Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 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

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.

Ok. If they aren't even America's first choice bidding City (Only because Boston didn't want to carry on with the bidding), what chance do they have hosting the 2024 Olympics. 2028 seems more realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. If they aren't even America's first choice bidding City (Only because Boston didn't want to carry on with the bidding), what chance do they have hosting the 2024 Olympics. 2028 seems more realistic.

They have just as good of a chance, if not better than the rest of the bids currently in there. Sure a European bid is going to be the heavy favorite this time around, but that isn't going to be a guarantee. Paris can still royally screw this up somehow and can lose. It looks highly unlikely that will happen, but not impossible. Did anyone here successfully predict that ALL European bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics drop down like flies? No one did. The US has upset the heavily favorite bids before, and it can happen again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too don't think Los Angeles is using this as a warm up bid.

The USOC won't put them through the process again after what would be 3 failed us BIDS. Besides countries with major global cities rarely bid multiple times. Would we say that Paris would bid again for 2028 if they lost 2024?

To TONY it doesn't matter that they were the second choice to Boston the truth is LA was the better choice, other factors came into play that initially denied them. However now that LA is the US City we went from being considered an underdog to Paris, Rome and even Hamburg to being an underdog just to Paris. In a head to head match up, Boston could only beat Budapest but LA can beat more of the competition than Boston could in head to heads as i think we all can agree.

Right now it's a race between Paris and LA with Paris given the edge but I think some factors like the revenue sharing deal and NBC's almost 8 billion dollar paycheck for the broadcast rights of the games, almost double what the payed before might already work in LA's favor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now it's a race between Paris and LA with Paris given the edge but I think some factors like the revenue sharing deal and NBC's almost 8 billion dollar paycheck for the broadcast rights of the games, almost double what the payed before might already work in LA's favor.

Why should it? It's money already in the IOC's bank. That's NOT going to shift the balance in favor of LA. The IOC is a traditional organization. Traidtion (every 3rd SOGs are played in Europe) will prevail over $$$ -- all things being equal. This is going to be exactly like the 2012 race...4 Euro cities vs. 1 No. American city. Hello???????

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

^Exactly! And if the IOC really wants another European Alpha city to continue to host the Games, then that gives Paris an enormous advantage over L.A. Not to mention the three preceding Games will all be in East Asia, so surely the IOC would like to head back to traditional ground much sooner rather than later.

Plus, the IOC's gotta know that if Paris were to lose yet again, they won't be back for 2028, but Los Angeles most certainly would. So unless the IOC wants a B-class European city for 2028 (ie Hamburg, St. Petersburg or even Rome [in comparison to Paris]), then 2024 has yummy French pastries written all over it!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should it? It's money already in the IOC's bank. That's NOT going to shift the balance in favor of LA. The IOC is a traditional organization. Traidtion (every 3rd SOGs are played in Europe) will prevail over $$$ -- all things being equal. This is going to be exactly like the 2012 race...4 Euro cities vs. 1 No. American city. Hello???????

Traditional? is that why they are completely overhauling their bid process in the so called 2020 agenda? Cause wouldn't the definition of tradition mean you hold onto the old process?

And don't you think it's a little strange that Bach would comment, when Boston started falling apart, that he had full confidence the US would hold up to their commitment to put forward a strong bid? I know you want to believe that that is simply his arrogance but if it was a foregone conclusion that the games would be going to Europe why would he even care if the US committed a city or not?

Looking at it now I think the US is actually in a much better position to win 2024 than I previously thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're "overhauling" (which remains to be seen anyway) their process because they don't want a repeat of the 2022 fiasco. You really think that Bach is being totally sincere with those statements. One would have to be pretty gullible if they did.

It's not about his arrogance, but about him wanting his organization to have as many credible options to chose from & again NOT wanting a repeat of the 2022 debacle. His words are more about having good choices made available on the table to him than it is about anything else. Because without the U.S. in there, the race wouldn't appear to be nearly as exciting & interesting, & not having a back-up plan either if your preferred choices somehow weren't there anymore.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now it's a race between Paris and LA with Paris given the edge but I think some factors like the revenue sharing deal and NBC's almost 8 billion dollar paycheck for the broadcast rights of the games, almost double what the payed before might already work in LA's favor.

I really think some people are overplaying this. Athens made them a big profit, London got record breaking ratings, and Paris would be great for them as well. What they don't want is a disaster like a Qatari World Cup in the winter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that most of you on this board look at patterns and that you use those pattern to determine future movements and bid winners but every once in awhile an anomaly appears in the pattern. I think there are two issues you all are overlooking in this whole "Europe is going to win and no one else should bid for 2024" movement that you all chant.

1) The US is still a major driving force of the Olympics, when it comes to revenue, star power, etc, you have to admit that the US brings a lot to the table to the Olympic movement that most countries can't say they provide and with the rev sharing issue out of the way that fact comes into play again in their favor

2) You need to count LA, not as a single city bidding for the first time but as a US city bidding for the third time. LA is not independent of Chicago's past bid nor is it of NYC's. As such the IOC, in my opinion will think hard before they reject the USOC a third time after providing another strong candidate.

So I'm sorry but telling me that it's going to Paris just because it goes to Europe every third games in a year where they completely overhauled their system in an effort to get more countries to consider bidding seems a bit suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even compared to the US Paris still has a better shot. We hosted only 20 years ago, France? 1924. In addition to this France and more specifically Paris has bid more than the US in the past thirty years. France has bid multiple times, five including this 2024 bid.

We're basing our idea on Paris winning on a lot more than just pattern, but basic facts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think some people are overplaying this. Athens made them a big profit, London got record breaking ratings, and Paris would be great for them as well. What they don't want is a disaster like a Qatari World Cup in the winter.

Nacre that's true but there hasn't been a US olympics in this new age of technology which Athens and London were able to benefit from. You'll see the comparison in profits when the US is again awarded the olympics in this era of the games. The issue is the primetime viewing. that's why US olympics/ world cup etc makes more money than other countries. Sponsors pay a lot more to advertise during US primetime so when you have an Olympics in say Beijing and the event is live their at 9 pm but live in the states at like 3 am advertisers won't pay top dollar to advertise during the rebroadcast at primetime in the states. they'll still pay a lot just not the max because by the time the rebroadcast airs the results are already blasted over the internet and a lot of folks most likely won't tune in due to already knowing the results and possibly seeing footage on youtube. Rio is pegged to do well because it is in a close enough time zone to the US but quintessentially that's the reason why US olympics' are said to be the most profitable

Even compared to the US Paris still has a better shot. We hosted only 20 years ago, France? 1924. In addition to this France and more specifically Paris has bid more than the US in the past thirty years. France has bid multiple times, five including this 2024 bid.

We're basing our idea on Paris winning on a lot more than just pattern, but basic facts.

But are you comparing the bids though? meaning LA vs Paris?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But are you comparing the bids though? meaning LA vs Paris?

Yes. We have venue plans for both and both cities perfectly fit Agenda 2020. Paris has the upper-hand because of everything else, including but not limited to:

  • France not hosting in over 100 years; US in 20
  • France has bid almost four times and consistently ranked in second or third place. The US has bid just twice and came in last/second to last both times.
  • The IOC has a horrible rep. in Europe. Paris winning would drastically improve it.
  • The US will bid again, Paris may not
  • IOC is Euro centric
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They're "overhauling" (which remains to be seen anyway) their process because they don't want a repeat of the 2022 fiasco. You really think that Bach is being totally sincere with those statements. One would have to be pretty gullible if they did.

And no it's not that I think he's being sincere. On the contrary it's definitely business and I do agree it's to make sure there are credible bids on the table but you might want to consider that Paris might not be as credible as you think. When the bids manifest themselves a new picture might emerge and Paris might not be as strong as you thought. Remember we last saw Paris bidding in 1997. Pre 9/11 pre global crisis, pre Eurozone crisis. The USOC at least has had practice in this new era of bidding

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no. Paris last bid in 2005 for the 2012 Games & lost to London by a mere FOUR votes. So IDK what in the world you're talking about there. That seems "suspect" to me when you're trying to downplay Paris in an effort to magnifying Los Angeles' in using inaccurate information. Not to mention as far as a city in concerned, Los Angeles has hosted so recently in comparison to Paris, & that's gonna be yet another element in Paris' favor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

Yes. We have venue plans for both and both cities perfectly fit Agenda 2020. Paris has the upper-hand because of everything else, including but not limited to:

  • France not hosting in over 100 years; US in 20
  • France has bid almost four times and consistently ranked in second or third place. The US has bid just twice and came in last/second to last both times.
  • The IOC has a horrible rep. in Europe. Paris winning would drastically improve it.
  • The US will bid again, Paris may not
  • IOC is Euro centric
All of that has nothing to do with their plans.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. We have venue plans for both and both cities perfectly fit Agenda 2020. Paris has the upper-hand because of everything else, including but not limited to:

  • France not hosting in over 100 years; US in 20
  • France has bid almost four times and consistently ranked in second or third place. The US has bid just twice and came in last/second to last both times.
  • The IOC has a horrible rep. in Europe. Paris winning would drastically improve it.
  • The US will bid again, Paris may not
  • IOC is Euro centric

These aren't business guidelines though. All that you have mentioned are statistics that forum people analyze.

Rio won because it was the first time it would be held in South America, thus opening up a new market, similar to the Beijing move. (That's money/ business)

The IOC is not sitting there saying "You are a strong bid but you hosted 20 years ago so we're giving it to the one who hosted 100 years ago"

To be honest with your case on the amount of times a city bids having an impact, really and truly only the previous 3 or 4 cycles would have any bearing on a current race. Meaning France sending up a bid in 1992 won't really matter to those involved in 2015. what will matter is if France had bid in 2001 or 05 or 09. And we all know why Chicago was kicked out first and that reason has be rectified so saying the us choices came in last is a mute for a race devoid of that obstacle.

To your point about it's rep in Europe um... the IOC has a horrible reputation everywhere. That argument actually holds more truth in the US than in Europe.

Ego is ego is ego. Just like France will be bitter, the US will be bitter, both won't bid again. It would be most hard for either country to to rally public support so quickly after a loss. Los Angeles is basically the last US city that has a majority support to host the Olympics, if they go down this time, what US city would think they have a better shot than LA, Chicago and NYC to bid for the olympics in 2028?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no. Paris last bid in 2005 for the 2012 Games & lost to London by a mere FOUR votes. So IDK what in the world you're talking about there. That seems "suspect" to me when you're trying to downplay Paris in an effort to magnifying Los Angeles' in using inaccurate information. Not to mention as far as a city in concerned, Los Angeles has hosted so recently in comparison to Paris, & that's gonna be yet another element in Paris' favor.

Sorry that was an inaccuracy on my part I don't know why I felt the bid race for 2012 started in 1997. I apologize

He said that both cities venue plans perfectly fit agenda 2020. Then he went on to say that Paris has the upper-hand because of "everything else" on that list. So I don't see what was so incomprehensible there.

It's incomprehensible because if they both fit the Agenda 2020 then the deciding factors for two bids that fill all requirements will not be those statistics but most likely it will come down to money!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest with your case on the amount of times a city bids having an impact, really and truly only the previous 3 or 4 cycles would have any bearing on a current race. Meaning France sending up a bid in 1992 won't really matter to those involved in 2015. what will matter is if France had bid in 2001 or 05 or 09.

Ego is ego is ego. Just like France will be bitter, the US will be bitter, both won't bid again. It would be most hard for either country to to rally public support so quickly after a loss. Los Angeles is basically the last US city that has a majority support to host the Olympics, if they go down this time, what US city would think they have a better shot than LA, Chicago and NYC to bid for the olympics in 2028?

But France DID bid in 2001 AND 2009 (in ADDITION to 1992). This is where all of your arguments start to lose what little ground they had left when you can't even get basic facts like this correct.

You're also over playing Los Angeles unwillingness to bid again for 2028, especially when again, France has gone through much more recent losses than the U.S. Los Angeles has always been the USOC's go to bid whenever it was needed. So I don't see that changing anytime soon even if they were to lose 2024. France, not so much. They took a ten-year hiatus from 2005-2015. So I'm sure they'd take at least another ten years off if they were to lose again. OTOH, Los Angeles, (like a little excited kid in class) will be there yet again with their hand raised up high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He said that both cities venue plans perfectly fit agenda 2020. Then he went on to say that Paris has the upper-hand because of "everything else" on that list. So I don't see what was so incomprehensible there.

It would've been nice to have a bit more detail to make a solid point, at least on the technical side - unless both plans and budgets are exactly on par with each other? Now it just looks like the rehashing of previously stated points that has nothing to do what alpha asked. But I guess I do that too. Oops.

Anyways, Paris is prolly top choice right now regardless of their plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's incomprehensible because if they both fit the Agenda 2020 then the deciding factors for two bids that fill all requirements will not be those statistics but most likely it will come down to money!

And what makes you think that a Paris Olympics wouldn't make any money? The London Olympics were one of the biggest (if not the biggest) money making European Olympics to date. So I don't see Paris being any different in that category.

You're looking at a Paris Olympics as only France as opposed to a European Olympics. And I don't have any stats, but if we were to combine all of the European networks, TV sales, advertisements & ticket revenues, they're all probably at least equal to, if not more valuable than just a U.S. Games.

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...