Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

Excluding Beijing, which obviously is an outlier, $10 billion is around what the lowest and country has spent on a summer Olympics recently. Athens spent more than that. So did London. Rio is going to go over that. When all is said and done with Tokyo, they probably will too. So what would be so different about Los Angeles that they could do it for less than $10 billion. And keep in mind, they still need to bid to win it first. Every Olympics post-9/11 has gotten more expensive because of increasing costs, most notably for security. Those costs aren't going to go down. You can't hold an Olympics and not spend money on that. And don't go off initial budgets either. Because those numbers always go up.

If an Olympics cost 5 billion for everything and they got 4.8 billion back and there was a decent legacy plan in place, then yea, maybe it's not such a bad trade off. But when that cost starts going up and the net loss is a lot greater than 200 million, then it's not going to be such a good trade off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Alex - this is bullying. Criticising someone's conduct by attempting to shame them will only make you look small.

Dang. I thought he had me on ignore!

I'm polarizing? You're not even extending the debate. You're just trying to suppress the debate (as usual) because it doesn't meet your lofty standard in regards to the amount of information or "evi

^

Difference is that those countries have to factor security into their final costs...the US doesn't. That is the only thing the Feds will pay for.


I think a more reasonable estimate for LA is somewhere in the $7 billion - $10 billion dollar realm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The average Olympics goes roughly 175% over budget. An initial budget of $5 billion eventually becomes $13 billion. I don't think Los Angeles will be as bad as most Olympics, but costs will go far beyond the $5 billion initial budget.

To be honest I don't really have a problem with spending some government money as long as the public is aware that will happen and there will be some sort of positive legacy left behind. Even for the modern games Vancouver and London are both accepted by the public as being worth the money that was spent. Los Angeles would probably spend less money than London. Just don't lie to the tax payer and say they won't have to foot the bill.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mess? You didn't seem to mind when that "mess" was Boston. L.A. in comparison is a well-oiled machine. And the USOC already "spent years looking for the best candidate" for 2024, & look where that got them. So I wouldn't put much faith in that again. Plus, I doubt that the results would be any much different fours years from now than they are now anyway.

The "well-oiled machine" in action. You know, there's a reason these guys were unable to achieve a majority of the board's support last January.

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUAKER2001 I wanted to remind you of an exchange we had a couple of weeks ago

alphamale86, on 14 Aug 2015 - 8:47 PM, said:

snapback.png

Completely agree. I also think when Boston was the US choice Toronto thought they had a better shot. However, up against LA, even if North America doesn't win the Games Toronto would not do well to gain attention to theirs.

Personally I think when the USOC makes LA official I think Toronto will cancel it's plans to bid.

You really think Toronto is going to pull a 180 based on LA? Not a chance. Whether or not Toronto bids will have nothing to do with who the competition is. Toronto's desire to bid came from the Pan Am games, not - as we joke about but there probably isn't that much truth to - because they saw Boston's bid falling apart and saw an opportunity. And consider their odds haven't really changed that much since Paris' status hasn't changed, is it really that significant for them that the USOC went from Boston to LA? Not really. If Toronto cancels their plans to bid, that decision will have little if anything to do with what the USOC is doing.

Well I just wanted to draw your attention to this article just posted on Gameswire.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/council-support-cools-for-toronto-2024-olympic-bid-as-pan-am-games-glow-fades/

Specifically this quote from the Budget Chief in Toronto

On Tuesday Los Angeles city council is expected to vote in favor of allowing Mayor Eric Garcetti the authority to sign Olympic documents opening the door to an Olympic bid that could be approved the same day. To some in Toronto, this would mark the end to any chances that Toronto might be able to win the bid.

Budget Chief Gary Crawford said “I’d really love to see the Olympics in North America but now that Los Angeles has put In a bid, a very competitive bid, I don’t know if we’d be able to succeed,”

“When I’m starting to look at the fiscal realities, the cost and all that and the fact that Los Angeles has actually put in a bid, I’m sort of uncomfortable whether or not that is something I think we could achieve.”

“I’m not saying no to it at this point but I’m cautiously stepping back a little bit to wait and see.”

I'll say it again the moment LA confirms this bid on Tuesday, Toronto will officially end its plans to bid by the end of the week.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a problem reading the text then highlight it.

Why should I do it? They should present pages that are LEGIBLE. How do they expect to win IOC votes if the "reader" has to fix THEIR glitches? This is the same group that released their previous bid prematurely and then the USOC asked them to take it down. And I should adjust to their inadequacies?? Then it's not worth reading for me.

You and your f*cking crass, wise-ass remarks aren't really appreciated.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should I do it? They should present pages that are LEGIBLE. How do they expect to win IOC votes if the "reader" has to fix THEIR glitches? This is the same group that released their previous bid prematurely and then the USOC asked them to take it down. And I should adjust to their inadequacies?? Then it's not worth reading for me.

You and your f*cking crass, wise-ass remarks aren't really appreciated.

lol it was only a simple suggestion. Sounds like you misplaced your hooker money for the month! How will you ever manage to get laid now?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps your machine is making a "closest available" substitute for the font specified on the website ("Montserrat" in a dark gray rather than black, in the sample I've just checked).

Or I'm wondering if that website is not Chrome-friendly since I use Chrome. But again, that's their problem, not mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or I'm wondering if that website is not Chrome-friendly since I use Chrome. But again, that's their problem, not mine.

I use Chrome. I'm not seeing any blue text. I tried looking at the website on a couple of different computers to see if I could see any blue text. So far, nothing. Maybe it is something on your end, not theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles are probably using this as a warm up bid for 2028.

No they're not.

The concept/idea of a warm up bid is a myth. Cities (especially those with a legitimate chance of eventually winning) rarely bid unless they legitimately think they can win. There have been a few cities (Rio comes to mind) that have bid in hopes of winning a future vote, but I can't think of too many other examples. If warm up bids were a real thing, where's South Africa?

LA is bidding for 2024 because they think they can win. We can all argue that may be misguided thinking, but they're not bidding just to gain experience for the next time around. Not when they were the runner up for the USOC nomination for the 2016 Olympics. Not when the USOC passed them over this time and they were still out there to put up for a bid. If LA fails to win this one, then yes there's a pretty good chance they come back. That doesn't make this a warm up bid though.

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...