Oslo 2022

[ScholaOsloensis 25]

Small birds are whispering from the corridors of government, and they're telling us "no".

Looks like the progress party will shut down the bid, but it's very unconfirmed.

Since I've grown colder to the idea of OSL2O22, I'm not too bummed. Bitter for the bid org who prob felt very close to the prize (, or the bill).

But it would make the race very interesting. Feels like an Agatha Christie novel.

[FYI 1191]

If that's the case, the IOC's gotta be scurrying around like a bunch of panicked ninnies. Of course, they'll never admit to it. Bach will still chime along with his "not too concerned. We still have four other bidders" mantra. For the moment, that is.

[Ikarus360 599]

I dare to say I haven't seen such an ugly situation in a bid race since the 80's. Definitely, Sochi was the Montreal of the 21th century.

[olympiaki-agones 52]

Yeah, and Tokyo seems to be the LA'84 of the XXI century.

[Athensfan 1081]

Yeah, and Tokyo seems to be the LA'84 of the XXI century.

I don't see that at all. Tokyo will stage grand games of the old model that will be very expensive. LA created a new paradigm for the Olympic movement. I think Tokyo's Games will be fine, but I doubt they'll offer a new, more workable model.

As for Oslo, a part of me hopes they withdraw. The people should not have Olympic Games and Olympic price tags rammed down their throats against their will.

[Quaker2001 1251]

I dare to say I haven't seen such an ugly situation in a bid race since the 80's. Definitely, Sochi was the Montreal of the 21th century.

Why is that even a comparison? I get what you're saying in terms of the impact on bidding, but the next vote after Montreal was LA running unopposed. This may be an ugly field, but there are still 5 cities in the running. So it's not really the same

[Athensfan 1081]

Yeah. I don't understand this urge to draw parallels to the past. There are a few similarities, but a lot of differences too. It's a new era.

[Quaker2001 1251]

Yeah. I don't understand this urge to draw parallels to the past. There are a few similarities, but a lot of differences too. It's a new era.

Neither do I. To pick a specific element of a bid (and a pretty obscure one, especially to anyone outside of this forum) doesn't really make sense. Montreal's place in history, for better or worse, is an Olympics that left a city in debt for a generation. So to offer that alongside Sochi, the Olympics that re-wrote the book on over-spending because money is no object, rings very hollow.

[olympiaki-agones 52]

Because history certainly teaches us how to take decisions according with paradigms. I think comparing is fine when you more or less predict history is going to be repeated. I know it's a different situation the 2020, 2022 and 2024 races than those ones from the 70s and 80s, but we are witnessing a drop of cities interested to host. And it's not because business, but social matters.

[Quaker2001 1251]

Because history certainly teaches us how to take decisions according with paradigms. I think comparing is fine when you more or less predict history is going to be repeated. I know it's a different situation the 2020, 2022 and 2024 races than those ones from the 70s and 80s, but we are witnessing a drop of cities interested to host. And it's not because business, but social matters.

Drawing on similarities is one thing. That's certainly worthy of discussion and yes, especially with this 2022 race and the current state of the IOC, there are some parallels that can be drawn between now and the late 70s/early 80s. But to throw a blanket over it and offer "Tokyo seems to be the LA'84 of the XXI century" with no context just seems meaningless. We're only 14 years into the 21st century.. seems a little early to be offering a defining moment. More than that, Tokyo 2020 is still 6+ years away. We've only seen the vote, so we don't know how it's going to fit into a historical context. If you're drawing on the comparison that LA was the Olympics that turned the Olympic movement back around after they were in trouble, maybe that'll be Tokyo, but way too early to determine if that will be the case or not.

[Athensfan 1081]

we are witnessing a drop of cities interested to host. And it's not because business, but social matters.

It is because of business matters. Rome, St. Moritz, and Munich all cited financial deterrents. Oslo and Krakow are dealing with the same concerns.

[StefanMUC 688]

It is because of business matters. Rome, St. Moritz, and Munich all cited financial deterrents. Oslo and Krakow are dealing with the same concerns.

Munich's NO also definitely had a social component though, the unwillingness to host a clandestine organisation like the IOC and having to cause some environmental damage for it.

[Athensfan 1081]

Munich's NO also definitely had a social component though, the unwillingness to host a clandestine organisation like the IOC and having to cause some environmental damage for it.

True. Fair enough.

While social concerns may play a role in the decreased number of quality bidders, I still think it's safe to say that the biggest deterrent is the financial one.

[StefanMUC 688]

While social concerns may play a role in the decreased number of quality bidders, I still think it's safe to say that the biggest deterrent is the financial one.

Yes, as long as with basically each and every OG, the costs are spiralling, in some cases out of control, it's no wonder the educated public is no longer willing to accept that, especially in times of financial crisis worldwide.

Which leaves the IOC with host countries like Russia, China, Kazakhstan or possibly the Gulf states or Azerbaijan where no real opposition can be expected and there's plenty of oil/gas/etc money out there to be spent.

If that's what the IOC want, fine, but then they shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[baron-pierreIV 1693]

It's really the host city. Even Australia/Sydney, they were warned by the IOC that an 80,000 Athletics stadium would suffice. Instead, for a country of only 19mil at that time, they still went for a 100,000 seater. And that's for a supposedly fiscally-responsible and sensible country like Oz. The gigantism of the Games is caused by the IOC; but going for the platinum editions is sometimes caused by the host city/country. So the IOC isn't entirely to blame.

[Athensfan 1081]

But the IOC does nothing at all to discourage gigantism. Most of their votes appear to support it.

[Nacre 213]

Because history certainly teaches us how to take decisions according with paradigms. I think comparing is fine when you more or less predict history is going to be repeated. I know it's a different situation the 2020, 2022 and 2024 races than those ones from the 70s and 80s, but we are witnessing a drop of cities interested to host. And it's not because business, but social matters.

It's the exact opposite. The costs and economic disruption have grown too large, and the people of most countries don't want to be stuck footing a bill equal to the cost of 2-10 aircraft carriers to host the winter games. (Yes seriously. An aircraft carrier costs roughly 4 to 5 billion.) Russia could have built a space station with the money they spent on Sochi.

[olympiaki-agones 52]

OK, I do correct: it's not only social matters, but business as well.

Of course local politicians from any bidding city could say that loudly

[gotosy 493]

No Olympic decisions at Høyre’s meeting

May 12, 2014

Leaders of Norway’s Conservative Party (Høyre) didn’t want to take up the hotly debated issue of whether the country should host the 2022 Winter Olympics at their national meeting over the weekend. Lots of debate reportedly went on in the corridors, though.

The Conservatives’ government partner, the Progress Party (Frp), voted the weekend before against hosting an Olympics, contending it simply would be too expensive. The state must agree to guarantee the costs of the huge sporting event, which are now budgeted at NOK 35 billion (nearly USD 6 billion) but can soar much higher.

Frp’s vote poses a challenge for those within the Conservatives who want to host an Olympics, but there also are many within the party who oppose it, too. Public opinion polls from Conservative Prime Minister Erna Solberg’s own home district are also heavily against it, and the party hasn’t taken a stand as yet.

Fabian Stang, a member of the Conservatives and mayor of Oslo where the Olympics would be held, made his own impassioned appeal to fellow members, though. “Give the young an OL,” he said. “Let’s show the world our values.”

Meanwhile, the Royal Palace’s official calendar shows that King Harald will receive the president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Thomas Bach, at the palace in Oslo on May 19. Oslo is favoured to win any formal bid for the Winter Games in 2022, because many other top contenders including Bach’s native Germany have dropped their bids over the costs involved.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/05/12/no-olympic-decisions-at-hoyres-meeting/

[BR2028 69]

It's sad to see what would have been a fabulous host city suffer a slow death

[gotosy 493]

Bach visits Norway as Oslo 2022 bid in doubt

STAVANGER, Norway — IOC President Thomas Bach arrived in Norway on Monday amid growing local opposition to Oslo's bid to host the 2022 Winter Olympics.

Bach's visit came as part of a planned tour of the Scandinavian country's facilities for the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics and includes meetings with politicians, 2022 bid leaders and lawmakers. He was also received by Norway's King Harald.

Earlier this month, the junior partner in the ruling coalition voted against any government support for the bid, a move that likely puts the city out of the race. The Progress Party objects to Norway hosting the games, saying it would adversely affect the government's ability to fund infrastructure projects, education, health care and tax cuts.

Bach's visit was seen as a chance for him to drum support for the bid in a country which has a long history of hosting winter sports, with top athletes, good venues and enthusiastic audiences.

The secretary general of Norway's Olympic Committee, Inge Andersen, has urged Parliament to recognize the central role of winter sports in Norwegian society and to "trust" the national and international committees to make Oslo's bid work.

"Very many people in our Parliament know very well the effect of sport and how important sport is for society and this is the first meeting as IOC president that Thomas Bach will have in Norway," Andersen told the AP before Bach's visit. "We all need to work together."

AP

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2014/05/19/3463232/bach-visits-norway-as-oslo-2022.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2014/05/19/3463232/bach-visits-norway-as-oslo-2022.html#storylink=cpy

[Athensfan 1081]

In that story in the Wichita Eagle, Bach is quoted as saying

"People are sitting with a false impression that the Olympics cost more and more, especially in connection with Sochi, and it is wrong," Bach told reporters in Oslo. "Sochi cost no more than Vancouver, and the event was actually in surplus at the end."

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2014/05/19/3463232/bach-visits-norway-as-oslo-2022.html#storylink=cpy

Are you kidding me? The world's media just made everything up? Sochi was no different than Vancouver and had a SURPLUS?

TAKE NOTE IOC: This is why no one trusts you. This is why no one wants to work with you.

What a pile of lies. Get out while you can, Oslo.

[Rob. 2038]

No, not a pile of lies and no, the world's media didn't make everything up. I'd like to see that quote in some kind of conext though. If, as I suspect, he's talking about the OCOG costs he's not wrong and Sochi did make a surplus. The cost of the show and the logistics hasn't gone up substantially (perhaps security costs aside), but some hosts have chosen to build more expesnive theatres in which to put it on. Bach is probably trying to get that point across.

It's a point which is entirely correct, but it's difficult to get that point across (and this is entirely the IOC's own fault, granted) when critics can just shout "50 BILLION DOLLARS!"

Edited May 19, 2014 by Rob.

[Athensfan 1081]

No, not a pile of lies and no, the world's media didn't make everything up. I'd like to see that quote in some kind of conext though. If, as I suspect, he's talking about the OCOG costs he's not wrong and Sochi did make a surplus. The cost of the show and the logistics hasn't gone up substantially (perhaps security costs aside), but some hosts have chosen to build more expesnive theatres in which to put it on. Bach is probably trying to get that point across.

It's a point which is entirely correct, but it's difficult to get that point across (and this is entirely the IOC's own fault, granted) when critics can just shout "50 BILLION DOLLARS!"

Rob, if that's what he meant, then that's what he should've said. Without all those qualifying statements you added, it absolutely is a pile of lies.

Nobody's going to duplicate Sochi any time soon, but realistically, even more modest Winter Games in 2022 are likely to run around at least 8 billion. That's hardly a drop in the bucket.

"Sochi cost no more than Vancouver."

Sorry, you just can't say things like that when you're the IOC president.

[Rob. 2038]

Unless he thinks people are monumentally stupid and can't tell which is bigger between $8bn, or $50bn, then there's clearly some kind of implicit qualifier in there. Either he wasn't clear enough in what he said, or this quote is taken out of context. It HAS to be one or the other because everyone knows Sochi was the most expensive Games ever. It's clear to me he's talking about the core cost of the show itself (i.e. the non-negotiable OCOG costs) and not simply telling bareface lies which anyone with Google could call him out on.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Rob.