Calgary 2026

[Quaker2001]

20 minutes ago, FYI said:

Right, bcuz I forgot that you saying it's pretty unlikely overrides anything that the IOC itself might have to say on the matter. 

 

I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk, but it's certainly on the IOC's radar, which is the view that matters here. Let's also keep in mind how unlikely many people said that 2024 & 2028 being awarded together was also 'pretty unlikely'. Even though now hindsight tells you that move made "a ton of sense". "Good for you" though that you think otherwise now. 

Thanks for my other favorite FYI-ism.

Thanks also for clarifying what you're not saying.  I know a double award is on the IOC's radar.  Just not sure I see this combination cities being the pair that would lead them to do that.  Good for "people" that thought a 2024/2028 double award was unlikely.  It became a lot more likely once those 2 cities were the only ones left standing.  That's not hindsight.. that's how the situation developed and only then did make a ton of sense.  That's not the case here (as a matter of my personal opinion).  It may get that way, but I don't think it's there yet.

31 minutes ago, FYI said:

How about even more stability in the next decade for the IOC (like 2024 & 2028 gives them), especially for the Winter side where the IOC is facing much of (& which started) this dilemma of theirs in the first place? 

It's not like Japan is some backwater or despot that the IOC wouldn't be more than happy to have them locked in for another Winter Olympics. The Nagano 1998 Winter Olympics were actually pretty successful for an Asian Winter Games.

Considering there have only been 2 Asian Winter Games and both were in Japan, not sure what the standard is there.

Again, look at the 2 cities the IOC had for 2024/2028.  Paris and LA.  The IOC could not have asked for 2 more enticing bids and it got them Europe and the United States in 1 shot.  Salt Lake and Sapporo?  They will undoubtedly put on a good show, but is the answer to the IOC's problems to return to Asia for a 3rd time in 4 cycles (or possibly 3 in a row?).  Not sure that's the "stability" they're looking for.  That sounds more like taking whatever is available now with no regard to what may come along later.  To say nothing of the fact that we're talking about 2 cities that are probably only interested in the first place because few other cities are likely to bid.  Much different situation than what we saw with Paris and LA.

47 minutes ago, FYI said:

What other Westeren European candidates do you honestly see coming out of the woodwork in the next four years that haven't come out in the last decade or have flatly rejected the IOC in the last two Olympic bid races?

Austria just said no. Norway said a big fat NO the last time around, & don't seem interested at all this time around either. And Switerland's bidding record has been disasterous ever since they lost their Sion 2006 bid back in 1999. And unless the Swiss government fully backs their current 2026 attempt & then passing that dreaded referendum, which if history is anything to go by, then I wouldn't count on them either in another four years.

Germany? Nah - they keep saying no, too. France? "Pretty unlikely"  since they'll most certainly be focusing their efforts on 2024 & won't bother with a Winter Olympics, unlike the USOC. Maybe Italy? But then there again, Rome said no twice to an Olympics, so who really knows about an appetite for a Winter Games, 

So yeah, that actually sounds like a pretty big gamble considering Western Europe's (winter) bidding track record in recent history to merely hold on to "hope" that a credible, traditional European winter candidate finally gets all of their complicated acts together in the very next winter cycle.

What's the gamble though?  Even if there's no European bid when we come back around for 2030, is the IOC worse off then for not doing a double than they are now?  We all debated here the potential reprecussions of Paris or LA bidding for 2024 and coming away with nothing.  I don't think the  consequences are the same here to where this solution serves the IOC's long term needs.  Again, I said before.. if the right scenario presented itself, the IOC could jump on it.  This is not it, IMO.  This is not the 2 cities that justify a double award.

[yoshi]

 Swap out Sapporo for Sion, & you might have the IOC interested

[Quaker2001]

9 minutes ago, yoshi said:

 Swap out Sapporo for Sion, & you might have the IOC interested

My thoughts exactly.  The IOC needs the right 2 cities to justify a double.  I don't see these as the right 2 cities.

[FYI]

To "quote" a certain someone on these boards - "I'll believe in a (Swiss bid) when I finally see one"! 

With Innsbruck having just said -no- to a 2026 bid, which was also at a much lower cost than Sion's proposal (& which also has increased by 20% already) then it's 'pretty unlikely' that theirs will eventually go through either.

If Sion 2026 is still hanging around come July 2018, then I'll agree with the above. But until then, I hold reservation & the IOC can't get too picky here.

[yoshi]

Unfortunately we won't see a winter bid from Western Europe get past a referendum again. Not before somebody does what Paris did & just bid & win anyway. Then they can show that the Games can be worth it & hopefully get the rest of the continent interested again. Question is - who'd be brave? Could France save the Olympics in Western Europe twice?

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

What's the gamble though?  Even if there's no European bid when we come back around for 2030, is the IOC worse off then for not doing a double than they are now?  We all debated here the potential reprecussions of Paris or LA bidding for 2024 and coming away with nothing.  I don't think the  consequences are the same here to where this solution serves the IOC's long term needs.  

What about if Sapporo doesn't come back for 2030? And with no Europe too, then what? Go back to North America? Some despot? Would that be desirable? Some people were quick to say a few weeks ago that a Salt Lake/Calgary combo was doable. Would those two cities instead "justify" a double--award, IYO? 

Gamesbids had an article a few weeks ago that (surprisenly) mentioned that Bach & some of his members were already working on a double-allocation when Budapest was still in the picture alongside Paris & L.A. How do we know that Bach & Co. aren't at work again in trying to replicate that scenario? How do we know that they're not talking to the Japanese in that same context as the USOC? 

The IOC may be in denial about a lot of things, but in this case, I think that they realize that they're really in trouble unless they try to keep the boat from rocking too much, & that is perhaps locking-in good credible winter bids when the opportunity arises. 

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, FYI said:

What about if Sapporo doesn't come back for 2030? And with no Europe too, then what? Go back to North America? Some despot? Would that be desirable? Some people were quick to say a few weeks ago that a Salt Lake/Calgary combo was doable. Would those two cities instead "justify" a double--award, IYO?

Not particularly.  Again, what purpose is served by doing that?  Sapporo is far from the ideal solution that the IOC needs to lock in right now.  Have you forgotten what's going on with the budget for Toyko 2020?  Maybe now is not the best time to hand another Olympics to Japan.  Perhaps giving them another 4 years and allowing Tokyo to play out would help the cause.  We don't know who would or wouldn't bid for 2030.  But it's about more than simply locking in any and all desirable bids as soon as possible.  Especially not another Asian Winter bid that probably wouldn't be interested if there was anyone else out there.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Gamesbids had an article a few weeks ago that (surprisenly) mentioned that Bach & some of his members were already working on a double-allocation when Budapest was still in the picture alongside Paris & L.A. How do we know that Bach & Co. aren't at work again in trying to replicate that scenario? How do we know that they're not talking to the Japanese in that same context as the USOC? 

Oh FFS, don't give me this "how do we know" crap where if I can't definitively disprove something, I have to acknowledge the possibility.  What makes you think they are trying to replicate that scenario?  What makes you think they are talking to the Japanese in the same context as the USOC?  We do know that there have been rumblings of 2026/2030, but at this point in the game for 2024, it wasn't really under consideration (well that is until a certain "journalist" claims to have come up with the idea).  I think they need some clarity as to who is interested in bidding, and more than that, what Olympics they're interested in bidding for.  If it's your "opinion" that this scenario "may" be in the works, then I'll counter with my opinion that this scenario "may not" be in the works.  And how would we know that? 

4 hours ago, FYI said:

The IOC may be in denial about a lot of things, but in this case, I think that they realize that they're really in trouble unless they try to keep the boat from rocking too much, & that is perhaps locking-in good credible winter bids when the opportunity arises. 

Is this really an "opportunity" with Sapporo or does it just happen to be put in front of them?  How much of the rhetoric here about Paris and LA with 2024 was how much the IOC needed those 2 cities - a European mega-city and an American entry to boost interest in the US.  That wasn't about opportunity.  It was about fulfilling a need and a desire.  That's what the IOC got.  Is locking in Sapporo or a North American Winter bid what the IOC really needs or what they are looking for?  Or is just what they happened to have now and who knows what they're getting from Sapporo anyway.

If we want to talk about what we know, here's what is for certain.  You questioned earlier what European city could emerge for 2030.  Perhaps the IOC should take that gamble, because there's still at least a chance a decent European city might bid.  if the IOC locks in 2030, then the chance of a European bid is 0%.  And that's not a good thing, IMO.

[baron-pierreIV]

The French are hosting their part of the ISU Grand Prix in Grenoble this weekend.  This could be the start of discussions, perhaps for Grenoble, to get back into the picture. 

[FYI]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Not particularly.  Again, what purpose is served by doing that?  Sapporo is far from the ideal solution that the IOC needs to lock in right now.  

I never said that Sapporo is the ideal solution. But again, when comparing them to less than desirable locales or no locales at all, Sapporo then starts to look pretty damn good.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Oh FFS, don't give me this "how do we know" crap where if I can't definitively disprove something, I have to acknowledge the possibility.  What makes you think they are trying to replicate that scenario?  What makes you think they are talking to the Japanese in the same context as the USOC? 

Well, isn't this pretty fu@king rich coming from the Queen who just loves to play the Devil's advocate "crap" around here simply bcuz you think by doing so, one also has to acknowledge the possibility of whatever the heck you're trying to argue about. 

How do you know that they're not? You don't know that anymore than I know the opposite. That doesn't mean though that it's not possible that they aren't talking to them in the same context bcuz it's also plausible, all things considered, that they are.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

If we want to talk about what we know, here's what is for certain.  You questioned earlier what European city could emerge for 2030.  Perhaps the IOC should take that gamble, because there's still at least a chance a decent European city might bid.  if the IOC locks in 2030, then the chance of a European bid is 0%.  And that's not a good thing, IMO.

Again, & what "decent" European city might that be (bcuz nearly all of those to date have said a big fat no)? Because you merely saying so doesn't really make it so, & actually it sounds an awful lot like the 'logic' (since you brought him up) of a certain so-called journalist who simplistically claimed that if L.A. got 2024, then Europe would just be "lining-up" for 2028. And most of us know how full of it he was. And to also "quote" you again - "if it's your opinion that a 'decent' European city 'may' still be out there, then I'll counter with my opinion that a decent European city 'may not' be out there (at least in the near-term, all things considered). And how would we know that.  "

[Quaker2001]

37 minutes ago, FYI said:

I never said that Sapporo is the ideal solution. But again, when comparing them to less than desirable locales or no locales at all, Sapporo then starts to look pretty damn good.

Thanks for telling me what you didn't say.  I already know that.  Yes, Sapporo may emerge from this field with whoever else is in it.  But maybe it would be prudent to see what they have to offer first before jumping to say it could be worthy of a double.  And you were floating that idea a month ago, but you said it would basically be a f**k you to Europe.  That's not a smart move, IMO.  And while Sapporo is in a non-despotic country, it's still coming on the heels of Tokyo, which isn't exactly helping the cause with their budget issues.  Still makes me wonder why they would push for this with Tokyo still in the planning stages.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Well, isn't this pretty fu@king rich coming from the Queen who just loves to play the Devil's advocate "crap" around here simply bcuz you think by doing so, one also has to acknowledge the possibility of whatever the heck you're trying to argue about. 

How do you know that they're not? You don't know that anymore than I know the opposite. That doesn't mean though that it's not possible that they aren't talking to them in the same context bcuz it's also plausible, all things considered, that they are.

Sounds like you're having a Ruff day .  Come on, I thought you were better than that asshole to use a reference like that.

Typical GamesBids crap here.  You say you think something might happen.  I say I think it might not happen.  And the argument becomes "no, you have to prove me wrong!"  I know you're not saying you think a double is definitely happening.  You know I know that.  Just like I'm not saying that this double is outside the realm of possible.  I know you know that.  This is my opinion versus your opinion.  You made a case for your point of view.  I made a case for me.  Sure, your point is plausible.  I have never argued otherwise.  I just personally don't see it happening and I told you why I think that.  I know you see my name on a post and suddenly you get riled up and think I'm playing devil's advocate.  Yea, I disagree with your opinion.  I'm not doing that simply to throw out an opposing point of view.  You don't need to react like "some other poster" every time someone disagrees with you.  Right?  Bcuz 

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Again, & what "decent" European city might that be (bcuz nearly all of those to date have said a big fat no)? Because you merely saying so doesn't really make it so, & actually it sounds an awful lot like the 'logic' (since you brought him up) of a certain so-called journalist who simplistically claimed that if L.A. got 2024, then Europe would just be "lining-up" for 2028. And most of us know how full of it he was. And to also "quote" you again - "if it's your opinion that a 'decent' European city 'may' still be out there, then I'll counter with my opinion that a decent European city 'may not' be out there (at least in the near-term, all things considered). And how would we know that.  "

It sounds nothing like that, but thanks for that comparison.  They don't need European cities lining up.  They need 1 and only one, just like they got with Paris.  Like you said earlier, it's a gamble.  But I think it's a gamble worth taking rather than the IOC saying - and this is your words here - "fine, you don't want us, (traditional) Europe? We'll fix it so we don't have to set foot in your land for a very long time then"  IMO, that's a bad strategy to take here to basically tell the whole of Europe to piss of and we don't care about you anymore.

Why do you keep talking about what we *know* when you know we're dealing with possibilities?  I can't give you the definitive answer you seem to want, but a lot can change in 4 years.  Maybe it won't, but maybe it will.  And you're right.. how would we know that?

[FYI]

13 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And you were floating that idea a month ago, but you said it would basically be a f**k you to Europe.  That's not a smart move, IMO.  

 

16 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

They don't need European cities lining up.  They need 1 and only one, just like they got with Paris.  Like you said earlier, it's a gamble.  But I think it's a gamble worth taking rather than the IOC saying - and this is your words here - "fine, you don't want us, (traditional) Europe? We'll fix it so we don't have to set foot in your land for a very long time then"  IMO, that's a bad strategy to take here to basically tell the whole of Europe to piss of and we don't care about you anymore.

Well, thanks for digging up stuff & then try to interpret them with what you THINK I actually meant by them. As you like to say a lot of the time - "this is still the IOC we're talking about here". And while those are my words, they still reflect a lot on how the IOC has acted over the last several years on several levels.

And whether that's a smart strategy or not (& obviously the IOC would never say it that way anyway) this is still the same IOC that told Switzerland to fu@k off & chose Turin as 2006 host instead over Sion, when the Swiss at the time had the far superior bid, & all bcuz of the Salt Lake City bribery scandal they blamed the Swiss for.

So can we really say that the IOC is really above & beyond all that type of stuff now & not pulling something like that again when they're still in (somewhat) denial that they're in quite a pickle these days? I'd have to venture to say, probably not, especially after the scolding they gave the Norwegians when they pulled out of 2022.

30 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And while Sapporo is in a non-despotic country, it's still coming on the heels of Tokyo, which isn't exactly helping the cause with their budget issues.  Still makes me wonder why they would push for this with Tokyo still in the planning stages.

How is it on the heels of Tokyo 2020 when 2026 or 2030 would be six or ten years after? And how is it any different when 2026 or 2030 would actually be on the heels of L.A. 2028 with either just two years before or after? Japan would have plenty of time to sort things out, comparatively speaking.

35 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Sounds like you're having a Ruff day .  Come on, I thought you were better than that asshole to use a reference like that.

I didn't mean that in the way that turd used it. But merely in the sense that you're a reigning star on here when it comes to playing, yes, Devil's advocate. Though I apologize to you, nonetheless, if you took it in the context of the former.

39 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Typical GamesBids crap here.  You say you think something might happen.  I say I think it might not happen.  And the argument becomes "no, you have to prove me wrong!"  I know you're not saying you think a double is definitely happening.  You know I know that.  Just like I'm not saying that this double is outside the realm of possible.  I know you know that.  This is my opinion versus your opinion.  You made a case for your point of view.  I made a case for me.  Sure, your point is plausible.  I have never argued otherwise.  I just personally don't see it happening and I told you why I think that.  I know you see my name on a post and suddenly you get riled up and think I'm playing devil's advocate.  Yea, I disagree with your opinion.  I'm not doing that simply to throw out an opposing point of view.  You don't need to react like "some other poster" every time someone disagrees with you.  Right?  Bcuz 

Well, this just sounds like an awful lot of projection here, cuz I literally can just cut-&-paste this & then address it to you.  

You want to dismiss things with "good for you's & good for them, etc" (as if that actually were to mean something) & then go off on a diatribe which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter in an attempt to try & make somekind of nonsensical point. Well, be my guest I suppose, but it's really getting rather tedious now. 

42 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Why do you keep talking about what we *know* when you know we're dealing with possibilities?  I can't give you the definitive answer you seem to want, but a lot can change in 4 years.  Maybe it won't, but maybe it will.  And you're right.. how would we know that?

Isn't that what you do when trying to argue your POV? Talking about the "what we do know". So why the double standard now. 

Yeah, sure. All the IOC needs is just one (decent) European city to take on 2026 like they got with Paris 2024. But quite frankly, they got extremely lucky in getting Paris on the table to start with last time out. Something that I don't easily see happening this time around. 

The Innsbruck referendum failure last month was the start of another European downward spiral. And I doubt, again all things considered, that Sion's will pass next summer either. So I suspect after that the IOC will likely act accordingly to try & save themselves. But let's finally agree to disagree at this point, shall we. 

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Well, thanks for digging up stuff & then try to interpret them with what you THINK I actually meant by them. As you like to say a lot of the time - "this is still the IOC we're talking about here". And while those are my words, they still reflect a lot on how the IOC has acted over the last several years on several levels.

And whether that's a smart strategy or not (& obviously the IOC would never say it that way anyway) this is still the same IOC that told Switzerland to fu@k off & chose Turin as 2006 host instead over Sion, when the Swiss at the time had the far superior bid, & all bcuz of the Salt Lake City bribery scandal they blamed the Swiss for.

So can we really say that the IOC is really above & beyond all that type of stuff now & not pulling something like that again when they're still in (somewhat) denial that they're in quite a pickle these days? I'd have to venture to say, probably not, especially after the scolding they gave the Norwegians when they pulled out of 2022.

We've both said that the IOC can't exactly be counted on to be predictable.  Still, it's a simplistic argument to say that they did something unexpected before so we should consider they would do something unexpected again.  I don't claim to know what the IOC is thinking any more than you do other than what we  know about how they've changed the 2026 bid process.  If they're going to be "pulling something like that again," it's probably going to be because the circumstances call for it.  They did for 2024/2028 (and yes, that's a hindsight argument, but that situation evolved a lot).  Don't think it's the same here, regardless of recent history involving the IOC and European cities/countries.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

How is it on the heels of Tokyo 2020 when 2026 or 2030 would be six or ten years after? And how is it any different when 2026 or 2030 would actually be on the heels of L.A. 2028 with either just two years before or after? Japan would have plenty of time to sort things out, comparatively speaking.

Because we're already seeing headlines about budget concerns for Tokyo.  Is the IOC supposed to ignore that when awarding another Olympics to the same country before the first one has even happened?  Is it possible that LA's budget is going to increase and become something of a concern?  Sure, but we're not there yet.  We're very much there with Tokyo, so I have to believe that the voting members of the IOC will be cautious to award another Olympics to Japan, particularly before all is said and done with Tokyo.  And we both know that issues related to budgets and funding operate differently in the United States than they do elsewhere, less that's a basis of comparison.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Well, this just sounds like an awful lot of projection here, cuz I literally can just cut-&-paste this & then address it to you.  

You want to dismiss things with "good for you's & good for them, etc" (as if that actually were to mean something) & then go off on a diatribe which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter in an attempt to try & make somekind of nonsensical point. Well, be my guest I suppose, but it's really getting rather tedious now.

Likewise.  Next..

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Isn't that what you do when trying to argue your POV? Talking about the "what we do know". So why the double standard now. 

Yeah, sure. All the IOC needs is just one (decent) European city to take on 2026 like they got with Paris 2024. But quite frankly, they got extremely lucky in getting Paris on the table to start with last time out. Something that I don't easily see happening this time around. 

The Innsbruck referendum failure last month was the start of another European downward spiral. And I doubt, again all things considered, that Sion's will pass next summer either. So I suspect after that the IOC will likely act accordingly to try & save themselves. But let's finally agree to disagree at this point, shall we. 

Who's projecting now?  You're already planning ahead as if none of the European cities would be in it for 2030.  Again, I'm aware you're not treating that as a guarantee or something we *know*.  I'm not doing that either though as if I'm assuming a bid will magically come out of the woodwork.  I think it's worth the IOC taking that chance.  Doing a Salt Lake/Sapporo might "save themselves" now, but it could come at a cost down the road.  Contrast that with Paris/LA where there was little downside to making that move now and dealing with the potential consequences of that when the bid process starts for 2032.

Let it be stated again that this is all my opinion, not fact.  And leave it at that.

[FYI]

17 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Still, it's a simplistic argument to say that they did something unexpected before so we should consider they would do something unexpected again.

It's not a simplistic argument when it's actually a dialogue that the IOC is at least having. If you want to simply dismiss that with "good for them" or whatever other Quaker-ism you have, then 'good for you'. But that still doesn't change the fact that there is such dialogue taking place in Lausaunne like that Gamesbids article was alluding to. And I think Europe or no (winter) Europe, the IOC will be discussing it either way.

25 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Because we're already seeing headlines about budget concerns for Tokyo.  Is the IOC supposed to ignore that when awarding another Olympics to the same country before the first one has even happened?  Is it possible that LA's budget is going to increase and become something of a concern?  Sure, but we're not there yet.  We're very much there with Tokyo, so I have to believe that the voting members of the IOC will be cautious to award another Olympics to Japan, particularly before all is said and done with Tokyo.  And we both know that issues related to budgets and funding operate differently in the United States than they do elsewhere, less that's a basis of comparison.

And how many of those budget concerns are also for works for urban improvements, just like L.A., but a lot of the headlines get muddled bcuz it's just the 'in thing' nowadays to simply blame the Olympics. If Sapporo & the JOC want to bid, I seriously doubt that the IOC will be "oh, no, don't! You still haven't even hosted Tokyo 2020 yet!" 

51 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You're already planning ahead as if none of the European cities would be in it for 2030.  Again, I'm aware you're not treating that as a guarantee or something we *know*.  I'm not doing that either though as if I'm assuming a bid will magically come out of the woodwork.  I think it's worth the IOC taking that chance.  Doing a Salt Lake/Sapporo might "save themselves" now, but it could come at a cost down the road.  Contrast that with Paris/LA where there was little downside to making that move now and dealing with the potential consequences of that when the bid process starts for 2032.

I'm not planning ahead on anything. Merely calling it like I see it. What you think is worth the IOC taking a chance & what they actually do in the end are two different things. I don't think it would cost them down the road. Many said the same about the 2024/2028 deal. But the IOC is already feeling out 2032 suitors, go figure.

If the IOC wants to see how a Games plays out first before making their next move, it's probably Paris & not Tokyo, since it's Europe where the IOC is seeing most of their headaches. That's not to be confused though that they wouldn't jump on a (decent) 2026 Euro candidate, but that's if there isn't one decent Euro bid afterall.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Let it be stated again that this is all my opinion, not fact.  And leave it at that.

Ditto.

[SkiFreak]

There's supposed to be an announcement coming out of city hall on Monday. Stay tuned.

[baron-pierreIV]

10 hours ago, SkiFreak said:

There's supposed to be an announcement coming out of city hall on Monday. Stay tuned.

I think that's a hopeful sign.  They want to send out a msg (I hope) to the Oly world that they're on it and behind the 8-ball.  

[FYI]

So what's the deal? The Calgary city council was suppose to vote today on whether or not they were going to provide more money to continue on preperations for a bid. Doesn't seem good if nothing has come out yet. 

[intoronto]

Calgary 2026 has passed from Council on a 9-4 vote, with amendments. Now the province/feds must support it. 

[SkiFreak]

They've been apparently debating it since after lunch. Nothing in the news yet so I guess the debate continues. And I am watching various social media channels too. As soon as something is released, I'll post here.

[SkiFreak]

If you want to see the latest tweets, follow the hashtag #yyccc (Calgary City Council - YYC City Council)

[SkiFreak]

Here's a few articles from last night:

CTV News: Calgary councillors vote to continue bid for 2026 Winter Olympics

Article has video.

CBC: Calgary council votes to keep Olympic bid alive

CBC: In Depth: Are the Olympics worth the risk for Calgary?

[SkiFreak]

An article from today:

CTV News: City officials meet with Canadian Olympic Committee CEO as funding questions swirl

Article has a vid.

[mattperiolat]

Honestly, I think it’s good both for Calgary and the IOC to bid. They have been talking about replacing the Saddledome pretty frequently for the last few years, an Olympic bid may be the push needed. Conversely, it is an absolutely awful idea for the Olympics to get set in Asia for four cycles, three straight Winter Games. Nothing against Sapporo personally, it’s just bad for the Olympics in general.

The problem right now is speculation. Sion is a maybe, so is Calgary. Sapporo will bid, no firm word from SLC. The IOC has got to encourage more bids or the Olympics will go over the Niagra of no one interested in the show and the barrel already has holes drilled in it from Beijing, Sochi and Rio. We could begin a massive discussion on required IOC reform, but for now, it is critical that the IOC do something to offset the cost of awarding the Games and stop fleecing bidders, period.

[FYI]

The IOC is guilty of a lot of things, but 'fleecing' bidders? Beijing, Rio & Sochi did it cuz they wanted too. And in Rio's case, it was more of a *the Brazilians bit off more than they could chew* (hosting two-mega international events within two years time). It's easy in hindsight to say that those cities are the culprit. But in 2001 when Beijing was bidding for 2008, the case of - *it's finallly time to bring the Olympics to the world's most populous nation* was incredibly strong. And for 2022, it was really about *which bad bid of two would be the better bet*. As for Sochi, their initial budget was $12 Billion. I don't think even the IOC at the time forsaw that the Russian's costs would ballon to an over-exaggerated $51 Billion (which a lot of it was wasted on graft & typical Russian corruption, not the IOC's pockets, per se). 

Can the IOC improve more on the costs? Sure they can. I think the Norwegians were right when they balked at all of the IOC's perks & "must haves" to be treated like royalty. OTOH, though, the IOC is now starting to give some money towards the operational costs. But then again, I sometimes see that as them perhaps just starting to pay for some of their own perks. But how much should the IOC really 'offset' for the Games? Should they really be flipping all of the bill for infrastructure improvements that a city might need or want. In the sense of avoiding white elephants, I'm all for that. But if a Beijing or Sochi want to build an Olympic Park from scratch, then that's there business I suppose. I just feel sorry for the average Chinese & Russians who would have no say in the matter regardless. But also as the saying goes around here, if ya can't really afford to bid, then you shouldn't be bidding ITFP.

[Nacre]

15 hours ago, mattperiolat said:

Honestly, I think it’s good both for Calgary and the IOC to bid. They have been talking about replacing the Saddledome pretty frequently for the last few years, an Olympic bid may be the push needed.

The negotiations for a Saddledome replacement have stalled, and grown so contentious that the Flames ownership has openly tried to get the current mayor replaced in recent elections. (The public sided with the mayor and against the Flames.) I really doubt that a new arena will be part of a Calgary bid for 2026.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Nacre

[mattperiolat]

8 minutes ago, Nacre said:

The negotiations for a Saddledome replacement have stalled, and grown so contentious that the Flames ownership has openly tried to get the current mayor replaced in recent elections. (The public sided with the mayor and against the Flames.) I really doubt that a new arena will be part of a Calgary bid for 2026.

Oh, that’s frightening. That a sports team has the pull to try and get the person in charge of the town they are in replaced to get what they want.

I’d like to see the Games back in Canada and a new stadium for the Flames. But seeing dirty pool being played and having seen the IOC involved in stuff like this before... really hoping Sion gives us something compelling because I dread a long term stay in Asia for the Olympic movement. What happens when Asia is finally bled dry financially?