[Rumour] Calgary preparing for 2026 Winter Olympics bid. May open door to CalgaryNEXT funding

[Looch City]

Man I can't imagine what the Red Mile would be like for the hockey games.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Maybe, but most WCs happen every year which makes the Olympics more special. The qualifying is certainly less stringent in the Olympics, but winning the gold is arguably harder.

I am interested in your reasoning on this.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Independent auditors did.

Yep. It was audited. But that isn't my point. Not going to geek out, but I think they use nonprofit fund accounting rules...means you have different pools of funds for different activities. There is a set of financials for each fund showing revenues and expenses. This cbc article shows the "operating budget" numbers. And they perfectly balance. Of course they do, because someone has to pay for the expenses. Lots in there from Canada and BC governments. And that is just the operating budget. The "Venue" fund is another fund that is used for site development. Lots in there from the governments too.

Check out page 18:

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/reports/201...rt_English.pdf

It's just who had to pick up the unpaid bills (taxpayers....which they did). I am not against gov't spending on olympics....there is some future net benefit. But saying they "broke-even" is disingenuous. This particular fund broke even.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

yes

London 2012 made money. Vancouver was close.

Olympics arent the money pit theyre made out to be unless youre communist or 3rd world.

Rio will lose a fortune. Pyeongchang will be fine.

I haven't found too much regarding the London Olympics making money.

In my brief search I found this accounting site's take. http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/artic...success/533157

It was obviously done right after so its tough to gauge how it has done over the last few years. Interesting to note though, is this:

But it also comes down to how you choose to crunch the data. When accounting for the cost of hosting an Olympics, most countries (including the UK) have treated the cost of constructing facilities and infrastructure, together with security and other ancillary costs, as being separate from the cost of running the games itself.

Many of the cities claiming success have quite skewed numbers as they fail to adjust for taxpayer contributions or other government funding.

I also find it interesting that the only games since 2000 to make a profit (according to the Wikipedia article) was Salt Lake City.

I would love the olympics. I went to a few hockey games in Van (including Can v Rus) and had a great time. I also find the Olympics a far greater time if you travel to them. Its more of a vacation/party than staying at home.

I also remember reading somewhere that Nakiska could not host the downhills anymore because the IOC slope requirements have changed... Is that true?

Based on that, as well as the countless research that suggests all the benefits of the olympics are outweighed by the cost, I would rather have them somewhere else.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Folks, there's a reason why sensible democracies like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway are backing out of Olympic bids. This isn't 1988 anymore. The cost of these global events is enormous, and becoming attractive only to dictatorships and authoritarian oligarchies. I get that ignoring the bad and hoping for only the good is part of the makeup of being a sports fan. But we're talking billions and billions of dollars here. Don't let the prospect of two weeks of happy feels saddle your kids with a public fiscal hangover that will last decades.

The Bidding For The 2022 Olympics Is A Disaster Because Everyone Figured Out That Hosting Is A Total Waste

lol

You speak for all northern European nations now?

I am going to go out on a limb and make two bold and crazy predictions:

1) the Olympics don't die anytime soon, and

2) at least one of the countries listed above will host them again

[polak]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I also remember reading somewhere that Nakiska could not host the downhills anymore because the IOC slope requirements have changed... Is that true?

I believe it is.

Louise is a world cup course though and we have a fenced, two lane, divided highway all the way there.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Yep. It was audited. But that isn't my point. Not going to geek out, but I think they use nonprofit fund accounting rules...means you have different pools of funds for different activities. There is a set of financials for each fund showing revenues and expenses. This cbc article shows the "operating budget" numbers. And they perfectly balance. Of course they do, because someone has to pay for the expenses. Lots in there from Canada and BC governments. And that is just the operating budget. The "Venue" fund is another fund that is used for site development. Lots in there from the governments too.

Check out page 18:

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/reports/201...rt_English.pdf

It's just who had to pick up the unpaid bills (taxpayers....which they did). I am not against gov't spending on olympics....there is some future net benefit. But saying they "broke-even" is disingenuous. This particular fund broke even.

Umm... a budget is a tool. Furthermore, a budget is imaginary and made up. I would explain a budget as being lines in a coloring book. It's there to guide proper allocation of colors and resources, but the moment you decide to "draw outside the lines", it's useless.

Example: If I budget $1500 for a tv, I have created an imaginary boundary for which to work with. The budget hence becomes completely useless if I decide to blow $5000 on a home theatre system.

Of course the budget will balance. No one generally wants to put together a budget that doesn't balance. Doing so is the equivalent of saying you want to operate with a flawed set of boundaries to work with (ie: spend more than you have or will receive on purpose). I guess you could even say it's the equivalent of a quantified business plan. Back to the home theatre example, no one will say, "I have $1500 in the bank for a TV, I will budget to spend $5000".


Not going to discuss fund accounting. It's pretty much the equivalent of consolidated statements though in a nutshell.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Maybe, but most WCs happen every year which makes the Olympics more special. The qualifying is certainly less stringent in the Olympics, but winning the gold is arguably harder.

For the most part, and in most sports both Summer and Winter, I believe the qualifying criteria and methods are pretty much the same for both a World Championship or an Olympic Games.

I'm racking my brain and can't really think of any that are "easier" or less stringent.

The days of Eddie the Eagle are long gone.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by polak

I believe it is.

Louise is a world cup course though and we have a fenced, two lane, divided highway all the way there.

Nakiska was a compromise site anyways 30 years ago because people didn't want events held in a National Park. Obviously that mindset has changed and Lake Louise is a darling event on the calendar.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Umm... a budget is a tool. Furthermore, a budget is imaginary and made up. I would explain a budget as being lines in a coloring book. It's there to guide proper allocation of colors and resources, but the moment you decide to "draw outside the lines", it's useless.

Example: If I budget $1500 for a tv, I have created an imaginary boundary for which to work with. The budget hence becomes completely useless if I decide to blow $5000 on a home theatre system.

Of course the budget will balance. No one generally wants to put together a budget that doesn't balance. Doing so is the equivalent of saying you want to operate with a flawed set of boundaries to work with (ie: spend more than you have or will receive on purpose). I guess you could even say it's the equivalent of a quantified business plan. Back to the home theatre example, no one will say, "I have $1500 in the bank for a TV, I will budget to spend $5000".


Not going to discuss fund accounting. It's pretty much the equivalent of consolidated statements though in a nutshell.

Ya...i meant operating fund not operating budget. But thanks for the notes on how a budget works!

And no....fund accounting is not pretty much the equivalent of consolidated statements. Its actually the opposite almost conceptually in this case. There are separate funds for each activity...operating, venue development, etc. They are self balancing. The operating fund (the one mentioned in cbc article) is exactly balanced ("break-even!!!"), but this is achieved through funding ("revenues!!!") from another source ("the government...dammit"). And does not include the juicy stuff...the venue development costs which are shown in the Venue Fund. But you could consolidate them, and then it could result in a deficit at the government level depending on other fudgery pokery ("government owned assets!!!").

[Tyler]

LOL at the 40+ crowd saying no to hosting the Olympics after they all got to enjoy it in 88.

Seems about right for this site.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Tyler

LOL at the 40+ crowd saying no to hosting the Olympics after they all got to enjoy it in 88.

Seems about right for this site.

Whoa whoa. I want Calgary to have it. (says guy over 40 living in different country)

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Tyler

LOL at the 40+ crowd saying no to hosting the Olympics after they all got to enjoy it in 88.

Seems about right for this site.

I'm the exact wrong age for this. I was only 14 in 1988, so I was too young to really enjoy the full party; and I'll be 52 in 2026, so I'll be the creepy old guy enjoying the party then.

I still support going for it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

That was in 1988. Right now the only major thing Calgary needs desperately to fix is Crowchild/Bow, and that's probably a $2 billion project. So obviously that's not getting tied in. Green line is already happening, so is the Ring Road. Other than that? Can't think of anything badly needed.

You're thinking about our needs now, not in 11 years. I can forsee the 8th Ave subway and airport rail connection being well due by that time (I personally think 8th Ave subway is overdue already and massively underprioritized). And even if you still think they're luxuries, they'd be damn good luxuries to get done.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Tyler

LOL at the 40+ crowd saying no to hosting the Olympics after they all got to enjoy it in 88.

Seems about right for this site.

I didn't get to experience it since it was before my time, so eff yeah I want this if it doesn't break the bank.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by SebC

You're thinking about our needs now, not in 11 years. I can forsee the 8th Ave subway and airport rail connection being well due by that time (I personally think 8th Ave subway is overdue already and massively underprioritized). And even if you still think they're luxuries, they'd be damn good luxuries to get done.

Yup, those are the two big transit projects that would probably get funded as part of an Olympic preparation. Definitely the Airport C-Train link.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tyler

LOL at the 40+ crowd saying no to hosting the Olympics after they all got to enjoy it in 88.

Seems about right for this site.

I wouldn't say that at all. Some of the most crusty posters around here when it comes to taxpayer money going into anything sports related are the younger ones. I'm all for getting another Olympics as it's something you always remember and it's arguably the most special event a city can host.

[#-3]

The timing is really good.

For Ice sports.

Calgary next, Major Arena and Stadium will be brand new.
The Saddle dome could be maintained as a secondary arena for figure skating and/or curling.
Winsport rinks provide another great surface, with 1/4 of the seating capacity for events that don't need 18K + tickets.
The Oval will need a big push.

For Skiing/Snowboarding,

COP could be effective for some of the freestyle events with little upgrades.
Lake Louis has a large upgrade on the books and could easily incorporate downhill events.
X-country not really a big issue.
The jumps will need a complete make over.

For Sliding

A complete upgrade will be needed

For politics and public infrastructure

The IOC is more unlikely to be corrupt right now than ever. So bribery etc from competitive bids is not likely to be an issue.
The LRT expansion should be happening by then, and might just see an extra push to get done sooner.
If we are lucky might push the Air Port spur.
The major Air Port upgrade will be fairly fresh.
I see the Athletes village being the biggest issue.
Its about the right timing for completion of the ring road

Things to budget for that aren't going to happen anyway
Up keep of the Saddledome as a rink for 3 or 4 years.
Early completion of the ring road and green line
Rebuilding the Oval, Slidding Track and Ski Jumps
An Airport LRT Spur
Improved X Country facilities
An Athletes Village/Media Pavilion.

That would probably make for a pretty cheap Olympic bid, and I think you could argue the merits of 4/6 on their own even without an Olympic Bid.

[Strange Brew]

The Olympics in Calgary were incredible. I was in college at the time (enjoyed the long breaK0 and am thankful for the experience. A big yes to Calgary going for it again.

As for the debate about Olympics making money/ breaking even etc. Unfortunately there is no universal agreed upon measure for assessing the profitability of an olympics. To me, it all comes down to how much money the taxpayer is having to kick in to fund the public portion of the bill. The long term effect is hard to quantify but I believe it is real.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Medal Plaza: Olympic Plaza already exists, no new costs.

Agree with most of your list, except for this one. Olympic plaza is one tired dog with all that cold concrete, fake roman columns, and bunkery hills. It may have been ok in the 80s, but holding ceremonies there would be kind of embarrassing considering how future-facing Olympics tend to be.

I think is primed for redevelopment into something much higher quality, and an Olympics could be the catalyst to do that. In my dream costs-be-damned scenario, Macleod Trail in front of city hall is dropped below grade, and we connect Olympic Plaza/Stephen Ave with the city hall plaza to create one big gathering space.

There is actually already talk of tunnelling through City hall to East Village and upgrading McLeod Trail to more of a scenic boulevard. Upgrading Olympic Plaza as well makes sense.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tegy-1.3220225