Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That's the thing, though. It would be easier to get things accomplished with the indoor venues than trying to link up the outdoor venues with massive transportation upgrades. It doesn't matter what great indoor arenas Denver has if getting to the outdoor ones will be cumbersome & long. And upgrading them would be a greater challenge (with all the money they would need to so) than Reno dealing with their issues. Although, they would need to scrap that Sacramento outlook. That in itself makes a Reno bid cumbersome.

And would Reno have to match Denver with a 76,000 seat stadium. No Winter Olympic host has ever had one that big. Not Salt Lake. Even Sochi, that's building it from scratch, is only seating 40,000. Denver has one that big simply because they have an NFL team. Reno does not. 76,000 is more into Summer Olympic stadium numbers.

Both bids have things to overcome, the least of which is any pre-conceived notions about Reno. But the reason I bring up the size.. Denver has a 76,000 stadium ready to go. Reno's main football stadium only holds 30,000 so even if they expand it, that pales in comparison to Rice-Eccles in Salt Lake and BC Place which are over 50,000 for the Olympics. But that's a plus for Denver that they can offer up 76,000 tickets to sell as compared to 30k or 40k. Ditto for the arena.. Pepsi Center holds 18,000 for hockey (yes, Sochi and Torino use smaller arenas, but look at Salt Lake and especially look at Vancouver) plus Denver already has decently-sized secondary arenas. Reno can't come close to matching that. That's what Reno is up against.. comparisons to other North American Olympic hosts (probably include Calgary in that as well). That's why I want to see what Reno's plans are because if they can offer up a 16,000 seat arena as the centerpiece or a 50,000 seat stadium, then they've got something. But just because European bidders are offering up smaller arenas, that doesn't mean Reno can be on par with them if there are cities in the United States that can offer something better. Denver certainly has plenty of issue that they may or may not be able to overcome, but if Reno is offering up less than the IOC is used to getting from a North American bid, that's a problem for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 870
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh please, such biased idiocy from Athensfan whose stupid SUMMER USA dream will not come true in the NEXT 40 years!!.... /\ Reno is a trend-starter in global political movements of conscience!! Th

For 2022 I'm quite sure that Europe will make it. It's the very fist time that there are 3 consecutive winter games not held in Europe with Vancouver in NA and Sochi and PC in Asia (sure Sochi is part

It has been explained to you COUNTLESS times already "why", but you, just like your "pathetic" lost brother Tulsa, REFUSE/WON'T listen. And what's most "pathetic" of all, is that you're suppose to be

Oslo have now got the backing of the NOC to bid for 2022.

At the moment they are sticking to the notion of using Kvitfjell because of the high speed rail link to Lillehammer as well as the bobsleigh run there, but if the IOC still don't jump for this, they do have the fall back option of Norefjell, which is half the distance and which was previously used in 1952 and is about 65miles away

If a more local bobsleigh run is used and the Korketrekken could be rebuilt, then they are a major contender. They have all the pre-requisite indoor arenas including the Telenor Arena which could be temporarily utilised for a major 15,000+ indoor arena. Oslo also has two icehockey teams in the GET-ligaen. The Oslo Spektrum can also be used as a facility whilst there has been plans to covert the outdoor speed skating rink at Valle Hovin into an indoor facility. And the Tryvann ski resort is local for snowboarding events and maybe slalom too.

So everything is in place or could be comparatively easily upgraded. Add to this the Holmenkollbakken with a capacity of 50,000 (opening ceremonies)

And since Lillehammer, they've now built their new international airport at Gardermoen, which is now the 6th largest in Europe.

As Scandinavia has not held since 1994 - the Alps were used in 2006, the Rockies in 2002 and 2010, a really strong Nordic contender if they can readjust their thinking re-Kvitfjell, could be a the favourite especially as the IOC does seem to have a soft spot for Norway.

U're over-painting Oslo's strength. They just had it 17 years ago; and previously in 1952. Germany hasn't had it since 1936; Sweden hasn't had it -- so why should the IOC go back to Norway again? Didn't work with Annency '18.

But 2 or more Euro bids (including Munich) will be good for a US 2022 bid. Bring on MORE Euros!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both bids have things to overcome, the least of which is any pre-conceived notions about Reno. But the reason I bring up the size.. Denver has a 76,000 stadium ready to go. Reno's main football stadium only holds 30,000 so even if they expand it, that pales in comparison to Rice-Eccles in Salt Lake and BC Place which are over 50,000 for the Olympics. But that's a plus for Denver that they can offer up 76,000 tickets to sell as compared to 30k or 40k. Ditto for the arena.. Pepsi Center holds 18,000 for hockey (yes, Sochi and Torino use smaller arenas, but look at Salt Lake and especially look at Vancouver) plus Denver already has decently-sized secondary arenas. Reno can't come close to matching that. That's what Reno is up against.. comparisons to other North American Olympic hosts (probably include Calgary in that as well). That's why I want to see what Reno's plans are because if they can offer up a 16,000 seat arena as the centerpiece or a 50,000 seat stadium, then they've got something. But just because European bidders are offering up smaller arenas, that doesn't mean Reno can be on par with them if there are cities in the United States that can offer something better. Denver certainly has plenty of issue that they may or may not be able to overcome, but if Reno is offering up less than the IOC is used to getting from a North American bid, that's a problem for them.

Again, I'm not disputing Denver's quality of indoor arenas. What I'm talking about is in their area of cons which would lie in their transporations links to the outdoor venues. Since the level of investment would be much greater there for them than Reno's for their indoor arenas.

And I still fail to see why a 76,000 stadium would be such a big need. Okay, so they could potentially sell more tickets to the ceremonies from the get go. But does the IOC want to set that kind of precedence (ala Beijing & the Summer Olympics) where every successive Winter host will want to "outdo" the previous one with even "bigger & better" stadiums, when the talk of white elephants always comes up with Olympic bids.

76,000 is still a 50% increase over Salt Lake & Vancouver. I just don't see the reasoning behind that, unless the IOC wants to take the Winter Olympics to the same level of the Summer Olympics. Reno is a smaller city, to begin with, than Salt Lake, Vancouver & even Calgary & it's only relative that they would work within the confines of their own means & needs. I mean really, what would Reno need a 50,000+ stadium for after the Olympics. They have no professional sport teams, so I don't see the need. Even Turin (which was in the middle of Salt Lake & Vancouver) which is much larger than Reno, had a stadium of only 35,000. Reno doesn't need nor should they come up with a huge Olympic stadium plan, & I would think that the IOC would be smart enough to know that for a smaller city like Reno (& when they're seemingly always talking about sustainability), that they can see the difference versus than "what they're use to getting from a North American bid".

Link to post
Share on other sites

U're over-painting Oslo's strength. They just had it 17 years ago; and previously in 1952. Germany hasn't had it since 1936; Sweden hasn't had it -- so why should the IOC go back to Norway again? Didn't work with Annency '18.

But 2 or more Euro bids (including Munich) will be good for a US 2022 bid. Bring on MORE Euros!!

and Salt Lake City had it 9 years ago.

The USA have had the games in 1932, 1960, (1976) and 1980 as well as 2002. Why should they go back after a mere 20 years?

The reason why Sweden struggles is the only suitable venue for skiing Are has nothing beyond Ostersund, so a huge risk of white elephents.

Munich may bid, but they have got significant opposition in Garmish with local landowners refusing their property to be used.

Annecy 2018 - was very much an after thought by the French IOC who admitted it was a trial for a Paris 2024 bid.

The IOC have previously stated they would welcome a Norway bid ... they often say how Lillehammer was the best ever Winter Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wonder if the Lillehammer WYOGs would also put the kybosh on them getting the senior WOGs again so soon.

I actually think it may enhance their bid.

Because

Lillehammer were the only bidder. Lake Placid were asked to bid by Jacques Rogge but decided to go for 2020 as did Lucerne and Sofia.

Basically if Lillehammer hadn't stuck with their bid, the 2016 WYOG would have been cancelled. Something I don't think the IOC will look unfavourably on.

Could the idea of giving the 2020 games to Lake Placid, nullify a 2022 WOG for the USA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC always "welcomes" ANY bid. The more suckers they get to pay for their 3-week sporting orgy, the better.

And again, you're confusing continental rotation versus competing against your own neighbors. The U.S. only has Canada to contend with, & they just hosted the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Norway, on the other hand, has to deal with all of their European neighbors, & many of them haven't hosted in many decades while smaller Norway just hosted 2 decades ago. Which is why I see 2022 headed to Europe, & 2026 more likely to North America, mainly the U.S.

And when the French NOC "admit" that Annecy 2018 was a "trial" run for a Paris 2024 bid, when the city of Paris hasn't even made a peep about another Olympic bid. And all bids have their issues to deal with. So it's not like France, Norway or whomever wouldn't have any of their own. So pointing out the ones from Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, etc is all moot, since in the end it's all a wash anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think yes - and anyway, I think 2022 is likely Europe, with Munich in the box seat, anyway.

Munich's issues are the following

- their reaction to their defeat is unlikely to be viewed well

- they've got significant opposition at Garmish. Previously they'd happen to abandon Obermameragu as a Nordic venue and choose Ohlstadt wish is snow dodgy in February.

- there are also concerns about the lack of natural snow.

- and public support for the event was shown to be in decline the closer to the decision date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC always "welcomes" ANY bid. The more suckers they get to pay for their 3-week sporting orgy, the better.

And again, you're confusing continental rotation versus competing against your own neighbors. The U.S. only has Canada to contend with, & they just hosted the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Norway, on the other hand, has to deal with all of their European neighbors, & many of them haven't hosted in many decades while smaller Norway just hosted 2 decades ago. Which is why I see 2022 headed to Europe, & 2026 more likely to North America, mainly the U.S.

And when the French NOC "admit" that Annecy 2018 was a "trial" run for a Paris 2024 bid, when the city of Paris hasn't even made a peep about another Olympic bid. And all bids have their issues to deal with. So it's not like France, Norway or whomever wouldn't have any of their own. So pointing out the ones from Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, etc is all moot, since in the end it's all a wash anyway.

the issue with Switzerland is that such expendature has to go to a public referendum. Which is why Berne pulled out of 2010. Difficult to be overlooked

The IOC want no white elephants. Can Osterstund with a population of 60,000 have 4 venues of 8,000 seats+ especially with no major icehockey team and a 130km to the next nearest city.

The IOC have rejected bids due to distance between the events.

And Munich has political opposition which has already forced it to move some of its events to more weather risky venues.

I've already mentioned Oslo's risk of using some of the 1994 venues, but think they'll revert to their original ideas in their 2018 bid proposal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Munich's issues are the following

- their reaction to their defeat is unlikely to be viewed well

- they've got significant opposition at Garmish. Previously they'd happen to abandon Obermameragu as a Nordic venue and choose Ohlstadt wish is snow dodgy in February.

- there are also concerns about the lack of natural snow.

- and public support for the event was shown to be in decline the closer to the decision date.

Fine - but as FYI said above, ALL bids have issues to deal with. No bid is perfect.

I still think Norway/Oslo, like Annecy's bid, may well be a strong technical one, but will still have to overcome the need to explain why the IOC should go AGAIN to Norway so soon, with the WYOGs already lined up as a "consolation" hosting. Lillehammer 94 was great, but it would be the same as Oz trying to push for a summer games again on the basis that Sydney was great, so we should do it again as soon as possible.

Anyway, I fully admit, I'm biased. My 'druthers would still be Sweden or Munich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm not disputing Denver's quality of indoor arenas. What I'm talking about is in their area of cons which would lie in their transporations links to the outdoor venues. Since the level of investment would be much greater there for them than Reno's for their indoor arenas.

And I still fail to see why a 76,000 stadium would be such a big need. Okay, so they could potentially sell more tickets to the ceremonies from the get go. But does the IOC want to set that kind of precedence (ala Beijing & the Summer Olympics) where every successive Winter host will want to "outdo" the previous one with even "bigger & better" stadiums, when the talk of white elephants always comes up with Olympic bids.

76,000 is still a 50% increase over Salt Lake & Vancouver. I just don't see the reasoning behind that, unless the IOC wants to take the Winter Olympics to the same level of the Summer Olympics. Reno is a smaller city, to begin with, than Salt Lake, Vancouver & even Calgary & it's only relative that they would work within the confines of their own means & needs. I mean really, what would Reno need a 50,000+ stadium for after the Olympics. They have no professional sport teams, so I don't see the need. Even Turin (which was in the middle of Salt Lake & Vancouver) which is much larger than Reno, had a stadium of only 35,000. Reno doesn't need nor should they come up with a huge Olympic stadium plan, & I would think that the IOC would be smart enough to know that for a smaller city like Reno (& when they're seemingly always talking about sustainability), that they can see the difference versus than "what they're use to getting from a North American bid".

But that's the whole point. Transportation issues aside, if you have 1 bid offering a ready-made 76,000 seat stadium and another offering a 30,000 seat stadium (with however many temporary or expanded seats they could add), which is going to look better. It's not a matter of "need" with the bigger stadium, but they have it, would have no trouble selling it out, and still get to use it after the games so it's not a white elephant. And in terms of precedent.. yea, Beijing built their massively extravagant stadium because they thought they had something to prove, but so what? London isn't trying to out-do them. Rio is relying on existing stadiums. And before Beijing, you had Seoul and Sydney each build 110,000 seat stadiums (which, at least, were later downsized).

You're right that Reno doesn't need these things, but again, that's their disadvantage. I doubt the IOC is going to care about what's in the best interests of the city, they're only looking out for themselves. If the argument is sustainability, that's not going to help Reno's cause where they have to come up with a plan that not only wows the IOC but also makes sense for the city of Reno. And like I've been saying, I'm very curious to see how they plan on doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know about Portland's only Olympic ambitions is that they tried for the 1968 Summer Olympics. But haven't done anything else for either Summer or Winter since then. While the Summer Games now would be outta their realm, the Winter Games could be feasible. Too bad they're not making any noise about it, though.

I think Portland would have a lot of the same problems Reno would have only way more difficult to overcome. There's the issue of where the ceremonies would be held, Jan-Weld Stadium, reconfigured for the Portland Timbers, holds just over 20,000. The only two indoor arenas that could be configured for ice hockey and figure skating are the Rose Garden and Memorial Coliseum (which could face demolition in the near future). And yes, I think it's too close to Vancouver to be so soon.

I've always wanted to see Albuqeurque give it a go (if there was ever any interest) although the most likely venue for the alpine events, Taos, is probably too far from Albuqerque to realle be feasible.

In the end, I still think Reno is the likely choice if the USOC decides to give 2022 a go. It will be interesting to see how a Reno Olympics would look as far as the venue plan goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with FYI. The IOC knows they only have two choices in North America (really the whole western hemisphere) vs. a much broader range of options in Europe. I see 2022 in Europe and I'm inclined to agree with Rols' preference for Munich or Sweden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and Salt Lake City had it 9 years ago.

The USA have had the games in 1932, 1960, (1976) and 1980 as well as 2002. Why should they go back after a mere 20 years?

Here we go again. Yes, but we are a country of 300 million+ who supplies most of the IOC funding. Norway is a small country of 5 million plus. How much do they contribute to IOC coffers? Stop over-reading the "welcome bids." The IOC will of course, say that, to encourage an exciting bidding race. Just because the leadership says it (which is part of their job to do so), doesn't mean rank and file will necessarily follow. Try convincing the delegates from countries like Yemen, Rwanda, Venezuela, Malaysia, etc. (about a 3rd of the IOC membership) on the nuances of the Winter candidates...and deep down, I doubt that they really care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will like to add that the US are considered a continent they can host almost every 20 years olympics games, cuz their cities all are global recognized and have the infrstructure to do that.

Still hope Munich wins :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will like to add that the US are considered a continent they can host almost every 20 years olympics games, cuz their cities all are global recognized and have the infrstructure to do that.

Still hope Munich wins :)

There's only 3 continents that can host a Winter Olympics. So even if they go Europe every other cycle and rotate the other hosts between Asia and North America, that's still once every 16 years or so they're coming to North America. Only 2 capable host countries here, so it's either the United States or Canada. 2022 seems like it's probably headed for Europe. 2026 has United States written all over it. 24 years is plenty of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again. Yes, but we are a country of 300 million+ who supplies most of the IOC funding. Norway is a small country of 5 million plus. How much do they contribute to IOC coffers? Stop over-reading the "welcome bids." The IOC will of course, say that, to encourage an exciting bidding race. Just because the leadership says it (which is part of their job to do so), doesn't mean rank and file will necessarily follow. Try convincing the delegates from countries like Yemen, Rwanda, Venezuela, Malaysia, etc. (about a 3rd of the IOC membership) on the nuances of the Winter candidates...and deep down, I doubt that they really care.

and politically the USA are loathed by large numbers in the world. You think Venezuela will vote for you, or the Yemen? How much overseas aid do you give to Rwanda? Far less than the always generous Norwegians I can bet. You have voting blocs who won't think of voting for you for political reasons hence why Chicago 2016 did so well.

As of today, the finance issue has not been settled between the USOC and the IOC. And unlike other countries who have accepted the IOCs invitation to bid for games, the USOC have encouraged potential candidates not to, by saying they will not receive their support. So the USOC think they are immediately going to walk in and win first time around?

And because it will be privately financed, any USA bid raises the prospects of unbridled commercialism. You won't be able to buy the games like Salt Lake City did in 2002.

Contrast the restrained patriotism of the Norwegians when supporting all competitors with the in your face nationalism at USA games bellowing Oo-S-ay making you believe the rest of the world did not exist. and consider where the rest of the world would like the games.

Superb! Exceptional!! Unmatched! The one to beat for the ages!!

Trashy, overly commercialised, white elephants unused after the event. The Winter equivalent of Atlanta who were told 'Well Done' rather than received the standard 'Best Ever Games' compliment that the IOC President has given to every other games

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there needs to be some realism from the IOC in terms of distances and the Winter Games. A compact Games are fantastic but the reality is that mountains are where they are and cities are where they are. If the Games are bigger than mountain communities can cope with - or they are unable to sustainably equip themselves - then there needs to be some flexible thinking.

I think if Östersund is deemed too small to have indoor venues that won't become white elephants (at least they could host Melodifestivalen) then Sweden is effectively declared unable to host the Winter Olympics which strikes me as ridiculous. A Stockholm Games in my view would be magical but obviously Åre is a long way from the capital.

If you add to this that Switzerland looks like it will never be able to get its act together (a real shame as I still have a soft spot for Sion), Quebec and Finland have issues (for now, pending new developments) with the required drop you are looking at an ever-shrinking pool of potential hosts.

If Munich faces bumps in the road in terms of local opposition and venues that are unreliable in terms of snowfall or falls victim to Germany's summer aspirations (pure speculation, I know) then Oslo 2022 looks like an increasingly strong bid. And I read somewhere (maybe here) that they already have the Royal Family on the case with the IOC members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there needs to be some realism from the IOC in terms of distances and the Winter Games. A compact Games are fantastic but the reality is that mountains are where they are and cities are where they are. If the Games are bigger than mountain communities can cope with - or they are unable to sustainably equip themselves - then there needs to be some flexible thinking.

I think if Östersund is deemed too small to have indoor venues that won't become white elephants (at least they could host Melodifestivalen) then Sweden is effectively declared unable to host the Winter Olympics which strikes me as ridiculous. A Stockholm Games in my view would be magical but obviously Åre is a long way from the capital.

If you add to this that Switzerland looks like it will never be able to get its act together (a real shame as I still have a soft spot for Sion), Quebec and Finland have issues (for now, pending new developments) with the required drop you are looking at an ever-shrinking pool of potential hosts.

If Munich faces bumps in the road in terms of local opposition and venues that are unreliable in terms of snowfall or falls victim to Germany's summer aspirations (pure speculation, I know) then Oslo 2022 looks like an increasingly strong bid. And I read somewhere (maybe here) that they already have the Royal Family on the case with the IOC members.

I think there are too many potential hosts under 200km for the IOC to be reluctant to change their criteria. And some criteria like the Downhill requirements can only be altered if there are some significant environmental alternations which would have some up in arms. Finland need to build a mountain, Quebec need to extend the moutain as the only other site is 500km away. Even with high speed rail of 250km per hour it would still be stretch for Osterstund. And of course games are awarded to cities not countries.

Osterstund could probably justify a ski jumping facility and bobsleigh run as Sweden don't really have any comparable venues so they have that legacy sorted. The SkiJump site could double for opening ceremonies too.

A speed skating track could be utilised as a conference facility/other events in much the same way as the Richmond Oval but retain the track for future competition.

There is an existing arena which could be used for curling.

The local basketball team could use the smaller of two icehockey arenas, but that leaves 2 appropriate sized arenas for figure skating and ice hockey which may have to be temporary and reassembled elsewhere unless Ostersund can attract an ice hockey team. Having been to Ostersund it would be a great location, but the Swedes would need to be really creative in developing their bid. I've been and liked Ostersund but it's only 60,000 in size and within the local large county, the next biggest town Brunflo is only 4,000 people in size. Unfortunately all other major populations in Northern Sweden are on the coast

Link to post
Share on other sites

In defence of Reno.

If they are moving away from their casio, gambling driven economy and can actually suggest the range of developments proposed in 2015 (if they are USOCs candidate) then they could offer up a challenge though I think it could be a preliminary bid prior to 2026.

There is clearly Squaw Valley - the only time there was no bobsleigh at the games in 1960 - whose hill could be updated and provides for the alpine events

The Bighorns at the Reno Events Center (7,500) provide one venue, and if the Reno Raiders ECHL finally get an arena (12,000?) you've got the Ice Hockey sorted.

The Nevada Wolfpack are the other factor. Can the Mackay Stadium be expanded from 29,993 to 40,000+? If yes then you've got the opening ceremonies sorted.

The Wolfpack basketball team use the Lawler Events Center (11,784) could potentially be expanded for the figure skating and ice hockey final,

A speed skating venue could be redeveloped into a conference facility post games - all you now need is somewhere for Curling and a bobsleigh run.

Doable yes, but in many ways the USOC need to stick with the same venue rather than chop and change bidders every single games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ker-NO-boy,

U KNOW nothing! How da f*ck do u know what will happen in 2015 or 2019?

Or the Norwegian royal family? Yeah, there was only a 42-year gap between Oslo and Lillehammer? Whereas it was only 12 years between LA 1984 and Atlanta 1996; 6 years between Atlanta and Salt Lake. Tell u what...they SECRETLY LIKE COMMERCIAL -- their wives do!!

Royal influences? :lol::lol: Try the Bourbons of Spain. How influential were they in pushing Madrid over London or over Rio, or taking World Cup 2018? NADA. ZIPPO!! At least the US 2022 WC bid got 8 VOTES...something which the UK, Oz or Spain-Portugal didn't even COME CLOSE TO!! As a matter of fact, I think a certain country even sent their Crown Prince and like its far-away colony, only got ONE VOTE each!?! Fancy that.

What that old Falangist Samaranch said were the ravings of an old, demented fool. Then u must think Sepp Blatter is one of the sages of our age.

That's why they gave the JUNIOR YOGs to Lillehammer because the Senior WOGs are for the BIG BOYS, not the juniors like Norway. Call the Royal Famil...boo-hoo.

I don't see why Mackay cannot be expanded. My contacts within the Reno group have said they will use temporary indoor venues...they may even rent YOUR 2012 basketball arena or something like that if it is not cost-effective to lease that one in particular. Do you really think PyeongChang and Gangneun are picturesque cities? Salt Lake is a CLEAN but BORING TOWN.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...