Jump to content

Stockholm Opts Out Of 2022 Winter Olympic Bid


Recommended Posts

But one candidate's departure is another city's gain. So no big loss if Sweden bails out. There will be others who will still foot the bill of the IOC party.

Where you have Sweden and Italy pulling out of races, where you have Germany not wanting to enter after coming in 2nd in the last winter vote, and where the USOC seems less than enthused about bidding, those aren't positives. Sweden bailing out is not, in itself, a cause for concern, but it just adds to what could be an escalating problem. Maybe you're right that the IOC needs to find a way to trim costs for the Winter Olympics (although that's easier said than done.. no sliding track means you'd have to lose 3 sports, not just 1), but I don't like the notion that it's okay Sweden drops out because another city/country out there will have the money. I trust the IOC not to make the mistake FIFA did and let an unqualified country offer up nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars to host their event, but at the same time, I'd rather see the IOC figure out a way to make the Olympics affordable for the countries that most deserve to host them, not merely the ones with enough money to foot the bill.

  • Like 1
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

Are had nothing to do with this. The Swedes pulled out because they didn't want to spend right now.

If the distance to Are was the reason, it would have been expressed by the IOC so that future bids like that would also back out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some may have misunderstood my words apparently... :)

I can honestly believe that the IOC and olympism can survive a pull out by Sweden? I can understand that some may have welcomed the idea of a WOG in Sweden favourably but I can hardly understand some of the strange laments I've read here and there.

As for saying it is a very victory, I do confirm that this is, a victory. In terms of victory for the people that were -rightfully I think- underlying the unrealistic face of that bid. Against all those who were, against all odds, supporting this bid without pragmatism or even realism. And who seemingly let their enthusiasm for Sweden take over. But...letting one's heart speak instead one's mind is an easy, and very forgivable mistake.

Besides, I also confirm that , for all those who are attached to the constant development of new and innovative concepts for the olympics, this is indeed a good news. And I'm glad that Sweden has been lucid enough to see some of these elements, which I m sure they did.

I can't really see where there should be any controversy here.

There you go...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some may have misunderstood my words apparently... :)

I can honestly believe that the IOC and olympism can survive a pull out by Sweden? I can understand that some may have welcomed the idea of a WOG in Sweden favourably but I can hardly understand some of the strange laments I've read here and there.

As for saying it is a very victory, I do confirm that this is, a victory. In terms of victory for the people that were -rightfully I think- underlying the unrealistic face of that bid. Against all those who were, against all odds, supporting this bid without pragmatism or even realism. And who seemingly let their enthusiasm for Sweden take over. But...letting one's heart speak instead one's mind is an easy, and very forgivable mistake.

Besides, I also confirm that , for all those who are attached to the constant development of new and innovative concepts for the olympics, this is indeed a good news. And I'm glad that Sweden has been lucid enough to see some of these elements, which I m sure they did.

I can't really see where there should be any controversy here.

There you go...

Okay, that makes more sense, thank you for the clarification.

That said.. I still think to call this a victory and to be cheering this decision is wrong. We don't know what went on behind closed doors, but this seems more about government funding and support than the nature of their technical plans and the distance between Stockholm and Are. If they had never submitted the bid in the first place, maybe then you could have called it a for pragmatism and that the Swedes came to their senses and decided against a bid that they probably didn't believe could succeed. But that's not what happened. They DID submit the bid. It wasn't until a city council vote that they became "lucid enough to see some of these elements" that they had planned on going with anyway. Again, if you want to view this news that it was the concept of the bid that they decided was the problem, I have my doubts about that.

So yea, if you want to call it a victory because the Swedish organizers and a few folks here thought the bid had a chance even though you gave it no chance, fine. But for me, I think it's unfortunate and disappointing that a sports tradition-rich country like Sweden is having this much difficulty putting forth an Olympic bid. I don't consider it good news that they were willing to put forth this bid, even though it was a longshot, and then the city government determined it wasn't financially feasible. That's not something I'd choose to celebrate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So yea, if you want to call it a victory because the Swedish organizers and a few folks here thought the bid had a chance even though you gave it no chance, fine. But for me, I think it's unfortunate and disappointing that a sports tradition-rich country like Sweden is having this much difficulty putting forth an Olympic bid. I don't consider it good news that they were willing to put forth this bid, even though it was a longshot, and then the city government determined it wasn't financially feasible. That's not something I'd choose to celebrate.

Sums it up nicely...I've been curious and also a bit sceptical about the bid, but it would have been interesting how - also as an aspect of pragmatism! - the IOC would have dealt with the distance issue.

Doesn't help if winter sports crazy countries like Sweden, Germany or Switzerland run away only to be replaced by, let's say, Azerbaijan (they have skiing areas too apparently), Kazakhstan or China because they'll be willing to "foot the bill" no matter what.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't an "unrealistic" bid. It just wasn't the normal, compact little bid that we have seen in the past. No one disputed that the distance to Are wasn't a problem. But it wasn't an unworkable problem. The IOC could have said "OK, you have 200 athletes in a different town, we can work with that this time". The games have flexibility. But the IOC could have also said "NO, too far" and I think everyone would have accepted that. After all, in a race of six cities, five aren't going to make it.

I mean, we have all sorts of other ideas around that are just as "unrealistic". The long discussed off-season Southern Hemisphere Winter Games in Santiago, Mendoza or Christchurch. Pancake flat Finland proposing to host the 2006 Games. The Games returning to a tiny village. And then the most unrealistic Winter Games of all...the one's were going to see next month.

But I know...there are all these folks around here who are bored with the Olympic Games in North America, Scandinavia or Western Europe. And they'd love to see them hosted in Burma, Mozambique or Uzbekistan. Yet the horrible irony is that as the Games get bigger and bigger with larger price tags and more requirements for media and visitors, it is these New Frontiers that are being proposed as potential host. Paris should lose the massive games of 2024 to Nairobi because they already hosted the puny Games of 1900 and 1924? It just seems so funny to me.

Edited by Kenadian
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, I also confirm that , for all those who are attached to the constant development of new and innovative concepts for the olympics, this is indeed a good news. And I'm glad that Sweden has been lucid enough to see some of these elements, which I m sure they did.

I can't really see where there should be any controversy here.

I can't see how you reconcile that statement. Surely, if you were "attached to the constant development of new and innovative concepts for the olympics" this is not the bid to be cheering its death. If you are looking at a flexible approach for how an Olympics can be hosted in a way that opens up the possibility for a wider number o possible applicants from more aspiring and fresh new locations, Stockholm's and Krakow's are the ones to back.

Few here would probably be as keen on wishing for Sweden to host a WOGs than me. And, yes, I supported the bid. But I was never confident in it. More cautiously hopeful. I was reserving judgment on its chances till the applicants report and the candidate list. But beyond that, even if it only made it as far as the candidate stage but missed out in the final vote, it would have been a good indication that the IOC executive was open to exploring "new and innovative concepts for the Olympics" to make it possible to more widely share the possibility of hosting the games. For that reason alone, beyond my emotional attachment to a Swedish games, I was wishing this concept some support and success.

It leaves me hoping now for Oslo, as an antidote to the widespread cynicism the games now seem to be regarded with in most reliable democratic countries, or Krakow, as a new frontier with some innovative and flexible thinking in its plans to show that to host a games you don't need to be straight-jacketed in some fixed template, that in some quarters here would comprise: must be as compact as possible in city with a mountain behind it for visuals, produce colourful support documents, in a country where the government is prepared to run roughshod over financial, political, social or environmental concerns and spend whatever it takes - and then throw in some more - to mount as grandiose a party as possible for two weeks.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before, and I'll say it again...the Winter Games have two major requirements that for some are obstacles and others are flat out rule them out: natural and consistent snow conditions and a mountain ski run with a 800 m vertical drop.

Years ago, I saw an interview with Dick Pound where he said that there were only 27 countries that COULD host the Winter Games. We're witnessing the bid cycle for the XXIV Games and so far 12 countries have been awarded the honour. That says two things to me. One is that we're about halfway through that list of 27 so there are some that are clearly stronger than others. The other is that IOC must have done some sort of internal review to determine places on the planet that have the ability or at least the potential to host the Games. Certainly, a flat country like the Netherlands is not on the list and a hot country like Chad is likewise excluded. But Sweden is one country that should be on that list. It is just too bad they didn't win with Ostersund for the 1994 Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now with Stockholm's withdrawal, it's starting to look more & more that this is gonna come down to Oslo & Krakow, with Beijing in the background to pick up the pieces, if one or both of those first two falter in any way shape or form. And Lviv is just done for. Why are they even bothering with the continued political unrest there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before, and I'll say it again...the Winter Games have two major requirements that for some are obstacles and others are flat out rule them out: natural and consistent snow conditions and a mountain ski run with a 800 m vertical drop.

Years ago, I saw an interview with Dick Pound where he said that there were only 27 countries that COULD host the Winter Games. We're witnessing the bid cycle for the XXIV Games and so far 12 countries have been awarded the honour. That says two things to me. One is that we're about halfway through that list of 27 so there are some that are clearly stronger than others. The other is that IOC must have done some sort of internal review to determine places on the planet that have the ability or at least the potential to host the Games. Certainly, a flat country like the Netherlands is not on the list and a hot country like Chad is likewise excluded. But Sweden is one country that should be on that list. It is just too bad they didn't win with Ostersund for the 1994 Games.

Well, I bet we could figure out who a lot of those countries are based on who has bid before and not won. That list includes Kazakhstan, Georgia, Spain, Bulgaria, Finland, Slovakia, Poland. Add Ukraine in this cycle. Unless I'm missing a country somewhere, that means 20 countries have bid for a Winter Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot China...in the current cycle, but also the 2010 cycle with Harbin. That puts it at 22 (when you count China, your list of 8 above, the 12 hosts* and Sweden). Although I'm not sure about Finland. They have the snow and put in a bid for 2006, but they don't have the required 800 m vertical. So the other 5 or 6...maybe a few other Balkan or Eastern European countries? Croatia or Romania? The Southern Hemisphere has three 'wishfuls' (Argentina, Chile & NZ) but I'm not sure if the IOC would ever pull a seasonal change like FIFA might do with Qatar. And I sometime hear people say somethings about the Himalayas or Central Asia, but other than Almaty, they don't seem like they'll be ready for prime time for a long time.

*Austria, Bosnia (Yugoslavia), Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, and the USA

Edited by Kenadian
Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory all the Carpathian countries can host- Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania. And the three Caucasian countries- Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan. Plus the Himalayas- Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal. And by "in theory" I mean topographically.

I suspect we'll see more of the Carpathians making the shortlist in the near future.

Edited by Gangwon
Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory all the Carpathian countries can host- Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania. And the three Caucasian countries- Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan. Plus the Himalayas- Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal. And by "in theory" I mean topographically.

I suspect we'll see more of the Carpathians making the shortlist in the near future.

Not to forget Turkey actually, in the very very long run, but since this ia turning quite theoretical in the discussion anyway...even Iran and North Korea could get a mention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Southern Hemisphere has three 'wishfuls' (Argentina, Chile & NZ) but I'm not sure if the IOC would ever pull a seasonal change like FIFA might do with Qatar.

Well, a month change rather than a seasonal change ^_^

Might it not be advantageous in some TV markets to have the Winter Olympics in July/August?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a month change rather than a seasonal change ^_^

Might it not be advantageous in some TV markets to have the Winter Olympics in July/August?

It's not about the tv schedules its more about the messing with the existing winter sports seasons (skiing world cups and so on)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

As for the kid thing, the two situations you mentioned are not comparable -- as I think you know.

Regarding your second point, I'm under no obligation to defend a point of view I don't hold.

Here's my view: While I like the idea of Games in Sweden, Stockholm was never going to win 2022 due to the distance issue. I think it's wise of them to save themselves the time and expense of bidding. I also think that the IOC needs to start taking note of the number of countries that are opting out of bidding for financial reasons. I think that trend is likely to continue for a while and if the IOC isn't careful they may well paint themselves into a corner. Stockholm's exit benefits all the remaining bidders because there is one less competitor to pick off, but I don't see it as a huge help to any one of them in particular. Oslo still looks like the strongest and safest bid and I don't think Stockholm's departure affects that.

That's really all I have to say about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the kid thing, the two situations you mentioned are not comparable -- as I think you know.

Regarding your second point, I'm under no obligation to defend a point of view I don't hold.

Here's my view: While I like the idea of Games in Sweden, Stockholm was never going to win 2022 due to the distance issue. I think it's wise of them to save themselves the time and expense of bidding. I also think that the IOC needs to start taking note of the number of countries that are opting out of bidding for financial reasons. I think that trend is likely to continue for a while and if the IOC isn't careful they may well paint themselves into a corner. Stockholm's exit benefits all the remaining bidders because there is one less competitor to pick off, but I don't see it as a huge help to any one of them in particular. Oslo still looks like the strongest and safest bid and I don't think Stockholm's departure affects that.

That's really all I have to say about this.

It's probably not comparable, but I do find it ironic that you call me out and talk about my sneering criticisms when I didn't even mention your name. It was Pixie that ascribed that viewpoint to your name and I was just looking for clarification why she was so overjoyed that Stockholm dropped out.

I did see your post earlier about how the IOC should be concerned that big name candidates are dropping out of the race. Certainly don't disagree with that. No question Stockholm was a longshot and they're probably saving themselves a lot of time, effort, and heartache by exiting. It just seems like it would have been wise to make this decision before announcing their candidacy and not having it come down to a city vote over funding. That's why I don't necessarily see this as a positive especially if, as you alluded to, the IOC doesn't take note of their exit. And they might not since there are 5 other candidates out there, albeit certainly not the strongest field of bids.

Okay, so as usual, we seem to generally be in agreement, but it turns into a disagreement based semantics here. Which is what I find ironic and unsurprisingly expected, that you chose to insult me on that basis rather than to debate or discuss the viewpoint I hold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a month change rather than a seasonal change ^_^

Might it not be advantageous in some TV markets to have the Winter Olympics in July/August?

It's not about the tv schedules its more about the messing with the existing winter sports seasons (skiing world cups and so on)

The other issue, aside from the scheduling logistics (which is a lot more difficult to deal with than it is for FIFA and the World Cup).. considering the majority of the world's population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, is that mass of people going to be interested in Winter sport when the weather is at its best, kids aren't in school, and far fewer people are in front of their televisions. To say nothing of the fact that with the World Cup traditionally held in June and July, I sincerely doubt the IOC will be interested in holding the Winter Olympics in such close proximity to the World Cup. Not anytime soon would be my guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other issue, aside from the scheduling logistics (which is a lot more difficult to deal with than it is for FIFA and the World Cup).. considering the majority of the world's population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, is that mass of people going to be interested in Winter sport when the weather is at its best, kids aren't in school, and far fewer people are in front of their televisions.

I agree that people mostly don't want to watch winter sports in summer, but isn't television the primary reason for the summer games to be held in July-August time frame?

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...