2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[JagrBombs68]

The business tax info is pretty scary - big tax jumps, even without the Olympics, will fold some companies.
I think no matter the outcome of the plebiscite we are going to bid on the Olympics - they can always blame the voter turn out for being too low if the No vote wins. I hope if that happens the province holds to their guns and pull their funding, but don't think that will happen.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I'm amazed (and horrified) at the financial illiteracy of people these days. I shouldn't but I can see why so many people get into financial trouble and we see so many "Concrete Equity" scenarios.

How many courses on Public Sector Financial Management have you taken?

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by JagrBombs68

The business tax info is pretty scary - big tax jumps, even without the Olympics, will fold some companies.
I think no matter the outcome of the plebiscite we are going to bid on the Olympics - they can always blame the voter turn out for being too low if the No vote wins. I hope if that happens the province holds to their guns and pull their funding, but don't think that will happen.

Highly unlikely

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Highly unlikely

Curious as to why you say this, (you may be entirely right) but the whole "non binding" part of it certainly makes me believe that is a real possibility.

Its like the "super majority" that was required to kill it in council. I have no idea if thats common practice for this city, but when more councillors vote to defeat it rather than carry on, and it doesn't matter,,,,it gives me the feeling it is set up to ram it through almost regardless of any "conditions".

[nik-]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Curious as to why you say this, (you may be entirely right) but the whole "non binding" part of it certainly makes me believe that is a real possibility.

Its like the "super majority" that was required to kill it in council. I have no idea if thats common practice for this city, but when more councillors vote to defeat it rather than carry on, and it doesn't matter,,,,it gives me the feeling it is set up to ram it through almost regardless of any "conditions".

The provincial funding requires a yes vote.

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Curious as to why you say this, (you may be entirely right) but the whole "non binding" part of it certainly makes me believe that is a real possibility.

Its like the "super majority" that was required to kill it in council. I have no idea if thats common practice for this city, but when more councillors vote to defeat it rather than carry on, and it doesn't matter,,,,it gives me the feeling it is set up to ram it through almost regardless of any "conditions".

It required a super majority because they were trying to change an existing decision.. the next vote after the vote is just a regular majority requirement.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[RM14]

Originally Posted by nik-

The provincial funding requires a yes vote.

Exaclty.. It's only partially non-binding. If the citizens vote No, then it's over. If the citizens vote yes, City Council can still cancel the bid.

A No vote is binding.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by nik-

The provincial funding requires a yes vote.

Yes i am aware that is hat has been said...im just not sure that i believe that if there is a close vote or a very under represented one (unlikely at this point).

Its not like its above the sitting provincial government to go back on what they say.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes i am aware that is hat has been said...im just not sure that i believe that if there is a close vote or a very under represented one (unlikely at this point).

Its not like its above the sitting provincial government to go back on what they say.

It was a minority vote to even hold the plebiscite with that funding in place. What makes you think they would swing so hard in the other direction?

[Red]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im just not understanding how you can reconcile the first bolded part with the second one.

I understand the emotional reason to vote yes and even tried to talk myself into it that way, but the whole financial aspect is way way to shady to allow emotions over logic in regards to this for me.

Nothing to understand here.
I don't believe that a very accurate quote can be produced that much ahead, but I trust the people in charge that they will not go overboard. I accept some risk in miscalculations.

I also accept that a 'guestimate' has be produced to move forward with the bid. And any inconsistencies with such bid aren't necessarily fraudelnt or result of incompetence. I am not as cynical as some of you guys. Not that being cynical is a bad thing. It's actually good, we need checks and balances.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by nik-

It was a minority vote to even hold the plebiscite with that funding in place. What makes you think they would swing so hard in the other direction?

Found that interesting that Evan Wolley set a high threshold / super majority requirement to cancel the bid. I figure he knew his no vote would tip the 50/50 majority so he set it that high on purpose. He only wanted to show his "integrity" that he was voting No, but didn't want it really cancelled so he set the super majority rule to protect the bid while also being able to vote no for his personal reputation.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Red

Nothing to understand here.
I don't believe that a very accurate quote can be produced that much ahead, but I trust the people in charge that they will not go overboard. I accept some risk in miscalculations.

I also accept that a 'guestimate' has be produced to move forward with the bid. And any inconsistencies with such bid aren't necessarily fraudelnt or result of incompetence. I am not as cynical as some of you guys. Not that being cynical is a bad thing. It's actually good, we need checks and balances.

Cynicism and pessimism is the lifeblood of the No side in this whole thing. And from the looks of things its flowing really well.

My wife was hounded by a group of No folks while trying to go into a Shoppers drug mart yesterday.

[JBR]

Originally Posted by RM14

Found that interesting that Evan Wolley set a high threshold / super majority requirement to cancel the bid. I figure he knew his no vote would tip the 50/50 majority so he set it that high on purpose. He only wanted to show his "integrity" that he was voting No, but didn't want it really cancelled so he set the super majority rule to protect the bid while also being able to vote no for his personal reputation.

The 'super majority' rule does not exist. The rules are written into the City Charter. A regular motion takes a simple majority to pass, 8-7 for example. To reverse a previously passed motion (To continue the bid process), it requires 10 votes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So not sure anyone picked up on this from the Ernst and Young report, but apparently the BidCo is anticipating an average ticket price of $230 (in 2018 $). Considering the BidCo is touting that 70% of tickets will be priced under $150 and 20% will be under priced $40, that would suggest the average price for the top end events will be in the $500 range. So no shocker really, but this will pretty much be a pleb free event for the events people actually want to see.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So not sure anyone picked up on this from the Ernst and Young report, but apparently the BidCo is anticipating an average ticket price of $230 (in 2018 $). Considering the BidCo is touting that 70% of tickets will be priced under $150 and 20% will be under priced $40, that would suggest the average price for the top end events will be in the $500 range. So no shocker really, but this will pretty much be a pleb free event for the events people actually want to see.

perhaps the $500 range is the corporate sponsors tickets.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Nah, it's for things like hockey and figure skating, which they will be charging top dollar. Maybe even curling too with this being Canada. And they should too, maximize that cash if you know people will pay it. If they can get $500 (or more) a ticket average for hockey, then that's great, reduces the possibility of financial woe even if the average (or even above average) Calgarian will be totally priced out.

[RM14]

Also think of about triple the box suite sales with the coming New Events Center compared to the Saddledome. Inverted bowl for the Olympics, there will be no bad seats.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Nah, it's for things like hockey and figure skating, which they will be charging top dollar. Maybe even curling too with this being Canada. And they should too, maximize that cash if you know people will pay it. If they can get $500 (or more) a ticket average for hockey, then that's great, reduces the possibility of financial woe even if the average (or even above average) Calgarian will be totally priced out.

nah. not curling if it's in Lethbridge or area.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

nah. not curling if it's in Lethbridge or area.

In the unlikely scenario that Calgary does not have a curling venue, wouldn't Red Deer be better than Lethbridge?

[GullFoss]

Just out of curiosity, was the BidCo supposed to be neutral or was it always biased towards a "Yes" vote? And - regardless of your answer - it is biased to a "yes" vote.

And if the BidCo is biased, then why isn't it a stretch to say that they've spun the numbers of every report they've published (with or without the help of consultants) or every analysis is tilted towards a yes?

As someone whose worked over a decade Investment Banking, Equity Research and financial analysis (where we used external consultants), I can tell you - unequivocally - that I can present a strong financial argument for both a "Yes" and a "No." We often took the answer we wanted and worked backwards to get to the preconceived result. And the main reason we used external consultants is so that we had someone to throw under the bus if things went bad - which they often did, because we weren't searching for truth (we were providing justification for the actions our client wanted to take)

Trust me - the BidCo is doing the same thing - that's exactly why they're so easily able to get the "perfect answer" and find "win-win-win" solutions. The reason the cost overruns for events such as these are always high and always biased to being over-budget than under-budget is because the estimates are biased to the downside because those presenting the analysis are very, very biased.

Don't trust the politicians or the BidCo - they are biased and have a lot to personally gain by a "yes" vote regardless of the cost to everyone else.