Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have to say I'm surprised by the intensity of some posters' disregard for Oslo. I really don't see it as "been there, done that." What I see is that the IOC has taken two big gambles with the Wint

This statement is incredibly angry and off-putting. The IOC ought to say "mea culpa." Instead they're lashing out at the Norwegians. This isn't going to fix anything and it shows just how out of tou

So 1 of them says that France and Italy may not bid. And the other feels compelled to respond by saying pretty much the same thing, just worded a little differently...

How is it "backstabbing". The IOC always makes their demands of governments, so why can't the governments, for a change, make theirs. The IOC only has themselves to blame anyway, & all Norway is doing is trying to "get back to basics". If the IOC was all over Poland, I'm sure you wouldn't be caling it "sucking up".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC always makes their demands of governments, so why can't the governments, for a change, make theirs.

The rules were stated a year ago. If the government doesn't agree with the IOC demands, they should cancel the bid, it is as simple as that.

I would expect other governments making their demands, if the IOC agreed to those presented by Norway. Why should Oslo be treated in a special way?

If the IOC was all over Poland, I'm sure you wouldn't be caling it "sucking up".

Unfortunately we weren't blessed with that, all we hear is like "venues placed on the potato fields".

And if the IOC was all over Poland, I would feel the same thing, that probably many Norwegians feel these days: a bit pathetic attempt to increase their support mixed with hidden disrespect towards other biddind cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, according to you, Oslo is already being treated in a special way by the IOC "sucking up" to the Norwegians. So the Norwegians are taking the opportunity to outline a two-way relationship & not all about "me, me, me", which has been the IOC's attitude for the last couple of decades. Besides, the IOC has yet to agree to any of their demands & not to mention, that no one is stopping the Poles to make some of their own as well. Perhaps this is the type of medicine that the IOC finally needs. Having a give & take relationship is what usually makes for a most successful one.

And the "venues on a potato field" mention was by some article in sports illiustrated. No one within the IOC said such a thing, so all you're doing now is projecting here. And I don't know what you're trying to get at with the "disrespect towards other bidding cities" angle. If anything, I think the Oslo supporters have been more empathetic to Krakow than the other way around. Your constant seething remarks towards Oslo & the Norwegians is quite evident of such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then come the seven demands that appear aimed at reducing the scope of the Olympics, with an emphasis on democracy and human rights, if Norway is to take on financial responsibility for the Winter Games eight years from now:

** Apart from what they call “good Norwegian hospitality” and necessary access and security measures. the government politicians believe that the costs of IOC members’ own accommodation during the OL weeks should be covered by the IOC itself.

** The two government parties think the Oslo2022 committee must demand that limits be placed on any additional competitive events within the Olympics. Critics have claimed the Olympics have become much too big, with too many new sporting events added in recent years. The Norwegian politicians think that development should be brought under more control.

** They also want to see more use of existing sports facilities in and around Oslo, to control costs and reduce environmental impact.

** The rights of workers called in to build new OL facilities must be guaranteed, they wrote. This demand comes in the wake of criticism over how work was carried out during construction of Olympic facilities in, for example, Beijing and Sochi.

** A Norwegian application for an OL must emphasize how inclusion, equality and respect for human rights would be the foundation for how an OL would be arranged.

** The athletes should at all times be at the center of attention during the Games.

** The Oslo2022 committee should develop cooperation with plans for the Youth OL that will be hosted back in Lillehammer before a 2022 Olympics.

It will be interesting to learn if this is a complete and fully articulated list of the Norwegian Parliament's "demands" or just a first volley. What's particularly unclear is whether this is an indication of an intent to offer the IOC's required open-ended guarantee, subject to the satisfaction of these seven items, or whether this is intended to pave the way for the offer of a more limited guarantee.

As to the seven items, the last four items hardly seem objectionable, at least in principle.

The third should be no issue either. The IOC just needs to recognize that in awarding the Games to Oslo, they'll have to stick to the bid venue plan which should, presumably, reflect the use of existing facilities to the Parliament's satisfaction.

The first two are trickier. It's always seemed unreasonable for the IOC to reserve the right to add sports and disciplines and venue requirements after awarding the Games, such as where they required Rio to construct a golf course. This may keep their propensity to do that in check - but they may not like the precedent.

As to IOC accommodations, this is such a drop in the bucket compared to an overall Games budget as to be a non-issue. However, expect a number of IOC members to take offense at this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"the government politicians believe that the costs of IOC members’ own accommodation during the OL weeks should be covered by the IOC itself"

There goes a fat bunch of votes...

Well, I find this quite funny - the Norwegian government is obviously smart enough to assess the position the IOC has manoeuvred itself in: They have noticed the literal begging from the IOC to stay in, and they know the considerable weaknesses of the other bids. So they think they are in a position of strength - this may not really be what the bid committee wants to hear from the government, but it is the government that controls the money.

I know those who are in the anti-Oslo camp will rejoice, but I guess it's more a case of the IOC facing another PR disaster at least, unless they are willing to accept the Kraków solution with two countries involved to various degrees.

A democratic government bullying the IOC, now there's a first :D

Sounds almost like the Norwegians are telling the IOC "take it or leave it." It will be interesting to see how the IOC reacts. The possibility is very real that of the original six contenders, it could very well be down to three (Lviv won't make it). The message is loud and clear. Something has to be done to get costs under control because the IOC is on the verge of seeing all the traditional winter sports powers in Europe say that hosting the Winter Olympics is no longer feasible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Points about workers right and equality rights aside, both of which would be good to have within the IOC's remit, this seems like nonsense. The IOC provides organising committees with hundreds of millions (close to a billion I think) already to organise their event - I take it most hosts use a small amount of this cash to house the IOC members. If the IOC is to pay for itself, that'll just mean less cash going to the OCOG in the first place as it'll come from the same pot.

The existing venue stuff is up to Oslo 2022 and it's not like past hosts haven't used existing venues. They just need to get on with it and put together the best venue plan they can for the IOC and for the city going forward.

The expansion of sports they might have a point about. Rio suddenly having to find a golf course and a Rugby sevens stadium when their bid didn't include either caused a few headaches for them. But if the new sports are in already planned venues, as would be likely with a Winter Games, then I don't see a huge problem.

The athletes being the focus of attention? What does that even mean? That's not a specific demand but a vague hope and one which, political issues aside, surely already happens.

This reads to me either as a pretext for pulling the bid where the Oslo parliament can go it its people and say "we tried but they didn't listen so we're out, not our fault". Or it reads like a list of demands most of which are already somewhat acheivable (or already in place) so it'll be easy for the Oslo parliament to say "the IOC has agreed to these points, we're submitting a bid." Either make the IOC look bad or make themselves look good. No responsibility from them if a bid is pulled - it's all the IOC's fault.

Sorry, I know Sochi has dented people's perceptions, and the IOC has to take responsibility for that, but most of these demands seem odd and game-playing on the part of Oslo politicians. Now, the IOC may be in such a quandry right now that it is forced to play along and publically "cede" to Norway's demands. It doesn't make them any less strange on the whole though.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be symbolic if they were, but they won't be. Not if the money comes from the pot given to the OCOG budget by the IOC, which is what I assume happens most of the time!

It's politicking based on perceptions of who the IOC are, not the reality of host city budgets.

The point which annoyed people in London when we had the Games was the IOC transport and the "Olympic lanes" which were set up. This was where a lot of people felt the IOC was taking the piss. But I doubt the Norwegian parliament will make a great deal of this as it'll probably just end up telling the Norwegian people something they didn't already know and aren't going to like about the IOC! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be symbolic if they were, but they won't be. Not if the money comes from the pot given to the OCOG budget by the IOC, which is what I assume happens most of the time!

It's politicking based on perceptions of who the IOC are, not the reality of host city budgets.

The point which annoyed people in London when we had the Games was the IOC transport and the "Olympic lanes" which were set up. This was where a lot of people felt the IOC was taking the piss. But I doubt the Norwegian parliament will make a great deal of this as it'll probably just end up telling the Norwegian people something they didn't already know and aren't going to like about the IOC! :D

There was a lot of disruption here in London, England during the Olympics, because of the Olympic lanes. Although, it was worth it in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

** Apart from what they call “good Norwegian hospitality” and necessary access and security measures. the government politicians believe that the costs of IOC members’ own accommodation during the OL weeks should be covered by the IOC itself.

** The two government parties think the Oslo2022 committee must demand that limits be placed on any additional competitive events within the Olympics. Critics have claimed the Olympics have become much too big, with too many new sporting events added in recent years. The Norwegian politicians think that development should be brought under more control.

** They also want to see more use of existing sports facilities in and around Oslo, to control costs and reduce environmental impact.

** The rights of workers called in to build new OL facilities must be guaranteed, they wrote. This demand comes in the wake of criticism over how work was carried out during construction of Olympic facilities in, for example, Beijing and Sochi.

** A Norwegian application for an OL must emphasize how inclusion, equality and respect for human rights would be the foundation for how an OL would be arranged.

** The athletes should at all times be at the center of attention during the Games.

** The Oslo2022 committee should develop cooperation with plans for the Youth OL that will be hosted back in Lillehammer before a 2022 Olympics.

Given the recent wave of criticism against the IOC, and the IOC’s need to find willing hosts for future Olympics, the Norwegian politicians clearly feel entitled to make demands of their own instead of just the other way around. State politicians ultimately hold the pursestrings on behalf of Norwegian taxpayers, and the entire project now hinges on whether the Norwegian government and Members of Parliament will put up the money. They must decide on that by January.

Meanwhile, the application process appears likely to move forward despite strong public opposition to the project nationwide. Oslo2022 has an official budget of around NOK 35 billion (around USD 6 billion) at present, but given the track record of Olympics actually costing four times their initial budgets, at Sochi in Russia this year and also at Lillehammer in 1994, most expect that a Winter Olympics in Oslo in 2022 will cost much more. The sheer expense is what’s fueling the debate and opposition, with a majority currently calling on the politicians to reject the request for a financial guarantee, according to public opinion polls.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/03/07/government-mps-make-ol-demands/

If anything this article proves that the IOC has a great deal of communication / education effort to do as it proves that the Norwegian parliament (and indeed a very large number of people of this forum) have no idea about the IOC requirements for the Games.

  1. Accommodation: IOC, as well as all other client groups -except athletes and team officials accommodated in the Olympic Village-, pay for their accommodation. What the IOC requests is a guaranteed room rate.
  2. No new sport can be added after Games - 7 years (i.e. at the same time of the host city election). Events can be added in the lead up to the Games but the OCOG is always part of the consultation process. The IOC made recently the decision not to add any event to the Olympic Programme for Rio (to the disappointment of some IFs)
  3. The decision to use existing facilities or build new ones is entirely up to the local organisers. The IOC does encourage the use of existing venues or temporary ones if there is no legacy need (refer to 2022 Candidature Acceptance Process - Guidelines for choice of venues page 50)
  4. The rights of workers - The local legislation applies to the workers working on construction of venues (in this case the Norwegian law should Oslo be elected). The IOC can be blamed for not taking into account this factor when selecting a host city (i.e. there is a much greater risk of workers rights not be enforced in a country like Russia or China than in the UK or Canada) but again, should Oslo be elected, the IOC would certainly not pressure the Norwegian authorities not to enforce workers rights.
  5. Again this point is entirely within the Norwegians' hands not in the IOC
  6. Athletes at the centre of everything: it seems that the last three Games (Vancouver, London and Sochi) offered top conditions to the athletes.
  7. Cooperation with the Lillehammer 2016 YOG organisers: given that the Norwegian NOC and National Winter Federations are key players in both projects, this shouldn't be difficult.

In other words, none of the requirements is either new or contradictory to the IOC's requirements: there is nothing preventing the Norwegians to propose a bid fulfilling the parliament's requirements.

BTW regarding Olympic Lanes: these lanes are not only used by IOC members but also by athletes, NOC and IF officials, media...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, thank you Pure Facts.

Yes, of course I'm aware Olympic lanes are used by athletes and were a post-Atlanta measure - they're possibly a necessary evil for host cities. The feeling in London wasn't against athletes using them, but against the 'suits' getting use of them whilst London had to deal with the travel disruption. I only brought them up because I felt, if the Norwegian Parliament was going to focus on any privilege the IOC has, it maybe ought to be this rather than the artificial (and as you've pointed out, nonsensical) demand about accommodation. The Olympic Lanes were certainly the only privilige IOC members had that caused any controversy in the build up to London anyway.

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, thank you Pure Facts.

Yes, of course I'm aware Olympic lanes are used by athletes and were a post-Atlanta measure - they're possibly a necessary evil. The feeling in London wasn't against athletes using them, but against the 'suits' getting use of them whilst London had to deal with the travel disruption. I only brought them up because I felt, if the Norwegian Parliament was going to focus on any privilege the IOC has, it maybe ought to be this rather than the artificial (and as you've pointed out, nonsensical) demand about accommodation. The Olympic Lanes were certainly the only privilige IOC members had that caused any controversy in the build up to London anyway.

The IOC stress about equality, so I don't agree with Olympic lanes, even here in London, England. If they want equality, they should have to deal with traffic like the rest of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Norway government has a point though, sadly. The winter olympics costs have gone beyond control and at this pace it will be impossible for not so powerful countries to host them.

If the IOC wants diversity then they need to prevent so much overspending like Sochi and Beijing did and take measures to cure the current giant-ism of the olympics.


Like some have posted before, this was a very ballsy move from Oslo, one which I admire so it will make us see if the IOC really wants to fix things up. However, depending of how IOC reacts, this move could become a double edged sword.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange move of Norway governement. Its probably the worst time to make such a conditions. All the money which should be spent on aplicance is already gone. And I can hardly no one reason why the IOC should say now 'ok, you're right Oslo' having in pocket many other options. Even if Krakow, Beijing, Almaty and Lviv are not capable of handling OG its to fast for IOC to realise this fact.

I think its internal issue of Norway politics. Those supporting Oslo 2022 want to show that their support isnt vassal.

But this voice is already noticed in Lausanne. Its not about this content of conditions. I think MKOl wont show any weakness now to avoid sittuation that Norway governement will dictate terms of OG organization. I expect a strong backstage reaction of IOC.

** The rights of workers called in to build new OL facilities must be guaranteed, they wrote.A Norwegian application for an OL must emphasize ow inclusion, equality and respect for human rights would be the foundation for how an OL would be arranged.

One shot, two goals for opponents. Criticise IOC Sochi choice and arent rights of workers in Norway already guarenteed? orly? I always thought that Norway is proud of their equality laws even when whole world discuss Breivik issue.

** The two government parties think the Oslo2022 committee must demand that limits be placed on any additional competitive events within the Olympics. Critics have claimed the Olympics have become much too big, with too many new sporting events added in recent years. The Norwegian politicians think that development should be brought under more control.

Does governement know that final decision will be done, when OG program of OG is set?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I just posted in the other Oslo thread in the GB newswire section, but who's to say that the IOC isn't already on board with this, especially since there were so many private talks with the Norwegians from Bach & Heiberg. It may not be as a total shock as we might think it is here. The IOC isn't that stupid & they must realize that everything isn't peachy-keen as far as the 2022 race goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 the largest hockey venue. Which means one could scrap the planed venue at Stubberud in Oslo.
Hamar Olympic Amphitheatre could be reused as the smaller hockey venue. Which mean one could scrap the planed upgrading of Jordal Amfi in Oslo.
This also means scrapping the two planed training venues at Mortensrud and Sognsvann in Oslo. As Kristins Hall and Storhamar Ishall then would be used for training.
Gjøvik Olympic Cavern Hall could be reused as the curling venue. Which means one could scrap the planed venue at Lørenskog just outside Oslo.
Birkebeinern Ski Stadium could be reused as the biathlon venue. Which means one could scrap the planed venue at Grønmo in Oslo.

However, that would only leave Holmenkollen as the venue for ski jumping, cross country skiing and Nordic combined, Telenor Arena as the venues for short track skating and figure skating, and the two venues for freestyle skiing and snowboarding events left in Oslo.
And that's not in the interest of Oslo politicians and the leaders of NOC. Whose main target of hosting the Olympics is to get government funding for new venues in Oslo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 the largest hockey venue. Which means one could scrap the planed venue at Stubberud in Oslo.

Hamar Olympic Amphitheatre could be reused as the smaller hockey venue. Which mean one could scrap the planed upgrading of Jordal Amfi in Oslo.

This also means scrapping the two planed training venues at Mortensrud and Sognsvann in Oslo. As Kristins Hall and Storhamar Ishall then would be used for training.

Gjøvik Olympic Cavern Hall could be reused as the curling venue. Which means one could scrap the planed venue at Lørenskog just outside Oslo.

Birkebeinern Ski Stadium could be reused as the biathlon venue. Which means one could scrap the planed venue at Grønmo in Oslo.

However, that would only leave Holmenkollen as the venue for ski jumping, cross country skiing and Nordic combined, Telenor Arena as the venues for short track skating and figure skating, and the two venues for freestyle skiing and snowboarding events left in Oslo.

And that's not in the interest of Oslo politicians and the leaders of NOC. Whose main target of hosting the Olympics is to get government funding for new venues in Oslo.

I wouldn't support so extensive re-use of Lillehammer venues because they are so far from Oslo. I think the vanues should be as close to the host city as possible, only some more expensive venues could be farther, like ski slopes and luge track.

I think biathlon should be close to cross-country skiing, some athletes compete in both sports. But I wonder why Holmenkollen couldn't host both of them. Holmenkollen ski stadium enables hosting biathlon, and I think 16 days should be enough for all cross-country, Nordic combined, and biathlon events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, why an extra biathlon venue? Holmenkollen hosted biathlon World Champs before, I think, so why not use it for 2022?

And a city/metro area like Oslo can surely sustain 2 mid-size hockey venues?

Vikingskippet, well, it is iconic, and on the way to the Lillehammer venues, so could have a point, but would surely be against the "compact" idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, why an extra biathlon venue? Holmenkollen hosted biathlon World Champs before, I think, so why not use it for 2022?

And a city/metro area like Oslo can surely sustain 2 mid-size hockey venues?

Vikingskippet, well, it is iconic, and on the way to the Lillehammer venues, so could have a point, but would surely be against the "compact" idea.

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 hasn't been used as a hockey venue since the mid 90s.

Of the two planned hockey venues for 2022, the biggest one will be completely rebuilt into a multi use venue after the Olympics. With an indoor athletics track, handball, volleyball and badminton fields etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have nothing against having one hockey arena in Oslo and one in Lillehammer as long as the final and the semifinals are played in Oslo. I think they could spread the hockey matches in two cities like they do with football matches in the summer games.

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...