Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Joborule]

From the responses on this forum, it seems that if the new arena simply was part of the funding, a bunch of people who aren't in favour of the bid, will switch in being so. Kinda amazing how literally one thing that's part of this could have such significant impact on people views towards it.

And the responses to the report from the mayor and some councillors indicate that they would rather put money in a new arena for the Flames, than build a smaller scale arena for the university.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

Let’s skip the Olympics and build the infrastructure we need.

If only it actually worked this way, but it sadly seems that things never actually happen without a catalyst.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by GGG

Let’s skip the Olympics and build the infrastructure we need.

You can fund the infrastructure we need with 100% Calgary taxpayer money or build that same infrastructure partially funded by the IOC and games revenues.

The IOC and games revenues are projected to give Calgary $2.2 billion. We would also get money from the federal and provincial government that would have otherwise never came our way.

[zhulander]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

You can fund the infrastructure we need with 100% Calgary taxpayer money or build that same infrastructure partially funded by the IOC and games revenues.

The IOC and games revenues are projected to give Calgary $2.2 billion. We would also get money from the federal and provincial government that would have otherwise never came our way.

IOC and games revenue only fund operational costs, any shortfalls from this budget will be passed on to the public. All the capital costs are publicly funded.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by zhulander

IOC and games revenue only fund operational costs, any shortfalls from this budget will be passed on to the public. All the capital costs are publicly funded.

And it breaks down to 50% from the feds, and the rest split between the City and the Province (probably down the middle).

Which would you rather have? Ottawa and Edmonton helping with the funding? Or just Calgary?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by zhulander

IOC and games revenue only fund operational costs, any shortfalls from this budget will be passed on to the public. All the capital costs are publicly funded.

The IOC only contributes around $800 million. The other $1.4 billion of revenue Calgary is free to use on infrastructure together. Also the provincial contributions.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Considering security is gonna cost a minimum of $1.25 billion, I'm not exactly sure where the $1.4 billion Calgary is free to spend on infrastructure on is coming from. But look, I've said this before, but if you wanna go with "I want the party" take, I actually respect it. Don't like it, but respect it. But the attempts to deceive with the patently false/unprovable financial "benefits" as to why to host are not worthy of respect. It's a ploy to cover up the real reason, to get the party. Because I strongly suspect if the final bid is a dud for infrastructure, the supporters here won't change their mind. This pathetic bid this week kind of shows you that, as supporters have stretched and digged for every possible way to say this bid is "good" when it's clearly not. The saddest part for supporters is unless you are rich, you better like cross country skiing and bobsleigh, because tickets to the top events will barely be available at face value, but plentifully available for 3-5 times face value (the IOC hordes all the best tickets, this is not something unknown either).

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by GGG

But we don’t get new facilities to develop amateur atheletes. Things like the sliding Center and Windsport have proven they are able to find funding to maintain and upgrade their facilities. The oval and Canmore Nordic Center are no different.

So what do we get for facilities to help develop amateur atheletes for our .5 to 1.5 billion dollars? We get a fieldhouse. That’s it. Everything else has proven itself capable of being funded and maintained. So if it’s amateur athletes you want to support let’s spend 200 million of a field house and 100 million on a legacy fund and call it a day.

The Olympics are a bad value based on what we get for infrastructure even if the federal funding comes from the money fairy. Let’s skip the Olympics and build the infrastructure we need.

Ask any high performance athlete on the state of the current facilities and whether they are enough. Yes, you're right that eventually they receive a little bit of funding but it's never enough for a true upgrade and overhaul.

Bob Niven training house at Winsport is ancient, the sliding track has been refurbished with stop gap fixes all over, Canmore Nordic Centre has obsolete work out facilities, the Olympic Oval has needed a new ice plant and mechanical equipment for about 10 years now.

Funding for true upgrades just never comes and is never stable. The priority this bid gives will bring the facilities up to par and ready for training for the next several dozen years.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

You can fund the infrastructure we need with 100% Calgary taxpayer money or build that same infrastructure partially funded by the IOC and games revenues.

The IOC and games revenues are projected to give Calgary $2.2 billion. We would also get money from the federal and provincial government that would have otherwise never came our way.

The IOC grants do not even cover the operating costs of the games let alone security or infrastructure.

Provincial money spent on the Olympics is defiantly coming out of Calgary’s future infrastructure grants. I get the money fairy arguement for federal dollars as we wouldn’t see those but it’s still a myopic argument. At minimum you need to count the provincial and city contribution

Aren’t you in general an anti-taxation fiscal conservative? How can a fiscal conservative make the money fairy argument? It’s an abandonment of conservative principles.

[Muta]

One of the reasons Calgary will have an advantage over other bidders is because of the North American TV time slots. Many of the big broadcasters have pressured the IOC for a North American Games due to this reason... the ratings are more lucrative, with live games in prime TV slots as opposed to odd hours.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by GGG

Aren’t you in general an anti-taxation fiscal conservative? How can a fiscal conservative make the money fairy argument? It’s an abandonment of conservative principles.

I wouldn’t support it if I didn’t consider it a good investment that progresses our city and province economically.

The city is going to spend money either way. They have a list of projects like the field house and infrastructure upgrades to existing facilities on the way. If we can get some financial support for these projects then we should take it.

The federal government has money earmarked for events in Canada. If it doesn’t get spent in Calgary, then it will get spent somewhere else. Maybe next year Victoria or Quebec city will announce a bid for the commonwealth or Panam games or something and they won’t worry about spending money.

Neither the federal government or the provincial are in the business of saving money. Why stop going our ever growing debt for something that will leave a legacy in our city and give our city and province an economic boost such as job creation and tourism dollars.

[zhulander]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

The IOC only contributes around $800 million. The other $1.4 billion of revenue Calgary is free to use on infrastructure together. Also the provincial contributions.

I think you have been misinformed:
https://www.calgary2026.ca/s/BidCo-H...dWebSept10.pdf


Page 11, 12, The $1.4 billion is not for Calgary to freely use, it's for operations of the games alone.



Page 76 for full government funding requests.

[Flamenspiel]

^^THanks for posting that

There is a key little tidbit in section 2.1 Roles and Responsibilities matrix(page 71):

"..The funding decisions will be made during the negotiations of the multi-party agreement.."

If the HOSTCO and the City of Calgary(two of the parties) are on the same page this is where the Legacy decisions will be made. Despite the fluff in the earlier sections, I don't believe that any of this money is pinned down. In the case of Vancouver, the VANOC chairman was very clearly working closely with the city to make sure it would work out after the games.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Joborule

From the responses on this forum, it seems that if the new arena simply was part of the funding, a bunch of people who aren't in favour of the bid, will switch in being so. Kinda amazing how literally one thing that's part of this could have such significant impact on people views towards it.

And the responses to the report from the mayor and some councillors indicate that they would rather put money in a new arena for the Flames, than build a smaller scale arena for the university.

I'm one of those guys for sure.

I like the idea of hosting, but I'm not supportive of hosting if we don't come out of it with an infrastructure legacy.

Hosting the Olympics needs to come with at a minimum; buildings you could imagine the Flames and Stamps occupying past 2040, and The motivation to get transit project done (Green Line, LRT Spur). Otherwise it is a wasted opportunity for those of us who will live in Calgary after the Olympics.

[Ozy_Flame]

Relevant article from the Globe and Mail:

How the numbers add up for Calgary’s 2026 Winter Olympics bid

[zhulander]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And it breaks down to 50% from the feds, and the rest split between the City and the Province (probably down the middle).

Which would you rather have? Ottawa and Edmonton helping with the funding? Or just Calgary?

Would prefer not hosting at all if the only necessary infrastructure for Calgary post Olympics to come out of this is a field house.


From your Globe and Mail Article:
"Changing costs are as much an Olympic staple as pin trading. Mr. Gauld insisted that every Olympics “since the 1960s has been more than 130 per cent over budget.”"


Better visual of the Estimated vs Final Olympic costs here:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/sout...f-hosting.html


Bidding for an Olympics would have been great 8 years ago, accelerating and getting federal funding for legacy infrastructure projects in Calgary. Possibilities would have included new NHL arena, field house, green line LRT, Airport LRT, possible LRT to MRU, Airport International terminal upgrade, SW ring road, East Village development, possible West Village development, Crowchild Tr upgrades, etc.


At this point in time, the bid report is no good and it's really hard to justify hosting.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by zhulander

Would prefer not hosting at all if the only necessary infrastructure for Calgary post Olympics to come out of this is a field house.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/sout...f-hosting.html

South Korea - and Sochi - presented their own unique challenges, building net-new facilities to accommodate. IOC has changed their position on this for 2026, being more apt to working with rehabbed facilities (even with a Whistler component for ski jumping which is still functional). Keep in mind that Calgary isn't going to have a "white elephant" situation that Pyeongchang and Sochi did; this is an atheltic training grounds with proven facilities to be used for long-term gain well after the games are concluded.

And where is this narrative that all Calgary will have to show for it is a "field house"? This is falsetto on all fronts. Existing facilities will be upgraded rehabbed to not only handle crowds and usage, but also to meet compliance around venue and facility sizing that has changed since 1988.

If you are talking about "new facilities" then yes, we are getting a new field house (in addition to other things). Thre is the possibility of working in a Flames arena too (depending on how you see the proposed new community arena). But you can't discount all the upgraded facilities and infrastructure that we get. It is short-sighted at best.

And to say that federal funding eight years ago would have gotten funding for those things is a straw-man argument. You're just throwing out major infrastructure projects and hoping they stick without providing any evidence that such projects would have been funded eight years ago (what Calgary-bid committee are you referring to that articulated these would be covered?)

[DiracSpike]

And to say that federal funding eight years ago would have gotten funding for those things is a straw-man argument. You're just throwing out major infrastructure projects and hoping they stick without providing any evidence that such projects would have been funded eight years ago (what Calgary-bid committee are you referring to that articulated these would be covered?)

To be fair you're kind of doing the same thing by repeatedly adding the possibility of an arena deal even though one doesn't exist.

For what will surely be over 1B of City money people want something more than a fieldhouse and piecemeal upgrades to niche sport centers. They just do, and for that amount of money they should.

[Flamenspiel]

^^So you think that an arena deal is more likely without the Olympics? I just cannot see that point of view and I don't understand it.

Is there any sign that the Flames or the city will come off their current positions? That sounds like pie in the sky thinking and its kind of the view that Eric Francis seems to be pushing on the radio, its very odd. I can understand someone who is against any sort of government spending being against this, but i do not agree that government money will be spent on Calgary in lieu of the Olympics(on the arena or any other social goodies). That is just not happening in the current political climate and maybe never.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

^^So you think that an arena deal is more likely without the Olympics? I just cannot see that point of view and I don't understand it.

Is there any sign that the Flames or the city will come off their current positions? That sounds like pie in the sky thinking and its kind of the view that Eric Francis seems to be pushing on the radio, its very odd. I can understand someone who is against any sort of government spending being against this, but i do not agree that government money will be spent on Calgary in lieu of the Olympics(on the arena or any other social goodies). That is just not happening in the current political climate and maybe never.

Oddly enough I heard Eric Francis on the radio the other day and it seems he agrees with you, that an arena deal is more likely with the Olympics. He is very strongly pro-Olympics.

I don't know if it makes it more likely or not the way things stand. I was hoping that some aspect of this bid would include Federal dollars for an arena and stadium but that didn't happen. If that had been the case I'd be voting Yes for the Olympics but that isn't the reality of the situation right now, and conjecture and hand waving over the possbility increasing isn't enticing to me because if they had solid plans to include those features the bidco would have done so. The real "pie in the sky" is hoping this makes any difference to that situation in the face of no evidence.

I agree that we're unlikely to get any Federal money without an Olympics but that money isn't going to anything exciting, as evidenced by this underwhelming bid. Because Fed money is more or less "found" money I'm going off the tab to the city and comparing to what we would get otherwise since we have more control over those and they don't come from a money fairy. For 1B city contribution we get a field house and piecemeal upgrades to other sport facilities. That doesn't seem like a good bargain.