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

[Senator Clay Davis]

There is no sweet deal from the IOC out there. Christ their own members are engaged in ticket scalping. The IOC is one of the worst, most corrupt organizations out there. I'd like to host the Olympics without the IOC, helping those #######s become richer is just not appealing.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The Olympics are an event that will bring the world to Calgary and will showcase our city. Calgary Next is a private venue for a for-profit corporation which won't have much benefit to the people of Calgary. The Olympics could generate millions in revenue to all sorts of industries in Calgary and area not to mention the future venues for junior athletes.

Isn't everyone guaranteed to lose money when they host Olympics ?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Isn't everyone guaranteed to lose money when they host Olympics ?

Revenue =/= profit

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Isn't everyone guaranteed to lose money when they host Olympics ?

Dealing with the IOC is certainly a major pitfall of hosting the Olympics. I'm not totally for hosting the Olympics again but in terms of public funding I would rather see tax dollars put towards the Olympics and new venues over the proposed CalgaryNext development.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Isn't everyone guaranteed to lose money when they host Olympics ?

Maybe everyone except the members of the IOC. Not all Olympics are money losers as Calgary and Vancouver did quite well.

[Enoch Root]

When people talk about losing money on the Olympics, it is important to keep in mind that a lot of infrastructure gets built and included in the costs.

The 'profit' on the games shouldn't work from a starting point of zero, it should work from a starting point of what the cost of that infrastructure would have been on its own. (Only infrastructure that would have been built anyway should count of course).

Some cities actually make money. Some don't. I think Calgary would. However, even if they lost a bit, being left with billions of dollars of new infrastructure, along with lots of athletic legacy, is well worth it.

Especially when one also remembers that much of the funding comes from federal and provincial coffers. And its nice to see some of those funds come to Calgary instead of Quebec for a change. Because those funds would get blown somewhere, regardless.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The Olympics are an event that will bring the world to Calgary and will showcase our city. Calgary Next is a private venue for a for-profit corporation which won't have much benefit to the people of Calgary. The Olympics could generate millions in revenue to all sorts of industries in Calgary and area not to mention the future venues for junior athletes.

This is ridiculous.

So, you're willing to fork over hundreds of millions/billions into "showcasing our city" with a horrifically corrupt organization...but don't want to help invest in a venue that would benefit events/culture/athletes for our citizens?

The slamming of a "for profit corporation" you lay down while backing the IOC is...absurd.

It seems insane to be to be onboard with one, and against the other.

Some cities actually make money. Some don't. I think Calgary would. However, even if they lost a bit, being left with billions of dollars of new infrastructure, along with lots of athletic legacy, is well worth it.

Just like if the city were to contribute to Calgary NEXT, we'd be left with a world class venue for athletics/events etc.

[polak]

You're grossly over estimating the "value" citizens of Calgary will get from CalgaryNEXT.

What value do you think we would see from CalgaryNEXT that we're not already getting from McMahon and Saddledome? A shopping district that <1% of the city will use since there's no parking? A fieldhouse that will play second fiddle to both of the professional sports teams needs and again, suffer from the problem of no parking (Gonna take your training equipment on the train?)

The benefits from an Olympics are exponentially greater than a bloated, poorly thought out, glorified YMCA with an arena attached to it for Calgary's wealthiest businessmen to profit from, and I say that as someone who doesn't have an issue with tax payer money funding some of the new arena.

[Erick Estrada]

Where are you getting this "no parking" thing from? First I have heard of no parking being available.

[iggyformayor]

Originally Posted by polak

You're grossly over estimating the "value" citizens of Calgary will get from CalgaryNEXT.

What value do you think we would see from CalgaryNEXT that we're not already getting from McMahon and Saddledome? A shopping district that <1% of the city will use since there's no parking? A fieldhouse that will play second fiddle to both of the professional sports teams needs and again, suffer from the problem of no parking (Gonna take your training equipment on the train?)

The benefits from an Olympics are exponentially greater than a bloated, poorly thought out, glorified YMCA with an arena attached to it for Calgary's wealthiest businessmen to profit from, and I say that as someone who doesn't have an issue with tax payer money funding some of the new arena.

A huge number of concerts and events that will never come to Calgary with our current facilities? A truly well developed west end of down town that is currently filled with a bloated car dealership and drug infested greyhound station? An awesome area to go and enjoy a dinner and beer along the river? I don't know. There really must be no benefits at all...

[Senator Clay Davis]

We have a thread for discussing CalgaryNEXT already. Feels like we're just retreading conversations from that thread in this one.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

We have a thread for discussing CalgaryNEXT already. Feels like we're just retreading conversations from that thread in this one.

Pretty much. I wonder where would the opening ceremonies be held? I assume McMahon would be expanded again for the opening/closing ceremonies because the proposed field house doesn't look able to expand up to 50k.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Dealing with the IOC is certainly a major pitfall of hosting the Olympics. I'm not totally for hosting the Olympics again but in terms of public funding I would rather see tax dollars put towards the Olympics and new venues over the proposed CalgaryNext development.

I think that we will begin to see a progressive change in the way the IOC conducts business over the course of the next decade. Several potential host cities have pulled their bids because of IOC corruption in recent years, and the controversies that have lingered over the Sochi Olympics and the Rio games are likely to force the governing body to recognise that the current model is unsustainable.

I would not expect the city of Calgary to make a bid unless they are comfortable with the commitment from the IOC.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think that we will begin to see a progressive change in the way the IOC conducts business over the course of the next decade. Several potential host cities have pulled their bids because of IOC corruption in recent years, and the controversies that have lingered over the Sochi Olympics and the Rio games are likely to force the governing body to recognise that the current model is unsustainable.

I would not expect the city of Calgary to make a bid unless they are comfortable with the commitment from the IOC.

The IOC will certainly have to make changes to the way they operate otherwise they might only have countries like Russia, China, Brazil, Venezuela and larger African nations interested in hosting the games.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The IOC will certainly have to make changes to the way they operate otherwise they might only have countries like Russia, China, Brazil, Venezuela and larger African nations interested in hosting the games.

I think that may be why Calgary has a chance. The IOC takes a year off from trying to get money from semi corrupt nations. Having it in Calgary gives them some credibility rather then chasing money in the same places. They need to let that well replenish itself.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The IOC will certainly have to make changes to the way they operate otherwise they might only have countries like Russia, China, Brazil, Venezuela and larger African nations interested in hosting the games.

Does the IOC care?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Does the IOC care?

They will have to eventually, and I think that tipping point is fairly close on the horizon. The fact that there were only two bids to host the 2022 Winter Olympics means that their supply of bidders is dwindling, and this is certain to bring down prices for the buyers.

[Freeway]

The challenge for the IOC is they're associated with publicly-traded brands like Coke and others. For optics alone, they'll need to change how they do business. Agenda 2020 is a first step, but I'm very skeptical of their follow-through.

[craigwd]

I believe Agenda 2020 will be a big factor when it comes to choosing the host city for 2024.
A lot of people paint everyone in the IOC as corrupt when it's hard to paint every single member with the same brush. They do seem themselves as the promoter of sport in the world, attempting to bring sport to places where it hasn't been before - that is the main reason China, Brazil and to a lesser extent, Korea have been chosen as hosts.

But I believe that the tide will turn again next year as the IOC looks at sustainability, longevity and public buy-in when it comes to choosing a host city. I saw Rome as the front runner (until their change in government) but now it could go to Budapest - both have plans to refurbish most of their existing facilities that are already being used and both have huge buy-in from the public.

[djsFlames]

Building facilities and infrastructure for the Olympics seems far more grandiose and enticing a prospect than building for the Calgary Flames / Stampeders / Local athletes. But i agree with the above poster in saying that you're not the brightest bulb if you're very against one and supportive of the other, seeing as, beyond the spectacle, both are working towards achieving practically the same thing. And will help facilitate virtually the same things, long term. And hold a lot of the same positives and negatives. And both have money hungry organizations/individuals that will be behind them. So.. um, yeah. Pick your poison pretty much. But if you want the city to escalate its game on the world map, either/both are worth jumping on.