Jump to content

Stockholm fallout


yoshi
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'll try this one more time. No, we aren't talking about "the skiing" here. The dicipline is "alpine skiing." Not "skiing". It's one of several skiing diciplines in the Olympics. A rather small one, with 5 mens and womens's events. Fewer than say, biathlon. Which I should point out, IS DONE ONE SKIIS. (And before you make some crack about alpine skiing being way more important that biathlon, be sure to do a bit of research on world (not US, world) interest in the various sporks.

Did I say we were talking about ALL the skiing?

No.

I did say that I believe the slalom will eventually be moved to Are as well, because it's the only thing that makes sense. Wouldn't be surprised to see other events shifted there too.

And I'm plenty familiar with biathlon, thanks.

I'll admit I had to look up the definition of the word bifurcated. Isn't that pretty much what we have now? Particularly with Vancouver/Whistler and Sochi. That's a lot different than having all the events closer to the epicenter of the games minus 1 or 2 events (not even necessarily a full sport) as we're talking about here.

So again, in the hypothetical where Stockholm wins (meaning by whatever measure the IOC liked their bid the most), maybe it does encourage other bidders to look past what would otherwise be a fatal technical flaw and bid anyway. But unless those constitute the only choices the IOC has in a given bidding cycle, they're in no way forced to accept that. And 1 win from a flawed bid like that given whatever the circumstances are that got them that win probably isn't going to be the start of a trend anymore than Stockholm bidding in the first place is

Yes and no.

The point is that where other Olympics are concerned, although the events are clearly centered in two different regions, it is very possible to visit both regions in a single day.

With Stockholm and Are, this is not possible. That's the big problem and that's what makes it so different from the likes of Vancouver and Sochi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only obvious one is Boston and using mountains in Vermont/New Hampshire. There are others, but the only one I can think of with a story/narrative that could achieve the games is probably Boston, or maybe Tokyo

A Boston Winter Olympics would be awesome.

I think the discussion's already gone a bit overboard on the issue. It's taken over just about every thread on the 2022 bidders, whether it's relevant or not (the Krakow thread seems to be more about Stockholm, for example, than Krakow). And we've got about eight months to go before any resolution happens (unless, of course, the Swedish government pulls the plug earlier). That's gonna be a long time to continue with the they can do it no they can't back and forths with no real resolution possible between such polarised views.

But, to address Yoshi's question. The part of me that really wishes for a Swedish WOGs as the last tick on my personal Olympic bucket list says that if Stockholm does win through, it'll be a demonstration of flexibility by the IOC to open up the field for more candidates in the future. It could well be the next inevitable step in the winter games' evolution that already sees the WOGs requiring far bigger anchors than they did in the past. It could be the type of thing they're going to have to consider in the future anyway if they want to ensure a respectable pool of candidates.

Of the suggestions above, Boston's the most applicable in that case of those mentioned IMO. Maybe at a pinch San Francisco. To throw something really out there, what about a Morocco WOGs, with the High Atlas as a viable alpine venue to complement an anchor host in one of its cities?

As an aside, the "Stockholm Syndrome" influenced my choice of winter host for this year's logo comp (to be revealed this weekend).

This.

Perhaps a more flexible OWG could be what the IOC is moving toward? Maybe Stockholm/Are isn't as far fetched as we thinks? Maybe the OWG needs to accept that it is more dependent on geography than the SOG ever has been and must be flexible, even if it results in two 'separate' Olympics occurring at the same time. As others have mentioned, it secures the appeal of the event to a far greater reach of cities- high profile cities that will utilise the indoor venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no.

The point is that where other Olympics are concerned, although the events are clearly centered in two different regions, it is very possible to visit both regions in a single day.

With Stockholm and Are, this is not possible. That's the big problem and that's what makes it so different from the likes of Vancouver and Sochi.

Vancouver and Sochi are much different than Stockholm. I only brought them up because those seem like a much better definition of the word bifurcated rather than a bid in 1 central location with 1 sport (and perhaps not all of that sport) split off elsewhere.

That you brought up Tahoe.. is this license for them to include San Francisco in addition to or in place of Reno? Doesn't make a difference one way or the other. They could do that now if they wanted to and much like Stockholm, whom we thought might not be able to furnish a bid if it involved Are since the IOC wouldn't accept it, they could do so in spite of the distance. To take it a step further if Stockholm were to win, again that 1 circumstance doesn't change the dynamics of bidding and suddenly give cities/countries license to bend the rules as if they couldn't do that already. Which is to say.. however much a San Francisco-Tahoe bid is viable now, that wouldn't change based on Stockholm winning or losing, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously each race has its own dynamics and distance is one of many variables.

Although the IOC is under no compulsion to follow precedent, I do think the past can affect the lens through which they view the future. I think that means that Stockholm (if by some miracle it won) would open the door to more far flung bids.

For clarification, I am not pushing for San Francisco/Tahoe. It was just an example. I do think, however, that Stockholm 2022 could increase the acceptability of such a plan.

I must say, however, that all this conjecture feels wildly hypothetical. I really do not believe the IOC will accept Stockholm's distances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vancouver and Sochi are much different than Stockholm. I only brought them up because those seem like a much better definition of the word bifurcated rather than a bid in 1 central location with 1 sport (and perhaps not all of that sport) split off elsewhere.

That you brought up Tahoe.. is this license for them to include San Francisco in addition to or in place of Reno? Doesn't make a difference one way or the other. They could do that now if they wanted to and much like Stockholm, whom we thought might not be able to furnish a bid if it involved Are since the IOC wouldn't accept it, they could do so in spite of the distance. To take it a step further if Stockholm were to win, again that 1 circumstance doesn't change the dynamics of bidding and suddenly give cities/countries license to bend the rules as if they couldn't do that already. Which is to say.. however much a San Francisco-Tahoe bid is viable now, that wouldn't change based on Stockholm winning or losing, IMO.

Actually in 1960, the IOC met in San Francisco first (since Squaw Valley did not have any large halls capable of hosting 60+ delegates w/ tables, interpreter booths, etc., etc.) before hieing off to the SV slopes for the competition. Also, a future Reno bid includes Sacramento (closer to Tahoe & Reno) and with their new Kings stadium, indeed does provide the setting for putting the hockey matches there. They really don't have to reach all the way to SF again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the IOC is under no compulsion to follow precedent, I do think the past can affect the lens through which they view the future. I think that means that Stockholm (if by some miracle it won) would open the door to more far flung bids.

For clarification, I am not pushing for San Francisco/Tahoe. It was just an example. I do think, however, that Stockholm 2022 could increase the acceptability of such a plan.

I must say, however, that all this conjecture feels wildly hypothetical. I really do not believe the IOC will accept Stockholm's distances.

Simply the fact that Stockholm bid with Are involved is significant. For all the times here that we said it couldn't be done, they may not win but at least they went for it anyway, especially since Sweden doesn't really have a better alternative . I don't think it necessarily changes the game in terms of future bids even if they somehow manage to win though. And especially in a contest with twice the number of entrants as the last 2, it does seem like (at least for 1 cycle) the trend of fewer and fewer bidders has been reversed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And especially in a contest with twice the number of entrants as the last 2, it does seem like (at least for 1 cycle) the trend of fewer and fewer bidders has been reversed.

In terms of high-quality bidders, I think it hasn't reversed, though. Especially with the exits of both Munich & St. Moritz. And all we're really left with is Oslo & Stockholm (even if the Swedes may have an achellies heel attached to them).

And even then, we're lucky enough to have them for now. That is if full-government backing doesn't come through for one of them, if not both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of high-quality bidders, I think it hasn't reversed, though. Especially with the exits of both Munich & St. Moritz. And all we're really left with is Oslo & Stockholm (even if the Swedes may have an achellies heel attached to them).

And even then, we're lucky enough to have them for now. That is if full-government backing doesn't come through for one of them, if not both.

Not to forget that the fate of the prime contender now, Oslo, also depended on a few thousand votes in the referendum. Could also have swung the other way around. Stressing that we have double the number of 2018 is just a quantity over quality argument which doesn't really help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the IOC could overlook the distance between Stockholm and Are. The Oslo bid still has to get government approval. If it falls through and the IOC is faced with Stockholm, Almaty, Krakow, Lviv, and Beijing, I could see Stockholm being viewed much in the same way as Tokyo was viewed for 2020, as the safe option with far less risk than the other contenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\ 528 km - 7 hours?? Ya gotta be kidding.

Against Lviv's non-readiness: yes

Against Almaty aka the winter Baku (not to mention it would another Asian Games; yes

Against Beijing, where it would make there very close Asian Games back-to-back-to-back (not to mention they're Alpine option is undeveloped & polluted): yes

Against Krakow's untested waters: it would still remain to be seen. It would take a lot of appeal on their part, which I'm not sure that they could muster enough of at this point in time.

*their Alpine option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply the fact that Stockholm bid with Are involved is significant. For all the times here that we said it couldn't be done, they may not win but at least they went for it anyway, especially since Sweden doesn't really have a better alternative . I don't think it necessarily changes the game in terms of future bids even if they somehow manage to win though. And especially in a contest with twice the number of entrants as the last 2, it does seem like (at least for 1 cycle) the trend of fewer and fewer bidders has been reversed.

I don't think Stockholm's bid is significant in itself. If it makes the short list, that will be noteworthyand a win would be momentous. The bid -- not so much. Anybody can bid.

The real issue is not number of bidders, but number of viable bidders. Until we have a short list we won't really know the IOC's answer to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my point in making the thread. A Stockholm win would change the game completely, when it comes to who can & can't be viable. Seeing that Romania has gone for YOG in 2020, maybe it might bring Bucharest into the fold if Stockholm could win despite the distances. A future Krakow/Jasna win would open it up even more, with binational venues, especially in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the Winter bids, Summer bids aren't really restricted geographically, so there's plenty of choice available (provided the cities want to bid). So I doubt the IOC will ever have to bend their criteria as much as with a potential Stockholm 2022.

Unless, of course, the Emirate Olympics are on their want-to-have list and they'll skip the Summer dates to allow Doha or Dubai eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my point in making the thread. A Stockholm win would change the game completely, when it comes to who can & can't be viable. Seeing that Romania has gone for YOG in 2020, maybe it might bring Bucharest into the fold if Stockholm could win despite the distances. A future Krakow/Jasna win would open it up even more, with binational venues, especially in Europe.

Brașov can already be a warmup for a Bucharest OWG bid -- the cities are less than 200 km apart and a large part of the resorts are in between. It's been done already (Vancouver) and would look about like Kraków without crossing the border and with larger cities. As for the viability of a Romanian bid at all.... that remains to be seen, but it can't be worse than some of the bids we've seen put forth.

Stockholm would only be a precedent for nations who have a compelling force for winter sports to drive forth the enthusiasm and legacy for the OWG but lack the topographical means; this is a very limited number of nations (Finland....?). I love Boston, but the US has more distance-viable options.

Kraków could as easily set a precedent as Stockholm would. A bid actually winning with using venues in a neighboring country (this idea of it being a "bi-national bid" is ridiculous, this is not an even Poland/Slovakia split) and with apparently the stated reason of not wanting to wreck a national park.

Helsinki could always bid with Krasnaya Polyana.... Finland borders Russia, and you can't get more compact than a cluster built from scratch. :D

One of our Polish posters noted that Bratislava has one; and since Jasna is part of the Krakow equation; so the BRROMatrix holds... ;)

So THIS is why Jasná, it's all clear to me now. Love it! :D

Edited by amorincognito
Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...