USA 2024

[FYI]

What is even more amusing is before the IOC vote in 2005, NY2012 stated their commitment to bid again for 2016 and possibly even 2020. That was an unfair tactic to use as one of their selling points during the domestic race against SF, they said they were in it for the long haul, but after placing 4th in the IOC vote their tune suddenly changed. I believe every city has a right to change their mind and do what's best for their city, I just don't like misleading statements especially when it works to their favor and then back out when things don't go their way...hence, "big boy pants"!

Do you have any links, sources, etc, for this, since I don't recall anything like this being said by NYC2012, or perhaps maybe you're taking it outta context whatever it was they did say. But beside that, let's be realistic here. Do you honestly think that San Francisco, with their "Palo Alto" main venue plan (which that is what's really amusing) was really going to win out against a mega European field, which included the likes of London & Paris. Not a snowballs chance in hel!.

Not to mention for 2016, San Francisco had to drop out from the domestic race because the 49'ners stadium deal fell apart on them. And like you said, the IOC at the time had a grudge against the USOC anyway, so any U.S. city woulda faced an uphill battle nontheless, regardless of what New York City said or didn't say before. And to this day, San Francisco still can't get its act together. Hence, why the USOC is finally realizing that at this precise moment in time, if they want to bid, Los Angeles is their best bet.

[mr.bernham]

I liked the old logo more...it was so much better.

[mr.bernham]

And after seeing the edited images...I feel like we've taken a dive south. Especially the image on the sponsers page...in the original bid book the original brand looked so much better and a lot less 'Corporate America'.

[mr.bernham]

Also, I'm shocked at the support coming from the city. Nearly 77% of the population wants the games...I think that gives LA more public support than any other city in the race, not to mention the massive public support the US has in wanting to actually host the games again. I seriously think that bidding with LA will allow the US to put its best foot forward and enter the bid race with the strongest bid from a support standpoint.

[Usa2024olympics]

Also, I'm shocked at the support coming from the city. Nearly 77% of the population wants the games...I think that gives LA more public support than any other city in the race, not to mention the massive public support the US has in wanting to actually host the games again. I seriously think that bidding with LA will allow the US to put its best foot forward and enter the bid race with the strongest bid from a support standpoint.

That's actually a old poll I believe. A poll earlier this month concluded 81% are in favor and just 11% oppose.

[Quaker2001]

What is even more amusing is before the IOC vote in 2005, NY2012 stated their commitment to bid again for 2016 and possibly even 2020. That was an unfair tactic to use as one of their selling points during the domestic race against SF, they said they were in it for the long haul, but after placing 4th in the IOC vote their tune suddenly changed. I believe every city has a right to change their mind and do what's best for their city, I just don't like misleading statements especially when it works to their favor and then back out when things don't go their way...hence, "big boy pants"!

To be fair, Chicago never mentioned bidding again and the IOC clearly had an agenda against the USOC during the 2016 vote that Chicago got caught in the middle of so I understand why they stayed away. I just think there's a missed opportunity because Chicago is an amazing city that tends to get overlooked and the Olympics would truly bring the city it's shining moment, at the same time reinvigorating the parts of Chicago that are depressed.

That is amusing, that something before the IOC vote in 2005 was an unfair tactic to use against San Fran.. who had been eliminated from consideration by the USOC nearly 3 years earlier. So if you're if you're butthurt (and judging by your name, there does seem to be a little butthurt in this) about San Francisco losing to NYC, unless those statements came before the USOC vote in 2002, it obviously didn't affect the domestic race. Surprised you didn't bring up how NYC won sympathy points because of 9/11, as some here have occasionally thought of Boston following the marathon bombing.

I was thinking the same thing as FYI that I don't remember the NYC folks making such a statement. And even if they did, it's hardly a case of flip-flopping in order to gain an edge over an opponent. I know the prevailing thinking on this site tends to be that big cities should bid for the Olympics and that when they don't, it's almost as if there's something wrong with them. Yes, maybe the folks in Chicago weren't too eager to try again after 2016, but there's nothing wrong with not bidding for an Olympics, nor is it a missed opportunity, especially when we've seen cities have mixed returns on hosting an Olympics.

[zekekelso]

That's actually a old poll I believe. A poll earlier this month concluded 81% are in favor and just 11% oppose.

I having a hard time believing there would be that much agreement on anything in LA, much less a normally controversial issue like the Olympics.

Do we have details on that poll?

[Usa2024olympics]

I having a hard time believing there would be that much agreement on anything in LA, much less a normally controversial issue like the Olympics.

Do we have details on that poll?

From the ny times

http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/12/sports/olympics/ap-oly-usoc-2024.html?referrer=&_r=0

Boston globe

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/12/los-angeles-comfortable-with-olympic-bid-ways-boston-never-was/N3gtma4RdBKdJyhSQgs9AO/story.html

Right here at GB

http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/usoc-commits-to-a-los-angeles-olympic-bid-backed-by-81-per-cent-public-support/

[alphamale86]

I had posted this before, in the Newswire section but I think It's best suited here in the USA forum as my response to those who have commented on the cost and the use of taxpayer funds.

I'm not going to lie about the Tax payer funds issue, I too think that LA have grossly underestimated the cost to host these games but that's what it costs nowadays to do it in this era. The excess is why we tune in, why there is even a Gamesbids. We have forums dedicated to Venue construction and architecture, forums to ceremonies, medal designs, relay routes, those things cost money and it has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately tax payers are the ones who foot the bill, in every country that decides to host the games.

If we truly had a barebones, no frills, affordable olympics, we would be complaining about that too. "This stadium isn't worthy of the olympics," "That ceremony had no energy" heaven forbid we go back to the simple field pageants of yesteryear literally on the track and field pitch.

All I am saying, is that, in it's present manifestation, the Olympics will cost a lot of money and most of it will always come from Tax payer dollars, but for us Gamesbiders I ask why are we even interested in the Olympics, if we don't want to pay for the thing that has grabbed our attention for decades, woken us up out of bed to watch live feeds from distant lands and, given us a place to theorize conspiracies etc?

If what you're saying is that your interest in the olympics is the bare minimum of simple athletic achievement in the most simple of settings then why aren't you satisfied with just watching the world championships of any given sport? Further more if you have a city with 81 percent saying yes we want it here, then those individuals take the risk. They know they have to pay. You can't say yes we want to throw a large party but no we don't want to pay for it. You kind of have an idea you'll be footing the bill if it's in your city. Boston didn't want to foot the bill hence only 48 percent enthusiasm.

[Dakooo]

I think all the "three week party" bit of the Olympics is now profitibale. If you're making 4.2 billion on the Olympics and all the stuff that will not remain after the Olympics or is just there for the Olympics costs 3.9 billion, you made a profit in my eyes. If the village, stadiums and arenas turn a profit after the Olympics, even if they costed 1.5 billion, you have a profitibale Olympics. If they have a horrible legacy, and remain unused after the Olympics, the games probably didn't turn a profit.

[baron-pierreIV]

I think all the "three week party" bit of the Olympics is now profitibale. If you're making 4.2 billion on the Olympics and all the stuff that will not remain after the Olympics or is just there for the Olympics costs 3.9 billion, you made a profit in my eyes. If the village, stadiums and arenas turn a profit after the Olympics, even if they costed 1.5 billion, you have a profitibale Olympics. If they have a horrible legacy, and remain unused after the Olympics, the games probably didn't turn a profit.

What? What's this nonsense????

[BR2028]

I had posted this before, in the Newswire section but I think It's best suited here in the USA forum as my response to those who have commented on the cost and the use of taxpayer funds.

I'm not going to lie about the Tax payer funds issue, I too think that LA have grossly underestimated the cost to host these games but that's what it costs nowadays to do it in this era. The excess is why we tune in, why there is even a Gamesbids. We have forums dedicated to Venue construction and architecture, forums to ceremonies, medal designs, relay routes, those things cost money and it has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately tax payers are the ones who foot the bill, in every country that decides to host the games.

If we truly had a barebones, no frills, affordable olympics, we would be complaining about that too. "This stadium isn't worthy of the olympics," "That ceremony had no energy" heaven forbid we go back to the simple field pageants of yesteryear literally on the track and field pitch.

All I am saying, is that, in it's present manifestation, the Olympics will cost a lot of money and most of it will always come from Tax payer dollars, but for us Gamesbiders I ask why are we even interested in the Olympics, if we don't want to pay for the thing that has grabbed our attention for decades, woken us up out of bed to watch live feeds from distant lands and, given us a place to theorize conspiracies etc?

If what you're saying is that your interest in the olympics is the bare minimum of simple athletic achievement in the most simple of settings then why aren't you satisfied with just watching the world championships of any given sport? Further more if you have a city with 81 percent saying yes we want it here, then those individuals take the risk. They know they have to pay. You can't say yes we want to throw a large party but no we don't want to pay for it. You kind of have an idea you'll be footing the bill if it's in your city. Boston didn't want to foot the bill hence only 48 percent enthusiasm.

Um...there are a lot of cities that could go and do a 'barebones' Olympics. It is the consumer, it is the people who watch the games that have turned it into an extravaganza. Western Civ. expects more from the games and we get more.

[baron-pierreIV]

It is the consumer, it is the people who watch the games that have turned it into an extravaganza. Western Civ. expects more from the games and we get more.

Disagree. It is the organizers and the City gov'ts who have turned the OGs into extravaganzas because they hope to get more mileage from it post-Games. Why should the common consumer with a limited budget and who sees this as a one-in-a-lifetime expereince turn this into something MORE expensive that it already is? As a matter of fact, more people would attend an Olympic Games if they were more affordable. So how can you say that it is the common citizen who has caused the cost of staging an OGs to skyrocket? Where did you come up with this fantasy??

[Quaker2001]

I'm not going to lie about the Tax payer funds issue, I too think that LA have grossly underestimated the cost to host these games but that's what it costs nowadays to do it in this era. The excess is why we tune in, why there is even a Gamesbids. We have forums dedicated to Venue construction and architecture, forums to ceremonies, medal designs, relay routes, those things cost money and it has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately tax payers are the ones who foot the bill, in every country that decides to host the games.

If we truly had a barebones, no frills, affordable olympics, we would be complaining about that too. "This stadium isn't worthy of the olympics," "That ceremony had no energy" heaven forbid we go back to the simple field pageants of yesteryear literally on the track and field pitch.

All I am saying, is that, in it's present manifestation, the Olympics will cost a lot of money and most of it will always come from Tax payer dollars, but for us Gamesbiders I ask why are we even interested in the Olympics, if we don't want to pay for the thing that has grabbed our attention for decades, woken us up out of bed to watch live feeds from distant lands and, given us a place to theorize conspiracies etc?

If what you're saying is that your interest in the olympics is the bare minimum of simple athletic achievement in the most simple of settings then why aren't you satisfied with just watching the world championships of any given sport? Further more if you have a city with 81 percent saying yes we want it here, then those individuals take the risk. They know they have to pay. You can't say yes we want to throw a large party but no we don't want to pay for it. You kind of have an idea you'll be footing the bill if it's in your city. Boston didn't want to foot the bill hence only 48 percent enthusiasm.

People watching on TV don't care about the quality of the stadiums or the energy of the ceremonies (well, except for people here). They want to see exceptional athletes do exceptional things. Yes, a part of that is the quality of the facilities, but so much of the minutiae counts for next to nothing. This is still the Olympics we're talking about. Me personally, I watch because I consider it the pinnacle of sport that traces its roots back centuries and where most of these competitors spend their lives training for 1 shot. As long as that is still the case, the setting is of little value to me (more on that in a sec). I know not everyone views it the same way, but I'd like to think the draw of the Olympics for us Gamesbidders is in fact about more than the medal designs and the relay routes.

In comparison with the Olympics of yesteryear, no question the Olympics have gotten expensive. A lot of that has to do with things like security and technology that are necessary expenses that can't be recouped and there's little that can be done about that. Unfortunately, there is a mindset where countries (and their population) love the Olympics but don't want to deal with the expenses and hassles of actually hosting them. And I do still question the enthusiasm of the folks in LA to host an Olympics, not necessarily in comparison to Boston, but whether or not those people realize this isn't 1984 and a 2024 Olympics would cost a lot more money than it did before.

However, in comparison to Boston, LA is more likely to put together a plan that leaves a positive legacy. We always get caught up in the Olympics being a 3-week party. A good host city is about much more than that. It's about civic improvements that come along with that event. And that's where an LA Olympics will be a success of a failure. A Boston Olympics had failure written all over it because it didn't have a well thought out plan past that initial party.

Um...there are a lot of cities that could go and do a 'barebones' Olympics. It is the consumer, it is the people who watch the games that have turned it into an extravaganza. Western Civ. expects more from the games and we get more.

Um... I call bullshit on that. China and Russia didn't spend billions upon billions of dollars on their Olympics for the benefit of the consumer. They did that as a show of political and economic power. You can argue that that show of force was for the benefit of Western nations to pay attention to them, but it certainly has nothing to do with consumers in the West wanting more from the Olympics.

The element of that where there is some truth is that consumers do expect the coverage of the Olympics on all forms of media to be as extensive as possible in ways we barely could have imagined a decade ago. That all requires personnel and money and is something no host city would dare skimp on.

[Quaker2001]

I think all the "three week party" bit of the Olympics is now profitibale. If you're making 4.2 billion on the Olympics and all the stuff that will not remain after the Olympics or is just there for the Olympics costs 3.9 billion, you made a profit in my eyes. If the village, stadiums and arenas turn a profit after the Olympics, even if they costed 1.5 billion, you have a profitibale Olympics. If they have a horrible legacy, and remain unused after the Olympics, the games probably didn't turn a profit.

How about the billion dollars spent on security? There are a lot of costs for an Olympics that there is zero chance you get a return on. You're right that there can be long-term benefits that often don't get accounted for (although the flipside of that is when you make the promise of urban development and fail to deliver). But you can't look at the economics like that and measure your revenues versus only the costs of things that won't remain. It's pretty much a proven fact that cities when they build stadiums for their sports teams do NOT see a return on that investment, but if the alternative is to lose their team, that's not an acceptable option. It is possible for a city to bid for and host the Olympics to be a very wise decision (see Barcelona, 1992), but rarely do those circumstances work out so well as it did for them.

[TorchbearerSydney]

Sydney put on a bare bones, very cheap (facilities wise) Olympics....especially compared to Athens, Beijing and Sochi.

The Games were a spectacular success. You don't need to spend huge amounts of money to put on a great Games. You do need a great city, great people, great atmosphere, fairplay, freedom, humour and a thousand other little things, many of which money can't buy.

[Dakooo]

Sydney put on a bare bones, very cheap (facilities wise) Olympics....especially compared to Athens, Beijing and Sochi.

The Games were a spectacular success. You don't need to spend huge amounts of money to put on a great Games. You do need a great city, great people, great atmosphere, fairplay, freedom, humour and a thousand other little things, many of which money can't buy.

I think many people underestimate the success of the games in Sydney. In Sydney most of the venues had a good use 5 years after the games.

And to baron, I'm sorry about that post. I tried to explain a really difficult concept and I was half asleep. Never gonna end well.

[FYI]

Sydney put on a bare bones, very cheap (facilities wise) Olympics....especially compared to Athens, Beijing and Sochi.

The Games were a spectacular success. You don't need to spend huge amounts of money to put on a great Games. You do need a great city, great people, great atmosphere, fairplay, freedom, humour and a thousand other little things, many of which money can't buy.

Does Athens belong on that list, especially when you have it next to Beiijng & Sochi? Yeah, you don't have to spend on the level of Beijing & Sochi to have great Games, however, London still spent what Athens did on their Olympics (& the general consensus of the 2012 Games is a positive one), or three times as much as what Sydney spent.

And just like a similar question with L.A. now, could Sydney again do it on the "cheap"? And really, the short answer to that is a big 'no' nowadays. Surely another Olympics in Sydney would cost just as much as another Olympics in Los Angeles would. As was also noted earlier, security is a huge ticket item that you won't see back & is a *necessary* expense that you can't skimp on when it comes to the Olympics these days.

Sydney 2000 was also pre 9/11, & London 2012 was the epitome to date of the grand security of trying to protect the Games against any possible threat today. Add to that the general expense of inflation & the fact that the Games have grown a bit more since then, & the next Olympics in Australia is surely to cost at least twice as much, if not more, than Sydney 2000 did.

[Nacre]

If what you're saying is that your interest in the olympics is the bare minimum of simple athletic achievement in the most simple of settings then why aren't you satisfied with just watching the world championships of any given sport?

Lots of people do watch the championships of individual sports, and many cities do bid to host those events. Boston doesn't want to host the Olympics because they don't have the facilities for it, but they did bid to host the world figure skating championships because they can host them in the Garden at an acceptable cost.

Further more if you have a city with 81 percent saying yes we want it here, then those individuals take the risk. They know they have to pay.

Except that they don't know that. Politicians in Boston told the public that they wouldn't spend any public money. Now Los Angeles is being told the same thing. If Los Angeles was told that they would lose $5 billion in public money I think the approval would plummet.

I'm not going to lie about the Tax payer funds issue, I too think that LA have grossly underestimated the cost to host these games but that's what it costs nowadays to do it in this era. The excess is why we tune in, why there is even a Gamesbids. We have forums dedicated to Venue construction and architecture, forums to ceremonies, medal designs, relay routes, those things cost money and it has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately tax payers are the ones who foot the bill, in every country that decides to host the games.

If we truly had a barebones, no frills, affordable olympics, we would be complaining about that too. "This stadium isn't worthy of the olympics," "That ceremony had no energy" heaven forbid we go back to the simple field pageants of yesteryear literally on the track and field pitch.

Not for me. Stockholm's Olympic Stadium is my favorite of all time and it only has capacity for 13,000 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Olympic_Stadium

I don't think the games need to be huge to work for the athletes or the host city. It's the media, sponsors, sporting federations and host country that want the event to be as big as possible.

I don't want Seattle to bid for anything it can't reasonably support. Hosting the world rowing championships in lake union and the city's canals would be great.

The beauty of an event should come from the natural setting of the host city, from its people and from the athletes. Not from spending lavishly on venues and ceremonies.

[Dakooo]

If it costs 5 billion for everything in the games; and you get back 4.8 billion, doesn't that mean it costed 200 million? And that 200 million that LA would spend will get them a renovated stadium, sporting facilities and 3,500 units. Doesn't seem like to bad of a trade off for me.

[baron-pierreIV]

If it costs 5 billion for everything in the games; and you get back 4.8 billion, doesn't that mean it costed 200 million? And that 200 million that LA would spend will get them a renovated stadium, sporting facilities and 3,500 units. Doesn't seem like to bad of a trade off for me.

Yes and no. Not quite as simple as that. Before you get to an honest bottom line, there really are a lot of variables involved in computing the costs and revenue streams. And the accounting of these Games can be fudged in so many ways.

[Nacre]

If it costs 5 billion for everything in the games; and you get back 4.8 billion, doesn't that mean it costed 200 million? And that 200 million that LA would spend will get them a renovated stadium, sporting facilities and 3,500 units. Doesn't seem like to bad of a trade off for me.

When I said $5 billion in public money spent, I meant if the games cost $10 billion and took in $5 billion in revenue, for a net loss of $5 billion to the host city.

[baron-pierreIV]

When I said $5 billion in public money spent, I meant if the games cost $10 billion and took in $5 billion in revenue, for a net loss of $5 billion to the host city.

Unless you live in No. Korea, Azerbaijan or Russia, such a budget would not get past Round One today. BTW, you need to spend for the Ceremonies. If you got cheap and 2nd-rate ceremonies, you will probably have mediocre Games. Case in point: Athens 2004.

[Dakooo]

Yes and no. Not quite as simple as that. Before you get to an honest bottom line, there really are a lot of variables involved in computing the costs and revenue streams. And the accounting of these Games can be fudged in so many ways.

Nailed it on the head. There's never a sure way to count the cost of the games. As you can see in my earlier post about cost, even when you simplify it is still confusing.

When I said $5 billion in public money spent, I meant if the games cost $10 billion and took in $5 billion in revenue, for a net loss of $5 billion to the host city.

Just because some cities spend 10 billion on the games, doesn't mean all cities will. Unless the U.S. dollar inflates by a lot and every possible bad thing happens, the games won't cost 10 billion dollars.

[baron-pierreIV]

Nailed it on the head. There's never a sure way to count the cost of the games. As you can see in my earlier post about cost, even when you simplify it is still confusing.

The biggest "incalculable" item is the unpaid time of the interns and volunteers!! I mean there are literally millions of man-hours put in by volunteers to make an Olympic Games today happen. And at some point, even a fictional "economic" sum ought to be assigned to that item.