Oslo 2022

[p85]

and Wroclaw, which obviously didn't read what happened to all the other past candidates who thought sharing the games with another city in ANOTHER COUNTRY was a good idea, to be absolutely laughable.

Guess what else is absolutely laughable?

[baron-pierreIV]

Umm, exactly the same can be said about Japan, too. The Japanese have all those things as well. Except replace BMW's with Lexus' & Toyota's. Yet we're still gonna have Tokyo 2022. And exactly the same could've been said about Germany too, WITH the BMW's, & Audi's & the Mercedes'. But virtually everyone was already crowning Munich to be the 2022 host.

NOT the same at all. Japanese teen-age girls want everything AND are everywhere. I don't see Norwegian teen-age girls shopping in San Francisco or Honolulu. There is a tremendous difference between a 5,000,000 market and nearly 127 million for Japan. If I were a retailer, which market do you think I would be salivating for???

The choice of Tokyo was a no-brainer considering a SOG is 3x the size, expense and liability of a WOG. Obviously, Japan had the biggest population of the 3 and the financial infrastructure too to absorb losses and overrides as there surely will be. Right now, there are 6 choices for 2022. It is a chance to go to new places that have not been touched by the Olympic rings. If it were say, Oslo, Stockholm and Tirana bidding -- then yes, of course, either of the Scand bids are the choices. But there are 3 equally good, VIABLE bids with new markets to open. I don't know--we keep going around and around with all these pros and cons.

[FYI]

NOT the same at all. Japanese teen-age girls want everything AND are everywhere. I don't see Norwegian teen-age girls shopping in San Francisco or Honolulu.

I know. Especially when I don't see what this has to do with anything.

There is a tremendous difference between a 5,000,000 market and nearly 127 million for Japan. If I were a retailer, which market do you think I would be salivating for???

Obviously, Japan had the biggest population of the 3 and the financial infrastructure too to absorb losses and overrides as there surely will be.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Japan is in high debt right now, & many are wondering how exactly they're going to pay for the Games when the Olympic budget will surely balloon, as it usually does. And besides, I wouldn't really equate Poland's economy to Japan's. You're trying to argue new markets for the sponsors. Surely Turkey with it's massive 77 "virgin" million, in an up & coming economy is far more comparable to Poland's & would've toppled Japan's aging & saturated market in normal circumstances. If you wanna talk about "the financial infrastructure to absorb losses & overrides", then Norway & Sweden can accommodate that just fine moreso than any of the others (except for China).

But there are 3 equally good, VIABLE bids with new markets to open.

How so, when Lviv is a non-starter readiness-wise, & Almaty geopolitically speaking. Krakow is the only one of those three that I would give the benefit of the doubt to, depending on their full plans.

The choice of Tokyo was a no-brainer

Hindsight is always "20/20", isn't it.

I don't know--we keep going around and around with all these pros and cons.

I know. Especially when you wanna spin everything in Krakow's favor, but then use those same spins against the others.

*I wouldn't equate really equate Poland's market to Japan's when you're trying to argue new markets for the sponsors.

*Depending on how "VIABLE" their plans really are.

[p85]

and Wroclaw, which obviously didn't read what happened to all the other past candidates who thought sharing the games with another city in ANOTHER COUNTRY was a good idea, to be absolutely laughable.

What exactly about those past "bi-national" bids you mentioned?

Two were rejected (and I don't really think that Helsinki 2006 wasn't shortlisted because they share the games with another country, the huge distance was more crucial), and Salzburg 2014 was shortlisted, eventually getting 25 votes. Doesn't sound like a big defeat to me.

Illiteracy in Sweden must be enormous. They obviously didn't read what happened to all six previous Swedish bids and think that bidding once again is a good idea.

Speaking about illiteracy; there's something called "information illiteracy". For example, it's when you talk about a bid and you didn't even look up the name of a bidding city.

[baron-pierreIV]

I know. Especially when I don't see what this has to do with anything.

I won't even bother explaining if you can't extrapolate from that.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Japan is in high debt right now, & many are wondering how exactly they're going to pay for the Games when the Olympic budget will surely balloon, as it usually does. And besides, I wouldn't really equate Poland's economy to Japan's. You're trying to argue new markets for the sponsors. Surely Turkey with it's massive 77 "virgin" million, in an up & coming economy is far more comparable to Poland's & would've toppled Japan's aging & saturated market in normal circumstances. If you wanna talk about "the financial infrastructure to absorb losses & overrides", then Norway & Sweden can accommodate that just fine moreso than any of the others (except for China).

Yeah...but Istanbul has a problematic layout in a really tense region. Its borders cannot be secured the way an insular Japan can.

Hindsight is always "20/20", isn't it.

I picked the winner as you did. Not crazy about Japan as a choice; but I knew it would win.

I know. Especially when you wanna spin everything in Krakow's favor, but then use those same spins against the others.

To last item: Becuz at this point -- I can see each bid's assets & drawbacks, and I can tell that the Krakow bid really has the most going for it. And the drawbax of the other bids aren't really going to change much until D-Day, i.e., Stockholm is NOT going to get any closer to Are; Beijing CANNOT remove the fact that 2018 and 2020 will already be held in its backyard; Oslo/Norway has had it 3x! I think Almaty will pull a surprise; and Lviv as everyone knows is DOA.

[FYI]

To last item: Becuz at this point -- I can see each bid's assets & drawbacks, and I can tell that the Krakow bid really has the most going for it. And the drawbax of the other bids aren't really going to change much until D-Day, i.e., Stockholm is NOT going to get any closer to Are; Beijing CANNOT remove the fact that 2018 and 2020 will already be held in its backyard; Oslo/Norway has had it 3x! I think Almaty will pull a surprise; and Lviv as everyone knows is DOA. [/size][/color]

So can I, as far as assets & drawbacks are concerned. So I don't see how you can say that Krakow has the most going for it. They could become a contender, but that's really not a given at this point, IMHO. And Oslo has hosted only once, not three times. Like Tokyo, they could easily become the safest bet for 2022 if the IOC really has a problem with Stockholm/Are.

And the only surprise that Almaty could pull is when they're not included on the short-list, since so many here seem to be so enamored with them when they're really not a true compelling option. As far as Istanbul, if the IOC can award the Games to Sochi in one of the most volatile regions on the planet, then Istanbul 2020 shouldn't have been an issue. The IOC just didn't feel comfortable enough with the Turks due to Erdogan's iron-fist than anything else. And something that can be drawn parallels too, since Kazahkstan has been ruled by the same person for the last two decades. Not really inspiring.

"I picked the winner as you did. Not crazy about Japan as a choice; but I knew it would win".

Well, but for a moment there I thought I was losing you when you seemed to be leaning more towards the Madrid bandwagon.

We usually agree on most things, & every so often we don't. So this is one of those we don't instances.

[Gangwon]

If it were say, Oslo, Stockholm and Tirana bidding -- then yes, of course, either of the Scand bids are the choices. But there are 3 equally good, VIABLE bids with new markets to open.

That's pretty much what we have. Stockholm is as much ahead of Krakow/Lviv/Almaty/Beijing as it would be over Tirana. Some for technical reasons, some for geopolitical.

[Athensfan]

That's pretty much what we have. Stockholm is as much ahead of Krakow/Lviv/Almaty/Beijing as it would be over Tirana. Some for technical reasons, some for geopolitical.

That's a matter of opinion.

Oslo, Beijing and probably Almaty are capable of staging successful Games. Lviv is not. Krakow may or may not be, depending on what they propose.

Stockholm has a distance handicap. Despite the debate on these boards, I doubt the IOC will be equally conflicted. They will make a decision one way or the other. Saying Stockholm outranks all bidders apart from Oslo is impossible to defend at this point.

[FYI]

That's a matter of opinion.

Stockholm has a distance handicap. Despite the debate on these boards, I doubt the IOC will be equally conflicted.

Like you just said, "that's a matter of opinion".

That's a matter of opinion.

Saying Stockholm outranks all bidders apart from Oslo is impossible to defend at this point.

Again, "that's a matter of your opinion". I for one, don't agree with it, as do others don't as well.

[Athensfan]

Like you just said, "that's a matter of opinion".

Are you saying Stockholm has zero distance handicap?

The words "I doubt" do indicate an opinion. Nice reading.

[FYI]

Are you saying Stockholm has zero distance handicap?.

I never said they didn't.

The words "I doubt" do indicate an opinion. Nice reading.

Still doesn't mean that you're not trying to argue it with more of a certainly than just your opinion. You seem to be very vehement about it on just one way.

[Athensfan]

I never said they didn't.[/quote

Really? So that's not a matter of opinion? Then why do you keep saying it is?

[baron-pierreIV]

So can I, as far as assets & drawbacks are concerned. So I don't see how you can say that Krakow has the most going for it.

Becuz compare its drawbacks to the biggest liabilities of the other 4 (it can't beat Almaty for compact distances), and the Krakow bid is quite ahead.)

Distance - Stock-Are is the champ at 528 km. After Almaty, I believe Krakow-Jasna offers the next closest distance between its ice half and the Alpine half. Not an issue to be dismissed or ignored--especially in a weather-dependent Games,

Been there-done that -- well, we know who the 3 champs are: Oslo, Stockholm and Beijing. So w/ the other 3, that pushes Krakow up for legacy. Almaty and Lviv will carry that Asio-Slavic-Sochi aura that will happen in 2 months' time.

Geopolitix - other than the two 'has been' Scandinavian old maids, it is the farthest west from the last WOG of 2018 in PC. Again, Almaty and Lviv will carry that Asio-Russo-Slavic aura that will happen in 2 months.

Novelty and Legacy - None of the mittel-Euro countries have hosted since 1984 (and Sarajevo, Bosnia is really muslo-Balkan rather than mittel-eastern Europe). A WOG for Krakow-Jasna will touch and benefit 2 countries. It can tell one of the more compelling narratives for having a Winter Games bring benefits to the region.

Bi-nationality - NOT really an issue becuz it is allowed in the IOC Charter...and it actually touches TWO countries. The two gov't issue is really so minimal since the two regions speak a similar language (and English/French will be used anyway). ANd it's NOT like Poland and Slovakia have been WARRING societies that will use the Games as a test water in embracing each other. The two regions have been harmonious FOR centuries. Russia-Chechnya, North-South Korea, the 2 cultures of Belgium and Quebec/Ango-Canada probably have more animosity to each other respectively than southern Poland-Slovakia. So the border issue is such a trivial one in this case. If executed properly, it could make a good case of how to stage a bi-national event w/o the competitive rivalry that riddled Japan-Korea 2002.

Sporting Heritage - middle of the pack; so that's neither here nor there...

Public Support - In the numbers known, it sports the highest 'favorable' numbers.

I have no partisan stake in this. I am neither Polish nor have any special connection w/ that region. I just see the Krakow bid as the least problematic at this point, has some attractive cultural landmarks and could possibly bring it home.

[Athensfan]

Distance:

Krakow still has decent distance between venues and crossing a national border will slow travel times.

Been there done that:

A 28 year gap is perfectly acceptable, especially for a winter powerhouse like Norway.

Geopolitics and Novelty:

After two experimental winter hosts, most agree it's time for a traditional winter host, which Poland is not.

Bi-nationality:

It remains to be seen how the IOC will view this. The scope of the bi-nationality is also unclear. If it is too great it could be a deal breaker.

Sporting heritage:

Norway's heritage is way ahead of Poland's so it is an issue. What you failed to acknowledge is Poland's serious lack of experience in organizing international multi-winter sport competitions.

Public support:

Public support is not a major factor. As Rob has said, as long as a bid has at least 60% support it can be competitive. A city with 90% support has no meaningful advantage over a city with 62% support. London and Tokyo started with problems in this area and clearly overcame them. High public support for Madrid couldn't get them over the hump.

[FYI]

I have no partisan stake in this. I am neither Polish nor have any special connection w/ that region.

Lmfao, you sure about that! ;-)

Really? So that's not a matter of opinion? Then why do you keep saying it is?

I'm talking about you saying with virtual certainly how the IOC will view it.

*certainty.

[FYI]

Distance:

Krakow still has decent distance between venues and crossing a national border will slow travel times.

Been there done that:

A 28 year gap is perfectly acceptable, especially for a winter powerhouse like Norway.

Geopolitics and Novelty:

After two experimental winter hosts, most agree it's time for a traditional winter host, which Poland is not.

Bi-nationality:

It remains to be seen how the IOC will view this. The scope of the bi-nationality is also unclear. If it is too great it could be a deal breaker.

Sporting heritage:

Norway's heritage is way ahead of Poland's so it is an issue. What you failed to acknowledge is Poland's serious lack of experience in organizing international multi-winter sport competitions.

Public support:

Public support is not a major factor. As Rob has said, as long as a bid has at least 60% support it can be competitive. A city with 90% support has no meaningful advantage over a city with 62% support. London and Tokyo started with problems in this area and clearly overcame them. High public support for Madrid couldn't get them over the hump.

Gee, for none of the others having such a problem to deal with like Stockholm does, according to you, that sure is one heck of a laundry list against Krakow. And it virtually highlights what in fact Stockholm does indeed have going for it afterall.

[Gangwon]

After two experimental winter hosts, most agree it's time for a traditional winter host, which Poland is not.

That's the bottom line. It's Oslo or Stockholm. If the IOC wants a nearly problem-free Olympics, it will go with Oslo. If it doesn't mind giving up some convenience, it could go with Stockholm. For the others, it's just not time. Capable? Maybe. But they'll have better luck in 2026 or 2030.

[FYI]

That's the bottom line. It's Oslo or Stockholm. If the IOC wants a nearly problem-free Olympics, it will go with Oslo. If it doesn't mind giving up some convenience, it could go with Stockholm. For the others, it's just not time. Capable? Maybe. But they'll have better luck in 2026 or 2030.

Exactly, Gangwon! So much contradiction there, isn't it. And we could really say that three consecutive Winter Olympics haven't/aren't going to be in "traditional" European locales.

[Athensfan]

Gee, for none of the others having such a problem to deal with like Stockholm does, according to you, that sure is one heck of a laundry list against Krakow. And it virtually highlights what in fact Stockholm does indeed have going for it afterall.

You two guys are hilarious. Both of you have chosen odd bids to champion. Neither one is very strong.

Krakow doesn't have the major distance problem that Stockholm does. You seem to feel Stockholm's other strengths offset the distance issue enough to put the bid ahead of Krakow. I'm not convinced.

[Athensfan]

Lmfao, you sure about that! ;-)

I'm talking about you saying with virtual certainly how the IOC will view it.

*certainty.

First, we all express opinions. I'm not apologizing for mine.

I don't believe I've claimed certainty at any point. In fact, I've said "time will tell" which indicates the opposite.

I do expect the IOC to have a problem with the distance. It may or may not be enough to keep Stockholm off the short list. We'll see.

[baron-pierreIV]

most agree....s time for a traditional winter host, which Poland is not.

Who's the "most agree"? Proof? Where is this "claim" found and supported by facts -- not conjecture??

If that's the case, then out of fairness to the other 4, maybe the IOC should tell them at this stage that 'most agree' that they're NOT going to win -- and that a 528 km - 7-hour commute is acceptable, and just stay out.

What sheer bollocks!!

[Gangwon]

Krakow doesn't have the major distance problem that Stockholm does. You seem to feel Stockholm's other strengths offset the distance issue enough to put the bid ahead of Krakow. I'm not convinced.

It does. Like you said, most agree it's time for a traditional host. If you take timing out of the equation for 2018, Munich and Annecy both would have blown Pyeongchang out of the water. They're THAT much more attractive, all things being equal. Likewise for 2014, Sochi, the least technically-ready bid which happened to be in the subtropics beat two other better alternatives in Salzburg and Pyeongchang. Because it had other, non-logistical strengths. If the IOC is ok with the subtropics, I'm pretty sure they're ok with what Sweden has to offer for 2022.

[baron-pierreIV]

most agree it's time for a traditional host.

Gangwon, u keep making that claim "...most agree..." Who are the "most"? This has the feel of a "I made it up to sound authoritative..."

Can you please share with me where you got this? Has the IOC Executive Board spoken out as such? Have the winter federations already put in their input in a race that's barely begun?? Where are the facts supporting this 'fantasy claim' -- true, hard proof and THEN I will believe it -- but NOT before then.

[FYI]

You two guys are hilarious. Both of you have chosen odd bids to champion. Neither one is very strong.

Krakow doesn't have the major distance problem that Stockholm does. You seem to feel Stockholm's other strengths offset the distance issue enough to put the bid ahead of Krakow. I'm not convinced.

You're a barrel of laughs yourself. Stockholm is not an "odd" bid. The other newbies are. You don't have to be 'convinced' of anything, since no one is trying to convince you.

It does. Like you said, most agree it's time for a traditional host. If you take timing out of the equation for 2018, Munich and Annecy both would have blown Pyeongchang out of the water. They're THAT much more attractive, all things being equal. Likewise for 2014, Sochi, the least technically-ready bid which happened to be in the subtropics beat two other better alternatives in Salzburg and Pyeongchang. Because they had other, non-logistical strengths. If the IOC is ok with the subtropics, I'm pretty sure they're ok with what Sweden has to offer for 2022.

Totally agree, Gangwon.

[Athensfan]

Who's the "most agree"? Proof? Where is this "claim" found and supported by facts -- not conjecture??

If that's the case, then out of fairness to the other 4, maybe the IOC should tell them at this stage that 'most agree' that they're NOT going to win -- and that a 528 km - 7-hour commute is acceptable, and just stay out.

What sheer bullocks!!

First, it's "bollocks."

Isn't it obvious that traditional Europe would be a nice follow-up to Sochi and Pyeongchang? For a couple years the majority of posters on these boards have been saying it's a good time for a traditional European host. Surely you haven't missed that. Of course GB is not the IOC, but in this case I think we're just picking up on the obvious.

Finally, ALL conversation at this point is conjecture. That's the point of these boards. You don't seem to place a whole lot of emphasis on facts and proof. Why hold others to a different standard just because you don't like their views? Since geopolitics are the only point you challenged I'm guessing you've conceded the other objections.