but security at the stadium catching them before they were able to enter is what saved lives, thank The Lord.

Bottom line, just because Los Angeles hasn't suffered a terrorist attack doesn't mean that it can't, no matter the rhetoric anyone else can say about the issue. Complacensy is what gets people in trouble a lot ot the time.

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...