Kraków 2022

[zekekelso]

I was just being a pragmatist...just as I am about the 2022 candidates. Doesn't mean I'm thrilled or excited about how Japan will stage their 2020 ceremonies. I mean other than the trolls, Vetti and the Vikings -- what else do the Scandinavians have that I want to see? Not much.

If only you had an interest in sports, you might understand.

[Athensfan]

Don't you have a little affinity towards Almaty, though.

You don't know that. Until we see their plans, & how the IOC reacts to them, one can't make a final assertion like that.

I agree here. Baron is the one that's totally in love with Krakow, though.

Not really passionate about Almaty. I liked the 2014 bid. I wish them well making the short list, but that's it. Perhaps they'll win me over. If they do, I'll let you know.

I reiterate: "FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, Stockholm cannot seriously challenge due to the proposed distances." While it's true that the IOC has made no pronouncement about this particular bid, history shows that the IOC does care about distances and travel times. There are plenty of quotes from key IOC members, including Rogge, that suggest that Stockholm/Are is not even close to what they are looking for. I understand that wishing and hoping plays a big role in Olympic bids, but the truth is that there is no precedent for Stockholm's distances and no strong evidence to suggest the IOC will overlook the deficiency. There is ample evidence to the contrary.

As for Krakow, I'm kind of surprised that it's caught Baron's fancy -- just as I'm surprised Stockholm caught yours.

[FYI]

While it's true that the IOC has made no pronouncement about this particular bid, history shows that the IOC does care about distances and travel times. There are plenty of quotes from key IOC members, including Rogge, that suggest that Stockholm/Are is not even close to what they are looking for.

IOC members say a lot of things. Doesn't mean that every little thing that they say is set in stone. And for someone who always criticized with what Rogge had to say, I'm surprised that you would take one aspect of what he's said as sacred. This is the man that was said that "Havana has just a good a chance as anyone else to host the Games".

*This is the man that 'once' said..

I understand that wishing and hoping plays a big role in Olympic bids, but the truth is that there is no precedent for Stockholm's distances and no strong evidence to suggest the IOC will overlook the deficiency. There is ample evidence to the contrary.

There was also no precedent of ceremonies & athletics being seperated for the first time ever before Rio. There was also no precedent of indoor ceremonies until Vancouver. There's a first time for virtually everything. There's also no "evidence" that the IOC can't make any exceptions whenever they see fit.

[markun]

what else do the Scandinavians have that I want to see? Not much.

I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

[Gangwon]

There was also no precedent of ceremonies & athletics being seperated for the first time ever before Rio. There was also no precedent of indoor ceremonies until Vancouver. There's a first time for virtually everything. There's also no "evidence" that the IOC can't make any exceptions whenever they see fit.

But surely you'd agree there is a logistical difference between an indoor ceremonies or separate ceremonies/athletics as opposed to a 600 km distance between two important clusters? An outdoor ceremonies is traditional for the sake of being traditional and it doesn't always have to be that way, but a relatively compact games is traditional because it just makes practical sense. If it wasn't important to have everyone situated close together, why not just have country-wide bids like the World Cup?

(As an aside, I do agree that there can be a first time for virtually anything but I'd keep that in mind next time we discuss a small town 21st century Winter Games, southern hemisphere Winter Games, or Europe waiting 16 years for a Summer Games)

Then there's your competition. I really like a Stockholm bid for the same reasons you do, but there's no denying that because Oslo is running, Stockholm by comparison is pretty weak from a technical point of view. Some might say even weak enough to make it a runaway win for Oslo, perhaps. If Oslo wasn't in the race, then I'd even say Stockholm would be the favourite, maybe even heavy favourite.

[baron-pierreIV]

There was also no precedent of ceremonies & athletics being seperated for the first time ever before Rio. There was also no precedent of indoor ceremonies until Vancouver. There's a first time for virtually everything. There's also no "evidence" that the IOC can't make any exceptions whenever they see fit.

it doesn't compare, FYI. The separation of Ceremonies & Athletics is not such a big eye-brow raiser. It's not like crazy Istanbul's where they proposed a separate NEW venue just for Ceremonies. It just works out better for Rio if they split them -- and 2 existing venues which needed refurbishment anyway. Plus, Danny, correct me if I'm wrong -- but isn't Maracana closer to the OV than the Athletics venue is?

As for indoor, well, that happened to be Vancouver's biggest venue which created a safe environment for an otherwise, weather-undependable event. It was already done partially before with Squaw Valley. And again, these are all superficial, 'icing' issues compared to a REAL. PHYSICAL obstacle which cuts RIGHT into the heart of what is essentially a coming-together event.

Anyway...I wouldn't be surprised at all if Sweden doesn't make the Short List in July.

Edited November 26, 2013 by baron-pierreIV

[FYI]

If it wasn't important to have everyone situated close together, why not just have country-wide bids like the World Cup?

We're not talking about spreading the Winter Games all over Sweden, though. We're still talking about having everyone tightly situated in only two clusters. No different from the set up in Vancouver/Whister or Sochi/Krasnaya Polyana or PyeongChang/Gangeung. If anything, Munich would've been proposing more of a "World Cup Bid" with four-clusters all over Bavaria. Yet virtually everyone here was all hot & bothered over that one.

Then there's your competition. I really like a Stockholm bid for the same reasons you do, but there's no denying that because Oslo is running, Stockholm by comparison is pretty weak from a technical point of view. Some might say even weak enough to make it a runaway win for Oslo, perhaps. If Oslo wasn't in the race, then I'd even say Stockholm would be the favourite, maybe even heavy favourite.

Yeah, but the main hurdle that an Oslo bid faces, & like Baron likes to consistently say; "been there, done that". If anything, I think Norway's two Winter Olympic hostings (& one of those as recent as 1994) is their Stockholm's distance issue. I agree, however, that on a technical standpoint, Oslo is going to get high marks. But will that be enough to make it a "runaway win" for Oslo. IMHO, I don't think so. Although I will say that the Norwegians come in a good second place in this.

Let's remember how many cited Munich 2018's technical strengths & traditional winter sport fervor for the "odds on" favorite for those Games. And how PyeongChang couldn't be able to compete with them in that sense. Well, I think that's what many are doing with Stockholm now. Like PyeongChang 2018, I believe Stockholm 2022 has that real compelling element to overcome their naysayers "PyeongChang" arguments.

[Gangwon]

We're not talking about spreading the Winter Games all over Sweden, though. We're still talking about having everyone tightly situated in only two clusters. No different from the set up in Vancouver/Whister or Sochi/Krasnaya Polyana or PyeongChang/Gangeung. If anything, Munich would've been proposing more of a "World Cup Bid" with four-clusters all over Bavaria. Yet virtually everyone here was all hot & bothered over that one.

Yeah, but the main hurdle that an Oslo bid faces, & like Baron likes to consistently say; "been there, done that". If anything, I think Norway's two Winter Olympic hostings (& one of those as recent as 1994) is their Stockholm's distance issue. I agree, however, that on a technical standpoint, Oslo is going to get high marks. But will that be enough to make it a "runaway win" for Oslo. IMHO, I don't think so. Although I will say that the Norwegians come in a good second place in this.

Let's remember how many cited Munich 2018's technical strengths & traditional winter sport fervor for the "odds on" favorite for those Games. And how PyeongChang couldn't be able to compete with them in that sense. Well, I think that's what many are doing with Stockholm now. Like PyeongChang 2018, I believe Stockholm 2022 has that real compelling element to overcome their naysayers "PyeongChang" arguments.

Well, it's besides the point that it's not all over Sweden. I did say they were only two, and very important clusters. But it's still 600 km apart. It makes no difference when you're watching the Games on tv, but the voters will actually be there.

But Stockholm does have the most emotionally-compelling bid. And they will make the shortlist, of course, so in the end all you need is emotion. So who knows. I'm probably wrong in saying Oslo is a runaway favourite. It's probably more of a slight lead, which could swing the other way easily over the next year and a half.

[Athensfan]

IOC members say a lot of things. Doesn't mean that every little thing that they say is set in stone. And for someone who always criticized with what Rogge had to say, I'm surprised that you would take one aspect of what he's said as sacred. This is the man that was said that "Havana has just a good a chance as anyone else to host the Games".

*This is the man that 'once' said..

There was also no precedent of ceremonies & athletics being seperated for the first time ever before Rio. There was also no precedent of indoor ceremonies until Vancouver. There's a first time for virtually everything. There's also no "evidence" that the IOC can't make any exceptions whenever they see fit.

But FYI, can you point to a single incident where ANY IOC member said they had no problem with ice and snow events being separated by over 500 km? Sure they say a lot of things, but to my knowledge none of them has ever said that. We're not talking about one isolated quote from Rogge either. There have been multiple comments and evaluations that support the idea that 200-250 km is really the maximum distance that the IOC will consider.

And surely you must acknowledge that the location of the ceremony (indoor vs. outdoor/ athletics stadium vs. non-athletics stadium) is a very trivial point in contrast to a 7 hour travel time between the two major clusters. The former is a detail of presentation while the latter is a major logistical change that effectively cuts the Games in half.

If Stockholm somehow sneaks onto the shortlist, I'll be very curious to see how they greet the evaluation commission. They have a limited number of days with the commission and one of those days would be lost traveling from Stockholm to Are. I think that experience alone would highlight the practical problems with this bid in a way that would make it impossible for Stockholm to win.

[StefanMUC]

And surely you must acknowledge that the location of the ceremony (indoor vs. outdoor/ athletics stadium vs. non-athletics stadium) is a very trivial point in contrast to a 7 hour travel time between the two major clusters. The former is a detail of presentation while the latter is a major logistical change that effectively cuts the Games in half.

I don't get why it is at this stage even important to discuss details of the ceremonies (unless they'd involve having an extra venue).

It is about awarding the workd's biggest sports event and not the MTV Awards or the Eurovision Song Contest.

I'm curious how all this Swedish bid will be presented, maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But I don't see the question marks at the same level as whether there will be a roof over the ceremonies or whether it was impossible to include Equestrian in Melbourne. Both seem highly irrelevant to me, to be honest, when it comes to judge the Stockholm-Åre issue.

[Athensfan]

But I don't see the question marks at the same level as whether there will be a roof over the ceremonies or whether it was impossible to include Equestrian in Melbourne. Both seem highly irrelevant to me, to be honest, when it comes to judge the Stockholm-Åre issue.

Both are irrelevant. Moving equestrian events or sailing far afield in the Summer Games is totally different from separating all the Alpine events from the rest of the Winter Games by over 500 km. As for the ceremony location, I think FYI is grasping at any defense he can think of. Where the ceremonies are held is not a make or break issue for a bid. 7 hours of travel time between ice and snow events is.

[StefanMUC]

. 7 hours of travel time between ice and snow events is.

That's why I say I'm curious how they'll overcome this, just like other bids have to overcome their own obstacles.

[Athensfan]

That's why I say I'm curious how they'll overcome this, just like other bids have to overcome their own obstacles.

Seriously, though. How can they?

Geography doesn't allow for Alpine events closer to Stockholm.

Ostersund isn't big enough to warrant the development necessary to host the ice events.

A high-speed train isn't likely to happen (particularly through mountainous terrain) and even if it did, the trip would still take forever and ALL Olympic visitors would have to use it. Even if everyone takes a plane to Are, the time spent in airports at either end will still result in very long travel time.

So that leaves ONE option: political lobbying. Try to convince the IOC that 7 hours isn't that big a deal.

Good luck. It ain't happening.

[baron-pierreIV]

Even if everyone takes a plane to Are, the time spent in airports at either end will still result in very long travel time.

And that's if fog, icing of planes, etc., don't muck up the schedule at either or both ends of the trip. Yeah, the press missed their story; the IOC president couldn't leave Are for his trip back to Stockholm to preside at pre-arranged events, etc., etc.

And for an event where scores of people and committees spend months, probably years...building a viable schedule...shouldn't worry or be fazed by this ridiculous distance???

Edited November 26, 2013 by baron-pierreIV

[StefanMUC]

All of 2022 will circle around how far (quite literally) the IOC is going to go when there's only (yet again) a less than thrilling list of choices to pick from. I'm also sceptical how Sweden will overcome the distance problem, or Kraków the bi-national one, but in the end we still have no clue how they will sell these to the people actually voting.

[baron-pierreIV]

All of 2022 will circle around how far (quite literally) the IOC is going to go when there's only (yet again) a less than thrilling list of choices to pick from. I'm also sceptical how Sweden will overcome the distance problem, or Kraków the bi-national one, but in the end we still have no clue how they will sell these to the people actually voting.

Bi-national's been done TWICE. So I don't see how it will be a problem for the Krakow bid. And Slovakia is obviously the minority partner...and they seem to accept the 2ndary role at this stage, so I foresee no problems with the Krakow bid.

Now, as for 528 km, well. do I get a sleeper berth on the red-eye? Oh wait...there isn't even a train between the 2 clusters. What a cluster-f*ck the Swedish bid is!!

[StefanMUC]

Bi-national's been done TWICE. So I don't see how it will be a problem for the Krakow bid. And Slovakia is obviously the minority partner...and they seem to accept the 2ndary role at this stage, so I foresee no problems with the Krakow bid.

Now, as for 528 km, well. do I get a sleeper berth on the red-eye? Oh wait...there isn't even a train between the 2 clusters. What a cluster-f*ck the Swedish bid is!!

Bi-national bids have not been done twice: Beijing added HK after getting the Games, and I'm not sure about the timeline, but surely Melbourne 56 didn't come forward with a bi-national bid either.

actually, successful bi-national bids, I should add - of course there were Helsinki and Salzburg, and Tarvisio I think.

[baron-pierreIV]

Bi-national bids have not been done twice: Beijing added HK after getting the Games, and I'm not sure about the timeline, but surely Melbourne 56 didn't come forward with a bi-national bid either.

actually, successful bi-national bids, I should add - of course there were Helsinki and Salzburg, and Tarvisio I think.

Uhmmm,,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_at_the_1920_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_12%27_Dinghy Look at Footnotes #1 and #2.

1. The first Olympic event ever, and the only Olympic sailing event that was held outside the organizing country.
2. Since during this race one of the marks was drifting the race was nullified. Since the organizers did not have the time to re-sail the race that week the two remaining races were rescheduled for September 3. Because both contenders were Dutch, the organizers requested the Dutch Olympic Committee to organize the race in Amsterdam Buiten IJ.

Footnote #2 is slightly erroneous. The final race wasn't held as far away as Amsterdam. It was held in DUtch waters just north of Ostend -- nonetheless, it was in Dutch sovereignty.

- You could also say that Sailing for Moscow 1980 was held in 'another country' - in Tallinn, Estonia. And since the USSR's occupation of the Baltics was illegal; therefore Sailing 1980 could be classified as 'another country.' And that is also why Tallinn 1980 had its own mascot aside from Misha. Tallinn had Vigri the seal.

- South Korea offered to share one or 2 events with the North in 1988; and the IOC was OK with this. But the North Koreans were acting as prima donnas that the So. Koreans just told them to go frack themselves.

- After banning int'l portions of the Torch Relay after Beijing, the IOC allowed the 2012 flame to take a detour to Ireland. Need I say more??

Edited November 26, 2013 by baron-pierreIV

[Gangwon]

Oh brother...

[zekekelso]

There was also no precedent of ceremonies & athletics being seperated for the first time ever before Rio. There was also no precedent of indoor ceremonies until Vancouver. There's a first time for virtually everything. There's also no "evidence" that the IOC can't make any exceptions whenever they see fit.

I think the opposite is true. There is a ton of evidence can (and will!) make exceptions whenever they see fit.

If the IOC voters want to put the Olymics in Sweden, they'll overlook the distance.

[FYI]

But FYI, can you point to a single incident where ANY IOC member said they had no problem with ice and snow events being separated by over 500 km? Sure they say a lot of things, but to my knowledge none of them has ever said that. We're not talking about one isolated quote from Rogge either. There have been multiple comments and evaluations that support the idea that 200-250 km is really the maximum distance that the IOC will consider.

Why would they say anything about such a thing? Did any of them ever say that they wanted to be spread all over town, in a sprawled out four-cluster venue concept in 2007? No, they didn't. Yet that's exactly what they're getting with Rio 2016.

And c'mon now. You're really not gonna go with the evaluations, are you. You know as well as I do that those "evaluations" can be tailored-made to the IOC's pick of day. If there's a "weakness" in one candidacy that the IOC isn't exactly crazy over, they magnify it so it could hinder their chances. Yet if the IOC is hot & heavy over another particular candidate, they merely sugar-coat their weakness' so it can enhance their chances.

If Stockholm somehow sneaks onto the shortlist, I'll be very curious to see how they greet the evaluation commission. They have a limited number of days with the commission and one of those days would be lost traveling from Stockholm to Are. I think that experience alone would highlight the practical problems with this bid in a way that would make it impossible for Stockholm to win.

How is that any different from an evaluation team visiting the (far-flung at times) sailing & equestrian sites which involve about the same number of athletes. And maybe the evaluation team could highlight the issue. But it depends how they highlight those "pratical problems" & how the Swedes will respond to them. But in the end, it's not the evaluation team that casts all the votes anyway.

[StefanMUC]

Uhmmm,,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_at_the_1920_Summer_Olympics_–_12'_Dinghy Look at Footnotes #1 and #2.

Footnote #2 is slightly erroneous. The final race wasn't held as far away as Amsterdam. It was held in DUtch waters just north of Ostend -- nonetheless, it was in Dutch sovereignty.

- You could also say that Sailing for Moscow 1980 was held in 'another country' - in Tallinn, Estonia. And since the USSR's occupation of the Baltics was illegal; therefore Sailing 1980 could be classified as 'another country.' And that is also why Tallinn 1980 had its own mascot aside from Misha. Tallinn had Vigri the seal.

- South Korea offered to share one or 2 events with the North in 1988; and the IOC was OK with this. But the North Koreans were acting as prima donnas that the So. Koreans just told them to go frack themselves.

- After banning int'l portions of the Torch Relay after Beijing, the IOC allowed the 2012 flame to take a detour to Ireland. Need I say more??

Ok: 1920 may have been bi-national for one single event, and in an era totally different to nowadays ways of bidding - do we know if it was ever Antwerp's plan right from the start?

Moscow: That's clutching at straws really.

Seoul: 1988 had two bidders only - I guess the IOC would have allowed them anything to avoid a 1984 scenario with a default winner. Besides, they surely would have liked the "peace" message of that. Doesn't apply at all to Poland/Slovakia.

Torch: Wikipedia says the "national only" relay will only be binding as from 2016. Don't know if it's true, but anyway, the torch relay is not on the same level of importance at all as hosting itself, so again some severe straw-clutching.

[FYI]

I think FYI is grasping at any defense he can think of.

I'm not "grasping at any defense" anymore than Baron is by always bringing up that "irrelevant" Melbourne/Stockholm 1956 Summer comparison for Krakow's 'defense'.

[FYI]

All of 2022 will circle around how far (quite literally) the IOC is going to go when there's only (yet again) a less than thrilling list of choices to pick from. I'm also sceptical how Sweden will overcome the distance problem, or Kraków the bi-national one, but in the end we still have no clue how they will sell these to the people actually voting.

Exactly! And that's precisely what both Baron & Athensfan seem to be forgetting here. The only applicant here outta the six that can present a real challenge to Stockholm is Oslo. The remaining others are either non-starters, an insurance policy, or maybe, perhaps with one becoming a dark horse in this, & that's Krakow. Especially when we have senior IOC members expressing their disappointment that Munich & St. Moritz aren't bidding. Had both of those, or even one of them, made it to the 2022 table, then I'd say that Stockholm's goose is most likely cooked. But without them, I believe they become a contender. And I bet they realize that too. Cuz had Munich gone ahead, I bet Stockholm would've refrained. And that's why they waited 'til after Munich's referendum to make their announcement.

Bi-national's been done TWICE. So I don't see how it will be a problem for the Krakow bid. And Slovakia is obviously the minority partner...and they seem to accept the 2ndary role at this stage, so I foresee no problems with the Krakow bid.

Oh please. Melbourne/Stockholm 1956 was NOT the IOC's ideal scenario. You know better than that. That all happened AFTER Melbourne was awarded the 1956 Summer Olympics. I don't know why you keep bringing up that trivial point just for Krakow's sake. And Athensfan says I'm the one "grasping at any defense".

Plus, in that case, if that argument can work for Krakow, then it can work for Stockholm too! Since that "bi-national" event happened THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY (& six months earlier to boot)!

[zekekelso]

Moving equestrian events or sailing far afield in the Summer Games is totally different from separating all the Alpine events from the rest of the Winter Games by over 500 km. As for the ceremony location, I think FYI is grasping at any defense he can think of. Where the ceremonies are held is not a make or break issue for a bid. 7 hours of travel time between ice and snow events is.

Why? From a logistic standpoint, there's no differnce between having equstrian/sailing/football events far from the stadium, and having the Alpine events far away. If they aren't a make-or-brake issue for the SOG (and they clearly aren't,), why would they be for the WOG?

And for a non-logistical "atmosphere" standpoing, I would think moving the alpine events out of town would be *less* of an issue since the alpine events are always out of town. The downhill skiiers never join in with all the world meeting in one place, bla, bla, bla.