Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't understand how you can use economic arguments against Oslo, while saying that there are three better alternatives in Norway.

Oslo's bid will be reasonable given the existing infrastructure, work force and population and much of the infrastructure improvements will satisfy existing demands.

To have the olympics in Tromsø or Voss or wherever would be crazy with regards to economy and the need for investments in unsustainable infrastructure. The olympics is bigger and the requirements are substantially higher compared to 94.

FRP will shift with the wind as always. The bid organisation and the sports bodies need to create enthusiasm around the country. They have a fair, but small chance of succeeding with that, and if so, the politicians will find a way.

What I meant was that Oslo would be no better than a third or fourth best potential candidate from Norway. The Oslo candidacy has at least five main weaknesses IMO:

  1. Distances. They call themselves compact games, but the reality is that the distance from Oslo to Kvitfjell is more than 230 km, or three hours of driving and usually even more by train. Within the so-called Lillehammer cluster the distances are 50 km / 45 minutes from the sliding events to downhill at Kvitfjell. Potential other Norwegian candidates (Tromsø, Trondheim, even Trondheim - Åre, or the more speculative Drammen and Bergen / Ålesund) are significantly more compact.
  2. Fog. Three out of four WC in Nordic skiing that has taken place in Oslo has been marked by dense fog. In two WCs, like in 1982 below, the winner of the ski jumping competitions could not be seen, as this image from 1982 illustrates...

    http://gfx.nrk.no//cvn6v6kAZjaytSFX8Ha82Qe8TV9RCVGq6U-KB_vhd0QA

    At least neither Trondheim or Tromsø have similar problems. Some will argue that there is not a fog problem in February. This is very wrong. The fog was also discussed here: http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/21127-oslo-2022/page-13

  3. Snow cover: Oslo has the least reliable snow cover of the three candidates (Oslo, Tromsø, Trondheim) in the 2018 bid. With global warming, this will not improve. I am sure they will be able to stage the snow events as planned using underfrozen tracks and artificial snow, but the landscape around as well as the city will be glum.
  4. Landscape: Oslo is located in the least scenic region of Norway, and the Lillehammer region / Kvitfjell is not much better.
  5. Logistics: The recent 2011 WC in Nordic Skiing was a logistic nightmare, where people were stuck in hours without reaching the events they had paid for. This was in quite stark contrast to the 1997 WC in Trondheim which in fact had even more spectators. Now, this can probably be improved, but the negative experience will still be in Oslo's disfavour in any bid.

Regarding the costs, the costs numbers of Oslo (34 billion NOK) are already significant higher than Tromsø's (28.9 billion), even if the Oslo bid has not yet gone through a quality assurance process which in Tromsø's case raised the bill from 15.5 billion NOK. Hence, a state guarantee of around 50 billion NOK / 10 billion USD may be expected. In the current budget, only about 15 % will go to public investments. The rest of the costs are for planning and operations of the games, as well as for support to private entrepeneurs for media centers and participants villages etc.. Less than 5 % are for transport infrastructure, while the remaining 10 % or so are for sport infrastructure.

Regarding the size of the public investments, the experience from public projects almost always become higher in the capital area than in other places of the country, just compare the costs of theatres, concert halls, museums, and, more relevant, world championships. In the Tromsø candidacy, which I did not support, btw, they planned using a lot of temporary venues. This may seem like a vaste, but is considerably cheaper, and lets face it: venues built to Olympic specifications has very little value after the games. When it comes to sport venues for the ordinary man and women, we can get far more, for far less, without an olympics.

An often heard argument for olympics is that it will improve the image of Norway abroad, and hence spur increased tourist traffic and bussiness in other parts of the society. This is where I am most concerned about an Oslo WOG. My fear is that a foggy, snowless WOG in a dreary forested landscape would repel more tourist than it will attract. Tourists don't come to Norway to see Oslo, they come to see fjords and mountains, and if anything, an Oslo WOG can spoil this image.

I do not think 50 billion for 3 weeks of fun, with very little left in terms of long term benefits, is not something any sane government will take on easily, especially if they now that such a move will enrage a large part of their constituencies. The lack of sense of reality from some of the profilic Oslo 2022 agitators do not really help their case, like Inge Andersen managing to say that the government now should follow the will of the people (when in fact, only a single digit percentage of Norwegian voters had been asked), or hotel owner Petter Stordalen claiming that "this is what we should make our income on after the oil". Your comment about "unsustainable infrastructure investments" outside Oslo I am tempted to put in the same class. It does not seem like you know the rest of your country very well.....

  • Like 2
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...

What I meant was that Oslo would be no better than a third or fourth best potential candidate from Norway. The Oslo candidacy has at least five main weaknesses IMO:

  • Distances. They call themselves compact games, but the reality is that the distance from Oslo to Kvitfjell is more than 230 km, or three hours of driving and usually even more by train. Within the so-called Lillehammer cluster the distances are 50 km / 45 minutes from the sliding events to downhill at Kvitfjell. Potential other Norwegian candidates (Tromsø, Trondheim, even Trondheim - Åre, or the more speculative Drammen and Bergen / Ålesund) are significantly more compact.
  • Fog. Three out of four WC in Nordic skiing that has taken place in Oslo has been marked by dense fog. In two WCs, like in 1982 below, the winner of the ski jumping competitions could not be seen, as this image from 1982 illustrates...

    http://gfx.nrk.no//cvn6v6kAZjaytSFX8Ha82Qe8TV9RCVGq6U-KB_vhd0QA

    At least neither Trondheim or Tromsø have similar problems. Some will argue that there is not a fog problem in February. This is very wrong. The fog was also discussed here: http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/21127-oslo-2022/page-13

  • Snow cover: Oslo has the least reliable snow cover of the three candidates (Oslo, Tromsø, Trondheim) in the 2018 bid. With global warming, this will not improve. I am sure they will be able to stage the snow events as planned using underfrozen tracks and artificial snow, but the landscape around as well as the city will be glum.
  • Landscape: Oslo is located in the least scenic region of Norway, and the Lillehammer region / Kvitfjell is not much better.
  • Logistics: The recent 2011 WC in Nordic Skiing was a logistic nightmare, where people were stuck in hours without reaching the events they had paid for. This was in quite stark contrast to the 1997 WC in Trondheim which in fact had even more spectators. Now, this can probably be improved, but the negative experience will still be in Oslo's disfavour in any bid.

Regarding the costs, the costs numbers of Oslo (34 billion NOK) are already significant higher than Tromsø's (28.9 billion), even if the Oslo bid has not yet gone through a quality assurance process which in Tromsø's case raised the bill from 15.5 billion NOK. Hence, a state guarantee of around 50 billion NOK / 10 billion USD may be expected. In the current budget, only about 15 % will go to public investments. The rest of the costs are for planning and operations of the games, as well as for support to private entrepeneurs for media centers and participants villages etc.. Less than 5 % are for transport infrastructure, while the remaining 10 % or so are for sport infrastructure.

Regarding the size of the public investments, the experience from public projects almost always become higher in the capital area than in other places of the country, just compare the costs of theatres, concert halls, museums, and, more relevant, world championships. In the Tromsø candidacy, which I did not support, btw, they planned using a lot of temporary venues. This may seem like a vaste, but is considerably cheaper, and lets face it: venues built to Olympic specifications has very little value after the games. When it comes to sport venues for the ordinary man and women, we can get far more, for far less, without an olympics.

An often heard argument for olympics is that it will improve the image of Norway abroad, and hence spur increased tourist traffic and bussiness in other parts of the society. This is where I am most concerned about an Oslo WOG. My fear is that a foggy, snowless WOG in a dreary forested landscape would repel more tourist than it will attract. Tourists don't come to Norway to see Oslo, they come to see fjords and mountains, and if anything, an Oslo WOG can spoil this image.

I do not think 50 billion for 3 weeks of fun, with very little left in terms of long term benefits, is not something any sane government will take on easily, especially if they now that such a move will enrage a large part of their constituencies. The lack of sense of reality from some of the profilic Oslo 2022 agitators do not really help their case, like Inge Andersen managing to say that the government now should follow the will of the people (when in fact, only a single digit percentage of Norwegian voters had been asked), or hotel owner Petter Stordalen claiming that "this is what we should make our income on after the oil". Your comment about "unsustainable infrastructure investments" outside Oslo I am tempted to put in the same class. It does not seem like you know the rest of your country very well.....

Superb post. I wish the powers that be could hear you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moose. I'll start by saying I have always supported Trondheim as Norway's next OWG.

1. Complaining about the distances and about the costs is like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Lillehammer was chosen because it would lessen costs of developing/redeveloping venues and as a way of lessening environmental impacts. As others have said before with the increased need for a larger host city for the ice events, the IOC is going to have to be more flexible with distances. Vancouver was not much better, and neither is Munich.

2. Many potential Olympic sites have weather factors that could hamper an OWG, being a mostly outdoor event in the middle of winter. Nagano and Sarajevo had days of heavy snowfall that interpruted the schedule and Vancouver is known more for rain than snow. Even for London the fears of rain where well spoken. I doubt the IOC would look at Oslo and see the potential for fog as a big deal.

3. Most climate models show Norway getting colder not warmer. And the IOC does not exactly care about snow cover given who is hosting 2010, 2014 and 2018.

4. Would be a complete non-factor. And using Oslo could very well help create a new/additional image of Norway of a sophisticated, cosmopolitan nation.

5. This would obviously need to be addressed, but I think the IOC would be reasonably inclined to believe Norway and Oslo could deliever an excellent games.

As for cost and legacy, that is what proper planning is for. Many venues are already built and have a legacy all their own. With any new venues, sound planning would be able to mitigate white elephants. Look at Vancouver, both the speed skaitng and curling venues were converted into community sports centers for the general public. Organizers saw a need and used the legacy of the Olympic venues to address it.

Finally, you fear a foggy, snowless Games? Why do you put so much emphasis on weather and location? The heart of any Norwegian games would be the people. That is what everyone remembers from Lillehammer, the amazing, well-informed crowds of Norwegians creating a welcoming and hospitable atmosphere to stage a celebration of witner sport. That is the strength of a Norwegian games, and that is what a Oslo 2022 games would be remembered for.

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

Great website and extremely exciting. Yes, Munich seems to be the favourite as they haven't had the WOG since 1936 - 1972 for Munich's SOG - and it won't be the first time they bid.

But think about how London topped Paris for 2012 when Paris was bidding for the 3rd time. Think about how Paris had last held in 1924, against 1948 for London. This is something Oslo can do too, if they put up a fresher, better, more tempting and attractive bid. And your bid is for sure going to be amazing. Excellence is something that Norwegians are very attached to. Financing and transports are two issues that Oslo and Norway will have no problem dealing with. I fully agree with Faster's point-by-point relevant answer.

On the other hand, even if Norway does have allies too, we know that Germany is more likely than Norway to gain support within the IOC as far as the game of alliances and traditional system of relations are concerned. That means that lobbying - which always plays a role - will not have a decisive role in the 2022 campaign like it did in other elections, particularly 2012 & 2014. Lobbying is very much fundamental when two or more bids have a somewhat equal power of influence among voters, which makes the result so narrow that lobbying is crucial to help get the support of the few hesitant ones, which will make the balance fall on side or the other. Keeping the same example as I know it, that's how London -which had just like Paris a great amount of "automatic" supports- made a great work and, from a known source, got two crucial votes, crucial when we know how little the final margin was. One coming from Mauritius (which has both influences, English & French), and another one from Lebanon. Two votes that the French were mistakenly counting on to win.

Therefore, attracting, impressing, and arousing an irrepressible desire for Oslo is surely what should be banked on. They're on the right track.

Tough job, but it's there, within reach. If you decide to go, lykke til fra Paris....

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant was that Oslo would be no better than a third or fourth best potential candidate from Norway. The Oslo candidacy has at least five main weaknesses IMO:

  1. Distances. They call themselves compact games, but the reality is that the distance from Oslo to Kvitfjell is more than 230 km, or three hours of driving and usually even more by train. Within the so-called Lillehammer cluster the distances are 50 km / 45 minutes from the sliding events to downhill at Kvitfjell. Potential other Norwegian candidates (Tromsø, Trondheim, even Trondheim - Åre, or the more speculative Drammen and Bergen / Ålesund) are significantly more compact.
  2. Fog. Three out of four WC in Nordic skiing that has taken place in Oslo has been marked by dense fog. In two WCs, like in 1982 below, the winner of the ski jumping competitions could not be seen, as this image from 1982 illustrates...

    http://gfx.nrk.no//cvn6v6kAZjaytSFX8Ha82Qe8TV9RCVGq6U-KB_vhd0QA

    At least neither Trondheim or Tromsø have similar problems. Some will argue that there is not a fog problem in February. This is very wrong. The fog was also discussed here: http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/21127-oslo-2022/page-13

  3. Snow cover: Oslo has the least reliable snow cover of the three candidates (Oslo, Tromsø, Trondheim) in the 2018 bid. With global warming, this will not improve. I am sure they will be able to stage the snow events as planned using underfrozen tracks and artificial snow, but the landscape around as well as the city will be glum.
  4. Landscape: Oslo is located in the least scenic region of Norway, and the Lillehammer region / Kvitfjell is not much better.
  5. Logistics: The recent 2011 WC in Nordic Skiing was a logistic nightmare, where people were stuck in hours without reaching the events they had paid for. This was in quite stark contrast to the 1997 WC in Trondheim which in fact had even more spectators. Now, this can probably be improved, but the negative experience will still be in Oslo's disfavour in any bid.

Regarding the costs, the costs numbers of Oslo (34 billion NOK) are already significant higher than Tromsø's (28.9 billion), even if the Oslo bid has not yet gone through a quality assurance process which in Tromsø's case raised the bill from 15.5 billion NOK. Hence, a state guarantee of around 50 billion NOK / 10 billion USD may be expected. In the current budget, only about 15 % will go to public investments. The rest of the costs are for planning and operations of the games, as well as for support to private entrepeneurs for media centers and participants villages etc.. Less than 5 % are for transport infrastructure, while the remaining 10 % or so are for sport infrastructure.

Regarding the size of the public investments, the experience from public projects almost always become higher in the capital area than in other places of the country, just compare the costs of theatres, concert halls, museums, and, more relevant, world championships. In the Tromsø candidacy, which I did not support, btw, they planned using a lot of temporary venues. This may seem like a vaste, but is considerably cheaper, and lets face it: venues built to Olympic specifications has very little value after the games. When it comes to sport venues for the ordinary man and women, we can get far more, for far less, without an olympics.

An often heard argument for olympics is that it will improve the image of Norway abroad, and hence spur increased tourist traffic and bussiness in other parts of the society. This is where I am most concerned about an Oslo WOG. My fear is that a foggy, snowless WOG in a dreary forested landscape would repel more tourist than it will attract. Tourists don't come to Norway to see Oslo, they come to see fjords and mountains, and if anything, an Oslo WOG can spoil this image.

I do not think 50 billion for 3 weeks of fun, with very little left in terms of long term benefits, is not something any sane government will take on easily, especially if they now that such a move will enrage a large part of their constituencies. The lack of sense of reality from some of the profilic Oslo 2022 agitators do not really help their case, like Inge Andersen managing to say that the government now should follow the will of the people (when in fact, only a single digit percentage of Norwegian voters had been asked), or hotel owner Petter Stordalen claiming that "this is what we should make our income on after the oil". Your comment about "unsustainable infrastructure investments" outside Oslo I am tempted to put in the same class. It does not seem like you know the rest of your country very well.....

Okay.. I'll try to limit the scope of my answer to this post as not to derange into an emotional debate about district policy:-)

First of all, you bring some valid points that I'll try to address, but.. your reasoning in the sense of how you draw your conclusions is in my opinion biased/flawed. Every single bid, and this is especially relevant for the WOG, has its weaknesses, or should I say lack of perfectness. You focus on some of the arguably weaker points of the Oslo bid, while comparing these with a hypothetical ideal alternative norwegian bid, Like saying that Oslo isn't as compact as Lillehammer, it's not as spectacular as Tromsø and it's not as ... ehm cold as Trondheim. Well, right.. but that's not really an argument in favour of either of these bids instead of Oslo. It's just stating the obvious, namely that Oslo is not the perfect bid and that other norwegian bid cities/villages have their strenghts as well.

Your last point first. Ehm.. Why would you draw any conclusions about my knowledge of "the rest of the country"? I've only written a few lines on this forum and none of those attempted to say much in detail about "the rest of my country".

I'll guess you're a trønder, and let me just say that I believe that a Trondheim bid would be excellent:-), and I would support that bid as well. I took a semester of my studies in Trondheim (well, actually I mistakenly prioritized NTNU before UIO when applying and went back to UIO later), enjoyed the city and have lots of family up there. Just too bad that the public support for a bid in Trondheim was in the 30s during the race for 2018.

About the compactness. You're right. The games would obviously not be as compact as Lillehammer. And you're right, the main norwegian competitors are also very compact, but this is not a size measured in one dimension. What you'll get with Oslo, is the ability to reach all venues by a metro ride, including nordic skiing events, biathlon, freestyle, snowboard as well as the indoor events. That is compact when you compare with competing host cities of similar size (and bigger). Obv there would have to be an additional centre for alpine/sliding events, with Lillehammer looking like the most likely candidate. Is that ideal? No. However, in 2022 we're looking at the inter city railway as well as four lane highway, so transport is good and the international airport is on the right side of the city as well.

About the weather. From my experience and what I've understood from other's experiences the weather in Trondheim is very unstable, it sees more precipitation, less sun days and it's also darker during winter. Not all of that is bad with regards to WOG, but it's not fair to make the case that Oslo is significantly worse than Trondheim in this respect. Nordmarka (Oslo) lies several hundred metres above the occean and is the most widely used XC area in the country. Holmenkollen (Nordmarka, Oslo) is arguably the most prominent host of the nordic events, with hundred year old traditions, brand new facilities and a recent and very well received world championships under its belt. In my book, that is an argument in favour of the city. The city was really sparkling during the championships with the city centre filled to the brink during the medal ceremonies. I couldn't get anywhere near the Universitetsplassen because of all the people. You try to paint a bleak picture of the championships, which is the complete opposite of what's in people's minds and hearts.

About the transportation issue during the World Championships. First of all, it wasn't that bad. What you need is to calculate enough time. It was a problem during the opening stages because of somewhat poorly distributed information as well as higher demand than expected, but got gradually better. The potential capacity for public transport to Holmenkollen is now very high (metro+buses), and the experiences from the World Championships will only help. I don't think the idea of public transportation having such a major role in the logistics is a negative for Oslo, rather on the contrary.

About the arguments of economics and sustainability. Firstly, I'm not yet ready to get into number crunching, as I'll have to study the bid closer, but I'm not interested in comparing projected numbers for Oslo 2022 with Tromsø 2018. We both know how uncertain these numbers are and how the olympics get more expensive. What I'm looking at is this: In Oslo there's infrastructure, there's demand and there are facilities. Tha'ts not a bad starting point. When I claim unsustainability, I'm not talking about Trondheim, but rather Tromsø and Voss. As spectacular as those games would be, there are so many basic challenges to begin with and unless they plan to double or triple in size, there would be a need for lots of investments that don't make any sense at all outside the olympic context.

The Martinsen group that compared the 2018 bid cities of Trondheim, Tromsø and Oslo assessed the strength of the bids using the IOC criteria. Oslo ranked first, Trondheim second and Tromsø last.

So my reaction to your claim that there are three better norwegian alternatives has to be seen in that light, because with that premise, you have to throw in cities like Tromsø, Voss/Bergen or Lillehammer. I would say it's an extremely contrarian point of view, to hold all of these bids to be better than Oslo, especially if one is to emphasize sustainability.

Lastly, about the landscape and the claim that Oslo will repel tourists. First of all, I love the west coast and the fjords, but.. are we not discussing the winter olympics here? As far as I'm aware, the three most regular hosts of nordic events have been Oslo, Lillehammer and Trondheim and I can't remember the more scenic areas having hosted any measurable nordic event nor having the basic facilities to do so. The fjords etc just don't come into play unless we're going to build something from scratch.

I fail to recognise that Oslo's natural setting is any less scenic than that of Trondheim, and honestly, the Holmenkollen facilities is architecturally superior to Granåsen and offers views of the city. Just look at the promo video from the muni. I'm not saying that the destination itself is great or anything, especially not in the international perspective, but that can hardly be said about Trondheim either, although a nice and charming city. It will always be about the tradition, the enthusiasm, the crowds and the sparks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

lykke til fra Paris....

Merci beaucoup! Paris is seemingly an amazing city and I'd be glad to see the games return there in the near future. However, the euros is just as exciting in my opinion:-)

Munich is indeed the favourite and they will be amazing hosts. If they do go forward with their bid, I'll imagine someone is going to think hard about whether to go all in for 2022 or aim for something later on, that is, if Oslo 2022 manages to turn things around domestically..

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

The new minister of culture and sports gives hope to Oslo´s olympic bid

Supporters can receive approval of the bid as a new year gift.

oslo%202022.jpg

The new minister of culture and Sport Thorhild Widwey (H, Conservative party) does not hide that she basically is in favor of a new Norwegian Olympic application.

But she is naturally hesitant when it comes to the question of giving any government financial guarantee at this moment.
- When it comes to the Olympic application from Oslo, we wait for the conclusion from our financial analysts about the the general budget of the games, this will be ready before Christmas. Then we will decide whether it may be given a state supported financial guarantee or not. I assume, based on the conclusion of the consequence study, it is an assessment of a possible government guarantees early winter in 2014, says Widwey.
Edited by NorwayOlympics
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is official! Oslo will be one of the applicants for the XXIV Olympic Winter games in 2022.

niflogo150.png

Decisions from the Norwegian sports board meeting No. 27 (30.10.2013)

http://www.idrett.no/nyheter/Sider/vedtak_fra_idrettsstyret_27.aspx

OG / PG 2022 " :

With reference to the letter from the IOC to the National Olympic Committees ( NOC) of 06/06/2013 , the responsible national NOC report to the IOC date. 14.11.2013 , whether a city within a NOCs authority will be seeking an interested candidate for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2022 .
1. The Norwegian sports Board gave the President and the Secretary-General 's mandate on behalf of the NIF to submit to the IOC the necessary formal confirmation by the deadline 14.11.2013 , provided that Oslo has sent the necessary confirmations as requested in the letter from the IOC to the NOC of 06/06/2013 , including the Oslo accept the legal
position of "the Court of Arbitration for Sport " ( CAS) .
2. The Norwegian sports Board gave further mandate to the President and the Secretary-General to sign the IOC's " Candida Overture Acceptance procedure " ( CAP ) within 01.12.2013 . Incorporated in this mandate is also a payment from the NOC and Oslo of $ 150,000 - which is a non - refundable fee for this applying process first phase , " Candida Overture Acceptance Fee ". NIF portion of this fee would be 50 % , USD 75.000 , - , and inwith the National Olympic Committee and seeking the city is equal seeks candidates.
3. The Norwegian sports Board gave further mandate to the Presidency and the Secretary-General to find a best and effective form for a governing board in a possibly application committee regarding the further application of OG / PG Oslo , 2022. The Norwegian sports Board emphasized the importance of management excellence, consistent and transparent company, budget and control issues and high national and international experience and expertise related to the national and international confidence in the future.
Edited by NorwayOlympics
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

More information about their bid

http://ol22.no/en/

http://www.oslo2022.oslo.kommune.no/getfile.php/Oslo2022/Internett%28O22%29/Dokumenter/Oslo2022%20information.pdf

I still think an Oslo bid would be improved if they moved the Alpine events from Kvitfjell to Norefjell which with 1010m drop certainly has sufficient vertical.

The 1952 bobsleigh run was dismantled but the course is still there to use as a basis for a temporary run

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's on!

Oslo confirm they will bid for 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics

Oslo will become the fifth candidate to officially declare that they will bid to host the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics before next week's deadline closes.

Residents of the Norwegian capital voted in September to back a bid following a referendum and the campaign will be officially launched within the next few days.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) deadline for cities to submit bids is November 14.

"The city of Oslo will within the deadline to submit our candidature to the IOC, announce our genuine ambitions of applying for the 2022 Olympic Winter Games," Ingunn Olsen, director of communications at Oslo 2022, told insidethegames.

Oslo lasted hosted the Winter Olympics in 1952 while Lillehammer staged 1994, the only previous occasion they were staged in Norway.

"Norway is the cradle of winter sports, and the year 2022 will mark 70 years since the 1952 Oslo winter Olympics, and 28 years since IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch declared the 1994 Lillehammer Olympics 'the best Games ever'." said Olsen.

"Since the beginning of 2012, the city of Oslo and the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) have worked extensively together on a concept for an Oslo 2022 Olympic and Paralympic bid.

"With our concept 'Games in the City', we will present ultra-compact Games, and an unique combination of an international urban environment and a great nature experience.

"With this new bid, Oslo seeks to create a spectacular, ultra-compact and urban Olympic experience for a new generation."

Oslo will join Almaty, Kazakhstan's largest city, who were the first to announce in September that they would bid.

They were followed yesterday by Lviv in Ukraine and a surprise joint bid from Beijing and Zhangjiakou.

There is today also due to be official confirmation that there will be a joint bid from Poland and Slovakia, with Krakow as the main centre.

Munich, who were beaten for the 2018 Winter Olympics and Paralympics by Pyeongchang, are also expected to bid again if the majority of people in the city and surrounding counties back the campaign in a referendum due to take place on Sunday (November 10).

The interest of so many cities will be a welcome boost for the IOC after the race for 2018 attracted only three entries.

The lack of entries forced them to keep Annecy in the contest, even though the bid was generally considered one of the weakest in recent history to get to that stage, a fact reflected in the final voting at the IOC Session in Durban in July 2011.

They polled only seven votes, the lowest total for 25 years.

It will be Oslo's fifth bid for the Winter Olympics.

Besides 1952, they also bid unsuccessfully for 1932 and 1968, as well as 1944, which were not held because of World War Two.

Insidethegames

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I'm afraid we already knew this would happen after the positive referendum:-) So, nothing new..

The alternative would be to withdraw entirely because the issue of financing wasn't resolved before the 14th november deadline (which we knew it wouldn't be), which would of course be idiotic given that the city wants to bid.

What remains is the issue of governmental financial guarantees on national level. That's the only question remaining after the referendum and it's the biggest question. If the national government (and the parliamentary majority) decides to finance and invest in the olympics, Oslo will bid. If not, Oslo will withdraw its bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across the Oslo bid application all in Norwegian but among the venues are Telenor Arena for figure skating and short track speed skating, Valle Hovin for speed skating, Jordal Amfi Arena and a new concert hall to be built adjacent to Jordal Amfi for ice hockey. Makes sense although I don't know why they wouldn't use the proposed concert hall as the main ice hockey venue and use the Spektrum Arena as a secondary ice hockey venue and then use Jordal Amfi for curling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait - is Oslo now bidding or not?

or will they apply, and then the Goverment will decide if the give garantuees?

The 14th november deadline is one of several deadlines for the bidding cities. The cities will "officially announce their interest" and it will cost a relatively small sum of money. It's not the final application. March 2014 is the deadline for the first application and finally in january 2015 IOC needs the final application. The next steps are more costly, and it makes less sense to stay in the circus unless you know that you're going to go through with a bid. Oslo will probably - since the bid must go trough external quality controls before parliament votes - make an eventual withdrawal between the 1st and the last application deadline. They would want the answer before march, but won't get it probably and everyone agrees that it's way too late for the parliament not to decide before the final application, so next autumn it is.

For Oslo, it's a given to follow the formal requirements until the issue of financiation is settled. Of course!

So the answer to the question if Oslo are bidding now or not - is that the city has through the referendum and the positive answer from the norwegian sports bodies and NOC already decided to give it a shot, and formally announce their interest, but we don't yet know if the city will submit a final bid since it depends on parliamentary support, which hasn't yet been resolved.

All the other bid cities that has unresolved issues, such as Stockholm, Munich etc are also expected to "bid" before the 14th november deadline of course unless they've decided negatively before that time. I don't remember the date for the Munich referendum, but I suppose it should be right before the deadline. If it's right after, they too will have to pay IOC some lunch money, if the referendum is to be meaningful.

So I'm just saying that although international and domestic media presents the "announcement" before the 14th november deadline as news, it's something that's been evident since the positive referendum.

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...