Jump to content

Oslo 2022


kernowboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

In all fairness, as much as I disagree with Baron on the 2022 race, he cannot be biased, as he is not from Poland, Ukraine, China, Norway or Kazakhstan, or is he? Like I've said, Krakow will be a Candidate City, and will go into the final round of voting VS Oslo, but IMO, Oslo has the edge to win.

You severely underestimate Baron's ability to be biased :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

What exactly is the draw for a "pure Lillehammer 2022"? Forgetting for a fact you're already getting that for the Youth Olympics, what exactly is the draw of that over an Oslo bid, which at least is something fresh and new and gets a bigger city involved rather than relying on the small mountain village that's done it all before? Maybe they can put up a temporary arena on top of the football track. That's nice. And tell me.. where are we going to house the 3,000 athletes coming to Lillehammer for these Olympics (the `94 games had less than 1,800 athletes) and all the media and other people coming to the Olympics? From what I remember, a lot of spectators stayed in Oslo and then took the train into Lillehammer for events. If that's going to be the case again, why not center everything in Oslo where you have a lot of facilities already and use Lillehammer where needed, like for the sliding track.

Sure, people are going to say the area is not big enough.. because they're right. If you're going to offer up a venue plan as you and others tend to do, you need to account for athlete/media accommodation. That's kinda sorta important. No plan centered around Lillehammer will be able to cover that aspect of a bid better than Oslo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know baron very well, do you? Doesn't matter if someone is not actually from 1 of the bidding nations, they can still. If he likes Krakow's bid that much and is that confident they're going to win, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. It's where someone begins to lack objectivity about the bids and starts making bad arguments as a result that he/she is biased. With all due respect to due, he's going a little far out of his way to frame Poland as this amazing new frontier that the IOC would be foolish to skip over because of what they can do for "Olympism." At the same time constantly putting down Norway as a "been there, done that" option that the IOC will have no interest in. Again, there are merits to those arguments, but to all but ignore any positives of an Oslo bid or the negatives of a Krakow bid is not being totally objective, IMO.

You know if the IOC never gave first chances to France, Switzerland, the USA, Germany, yeah and even Oslo in 1952, etc....where would they be today?? :blink::blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know if the IOC never gave first chances to France, Switzerland, the USA, Germany, yeah and even Oslo in 1952, etc....where would they be today?? :blink::blink:

But you can't apply that argument here as if it was that black and white. You know it's not that simple. There is certainly a time and a place where Poland being a new frontier and Norway not being a new frontier would make for a very compelling argument. But in this time and in this race, I don't think that's necessarily going to be the case. Plenty of good arguments can be made for Krakow. But I don't know how strong the argument is against Oslo and I think the IOC is going to give them a long look and would have no qualms about awarding them 2022, even though it hasn't been all that long since Lillehammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oslo 2022: The true games in the city

Oslo2022_logo.jpg

More than 80 percent of all the events in Oslo within 10 km from the olympic village.

Including all the following events: Ice Hockey, figure skating, short-track, speed skating, curling, biathlon, cross-country skiing, ski juming, nordic combined, all snowboard events and all freestyle skiing events.

u6ky.png

The rest:

Lillehammer region: Alpine skiing and Bobsleigh, luge and skeleton.

htla.png

Edited by NorwayOlympics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how him bringing up Kazakhstan & the Ukraine with your convenient "first-time" Poland spin is anymore a "pathetic, spun-out argument" than you "aburdly & ridiculously" bringing up Madrid's "austerity" bid against Oslo. As if the two could be one in the same, when they're entire OPPOSITES of one another in their respective races.

Even Oslo proposes a FAR more realistic budget, at $6 Billion for a WINTER Games (which remember, those are "1/3 the size") than Madrid's laughable thrift-style budget, of $2 billion, for a Summer Olympics. But of course, you like to conveniently, & very biasly, pick & choose your "arguments". So nothing new there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bernham, let's keep these discussions at a more realistic level, shall we. A Summer Olympics is even less achievable for a city like Krakow. Mr. Rogge (former IOC president) mentioned that a city's metro area must be at least (meaning the bare minimum) 2.5 million to even be looked at for a Summer Olympics. And Krakow falls below that at 1.7 million. And the budget for one of those is around the $15 Billion mark nowadays.

Like Stefan said, if Poland were to even consider a summer bid, their most logical choice would be Warsaw. Krakow is actually Poland's most logical choice for a winter bid, but as usual, this is a competition, which usually involves other countries logical choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how him bringing up Kazakhstan & the Ukraine with your convenient "first-time" Poland spin is anymore a "pathetic, spun-out argument" than you "aburdly & ridiculously" bringing up Madrid's "austerity" bid against Oslo. As if the two could be one in the same, when they're entire OPPOSITES of one another in their respective races.

Even Oslo proposes a FAR more realistic budget, at $6 Billion for a WINTER Games (which remember, those are "1/3 the size") than Madrid's laughable thrift-style budget, of $2 billion, for a Summer Olympics. But of course, you like to conveniently, & very biasly, pick & choose your "arguments". So nothing new there.

WHAT??? Absurd. The argument has been bruited about that outrageous spending for an OGs could be spared by giving it to Oslo because they have most of the venues in place (more so than any of the other bidders). And so that argument certainly COMPARES to Madrid's fighting words that they were doing it cheapest of the 3 2020 cities) -- and that argument didn't bring home the bacon. How CAN THAT BE so different in this round? :rolleyes::rolleyes: The seasons don't change the basic argument of economics and that that's NOT the biggest, strongest or most convincing sell.

It's you who are being blind. :(

But I'm glad that some of you think that Norway is ahead and that 'little spending' also means little legacy. ;)

I remind that this is the Oslo 2022 thread. You can discuss Krakow´s bid and the other bids in the Krakow 2022, Almaty 2022. Lviv 2022 and Beijing 2022 threads

It doesn't matter. Somehow they all cross over at some point. U can't be too picky on that point.

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

WHAT??? Absurd. The argument has been bruited about that outrageous spending for an OGs could be spared by giving it to Oslo because they have most of the venues in place (more so than any of the other bidders). And so that argument certainly COMPARES to Madrid's fighting words that they were doing it cheapest of the 3 2020 cities) -- and that argument didn't bring home the bacon. How CAN THAT BE so different in this round?

Bcuz all the extravagant over-spending lately is making all the caliber winter possibilities fly away faster than flock of birds heading south for the winter. And now you're seeing people like Bach & Heiberg trying to desperately corral Oslo so they're not the latest strongest one to fly the coop. Plus, Norway's economy isn't in the sh!tter like Spain's. Those are the major differences that obviously you're "too blind" to see.

It doesn't matter. Somehow they all cross over at some point. U can't be too picky on that point.

Exactly. About the only non-'absurd' thing that you've said today. All the 2022 applicant cities are in competition against one another, so obviously at some point, their discussions are gonna trickle over to the other threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT??? Absurd. The argument has been bruited about that outrageous spending for an OGs could be spared by giving it to Oslo because they have most of the venues in place (more so than any of the other bidders). And so that argument certainly COMPARES to Madrid's fighting words that they were doing it cheapest of the 3 2020 cities) -- and that argument didn't bring home the bacon. How CAN THAT BE so different in this round? :rolleyes::rolleyes: The seasons don't change the basic argument of economics and that that's NOT the biggest, strongest or most convincing sell.

But I'm glad that some of you think that Norway is ahead and that 'little spending' also means little legacy. ;)

Okay, seriously.. are you that against a Norway Olympics that you continue to try and build an argument against them? If you're so convinced that Krakow is going to win, shouldn't they be able to do it on their own merit without needing to point out all these supposed flaws of the Oslo bid? How is it that in 1 post you say "how can that be so different" and then in your next post you say "different race, different dynamics." There's a lot of different arguments to be made here and we're all going to pick and choose, but it does seem like you're hell-bent on picking and choosing the arguments that favor Poland and make Norway less desirable.

The sell for Oslo is that they're a known quantity, not that they're doing it on the cheap. That wasn't the case for Madrid. It's not about the money they are or aren't spending. That's why the 2 aren't similar. Not to mention, as noted, the state of the Spanish economy. Either way, making the case against Norway is hardly a case for Poland. I know you want the IOC to spread the values of Olympism to a country that doesn't yet have it. But sometimes, going to an old familiar locale is the way to go. In this race with these dynamics, I could easily see them going with that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...