Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by gromit

  1. If you are looking at a bid in this part of the world, then Auckland, New Zealand might get a look in ahead of the likes of Brisbane and Perth.

    There would certainly be the ability to have the infrastructure required with the redevelopment/development of facilities to be used for a games and as the leading city within the country with the possibility that the facilities would always be used then this would provide the legacy.

  2. The irony is Lillehammer is 1 venue short of being able to host 2022.

    The games have grown since 1994 but so have the infrastructure links ... weren't these touted as why Kvitfjell and Hatfjell could be used by Oslo ... how about the other way around??

    A missed opportunity by both Norway and the IOC to show small games could work

    I think 2026 will reveal a new process

  3. After Brazil, Russia and Qatar, Canada would definitely be a safe pair of hands.

    I think the chaotic reference with regard to 2014 was due to the nature of the building works. The stadium in Sao Paolo had not even had a close to capacity crowed before it held the opening game.

    Whilst it will be a big ask for Canada to host the World Cup, new or redeveloped stadia in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Regina, Ottawa and Hamilton can all be temporarily expanded to meet the minimum requirement of capacity. Calgary will likely join the stadium building club soon, whilst Edmonton's stadium can be updated. The CFL might have reached the Atlantic with a new Halifax stadium. Montreal's Olympic stadium can have its roof removed and can be dug down removing where the running track was to provide a capacity of 70,000 seats, leaving only Toronto as an issue

    Can the Toronto Rogers arena be used? Will Toronto accept only earlier games allowing the BMO Field to be used? Or can a new stadium of 25,000 seats be built for the Argonauts .... with the ability to add a temporary expansion to 65,000 seats meaning Toronto can host the opening game?

    Agreement with CFL could allow their season in 2026 to start two weeks later meaning the stadia would be available

    Final: Montreal - 73,000 seats

    Semi: Edmonton 60,000 seats, Vancouver 60,000 seats

    QF: above plus Toronto 65,000 seats

    L16: above plus Winnipeg 40,000 seats, Regina 40,000 seats, Ottawa 45,000 seats, Halifax 40,000 seats

    Groups: above plus Toronto BMO stadium 40,000 seats, Hamilton, 40,000 seats, Calgary 40, 000 seats

    11 stadia, 10 cities - 3 new build, 1 major update

  4. Whilst Copenhagen has a number of supposed weaknesses they can actually be also be perceived as strengths

    1. It is a capital city which is something the IOC like

    2. Whilst lacking some infrastructure, the Danes have proven with the Oresund Bridge, the Fixed Belt Link and all likelihood the Fehrmann Tunnel link, major projects costing billions are brought in, on time and under budget

    3. Denmark is one of the least corrupt countries in the world - officially

    4. As a city it has metro population of just under 2million but include the Oresund region and you double it. And when workers in Copenhagen can easily commute from home in Malmo, clearly it is easy to get around. The Fehrmann link, scheduled to open in 2021 will ease access from Northern Germany.

    5. It is the IOC - not USOC and they ask for a main stadium of 60,000 seats+. Nice to have more for the ceremonies but also embarrassing if you only have a few thousand for R1 of qualifying

    and it is not the USA. Everyone likes the Danes, whilst for some IOC members it will be a case of voting for anyone but

  5. Having hosted the Commonwealth Games, and also the Rugby World Cup, clearly the answer is that NZ can hold large sporting events so the answer would be YES.

    This would especially true of the Winter Olympics where such facilities as bobsleigh runs and ski jumps would undoubtedly get used as part of Summer training facilities.

  6. Not really

    They are saying Norway for the size of country has had too many games - despite being the leading Winter Olympic nation it will only have been 3 times in 98 years if they are successful in 2022

    And lets not forget there are physical limitations on who can actually host.

    Yes there are additional sports but funny - Lillehammer, Gjovik and Hamar have actually grown in size as cities since 1994. Transportation links have improved massively since 1994 and it is much easier for people to come into the area on a daily basis.

    If the idea is to have a compact bid, then having all the sports in close proximity makes just as much sense.

    In which case they could've chosen to use Norefjell as the alpine sites and had a more compact and new looking bid if different was the aim

  7. Its a pity that Norway went with Oslo rather than go with a pure Lillehammer 2022.

    People will say that the area is not big enough, but in reality even though the games has grown since 1994, in terms of facilities Lillehammer has almost everything you might want already in place.

    From 1994, you still have

    Hamar Olympic Hall - 10,600 - the Viking Ship for speed skating

    Hakon Hall - 10,500 which is enough for Ice Hockey 1

    Gjovik Hall - 6,000 which was the Ice Hockey 2 hall in 1994

    Hamar Olympic Amphitheatre - 6,091 for the 1994 Figure Skating

    Kristins Hall in Lillehammer which was used for Ice Hockey training and can hold up to 4,000 people

    The Stampesletta Idrettspark has enough area for an 8-lane running track stadium, 3 grass football fields and gravel training areas. When you consider that the Temporary Basketball Arena in London 2012 had exterior dimensions of 115m x 100m x 35 and a full sized football field is 105m x 65m there would appear to be enough space for a Temporary Arena of 12,000 seats

    Birkebeineren, Lygardsbakkene, and the Olympic Bobsleigh Track are still in place.

    And if people can commute from Oslo to events, then maybe the opposite could have been reversed

  8. I think there is a difference of using a technical facility 30km away from the bidding city saving a city from building a white elephant whilst in terms of the Krakow bid there is an realistic option within borders just down the road at Zakopane offering 930m of vertical whilst Korbielow-Pilsko offers 792m

  9. I would suggest the opposite.

    There will be no split in those voting for Scandinavia contenders.

    And those in Oslo will now believe that Oslo offers the safest option compared to any other bidders with a vast number of existing proven facilities including those in Lillehammer.

    Lviv will suffer from proximity to Sochi

    Almaty and Beijing from the 2018 games

    Krakow because of the unheralded 2 countries bid

    Oslo just got a boost.

    And don't forget the Norwegian economy is underpinned by its oil economy and a huge social fund which could justify bidding through the development of extra sporting facilities and housing created by the building on an Olympic village.

    Plus the Norwegian population just love their winter sports and arguably more so than the Swedish population

    • Like 1
  10. We're pretty early in this, but the Swedes are currently only proposing 8 alpine events for Are. Not half the games as some seem to be suggesting. I know that could change. Everything changes in Olympic circles.

    And yes, 600 km is a big distance. But Munich to Kiel is 900 km. Atlanta to Miami is 1000 km. Beijing to Hong Kong is 2000 km. Los Angeles to Boston is 5000 km. And let's not even try to calculate Melbourne to Stockholm. There are plenty of cases in the summer games where a few Olympic sporting events have been held far outside the main Olympic city - football, sailing, equestrian. A compact Olympics isn't always possible. This would certainly be the furthest Alpine events have been from the rest of the Olympic events and maybe a bit strange for the 300 odd competitors, but it won't end the Olympic Movement as we know it.

    So, I think we should wait and see what Sweden proposes in full. And then the IOC can decide if having one sport contended 600 km away from the main cite is too much.

    Munich to Kiel = The Summer Games

    Atlanta to Miami = The Summer Games

    Beijing to Hong Kong = the Summer Games

    Los Angeles to Boston = the Summer Games

    Exactly when has there been a distance like this in the Winter Games???? .... and we are talking about the minor sports, not a major event like the Men's Downhill

    Would you expect them to host the 100m final, hundreds of Kms from the rest of the games???

  11. Then be prepared to be surprised. If Stockholm bids & they have everything in check, like government backing & a workable solution to their main weakness, there's no way the IOC is going to turn it's back on it. The only thing about the venue plan that doesn't work at this moment is the distance to Are. Everything else is there; the infrastructure, the narrative, a traditional winter sports power in a country that hasn't seen the Olymics in over a century. There's too much there to shut them out right away without hearing them out first.

    The Swedish government have already said they will not provide financial support and will not provide any financial guarantees

    Rogge said a lot of things in his time, unfortunately little of it had substance, as it turned out.

    Except he has also said it for other bids, for example when Harbin failed to be a contender for the WYOG in 2012

  12. " IOC President Jacques Rogge later stated that with the distance of 240 kilometers (150 mi) between Oslo and the Alpine venues would make it impossible to be selected."

    If 240km is too far, 600km most certainly is as it cannot be resolved by high speed rail ..... only aircraft and lets not forget, planes to fly to Are, they fly to Ostersund and then there is additional road travel

  13. No government financial support

    No hope of success

    Especially when considering the utterly ridiculous distances between Stockholm and Are

    After all, Oslo can always be persuaded to use Norefjell which is 130km from the city.

    Even still Oslo-Kvitfjell is 228km, Stockholm-Are is 634km, Beijing-Zhangjiakou 194km, Lviv-Volovets 185km, Krakow-Jasna 181km ....

    Stockholm's distances make their bid an utter nonsense.

    • Like 2
  14. More information about their bid



    I still think an Oslo bid would be improved if they moved the Alpine events from Kvitfjell to Norefjell which with 1010m drop certainly has sufficient vertical.

    The 1952 bobsleigh run was dismantled but the course is still there to use as a basis for a temporary run

    • Like 1
  15. Ice events in London, skiing & stuff on the Chilterns. Yeah, we could do it! :lol: On a more serious note, could Scotland ever host the games? It's the only place in the UK that could. Maybe Aberdeen as host city?

    Glasgow. Multiple indoor arenas and stadia which could be used.

    Glencoe Ski Area. The oldest resort in Scotland was a 803 metre vertical drop. 80miles (130kms) from downtown Glasgow.

  16. Becuz that's a win-win for everyone...except for UEFA. So they'll just have to adjust their calendars or individual players will just have to make choices, no??

    Actually individual players cannot make that decision as they are individually contracted to clubs and can only play international football on an 'agreed' number of release dates.

    December is an interesting point - the Bundesliga winter break starts around 20th December, Ligue1 starts around 22nd December

    It CANNOT start earlier as it is an even split in the middle of the season.

    We are talking about the 5 wealthiest sports leagues in the world changing their dates to simply help out the Winter Olympic games?

    And lets not forget - 99% of the world's leading players from outside Europe actually play for leagues under the UEFA mandate.

    It would be like having the SuperBowl contested by two NCAA Division III teams if Europe did not agree to the release of their players.

  17. Look at this article: http://blogs.bauer.uh.edu/faculty/uncategorized/advertising-the-super-bowl-vs-winter-olympics/

    The problem will be in Europe where int'l football has a bigger following than in the US. A World Cup in the winter in the US market really won't wrinkle the budgets for the SuperBowl and WOG advertisers. Even a World Cup finals won't match the numbers that an Oscar telecast can deliver in the US -- so the problems will be in Europe (in addition to the UEFA, League thing). It's primarily going to be a Euro quagmire that FIFA will have to deal with. The Nordic countries and the Netherlands are much stronger WOG countries than WC-followers.

    So, it'll come down to (1) can FIFA ask UEFA and the whatever League in Europe to move and (2) will the players want to arrive in Qatar between X'mas and New Year's in order to get ready for a WC which might start say, the first week of January??

    I think you will find that the Scandinavians and Dutch are massively football fans, and whilst both participate in winter sports, if given the chance the vast majority will follow football.

    As for when teams can attend, if held in Winter, then players will be coming directly out of season so will not need the 3-4 weeks of preparation. Indeed it may not be possible to accommodate this in Qatar and teams will prepare outside of the middle east.

    As a number of European leagues have, have had or propose to have a winter break anyway, the task of FIFA might be far easier than you think

  18. For the velodrome:



    For the aquatics centre I don't know any such project right now.

    That being said, I don't believe one minute Paris will bid. Especially on the year of the Presidential election in France (2017), this is really bad timing for a politician.

    Interestingly the year of the UK General Election and the vote for the 2012 Olympic Games was 2005 ... and it wasn't bad timing for the incumbent politician with the opposition also supporting the bid so not to appear killjoys

  19. The likely dates for the 2022 Winter Olympics are February 11-27. The World Cup could potentially begin on January 5th or 6th, with the final on Sunday, February 6th. February 6th would be Super Bowl Sunday, though, so that would be a huge potential conflict as well. It will be interesting to see how much pressure Fox Sports can exert on FIFA to keep the World Cup in the summer, as a January or November-December World Cup conflicts directly with the NFL, which is a far more valuable property for Fox.

    Fox Sports will have zero influence over FIFA and the World Cup. Remember football is a minor sport in the USA and no-one is interested in the NFL.

    FoxSports v UEFA and the main sponsors of the World Cup and the European Leagues is a non-contest

  • Create New...