Jump to content
GBModerator

Breaking: Milan-Cortina Wins 2026 Olympic And Paralympic Winter Games Bid

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Bid history is overrated in terms of predicting an NOC's future intentions.  It's minutiae we tend to put too much stock into.  Case in point with Paris.  Look at their history.

Why? Cuz you say so? It’s not overrated nor minutiae. Yet you’re gonna follow that with hindsight arguing (as usual) in Paris’ case, cuz it’s what you do. Whatever. 

13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The reason they didn't bid for a while after 1992 wasn't that they were so devastated by the loss.  After Albertville got the `92 Winter Olympics, what were the odds Paris was going to get a Summer Olympics following that?  They come back 16 years later (don't forget their 2008 bid) when circumstances were a little more favorable and then followed that up by returning for the next cycle.  

I’m very well familiar with the circumstances that surrounded all of Paris’ bids, so I don’t need you to fill me in on any of them. So thanks anyway. 

But here’s the thing, you’re trying to rationalize those events as to why Paris waited cuz there’s actually tangible circumstances to apply that to. In other words, hindsight is 20/20, isn’t it. 

Yet you can never put that same kind of rational thinking into possible future events cuz as usual, you like to play the Devil’s advocate angle. You get too carried away in the ‘could’s or could nots’ of the ‘why’s or why nots’ something ‘can or can’t’ play out.

You just claimed that 2030 is too soon bcuz of “potential competition”. So you can’t have it both ways & just cherry pick what you THINK is tangible & “possible” simply to fit any DA narrative that you so chose. I however, like looking at facts & history, & make my own determinations.

23 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

After losing 2012, it's a similar scenario.  What were the odds of Paris being chosen on the heels of London?  So they waited.

But you conveniently left this out - that didn’t stop Madrid whatsoever in trying again for 2016, now did it? And they unexpectedly got to the final voting round with Rio with Chicago getting shown the door early. Go figure. So was it really a wise move that Paris sat that one out? We’ll never know, now will we.

32 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

With Sweden.. whether or not they wait to try again has little to do with their history.  Or "that the Swedes will remember that for quite a while yet" as if they having been rejected so many times over game them any currency here.  They'll bid again when they feel the timing is right.  Again, we agree that probably won't happen until some of the competition clears out.  Depends on one's definition of "anytime soon"

Again, you say 2030 is likely not in the cards for them. Why not then? Not saying I disagree with that, but then we can apply further analogy why they may skip more than just one round. At least I’m not saying that the Swede’s will stay away ‘til at least the 40’s or 50’s like someone else mentioned earlier.

36 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

So in other words.. not a double.  A completely separate and distinct thing having nothing to do with this.  Thanks for clarifying :D

Just exactly how old are you? <_< You said yesterday that you weren’t gonna comment about something cuz “it’s not worth it”. Yet here you are, like an uncontrollable giggling five-year old, “thinking” that you’re “right” about something. It’s time to get over this school-yard indulgence you have going over something that “could’ve or could’ve not” gone either way. :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

Why? Cuz you say so? It’s not overrated nor minutiae. Yet you’re gonna follow that with hindsight arguing (as usual) in Paris’ case, cuz it’s what you do. Whatever. 

I’m very well familiar with the circumstances that surrounded all of Paris’ bids, so I don’t need you to fill me in on any of them. So thanks anyway. 

But here’s the thing, you’re trying to rationalize those events as to why Paris waited cuz there’s actually tangible circumstances to apply that to. In other words, hindsight is 20/20, isn’t it. 

Yet you can never put that same kind of rational thinking into possible future events cuz as usual, you like to play the Devil’s advocate angle. You get too carried away in the ‘could’s or could nots’ of the ‘why’s or why nots’ something ‘can or can’t’ play out.

You just claimed that 2030 is too soon bcuz of “potential competition”. So you can’t have it both ways & just cherry pick what you THINK is tangible & “possible” simply to fit any DA narrative that you so chose. I however, like looking at facts & history, & make my own determinations.

But you conveniently left this out - that didn’t stop Madrid whatsoever in trying again for 2016, now did it? And they unexpectedly got to the final voting round with Rio with Chicago getting shown the door early. Go figure. So was it really a wise move that Paris sat that one out? We’ll never know, now will we.

Again, you say 2030 is likely not in the cards for them. Why not then? Not saying I disagree with that, but then we can apply further analogy why they may skip more than just one round. At least I’m not saying that the Swede’s will stay away ‘til at least the 40’s or 50’s like someone else mentioned earlier.

You know.. this feels like one of those situations where we actually agree with each other mostly, but we're expressing it differently so it sounds like we don't agree.  I have my opinion, you have your opinion.  That's all.  Get over the "devil's advocate" nonsense as if it's some personal insult if someone else posts an opinion in response to 1 of your posts.  You interpret history however you'd like.  I'll do the same, thank you.

11 hours ago, FYI said:

Just exactly how old are you? <_< You said yesterday that you weren’t gonna comment about something cuz “it’s not worth it”. Yet here you are, like an uncontrollable giggling five-year old, “thinking” that you’re “right” about something. It’s time to get over this school-yard indulgence you have going over something that “could’ve or could’ve not” gone either way. :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHA, amazing.. you just described yourself to a tee!!  How many times have you replied to another poster with "well you're the guy who said that other stupid thing" in the same way a school kid holds something random against someone else for no good reason.  You literally just did it right here bringing up another completely unrelated comment!  I hope you appreciate the irony here, though.  You're bashing me for getting carried away in the "could or could nots" and yet every time it was brought up about the potential of a 2026/2030 double, I shot it down because it was ridiculous how some people came to think that.  And there was you all too often telling us it "could" happen and offering up scenarios for it.  The funny thing is that I don't think you ever actually thought there was any chance of it happening.  You were just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.  THAT, sports fans, is the textbook definition of playing devil's advocate. :P

I don't "think" I was "right" about something.  I WAS right about something.  No quotation marks needed.  Sure, it's being right about something that had about a 99.9% chance of that something, but tell that to all the people who posted about it and thought it might actually happen and largely whose reasoning behind it was "it happened last time, so that's why it could happen again, because IOC, amirite!?"  So forgive me for poking a little fun at the situation when you'd probably do the exact same thing if it was the other way around.

Share this post


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

The funny thing is that I don't think you ever actually thought there was any chance of it happening.  You were just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.  THAT, sports fans, is the textbook definition of playing devil's advocate. :P

tenor.gif

OMFG, are you for real?! :lol: “THAT” is soooo fu@king RICH coming from you!! You know what’s ‘amazing & ironic’?! Is that you “just described YOURSELF to a tee!!” 

It reminds me of the time a couple of years or so ago when you chased away a newbie from here cause he said that “you just enjoy being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.” And he was/is totally right. :P

21 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Get over the "devil's advocate" nonsense as if it's some personal insult if someone else posts an opinion in response to 1 of your posts.  

It’s not nonsense or an insult if it’s actually true. That’s your M.O. for virtually all of your posts. 

21 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I don't "think" I was "right" about something.  I WAS right about something.  No quotation marks needed.  

Well la-dee-dah! Do you want a lolipop for your prize now?! Or should we just start calling you AA JR. cuz ya know, we know how much he likes to brag about how the initial double was “his idea” (except for the order of course). :rolleyes:

21 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You know.. this feels like one of those situations where we actually agree with each other mostly, but we're expressing it differently so it sounds like we don't agree.  I have my opinion, you have your opinion.  That's all.  

Seems like it’s much more than just that. But I digress. And after Sweden’s passive/aggrassive press release yesterday, sounds like they actually will remember Monday’s vote for quite a while yet, & will be taking a break for quite some time.

Share this post


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

OMFG, are you for real?! :lol: “THAT” is soooo fu@king RICH coming from you!! You know what’s ‘amazing & ironic’?! Is that you “just described YOURSELF to a tee!!” 

So your comeback is to repeat what I said to you.  Real original.  Must have taken you all day to think of that one.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

It reminds me of the time a couple of years or so ago when you chased away a newbie from here cause he said that “you just enjoy being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.” And he was/is totally right. :P

No idea what you're talking about, but will assume it's true because.. well, pretty much everything I said about the school kid remembering random stuff.  I'm definitely flattered though that you remember something like that about me though.  Never realized how obsessed with me you are! :D

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Well la-dee-dah! Do you want a lolipop for your prize now?! Or should we just start calling you AA JR. cuz ya know, we know how much he likes to brag about how the initial double was “his idea” (except for the order of course). :rolleyes:

Don't want anything.  But I guess I'm taking a page out of your book how I'll remember how obsessed you were with the idea of a double award.  And remind you how dumb it was at some point randomly in the future.  And no.. in order for me to be AA Jr., I would have to stick to a concept and be wrong about it.  Which in this case would be you.   Yea yea, I know.. you only said it "could" happen, not that it was definitely gonna happen.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Seems like it’s much more than just that. But I digress. And after Sweden’s passive/aggrassive press release yesterday, sounds like they actually will remember Monday’s vote for quite a while yet, & will be taking a break for quite some time.

Again, this is where we agree about certain things, but then we disagree.  You said elsewhere (this was an hour ago, not years ago) that Sweden has tried 8 times over the years and gotten nothing.  Well until this bid, it was 7 times.  Didn't stop them from attempt #8.  Why then would this one be the one that turns them off from trying that the previous ones didn't?

If the support level of Sweden's bid had been better, maybe it's a different outcome.  That's a large part of what did them in.  The IOC didn't lash out at them the way they did with Oslo in the 2022 vote, so what's there to remember?  That Lindberg made the comments about the new norm as if they're not going to express disappointment in losing?   If they can get more political support for another Olympics, they'll probably bid again.  If they can't, they won't.  I don't think it's a case of them having bad feelings about losing and that's the end of it.  If they see another opportunity - and that's much easier said than done, for both them and the IOC - they'll probably jump all over that.  And I think it will be less than "some time" before that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

No idea what you're talking about, but will assume it's true because.. well, pretty much everything I said about the school kid remembering random stuff.  

I guess I could take a “Q” :lol: from the Big Q time-machine, playbook, & go through the archives & drudge that up to post it, but I just don’t have the time or the patience for that kind of school kid stuff like you do. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm definitely flattered though that you remember something like that about me though.  Never realized how obsessed with me you are! :D

Says the guy who takes notice on how long between my visits! :P

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, this is where we agree about certain things, but then we disagree.  You said elsewhere (this was an hour ago, not years ago) that Sweden has tried 8 times over the years and gotten nothing.  Well until this bid, it was 7 times.  Didn't stop them from attempt #8.  Why then would this one be the one that turns them off from trying that the previous ones didn't?

Bcuz :D like I also said from a few hours ago, between attempts 7 & 8 it was a span of 22 years. And if we just count between the last winter bid (& no, 2022 hardly counts), then it was 24 years. So yeah, it doesn’t look good after this last run, at least for the near-term (again, I’ve never said they wouldn’t be back). And especially if the IOC starts to make these changes they’re talking about, where it seems they’re basically going to be assinging bid cities instead of actually voting for them from here on out, which it already looks like code for SLC & Sapporo. So that’s two cycles right there.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

If the support level of Sweden's bid had been better, maybe it's a different outcome. That’s a large part of what did them in. 

And that’s always been the problem. That was the problem with their 2022 bid & why they pulled out. And that was also the problem for their 2004 bid, too. And this 2026 attempt was really a half-backed one. Sweden just didn’t want 2026 bad enough, only coming around very late in the game & the IOC grew leery of that. And that seems to be the crux of the matter when it comes to the Swedes, & always has been.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

The IOC didn't lash out at them the way they did with Oslo in the 2022 vote, so what's there to remember?  That Lindberg made the comments about the new norm as if they're not going to express disappointment in losing?   

No, but Sweden (& I’m not talking about Gunilla, which she made that comment before the vote, not after losing) did lash out at the IOC with their press release yesterday. So obviously they do remember something they didn’t necessarily liked. 

Share this post


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

Bcuz :D like I also said from a few hours ago, between attempts 7 & 8 it was a span of 22 years. And if we just count between the last winter bid (& no, 2022 hardly counts), then it was 24 years. So yeah, it doesn’t look good after this last run, at least for the near-term (again, I’ve never said they wouldn’t be back). And especially if the IOC starts to make these changes they’re talking about, where it seems they’re basically going to be assinging bid cities instead of actually voting for them from here on out, which it already looks like code for SLC & Sapporo. So that’s two cycles right there.

I agree it doesn't look good for the next couple of cycles.  But that's a different narrative than "they're going to remember this loss" as if that will be their motivation to not bid again.  If they sit out 2030 and 2034, is it because of how they felt in the 72 hours after the vote or is it more about a calculated risk to not push through another potentially flawed bid effort against even stronger competition?  The dust needs to settle before we can give an honest assessment of their future.  Not to mention, like you said, the IOC may be moving in a direction that makes it tougher to predict how the bid processes will go.

7 hours ago, FYI said:

And that’s always been the problem. That was the problem with their 2022 bid & why they pulled out. And that was also the problem for their 2004 bid, too. And this 2026 attempt was really a half-backed one. Sweden just didn’t want 2026 bad enough, only coming around very late in the game & the IOC grew leery of that. And that seems to be the crux of the matter when it comes to the Swedes, & always has been.

I agree with that assessment as well, and unless they can change that, it will be tough for a Swedish bid to win.  But that's largely on them moreso than the IOC.  Next time around, maybe they'll want it more and will push harder to win it.  It they don't, we'll likely wind right back where we are.  That said, perhaps the argument can be made that the memory of this week will be less about the manner in which they lost and more to highlight what went wrong to learn a lesson for next time.

7 hours ago, FYI said:

No, but Sweden (& I’m not talking about Gunilla, which she made that comment before the vote, not after losing) did lash out at the IOC with their press release yesterday. So obviously they do remember something they didn’t necessarily liked. 

They did, but look at Norway who got called out pretty scathingly by the IOC and are still considering another bid in the not too distant future.  Again, that reaction came in the heat of the moment of just having lost.  A year from now or 5 years or 10 years, will that memory still be fresh in their minds to the point it will weigh on their decision whether to bid or not?

How many twists and turns were there in this bid cycle including more times than we can count that we were declaring Sweden's bid dead in the water?  Yet they made it to the finish line and let's not lose sight of the fact that 34 voters (more than 40%) picked Sweden.  Looking back on it, maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to react to every piece of news in the moment as if it was a giant shift in the race.  Similarly here.. the decision on whether or not Sweden will bid again isn't going to be made now.  It's going to be made down the line when what happened this week isn't such a recent memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing Sweden needs to be aware of though is what happens next door in Norway. If Norway decide they want another go, they’ll encounter an IOC that’s (hopefully) a lot less boneheaded than the 2015 version, & that’s Sweden’s goose cooked for a long time. If Sweden really do want this, they, as you say, need to show it because competition from SLC, Sapporo, Oslo, France etc will be hard to beat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

They did, but look at Norway who got called out pretty scathingly by the IOC and are still considering another bid in the not too distant future.  

You keep saying that, but it’s basically the Norwegian IOC member & their NOC that are ‘considering’ 2030, not the gov’t. They also considered 2026, but it didn’t happen in the end.

Like it’s been mentioned before, the Scandinavians are a very pragmatic bunch, & are quite prudent as to how they want to spend their money. That was evident in their 2004 bid, which is primarily why they lost that one. And they reminded us of that again this past week, too, in their press release. So unless the IOC really starts to practice what they preach, we’re very likely not gonna be seeing anything from the Scandies, at least the next five to ten years, as history has also shown us.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

How many twists and turns were there in this bid cycle including more times than we can count that we were declaring Sweden's bid dead in the water?  Yet they made it to the finish line and let's not lose sight of the fact that 34 voters (more than 40%) picked Sweden. 

And there was a recent for that, cuz in the end, it was dead in the water. More than 40% is still losing. What matters is winning, which the Swedes did not. Heck, even Almaty got more votes for ‘22 than what Stockholm got! Go figure. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Looking back on it, maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to react to every piece of news in the moment as if it was a giant shift in the race.  Similarly here.. the decision on whether or not Sweden will bid again isn't going to be made now.  It's going to be made down the line when what happened this week isn't such a recent memory.

Is this another one of those instances where “we mostly agree but we’re just looking at it differently”? Cuz yes, I agree, that decision is going to be made down the line. Five to ten years down the line at least I say, again, considering their bid history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Sweden should:

1.  Promise to stage the Eurovision fest for 3 years; and then

2.  invade Norway and annex Lillehammer! 

That'll be the sure-fire formula they need to host!! 

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 4:42 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

Sweden should just stick to their Nobel prizes.  With all their wealth, they could't even manage a decent Olympic bid.  

Sweden is wealthy because it is smart enough not to throw money away on vanity projects. The Swiss government isn't rushing to put in a bid either. (Although I wonder if the IOC will eventually threaten to leave the country if they don't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nacre said:

The Swiss government isn't rushing to put in a bid either. (Although I wonder if the IOC will eventually threaten to leave the country if they don't.)

Now there’s a bargaining chip. Would the Swiss even care, though. Something tells me that they wouldn’t, & just tell the IOC to move to Sochi for all they cared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’d probably harden their resolve :P In seriousness I can imagine the IOC moving to Doha eventually to compensate for not being able to have the Games there. Won’t happen for a LONG time though because of the new HQ in Lausanne. Maybe one for the second half of the century, when they get impatient again. 

Share this post


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

You keep saying that, but it’s basically the Norwegian IOC member & their NOC that are ‘considering’ 2030, not the gov’t. They also considered 2026, but it didn’t happen in the end.

Like it’s been mentioned before, the Scandinavians are a very pragmatic bunch, & are quite prudent as to how they want to spend their money. That was evident in their 2004 bid, which is primarily why they lost that one. And they reminded us of that again this past week, too, in their press release. So unless the IOC really starts to practice what they preach, we’re very likely not gonna be seeing anything from the Scandies, at least the next five to ten years, as history has also shown us.

LOL, the Scandies.

Yes, the Norwegian IOC member and their IOC - the ones that were publicly called out after the Oslo bid fell apart - are considering bidding again.  Whether or not they actually bid isn't the issue.  But does that sound like a group of people who got turned off from Olympic bidding because of a bad experience.

11 hours ago, FYI said:

And there was a recent for that, cuz in the end, it was dead in the water. More than 40% is still losing. What matters is winning, which the Swedes did not. Heck, even Almaty got more votes for ‘22 than what Stockholm got! Go figure. 

Yes, we now know after the fact that they lost.  Didn't know that on Sunday.  And plenty of people thought Sweden was going to pull it off.  Don't lose sight of what led up to Monday, just like with Almaty where they nearly beat out Beijing.  In the context of Sweden's future with Olympic bidding, it shouldn't be so black and white that they lost and that's that.  More than 40% is not a small number.  It's probably not something the Swedes are likely to build on the way PyeongChang did, but if you're pushing the idea that they're going to remember what happened, then history should remember that 34 IOC members wanted the Olympics in Stockholm.

11 hours ago, FYI said:

Is this another one of those instances where “we mostly agree but we’re just looking at it differently”? Cuz yes, I agree, that decision is going to be made down the line. Five to ten years down the line at least I say, again, considering their bid history.

We agree on a lot of points on whether or not Stockholm will bid again, whether it's for 2030 or 2034 or later than that.  On the list of what will determine when (or if) that happens, pretty far down on that list is their bid history.  If it's about Scandinavians being pragmatic, I'm with you there.  Lack of political support?  Absolutely no argument.  But their history IMO is neither here nor there when they make that decision.  It's not going to be a deciding factor, nor is the manner in which they lost this week.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes, the Norwegian IOC member and their IOC - the ones that were publicly called out after the Oslo bid fell apart - are considering bidding again.  Whether or not they actually bid isn't the issue.  But does that sound like a group of people who got turned off from Olympic bidding because of a bad experience.

It was more than just a bad experience. It was a sh!tshow. Those group of people ultimately don’t matter anyway, though. What matters is FULL government support, cuz without it, you don’t have a bid ITFP. Or as we just saw earlier this week with Stockholm, your bid is still ‘dead in the water’ even with ho-hum gov’t support.

Stockholm 2026 still had their IOC member’s & NOC’s full backing. What was lacking was that all-inclusive government guarantee, cuz without it, you don’t have a winning bid, no matter how many IOC members & NOC’s you have on your side.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

More than 40% is not a small number.  It's probably not something the Swedes are likely to build on the way PyeongChang did, but if you're pushing the idea that they're going to remember what happened, then history should remember that 34 IOC members wanted the Olympics in Stockholm.

Meh, that’s just splitting hairs at this point.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

But their history IMO is neither here nor there when they make that decision.  It's not going to be a deciding factor, nor is the manner in which they lost this week.  

When I say their history, it’s being all-inclusive. From their lack of political & citizenry support, to their pragmatism & prudence. It’s not just exclusive to their bids, since all of that is tangible &  interconnected in the end anyway.

Share this post


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

It was more than just a bad experience. It was a sh!tshow. Those group of people ultimately don’t matter anyway, though. What matters is FULL government support, cuz without it, you don’t have a bid ITFP. Or as we just saw earlier this week with Stockholm, your bid is still ‘dead in the water’ even with ho-hum gov’t support.

Stockholm 2026 still had their IOC member’s & NOC’s full backing. What was lacking was that all-inclusive government guarantee, cuz without it, you don’t have a winning bid, no matter how many IOC members & NOC’s you have on your side.

Q: are you saying that Stockholm Åre could have won with full government support? From the comments on here the past week most don't think that was the only problem. People mostly tolerated the spread-out cluster  concept, for example. (They have the geography they have, and their major cities are not close to the mountains. I would like to see such a concept tried--yes, even with night trains and ferries--and it would open up future winter bids from cities like Montreal, but I am in a minority.) Should they build the bob/luge/skeleton run neither they nor the sliding IFs want? Maybe Sweden (and Finland, which bid for 2006 with a spread concept) are just a lost cause should not bother, sticking to the world championships by discipline that they are used to. (I hope not, but that is the read I am getting.) 

Share this post


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

It was more than just a bad experience. It was a sh!tshow. Those group of people ultimately don’t matter anyway, though. What matters is FULL government support, cuz without it, you don’t have a bid ITFP. Or as we just saw earlier this week with Stockholm, your bid is still ‘dead in the water’ even with ho-hum gov’t support.

Stockholm 2026 still had their IOC member’s & NOC’s full backing. What was lacking was that all-inclusive government guarantee, cuz without it, you don’t have a winning bid, no matter how many IOC members & NOC’s you have on your side.

They had 34 IOC voters on their side in spite of what hindsight tells us was a bid that couldn't win.  Just like 40 out of 84 voters wanted Almaty.  A few voters have a change of heart and it's a completely different outcome.

We shouldn't pretend like we knew for sure on Sunday this was going to happen like we're thinking about it now.  IMO the vote total is not insignificant if we're trying to give this an honest assessment of what went down.  Let alone if we're look ahead to the future of Sweden's potential at bidding again.

8 hours ago, FYI said:

When I say their history, it’s being all-inclusive. From their lack of political & citizenry support, to their pragmatism & prudence. It’s not just exclusive to their bids, since all of that is tangible &  interconnected in the end anyway.

That's a better assessment.  Because - and I think you would agree - that we shouldn't expect their tune to change and if it doesn't, they probably don't have much of a chance at succeeding against another solid bid, let alone a less than solid bid like Milan's.  And if they had gone forward with their 2022 bid, would all those same factors have sunk them against Beijing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Smitty said:

Q: are you saying that Stockholm Åre could have won with full government support? From the comments on here the past week most don't think that was the only problem. People mostly tolerated the spread-out cluster  concept, for example. (They have the geography they have, and their major cities are not close to the mountains. I would like to see such a concept tried--yes, even with night trains and ferries--and it would open up future winter bids from cities like Montreal, but I am in a minority.) Should they build the bob/luge/skeleton run neither they nor the sliding IFs want? Maybe Sweden (and Finland, which bid for 2006 with a spread concept) are just a lost cause should not bother, sticking to the world championships by discipline that they are used to. (I hope not, but that is the read I am getting.) 

I don't think they're a lost cause.  They just need to figure out how to get better engagement from top to bottom, the government down to the citizenry.  I don't think that's an impossible task and maybe for all the talk about how the IOC reforms were somewhat meaningless that maybe that will change in time.  That's a lot to ask on both ends, but eventually I think Sweden will get an Olympics.  Whether that happens anytime in the foreseeable future is the question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 11:10 AM, Quaker2001 said:

They had 34 IOC voters on their side in spite of what hindsight tells us was a bid that couldn't win.  Just like 40 out of 84 voters wanted Almaty.  A few voters have a change of heart and it's a completely different outcome.

We shouldn't pretend like we knew for sure on Sunday this was going to happen like we're thinking about it now.  IMO the vote total is not insignificant if we're trying to give this an honest assessment of what went down.  Let alone if we're look ahead to the future of Sweden's potential at bidding again.

Uh huh. And weren’t you the one who was telling others four years ago not to get too excited about Almaty’s 40 votes if they were to come back for 2026 (which speaking of a bid that didn’t come back at all despite their surprising strong second finish)? 

So why can’t that same analogy be applied to Sweden here? Yeah, we didn’t know that on Sunday, but it wasn’t ‘til very late in the game that it was perhaps starting to look good for Stockholm. Even you didn’t think that until the vote was right around the corner. 

On 6/28/2019 at 11:10 AM, Quaker2001 said:

And if they had gone forward with their 2022 bid, would all those same factors have sunk them against Beijing?

You know what, I’m not so sure of that now after Monday. If 2022 was going to be such a half-backed show, like 2026 was for them, while the Chinese was going to move heaven & earth for the IOC (like they did for 2008), who knows. But then again, the IOC had another European alternative this time that was willing to give them pretty much what they wanted. So as usual, that’s what the members went with. 

On 6/28/2019 at 10:55 AM, Smitty said:

Q: are you saying that Stockholm Åre could have won with full government support? From the comments on here the past week most don't think that was the only problem. People mostly tolerated the spread-out cluster concept, for example.

It wasn’t the only problem, but it was a big problem nonetheless. Had they had that, plus a large citizenry support, I think we coulda had a different outcome on Monday. There were also a few other things, but the rest of those were all rather trivial in the grand scheme of things. It’s not like Italy’s plan is all that compact, either. It’s also pretty spread out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Uh huh. And weren’t you the one who was telling others four years ago not to get too excited about Almaty’s 40 votes if they were to come back for 2026 (which speaking of a bid that didn’t come back at all despite their surprising strong second finish)?

I honestly have no idea if that's something I said, but that's not the point anyway.  What I know I did say (repeatedly) is that 2022 was a competition between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.  What would happen is that turd sandwich came back to bid for 2026 and faced stronger competition?  They ain't getting 40 votes, that's for sure.  Not as an Asian bid following up 2 Asian Winter Olympics.

12 hours ago, FYI said:

So why can’t that same analogy be applied to Sweden here? Yeah, we didn’t know that on Sunday, but it wasn’t ‘til very late in the game that it was perhaps starting to look good for Stockholm. Even you didn’t think that until the vote was right around the corner. 

The analogy that applies for Sweden is that they were a flawed bid up against another flawed bid, just like Almaty was.  And part of the reason to not expect them back in the next cycle is because if their bid is still flawed (which it likely would be), what kind of chances would they have against stronger competition?  As opposed to bids like PyeongChang and Tokyo and Rio which were much more committed in the long term to get selected rather than a country like Sweden which isn't necessarily going to be there every time.

That all said, the point about the vote totals is this.  Looking back on the 2022 vote, how many people - here and elsewhere - probably have it in their heads that Almaty never was going to win that vote up against Beijing?  Well.. they almost did.  Much like we saw with the 2012 vote, who's to say a random comment by 1 of the Beijing officials may have swayed a few opinions.  In which case we have a completely different outcome and narrative that follows.  Sweden wasn't as close, but again, look at the "who will win" thread.  It was far from a given that Milan was going to be the winner and only in hindsight could it be said it was that obviously Sweden didn't have the goods.

12 hours ago, FYI said:

You know what, I’m not so sure of that now after Monday. If 2022 was going to be such a half-backed show, like 2026 was for them, while the Chinese was going to move heaven & earth for the IOC (like they did for 2008), who knows. But then again, the IOC had another European alternative this time that was willing to give them pretty much what they wanted. So as usual, that’s what the members went with. 

It was a very half-baked show, so it's tough to figure on that hypothetical.  Still, don't get so caught up on the story that got created AFTER the vote, that they went with the bigger city/country that would wine and dine them, so that's what they picked.  Think about what it looked like BEFORE the vote, which may tell a different story, but that's how it all played out as things went along.

12 hours ago, FYI said:

It wasn’t the only problem, but it was a big problem nonetheless. Had they had that, plus a large citizenry support, I think we coulda had a different outcome on Monday. There were also a few other things, but the rest of those were all rather trivial in the grand scheme of things. It’s not like Italy’s plan is all that compact, either. It’s also pretty spread out.

That's really the way you have to look at it.  What could Sweden have done differently that would have changed the opinions of 7 of the 47 who voted for Milan.  What could have changed the story that we're telling now which is that Milan won because they and their citizens were more supportive.  Plus the 34 who weren't so impressed by that and picked Stockholm anyway.  Those numbers aren't trying to predict the future or make any presumptions about a future bid.  But I think it tells the story that we didn't have a sure outcome until the envelope was opened.  Which is usually the case.

Share this post


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

I honestly have no idea if that's something I said, but that's not the point anyway.  What I know I did say (repeatedly) is that 2022 was a competition between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.  What would happen is that turd sandwich came back to bid for 2026 and faced stronger competition?  They ain't getting 40 votes, that's for sure.  Not as an Asian bid following up 2 Asian Winter Olympics.

Oh geez, of course it’s not word for word, but that was exactly the gist of it. Just cuz Almaty got 40 votes for ‘22, to not have assumed it would’ve performed the same way (or better) for ‘26. Yes, Stockholm would be a much better alternative than an Almaty, but without all the crucial support elements that are needed to win a bid, it’s not going to do much better than the 34 votes it got on Monday without them. 

9 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

It was a very half-baked show, so it's tough to figure on that hypothetical.  Still, don't get so caught up on the story that got created AFTER the vote, that they went with the bigger city/country that would wine and dine them, so that's what they picked.  Think about what it looked like BEFORE the vote, which may tell a different story, but that's how it all played out as things went along.

I didn’t get “caught up”!in anything. I was looking at it how I was always looking at it even “before” the vote, & which you always “poked fun” at me over. I never really believed in a Swedish bid precisely for the reasons that brought it down on Monday. Their constant lukewarm attitude & indifference (much like how you argue with about New York) about the Olympics is what did them in.

Does that make them any less of a winter sporting nation bcuz of it, though? Like New York, no it does not. But does that mean that the Olympics would be a perfect fit for them bcuz of it? Again, like New York, not necessarily. 

9 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Sweden wasn't as close, but again, look at the "who will win" thread.  It was far from a given that Milan was going to be the winner and only in hindsight could it be said it was that obviously Sweden didn't have the goods.

Actually, that thread was pretty much in-line with the vote. Even your “head” said Milan, not Stockholm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're drifting so far away from where I started here, I'm not even sure how we got to this point.  Whatever.  Last thing I'll say here..

You mention that Stockholm will remember their bid history if they bid again.  I don't necessarily disagree with that, but that history isn't going to be so black and white as winning or losing.  The vote totals tell a story.  That story can't predict the future, but it still matters.  Much like Almaty, if they were to bid again, would want to acknowledge how many votes they got in 2022, not simply that they lost.  Doesn't predict how they'd fare if they bid again.  It's still notable though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that their history was going to be so black-&-white if they bid again, though. That is where you’re ‘mispresenting’ my position on the subject, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except you kinda did though..

On 6/27/2019 at 1:06 PM, FYI said:

And there was a recent for that, cuz in the end, it was dead in the water. More than 40% is still losing. What matters is winning, which the Swedes did not. Heck, even Almaty got more votes for ‘22 than what Stockholm got! Go figure. 

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

×