Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - 2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

gottabekd · 11-09-2018, 07:04 PM

I'm a big fan of the Olympics, and seem to especially get caught up in the Winter Olympics. When a Calgary 2026 games was being floated around initially, I was intrigued. We could reuse some facilities, and maybe pull off an economical Olympics. I thought "Maybe if we can get a bunch of concessions from the IOC, it could make sense financially."

The danger was that if Calgary is really the first city to do a low-budget games, it might reflect poorly on us. I would rather some European city do a budget games that reuses old facilities first, so at least Calgary isn't forever seen as the el-cheapo turning point for the games.

But the city has went ahead pursuing a 2026 games. In the proposed bid we get a new field house (that supposedly would get built anyways), a community arena that no one would have proposed if it weren't for the Olympics, and $500 million of new paint on some old facilities. The return on the investment is measured in "legacy". And hey, if everything goes according to the budget, maybe it's all a wash.

But I wanted to see more pressure on the IOC to help make hosting their games more economical. Even if it doesn't matter a whole lot to the bottom line, it would help the optics for the locals. Things like not giving the IOC members free tickets to scalp. Likewise not reserving large swaths of tickets for sponsors and athlete entourages only for them not to show up.

And since the risk of cost overruns seems to be a big concern for 'No' voters, maybe pressure the IOC to commit to helping in this respect. I'm sure I don't understand the scope and complexity around all that is involved with preparing and running these games, but it seems no one does, especially with the public talk about getting overrun insurance and if that even exists. So there are lots of different types of overruns (like scope change or unexpected costs), but assuming the IOC and its subsidiary organizations have some involvement with planning the games, they should have something to lose when budgets start ballooning. It's great NBC gave them all those billions of dollars, but they should stand to lose some of it if their organization can't help keep the hosting budget on track. Why should the host city bear all the risk of overruns? Especially when a bunch of the IOC's $1.2 billion is "contributions of services". Can't some of their highly paid experts be held responsible for keeping things on track? Again, I'm just asking for some help with the optics. Something like "IOC agrees to pay 20% of cost overruns that meet this narrow definition of overrun".

So basically, I'm still open to the idea of the Olympics, but only if there is a whole lot of "#### the IOC" as part the proposal. So I'm a 'No' for 2026, but if the IOC gets a little more desperate, maybe a future bid could work.

11-09-2018, 07:04 PM	#486
gottabekd Powerplay Quarterback Join Date: Mar 2006 Exp:	I'm a big fan of the Olympics, and seem to especially get caught up in the Winter Olympics. When a Calgary 2026 games was being floated around initially, I was intrigued. We could reuse some facilities, and maybe pull off an economical Olympics. I thought "Maybe if we can get a bunch of concessions from the IOC, it could make sense financially." The danger was that if Calgary is really the first city to do a low-budget games, it might reflect poorly on us. I would rather some European city do a budget games that reuses old facilities first, so at least Calgary isn't forever seen as the el-cheapo turning point for the games. But the city has went ahead pursuing a 2026 games. In the proposed bid we get a new field house (that supposedly would get built anyways), a community arena that no one would have proposed if it weren't for the Olympics, and $500 million of new paint on some old facilities. The return on the investment is measured in "legacy". And hey, if everything goes according to the budget, maybe it's all a wash. But I wanted to see more pressure on the IOC to help make hosting their games more economical. Even if it doesn't matter a whole lot to the bottom line, it would help the optics for the locals. Things like not giving the IOC members free tickets to scalp. Likewise not reserving large swaths of tickets for sponsors and athlete entourages only for them not to show up. And since the risk of cost overruns seems to be a big concern for 'No' voters, maybe pressure the IOC to commit to helping in this respect. I'm sure I don't understand the scope and complexity around all that is involved with preparing and running these games, but it seems no one does, especially with the public talk about getting overrun insurance and if that even exists. So there are lots of different types of overruns (like scope change or unexpected costs), but assuming the IOC and its subsidiary organizations have some involvement with planning the games, they should have something to lose when budgets start ballooning. It's great NBC gave them all those billions of dollars, but they should stand to lose some of it if their organization can't help keep the hosting budget on track. Why should the host city bear all the risk of overruns? Especially when a bunch of the IOC's $1.2 billion is "contributions of services". Can't some of their highly paid experts be held responsible for keeping things on track? Again, I'm just asking for some help with the optics. Something like "IOC agrees to pay 20% of cost overruns that meet this narrow definition of overrun". So basically, I'm still open to the idea of the Olympics, but only if there is a whole lot of "#### the IOC" as part the proposal. So I'm a 'No' for 2026, but if the IOC gets a little more desperate, maybe a future bid could work.