New Olympic Bid for Calgary?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So basically the article is something to the effect of...

"Private group who stands to financially benefit from hosting the Olympics, continues to hope we host them. More news at 11..."

Seeing as we've established a standard now, I'm fine with the same cycle again: Plebiscite first, and if it passes, then an actual bid. But it seems like this is much ado about nothing seeing as even the mayor has no idea what this is.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577418195589529600

Wasn't extremely poor communication one of the big downfalls of the last bid? Off to a rousing start if this is another attempt.

I’m anti plebiscite. We elect politicians to make this type of decision for us. Even the highly aware person isn’t really informed to make this decision.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m anti plebiscite. We elect politicians to make this type of decision for us. Even the highly aware person isn’t really informed to make this decision.

While I agree for the most part. Some things, and I consider hosting a sporting event to be one of them, is outside the mandate of elected officials.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Weitz

While I agree for the most part. Some things, and I consider hosting a sporting event to be one of them, is outside the mandate of elected officials.

Organizing the event is definitely out of their mandate, but let's just be clear; the thing they would be voting on is whether the city of calgary should devote funds to hosting the olympics here. So, you are implying you don't want elected officials to vote on/decide whether to use city funding for an activity, just because it's a sporting event?
Who should decide the use of city funds and facilities then?

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by Weitz

While I agree for the most part. Some things, and I consider hosting a sporting event to be one of them, is outside the mandate of elected officials.

Bad take

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Organizing the event is definitely out of their mandate, but let's just be clear; the thing they would be voting on is whether the city of calgary should devote funds to hosting the olympics here. So, you are implying you don't want elected officials to vote on/decide whether to use city funding for an activity, just because it's a sporting event?
Who should decide the use of city funds and facilities then?

A consistently under estimated boondoggle event? Yes. I probably should have been more clear in that I specifically meant the Olympics. It’s too much of a “legacy” event where costs aren’t managed and estimated properly. My opinion of course.

I imagine a large % of people who voted no did so on the fact of the high chance of severe cost overruns. I suspect they are quite happy given the events of the last 2.5 years.

[powderjunkie]

The real question here is who will be drawing a big cheque to sit on this committee. Sounds right up Steve Allan's alley.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The trouble with relying on Federal money for your games is you are using up your federal money for skating rinks and ski jumps when you should really use it for better rail access to the suburbs

What we really need is skating paths to the suburbs. Imagine skating all the way home on a smooth ice path?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

What we really need is skating paths to the suburbs. Imagine skating all the way home on a smooth ice path?

might be a tad pricey to keep that frozen in August

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

might be a tad pricey to keep that frozen in August

Let’s make it a canal and we can canoe home in August.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

What we really need is skating paths to the suburbs. Imagine skating all the way home on a smooth ice path?

I've considered XC skiing in to work on the major snow days, but the thought of taking my skis off for major road crossings usually bins that idea.

[Samonadreau]

You can probably take the original numbers and Double them right now to get true costs betweenn inflation/higher costs right now and the amount they undercut thr original numbers.

[getbak]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1585699512001368066


Full steam ahead for Calgary 2034!!!

[powderjunkie]

CGY+VAN joint hosting is the most sensible way for this to ever happen. Each city would end up with something similar to '88 in size. More events would happen in premium venues (more ticket revenue).

More complicated, but you'd also have 2 provincial gov'ts contributing, and there would be an even stronger argument for more federal funding since it wouldn't be just 1 jurisdiction reaping the benefits.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

CGY+VAN joint hosting is the most sensible way for this to ever happen. Each city would end up with something similar to '88 in size. More events would happen in premium venues (more ticket revenue).

More complicated, but you'd also have 2 provincial gov'ts contributing, and there would be an even stronger argument for more federal funding since it wouldn't be just 1 jurisdiction reaping the benefits.

I think that'd be a great idea. The oval is still a great facility for long track speed skating, and Vancouver's oval is now a convention centre. The bobsleigh here isn't feasible for olympics anymore, but Whistler sliding centre would still work fine. So there would be savings on putting events where facilities still exist.

Plus you have two NHL arenas which should be enough for Hockey/Figure Skating to all have large venues. Maybe even build a new rink here and don't demolish the 'Dome until after the games so we have 2 NHL size arenas here for the games.

[Reaper]

The IOC doesn't allow multi city bids, I can't see them acquiescing and allowing two cities that are 1000km apart to be the exception.

[_Q_]

The reason you hold an Olympics is so you can get government funding to build cool new facilities. Sharing a bid with Vancouver defeats that purpose.

Instead, you're holding a welfare Olympics in old buildings across 4 sites, in 2 different time zones. No thanks.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by _Q_

The reason you hold an Olympics is so you can get government funding to build cool new facilities. Sharing a bid with Vancouver defeats that purpose.

Instead, you're holding a welfare Olympics in old buildings across 4 sites, in 2 different time zones. No thanks.

Get the feds to pay for a new hockey arena and the Green line/LRT extension to the airport. Let Vancouver have the sled sports, etc.

Probably the IOC only bends if they can't find a host, which seems possible to me given the overruns in the recent past. I think the timezone alone would be attractive for them.

[Muta]

Calgary is very much an attractive destination for the IOC. Timezone alone means better TV eyes in the North American market and attractive sponsorship. This was the case for the 2017 bid - the IOC was all in on Calgary, from what I remember.

[Manhattanboy]

I’m for hosting the Olympics as long as the IOC is not involved.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Get the feds to pay for a new hockey arena and the Green line/LRT extension to the airport. Let Vancouver have the sled sports, etc.

Probably the IOC only bends if they can't find a host, which seems possible to me given the overruns in the recent past. I think the timezone alone would be attractive for them.

I mean, a shopping cart wish list is nice I guess. But I can't see that happening.

As it was for the Calgary preliminary bid, the Feds were out on covering any overrun liability and the IOC seem to be getting less and less interest as people wake up to the fact that host cities end up left holding a bag of debt with the inevitable cost overruns from low balled promotional monorail bid organizers.

If this was the best potential host the IOC was banking on . . .

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ysis-1.6632412

After more than a year of sitting on the sidelines, the B.C. government entered the Olympics debate — and promptly ended it.

But the lack of support means there's no financial backer to take on the billions of dollars of potential liabilities in infrastructure and security the games would likely cost. There's been no interest shown by the federal government in taking on that full responsibility.

Over time, other countries dropped their bids or became ensnared in controversy, and the International Olympic Committee moved back its time frame on announcing the winner, in part to give the potential B.C. bid more time to come to a positive conclusion.

It had gotten to the point where Vancouver was seen as a favourite to get the games — if it put forward an official bid.