Jump to content

Stockholm Opts Out Of 2022 Winter Olympic Bid


Recommended Posts

^^ Like stryker said, this is partially Putin's fault for expending such a ridiculous amount of money for a games which look more like his personal pet project than anything else.

But let's be honest. This was somewhat expected. Most of the nordics seem to don't like much how expensive the olympics have become. Plus, the distance between Are and Stockholm was ridiculous.

Oslo, as far as I know, has already surpassed in their country most of the ordeals which killed off the Tromso and 2018/2022 WC bids before. Plus, they have most of the infrastructure ready.Unless the other bidding cities offer a very good plan , the IOC should just stop wasting time and give the games to Oslo (so far this is looking more predictable than the 2014 WC bid)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

At least this saves us from another 18 months of arguments over the distance between Stockholm and Are.

Yeah, "the side of reason & pragmatism" & yet those hardly ever agree with one another. I just don't see how Stockholm bailing out is "really good news". This is really failing to see the f

Allowing a poor country to overspend on a two week sporting event in the name of personal glory is hardly a victory for pragmatism. Although I guess the rotting concrete of Montreal, the graffitied

Sweden has no sliding sport traditon at all. It won't qualify any athletes for Sochi in the three sliding disciplines. So a sliding track would have been a legacy and could have been built with fiscal responsibility. What a missed opportunity. The games will only get bigger (more events etc.) which means the games will cost more. I don't see how Sweden will justify the cost in the future when it has declined 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Games can be very affordable for Oslo. The Sochi Games didn't cost $50 billion. It's more like $20 billion. The other $30 billion just went to kickbacks, which is life in Russia.

Russia said it would cost $12 billion, which has now come to $20 billion.

In adding Korea's projected expenditures from the bid book and adding the previously-built Alpensia's costs, they projected around $11 billion. Now, they're on track to spend $15 billion.

If Norway says it would cost $5 billion, then they could probably pull it off at $8 billion. Offset that with revenues from tickets, merchandising, tourists, etc, and they can recoup some of that immediately.

Let's not forget Russia had to create a whole city and the venues out of nothing. Norway has both transportation infrastructure and sporting infrastructure. I don't fault Russia for spending what was needed. Norway at one point in history had to do the same. Those that need to create, spend. Those that don't have to, don't. It's not fair to compare Oslo to Sochi.

Edited by Gangwon
Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is moot. The distance issue was going to be a deal-breaker anyway. Of course now we'll never have any proof of that because we'll never get to see the IOC's reaction. Argh. I'd love to see Swedish Games, but I don't think they were going to land 2022 anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden has no sliding sport traditon at all. It won't qualify any athletes for Sochi in the three sliding disciplines. So a sliding track would have been a legacy and could have been built with fiscal responsibility. What a missed opportunity. The games will only get bigger (more events etc.) which means the games will cost more. I don't see how Sweden will justify the cost in the future when it has declined 2022.

Sliding tracks are always expensive and of little use but for the rather limited number of athletes worldwide. Germany is leading in these events (except for skeleton strangely) and maintains four tracks, but it's not like they're earning masses of money. France built La Plagne for 92, Norway built a track for 94, where's the legacy in terms of improved athletes in those events from those countries.

There's no guarantee that building a track will result in more interest in these events in a country like Sweden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If such bidders do go the distance in a future bid, then it all depends on the vote. If there are more viable bidders, then one of them will be chosen.

That's a far cry from trying to fit it into some weird conspiracy theory like they lost against better credentialled bidders, but it was really because they produced an applicants questionnaire they didn't submit.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong...I didn't dislike Stockholm, but this is great as a Krakow supporter. Oslo will still probably we the frontrunner but Stockholm's exit just blew this race wide open because outside of Oslo, there is no automatic favorite and many members often never go straight to the favorite, although then again many do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The costs of the WOGs have gotten way out of control. We know about Sochi's ridiculous budget but even Pyeongchang, the Alpensia resort, built as the centerpiece of the ski events, was facing bankruptcy last year. If the IOC wants to get serious about controlling the costs of the WOGs, start with constructing a bobsleigh track that is temporary and demountable after the Games much like a temporary velodrome.

I'm not sure a temporary sliding track would save much money given how much infrastructure (refrigeration system, start houses, etc.) is needed for the track. Perhaps some locations would be able to have a natural track, but a lot of host sites are too warm for that. IMO, one of the biggest problems related to costs is the number of arenas that are needed--at least 5 for competition (1 for long-track, 1 for figure skating/short-track, 2 for hockey, 1 for curling), plus at least 3 more small arenas for training. Few host sites have a need for that many indoor arenas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure a temporary sliding track would save much money given how much infrastructure (refrigeration system, start houses, etc.) is needed for the track. Perhaps some locations would be able to have a natural track, but a lot of host sites are too warm for that. IMO, one of the biggest problems related to costs is the number of arenas that are needed--at least 5 for competition (1 for long-track, 1 for figure skating/short-track, 2 for hockey, 1 for curling), plus at least 3 more small arenas for training. Few host sites have a need for that many indoor arenas.

Well at least the Koreans are starting to think about the idea of temporary venues for PyeongChang. It worked well for london's basketball arena, and from what I gather they are going to have at least one of the big two arenas as a temporary structure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the race shouldn't just favor the old reliables. I mean for 70-80 years, it's always been Europe -Europe. We are now a global village, so if some 3rd world republic wants to spend for the IOC's party, they have as much right to as the old standbys. The IOC just has to trim the Games down to manageable size. Get rid of a lot of the idiotic sports no one but a few hundred people get excited about.

It's a catch-22 though. A city like Vancouver can put on a Winter Olympics for less cost than a Sochi or a Pyeongchang because they don't have to build all their infrastructure from scratch. Russia obviously isn't some 3rd world republic, but that's part of the problem.. when a city/country spends so exorbitantly like that, it's scaring off the like of a Sweden or a Germany from wanting to bid. I remember the lead-up from Beijing to London was how could anyone possibly follow the spectacle that China put on. Well, London cost significantly less than $40 billion and put on a very successful Games. Rio and Tokyo seem like they will keep things somewhat in check as well. But that message is getting lost on the Winter side. Maybe what the IOC needs is an Olympics in an old reliable location like Norway to show that it doesn't cost ridiculous amounts of money to put on an Olympics. The Winter Olympics can be the size they're currently at.. they just need to keep spending in check by not giving the Olympics to just any country willing to spend the money but one that is going to further the Olympic movement and the culture of sport.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe what the IOC needs is an Olympics in an old reliable location like Norway to show that it doesn't cost ridiculous amounts of money to put on an Olympics. The Winter Olympics can be the size they're currently at.. they just need to keep spending in check by not giving the Olympics to just any country willing to spend the money but one that is going to further the Olympic movement and the culture of sport.

Exactly, which is why Oslo is the perfect host for 2022, and I am desperately hoping that the Norwegian government doesn't pull the plug on funding the bid. After Sochi and PyeongChang, Oslo could be to the Winter Games what Los Angeles was to the Summer Games in 1984.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a catch-22 though. A city like Vancouver can put on a Winter Olympics for less cost than a Sochi or a Pyeongchang because they don't have to build all their infrastructure from scratch. Russia obviously isn't some 3rd world republic, but that's part of the problem.. when a city/country spends so exorbitantly like that, it's scaring off the like of a Sweden or a Germany from wanting to bid. I remember the lead-up from Beijing to London was how could anyone possibly follow the spectacle that China put on. Well, London cost significantly less than $40 billion and put on a very successful Games. Rio and Tokyo seem like they will keep things somewhat in check as well.

Yeah, but let's also keep in mind that London was the most expensive project outta all the 2012 bidders. And the same for Rio 2016, as far as transport infrastructure goes. And Tokyo, well, let's be honest, if Istanbul hadn't gotten tangled up in those serious snags towards the end of the 2020 campaign, we'd very likely be talking about them hosting right now instead, with their $20 Billion bid plan. And 2022 is starting to shape up just like 2020, where the IOC again is mostly likely going to go with the "safe bet", & not necessarily bcuz they want to excessively trim costs down. They still have to put their money where their mouth is in the aspect, as far as I'm concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the race shouldn't just favor the old reliables. I mean for 70-80 years, it's always been Europe -Europe. We are now a global village, so if some 3rd world republic wants to spend for the IOC's party, they have as much right to as the old standbys. The IOC just has to trim the Games down to manageable size. Get rid of a lot of the idiotic sports no one but a few hundred people get excited about.

Thumbs up to that !

I'm happy to see this really good news, and this resounding victory for our side. The side of reason and pragmatism that Baron, Athensfan, Lord David, myself and a few other people are part of. A victory also for the true genuine spirit of olympism, always concerned about the universality of the games, and a constant will to renew the games with new, innovative ideas and concepts.

And I m sure this victory is the first one of a long series.

Good news !

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, "the side of reason & pragmatism" & yet those hardly ever agree with one another. :rolleyes:

I just don't see how Stockholm bailing out is "really good news". This is really failing to see the far bigger picture here. Especially when you had senior IOC officials (including Bach) expressing disappointment when St. Moritz & Munich (cities from repeat host nations already) rejected to present bids. And virtually everyone here was declaring Munich a runaway favorite for 2022 before they said no. A city which had hosted an Olympics before in a country that has already hosted three Games as well. Go figure.

While broadening the Games is an essential part of the Olympic Movement, it also has to be approached with bids from places that the IOC believes can deliver. They're not taking the Games to Kenya or Tunisia just for the the sake of being "universal". That's really not being "pragmatic". And right now, other than perhaps Krakow, there's really no other bid on the 2022 applicant roster that could fit that bill.

It's also not pragmatic to think that the "old reliables" aren't ever going to host again simply bcuz they have already done so. Otherwise, the IOC could really find themselves in more of a conundrum that they already find themselves in (a repeat of the late 70's/early 80's, where no one wanted to bid), with caliber cities literally running the other way. That doesn't sound to me like "the true, genuine spirit of Olympism" when you have people actually afraid of hosting the Games i.e. Rome, St. Moritz, Munich & now Stockholm. The IOC really needs to re-evaluate many things if they don't want to see this dismal trend continue.


Unless they don't mind of handing the Games over to wonderful places like Doha, Baku & Almaty. How exciting.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thumbs up to that !

I'm happy to see this really good news, and this resounding victory for our side. The side of reason and pragmatism that Baron, Athensfan, Lord David, myself and a few other people are part of. A victory also for the true genuine spirit of olympism, always concerned about the universality of the games, and a constant will to renew the games with new, innovative ideas and concepts.

And I m sure this victory is the first one of a long series.

Good news !

I'm confused.. which side is your side? Stockholm pulling out of this bid race is a victory? I get that the distance to Are was probably more than the IOC wanted to deal with, but we're talking about a country with a great amount of Olympic tradition that hasn't held an Olympics since 1912 (unless you want to count 1956) and has never hosted a Winter Olympics despite 4 decades of efforts to land them. Maybe I'm mis-reading what you're trying to say here, but I fail to see how this is good news. That a country like Sweden can't get the financial backing to pursue an Olympic bid (and it hasn't been for a lack of interest since the Ostersund bid in 2002 and Stockholm in 2004) is a sad state of affairs and doesn't seem like much of a victory unless you're on the side of 1 of their competitors.

ETA: Now seeing FYI's post, if there's an opposite side of "reason and pragmatism," I'm more than happy to join him on it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA: Now seeing FYI's post, if there's an opposite side of "reason and pragmatism," I'm more than happy to join him on it.

No surprise there. Clearly the Bobsey twins are alive and well.

Though I have to say, I find it a bit ironic that the pair of you are choosing to abandon "reason and pragmatism" after all your sneering criticisms over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise there. Clearly the Bobsey twins are alive and well.

Though I have to say, I find it a bit ironic that the pair of you are choosing to abandon "reason and pragmatism" after all your sneering criticisms over the years.

Right, and I was the one who became the villain when I started piling on the kid who wanted us to discuss the merits of an Olympic bid from Baton Rouge. Funny how no one seemed to notice when another kids shows up here and you treat him like a total douche. But that's neither here nor there, so I digress.

Okay, so maybe you can explain this to me.. tell me why Stockholm dropping out of this bid is good news and should be considered a victory. Because if that's the side you're on (and I know that's not your words, that's someone else throwing your name out there), I'm curious for you to explain to me why that is? I know we all have varying views on how much of a factor the Stockolm-Are distance is even though virtually all of us acknowledge it was a hindrance to their bid. But why is it that "reason and pragmatism" is good thing when it causes Sweden to opt out of an Olympic bid race? Particularly when we're on the verge of an Olympics where the price tag is likely to wind up in the $60 billion range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least the Koreans are starting to think about the idea of temporary venues for PyeongChang. It worked well for london's basketball arena, and from what I gather they are going to have at least one of the big two arenas as a temporary structure?

Yes the main hockey arena will be temporary and will be moved to a larger city closer to Seoul after the Games. It's the right move. There is absolutely no need for 2 hockey arenas in Gangneung.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I m sure this victory is the first one of a long series.

Good news !

Did I miss something here? What victory? Stockholm's withdrawal is a disaster for the IOC, in the cold light of day. The distance issue may have spoiled their chances, but they didn't withdraw for fear of losing because of that, they withdrew because they saw hosting as too expensive.

That makes it the fourth wealthy European nation to withdraw a bid or refuse bidding in a referendum within one year (Switzerland, Germany, Sweden for 2022, Austria/Vienna plans for 2028 scrapped in a referendum), plus the recent Rome exit.

Applauding that situation and calling it a victory is completely mindless, I'm sorry.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing a poor country to overspend on a two week sporting event in the name of personal glory is hardly a victory for pragmatism.


Although I guess the rotting concrete of Montreal, the graffitied venues of Athens, and the big vast empty nest in Beijing are all signs of true pragmatism. Or was that egoism?


Stockholm had a lot of the elements in play already. Are was going to be their big question mark. But Sweden is a pragmatic and practical country. Like Vancouver or Salt Lake, many of the venues are there already and have hosted world class events...regularly so! Sweden didn't pull out because of Are. They pulled out because they are worried about cost overruns and that is a bad message to all but the very naive or the biggest of egos.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

But them pulling out so early without any preliminary bid documentation (or general idea of the bid proposal, particularly how the issue of Are would have been "solved") is easy enough and excuse to say it was cost concerns and so forth when it was really the distance issue with Are.

Otherwise, why not just go with Ostersund and then pull out? At least then you would have had a less controversial bid in terms of distance issues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But them pulling out so early without any preliminary bid documentation (or general idea of the bid proposal, particularly how the issue of Are would have been "solved") is easy enough and excuse to say it was cost concerns and so forth when it was really the distance issue with Are.

Otherwise, why not just go with Ostersund and then pull out? At least then you would have had a less controversial bid in terms of distance issues.

So you honestly believe that their pulling out of the bid actually was over the distance and not about the government backing? And you're basing this on a lack of bid documentation? (of course you are). Why is it that they suddenly came to their senses about the distance after the vote? Like you said, why not pick a different strategy and go with a different bid city earlier on rather than now when it's too late to change course. I'm sure the distance issue was weighing on their minds and this was just the straw that broke the camel's back, but the distance issue was always there. So if we're going to pin this decision on a particular issue, and obviously it stemmed from the vote, I have to imagine that behind closed doors, it was still the money and not the distance that did them in.

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...