Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

maybe in 5000 seat arena...maybe.

But there is zero chance S. Korea vs Denmark sells out something the size of the dome.

Hell...in 88 i remember a ton of empty seats for W.Germany/Czech game i attended. And there were future NHLers on most clubs.

It would sell out because they lottery the tickets before the schedule comes out if they follow Vancouver’s process. This means for round Robbin you have an equal chance at Denmark or Canada. Now you could hedge and expect that the Canada games will be the 5 or 8 o clock games to up your odds but tickets will be sold in 2024 well before schedule, teams or nhl participation is determined and men’s hockey will have 3-4 ticket buyers for every seat.

[Snuffleupagus]

After voicing my opinion and why my no vote to a city "guy" tonight I was told that 5,000-seat arena will grow to 20,000, you can take that to the bank. of course being a politician just a grin followed when I asked to elaborate.

[Northendzone]

New trails and rec spaces. I missed that in the proposal. Can you expand?

Originally Posted by craigwd

+ upgraded conference and convemtion center space
+ new day lodges for rec use
+ upgraded training and fitness facilities
+ a massive upgrade of McMahon Stadium with a new plaza, concourses and ticketing areas
+ new ice plants
+ updated trails and recreation spaces
+ enhanced safety and accessibilty improvements for those in wheelchairs or have mobility issues.

To me it is laughable that bidco can find cost overrrun insurance. If they did, it would likely cost $0.98 to get a payback of $1.00 and the premiums would be due immediately so the insurer can make a ton of money on interest spread as they pretty much are buying a claim.

The miscommunication thing is laughable. This is a $5 billion dollar project and it seems the folks at bidco seemingly can’t or have simply forgotten to make phone calls......where is the Picard facepalm.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

New trails and rec spaces. I missed that in the proposal. Can you expand?

Was referring to page 34 of the draft plan:
https://www.calgary2026.ca/wp-conten...sed.Sept27.pdf

Improvements to the terrain, training gyms and facilities and day lodges at COP, Nordic Centre and Nakiska.

[tkflames]

I can't see cost overrun insurance being available as it is imagined. Bidco will need to put a lot of skin in the game for a private insurance to come on board...something along the lines of:

$1B deductible (I.e. the first $1B is covered by the government). Then for every $1M over that, insurance will pay for $200k up to $30M for a premium of $20M....numbers may change but the product could not really be better than this.


What insurance *may* cover is the security risk. E.g. for $XXM insurance would cover any additional security requirements in excess of budget+deductible resulting directly from an immediate threat or world event preceeding the Olympics. I.e. Bidco bets that security would be the same or less cost as it would be today and insurance bets that there are no major events that would change the security budget. Again, put yourself in the shoes of the insurance company, how much money would you need up front to bet that security requirements in 8 years are not vastly different than today. For me personally to hedge that bet, I would ask for billion(s).

I do believe that out of everything the security budget is the biggest unknown without any legacy value (unless calgary becomes the global hub of security technology going forward). Projects scopes can be added, deleted and modified as the budget and local conditions allow. Realistically speaking you could host geto Olympics without any upgrades to any facility and there is not a lot that the IOC could or would do about it. I also believe that the security hedge should be covered by the federal government, whereas the infrastructure hedge should be covered by the provincial/municipal governments. This is not the deal I see on the table right now...

[CaptainCrunch]

Does anyone think that "Cost Over run insurance" would be impossible to get, especially when you add the line "Its for the Olympics". And any insurance would be extremely costly?


Like I said before, this whole bid process just feels like a bunch of shady insurance salesman selling street insurance pulling figures and facts out of their butts.


I'm not opposed to the Olympics coming back to Calgary, I would vote no to this current group being involved in any way.



Like I said before, if the No vote wins, do a mass firing of Bidco, put together a group and look at a Olympics a couple of cycles down the road, and actually get this right.

[GGG]

This insurance thing is really just designed to lower the city contribution on paper.

The city is not meaningfully impacted by a 200 million dollar overrun on the Olympics. It can easily be accommodated within the city budget. The real concern would be the 1 billion dollar or more over run which no one is contemplating insuring around. What really is happening here is that the city did not want to include this contingency money in the bid.

If you don’t believe the insurance is credible than assume a 570 million contribution by the city. If the feds are covering any inflation in security costs than the biggest unknown unknown item is off the table and the bidco estimate is probably reasonable.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by GGG

This insurance thing is really just designed to lower the city contribution on paper.

The city is not meaningfully impacted by a 200 million dollar overrun on the Olympics. It can easily be accommodated within the city budget. The real concern would be the 1 billion dollar or more over run which no one is contemplating insuring around. What really is happening here is that the city did not want to include this contingency money in the bid.

If you don’t believe the insurance is credible than assume a 570 million contribution by the city. If the feds are covering any inflation in security costs than the biggest unknown unknown item is off the table and the bidco estimate is probably reasonable.

And we know that the federal government has said no to cost overruns. Unless you believe BidCo over the federal government, then they are covering it

[getbak]

The Herald has clarification (sort of) of the cost-overrun issue: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ebiscite-looms



The Ministry of Sport says that they won't cover any cost overruns, but that only applies to the capital costs. The security budget is a separate issue and falls under the Public Safety Canada department.

“BidCo is responsible for keeping the budget in line, and Mary’s been very consistent in saying that,” Millar said. “That’s why she will always say there a contingency fund of a billion dollars and there’s 25 to 30 per cent contingency on each project, so there’s your double layer of protection.

“But you can’t mix overruns on capital and overruns on essential services and security,” he added. “They’re two different buckets.”

On Twitter, Coun. Gian-Carlo Carra said there is no connection between the federal ministry of sport “and its contribution to the games and the RCMP and CSIS and their duty to provide security.”

“The security budget is the RCMP’s and the duty to come in on budget is theirs. But by all means let’s clarify,” he said, adding there is “no structural mechanism” for Calgary “to be on the hook for security cost overruns.”

[Bunk]

People are also conflating what constitutes “going over budget”. When games have gone over, it’s primarily because they’ve added a whole bunch of new projects and counted them as Olympic costs - for example Vancouver adding a $2b transit line is not the type of thing you’re insuring against - it would, from my understaniding is, it would be more like the Field House, budgeted at $250m, costing $275m in the end. Or basic hosting costs going 10% over budgeted. In other words, adding an arena would not be having “$500m in cost overruns”. That would just be our choice using a venue we’re building aside from the games.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by getbak

The Herald has clarification (sort of) of the cost-overrun issue: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ebiscite-looms



The Ministry of Sport says that they won't cover any cost overruns, but that only applies to the capital costs. The security budget is a separate issue and falls under the Public Safety Canada department.

So is there a commitment from the federal government to cover the security cost overruns? Because they will happen.

Edit: It looks like Public Safety has clarified their position and cost overruns for security will be the city’s responsibility.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-cost-overruns

Now, how many yes voters think that $500mm is enough for security? And if overruns are the responsibility of the RCMP and Public Safety, why are they even including a base cost in the bid? Some councillors have said it’s the feds responsibility to keep Canadians safe and used that to sell the low bid and interpretation on overruns, so wouldn’t that apply to the whole cost of security then?

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

One thing I can assure you of is that Whistler/BC will not be adding a dime to this and will be spending as much free money as possible.

So why are we giving Whistler part of the games if they won't pony up some cash for it. Tell em to pound sand IMO.

Every day this bid has increased my frustrations and solidifying my no vote.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

So why are we giving Whistler part of the games if they won't pony up some cash for it. Tell em to pound sand IMO.

Every day this bid has increased my frustrations and solidifying my no vote.

Simply, it's much cheaper than building a brand new ski jump facility. Is it ideal? no, but it's a pragmatic solution to reduce cost. , cost is not a City of Calgary taxpayer cost, either. It will be games revenue and Federal security costs. It's also not really a marquee event like the Gold Medal Hockey game.

Also, having some specific events away from the host city is not uncommon. Equestrian in 2008 was in Hong Kong, Soccer in London was all over England.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Simply, it's much cheaper than building a brand new ski jump facility. Is it ideal? no, but it's a pragmatic solution to reduce cost. , cost is not a City of Calgary taxpayer cost, either. It will be games revenue and Federal security costs. It's also not really a marquee event like the Gold Medal Hockey game.

Also, having some specific events away from the host city is not uncommon. Equestrian in 2008 was in Hong Kong, Soccer in London was all over England.

How do you know it's cheaper though? You have no idea if it will be cheaper. Whistler hasn't agreed to anything yet. I'm sure their philosophy will be no different than ours...let's get as much free money as possible. They've already said they want us to pay for their new housing project. They've already casually mentioned a pretty long wish list.



Equestrian events were held in Hong Kong because it was the only safe place for foreign horses to be. They had already established quarantine locations there from their horse racing industry so it was actually the only place they could safely hold those events.


And the London venues were at least relatively close to London. You could still fly to London and drive to most of those events. As well the main matches were in London including the medal games. And they still had to shrink the venues because they only sold about half the tickets. I think at one point soccer was the only event to not sell out.



Having to fly to Whistler will cost ticket sales for sure. If you're flying there to watch your kid jump you're not going to pick up a couple casual tickets for the other events a two hour drive and an hour flight away.



It just seems painfully obvious to me. If you don't have a higher level of government that agrees to fund cost over runs like the BC government did in 2010, you do not do this.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

So why are we giving Whistler part of the games if they won't pony up some cash for it. Tell em to pound sand IMO.

Every day this bid has increased my frustrations and solidifying my no vote.

Everyday when I read all the planning and accountability that’s going into a financially responsible games, it solidifies my YES vote.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Simply, it's much cheaper than building a brand new ski jump facility. Is it ideal? no, but it's a pragmatic solution to reduce cost. , cost is not a City of Calgary taxpayer cost, either. It will be games revenue and Federal security costs. It's also not really a marquee event like the Gold Medal Hockey game.

Also, having some specific events away from the host city is not uncommon. Equestrian in 2008 was in Hong Kong, Soccer in London was all over England.

Somewhere in the bid they say they save 50 million by hosting in whistler. I think the better move would be to tell the IOC that ski jumping will not be in the Olympics.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Everyday when I read all the planning and accountability that’s going into a financially responsible games, it solidifies my YES vote.

Can you point to ANY examples of accountability that has been demonstrated so far? Because at this point, BidCo can't tell us who is going to pay for what and can't even provide a definite way that the games would be hosted.

[chemgear]

From the Herald article.

2026 Bidco lowballed their "estimate" the day of the No vote to keep it alive and claimed the Feds were going to pay the overrun. The Feds are say nope, and we are still thinking it's "a little item" along with all the financial confusion (lies?)

Spokesperson James Millar insisted comments made by Duncan only apply to capital costs, not any additional security overruns.

“Nothing has changed with respect to our comments,” Millar said in e-mail Sunday, when asked about Public Safety Canada’s position that Duncan’s comments stand.

Coun. Shane Keating, who also sided with Chahal in last Wednesday’s council vote, said Calgary 2026 has made clear to councillors that security costs aren’t the city’s problem, and that he was operating according to that understanding.

“The whole package has to be a deal breaker, not one or two little items,” Keating said.

No matter which public entity picks up the tab for potential overruns, citizens will still have to pay, said Concordia University sports economist Moshe Lander.

[chemgear]

I didn't get a chance to watch the full City Hall record with Bidco originally.

$200,000,000 in insurance that does not exist.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/com...he_concept_of/

"For 3 yrs we've been exploring the concept of insurance for cost overruns, yet here we are 3 yrs later still unknowing what those costs will be and how they will be used."


The lowballed security estimates claim that somebody else will pay. Clearly an issue with the Feds saying they won't pay.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/com...ncil_that_the/

Umm awkward. Interesting to see how Bidco went after people to vote to keep the process going no matter what.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/com..._out_of_a_lie/

[Hockeyguy15]

So we still have no more info on the insurance other than the "we are looking into it" from the presentation last week, and now Bidco is saying security overruns are paid by the feds but the feds say that it isn't their problem.

I'm not sure how anyone can be confident with the numbers in that budget as it sounds like BidCo is either lying to us or they are incompetent.