Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[stampsx2]

In 2010 who covered the $1 billion security costs for the g20 summit. Were cost overruns suppose to be handled by Toronto?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

In 2010 who covered the $1 billion security costs for the g20 summit. Were cost overruns suppose to be handled by Toronto?

I'm not sure the answer to this, but I also don't know how it applies to this?

The feds said they aren't paying for it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

In 2010 who covered the $1 billion security costs for the g20 summit. Were cost overruns suppose to be handled by Toronto?

Well the Feds did, because it was their event. And lets not forget that the whole summit was considered a complete boondoggle and waste of money, but it was a Canadian government sponsored thing.

This is not that, and they have flat out stated they are not covering things. That's a massive red flag among many.

So to your previous post about this being well "planned and accountable".....how so?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

In 2010 who covered the $1 billion security costs for the g20 summit. Were cost overruns suppose to be handled by Toronto?

Is there a bid process for the G20 Summit? Isn't that a federally organized event?

I assume individual cities aren't bidding for that sort of thing, seems like a totally different beast all together.

[Northendzone]

it was my understanding that the security bill for the G7 in quebec city was something like $700 million for a two day event.

i beleive that the experts now feel like they can provide security for the games for less than that. to me that seems almost impossible, as the games cover a longer period of time, and likely more people.

so your security costs go from $350 milion per day to something like $35 million ($500 mill/14 days) or so per day. That is amazing. they must really figure some great technology is coming online.

part of me would really like to vote yes, but then it seems something laughable happens - like whistler apparently not being contacted and it causes me to wonder how they can pull this off successfully.

is it just me - but with the flames attempt to build a massive complex, the mess with the green-line (half the promised route for the price of the full route) and this bid, it makes me wonder if there are not enough of the right people in the mix at the start of these projects, or if the numbers are driven by politicians who want to see smaller price tags.

[Flamenspiel]

^^Whistler is not confirmed, they may decided to do an upgrade of the Calgary venue.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

^^Whistler is not confirmed, they may decided to do an upgrade of the Calgary venue.

My understanding is that the COP jump tower will soon be demolished. They would have to start from scratch, and maybe build in a less exposed location?

[transplant99]

I would re-iterate something that has been suggested several times in this thread as well...

Can we get a new poll?

So much has changed since the last one was posted and answered, Im really curious what the temperature is now.

Im trying really hard to find a way to justify voting yes, but its just one red flag/lie after another the last few days.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

it was my understanding that the security bill for the G7 in quebec city was something like $700 million for a two day event.

i beleive that the experts now feel like they can provide security for the games for less than that. to me that seems almost impossible, as the games cover a longer period of time, and likely more people.

so your security costs go from $350 milion per day to something like $35 million ($500 mill/14 days) or so per day. That is amazing. they must really figure some great technology is coming online.

part of me would really like to vote yes, but then it seems something laughable happens - like whistler apparently not being contacted and it causes me to wonder how they can pull this off successfully.

is it just me - but with the flames attempt to build a massive complex, the mess with the green-line (half the promised route for the price of the full route) and this bid, it makes me wonder if there are not enough of the right people in the mix at the start of these projects, or if the numbers are driven by politicians who want to see smaller price tags.

Don't mistake this as being Pro-Olympics, I am am adamantly against this Olympic bid, but misinformation kills me, and I haven't seen anything that alludes to a $700MM budget for the G7 security costs.

The G7 Security budgets looked like this:

The RCMP had a budget of $259MM
National Defense $35MM
Public Safety Canada $99MM
CSIS: $2MM

source: Global News

Total $395MM

If there are actuals released already somewhere I couldn't find them.

We don't need to use hyperbole to know that this is a terribly executed bid.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

In 2010 who covered the $1 billion security costs for the g20 summit. Were cost overruns suppose to be handled by Toronto?

What's your point? That the federal government is lying when they say they aren't paying for overruns and that BidCo knows more than the federal government when it comes to who will eventually pay for the overruns?

These are the same people who claimed to have an iron clad security budget because they spent so much time on it, then managed to find tens of millions of fat in that same estimate at the last second to keep the bid alive and are now saying that there will be overruns and the federal government will cover them, despite the federal government saying otherwise. Anyone who looks at that chain of events and thinks BidCo has any clue about what they are doing and have been open and honest is a fool.

It looks like the final G7 numbers aren't out, but the G8/G20 bill was about $700mm for security. Even comparing to Vacouver's security costs, it's clear that BidCo has grossly under budgeted in order to sell the bid and banked on a bailout that will never come

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

What's your point? That the federal government is lying when they say they aren't paying for overruns and that BidCo knows more than the federal government when it comes to who will eventually pay for the overruns?

These are the same people who claimed to have an iron clad security budget because they spent so much time on it, then managed to find tens of millions of fat in that same estimate at the last second to keep the bid alive and are now saying that there will be overruns and the federal government will cover them, despite the federal government saying otherwise. Anyone who looks at that chain of events and thinks BidCo has any clue about what they are doing and have been open and honest is a fool.

It looks like the final G7 numbers aren't out, but the G8/G20 bill was about $700mm for security. Even comparing to Vacouver's security costs, it's clear that BidCo has grossly under budgeted in order to sell the bid and banked on a bailout that will never come

to make sure I have it right, Bisco is brushing off the security cost overruns because it's not their problem?

they, and a couple of city councillors have said the feds have a duty to keep Canadians safe, and cost overruns are a federal/RCMP problem?


guess they'll trot out that line over and over until after the plebiscite.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by troutman

My understanding is that the COP jump tower will soon be demolished. They would have to start from scratch, and maybe build in a less exposed location?

That sounds cheap.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I would re-iterate something that has been suggested several times in this thread as well...

Can we get a new poll?

So much has changed since the last one was posted and answered, Im really curious what the temperature is now.

Im trying really hard to find a way to justify voting yes, but its just one red flag/lie after another the last few days.

I think we need to wait until the issue of the Security Cost overrun is resolved. Once the federal government specifically comments on the Security overrun component I think we will have all the information we are going to get before making a decision.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Everyday when I read all the planning and accountability that’s going into a financially responsible games, it solidifies my YES vote.

Really? Because I've been interpreting this pretty much the opposite of how you've seen it. It feels like Bidco is desperately being purposely shady on the numbers and planning because they have no concrete numbers or plans. I'm actually surprised you can type that without green text lol.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

it was my understanding that the security bill for the G7 in quebec city was something like $700 million for a two day event.

i beleive that the experts now feel like they can provide security for the games for less than that. to me that seems almost impossible, as the games cover a longer period of time, and likely more people.

so your security costs go from $350 milion per day to something like $35 million ($500 mill/14 days) or so per day. That is amazing. they must really figure some great technology is coming online.

part of me would really like to vote yes, but then it seems something laughable happens - like whistler apparently not being contacted and it causes me to wonder how they can pull this off successfully.

is it just me - but with the flames attempt to build a massive complex, the mess with the green-line (half the promised route for the price of the full route) and this bid, it makes me wonder if there are not enough of the right people in the mix at the start of these projects, or if the numbers are driven by politicians who want to see smaller price tags.

I don't think that this is an issue. This was typical design development. the most expensive option was taken to go under downtown and the river. This was not included in original estimates. Pre-Sanction estimates are at best +30% on the defined scope. So between planned error in estimate and the changes in scope to the project it fell within estimating norms in both public and private industry.

The Flames also haven't really attempted to build a massive complex. They are in a protracted project to extract money from the city. To expect that this process will be following normal Major project practices doesn't really make sense as the goal isn't to build a project on budget, its to extract as much from the city as they can. Look at the library project and really the entire east village development as the city taking on a massive high risk project and in working out as intended in terms of cost and outcomes.

The city is good at executing major projects. So the Olympic bid at this stage is +/- 30% with 20% contingency. Security is a big risk that we need more info on that I agree is a red flag until we understand who is paying cost overruns. The rest of the Op Cost of the games seems pretty reasonable relative to Vancouver. So I think if the security issues can be resolved with the feds covering overruns its reasonable to assume that the Olympic bid will come in within 10% of estimate provided the Scope does not change.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think we need to wait until the issue of the Security Cost overrun is resolved. Once the federal government specifically comments on the Security overrun component I think we will have all the information we are going to get before making a decision.

More specific than this?

Public Safety Canada deferred to comments made by Minister of Sport Kirsty Duncan when asked over the weekend whether potential security cost overruns of a 2026 Olympics in Calgary would be the responsibility of the federal or municipal government.

On Friday, Duncan told reporters the federal government is “not responsible for cost overruns” under the government’s policy for hosting international sporting events. A spokesperson from the ministry of sport further told Postmedia that overruns related to security costs — as opposed to capital costs — would not be covered under the federal policy.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-cost-overruns

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Can we get a new poll?

Technical limitations in the forum software, we would have to start a new thread. I can copy some of the posts from this thread over. If somebody has a chance to figure out a post that would be a good thread starting post, or wants to create a new thread with some good info about the proposal, I can get the poll going.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

^^Whistler is not confirmed, they may decided to do an upgrade of the Calgary venue.

Originally Posted by troutman

My understanding is that the COP jump tower will soon be demolished. They would have to start from scratch, and maybe build in a less exposed location?

The Calgary jumps are a no-go. Both because the big jump isn't suitable for competition anymore (landing area not sufficient, as well as the exposure to the crosswinds), but also because the setup for moguls and aerials would use the landing area and amphitheatre which would be a much more lucrative event anyway.



If there isn't a Whistler option and they had to start from scratch, finding an option at the Canmore Nordic Centre (unlikely) or Nakiska would be the only ones.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GGG

Somewhere in the bid they say they save 50 million by hosting in whistler. I think the better move would be to tell the IOC that ski jumping will not be in the Olympics.

You know in light of the whole "new IOC", cancelling events because they are not financially viable should absolutely be part of the discussion. And ski jump certainly would be right at the top of the list of events that are not worth it financially.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Really? Because I've been interpreting this pretty much the opposite of how you've seen it. It feels like Bidco is desperately being purposely shady on the numbers and planning because they have no concrete numbers or plans. I'm actually surprised you can type that without green text lol.

TLDR, voted Yes.