Which 4 cities do u think will make the 2022 Short List?

[Martijn]

Almaty, Beijing, Krakow, Oslo

[Faster]

Venues Logistics Support Tradition Continental Rotation Biggest Weakness

Oslo 1 1 5 1 1.5 1 10.5

Stockholm 2 3 6 2 1.5 4 18.5

Beijing 3 2 1 4.5 6 5 21.5

Almaty 4 4 2 4.5 5 2 21.5

Lviv 6 6 3 4.5 3.5 3 26

Krakow 5 5 4 4.5 3.5 6 28

I believe the shortlist will be:

Oslo: They have almost everything in place, they are a traditional winter sport nation in a tradition and historic setting after the previous host. Norway will be safe set of hands in a country that's biggest controversy is.... You get the picture, their biggest weakness is government support but there is already precedent for the Norwegian government to support a bid when it is in the bag. The biggest controversy with this bid is who will Crown Prince Frederick vote for.

Stockholm: IT IS SWEDEN, enough said. At least their mountains are within their own boarders and this is the only possible way Sweden will ever host the Olympic Winter Games. The IOC would rather deal with a plane ride between Are and Stockholm than go back to China, have a binational bid, deal with the crazy Kazakhs or deal with another despotic and unpopular country in Ukraine.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\/\ Well, faster, your avatar certainly doesn't reveal your true leanings, huh??

[Tatsh]

Stockholm & Oslo: because the last WOG in escandinavia were held in 1994 in Lillehammer, so the argument of WOG returning to that zone is very valid.

My third choice is Krakow, which in someway, would be the first WOG in western Europe, and is some far from Russia's atmosphere.

And Almaty, well, is like a new-frontier.

[Faster]

/\/\ Well, faster, your avatar certainly doesn't reveal your true leanings, huh??

Oh come on, anyone who has been here for more than a couple of years knows I have a major hard-on for our Norwegian friends.

[baron-pierreIV]

OK, applying BORRM (Baron's Olympic-Revolving Restaurant Matrix...)

Sweden, Ukraine and Kazakhstan don't have one. So we know that Stokcholm, Lviv and Almaty are out.

Norway only has one...but it's at Trondheim. So I don't think the Oslo bid will win.

So that makes Bratislava-Krakow-Jasna with one...as the ONLY probable winner for 2022!!

[baron-pierreIV]

When do they announce the Short List?

[Sir Rols]

I think I read somewhere it was July next year.

[p85]

When do they announce the Short List?

8/9 July 2014

[baron-pierreIV]

8/9 July 2014

Stockholm has a good 7 months to uproot itself closer to Are. Get movin' Stockies!!

[Bandera]

Listen, guys, what do you know about the city of Lviv? Have you ever been there? Do you know people there? We all know about UEFA EURO 2012 experience and messages before the tournament on how dangerous to go to Ukraine and then complete opposite comments from fans who visited Ukrainian cities.

So, what I'd like to ask you is to be more patient and more constructive in discussions.

Thanks.

[olympiaki-agones]

I've been in Lviv, actually. And that is why I leave it out of the contest. Ukraine is still undeveloped in many senses. I don't think the IOC would be happy to award them as a new frontier having on the table Almaty (which is a really exotic place and the consolation prize for those Turkic countries after Baku and Istanbul elimination) and Krakow.

I just would pick 3 cities anyway: Stockholm, Almaty and Krakow.

Oslo is not Tokyo, where Japanese consumers really buy everything they see and the market it's just 40 millions in the 1964-2020 Olympic city. So I really don't see the Norwegian capital as a "safe pair of hands".

[baron-pierreIV]

Oslo is not Tokyo, where Japanese consumers really buy everything they see and the market it's just 40 millions in the 1964-2020 Olympic city. So I really don't see the Norwegian capital as a "safe pair of hands".

I agree. I think the Oslo bid is over-rated.

[FYI]

I agree. I think the Oslo bid is over-rated.

Just like the Almaty bid. Some people here put wayyy too much emphasize on it. I mean what's the big deal. And no, it's not "exotic", not like Istanbul or Rio. And it wouldn't be a "consolation prize" due to Baku & Istanbul not getting the Summer Games. They're not even in the same country as Almaty to follow that precedent. It's really a silly argument for anyone to bring up. And after three consecutive Winter Olympics in non-traditional locations, that only enhances the Scandinavian chances.

[FYI]

I just would pick 3 cities anyway: Stockholm, Almaty and Krakow.

Oslo is not Tokyo, where Japanese consumers really buy everything they see and the market it's just 40 millions in the 1964-2020 Olympic city. So I really don't see the Norwegian capital as a "safe pair of hands".

I'd be extremely surprised if the IOC cut the Norwegians (& even the Chinese) for the sake of including Almaty. Like Baku, Almaty is not compelling enough, & has risk, to simply eliminate a solid & practical bid, at a time when many good cities are running away like Munich & the Swiss. I'm sure the IOC doesn't wanna keep on sending a wreckless message with what's going on with Sochi 2014. And the Chinese would be a good insurance policy to have should all else fail. I see no good place for Almaty in this.

And Tokyo didn't get 2020 because "Japanese consumers really buy everything they see" but because the IOC felt they were the most responsible & safest bid out of the 2020 lot. Besides, the Japanese market already has everything, so how much more can they buy in one of the most expensive cities/country in the world anyway. If it was really about that, then Istanbul would've won 2020. Surely 77 million in an untapped, virgin market is much more attractive than 123 million in a saturated, aging market.

[StefanMUC]

I'd be extremely surprised if the IOC cut the Norwegians (& even the Chinese) for the sake of including Almaty. Like Baku, Almaty is not compelling enough, & has risk, to simply eliminate a solid & practical bid, at a time when many good cities are running away like Munich & the Swiss. I'm sure the IOC doesn't wanna keep on sending a wreckless message with what's going on with Sochi 2014. And the Chinese would be a good insurance policy to have should all else fail. I see no good place for Almaty in this.

And Tokyo didn't get 2020 because "Japanese consumers really buy everything they see" but because the IOC felt they were the most responsible & safest bid out of the 2020 lot. Besides, the Japanese market already has everything, so how much more can they buy in one of the most expensive cities/country in the world anyway. If it was really about that, then Istanbul would've won 2020. Surely 77 million in an untapped, virgin market is much more attractive than 123 million in a saturated, aging market.

I agree with almost everything, apart from Beijing being the insurance policy. If Oslo doesn't get govt support, I can see Stockholm winning despite the distance issue. And if also that bid doesn't go further because politics doesn't let it, I can really imagine Krakow clinching it. It would be a daring choice because of the bi-nationality, but it would also build on existing, traditional winter sports competence, and there would be no need to give it 3 times to Asia in a row, especially since there are certainly people in the IOC conscious of how another trip to China would come across. at least in certain parts of the world.

[FYI]

I agree about Krakow. They could surprise, but it all depends on what they're offering, which I'm intrigued to find out. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, that's why I say the short-list is gonna four; Stockholm, Oslo, Krakow & Beijing, nicely rounding out all of the geographical areas from the applicant phase.

I say Beiijing would be the insurance policy "if all else fails", & that includes Krakow. It still would be untested waters, & again, depending on what they propose, I'm still unsure of their actual chances. And much like including Moscow for 2012 on the short-list, the IOC most likely still would want to play nice with the Chinese.

[Athensfan]

In my opinion Oslo and Beijing will certainly make the short list. Neither is what you would call a "dream bid". Both could be viable hosts and for that reason (plus politics) I think they're locks (unless the Norwegian government puts a bullet in the Oslo bid).

I hope Almaty makes the cut because I liked their 2014 bid. I think they will. I don't see it as any consolation for Istanbul, however.

I think Krakow could go either way, depending on what they propose.

I think Stockholm is almost certainly DOA due to the distance problem. If they make the short list it will only be thanks to serious political wrangling or a radically revised plan.

Lviv also seems a non-starter due to lack of infrastructure and winter sports tradition.

[olympiaki-agones]

Sorry, but how come Torino, Vancouver and Sochi got the games just like Albertville got them after Barcelona's award? Let's face it, what we say, suppose or desire here is totally different on what the real IOC voters want. Or maybe the IOC is sending a wrong message choosing those cities after Rome 2004, Toronto 2008 and Moscow 2012 were defeated. WOG are just an extension of the SOG. Only a small bunch of countries really get excited by that.

About Kazakhstan is another Turkic country with a strong identity like the rest of those countries in the region. Anyway, Almaty has everything in line and the distances (if the IOC really cares about it) are the shortest. With South Africa in the race for the 2024 OG the chances of Istanbul are fading away for a long while.

In the other hand, I perceive Sweden stronger after what happened in Germany and Switzerland. That's the last big Western European country without having hosted the games.

[Palette86]

If I could vote again, the 4 cities would be Oslo,Stockholm,Krakow,Beijing+jiang jia kou.

[StefanMUC]

Sorry, but how come Torino, Vancouver and Sochi got the games just like Albertville got them after Barcelona's award? Let's face it, what we say, suppose or desire here is totally different on what the real IOC voters want. Or maybe the IOC is sending a wrong message choosing those cities after Rome 2004, Toronto 2008 and Moscow 2012 were defeated. WOG are just an extension of the SOG. Only a small bunch of countries really get excited by that.

About Kazakhstan is another Turkic country with a strong identity like the rest of those countries in the region. Anyway, Almaty has everything in line and the distances (if the IOC really cares about it) are the shortest. With South Africa in the race for the 2024 OG the chances of Istanbul are fading away for a long while.

Torino got 2006 because enough IOC members wanted to punish Switzerland/Hodler for the SLC leak and shunned Sion. Vancouver got 2010 because Salzburg was too soon after Torino and PC wasn't yet ready, though close. Albertville got 1992 *before* Paris lost to Samara...erm Barcelona. That was not a consolation, but a prevention of Paris. And Sochi got 2014 because of Putin really - maybe indeed they didn't want to make him angry after Moscow's loss...

I don't get the Almaty/Istanbul connection. They may have similar cultural backgrounds and if certainly already has some hosting experience and facilities, but I doubt anyone would vote for Almaty to console the Turks. Could just as well claim PC got 2018 because Tokyo lost 2016.

[FYI]

Let's face it, what we say, suppose or desire here is totally different on what the real IOC voters want.

Exactly. So what makes you think that YOUR "opinions", however misguided they are, are more insightful than anyone else's here. "Just face it", they're not.

[yoshi]

I don't think it works to reference the 'Great Fix' of 1992 when looking for precedent. Paris had that, & as Baron says, they were done over by political scheming worthy of Machiavelli himself.

[Kenadian]

Every Olympic Games - Winter or Summer, Youth or Special - got them for one reason only: they got more votes than their competitors. There's none of this nonsense that everyone prattles on about. No conspiracy, punishment or condolence theories. The IOC awards one Olympic Games at a time to one city at a time, voted on by about 100 individuals with their own personal set of reasons, reasoning and agendas.

There's no: "Poor Rome. *sniff*. I hope Torino makes them feel better".

There's no: "I didn't like this year's Chanel collection. Curse you Paris!"

There's no: "If I vote for Rio de Janeiro this time, my Brazilian friends will vote for Istanbul next time."

It is simply this: "Do I like this bid? Do I trust these people? Is this in the best interest of the sport and the movement?" and possible "Might be nice to get some sushi and drive around in a Lexus...Tokyo it is!"

[Faster]

1. Oslo: I think Oslo is an obvious choice for the short-list. I am beginning to think government backing is more of a formality than it was even six months ago. Oslo needs to get two things right, first: they need to unite all of Norway behind the capital hosting the Olympic Winter Games, creating a national event. Second: the bid committee needs to find a narrative that will be fresh, yet familiar. Convince the IOC that Oslo 2022 will be as successful and warmly embraced as Lillehammer while providing a unique and compelling experience that is new, unique and adds to the Olympic heritage.

Beijing: For political reasons Beijing will be moved through as a candidate. I am sure the IOC would like to see China host an OWG before another OG. Keeping them in the process will allow the Chinese to learn and receive feedback on how to proceed in the future. The IFs will likely be as harsh with the Chinese as they were with the Koreans to see improvement and a more wholly engaged Chinese Sporting Culture with winter sport. But on technical grounds, Beijing has what it takes.

Almaty: For reasons not completely known and despite technical scores that should have seen it into the candidate phase of the 2014 bidding cycle, Almaty was dropped. Given that Almaty has more infrastructure, an Asian Winter Games and 8 more years of development Almaty should make the benchmark to pass into the candidate phase this time. Almaty and Kazakhstan seem like an eventuality as a host. Experience helps.

Stockholm: I believe that that the IOC will allow only one of Krakow or Stockholm into the candidate phase. I believe this because both present unique and exceptional hurdles that the IOC might not be entirely comfortable with. Given the pros and cons of which Pandora’s box the Executive Committee wants to open, I believe that the ExCo will side with a greater distance than a bid where two governments and two NOCs are clearly involved. If the IOC was not willing to make a bi-national exception for Finland, they will not make it for Poland. I think in the end, this will be a conservative but constructive decision where the ExCo will take the side of presenting a great distance concept for the sack of Sweden to the wider IOC to decide.