Oslo 2022 Olympic Bid Shouldn't Be Approved - New Poll

[runningrings]

In hindsight I've always thought Ostersund should have been bidding for 1992 - I think they probably would have got it (although we all know Albertville was a consolation prize to the French, as they sacrificed Paris 1992 to JAS's hometown) so maybe Ostersund wouldn't have got 92.

I don't get why the Swedes just didn't go with Ostersund for 2022. Surely it would have stood a good chance of winning.

[FYI]

I think it's been discussed quite thoroughly on these boards why Ostersund is no longer that viable for a 21st century Winter Olympics.

[Ikarus360]

^^ At this pace and as more hosts waste a ridiculous amount of money (i'm looking at you, Beijing and Sochi) I think no city is going to be viable to host the Olympics anymore.

[p85]

Someone just posted this article in the Oslo 2022 thread. You really need to read it:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-14/sports/chi-iocs-2022-winter-olympic-choice-could-be-made-today-20131114_1_winter-olympics-winter-games-ioc

I've read it. Doesn't change a thing, I can point several things that are completelly meaningless, unproven and a little biased in that article, published in November 2013, (so it's really fresh and based on the official applicant bid books, I guess).

How much work does Krakow have to do, btw.

Krakow has to do much work. Nobody ever said that Krakow's bid is a frontruner.

And why do they need to use Jasna, in another country, if they have everything up to speed

It was already stated many, MANY times why Krakow cannot use a slope placed in Poland.

And the narrative is that Sweden, a Winter Sports power that's never hosted the Winter Olympics before, much like Russia's plea with Sochi 2014. The failed bids have nothing to do with it, but they could've be in the background of some IOC members' mind come voting time.

Swedish failed bids could've be in the background of some IOC members eventually voting for Oslo and ended up as a 7th Swedish failed bid.

And seriously, don't sound like Pillan here. There's no conspiracy plot against Sweden within the IOC.

I've never said that there an anti-Sweden plot within the IOC. Don't you Pilanese me here!

Most of Sweden's bids were ill-timed

Stockholm 2022 bid was probably well-timed, but still had many issues, resulted with a recent withdrawal.

And yes, you do have a different "definition" of traditional then. An extremely bias one, that is.

I have a "different" "definition" a "traditional" when it comes to WOG hosting. "Traditional" WOG host means that they hosted WOG at least once. Sweden didn't host WOG, so they are not traditional. I'm extremely bias here.

Look, I have nothing against Krakow here. I've said all along that they could be a darkhorse in this race, but it's really NOT a "slam-dunk" like a certain someone here likes to portray it.

I've never said that Krakow's bid is a "slum-dunk", never seen any other Polish user portrayed that bid as a clear frontrunner. Why did you even feel to emphasize that you have nothing against Krakow? Did you think that someone could call you a biased person?

I don't think you are biased towards Krakow,anyway, if any, I'd say you are against Almaty.

I planned to write something more but I'm not going to.

I've just realized that, quoting Gob Bluth, "I've made a huge mistake". Every critical comment coming from a user from a bidding city regarding another bidding city (even if they're already withdrawn) makes you a biased d***head.

[FYI]

I've read it. Doesn't change a thing, I can point several things that are completelly meaningless, unproven and a little biased in that article,

Oh, really. Like what. Were you perhaps reading it with your bias, Krakow glasses. Please enlighten.

Krakow has to do much work. Nobody ever said that Krakow's bid is a frontruner.

Then why ask someone else how they perceived Stockholm as a safe, traditional choice then, after Oslo.

It was already stated many, MANY times why Krakow cannot use a slope placed in Poland

Why don't you just answer the question instead of beating around the bush.

Swedish failed bids could've be in the background of some IOC members eventually voting for Oslo and ended up as a 7th Swedish failed bid.

This doesn't even make any sense.

I've never said that there an anti-Sweden plot within the IOC. Don't you Pilanese me here!

Yes you did. Read your own post, geez.

Stockholm 2022 bid was probably well-timed, but still had many issues, resulted with a recent withdrawal.

Yeah, but it had nothing to do with any of the reasons you cited. Mostly due to the fact that the government didn't want to back the bid in the end, just like Rome 2020.

I have a "different" "definition" a "traditional" when it comes to WOG hosting. "Traditional" WOG host means that they hosted WOG at least once. Sweden didn't host WOG, so they are not traditional. I'm extremely bias here.

Of course you do. How convenient of you & your preferred 2022 bid of choice.

I'm extremely bias here.

I know that already. So why should I take anything you say seriously then.

I've never said that Krakow's bid is a "slum-dunk", never seen any other Polish user portrayed that bid as a clear frontrunner. Why did you even feel to emphasize that you have nothing against Krakow? Did you think that someone could call you a biased person?

I don't think you are biased towards Krakow,anyway, if any, I'd say you are against Almaty.

I planned to write something more but I'm not going to.

I've just realized that, quoting Gob Bluth, "I've made a huge mistake". Every critical comment coming from a user from a bidding city regarding another bidding city (even if they're already withdrawn) makes you a biased d***head.

I never said that you or any of your compatriots have said so. I'm talking about Baron. He's the one virtually saying that. I bet you have nothing to say against him, though. That's why I emphasized that I don't have nothing against Krakow, since you seem to be going after me now. Go figure.

And sigh, you're the one that brought up Stockholm into this in the first place, by again, asking deawebo why he thought that after Oslo, why he thought Stockholm was the 'safe & traditional' choice.

[stryker]

Having read that article more closely, I don't believe that poll is representative of the population, and I don't believe Oslo will withdraw. A poll done for the Minerva magazine, which is already against using state funds for the Olympics? Ill believe it when I see it. The IOC will make sure through Heiberg that doesn't happen.

Oslo is still the favourite.

I agree regarding the poll especially since Minerva is against using funds for the Olympics in the first place. However, the Oslo was on tepid support even after the referendum. I have no idea where the Norwegian population stands on this right now, but I would have to think that there's is a legitimate possibility the government could decline to put up the money to cover an Olympics which is why I'm sure the IOC is frantically working behind the scenes to make sure that doesn't happen. If Oslo, does drop out then it sends a clear message to the IOC that the WOGs have gotten too large and too costly.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

The Winter Olympic Movement needs a host like Oslo, a Winter powerhouse. Also, it will be a good future after Lillehammer.

[ScholaOsloensis]

I agree regarding the poll especially since Minerva is against using funds for the Olympics in the first place. However, the Oslo was on tepid support even after the referendum. I have no idea where the Norwegian population stands on this right now, but I would have to think that there's is a legitimate possibility the government could decline to put up the money to cover an Olympics which is why I'm sure the IOC is frantically working behind the scenes to make sure that doesn't happen. If Oslo, does drop out then it sends a clear message to the IOC that the WOGs have gotten too large and too costly.

Even though Minerva ordered the poll, I think it's safe to assume that the results are fairly representative given the question that was asked. In other words, if you ask the majority of the norw. population if Oslo should get financial guarantees (very different from a question like "should Norway host the winter olympics?"), it's a given that more people will say no.

For someone familiar with regional "battles" and the history of former applicant processes, it's hardly news. If you ask anyone in the north (bitterness after Tromsø 2018) or in the west (separatist Bergensere that are anti-østlandet) if anything should happen or if any money should go to Oslo, they'll probably answer no.

The battle that matters for the Oslo 22 bid org, is the one happening in the governmental corridors. If you're on the yes side, some battles have been won, such as the external reviews (that killed Tromsø 2018) and the fact that not all politicians have flagged their negativity; though some have. But it's really in the blue which deals can be struck etc.

Right now it's impossible to say where the majority vote will end up. It's about 50/50; which is better than what Sthlm had, since that bid was never going to happen, but if IOC isn't happy with Poland or Beijing, they should be sweating already. Though I believe Krakow is an excellent and viable bid and we know that the chinese will happily take the bill if no one else does, so in the short term no reason to panic, but of course, IOC does have an "image" problem in the west that it will have to deal with long term.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Even though Minerva ordered the poll, I think it's safe to assume that the results are fairly representative given the question that was asked. In other words, if you ask the majority of the norw. population if Oslo should get financial guarantees (very different from a question like "should Norway host the winter olympics?"), it's a given that more people will say no.

For someone familiar with regional "battles" and the history of former applicant processes, it's hardly news. If you ask anyone in the north (bitterness after Tromsø 2018) or in the west (separatist Bergensere that are anti-østlandet) if anything should happen or if any money should go to Oslo, they'll probably answer no.

The battle that matters for the Oslo 22 bid org, is the one happening in the governmental corridors. If you're on the yes side, some battles have been won, such as the external reviews (that killed Tromsø 2018) and the fact that not all politicians have flagged their negativity; though some have. But it's really in the blue which deals can be struck etc.

Right now it's impossible to say where the majority vote will end up. It's about 50/50; which is better than what Sthlm had, since that bid was never going to happen, but if IOC isn't happy with Poland or Beijing, they should be sweating already. Though I believe Krakow is an excellent and viable bid and we know that the chinese will happily take the bill if no one else does, so in the short term no reason to panic, but of course, IOC does have an "image" problem in the west that it will have to deal with long term.

Oslo is the front runner. Krakow is 2nd. Beijing 3rd and very close with Almaty 4th. Lviv 5th.

[Lord David]

Almaty 4th? I'd rank Almaty closer to Beijing or even Krakow. They have most of the venues already in place, clear experience in hosting past winter events and proving themselves when they host the 2017 Universiade. Not to mention that they're the most compact of all bidding cities, with the slopes just 50-70km from the city.

Sure, they have an authoritarian regime and other concerns being to close to Sochi and so forth, but you can't fault them on the technical field. They can host and deliver.

[zekekelso]

I can't think of any reason to put Almaty behind Beijing

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

I can't think of any reason to put Almaty behind Beijing

Like I said, Beijing and Almaty are close on 3rd. Krakow 2nd. Lviv 5th. Oslo 1st.

[FYI]

I can't think of any reason to put Almaty behind Beijing

I can think of plenty reasons to do so.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

I can think of plenty reasons to do so.

I agree. As much as I know Beijing won't win with Oslo and Krakow still in the race, Beijing's Bid is much stronger than Almaty's, plus no one can say they have the 2017 Winter Universiade to host, because it's in the future, the 2017 Winter Universiade could be a disaster for all we know, and also Almaty was the only Bidder, if there were other Bidders, for example from Norway or even a City like Sapporo in Japan, Almaty would never of won.

[Lord David]

A disaster? The 2017 Universiade? It's a surefire test event in a potential Almaty 2022 Winter Olympics. That deadline will ensure that Almaty will meet it's construction goals and not have last minute construction works.

So what if Almaty was the only bidder? The Universiade should be grateful that at least one city out there showed interest, otherwise the whole event would have been in turmoil. It won't be a disaster, it would just add to prove that Almaty can host such big events.

I get that Beijing is known as the insurance policy, because the IOC has been there and know what's coming, but if they want to avoid another blowout Olympics which puts off future bidders, Beijing isn't it. Almaty is clearly stronger simply based on what's already there, which includes many venues which Beijing currently lacks.

[FYI]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. All you want is just another fricken bid book to make love to. :-P

[zekekelso]

Beijing's Bid is much stronger than Almaty's

I thought the UK school system was better than this. I guess not. So let me point out a few basics of writing...

You don't just throw out your thesis and then abandon it. You need to back it up. Thesis, supporting point #1, supporting point #2, etc. conclusion.

Go through the details of Beijing's Bid. What's in the bid that makes it "much stronger" than Almaty's

Personally, I don't think we know Jack about either bid, so not sure how you are going to do this. But somethings caused you to make that statement. So let's hear it.

[FYI]

Says the one that merely said this:

I can't think of any reason to put Almaty behind Beijing

And then "abandoned their thesis".

Besides, "going through the details" of why Beijing would make a much better option have been laid out countless times on these boards already. If you haven't read them, or refuse to accept them, then that's your own problem, not anyone else's.

[gromit]

I don't think any genuine democracy would agree to "unlimited' financial guarantees.

I don't think the IOC seeks "unlimited" financial guarantees from the any government.

There has already been a much wider referendum which supported the bid.

A number of the intended locations such as the Telenor Arena are already in place and there have been plans for many years to put a roof on Valle Hovin whether they bid for the Winter Olympics or not.

For me, this poll really means very little.

[Athensfan]

I believe the government must promise to cover any shortfall. That is still scary.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

If it came down to it, and both Oslo and Krakow pulled out, THEN Beijing would win.

[baron-pierreIV]

[Athensfan]

If it came down to it, and both Oslo and Krakow pulled out, THEN Beijing would win.

Yes! And if Oslo, Krakow, Beijing and Almaty drop out, Lviv will win! Your favorite! Jeez, the suspense is killing me!

[StefanMUC]

Yes! And if Oslo, Krakow, Beijing and Almaty drop out, Lviv will win! Your favorite! Jeez, the suspense is killing me!

And if that fails as well, the IOC will hold the Games in Mu ich without asking if we want it. Except for the sliding events, they'll be in St Moritz, out of spite, too.

[Lord David]

If it came down to it, and both Oslo and Krakow pulled out, THEN Beijing would win.

No, if Oslo and Krakow pulled out, it would simply just make Almaty's goal of an Olympics so much easier.

Beijing would be proposing mega billion budgets, high speed rail links and sleek new winter venues. Almaty would simply need to offer what's there, a new arena or two and a sliding track. It would also clearly emphasize how compact it's approach is to Beijing, with a one village concept too.