2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I believe that they moved the goal posts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bn-budget.html

The Government yesterday issued a glowing report on the Olympics coming in under budget – despite the cost being almost four times the original estimate.

Olympics Minister Hugh Robertson said it was a ‘significant achievement’ that spending on the 2012 Games was expected to come in £476million under its £9.3billion budget.

But his boast was declared ‘disingenuous’ by critics, who pointed to the initial estimate of £2.4billion made by the Labour Government when London won the bid in 2005.

EDIT: So yeah, if Bidco had the help of these guys . . . 400% of their original budget is . . . kinda bad?

The Daily Mail isn't a super reputable source, so here's an additional one from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6453575.stm

Corroborates the story completely. 400% budget increase. If this were applied to Calgary, that would be in the "tens of billions" after all.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Lol, Calgary puck is almost exactly opposite what the city as a whole decided. Interesting.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

Unfortunate results. Very short-sighted by Calgarians. Lost a chance to become a relevant City again. Calgary is post-apex.

I think what's unfortunate is that the design, construction, sport and tourism industries won't get that shot in the arm they realllllly could have used for the next decade. Would have created thousands of jobs in a time we need them most.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The Flames see any ticket tax/surcharge that takes away from their potential revenues as their contribution. They aren't going to accept anything that simply increases their contribution. That was the main sticking point of the deal that had 1/3 of the arena paid for by a ticket tax.

Originally Posted by Mephisto

So basically your asking the Flames to increase their contribution? That’s how they would characterize these ideas.

Yup and I think that is wrong and why it was rejected. I dont think other owners in other deals view a ticket tax as their share.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Lol, Calgary puck is almost exactly opposite what the city as a whole decided. Interesting.

Doesn't CP also have a larger ratio of high income earners? Wonder if that comes into play.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I am surprised that the result was the opposite of the CP poll.

Don't be. Polls showed the youth favoured the Olympics while the city as a whole were against them.

CP always represents a younger vote.

[CPK80]

I think it because it is a younger and more sport focused demographic then the voters tonight.

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Lol, Calgary puck is almost exactly opposite what the city as a whole decided. Interesting.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[zamler]

Originally Posted by BurningYears

Looking for a job at the Sun I see.

Yea and where do you work.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Lol, Calgary puck is almost exactly opposite what the city as a whole decided. Interesting.

CP skews towards folks interested in hockey, and probably sports in general... so not really a good sample to draw conclusions from...

I am not surprised CP leaned towards Yes in this particular question...

[GirlySports]

CP are also sports and Olympics fans.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Ah. Still somewhat questionable. Having your city host the Olympics is massive for name recognition alone on a global level. I deal with lots of Americans who come here to ski or see the mountains already, hard to imagine it wouldn't help bump that slightly overall.

When I was travelling in the 90's the only reason many people had even heard of Calgary was the 88 Olympics. Hosting the Olympics is pretty massive for being recognized on a global scale. Not sure how anybody can deny that with a straight face.

Name recognition is meaningless. Id imagine Sochi was pretty unknown before the Olympics but I doubt people are lining up to visit now. The internet makes the world a small place. If there is something to attract people here people likely know about it. Its not like you see Nakiskas man made snow on TV and just have to visit.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Lol, Calgary puck is almost exactly opposite what the city as a whole decided. Interesting.

Mentioned earlier, I wonder if we can get poll numbers from recent accountings.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...bots-1.4894767

The majority of the scrubbed comments were in favour of a bid, the consultants said.

Voting bots are automated software programs that imitate human voters in online polls or surveys. The tools can be deployed en masse to input multiple responses to online forms if there aren't precautionary security measures like CAPTCHA codes in place.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1059932517078228992

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Doesn't CP also have a larger ratio of high income earners? Wonder if that comes into play.

[TheScorpion]

Here's a fun fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VANOC

"On January 30, 2009, VANOC announced its updated budget for the 2010 games. The operating budget was set at CAN$1.76 billion, with a contingency of $77 million.[5] This reflected an increase of $130 million over the $1.63 billion operating budget announced in May 2007..."

Initial stated budget for Vancouver: $1.76 billion
Final cost for Vancouver: over $7 billion (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle15036916/)
Change: 398%

Initial stated budget for Calgary: $5.11 billion (https://globalnews.ca/news/4649771/c...2026-olympics/)
Applying that change rate, the Calgary Olympics would cost $20.3 billion. That's obviously not and hard-and-fast way of looking at things but it's a damning indicator against a "model Olympics."

[Jbo]

Articles on post-game do not interest me as much as information on the impact to the local economy on the lead up to the games over the next 7 years. Are there any of those?

Calgary:
A city that already has issues with spending. Increasing Taxes. A province that can't get it's resource to market. No Arena. No Olympics. Declining job market. Corporate Vacancy rate.

Obviously the Olympics would not fix the issues, but damn it, would given us something to work towards. Something to be excited for and to look forward.

Honestly asking myself what keeps me in this city most days.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The Daily Mail isn't a super reputable source, so here's an additional one from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6453575.stm

Corroborates the story completely. 400% budget increase. If this were applied to Calgary, that would be in the "tens of billions" after all.

Haha, holy ####.

The revised budget is nearly four times the £2.4bn estimate when London's bid succeeded less than two years ago.

Construction is now budgeted at £5.3bn, there is a £2.7bn "contingency fund", and tax and security costs have risen.

[Senator Clay Davis]

In the end the City engagement portal was actually pretty accurate minus the bots.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The Daily Mail isn't a super reputable source, so here's an additional one from the BBC:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6453575.stm



Corroborates the story completely. 400% budget increase. If this were applied to Calgary, that would be in the "tens of billions" after all.

But the cost breakdown doesn’t show anything necessarily being wasted. They initially budgeted low on whatever the necessities were for the games and then it got inflated when they started building other infrastructure. Now if the cost overruns were all into security or some intangible, I would agree that it was a waste.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Initial stated budget for Calgary: $5.11 billion (https://globalnews.ca/news/4649771/c...2026-olympics/)
Applying that change rate, the Calgary Olympics would cost $20.3 billion.

I think this is actually realistic, which is why I voted no.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

You seriously don't think there was an avenue to getting an arena deal done with the Olympics?

Including CSEC kicking in some funds for a new arena and/or stadium would have given this bid the boot in the ass to push it over the finish line. No niche upgrades to Nakisha and Big 4 or whatever else, money for a real arena and field house and this thing passes easily.

Whether that's on the BidCo or CSEC I don't know. The whole thing is a shame really.

I think the main avenue to getting an arena deal done was by having upgrades done to McMahon for free (EDIT: for CSEC) would have helped placate CSEC on Plan B not having any solution for the Stampeders, which would help bridge the gap there. And the city getting it's main piece of sport infrastructure funded with the fieldhouse would mean there was wiggle room on their side to accept some costs as well. Going even deeper, the likely scope creep of the games would then involve the Saddledome's demolition being worked into Olympic costs (also helps bridge the gap between the city and CSEC)

Now there is no funding for a Stampeders solution leaving that issue out there. No funding for a fieldhouse, so that remains the city's main unfunded wish list item, and no potential ways to include anything with the Saddledome into potential Olympic costs, so we are back to zero there.

But it's nothing but cognitive dissonance to try and say the Olympic bid was rushed an unclear, but wanting the arena somehow wedged in at the last minute to save it.