Stockholm/Åre 2030

[AustralianFan]

3 minutes ago, Sigh said:

Perfectly rational for Latvia and LOK. My experience of Latvians are that they are very down-to-earth, serious and mostly competent. I don't believe they have any illusions about the SOK bid but for a small effort they get quite a lot of PR, they avoid burning bridges for the future and ....miracles do occasionally happen. I had a look at Latvian language media and they mostly reported the same information as you relayed with the addition that the Sigulda track is in desperate need of money for upgrade/maintenance, money not available at present. However, on March 13 some sites expressed surprise that SOK hadn't approached Sigulda track management yet.

As for IOC I see many reasons for them to push on regardless of SOK bid viability. No need to be negative at this stage, practically no cost for IOC and miracles do happen, once in blue moon. Further, the SOK bid can be a useful lever when talking to others.

Agreed.    

I was just looking too at where Swedish public and government support was sitting around the time of that bitterly disappointing 2026 host vote 3 years ago in 2019 which Milano Cortina won the day.

2019: Stockholm Olympic bidders confident Swedes will back 2026 Games - Reuters

• 2019: “Officials for Stockholm’s 2026 Winter Olympics bid believe the majority of Swedes will eventually back the project if the city wins the Games on Monday.”
• 2019:  “Just over half of Swedes are in favor of their country getting the Olympics compared to well over 80 percent in Italy, according to a recent IOC-commissioned poll”.

2019: Swedish government pledges support for 2026 Olympics - USA Today

• 2019: “Barely two months out from the vote, Sweden received the biggest boost yet to its bid to host the 2026 Winter Olympics: Official support from the country's government.”
• 2019: “Previously, Sports Minister Amanda Lind's backing for the bid wasn't complemented by her fellow lawmakers, who expressed worries about spending taxpayer money on the two-week event.”
• 2019: “Political upheaval in Sweden hasn't helped either, with a new city government in Stockholm only formed in October and a two-party, center-left minority national government approved in January after being in limbo for months.”

Since the host vote on 24 June 2019, the world has had a pandemic, Ukraine has been invaded by Russia who is also immediately adjacent to Latvia, Sweden’s 2026 and 2030 bidding exploration partner.

There is likely also cost of living concerns on the minds of Swedish and Latvian citizens from Russia’s deliberate threats and actions around energy supply to certain countries.

Incidentally,  an interesting take-out this morning has been that both Sweden and Latvia are in the top five of all European countries for “Share of Energy from Renewable Sources”:   

1. Iceland 86%
2. Norway 74%
3. Sweden 63%
4. Finland 43%
5. Latvia 42%

Credit: Which EU countries use the most renewable energy

As the bid proceeds, with Gunilla Linberg (Sweden) recently suspending her IOC Future Host Commission membership due to participate in the 2030 Winter Olympics bid, a miracle is certainly needed as you said.

As you said @Sigh, public support in Sweden is well below a bare 51% majority and there is no sign yet of any government support from their new Sports Minister Jacob Forssmed.  Do we have an indication of where public and government support sits now in Latvia about a 2030 bid with Sweden?

[FYI]

But wasn't the "new norm" suppose to take care of all those concerns for everyone, & then suddenly open the flood gates for that "crowded field of interested parties" to come-a rushing in, & hence safe the day for all of the IOC's shortcomings! 

[Sigh]

16 minutes ago, FYI said:

But wasn't the "new norm" suppose to take care of all those concerns for everyone, & then suddenly open the flood gates for that "crowded field of interested parties" to come-a rushing in, & hence safe the day for all of the IOC's shortcomings! 

Somehow nobody bothered to tell the Swedes about that. At least not in believable manner.

29 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Do we have an indication of where public and government support sits now in Latvia about a 2030 bid with Sweden?

I haven't seen anything about that. However, since any Latvian participation would be minor, the financial burden would be minor as well. Most likely the Latvians would manage to get enough out of the IOC provided allocation to make a profit. My guess is that the smallish risk would be worth it.

Another interesting energy point is that Lithuania as far back as 2014 had made sure that they were completely independent of Russian energy.

Government support for 2026 meant that the government accepted to ensure security for the games (costing hundreds of millions of dollars that never are included in bid budgets). The bare minimum required from a government of a host country. Would the present government give that guarantee? Doubtful.

Despite all, the 2019 government was probably the most "pro-olympics" government we'll see for a very long time even if the Social Democrats return to power. The present leader used to be the very strict finance minister and her reaction to hearing about the SOK latest attempt was: "Sigh".

45 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

2019:  “Just over half of Swedes are in favor of their country getting the Olympics compared to well over 80 percent in Italy, according to a recent IOC-commissioned poll”.

That poll was based on the premise that the 2026 games would be "no taxpayer money games". No mention of the security costs covered by tax money and the shaky sponsor deals and still only a bare majority was in favour.

 

 

 

[stryker]

35 minutes ago, FYI said:

But wasn't the "new norm" suppose to take care of all those concerns for everyone, & then suddenly open the flood gates for that "crowded field of interested parties" to come-a rushing in, & hence safe the day for all of the IOC's shortcomings! 

Ding, ding, ding! Post of the year! Without rehashing all the minute details of the New Norm that have already been done. The New Norm along with Agenda 2020 had IMO two key concepts that in the eyes of the IOC would have prevented the mess the current 2030 race is in now. First, ending expensive bidding wars and second, allowing for regional, cross-country bids, and the use of existing venues without specific capacities. In theory, this was supposed to make bidding and hosting the Olympics cheaper and therefore more attractive to places like Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria (I'm staying with the WOGs on this). That hasn't happened. Vancouver and Sapporo both had plans that fit in line with this new approach perfectly yet neither could garner the public or political support necessary. Rather there is still a great deal of hostility towards the IOC and frankly as I've stated in other threads, the New Norm's biggest weakness is it does not have a mechanism for addressing support at a grassroots level outside of polling. There are no efforts on the part of the IOC to pitch to the public at large why their city or country should bid. And when they have they've tripped over their own feet as when John Coates showed up in Calgary during the 2026 race, said how great the Calgary bid was, and then said "the best part is it won't cost you anything." I'm sure the NoOlympics crowd ran wild with that just like Donald Trump did with Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment.

Add it all up, and the state of the 2030 race is as bad or worse that 2022 and that was before all these changes. The IOC has one candidate whose ready to go but they want 2034. Well I guess they can still hold out hope for a miracle from Stockholm which at least buys them time before they pay up to SLC to take 2030.

[AustralianFan]

 

3 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

 Do we have an indication of where public and government support sits now in Latvia about a 2030 bid with Sweden?

2 hours ago, Sigh said:

I haven't seen anything about that. However, since any Latvian participation would be minor, the financial burden would be minor as well. Most likely the Latvians would manage to get enough out of the IOC provided allocation to make a profit. My guess is that the smallish risk would be worth it.

Another interesting energy point is that Lithuania as far back as 2014 had made sure that they were completely independent of Russian energy.

Government support for 2026 meant that the government accepted to ensure security for the games (costing hundreds of millions of dollars that never are included in bid budgets). The bare minimum required from a government of a host country. Would the present government give that guarantee? Doubtful.

Despite all, the 2019 government was probably the most "pro-olympics" government we'll see for a very long time even if the Social Democrats return to power. The present leader used to be the very strict finance minister and her reaction to hearing about the SOK latest attempt was: "Sigh".

That poll was based on the premise that the 2026 games would be "no taxpayer money games". No mention of the security costs covered by tax money and the shaky sponsor deals and still only a bare majority was in favour.

Points well made @Sigh.

Makes me wonder who is paying for the 2030 Feasibily Assessment in Sweden. Perhaps the Swedish Olympic Committee?

[AustralianFan]

8 hours ago, FYI said:

But wasn't the "new norm" suppose to take care of all those concerns for everyone, & then suddenly open the flood gates for that "crowded field of interested parties" to come-a rushing in, & hence safe the day for all of the IOC's shortcomings! 

The crowded field of interested parties observation has only ever been made specifically about the 2036 field for the Summer Games, for which there is currently a field ten interested parties that the IOC has publicly recently stated they are in dialogue  with.

Never ever has it been about the 2030 Olympic Winter Games field.  That’s only ever been in your repeated creative imagination @FYI

[Sigh]

6 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Makes me wonder who is paying for the 2030 Feasibily Assessment in Sweden. Perhaps the Swedish Olympic Committee?

The feasibility study is entirely an SOK excercise. Inititiated by, paid by, performed by, presented by.

[AustralianFan]

7 hours ago, stryker said:

As I've stated in other threads, the New Norm's biggest weakness is it does not have a mechanism for addressing support at a grassroots level outside of polling.

There are no efforts on the part of the IOC to pitch to the public at large why their city or country should bid.

I agree with most of the points you have made @stryker.

Is there a role in a bidding country for  the IOC in gathering, influencing, motivating public or government support?

Or should this be left to the bid team  in that country to work out with their own country’s public, government and business sectors?

It’s not the IOC’s country.  It’s the country of the bidding team.

[AustralianFan]

36 minutes ago, Sigh said:

The feasibility study is entirely an SOK excercise. Inititiated by, paid by, performed by, presented by.

Excellent, thank you.

[cfm Jeremie]

19 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Both parties would be well aware of this but just because there are more than enough ice hockey venues in both countries isn’t justification to not share some ice hockey preliminary rounds across both Stockholm and Riga in their discussions.

 

Of course both partie are well of that, thank you captain obvious.

However, splitting one sport that shares technical officials, team officials and some media representatives as well when there is no need to do so only increases the complexity and indeed the cost instead of reducing it, which is the opposite of what the New Norm is trying to achieve.

[stryker]

6 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

I agree with most of the points you have made @stryker.

Is there a role in a bidding country for  the IOC in gathering, influencing, motivating public or government support?

Or should this be left to the bid team  in that country to work out with their own country’s public, government and business sectors?

It’s not the IOC’s country.  It’s the country of the bidding team.

It needs to be a joint partnership. Right now it is all on the shoulders of the candidate's respective government and bidding team. The problem that has created is a perception the IOC is an out of touch corruption riddled organization that pushes for host cities I to spending beyond their means with questionable legacies. It's worth noting the individual IFs also are a part of this. The Tokyo and Rio Olympics are perfect examples of this.

Addressing the public on a grassroots level is key. That's where almost all of the No Olympics movements begin and so far there's no real strategy for dealing with them other than reiterating the same tired points which isn't working.

I'd add much of this skepticism stems from the aftermath of the Great Recession when citizens in Democratic countries started questioning and rightfully so the spending of taxpayer money by their governments. 

The current economic crisis with inflation doesn't help matters much either especially with costs related to construction materials rising in preparations for both Paris and Milan.

[AustralianFan]

4 hours ago, cfm Jeremie said:

However, splitting one sport that shares technical officials, team officials and some media representatives as well when there is no need to do so only increases the complexity and indeed the cost instead of reducing it, which is the opposite of what the New Norm is trying to achieve.

Sunce 1994, preliminary rounds of Olympic Ice Hockey tournaments havs been held across two venues.  New Norm is also about using existing venues.

So, if both NOCs agree to the request from Latvia, the 2030 ice hockey tournment is shared across an existing venue in Stockholm and one in Riga.  No big deal, it’s not that hard.

 

 

[SportLightning]

4 hours ago, stryker said:

It needs to be a joint partnership.

That's what Sweden and Latvia should do first.

[SportLightning]

That's if they want to host the 2030 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

[FYI]

13 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The crowded field of interested parties observation has only ever been made specifically about the 2036 field for the Summer Games, for which there is currently a field ten interested parties that the IOC has publicly recently stated they are in dialogue  with.

Never ever has it been about the 2030 Olympic Winter Games field.  That’s only ever been in your repeated creative imagination @FYI

Yeah, sure. But again, wasn't the "new norm" suppose to fix this problem (at least according to you, in the many 'new norm' threads that you've bandied about this for how long now)? That a flood of "interested parties" were suppose to come out of the wood work once the IOC implemented these 'cost-effective & self-sustaining' measures, & after seeing how much of a "success" it was for Brisbane being anointed 2032? 

Doesn't the "new norm" apply to "both" sets of Summer & Winter Olympic Games? At least that's what you said a couple of pages ago..

On 3/24/2023 at 8:20 PM, AustralianFan said:

The New Norm host selection process applies to both the Winter and Summer Games.

Did you not know this?   

And last I checked, the 2030 Games are a WINTER edition. "Did you not know this?"

But of course, since the "crowded field of interested parties" doesn't fit your holier-than-thou "new norm" narrative in the 2030 case, so then of course all of the sudden it doesn't apply in your "repeated, creative (new norm) imagination" anymore. 

[TorchbearerSydney]

Q:  it was mainly just hyberbole, putting the cart before the horse &/or wishful thinking

 

I think wishful thinking is all we have left at this LATE stage!

[AustralianFan]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Yeah, sure. But again, wasn't the "new norm" suppose to fix this problem (at

But of course, since the "crowded field of interested parties" doesn't fit your holier-than-thou "new norm" narrative in the 2030 case, so then of course all of the sudden it doesn't apply in your "repeated, creative (new norm) imagination" anymore. 

You are the only one talking about a crowded field of interested parties for the Olympic Winter Games.

Only you @FYI

[FYI]

If gaslighting, deflection, projection, evading & beating-around-the-bush were all Olympic sports, 'only one' would win the Gold medal in every event, every single time. And that is "only you", AusFan. 

[stryker]

4 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Sunce 1994, preliminary rounds of Olympic Ice Hockey tournaments havs been held across two venues.  New Norm is also about using existing venues.

So, if both NOCs agree to the request from Latvia, the 2030 ice hockey tournment is shared across an existing venue in Stockholm and one in Riga.  No big deal, it’s not that hard.

 

 

Since 1994 those two venues in every WOGs have been either in the same city or same metropolitan area. You say New Norm is about using existing venues, well, as has already been pointed out multiple times, Stockholm has all the venues in fact two retractable roof stadiums than can offer larger than normal capacity for games which means more money to be made. Logistically and financially it makes zero sense to hold any ice hockey games in another country that would require shuttling teams back and forth via air travel and I doubt the players would be too eased about that. Friends Arena could easily hold two rinks at 20,000 capacity each. That means more money for the SOK. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's the best choice financially or logistically. If Stockholm did not have enough indoor arenas then it's a reasonable discussion. But they do, more than enough actually.

So if Lativa wants to host out of some good will nature then someone will have to convince the SOK and the Stockholm city government to not like money because they lose it in ticket sales and operating costs giving up ice hockey games to a country across the Baltic Sea

[AustralianFan]

2 hours ago, stryker said:

Since 1994 those two venues in every WOGs have been either in the same city or same metropolitan area. You say New Norm is about using existing venues, well, as has already been pointed out multiple times, Stockholm has all the venues in fact two retractable roof stadiums than can offer larger than normal capacity for games which means more money to be made. Logistically and financially it makes zero sense to hold any ice hockey games in another country that would require shuttling teams back and forth via air travel and I doubt the players would be too eased about that. Friends Arena could easily hold two rinks at 20,000 capacity each. That means more money for the SOK. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's the best choice financially or logistically. If Stockholm did not have enough indoor arenas then it's a reasonable discussion. But they do, more than enough actually.

So if Lativa wants to host out of some good will nature then someone will have to convince the SOK and the Stockholm city government to not like money because they lose it in ticket sales and operating costs giving up ice hockey games to a country across the Baltic Sea

That’s what both Sweden and Latvia will need to thrash out in these talks they’re having.

How much Sweden is willing to share remains to be seen.   We can only wait on the outcome of this entire process.

[AustralianFan]

Sweden 2030 Exploration

• “The Swedish Olympic Committee (SOK) has returned to the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games bidding table by announcing the launch of a feasibility study into the prospect of staging the 2030 edition.”
• “The study will be run by the SOK, Swedish Paralympic Committee (SPK) and National Sports Confederation (RF), with the three parties stating they see an opportunity as “big Olympic campaigns belong to history”.

Credit: Sports Business - 9 Feb-23

 

Background

A review on the background re Sweden’s renewed interest in the Olympic Winter Games in 2030:

• “The emerging interest from one of the world’s strongest winter sports nations will be welcomed by the IOC after the 2030 race stalled last year with dubious contenders and no election date in sight. The bid had been scheduled to end this May, but after internal delays and second thoughts by interested bidders, the IOC made clear in December that the competition would be put on pause and additional parties would be encouraged to join.”
• “As a first step, we had a meeting with the IOC about looking at possibility of hosting a the future Winter Games in 2030, without obligations on any either side. It was clear from our meeting that our previous concept for 2026 was much appreciated,” SOC Acting President Anders Larsson said.
• “What the feasibility study should answer is whether we are ready to move forward in the process.
• “The preliminary study will show how the Olympics can be shaped based on Sweden’s context.
• “We already have pretty much all the arenas required to stage the biggest Winter Games.”

Credit: Gamesbids.com

(The Feasibility Study due to be presented soon on 20 April 2023 and should include incorporating Latvia into the 2030 Games).

 

[Sigh]

1 hour ago, AustralianFan said:

The Feasibility Study due to be presented soon on 20 April 2023 and should include incorporating Latvia into the 2030 Games)

Clarfication: April 20 is the date for the first "waystation" with another in May and a final report "before summer". Other sources say before July. Sweden is closed in July and no serious decisions are taken in August. So don't expect any decision to go ahead until September. A decision to kill off the bid could come sooner.

Apart from the sports minister being incensed with the EB/IOC regarding Russian pariticpation nothing has changed. SOK feasibility study is still ignored.

The leader of the feasibility study, and likely new SOK chairman to replace the one who resigned due to allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, when asked about events in Riga was evasive to say the least.

[AustralianFan]

4 minutes ago, Sigh said:

Clarfication: April 20 is the date for the first "waystation" with another in May and a final report "before summer". Other sources say before July. Sweden is closed in July and no serious decisions are taken in August. So don't expect any decision to go ahead until September. A decision to kill off the bid could come sooner.

Apart from the sports minister being incensed with the EB/IOC regarding Russian pariticpation nothing has changed. SOK feasibility study is still ignored.

The leader of the feasibility study, and likely new SOK chairman to replace the one who resigned due to allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, when asked about events in Riga was evasive to say the least.

Excellent, thanks.   what’s a waystation?

[Sigh]

5 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Excellent, thanks.   what’s a waystation?

Sorry for my less than perfect English. In this case it's a first preliminary report followed by a second preliminary report followed by the final feasibility report.

[AustralianFan]

2 minutes ago, Sigh said:

Sorry for my less than perfect English. In this case it's a first preliminary report followed by a second preliminary report followed by the final feasibility report.

Thanks so much for that.   And don’t worry, its not you, its me as I hadn’t heard of that term before.