Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
There's one question: can the games break even, or come within striking distance, while allowing for new infrastructure to be built. That's all that matters.
If the answer is yes, and the city (and region, because Banff) gets new facilities and transit and road improvements built a large portion of which is covered by the revenue that the Games generates, awesome. Even if it takes a bit of a loss, that's manageable, because it's a great thing for the city to host and we end up better than we were before. If it's a money pit, then obviously, no dice.
The 2010 games were good for Vancouver. It was, in hindsight a good idea for that city to host them, and that's even with the many mistakes that were made in the process that increased the costs. That's possible here, too, isn't it? If not, hard pass, obviously.
|
I would agree, but based on the assessment delivered yesterday, it looks like they are predicting a shortfall
just on the operations side of the games.
This doesn't account for the infrastructure wanted or needed.
As with Vancouver, the operations side
just broke even. all the other projects were not covered in that assessment.