Jump to content
Pillan

Stockholm/Åre 2026

Recommended Posts

He did, but how did it work out the last time he tried to tell the IOC what to do?  He still seems to have a tough time accepting that the IOC didn't do what he wanted them to do, and it's not like this is the first time he's mentioned it.

Here's the thing he's glossing over a bit.  It seems pretty likely that the USOC will put Salt Lake forward for a bid in 2030.  I know you're going to continue to tell us that's a bad idea (moreso because he just said it) and that somehow Tahoe dropping out should mean anything for Salt Lake in the grand scheme of things.  Again, it's a valid point that piling a Winter Olympics in 2030 on top of a World Cup and a Summer Olympics (let's not forget though, that's exactly what Brazil did and I don't seem to recall too much bellyaching over corporate sponsorship as a result of those 2 events being so close together).  But even if this is an opinion piece - and there's no questioning that it is - it shouldn't ignore the fact that the USOC and the SLC organizers are targeting 2030 and aren't going to be listening to his advice/suggestion when they're considering that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well gender neutral pronoin RuFF.. sure, that's what the Tahoe folks *said*.  That excuse works a lot easier than "we decided not to bid for the Olympics because we know there's no shot we'll be able to measure up to Salt Lake without spending billions of dollars to build facilities we don't have and don't need."  If the Tahoe really thought they could make an Olympics work beyond 2030, they would have accepted the USOC's invitation and at least stayed in the conversation.  Salt Lake isn't as concerned with that factor because their infrastructure spending will be very minimal, in comparison to the folks from Reno which would likely have to spend a lot of money.

Again, ask yourself the question - and try to look at it objectively - do you think the USOC will bid for the 2030 Olympics?  They don't seem to be phased by the idea that their revenue streams may have to compete with LA.  Plus, less we forget, and your hero brought this up in his piece.. Salt Lake hosted 6 years after Atlanta.  But they were only a couple of votes away from having that be only 2 years.  Which, coincidentally, would have set up the exact same sequence of World Cup - Summer Olympics - Winter Olympics that could happen here.  I'm sure the USOC is not unaware of what they're potentially getting into.  Still seems like they're going to do it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SLC is really the only feasible option in the U.S. for a Winter Olympic bid. To quote some around here, “it’s the L.A. of bids but on the winter side of things”. And considering what the IOC is looking for these days is sustainability, moreso out of necessity though, then the only thing that remains is what year will SLC be hosting. And I’d say that it’ll be sooner rather than much later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

The line between "prediction" and "personal preference" has been so blurred with this man, it's tough to tell which is which.  Why are we supposed to put any stock into the guy who won't stop reminding everyone how he was the first to suggest a double and still feels an incessant need to remind us how he suggested a different order?

Oh geez. Is he still trippin’ on that? I didn’t even bother to read it. I’m sure it’s just another long-winded piece anyway (as they usually are). 

16 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

AA may wind up being right.  But he wasn't the last time.  Maybe his is not the opinion we should be looking for.

Or be accepting it as religion like a certain other poster around here does.

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

He did, but how did it work out the last time he tried to tell the IOC what to do?  He still seems to have a tough time accepting that the IOC didn't do what he wanted them to do, and it's not like this is the first time he's mentioned it.

It’s really sad. He probably needs some counseling or something, cuz he seems to think that he’s part of the EB or something. Like what he says should go, & logic be damned. Sounds like a certain U.S. president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RuFF said:

Perhaps that may be the case. Other factors. 1996 & 1998 are pre 2001. Also, Atlanta was built on the premise of commercializing it like LA. This 2026, 2028, 2030 combo is light years away in terms of how sport is financed, the kind and SIZE of industry it has become, its reach globally, etc. The game has changed, the players have matured and the market may become too saturated. Then there is this. The whole point of a spread out Games in Sweden or Italy is this. To prove a regional system works. To put it into practice and figure out its flaws to make it work so MORE cities will be interested and abled to host the Winter Olympics in the future. If that possibility is opened, where does that leave Salt Lake? It’s LA’s predicament. Nobody wants LA. But then this situation comes around and while it’s not around nothing about LA is good enough (existing venues) until it’s, well... good enough. 

A lot gets made about the bigger picture with the IOC and the implications of picking 1 city over another or 1 type of bid, but I don't think there's as much to that narrative as we want to believe in terms of how the IOC will go about business.

Sweden and Italy aren't trying to prove a point.  Especially Sweden where they put forth Stockholm for 2022 (with Are for the alpine events) and dropped out in part because they didn't think the IOC would accept it.  What changed since 2026?  The IOC lacks options.  It's not because they suddenly became more willing to eager to try out a new concept.  They simply don't have a choice.  And less we forget, Calgary was going offer a regional bid as well.  How'd that work out for them?

This idea that other cities will see a Paris or a Stockholm and suddenly want to try and replicate probably isn't going to play out the way we think.  We're 5 years away from Paris 2024 and 7 years off from whoever hosts 2026.  I don't foresee cities coming out of the woodwork from having seen them in action.  This isn't like the 1970s when the problem was with the cities and their flaws.  Now it's about the IOC and what they're imposing on cities to host the Olympics.  They need to improve upon that moreso than simply having a city like Paris or LA be successful.

As for LA.. :rolleyes::rolleyes:.  Nobody wants them?  Really?  Please tell me you're not back to pushing the idea that LA is some sort of unknown underdog that had to overcome the odds to succeed.  That's ridiculous.

Quote

Personally, I think the ship is sailing on Salt Lake. 

You're alone on a desert island with that opinion.  You think we'll have 1 regional concept bid and suddenly Salt Lake will fall out of favor?  That's also ridiculous.  The IOC isn't going to suddenly shy away from a Salt Lake that because they got 1 regional plan and suddenly have a preference for it.  Sapporo isn't like that.  Whatever Norway puts out there likely won't be like that.  It may open some doors to other cities/countries to offer such a plan, but that in no way shuts the door on everyone else.  Again, same deal here.. the IOC is going to pick what they perceive to be the best bid that's put in front of them.  Not necessarily to prove a point for the future.  And if you're souring on Salt Lake, pretty sure that's coming from the same place where you want Nevada and the Tahoe area to get back in the game.  Sounds like a certain other poster who used to go on for miles and miles about an Olympics in that region.  It may happen at some point in the future.  But I would bet the farm that the next Winter Olympics held in the United States (and probably North America as well) will be hosted by Salt Lake, whenever that winds up being.  I don't see how it could be argued otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 9:31 PM, RuFF said:

Both of you basically called SLC the LA of Winter Olympics, and I agree, it is. For all the reasons you guys think SLC should host I think SLC should host. This is the thing, however. Today, the IOC is in this position. But history has spoken on this subject before and with LA, specifically. LA has been viewed in many circles, including this one here, as the underdog not because it's an underdog as far as it's global status against other major cities, but because it uses existing venues. Existing venues, college dorms, recycled main stadiums, all items that when the Olympic movement has been on a high have been viewed as inferior. The value of existing venues, or the value of the LA's or SLC's of the world, is directly tied to the value of wanting to save money. LA is hosting in 2028.

I don't quite know where to begin here.  Let's try to unravel this.

LA has not been viewed in any circles as an underdog.  You're the only person who thinks that.  Didn't make sense when LA was trying to make their pitch up against Paris.  Doesn't make sense now after they got the IOC to do something completely unprecedented on their behalf.  Plucky underdogs don't get that.

Look at LA's Olympic bid history.  People here make a big deal about how many times they've lost and how they've never won a contested bid.  Is that because LA lacks global status?  Of course not.  Because they use existing venues which are viewed as inferior?  Absolutely not.  When LA was passed over in 1976, it was 100% geopolitical.  Had nothing to do with their venue plan.  For 1980, they were in a bad position because Lake Placid was the only Winter candidate (not entirely unlike the setup that won Barcelona the 1992 Summer Olympics over Paris.. speaking of a time politics played a huge role in determining a winner).  So ask yourself.. when has existing venues, college dorms, or recycled main stadiums been the reason LA has lost?  Never.  It has never happened.  It's a BS narrative and poor attempt at spin.

Quote

2034 is likely to be another world. Especially if 2026 goes off successfully and moves the "theory" of a spread out games Quaker has contested before, into the "practice" of a spread out games. The rules change if this proves successful on a large scale as other places then become viable, and if they become viable with changed rules, they become lucrative. 

And for what it's worth I didn't say Sweden had anything to prove, it's the IOC that has something to prove, and if it does, with Sweden, I don't think we'll be seeing Salt Lake City anytime soon. It'll fall back into the been there, done that category.. or the "it's been too soon." 

2034 is likely to be another world from 2028?  LA got an Olympics handed to them because of all the reasons you're trying to tell us their bid is viewed as inferior.  Again, that's nonsense.  Take their 2028 bid and drop it into the field of candidates from 1996 (and pretend for a sec that LA hadn't just hosted 12 years earlier).  Do they win?  Pretty good chance they do.  LA got their Olympics because they offered a cost-effective plan.  Like you said, Salt Lake is like LA in that regard.  So how is it that the IOC was willing to make a deal to get LA 4 years early but that Salt Lake is too soon?

The IOC is not looking for spread out, more regional Olympics.  They're only looking at that now because there are no other options.  It's not a case of the IOC trying to prove that this concept works to offer an example to other potential host cities.  If it works with either Sweden or Italy, that's great for the IOC.  But it doesn't necessarily mean they'll get the same results elsewhere.  Especially when we have Calgary which looked at that prospect and then decided it wasn't worth it for them.

Most importantly and your boy mentioned it in his piece..  The last Winter Olympics held in North America was in 2010.  There will have been 2 Winter Olympics in Asia since then and likely 2 Winter Olympics in Europe following that.  Is the IOC really that eager to return to Asia again for 2030?  If Sapporo does get chosen for 2030, wouldn't be a nice financial incentive for NBC or whoever wins the next round of U.S. TV rights to have the first Olympics of the new contract in the United States?  Can Canada pick themselves up off the mat to big again, and even if they do, wouldn't that be too soon?

There's only 2 countries on this continent that can host a Winter Olympics.  Sooner rather than later, they'll want to come back here for a Winter Olympics.  If not Salt Lake, then where else?  Pretty good bet they're going to bid and keep bidding until they win it.  It's exactly the kind of bid the IOC would love to have because they're likely to offer a well-run Olympics without exorbitant costs.  Let's see a spread out games compete in a contest against a non-spread out games.  I think I know who is winning that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been here in months but my god it's like i never left. It's like the same people are spewing the same comments over and over again. 

There is no way in hell LA is viewed as an underdog in any way unless English is your 2nd language and you don't know wtf the definition of underdog is. There was a period where IOC favored new markets over old markets because more cities/regions were willing to take on the financial risk without having as much public outcry over the budget. Those days are long gone. 

And why are we still quoting alan abramson on here? I thought he was an obnoxious twat that promotes his own warped opinions rather than actually promote facts? I know very well what trash FOX "news" spews so i don't go out quoting them for anything unless I'm using it to bash them lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Most importantly and your boy mentioned it in his piece..  The last Winter Olympics held in North America was in 2010.  There will have been 2 Winter Olympics in Asia since then and likely 2 Winter Olympics in Europe following that.  Is the IOC really that eager to return to Asia again for 2030?  If Sapporo does get chosen for 2030, wouldn't be a nice financial incentive for NBC or whoever wins the next round of U.S. TV rights to have the first Olympics of the new contract in the United States?  Can Canada pick themselves up off the mat to big again, and even if they do, wouldn't that be too soon?

There's only 2 countries on this continent that can host a Winter Olympics.  Sooner rather than later, they'll want to come back here for a Winter Olympics.  If not Salt Lake, then where else?  Pretty good bet they're going to bid and keep bidding until they win it.  It's exactly the kind of bid the IOC would love to have because they're likely to offer a well-run Olympics without exorbitant costs.  Let's see a spread out games compete in a contest against a non-spread out games.  I think I know who is winning that one.

Well, going by all of this logic, further illustrates why a(nother) double is still quite possible this summer then! Sweden is still iffy, so Milan 2026 & SLC 2030!! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

And why are we still quoting alan abramson on here? I thought he was an obnoxious twat that promotes his own warped opinions rather than actually promote facts?

:lol::lol: There’s only ONE certain other poster around here that recites AA’s mumbo-jumbo as gospel. The rest of us who actually like some objectivity know better than to listen to him lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

I haven't been here in months but my god it's like i never left. It's like the same people are spewing the same comments over and over again. 

There is no way in hell LA is viewed as an underdog in any way unless English is your 2nd language and you don't know wtf the definition of underdog is. There was a period where IOC favored new markets over old markets because more cities/regions were willing to take on the financial risk without having as much public outcry over the budget. Those days are long gone. 

And why are we still quoting alan abramson on here? I thought he was an obnoxious twat that promotes his own warped opinions rather than actually promote facts? I know very well what trash FOX "news" spews so i don't go out quoting them for anything unless I'm using it to bash them lol

He still is an obnoxious twat that promotes his own warped opinions rather than actually promote facts.  And so is Abrahamson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh, the Winter Olympics are *not* officially referred to as the “Winter Olympiad”. ‘Olympiad’ is only reserved for the Summer Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuFF said:

This is the point Quaker missed or doesnt value. IMO, that phrase could have been used in 1980 and we all know how that turned out. History is a great source of reference, and that was precisely what I was referencing. Today LA and SLC’s models work, tomorrow we don’t know. Atlanta tried to be an LA in terms of its private, commercial model and the IOC hated it and went for the cities that were willing to saddle themselves with debt and rotting venues instead for the following 2 decades. If the IOC proves successful with this model, weather it’s good for the IOC or not in the long term as Quaker has rightfully noted, it won’t matter if the IOC doesn’t “need” that kind of bid because cities who share these kinds of regional opportunities will come forward. It will no longer be theory, pie in the sky, or unimaginable. As far as Alan Abrahamson I started saying Sweden and a possible departure for SLC because I referenced this history point. Alan posted his article after I had already discussed this on this thread. I am not saying I am more informed, it was just a point I ran into and shared with the thread.

There's no "model" to hosting an Olympics.  What works in 1 city doesn't necessarily mean it will work elsewhere.  That's why it needs to be stressed that no city - not LA or Stockholm or anyone else - can or should attempt to set a template for others to follow.  There are certainly lessons to be learned, and sometimes the execution isn't there.  LA was America's chance to celebrate a Summer Olympics at the height of the cold war (and coming 4 years after the Miracle on Ice defeat of the Soviets) when it hadn't been here in more than half a century.  Then Atlanta comes along only 12 years later, yes pushed the envelope of commercialization was too far, and was never going to measure up.  The IOC's choice of host city has always been a function of what cities bid and what's available to them.  It has rarely been about a preference towards a specific type of Olympics or a certain "model" as you put it.

More than that.. history is a great source of reference, but only if it is put into the proper context.  It has been discussed here before.  What happened with the Olympic movement in the 60s and 70s was the fault of the host cities (demonstrations in Mexico City, a terrorist attack in Munich due to lax security, and enormous debt in Montreal due to poor management).  That cities started coming back into the fold wasn't because LA has a successful model that could be replicated.  It simply demonstrated that a city could host an Olympics without issues or controversies.

These days, the problem isn't the cities.  It's dealing with the IOC.  That we have 2 somewhat similar bids (regional in concept, reliant heavily on existing infrastructure) isn't an indicator that's where we should look towards future bids for.  That's not how it works.  We don't know if there are other cities/countries who might offer plans like these in the future.  It still requires having venues already in place.  France already has Paris `24 on the calendar.  Germany seems like they're probably going to pursue a Summer Olympics.  Who knows about countries like Switzerland and Austria.  Don't assume that if the 2026 Olympics go well (wherever they are), that other countries will see that and say "hey, we can do that."  And even if that happens, they'd have to start planning a bid before 2026, or else they're looking at 2034 at the earliest.

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

And facts aren’t promoted, they’re just facts. It’s a fact that nobody wanted to host in 1984, and it’s a fact that after cities wanted to host. It’s a fact that cities don’t want to host now. Would a city want to host if Stockholm unlocks the door to a sustainable, private, European Games? And what happens when the list of potential hosts increases to reflect this. Sure, you have SLC. But how many metro/mountain combos would suddenly see the limelight? 

What happens if it doesn't?  What if metro/mountain combos don't suddenly see the limelight?  It's not a pretty picture when it comes to getting cities interested in hosting the Olympics.  It could be awhile before that changes and even if Stockholm does manage to pull it off, that's a big assumption that others would be able to do the same.  Just because it works in 1 place doesn't mean it would work in another.  Certainly not without the right plan and the right support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuFF said:

I used any major metro California-Tahoe as an example and Lake Placid / Boston or New York. That’s just the US though. I could see a successful Stockholm-Are bid easily emboldening regions that would have not thought they were fit for hosting a Winter Olympiad suddenly thinking they’re fit for a Winter Olympiad, and just like that, SLC becomes “too soon” or “been there, done that.” New Markets, new reach sound familiar? And let’s not forget, SLC holds this unique position today because it’s the only city that wants to host. How would that change if it no longer wasn’t? Same story as LA. 

Bullshit.  It's not going to happen.  The USOC thought that way in picking Boston over LA.  How'd that work out for them?  Salt Lake is not the only city that's interested.  Tahoe was, but they realized they wouldn't be able to compete with Salt Lake.  Why would Boston or New York (both cities with failed Olympic bids in fairly recent memory) want to attempt to beat out Salt Lake, a city that has everything they need without having to resort to a regional concept.  That's a major plus for them no matter how hard you want to try to paint it as a minus.  To that end..

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Oh, and let’s not forget. LA2028 contractually owns the right to marketing until 2028. Both LA and SLC are private bids. Who in their right mind would want to lose money on purpose? Would you take that bet? I bet you would to win your argument but you wouldn’t if it were your own cash.

 

Sure seems like those guys with their cash seem to think they can do it.  You are correct when you bring up marketing and sponsorship rights which a 2030 bid would have to work around.  So.. do you think they just haven't thought about it yet?  Nearing 2 years since LA was awarded the 2028 Olympics (and a year since the United bid won the 2026 World Cup), do you actually believe they're not considering those factors?  It's really ignorant to look at Tahoe dropping out of the running and assuming that Salt Lake will suffer a similar fate.  They're still full steam ahead.  And not for a generic future Olympics.  At some point, they and the USOC will need to work together in other to plan for a 2030 bid.  Certainly possible they look at the particulars and decide it's not a smart move.  It is crystal clear that the SLC folks have their sights set on 2030.  The USOC may feel the same way.  If I'm a betting man, I would expect the USOC to bid for 2030 with Salt Lake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RuFF said:

Oh, I’d take that bet against you, too. 

SLC may be all for it, I’m sure. LA2028, not so much. Even if SLC could turn a surplus and be a good 2030 host, you mention how SLC is ready to spend money. What you didn’t mention was weather the investors in LA2028 were prepared to spend money, too, and for no benefit. 

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

It also doesn’t cover if California Tax Payers are comfortable being the guarantor of the LA2028 bid while the IOC, specifically, saves itself and places the risk on the taxpayers to also take in SLc. That’s certainly a road the IOC wants to travel, right? The answer is no. It’s not going to be happening. There is zero history of it in the Olympics and I would bet as soon as a material change like that is made California and LA would stop backing the awarded games. As a matter of fact the material change is so much, LA could just cancel the games. There is history here, refer to the NFL. 

Oy.. this is trending into "insufferable" territory right now.  LA could just cancel the games?  No, that's not a thing that could happen.  That's an idle threat if I've ever seen one.

I know you want to act like everything about the Olympic movement over the next 9 years is going to revolve around LA's wants and needs, but it doesn't work that way no matter how many times you say it.  If the USOC and Salt Lake want to bid for 2030, yes they'll need to work with the LA organizers to figure out financial issues, but they do NOT explicitly need LA's permission to bid.  Nor can LA stop them from bidding.  They sure as sh!t can't threaten to cancel the games as some sort of leverage.

LA2028 assumed a certain level of risk in bidding for the Olympics and then agreeing to host 2028.  The USOC and IOC are not obligated to protect them from things becoming slightly more risky.  The IOC gets to decide whether or not that's a road they want to go down.  LA2028 doesn't get to decide that.  It may very well happen, and the "there is zero history" line carries no weight.  Calfornia and Los Angeles are fully committed to backing the Olympics.  That's not going to change even if the USOC decides to bid for a Winter Olympics.

And what history with the NFL are you referring to?  There is nothing about any of this that warrants a mention of the history of pro football in LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see how some of these ideas have grown within your own head to where you actually believe these things are accurate and you don't know any better.  Not sure if that makes you a troll or just really dumb.

Nothing short of a natural disaster or some sort of unthinkable catastrophe can prevent Los Angeles from hosting the Olympics.  Salt Lake 2030 does not qualify as an unthinkable catastrophe.  You can't honestly think think that Salt Lake would get elected as host of 2030 Olympics and that LA in response would say "screw that, we're not hosting the Olympics anymore."  Let alone that they would have some legal recourse to do so.  Wait.. you do honestly believe that.  Congratulations, you have performed inception on yourself and convinced yourself such a thing is possible.

Have you actually seen the Memorandum of Understanding?  I'm guessing you haven't.  You know who isn't a part of that memorandum?  The IOC.  Unless you're talking about a separate MoU with Paris 2024 that has nothing to do with finances.  The one you're likely referring to is between the LA OCOG, the city of Los Angeles, and the USOC.  The IOC is not a part of it.  So let's dive in here..

CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE 2028 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES

First thing to note is that this was done in August of 2017, prior to the IOC's official announcement of LA as host of 2028 (even though that was the plan).  Part of the reasoning behind it was to protect themselves with any and all changes that might be occurring in changing the 2024 bid to 2028.  Not to mention all the concessions LA was getting from the IOC for that move, to make sure that cash wound up in the right place.  The MoU does address insurance and financial risk.  It does NOT specifically protect the city against conflicts of interest from the IOC.  The host city contract does NOT give the host city some sort of legal authority to back out if things become slightly move risky and difficult there.  They don't have that kind of leverage.  That's completely false no matter of how certain of your own bullshit you are.  No, the MoU did not in any way secure marketing rights.  What it guarantees is a more formal working arrangement between the city, the organizing committee, and the USOC.  There's nothing in there that prevents the USOC from going out and bidding for the 2030 Olympics and, should they win, working with SLC 2030.

And yes, here's that link.. Host City Contract - Principles

Would absolutely love for you to go into that document and show us all where there's language where LA2028 or the city of Los Angeles could or would back out of their agreement (everyone signs a host city contract.. not like LA is the first to do so).  5 years out from the Olympics and they would say "sorry guys, we're not doing it?"  Do you have any idea the kind of black mark that would leave on the city of LA and the USOC?  THAT, unlike Salt Lake 2030, is a non-starter. 

But go ahead and keep convincing yourself it can't happen because the entire world needs to revolve around LA as if they're the only Olympic host that has ever mattered.  It's telling that you've gone from saying it's unlikely to digging in further and now resort to hyperbole that it's less likely than Almaty.  GamesBids has taught you well.  You're that guy in an argument who thinks by yelling your point more angrily, somehow that makes it more true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely LUV it when a certain other poster’s absurdities ultimately get muffled lmfao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gouverment says YES to Olympic games 2026 in Stockholm/Åre. They support this bid.

 

https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/a/QoJvGJ/regeringen-sager-ja-till-vinter-os-2026

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just like that, this bid race got much more interesting now. Guess the IOC must be sighing in relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not a big sigh, though. But a cautious one. Like I said in the Milan thread, the IOC in the past, didn’t want to take the Games where less than 65% of the population didn’t support it. Sweden still falls quite a bit below that benchmark at 55%. Milan, OTHO, enjoys overwhelming support at 85%, which is a great #. 

But beggars can’t be choosers anymore. Gotta take what you can get, but that low support could still be a risk. But maybe we could still have “less losers” in this race, too! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FYI said:

Maybe not a big sigh, though. But a cautious one. Like I said in the Milan thread, the IOC in the past, didn’t want to take the Games where less than 65% of the population didn’t support it. Sweden still falls quite a bit below that benchmark at 55%. Milan, OTHO, enjoys overwhelming support at 85%, which is a great #. 

But beggars can’t be choosers anymore. Gotta take what you can get, but that low support could still be a risk. But maybe we could still have “less losers” in this race, too! :lol:

At least they avoid another dropout, so they save themselves the optics of having to deal with that again, especially this late in the game where it would have left them with only 1 city remaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange how the IOC has gone from a vote they couldn’t pick right whatever they did, to a vote they can’t get wrong whatever they do. I bet they wish Milan had found all this support 4 years earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55% is fairly tepid support (wasn't Oslo's similar?) There was a no Olympics faction in Stockholm as well. They were saying Calgary would be a better option. How long before that group becomes active again? There's a lot to like about the Stockholm bid for the IOC, but playing the what if card here, what if Stockholm is awarded the games and a referendum gets called and Stockholm suffers the same fate as Denver did in 1976? Does the IOC then figure we gives the 2026 WOGs to Milan (while I think their support is higher than Stockholm's I highly doubt it is as high as 85%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 1:17 PM, stryker said:

55% is fairly tepid support (wasn't Oslo's similar?) There was a no Olympics faction in Stockholm as well. They were saying Calgary would be a better option. How long before that group becomes active again? There's a lot to like about the Stockholm bid for the IOC, but playing the what if card here, what if Stockholm is awarded the games and a referendum gets called and Stockholm suffers the same fate as Denver did in 1976? Does the IOC then figure we gives the 2026 WOGs to Milan (while I think their support is higher than Stockholm's I highly doubt it is as high as 85%)

There's definitely cause for concern in that regard with Stockholm and it could absolutely shift a couple of votes in the direction of Milan.  But it can't be so simplistic as "well, they could be Denver 2.0 and suffer the same fate."  The IOC needs to have more foresight than that.  There's more to the story of Denver then simply that they rejected hosting the Olympics and we tend to lost sight of that here when throw out the "R" word as a boogeyman for potential Olympic bidders.  Because it's a much different story once a city has already been awarded an Olympics than trying to prevent a bid from happening in the first place.

So let's say Stockholm wins the vote.  How exactly could it come to pass that Stockholm attempts to reject the games?  Again, the answer to that question is much more complicated than the word "referendum."  What happened with Denver doesn't provide a template for other cities to follow.  It took a certain sequence of events (and an element of poor management) that killed the Denver Olympics.  Very little, if any of that, would relate to Stockholm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2019 at 8:03 PM, Quaker2001 said:

 

So let's say Stockholm wins the vote.  How exactly could it come to pass that Stockholm attempts to reject the games?  Again, the answer to that question is much more complicated than the word "referendum."  What happened with Denver doesn't provide a template for other cities to follow.  It took a certain sequence of events (and an element of poor management) that killed the Denver Olympics.  Very little, if any of that, would relate to Stockholm.

I realize the circumstances between the events that led to Denver's withdrawal do not entirely apply to Stockholm. My point is what if Stockholm is awarded the WOGs and the No Olympics crowd rears their heads again with the same arguments they have used before (mostly focusing on the budget) but take it a step further and start targeting some of these newly elected officials for going along with the bid in the first place. Public support drops then those officials are faced with a choice, continue with a project that grows unpopular with the voters or tell the IOC no thank and give it up. Sure it'd be a stain between Sweden and the IOC but elections have shown that politicians that push forward projects that are not popular with the public at large have recently been pounded at the ballot box, but as I said before, this is all hypothetical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, stryker said:

I realize the circumstances between the events that led to Denver's withdrawal do not entirely apply to Stockholm. My point is what if Stockholm is awarded the WOGs and the No Olympics crowd rears their heads again with the same arguments they have used before (mostly focusing on the budget) but take it a step further and start targeting some of these newly elected officials for going along with the bid in the first place. Public support drops then those officials are faced with a choice, continue with a project that grows unpopular with the voters or tell the IOC no thank and give it up. Sure it'd be a stain between Sweden and the IOC but elections have shown that politicians that push forward projects that are not popular with the public at large have recently been pounded at the ballot box, but as I said before, this is all hypothetical.

It's a hypothetical, but it's one based on the organizers waking up one morning and deciding they don't want to host the Olympics anymore after they already agreed to host the Olympics.  It's not going to be as simple as public support dropping and the organizers coming to a sudden realization.  You're skipping ahead to where that's already happened and say "it'd be a stain," but wouldn't that be cause to NOT make that decision in the first place?  I just can't envision the issue of public support (which isn't exactly that high right now) being the breaking point that would compel them to tell the IOC no thank you.  There would have to be something more than that.

And in reference to Denver, here's some good reading for you.. 'Colorado Would Be Laughing Stock of the World': Remembering Denver's Disastrous 1976 Olympic Bid

The simple view of history is that it was NIMBY-ism and backlash from environmentalists that got the games cancelled.  That's largely true, but it ignores the efforts of the Denver organizers who promised the host the games on a laughably small budget and were piss poor and planning the games.  The result was massive changes to the venue plan which led to skyrocketing rockets and emboldened the Olympic opposition movement.  In that regard, it's not unlike Boston's 2024 bid which made promises they weren't going to be able to keep, so it was easy for anti-Olympics movement to make the case against them.

So back to Stockholm.  Seems like they're well managed.  They have a plan that doesn't require much new construction.  Most importantly, there is a good amount of private financing.  So what case to the citizens of Stockholm and Sweden have to oppose it?  If it's just a general anti-Olympics sentiment, is that going to mean much for the organizers who obviously remain committed to the effort and certainly wouldn't back down anytime after Bach opens the envelope that says "Stockholm" on it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×