Jump to content

IOC Executives Back Plan To Award Both Paris and LA Olympic Games in 2024 and 2028


Recommended Posts

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Board Friday unanimously supported a working group’s plan to award both the 2024 and 2028 Olympic Games to candidates Paris and Los Angeles at the same time this September.  The proposal is expected to gain the membership’s rubber-stamp approval at a full two-day extraordinary IOC Session beginning July 11 […]

View the full article

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smartest thing the IOC has done in a long time.

Also, unlike the last time a major event was double-awarded (cough, FIFA...), this time the candidates seem pretty reluable and uncontroversial (from a 2017 perspective).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol - my favorite part of the article:

"Last week LA Mayor Eric Garcetti hinted at concessions he might consider if his city were to host in 2028 instead of 2024 including funding for local youth sport.

But Bach explained Friday that he didn’t expect the 2028 host to earn any significant concessions for taking the consolation prize.

'The [2028] city would get the right to host the Olympic Games without risk of a defeat in an election procedure,' he said.

'You don’t need to reward somebody if you give them a present.'

'The race for ’24 is going on as shaped and as planned,' Bach added, explaining that it is still an open competition to host in 2024 despite appearances that the only solution is a Paris 2024 and LA 2028 scenario."

--Like I mentioned the other day in the L.A. thread to an L.A. poster, that Garcetti can ask for whatever concessions he wants in order to "take" 2028, but at the end of the day, the IOC is still a business & aren't going to hand over their Swiss bank accounts just for the "sake" of L.A. taking the "consolation prize" of 2028.

L.A. would still be getting an (2028) Olympic Games being handed to them on a silver platter without having to mount another campaign (which some in the organization are probably going to resent regardless). That's where L.A. "concessions" can begin, by not having to fork over another $60 million for another bid.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...has the la city council approved accepting a 28 games? and if they do i think they can be held accountable putting the city in a risky position. i don't see how any olympic bid can move forward without a public referendum vote.....it should be a requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, paul said:

...has the la city council approved accepting a 28 games? and if they do i think they can be held accountable putting the city in a risky position. 

This is from an L.A. Times article from ten days ago:

"If all of this comes to pass, the 2024 bidder that switches to 2028 would need to modify its arrangements with government agencies, venue owners and other entities. In L.A., that would mean another round of talks with City Councilmembers who have fought to establish an active role in the bidding and potential organization of the Games.

Council President Herb Wesson insisted Thursday that “we came to compete for ’24.”

But Wesson also acknowledged the possibility of adjusting to a later date and, in the process, working a deal with IOC leaders.

“We would reconvene,” he said. “If they want to begin negotiating and adding extra perks, it’s our job to do what’s in the best interest of the city.”

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-garcetti-bid-20170601-story,amp.html

But as Bach has already stated from this GB's article, he doesn't expect the 2028 city to get any significant concessions, since the 2028 city would virtually be getting a Games being handed to them without having to mount another costly campaign for it.

And like I said, that means the IOC isn't just going to be giving L.A. their piggy bank just cuz they say so (speaking of being 'gluttonness'). And those 'concessions' can start with the $60 million that L.A. won't have to put out on another bid. So they can start funding their programs with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the ioc needs LA more than the other way around......plus the usoc already gave the ioc the piggy bank a few years ago (big mistake). if bach wants to play this like he's doing the city a favor, and if he starts to make missteps like his comments a couple posts up, then he's sort of walking a thin line with one of the few cities that can help dig the ioc out of the mess they are in.

the Olympic brand has lost most of it's gloss at this point, it wasn't too long ago that those rings meant way more than they do today. you see those rings now and you think of a gluttonous - self appointed - out of touch committee - who is not able to organize a successful event that benefits their host. they are corrupt and untrustworthy, they leave their hosts with enormous cost overruns and debt, they have damaged the reputation a several large global cities, they are seen as bloodsuckers.

IF ANY CITY WANT TO BID/HOST, THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC REFERENDUM REQUIRED.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, paul said:

the ioc needs LA more than the other way around......plus the usoc already gave the ioc the piggy bank a few years ago (big mistake). if bach wants to play this like he's doing the city a favor, and if he starts to make missteps like his comments a couple posts up, then he's sort of walking a thin line with one of the few cities that can help dig the ioc out of the mess they are in.

You mean like the misstep comments Garcetti & Wasserman have been making, which if you wanna argue can be put right up there along with Bach's of - "who needs who more", which are only reactive comments on Bach's part bcuz of what Garcetti is saying about "concessions".

Obviously L.A. wants part of this, otherwise they wouldn't be bidding in the first place (& wouldn't have been "desperately" trying for years & years to be the USOC nominee). But if now all of the sudden they wanna do the "playing hard to get" dance, let them. I say call their bluff, & let's see how fast L.A. would come a runnin' for 2028, if they lose out on 2024, & then we'll really see "who needs who more".

21 minutes ago, paul said:

the Olympic brand has lost most of it's gloss at this point, it wasn't too long ago that those rings meant way more than they do today. you see those rings now and you think of a gluttonous - self appointed - out of touch committee - who is not able to organize a successful event that benefits their host. they are corrupt and untrustworthy, they leave their hosts with enormous cost overruns and debt, they have damaged the reputation a several large global cities, they are seen as bloodsuckers.

Obviously Paris & L.A. (two of the biggest cities in the world) think otherwise. As do other previous host cities like London, Sydney, Vancouver & Barcelona. This just seems like the typical L.A. (AbraTrollson) banter these days that you're gobbling up bcuz it seems that's the only narrative that grand utopia L.A. can play - "the Olympics are in trouble & L.A. is the only city in the universe that can save them" mantra. 

27 minutes ago, paul said:

IF ANY CITY WANT TO BID/HOST, THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC REFERENDUM REQUIRED.

Why don't you get that grassroot effort started then! Cuz doing it behind a keyboard on GB's ain't gonna do it. :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FYI said:

You mean like the misstep comments Garcetti & Wasserman have been making, which if you wanna argue can be put right up there along with Bach's of - "who needs who more", which are only reactive comments on Bach's part bcuz of what Garcetti is saying about "concessions".

....i dont remember G or W being anything but overly diplomatic...pretending the ioc is not in the dumper.

31 minutes ago, FYI said:

Obviously L.A. wants part of this, otherwise they wouldn't be bidding in the first place (& wouldn't have been "desperately" trying for years & years to be the USOC nominee). But if now all of the sudden they wanna do the "playing hard to get" dance, let them. I say call their bluff, & let's see how fast L.A. would come a runnin' for 2028, if they lose out on 2024, & then we'll really see "who needs who more".

we'll see i guess.......hopefully la will play hard to get and sombody will get twisted on one end and we can say goodbye to the ioc problem.

31 minutes ago, FYI said:

Why don't you get that grassroot effort started then! Cuz doing it behind a keyboard on GB's ain't gonna do it. :lol:

...i've thought about it....but i'm too busy unless i get paid. i have a difficult time with the current opposition groups angle, i just don't think they are gonna be effective with their blindly political slant, but hopefully it will reach some of their blind follower who stupidly think thing an Olympics is free.

Edited by paul
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, paul said:

....i dont remember G or W being anything but overly diplomatic...pretending the ioc is not in the dumper.

Overly diplomatic (as much as your GF PuFF has been through all this, right :rolleyes:)? Pretending the IOC is not in the dumpster? Saying things like the IOC "MUST" pick L.A. for 2024 to "steer them back in the right direction & 'stabilize' Olympic world" etc, is quite the OPPOSITE of "pretending" the IOC is not in the dumpster. 

14 minutes ago, paul said:

we'll see i guess.......hopefully la will play hard to get and sombody will get twisted on one end and we can say goodbye to the ioc problem.

I just don't understand if you have such a disdain for the IOC, why you're the one that actually get's so "twisted on one end" if L.A. doesn't wind up with an Olympics. Oh, the irony in your crusade.

17 minutes ago, paul said:

...i've thought about it....but i'm too busy unless i get paid. 

You're not too busy to b!tch about it for free on GB's, though! :P And now you sound just like those "greedy, corrupt Euro-holes" that you b!tch so much about & want to get "paid" for it. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...all i can say is that i hope we don't have the ioc on our backs in 24 or 28.....i thinks it's a negative to be associated with them and the risks too great to host cities......every host city.

...watching paris dance will be fun however.

 

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

...well, if it can't be avoided I guess one must grin and host it....it's part of the sacrifice we make for living in la.

B..bu...but..but.. 88%!!

Yes, I know that's a number probably based on a less than honest question.  As usual, speak for yourself on this one.  You are obviously not in the majority in this one.  You are in the 12%, even if those other 88% include a lot of people that are blissfully ignorant of what it takes to host an Olympics.

  • Like 1
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...