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

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I don't know about that Cliff, there were as many negative as there was positive things about Rio in these games, and skilled labor(IT staff) is not really that cheap in Brazil, certainly not compared to low cost centers like Bangalore or San Jose(Costa Rica). London was already on the map.

Sorry, I should have used green text.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, and the operation of the federal government includes paying for stuff in their jurisdiction, which is the entire country. You can give me another civics lesson if you like, but that's the deal.

No, the operation of the federal government includes paying for stuff in their jurisdiction, which includes national defence, immigration, customs and immigrations, maintaining a viable currency, looking after fisheries and oceans, etc., etc. – and does NOT include areas of jurisdiction specifically reserved to the provinces. The federal government is not entitled to spend any amount it likes on anything it pleases, just because the object of that spending happens to be located within the borders of Canada.

You flunk the civics lesson. Try harder next time.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sorry, I should have used green text.

lol, i kind of thought so....

[JohnnyT]

Some spit balling going on at /r/Calgary about what facilities in the city could be renovated or upgraded for use in 2026 and what would need to be built new. Biggest issue seems to be the lack of rinks beyond the Saddledome that can be used for men's and women's hockey group play, curling, short track speed skating and figure skating.

Here's the list of venues from 2010 for comparison sake

[Freeway]

Max Bell and the Markin MacPhail Centre at Winsport could be used.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Max Bell and the Markin MacPhail Centre at Winsport could be used.

Those two facilities combined only hold 5000 people.

But maybe smaller scale is better.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Those two facilities combined only hold 5000 people.

But maybe smaller scale is better.

When tickets for the Vancouver Olympics were released to the public months before the beginning of the games, demand was so high that they instituted a nationwide lottery for their distribution. ALL tickets to ALL events were gone within hours.

A smaller scale is definitely not better. It is probably not even entirely feasible.

[Kavvy]

Trevor Tombe
‏@trevortombe
To say Calgary's 1988 Olympics "made money" is false. Here's the data (as best as I could reconstruct). #yyc #ableg

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/stat...560763904?s=09

[Robbob]

If the Olympics happen then a new arena would be built in some form so the saddledome could be kept operational for a few years to leverage it for all the figure skating and short track speed-skating. Corral is around 7k and could potentially renovated for curling (man could they ever use new seats. Pretty much a good chuck is already close to usable. The only thing I can't speak to is the oval. The 2k current capacity is a long way off.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/stat...560763904?s=09

Vancouver had a similar argument. VANOC broke even, but that was just operating the Olympics. Didn't include costs from city/province/feds.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

When tickets for the Vancouver Olympics were released to the public months before the beginning of the games, demand was so high that they instituted a nationwide lottery for their distribution. ALL tickets to ALL events were gone within hours.

A smaller scale is definitely not better. It is probably not even entirely feasible.

A smaller scale IS more profitable. The ticket costs don't outweigh the costs of constructing a venue. If you can't add seats through temp seating in an existing space it likely isn't a good idea.

I'm not sure if the numbers are out there but the Vanoc curling building was entirely a temporary facility (I think). So if you could ever parse the numbers out on tickets vs Cost that would be one to look at.

Also you can charge more if the venue is smaller as well.

[powderjunkie]

Ticket sales seemed totally irrelevant in Rio based on the number of empty seats.

I'm not old enough to know what preceded the Olympics, but there are at least a few things on the right side of that chart that continued to generate revenue (or were sold to private) after the Olympics.

Paskapoo Slopes may not have survived as a standalone operation, and might be another cookie cutter community right now.

Canmore Nordic Centre - coming up on 30 years of world-class facility (in NA terms). Annual competitions

Nakiska - wouldn't exist. Say what you will, it's a nice family hill. Anyone have details on sale to RCR (or someone else first)?

Oval - Mostly just a training grounds, but the facility is useful for other events (ie. science fair) and the city can use as many regular rinks as it can get.


All of the above are important for training, but bring other benefits too. Of course, they probably could have been achieved cheaper...but unlikely without a catalyst.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Empty seats ≠ Tickets not sold. Lots of tickets were sold (or disbursed) in Rio, but that doesn't mean people used the tickets. More than likely scalpers (like the IOC) couldn't move all their tickets, which also contributes to empty seats. Everything I've read is that ticket sales reached the 80% level they wanted.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Empty seats ≠ Tickets not sold. Lots of tickets were sold (or disbursed) in Rio, but that doesn't mean people used the tickets. More than likely scalpers (like the IOC) couldn't move all their tickets, which also contributes to empty seats. Everything I've read is that ticket sales reached the 80% level they wanted.

I remember reading somewhere that the big sponsors (Pepsi, McD's etc) get a ton of tickets. They generally take clients etc. Apparently they weren't coming to Rio which is why many venues were empty (and obviously why dude was scalping)

Not sure how many tickets they would get, and I am assuming they didn't pay for them.

In any event, ticket sales are probably not a major source of revenue, but i could be wrong.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/stat...560763904?s=09

This is a beautifully constructed piece of information.

However I see a different conclusion. The Calgary Olympics did make money. I equate making money with operating revenue. Basic rules for accounting does for the most part as well. Go check out any company's income statement. You won't find capital investments on there. You will find depreciation, which I guess is one thing technically missing from saying that '88 generated a $32M profit.

The '88 Olympics made a profit and spurred a $405M capital investment.

There is no debating that unless you want to get picky (e.g. depreciation). The only thing that should be up for debate is whether that $504M capital investment was a sound investment.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

This is a beautifully constructed piece of information.

However I see a different conclusion. The Calgary Olympics did make money. I equate making money with operating revenue. Basic rules for accounting does for the most part as well. Go check out any company's income statement. You won't find capital investments on there. You will find depreciation, which I guess is one thing technically missing from saying that '88 generated a $32M profit.

The '88 Olympics made a profit and spurred a $405M capital investment.

There is no debating that unless you want to get picky (e.g. depreciation). The only thing that should be up for debate is whether that $504M capital investment was a sound investment.

Good old difference between cash flows and income

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

When tickets for the Vancouver Olympics were released to the public months before the beginning of the games, demand was so high that they instituted a nationwide lottery for their distribution. ALL tickets to ALL events were gone within hours.

A smaller scale is definitely not better. It is probably not even entirely feasible.

I'm not sure making the facilities bigger changes this though. You will still have a lottery and demand likely still outstrips supply. It will be that way for any Winter Olympics in Canada.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I'm not sure making the facilities bigger changes this though. You will still have a lottery and demand likely still outstrips supply. It will be that way for any Winter Olympics in Canada.

Spot on. Which is why you shouldn't size your facilities to maximize profit during the games. Ideally, you should size your facilities to maximize return on that facility's capital cost over the life of that asset.

Sure dropping $50M on a new curling facility would generate more curling ticket revenue during the Olympics than repurposing Max Bell for $10M, but unless that extra Olympic ticket revenue is $40M (doubtful), then you better make sure that facility generates $40M of profit (present valued) over its lifetime.

Those numbers are obviously just total assumptions to make the point.


It all comes down to my new favorite Olympics mantra courtesy of GGG: "The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price. The worst case is you get infrastructure you didn't want at an inflated price."

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

This is a beautifully constructed piece of information.

However I see a different conclusion. The Calgary Olympics did make money. I equate making money with operating revenue. Basic rules for accounting does for the most part as well. Go check out any company's income statement. You won't find capital investments on there. You will find depreciation, which I guess is one thing technically missing from saying that '88 generated a $32M profit.

The '88 Olympics made a profit and spurred a $405M capital investment.

There is no debating that unless you want to get picky (e.g. depreciation). The only thing that should be up for debate is whether that $504M capital investment was a sound investment.

I guess in your point of view, assuming all the facilities were well worth investments for the future of the City/province, the Olympics made $68.5 mill ( [facilities costs + net profit] - [ Federal/Provincial/City money + Other Federal Activities])?

The problem with Olympics 2.0 here is, if we can't refurbish what we have, will we gain as much as we have existing facilities i.e. the Olympic oval and Nordic center may not be up to Olympic snuff (I have no idea) but they are infinity better then nothing which was here prior to 88 (we have less to gain as our starting point is higher).

Personally, I am not sure where I fall. I am OK with the money the city is spending on this so far, and hope for detail public reports.

[Frequitude]

No, in my point of view the Olympics made $120.5M in operating profit ($559M -$96M - $78.4M - $65.4M - $62.2M - $42.4M - $94.1M) and caused a capital infrastructure investment of $405.4M.

I do not have the information on whether or not we received a decent return on that investment since I don't have all their revenues, expenses, sustaining capital, and incremental economic activity generated over the years available. My gut tells me, however, that it was an incredibly profitable investment.