Los Angeles 2028

[jtrevino]

That's definitely not Stan Kroenke, who is very thin and brunette. 

[mr.bernham]

7 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

BTW, here's the latest of what that Stan Kroenke, owner of the Rams, is up to ...

Looks like this is a photshopped picture though.  (He might be the one in the bkgd.)  But I just learned he's married to one of the Walmart heiresses.  

https://www.change.org/p/sir-chips-keswick-remove-stan-kroenke-from-arsenal-football-club/nftexp3/fb_share_post_dynamic/59944739?recruiter=59944739&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=autopublish&utm_content=fb_share_post_copy_6%3Afb_share_post_dynamic

Stan must have an amazing plastic surgeon, this is what he looks like now:

...what can I say? Modern science...

 

[FYI]

Doesn't look like a brunette, either lol.

[Rob2012]

Blimey, petition is at nearly 150k!

[FYI]

L.A. City Council endorses 2028 Olympics bid, accepting responsibility for any cost overruns

Nothing about Los Angeles’ quest to host the Summer Olympics for a third time has been straightforward or easy.

The private committee pursuing the bid was named as the sole U.S. candidate for 2024 only after the first choice, Boston, withdrew.

Then, in the middle of a heated race between L.A. and Paris, the International Olympic Committeechanged the rules, brokering an unusual deal that has Paris taking 2024 and L.A. waiting another four years.

So it makes sense that the latest milestone in the campaign — a crucial City Council meeting — turned raucous and a bit messy on Friday.

As council members unanimously endorsed the revised 2028 bid — and positioned the city to serve as a financial backstop in case the estimated $5.3-billion event loses money — their vote was drowned out by a small but voluble group of critics.

“I thought this was going to be a marathon,” Mayor Eric Garcetti later said of the two-year effort. “But this has been the hurdles.”

Opponents complained that council members were acting without benefit of complete information, hurrying their decision to meet an Aug. 18 deadline set by the IOC. 

“Look, there’s 11 years before the Games, so it wouldn’t hurt if they took a year or even six months instead of rushing,” said Jed Parriott, an organizer of the NOlympics LA group. “The whole process feels like a giveaway to the IOC.”

Again, L.A.’s not-so-linear path to the Games was the problem. Back when the private L.A. bid committee was vying for 2024, it produced a budget and independent analysis, estimating it could cover all costs through corporate sponsorships, ticket sales and other revenue sources.

An additional state analysis concluded the bid was “fairly low-risk” because it relied on existing venues such as the Coliseum and Staples Center rather than constructing expensive new stadiums and arenas.

The council used that information to approve the original plan in January.

But last month, when IOC President Thomas Bach brought the two-winner proposal to his membership, he had to walk a political tightrope. Bach prevailed, in part, by promising to have both candidates locked into a deal by mid-September.

The “host city contract” was critical. Even though the Olympics are often run by private committee, the IOC requires host cities to promise they will settle any debts should the Games go over-budget.

So Olympic officials needed LA 28 to move quickly in securing an updated guarantee from the City Council. The expedited schedule left no time for a new budget or analysis.

“We are the only city that has two successful Olympics — that’s what I look to,” Councilman Gil Cedillo said, referring to previous L.A. Games in 1984 and 1932. “You can tell me other cities haven’t been successful. That’s not us.”

Fellow council member David Ryu sounded less confident, endorsing the bid but later issuing a statement that noted the “limited comment and parliamentary procedure.”

Ryu pointed to the lack of current financial numbers and other unresolved issues, saying: “If any of these do not come through, I will push for our city to end this agreement.”

Earlier on Friday, the combative mood had begun during an ad hoc committee meeting. 

Opponents lined up at the microphone to express concerns that the Olympics would negatively affect low-income residents and the homeless. Supporters countered that civic excitement around the Games could trigger social change.

At one point, Councilman Joe Buscaino got into a shouting match with an opponent.

“I’m tired of hearing these people coming to us and questioning our decision-making,” Buscaino said.

To which the opponent yelled: “It’s called democracy.”

LA 28 officials have vowed not to make any significant changes to the expense side of their original 2024 plan, a theme that was repeated among dozens of Olympic athletes who attended to show support.

“I have some of the same concerns that everybody else does: the infrastructure, the financial impact,” said Greg Louganis, a four-time gold medalist in diving who has worked closely with the bid. “We have so much time, I’m very optimistic we can work those issues out.”

Council members did have one new piece of information to consider before the vote.

The city administrative officer and chief legislative analyst issued a report this week acknowledging the “greater uncertainty” of committing to the Games more than a decade in advance but recommending endorsement because of other factors designed to “mitigate the added risk.”

In recent negotiations, the IOC agreed to increase its 2028 contribution from an estimated $1.7 billion to as much as $2 billion. It will also give L.A. a $180-million advance on that amount over five years, with an estimated $160 million earmarked for youth sports programs.

LA 28 could save additional tens of millions in waived Olympic fees and will not have to pay the IOC a customary 20% of any surplus should the Games turn a profit, which they did when L.A. hosted in 1984.

The bid committee has said it will purchase a series of insurance policies and set aside 10% of estimated costs in a contingency fund to cover overruns.

Council President Herb Wesson called the deal “too good to pass up” but acknowledged that opponents had voiced legitimate concerns.

“In the United States of America, we can agree to disagree,” he said. “We could meet for two more months, four more months, a year … and you’re still going to have a percentage of people who do not support the Games.”

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-olympics-city-council-approves-20170811-story,amp.html

[baron-pierreIV]

/\/\ A very balanced report.  And I am glad the Naysayers have at least been heard out and had a chance to voice out their concerns.  That is the democratic way.  

[mr.bernham]

I think one of the councilman hit it on the nose when he said alluded that many of the concerns citizens had were problems in other cities and problems LA did not experience in /32 or '84. The fact that LA's plan is focused on just hosting the games and not building massive "regeneration" projects I doubt it will encounter the same human rights issues that Beijing and Rio faced, or the gentrification opposition experienced in London. LA will literally just be hosting a two week celebration, nothing more, nothing less. It's not going to be your typical games as we've come to know them in the 21st century.

[FYI]

15 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

I think one of the councilman hit it on the nose when he said alluded that many of the concerns citizens had were problems in other cities and problems LA did not experience in /32 or '84. 

2028 is going to be a far cry from 1984, & even moreso from 1932. I think this (Abrahamson & Co.) notion that simply bcuz L.A.'s last two Olympics were "so successful" (& that's relatively speaking), that L.A. can simply replicate that success in 2028 would remain to be seen. The Olympics in 2028 are going to cost at least 10x's more just to "host" them, than they did back in 1984. And probably 100x's (or more) than what they cost way back in 1932. That's not to be misconstrued that 2028 won't be successful. But to put 2028 as of now on the same plateau as 1984 (& 1932, which shouldn't even register at this point anymore) is a wee bit premature here.

23 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

The fact that LA's plan is focused on just hosting the games and not building massive "regeneration" projects I doubt it will encounter the same human rights issues that Beijing and Rio faced, or the gentrification opposition experienced in London. LA will literally just be hosting a two week celebration, nothing more, nothing less. It's not going to be your typical games as we've come to know them in the 21st century.

I posted an article last month (but which got removed [IDK why], along with other posters posts, when a certain L.A. bolster was still around. I will try to find it again & repost it) that particularly talked about how there actually was some social unrest to the lead-up of the 1984 Games. And actually, there have also been some recent articles about "the risks" in the social & political climate in L.A. come 2028, as an argument against the Games eleven years out (which is also mentioned in the article I posted earlier).

And as far as L.A. 'just hosting a two-week celebration, nothing more, nothing less', couldn't be further from the truth. While granted, a lot of L.A.'s projects aren't "directly" related to the Olympics, they are however, still Olympic dependant. Like the new (very expensive) NFL stadium in Inglewood that will play host to the ceremonies. The purple-line expansion to UCLA/OV. The LAX terminal reconstruction, & the $1 Billion Coliseum retrofit, among other venues as well. And any amount of delays in any of these areas can cause issues. So lets not fall into the fallacy that all L.A. has to do is just "host", cuz that wouldn't be an accurate picture, either. There's still plenty to be done, even in 'ready-made' L.A. 

[hektor]

Are the dates of the Games known ?

2024 bid was July 19 to August 4 so I would bet on July 21 to August 6 2028 but has it been confirmed somewhere ?

 

[FYI]

The 1984 Games took place July 28th-Aug 13th. And it just so happens that those dates coincide with 2028, too. So wouldn't surprise me that's what they'll be this time as well. London 2012 also started in late July.

[mr.bernham]

4 hours ago, FYI said:

2028 is going to be a far cry from 1984, & even moreso from 1932. I think this (Abrahamson & Co.) notion that simply bcuz L.A.'s last two Olympics were "so successful" (& that's relatively speaking), that L.A. can simply replicate that success in 2028 would remain to be seen. The Olympics in 2028 are going to cost at least 10x's more just to "host" them, than they did back in 1984. And probably 100x's (or more) than what they cost way back in 1932. That's not to be misconstrued that 2028 won't be successful. But to put 2028 as of now on the same plateau as 1984 (& 1932, which shouldn't even register at this point anymore) is a wee bit premature here.

I agree with this, it will cost more. A lot more. However, a lot of that money that LAOCOG is going to spend will be going towards things that people will see as necessary for the games; branding, marketing, venue repairs, temporary venues, the running of the games. A lot the protesters I think have the impression that LA's Olympics are going to be like Bejing, Rio, or Sochi. LA is not going to be spending their money the same way other previous games did. It is just a different city, a different bid. The bulk of their opposition is based on examples that simply do not apply to LA.  I guess my main point was that LA is not going to be like other previous games; it's a different beast. 

5 hours ago, FYI said:

I posted an article last month (but which got removed [IDK why], along with other posters posts, when a certain L.A. bolster was still around. I will try to find it again & repost it) that particularly talked about how there actually was some social unrest to the lead-up of the 1984 Games. And actually, there have also been some recent articles about "the risks" in the social & political climate in L.A. come 2028, as an argument against the Games eleven years out (which is also mentioned in the article I posted earlier).

And as far as L.A. 'just hosting a two-week celebration, nothing more, nothing less', couldn't be further from the truth. While granted, a lot of L.A.'s projects aren't "directly" related to the Olympics, they are however, still Olympic dependant. Like the new (very expensive) NFL stadium in Inglewood that will play host to the ceremonies. The purple-line expansion to UCLA/OV. The LAX terminal reconstruction, & the $1 Billion Coliseum retrofit, among other venues as well. And any amount of delays in any of these areas can cause issues. So lets not fall into the fallacy that all L.A. has to do is just "host", cuz that wouldn't be an accurate picture, either. There's still plenty to be done, even in 'ready-made' L.A. 

That actually sounds really interesting, I'd love to read it if you could find it. I agree though, there's a lot of risks LA is taking with 2028. We have no idea what our country is going to be like in 11 years...who would've thought 11 years ago Donald Trump would actually be our President? It's a gamble I think will pay off...but if it doesn't? Well that'll be a **** show.

As for the Olympic dependent projects; all are for the most part privately funded (aside from LAX and Purple Line). But you're right...any delays and that could cause significant issues. It could also force the LAOCOG to potentially build their own facilities or something like that. 11 years leaves a lot of room to **** up. 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, mr.bernham said:

However, a lot of that money that LAOCOG is going to spend will be going towards things that people will see as necessary for the games; branding, marketing, venue repairs, temporary venues, the running of the games. 

How is that any different from any other organizing committee, though.

1 hour ago, mr.bernham said:

A lot the protesters I think have the impression that LA's Olympics are going to be like Bejing, Rio, or Sochi. LA is not going to be spending their money the same way other previous games did. It is just a different city, a different bid. The bulk of their opposition is based on examples that simply do not apply to LA.  

Perhaps thats thanks in part to a certain so-called L.A. journalist who's main agenda was to bash the Paris 2024 bid & comparing them to all those past Olympics that you just mentioned. When in reality, the Paris 2024 bid is more in-line with L.A. than it is to Beijing, Rio & Sochi. 

As as far as Rio 2016 goes, it's mainly a set of their own negative circumstances that contributed to the disarray of their Olympics VS it being the Olympics themselves (much like the Greeks with Athens 2004) that caused their chaos, & that's what many of the protesters are trying to point out, that those set of circumstances can change eleven years out in L.A., not so much about the Olympics themselves.  

1 hour ago, mr.bernham said:

I guess my main point was that LA is not going to be like other previous games; it's a different beast.

Again, that's premature at this point. And it's quite apparent that they're some in L.A. who also fall in that line of thinking, again bcuz circumstances can change that far out.

1 hour ago, mr.bernham said:

That actually sounds really interesting, I'd love to read it if you could find it. 

I couldn't immediately find the one I was initially referring to (I'll keep looking, though), but I did found these two (& one from just a few days ago) that pretty much say the same thing:  

https://www.thenation.com/article/want-understand-1992-la-riots-start-1984-la-olympics/

https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin.com/the-1984-olympics-were-bad-for-poor-black-people-in-los-1797612842/amp

 

 

 

[mr.bernham]

51 minutes ago, FYI said:

How is that any different from any other organizing committee, though.

Didn't previous committee's fund the bulk of their Olympic Park projects? Sydney, Beijing, London? LA will not have an Olympic park and most of the new venues being built will be done so by private company's not related to the OC. An Olympic park on the scale of Homebush, Beijing, and Stratford costs a good sum of money in addition to the other costs that come along with costs to actually host the games. You and I both know that most cost overruns come from stadium construction and park construction...LAOCOG will have other problems, but if their current venue plan remains, spending on stadiums will not be one of them. 

55 minutes ago, FYI said:

Perhaps thats thanks in part to a certain so-called L.A. journalist who's main agenda was to bash the Paris 2024 bid & comparing them to all those past Olympics that you just mentioned. When in reality, the Paris 2024 bid is more in-line with L.A. than it is to Beijing, Rio & Sochi. 

Paris will host a solidly cost effective games as well. They might get a little caught up in the pageantry (as that whole medal thing has shown), but like LA they will not be spending billions in what some protesters consider pointless spending (stadiums etc.). That journalist was being ridiculous. Paris and LA will both host fantastic cost-effective games. I think their budgets will be close to around $7-9 billion. LA will be higher because of security (US historically tends to spend more on security).

59 minutes ago, FYI said:

As as far as Rio 2016 goes, it's mainly a set of their own negative circumstances that contributed to the disarray of their Olympics VS it being the Olympics themselves (much like the Greeks with Athens 2004) that caused their chaos, & that's what many of the protesters are trying to point out, that those set of circumstances can change eleven years out in L.A., not so much about the Olympics themselves.  

I couldn't immediately find the one I was initially referring to (I'll keep looking, though), but I did found these two (& one from just a few days ago) that pretty much say the same thing:  

https://www.thenation.com/article/want-understand-1992-la-riots-start-1984-la-olympics/

https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin.com/the-1984-olympics-were-bad-for-poor-black-people-in-los-1797612842/amp

 

 

 

That's a very good point and I agree. Rio is a great example of things going wrong unexpectedly just with a seven year gap between award and host. Athens was more itself...the problems for Greece didn't come until after. The same thing could happen for LA, but what will potentially hold it over will be the dependence on existing venues and already decent infrastructure. Neither Rio or Athens were as ready for the games as LA and Paris are. Rio and Athens both had to spend considerable amounts of money to make their cities capable of handling the influx of people the games would bring. Sure LA is doing some needed improvements to infrastructure, the games day to day success is not dependent on those projects like Athens and Rio were. 

Also thank you for those articles. I'll read through them tonight.

 

[jtrevino]

 I think the risk going over budget is a fair criticism, because you can’t control the true costs of things for 2024 much less 2028. No one can predict that, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that with all permanent venues already built, the costs aren’t going to drift too far away from their estimates. The NFL stadium isn’t yet built,  but it’s more opportunistic than necessary. It was never included in other LA bids before football came to LA.

 But the outcry over homeless/poor/black displacement in a lot of the articles coming out I don’t think have much teeth for 2028. Even with the 84 games, I think many criticisms are scapegoating the Olympics when these issues of violence and racism had everything to do with the social landscape of LA at the time. LA is experiencing record low levels of crime especially compared to the 80s/90s. For the most part, the LAPD is a far different police force than it was in 1992, when it was the most violent and corrupt police force in the country. Beating every black guy who crossed the street. LA has tipped so far to the left, even to almost a fanatic level of liberalism, where I just can’t see them pulling human rights violations that were so easy for them to do in 1992. Remember LA voted in 1994 in favor of the infamous anti-immigrant, arguably racist, Prop 187. Can you imagine that happening in LA today? 

If anything, the criticisms of anti-Olympic groups will probably have an effect by making these issues about displacement even more unlikely to happen in 2028. 

[paul]

17 hours ago, FYI said:

While granted, a lot of L.A.'s projects aren't "directly" related to the Olympics, they are however, still Olympic dependant. Like the new (very expensive) NFL stadium in Inglewood that will play host to the ceremonies.

.....the stadium is not dependent on and was not developed for an Olympics...LA24 leached on as soon as they got the opportunity.

5 hours ago, jtrevino said:

For the most part, the LAPD is a far different police force than it was in 1992, when it was the most violent and corrupt police force in the country. Beating every black guy who crossed the street.

LA is experiencing record low levels of crime especially compared to the 80s/90s.

Really.....in 92 did EVERY black guy crossing the street in LA really get beat by LAPD?.........maybe you meant one guy got beat and everybody else cleverly trashed, looted, and burned their own neighborhoods....

As for crime in decline now ........

Violent crime in L.A. jumps for third straight year as police deal with gang, homeless issues-LA times 1/1/17

Violent crime increased in Los Angeles for the third straight year as police tried to stem a rash of homicides and gang-related shootings while dealing with a growing homeless population.

[FYI]

27 minutes ago, paul said:

.....the stadium is not dependent on and was not developed for an Olympics...LA24 leached on as soon as they got the opportunity.

I NEVER said that the stadium (or any of the other infrastructe projects) was "developed" for the Olympics. However, all of those are going to be used FOR the Olympics, are they not? And besides, what I was intially countering was bernham's comment that "L.A. will literally just be hosting a two-week celebration, noting more or nothing less", bcuz that wouldn't be an accurate picture at all, either.

[FYI]

And oh no, "herpes" is back!  And as usual, her comprehension skills are lacking, & then goes on a diatribe over something that I never even claimed. 

[mr.bernham]

37 minutes ago, paul said:

Really.....in 92 did EVERY black guy crossing the street in LA really get beat by LAPD?.........maybe you meant one guy got beat and everybody else cleverly trashed, looted, and burned their own neighborhoods....

As for crime in decline now ........

Violent crime in L.A. jumps for third straight year as police deal with gang, homeless issues-LA times 1/1/17

Violent crime increased in Los Angeles for the third straight year as police tried to stem a rash of homicides and gang-related shootings while dealing with a growing homeless population.

The only black guy they didn't beat was O.J. 

He drove too fast. 

1 minute ago, FYI said:

I NEVER said that the stadium (or any of the other infrastructe projects) was "developed" for the Olympics. However, all of those are going to be used FOR the Olympics, are they not? And besides, what I was intially countering was bernham's comment that "L.A. will literally just be hosting a two-week celebration, noting more or nothing less", bcuz that wouldn't be an accurate picture at all, either.

Second this. 

 

42 minutes ago, RuFF said:

The 2028 games will not only cost a lot more, but revenues will also be much greater. You can't intelligently argue that the games will cost more without acknowledging that revenues and sponsorships will also be at record highs in the Olympics' bankrolling market.

Sure, LA might be able to raise more money than previous games, but they are still looking at having to raise $7-8 billion. Security costs will be funded by tax payers. It was in '80, '84, '96, '02, and will again in '28 and it's likely that for a US games those security costs could be in the $3-4 billion dollar range. All in all LA is probably looking at an $11-12 billion dollar games. That's a lot of money.

 

45 minutes ago, RuFF said:

The 2028 games will not only cost a lot more, but revenues will also be much greater. You can't intelligently argue that the games will cost more without acknowledging that revenues and sponsorships will also be at record highs in the Olympics' bankrolling market.

The new NFL stadium is not Olympic dependent. It is wholly owned and financed by Stan Kroenke and dependent on the Rams. It is not even dependent on the Chargers.

The purple line and all of LA's transit projects are not Olympic dependent. The financing and planning have followed a democratic route at the ballot box, public review, and environmental study and build alternative analysis. It has followed the full route of the democratic process and are fully funded in line with the way any American City would pursue public infrastructure. But LA one ups the vast majority of the country. It's lined it's taxpayers up to put their money where their mouth is to aggressively pursue federal funds. Usually cities are awarded federal funds to complete a project if they match federal funds with local funds. Los Angeles has lined up local funds and gone to Washington, the other way around, and is not asking Washington to provide matching funds. Effectively killing any possibility that LA transport is in anyway dependent on the Olympics.

The LAX terminal reconstruction, which really is an expansion and modernization, is not Olympic Dependent. Cleared to begin in 2005 under Mayor Villaraigosa, though a high priority project throughout the Hahn administration, the modernization is already open in large parts with major components well into construction. LAX isn't modernizing and expanding because of the Olympics, it's doing it because Los Angeles is in competition with other West Coast hubs to become the key gateway into the United States to n the Pacific Rim.

About the only reasonable argument you made was the Coliseum. But just the part of the Olympic Overlay because the renovation was part of a negotiation USC made with the state and the Coliseum Commission when the state gave up on the Coliseum being the preferred alternative for a new NFL stadium. 

But as usual you think you understand policy in LA.

The point FYI was trying to make, and something I agree with is that for the next 11 year literally all construction in the city from private stadium developments to infrastructure improvements will be tied to the games. LAOCOG might not be directing or even funding any of the projects, but they will be identified with everything. It happens in every host city. Look at Tokyo, they are removing telephone poles and lines in the city to improve the pedestrian experience but the news is tying it directly to the games. LA transport improvements will be blamed on the games. The LAX expansion will be blamed on the games. Whether the association is just or not the association will be made. Every Olympic host experiences this. 

 

49 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Still, this remains. It's a private bid and nobody is going to dump their own 5.3 billion bucks in a non infrastructure heavy bid where the winners of any infrastructure improvements have already been selected, by vote. There are limited ways to make money here and they're squarely pointed on surplus. All you need is 1/2 a brain. Would you put up your own money if you were certain that you'd lose it? The answer is no. Doesn't mean things can't go wrong but that answer is no. I'm certain of it. 

Contrast that to Paris, and it's no question that Paris is closer to Rio than it is to Los Angeles on the simple fact that the possibility of a profit isn't even discussed. If things can go wrong in LA, according to your own logic, they can also go wrong in Paris. And in Paris we can say with a certainty that a 2 billion project is Olympic Dependent. 

That's not to say that Paris has a lot to build, but if you look at the guts of how Paris will be run (a new government agency) and financed there is a story here. We all know it because ever single bid that has used that model has gone one way, universally.... and every single bid that has used the model LA is using has gone another, or come very close to avoiding what I'm specifically talking about, and that's going in the Red. Every, single, one.

Shut up. Barcelona had a similar structure to Paris, so did Sydney and London. All three of those games were some of the best games in modern Olympic history. Your knowledge of Olympic history may only stretch back to 2008, but many of us here are well versed in the movements history. 

Paris might not have the same 100%-for-profit organization that LA does, but you don't need that kind of structure to host a successful games with a successful legacy. Things get out of hand when the government is too involved, committee's have blank checks, and countries are not really ready for the games. The French government is not the same as China or Russia. Paris doesn't have a blank check, and France already has the infrastructure to host a modern Olympic games. 

[FYI]

10 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

The point FYI was trying to make, and something I agree with is that for the next 11 year literally all construction in the city from private stadium developments to infrastructure improvements will be tied to the games. LAOCOG might not be directing or even funding any of the projects, but they will be identified with everything. It happens in every host city. Look at Tokyo, they are removing telephone poles and lines in the city to improve the pedestrian experience but the news is tying it directly to the games. LA transport improvements will be blamed on the games. The LAX expansion will be blamed on the games. Whether the association is just or not the association will be made. Every Olympic host experiences this. 

Thank you, Bernham! Finally, someone who can actually comprehend what is actually said in this thread without being "triggered fa daze"!! 

And spot on with Tokyo; the media, right or wrong, will relate EVERYTHING that's going on in any Olympic city to the Olympics. It happens with every Olympic host city & L.A. will be no different & won't be immune to it. The L.A. camp will triggered fa years once that starts happening lol!

17 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

Sure, LA might be able to raise more money than previous games, but they are still looking at having to raise $7-8 billion. Security costs will be funded by tax payers. It was in '80, '84, '96, '02, and will again in '28 and it's likely that for a US games those security costs could be in the $3-4 billion dollar range. All in all LA is probably looking at an $11-12 billion dollar games. That's a lot of money.

And actually, there is already a lot of questioning about the "revenues will be much higher" when ticket prices for many of the marquee events will be well out of reach for the average Angelino. They're not gonna be able to sell all of them at those sky-high prices.

23 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

Shut up. Barcelona had a similar structure to Paris, so did Sydney and London. All three of those games were some of the best games in modern Olympic history. Your knowledge of Olympic history may only stretch back to 2008, but many of us here are well versed in the movements history. 

Paris might not have the same 100%-for-profit organization that LA does, but you don't need that kind of structure to host a successful games with a successful legacy. Things get out of hand when the government is too involved, committee's have blank checks, and countries are not really ready for the games. The French government is not the same as China or Russia. Paris doesn't have a blank check, and France already has the infrastructure to host a modern Olympic games. 

The same old argument that Paris is more like Rio than L.A. is so tiring & baseless. Their Olympic Village is NOT "Olympic dependant", either. It's going up regardless of the Games, too. But I guess it's just easier for them to beat on that same senseless drum to say otherwise. 

At this point, IDK what they're even arguing anymore & bringing Paris into this picture anyway. The race is virtually over, Paris will host 2024 & L.A. 2028, whether they like it or not. Unless their "'mission" now is to argue how the L.A. Games will be that much more "superb" than Paris', ugh! 

[mr.bernham]

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

Thank you, Bernham! Finally, someone who can actually comprehend what is actually said in this thread without being "triggered fa daze"!! 

You're welcome. 

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

And spot on with Tokyo; the media, right or wrong, will relate EVERYTHING that's going on in any Olympic city to the Olympics. It happens with every Olympic host city & L.A. will be no different & won't be immune to it. The L.A. camp will triggered fa years once that starts happening lol!

Not to turn this thread into a circle jerk, but yes, you're completely right. Pile this on with the fact California is facing a huge budget crisis and economic slowdown that will likely worsen in the years to come and you've got a perfect storm for unrelated, but completely related fuckups.

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

And actually, there is already a lot of questioning about the "revenues will be much higher" when ticket prices for many of the marquee events will be well out of reach for the average Angelino. They're not gonna be able to sell all of them at those sky-high prices.

See...this makes no sense to me. If the average Angelino can't afford the games...what's the bloody point in having them? Even if new stadiums are not being purpose constructed and tax payer dollars not being used for the venues and such, citizens will still have to adapt their entire lives around the games. For two months the city will be in 'Olympic Mode'. The least the OCOG could do would make the tickets affordable so that citizens could enjoy the event that cripples their city for the entire summer. 

To me it also just makes financial sense. You'll sell way more tickets if they're affordable and actually expose people to new sports/fulfill the goals the movement apparently aspires to fulfill. Not much point in just hosting a two week long jerk off for the privileged and wealthy.

11 minutes ago, FYI said:

The same old argument that Paris is more like Rio than L.A. is so tiring & baseless. Their Olympic Village is NOT "Olympic dependant", either. It's going up regardless of the Games, too. But I guess it's just easier for them to beat on that same senseless drum to say otherwise. 

At this point, IDK what they're even arguing anymore & bringing Paris into this picture anyway. The race is virtually over, Paris will host 2024 & L.A. 2028, whether they like it or not. Unless their "'mission" now is to argue how the L.A. Games will be that much more "superb" than Paris', ugh! 

Just like LA, everything Paris is doing is not "Olympic dependent". From stadiums to the villages to infrastructure, everything is going ahead regardless. The only thing that changes is the speed of some projects. Again, that's something every city experiences. But you're right, for the boosters the fact that Paris is even building a village and not using a university like LA means that Paris will be a failure and LA a success. 

The next 11 years are gonna be long. It'll basically be a "LA will be better than Paris" fight. To be honest, I think both games are going to be amazing and very exciting. No point in pitting them against each other. Now, I'm all for pitting Beijing 2008 and LA 2028 against each other...**** China. 

[mr.bernham]

I'd also like to say that yes, I'm very excited about the games coming to LA. My excitement stems from the games coming back to my country in my lifetime. I didn't get to live through Atlanta so these will be my first and maybe only home nation games. I'm very excited about that. I've also been planning to move to LA at some point before 2028 so I might even live there when they happen. I am under no illusions that there will be problems, controversies, and fights. I know these games too well to know that it will not be a flawless climb up to the games (or even down from them). Yet at the end of the day, I'm excited and proud to welcome the world back to the US of A in 2028. 

[paul]

circle jerk activated.......just don't swallow guys and consider a bleach rinse.....it's only prudent.

[FYI]

Oh, there you go again, paul(ette), projecting what you & your gal pal do in private lolz.

[FYI]

8 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

See...this makes no sense to me. If the average Angelino can't afford the games...what's the bloody point in having them? Even if new stadiums are not being purpose constructed and tax payer dollars not being used for the venues and such, citizens will still have to adapt their entire lives around the games. For two months the city will be in 'Olympic Mode'. The least the OCOG could do would make the tickets affordable so that citizens could enjoy the event that cripples their city for the entire summer. 

To me it also just makes financial sense. You'll sell way more tickets if they're affordable and actually expose people to new sports/fulfill the goals the movement apparently aspires to fulfill. Not much point in just hosting a two week long jerk off for the privileged and wealthy.

And this is where our "friend" paul insists that the Olympics are just BAD, & that they should have no place in L.A. Bcuz it's all a sham anyway. There is some truth to that, but as with everything else, you have to take the good with the bad.

16 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

Just like LA, everything Paris is doing is not "Olympic dependent". From stadiums to the villages to infrastructure, everything is going ahead regardless. The only thing that changes is the speed of some projects. Again, that's something every city experiences. But you're right, for the boosters the fact that Paris is even building a village and not using a university like LA means that Paris will be a failure and LA a success. 

The next 11 years are gonna be long. It'll basically be a "LA will be better than Paris" fight. To be honest, I think both games are going to be amazing and very exciting. No point in pitting them against each other. Now, I'm all for pitting Beijing 2008 and LA 2028 against each other...**** China. 

Exactly - everything Paris is doing is no different than what L.A. is doing, improving their infrastructure & urban footprint for the betterment of their citizens in their respective communities. And in both those instances, tax dollars are being used but are NOT Olympic dependant. But I guess L.A. likes to hang on to the simple fact that since their bid is "privately-funded", it's just easy & convenient to point out that Paris is nothing but a government-funded bid, but that doesn't change everything else that's going on with the projects themselves. 

But precisely, at this point all of that is null & void anyway. Both of these Games will go on regardless of all the rhetoric that will take place for the next eleven years. It's time to start just enjoying what will be Paris 2024 & L.A. 2028.

[paul]

FYI, you don't really sound like you know that much about anything.......I don't either but I'm not pretending my comments are any more that just my opinions, like you do. You seem to feel you have a special talent and insight......and you just don't.....sorry......you just sound like every other long time GB blowhard......but then you get incensed with anyone who contradicts your perspective and fantasy constructs. And your name calling and nicknames you make up just all sound ... well ... like something only a dumb teen girl would giggle at.

me?.........I'm just an innocent LA resident who didn't want yet ANOTHER Olympics AGAIN in my backyard....I mean we're really busy and our schedule is already packed...........but you win.....as you always do....I guess I'm just another loser with a home in the host city for 28.....DAMN it's tough living here!! Man it's gonna be rough deciding what stadium to watch the OC in. I just hope the police don't beat all the black athletes too bad before their competition...that would be really awkward, especially if OJ is chosen for the Cauldron lighting.