Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm losing faith on international sport events as a whole recently to be honest. They've turned from a multi sport event onto a vanity affair for "emerging" countries and their arrogant leaders. The IOC, instead of fighting the gigantism which the olympics are suffering seem to be even encouraging it. They've become not much different from FIFA.

Northern Europe was already afraid of hosting the olympics a couple of decades ago. With the recent events, i'm afraid we won't be seeing olympics in this region for a very long time (if Oslo resigns that is, and which is starting to look as a very possible outcome). And they still dare to say lies like Sochi not costing more than Vancouver? Seriously?

Between this and his cocksucking to Putin at Sochi closing, I already want Rogge to come back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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...

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.

Look, he would have had MUCH more credibility if he had said, "Sochi went overboard in their extra expenditures, but if you look at the core costs of the Games they haven't increased significantly over previous editions."

The fact that he did not acknowledge Sochi's excesses in any way is at best poor communication and at worst willfully misleading. As the head of the IOC, Bach has a responsibility to communicate clearly and effectively. He didn't. Whether he intended it to sound like a bald-faced lie or not, it did.

We know from recent history that Bach has a tendency to blame others for getting it wrong (whether they actually have or not), rather than acknowledging that the IOC has room for improvement.

He's going to get a whole lot farther if he offers a completely different message about taking the Olympics a "new direction" that is "cost-effective," "responsible" and "sustainable." In this quote he is CLEARLY defending the status quo and saying, "The same old, same old works just fine." That is not going to win the IOC any new supporters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of context (which it probably is) or not, it once more illustrates that Bach cannot, or does not want to, get out of his business lawyer thinking.

The IOC likes selling the Olympics on emotions, but its highest ranked official is giving lectures on an OCOG surplus. That's not the way to win people over who are smart enough to see that the total costs were FAR higher this year than in 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC needs to paint Sochi as an anomaly not the rule. Bids and cities have much more control over costs than some would paint here. Yes Bach's statements probably reflect his personality and profession. He is not a charismatic or emotional leader. But he needs to find away to shift the narrative in a positive direction. Obviously this discussion and its dynamics will change considerably over the next 2 years and shift with the success or failure of Rio and again with Pyeonchang.

It seems that the Olympics operates in a two year cycle based around the themes and talking points of the most recent Games. Vancouver and London providing better examples of how an Olympics could and should be run, but the negativity of Sochi has tapped into the overall negative society that ingrains Western culture right now.

Edited by faster
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I was about to post "Worse. Arguement. Ever" but then I read the rest of this thread. Ugh.

As bad as saying "trust us" - from a group that has earned zero trust - the "We.., the Organizaing Committee made a profit" is sooo much worse. Yes, you tax payers spend $billions on us.... but we made a profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was about to post "Worse. Arguement. Ever" but then I read the rest of this thread. Ugh.

As bad as saying "trust us" - from a group that has earned zero trust - the "We.., the Organizaing Committee made a profit" is sooo much worse. Yes, you tax payers spend $billions on us.... but we made a profit.

And of course, there's a danger it could come across that way too. The points the IOC need to try to get across are...

  • The show itself is self-financing. The last few Olympics have all covered their costs in terms of putting on the event so risk to tax payers in this aspect is low. Sponsors cover much of this so money will not be flowng from your pocket to the IOC.
  • Sochi was an anomoly in terms of infrastrcture costs. There's no reason a city should spend that much if it already has a lot of infrastructure in place.
  • Whilst the infrastructure does cost money, done well it improves the city. Cite Sydney, London, Atlanta, Vancouver.

All very dry and technical, and not without risk. A few ifs and if the government and the residents of Oslo are risk averse these points won't win them round. But that's what the IOC needs to be hammering home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that without a line-item budget, it's all a bit too much to swallow.

To say the Olympics always pay for themselves when costs are skyrocketing just doesn't compute.

It's very difficult to believe that the gross overages have accrued solely because of the prodigal proclivities of the hosts and not because of the IOC's requirements and/or expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, there's a danger it could come across that way too. The points the IOC need to try to get across are...

  • The show itself is self-financing. The last few Olympics have all covered their costs in terms of putting on the event so risk to tax payers in this aspect is low. Sponsors cover much of this so money will not be flowng from your pocket to the IOC.
  • Sochi was an anomoly in terms of infrastrcture costs. There's no reason a city should spend that much if it already has a lot of infrastructure in place.
  • Whilst the infrastructure does cost money, done well it improves the city. Cite Sydney, London, Atlanta, Vancouver.

All very dry and technical, and not without risk. A few ifs and if the government and the residents of Oslo are risk averse these points won't win them round. But that's what the IOC needs to be hammering home.

People aren't stupid. If anyone tries to spin "the show itself" is self funding.... they should get out of the spin business. Taxpayers don't really care if their money is spent on security, possibly-unneeded infrastructure or "the show itself".

Some infrastructure is probably smart spending. But a lot isn't. Sochi spent $$$ building out it's airport to a size it will never, ever need. Sydney build a metro line that is mostly a ghost train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sydney build a metro line that is mostly a ghost train.

No, it wasn't a metro line. It was a one-station loop spur off the main hub of the city's rail network. It was really planned as a special events route. And really was and still is essential for the Olympic Park. The area does get a lion's share of big events, matches, concerts, conventions and shows.

And also these days, now Olympic Park is growing as a commercial-office hub, it is getting decent commute-time usage. I've had to work at the park several times for trade shows etc, and have ben quite impressed at the numbers of ordinary people now using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are a few thousand folks living around the park who use the line for commuting to Central. Aside from its use for events at the Park. It's certainly no red herring.

No, it wasn't a metro line. It was a one-station loop spur off the main hub of the city's rail network. It was really planned as a special events route. And really was and still is essential for the Olympic Park. The area does get a lion's share of big events, matches, concerts, conventions and shows.

And also these days, now Olympic Park is growing as a commercial-office hub, it is getting decent commute-time usage. I've had to work at the park several times for trade shows etc, and have ben quite impressed at the numbers of ordinary people now using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Some good news from Oslo, Norway.

In the past weeks both our minister of Culture, Thorild Widvey and her newly appointed secretary have publicly announced their support for the bid and an Oslo Olympics in 2022.

kud_no.gif

Ministre of Culture, Thorhild Widvey:

http://www.vg.no/sport/ol-2022/widvey-staar-fram-som-ol-entusiast/a/10123413/

"A huge part of the norwegian volunteer foundation is still based on the enthusiasm from Olympic winter games at Lillehammer in 1994. In orther to maintain a constant flow of volunteers we need a large project in order to mobilize a new generation of volunteers.

The Olympics will need 20 000 - 25 000 volunteers. This could create a new wave which is important since the volunteers builds and holds up the norwegian society."

1967206.jpg

Her secretary, Bjørgulv Vinje Borgundvaag

http://www.idrett.no/nyheter/Sider/OL-i-Norge-i-Tjue-Tjue-To.aspx

He has written a song in favour of the Olympics.

50382340_profile20111216165729.JPG?size=

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

(If the quoting dont Work, im commenting on page 80, and the discussing of Norway and Oslo could use another hockey arena...


Why does the hockey arena has to be a permanent hockey arena???? It seems like your are missing som opportunities. Here in Denmark where we just recieved the host of the hockey World championschip in 2018, we are not using any permenant hockey arena. We are using 2 multi indoor arena. One new that are under Construction in Copenhagen, and "Boxen" in Herning where there in december were held European swimming championschip (25 m pool), and a month later was ready for European championschip in handball for men. And has in the meantime been used for song contest and much more. And now it also has to be a hockey arena. So why does Norway have to build a speciel hockey arena?

Kindly regards
Hans Pedersen

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's been known for a long time. Won't change the fact that it won't happen after the Progress party voted no to the Olympics.

Well, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party makes a majority on their own (103 MPs, 85 needed for majority in the Norwegian Parliament), so if both parties go for Oslo 2022 (which I don't see as very unlikely), it's even possible to make a majority even if some of the MPs votes against the government guarantee (which I, again, don't see as very unlikely). Still, the best is of course to have a very large majority voting in favour of the government guarantee, especially since the descision will tie up several future national budgets. But after all, I hope it - in the end - is a majority voting in favour of the government guarantee.

And did the IOC ever respond, or even publicly acknowledge the Norwegian demands?

If you refer to the "demands" made by the MPs Svein Harberg and Ib Thomsen (page 75 in this thread), I don't think they were ever sent to IOC, actually - only to the Oslo 2022 Bid Committee. They responded to the letter from the MPs in April, telling for example that the IOC members pay for all expences during their stay in Oslo except transport to and from the airport, which the OCOG organizes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any schedule for a vote on this? Seems like it would need to occur soon. We're about to get the shortlist!

The Oslo 2022 Bid Committee expects the government to send a bill regarding the application for government guarantee and subsidies to the Norwegian parliament around August/September, and that the Norwegian parliament will handle the application for government guarantee and subsidies some time during the fall of 2014. The Parliament must approve the government guarantee no later than January 2015, according to Bærum municipality's website https://www.baerum.kommune.no/Forsidenyheter/Barum-kommune-i-soknadskomite-for-OL-og-PL-til-Oslo-i-2022/ (Telenor Arena is located in Bærum, and after Oslo 2022's plans figure skating will be arranged in Telenor Arena - hence Bærum municipality is a part of the Bid Committee).

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 2018, all three applicants were put forward, too. That's why it can't be argue that the short-list is 'strictly' a technical assessment. Precedence has seen that depending the quality & quantity of applicants, will dictate who the candidates will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fewer are negative to the Olympic application - the youth clearly says yes

Source: http://www.oslo2022.oslo.kommune.no/aktuelt/article280695-61809.html

In a recent nationwide poll, conducted by TNS Gallup, now less than half of the population is negative to Oslo applying for the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in 2022. - The "no" side seems to have gone down significantly after the Sochi Olympics, and we sense a movement in which more people are open to listen to the opportunities. And the youth wants an opportunity to create and participate in "their own" Olympics, says Eli Grimsby, Chief Executive Officer of Oslo2022.

Aleksander%20Aurdal%20-%20Henrik%20Krist

The youth are positive: Olympic athletes Alexander Aurdal and Henrik Kristoffersen gave the thumbs up on the Olympic ambassador event in Oslo on 17th June. Photo: Oslo2022 Website

TNS Gallup has, on behalf of Oslo2022, conducted a nationwide poll in the period of 11th-22nd June. The poll was done through telephone interviews with a large data basis, 1,883 interviews.
Stable yes-share - descending no-share
Several external, published polls has, after the Olympic Games in Sochi in February, showed a "no"-side at around 60 percent. The recent poll suggests that the negative trend is about to reverse.
The question asked is: "Are you positive or negative to Oslo applying for the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in 2022?" In total, 35.5 percent said they are positive, while 49.7 percent said they are negative. 14.8 percent reported that they have no opinion/uncertain.
Eli-til-veggs.jpg%20%28200x256%29.jpg
Eli Grimsby, Chief Executive Officer of Oslo2022. Photo: Oslo2022 Website
- The percentage of positive remains relatively stable from previous studies, but we think it is very interesting that the proportion of uncertain increases. The media image has in my opinion become more nuanced recent, and we see that both businesses and engaged youth has focused on the opportunities of the Olympic project. People may become more open to listen to what opportunities the Olympics and Paralympics can help create for the country. I am among those who believe it is possible to be 60 percent adherent, and land on the "yes" on an overall assessment, says Grimsby.
The youth want 'their own' Olympics
The respondents who were not born or were children during the Olympics at Lillehammer in 1994, differs with a definite "yes" majority. Among the under 30, 52.3 percent are positive to the application for the Winter Olympics, while only 28.3 percent are negative.
- We see the strong commitment of many young people, especially among our own Olympic ambassadors, as I have been fortunate to meet many of recently. It inspires. It is clear that those who did not experience the Lillehammer Olympics, but has only been hearing about the wonderful folk festival from their parents' generation, want to be able to create something similar themself. In addition, the young people are more focused on the potential for the future with this project, especially in education and human resource development, says Grimsby.
Even if it's not a majority in favour of the application, the numbers are going in the right direction. Of course, the "no" side claims the poll asked the wrong question - the question should've focused more directly on the economy and the government guarantee, but I find the question wording perfectly reasonable.
And, by the way, I'm one of the Olympic ambassadors Grimsby has met recently :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you own poster puts the positive at 35%, your bid is in heap serious trouble

Well, as stated in the article: it could've been worse... But it just means that us in favour of the bid needs to do a better job convincing people about the opportunities an eventual Olympics will give, and of course pointing out all the fun and the "folk festival" an Olympics will bring to Norway :)

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...