2030 Olympic Winter Games Bids

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, yoshi said:

Will there be these elevations to targeted dialogue or could they go further this week - a host announcement or even two? The way Rob puts it makes it sound like Sweden is a long way ahead for 30 and Salt Lake will definitely be awarded 34. Presumably France and Switzerland will get put against each other for 38 (or maybe hook up together for a binational bid... Geneva anyone?)

We shouldn't presume anything beyond 2034.  It's possible we get a preferred host announcement (meaning they're essentially deciding on a host, but as @Sir Rols noted, it can't be made official unless there is a vote and that's not likely to happen until next summer.  It's also possible more than 1 candidate gets elevated to targeted dialogue.  Tough to predict at this point how this all will go down and everything we've seen from Rob makes it seem like everyone is in the dark.

In the event that Sweden is in line to get 2030, Switzerland and France can discuss 2038, but it's far too early to declare they are the 2 that are frontrunners for 2038.  It just means the IOC can remain in discussions with them.  I know you're looking at the long game here, but that's not how the IOC is likely to play this.  We'll almost certainly know the 2030 and 2034 hosts in the next 9 months.  I sincerely doubt the IOC will give any mind to 2038 in the next few years.  2036 will become their priority.

[yoshi]

Well I've said before I have reservations about the new system & the lack of any kind of transparency, more so as the demise of ITG leaves this site as basically the only media in the loop anywhere. But it does allow flexibility & if I was Bach, that's what I'd do - award Sweden and Salt Lake then try to convince the French and Swiss to work together as going east-west along the Alps must make more sense than north-south across them, and spreading the cost too. But I get the advantage of having two countries at least in reserve, securing the future of the Winter games - plus you could also argue 2038 could be a good time to return to Asia in Sapporo or Pyeongchang. 

[baron-pierreIV]

1 hour ago, yoshi said:

Well I've said before I have reservations about the new system & the lack of any kind of transparency, more so as the demise of ITG leaves this site as basically the only media in the loop anywhere. But it does allow flexibility & if I was Bach, that's what I'd do - award Sweden and Salt Lake then try to convince the French and Swiss to work together as going east-west along the Alps must make more sense than north-south across them, and spreading the cost too. But I get the advantage of having two countries at least in reserve, securing the future of the Winter games - plus you could also argue 2038 could be a good time to return to Asia in Sapporo or Pyeongchang. 

Well, there's always Almaty & Astana as come-backs (+ Sapporo, PC and Vancouver).  Hopefully, Almaty / Astana will have more infrastructure by then to be looked at as more serious bids.  

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, yoshi said:

Well I've said before I have reservations about the new system & the lack of any kind of transparency, more so as the demise of ITG leaves this site as basically the only media in the loop anywhere. But it does allow flexibility & if I was Bach, that's what I'd do - award Sweden and Salt Lake then try to convince the French and Swiss to work together as going east-west along the Alps must make more sense than north-south across them, and spreading the cost too. But I get the advantage of having two countries at least in reserve, securing the future of the Winter games - plus you could also argue 2038 could be a good time to return to Asia in Sapporo or Pyeongchang. 

Hmmmm.

Yeah, SLC’s ready, but the others still need to iron out a few details before anyone could be confident enough to set them in stone. Which is what moving them on to the next phase would do - work with them to get one or more to electable status.

i don’t see why you’d want to “encourage” France and Switzerland to combine when both have shown they can do it separately. Surely it serves the IOC better to have them as two options for the future, rather than combine them and thus  remove one option from the board. Anyway, while my sympathies are obviously towards Sweden, I quite like the French venue plan - Nice-Alps has a bit of cachet for me.

And while it’s obviously nice for the IOC to already have some options on their plate for 2038, I don’t think it’s in their interests to lock things in too much. It’s still a long way off, which gives more time for things to sour, which is probably even more likely to happen with WOGs which I think are possibly more vulnerable to volatile public support, climate change and unforeseen political events. As @Quaker2001 said, get 2030 and 2034 sorted, and they’ve got a nice breathing space to properly concentrate on, first, 2036 and then down the track start looking towards 2038 - with hopefully a few candidates already in continuous dialogue and able to move better on to hostability.

[iceman530]

Exactly my thought.  We initially had very few offerings for the WOG's until very recently.  Strategically, it makes more sense to have multiple good bids down the line (especially good ones).

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, yoshi said:

Well I've said before I have reservations about the new system & the lack of any kind of transparency, more so as the demise of ITG leaves this site as basically the only media in the loop anywhere. But it does allow flexibility & if I was Bach, that's what I'd do - award Sweden and Salt Lake then try to convince the French and Swiss to work together as going east-west along the Alps must make more sense than north-south across them, and spreading the cost too. But I get the advantage of having two countries at least in reserve, securing the future of the Winter games - plus you could also argue 2038 could be a good time to return to Asia in Sapporo or Pyeongchang. 

Pretty good chance Bach is no longer president of the IOC when 2038 is awarded.  What looks good now may not be what makes sense 5-7 years from now.  The advantage of the new norm is that it encourages the IOC to remain in contact with the likes of France/Switzerland/Sweden (whichever of the 2 don't win), but it doesn't guarantee they'll want to remain in the mix.  That goes double for France, especially if Paris doesn't all go according to plan.  Ask the folks in Japan how that all worked out for them

[AustralianFan]

4 hours ago, yoshi said:

Well I've said before I have reservations about the new system & the lack of any kind of transparency, more so as the demise of ITG leaves this site as basically the only media in the loop anywhere. But it does allow flexibility & if I was Bach, that's what I'd do - award Sweden and Salt Lake then try to convince the French and Swiss to work together as going east-west along the Alps must make more sense than north-south across them, and spreading the cost too. But I get the advantage of having two countries at least in reserve, securing the future of the Winter games - plus you could also argue 2038 could be a good time to return to Asia in Sapporo or Pyeongchang. 

 

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Hmmmm.

Yeah, SLC’s ready, but the others still need to iron out a few details before anyone could be confident enough to set them in stone. Which is what moving them on to the next phase would do - work with them to get one or more to electable status.

i don’t see why you’d want to “encourage” France and Switzerland to combine when both have shown they can do it separately. Surely it serves the IOC better to have them as two options for the future, rather than combine them and thus  remove one option from the board. Anyway, while my sympathies are obviously towards Sweden, I quite like the French venue plan - Nice-Alps has a bit of cachet for me.

And while it’s obviously nice for the IOC to already have some options on their plate for 2038, I don’t think it’s in their interests to lock things in too much. It’s still a long way off, which gives more time for things to sour, which is probably even more likely to happen with WOGs which I think are possibly more vulnerable to volatile public support, climate change and unforeseen political events. As @Quaker2001 said, get 2030 and 2034 sorted, and they’ve got a nice breathing space to properly concentrate on, first, 2036 and then down the track start looking towards 2038 - with hopefully a few candidates already in continuous dialogue and able to move better on to hostability.

 

1 hour ago, iceman530 said:

Exactly my thought.  We initially had very few offerings for the WOG's until very recently.  Strategically, it makes more sense to have multiple good bids down the line (especially good ones).

 

16 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Pretty good chance Bach is no longer president of the IOC when 2038 is awarded.  What looks good now may not be what makes sense 5-7 years from now.  The advantage of the new norm is that it encourages the IOC to remain in contact with the likes of France/Switzerland/Sweden (whichever of the 2 don't win), but it doesn't guarantee they'll want to remain in the mix.  That goes double for France, especially if Paris doesn't all go according to plan.  Ask the folks in Japan how that all worked out for them

Rotating Host Pool of Permanent Olympic Wimter Hosts Likely from 2038

Don’t forget the Warming Climate and the likelihood of a Permanent Rotating Host Pool being “just around the corner”.

So next year’s double award Host Elections in 2024 for the 2030 and 2038 editions will give the IOC, international sporting federations and NOCs much needed preparation time to continue researching and consulting with stakeholders on exactly how a Rotating Host Pool would work.

Which makes Wednesday 29 November all the more historic as it may be the first and last time that Olympic Winter Games are selected like this.

[AustralianFan]

15 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Don’t forget the Warming Climate and the likelihood of a Permanent Rotating Host Pool being “just around the corner”.

So next year’s double award Host Elections in 2024 for the 2030 and 2038 editions will give the IOC, international sporting federations and NOCs much needed preparation time to continue researching and consulting with stakeholders on exactly how a Rotating Host Pool would work.

Which makes Wednesday 29 November all the more historic as it may be the first and last time that Olympic Winter Games are selected like this.

Almost a year ago now:   

IOC revisits idea of rotating Winter Olympics due to diminishing number of suitable hosts

We may hear more about the IOC’s investigation into the Permanent Rotating Host Pool during this week’s EB Meeting.

[yoshi]

Good point about having more bids available for the future. Switzerland especially could be a very useful project for the survival of the winter games if it proves that genuinely national games can work. If anyone can do that, it's the Swiss with their transport. As for lead in time, I thought it'd be more beneficial to have hosts locked in, but is shorter better to ensure existing venues get used and stop budget creep?

[AustralianFan]

3 minutes ago, yoshi said:

Good point about having more bids available for the future. Switzerland especially could be a very useful project for the survival of the winter games if it proves that genuinely national games can work. If anyone can do that, it's the Swiss with their transport. As for lead in time, I thought it'd be more beneficial to have hosts locked in, but is shorter better to ensure existing venues get used and stop budget creep?

I think that from 2038 onwards that the Permanent Hosting Pool will be well and truly established and that year will see the first city/region host awarded those Games from the Pool.  But all that still to come ….

 

[Sir Rols]

54 minutes ago, yoshi said:

As for lead in time, I thought it'd be more beneficial to have hosts locked in, but is shorter better to ensure existing venues get used and stop budget creep?

If anything, budget creep is more likely with a tight deadline when you’re forced to pay whatever it takes to have venues ready in quick time. Though, that shouldn’t be that much of an issue if all venues are pre-existing. Venues do age, though, and some can cost a fair bit to maintain if they don’t have a commercial case outside the games.

it’s also that more that 15 years is a hell of a long time to commit to something so far in advance that could be affected bu changes of governments, shifting budget priorities, volatile public sympathies, climate affects. Why take this risks when you could decide with a bit more certainty or reliability 6-10 years in advance. 

[AustralianFan]

A Live Chat on Gamesbids.com has been created via the following link on this unique moment in the history of the Olympic Winter Games:

IOC EB Press Conference 29 November, 19:00 C.E.T. (Paris):

>> LIVE CHAT: 2030 and 2034 Targeted Dialogue Announcements <<

[AustralianFan]

 

[Bear]

IOC Feasibility Assessment files:

Sweden

Switzerland

France

Salt Lake City

[neige]

23 minutes ago, Bear said:

 

France

Looking at this file,
I'm really surprised by the the ice venues in Nice page 24.

The first one, Acropolis, is being destroyed!
https://nicepresse.com/photos-nice-fin-2023-ou-en-sommes-nous-de-la-demolition-dacropolis/

And what are they going to do with 2 new ice rinks ?

[AustralianFan]

To recap events in Paris today:

 

[AustralianFan]

also

 

[Sigh]

I’m surprised!

Not by the selections for 2030 and 2034 that turned out as I had expected.

The reasons the SOK bid was not accepted was also eminently predictable.

What surprised me was the “de facto” appointment of Switzerland for the 2038 games and thus the consequent utter humiliation of the SOK who once again had failed to do its job properly. Either getting the guarantees or abandon the whole thing when realizing it was impossible. Of course, that would require them to exit their little rose-tainted bubble. Their basic problem is that while SOK wants the games, SWEDEN doesn’t.

 

 

I think this is where I bow out.

When I came here in March I reacted to the sometimes rather breathless and naïve enthusiasm. Add to that that I have a(n un)healthy dose of cynicism and a fondness for playing Devil’s advocate …

I’m sure that I have annoyed (or even worse) many of you. I apologize for that, sort of.

As things turned out, I did convince one person – me.

The more I dug into things related to WOGs, the more I became convinced that at least the winter games were a once great idea that now has passed its “use by date”. I’ll not go into details of why. You don’t want to hear them and anyway, you already know them. The fact that the IOC EB just vindicated my cynicism only confirms my conviction.

 

 

However, I can’t resist to part on a controversial (and cynical) note:

The 2038 WOGs will be held in Asia, probably China, despite what was said today.

The 2042 WOGs will be held in Russia (that will have come in from the cold by then).

Then we start over with France again, followed by USA, China and Russia. As you might recognize, that’s four out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Once the mayor of Sapporo retires, I don’t expect any other country will have the combination of facilities, capabilities (in all necessary areas, including security) and WILL.

The only exception could be if the 2038 WOGs are awarded to “we were going to promote winter sports anyway” India as a consolation in the highly unlikely case Ahmadabad isn’t appointed for 2036.

 

 

 

Farewell – and have fun

Sigh

[yoshi]

I honestly don't think Sweden will ever convince the IOC that they'd stay the course, or convince themselves that they want to. They won't be able to give all the guarantees they need to. I was surprised I must say, we all knew SLC was a done deal, and I thought France would get 30 simply because public support won't matter with them. But I thought they'd then let Italy and France show decentralised games work and get the interest up for 38. I wonder if the IOC just fancy a homecoming games named as Lausanne. What have the IOC got against Sweden, they're obviously absolutely determined to never go there, which makes that mutual feeling from Sweden. Are they just scared of Nordic transparency? 

[Victorian]

I would have gone Switzerland or Sweden for 2030 because France already has an Olympics in 2024 and the US has 2028. Would be good to share it around!!! 

[Sir Rols]

On 11/26/2023 at 10:52 AM, yoshi said:

Well I'm not necessarily talking about awarding them all now, in one go - just that they should now have enough interested parties to be as secure as they can be that they won't have another 2030 (or even 22) for at least 20 years. I can see them awarding the three games in the 30s in one go though, although Switzerland has now left them with one bid too many. 

Well, credit where it’s due. You were the closest in your prediction

[TorchbearerSydney]

Sweden never REALLY commits to its bids...as in 110 percent and seems to think the IOC wont notice.....

Its a shame, would love a Swedish Games.

They will just have to rely on hosting Eurovision every second year!

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Sigh said:

The reasons the SOK bid was not accepted was also eminently predictable.

Their basic problem is that while SOK wants the games, SWEDEN doesn’t.

I was always cautiously optimistic, cause Sweden just doesn’t have a good track record for these things. So it makes the so-called “poll” that they did earlier in the year that showed 70% of Swedes “in favor” seem very questionable, especially when it was such a generic poll. Obviously the IOC didn’t buy it, so is the final result here really all that surprising. 

1 hour ago, Sigh said:

I think this is where I bow out.

When I came here in March I reacted to the sometimes rather breathless and naïve enthusiasm. Add to that that I have a(n un)healthy dose of cynicism and a fondness for playing Devil’s advocate …

I’m sure that I have annoyed (or even worse) many of you. I apologize for that, sort of.

I myself, certainly didn’t find you annoying, moreso insightful on the subject at hand. Having someone on the ground there in Sweden telling us what was going on was certainly a plus (as it has been with other people commenting on these boards from other respective bidding countries in the past).  

I know for some on here, having Sweden host their first-ever Winter Olympics was like a personal final Olympic dream for them (much like for many it would be nice for the Summer Olympics finally making there way to Africa), so I can certainly understand their disappointment in todays Olympic news.

That said, though, sometimes are passions & desires can leave us with blinders on to deflect things that we sometimes don’t want to hear, even if they are the hard truth most of the time. But this is where you came in, whether good or bad, I still say that you brought some very much constructive criticism to these boards about said topic. So I think that you should stick around, at least for a while longer. Since many of the veterans here know, that these boards certainly need some refreshing discussion/debates from time-to-time.

[Sigh]

I really meant what I wrote but I was so appalled when reading this article in "idrottens Affärer" (roughly Sports Business)  I just had to share it (google translate used):

https://idrottensaffarer.se/event/2023/11/os-drommarna-krossades-abrupt

The Olympic dreams were abruptly crushed
Events | Published: 2023-11-29 20:37

Sweden's Olympic bid for the 2030 Winter Games was scuttled on Wednesday when the IOC's Future Host Commission announced that it is France for 2030, and the USA in 2034 that will apply after Milan/Cortina in 2026. The IOC's efforts have been in vain and the presentation for two weeks since was only a game for the gallery. What is very likely is that the lack of state guarantees could not be accepted by the IOC commission.

Idrottens Affärer has on several occasions requested information from the government office on the issue of state guarantees.

 Sports Minister Jakob Forssmed (kd) expressed as recently as yesterday, at lunchtime, irritation that SOK has not yet submitted a complete application, "to be able to start work with state guarantees".

how could the application be forgotten...

Just a few hours later, the announcement came from the IOC that Sweden's eighth attempt to host the Winter Games had been thrown in the trash.

In an email to Idrottens Affärer, Simon Hoff, Jakob Forssmed's press secretary, wrote the following:

"The government needs to decide on a bill on state guarantees for the Winter Games in 2030, which must also have time to be processed by the Riksdag, no later than the Summer Olympics in Paris in 2024.

  Before a bill on guarantees can be drawn up, the SOK and the others (Parasport and RF) need to submit a document to the government office on which state guarantees are needed, describing how they think a Winter Olympics should be carried out.

  We then need to forward this document to authorities, county boards, regions, municipalities and organizations etc. The bill can be submitted to the Riksdag during March/April"

As far as the government is concerned, it is quite clear that the time window presented here is not at all in harmony with SOK chairman Hans von Uthmann and his employees. They were late - and of course should have made sure of state guarantees as the first point, in the application that was now submitted without approval.
.IOC requires clear information

It can be said that history repeats itself. Precisely the lack of government guarantees was not in place during the application for 2026, when Milano/Cortina beat out the Swedish "bid"

   Then Volvo's chairman of the board at the time, Carl-Henrik Svanberg, promised that Swedish business would bail for the games. Something that the IOC found too unsafe. A lesson then was to gain support from politicians early on, it is not enough to demonstrate a positive political outlook. The IOC requires concrete statements - the Swedish SOK leadership should have understood that.

The message from the IOC is also that the Swedish bid should have had financial guarantees in place at an earlier stage. This is evident from the press release on SOK's website. According to Hans von Uthmann, that work would only be presented in phase three of the selection process.

- I am incredibly disappointed. We had a strong concept to stage the most sustainable Games of all time, but now do not get the chance to showcase that vision to the world, said Han von Uthmann.

-Unfortunately, the IOC's process was not ripe for a candidacy that wants to be sustainable, cost-effective and democratic. We are still convinced that the games could have been a catalyst for the whole of Sweden, concludes Hans von Uthmann.
Setback for the IOC base

Wednesday's announcement is undoubtedly a difficult setback for the SOK board with new chairman Hans von Uthmann at the helm. He replaced this spring's Mats Årjes, who was unavailable for personal reasons.

Johanna Hemming has been hired as new marketing and communications manager at SOK, most recently from her own consulting position but previously at SHL, the Swedish Hockey League. She begins her new mission against a headwind.

[neige]

4 hours ago, Bear said:

IOC Feasibility Assessment files:

Sweden

Switzerland

France

and the winner is....