los angeles 2024

[Quaker2001]

41 minutes ago, Ansem said:

To potentially face Toronto? I think the US would have a better chance with New York City

Viewing bids and cities in a vacuum, it might.  But only if we're talking in the hypothetical sense.  For NYC to actually put together a bid that would be more appealing to the USOC than one from LA is a longshot at best.  And unless you think a competing bid might come from NYC for 2028, it's probably a moot point.

[TeamBlakeUSA]

If Los Angeles Loses 2024 Bid, That Means Portland Would Bid For 2028 Games.

[Rob2012]

16 hours ago, Ansem said:

In all objectivity, I don't see how LA can beat Paris after last night. I wasn't surprised by Trump's victory, but by how much he won...

Yep, he won by a huge margin of -200,000 votes!

[baron-pierreIV]

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

, but let's not pretend that because you hold the Olympics in such high regard that the soon-to-be POTUS would feel the same way.

 

Uhmmm...stop speaking for me.  I no longer hold the Olympics  in such high regard.  I pretty much think it's a bankrupt, both financially and morally, endeavor.  

[Ansem]

5 hours ago, Rob. said:

Yep, he won by a huge margin of -200,000 votes!

Never thought he'd take Pennsylvania. Seems the overall vote is irrelevant in the US...That electoral college system is really bizarre

[Ansem]

I don't see why the IOC would want to go back to L.A 32 years after 1984... A comparable bid from a North American city that never hosted the games would have more consideration than Los Angeles who already had them...32 years is rather short, That's another reason why I don't think Calgary should bid either.

[FYI]

Well, for starters, 2028 would be 44 years from 1984, not 32. Can't look at the gap as of today. Second, does a bid that's never hosted before automatically have "more consideration" than a bid that has hosted before? Yeah, ask Madrid 2020 & Istanbul 2020 how that one worked out for them, & then ask Tokyo 2020.

I also wouldn't call an L.A. vs Toronto campaign that "comparable". Toronto would have much more work to do than a much more sustainable L.A. bid. And if the IOC is really serious about their own reforms & cutting down costs, etc, I don't know how that would look if they decide to go back to the direction of spend, spend, spend. Especially after a much more sustainable Paris 2024 Games in comparison. L.A. 2028 would follow that trend more nicely. Not to mention that the USOC has been knocking at the IOC's door & re-establishing relationships for the third time now, since the last time Toronto even bid in 2001. And it would also be L.A.'s consecutive bid.

With that said, I certainly could see Toronto being competative, especially if they're only main competition was to be L.A. (& maybe Melbourne). But I wouldn't say it would be slam-dumk for Toronto simply because they haven't hosted before, just like many of the L.A. supporters here say it's not a shoo-in for Paris 2024. One of the main things Toronto would have going for it though (besides not having hosted before), is its location in the U.S. prime-time Eastern Time Zone. But of course, all of the above depends on Paris 2024 winning. 

As for Calgary, if no real "traditional" European competion come out to play for 2026, as was the case for 2022 (after all the Europeans pulled their bids), then they have a great shot of succeeding. Especially if all they're facing in competition is a place like Almaty, or even Sofia. You can't always look at Olympics bids in the fashion, "well, this place has already hosted, so they're out". Cuz it all depends on the dynamics of each Olympic bid campaign, & each one is very different from the next. 

[FYI]

7 hours ago, Rob. said:

Yep, he won by a huge margin of -200,000 votes!

I haven't bothered checking yet, but that was the final tally? What a fricken joke! "Electoral college" - it's time for you to fu@king go!! 

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Uhmmm...stop speaking for me.  I no longer hold the Olympics  in such high regard.  I pretty much think it's a bankrupt, both financially and morally, endeavor.  

And yet, you're saying that Trump getting his name on an Olympic stadium would be the most vainglorious thing he could accomplish.  2 days after the man was elected President of the United States (which, needless to say, was a pretty monumental upset).  Somehow I don't think he's going to be able to top that one.

[Ansem]

43 minutes ago, FYI said:

Well, for starters, 2028 would be 44 years from 1984, not 32. Can't look at the gap as of today.

My bad about the years

48 minutes ago, FYI said:

Second, does a bid that's never hosted before automatically have "more consideration" than a bid that has hosted before? Yeah, ask Madrid 2020 & Istanbul 2020 how that one worked out for them, & then ask Tokyo 2020.

Madrid never held the games, it was Barcelona. Tokyo held them in 1964. If 2008 Financial crisis didn't happen, Madrid would have won. They outscored Tokyo at every level except finances around the time Spain economy came close from collapsing. Turkey's bid was subpar.

I did mention "comparable" bid. If LA has the superior bid, they should win, it's just not expected that Toronto would submit an inferior bid if they choose to bid. If Montreal can beat Los Angeles in 1976 for the Summer Games, Toronto can absolutely do the same

53 minutes ago, FYI said:

I also wouldn't call an L.A. vs Toronto campaign that "comparable".

Really? how so? Toronto's just the 4th most livable city on the planet while I'm not even sure Los Angeles cracks the top 30...

56 minutes ago, FYI said:

Toronto would have much more work to do than a much more sustainable L.A. bid.

Please explain how you went to that conclusion based on your knowledge Toronto's economy...

57 minutes ago, FYI said:

And if the IOC is really serious about their own reforms & cutting down costs, etc, I don't know how that would look if they decide to go back to the direction of spend, spend, spend.

LOL!!!! The key word is "IF"

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Not to mention that the USOC has been knocking at the IOC's door & re-establishing relationships for the third time now, since the last time Toronto even bid in 2001. And it would also be L.A.'s consecutive bid.

So? They seems pretty pleased with our Winter games of 2010, branded the best by many observers.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

With that said, I certainly could see Toronto being competative, especially if they're only main competition was to be L.A. (& maybe Melbourne). But I wouldn't say it would be slam-dumk for Toronto simply because they haven't hosted before, just like many of the L.A. supporters here say it's not a shoo-in for Paris 2024.

Never said it be a slam dunk for Toronto. Just said Toronto's chance would be good if the bids were of comparable quality. Paris isn't expected to submit a sub-par bid while it will have been 100 years vs 56 for L.A. Equal quality of bid kind of put Paris in the driving seat for 2024.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

As for Calgary, if no real "traditional" European competion come out to play for 2026, as was the case for 2022 (after all the Europeans pulled their bids), then they have a great shot of succeeding. Especially if all they're facing in competition is a place like Almaty, or even Sofia.

If Switzerland bid for 2026 as rumored, Calgary doesn't stand a chance. I would have been only 16 years since Vancouver 2010. They should save their money and wait a little bit longer.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

You can't always look at Olympics bids in the fashion, "well, this place has already hosted, so they're out". Cuz it all depends on the dynamics of each Olympic bid campaign, & each one is very different from the next. 

I keep using the term "comparable bid/ similar or equal quality of bid" but no one pays attention. If Toronto was submitting a poor bid, they don't deserve to win but if they do, they become an attractive choice, not a slam dunk or automatic, but a strong candidate. Besides, a strong Casablanca bid would be even more attractive as the IOC never went to Africa. I would wait for 2032 if I was Toronto

[Ansem]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/37920520

What impact will President Trump have on the Los Angeles bid to host the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics?

Back in August, LA's mayor Eric Garcetti, a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton, acknowledged IOC members had concerns over Trump.

"For us, I think IOC members might have said certain things," he said. "An America that turns inward, like any country that turns inward, isn't good for world peace, isn't good for progress, isn't good for all of us."

IOC president Thomas Bach also spoke in the summer about a "world of selfishness where certain people claim to be superior to others". That was seen as a clear reference to Trump's proposed plans that include potential restrictions on Muslim immigration and the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants.

Trump's plans may not sit well with IOC voters, drawn from a range of countries and cultures.

"They wonder, 'Is America going to take this strange turn?'" added Garcetti.

[baron-pierreIV]

24 minutes ago, Ansem said:

My bad about the years

Madrid never held the games, it was Barcelona. Tokyo held them in 1964. If 2008 Financial crisis didn't happen, Madrid would have won. They outscored Tokyo at every level except finances around the time Spain economy came close from collapsing. Turkey's bid was subpar.

I did mention "comparable" bid. If LA has the superior bid, they should win, it's just not expected that Toronto would submit an inferior bid if they choose to bid. If Montreal can beat Los Angeles in 1976 for the Summer Games, Toronto can absolutely do the same

Really? how so? Toronto's just the 4th most livable city on the planet while I'm not even sure Los Angeles cracks the top 30...

Please explain how you went to that conclusion based on your knowledge Toronto's economy...

LOL!!!! The key word is "IF"

So? They seems pretty pleased with our Winter games of 2010, branded the best by many observers.

Never said it be a slam dunk for Toronto. Just said Toronto's chance would be good if the bids were of comparable quality. Paris isn't expected to submit a sub-par bid while it will have been 100 years vs 56 for L.A. Equal quality of bid kind of put Paris in the driving seat for 2024.

If Switzerland bid for 2026 as rumored, Calgary doesn't stand a chance. I would have been only 16 years since Vancouver 2010. They should save their money and wait a little bit longer.

I keep using the term "comparable bid/ similar or equal quality of bid" but no one pays attention. If Toronto was submitting a poor bid, they don't deserve to win but if they do, they become an attractive choice, not a slam dunk or automatic, but a strong candidate. Besides, a strong Casablanca bid would be even more attractive as the IOC never went to Africa. I would wait for 2032 if I was Toronto

 

You forgot to respond to the last period.  

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Madrid never held the games, it was Barcelona. Tokyo held them in 1964. If 2008 Financial crisis didn't happen, Madrid would have won. They outscored Tokyo at every level except finances around the time Spain economy came close from collapsing. Turkey's bid was subpar.

Very matter-of-factly that you say that, as if evaluation scores and 1 factor would have made the difference.  Madrid may have never held the games, but Spain did with a less than 30 year gap, so that would have been working against them.  Far from a guarantee it goes to them even if not for the financial crisis.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

I did mention "comparable" bid. If LA has the superior bid, they should win, it's just not expected that Toronto would submit an inferior bid if they choose to bid. If Montreal can beat Los Angeles in 1976 for the Summer Games, Toronto can absolutely do the same

And yet Toronto couldn't even beat Atlanta.  A little context here that I'm sure you're aware of.  The story behind the `76 vote was that the IOC wanted to a more neutral nation to host rather than 1 of the 2 world super powers at the time.  That's why Montreal beat Los Angeles.  So it's a false equivalency to base Toronto's chances on Montreal's win when there were circumstances there that wouldn't be present in a future bid

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Never said it be a slam dunk for Toronto. Just said Toronto's chance would be good if the bids were of comparable quality. Paris isn't expected to submit a sub-par bid while it will have been 100 years vs 56 for L.A. Equal quality of bid kind of put Paris in the driving seat for 2024.

As you said earlier, the key word here is "if."  We obviously have a good baseline of what an LA bid will look like.  Toronto is an unknown, and yes, I'm aware you keep using the " comparable bid/ similar or equal quality of bid" line, but that's a hypothetical right there.  You're asking us to pretend like we know nothing about what a Toronto bid might look like, just like how you say the USOC might fare better with NYC as their candidate.  That's only true in your hypothetical "if they had a good bid" world.  Forgive the rest of us if we have pre-conceived notions about these cities and we're already making comparisons rather than hiding behind a "what if" to make an argument.

[FYI]

34 minutes ago, Ansem said:

 Madrid never held the games, it was Barcelona. Tokyo held them in 1964. If 2008 Financial crisis didn't happen, Madrid would have won. They outscored Tokyo at every level except finances around the time Spain economy came close from collapsing. Turkey's bid was subpar.

I never even mentioned Barcelona. So what are you talking about. I know that Madrid has never hosted the Games before, & that was my point. But I know very well all the intangibles that caused Madrid & Istanbul to lose, so no need to explain them to me. But just as those intangibles existed for 2020, they would exist in any other race, like 2028 in this case, which would be a lot more involved than "who's hosted before & who hasn't". 

44 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Really? how so? Toronto's just the 4th most livable city on the planet while I'm not even sure Los Angeles cracks the top 30...

Well, consisdering how you took that out of context, bcuz I explained it after you didn't quote the whole part of that post & then took the rest of it out of context again later on. But nevertheless, I'll play along, so 'please explain' what in the world "most livable city" has to do with any of this, considering how low in those rankings cities like Beijing & Rio are, which were 2008 & 2016 host cities, respectively. 

51 minutes ago, Ansem said:

So? They seems pretty pleased with our Winter games of 2010, branded the best by many observers.

Wow, now there's an exaggeration to say the least! Vancouver 2010 "the best"?! By whom, Canadian "observers". Considering that Lillehammer 1994 was the Best-ever Winter Games, & no other city has come close since then, I'll take your claim with a grain of salt. And I'm sure that the IOC would take into account all the USOC's efforts in the last decade as more than just "so". Especially if they do lose 2024.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Never said it be a slam dunk for Toronto. Just said Toronto's chance would be good if the bids were of comparable quality. Paris isn't expected to submit a sub-par bid while it will have been 100 years vs 56 for L.A. Equal quality of bid kind of put Paris in the driving seat for 2024.

No disagreeing there. But I don't view Paris 2024 & a Toronto 2028 bid in the same geopolitical league, though. But don't misconstrue that as Toronto having 'no chance' against an L.A. bid. 

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

If Switzerland bid for 2026 as rumored, Calgary doesn't stand a chance. I would have been only 16 years since Vancouver 2010. They should save their money and wait a little bit longer.

To quote you - "LOL!!!! The key word there is IF". Considering that Switzerland has failed to get their last two winter bids off the ground due to referendums, it remains to be seen that this latest attempt won't receive the same fate. "Rumored" bids aren't the same thing as ACTUAL bids.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

I did mention "comparable" bid. If LA has the superior bid, they should win, it's just not expected that Toronto would submit an inferior bid if they choose to bid. 

I never said that Toronto would submit an "inferior" bid. I said *sustainable*.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

If Montreal can beat Los Angeles in 1976 for the Summer Games, Toronto can absolutely do the same.

Now there's a simple black-&-white comparison if I ever read one. Yeah, Montreal did beat out Los Angeles (AND Moscow BTW), because it was the most *neutral* choice between the three at the height of the Cold War. It didn't have anything to do whatsoever simply because Montreal was "superior" or better or what have you, than L.A. And seriously, if you wanna use Montreal as an example of some worthy prize, you might want to use another one, considering the city was left with a post 30-year Olympic debt & not all the venues were even completed on time, including the main stadium, when the 1976 Games got started.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

I keep using the term "comparable bid/ similar or equal quality of bid" but no one pays attention. If Toronto was submitting a poor bid, they don't deserve to win but if they do, they become an attractive choice, not a slam dunk or automatic, but a strong candidate. Besides, a strong Casablanca bid would be even more attractive as the IOC never went to Africa. I would wait for 2032 if I was Toronto

It's not that "no one is paying attention", bcuz again, NO ONE has said that Toronto would submit a "poor" bid. But read: *sustainable*. No one is denying that if Toronto were to put together a great plan that works for them, it wouldn't be attractive or a strong candidate. But the same goes for L.A. in a 2028 race, which you seem to dismiss more outright than anyone else is of Toronto. And that's how all this got started.

And seriously, Casablanca a "strong", even more attractive choice for the IOC?!  I don't think the IOC is THAT desperate to get to Africa. If you think that Istanbul's bid was subpar, Casablanca would be child's play. Now if we're talking South Africa, then yeah, that's much more viable, & the U.S. & Canada would then have their Olympic bid work cut out for them.

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

I keep using the term "comparable bid/ similar or equal quality of bid" but no one pays attention. If Toronto was submitting a poor bid, they don't deserve to win but if they do, they become an attractive choice, not a slam dunk or automatic, but a strong candidate. Besides, a strong Casablanca bid would be even more attractive as the IOC never went to Africa. I would wait for 2032 if I was Toronto

There it is again.. Casablanca?  What if their bid isn't strong?  How about we evaluate what they are, not this hypothetical of what they could be.  And if you're banking on 2032 for Toronto, good luck going up against South Africa if they're in that one as well, speaking of never went to Africa.

[JesseSaenz]

Trump is going to want a winning bid for 2017, no doubt about it.

[FYI]

So we go from "L.A.'24 should just 'fold' if Trump wins. It's the 'right' thing to do." - To "Trump is gonna want a winning bid, no doubt about it." Yeah, okay, whatever. I'm sure the IOC can give two sh!ts on what Donald Duck "wants". If they were "offended" by Obama's security detail back in Cogenhagan in 2009, they'll just vomit at anything Trump does or says.

[FYI]

54 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

As you said earlier, the key word here is "if."  We obviously have a good baseline of what an LA bid will look like.  Toronto is an unknown, and yes, I'm aware you keep using the " comparable bid/ similar or equal quality of bid" line, but that's a hypothetical right there.  You're asking us to pretend like we know nothing about what a Toronto bid might look like, just like how you say the USOC might fare better with NYC as their candidate.  That's only true in your hypothetical "if they had a good bid" world.  Forgive the rest of us if we have pre-conceived notions about these cities and we're already making comparisons rather than hiding behind a "what if" to make an argument.

Yeah, exactly. But those tactics "argument" tactics sound very, very familiar in this very thread from another particular poster, don't they.

[Quaker2001]

25 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Trump is going to want a winning bid for 2017, no doubt about it.

Our new president elect has a zillion things to be concerned with.  Gonna take a guess that an Olympic bid is pretty darn far down that list.

[FYI]

Gotta luv these girlz with their outlandish theories.

[Nacre]

9 hours ago, Ansem said:

Never thought he'd take Pennsylvania. Seems the overall vote is irrelevant in the US...That electoral college system is really bizarre

It is designed to prevent a candidate who dominates in one region but is disliked by the rest of the country from winning. That was a major concern in the late 1700's when the USA was highly regionalized and prone to machine politics. Now there is much less fear of a presidential candidate winning an election by taking 100% of the Pennsylvania or New York vote through a locally rigged election.

The US constitution was written for the problems of an embryonic country of the late 1700's, and unfortunately is not optimized for the problems of the 21st century.

[Ansem]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

But just as those intangibles existed for 2020, they would exist in any other race, like 2028 in this case, which would be a lot more involved than "who's hosted before & who hasn't". 

Of course, having held the games before or not aren't the only factor...but you're delusional in thinking that it doesn't account for something

7 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, consisdering how you took that out of context, bcuz I explained it after you didn't quote the whole part of that post & then took the rest of it out of context again later on. But nevertheless, I'll play along, so 'please explain' what in the world "most livable city" has to do with any of this, considering how low in those rankings cities like Beijing & Rio are, which were 2008 & 2016 host cities, respectively. 

You still haven't explain how LA would be more sustainable than Toronto. As for the livability, some criteria are used in both IOC evaluation and livability ranking, however, continent rotation plays a factor as well, which cannot be ignored as well. 

Los Angeles ranks 51st while Beijing ranks 69, so i don't know if you're exaggerating the low rank of Beijing or saying indirectly that Los Angeles is also low...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/most-livable-cities-2016_us_57b5f32ce4b0b51733a1dd55

http://media.heraldsun.com.au/files/liveability.pdf

7 hours ago, FYI said:

Wow, now there's an exaggeration to say the least! Vancouver 2010 "the best"?! By whom, Canadian "observers". Considering that Lillehammer 1994 was the Best-ever Winter Games, & no other city has come close since then, I'll take your claim with a grain of salt. And I'm sure that the IOC would take into account all the USOC's efforts in the last decade as more than just "so". Especially if they do lose 2024.

I said "many", not all of them but hey that's a matter of opinion as they are all unique. 

Why would the IOC take into account the USOC efforts? Toronto tried like 3 times as well..."so". This "American exeptionalism" never gets boring to read.

7 hours ago, FYI said:

No disagreeing there. But I don't view Paris 2024 & a Toronto 2028 bid in the same geopolitical league, though. But don't misconstrue that as Toronto having 'no chance' against an L.A. bid. 

You're entitled to your opinion, but that makes Los Angeles even farther away from being into Paris league by going with your logic...

7 hours ago, FYI said:

I never said that Toronto would submit an "inferior" bid. I said *sustainable*.

Still waiting on you to elaborate...

7 hours ago, FYI said:

Now there's a simple black-&-white comparison if I ever read one. Yeah, Montreal did beat out Los Angeles (AND Moscow BTW), because it was the most *neutral* choice between the three at the height of the Cold War. It didn't have anything to do whatsoever simply because Montreal was "superior" or better or what have you, than L.A. And seriously, if you wanna use Montreal as an example of some worthy prize, you might want to use another one, considering the city was left with a post 30-year Olympic debt & not all the venues were even completed on time, including the main stadium, when the 1976 Games got started.

No, I said that Montreal had won the games, there was nothing about superiority. American cities aren't invincible. If Rio can beat Chicago, then a Canadian city can edge an American city as well.

8 hours ago, FYI said:

It's not that "no one is paying attention", bcuz again, NO ONE has said that Toronto would submit a "poor" bid. But read: *sustainable*. No one is denying that if Toronto were to put together a great plan that works for them, it wouldn't be attractive or a strong candidate. But the same goes for L.A. in a 2028 race, which you seem to dismiss more outright than anyone else is of Toronto. And that's how all this got started

We haven't said we would bid yet. Only a 2024 L.A loss would open that door. Never said LA isn't a strong bid, but Toronto would be more than a match. That's all. 

8 hours ago, FYI said:

And seriously, Casablanca a "strong", even more attractive choice for the IOC?!  I don't think the IOC is THAT desperate to get to Africa. If you think that Istanbul's bid was subpar, Casablanca would be child's play. Now if we're talking South Africa, then yeah, that's much more viable, & the U.S. & Canada would then have their Olympic bid work cut out for them.

Have you been to Casablanca? It's actually pretty impressive and they've builded up their infrastructure a lot. Again, Casablanca wouldn't be a stronger bid than most of the western world cities but a bid meeting all the criteria would give them a strong case to bring the games to Africa for the first time. Yes, South Africa will always be the better choice for Africa, but that continent is developing rapidly.

[stryker]

Trump is not going to impact L.A.'s 2024 bid. I still see this race going to Paris in a runaway, possibly even on the first ballot now that Rome is out. Now when 2028 rolls around, I fully expect that Trump will likely be a one term president and somebody else will be at the helm.

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

Of course, having held the games before or not aren't the only factor...but you're delusional in thinking that it doesn't account for something

I didn't say that element doesn't account for something. Boy, you sure enjoy taking things outta context, don't you. However, that aspect plays more of a role when there are compelling, far more global reaching bids on the table. Not necessarily for relatively smallish countries who already have several Olympic host city notches under their belt.

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

Why would the IOC take into account the USOC efforts? Toronto tried like 3 times as well..."so". This "American exeptionalism" never gets boring to read.

Why wouldn't they? Toronto has only tried twice, for 1996 & 2008. Both attempts were twelve years apart. And from their last effort, it'd be twenty years by the time the 2028 campaign rolls around.

Meanwhile, within that time, the USOC is now on their third bid (& if need be a fourth one for 2028, & L.A.'s 2nd & continuing already ongoing IOC relations), have finally come to an agreement with the IOC on a revenue sharing deal which undermined their last Olympic bid, & NBC has paid billions to the IOC for the broadcast rights until 2032, so I'm sure that they'd like to see a U.S. Games within that timeframe. And if Rio 2016's low ratings is any indication, those expensive right fees may be coming to an end if that trend continues for future Games. 

"So", it's NOT "American exceptionalism" (you seem to enjoy to use that line a lot though, as you do in the FIFA 2026 thread. It's almost as if you have some sort of a complex), but a matter of matual business relations. Since the IOC at the end of the day, is a business & not a charity. 

But you'd be "delusional" in thinking that none of those ongoing IOC relationships that the USOC has worked hard on over the past decade wouldn't account for something, because it would account for quite a bit. 

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

You're entitled to your opinion, but that makes Los Angeles even farther away from being into Paris league by going with your logic...

No disagreement there. Which is why I believe that Paris will win 2024 (unlike some others in this thread). And if that's the case, Paris will be outta the picture when an L.A. 2028 bid came around.

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

You still haven't explain how LA would be more sustainable than Toronto. Still waiting on you to elaborate...

Seriously, do you need it "explained"? Toronto would have to build more Olympic capacity venues & infrastructure than L.A. does to comfortably accommodate the Games, plain & simple. 

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

No, I said that Montreal had won the games, there was nothing about superiority. American cities aren't invincible. If Rio can beat Chicago, then a Canadian city can edge an American city as well.

You said if Montreal can beat L.A., then so can Toronto. So you're  making an implication of somekind that suggests otherwise. And I never said that American cities are "invisible". That's your take.

And Rio beat Chicago because as you said earlier, *continental rotation* plays a role as well. It was time for South America to host the Games. Just like it was China's in 2008, & that's why Toronto was beaten then.

Canada would NOT have that same advantage, since North America has hosted plenty of times already. And since you like to use those type of generic comparisons, (like Quaker mentioned earlier) if Atlanta can beat Toronto, then another U.S. city can edge them out as well. 

[Ansem]

9 hours ago, FYI said:

I didn't say that element doesn't account for something. Boy, you sure enjoy taking things outta context, don't you.

We might be guilty of doing the same thing or perhaps just miscommunication 

9 hours ago, FYI said:

Why wouldn't they? Toronto has only tried twice, for 1996 & 2008. Both attempts were twelve years apart. And from their last effort, it'd be twenty years by the time the 2028 campaign rolls around.

Meanwhile, within that time, the USOC is now on their third bid (& if need be a fourth one for 2028, & L.A.'s 2nd & continuing already ongoing IOC relations), have finally come to an agreement with the IOC on a revenue sharing deal which undermined their last Olympic bid, & NBC has paid billions to the IOC for the broadcast rights until 2032, so I'm sure that they'd like to see a U.S. Games within that timeframe. And if Rio 2016's low ratings is any indication, those expensive right fees may be coming to an end if that trend continues for future Games. 

"So", it's NOT "American exceptionalism" (you seem to enjoy to use that line a lot though, as you do in the FIFA 2026 thread. It's almost as if you have some sort of a complex), but a matter of matual business relations. Since the IOC at the end of the day, is a business & not a charity. 

But you'd be "delusional" in thinking that none of those ongoing IOC relationships that the USOC has worked hard on over the past decade wouldn't account for something, because it would account for quite a bit. 

All of the above is an interesting analysis based on your opinion. So I won't tell you that you're right or wrong to think that. Only that I see your point of view without agreeing with it. I certainly disagree that the NBC deal makes it more likely for Los Angeles to win the games. IOC makes their money regardless, if NBC wasn't going to pay up, another broadcaster would have, and by the way, NBC isn't this planet only broadcasters...just FYI

9 hours ago, FYI said:

Seriously, do you need it "explained"? Toronto would have to build more Olympic capacity venues & infrastructure than L.A. does to comfortably accommodate the Games, plain & simple. 

Yes we would have build more. But that's just one category: "Existing facilities vs new facilities". Granted LA has an advantage there, that still won't guarantee a victory has Toronto has edges over Los Angeles in other categories.

May I dare speculate that the IOC are not know to care about a country willingness to spend. 

9 hours ago, FYI said:

You said if Montreal can beat L.A., then so can Toronto. So you're  making an implication of somekind that suggests otherwise. And I never said that American cities are "invisible". That's your take.

And Rio beat Chicago because as you said earlier, *continental rotation* plays a role as well. It was time for South America to host the Games. Just like it was China's in 2008, & that's why Toronto was beaten then.

Canada would NOT have that same advantage, since North America has hosted plenty of times already. And since you like to use those type of generic comparisons, (like Quaker mentioned earlier) if Atlanta can beat Toronto, then another U.S. city can edge them out as well. 

We're just going in circles so let's not continue that "my city can edge yours" argument. We can beat each other in different things any given days. If Los Angeles lose 2024, North America will have been the continent who will be the most overdue to hold the games, outside of Africa who never held them. 

We'll see what happens for 2024 first and see who ends up bidding for 2028. You'll forgive me if I say that a Trump reelection would be very bad for 2028 as well..