Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

The IOC as a body treats the Americas as one because a guys in 1896 said there would be five rings instead of six. The IOC doesn't vote. Members of it do. And almost everybody in the world thinks that North America shouldn't be out with the south just to make facts sound better.

It's a not to make it sound better. The US is single a country. Europe is not. Besides, even if I compare Frnace to the US, or even NA to Europe, Paris still would've been waiting longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked back a few pages and I have to say most of the arguments on both sides are genuinely stupid and based on horrible logic. Some of the posts are so one-sided that it's almost embarrassing to know that the people who posted them know stuff about the games. I'm not gonna go and point them out, but just factcheck posts in your mind before you post a post that is blinded by hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 2012 race, if I remember correctly, Paris scored the highest in the technical evaluation (yet, of course, went on to be beaten by the emotional pitch of London. Some indeed put their loss down to being a technocratic bid with little emotional pull in their final presentation). I don't see any reason why Paris again wouldn't rate as one of the highest bidders technically in this race.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few good posts there. I don't think most who are knowledgeable about LA's games arent aware that they were awarded the games by default as they were the only bid remaining. But there is another part to that story that I think deserves mention. Something happened both times which is similar to what is happening now. The games They had become less popular by host cities because costs had grown out of control. And in both instances LA produced a profit and a model for which future Olymoics would follow.

There is one point, however, that I do think LA trumps Paris, but I'm not sure and I am open to being corrected if I'm wrong. The audience LA can reach via technology, new start ups, television, style, cultural penetration, etc. Millenials. We are potentially introducing skateboarding and surfing into the games. Sports that attract this segment of the populace. Now, I'm not saying Paris doesn't have cultural penetration because that comment would be plain stupid... But does Paris have something that connects to this group the world over? I think LA does. Especially because of the prominence of these two sports in the greater LA region and because of its growing technology and start ups. Can anyone enlighten me on this topic?

Well America as a whole is going to reach a much larger audience than Europe could. American culture is Global Culture.

LA and NYC are the factories of that culture, San Francisco's tech industry is that cultures main mode of transport.

An LA/USA games would be a financial gold mine for the IOC, but we've always known that. Doesn't mean they should or will be Paris when 2028 is wide open for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one point, however, that I do think LA trumps Paris, but I'm not sure and I am open to being corrected if I'm wrong. The audience LA can reach via technology, new start ups, television, style, cultural penetration, etc. Millenials. We are potentially introducing skateboarding and surfing into the games. Sports that attract this segment of the populace. Now, I'm not saying Paris doesn't have cultural penetration because that comment would be plain stupid... But does Paris have something that connects to this group the world over? I think LA does. Especially because of the prominence of these two sports in the greater LA region and because of its growing technology and start ups. Can anyone enlighten me on this topic?

I don't see that it makes much difference. Whoever wins, NBC and the other rights holders will bring out their best broadcasting technology to beam the action to their audiences. Perhaps the only edge would be that LA would be a better prime time zone for the U.S. audience.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well America as a whole is going to reach a much larger audience than Europe could. American culture is Global Culture. LA and NYC are the factories of that culture, San Francisco's tech industry is that cultures main mode of transport.

An LA/USA games would be a financial gold mine for the IOC, but we've always known that. Doesn't mean they should or will be Paris when 2028 is wide open for us.

So, in other words, you believe that Rio, for example, will be missing out on coverage and penetration because it ain't Hollywood.

Personally, I think it's going to be more anticipated precisely because it's more exotic and less culturally ubiquitous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA and NYC are the factories of that culture, San Francisco's tech industry is that cultures main mode of transport.

An LA/USA games would be a financial gold mine for the IOC, but we've always known that. Doesn't mean they should or will be Paris when 2028 is wide open for us.


So, in other words, you believe that Rio, for example, will be missing out on coverage and penetration because it ain't Hollywood.

Personally, I think it's going to be more anticipated precisely because it's more exotic and less culturally ubiquitous.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that by default a US games will be able to reach more people (not by much) than other games would. This is a proven fact.

This doesn't mean America is better or other nations cannot do a damn good job at reaching billions (Look at London, Sydney, and Beijing), but given the state of geopolitics and the fact that global culture is in many ways American culture means an American games will be felt more globally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An American Games won't be felt more globally. That's nonsense. All Games are felt globally and some people anticipate some Games more than others.

A Californian organising committee should be able to leverage connections with tech sponsors (e.g. companies based in Silicon Valley) better than almost any other city though. If it can harness all that, it's got an edge. I don't know how much of an edge, but it could and should play up that aspect in its bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few good posts there. I don't think most who are knowledgeable about LA's games arent aware that they were awarded the games by default as they were the only bid remaining. But there is another part to that story that I think deserves mention. Something happened both times which is similar to what is happening now. The games They had become less popular by host cities because costs had grown out of control. And in both instances LA produced a profit and a model for which future Olymoics would follow.

that is not quite right - Los Angeles was not the only bid for "1932", since the IOC awarded the Games of 1924, 1928 and 1932 all at the same time...

Amsterdam and Los Angeles were the favourites for 1924, but Coubertin wanted that Paris hosts its second Games - there were a huge argument in the IOC and as a compromise it was decided that Paris gets 1924 and Amsterdam or Los Angeles 1928 - the "runner up" of 1928 became finally 1932...

You are right with the Games of 1984, but I can't see the similarity to the today's bid competition, since there are five very capable cities biding...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. FYI, your post is all opinion and lacking in substance. I'm not making anything sound like anything. LA has a strong plan. Details that still need to be ironed out I am not too concerned with because they align with LA's existing policy.

2. I am also not undermining the viability of a Paris bid. I'm certain it is strong. I'm just asking for more information so I can understand it better.

3. But that has no bearing on a Paris bid. That's just LA's story. I'd like to learn more about the Paris bid. I'm not making it sound or seem like anything because I know little. And the only thing I keep seeing is how there will be rude awakenings because of sentimental reasons.

1. That's the way you see it because you're extremely partial to L.A. I haven't seen anything that you've posted that's of 'substance' either. All you're doing is going on & on about L.A.'s technical capabilities & how it goes 'in-line' with L.A.'s 'existing policy'. Which, I'm not denying any of that, btw. Only trying to get across that all those things that you're talking about are only ONE aspect of the many things that interwine in winning an Olympic bid.

2. And as a couple of other posters notably pointed out already, their details will come. Again, it's not like Paris is an amateur newcomer at this & that they're just gonna put together some half-assed plan. They almost won 2012 by technically a mere couple of votes, & they didn't come that close by having some subpar bid.

But you seem to have this urgency of wanting to know every single detial of Paris' bid now (while at the same time, acknowledging that you know that L.A. still has a few things to iron out & can wait on those. Go figure), so you can make a final judgement on it right here, right now. Let's remember that the 2024 campaign has just gotten underway, so all of your questions on all the bids will be answered soon enough.

But to also note, the fact that you've clinged on to Paris, as far as to scrutinize them, really validates how much of a threat you actually see Paris to be for L.A., since you certainly don't have as much of an interest in either Hamburg (which is working on a very impressive Olympic Park near its harbor BTW) or even Rome (some still say that either of those could still pull a "surprise").

3. No, what I said was if all L.A. has to offer is their "technical capabilities", then they're in for a rude awakening. That has NOTHING to do with any "sentiment" that Paris may have. So please read what is actually there & don't twist my words.

But as someone else noted, Paris' technical strength for 2012, was still outsold by an emotional plea from the London bid team. So it would be totally disingeous to think that sometimes sentimentality doesn't play a role here & that "technical" report cards are the be-all & end-all of Olympic campaigns. Also see Pyeongchang's 2018 & Rio's 2016 emotional wins. IOC members are still human with feelings afterall.

But just like you want to know more about Paris' bid, perhaps what I would like to know a little more of is "RuFF". For example, where are you from. How old are you. How long have you been following this thing called the Olympics that most regular members here have been following (along with several of these bid races) for years. I would like to get more of feeler so I can understand your "opinions" that much better.

A few good posts there. I don't think most who are knowledgeable about LA's games arent aware that they were awarded the games by default as they were the only bid remaining. But there is another part to that story that I think deserves mention. Something happened both times which is similar to what is happening now. The games They had become less popular by host cities because costs had grown out of control. And in both instances LA produced a profit and a model for which future Olymoics would follow.

Most regulars here are aware that L.A. got both 1932 & 1984 by default. And no, I wouldn't call those situations even remotely "similar" to what is happening now. Because even though some cities are concerned about the huge price of the Olympics these days, the fact of the matter is, that we still have FIVE cities (well, really technically four, but that's a whole other story) bidding for the 2024 Olympics. That's so UNLIKE 1932 & 1984. The IOC now has *choices* that they didn't have in those two past instances.

And while L.A. did produce a profit for the 1984 Games & "developed a model for future Olympics", let's keep in mind that the 1984 Summer Games cost a mere $584 million back then. A mere fraction of what a 2024 Summer Olympics would cost. So it's extremely very doubtful that a "profit" would be generated again, no matter what kind of rhetoric LA2024 uses to try & sell that pitch. The Olympics really aren't a "money maker". They must be viewed as an *investment* with a plan that would work well for any city wanting to bid for the Olympics.

You are right with the Games of 1984, but I can't see the similarity to the today's bid competition, since there are five very capable cities biding...

Really? You think that Budapest is "very capable"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RuFF, I didn't feel like you were trashing Paris. You just want to know the details about their bid, and so do I. But it won't happen now, though it will soon. And we already know many things about Paris' bid (the venues for sailing in Marseille, the venus for cycling, BMX, the velodrome, shooting, marathon, athletics, OC and CC, gymnastics, football, canoƫ-kayak, rowing equestrians, fencing, etc.). What we don't know for sure is where the aquatic center will be located and where the Atheletes Villages will be (though there are only three sites left and they're all northern Paris). The transportation system in Paris is great and it will only get better in the next 10 /20 years. Go to the Paris thread for that. Or google Paris 2024. We will get an official bid presentation soon. Be patient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, you're just rambling at this point to me. The voices in your head are telling you things I'm not saying. But the trashing balogne and idk wtf FYI is saying is bogus. I think, if anything, he is guilty of what he is accusing and needs to get a grip.

Projecting much, are we. So challenging your "rambling" POV's are 'bogus'? I just wanted to get a better understanding of your 'opinions'. But if you're unable/unwilling to continue a dialogue by playing dodge ball & instead prefer to be provocative & insulting with me, then have fun all on your own. Looks like you can't be taken seriously.

And it doesn't appear that I'm getting the same sense about the "trashing bologne", since several others have pointed out the same type of things to you. But quite frankly, your tactics now have become quite familiar the last time this Paris vs L.A. 'debate' took place just last month by someone who myteriously disappeared & now you've arrived with the same type of L.A. vehemence & agreesiveness. Go figure.

You claim you want to be "objective" by wanting to know more about the bids, but I don't see that to be case. Especially when you want berating now. There's absolutely no need for that. So there is no point in continuing this if that's where you want to take things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked that question specifically because Los Angeles has a rapidly expanding tech scene. That and the potential new sports and that it's a US hotspot for a demographic the IOC wants to reach. Again, I don't know Paris position or what they can do here so I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm just trying to be objective. On another note the argument that the IOC needs to repair relations with the Euro Community doesn't the same ring true for the US community.

My feeling a year and a half ago was that the US would get 2024 if they put forward a strong bid. At that time the 2022 race still had several European bidders, Paris was still cold on bidding, and getting back to the US maybe a bit more urgent with lots of things up in the air.

Since then all of the European bids for 2022 dramatically dropped out, Sochi 2014 created a perception that only resource rich dictatorships could spend the money needed to host, Paris has entered the fray for 2024 (I've always been of the opinion that Paris' biggest hurdle was convincing themselves they wanted to bid again as the IOC is clearly keen enough), and NBC has signed a new TV deal up to and including 2032 securing American audiences (and money) into the next decade.

Under these new circumstances with such a big hitter like Paris, I was expecting an easy KO with a poorly supported Boston bid fighting America's corner. By ditching them and going with LA things have swung towards the US a bit more, but I still think Paris offers everything the IOC would want right now.

And we all know LA bids every domestic cycle anyway, even if USOC doesn't select them. With that in the back of their minds, I think many in the IOC might think, "Oh, LA, we'll pick them next time....champagne in Paris first though!"

That's my theory anyway, and I'm sticking to it

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Exactly!

And we all know LA bids every domestic cycle anyway, even if USOC doesn't select them. With that in the back of their minds, I think many in the IOC might think, "Oh, LA, we'll pick them next time....champagne in Paris first though!"

Yep, yep!

That's my theory anyway, and I'm sticking to it

Here, here! :-D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, I certainly agree. I do not for any reason underestimate Paris' bid. All of those are valid points I can easily subscribe to. I think it's Paris' games to lose, but I am also comfortable in saying that LA could creep up.

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hamburg is a legitimate contender, but I don't think they are a favorite over either Paris or Los Angeles.

Paris and Los Angeles are each twice as large as Hamburg. They have many more hotels, a larger local labor force, etc.

They will need to build a LOT of sporting venues. Basically a Munich style Olympic Park. If Germany was not dealing a Eurozone economic crisis and refugees streaming into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East I am sure that would be fine. Right now I am not sure that Germans are willing to spend billions of Euros on stadiums and aquatics centers.

The airport is small and has only a single parallel runway. Paris has a secondary airport twice the size of Hamburg's primary airport. They have a tiny relief airport, but overall Hamburg is not logistically ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hamburg is a legitimate contender, but I don't think they are a favorite over either Paris or Los Angeles.

Paris and Los Angeles are each twice as large as Hamburg. They have many more hotels, a larger local labor force, etc.

They will need to build a LOT of sporting venues. Basically a Munich style Olympic Park. If Germany was not dealing a Eurozone economic crisis and refugees streaming into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East I am sure that would be fine. Right now I am not sure that Germans are willing to spend billions of Euros on stadiums and aquatics centers.

The airport is small and has only a single parallel runway. Paris has a secondary airport twice the size of Hamburg's primary airport. They have a tiny relief airport, but overall Hamburg is not logistically ideal.

The government supports the Hamburg bid and I am very sure, that we will have a positive referendum for the Olympics in November - we citizens of Hamburg do want the Games in our city...

The proposed Olympic Park/City right in the centre of the city is amazing - and we want to put the Olympics on another level = yes it is expensive, but we are able to make Games with a huge legacy as well as to offer superb conditions for the athletes...

The airport of Hamburg has no parallel runways -there is a northwest/southeast and a northeast/southwest runways

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hamburg is a legitimate contender, but I don't think they are a favorite over either Paris or Los Angeles.

Paris and Los Angeles are each twice as large as Hamburg. They have many more hotels, a larger local labor force, etc.

They will need to build a LOT of sporting venues. Basically a Munich style Olympic Park. If Germany was not dealing a Eurozone economic crisis and refugees streaming into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East I am sure that would be fine. Right now I am not sure that Germans are willing to spend billions of Euros on stadiums and aquatics centers.

The airport is small and has only a single parallel runway. Paris has a secondary airport twice the size of Hamburg's primary airport. They have a tiny relief airport, but overall Hamburg is not logistically ideal.

I agree Hamburg is not an obvious favourite, but its shortage of facilities would be a good excuse for a construction programme (including perhaps some upgrades to rail links, which, given its position in the heart of the European mainland, may be of more importance than air transport). The hotels problem would presumably be solved using cruise ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not so sure if there are clear favourites - yes there are many talking about Paris or Los Angeles, but that means nothing for the IOC

The IOC will pick the city, which is best in their point of view - we are talking here about the number of hotel rooms, airports. etc etc - that are maybe reasons for the decisions of some IOC members to vote for a city or not - this bid process is the first time which is under the agenda 2020 and we don't know what that means in all occurrence.

It will become very interesting how the IOC will handle this bid process - I think it will become exciting since the IOC didn't adopted this agenda just for fun...

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius
Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...