2030 Olympic Winter Games Bids

[northman]

Any chance Sweden bids for 2030 and wins? Sweden is one of those giants in winter sports that actually deserves to host a WOG

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, northman said:

Any chance Sweden bids for 2030 and wins? Sweden is one of those giants in winter sports that actually deserves to host a WOG

 

 

Sure there's a chance.  If they have their act their, they could win it.  But that's a big if.  The good thing is that after 2022, a lot of people thought we'd never hear from them again.  Then they mount a full bid for 2026 and in the end, it was a lack of public support that took them down.  Here they area again and yes, Scandanavia definitely deserves another Olympics.  They have a lot of the facilities already in place, so from a technical standpoint, they're already in decent shape.  Easier said than done and it's way too early so start celebrating, but it would be far from a shocker if they were named the host

[northman]

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 

 

Sure there's a chance.  If they have their act their, they could win it.  But that's a big if.  The good thing is that after 2022, a lot of people thought we'd never hear from them again.  Then they mount a full bid for 2026 and in the end, it was a lack of public support that took them down.  Here they area again and yes, Scandanavia definitely deserves another Olympics.  They have a lot of the facilities already in place, so from a technical standpoint, they're already in decent shape.  Easier said than done and it's way too early so start celebrating, but it would be far from a shocker if they were named the host

If they bid and the only other bid is Salt Lake then I guess IOC would favour Sweden, due to LA 28 games. They could perhaps grant 2030 to Sweden and 34 to Salt Lake. 

[FYI]

The lack of public support AND political will (which was most the most important). So without those two basic, but most important fundimental elements of ANY bid, can their 2026 attempt really have been called a 'full bid'? Sure, technically, it was at the IOC voting table, but ultimately those reasons is why it lost to Milan anyway. 

And lets not fool ourselves either, that "sweden" is the one behind this latest attempt. For 2022, Stockholm dropped out. For 2026, they lost. And both times it was for the same reasons; lack of public & political support. Now here we are for 2030, & again it's their NOC (not the people, nor the gov't) that's wanting to mount this for the third consecutive time (maybe their hoping for third time's the charm).

But even the Swedish PM has just come out & said that, let's not draw to any "hasty conclusions" over this, until *after* the feasibility study has been concluded & presented to all needed parties. So unless something has drastically changed within Sweden itself (that's not just their NOC), as far as appetite for an Olympic Games, then & only then, can it be called a "full" bid. And IF that actually was to come to fruition, then the IOC will jump on Stockholm 2030 (& also SLC 2034 ) like white on rice!

[FYI]

17 minutes ago, northman said:

If they bid and the only other bid is Salt Lake then I guess IOC would favour Sweden, due to LA 28 games. They could perhaps grant 2030 to Sweden and 34 to Salt Lake. 

The United States Olympic Committee rather prefers 2034 anyway (by means of a double, preferably), due to it's close proximity to the Los Angeles Olympics occuring in 2028, due to the effects it might have in sponsorship money having two U.S. Games within that close proximity to one another. If it wasn't for that very reason, the IOC would've crowned SLC with the 2030 Winter Olympics already.

The IOC is in desperate mode now, because they initally wanted to give Sapporo, Japan the 2030 Winter Olympics [or Vancouver. Or Barcelona]. But their talks are now on HOLD, due to also low public support there, not to mention the Tokyo 2020ne scandal. So now the IOC is off to Sweden to see what can stick).

Because they know, if they can't find someone else viable to give 2030 to, other than SLC, then they'll have to give monetary concessions to the USOC for any sponsorship shortfalls which might occur in having Los Angeles 2028 & SLC 2030 only 18 months apart. Something which the IOC would prefer having to avoid at all costs, if at all possible (especially when they've already done such a move, by giving L.A.'28 incentives to take those later Games, when Paris was the IOC's preference for the 2024 Summer Olympics).

[Quaker2001]

10 hours ago, FYI said:

The lack of public support AND political will (which was most the most important). So without those two basic, but most important fundimental elements of ANY bid, can their 2026 attempt really have been called a 'full bid'? Sure, technically, it was at the IOC voting table, but ultimately those reasons is why it lost to Milan anyway. 

And lets not fool ourselves either, that "sweden" is the one behind this latest attempt. For 2022, Stockholm dropped out. For 2026, they lost. And both times it was for the same reasons; lack of public & political support. Now here we are for 2030, & again it's their NOC (not the people, nor the gov't) that's wanting to mount this for the third consecutive time (maybe their hoping for third time's the charm).

But even the Swedish PM has just come out & said that, let's not draw to any "hasty conclusions" over this, until *after* the feasibility study has been concluded & presented to all needed parties. So unless something has drastically changed within Sweden itself (that's not just their NOC), as far as appetite for an Olympic Games, then & only then, can it be called a "full" bid. And IF that actually was to come to fruition, then the IOC will jump on Stockholm 2030 (& also SLC 2034 ) like white on rice!

 

Yes, their 2026 attempt can and should be called a full bid.  If it wasn't a full bid, as you said in the next sentence, it wouldn't have been voted on and wouldn't have had the support of 34 of the 81 voting members of the IOC.  If it wasn't a full bid, that number is a lot lower.

 

After they withdrew from the 2022 race, how many of us would have guessed there would even be a bid for vote on for 2026?  Easy to say in hindsight we know the support issue was a dealbreaker, especially in comparison to the Italian bid.  But we didn't know that at the time.  Take that same bid and drop them into the 2022 vote with a giant douche and a turd sandwich and maybe the outcome is different.  Likewise drop them into 2030 when potentially the only other viable candidate is one that their own NOC would prefer not to see in the mix for 2030 and perhaps a lack of support isn't such a glaring problem.

 

That all said, Sweden certainly doesn't have a full bid yet like the one they had in 2026.  Like I brought up in 1 of the other threads, it's way too early to know if this is going anywhere and we're only having this discussion because the IOC kicked the can down the road to see if anyone else would bite.  Even if Sweden does have something to offer similar to 4 years ago, no guarantee the IOC says yes to it.  It's great that another bid might be out there, despite the fact I have little faith in the IOC to do what they need in order to make bidding for an Olympics less unagreeable than it generally already is in the first place

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes, their 2026 attempt can and should be called a full bid.  If it wasn't a full bid, as you said in the next sentence, it wouldn't have been voted on and wouldn't have had the support of 34 of the 81 voting members of the IOC.  **If it wasn't a full bid, that number is a lot lower.**

Or, maybe that number could've been a lot higher instead if it was indeed a full bid, had Stockholm city hall given in, & agreed to sign the host city contract, & possibly won, therefore, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

After they withdrew from the 2022 race, how many of us would have guessed there would even be a bid for vote on for 2026?  Easy to say in hindsight we know the support issue was a dealbreaker, especially in comparison to the Italian bid.  But we didn't know that at the time.  Take that same bid and drop them into the 2022 vote with a giant douche and a turd sandwich and maybe the outcome is different.  Likewise drop them into 2030 when potentially the only other viable candidate is one that their own NOC would prefer not to see in the mix for 2030 and perhaps a lack of support isn't such a glaring problem.

How many times has it been said here, that if you don't have the proper support for an Olympic bid, then there simply is NO Olympic bid. So you can't just easily say that not having it now isn't such a glaring problem, simply because the other contenders left have their own baggage to deal with. Support is still a fundamental aspect of any Olympic bid. It's not just some afterthought that can be easily overlooked because now it might just get in your way of the ultimate goal. Otherwise, why isn't Vancouver still in the picture, when the BC gov't came out & said that they weren't funding the project, or why is Sapporo putting things on "hold", after their support numbers simply plummeted.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

That all said, Sweden certainly doesn't have a full bid yet like the one they had in 2026.  Like I brought up in 1 of the other threads, it's way too early to know if this is going anywhere and we're only having this discussion because the IOC kicked the can down the road to see if anyone else would bite.  Even if Sweden does have something to offer similar to 4 years ago, no guarantee the IOC says yes to it.  It's great that another bid might be out there, despite the fact I have little faith in the IOC to do what they need in order to make bidding for an Olympics less unagreeable than it generally already is in the first place

If what they're offering now is similar to what they were to 2026, then this attempt might not get anywhere, either. Even Bach himself has said; "if Stockholm is ready this time to sign on the dotted line, 'then the door is wide open' to guarantee their very first Winter Olympic Games". Can't get much clearer than that.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

Or, maybe that number could've been a lot higher instead if it was indeed a full bid, had Stockholm city hall given in, & agreed to sign the host city contract, & possibly won, therefore, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. 

 

Not worth getting into an argument over semantics here over what "full bid" means.  We both know the underlying specifics here and neither of us is going to dispute them.

 

6 hours ago, FYI said:

How many times has it been said here, that if you don't have the proper support for an Olympic bid, then there simply is NO Olympic bid. So you can't just easily say that not having it now isn't such a glaring problem, simply because the other contenders left have their own baggage to deal with. Support is still a fundamental aspect of any Olympic bid. It's not just some afterthought that can be easily overlooked because now it might just get in your way of the ultimate goal. Otherwise, why isn't Vancouver still in the picture, when the BC gov't came out & said that they weren't funding the project, or why is Sapporo putting things on "hold", after their support numbers simply plummeted.

 

We're still in feasibility study mode right now.  Good chance a lack of support kills this effort.  But it didn't prevent the last effort from being voted on.  And there's 34 IOC members (40% of the eligible voters from last time) there who wanted to award the Olympics to Stockholm, so I have to assume if their bid this time around is similar, that number is going to be even higher when the only alternative is a bid we all know the IOC and USOPC would rather hold off on until 2030.  The standard here where Sweden's level of support needed is probably lower than it was last time.  That BC and Sapporo are currently off the table have nothing to do with what's going on with Stockholm.  Yes, it's certainly notable that lack of support is hurting both of those efforts.  But it was still their choice in the matter, not something where the IOC made the decision for them.

 

7 hours ago, FYI said:

If what they're offering now is similar to what they were to 2026, then this attempt might not get anywhere, either. Even Bach himself has said; "if Stockholm is ready this time to sign on the dotted line, 'then the door is wide open' to guarantee their very first Winter Olympic Games". Can't get much clearer than that.

 

Don't necessarily remember that, but it does sound like a clear message.  As opposed to when Bach talked about not awarding 2030 and 2034 at the same time, I forgot who said it, but someone called it "more of his infamous lip-service that he's known for, depending on his audience that's in front of him at any particular moment"

 

And just to clear up any potential confusion later on, I am in fact bringing that up just to be an asshole, not because it's actually relevant to the discussion.  Just in case that wasn't obvious enough

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We're still in feasibility study mode right now.  Good chance a lack of support kills this effort.  But it didn't prevent the last effort from being voted on.  And there's 34 IOC members (40% of the eligible voters from last time) there who wanted to award the Olympics to Stockholm, so I have to assume if their bid this time around is similar, that number is going to be even higher when the only alternative is a bid we all know the IOC and USOPC would rather hold off on until 2030.  The standard here where Sweden's level of support needed is probably lower than it was last time.  That BC and Sapporo are currently off the table have nothing to do with what's going on with Stockholm.  Yes, it's certainly notable that lack of support is hurting both of those efforts.  But it was still their choice in the matter, not something where the IOC made the decision for them.

If that were to be the case, then it's just more of the IOC making desperate moves in desperate times. Because awarding an Olympics to a city that just doesn't want them sounds like a recipe for disaster. Just so they could have their latest suckers paying for their mega-expensive sport orgies.

Even in good times, when everything seems to be rightfully in place (support, finances, etc), you still have groups these days like NOlympics L.A. continuing to try & thwart off the 2028 Olympics. So what happens when the IOC just "shoves in the face" a Games were the populace simply doesn't want them. Then they'd still be better off with SLC 2030, a city that overwhelmingly does want them & worry about 2034 later (imagine that, no double ), than maybe risking winding up with another Denver 1976 type scenario again.

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Don't necessarily remember that, but it does sound like a clear message.  As opposed to when Bach talked about not awarding 2030 and 2034 at the same time, I forgot who said it, but someone called it "more of his infamous lip-service that he's known for, depending on his audience that's in front of him at any particular moment"

It's in the GB's newswire article talking about the 'Sweden' 2030 preliminary study. Towards the very end, Bach is quoted saying just as much. 

And yeah, that is a clear message. As opposed to the ambiguous one (which even you agreed that it was) about holding off a double because it wasn't 'good governance'. The same IOC that had no trouble in awarding the 2032 Summer Olympics 11 years out in the middle of a global pandemic. 

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And just to clear up any potential confusion later on, I am in fact bringing that up just to be an asshole, not because it's actually relevant to the discussion.  Just in case that wasn't obvious enough

Nooo, YOU, an *assho!e*?! Who would've thought. Pretty sure that's usually "obvious enough", though. 

[Victorian]

Give Stockholm 2030 and Salt Lake City 2034

[iceman530]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

Give Stockholm 2030 and Salt Lake City 2034

currently our best hope

[Quaker2001]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, FYI said:

If that were to be the case, then it's just more of the IOC making desperate moves in desperate times. Because awarding an Olympics to a city that just doesn't want them sounds like a recipe for disaster. Just so they could have their latest suckers paying for their mega-expensive sport orgies.

 

This is the IOC we're talking about.  Avoiding disaster is not one of their strong points.  Yes, the IOC is desperate right now.  If they weren't, there wouldn't be a city studying 2030.  Yet here we are.  I imagine the Swedes won't follow through with this if support is incredibly soft.  But they don't need to beat out another opponent like they did 4 years ago.  And they know that if the IOC's choices are to accept poor support from Stockholm or to have to compensate the USOPC for slotting Salt Lake so close to LA, I could see them choosing the former.  Which leads us to...

 

On 2/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, FYI said:

Even in good times, when everything seems to be rightfully in place (support, finances, etc), you still have groups these days like NOlympics L.A. continuing to try & thwart off the 2028 Olympics. So what happens when the IOC just "shoves in the face" a Games were the populace simply doesn't want them. Then they'd still be better off with SLC 2030, a city that overwhelmingly does want them & worry about 2034 later (imagine that, no double ), than maybe risking winding up with another Denver 1976 type scenario again.

 

Why is a "Denver 1976 type scenario" a concern here?  The mistake most people make when they bring it up is that they think that what happened back then was a matter of NIMBYism and how the public felt about the games.  That's a part of it, but the bigger issue was piss poor planning and mismanagement that gave rise to the opposition.  NOlympics would have have a field day with that one if they existed back then.  The best analogy for Denver is the Boston 2024 bid.  In a similar fashion, it was a poorly managed effort where as they got further into it, they started changed their plans and it became more and more of a mess.  Thankfully the USOC had the good sense to pull the plug.

 

That's not the issue with Stockholm.  They were working on 2022 before they abandoned that effort.  2026 was seen all the way to a vote.  And now they're preceding this effort with a feasibility study.  There's an opportunity for them to discuss finances with the IOC in a fashion that didn't exist last time around.  Sure, public support is never going to be 1 of their strong points.  But if Sweden were to be awarded 2030, they only got there because they had all the backing that was require.  I doubt that government would give in to public support and just hand it back.  If it was that easy, I'd have serious concerns over the 2026 games in Italy where things aren't going so smoothly.

[FYI]

Hey, I never said that this isn't a probability. It'd be great for this to make it all the way through. But like this MP guy said (that you quoted), I'm extremely cautiously optimistic about this one, considering the history over Swedish Olympic bids (or more like the lack thereof). There's also still the issue of the Host City contract. I seriously doubt the IOC would forgo it, even if they are in desperation mode. Again, Bach made that very clear.

I'm also not the only one who's mentioned the same about this in the last few days since this story came out. Others in other threads have also said just as much. But IF this does end up being a thing, then you know what else that means, like MP also said; "get ready for a double (fetish) with Salt Lake 2034" then!! 

[Quaker2001]

9 hours ago, FYI said:

Hey, I never said that this isn't a probability. It'd be great for this to make it all the way through. But like this MP guy said (that you quoted), I'm extremely cautiously optimistic about this one, considering the history over Swedish Olympic bids (or more like the lack thereof). There's also still the issue of the Host City contract. I seriously doubt the IOC would forgo it, even if they are in desperation mode. Again, Bach made that very clear.

I'm also not the only one who's mentioned the same about this in the last few days since this story came out. Others in other threads have also said just as much. But IF this does end up being a thing, then you know what else that means, like MP also said; "get ready for a double (fetish) with Salt Lake 2034" then!! 

 

There's that double fetish of yours again .  Glad to see "this MP guy" has a new fan out there.  Anyways..

 

So far, this is just a feasibility study.  It might determine that it's not feasible.  Typical of a GB conversation that we're trying to make it into a bigger deal than it is (even as we tell ourselves not to) and trying to extrapolate the hypotheticals out of it.  I was hopeful for Stockholm 4 years ago, so maybe that's why I have a tiny bit more optimism here, although part of that is me wishing that the Winter Olympics don't continue to follow down this "oh $hit" path they're currently on and find a tiny bit of stability.  Not that the IOC necessarily deserves that considering how badly they're botching the Russia situation.

 

One way or another, the IOC is going to have to either make concessions for their 2030 host and/or accept a less than "full bid" (as you like to put it).  That said, I don't think Sweden will continue to push forward with this until they believe they can make certain guarantees and promises to the IOC.  I still think the standard is a little lower than their effort for 2026, but it all goes back to whether this is feasible or not.  That'll be their decision first.  If they do decide it's feasible (and yes, we all know that's a massive "if"), then it's up to the IOC to decide, but I doubt they would get that far in the first place if they didn't have at least some confidence that the IOC would listen to them

[AustralianFan]

Check this story out re Vancouver (go to p.9):

Page 9 on Gamesbids.com “Does the Winter Olympics just need a rotating roster of hosts?”

[FYI]

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

There's that double fetish of yours again .  Glad to see "this MP guy" has a new fan out there. Anyways..

Except this time, it's NOT "my double-fetish", but your guy MP's (you know, the one who's opinion [or confirmation bias] you value more than the GB's "peanut gallery"). 

4 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If they do decide it's feasible (and yes, we all know that's a massive "if"), then it's up to the IOC to decide, but I doubt they would get that far in the first place if they didn't have at least some confidence that the IOC would listen to them

Of course the IOC will listen to them. They'd be foolish not to. It's not like we're talking about A-town or Borjomi here (like a particular silly little poster around here likes to bandy around). But the IOC will also be collectively holding their breath & waiting to hear what they ultimately would want to hear from them; will they just hand over the keys to the city this time around. And that IS the Olympic million (or in this case, billion) dollar question. 

[BigVic]

Just give it to Salt Lake City and be done with it. SLC hosted a fantastic WOG in 2002 and I have no problems with them hosting 2030. 

[SportLightning]

19 minutes ago, BigVic said:

Just give it to Salt Lake City and be done with it. SLC hosted a fantastic WOG in 2002 and I have no problems with them hosting 2030. 

we'll see.

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, BigVic said:

Just give it to Salt Lake City and be done with it. SLC hosted a fantastic WOG in 2002 and I have no problems with them hosting 2030. 

The USOPC does. If that wasn't an issue, SLC 2030 would be a done deal already. But that's not a minor problem they can just brush aside

[iceman530]

Best course of action would be to give Sweden the time to move thoughtfully, yet expediently, to get this thing lined up.  It was a pretty good package from what I remember last time around.  Not perfect by any means, had its flaws, but works in the new concept.  Doesnt matter how far Are, Stockholm, Sigurda are from each other.  It works.  A little skeptical about the sliding track being out of country, but beggars cant be choosers.  If Sweden can have a shot at swaying public opinion, lets give them a shot.  

Ideally, Sweden 2030, SLC 2034 double.  Gotta convince that Swedish public though.  No short sell.

[FYI]

I think everyone wants to give Sweden a shot. Everyone but the Swedes, that is. I've said it before with the Germans, & I'll say it in this case, but the only thing that can stop the Swedes, "are" (yes, with pun ) the Swedes themselves. 

But what happens, if the feasibility study concludes that this endeavor is indeed feasible & achievable, but the timing of it all is off, & that 2034 would be a better option for them. Ohh, the conundrum the IOC would then find themselves in (not that they're not in one now of course, lol). 

[stryker]

At this point, it's like a poker game, only Salt Lake has a full house and the IOC has a pair of tens. Will the IOC fold? They are trying hard not too, and have given the ridiculous excuse of climate change as a reason for postponing the election. That's a PR stunt to try to show they are still in control of the process. At this point I think they have no choice, and I would wager to say that this "dialogue" is probably more like financial negotiations involving the IOC, SLC, and LA, and I agree completely this discussion is not even happening if LA was not hosting 2028.  SLC can milk this for all it's worth. Right now the IOC has no one else ready for 2030 and the one city that is ready wants 2034 instead.

This mess goes beyond Sapporo's PR problems and Salt Lake's preference for 2034. The IOC's reforms (Agenda 2020 and the New Norm) have been exposed as a failure. Te ihdea of making the bidding process simpler and less expensive and encouraging cross-country bids and the use of existing venues, in theory, should have brought more interest in the WOGs from traditional winter sports powers like Norway, Switzerland, and Austria, but nothing has come of it which indicates that there is still a great of skepticism towards the IOC (and they haven't done themselves any favors by insisting that Russian and Belarussian athletes complete as neutrals). Vancouver had everything practically ready to go and the BC government determined the financial costs were not worth it. Sapporo doesn't just have the bribery scandal hanging over their heads but the fact that Tokyo spent way beyond their budget and lied about the actual numbers in terms of losses. Put those two together and no wonder there is hostility towards another bid in Japan who I think will not host again after all this mess until the 2040s at the earliest.

The WOGs are withering on the vine and the IOC has no solution. A permanent rotation of hosts, while it sounds good in theory, does not help, if a city decides to have a referendum when their turn comes up. Meanwhile, SLC should call the IOC`s bluff and threaten to walk if their demands for 2030 are not met. Who else would they turn to? Sochi? 

[Quaker2001]

140th IOC Session in Mumbai, India, to take place from 15 to 17 October 2023

[krow]

On 2/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, stryker said:

Who else would they turn to? Sochi? 

you joke, but dictatorships are always a sensible fallback from the IOC's point of view.

sadly for them, russia is completely off the table, possibly for the rest of our lifetimes (presuming you're not some young kid). but beijing and almaty might do in a pinch. god knows they could use the PR.

it's good for humanity but a shame for the IOC that very few prosperous dictatorships can host winter sports, although i suppose it makes sense considering they were conceived as a past time for western european elites. 

[stryker]

https://kslnewsradio.com/1991769/salt-lake-facing-more-competition-for-2030-winter-olympics/

So much for transparency. So now according to Christophe Dubi, there are two mystery candidates that the IOC is talking to about the 2030 WOGs but they won't say who. If this true, any thoughts who they might be? Almaty? Sochi? Maybe even Beijing or Pyeongchang again? I do not suspect a multi-city or regional bid as I think that would be harder to keep quiet.

On the other hand, this could all be a smokescreen to hide the desperation the IOC is facing and they want to still seem in control.