Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Sports' started by Lose Remerswaal, Jan 30, 2017.
Has to be pretty hosed, right about now.
Eh. I don't think so for three reasons.
1. The vote isn't until September.
2. Trump may not be president in September
3. The US could just bribe the IOC for the olympics like everyone else does.
The other candidate cities are really weak bids though. The ban is allegedly supposed to be 3 months except for Syria so it may be old news by the time September rolls around. It will hurt the vote though, no question.
Yeah, I think the Olympic selection committee will get along famously with Trump.
I see no way Trump doesn't go out of his way to give the IOC everything they want. He can say he built the Olympics.
One thing the IOC - or any international sports group - doesn't like - is restriction on athletes and staff traveling to the event.
The IOC is watching this VERY carefully -- because they don't want an athlete - let's say, a wrestler from Iran or weightlifter from Syria, or boxer from Cuba, to be refused entry and barred from the Olympics host country.
While he may or may not be president in September 2017, he could be president in August 2024.
Los Angeles' bid could be problematic - remember, the USOC chose Boston because they felt it was the best U.S. city to hold the 2024 Olympics. Some will say (as I do) that it was probably the best choice at the time, but some saw political opportunity in opposing them, and I will not dispute that there were flaws in the bid.
But LA is behind the 8-ball - crime, fiscal problems, water shortages, and so forth - not exactly a slam-dunk, regardless of the situation in Washington.
I was under the impression (mostly gleaned from the episode of Simmons' podcast where he spoke to LA 2024 chairman Wasserman) that the LA bid would be relatively low cost impact to the city/state because of the existing sports infrastructure and commitments from corporate sponsors. Venues already exist for almost every event due to the professional and college teams in SoCal. IIRC, the Olympic Village was going to be gifted to UCLA for dorms.
How much of the 1984 infrastructure could be repurposed for 2024? Would it be appreciably more than 0%?
The USA could host the World Cup at the drop of a hat because of our NFL and College Football stadiums. The same isn't necessarily true of the summer olympics - not a ton of demand for a velodrome - but it's gotta be true to at least some degree.
Really the only infrastructure left from the last olympics is the colosseum and even that is going to be retrofitted should LA get the olympics
It total however:
Part of that optimistic financial outlook comes from the fact that LA plans to make very few of the costly infrastructure investments that have brought other host cities to the brink of bankruptcy. The city’s plan for the games relies mainly on venues that already exist or are in construction. Events that require very specific infrastructure, like BMX, would be staged in temporary facilities.
LA’s bid leaders project the games will cost $4.8 billion, with revenue totaling $5.3 billion. When the city last hosted, in 1984, the games produced a surplus of $232.5 million.
Here is the plans LA had for all the Venues (such as the Rams stadium, colosseum, rose bowl etc
L.A. Has a modern indoor velodrome built in 2004, independent of any Olympic Games or bid*...but let's stick to the "Velodromes are chronic 'white elephants' narrative, because people just believe it.
(* Unless you want to count it as a replacement for the 1984 velodrome that was nearby, and removed to build the Home Depot center where the LA Galaxy plays. Point is that if it was a useless venue, it wouldn't have been replaced...)
Technically true but misleading--the Olympics in general were critical to the financing. Velo Sports Center was built in cooperation with the USOC and USA Cycling as the national training center (as well as the Paralympic training site). It's a unique case--indeed it's the only Olympic-quality indoor velodrome in the nation--because USA Cycling does need exactly 1 facility to train in. If velodromes were making money, there'd be more built.
Placing it in a city that's more likely to have an Olympic bid going forward was shrewd.
USA Cycling has the Colorado Springs velodrome too...and at least 15 more outdoor ones around the country. I think a velodrome falls in that awkward category where a certain number of them are valid public rec facilities that can eke out a decent not-for-profit cost-recovery existence, but they're not outright profitable enough to be commercial ventures...and seldom if ever qualify as the BEST use of a given piece of property.
Truth is, New England would be a fabulous place for a well managed velodrome, but for some reason New England is the hardest part of the country to get anything offbeat like that built.
It will hurt the bid no doubt. Selecting the winning city isn't based on technical factors, it's an emotional, relationship based decision. The selection of cities like Sochi, Rio and Athens should tell you all you need to know about the importance of having the best bid in terms of ticking the official boxes around the relevant qualifications. So Trump will hurt b/c half the voters are European and he's busy alienating them.
It's a shame too, b/c LA is uniquely qualified to profitably host the games. All of the infrastructure is built - no white elephants like in other cities. The sponsorship revenue will set records b/c of the location in the US and bid leadership that is, suffice it to say, pretty savvy about how that market operates. All of the transit infrastructure that cities have committed to in recent Olympiads is already funded per a 71% majority for a $120B ballot initiative last year. Boston was a bad idea at the time and more so in retrospect. Having to invest in significant infrastructure funded by a skeptical populace is not a promising combo for winning the bid, let alone executing the games in a sustainable manner.
LA would make money on those games and should be the clear choice for an org that needs a safe pair of hands at this point. But I'd be surprised if Paris doesn't win unless something changes with DJT.
All of the possible countries kind of have issues
From the LA daily news
Budapest's bid faces organized opposition. Paris Mayor Anne Hildago has expressed concerns about whether her city could afford to host the games. Then there's matter of the French presidential campaign and the prospect of the election of a figure perhaps as controversial as Trump. Marine Le Pen, the candidate for the National Front, a right-wing nationalist party, led in 18 of 26 leading polls conducted this month.
"With Paris you don't know what's going to happen with the election there," Livingstone said. "The picture internationally hasn't been completely painted yet."
Fair enough, but Trump doesn't help, and Budapest never had a chance anyway with Paris and LA in the mix.
It's stuff like this that makes me think that the rest of the world is really right about us being uneducated fools.
While LA has most of the infrastructure in place, this is not unique. There are a few other cities in the world that have that stuff too . . . and one of them is a large city in France.
LA has better arenas and the baseball stadiums. Paris has better options for the rest of the sports. Stade de France is better than LA's Colosseum, Roland Garros is better than StubHub Tennis Center, the French national velodrome is better than LA's VELO Sports Center, etc. The new stadium in Inglewood will probably be better than whatever PSG does with Parc des Princes, but it should be a fairly close fight and the Inglewood stadium will probably only be used for the ceremonies anyway.
I don't know at you need to turn this into jingoism/stupidity. Paris has submitted a proposal with an infrastructure estimate of 3 billion euros (around $3.2 billion at today's rates). LA's bid is budgeted at around $1.4 billion. Paris unquestionably has more building to do (aquatics, village, etc.).
LA's budget does not include security costs paid by the feds, both bids will use temporary aquatics centers, Paris will likely use a private sector development project for the village, et al. Moreover even if LA's bid is marginally cheaper than that of Paris, it is not really a selling point since both of them would be very affordable. If LA has 92% of what it needs in place and Paris has 90% the difference does not matter. What the IOC wants to avoid is another Athens or Rio spectacle of white elephants.
I don't usually mind Americans focusing on the USA, because most of it is just normal. Criticism of Americans not traveling to other countries as much as Europeans is silly because Brits going to Spain or Greece is international while people traveling from Chicago to Hawaii, LA or Orlando is domestic simply because the USA is very big. There are 11 Americans going to Europe for every 1 European that visits the USA; Donald Trump did not get elected because Americans "don't travel enough." (Yes, this is a real thing I have heard.) The language criticism is also silly: fewer Americans are tri-lingual than the Dutch or Swedes simply because the Dutch need to know lots of languages and we do not.
But surely everyone in the world knows that Paris has been one of the biggest and best cities on our planet since about 1200 AD. LA has won the Olympics twice - by default. Now it is in a race against the civic equivalent of Usain Bolt.
If Usain had lost his last three races, maybe.
LA's proposal also includes private sector participation, so you're trying to push an apple to orange comparison. Anyway, despite your strawman, nobody here has questioned whether Paris is one of the greatest cities on the planet, let alone that Los Angeles is better. The question you disputed is whether LA is better equipped to host a profitable games.
Also, Paris has hosted twice (in 1900 and 1924), the first time pretty much by acclamation for Pierre de Coubertin, and the second time it was selected over 4 other European cities plus, coincidentally, Los Angeles. The only cities to have hosted the Summer Games twice are Athens, London (thrice!), Los Angeles, Paris, and, soon, Tokyo.
Budapest is withdrawing their bid.
Wow, that's pretty shocking. Pretty much assures it'll be in LA then. Of course now there's a suggestion that things have gotten so bad that the "loser" might get the 2028 games by default.
There's a rumour out there that since there are two solid, desireable bidders, the IOC will award two Games at once
That rumor has been going around for a while. I think the only question is what sort of sweeteners does the IOC have to offer the city getting '28? Not easy to maintain an organization, contracts and political will for 4 more years.
And now Bach has publicly floated that trial balloon (simultaneous awarding of '24 and '28 games) and has instructed the IOC VPs to explore it seriously. The fact that he's put that out in public makes it pretty much a fait accompli, IMO. Even though I'm apparently just a jingoistic idiot, it's clear that the IOC couldn't afford to piss off either of these two uniquely qualified cities.
Only questions now, as mentioned above, is who gets '28 and what sweeteners does the IOC offer them.
Paris probably gets 2024 because it's the centennial and gives more time for possible advances in CA public transportation
And Paris 2024 gives them less time to change their minds because of European economic downturns in the near future
And it gives Ale Xander more time to buy beachfront LA property
Paris 2028 gives Paris more time to finish their additional subway lines, have a few marginal racists die off, and minimize riots or terrorist threats to the games. They also have far more infrastructure to build.
There should be betting lines for this. And there are. Mid-market price has Paris at 1.64/1 (38%), Los Angeles 4.7/1 (18%), Budapest 6/1 (14%, no shorting option available), Hamburg and Rome longshots.
Ha! If only I could short that Budapest line. Would be like Biff and Marty using the Grays Sports Almanac.
FWIW, Paris came out today and said it's '24 or bust for them - not interested in '28 at all. LA has been more cautious in their language on the topic. Suspect anything uttered publicly on this is posturing at this point.
Wait, is this actually a thing? It's been a few years since Ive been there, but the last thing Paris strikes me as needing is more Metro lines. They're small and old but they cover every inch of the city. Short of NYC, I've always thought it to have the most comprehensive coverage of any major city. Is this about new locations for Olympic structures that are outside the current grid?
I get that it needs an upgrade, I was more wondering if it was legit tied into their Olympic bid, as opposed to just making it not tiny dirty trains packed full of smelly people.
Edit: that strikes me more as the Boston inclusion of upgrading the T, something that needs to be done but they just pass it off into heir bid.
After floating this potential outcome, both Paris and LA organizing committees say that are fine with this as long as they get the 2024 games. Both say 2028 isn't an option.
“@thebenbergman: BREAKING: The IOC Executive Board has unanimously approved a proposal to award the 2024 and 2028 Olympic bids at the same time.”
Goes to the full Board next month (where it is very likely to get approved)
Edit: some other tidbits
“@thebenbergman: IOC President Bach says BOTH Paris and Los Angeles are open to 2024 and 2028.”
I “@thebenbergman: IOC President Bach says in an “ideal world” Paris/Los Angeles/IOC would reach a deal before Sept for who gets 2024 and who gets 2028.”
“@thebenbergman: IOC President Bach says Paris remains open to 2028, in which case Los Angeles would get 2024 Olympics.”
In even bigger news, McDonald's has withdrawn as an IOC sponsor - three years early...
LA and Paris have been awarded the 2024 and 2028 games, IOC will meet in September to determine which city will go first.
I expect there will be some interesting horse-trading to get one of the two to compromise and accept 2028...
It's been pretty clear for a while that the only questions of interest are who gets '24 and what does the other city get in compensation from the IOC.
It may not be the city directly that gets the "compensation", but rather the national Olympic Committee of the compromising party...
Maybe a little in it for the USOC (if LA goes to 28) but the costs and risks will be at the city level, so that's where the lion's share of any relief should flow to.
Reports out of LA that they'll be hosting 2028. No word yet on what, if any, benefits have been extended to get them to accept the later date...
Looks like Paris 2024, LA 2028