Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. To be fair, at the time of the 2016 vote, the Brazilian economy was in a better place by the time they hosted. 7 years later, not so much. So there's only so much that the IOC can be blamed for make that decision at the time they did. Yes, the Swedes lacked a narrative, perhaps in part from the fear of putting themselves out there knowing their efforts lacked support. I agree the logistics weren't a huge issue and that the IOC could have gotten behind it if the Swedish organizers and their citizens were backing it.
  2. I agree it doesn't look good for the next couple of cycles. But that's a different narrative than "they're going to remember this loss" as if that will be their motivation to not bid again. If they sit out 2030 and 2034, is it because of how they felt in the 72 hours after the vote or is it more about a calculated risk to not push through another potentially flawed bid effort against even stronger competition? The dust needs to settle before we can give an honest assessment of their future. Not to mention, like you said, the IOC may be moving in a direction that makes it tougher to predict how the bid processes will go. I agree with that assessment as well, and unless they can change that, it will be tough for a Swedish bid to win. But that's largely on them moreso than the IOC. Next time around, maybe they'll want it more and will push harder to win it. It they don't, we'll likely wind right back where we are. That said, perhaps the argument can be made that the memory of this week will be less about the manner in which they lost and more to highlight what went wrong to learn a lesson for next time. They did, but look at Norway who got called out pretty scathingly by the IOC and are still considering another bid in the not too distant future. Again, that reaction came in the heat of the moment of just having lost. A year from now or 5 years or 10 years, will that memory still be fresh in their minds to the point it will weigh on their decision whether to bid or not? How many twists and turns were there in this bid cycle including more times than we can count that we were declaring Sweden's bid dead in the water? Yet they made it to the finish line and let's not lose sight of the fact that 34 voters (more than 40%) picked Sweden. Looking back on it, maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to react to every piece of news in the moment as if it was a giant shift in the race. Similarly here.. the decision on whether or not Sweden will bid again isn't going to be made now. It's going to be made down the line when what happened this week isn't such a recent memory.
  3. Well put. The sense I get is that the people involved in the bid didn't really sell it to the people of Sweden, perhaps in part because if they did, there would be push-back for those who didn't want it. It just never registered there. And the organizers made the mistake of assuming they would be enticing enough to the bid would sell itself. Not all that surprising that the Italians did a better job of engaging with the IOC and that probably helped their cause. To your last point.. the Swedes can make the case that they should have fit into a future narrative the IOC is trying to push. But there was much more they could have done to entice the IOC. This is pretty much the biggest sports prize they could hope to attain and I'm not so sure they acknowledged and acted like it.
  4. So your comeback is to repeat what I said to you. Real original. Must have taken you all day to think of that one. No idea what you're talking about, but will assume it's true because.. well, pretty much everything I said about the school kid remembering random stuff. I'm definitely flattered though that you remember something like that about me though. Never realized how obsessed with me you are! Don't want anything. But I guess I'm taking a page out of your book how I'll remember how obsessed you were with the idea of a double award. And remind you how dumb it was at some point randomly in the future. And no.. in order for me to be AA Jr., I would have to stick to a concept and be wrong about it. Which in this case would be you. Yea yea, I know.. you only said it "could" happen, not that it was definitely gonna happen. Again, this is where we agree about certain things, but then we disagree. You said elsewhere (this was an hour ago, not years ago) that Sweden has tried 8 times over the years and gotten nothing. Well until this bid, it was 7 times. Didn't stop them from attempt #8. Why then would this one be the one that turns them off from trying that the previous ones didn't? If the support level of Sweden's bid had been better, maybe it's a different outcome. That's a large part of what did them in. The IOC didn't lash out at them the way they did with Oslo in the 2022 vote, so what's there to remember? That Lindberg made the comments about the new norm as if they're not going to express disappointment in losing? If they can get more political support for another Olympics, they'll probably bid again. If they can't, they won't. I don't think it's a case of them having bad feelings about losing and that's the end of it. If they see another opportunity - and that's much easier said than done, for both them and the IOC - they'll probably jump all over that. And I think it will be less than "some time" before that happens.
  5. At the end of the day, Sweden's bid lacked support. Italy's bid, while not all that desirable, did have support. We can - and probably should - blame the IOC for creating an environment that bidding for an Olympics is seen more as a liability rather than an opportunity. Maybe it is on them to have made this more enticing for Sweden so that they weren't waiting until late in the game to get more serious about it. It's easy to look at Sweden's bid and think about what it could have meant for the Olympic movement. But did the Swedes really want this? Would they have gotten behind the way a host nation should? So I understand the IOC's trepidation. I would have loved to see them take that leap of faith and hand the reigns over to Sweden and see what they could do with it rather than returning to a country they recently visited. The majority of the IOC thought otherwise and it's their asses on the line to live with that decision.
  6. You know.. this feels like one of those situations where we actually agree with each other mostly, but we're expressing it differently so it sounds like we don't agree. I have my opinion, you have your opinion. That's all. Get over the "devil's advocate" nonsense as if it's some personal insult if someone else posts an opinion in response to 1 of your posts. You interpret history however you'd like. I'll do the same, thank you. HAHAHAHA, amazing.. you just described yourself to a tee!! How many times have you replied to another poster with "well you're the guy who said that other stupid thing" in the same way a school kid holds something random against someone else for no good reason. You literally just did it right here bringing up another completely unrelated comment! I hope you appreciate the irony here, though. You're bashing me for getting carried away in the "could or could nots" and yet every time it was brought up about the potential of a 2026/2030 double, I shot it down because it was ridiculous how some people came to think that. And there was you all too often telling us it "could" happen and offering up scenarios for it. The funny thing is that I don't think you ever actually thought there was any chance of it happening. You were just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. THAT, sports fans, is the textbook definition of playing devil's advocate. I don't "think" I was "right" about something. I WAS right about something. No quotation marks needed. Sure, it's being right about something that had about a 99.9% chance of that something, but tell that to all the people who posted about it and thought it might actually happen and largely whose reasoning behind it was "it happened last time, so that's why it could happen again, because IOC, amirite!?" So forgive me for poking a little fun at the situation when you'd probably do the exact same thing if it was the other way around.
  7. Bid history is overrated in terms of predicting an NOC's future intentions. It's minutiae we tend to put too much stock into. Case in point with Paris. Look at their history. The reason they didn't bid for a while after 1992 wasn't that they were so devastated by the loss. After Albertville got the `92 Winter Olympics, what were the odds Paris was going to get a Summer Olympics following that? They come back 16 years later (don't forget their 2008 bid) when circumstances were a little more favorable and then followed that up by returning for the next cycle. After losing 2012, it's a similar scenario. What were the odds of Paris being chosen on the heels of London? So they waited. With Sweden.. whether or not they wait to try again has little to do with their history. Or "that the Swedes will remember that for quite a while yet" as if they having been rejected so many times over game them any currency here. They'll bid again when they feel the timing is right. Again, we agree that probably won't happen until some of the competition clears out. Depends on one's definition of "anytime soon" So in other words.. not a double. A completely separate and distinct thing having nothing to do with this. Thanks for clarifying
  8. They'll be in Salt Lake City. That's my prediction. Any particular reason you created this thread when there's already a Milan thread and a separate ceremonies thread for it?
  9. After they pulled out of the 2022 running, what were the odds that they would get to this point with another bid? Clearly not that good. There were still serious doubts about them only a few months ago. Yet they made it til the better end and managed to get more than 40% of the vote. At this point, obviously that counts for nothing, but similar to when Almaty lost for 2022 (even though this wasn't as close as that one), it's not like they resoundingly got rejected. Several failed previous bids didn't stop them this time. They don't strike me as reacting to this like many assumed Paris would if they didn't get 2024. Sweden will be back sooner rather than later, IMO. Probably not for 2030 given the potential competition. A lot of things were working against them this time around. Could be that a few years down the road, circumstances are more favorable (i.e. local and national government that is more favorable towards the bid and doesn't jump on board so late in the game). At which point, perhaps they dust themselves off and try for it again. Of course, there is one other "possibility".. is it too late for a double award? Milan-Cortina now has 2026, so forgo the 2030 bids and give it to Stockholm? Less losers that way!!
  10. Indeed, and the key there is that Columbia withdrew. There's no shot the Qatar organizers are going to wake up one morning and decide they no longer are up to hosting the World Cup. It would have to be taken away from them and FIFA likely doesn't have the political capital at this point to even try something like that.
  11. I was tempted to post a comment here, but not worth it. But it anyone wants to see want the polar opposite of 20/20 hindsight is.. There's only one story here and it's not a horse race
  12. "This is exactly the bid the IOC needs.. unless it's not" it was the better option and it's good for the IOC to have a Winter Olympics in Europe again. But only time will tell if this paves the way for anything else in the future for Europe. I said it the other day that we over-play that narrative too much. IMO, it's probably neither here nor there what it means for the future which bid was selected today, and we won't know the effects at least for another few years
  13. Are has hosted a World Alpine Championships before. Pretty sure they could figure out hosting the Alpine events from an Olympics without busing everyone from Stockholm
  14. Yes baron.. it would be an extremely erratic move for the host to change. Why would it change? And who is the "they" that would change it?
  15. Which they've indicated they do. Whether they still do a few years from now remains a question, although especially with this spread out Italian Olympics, it might re-ignite interest from Oslo rather than trying to base it around Lillehammer.
  16. Agreed. Let Sapporo and Salt Lake battle it out for 2030. Come back for 2034 and take their chances then
  17. Norway honestly has to be happy about this.. if Sweden got an Olympics, it might push them off further into the future. This makes it much easier for them to land an Olympics in the short term.
  18. Have the vote totals been made public yet? Curious to see what the margin of victory was
  19. Stockholm's support level has been in question for a while, so that could dissuade some voters, but I'm starting to sway my own opinion towards Stockholm. I think you may have it right on the money. Note about Norway.. they've already expressed interest in potentially bidding for 2030. If Stockholm wins, then that may push them off further into the future. As opposed to a Milan win which would provide more of an impetus for a Scandinavian bid, especially if Stockholm doesn't return. Either way, we here tend to over-think the future implications of a particular bid. Regardless of which each city getting selected means for the future, I doubt the IOC voters will put too much weight into that.
  20. Take stock of this, everyone. A year ago at this time (probably even less than that), a lot of people here were giving that possibility ZERO chance of occuring. Many said the IOC should write off Europe entirely and that we might not see a bid from them for another decade. Yet here we are. The IOC needs to do a lot of self-reflection to realize how we got here, but they have to be ecstatic to be in Lausanne this week with an actual choice to make! (That choice being to select a host of the 2026 Winter Olympics.. and not a double allocation )
  21. The World Cup a little over 3 years away. Starting to get late in the game to make that change. It's not like allegations and charges of bribery and corruption are anything new. In order for the World Cup to move, that would require FIFA to admit that FIFA was in the wrong here. I just don't see that happening. I don't see those countries being that interested in taking Qatar's sloppy seconds.
  • Create New...