Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Worked in 2012. Hampden Park is over 500km from London.

Why do football preliminaries always get a mention as pro-Are argument? Unless your name is Qatar, you'll be hard pressed to find any city/metro area willing to (and afterwards needing) have half a dozen WC/Olympics standard football stadia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 610
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 (R

No government financial support No hope of success Especially when considering the utterly ridiculous distances between Stockholm and Are After all, Oslo can always be persuaded to use Norefjell wh

It wouldn't be called Stockholm/Are anyway. It would just be Stockholm 2022 regardless, since the Olympic Charter that only one city be designated as host. Just like it was only Vancouver 2010, &

If the IOC wants to go to Sweden, the distance between Stockholm and Are is going to amount to nothing. And all things being equal, which they aren't, I think that Sweden will be able to overcome the distance between the alpine venues and Stockholm better than Krakow will overcome their binational bid. Krakow has already made the mistake of making this a joint bid, instead of just saying, look we are going to use this venue that is a hop, skip and a jump across a boarder that doesn't really exist anymore. Which Salzburg did with their two bids.

Sweden is now the final frontier in the Olympic Winter Games, if the IOC rejects the Stockholm/Are option, you will likely never see a Swedish bid again. It also sends the wrong message, Sweden providing a sensible, pragmatic option to host getting out-right dismissed compared to building orgies and dodgy countries. The prevailing winds make Stockholm's bid a lot more achievable than it would have been if it had been in competition with Torino, Vancouver or Sochi.

Totally agree on both points here. Especially when Bach, Kaspar & Reedie were all very disappointed that there were no Munich & Swiss bids for 2022. I said it a few days ago, but Sweden is to the Winter Games what South Africa is to the Summer Olympics, the last real compelling places that the Olympics has yet to visit.

Agree that if the IOC turn Stockholm away here, that we'll never see the Swedes bid again. I think that it took a lot of courage for them to try again after so many defeats in the past, & Munich saying no last week made it an even easier choice to go ahead. But by adding one more big disappointment would turn them away for decades to come. If the IOC ever really wanted a Swedish Winter Olympics, this could very well be their last opportunity in a very, very long time.

The Top IOC brass expressing disappointment over two top potential candidates bowing out, suggests that the IOC was leaning more traditional for 2022. They still have two other solid options, though With one of them being a very compelling choice as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do football preliminaries always get a mention as pro-Are argument? Unless your name is Qatar, you'll be hard pressed to find any city/metro area willing to (and afterwards needing) have half a dozen WC/Olympics standard football stadia.

Football preliminaries aren't a "pro-Are" argument. But they are one (of many) example to disprove the arguement that the IOC won't/can't hold events far from the host city. It happens all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Krakow has already made the mistake of making this a joint bid, instead of just saying, look we are going to use this venue that is a hop, skip and a jump across a boarder that doesn't really exist anymore. Which Salzburg did with their two bids.

Name one official document or press realese comming from Krakow 2002 Bid Committee or Polish National Olympic Committee, that use "a joint bid" phrase. All they say is just "using Slovak slopes because of ecological reasons". Media just started calling it "a joint bid" and continue doing it that way, but they've already proved their incompetence numerous times. Just look at that ridiculous press note about Lviv 2022 budget or "joint Polish-Slovak-Ukrainian bid" based on some Viktor Janukovych's mumble.

Sorry for cutting in Krakow in Stockholm thread for a second time ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that if the IOC turn Stockholm away here, that we'll never see the Swedes bid again.

The IOC isn't forced to give the games to anyone, shouldn't be under any kind of pressure or blackmail for the sole pretense that someone may "never bid again" . And, sorry, but it's not like the bid doesn't have major weaknesses and problems.

Turning them away would therefore not be illogical, or unfair.

There is no guarantee whatsoever, on the other hand, that they will "never bid again". Of course, they will, at some point. But none of us knows what's in the head of the swedish officials and there's no way to assert they won't bid again.

It should be mentioned as well that no swedish winter games would be an utter disaster, would it? I mean, it's tough to remember after reading you, (and not just you, nothing personal here); but the World, and the IOC , would survive a non-swedish 2022 WOG. It's not like Scandinavia hasn't hosted in a long time either, and it should be kept in mind that those are very close cultures, in spite of a few specificities. It is honestly not like something major would be brought.

The IOC has to make the best choice, period. Not award the games to anyone for fear that they won't bid again in the future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think FYI's point is to be seen from the Swedish perspective: They've bid six times with a relatively small city and relatively short ways and they failed. Now they bid with the capital, but therefore have longer ways (even if it's just a few km more :P ). Now if they fail, why should they bid anywhere in the future, when it's sure the IOC isn't OK with their concepts?

Yet, what the IOC would then make out of it, is a different point, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC isn't forced to give the games to anyone, shouldn't be under any kind of pressure or blackmail for the sole pretense that someone may "never bid again" . And, sorry, but it's not like the bid doesn't have major weaknesses and problems.

I'm very well aware of that. It's not like I'm suggesting that's what the bid team should focus on. But internally, surely being turned down so many times takes it's toll on ones self esteem. It's arguably why the French & the Americans are pretty much gun-shy towards another bid.

Turning them away would therefore not be illogical, or unfair.

There is no guarantee whatsoever, on the other hand, that they will "never bid again". Of course, they will, at some point. But none of us knows what's in the head of the swedish officials and there's no way to assert they won't bid again.

Well, didn't mean very much presume that Munich would bid again for 2022. Of course nothing is set in stone, that's why I went on to say that we may not see the Swedes bid again "in a very, very long time".

It should be mentioned as well that no swedish winter games would be an utter disaster, would it? I mean, it's tough to remember after reading you, (and not just you, nothing personal here); but the World, and the IOC , would survive a non-swedish 2022 WOG. It's not like Scandinavia hasn't hosted in a long time either, and it should be kept in mind that those are very close cultures, in spite of a few specificities. It is honestly not like something major would be brought.

The IOC has to make the best choice, period. Not award the games to anyone for fear that they won't bid again in the future.

Scandinavia is not just Sweden, though. We also have Oslo. One could've argued that having Istanbul hosting 2020 wouldn't have necessarily meant the end of the Olympic Movement either. But the IOC chose to go with the safe option of Tokyo for 2020. And with the not-so-stellar 2022 options, as far as the new category is concerned, I'm far more convinced that the IOC will continue the safer options for at least another cycle here.

.

Well, I think FYI's point is to be seen from the Swedish perspective: They've bid six times with a relatively small city and relatively short ways and they failed. Now they bid with the capital, but therefore have longer ways (even if it's just a few km more :P ). Now if they fail, why should they bid anywhere in the future, when it's sure the IOC isn't OK with their concepts?

Precisely, thank you.

*Well, didn't we pretty much presume that Munich would bid again for 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm far more convinced that the IOC will continue the safer options for at least another cycle here.

.

That's arguable. They could go safe, just as much as they could continue expanding, with newer solutions and destinations like Rio or Pyongcheang.

But even in that case, stockholm isn't the only safe choice available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And probably between now and September 2015, at least a dozen new IOC members would've come in, replaced those advanced by age...and the new 10 or so could spell all the difference between "old" and "new" thinking in the IOC. Those 8 or 9 new members inducted in BA didn't seem too senior to me. They'll have how many new "athlete" inductees after Sochi?? The federations too will have changing leadership over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And probably between now and September 2015, at least a dozen new IOC members would've come in, replaced those advanced by age...and the new 10 or so could spell all the difference between "old" and "new" thinking in the IOC. Those 8 or 9 new members inducted in BA didn't seem too senior to me. They'll have how many new "athlete" inductees after Sochi?? The federations too will have changing leadership over the years.

Absolutely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And probably between now and September 2015, at least a dozen new IOC members would've come in, replaced those advanced by age...and the new 10 or so could spell all the difference between "old" and "new" thinking in the IOC. Those 8 or 9 new members inducted in BA didn't seem too senior to me. They'll have how many new "athlete" inductees after Sochi?? The federations too will have changing leadership over the years.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the "old" thinking stood for expanding/spreading to new "frontiers", while some "new" thinking in the IOC would tend for a more back to basics approach? If there are aspiring IOC members who reflect on why there's so much scepticism nowadays at least in some parts of the world, they might come to a completely different view about where to go the next few times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's arguable. They could go safe, just as much as they could continue expanding, with newer solutions and destinations like Rio or Pyongcheang.

Yeah, it's arguable, but only to a point. None of the 'newer destination' 2022 applicants have as much of an appealing & compelling attributes that made Rio & PyeongChang finally win. And let's also keep in mind that even then it still took the Brazilians & South Korean several attempts before they finally wound up with the Games.

But even in that case, stockholm isn't the only safe choice available.

I know that. I've already acknowledged Oslo as a 'safe' contender in this race. Their only weakness is a "been there, done that" element to their 2022 bid. That's why I'd still say that Stockholm would have the edge in that category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if Sweden built a bullet train between Stockholm and Are, then 2022 would probably be a cinch. They'll have 7 years to do it. 125km of track per year would get them there by 2021. But really, why all this special attention for Sweden when there are at least 3 other viable, somewhat better bids? I mean why did Sweden let go of Norway in 1905?? If they didn't, then Sweden will already have hosted 2 Winter Games in their province of Norway. :lol:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a rule or official criteria. It's an informed judgement and opinion - which I tend to agree with.

Oh yes, of course. Opinions are allowed, no problem about it. Just being rational and saying no one in the IOC - and anywhere else- cares whether such or such city threatens "not to bid anymore".

Well, if Sweden built a bullet train between Stockholm and Are, then 2022 would probably be a cinch. They'll have 7 years to do it. 125km of track per year would get them there by 2021. But really, why all this special attention for Sweden when there are at least 3 other viable, somewhat better bids? I mean why did Sweden let go of Norway in 1905?? If they didn't, then Sweden will already have hosted 2 Winter Games in their province of Norway. :lol:

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
no one in the IOC - and anywhere else- cares whether such or such city threatens "not to bid anymore".

They should care.

Anyway, I took it more as a comment on Sweden's stomach to keep pursuing bids, more than the IOC's willingness to consider them.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites

They do care Rols. I think they do. When having to choose, I think they're trying to make the best choice possible, weigh pros and cons, take the advantages into account and of course, the weaknesses. They should care.But they shouldn't give the games to a city that's obviously not the bes for the only reason that it may cry out afterwards, and decide not to bid again.

The IOC's only job (in that case) is to choose the best host. If some cities aren't able to understand that, they shouldn't worry about it. So, no they shouldn't care. Rather, cities should be aware that they can't realistically present bad bids and then weep and stop bidding because they lost.


best*

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean why did Sweden let go of Norway in 1905?? If they didn't, then Sweden will already have hosted 2 Winter Games in their province of Norway. :lol:

Sweden and Norway were separate kingdoms in a union with a single monarch. Norway had its own Olympic participation from 1900.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...