Jump to content
GBModerator

Repeat Olympic Bidders Could Benefit From More Streamlined Process: Bach

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

FYI and Quaker

 

You all have valid points but you're forgetting something this is an American city and American cities seldom take losing well...and thats from the public stand point up to investors. So you can assume all you want that they're just doing this till they win but judging from the American track record once their city gets to the candidate stage they pretty much are their to win or go home.

 

2) All of the things you all said are true but you all are ignoring that the situation now in 2017 is not the same as it was back in 96 and even 2010. You both have written prior to this that LA has been trying to bid since Atlanta and yes of course LA was trying to bid again, the world was a different place then and the Olympics was at one of it's peaks. You all have to admit that a potentially Massive corruption scandal, the fact that 8 cities have dropped out of the race in the last 3 bids due to public backlash, and growing terroristic concerns are going to make any city think twice about bidding in the 2020 years.

Back in 96 9/11 didn't happen, the hardship of Athens didn't happen, sochi and beijing didn't happen trump didn't happen, and 8 referendums didn't happen. All I am saying is if I am someone who has been deeply enthused about something but then I realize the landscape has drastically changed since I set out on this journey I am going to think twice before I jump in again. One messed up cycle can be dismissed but 3 is a pattern that can't be ignored and when you take that into account plus this hole bizarre concept of "American Exceptionalism" (I'm not from the US), that is ingrained in the minds of people here, losing this time does not equate to a return for 2028 ESPECIALLY seeing 2028 isn't even a guaranteed win.

No American city in these times will put themselves up to lose twice in a row.

I'll take that bet.  Don't give us this "you're forgetting something" and "you are all ignoring" as if we're not aware of the situation.  LA is not like most other American cities and you know it.  You talk about "the American track record" but what about LA's track record?  Where they stayed in it until they were the only city that was left.  And considering the state of the Olympics back then and how few cities were interested, perhaps there are more similarities with now and the past than you think.

So let's assess the situation.  You're right that the Olympics these days are dealing with corruption scandals, referendums, public backlash, terrorist concerns (no, that's not actually scaring anyone off), and whatever else bid cities might have to consider.  And yet through all that, there's LA as eager as ever through all this claiming they can host the Olympics with little risk of things going wrong.  This after another city was chosen by the USOC ahead of them and they still came in to rescue the USOC from public embarrassment.  So do you really think that 1 loss, let alone against a city that has been pursuing an Olympics since the last time LA hosted, is going to be the end of it?  Especially when - as you alluded to - you have the Trump factor potentially working against them where they might not have to deal with that the next time around.

You can make the point about how the landscape has changed, but you're just making generalizations.  You're not making specific points about LA and their desire to bid for another Olympics should they lose 2024.  Of course they'll be disappointed and emotionally drained if they lose.  But you know what is likely to happen?  They're going to assess their chances for 2028, realize that it makes sense for them to go for it again (even though there are costs and risks involved) and that their chances of winning will probably be even better.  Is it a guarantee?  Of course not.  But the other extreme where you say there's no shot a city is going to try a 2nd time doesn't seem right either.  New York and Chicago may have had that attitude.  I don't see LA feeling the same way.  And again, the whole narrative of this thread and this story is that the IOC might help pave the way for them to bid a 2nd time and increase their chances of winning, or at the very least, decrease the costs of another bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FYI said:

 I'm just curious about one thing (bcuz you haven't made that clear), since you're all for a double-award & if it actually takes places, is there an order of preference of which city gets which Games? Or does it not matter one way or another to you.

To be honest with the state of the race as it is and as much of an LA supporter as I am to me it doesn't matter which one gets it first. I have always believed that the two bids are equally as strong and that arguments working for one works for the other. So I look at it more from the standpoint of what the IOC might need. Do they go with LA that can basically host the games tomorrow first or do they go with Paris which covers the European games part? That's a toss up. Bach already said that Europe is the focus 

But here a thought though. The issues the IOC faces in when it comes to Europe is not the fact that Europe is begging to have the games there it's the opposite no? Why are they trying so desperately to get the games back to Europe when cities are turning away from them?

But back to your question I would like LA to get it first but I just want them to get it so 2024 or 28 doesn't personally matter and I think either would be great I just would hate for the runner up to have to do all this crap again when they both have already proven to be strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

But here a thought though. The issues the IOC faces in when it comes to Europe is not the fact that Europe is begging to have the games there it's the opposite no? Why are they trying so desperately to get the games back to Europe when cities are turning away from them?

Ummmm, bcuz Paris does WANT them (for 2024 anyway)? Isn't that a very good enough reason in itself? And as you noted in your previous sentence, Bach has gone on record that Europe can't be ignored precisely bcuz of all those other European cities turning them away. That's why I don't buy the (alan abrahamson) logic that Europe would just be "lining up" for 2028 if Paris loses 2024.

Paris is the only credible European city left (for now anyway) that still desires to host the Olympic Games almost as much as L.A. does. If they lose it this time (yet again) then Paris can just as easily join the list of those other European cities that are telling the IOC now to take a hike. And that's why Bach went on to say what he said, in regards to Europe.

18 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

But back to your question I would like LA to get it first but I just want them to get it so 2024 or 28 doesn't personally matter and I think either would be great I just would hate for the runner up to have to do all this crap again when they both have already proven to be strong.

If you have any inkling of preference, as you're acknowledging here, then I can only take a lot of your opinions as having quite some bias then. Bcuz if you didn't, then you wouldn't be making all of these assumptive arguments why L.A. wouldn't return for 2028. And if both bids are as strong as already proven, then that sort of also deflates your previous thought that I addressed in your last paragraph. 

I also asked another question before, but where are you from, if you're not from the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

To be honest with the state of the race as it is and as much of an LA supporter as I am to me it doesn't matter which one gets it first. I have always believed that the two bids are equally as strong and that arguments working for one works for the other. So I look at it more from the standpoint of what the IOC might need. Do they go with LA that can basically host the games tomorrow first or do they go with Paris which covers the European games part? That's a toss up. Bach already said that Europe is the focus 

But here a thought though. The issues the IOC faces in when it comes to Europe is not the fact that Europe is begging to have the games there it's the opposite no? Why are they trying so desperately to get the games back to Europe when cities are turning away from them?

But back to your question I would like LA to get it first but I just want them to get it so 2024 or 28 doesn't personally matter and I think either would be great I just would hate for the runner up to have to do all this crap again when they both have already proven to be strong.

That's how the game works.  1 city gets an Olympics.  And the other city..

 

So between Paris and LA, someone is going to wind up with nothing.  Unless, that is, the IOC decides to do something radical.  Which they might do for the very reasons you're talking about.  A couple of points though..

LA is needs a lot more than 1 day to be ready to host an Olympics.  There are a number of temporary facilities, including the overlay for the Coliseum.  Yes, they have less to build than most cities, but there's far from nothing in there.  Less you forget there's more than a billion dollars in the budget for venue infrastructure.

Re: Europe.. to echo FYI's thoughts, you're right that many cities/countries in Europe have told the IOC to screw off.  But Paris isn't one of them.  They're here right now and as worthy a European bid as the IOC is going to get.  So what type of message would it send to hold all that animosity brewing against the Olympic movement as a negative towards Paris when they're sticking with this?  That could have long-lasting repercussions that the IOC probably doesn't want to deal with, regardless of who may or may not bid for an Olympics from Europe in the years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA loosing to Paris is not the same blow as Chicago loosing to Rio in the first round. Period. 

LA would most likely return in 2028 and if it's not LA, honestly I could see another US city stepping in. Orlando, Houston? I'm not in the know on the scene in those cities but America would most likely bid in 2028 with LA or not. But it most probably would be LA....especially if the IOC is basically giving a nudge and wink that they would probably win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orlando? Houston? Ain't happening. Especially Orlando. Even if the USOC wanted to bid for 2028 & in the unlikely event that L.A. didn't, I'm sure that the USOC would then have sit down talks with L.A. to convince them otherwise. Plus, the "leg up" that Bach is talking about is for the 2024 runner-up. And that would be L.A. (if that was the case). Not Orlando or Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FYI said:

Orlando? Houston? Ain't happening. Especially Orlando. Even if the USOC wanted to bid for 2028 & in the unlikely event that L.A. didn't, I'm sure that the USOC would then have sit down talks with L.A. to convince them otherwise. Plus, the "leg up" that Bach is talking about is for the 2024 runner-up. And that would be L.A. (if that was the case). Not Orlando or Houston.

Absolutely agreed regarding Orlando- it's a town built around tourism, and unless it is seriously underoccupied in summer, it makes no sense to tie up its accommodation with Olympic & Paralympic hosting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×