Olympics 2026 Potential Bid Thread

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The new agreement, already signed by the Premier and the Federal Minister of Science and Sport, would result in $4.4 billion into the local economy, $1 billion in wages for Calgarians, 15,400 jobs against a City of Calgary investment of $390 million. In effect, Calgary gets $10 for every dollar it puts in. It is an excellent agreement, and better than could have been expected in all honesty. Summary here:
https://www.calgary2026.ca/wp-content/up...026-October-30-18-FINAL-CLEAN-2130-1.pdf

There is an extremely well funded no vote push also, led largely by the Flames ownership group, Brett Wilson, Kenney's extreme-right-wing faction, Postmedia ownership, Rick Bell, Farkas, Chu and Magliocca. They were all actually on the sidelines till the bid corp released their scope, which included using the Saddledome, and adding a mid-sized arena and field house at the university (an extremely prudent and ironically fiscally conservative plan). Ken et al. flipped their lid, and started pushing back, saying either that the money would be better spent on a Flames arena subsidy, or pushing the bid back to 2030, when it could include a new arena. Just ridiculous stuff, in all honesty.

Glad an exceptional funding agreement was achieved, and I hope we can land the games. Calgary's position looks extremely strong at this point.

I can only assume this is the hat you and your 5 cats wear everyday.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The new agreement, already signed by the Premier and the Federal Minister of Science and Sport, would result in $4.4 billion into the local economy, $1 billion in wages for Calgarians, 15,400 jobs against a City of Calgary investment of $390 million. In effect, Calgary gets $10 for every dollar it puts in. It is an excellent agreement, and better than could have been expected in all honesty. Summary here:
https://www.calgary2026.ca/wp-content/up...026-October-30-18-FINAL-CLEAN-2130-1.pdf

The value proposition of $390M resulting in a new fieldhouse, new mid-sized arena by the U, 11 refurbished Olympic calibre facilities, and over 1,000 low income housing units, not to mention $1B in wages and over 15,000 jobs, is huge. I see the detractors are not responding with actual data. It is telling.

[milomilo]

I'm not a detractor, but if you think those numbers are anything better than a good guess you are deluded. As someone else mentioned, what do you personally have to gain with your blind support of anything Nenshi? It's a bit cringeworthy.

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not a detractor, but if you think those numbers are anything better than a good guess you are deluded. As someone else mentioned, what do you personally have to gain with your blind support of anything Nenshi? It's a bit cringeworthy.

As someone who has seen many Olympics and the financial shenanigans that are involved. From my experience is that whatever number the host city throws out there, you can (almost) guarantee you should add 50% to 100% more on that total. Now this dosent always transpire, i'm just glad the Alberta Govt is holding the line on the financial support.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Black Star

As someone who has seen many Olympics and the financial shenanigans that are involved. From my experience is that whatever number the host city throws out there, you can (almost) guarantee you should add 50% to 100% more on that total. Now this dosent always transpire, i'm just glad the Alberta Govt is holding the line on the financial support.

But why? Only if you don't have scope control. Edmonton's arena is a perfect example, they set a budget and stayed within it. Sure, they have to change the cladding and flooring material, but it all worked out in the end.



Why do you expect our capital spend to be totally out of line?

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But why? Only if you don't have scope control. Edmonton's arena is a perfect example, they set a budget and stayed within it. Sure, they have to change the cladding and flooring material, but it all worked out in the end.



Why do you expect our capital spend to be totally out of line?

I personally hope you guys get the Olympics.

But as for the capital spending to be out of line......I don't know forsure. Just from what I've seen and experienced in the past that this could happen.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But why? Only if you don't have scope control. Edmonton's arena is a perfect example, they set a budget and stayed within it. Sure, they have to change the cladding and flooring material, but it all worked out in the end.



Why do you expect our capital spend to be totally out of line?

Because that's what happens in the real world? . What has been presented is a complete bargain basement of an Olympics which will likely be an embarrassment if they don't improve it, of course the scope will increase

[MalcolmTucker]

I just don't see the types of projects being contemplated being high risk.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because that's what happens in the real world? . What has been presented is a complete bargain basement of an Olympics which will likely be an embarrassment if they don't improve it, of course the scope will increase

If the city decides to build a new football stadium, instead of refurbishing McMahon, I don't view that as an Olympic cost overrun. That is a choice, and the cheaper option is always on the table. Same with if the mid sized arena money is all of a sudden going to a Flames arena. The entire capital spend is higher, but that doesn't make the higher capital spend an Olympic, or public, capital spend.

[milomilo]

What makes our Olympics so different to the rest, which almost always overspend?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the city decides to build a new football stadium, instead of refurbishing McMahon, I don't view that as an Olympic cost overrun. That is a choice, and the cheaper option is always on the table. Same with if the mid sized arena money is all of a sudden going to a Flames arena. The entire capital spend is higher, but that doesn't make the higher capital spend an Olympic, or public, capital spend.

The public will see it that way, and it still basically overspend. The Olympics people are voting for will not be the Olympics people get, so it's dishonest to present the cost as final.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The public will see it that way, and it still basically overspend. The Olympics people are voting for will not be the Olympics people get, so it's dishonest to present the cost as final.

The public will come to see the Green Line as part of the Olympics, as all the international coverage will inevitably highlight the city racing to meet the Olympic deadline on various projects. Nothing we can do on that.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What makes our Olympics so different to the rest, which almost always overspend?

We aren't bidding with a budget to build a stadium without even deciding on the site of the stadium for one, or the size of the stadium. We aren't building new roads or rail access (Nagano built both! So did Sochi). We aren't building any new specialized sport facilities, so we don't have the risk that the hill for the bobsleigh track has a rare animal, so we go to a second site that has geotech problems, so we go to a third site for example. Nothing proposed has a crazy critical path that requires multiple stakeholders with very different visions to sign off on things (a good reason why skiing won't be at Lake Louise), that result in needing to use a second site after most of the costs of the first have already happened (like with the Olympic Village in Tokyo, where a $5 billion move of a fish market was delayed so they had to build the village on an entirely different site). The hardest thing in Calgary with a critical path like that is the bus barns, also for the village.

We have decided where most of everything is. The land is all available, mostly all developed, and the city or province already own it.

[DoubleK]

$200M insurance policy for $20M?

How do I get in on that action?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

$200M insurance policy for $20M?

How do I get in on that action?

This is such a scam. By next spring we'll start to hear that the numbers were underestimated and that the budget needs to be increased. This crap is a staple of the Nenshi years. The guy says one thing and does the complete opposite. What's next from him? Is he going to find a way to rig the plebiscite? Or is he just going to ignore the vote?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We aren't bidding with a budget to build a stadium without even deciding on the site of the stadium for one, or the size of the stadium. We aren't building new roads or rail access (Nagano built both! So did Sochi). We aren't building any new specialized sport facilities, so we don't have the risk that the hill for the bobsleigh track has a rare animal, so we go to a second site that has geotech problems, so we go to a third site for example. Nothing proposed has a crazy critical path that requires multiple stakeholders with very different visions to sign off on things (a good reason why skiing won't be at Lake Louise), that result in needing to use a second site after most of the costs of the first have already happened (like with the Olympic Village in Tokyo, where a $5 billion move of a fish market was delayed so they had to build the village on an entirely different site). The hardest thing in Calgary with a critical path like that is the bus barns, also for the village.

We have decided where most of everything is. The land is all available, mostly all developed, and the city or province already own it.

100%. The bid is built on what we already have, and the total budget put forth includes substantial contingency. In fact, the budget being proposed is the most prudent fiscally conservative Olympics bid in history. The value proposition for Calgary is undeniable. This is why we're having such erratic responses from the haters who generally operate under the guise of being conservative.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

$200M insurance policy for $20M?

How do I get in on that action?

If it is for security, which I think I saw, you can take out general insurance for things like a massive terrorist attack happening over a certain period in lets say, a western industrialized country. It is a bet on whether the triggering event will happen. It isn't insurance against us spending extra money. It is extra money that comes if an event happens, and the BidCo foresees only spending that add-on to its security budget if an event happens.

[DoubleK]

@MT I only saw it (herald article) termed as a 'defined contingency'.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We aren't bidding with a budget to build a stadium without even deciding on the site of the stadium for one, or the size of the stadium. We aren't building new roads or rail access (Nagano built both! So did Sochi). We aren't building any new specialized sport facilities, so we don't have the risk that the hill for the bobsleigh track has a rare animal, so we go to a second site that has geotech problems, so we go to a third site for example. Nothing proposed has a crazy critical path that requires multiple stakeholders with very different visions to sign off on things (a good reason why skiing won't be at Lake Louise), that result in needing to use a second site after most of the costs of the first have already happened (like with the Olympic Village in Tokyo, where a $5 billion move of a fish market was delayed so they had to build the village on an entirely different site). The hardest thing in Calgary with a critical path like that is the bus barns, also for the village.

We have decided where most of everything is. The land is all available, mostly all developed, and the city or province already own it.

I guess I'm more pessemistic. I don't see our adminstrations as inherently more competent and less likely to screw up as other jurisdictions'. Which isn't necessarily to say I don't support a bid, but I'd be making the decision knowing full well that the proposed bid and price is a floor, and will only escalate from there. My question would be who pays for the inevitable increase, something no level of government will lay claim to.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

100%. The bid is built on what we already have, and the total budget put forth includes substantial contingency. In fact, the budget being proposed is the most prudent fiscally conservative Olympics bid in history. The value proposition for Calgary is undeniable. This is why we're having such erratic responses from the haters who generally operate under the guise of being conservative.

Economist Trevor Tombe isn't buying any of the propaganda the Yes side is trying ram down our throats. Look at his Twitter feed or listen to interviews he's done. I just listened to one on QR77 about 10 minutes ago. The value proposition the Yes side is claiming is totally deniable. They're totally destroying what little credibility they have left by making such ridiculous claims.