[News] UPD: Calgary City Council approves exploratory bid study for 2026 Olympics

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Just think of it as a $1.5 billion wealth redistribution to security guards, police, and army reservists.

Or think of it as taking $1.5 billion worth of security guards, police, and army reservists away from the work they are doing now, and making them stand guard over the IOC and its minions while the general public is less protected than usual.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Or think of it as taking $1.5 billion worth of security guards, police, and army reservists away from the work they are doing now, and making them stand guard over the IOC and its minions while the general public is less protected than usual.

Well yeah. I was making light of previous justifications for security spending.

There's no way a modern games can break even the way Calgary '88 did, just because of the enormous security costs alone. That's money that even the most dodgy accounting can't put into the credit column.

[Mango]

While this was already in the plans prior to considering an upcoming bid, the timing for the sliding track upgrades at Canada Olympic Park is ideal:

http://www.metronews.ca/sports/2017/...=1491406064284

Calgary is currently exploring a possible bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics. The sliding track project was going ahead regardless, Heck said, but it would dovetail nicely with a bid should it happen.

"The beautiful thing about it is, and I don't want to trivialize twenty million dollars, but you'll end up with a modernized, world-class track for a fraction of the cost of a new one, which would be one hundred and forty or fifty million dollars," Heck said.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Or think of it as taking $1.5 billion worth of security guards, police, and army reservists away from the work they are doing now, and making them stand guard over the IOC and its minions while the general public is less protected than usual.

Serious question, what does our military currently do that this kind of event would take away from?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by RM14

Serious question, what does our military currently do that this kind of event would take away from?

Drink in the Junior Ranks.

[getbak]

Stockholm drops out of the running: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...mes/100924734/


At this point, I think the only way we won't win is if we don't bid.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by getbak

Stockholm drops out of the running: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...mes/100924734/


At this point, I think the only way we won't win is if we don't bid.

Stockholm is smart, hope Calgary comes to the same conclusion.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Stockholm is smart, hope Calgary comes to the same conclusion.

I think the political ego-trip will win out and we will get these games and all the debt that comes with it.

[Resolute 14]

No doubt. God did we ever struggle with all that debt after 1988...

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I think the political ego-trip will win out and we will get these games and all the debt that comes with it.

And all the badly needed construction and trade work.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Well yeah. I was making light of previous justifications for security spending.

There's no way a modern games can break even the way Calgary '88 did, just because of the enormous security costs alone. That's money that even the most dodgy accounting can't put into the credit column.

I don't think they can break even in the days after the end of the Olympics, but I think long term, we can actually benefit from the infrastructure and the venue upgrades unlike many other cities who build then go, "We don't need this thing anymore."

Most of the proposals are to give venues currently actively being used a face lift vs building from scratch and hoping to figure out what to do with it afterwards.

ie: Field house/Dome, Maxbell, Canmore, Banff, COP, Oval etc. and that's not including some roadwork upgrades.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No doubt. God did we ever struggle with all that debt after 1988...

You know, my heart (if not my brain) is behind the Olympics coming here...but I just don't think it's fair to compare the 88 games to today's situation. The financial burden these days is on a whole new level.

[Tyler]

I for one am looking forward to spending the remaining 35 million Canadians' tax dollars on a 2 week party in Calgary. Bring it on!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Table 5

You know, my heart (if not my brain) is behind the Olympics coming here...but I just don't think it's fair to compare the 88 games to today's situation. The financial burden these days is on a whole new level.

Completely agree. It's also not fair to compare to Sochi, Beijing, etc. There is nothing stopping us from putting in a sensible bid (ie. conservative and favourable to us).

Vancouver is the only relevant comparison to look at. Nobody can claim to know precisely how the balance sheet shook out in the end. Nobody can legitimately claim it was a raging success or a raging failure. It was definitely somewhere in between - and it's a fair debate to have. This doesn't need to be the black/white, all/nothing debate at the extremes that so many want to paint it as.

[Frequitude]

Spot on, powederjunkie. Neither Calgary '88 nor Sochi/Beijing are the models here. The goal should be Vancouver '10 but with more retrofits instead of new builds and no massive highway upgrade.

[Bunk]

Calgary should have so much leverage over the IOC, it should be automatic. It should be "we'll bid, but we're only gonna do it our way". The IOC might have to bend. If they don't, screw 'em, we drop out.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

You know, my heart (if not my brain) is behind the Olympics coming here...but I just don't think it's fair to compare the 88 games to today's situation. The financial burden these days is on a whole new level.

I think Calgary can do it significantly cheaper than recent games. Given the current reputation of the IOC and the cities that are putting themselves in financial distress to host the Games themselves, I wouldn't doubt it if the IOC is looking to Calgary to be the model for how to host it economically and sustainably. The IOC might be corrupt, power and money hungry, but having a first-world nation host the Games in an economically feasibly manner will do wonders for their reputation and might lure cities to apply to host the Games again in the future.

[PeteMoss]

Calgary as the host city would come out ok, but are you going to be able to get the province and federal government on board since they are typically the big spenders here.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Spot on, powederjunkie. Neither Calgary '88 nor Sochi/Beijing are the models here. The goal should be Vancouver '10 but with more retrofits instead of new builds and no massive highway upgrade.

Yep, as long as the infrastructure has long term uses I'm fine with it. Getting federal funding for local infrastructure is just a bonus.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Vancouver is the only relevant comparison to look at. Nobody can claim to know precisely how the balance sheet shook out in the end. Nobody can legitimately claim it was a raging success or a raging failure. It was definitely somewhere in between - and it's a fair debate to have. This doesn't need to be the black/white, all/nothing debate at the extremes that so many want to paint it as.

The thing is, if you take some lessons from the Vancouver experience about what worked and what didn't, you can move that needle slightly over towards the "success" side of things. It's never going to be a raging success, but even just being somewhere in the vicinity positive, and getting the Olympics and the associated infrastructure, you do it. I'm not aware of many Vancouverites who look back at 2010 and say "what a horrible mistake".