Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 3/21/2019 at 3:22 PM, JesseSaenz said:

The amount of bullshit here is, well, staggering.

What did I say that was incorrect?

Did LA not win the right to host in 1932 and 1984 by default? Did the Soviet bloc not boycott in 1984? Is LA 2028 not going to use dorms instead of building a new Olympic village? Does LA really have national, government supported sports facilities like Paris does, or does it not have to make due with the facilities the private sector supplies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nacre said:

What did I say that was incorrect?

Did LA not win the right to host in 1932 and 1984 by default? Did the Soviet bloc not boycott in 1984? Is LA 2028 not going to use dorms instead of building a new Olympic village? Does LA really have national, government supported sports facilities like Paris does, or does it not have to make due with the facilities the private sector supplies?

A lot.  Which is why several posters have called you out for - as Jesse very accurately put it - a staggering amount of bullshit.  Yes, the Soviet bloc boycotted 1984.  What does that have to do with anything?  The fact that you're trying to throw shade on LA by comparing them to Atlanta is just a petty insult and makes it hard to take anything you're saying seriously.  It's basically the kind of generic "here's how much you suck" narrative that posters here like to throw out there to be mean.  Do you honestly believe that the world's press is going to come to LA in 2028 and think it's like Atlanta, let alone because of the venue plan?  I find it hard to believe you actually believe that.  It's hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole.

Here's the irony in your whole narrative.  You refer to LA as using "cheap facilities" and now you're saying they have to make due with what the private sector provides.  Well.. the private sector has provided LA the new stadium at Hollywood Park, Banc of California Stadium, Staples Center, Galen Center, Microsoft Theater, the sports park in Carson, plus massive renovations to the Coliseum, the Forum, and Pauley Pavilion.  Yea, what a hardship for LA that they have to "make due" with all those excellent facilities.  So what if they're not supported by the government.  Who gives 2 shits if they're not "national" buildings as if that is a knock against Los Angeles or the United States in general.  And I say that as an arrogant New Yorker who thinks LA is by far the ideal city in the United States for the Olympics, not here.  And it's precisely because of the private sector investing in sports infrastructure that has made it that way.  Not to mention 2 massive universities who spent about as much money on dorm rooms as another city might have to spend on an Olympic village, yet you're trying to spin that into a negative.

Does any of this make Paris' venues better than LA's by comparison?  Absolutely not.  Does it make LA cheap?  Hell no.  Yes, Paris can offer up some iconic venues and vistas that LA doesn't measure up against (although by your own admission, LA does have a few of their own that Paris isn't on their level).  But your narrative that the world is going to return to Los Angeles and that everyone is going to dislike the venues because they are "cheap" is completely full of horse manure.  And some of the statements you tried to back it up with, particularly the ones where you claim LA has lost because they don't offer more extravagant bids, make you seem not only clueless, but extremely ignorant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Jesse(ca) is right about one thing; “the amount of (OTT L.A.) bullish!t here is, well, staggering”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuFF said:

When I first arrived you were guilty of all you are accusing Nacre of. Through discussion on this thread you have become aware about LA, but you also wrote it off. That list is extensive of those who rambled about how Angelino’s were over confident. The dorm rooms were also written off. Again, through discussion you guys have become aware. But it turns out the overconfidence of Angelino’s hasn’t been unfounded. Neither is the concept of the New LA because literally, people are arriving to a new LA.

Speaking of which, I just got back from California and LA. I toured the entirety of the state and it’s incredibly green and over blossomed. The scenery, all natural, is the star in LA and California. The lifestyle and backdrop are going to be a hit. Easily on par with the Eiffel Tower or anything Paris can offer. If you haven’t seen it yet it’s time, yet again, to become aware.

There was so much of this I could agree with and then you have to throw this bit of hyperbole and you lost me.

I was in LA 2 years ago.  Among other things I did when I was there was go to a USC football game.  How did I get there?  Took the Metro.  Went by the Staples Center and LA Live, and even without a reference point of what was there 20+ years ago, yes I am aware of the changing LA.  Here's the thing though.  Los Angeles has a lot going for it.  Generally good weather, beaches, a great outdoor scene, and some excellent vistas from numerous points throughout the city.  It's why Hollywood set up shop there once upon a time because of all the natural geography.  There is plenty to offer there that will be inviting for prospective visitors during the Olympics. 

But what LA does not have is icons.  They don't have the Eiffel Tower.  They don't have the Louvre.  They don't have the Champs Elysses.  Paris has some of the most recognizable and well-known attractions on the planet.  Don't get me wrong.. I think the Getty is a wonderful experience and the views from there are incredible.  That's not the kind of tourist magnet that Paris can offer though.  In no way is that a knock against LA.  Like I said, LA shouldn't be trying to measure up against Paris (even though you continue to want to make it about that).  They have enough going on their own and yes, I totally agree that the lifestyle will be perfect for the Olympics.  Again though, be careful when you're trying to measure that up against the Eiffel Tower.  Not that it should matter anyway.

As to your first point.. understand the history of these discussions here.  It has nothing to do with being unaware of LA.  Those of us analyzing the race were looking at it from the standpoint of the IOC and who they were more likely to select.  All the intangibles that often are more of a factor than the quality of the bids themselves are what pointed towards Paris.  If it had come down to a decision between the 2 cities - and again, put it in context of where the IOC was 4 years ago and how they've evolved since then - Paris probably would have won.  Not because dorm rooms were/are a bad idea and suddenly we'll all become aware, but because the IOC was still in a mode of wanting more out of an Olympic host.  It's not that the IOC was unware of what LA had to offer, but that they're finally pivoting towards the kinds of solutions that LA offers (i.e. more of a reliance on existing infrastructure) and they also have the benefit of doing that without having to pick them over another city.

In short - and this has been stated so many times before - those of us advocating for Paris over LA didn't do so because we thought the IOC was more likely to choose Paris over LA.  And not because we believed Paris had a better plan or would offer a better Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

A lot.  Which is why several posters have called you out for - as Jesse very accurately put it - a staggering amount of bullshit.  Yes, the Soviet bloc boycotted 1984.  What does that have to do with anything?  The fact that you're trying to throw shade on LA by comparing them to Atlanta is just a petty insult and makes it hard to take anything you're saying seriously.  It's basically the kind of generic "here's how much you suck" narrative that posters here like to throw out there to be mean.  Do you honestly believe that the world's press is going to come to LA in 2028 and think it's like Atlanta, let alone because of the venue plan?  I find it hard to believe you actually believe that.  It's hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole.

For the past three decades the media has played up any negative story and ignores most of the positive stuff. Rio 2016 had a steady downpour of coverage of the zika virus, pollution and crime. When I was in Vancouver for the leadup to 2010 the ratio of negative to positive coverage was about 3:1. London was the only recent host that didn't get hammered in the media, and even London had to deal with some negative stories.

I was not suggesting that LA 2028 will have a bombing attack or lost bus drivers. I am saying that the days of cities hosting the Olympics to get positive publicity are over. Minor flaws in LA will be heavily scrutinized and LA has its share of flaws.

But I would be very happy to be wrong. If the world's media spends 2025-2028 looking at the positive side of happenings in SoCal I will be thrilled for Californians.

23 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Here's the irony in your whole narrative.  You refer to LA as using "cheap facilities" and now you're saying they have to make due with what the private sector provides.  Well.. the private sector has provided LA the new stadium at Hollywood Park, Banc of California Stadium, Staples Center, Galen Center, Microsoft Theater, the sports park in Carson, plus massive renovations to the Coliseum, the Forum, and Pauley Pavilion.  Yea, what a hardship for LA that they have to "make due" with all those excellent facilities. 

All of those are multipurpose venues except for the tennis center at Carson, (which pales in comparison to Roland Garros in Paris.) What I am talking about is sport-specific stuff like the athletics stadium and velodrome. The private sector in the USA does not support projects like Olympic Stadiums like the ones in Montreal or Munchen/Munich or velodromes on the scale of the government subsidized ones in Europe and Asia.

The LA Coliseum is a perfectly acceptable venue for the Olympics, but from the perspective of the IAAF Stade de France is WAY better. Velodrome de Saint-Quentin is also way better for the UCI than  the velodrome in Carson. If the IOC members affiliated with the IAAF and UCI were to vote in a contest between Paris vs Los Angeles, they would pick Paris due to the venues.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nacre said:

For the past three decades the media has played up any negative story and ignores most of the positive stuff. Rio 2016 had a steady downpour of coverage of the zika virus, pollution and crime. When I was in Vancouver for the leadup to 2010 the ratio of negative to positive coverage was about 3:1. London was the only recent host that didn't get hammered in the media, and even London had to deal with some negative stories.

I was not suggesting that LA 2028 will have a bombing attack or lost bus drivers. I am saying that the days of cities hosting the Olympics to get positive publicity are over. Minor flaws in LA will be heavily scrutinized and LA has its share of flaws.

But I would be very happy to be wrong. If the world's media spends 2025-2028 looking at the positive side of happenings in SoCal I will be thrilled for Californians.

Every Olympic host city gets scrutinized.  That's a given.  But you brought up Atlanta.  Now you're bringing up Rio.  Why are you trying to draw comparisons to some of the worst examples of host city criticism as a projection for Los Angeles?  Why not - as you noted - more like London where there were negative stories, but it didn't define them.  I don't think it will be with LA.  Because if the most negative thing you can come up with about LA is that they're using "cheap facilities," then they're in pretty good shape.  As opposed to Rio where all people were talking about in the lead up were Zika and the water quality and those both turned out to be complete non-stories.  Just like all the fears in the lead-up to 2018 in Korea about the potential of an incident involving Kim Jong-Un and North Korea.  Again, complete and total non-story.

If you want to question the confidence level of Angelinos and how sure some are that this will go off smoothly, that I'll give you.  But at the end of it all, so what if the media reports negative stories.  Does anyone think differently of London because they hosted an Olympics and there was negativity?  Places like Rio, among others, are a different story because there was some truth to what was reported in terms of the effects the Olympics had there.  1 of the legacies of the `84 Olympics that doesn't get talked about much is how it emboldened the police force and may have led to some of the socio-economic issues LA faced in the early 90s.  If history threatens to repeat itself here though, I doubt it will get much coverage in the press.  That's probably a legitimate fear.  Still, that has nothing to do with the quality of the venues.

10 hours ago, Nacre said:

All of those are multipurpose venues except for the tennis center at Carson, (which pales in comparison to Roland Garros in Paris.) What I am talking about is sport-specific stuff like the athletics stadium and velodrome. The private sector in the USA does not support projects like Olympic Stadiums like the ones in Montreal or Munchen/Munich or velodromes on the scale of the government subsidized ones in Europe and Asia.

The LA Coliseum is a perfectly acceptable venue for the Olympics, but from the perspective of the IAAF Stade de France is WAY better. Velodrome de Saint-Quentin is also way better for the UCI than  the velodrome in Carson. If the IOC members affiliated with the IAAF and UCI were to vote in a contest between Paris vs Los Angeles, they would pick Paris due to the venues.

Yes, you are cherry-picking in order to make a point and it's still a really poor and ill-conceived point.  What's wrong with the velodrome in Carson that UCI would have any issue with?  They've had the world championships there before.  It's the official US Olympic training site.  It's the kind of venue that is good for the community and more than suitable for an Olympics.  How are you finding a flaw in that?

You bring up Olympic Stadium in Montreal.. how'd that work out for them?  Yea, no kidding the private sector doesn't support that.  When the public sector tried to deliver that for Canada, it was a disaster.  How many other times have we seen similar scenarios where government subsidized venues didn't work out for the city and country involved.  It's often wasteful spending.  10 years ago, we could count on the IOC going for that and encouraging cities to spend and ignore the inevitable consequences.  These days, they've finally seen the light.

Again, if there had been a head to head vote between Paris and LA, Paris probably wins it, but not because LA's venues are inferior.  Let alone because they're delivered by the private sector and not purpose-built.  And if you think the rest of the world is going to come to LA and think that, that's just really freaking ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nacre said:

 

The LA Coliseum is a perfectly acceptable venue for the Olympics, but from the perspective of the IAAF Stade de France is WAY better. Velodrome de Saint-Quentin is also way better for the UCI than  the velodrome in Carson. If the IOC members affiliated with the IAAF and UCI were to vote in a contest between Paris vs Los Angeles, they would pick Paris due to the venues.

So you chose the 3 venues that Paris have over l.a? What about staples center ? Hollywood park stadium? Santa Monica beach? Long Beach? Honda Center?    Sure if you take the 3 venues you mentioned Paris Wins.  But if you compare venue to venue by sport L.A will have more superior venues 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

la olympics will probably be ok...depending on climate change and social injustice of course.

Edited by paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaker you are missing my point(s). I am not saying that LA should build a lavish velodrome, or that the media will be justified in criticizing the city. I am saying that the people of Los Angeles do not understand why 1984 worked out well for them, and why they have been able to get out of building them.

LA has done well because it had leverage over the IOC in 1932 and 1984, and that enabled it to host in a way that is desirable for Los Angeles rather than what is desirable for the sporting federations, national Olympic teams, et al. But in the past those sporting federations have been really pissy when non-LA host cities have done this, and voted against cities that have "hurt" their sport by not giving in to building them their palaces of sport.

On 4/12/2019 at 8:58 AM, Quaker2001 said:

Yes, you are cherry-picking in order to make a point and it's still a really poor and ill-conceived point.  What's wrong with the velodrome in Carson that UCI would have any issue with? 

This is actually a great example. Rio built a 5,000 seat velodrome for the 2007 Pan American Games. But the UCI didn't like it because it had columns in it that would temporarily (for a freaking millisecond) interfere with the TV cameras view of the cyclists as they went around the track. They also thought it didn't have adequate VIP facilities. So Rio had to demolish their velodrome and build a new one just to get rid of the columns and add more VIP facilities to keep the UCI happy.

Guess what? LA's velodrome also has columns in the infield area and is lacking in VIP facilities.

Tokyo has also had a huge fight with the UCI over using an existing velodrome outside of Tokyo, Agenda 2020 be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RuFF said:

First and foremost, Angelino’s know why 1932 and 1984 were successful and LA knows as well. More over if you are trying to say LA did not get favorable terms you’re going to garnish little support. The terms of LA 2028 are better than the terms of Paris 2024, Tokyo 2020, AND Rio 2016. 

I am NOT saying that Los Angeles will host on unfavorable terms. I am saying that LA is only hosting because it got favorable terms and didn't have to go through the voting process. And I don't believe that people in LA understand this. At least none of the people I talked to when I visited LA over spring break did.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nacre said:

Quaker you are missing my point(s). I am not saying that LA should build a lavish velodrome, or that the media will be justified in criticizing the city. I am saying that the people of Los Angeles do not understand why 1984 worked out well for them, and why they have been able to get out of building them.

LA has done well because it had leverage over the IOC in 1932 and 1984, and that enabled it to host in a way that is desirable for Los Angeles rather than what is desirable for the sporting federations, national Olympic teams, et al. But in the past those sporting federations have been really pissy when non-LA host cities have done this, and voted against cities that have "hurt" their sport by not giving in to building them their palaces of sport.

1 hour ago, Nacre said:

I am NOT saying that Los Angeles will host on unfavorable terms. I am saying that LA is only hosting because it got favorable terms and didn't have to go through the voting process. And I don't believe that people in LA understand this. At least none of the people I talked to when I visited LA over spring break did.

I don't think I'm missing your points.  You're just making bad points.  Did you not following the 2024 bid process?  Guess who had leverage yet again over the IOC and is once again in a position to host in a desirable/favorable way.  It's not LA's fault things worked out for them yet again in that regard.

You keep trying to create this narrative that LA couldn't measure up to other cities and if they ever had to go up against someone else in a vote, how could they possibly win with their "cheap facilities." Let's say there hadn't been a double and Paris gets 2024.  Would LA likely have bid for 2028 and probably won it by a wide margin?  I sure think so.  If 1 of the bigger flaws you're finding with them is a slightly less than ideal velodrome, then I'd say they have a pretty darn good bid.

It's true that LA is hosting the 2028 Olympics because they got favorable terms.  You know what though.  If they didn't get favorable terms.. they'd probably still be hosting the 2028 Olympics.  That they didn't have to go through a vote isn't something Angelinos need to understand, and I doubt they're unaware of it anyway.  It's a moot point now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Did you not following the 2024 bid process?  Guess who had leverage yet again over the IOC and is once again in a position to host in a desirable/favorable way.  It's not LA's fault things worked out for them yet again in that regard.

I am not disputing that. 

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You keep trying to create this narrative that LA couldn't measure up to other cities and if they ever had to go up against someone else in a vote, how could they possibly win with their "cheap facilities." Let's say there hadn't been a double and Paris gets 2024.  Would LA likely have bid for 2028 and probably won it by a wide margin?  I sure think so.  If 1 of the bigger flaws you're finding with them is a slightly less than ideal velodrome, then I'd say they have a pretty darn good bid.

Historically cities have run into trouble precisely because they have had to give the sporting federations what they want to get the voters from their sport to vote for them. Even the good bids from well-managed countries have run into this problem. The London 2012 bid promised the IAAF they would provide a permanent track and field stadium, which has contributed to the financial and engineering problems with that stadium. But it succeeded in getting the IAAF's members in the IOC to vote for London, and the IAAF was determined to hold London to its promise to build them a permanent athletics stadium after the games.

Los Angeles has very correctly avoiding giving in to this sort of blackmail by the sporting federations. But that also means that it has lost again and again in the past when the sports organization mafia has gathered to vote between heavily state-subsidized bids and Los Angeles bids without government-supported specialty venues. So no, I don't think LA would win in a race against a strong competitor. If the federations had a choice between an LA bid with modest venues and a Shanghai bid with Beijing-level public funding they would pick the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RuFF said:

First and foremost, Angelino’s know why 1932 and 1984 were successful and LA knows as well. More over if you are trying to say LA did not get favorable terms you’re going to garnish little support. The terms of LA 2028 are better than the terms of Paris 2024, Tokyo 2020, AND Rio 2016. None of those cities got a 180 million advance and none of those cities get to keep marketing profits. Hands down, LA got favorable terms for 2028 and better terms than any other host city except itself, in 1932 and 1984. Quaker thinks LA is stupid, but as in 1932, and 1984, LA is an astute city that guarantees its profit, hense the support. The formula for 2028 is exactly the same for LA. Granted the IOC takes more for itself, but here we are with a contract for 2028. Why with LA? You seem to think nothing of it but for Angelino’s they know why for LA. Because LA fits a bill here and it is uniquely positioned to serve a narrative the IOC needs.

I don't think LA is stupid.  I think you're stupid.  LA hosted 2 very successful Olympics.  Time gave its person of the year award in 1984 to Peter Ueberroth for his efforts.  There's a good chance they can do it again, but it's far from a guarantee.  Can Casey Wasserman and his team manage as well as Ueberroth's team did?  That's a much tougher task now than it was back then.  No question LA has gotten themselves a good deal and set them up well to make a profit, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal they'll make a profit.  Nor do I buy into the Abrahamson line (which you have human centipede-d here before) that because it all comes from the private sector, that it has to make a profit.  As if it has never happened before that a private business promised to make money and couldn't come through.  There's a lot that's out of the control of the organizers here.  If they make smart decisions and things break the right way for them, they'll make a profit.  But there's a thousand things that could go wrong in the next 9 years and just because it was done before in LA is not a guarantee it will happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nacre said:

Historically cities have run into trouble precisely because they have had to give the sporting federations what they want to get the voters from their sport to vote for them. Even the good bids from well-managed countries have run into this problem. The London 2012 bid promised the IAAF they would provide a permanent track and field stadium, which has contributed to the financial and engineering problems with that stadium. But it succeeded in getting the IAAF's members in the IOC to vote for London, and the IAAF was determined to hold London to its promise to build them a permanent athletics stadium after the games.

Los Angeles has very correctly avoiding giving in to this sort of blackmail by the sporting federations. But that also means that it has lost again and again in the past when the sports organization mafia has gathered to vote between heavily state-subsidized bids and Los Angeles bids without government-supported specialty venues. So no, I don't think LA would win in a race against a strong competitor. If the federations had a choice between an LA bid with modest venues and a Shanghai bid with Beijing-level public funding they would pick the latter.

And now you're being ignorant again.  You're making way too much about the venues and not paying any attention to the politics.  LA has never lost an Olympic vote because their venues weren't heavily state-subsidized (and even if that was the case before - again, it wasn't - that's not necessarily how the IOC would view things in a future voe).  Politics cost them 1976 and nothing else.

So let's say China put Shanghai up for 2028 against LA (a dubious hypothetical indeed since the vote would be just a few months out from Beijing 2022).  How much more could they get out of China with a 2nd Olympics in just 20 years?  Even if they pledged another 40 billion, what does that do for the IOC?  Another stadium that becomes a tourist attraction like the Bird's Nest where maybe they get 1 IAAF World Championships out of it.  Contrast that to LA where the surplus from the `84 games has been reinvested into sports and continues to fuel the Olympic movement today.  Like hell they'd pick Shanghai over LA.  Plus, let's not forget..

How much Tv Companies are paying for Broadcasting Deals for Olympics 2016

Broadcast rights in China are still peanuts compared to the US.  CCTV paid $160 million in rights fees for 2014 and 2016.  NBC paid more than $2 billion.  It was a big deal for the IOC to go to China and their "one-fifth of humanity."  CCTV paid all of $17 million for the TV rights to the 2008 Olympics.  So that number has skyrocketed as a result.  But not because they spent a lot of money on Beijing.  The financial bump they'd likely get from China would pale in comparison to what they'd get from here.  That wasn't a consideration back in the 70s.  It's a major consideration these days and likely what would decide a winner.  And the sports federations know that.  Particularly one like FINA who now in 3 out of the last 4 Olympics made a point to make their schedule US primetime-friendly.  You think they'd have voted for Shanghai over LA?  No shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

So let's say China put Shanghai up for 2028 against LA (a dubious hypothetical indeed since the vote would be just a few months out from Beijing 2022).  How much more could they get out of China with a 2nd Olympics in just 20 years?  Even if they pledged another 40 billion, what does that do for the IOC?  

I am not talking about the IOC's interests. I am talking about the interests of the individual voters in the IOC. Historically they have voted based on the provincial interests of their NOC's, their sports, the brown envelopes that get passed to them, etc. And when their provincial interests are ignored they've lashed out at the host cities.

Fundamentally I think this is an is vs ought conflict. I agree that what Los Angeles has done is wise, and the IOC's members should respect this and vote for similar projects around the world. But unfortunately I don't think that sports administrators, athletes and even sports fans actually see things that way, and I expect LA to bear the brunt of snide comments and put-downs when it hosts.

Share this post


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

I am not talking about the IOC's interests. I am talking about the interests of the individual voters in the IOC. Historically they have voted based on the provincial interests of their NOC's, their sports, the brown envelopes that get passed to them, etc. And when their provincial interests are ignored they've lashed out at the host cities.

I agree that voters tend to be self-interested rather than what is best for the IOC and the Olympic movement.  But if you're going to cite history, you can't ignore changing mindsets with the IOC that they're starting to learn their lesson when it comes to wasteful spending (well, some more than others).  More importantly, that made a bigger difference when there were more candidates in the running.  Not so much now when there are fewer cities to choose from.  What happened with Rio and the velodrome (and I had largely forgotten about that whole situation) is hardly a defining mark on Rio's Olympic legacy.  At the end of the day, is the sport of cycling better off because the tore down what was originally thought to be a suitable venue and built a new one?  When you're talking about the interests of IOC voters and sports federations, it's not just about shiny new venues.  Because that means nothing if there's no legacy attached to it.  If LA were to build a brand new swimming venue, it's the city that benefits from that moreso than FINA.  What FINA cares about is generating revenue.  They don't need a lavish new venue in LA to make that happen and outliers like UCI aside, I doubt we're going to see them lash out.

2 hours ago, Nacre said:

Fundamentally I think this is an is vs ought conflict. I agree that what Los Angeles has done is wise, and the IOC's members should respect this and vote for similar projects around the world. But unfortunately I don't think that sports administrators, athletes and even sports fans actually see things that way, and I expect LA to bear the brunt of snide comments and put-downs when it hosts.

The fact that you're expecting Atlanta-like treatment for LA (your words, not mine) is either hyperbole or just way off base.  If you think LA is going to be on the receiving end of put-downs, then what Olympic host city wouldn't be.  What exactly are athletes and sports fans going to see that is going to result in snide comments?  I don't get what it is they're supposed to be expecting that they'll get there and think "this sucks."  Do you remember the reviews of Rio's athletes villages?  There were complaints it was like dorm rooms, but worse.  Remember the reactions from the media about the hotels in Sochi that was a complete boondoggle?

Okay, so what of LA.  Forget the IOC bigwigs who expect 5-star luxury at every corner.  That's their fault for setting expectations that high.  Why would fans and athletes think that way?  I know the concept of them using dorm rooms as their village may sound unappealing on the surface, but don't pretend like these will be some crappy college nothing rooms.  USC and UCLA are major universities spending a lot of money on housing.  I imagine athletes will find it more than adequate.

As for the fans?  You think they're going to throw a hissy fit if there are columns in the infield at the velodrome?  If you want to rip on their plans for the track at the coliseum, that's probably fair.  But I doubt there will be much beyond that.  Why would the expectations be that it will be worse than any other recent host city?  And forget the likes of Rios and other cities that didn't do it so well.  I can't imagine too many people going to LA and having the kind of experience you seem to be convinced they'll have where they'll have all sorts of negative reactions.  And if that's the case, then what city in the United States could possibly do it better that LA shouldn't be the host?

There's next to nothing about LA's plan for the Olympics that fans and athletes and administrators need to worry about the world lashing out at them for.  You're trying to create that narrative by making it seem like the only way that LA could impress visitors for the Olympics is if they had to work that much harder for it and therefore offer up more.  It's a moot point and it's not something people will give a rats ass about come 2028.  You think that way because you're trying to analyze the minutiae of Olympic bidding in ways most people don't.  It's still a really shitty line of thinking that's not going to play out in reality.  It's all in your head, not in the heads of would-be Olympic tourists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 8:12 AM, RuFF said:

Oh Nacre. I can’t really argue with the negative press. But we are talking about LA which until recently was always the go to negative article of the New York Times. Angelino’s thrive in the negative press because it creates even more press, especially about the part where people fail to accurately portray LA. The phrase Los Anjealous didn’t come out of nowhere. LA is ready for the negative press. And it’s ready to shine right through it as well. Barring a terrorist attack or catastrophic earthquake, LA is a city that lives off the crap talk and recycles and repackages it for the world to consume. 

THIS.

I can't think of any other city that has mastered the art of rolling with the punches. LA is a very resilient place which is ironic considering the stereotypes. When its not mother nature slamming it (Fires, earthquakes, landslides, floods), its negative headlines often at the hands of NY Times or the Bay Area.

And you're right. It turns any press into profit. Positive, negative, it doesn't matter, it leverages it towards its advantage every single time.... and the world eat it up.

Share this post


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

THIS.

I can't think of any other city that has mastered the art of rolling with the punches. LA is a very resilient place which is ironic considering the stereotypes. When its not mother nature slamming it (Fires, earthquakes, landslides, floods), its negative headlines often at the hands of NY Times or the Bay Area.

And you're right. It turns any press into profit. Positive, negative, it doesn't matter, it leverages it towards its advantage every single time.... and the world eat it up.

I'm pretty sure if you ask a fan base of other teams of the major sports in america, our teams would be the most hated ones, Dodgers, Lakers, Rams, Chargers that's how we live here, with hatred from the rest of the country

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maximf83 said:

I'm pretty sure if you ask a fan base of other teams of the major sports in america, our teams would be the most hated ones, Dodgers, Lakers, Rams, Chargers that's how we live here, with hatred from the rest of the country

641fca62deef3ff28c7ac2d10d74e785.jpg

Can I get some of what you're smoking?  Please don't tell me you *actually* think LA has the most hated sports teams in America.  The Rams?  The Chargers?  Where do you come up with that crap.  Maybe try talking to fan bases not in the immediate vicinity of LA and ask them who they hate.    Let's actually look at this one.

The Lakers I'll give you.  Although they haven't made the playoffs in 6 years, so at this point there's not that much hatred for them.  And that's after a year with LeBron.

In MLB, the Yankees are #1 and the Red Sox are #2.  The Dodgers?  At best, a distant 3rd.  They're now more than 30 years removed from their last World Series title.

And in the NFL?  There's the Patriots.  And then the Patriots.  Not even close to a contest.

So the correct answer is Boston.  And I don't just say that because I'm from New York.  No one outside of this thread believes that LA is some sort of punching bag for the rest of the country (or the world) that has to deal with an unfair amount of negative press.  Guess what.. that's every city.  Let alone that it extends to their sports teams as if the Rams and Chargers are hated teams outside of St. Louis and San Diego.  Stop trolling.  All of you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every major city has the same issues but I've never seen anyone wallow in it so much. Maybe a bit of perspective is needed here. The IOC literally changed the rules to nail down LA and Paris as hosts since they didn't want either to get away. You're doing just fine, cheer up. Nobody outside the US cares about NFL rivalries and who cares what other US cities think anyway? You've got the Games, they haven't.

Any actual news?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 2:20 AM, Rob. said:

Every major city has the same issues but I've never seen anyone wallow in it so much. Maybe a bit of perspective is needed here. The IOC literally changed the rules to nail down LA and Paris as hosts since they didn't want either to get away. You're doing just fine, cheer up. Nobody outside the US cares about NFL rivalries and who cares what other US cities think anyway? You've got the Games, they haven't.

Any actual news?

Yeah, the revised LA 2028 Budget was released, and OF COURSE, citing inflation, its $700 Million more dollars than the original budget which was proposed with the 2024 Games in mind.

Was this included in the headline? Of course not. Click bait and angry responses from readers, residents, and NOLympicsLA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 3:56 PM, JesseSaenz said:

Yeah, the revised LA 2028 Budget was released, and OF COURSE, citing inflation, its $700 Million more dollars than the original budget which was proposed with the 2024 Games in mind.

Was this included in the headline? Of course not. Click bait and angry responses from readers, residents, and NOLympicsLA.

 

The worse part is that those people are screaming that the city should be using the money for something else, because thats what they are told by nolympicsla, however what they are not told, nor believe in, is that it's not the city's money, it's ticket sales, sponsorships, private donations. And when they are challenged, immediately the screaming turn to cost overruns that will be from the state taxes, however there is 0 proof of cost overruns and using past examples is so wrong.

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

×