[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by getbak

$4.6B cost with $2.2B in generated revenue, so it would require $2.4B in additional funding.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...tion-committee

Two notable additions from the City of Calgary press release:

CBEC’s estimates show operating costs exceeding operating revenues by $425 million.

This is obviously part of the $2.4B shortfall, but I just wanted to point it out since it most closely compares to the '88 boast of turning a profit. Those games did, in fact, turn an operating profit (i.e. a profit excluding infrastructure costs). These games on the other hand are forecasted to generate a $425M operating loss.

The associated economic impacts, according to research undertaken by the Conference Board of Canada and Deloitte LLP, could range between $2.2 to $2.6 billion in contributions to the Gross Domestic Product including approximately $500 million in tax revenues spread through the three levels of government.

There will obviously be much debate about the value of "economic benefit", however its safe to say it is non-zero. Deloitte seems to think it could be in the exact range of the funding shortfall.

The key is what kind of infrastructure we get for $2.4B minus whatever the economic benefits alluded to in the second quote.

Once again stealing GGG's original excellent point, the key is getting infrastructure you want at a fair or discounted price. It is not about turning a profit inclusive of infrastructure costs.