Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

You are right we don't have any technical facts just yet. we just know some simple truths LA is the go to US olympic city because it's the one that has the most support and the ability to do so and we know Paris is the best of the european cities put forward as of now. That alone makes them equal but this race will come down to the technicalities, and profitability of the games not how many times you've hosted how many times you've bid and who hosted it last.

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

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?

Well, to post again what someone else did a couple of days ago, then how about this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2015/08/las-olympic-village-plans-raise-eyebrows.html

Doesn't seem like L.A. isn't as "strong" as he claims it to be either. There's still serious questions that are unresolved, as far as the overall budget is concerned. So no, not really exactly 'on par' anymore, as far as L.A. is concerned.

-

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to post again what someone else did a couple of days ago, then how about this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2015/08/las-olympic-village-plans-raise-eyebrows.html

Doesn't seem like L.A. isn't as "strong" as he claims it to be either. There's still serious questions that are unresolved, as far as the overall budget is concerned. So no, not really exactly 'on par' anymore, as far as L.A. is concerned.

-

Now send a link showing analyst saying that Paris' plan is feasible! cause that's what you do if you are trying to prove a valid point that one is better than the other. You post an article in favor of Paris from an independent consulting firm as well.

It's too early to compare the plans. all we are going on here as forum follows is the idea of an olympics in a specific city. when official bid books are analyzed by the professionals and the powers that be then we can formulate a better idea of what is strong and what is weak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to post again what someone else did a couple of days ago, then how about this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2015/08/las-olympic-village-plans-raise-eyebrows.html

Doesn't seem like L.A. isn't as "strong" as he claims it to be either. There's still serious questions that are unresolved, as far as the overall budget is concerned. So no, not really exactly 'on par' anymore, as far as L.A. is concerned.

-

I'll admit that the LA budget plans are definitely questionable. They're also very vague and have tons of holes in them. Plus the whole thing felt pretty underwhelming imo. but I don't think we can base it off the one document alone; it did say that At this time, we are withholding the publication of details to protect a LA24 partners confidential and proprietary business information, so who knows what else the committee is hiding?

Quotes disappeared when posted O.o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you post one that Paris "isn't" feasible then. "Cuz that's what you do if you're trying to prove a valid point that one is better than the other". And no, subjective rhetoric doesn't count.

I never said it wasn't! You see that's the trap you are falling into. I never said Paris was a bad choice or a weak one or one with no chance. I never said that so that is not what I am debating. What I am saying is that at this point you all are being more dismissive about LA than you should seeing that the factors that held back a US bid is no longer an obstacle and seeing that those barriers are no longer there, the US sending up what most of you have already said is their go to Olympic bid when all else fails (Mostly due to the fact that it is the most equipped to do so factoring in infrastructure, venues sponsorship and support ) is actually a cause to say you know what this is not going to be a runway victory as you all are predicting and that is what I am debating.

Go through the forum History, since I appeared I have been saying that. The worst I have ever said about the Paris bid is that I was in Paris and the support for the bid was not as high as the 71% that LA was experiencing at the time.

So don't be confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit that the LA budget plans are definitely questionable. They're also very vague and have tons of holes in them. Plus the whole thing felt pretty underwhelming imo. but I don't think we can base it off the one document alone; it did say that At this time, we are withholding the publication of details to protect a LA24 partners confidential and proprietary business information, so who knows what else the committee is hiding?

Quotes disappeared when posted O.o

Furthermore we all know everyone's budget is going to explode if they win the right to host. Paris, LA Hamburg we all know there are going to be cost over runs. These points are trivial at this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it wasn't! You see that's the trap you are falling into. I never said Paris was a bad choice or a weak one or one with no chance. I never said that so that is not what I am debating. What I am saying is that at this point you all are being more dismissive about LA than you should seeing that the factors that held back a US bid is no longer an obstacle and seeing that those barriers are no longer there, the US sending up what most of you have already said is their go to Olympic bid when all else fails (Mostly due to the fact that it is the most equipped to do so factoring in infrastructure, venues sponsorship and support ) is actually a cause to say you know what this is not going to be a runway victory as you all are predicting and that is what I am debating.

The obstacle is that the IOC is probably going to want to go back to Europe if the option is there. That many of us think that Paris is a clear favorite over LA has little to do with what LA is offering and everything to do with where the IOC will want the next available Olympics. So in that "all things being equal" argument between the 2, Paris already has the edge. How the 2 cities stack in terms of the technical component of their respective bids may be very secondary to the intangibles that won't show up in the evaluation report. And we've seen too many of these bids where those factors mean everything. It's not to say that Paris has this won without a fight. They'll have a fight on their hands, but LA needs to be that much better than Paris if they want to win it and even then, I'm not sure I see it happening.

The revenue sharing deal and the NBC money will help them win the 2028 vote moreso than this one (when the IOC will be looking for that American TV money again, as opposed to now when the deal has already been signed). I agree with the group that almost anything Bach says with regard to who he wants to bid is an empty comment. Even if he knows the voting membership of the IOC is looking towards Europe, it's no guarantee and lesson learned from the 2022 bids. And we still have to see what Agenda 2020 does for future bidding. Too early in the game to know what that all is going to mean, let alone if there are 2 heavyweights in the 2024 field like France and the United States.

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.

This is still the IOC we're talking about. They're a Euro-centric organization that has just awarded 3 straight Olympics to Asia, and not by choice. This isn't about patterns or "the Olympics must go to Europe every 3rd cycle." What happened with the 2022 bids was a giant screw you to the IOC from a number of European nations. So they will be desperate to restore their reputation there sooner rather than later. I agree we will see some oddities in the so-called patterns of Olympic bidding. I just don't see this being one of them. And if you're concerned about the IOC rejecting the United States for a 3rd time, what about France who has been rejected 3 times, including 1 vote that was completely rigged against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it wasn't! You see that's the trap you are falling into. I never said Paris was a bad choice or a weak one or one with no chance.

So don't be confused.

And none of us (or at least I'm not) saying any of that about L.A. either. I've never said that Paris was the "run away favorite" or anything of the like. Nor have I said that L.A. has "no chance". So perhaps you're the one that's 'falling into the trap', when you're so vehemently defending L.A.

I recognize that L.A. is not going to be chop liver. However, I do believe that Paris is going to be one formidable opponent. Something that I think you're not giving proper credit to (like you seem to think that some of us are doing with L.A., & something your post below seems to suggest) & that's all I'm debating too. 'So don't be confused'.

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

The obstacle is that the IOC is probably going to want to go back to Europe if the option is there. That many of us think that Paris is a clear favorite over LA has little to do with what LA is offering and everything to do with where the IOC will want the next available Olympics. So in that "all things being equal" argument between the 2, Paris already has the edge. How the 2 cities stack in terms of the technical component of their respective bids may be very secondary to the intangibles that won't show up in the evaluation report. And we've seen too many of these bids where those factors mean everything. It's not to say that Paris has this won without a fight. They'll have a fight on their hands, but LA needs to be that much better than Paris if they want to win it and even then, I'm not sure I see it happening.

The revenue sharing deal and the NBC money will help them win the 2028 vote moreso than this one (when the IOC will be looking for that American TV money again, as opposed to now when the deal has already been signed). I agree with the group that almost anything Bach says with regard to who he wants to bid is an empty comment. Even if he knows the voting membership of the IOC is looking towards Europe, it's no guarantee and lesson learned from the 2022 bids. And we still have to see what Agenda 2020 does for future bidding. Too early in the game to know what that all is going to mean, let alone if there are 2 heavyweights in the 2024 field like France and the United States.

Valid points however I do see this cycle unfolding a bit differently the signs to me are pointing to an LA win and only September 15, 2017 will tell if I am right in my conviction. It will be sweet if I am right but if I am wrong then I am man enough to admit it and eat all the crow YOU, FYI AND BARRON have to give to me. LOL!

Anyway people it was fun but I have spent my entire day off on this forum and now I have to head to the gym. Later, it's been fun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another reason Paris will have better chances than LA come Sept 2017.

http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/finals/

So that's a big to-do going into the 2017 vote; and will show France's sporting organization. The USA will have nothing as major going into 2017. So, unless France makes a-shambles of Euro 2016....which I think knowing the stakes of 2017, they'll try not to -- Euro 2016 will be a big feather in their chapeau which LA will have nothing to counter. And the IOC will know that they will probably have their next 3 varied, summer hosts lined up if 2024 goes to Paris. If they give 2024 to LA, they will have a gaping hole for 2028 -- and a Baku or a Doha might sneak in there.

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

Here's another reason Paris will have better chances than LA come Sept 2017.

http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/finals/

So that's a big to-do going into the 2017 vote; and will show France's sporting organization. The USA will have nothing as major going into 2017. So, unless France makes a-shambles of Euro 2016....which I think knowing the stakes of 2017, they'll try not to -- Euro 2016 will be a big feather in their chapeau which LA will have nothing to counter. And the IOC will know that they will probably have their next 3 varied, summer hosts lined up if 2024 goes to Paris. If they give 2024 to LA, they will have a gaping hole for 2028 -- and a Baku or a Doha might sneak in there.

You're right about Euro cup it does add more to France's argument for the games no doubt about it. That point I can definitely give weight too.

However the part where you say the IOC will have a whole for 2028 if LA wins I am not too certain about that. You never know who's actually bidding until they bid. So the IOC can't really concern themselves with a bidding process for 2028 when 2024 is happening now. and to be honest a lot of countries are probably looking to see what happens with 2024 before the show interest in 2028. Australia is interested that won't be a horrible host would it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Australia wouldn't be a horrible host, but it's still no Paris nor even the U.S., especially for such a small country, relatively speaking, that just hosted as recent as 2000. Not to mention, their next most likely & qualified candidate, Melbourne, doesn't really have conducive weather during the IOC's preferred July-Aug timeframe window.

And you're kidding yourself if you don't think that the IOC at times thinks ahead of who could bid (or who they would like to see bid), in future cycles. Any "business" organization always tries to forecast as best they can how they can successfully proceed with any future endeavors. I see the IOC being not that different in that aspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right about Euro cup it does add more to France's argument for the games no doubt about it. That point I can definitely give weight too.

However the part where you say the IOC will have a whole for 2028 if LA wins I am not too certain about that. You never know who's actually bidding until they bid. So the IOC can't really concern themselves with a bidding process for 2028 when 2024 is happening now. and to be honest a lot of countries are probably looking to see what happens with 2024 before the show interest in 2028. Australia is interested that won't be a horrible host would it?

Not when they know that 2032 will be Durban, south of the equator. Uhmm...the IOC could go 3 Olympics (2 winter, 1 summer) in Asia (where they have the population to support 3 such Games), but I don't see TWO SOGs in the southern hemisphere happening successively.

I really don't understand why you are discounting Paris' chances when, if you got a handle on this Olympic host-prognosticating game, all the major signposts are right there -- and I even believe the French know they shouldn't f*ck up big-time on this round.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alpha, you do realize that France has bid for the 1992 games, the 2004 games, the 2008 games, and the 2012 games? That's four bids. Thrice Paris was the candidate and the most recent in 2005 saw Paris loose out to London by four votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alpha, you do realize that France has bid for the 1992 games, the 2004 games, the 2008 games, and the 2012 games? That's four bids. Thrice Paris was the candidate and the most recent in 2005 saw Paris loose out to London by four votes.

If only that would be that easy. Just look at Madrid. They had bid 3 times, for 2012, 2016, 2020. And yet, nothing. Though I know it's mainly because of Spain's bad economy, but also because it got Summer Games in 1992 (a bit too soon to bid again I think). What I don't like is that the US feel that they should get the SOG every 8 years. When I read that the LA's mayor said something like "The last time the US hosted SOG was in 1996, it's about time we get them again". Euh, France has been waiting for 91 years. Just saying. The US can wait another 4 years. They will get the Games in 2028 or 2032 anyways (though 2028 is their best shot).

And yet, I wouldn't be surprised if LA gets the 2024 Games over Paris. But Paris will fight until the end. I think they learned from their mistakes and will make it right this time (hopefully).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only that would be that easy. Just look at Madrid. They had bid 3 times, for 2012, 2016, 2020. And yet, nothing. Though I know it's mainly because of Spain's bad economy, but also because it got Summer Games in 1992 (a bit too soon to bid again I think). What I don't like is that the US feel that they should get the SOG every 8 years. When I read that the LA's mayor said something like "The last time the US hosted SOG was in 1996, it's about time we get them again". Euh, France has been waiting for 91 years. Just saying. The US can wait another 4 years. They will get the Games in 2028 or 2032 anyways (though 2028 is their best shot).

And yet, I wouldn't be surprised if LA gets the 2024 Games over Paris. But Paris will fight until the end. I think they learned from their mistakes and will make it right this time (hopefully).

Madrid and Barcelona are totally different cities geographically and culturally, so sure it's in the same country but it's not the same feeling as far as games go. And they're both alpha cities in Spain that have large cultural and economical significance to the country, this isn't like when Seville and even Leipzig tried to bid for the Olympics. I think if the Spanish economy was showing actual signs of improvement and the unemployment rate was falling and in the lower teens, then they would have stood a better chance of getting 2020 over Tokyo.

And sure France hasn't hosted in 91 years, but you can make the same sympathetic argument that Hungary has never hosted the games. But again it's not about when the last time you hosted the games, if ever. If your bid does not stand out as the best option, you're going to lose regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And sure France hasn't hosted in 91 years, but you can make the same sympathetic argument that Hungary has never hosted the games. But again it's not about when the last time you hosted the games, if ever. If your bid does not stand out as the best option, you're going to lose regardless.

Right, & that's why Turkey, a country that's never hosted before & a mutilple repeat bidder, lost to a repeat host country as recent as 1964 (in comparison to 1924) for the 2020 Olympics. And Hungary doesn't even compare to Turkey, so no, you can't make that same sympathetic argument for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Madrid and Barcelona are totally different cities geographically and culturally, so sure it's in the same country but it's not the same feeling as far as games go. And they're both alpha cities in Spain that have large cultural and economical significance to the country, this isn't like when Seville and even Leipzig tried to bid for the Olympics. I think if the Spanish economy was showing actual signs of improvement and the unemployment rate was falling and in the lower teens, then they would have stood a better chance of getting 2020 over Tokyo.

And sure France hasn't hosted in 91 years, but you can make the same sympathetic argument that Hungary has never hosted the games. But again it's not about when the last time you hosted the games, if ever. If your bid does not stand out as the best option, you're going to lose regardless.

Ahahah, really, that "Barcelona and Madrid are almost like 2 different countries" argument? Seriously? And then you're the one saying that Paris shouldn't get 2024 because London got 2012 (and those 2 cities are close and apparently share more similarities than Barcelona and Madrid do). Jee, are you for real??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask, who said that? That's a new one on me.

Well, 1984, 1996, 2002, trying for 2012 and 2016....You can't say they' haven't been a bit greedy there, can you! If they get 2024, it would be their 4th Olympics in 40 years.

You're right. Not every 8 years. Every 10 years. My bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahahah, really, that "Barcelona and Madrid are almost like 2 different countries" argument? Seriously? And then you're the one saying that Paris shouldn't get 2024 because London got 2012 (and those 2 cities are close and apparently share more similarities than Barcelona and Madrid do). Jee, are you for real??

lol I never said that. Stop making s**t up.

I mean, stop making merde up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good grief, Charlie Brown.

Why is it that anyone offers up some factor that might influence a bid, the discussion has to turn to isolating that single factor as if it's the most important thing ever, and then someone else takes that to another ridiculous place.


Well, 1984, 1996, 2002, trying for 2012 and 2016....You can't say they' haven't been a bit greedy there, can you! If they get 2024, it would be their 4th Olympics in 40 years.

You're right. Not every 8 years. Every 10 years. My bad.

They were greedy trying for 1996. Then they wound up being the IOC's best option when none of the other cities out there were deemed worthy. That's not the USOC's fault they happen to be there at the right time and place. Same way it's not Beijing's fault that all of the European cities that would have otherwise beat them out all decided to drop their bids.

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...