Jump to content
GBModerator

At Last Hour, Swedish Prime Minister Confirms Support For Stockholm Åre 2026 Winter Olympic Bid

Recommended Posts

Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfvén Friday met an International Olympic Committee (IOC) deadline requiring government Olympic bid guarantees, by sending a letter to IOC President Thomas Bach. Löfvénès letter officially confirms his nation’s support of the proposed Stockholm Åre 2026 Winter Olympics that had been announced by culture minister Amanda Lind Tuesday.  Along with a […]

The post At Last Hour, Swedish Prime Minister Confirms Support For Stockholm Åre 2026 Winter Olympic Bid appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I’m wondering is there is another double coming. 

And what do you suppose that double would be?  Because I've asked a certain other poster about that one and he doesn't seem to have a solid answer.  He just likes to bring up the idea that it's possible (and when it inevitably doesn't happen, will tell us "I never said it was definitely going to happen").  I'm curious to hear how you think this could play out.

The slim chances of the IOC entertaining a double largely got thrown out the window when both of their 2026 candidates confirmed they're staying in it.  Far from impossible that changes in the next 2 months before the vote, but if they make it to June, it's hard to envision any scenario other than a head to head vote to determine the 2026 winner and that's it.  I've said it for months that maybe depending on how circumstances played out, it might be possible.  Those odds haven't changed IMO.

There's no good reason for the IOC to decide to make this pair a 2026/2030.  This is not the hand that the IOC was dealt for 2024, so there's no need to approach it the same way.  And I think it would be extremely foolish of the IOC to do so.

Share this post


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

I’m wondering is there is another double coming. 

I can concur with this. But of course a certain other (know-it-all) poster, who enjoys to play devil’s advocate all the time (& thinks that they have an “inevitable” Olympic crystal ball) & dismisses everything with a simplistic “he just likes to bring up the idea that it’s possible”, but does the same exact thing but in the opposite effect bcuz, well, that’s what playing devil’s advocate is. He was gloating when it was thought when Milan was out, but when in fact they weren’t, he had nothing left to say.

But I don’t see how both Milan & Stockholm finally confirming that they’re staying in now makes it a “thrown out the window of it happening”. For 2024 all we had was two candidates left too. Even if Stockholm hadn’t committed, we still had SLC in the background as well. What better but two confirm two Western European Winter Olympics now that the IOC so desperately wants & needs (especially after Sochi & two Asian Winter Olympics). How could that be “no good reason to do it”. How would that be “extremely foolish” to do after the roller coaster ride the IOC has been experiencing with cities dropping out like flies from the past few bid races. A (winter) double would again create “less losers” & stability on the winter side of things. And perhaps that’s why the Swedish gov’t finally decided to come onboard, perhaps possibly anticipating something of the same scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mountainboarder_530@yahoo. said:

I know its water under the bridge at this point, but Stockholm could have literally done this for 2022 and been heroes.  Now we gotta suffer through beijing.  2022 stockholm, 2026 Cortina/Milan, 2030 SLC would have looked like a beautiful lineup.  

Be careful where you're trying to retcon history like that.  Let's say Stockholm hung in there and won 2022.  Tough to tell who's in the 2026 race at that point.  Who knows if we get the Italy bid.  And perhaps Beijing seems less unappealing without immediately following PyeongChang and Tokyo.

Share this post


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

I can concur with this. But of course a certain other (know-it-all) poster, who enjoys to play devil’s advocate all the time (& thinks that they have an “inevitable” Olympic crystal ball) & dismisses everything with a simplistic “he just likes to bring up the idea that it’s possible”, but does the same exact thing but in the opposite effect bcuz, well, that’s what playing devil’s advocate is. He was gloating when it was thought when Milan was out, but when in fact they weren’t, he had nothing left to say.

But I don’t see how both Milan & Stockholm finally confirming that they’re staying in now makes it a “thrown out the window of it happening”. For 2024 all we had was two candidates left too. Even if Stockholm hadn’t committed, we still had SLC in the background as well. What better but two confirm two Western European Winter Olympics now that the IOC so desperately wants & needs (especially after Sochi & two Asian Winter Olympics). How could that be “no good reason to do it”. How would that be “extremely foolish” to do after the roller coaster ride the IOC has been experiencing with cities dropping out like flies from the past few bid races. A (winter) double would again create “less losers” & stability on the winter side of things. And perhaps that’s why the Swedish gov’t finally decided to come onboard, perhaps possibly anticipating something of the same scale. 

No, I'm standing firm on this one rather than being wishy-washy and entertaining the idea there's another double coming.  And as usual, not saying it's going to happen but making a vague case for why it could happen.  It's the kind of random ideas that come from this site when people over-think things.  "Hey, it happened last time, so let's talk about it maybe happening here."

Once again, every time it gets brought up, no one can articulate how or why it would happen.  Just the same empty rhetoric about "stability."  Not a peep about how the IOC would alter the trajectory of this vote or how to make a deal with 2 cities/countries.  Never a real cause for it.  Nothing more than "bcuz"

And LOL @ devil's advocate.  I'm not opposing you for the sake of opposing you.  I've held the same opinion this whole entire time because I think you're opinion (and same thing with anyone else who is talking about a double).  But if anyone wants to see what playing devil's advocate actually looks like, let's recap..

On 4/5/2019 at 6:24 PM, FYI said:

I would be extremely surprised at this point if Sweden pulled out all their cards for this. The Swedish gov’t two years ago said that they weren’t interested & that they wanted no part of it, & it looks like they still aren’t. That was the case with 2022, too. It’s the SOC that’s been stubbornly keeping this bid in the limelight.

To be fair, that caught a lot of us by surprise.  Some folks were really eager to jump on the news as if it's "zzzzOMG, this changes everything I thought about Sweden's bid!"  But then, as you have reminded us a couple of times..  

On 4/11/2019 at 2:28 PM, 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:

So let's see if I have this one straight.  A week ago, Sweden's bid was in real danger of not making to the finish line.  Now they have the government behind them, but public support is still shaky.  How is it that in another thread, you're saying be cautious about Sweden, but here it's "what better than to confirm them!"  THAT, sports fans, is playing devil's advocate.  You yourself give us a good reason not to do it and why it would be foolish.  Good for Sweden (yes, I dropped a "good for" in there just for you:D) that the government is finally supporting the bid.  Maybe let's not expect the IOC to take that news and immediately jump to "we have to give you an Olympics right now."  Bcuz stability. 

What happens if that support level drops.  Is that what the IOC desperately wants and needs?  To deal with a less than fully supported Olympics.  That potentially creates an even bigger problem than they have now.  That was never a concern with Paris or LA.  If Stockholm doesn't get 2026, will they still want to host 2030?  No one had to question that for a split second about LA.

Plus.. do you really think the Swedish government came on board because they're anticipating a double?  Because that sounds an awful lot like a devil's advocate argument for the sake of fitting your narrative.  Funny how you're first bringing that up here and not elsewhere.  Isn't the simpler explanation that they're supporting the bid because the alternative was to let it proceed without support and risking embarrassment for the country and outrage from their citizens?

If you and others want to continue to throw this idea around, fine.  But I still think it's really fucking stupid.  Thank you for the crystal ball line.. as if I'm trying to predict something that doesn't have an extraordinarily high probability of happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, “good for you” that you’re “standing ‘firm’ on this one”. As if that’s suppose to mean anything around here. :rolleyes: And if I’m playing devils advocate now, according to you, it’s BCUZ :lol: I had a very good teacher here for it. :P Empty rhetoric? Pot meet kettle! You’re like no. two here for that. And we both know who no. one is! :lol:

But the very fact that the Swedish gov’t, at the very last hour, has come out & said that they’re now supporting the bid (which even by your own admission took everyone by surprise) changes the whole dynamic of the 2026 process. So not taking that into account now is NOT being “wishy-washy” nor is it playing devils advocate. It’s actually taking into account a MAJOR factor that has JUST now come into play. 

Yes, I absolutely agree that the low-level support is an issue for Sweden (a pretty big one, I’d say) but it’s the IOC that is soooooo gung-ho about Sweden that they seem to be willing to give/do anything for the Stockholm bid, like extending the guarantee deadline for them not just once, but even willing to give them ‘til Election Day to hand them over if the Swedes hadn’t met the April 12th deadline. Plus, as you always like to say; someone still has to host 2026.

We now have, two top & powerful NOC’s & lobbyists each on their own behave, that want to bring this whole thing home. But which one is the IOC willing to disappoint now? A conundrum that seems very parallel between the USOC & the French OC for 2024, in an era where almost everybody else has fled the bidding scene. 

Yeah, I also agree that Stockholm & Milan are not Paris & L.A. But the former two I think are as good as the IOC is gonna get in Europe right now considering everything else. Is there a risk? Of course there is. But isn’t there always. That was certainly the concern for Paris & L.A. even though hindsight is always 20/20, isn’t it. Stability may be too simplistic for you, but I’m sure it would mean a heck of a lot for the IOC these days & they’re the ones that matter here.

And for the umpteeth time, I’m not trying to “predict” anything. You’re the one with your “near-zero” & “inevitable” garbage. And that’s what’s “fucking stupid”, when you just wanna run around here like your opinion is the be-all & end-all of things Olympic. Sounds like a certain so-called la la land columnist that gets ‘parroted’ around here. And if not Stockholm, then there’s always SLC in the background! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, FYI said:

Well, “good for you” that you’re “standing ‘firm’ on this one”. As if that’s suppose to mean anything around here. :rolleyes: And if I’m playing devils advocate now, according to you, it’s BCUZ :lol: I had a very good teacher here for it. :P Empty rhetoric? Pot meet kettle! You’re like no. two here for that. And we both know who no. one is! :lol:

But the very fact that the Swedish gov’t, at the very last hour, has come out & said that they’re now supporting the bid (which even by your own admission took everyone by surprise) changes the whole dynamic of the 2026 process. So not taking that into account now is NOT being “wishy-washy” nor is it playing devils advocate. It’s actually taking into account a MAJOR factor that has JUST now come into play. 

Yes, it is a very big deal for 2026.  I know that.  I know you know that.  Still, to talk about risk and caution in another thread and then be "soooooo gung-ho" about them here is the definition of being wishy-washy and playing devil's advocate.  Especially here in the context of talking about a double because it's a clear reaction to someone else (and especially that someone being me B)) saying no about a double.  The IOC now has 2 committed candidates to choose from for 2026 which is a very welcome turn of events for them.  It's not going to lead to them suddenly saying "you know what.. let's give one of them 2026 and the other 2030."

45 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yes, I absolutely agree that the low-level support is an issue for Sweden (a pretty big one, I’d say) but it’s the IOC that is soooooo gung-ho about Sweden that they seem to be willing to give/do anything for the Stockholm bid, like extending the guarantee deadline for them not just once, but even willing to give them ‘til Election Day to hand them over if the Swedes hadn’t met the April 12th deadline. Plus, as you always like to say; someone still has to host 2026.

And now they have 2 much more serious someones to choose from.  That doesn't mean it's going to lead to choosing 2030 now as opposed to 4 years from now.  Looks like it was a smart move on the part of the IOC to wait out Sweden and hope they'd give support.  Now they have, but does it make sense to take that news of support and decide to make a deal with them?  I could see a case for that if it wasn't for an issue of the support level.  We've still got people here questioning if they'll pull a Denver.  I don't think that's necessarily a huge threat, but like you said, it's a cause for caution.  If the Sweden bid wins a vote, then it's less of an issue.  But it doesn't strike me as the kind of situation where the smart move is to make a deal with them behind closed doors.

52 minutes ago, FYI said:

We now have, two top & powerful NOC’s & lobbyists each on their own behave, that want to bring this whole thing home. But which one is the IOC willing to disappoint now? A conundrum that seems very parallel between the USOC & the French OC for 2024, in an era where almost everybody else has fled the bidding scene. 

Yeah, I also agree that Stockholm & Milan are not Paris & L.A. But the former two I think are as good as the IOC is gonna get in Europe right now considering everything else. Is there a risk? Of course there is. But isn’t there always. That was certainly the concern for Paris & L.A. even though hindsight is always 20/20, isn’t it. Stability may be too simplistic for you, but I’m sure it would mean a heck of a lot for the IOC these days & they’re the ones that matter here.

2 issues with that parallel, though..

1) Paris had lost multiple times, including the most infamous one where the election was all but rigged against them.  The USOC had recently bid twice and lost, so this would have been 3 in a row for them.  Italy and Sweden haven't lost bids.  They've pulled out before they got there.  So they don't necessarily get to play the same kind of "we're not bidding again after this if we lose" card that we talked about with Paris and LA.  They don't have the same kind of leverage and they don't suddenly get it from simply committing to the bid and staying in it where others have fled.

2) How many people on here (mostly morons, but that's beside the point) were so convinced that Europe was a complete lost cause with regard to the Winter Olympics?  And were so sure both Italy and Sweden would drop out and we wouldn't see a European candidate again for a long time.  Yet here we are.  Apparently it's not such a lost cause anymore.  For all the rhetoric from the IOC about "less losers," there's still only 1 Winter Olympics every 4 years.  There's only so many they can hand out.  If they have 2 cities left in the running when they were probably fearful of having 0 (they said publicly there was no plan be, but clearly the USOC thought differently), it is necessary to assume they'll be screwed come 2030?  Let alone knowing there's at least 2 solid bids and possibly more waiting in the wings? 

Stability is a good thing, but not if getting to that point means making deals with cities/countries that still have question marks.  That wasn't the case with Paris and LA  It's not like pivoting to a double here would be as neat and tidy as it was the last time.

59 minutes ago, FYI said:

And for the umpteeth time, I’m not trying to “predict” anything. You’re the one with your “near-zero” & “inevitable” garbage. And that’s what’s “fucking stupid”, when you just wanna run around here like your opinion is the be-all & end-all of things Olympic. Sounds like a certain so-called la la land columnist that gets ‘parroted’ around here. And if not Stockholm, then there’s always SLC in the background! :P

SLC in the background?  Now you're just puling stupid on stupid.  How's that dart board working out for you! :D

"There is no double" is not an opinion.  Right now, it's a fact.  Yes, things can change and you don't have to remind me that for 2024, there initially was no double and then suddenly there was and that whole thing progressed pretty quickly.  I know - and you keep saying it like I don't know - that you are not predicting a double is definitely going to happen.  But if the roles were reversed here and you were saying definitively that something wouldn't happen and I was offering up a possibility, do you honestly mean to tell me you wouldn't say I was being wishy-washy?  Because I'm pretty sure that has happened before.

If I'm wrong on this one, I'll eat it.  I don't think I'm going to be wrong.  But go ahead and keep throwing sh!t against the wall to see if any of it sticks.

Share this post


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

I skipped past your last post because it was too wordy, but honestly. 2026 belongs to Sweden. Low approval? Big wow. Sweden has pulled off an LA, and just like that, low approval voided.

That's okay.. I know big words are difficult for you, so maybe it's just as well you skipped it.  I'll use less words this time since I know excessive reading is difficult for you.

So "Sweden has pulled off an LA" you say.  What exactly is pulling an LA?  Low approval voided?  Yea, let's see if the IOC voters (because unlike with LA, this is going to come down to a vote) feel the same way.  This is not a done deal for them just because you say it is.

6 hours ago, RuFF said:

But my crystal ball, assuming it is correct, will bring concept into reality with 2026, and the bidders for 2030 and beyond will increase. You’ve said it yourself that in theory is not the same as practice, but we are about to get practice. And just like that regional bids are ok. The message is already out. 

Might want to tell the folks in Calgary about that because they just shot down a regional bid in a city and a country that most wouldn't have expected that from.  And unlike the majority of dropouts, they're not even in Europe.

2 bids and 1 winner isn't a trend.  If Sapporo is the 2030 host, then regionally bidding is a one off.  When Salt Lake inevitably hosts an Olympics (less you think Tahoe has any shot at being the next U.S. Winter host), that won't be regional.  You've convinced yourself that regional bidding will become a trend.  That could happen, but it doesn't mean the IOC is going to pick them over a non-regional bid.  And we won't know how that plays out until there are both in competition with each other, which is not the case here.  You're 100% right that this could - and probably will - open up more cities and countries to try and put a bid together.  Okay to bid doesn't mean they're going to win.

Share this post


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

Btw the reason I said low approval was voided is that a voice disappears when it goes private. Granted there is that security and visas voice, but the voice is severely muted right now. 

I know why you said.. because you think everything Olympics revolves around LA.  Sweden's bid was always private, so by that logic, the citizens never had a stake in it anyway.  Yet until this week, it wasn't supported by the government.  Every Olympics (and that will include LA 2028) has some element of resistance.  Stockholm will not be an exception.  So the question is how vocal will that group be.  They don't cease to matter just because there's private funding involved.  Nor is it a guarantee that - as you like to say - the IOC can "control the conversation."

Share this post


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

Yea. Once again I just skipped past that. :(

Too many words again?  Maybe I'll draw the next one in crayon for you.  Understandable though that you get dis-interested so easily when we're talking about something other than LA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 7:09 AM, Quaker2001 said:

Too many words again?  Maybe I'll draw the next one in crayon for you.  Understandable though that you get dis-interested so easily when we're talking about something other than LA.  

why do you even engage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very safe to say that Stockholm is very likely to win the vote at this point, considering that they have MUCH more appeal than the Italian bid.

Now, the question is probably, will the Italians remain interested in the years to come?

If they do, they might have a good chance for 2030 or 2034

So it might, maybe, be smart to do a joint award, because, then, the IOC knows that both will accept..

Unless, both are only interested in 2026. TBH, I'm not sure if this is the case with either bid.

If either of them are okay with waiting a couple years after 2026, then a double is possible. If not then, It won't happen.

And although this might upset the USOC, there are other hosts than SLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I know appeal isn't the only aspect for winning a bid, but it's generally more inline with Agenda 2020, less risky with the cost, and thus, more appealing to the IOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RuFF said:

The USOC, SLC, and NBC may prefer 2034. But as you said, there are other cities than SLC and the ship may be sailing.

They just signed a letlter last December telling the IOC that SLC will be the candidate for Winter 2030. . .  or sooner.  So, what are you smoking again?  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

It's very safe to say that Stockholm is very likely to win the vote at this point, considering that they have MUCH more appeal than the Italian bid.

Now, the question is probably, will the Italians remain interested in the years to come?

If they do, they might have a good chance for 2030 or 2034

So it might, maybe, be smart to do a joint award, because, then, the IOC knows that both will accept..

Unless, both are only interested in 2026. TBH, I'm not sure if this is the case with either bid.

If either of them are okay with waiting a couple years after 2026, then a double is possible. If not then, It won't happen.

And although this might upset the USOC, there are other hosts than SLC.

I don't think that's safe to say at all.  Given the twists and turns these bids have taken, I don't think we can hand it over to Stockholm just yet.  I like their odds, but it's far from a done deal.  If not all that much changes about the 2 candidates in the next 2 months, then yes, it's likely going to Stockholm.  Their bid isn't without negative though.

Not sure what the Italians will do if they lose 2026.  Italy only hosted 20 years prior, so it's not as thought they've gone a long time without hosting.  If Stockholm gets 2026, then the appeal of getting a more traditional Western European nation back in the fold isn't quite there anymore.  So if Milan/Cortina were bidding for 2030 in a bigger field of candidates, I don't like their odds so much.  Like you said, it's a much less appealing bid in comparison to Stockholm

A double is not worthwhile here.  These aren't compelling enough candidates that the IOC needs both of them right now.  Especially so far as Stockholm is involved with a less than enthusiastic support level.  There are candidates waiting in the wings for 2030.  On that note..

I'm sure the USOC knows they're probably going to want to beat out other cities if they want 2030.  That's how this game is played (usually).  But are those cities so compelling as Salt Lake?  Remains to be seen.  If Salt Lake bids for 2030, regardless of who else is in the field, they stand a pretty good chance of winning.

Share this post


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

The USOC, SLC, and NBC may prefer 2034. But as you said, there are other cities than SLC and the ship may be sailing.

https://twitter.com/slc2030

I would say it's pretty clear what SLC prefers and they probably would have jumped at the chance for 2026 if the USOC had let them.

Remains to be seen if the USOC will bid for 2030.  They said they're interested.  Yes, there's the matter of 2028 to deal with, but that didn't stop them from very publicly anointing Salt Lake as their candidate.

As for NBC.. get your narratives straight.  They already have their contract locked in for 2030.  They did that not knowing the host city, just like 2028.  So imagine how much more valuable those rights become relative to what they paid if Salt Lake is the host city.  They would absolutely love that.  It's the IOC that would potentially benefit from the 2034 Olympics being held in the United States.  Since those rights haven't been awarded yet, they could raise the asking price for those Olympics if it's looking like they would be in the United States and pit the other networks against each other if they wanted to get in on that.

Share this post


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

Haha, I’d ask you the same thing. But we already know it’s penis. Haha. 

Anyhow, catch up old man this subject has been running this whole thread long. 

Uhm, yeah.  We know it's self-projection - your Trump-itis, poor shmuck. 

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

×