Barcelona_'92 Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 I think this could well come down to Almaty, Krakow, Beijing. And if that's the case, get ready for another big blowout in China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 No, just mudslides, torrential rain & brush fires. And you can still have fog even in the summer. Oh, please FYI. I have never found you this subjective and irrational on a very cut-and-dried topic. I am very surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Stockholm/Are isn't viable. Period. Any argument otherwise is based on denial. The distance is too great. I don't believe the bid will be shortlisted -- certainly not as proposed. That's YOUR opinion & nothing more. You're not the IOC, nor the Swedish NOC nor the Swedish Government to make such a declaration. Until we see what they have to propose & how the IOC may react to it, it's rather foolhardy to simply dismiss right off the bat. 'Period'. *dismiss them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 That's YOUR opinion & nothing more. You're not the IOC, nor the Swedish NOC nor the Swedish Government to make such a declaration. Until we see what they have to propose & how the IOC may react to it, it's rather foolhardy to simply dismiss right off the bat. 'Period'. *dismiss them. Ok, FYI. I'm not sure why you're defending this bid. Of course I'm stating my opinion. Hence, "I don't believe..." I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb here. Stockholm is proposing two separate Olympics. That's the only way to look at it and I don't see the IOC voting for it. If Stockholm hosts 2022 with Alpine events in Are, I'll be the first to acknowledge I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barcelona_'92 Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 I agree with Athensfan. No matter how much Sweden might deserve a Winter Games, I don't think Stockholm/Are is a precedent that the IOC will want to encourage unless they literally have no other options. It's essentially a full day's trip between the cities, and the security costs and risks alone for such a distance would be massive. If the IOC accepts Stockholm/Are, then they could open the door to future bids like San Francisco/Lake Tahoe (about 200 miles apart), Paris/Chamonix (about the same distance as Stockholm/Are), etc. I doubt that's what the IOC wants for the Winter Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 That's why the Swedish gov't isn't backing it; becuz it's stupid. Even they see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 No matter how much Sweden might deserve a Winter Games, I don't think Stockholm/Are is a precedent that the IOC will want to encourage unless they literally have no other options. If the IOC accepts Stockholm/Are, then they could open the door to future bids like San Francisco/Lake Tahoe (about 200 miles apart), Paris/Chamonix (about the same distance as Stockholm/Are), etc. I doubt that's what the IOC wants for the Winter Games. What precedent? The IOC doesn't give in to those. So it's a bit silly to cite other examples like San Francisco/Tahoe & Paris/Chamonix when there's other alternatives in those respective countries that can do so. That's not the case with Sweden. Are we gonna start seeing on a regular basis the ceremonies & athletics separated now cuz Rio set that precedent? I don't think so. The IOC makes exceptions on a case-by-case basis, & I can see Sweden potentially getting that same type of exception bcuz it's compelling enough for it. It's essentially a full day's trip between the cities, and the security costs and risks alone for such a distance would be massive. I really don't see where this is coming from at all. It makes no difference if the two clusters are 100 miles apart or 350 miles apart. The perimeters for both would still have to be secured in the same fashion no matter what. And I can bet you that any security costs that Stockholm would have to endure, would be a fraction of what Sochi is spending on to ensure a safe Winter Games in one of the most volatile regions on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Yes, they were the summer games. But those decisions were made by the same body. And again, my final point is that this is the IOC's decision to make. Stockholm might just get cut. But...the list of applicants isn't the strongest. So the IOC might be willing to consider different options. Do you see the Winter Games going back to back in Asia with Almaty or Beijing? Will they go to a dual country host situation as proposed by Krakow and their Slovak neighbours? Will they go to another relatively unknown place like Lviv? Or will they just return to Oslo and Norway? Time will tell, but while I don't think Stockholm is a slam dunk by any standard, the Swedes do have a lot going for them. And the IOC did entertain ideas like Quebec City 2002 and Helsinki 2006, both of which had the same problem Stockholm faces. Of course, they ditched them for more compact bids from Salt Lake and Torino, but those were also pretty strong bids from wealthy countries with rich winter sport traditions, and the IOC could also do the same thing here and ditch Stockholm for 2022 and go next door for Oslo 2022. But until that happens, I'm willing to keep an open mind on this bid and see what the Swedes come up with and how the IOC reacts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Oh, and by the way...I was at Whistler Creekside to watch the women's downhill for the Vancouver Games. There were maybe a few thousand people standing at the bottom of the hill who mostly got to watch the last few seconds of each run. While it is a premiere event at the Winter Games, it really is one of those 'made for TV' kind of events. In fact, most of us could only see the athletes on the big TV screens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) I think this situation is ripe for an exception; a) a weak field outside of Oslo (Norway being a recent host) it being Sweden, a traditional winter sport nation that also is a top hockey nation (Rene Fasel is extremely powerful) c) the sheer number of failed bids from Sweden d) this could be Sweden's last chance to host Edited November 14, 2013 by faster 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangwon Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 They should've just gone with Ostersund. There would've been questions regardless, but at least we'd get one of those magical small-town games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger87 Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Stockholm might just get cut. But...the list of applicants isn't the strongest. So the IOC might be willing to consider different options. Do you see the Winter Games going back to back in Asia with Almaty or Beijing? Will they go to a dual country host situation as proposed by Krakow and their Slovak neighbours? Will they go to another relatively unknown place like Lviv? Or will they just return to Oslo and Norway? Time will tell, but while I don't think Stockholm is a slam dunk by any standard, the Swedes do have a lot going for them. But until that happens, I'm willing to keep an open mind on this bid and see what the Swedes come up with and how the IOC reacts. Good point and I agree to an extent for this point. I'm more cautelous for Stockholm bid -And it still worrisome the lack of gouvernment support-, but it would be interesting how the Swedes will play this bid. They have a big obstacles, but still the 2022 isn't exactly a close race with "perfect candidates" -Especially after Munich debacle-. A lot of elements will alter the result of the race. If any case, I would keep an eye to Beijing. The Chineses make bids and events to win and even with a defeat, they can make another try like 1993 - 2001 sessions. P.S. I hope Pillar doesn't read the last posts and just make her classic shade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted November 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Depends on how the bids does for the "shortlist" report. It certainly will get lower marks in transportation, logistics and (other categories?) but certainly it will be offset by other things like infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 The 2/5ths non-winter IOC votes will think it's crazy and will sink it. Sweden's winter heritage will not save that ridiculous distance in the eyes of the non-winter delegates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 I agree they should've had Ostersund. But what would've happened to the arenas? Maybe they should have a snow Olympics then an ice Olympics a week later :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markun Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 As has been mentioned several times, as things currently stand and in terms of future sustainability and environmental impact, Östersund is a non-starter. The comments about setting a precident for the summer games are way of the mark. The IOC even has a clause, the so-called 'Finland clause' that allows the hosting of events which require specific geographical features such as alpine skiing to be held elsewhere if all other requirements are met. At the risk of sounding a bit like a certain, slightly more disgruntled other supporter of Stockholm I'm getting a bit fed up of people banging on about the distance and the government. The government have not definitiviely said no way. They have expressed caution or doubt in the past but have not vetoed this bid. Stockholm would not have reached this stage if the government had said 'no way'. Sweden is a winter sports super power and deserves the games. Sweden is the missing piece in the Winter Olympic jigsaw. Like Brazil for 2016 and South Africa for some time in the future, its time is overdue. I think the IOC recognise that, along with the need to spread the Games around the regions which are able to host which can be broken down into roughly: Alps - France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Slovenia Pyrenees - France, Spain Nordic countries - Sweden, Norway, at a push Finland Central and Eastern Europe - Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, Bosnia-Herzegovina Maybe Turkey at a push and in some far future scenario Iran USA - Alaska, Rocky Mountains and associated ranges, New York/New England Canada - BC & Alberta, Quebec Japan China Korea Kazakhstan At the moment I am excluding the southern hemisphere but that's not to say it will never happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 The 2/5ths non-winter IOC votes will think it's crazy and will sink it. Sweden's winter heritage will not save that ridiculous distance in the eyes of the non-winter delegates. Those non-winter IOC voters have zero problem putting events like sailing "ridiculous distances" away. I'm continually amazed at the posters here who are 100% certain IOC voters won't do something... even if they've done similar things many times in the past. If the IOC voters don't want to to go Stockholm, they can blame the distance. If they do, the distance won't be a problem at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) They should've just gone with Ostersund. There would've been questions regardless, but at least we'd get one of those magical small-town games. I believe the Swedish government said absolutely not to supporting a Ostersund bid. I believe the shortlist will be Oslo, Stockholm, Beijing and Almaty. Once Stockholm makes the shortlist and the plans are finalized, I believe that the Swedish government will support the bid. Edited November 14, 2013 by faster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangwon Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 I believe the Swedish government said absolutely not to supporting a Ostersund bid. I believe the shortlist will be Oslo, Stockholm, Beijing and Almaty. Once Stockholm makes the shortlist and the plans are finalized, I believe that the Swedish government will support the bid. Oh I know. My remark was somewhat tongue in cheek. Doesn't the Swedish government have to support the bid before the shortlist? I too, think they will support it. I'm sure Gunilla Lindberg has sent out some feelers within the IOC, and knows exactly what's going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 That is another reason I am positive on this bid, Lindberg is a well-liked IOC member I think the government has to offer some level of support for the applicant process but the final guarentees are apart of the candidate process. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Those non-winter IOC voters have zero problem putting events like sailing "ridiculous distances" away. I'm continually amazed at the posters here who are 100% certain IOC voters won't do something... even if they've done similar things many times in the past. If the IOC voters don't want to to go Stockholm, they can blame the distance. If they do, the distance won't be a problem at all. WHAT?? Obscure and unclear as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 This is a very minor point, but imagine how it will look having Stockholm 2022 banners all the way up in Are. It would be like having Los Angeles 2022 banners in Lake Tahoe. Would anyone here support that type of bid? And the distance from Stockholm to Are is GREATER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Stockholm - Are 2022 ain't happening. The consultants and technical experts of the IOC wouldn't endorse it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markun Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 This is a very minor point, but imagine how it will look having Stockholm 2022 banners all the way up in Are. It would be like having Los Angeles 2022 banners in Lake Tahoe. Would anyone here support that type of bid? And the distance from Stockholm to Are is GREATER. What a strange and frankly trivial argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 What a strange and frankly trivial argument. Totally agree. Especially when it happens all the time. Where the hel! Is Pillan lately when you need her, so she can put these total buzz kills in their place already! Lmfao! :-P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.