Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaStKaz

Kraków 2022

Recommended Posts

'Upper-Income Non-EU European Democracy v Middle-Income EU Democracy v. Upper-Middle Income Autocracy

According to the World Bank both Norway and Poland are high-income countries, and Kazakhstan is upper-middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Exactly. The average IOC voter doensn't give a rats ass about this sort of topic. First they pick where they want the Olymics to be. Then they form opinions on the issues based on where they want to go. If they want the Olympics the Olympics in Krakow, they are fine with the cross border thing. If they want the Olympics elsewhere, they'll decide they hate the idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If Oslo doesn't grab it in the first round; they won't win it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Votes of dropping out cities are not easy to predict. The line between 'my city failed, but there is another city from this continent - lets do it!' and 'voting for city from this continent could damage my first city chances in future' is really thin.

There are a lot of past votes, use cases to analyse and we stil didnt figure out any scheme. Why in 1993 after Stambul and Berlin failed, Manchester as the only one european city left didnt get any single vote more?

And also just a word about new destination vs safe choice. IMHO IOC recently bet on those first idea. Since Lillehammer there was only one clear Oslo-like save choice - Torino 2006. Nagano, SLC, Sochi, PC are rather new destinations. Even Vancouver hasnt strong winter sports tradition. But on the other hand we (and IOC probably too) are still under impression of London 2012 and Oslo with their similarity to this option could be beneficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what a lot were saying about 2020 with Tokyo. But judging by the vote tally, that wasn't the case. The people that make the claims about the how many voting rounds they'll be & therefore be benificial or to a certain city or not is just as clumsy as making claims of "voting bloc". Both are neither here nor there in a secret ballot.

And can't see any good reason why anyone would lump Beijing with Lviv. Not even close. One is on the brink of a civil war, & the other is the capital of a rising, economic superpower. So what if they already hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics. Again, the Chinese are merely an insurance policy for 2022 if one, or both of the top two bids, Oslo & Krakow, falter in any way. The IOC already knows first-hand that the Chinese can deliver & without too much fuss, unlike the Russians. Seriously, for some claiming to know so much about politics, it seems to silly to literally discount the Chinese, bcuz politics is precisely what's gonna get them on to the 2022 Short-list, akin to Moscow 2012 being included (even though most knew that they weren't going to win anyway), while shoving both Rio & Istanbul to the wayside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the World Bank both Norway and Poland are high-income countries, and Kazakhstan is upper-middle.

That's fair, World Bank classifications do place Kazakhstan as an Upper-Middle Income country while Poland and Norway are indeed both Upper-Income. However, Norway is 'much more upper-income' than Poland. The gdp per capita (PPP) b/w Poland and Kazakhstan is about 5000 USD; between Norway and Poland is about 35000 USD. In other words, the GDP per Capita (PPP) of Norway is more than the GDP per capita PPP of Poland and Kazakhstan combined. Kazakhstan is close to being classified as an Upper-Income country (at the very low end). I suppose it would have made more sense for me to say an Extremely Rich European Democracy that is not in the EU; a much less wealthy - but still well-off - European democracy in the EU and a less wealthy - but still well-off - Central Asian Autocracy with more natural resources than they know what to do with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what a lot were saying about 2020 with Tokyo. But judging by the vote tally, that wasn't the case. The people that make the claims about the how many voting rounds they'll be & therefore be benificial or to a certain city or not is just as clumsy as making claims of "voting bloc". Both are neither here nor there in a secret ballot.

And can't see any good reason why anyone would lump Beijing with Lviv. Not even close. One is on the brink of a civil war, & the other is the capital of a rising, economic superpower. So what if they already hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics. Again, the Chinese are merely an insurance policy for 2022 if one, or both of the top two bids, Oslo & Krakow, falter in any way. The IOC already knows first-hand that the Chinese can deliver & without too much fuss, unlike the Russians. Seriously, for some claiming to know so much about politics, it seems to silly to literally discount the Chinese, bcuz politics is precisely what's gonna get them on to the 2022 Short-list, akin to Moscow 2012 being included (even though most knew that they weren't going to win anyway), while shoving both Rio & Istanbul to the wayside.

A secret ballot doesn't negate political influences and voting blocs, not even an argument with having. IOC members come from countries all over the world and most enjoy positions of power within their governments, or at least influence within their societies. These members, as politicians, entrepreneus, etc. have an interest in who does and does not receive the games and the fact that their ballots are secret doesn't mean that those interests suddenly change. While there are certainly cases in which a particular voter may vote for a particular host due to reasons unrelated to the position likely to be most popular within their government, many will.

Furthermore, you keep talking about the IOC as if it was a monolithic, unitary actor with a singular interest which is more than a bit problematic. It is the interests of its voting members in the aggregate that determine outcome. If Voter X supports Krakow in round 1 and Krakow loses in round 1, you're argument would suggest we know nothing about how Voter X will vote in round 2 - that one vote isn't tied to the next. However, I'd argue Voter X would likely vote for Oslo in round 2. Now, to make this more clear - and show that there is definitely a connection between votes and voter preference - take a look at the number of votes given to each candidate in a multi-round vote for a host city - look at 2020, 2018, 2016 - doesn't matter.

Now, if the argument that there are not voting blocs or shared preferences or linkages between the strength of one's preference for one potential host and another was correct, then after one country loses in the first round we'd expect the votes that did go to the losing country would be randomly - essentially equally - distributed across the remaining contenders. However, that isn't what we see. Take, for example, the votes for 2016. The United States lost in the first round, receiving only 18 votes. In the second round of voting Japan lost 2 votes and Spain gained 1 vote. Brazil gained 20 votes. Thus, it appears that virtually everyone who had voted for the US voted for Brazil when the US lost. Japan was knocked out of the running after round 2, leaving Brazil and Spain. Japan had received 20 votes in the second round - Brazil picked up 20 votes in the final round. Clearly, votes were not random, there are strong correlations between support for a particular bid and the preference-ordering you hold regarding competing bids. You can walk through this same logic with any recent bid.

You can also read up on the biographies of IOC members and find out just how politically-minded some of these individuals are. 27 of the 115 voters joined the IOC in 2010 or later. Indeed, there is a rather high turnover rate for voting IOC members. Thus, the decisions made by the IOC members at a given time is not a strong indicator of how the IOC will vote at a future date - the degree to which membership on the IOC changes between Vote A and Vote B is important as it tells us that X% of voters are different - with different motivations, interests, political alliances, etc - between the two choices. The IOC that completely Vote A is not the same IOC that did Vote B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what a lot were saying about 2020 with Tokyo. But judging by the vote tally, that wasn't the case. The people that make the claims about the how many voting rounds they'll be & therefore be benificial or to a certain city or not is just as clumsy as making claims of "voting bloc". Both are neither here nor there in a secret ballot.

And can't see any good reason why anyone would lump Beijing with Lviv. Not even close. One is on the brink of a civil war, & the other is the capital of a rising, economic superpower. So what if they already hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics. Again, the Chinese are merely an insurance policy for 2022 if one, or both of the top two bids, Oslo & Krakow, falter in any way. The IOC already knows first-hand that the Chinese can deliver & without too much fuss, unlike the Russians. Seriously, for some claiming to know so much about politics, it seems to silly to literally discount the Chinese, bcuz politics is precisely what's gonna get them on to the 2022 Short-list, akin to Moscow 2012 being included (even though most knew that they weren't going to win anyway), while shoving both Rio & Istanbul to the wayside.

Forgot to address you criticism regarding my considering Beijing and Lviv to be out of the running. Lviv is obvious, as you acknowledge. Beijing, as I see it, is applying to because China expects to win (in fact, if China really wanted to win 2022 it's unlikely Beijing would have been their choice). As a rising superpower, China is regularly showing its face, exercising its influence, in virtually all international bodies and forums. By bidding for a winter olympics they are forcing the world to acknowledge their capacity to host winter and summer games. They keep attention on themselves and can use this as a springboard for a more serious bid later on. Beijing hosted the games in 2008 - I doubt that the same city will be given the games twice in 14 years. The Chinese government is well aware of this - and their well aware that the Winter Games prior to 2022 are in Pyeongchang, South Korea which is essentially a neighbor of China's while the summer games of 2020 are in Japan, which is also essentially China's neighbor. People get upset about the same continent getting two games in a row - if Beijing wins 2022 then not only will Asia have had 3 games in a row (which I don't see as an issue - Asia is enormous and holds more than half of the planet's population; different regions of Asia can and should be treated as 'continents' in the sense that the Games shouldn't be in the same region repeatedly). China, Korea and Japan are East Asia - they share similar cultural heritages and traditions (yes, I'm aware of the enormous differences between them, but those differences are not significant relative to the difference between the countries of East Asia and, say, South Asia, or Central Asia, or the Middle East, etc.). China is not going to have its capital be the first city to host both the Winter and Summer games, the Chinese capital is not going to receive the games twice in 14 years. And despite the success of the 2008 Olympics, there were nasty controversies, Beijing has seen pollution rates increase substantially since then, etc. China simply isn't a potential choice though they'll be short-listed. Unless the games are going to go South Korea -> Japan -> China and the IOC members really want Beijing to be the first host of both games it's hard to see Beijing succeeding. I doubt they have any intention of succeeding, any belief they can. They want to keep their name in the running generally, to make a more serious bid later more likely to succeed. They also could very well want to use this for political purposes - China will get votes. If it loses in the first round (as I believe it will) then what happens to Beijing supporters? Are they more likely to switch to Oslo, Krakow? Or will most go to Almaty, another Asian (but not East Asian) city where China has enormous political interests and which is in a developing country that would, at that point, be the only non-European choice - if you look at who is on the IOC, look at the countries they represent and it should be clear that many are going to have an interest, a preference, to vote for the non-European candidate.

If I am correct - and again, I acknowledge that this isn't an exact science, that the evidence can be interpreted and analyzed in many ways, and that nothing is guaranteed - but if I right and China goes down in round one you end up with 2 European countries and 1 non-European country; 2 developed countries, 1 developing; 2 Western countries, 1 non-Western; 2 countries which are not significant geopolitical actors - particularly for the IOC members from countries outside of Europe - and 1 that is set to become one of the great energy superpowers. Such a situation would benefit Almaty (if Beijing does survive round 1, then all bets are off). If Beijing drops first, those looking for the games to be in Europe will have two choices while those (and this of course is a simplification of interests) looking for a country outside of Europe to host will have one choice. Thus, to the extent that there is a 'pro-Europe' bloc the votes coming from it are likely to be split between Oslo and Krakow and lead to one of them (Krakow, more likely) being knocked out of the running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with trying to converse with you, is that one knows you're going to disregard any insights we may share into Olympic politics, and instead subject us to a wordy lecture on geopolitics and global affirmative action. The bottom line is though, the IOC is not the UN or Oxfam. It's the manager of a lucrative entertainment franchise.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some suggestions where Olympic village would be

In Polish Flighters Park (Park Lotników Polskich) near by Kraków Arena thats is under contractions and one of proposed Olympic venues

https://www.google.pl/maps/preview/@50.0705436,19.99148,1420m/data=!3m1!1e3

http://lovekrakow.pl/aktualnosci/wioska-olimpijska-zio-2022-w-czyzynach_4306.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, location of Olympic Village is already decided.

Its not inside Park Lotników Polskich. It south of Krakow Arena where allotments are now.

Please, read this topic to gain some information, we posted here maps, photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there can be info here but i would dive in to 50 pages so i look on dates, this is news dated 08 Feb. if this contradicts inital info i guess its something noteworthy

Besodes it saying near location so it might be what you ssying

Besides* saying*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classement : les 10 villes préférées des touristes en Europe

Krakow elected top touristic destination in Europe.

1. Krakow 9/10

2. Sevilla 8,9/10

3. Venice 8,8/10

4. Brugge 8,8/10

5. Rome 8,8/10

6. Vienna 8,7/10

7. Barcelona 8,7/10

8. Maastricht 8,7/10

9. Prague 8,7/10

10. Berlin 8,6/10

Edited by hektor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the IOC members coming from Southern Hemisphere probably don't care about Winter Games and they supposedly vote for their OWG destinanation based on wherever they want to spend their winter vacation with their spouses.

They aren't ordinary tourists, they don't care about their tight budget, but that ranking quoted by hektor, says one thing: inspite of the things some Oslo-cult-followers said here, Norwegian capital may not be really a favourite destination. Oslo is expensive as hell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oslo/Norway is extremely expensive indeed. Then again, I guess the likes of al-Sabah and other IOC members are not really counting their pennies when they embark on a trip to the Games...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oslo/Norway is extremely expensive indeed. Then again, I guess the likes of al-Sabah and other IOC members are not really counting their pennies when they embark on a trip to the Games...

Al-Sabah couldn't care less where the WOGs are held. Probably doesn't even hang around after the IOC meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-Sabah couldn't care less where the WOGs are held. Probably doesn't even hang around after the IOC meetings.

Exactly because he - and many others - are unlikely to care about WOG hosts, the argument which place is more expensive to go shopping or rates higher as a destination for "real life (not IOC)" tourists is completely void IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly because he - and many others - are unlikely to care about WOG hosts, the argument which place is more expensive to go shopping or rates higher as a destination for "real life (not IOC)" tourists is completely void IMHO.

Not really. It would matter for those with less means than he; and if they (meaning IOC member & family) want to hang around and soak in the culture. I'd say for the most non-winter IOC'ers, they don't really care...but I think they'd vote for where the Mrs. or favored kids might want to go.

Any chance of a high-speed rail link between Krakow and Jasna or that elicit too many environmental concerns?

For a 2 week event? R u kidding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any chance of a high-speed rail link between Krakow and Jasna or that elicit too many environmental concerns?

Not even a word about rail link between Krakow and Jasna. I think it isnt possible. All efforts should be focused on improving connections (both rail and road) between Krakow and Zakopane. Jasna is like Sestriere in Torino bid.

On the other hand Krakow governement asked central governement of possibility to participate in costs of building premetro before 2022. Now Krakow has good net of fast tram including parts underground.

And breaking news ;-) Yesterday new railroad station hall of Krakow Central was opened. It is located totally underground connected with underground station of fast tram, main regional bus station and Galeria Krakowska shopping centre. Huge communication node.

z15459180Q,Nowy-Dworzec-Glowny-w-Krakowiz15459143Q,Nowy-Dworzec-Glowny-w-Krakowiz15459034Q,Nowy-Dworzec-Glowny-w-Krakowiz15459116Q,Nowy-Dworzec-Glowny-w-Krakowi

Here more photos:

http://krakow.gazeta.pl/krakow/51,44425,15459461.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zbigniew Brodka won gold in speed skating by 0.003s and become first Polish man to get medal in this discipline. This and bronze of woman team from Vencover may cause that speed skating track that Polish speed skaters been begging for years now, may be build regardless of bid result. Or at least cover existing outside track.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...