don't understand why it would anger anybody...The article states that AEG would do what it could to support the US' bid, even if Chicago wins out over LA. Obviously being based in LA with a number of facilities in the city, that is their preference.
What frustrates me more than anything about that article is this:
Thirty of the 36 venues in the L.A. plan already exist, giving it an advantage over Chicago, which has to build an Olympic stadium and Olympic Village.
"It's easy to envision how [L.A.] will perform for an Olympic Games," Ctvrtlik said. "Is that something that will push them over the top? We'll just have to see. With Chicago, there potentially could be more risk."
Potentially could be a risk? Come on, they took a "risk" on Atlanta, SLC, and backing New York for 2012, it shouldn't matter at all. Beyond that, the games are in 2016, that gives Chicago more than enough time to build the necessary venues. Plus, I think the IOC tends to care about what awarding a candidate city the games will do for it and looks seriously at venues. Chicago is proposing a beautiful new stadium and some very innovative/interesting venues (Northerly Islands hosting some events, an Olympic village on the lake that will be used for mixed income housing afterwords). LA's reply is a lot of venues that have already been used for the Olympics, including the Coliseum, which has already hosted 2.