Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

So the latest proposal has the feds paying less money than before and the city paying more......how exactly is this a good idea for Calgarians?

I am not certain, but I believe it is the elimination of the 50/50 requirement in which the city and province need to match the federal amount. In order for this to happen, the city or province was going to have to increase contribution, and the province made it it clear there is no way they would. So it is good for Calgarians, I guess, in that we didnt have to quite top up our contribution to the full 50/50, which would have been 800million from us I believe? And the overall cost estimate has come down by $125 million, mostly in security cuts?

Either way, I agree with the sentiment a couple posts above- it is the fiasco and nonsense over the last few days that has me firmly in the no camp.

[Northendzone]

to quote a friend of mine - this whole thing is more effed up than a homemade radio

[RinkRat]

I get a kick out of the creative accounting going on here, they trimmed down the security budget to less then half of what the Vancouver games were in 2010, and less then what they spent on a 2 day summit this year in Quebec which was 700 million. Security in 2010 was over a billion when it was all said and done.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

We found "efficiencies" in the budget! We're saved!

Originally Posted by RinkRat

I get a kick out of the creative accounting going on here, they trimmed down the security budget to less then half of what the Vancouver games were in 2010, and less then what they spent on a 2 day summit this year in Quebec which was 700 million. Security in 2010 was over a billion when it was all said and done.

Yeah....I was reading through that and I have a bad feeling about this.

Once again, I think we're going down the road of 'Scratch and Dent Bin' Budget Olympics and there are a lot of things about that really concern me.

Primarily the lack of lasting legacy infrastructure. If we dont get that then whats the point? I can do without the party. We want roads, LRTs, an Arena, etc.

Secondly, the City is on the hook for cost overruns. There will be cost overruns. Olympic cost overruns are so absolutely certain that they come right after 'Death and Taxes.'

I really dont want to be on the 'World Stage' with events being held in 40 year old buildings that we slapped some lipstick on and where event security is essentially just Ol' Gil with a white hat telling you that he was a security guard back in '88 too but he misplaced his flashlight.

So whats the alternative? We blow the budget out of the water as it slowly dawns on us that the budget hashed out in 2018 is patently unrealistic as we near 2026? So we just suck up the additional costs?

Or do we diligently stick to the budget and bounce on the Devil?

Like I said....I've got a bad feeling about this.

I really, really want to vote 'Yes' but its not checking any of my boxes in terms of priorities.

[gasman]

The other piece that no one has mentioned is the accuracy of the so called Estimate.

At this point very little detailed planning has gone into what actually needs to be done for renovations or new facilities, sure they have some broad understanding of the projects they need to do, but they aren't in a position to have a firm estimate for the work.

Contingency isn't a slush fund for going over budget. It is an amount that is included in all estimates that is expected to be spent, it just hasn't been allocated to a specific cost bin. Including contingency this estimate is at best +/- 50%.

They have taken the optimistic/ignorance approach to this estimate and it is most certainly guaranteed that the cost of this Olympics will be much higher than advertised.

[FLAMESRULE]

Piece of anecdotal level of support...but my MP (Len Webber) sent out his monthly letter today with last months "poll question". The question was:

"At an estimated cost of $3 Billion to taxpayers, would hosting the 2026 Olympics in Calgary be a good investment?"

No: 80.1%
Yes: 14.5%
Undecided: 5.4%

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by gasman

At this point very little detailed planning has gone into what actually needs to be done for renovations or new facilities, sure they have some broad understanding of the projects they need to do, but they aren't in a position to have a firm estimate for the work. .

Um, how sure are you about that?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Um, how sure are you about that?

How much does Whistler want?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by RinkRat

I get a kick out of the creative accounting going on here, they trimmed down the security budget to less then half of what the Vancouver games were in 2010, and less then what they spent on a 2 day summit this year in Quebec which was 700 million. Security in 2010 was over a billion when it was all said and done.

To be fair, we're kind of land locked. It's not like we have the same security concerns as Vancouver. Nobody can torpedo us from the ocean or catapult sharks at us.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

To be fair, we're kind of land locked. It's not like we have the same security concerns as Vancouver. Nobody can torpedo us from the ocean or catapult sharks at us.

They could. They'd need a mighty catapult though. Everyone knows that this would be a job for a Trebuchet!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Don't forget Sharknados. But in all seriousness, finding efficiencies in the most wildly unpredictable variable line item is impressive, if totally not believable. All it will take is one major terrorist event on North American soil within a few years of 2026 for the security cost to explode. Or maybe nothing happens and it goes down. But it is far too unpredictable an item to find efficiencies in.

[Northendzone]

so from this letter https://www.calgary2026.ca/wp-conten...CLEAN-2200.pdf

$1,000,000,000 in wages for 15,400 jobs - which means about $67,000 per job.

congrats to the organizing committee for finding fat in security costs. Perhaps they should add an income line item for proceeds from the magic beans they are going to sell....#gongshow

[442scotty]

Can’t wait to vote this craziness down. Between the Olympics and the crazy $$ art crap people need to wake up and vote some of these clowns out of office.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Can’t wait to vote this craziness down. Between the Olympics and the crazy $$ art crap people need to wake up and vote some of these clowns out of office.

Yes....Office needs an entirely new set of Clowns.

[troutman]

I think the IOC is running out of suckers. We could really wait them out for a better deal.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I only want the games to go ahead if it the cost-benefit is positive for each of the country, province and city.

Government on the hook for $3b.

- subtract what city needs to spend on infrastructure anyways (0.5b-1b)
- subtract income tax collection on costs and multipliers (0.7-2b)
-subtract income tax from tourism and ticket sales ($0.1m)

Conclusion: It won't break even. So ioc needs to contribute about more until it looks fair. This is what fair looks like to me based on back of envelope net benefit calculations:

Province: $0.8
City: $0.5
Feds: $1.0
Ioc: $1.8
Tickets: $1.1

What's interesting in my back of envelope math of net benefit to province ($0.8b) is similar to what they offered ($0.7b). So they might have made their offer based on similar calculations.

Part of me hopes the world has no Olympics in 2026 so ioc is embarrassed and forces member countries to do major overhaul of the corrupt ioc and fifa.

Wow...pretty close on the provincial and municipal funding amounts.

City: $465m actual vs $500m estimated
Province; $775m vs $800m estimated
Feds: $1.4 vs $1b estimated

Which therefore suggests the answer is that (1) the feds are going to subsidize the games to the tune of $400m and (2) the remaining amount is coming via cost cutting.

Still would have rather the bid team went back and asked the ioc for the additional $400m rather than have the feds pony up the cash

[ken0042]

Does anybody know what the TV contracts are worth, and the difference between NHL players going to the Olympics, and the current contract?

I am just wondering if there is a significant difference between an Olympics out of sync with North American time zones and not having NHL players; and one that is in North America with NHL players.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Piece of anecdotal level of support...but my MP (Len Webber) sent out his monthly letter today with last months "poll question". The question was:

"At an estimated cost of $3 Billion to taxpayers, would hosting the 2026 Olympics in Calgary be a good investment?"

No: 80.1%
Yes: 14.5%
Undecided: 5.4%

I like that Lenn Webber sends those cards out and all, but that is a really loaded question.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by RM14

I like that Lenn Webber sends those cards out and all, but that is a really loaded question.

It is a better question than "Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics?" with no mention of cost.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Does anybody know what the TV contracts are worth, and the difference between NHL players going to the Olympics, and the current contract?

I am just wondering if there is a significant difference between an Olympics out of sync with North American time zones and not having NHL players; and one that is in North America with NHL players.

This will be a financial disaster without the NHL, the revenue model collapses when you have to start charging market rate to watch Rene Bourque versus McJesus. Probably a 60% decline in revenue from the hockey event, at least.