paul Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 ...but this is about who should host the Olympics and I do not think the US should host......so back to Paris....at least until they implode for one reason or another (just kidding Paris but you know it's all so unpredicatable these days). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphamale86 Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 So maybe I missed something and this is a legitimate question but why do we even have this poll? Didn't the USOC just conclude a massive 35 city investigation process where they whittled the number down to 4? Fine they chose the wrong city but if they still want to bid for 2024 doesn't logic dictate that you simply go with the runner up? I just find the fact that that they are asking the top three to resubmit plans is an even bigger joke at this last minute. Either go with runner up LA or don't bid at all it's actually quite simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 I think the USOC is trying decide between a solo LA bid or a joing SF-LA bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Probst has pretty much already nixed such a foolish idea. That would be much more spread out than "Boston 2.0" was. And considering how compact Paris' & especially Hamburg's plans are gonna be, that would only mean losing for sure for the USOC. So unless they want that, it's going to be L.A. alone. The IOC would never go for it, not when they have much better options to choose from. San Fran should get the usual farmed out soccer venue or two, but that's going to be about the extent of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Even a solo LA bid is a surefire loser. Tacking SF on at least lets the USOC find out how serious those 2020 reforms are. It also placates Sacramento, who would be the financial guarantor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Los Angeles is the second largest metropolitan area in the country & one of the top ten in the world. So they don't need to go all the way to San Francisco (& now you're throwing in Sacramemto?!) to see 'how serious' the IOC is about their own agenda 2020. L.A. can still handle it comfortably on their own. If anything, I could see a Southern California effort, where you can just go down the coast to San Diego to share some events there. But not all the way to far-flung Northern California. That's just crazy right there. Just look at Tokyo 2020, they're doing everything practical that they can to accommodate agenda 2020. Their original "compact" concept isn't as compact anymore. They're spreading some of those venues out. But they're not going all crazy & going all the way to Nagoya or Osaka to do it, cuz Tokyo doesn't have to, nor shouldn't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Even a solo LA bid is a surefire loser. Tacking SF on at least lets the USOC find out how serious those 2020 reforms are. It also placates Sacramento, who would be the financial guarantor. If the USOC is going to bid for 2024, they need to give the IOC the best bid they possibly can, not the one that follows 2020 reforms. And adding a city more than 350 miles away hardly seems like it's Agenda 2020 friendly. I agree with FYI that adding in San Diego is much more realistic, as if LA really need to add another city to make their bid work. In a hypothetical compettiion between a solo LA bid and a LA-SF bid, the former would easily beat the latter. If the idea of Agenda 2020 is to make an Olympics more cost effective, you're not helping matters by spreading the Olympics between 2 cities that are not well linked with each other (althoguh I know there's work in progress on a high speed rail line between the 2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Los Angeles doesn't even need San Diego much less San Francisco for their bid outside of farming out preliminary soccer games. I don't see why Los Angeles cannot use the same plan that was leaked in spring of last year. The only venue on that list that was up in the air was Farmers Field for basketball. If Los Angeles doesn't land an NFL team by that time or lands one that decides to build an open air stadium rather than a retractable roof, then basketball finals can be moved to the Staples Center. The Forum can handle the entire volleyball competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 You guys are forgetting about politics. The City of Los Angeles won't be signing the taxpayer guarantee to be the financial backstop for the games, the State of California will be. This is why I referred to Sacramento. Now, you have a bunch of politicians from NoCa being asked to fund a party in SoCa. Putting a couple events in the Bay area to placate those NoCa political interests might be what they need to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 You guys are forgetting about politics. The City of Los Angeles won't be signing the taxpayer guarantee to be the financial backstop for the games, the State of California will be. This is why I referred to Sacramento. Now, you have a bunch of politicians from NoCa being asked to fund a party in SoCa. Putting a couple events in the Bay area to placate those NoCa political interests might be what they need to do. No, we're not forgetting about politics. This is not going to turn into another Massachusetts situation where if Los Angeles is bidding for the Olympics, the State of California is going pull a power play and insist on involving Northern California and insist on involving Sacramento. That's absurd. Don't assume because that happened with Boston (and look what it did to their bid.. mismanagement aside, that political will helped sink a bid that was already sinking), it would happen here. They'll learn from those mistakes. Placate the Bay Area by giving them a soccer venue or 2. But the politicians in California will be smart enough to know that if they try and turn this into a statewide effort, it's not going to have a good shot of winning. And don't tell us it's that or no bid. I don't buy the theory that the only way Los Angeles has any shot of hosting an Olympics would be to make Northern California an integral part of an Olympic effort. LA and SF went at this separately in pursuit of 2024. Don't take the rumblings of a joint effort as evidence that's what a future bid would hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 It's a lot simpler than that. California won't sign on as the financial guarantor no matter what LA 2024 promises the northern half of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 /\/\ Why didn't the USOC foresee this "financial guaranteeing" problem? I mean it's NOT something new. But w/ a winter bid, the risks are much smaller so it would be easier for a smaller state like Utah, Nevada or Alaska to assume the smaller, excess risks. They are so dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.