Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ScholaOsloensis

  1. I'd love to see a bid from Sweden, but to say that the long distance to Åre is the only weakness of a Stockholm bid is a bit naive I'm afraid. The swedes have problems with getting governmental support. From the perspective of an olympics enthusiast that might be a "bad" thing, but it only goes to show that the current swedish government sets responsibility extremely high. The newest, governmental quotes I've been able to find are from june, where after a meeting between the NOC and the government, they concluded negatively with regards to governmental support, http://www.svt.se/sport/regeringen-nobbar-svensk-os-ansokan . The minister of sports says that a minimum of government expenditures of 1,2 billion euros is too much, but didn't give a lower limit. Secondly, I think Sweden would be better off with Östersund or somewhere more traditional. Why? Stockholm is the most beautiful scandinavian capital, but there are really no outdoor venues established anywhere close to it. Short summary regarding venues that will have to be in the Stockholm area. Everything is taken from the pre-bid assessment ordered by the SOK and performed by Jöran Heggelund http://www.sok.se/download/18.3e7f4ba7140fff9e8b31626/Utredning+Stockholm+2022.pdf. Ice Hockey, figure skating, curling and short track - This is where Stockholm excels. Stadiums and facilities are basically finished and ready, with some moduling necessary of course for the different sports. Very good capacity. Slalom - The proposal is to artificially extend Flottsbrobacken with about 100 meters. My question: Doesn't the combination usually take place on the same day? A bit far to travel Åre for the downhill, even if it's the next day. Snowboard (halfpipe, cross etc) and freestyle - Various hills in Stockholm, one of which will have to be extended artificially. Might be just Flottsbrobacken, but it seems a lot of activity in just one hill. Could be logistically difficult. Ski jumping - no existing hills. Needs to be close to XC for nordic combined. One idea is to build them on the back side of Flottsbrobacken that is getting the artificial extension. Stadiums and facilities from the scratch. Cross country skiing - no existing stadiums, though there's ski terrain close to Stockholm. Stadiums and facilities from the scratch. Biathlon - Stadiums and facilities from the scratch. Bob - No existing up to date track in Sweden. The idea is Hammarbybacken, but it's 25 meters too low, so an artificial structure on the top is necessary. Alpine events except slalom: Åre - Everything's great there, but it's over 500 km from Stockholm. I wouldn't oppose two distant centres as long as the centres themselves are compact. This is imo better than Vancouver where none outdoor events took place in the major centre, but were spread around 100-150 kms in different satelites. And the reason the report concludes so positively is the low amounts of necessary investments required before the games (in other words, gov support not necessary, just a guarantee). That amount is 2,5 billion SEK, which should be around 300 million euros. Now call me cynical, but that just doesn't sound like a number from the real part of the world. I feel for the swedes and they should definitely host (as should Germany and ideally Finland although we know that's difficult), but I do think that this Stockholm bid in the end is not realistic, but that it definitely needs a bit more spending and governmental support. Please prove me wrong, but isn't Östersund more suited? I guess the problem is that the Ice events really should be in Stockholm no matter what. I forgot: Speed skating - No current stadiums for that, but could be part of a proposed bandy stadium. Is there no way to edit one's posts?
  2. That is correct. Stortinget, that is the parliament, will finally vote over financial guarantees (practically, financial support as well) after the bid has been through external evaluation, which it is currently undergoing. If Stockholm chooses to "formally announce their interest", they will also not yet have been through any kind of political process or have financial guarantees, so they will also have this obstacle. Today's outcome might make it more probable with governmental support, since the "Munich scare" no longer exists, but it touches right into heated district debates and it's impossible to say (for me, right now) which way it'll turn. The new cabinet has strikingly few members from Oslo, but the minister of sports and culture luckily supports the olympics.
  3. Since when did the US care about losers? Winning a silver or bronze medal (oooh, a medal!) is like getting a tap on the shoulder from your grandma. 2nd place is the first loser.
  4. Let's tone it down a little, eh?:-) Obviously for those who want to see the olympics in Oslo, that has suddenly become much more probable, but we also love the WG and as such it's a sad day.
  5. A sad day for the winter olympics, indeed. I understand that many draw conclusions, but I think we should keep in mind that the referendum hasn't exactly been the norm, has it? I'm pretty sure that if cities always had referendums, some cities that were finally awarded the games, would have said no at this stage. Especially if it was an olympics only referendum taking place in each venue district, where all had to say yes. I mean, talk about making life hard for yourselves, although admirable from a democratic point of view. I also think it was strange to make it a separate referendum. If my city had done that instead of having it simultaneously with the elections for parliament, we could have seen a very different result. If such high requirements for popular support at this stage is the norm in western countries, then I agree the IOC needs to think about its image (and to a degree, IOC has to do so anyways, but IOC gets lots of blames for other's mistakes. They don't control other's actions; they make the premises). I do however not see the logic in blaming IOC for Sochi. Munich is not Sochi, and they didn't need to be as non-green as Sochi to get the olympics. Few olympics would have been as green as Munich. A very weak argument in my opinion.
  6. I don't know if that's correct. Remember that bid organizations have a self-interest of promoting a bid even if the competition is tough. I'd rather say that the NOlympia will give the swedes stronger incentives to take the internal battles. I was told in another thread that if Oslo doesn't get governmental, financial support after having "formally declared its intention to bid" (14th nov deadline), the country will be punished by IOC for decades. In other words, bid cities need governmental guarantees already before this deadline. If that is correct, Stockholm will be in an even worse position than Oslo, given that governmental support is probably even more controversial in Sweden at this stage. I would welcome a bid from Sweden; unfortunately for them, the geography and the distances between the large cities and winter sports venues aren't really favourable for an olympics. They can still figure something out, but they need to be creative, with perhaps artificial slalom hills near Stockholm etc. It's not ideal if the main city of the bid only hosts indoor events, although that has become the norm.
  7. Personally, I think that's a rather sad outlook. "Now we can finally forget about 36 and 72". Those two are already practically forgotten about and they will remain in the history books no matter what happens in 2022. Germany has held larger sports events than the WG such as the WC 2006, so there's nothing to prove, and I don't think there ever was anything to prove. Germany's obstacles are domestic (as in most industrialized countries). The most compelling things about Munich 2022 are things that stand on their own merit. A genuine following and enthusiasm for the sports; atmosphere, huge crowds and a city with amazing facilities and hospitality. Munich has everything it takes to host as good winter games as we can get.
  8. I'm pretty sure the ex-soviet states would like us to (wake up and) move on as well. If you've spoken to people that have experienced occupation, or alternatively make use of common sense, it's quite clear that the occupees don't always have the warmest of feelings toward the occupying nation. Specifically, I've spoken with a ukrainian girl from Lviv who was furious that people still viewed Ukraine as something russian. Of course, Ukraine is still eastern europe if that's supposed to be the point. Or Poland, which you had in mind of course.
  9. I agree that frequency relative to population is a very strong argument. There are still some things to consider though. In how many countries in the world do winter sports have a major following? Not many.... at all. How many on this forum actually follow the winter sports in question? As someone who does, it's always a worry when it comes to the WG, that it will be in a place where people don't care about the sports and no one will show up. And talking mainly about outdoor events of course; icehockey and figure skating is "safe" most places. And I mean, if you don't care about the sports, it's not a worry I guess. Then it's all about the "Idea"+ceremonies. Winter Olympics is a small thing. From the medals table, it's evident that not many nations take it seriously. Is it wrong that the nation(s) that have done most in the WG host it more often? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/spo_win_oly_med_all_tim-winter-olympic-medals-all-time I agree that rotation and inviting new countries has value, but it's not worth throwing the sports or the enthusiasm of the games under the bus. They are too small and dependent on the olympics to do that, and what's the point of hosting the olympics when the majority of the events don't have a local following? To me, it's counter-intuitive to use the population argument against a host that will have higher attendance than most other places. I'm happy 2014 will take place in Russia, but I've heard that Sochi won't have that high attendance figures since it's too far away from everything. I hope that's wrong. From an objective stand point, I would of course agree that Sweden "deserves" it more, as well as Germany, but if those two alternatives turn out to be non-alternatives and there are no other alternatives that can guarantee a following, I don't see how it's better to spread the games out just for the sake of it.
  10. I enjoyed Krakow a lot as a city. The single most important factor to my judgment, is that the people of which ever country it is enjoys and care about the winter sports, and that's definitely the case in Poland. It's perhaps easy to assume that the olympics is such a strong trademark that it would create enthusiasm and high attendance all over the world, but for the winter olympics, that's simply not the case. The sports are the substance of the games, and it's IOC's responsibility to support and promote the games and thus the sports. Poland would be perfect. 2022 could be a strong race, and hopefully the "losers", whoever that becomes, will succeed later.
  11. I think we all hope Munich will get past the referendum(s):-) I certainly do. Oslo or Munich to me is "hipp som happ" - as we say. Remember there was a dramatic shift of opinion here as well the last days, so still possible.
  12. Markun made his assessment of the rational intention for the ukrainian bid. Here's the concept, you can disagree with that assessment without looking at his point of view as critical or unfair. He's assuming that the ukrainians made a rational and smart decision. Maybe he's wrong, I wouldn't know, but I don't think there's necessarily any disrespect. That requires that his point of view is based on weird prejudices of Ukraine, which there is nothing at all to suggest. Good job on *not making sweeping generalizations about northern europe* while trying to defend one part of the world from the same kind of perceived judgment, and at the same time *not making it* geo-political. I believe any bid no matter where it comes from deserves (from a respectful point of view) to be analyzed as rationally and perhaps critically as possible, and politics and geography is unfortunately one component of that analytic framework. I don't understand how one can disagree with that. Too many times, judgments of bids seem to depend on how "fresh" or "exciting" they seem to be, based on which ever emotional state the individual is in at that point in time, and which ever information flow the subject has taken part of at that point in time. I just don't believe such an approach is very congruent with a decision process that leads to the most suitable, actual host of the olympics, which surely is why we judge bids? Or is the bid process itself just as exciting and important?
  13. Let's hope that doesn't happen, then.
  14. The 14th november deadline is one of several deadlines for the bidding cities. The cities will "officially announce their interest" and it will cost a relatively small sum of money. It's not the final application. March 2014 is the deadline for the first application and finally in january 2015 IOC needs the final application. The next steps are more costly, and it makes less sense to stay in the circus unless you know that you're going to go through with a bid. Oslo will probably - since the bid must go trough external quality controls before parliament votes - make an eventual withdrawal between the 1st and the last application deadline. They would want the answer before march, but won't get it probably and everyone agrees that it's way too late for the parliament not to decide before the final application, so next autumn it is. For Oslo, it's a given to follow the formal requirements until the issue of financiation is settled. Of course! So the answer to the question if Oslo are bidding now or not - is that the city has through the referendum and the positive answer from the norwegian sports bodies and NOC already decided to give it a shot, and formally announce their interest, but we don't yet know if the city will submit a final bid since it depends on parliamentary support, which hasn't yet been resolved. All the other bid cities that has unresolved issues, such as Stockholm, Munich etc are also expected to "bid" before the 14th november deadline of course unless they've decided negatively before that time. I don't remember the date for the Munich referendum, but I suppose it should be right before the deadline. If it's right after, they too will have to pay IOC some lunch money, if the referendum is to be meaningful. So I'm just saying that although international and domestic media presents the "announcement" before the 14th november deadline as news, it's something that's been evident since the positive referendum.
  15. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I'm afraid we already knew this would happen after the positive referendum:-) So, nothing new.. The alternative would be to withdraw entirely because the issue of financing wasn't resolved before the 14th november deadline (which we knew it wouldn't be), which would of course be idiotic given that the city wants to bid. What remains is the issue of governmental financial guarantees on national level. That's the only question remaining after the referendum and it's the biggest question. If the national government (and the parliamentary majority) decides to finance and invest in the olympics, Oslo will bid. If not, Oslo will withdraw its bid.
  16. I think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. This last confirmation is really just a formality. Nothing has changed; the real crux lies at the highest political level. The more interesting news from the last couple of weeks, is that our new minister for culture and sports personally supports the bid, but I'm concerned whether that really matters. The fact that the economy no longer show signs of over-heating might actually be the biggest, positive factor as it would make it less irresponsible to intensify investments over a short time span. The plans are currently undergoing critical review in the ministry and a final yes/no to whether Oslo will actually bid in any meaningful understanding of the word, should rise during the first half of 2014.
  17. Who's lost objectivity? I reckon we're not talking about Lillehammer:-) The ceremony was extremely well received around the world, having read up on wikipedia and as this thread has documented, it has won loads of prizes and nominations. That's a pretty good (objective) suggestion that it was actually a very good show.
  18. Uhm, well that it was only enjoyed in britain was the statement that I disagreed with, so when you represent my view with a statement completely opposite to reality, it's not surprising that you fail to recognize the reasoning. It was not exclusive at all. Sometimes, a director or writer just has to say, okay if you didn't get that, that's alright, but it's not my problem. Or else we could just watch two hours of fireworks display; I'm sure that would please everybody... It turns out, Boyle's show was very well received. The "problem" here is not that it was for the british only (it was not), but that it took the story telling part a bit more seriously, which is completely expected when you hire someone who excels in that department. And it was a great thing to do, for it gave the ceremony a human touch, made it cheaper to produce and in the end, substance outlasts pure flashy-ness. That it didn't please everybody is just the way it is. Sometimes, the lowest common denominator isn't the only way, even for an olympic opening ceremony.
  19. I've noticed that many on this forums seem to suggest that only the brits enjoyed the opening ceremony immensely, and I couldn't disagree more. In my subjective opinion it was without a doubt the most enjoyable and re-watchable opening ceremony of all times. It's probably the only one that will really stick with me as a piece of artistic expression, even if only the better pieces of it. Pandemonium, the 'Mortality' segment (which inexplicably was cut short in the us), the cauldron, the Queen, Mr. Bond, Mr Bean and the Chariots of Fire and many other parts were just sublime. It had a sense of humanity and story telling that usually belongs to other cultural scenes than the cliche-ridden boom-bang, orchestrated, no room for error opening ceremonies of national pride and might. However, I can't disagree with an impression, but I can disagree with the observation that the reception was lukewarm outside of britain. In my country I believe we all loved it and I can't imagine that it would be much different for most other western european countries. From the rest of the world, I've seen so many positive reviews, but from reading this forums I get a completely different impression. That the americans didn't enjoy it, doesn't really come as a surprise. There's a big gap in culture, expectation and reference across the pond. This was certainly not a show tailored for the americas, which I don't really see as Boyle's problem. I'm a bit more suprised that some of the major themes seem to go over the head of the audience, as demonstrated in several comments that I've read on this forums which presumably is one of geeks and thus educated people. Is the significance of the industrial revolution no longer taught? It is the underlying event that has shaped and created the premises for the modern world. It was a nasty process, it was ridden with disease, unfairness, inequality, suppression, but yet it paved the way for all those issues to be improved and ultimately forged a better society. Boyle illuminates this by showing the suffragist movement, worker's rights, healthcare as a civil right (though in a different segment, but it's no coincidence that the industrial revolution is the defining segment of the show; the other segments can all relate to it) and the social transformation that happened in such a never-before-seen pace and that has continued to this day. Having the people's movements, the beatles and the industrial revolution in the same segment makes sense if you understand the significance of the latter. The forging of the symbols is a powerful symbolic act that reflects the progression through times and ties the coming together of the world through the modern olympics to the coming together of modern society itself. Therefore it just saddens me when I read the comments from the other side of the pond. Maybe Boyle could have been clearer, but this is how directors usually do things (stage theatres, musicals). They don't overstate the themes and they're not supposed to. The motives are there to resonate with the audience, but of course all cultural appreciation requires some contextual knowledge and references. Boyle's theme is definitely not exclusively british. It is one that should resonate around the world. No, the show wasn't perfect, but it didn't need to be.
  20. Merci beaucoup! Paris is seemingly an amazing city and I'd be glad to see the games return there in the near future. However, the euros is just as exciting in my opinion:-) Munich is indeed the favourite and they will be amazing hosts. If they do go forward with their bid, I'll imagine someone is going to think hard about whether to go all in for 2022 or aim for something later on, that is, if Oslo 2022 manages to turn things around domestically..
  21. Okay.. I'll try to limit the scope of my answer to this post as not to derange into an emotional debate about district policy:-) First of all, you bring some valid points that I'll try to address, but.. your reasoning in the sense of how you draw your conclusions is in my opinion biased/flawed. Every single bid, and this is especially relevant for the WOG, has its weaknesses, or should I say lack of perfectness. You focus on some of the arguably weaker points of the Oslo bid, while comparing these with a hypothetical ideal alternative norwegian bid, Like saying that Oslo isn't as compact as Lillehammer, it's not as spectacular as Tromsø and it's not as ... ehm cold as Trondheim. Well, right.. but that's not really an argument in favour of either of these bids instead of Oslo. It's just stating the obvious, namely that Oslo is not the perfect bid and that other norwegian bid cities/villages have their strenghts as well. Your last point first. Ehm.. Why would you draw any conclusions about my knowledge of "the rest of the country"? I've only written a few lines on this forum and none of those attempted to say much in detail about "the rest of my country". I'll guess you're a trønder, and let me just say that I believe that a Trondheim bid would be excellent:-), and I would support that bid as well. I took a semester of my studies in Trondheim (well, actually I mistakenly prioritized NTNU before UIO when applying and went back to UIO later), enjoyed the city and have lots of family up there. Just too bad that the public support for a bid in Trondheim was in the 30s during the race for 2018. About the compactness. You're right. The games would obviously not be as compact as Lillehammer. And you're right, the main norwegian competitors are also very compact, but this is not a size measured in one dimension. What you'll get with Oslo, is the ability to reach all venues by a metro ride, including nordic skiing events, biathlon, freestyle, snowboard as well as the indoor events. That is compact when you compare with competing host cities of similar size (and bigger). Obv there would have to be an additional centre for alpine/sliding events, with Lillehammer looking like the most likely candidate. Is that ideal? No. However, in 2022 we're looking at the inter city railway as well as four lane highway, so transport is good and the international airport is on the right side of the city as well. About the weather. From my experience and what I've understood from other's experiences the weather in Trondheim is very unstable, it sees more precipitation, less sun days and it's also darker during winter. Not all of that is bad with regards to WOG, but it's not fair to make the case that Oslo is significantly worse than Trondheim in this respect. Nordmarka (Oslo) lies several hundred metres above the occean and is the most widely used XC area in the country. Holmenkollen (Nordmarka, Oslo) is arguably the most prominent host of the nordic events, with hundred year old traditions, brand new facilities and a recent and very well received world championships under its belt. In my book, that is an argument in favour of the city. The city was really sparkling during the championships with the city centre filled to the brink during the medal ceremonies. I couldn't get anywhere near the Universitetsplassen because of all the people. You try to paint a bleak picture of the championships, which is the complete opposite of what's in people's minds and hearts. About the transportation issue during the World Championships. First of all, it wasn't that bad. What you need is to calculate enough time. It was a problem during the opening stages because of somewhat poorly distributed information as well as higher demand than expected, but got gradually better. The potential capacity for public transport to Holmenkollen is now very high (metro+buses), and the experiences from the World Championships will only help. I don't think the idea of public transportation having such a major role in the logistics is a negative for Oslo, rather on the contrary. About the arguments of economics and sustainability. Firstly, I'm not yet ready to get into number crunching, as I'll have to study the bid closer, but I'm not interested in comparing projected numbers for Oslo 2022 with Tromsø 2018. We both know how uncertain these numbers are and how the olympics get more expensive. What I'm looking at is this: In Oslo there's infrastructure, there's demand and there are facilities. Tha'ts not a bad starting point. When I claim unsustainability, I'm not talking about Trondheim, but rather Tromsø and Voss. As spectacular as those games would be, there are so many basic challenges to begin with and unless they plan to double or triple in size, there would be a need for lots of investments that don't make any sense at all outside the olympic context. The Martinsen group that compared the 2018 bid cities of Trondheim, Tromsø and Oslo assessed the strength of the bids using the IOC criteria. Oslo ranked first, Trondheim second and Tromsø last. So my reaction to your claim that there are three better norwegian alternatives has to be seen in that light, because with that premise, you have to throw in cities like Tromsø, Voss/Bergen or Lillehammer. I would say it's an extremely contrarian point of view, to hold all of these bids to be better than Oslo, especially if one is to emphasize sustainability. Lastly, about the landscape and the claim that Oslo will repel tourists. First of all, I love the west coast and the fjords, but.. are we not discussing the winter olympics here? As far as I'm aware, the three most regular hosts of nordic events have been Oslo, Lillehammer and Trondheim and I can't remember the more scenic areas having hosted any measurable nordic event nor having the basic facilities to do so. The fjords etc just don't come into play unless we're going to build something from scratch. I fail to recognise that Oslo's natural setting is any less scenic than that of Trondheim, and honestly, the Holmenkollen facilities is architecturally superior to Granåsen and offers views of the city. Just look at the promo video from the muni. I'm not saying that the destination itself is great or anything, especially not in the international perspective, but that can hardly be said about Trondheim either, although a nice and charming city. It will always be about the tradition, the enthusiasm, the crowds and the sparks.
  22. Glad you enjoyed your stay. We don't hear such kind words that often. Some voices in the national debate even argues that the city is too ugly to showcase:-). Well, it's not that bad, but it would be a far stretch to liken it with Paris, Madrid, London, Copenhagen, Stockholm etc etc. Still improving though with the new developments.
  23. I'd estimate the chances that Oslo submit a bid in the end is .. maybe 15-25 %. The referundum was one of those things that could only hurt Oslo's chances. That we voted yes, only means that we avoided the early defeat. It was basically a guiding referendum as to whether the City should apply for financial guarantees on state level. Norways is (sadly) a very district oriented country with huge skepticism (and bitterness) towards the capital area. With populists in the government, it's likely that it will be very difficult to get enough political support.
  24. I don't understand how you can use economic arguments against Oslo, while saying that there are three better alternatives in Norway. Oslo's bid will be reasonable given the existing infrastructure, work force and population and much of the infrastructure improvements will satisfy existing demands. To have the olympics in Tromsø or Voss or wherever would be crazy with regards to economy and the need for investments in unsustainable infrastructure. The olympics is bigger and the requirements are substantially higher compared to 94. FRP will shift with the wind as always. The bid organisation and the sports bodies need to create enthusiasm around the country. They have a fair, but small chance of succeeding with that, and if so, the politicians will find a way.
  25. :-) To get the facts straight. The 49 v 48 were the results of the advanced submitted votes, which is why they could be counted sooner. The election day votes results were scheduled to be all counted and made public at around 0230 AM, but because of delays due to implementation of a new voting counting system they weren't able to make it on schedule and people were told not to wait up. It's now 6 am and the results are public. Final results: roughly 55 % of the non-blank votes said Yes. This is not surprising as the wind had turned in favour of Yes in the latter stages of the race.
  • Create New...