Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Gipper

Olympic Games Awarded to Paris and LA

Recommended Posts

In an unprecedented move, the International Olympic Committee has prematurely awarded the Summer Olympics for both 2014 and 2028 to Paris and Los Angeles respectively.

 

Premature in two sensed: the official vote was not technically to take place until later in September this year. That vote will still happen, but it will just be a formality. Also, this is the first time more than one future Olympics will have been awarded essentially at the same time. Part of the reason for this unprecedented move is that as of now, Paris and LA were the only bidders on the board for the 2014 games. So, one of them was going to get it. And, as I understand it, LA would essentially withdraw its 2024 bid as long as it was awarded 2028. This was accepted all the way around the Olympic Community. Both the LA and Paris bids were very strong bids, and the IOC didn't want to lose the chance to give games to both cities...given that all other bidders dropped out for one reason or another....mostly though for financial reasons.

Finances were the other major factor. The recent games held in Rio were essentially a financial disaster. It was poorly organized, and vast, vast sums of money were spent on venues....venues which today may never be used again.

With LA anyway, and much of Paris's bid, venue construction was not a major issue. In LA anyway, the venue for every event is essentially already in place. Only a kayak slalom course has to be constructed. Otherwise, the stadiums, arenas, velodromes, golf courses, beach volleyball stadia...etc. etc.etc. are all there right now in LA. The media center is certainly no problem for LA...perhaps the media capital of the world. And for the Olympic Village, they will use the dorms at UCLA or USC. So, there is no sweating the venues for LA. And Paris is also similarly situated.

 

Paris last hosted the Olympics in 1924 (see the movie: Chariots of Fire). So, they badly wanted the 2024 games to mark the 100th anniversary of those games....and LA deferred to that. LA last hosted in 1984. This will be the third games for LA.

 

http://deadline.com/2017/07/los-angeles-olympics-2028-host-1202139293/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don't want the Olympics in the US. For 4 years we are going to hear about possible terrorist attack and they were just given a decade to plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don't want the Olympics in the US. For 4 years we are going to hear about possible terrorist attack and they were just given a decade to plan

Kind of a chicken attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a chicken attitude.

Yeah we're AMERICA dammit not Europe. Seriously though you go with your best security possible and go with it.

 

Actually inside the venues might be the safest place on earth during the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a chicken attitude.

 

 

Chicken, lol. Why open the residents of Los Angeles to possible harm for the Olympics? Michael Phelps may be the greatest Olympian ever and his best gig is Shark Week. The Olympics are virtually irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we're AMERICA dammit not Europe. Seriously though you go with your best security possible and go with it.

 

Actually inside the venues might be the safest place on earth during the games.

 

I agree with inside the venues but if someone detonates are car bomb in San Diego during that week it will be labeled an Olympic Attack and will have a Wkikpedia page within minutes. Just don't think hosting the games is as prestigious as it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with inside the venues but if someone detonates are car bomb in San Diego during that week it will be labeled an Olympic Attack and will have a Wkikpedia page within minutes. Just don't think hosting the games is as prestigious as it used to be.

Hosting the games can be a big money pit especially for smaller economies, you will see more back out or just be excluded unless they already have the facilities.

 

Terrorists are also a big concern and expense I'd be more concerned in Europe and far East.

 

As far as interest it's still there, to make money versus lose money for the host country in the long run isn't always clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stationed in San Diego for the Los Angeles 1984 Olympics. Still have the beer mug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Chicken, lol. Why open the residents of Los Angeles to possible harm for the Olympics? Michael Phelps may be the greatest Olympian ever and his best gig is Shark Week. The Olympics are virtually irrelevant.

To you, but not to Planet Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Chicken, lol. Why open the residents of Los Angeles to possible harm for the Olympics? Michael Phelps may be the greatest Olympian ever and his best gig is Shark Week. The Olympics are virtually irrelevant.

It is. Its just that you are being clueless here. What perhaps you mean to say that would not be clueless is that the prestige does not outweigh the overwhelming expense that some nations have had to go through to host the games. Building the venues is a multibillion dollar affair. That is why the Olympics are now likely to be held on a more rotation basis of cities that have the venues in place. LA clearly is one of those. Beijing, Paris, London, Tokyo may be in that group. But it may be too bad for the cities like Rio, or maybe Athens or other cities that have never had them. The price of things has pushed the games out of the market for new cities. A Capetown, a Toronto, Bombay...etc. new cities that have never had them, but would in theory like them, will not be able to host them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is. Its just that you are being clueless here. What perhaps you mean to say that would not be clueless is that the prestige does not outweigh the overwhelming expense that some nations have had to go through to host the games. Building the venues is a multibillion dollar affair. That is why the Olympics are now likely to be held on a more rotation basis of cities that have the venues in place. LA clearly is one of those. Beijing, Paris, London, Tokyo may be in that group. But it may be too bad for the cities like Rio, or maybe Athens or other cities that have never had them. The price of things has pushed the games out of the market for new cities. A Capetown, a Toronto, Bombay...etc. new cities that have never had them, but would in theory like them, will not be able to host them.

 

 

No that's what I would not say. The Olympics are irrelevant. An older generation may hang onto them for nostalgia's sake but sports like boxing, track and field, swimming, etc. are only exciting when a super star is in the mix. I guarantee less than a million Americans tuned into Bolt's last race and he is the latest man ever and a super star. McGregor vs Mayweather will out draw the best boxing matchup of the year and no one is paying attention to swimming post-Phelps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to figures released Monday, NBC drew an average total audience of 25.4 million viewers on its broadcast network in prime time, or 198 million people overall on TV.

 

Combine figures from broadcast, cable and online and the tally jumps to 27.5 million; enough to boost viewership for NBC programs like the Today show and NBC Nightly News while also bringing victories over network and cable TV competitors.

 

But those numbers weren't nearly as good as the ratings four years ago from the London Games, which drew an average 31.1 million viewers in prime time, according to an NBC release. Back then, the 2012 games were touted as the most watched TV event in U.S. history.

 

In fact, the average 27.5 million viewers drawn by the Rio Games were the first time the total audience went down from a previous Olympics since the contests in Sydney back in 2000, according to figures provided by NBC.....CONTINUED IN LINK.......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetorch/2016/08/23/491024790/nbc-declares-rio-a-media-success-though-tv-ratings-were-down

 

The games in LA should draw better than even London plus it's hard to measure the other than TV viewership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No that's what I would not say. The Olympics are irrelevant. An older generation may hang onto them for nostalgia's sake but sports like boxing, track and field, swimming, etc. are only exciting when a super star is in the mix. I guarantee less than a million Americans tuned into Bolt's last race and he is the latest man ever and a super star. McGregor vs Mayweather will out draw the best boxing matchup of the year and no one is paying attention to swimming post-Phelps.

Well, sorry, but you are just double dumbass wrong. You are imputing your own personal opinions to the rest of humanity.

As noted, the ratings of the Olympic Games are some of the highest of any sports events we have.

They don't match the Super Bowl likely, but they probably beat the ratings for the Finals of every other sport.

And that is just in this country.

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

Sign in to follow this  

×