Kraków 2022

[4gamesandcounting]

I do understand the point you are making baron.

But... You keep say about bringing something new to the party. Isn't there a balance to be struck between old and new? For an olympic fan surely there is something special about revisiting a wonderful old friend?

[zekekelso]

Psst.... you guys are trying to have a serious conversation about the culture of Oslo with somebody who is wildly enthusiastic about Reno.

[ofan]

But as I stated before, Oslo is a safe option, and after the issues with a brand new city for the Olympic Movement like Sochi, they will want a traditional safe option, which out of the 5 Bidders, is Oslo.

If you don't like Baron bitching at you then stop provoking him by replying to all of his posts. Troll.

[baron-pierreIV]

I think that's probably another stupid comment from zekel whose posts I completely ignore. At least I peek at Tony's once in a while if I want a good chuckle.

Edited February 2, 2014 by baron-pierreIV

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

If you don't like Baron bitching at you then stop provoking him by replying to all of his posts. Troll.

Don't call me a troll. I don't reply to ALL of his posts.

[Citizen-Seth]

At the IOC presser today, several members went on record saying that they disliked joint bids...if I'm working for Krakow, then I'm reading those tea leaving as a big "you have zero chance; change or leave."

[petrpetr]

Citizen, Kraków set their bid when there was Munchen and Stockholm in the race. Then you could have said chances are below zero. Now the door opened a little and even with such a statement its still worth to try.

I know you guys mostly consider Kraków bid as a joint one with Slovakia but IMHO thats only 'on paper' argument without making any dificulties for both sportsmen and visitors. I can easily find real disadvantages of Krakow bid. Like lack of hockey tournament in main city (possible, but still not confirmed).

[baron-pierreIV]

At the IOC presser today, several members went on record saying that they disliked joint bids...

Then they should WRITE OUT the language in the Charter allowing such. The above dissenting members are votes which would probably have gone for Norway anyway -- so no lost votes there. There are still 97-98 other votes.

Edited February 5, 2014 by baron-pierreIV

[p85]

At the IOC presser today, several members went on record saying that they disliked joint bids...if I'm working for Krakow, then I'm reading those tea leaving as a big "you have zero chance; change or leave."

Ooh, I guess those are the members who also disliked Salzburg 2014. Fortunately, they made a good decision and awarded those Games to Putin.

I'm actually really curious if the "joint" nature of Salzburg 2014 and Krakow 2022 bids are the same to them as other "joints" we've seen in the past: Klagenfurt 2006, Helsinki 2006, Andorra la Vella 2010. Using a venue in a neighbouring country makes it a joint bid, but what about bids that are some kind dependent on foreign transport infrastructure (Annecy 2018)?

And how exactelly ditching a Slovak venue a month before the deadline makes Krakow's bid better? If any, it makes it unstable, unpredictable, taking away a lot of credibility and commitment, some people would even look like they were simply liars. If Poland didn't keep the arrangement to Slovakia, how the IOC could be sure that we'll keep it with them? Not to mention, that there's no other possible option regarding men's downhill slope based in Poland.

If the rest of the IOC members agree with those several being quoted, they should just end up the travesty of joint bids and remove certain rules from the charter. No country is obviously benefitting from this regulation anyway. You could use that rule to make your plan possible, more ecological, or just financialy and legacy reasonable, and you still get "change or leave" answer. It's OK, but with IOC headquter not being really flooded with bids from prime winter locations, maybe they should at least consider some different, more flexible approach.

[zekekelso]

At the IOC presser today, several members went on record saying that they disliked joint bids...if I'm working for Krakow, then I'm reading those tea leaving as a big "you have zero chance; change or leave."

Nah... you don't have to win all the votes, just more than half. IOC voters are just like GamesBids posters. The want one city to win. so look for excuses to trash the competition.

[baron-pierreIV]

And at the same time, in the general session, there was talk of 'splitting' the main (I guess Summer) Games between 2 cities. Granted, it would probably be between 2 or more cities of the same country, nonetheless, the talk of fissure is there because the 'monolithic' quality of the Games as they are today, is too confining.

[Athensfan]

Then they should WRITE OUT the language in the Charter allowing such.

They should.

[Quaker2001]

Then they should WRITE OUT the language in the Charter allowing such. The above dissenting members are votes which would probably have gone for Norway anyway -- so no lost votes there. There are still 97-98 other votes.

To give a similar example.. Major League Baseball had its Hall of Fame voting last month. There's been a lot of controversy over the years how to handle players who used performance enhancing drugs. It's been suggested the Hall of Fame needs to tells its voting members exactly what the criteria with regard to those types of cases.

So I agree the IOC should make it clear what is acceptable and what is it. Of course, we'll always have bids that bend a rule or 2 and are still considered acceptable, but again, if the IOC is serious about implementing big time changes, their charter and what they tell prospective bid cities should reflect that.

[zekekelso]

How does it benefit the IOC for them to make their rules clearer and more restrictive? (gotta start thinking like the IOC)

[olympiaki-agones]

Sooner or later the IOC will have to change that policy about non-international joint bids considering the lack of high mountains to host snow sports. Anyway, Poland and Slovakia belong to the Schengen area, so border hassle free.

[FYI]

Ooh, I guess those are the members who also disliked Salzburg 2014. Fortunately, they made a good decision and awarded those Games to Putin.

But we don't have Putin looking at 2022, only a couple of Putin-wannabes. And Oslo 2022 isn't Salzburg 2014.

Nah... you don't have to win all the votes, just more than half. IOC voters are just like GamesBids posters. The want one city to win. so look for excuses to trash the competition.

Well, that works both ways, ya know. Since there are some here "trashing" Oslo for the sake of "global Games".

[Shadowriver]

Since first news about plans of this bid, i knew that idea of using diffrent country assets will be the biggest problem which could make this bid impossible to breakthouth.

[zekekelso]

if the IOC voters want the games in Krakow, they'll overlook having the alpine events in Slovakia. If they want the games elsewhere, they'll use that as an excuse.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

I was wrong in thinking that Krakow would be denied the Games because of Jasna, but I still believe Oslo has the stronger Bid. After having the last two Winter Olympic Games in new places (Sochi and PyeongChang), I think it's the right time for a 'Traditional Winter Powerhouse', as a safe secure option. If Oslo does pull out, then I think that the IOC would then want to go to a new place, of choosing Krakow 2022. Just my view on the matter though, I could be wrong.

[FYI]

if the IOC voters want the games in Krakow, they'll overlook having the alpine events in Slovakia. If they want the games elsewhere, they'll use that as an excuse.

WOW! Such a revelation ya got there, Watson Z! :-P

[Sir Rols]

If Oslo does pull out, then I think that the IOC would then want to go to a new place, of choosing Krakow 2022. Just my view on the matter though, I could be wrong.

I can see you pondered that a lot in the past three days. My, time flies all too quickly...

[politician]

if the IOC voters want the games in Krakow, they'll overlook having the alpine events in Slovakia. If they want the games elsewhere, they'll use that as an excuse.

Again, I'm hesitant to speak of the IOC as a unitary actor and skeptical of arguments which rely on heavily on treating it as such. The IOC is an institution - it has no agency, no opinion, no preference, no choice. It provides the framework for determining the people who will have a vote in the decision and the mechanisms through which the determination of vote - and how those votes are influenced/treated. At best, the IOC structure can lead to biases in favor of certain bids over others, but it will be the make-up of IOC voters - and the degree to which their choices are made public and require them to justify them publicly - that ultimately decides the host.

[politician]

I was wrong in thinking that Krakow would be denied the Games because of Jasna, but I still believe Oslo has the stronger Bid. After having the last two Winter Olympic Games in new places (Sochi and PyeongChang), I think it's the right time for a 'Traditional Winter Powerhouse', as a safe secure option. If Oslo does pull out, then I think that the IOC would then want to go to a new place, of choosing Krakow 2022. Just my view on the matter though, I could be wrong.

I keep feeling compelled to return to these forums to debate this topic; I debate politics so often it's rare for a topic outside my normal scope of interest to gain so much traction with me and it's rare for those participating in public forums online to make arguments interesting enough to hold my attention. Happily, this forum seems to buck tradition - it's a topic of great, but not central interest, yet it's unique enough to make interesting for longer than a short discussion plus everyone here seems to be quite well educated in terms of the history of the Games, even if people are making different types of arguments with different agendas (many are arguing which city should win or which is most deserving, others - including myself - seem more interested in who is most likely to win).

The Oslo, Krakow, Almaty 3-way split does create an interesting dynamic. We have to anticipate that Lviv is already out - the political unrest in Ukraine is significant enough now to ensure that Lviv has absolutely no chance to host in 2022. Beijing, while viable in the sense of ability, does seem to be a choice most everyone agrees won't happen - it hosted the Summer Games just 6 years ago and is unlikely to be the first city to host both Summer and Winter games; it is vying for the games after neighboring S. Korea and Japan will host the previous two (and Russia two before that); and - honestly - Beijing just isn't the 'Winter' City that the games idealizes (as it's choice to host events outside of Beijing suggests). I personally think Beijing is bidding to continue presenting itself as an international powerhouse and to make bids for future games in other Chinese cities more palatable. It also may be to play 'kingmaker.'

Without Lviv or Beijing, we've a 3-way race between one Central Asian city that has never hosted (from a region that has never hosted), once Eastern European city that has never hosted (from a region that has hosted and which is part of the EU) and a Scandinavian country that has hosted, but is not part part of the EU. It will be interesting to see the dynamic that Krakow and Oslo create between one another; there will be some that may want Europe to host again but who also want to see a 'new' host in a 'younger' democracy and lean for Krakow whiel others may not, and go with 'safer' Oslo. This could split some votes early on (and will likely contribute to Beijing being ousted - expectedly - in the first round of voting). Almaty is shaping up as the 'non-Western' and 'non-European' choice. Ukraine would have made things more interesting, but the political unrest in that country makes Lviv an impossibility, while Beijing knows it doesn't have a chance this time around thus vacating positions for any other non EU/European/Developed powers. Krakow v. Oslo will be an interesting dynamic to watch, and how much of those IOC members partial to new host cities not in the traditional, westernized developing countries will be forced to side with Almaty. The more I think about it, the more I think Oslo is the least likely - it may be the most popular in the first round of voting but when it comes to Almaty v. Krakow v. Oslo, I'm not sure Oslo beats either. There are a lot of Europeans who'd like to see a true EU member host AND a new country host, and would therefore push for Krakow over Oslo, while IOC members with interests tied more to the developing world will go with Almaty.

This could become very interesting as there is a possibility that the final vote will be Krakow v. Almaty - in which case I think Krakow will likely win. If it is Almaty v. Oslo, I think it is a toss-up. If it is Krakow v. Oslo, Oslo takes it.

[petrpetr]

Im also hesitant to speak that IOC members are taking their choice considering all those valuable arguments brought by gamebidd.com members instead of 'where I want to spend 2 weeks of holidays in 2022' or 'where the better meal will be served' xD.

[politician]

Im also hesitant to speak that IOC members are taking their choice considering all those valuable arguments brought by gamebidd.com members instead of 'where I want to spend 2 weeks of holidays in 2022' or 'where the better meal will be served' xD.

Good to hear! lol.

Really, it is nice to hear others state that they may have an inclination, an educated guess as to who will most likely win, but simultaneously acknowledge that it can't be a foregone conclusion and they may very well be wrong.

I see reasons now to discount some bids (Lviv, Beijing) but the dynamics of the race make the 3 viable contenders all realistic in my eyes. I seem to have come off as 'anti-Oslo' and I dislike that (I actually would prefer either Krakow or Almaty to Oslo but consider all three to be good choices). What I really am is interested in how politics, the unique composition of the IOC, Sochi and other factors will play into the choices of 115 individuals over the next year to determine which city gets it. I'm also interested in how we've seemingly developed an 'Upper-Income Non-EU European Democracy v Middle-Income EU Democracy v. Upper-Middle Income Autocracy dynamic that could lead to those with 'European' interests splitting the vote in favor of Almaty or which could see pro-'new places', 'pro-EU' forces put the games in Krakow if the final decision is between it and Oslo.

What interests me the most is that although Oslo seems the most likely to win, when you account for multiple rounds of voting I actually think Krakow and Almaty have a better chance.