Kjello

No they don't. Oslo needs these indoor venues. 12,000 seat venue for figure skating and short track skating 10,000 seat venue for hockey 6,000 seat venue for hockey 3,000 seat curling venue 6,000 seat venue speed skating Oslo today only has Telenor Arena, originally an indoor football stadium with 15 000 seats. And is planned to be the venue for figure skating and short track skating. Oslo Spektrum, has a capacity of 6,500 spectators at hockey matches. But isn't planned to be used. I guess the main reason for this is that the hockey federation wants a new national arena with 6,000 spe

Well, that's not going to happen as it's Lillehammer who has the 10,000 seat Håkons Hall available. While Oslo at best has the now 6,500 seat Oslo Spektrum available. But plans to build a new 6,000 seat venue at Jordal for future use as the national arena for hockey.

According to the organisers, there's simply not enough room for hosting both the skiing events, and the biathlon events at the same time in Holmenkollen. Why I don't know. Oslo has no use for two so large hockey venues. Vålerenga is the only top hockey team in Oslo. And they rarely fills more than half of the 4,450 seats in Jordal Amfi. Though of course Jordal isn't a very modern venue. Barely having been upgraded the last 40 years. Only a small renovation in 1999 has been done. Oslo Spektrum was once constructed to become the main hockey venue of Oslo. Seating up to 10 000 spectators. But h

The opposition party Arbeiderpartiet demands more reuse of existing venues from 1994. Such as Vikingskipet for the speed skating events, Håkons Hall for ice hockey events and Birkebeinern Skistadion for the biathlon events. This instead of building new venues in Oslo. Strongly support that. However, Oslo organisers whine about that it would ruin their concept of "Games in the City". If a low cost Olympics really was the target, then: Vikingskipet could be reused for the speed skating events. Which means one could scrap the planed venue at Valle Hovin in Oslo. Håkons Hall could be reused as t

First of all, I'm not predicting. I'm dreaming and suggesting. If I were to predict I would say that the USA gets it in 2026. Tough I see no reason to why they should. The USA should be out of the question until at least 2050. Five countries has hosted the WC twice so far. Mexico got their second tournament after 16 years. Though we all know they stepped in when Colombia had to back out. Italy got their second tournament after 56 years. France got their second tournament after 60 years. Germany their second after 32 years. Though a reunited Germany hosting the second one. While Brazil waited 6

I know that the current policy stops European nations to bid this time. But honestly, this one should go to England. The big five in Europe, England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France should all be hosting a World Cup every 50-70 years. In 2026 it will be 60 years since 1966. And 30 years since Euro 1996. It's time for England. Also I honestly believe that the current policy gives Europe to few tournaments. The current policy allows Europe to host at maximum every third World Cup. That gives Europe 7 of the next 21 World Cups. Read from 2018 and including 2098. Russia has taken one of those 7.

Another poll from last evening. Tough done by order from the Tromsø newspaper Nordlys, it's no reason to believe that has influenced the numbers. National Men Yes: 35,5 % No: 57,8 % Don't know: 6,8 % Women Yes: 33,6 % No: 54,1 % Don't know: 12,4 % Total Yes: 34,6 % No: 55,9 % Don't know: 9,6 % Northern Norway Yes: 12,9 % No: 81,7 % Don't know: 6,4 % Central Norway Yes: 24,5 % No: 65 % Don't know: 10,5 % Western Norway Yes: 29,6 % No: 63,6 % Don't know: 6,8 % Southern Norway Yes: 36,6 % No: 53 % Don't know: 10,4 % Eastern Norway except Oslo Yes: 42 % No: 46 % Don't know: 12 % Oslo Yes