[News] UPD: Calgary City Council approves exploratory bid study for 2026 Olympics

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Corral

Skogan pass is a major wildlife crossing route for the bow valley and we spent millions building an underpass for wildlife at deadman's flats with G8 money to help keep that route viable - i guarantee you there will be no development at Pigeon mountain or dead man's flats for an olympic bid.

the bow valley is overbuilt as it is ... hence any bid will have to use whatever facilities currently exist as is or renovated. No new footprints.

Yea, I grew up there. Most of the town is not in line with the Yellowstone to Yukon corridor guidelines as it lays today. From the silvertip golf course to the three sisters development would never have been approved with today's guidelines, let alone new alpine venues.

[speede5]

Why would anyone build a new arena for a Spengler cup caliber hockey tournament?

Unless the NHL commits to these games there is no reason to think the Saddledome would not be more than adequate.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by RM14

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...y-want-the-ioc



Interesting part of the article is the rumour of a private developer interested in building an arena already.

and this would be out of the goodness of their heart? they wouldn't do it if the majority of the benefit was to the city, I would think.

I also can't see the flames staying in Calgary if they don't control the revenue streams and instead have to pay a private company to be a tenant in a new building.

[CaptainYooh]

CMLC is not a private developer; it's an agency owned by the City. Of course, CMLC is "interested" in building a new arena to serve as a catalyst of the new district. They can't and won't do it without a signed new deal with the Flames.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

and this would be out of the goodness of their heart? they wouldn't do it if the majority of the benefit was to the city, I would think.

I also can't see the flames staying in Calgary if they don't control the revenue streams and instead have to pay a private company to be a tenant in a new building.

The NHL is in several cities where the owner doesn't control the arena as well. If there was a brand new arena in the city and the only issue was that flames ownership didn't get every penny from it the board of governors wouldn't care enough to allow the flames to move. They care about maximizing hockey related revenue, a new arena of any kind allows them to do this while also taking out the only argument they have to move the team.
The ownership group could elect to sell the team in that scenario, but I think it is borderline impossible that the team moves if there is any type of new arena.

[CliffFletcher]

Warrener touched on it this morning on the radio, but when does the public get a say in all this? Once the bid has so much momentum that it will be impossible to stop?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Warrener touched on it this morning on the radio, but when does the public get a say in all this? Once the bid has so much momentum that it will be impossible to stop?

That's typically how it works. Do you remember 1988? There were groups opposed too, but they were drowned out and came out much too late.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by speede5

Why would anyone build a new arena for a Spengler cup caliber hockey tournament?

Unless the NHL commits to these games there is no reason to think the Saddledome would not be more than adequate.

If the games are in North America the NHL will be going.

[Fire]

The NHL might say, if no new arena, then no NHL players. Though if the NHLPA really wants to go, they will negotiate Olympic participation in their next CBA. How badly do the players want to go to the Olympics? What are they willing to give up in negotiations in order to go?

[868904]

Originally Posted by Fire

The NHL might say, if no new arena, then no NHL players. Though if the NHLPA really wants to go, they will negotiate Olympic participation in their next CBA. How badly do the players want to go to the Olympics? What are they willing to give up in negotiations in order to go?

Why does the PA even want to go? It's only for a select group of the membership, plus it's not like they get paid or the PA gets any revenue out of it.

Sure the PA came out and said how disapointed they are that the NHL decided not to go this year, but it's really just the PA taking a shot at the NHL in the public relations battle. What does the PA have to gain in going to the Olympics?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

for those who like the idea of hosting a games on the cheap and spending as little as possible.
Are you worried at all that the cheapness of the games will reflect poorly on the host city?
some people seem to almost think that a bit of paint and sprucing up of the 1988 infrastructure will go a long way.

If you're going to host the games, don't do it halfway. present your best image to the world or don't do it at all.

Come on Calgary. you're dressing up for a hot date with the world. don't show up in sweatpants and a stained undershirt.

spend the money. build fancy new stuff.

I'm imagining you as the guy making 55k a year with a 600k mortgage and a 50k car loan because he has to try to keep up his image.

If a venue from 1988 will still work, why bother building a new one? Tearing down a perfectly functional arena to build a shinier one with more ####ters would be ridiculously stupid.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by 868904

Why does the PA even want to go? It's only for a select group of the membership, plus it's not like they get paid or the PA gets any revenue out of it.

Sure the PA came out and said how disapointed they are that the NHL decided not to go this year, but it's really just the PA taking a shot at the NHL in the public relations battle. What does the PA have to gain in going to the Olympics?

2 week paid vacation for the players not attending.

The PA could have attended the upcoming games in exchange for extending the current CBA for 2 years. They declined.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

If a venue from 1988 will still work, why bother building a new one? Tearing down a perfectly functional arena to build a shinier one with more ####ters would be ridiculously stupid.

I really think that in our lifetime we will see a complete shift away from publically funded arenas and stadiums. The overall tax burdens of society are eventually going to cause people to realize taxes are for essential services not nice to haves.

Or we will be watching death races and building islands for things like the Hunger games.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Toonage

2 week paid vacation for the players not attending.

The PA could have attended the upcoming games in exchange for extending the current CBA for 2 years. They declined.

They get paid by the game so its not exactly a paid vacation.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I'm imagining you as the guy making 55k a year with a 600k mortgage and a 50k car loan because he has to try to keep up his image.

If a venue from 1988 will still work, why bother building a new one? Tearing down a perfectly functional arena to build a shinier one with more ####ters would be ridiculously stupid.

the city will need a new arena. by the time the 2026 Olympics comes around, saddledome will be what, about 43 years old?

if i'm the guy living beyond my means for "image" (which I'm not)
you must be the guy with money who wears his skidmarked ripped up old underwear because it still holds in your sack.
it may still work, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't replace it.

assuming Calgary gets the Olympics, why not do it now when it would be paid for with three levels of government money?

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by speede5

They get paid by the game so its not exactly a paid vacation.

Poor wording on my part, yes. It was me sarcastically saying they get a 2 week break.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

the city will need a new arena. by the time the 2026 Olympics comes around, saddledome will be what, about 43 years old?

if i'm the guy living beyond my means for "image" (which I'm not)
you must be the guy with money who wears his skidmarked ripped up old underwear because it still holds in your sack.
it may still work, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't replace it.

assuming Calgary gets the Olympics, why not do it now when it would be paid for with three levels of government money?

I wasn't aware Calgarians are immune from paying provincial and federal taxes.

Frankly I think it projects a far better long-term image that you can host an Olympics without having to be financially put over a barrel.
The Los Angeles bid for the summer games are being roundly applauded for proposing the same kind of frugality and venue-recycling being proposed for Calgary so what exactly is the problem? Whatever international impression people have about the Games good or bad is going to dissipate within two years anyway when the next Olympics come around as the new shiny object to dangle in front of a cat.

And this doesn't even factor in the World Cup that's likely going to be dropped onto us in the same year as these hypothetical Olympics anyway - an event that's going to be directly competing for those same provincial/federal dollars everybody seems to be counting on going for this Olympic bid.

[CliffFletcher]

I guess the question is what is the appeal of hosting an Olympics in the first place.

To demonstrate to the world that you're a modern, attractive, big-league city?

Getting infrastructure upgrades paid for by higher levels of government?

Some kind of duty to the athletic community - somebody has to host these things, so we'll take the hit this time?

Something else?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

I wasn't aware Calgarians are immune from paying provincial and federal taxes.

no. but city dollars are coming from your pocket. at least the provincial and federal monies are from a broader base of taxpayers, so your individual burden would be less.

I'm not a fan of the Olympics and don't think Calgary should bid.
but if they intend to, I think this is the best chance for the people of Calgary to get an arena and pay the least amount for it.

The saddledome may be fine now, but I don't think it will be 10 years from now. so why not have funding for it wrapped up in the Olympics?

[moncton golden flames]

i heard an interesting idea yesterday regarding hosting the olympic games. what if there were 6 cities that the games would rotate thru on a regular basis? this would ensure the infrastructure investments would be used again in the future, and with regular upkeep could be a tremendous cost savings. i think we are already seeing this as evident based on the comments that some of our existing facilities are still 'good to go' from the ioc perspective.

example: calgary 2026, innsbruck 2030, nagano 2034, lake placid 2038, oslo 2042, beijing 2046, calgary 2050, etc....