Calgary 2026

[Quaker2001]

26 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Let's agree to disagree. You feel that LA cannot do anything about it unless it was specifically laid out in their contract. I feel that as soon as the IOC undermines that contract there are losses, and damages that both the state and city can go after. You feel the incentives are if the USOC puts forth a 2026 bid. I feel that if the US won 2026 there shouldn't be any incentives to the winning city (as there were none for Paris) but rather the 2030 host. I also feel that the "incentives" the USOC is talking about are for Los Angeles for undermining it's bid. Some things don't require specifics written into contract. If you go into contract with someone and your own actions undermine that contract you're liable to all parties involved, up to and including the State of California. Still, this all doesn't matter now. We'll probably be lucky enough to see it all play out and the prospect of it is rather exciting. 

 I'm no lawyer so I can't figure what the legal argument is here. But you keep saying losses/damages.. Can you quantify that to where LA could make the claim of how much this would cost them?  What is it about their pact with the IOC that would be undermined here?  Someone (presumably) will be hosting the Olympics in 2026.  If that's not an American city, then maybe it's 2030. Remember that Salt Lake was within a few votes of getting the '98 Olympics in a vote less than a year after Atlanta won theirs. And IMO at this point, the issue with 2026 is as much if not more about the World Cup than LA2028.

[FYI]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

You're right, it is not up to LA to decide. The IOC may be backed into a corner and can choose to do whatever it wants. But legally speaking LA2028 and the IOC are in contract. IF the IOC chooses to pick a 2026 host in the US both the USOC and the IOC better be prepared to make concessions because the City of LA will seek damages. 

Again, if there was something to be “undermined” in the case of L.A. 2028, then why would the USOC have sent in their *letter of interest* to the IOC before the 2026 deadline (which was AFTER the IOC awarded both Paris & L.A) just so the USOC could be part of that “conversation”? Doesn’t make any sense for them to have done that going by your logic.

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

You feel that You feel the incentives are if the USOC puts forth a 2026 bid. I feel that if the US won 2026 there shouldn't be any incentives to the winning city (as there were none for Paris) but rather the 2030 host. I also feel that the "incentives" the USOC is talking about are for Los Angeles for undermining it's bid. 

The major difference in this case is, that 2024 was the Games that both Paris & L.A. really wanted, not the 2028 one. So therefore the IOC was willing to make concessions for whoever took the later Games which neither city really wanted. 

For 2026 (& 2030), it’s the former Games that no one really wants, but the latter Games is what Salt Lake (& Sapporo both) want. So if no one wants 2026 (as cities are literally dropping like flies again from this race as well, & which even without a double-award, the IOC will still need a host city for 2026), then the IOC will have to do something to “sweeten the pot” for a city to actually take on 2026. How does a city actually “win” 2026 if no city actually wants those Winter Games, & that’s really the crux here.

[Nacre]

12 hours ago, Olympianfan said:

In that case let's hope the new Ontario Premier Doug Ford cuts the Toronto City council in half in doing so it would clear away the dead wood anti development people on the council, Let's hope they are serious in getting and hosting the 2030 Commonwealth Games in Toronto Build a stadium like Stadium Australia and Stade De France. The Toronto Canada 2030 Commonwealth Games would be a great warm up to the Toronto Canada 2032 Summer Games. 

Of what use would such a stadium be to Toronto? Who would be the primary tenant? The Argonauts average under 20,000 fans per game, and Toronto FC averages 27,000. Neither team needs the financial burden of paying the upkeep costs for a 60,000 seat stadium and neither teams fans want a stadium with a track in it.

Just look at Montreal, where neither the Alouettes or the Impact play at the Stade Olympique unless the weather forces them to do so.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Nacre

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

The difference is this. A games in anywhere but the US for 2026 would be competing for marketing and sponsorships rights in a far off land. It’s an implied part of the deal. A games in the US in 2030 would have another implied, 2028. That doesn’t have to be written because it’s an already known. There has to be nothing in writing for any 2030 US winning bid. If your business model is such a way that your choice damages it you are liable. You don’t have to write a single word. And the whole mess that comes of it is probably something the IOC would want to run away from. Far away from. Now, again, we may disagree. But I don’t believe the IOC wants to get into a sloppy argument with LA because of what LA means to the IOC. Now I won’t quantify what the losses to LA would be because I can’t imagine them. But the Reason the USOC said was their reason that they would prefer 2030 was exactly that, losses. A conversation would have to be had with LA before the US accepts a 2026 bid. So to reiterate. You and I may not be able to quantify them, but anybody with half a brain can figure out that having a games in 2026 would negatively impact a 2028 Games in LA. It’s a very precarious situation because we all know that revenue is key to a successful games, especially if you don’t want to suffer catastrophic losses. That is LA’s deal. Execute the guarantees and you have a serious problem. Especially if you are in the crosshairs of why the guarantees were executed. It’s one thing to say a quake shook California to the center of the Pacific, and its another to say LA Los revenue to key sponsorships and marketing because the IOC chose to place another US city before it. 

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

And let me add that the losses could be argued far beyond that. The IOC needs to sweeten the pot for all involved parties if they are to bring a Winter Games to the US, otherwise the best they can hope for is a 2030 Games here. A 2026 Winter Games in the US is certain to have Casey Wasserman and people from all levels of California government pissed, unless, of course, you sweeten the deal to benefit them. One way to do that is Tahoe... and additional concessions. 

Would really help the cause if you stopped looked at this solely through the lens of LA.  This doesn't all revolve around them.  You're right that the IOC would normally want to avoid dealing with the USOC..  Guess what.. these are not normal times.  We're only having this conversation because the IOC could be getting really desperate for any interest coming from a city that's not Erzuzum.  You can be darn sure that's going to involve a call to the USOC to see where they stand and maybe ask if they're interested in saving the day.  And if that happens.. yea, they'll probably ask the IOC to offer them some compensation, just like they did with 2028.  But that's to benefit the USOC.  Not necessarily to placate LA and Casey Wasserman as if their feelings are a primary concern.  In an ideal world, I'm sure the USOC would rather look at 2030 instead of 2026 and give themselves time to properly think out a bid rather than rushing into this and have far less time to set things up.  If they can convince the IOC to make it worth their while, that will most certainly change their tune.  The "precarious situation" you speak of may take a backseat to the USOC saving the IOC's bacon.  Catastrophic losses?  Kinda doesn't mesh with the "you and I may not be able to quantify" the losses.  Especially considering that if this happens, it will be 9 years out from 2028, which is still 2 more years than a city normally has to prepare.  Pretty confident they'll be able to adapt.  Surprised you're hinting they wouldn't be able to.

So yea, let's agree to disagree here.  But your argument is flawed because it's not looking at the big picture and it's focused solely on how LA is looking at all this.  And then you really lose it when you suggest that the USOC would look to Tahoe as a concession to LA.  Seriously?  If they have the better bid over Salt Lake or whoever else is in the mix, they'll be the USOC's pick.  If not, they won't be.  The USOC isn't about to put a flawed bid forward for some ridiculous reason like that if they have a better bid to offer.  They made that mistake once.  They won't make it again.

[FYI]

54 minutes ago, RuFF said:

FYI is squaking again. The USOC sent a letter of interest in the event the IOC was going to do a double award with the intention of landing 2030. The letter of interest was the be included if there is a double award, not that they were interested in 2026 otherwise they would have straight up bid. Thanks from taking a moment from choking on bird to post though silly goose.

Yeah, I know that’s why the USOC sent the letter, FluFF. But that was BEFORE all of Europe starting bailing out on the (Winter) Olympics yet again. Ideally, the IOC would want Europe for 2026. And ideally, the USOC would want 2030. But neither may ideally get what they want here (especially when Sapporo is now “squawking”, to use your word there, for 2030 as well).

Yes, the USOC would like 2030, but in the event that no one (credible) wants 2026, the USOC can already be part of that 2026 “conversation” too bcuz they did afterall send in that letter. And also (to use one of my favorite pals lines), here’s a “shocker” - but the IOC in the end may not do a(nother) double-allocation in this case. So then the USOC could’ve ended up with nothing in either case had they not send that letter in. Anyone with half a brain can comprehend all of this.

25 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Pretty confident they'll be able to adapt.  Surprised you're hinting they wouldn't be able to.

Yeah, really. What happened to their usual “L.A. can do anything” mantra all of the sudden. 

[Quaker2001]

3 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, really. What happened to their usual “L.A. can do anything” mantra all of the sudden. 

Oh, well that one's easy.  Because that gets superseded by "LA must go first" and we know where that line of thinking comes from.  LOL at "catastrophic losses" in that context since we've been told a privately-funded Olympics can't possibly lose money.

I brought it up elsewhere.. from a big picture standpoint for the USOC - and obviously the World Cup muddles the picture - an argument could be made that the 2 1/2 year gap between 2026 and 2028 would be easier than a 1 1/2 year gap between 2028 and 2030.  Obviously not the way the USOC sees it, but perhaps they could spin it that way to get SLC more agreeable to 2026 (although they're probably ready to jump as soon as they get the green light for whatever Olympics it is)

[FYI]

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Oh, well that one's easy.  Because that gets superseded by "LA must go first" and we know where that line of thinking comes from. 

Ahhhh, yes! But of course!! It’s that L.A. “first” mentality from a certain you-know-who! How could I have forgotten!! Now it makes perfect sense!  

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

LOL at "catastrophic losses" in that context since we've been told a privately-funded Olympics can't possibly lose money.

I brought it up elsewhere.. from a big picture standpoint for the USOC - and obviously the World Cup muddles the picture - an argument could be made that the 2 1/2 year gap between 2026 and 2028 would be easier than a 1 1/2 year gap between 2028 and 2030.  Obviously not the way the USOC sees it, but perhaps they could spin it that way to get SLC more agreeable to 2026 (although they're probably ready to jump as soon as they get the green light for whatever Olympics it is)

Yeah, we go from “L.A. is the powerhouse of the world” to “L.A. will suffer catastrophic losses if SLC goes first”!! I mean what a “silly goose”. 

 

[FYI]

Squawk, squawk, squawk. You know what else has never happened before in that same “era”? TWO Olympic Games being awarded at the SAME time. As the saying goes - desperate times call for desperate measures, which is what brought the 2024/2028 double-allocation ITF. You’re just making mountains outta molehills.  But then again, you’re from L.A. The land of mellow dramatics.

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Again, we disagree. It’s seen through the eyes of LA because LA would be the one greatest affected by a US WOG in 2026. Also, this has never happened before. There has never been a city awarded a games and then a few years later another city awarded a games in their own country prior to their scheduled host time in the era of sponsorships and rights anywhere near the value they have been after 1984. The model is pretty clear, and the damages are quantifiable. This is the kicker here. LA does not have to suffer catastrophic losses, it just has to have its bottom line damaged. FIFA can damage it, aliens can damage it, but not the IOC, and to a greater extent the USOC. It’s the IOC’s business model, step 1 foot in that direction and all involved have a voice because if you have risk, you have damage. And that would be at least 4 entities. LA2028, the City of Los Angeles, the State of California, and the USOC. The USOC is legally bound to protect all the entities in california because it’s in contract with them. The USOC stands to lose even more than the IOC should it move in that direction. Unless, of course, they get it in writing. 

What do you think LA2028, LA and California are going to say? Yea, sure, just have it in Utah? After making it abundantly clear to use zero tax dollars and with a private bid they’ll be happy to increase their risk to help out the USOC, IOC and Utah? Name me a single place that would increase their risk for the benefit of another? And then there is this. Screwing the one place in the western world that believes the Olympics are viable is the place I’m sure the USOC and IOC want to be. To be clear, the USOC, under contract, is owned by the entities in California in this particular matter. And there is an incredible amount of damages and legal repercussions that could follow should those entities not approve of any potential 2026 games in the US. The absolute best the IOC and USOC could get without taking a hit from the California entities is 2030. But you better believe that city will be clamoring about damages of following a more profitable SOG. 

You're choosing to view it through the eyes of LA because that's all you want to look at.  Earlier you said "Now I won’t quantify what the losses to LA would be because I can’t imagine them."  Now you're saying they are quantifiable?  Which is it.  You keep talking about an incredible amount of damages and legal repercussions, but there's no basis for that other than hyperbole and hysterics.  It's easy to make a generalization that LA2028 would be hurt by another Olympics in the United States, but you're not making a good case how that would actually work.  Let alone that they would have any actual power to stop the USOC from doing this.  They don't.  Not the state of California.  Not the city of Los Angeles.  Not LA2028.  Let alone the USOC which will be the group potentially pushing for this.  The USOC can and will bid for a 2026 Olympics in the United States if they believe that's in their best interests, especially if they can work a favorable deal with the IOC.  And if not that, maybe 2030, which still puts another US-hosted Olympics within 18 months of Los Angeles.  Would that not do damage to LA?  Did this come up with Atlanta `96 when Salt Lake nearly got the `98 Olympics?

This time last summer, the LA folks knew it was a possibility that the USOC would pursue 2026.  They made a deal for the 2028 Olympics with that knowledge in mind.  Only after then did the USOC say they weren't looking at 2026 but left the door open for precisely the situation we could be headed towards.  If Calgary was solidly in the running or another decent bid was out there, we're not having this conversation.  Yet here we are.  I agree with you that having another Olympics within a couple of years of LA is not going to help their cause.  But they don't get to make that decision.  The USOC does.  They and they alone are the ones who will assess the overall risk/reward here and make that decision.

[FYI]

21 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And if not that, maybe 2030, which still puts another US-hosted Olympics within 18 months of Los Angeles.  Would that not do damage to LA? 

No, of course not. Cuz as u mentioned earlier, L.A. would be “first” in this scenario, & doesn’t get in the way of that L.A. must-be-first syndrome lol.

[FYI]

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

“I” can’t quantify them but that doesn’t mean they’re not quantifiable. Keyword is “I” because “I” am not provided that information. But yet by your own admission it would negatively impact LA. 

 

“I agree with you that having another Olympics within a couple of years of LA is not going to help their cause.”

There would be damage and it would be quantified. Hense why Wasserman exercised his right to say any US bid for 2026 would require lengthy discussion. The IOC would not suffer damages if the US hosted 2026, but LA 2028 would, so therefore the only way to look at the potential legal conflict is through the eyes of LA. It’s like robbing a bank and expecting that the case be viewed from the perspective of the bank robber and not the bank (victim). It doesn’t work that way.  Add to that that ALL NOC’s owe the country they represent and any winning bid from their country fiduciary duties and the USOC being able to do what it wants is dead on arrival. DEAD ON ARRIVAL. The USOC would be slaughtered in court. Dead. And by virtue, the IOC. Any games in 2026 on US soil is bound by contract, implied or otherwise, to LA2028. And as a private enterprise who suffers private damage as well, any move without prior negotiation is going to send shockwaves through the USOC, IOC, and the entire Olympic Movement. Thankfully, I’m certain that none of the involved parties are nearly as naive as you are. I’d be shocked if they were.

Yea, I see the comments made by Wasserman back in September.  Seems pretty non-binding though, and here's an interesting paragraph from 1 of those articles.. LA 2028’s Casey Wasserman says discussions needed before he would fully support U.S. bid for 2026 Winter Games (and don't misinterpret that headline to believe that the USOC needs Wasserman's blessing before they do anything with regard to 2026.. they need to discuss it, but nowhere does it imply that they need their full support to do it

Quote

“It is complicated, it actually has an effect on the USOC, maybe as much if not more than L.A., because another Games without the real economic benefit of the Games would (impact) the USOC in terms of the joint venture. Obviously (back-to-back Games in the same country) would be unique in Olympic history. That’s never happened before. So there’s lots of issues, but our approach has been we’ll take an open mind and listen and let that process develop and when it’s time to engage and look deeply, great, but certainly we’d love the Olympic Games to come back to the United States, whether its 2026 or 2030.”

Look at that last line.  Then get back to me on legal conflict and how this is all about LA as if their bank is being robbed.  No one is talking about doing this without prior negotiation, but don't take it so far in the other direction where somehow LA2028 would threaten a court case in order to stop it.  The USOC is not stupid (well, aside from when they thought Boston should be their bidder).  They're only going to do this if it makes economic sense to them.  And the stakes of the game could change dramatically if the IOC is approaching them to be a part of the process rather than the other way around.  Don't give us this bullshit about shockwaves being sent through the entire Olympic movement.  Especially when the alternative could be to hold a Winter Olympics in Turkey.  That's where you need to stop treating LA is if they're the only city hosting the Olympics in the next decade.  This is all part of a bigger picture here.  LA knows that.  Of course they're going to protect their own interests and the USOC will do that as well.  That doesn't prevent the USOC from engaging with the IOC, especially when they very specifically said they could consider doing so if the IOC initiated those discussions.  And if that happens, I think we can all be confident that the USOC will milk that situation for every penny it's worth.

[FYI]

“I never said L.A. would hold the IOC or the USOC balls to the wall and sue them.” End Quote

But yet that’s EXACTLY what you said, Blanche. You’re the one that starting out with this with “catastrophic losses, damages, concessions, ‘robbing L.A.’s bank’ , the USOC would be slaughtered in court”, yada blah squawk. But no, you’re not the drama queen here. 

You talked about *negotiations* as an afterthought, but primarily just harped about how having 2026 in the U.S., would be bad for L.A. 2028 (& the State of California), so the IOC & USOC better “look out”. 

You sound just like back-peddling Trump - “No, I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that Russia didn’t have anything to do with it. What I ‘meant’ to say was that yada yada, blah blah & squawk squawk, Russia DID have something to do with it. But then again, it could’ve been many other countries as well.” Lmfao 

[Quaker2001]

39 minutes ago, RuFF said:

So for everybody else that’s not a drama queen let’s reiterate. I never said LA would hold the IOC or the USOC balls to the wall and sue them. I said that there would have to be negotiations as Quaker has now admitted himself. However, should either the IOC or the USOC choose to proceed into 2026 without negotiations (as we all know they’d have to be dumb if they did) LA would have the ability. I didn’t say all the things Quaker is attempting to make it seem I said. Also, it’s important to note that this entire conversation went full circle until he finally agreed with what I was always saying anyhow. There would have to be negotiations with LA should a US city be chosen to host 2026. If ever I took it further than that it was to say that as risk bearers, the City of LA and the State of California Kay choose to exercise their right to be a part of those negotiations, too. In the case of 2026 I couldn’t see either entities negotiating in favor of Utah. That may not be in their grasp but the monetary part could speak loudly without even touching the subject.

And I never said there wouldn't be negotiations.  My very first reply to you here said " The LA folks can have an opinion and the USOC will be mindful of that."  There are certain elements of this we agree on, most notably that if this is to gain any traction, multiple parties will need to be a part of the discussion, including top LA2028 executives.  None of this proceeds forward without careful consideration of the implications, including to LA's Olympic planning.  But where you start to lose me is the idea that they are in a position to negotiate and dictate how this will all work out.  Their ability to steer this decision is not as strong as you want to believe.  Your entrance into this discussion (and let's acknowledge the significance that we're talking about this in a Calgary thread.. there's a reason for that) was about whether or not LA would be okay with this.  As if the implication is that the USOC needs their permission and their blessing to do this.  You keep talking about "legally speaking" and contracts, but that argument doesn't hold water.  It will happen, but not because the city of LA or the State of California don't have rights to exercise with regard to what the USOC does with 2026.  Let alone to dictate what city they might put up for bid, as if LA2028 can push the USOC towards picking Reno-Tahoe or Salt Lake.

Again.. look at this from the standpoint of the USOC.  The only reason they do this is if they can work a favorable deal with the IOC.  When the USOC and IOC are talking, LA need not be represented in that discussion.  The USOC will do any talking on the subject knowing how it affects LA.  To imply otherwise (or to believe I think otherwise) is ridiculous.  Don't assume that those negotiations will have direct involvement from LA2028.  Because the only reason any of this might be happening in the first place is because of a potentially unprecedented situation.

[Quaker2001]

9 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Quaker! You’re SO fk’n exhausting.

Jesus Christ with you. 

[FYI]

Lmfao you know that’s when PuFF’s hot air has been stifled, when they finally resort to petty retort lol.

[FYI]

—Breakenridge: Calgary can build infrastructure without the Olympics—

We now know the date of the Olympic plebiscite and the precise wording of the question. What we do not know, obviously, is how Calgarians will vote, or whether the idea of a 2026 Winter Olympic bid will have collapsed by that point.

But what should be clear after more than two years of entertaining this idea is that collapse is no less than it deserves. Those in favour of the idea have been so focused on looking at whether Calgary is capable of hosting the Olympics, that they’ve failed to deliver a compelling vision as to why Calgary should make a bid.

And no, a warmed over version of what might have seemed like a bold vision nearly 40 years ago just doesn’t cut it. Nostalgia is not vision. Whatever legacy and benefits 1988 delivered haven’t gone away, and putting a fresh coat of paint on that legacy does not require signing a blank cheque over to the International Olympic Commitee.

For all the talk of reimagining and reinvigorating Calgary’s economy, we seem to have fallen into a myopic conversation about replicating a past success. We have numerous examples of cities across North America that have accomplished to varying degrees this sort of economic rebirth and turnaround, and we seem remarkably incurious about how they did so. Here’s a hint: it did not involve hosting an Olympics.

As Coun. Druh Farrell noted recently, “To assume the Olympics will accomplish everything we have been unable to accomplish without them is a bit crazy to me. I think it’s naïve.” Indeed it is.

There’s a glaring example of this contradiction on the Yes Calgary 2026 website. The group notes that Calgary is “a dominant force in winter sports,” but that somehow, a bid would also “enable Calgary to redefine itself to the world.” That seems like the exact opposite of “redefine.”

Even the new CEO of Calgary 2026 fell into this sort of thinking last week. In her unveiling as the new CEO, Mary Moran called the Olympics “a big opportunity for Calgary any day, but particularly given the economic situation of today.”

But if hosting the Olympics was the secret to unlocking an economic boom, we would expect to see a long list of cities clamouring for that opportunity. Instead, we’ve seen the opposite: fewer and fewer cities want anything to do with the event.

The evidence for such a positive economic impact really isn’t there, either, as demonstrated by a pair of reports last year by respected economists (reports that were not initially made publicly available). As the University of Calgary’s Trevor Tombe concluded, “To claim that GDP and employment will increase — at all, but especially by the magnitudes suggested in the third-party reports — is to go far beyond what the evidence suggests.”

Brad Humphreys, from the University of West Virginia, found much the same: “The scholarly evidence from peer-reviewed journals does not support the existence of large economic benefits.”

If we wish to build infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure, then we can certainly do so. For a fraction of the cost of hosting the Olympics, we could address several of Calgary’s priorities, while also enjoying any associated employment or GDP gains.

Let’s avoid the false dichotomy of comparing hosting the Olympics with simply doing nothing. The real comparison is the IOC’s narrow agenda versus the myriad other strategies to grow, promote and evolve the city of Calgary.

If the arguments boil down to “why not,” “let’s hope for the best” and “1988 was great,” then what’s the point? Surely, Calgary can do better than this.

In the absence of any genuine excitement or vision, it’s little wonder that this whole enterprise is becoming mired in cynicism. The ongoing secrecy at city hall has certainly compounded that.

If city council decides to take the “off ramp” next month, or if Calgarians decide to do so on Nov. 13, it will have been a well-earned fate for this wearisome enterprise.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/breakenridge-calgary-can-build-infrastructure-without-the-olympics/amp

[Olympianfan]

Along with the National election in Sweden is the local government election in Sweden the Social Democrats support is expected to go down by 10% so it could take the anti Olympic Games Mayor of Stockholm out of office too, There could be a mayor of Stockholm Sweden from the Moderate party if by the time of the new government likely to be formed by November if Calgary Votes NO and if it just Sapporo Japan left in this race it could help in gaining support from the new government of Sweden.

It's a once in a life time event for Sweden too if they land the 2026 Winter Games it would have been 114 years since the 1912 games which was headed up by the Last King of Sweden the current King would be 80 years old by 2026, 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of the Winter Paralympics Games which begun in Sweden too.

Things could be turning in favor for Stockholm Sweden 2026 with a new national and local government with the Olympic Games support so I will not write of Sweden just yet we have to wait a month time to see the results of the election in Sweden, Stockholm could be the 2nd city after Beijing which will host both Summer and Winter Games.

The IOC could do a double award with Stockholm Sweden hosting the 2026 Winter Games, Sapporo Japan for the 2030 Winter Games by 2034 it would be USA turn to host the Winter Games with the games finally going to Denver.

[FYI]

..& by 2038 we can have the Winter Olympics on Mars! By then, a newly elected pro-Olympic government will have been voted in, & King Milky Way will be a gazillion years old!! It could be his “send off party” that would be out of this world! :-P

[thatsnotmypuppy]

8 hours ago, FYI said:

..& by 2038 we can have the Winter Olympics on Mars! By then, a newly elected pro-Olympic government will have been voted in, & King Milky Way will be a gazillion years old!! It could be his “send off party” that would be out of this world! :-P

The handover at the Murmansk 2034 Closing Ceremony is going to be epic - a million dancing Elon Musks highkicking to 'Putin-g On The Ritz'!

[Faster]

Rumor is the IOC has discretely told both the COC and the SOC that they will provide up to 1.4 billion in funding. Up from the 0.95ish that was originally reported. The IOC is desperate to get these games into Canada or Sweden. 

[FYI]

Where is this rumor coming from. And if it is, interesting that they’re apparently not making that same offer to Sapporo (who now says that they want 2030 anyway) & Italy (who’s bid is turning into a convoluted mess). Could it be that the IOC would ideally like a double with those two instead if this rumor is true. Erzurum, OTOH, would pay the IOC $1.4 Billion for the 2026 Games. 

[Olympianfan]

It's looking like the Italian bid is becoming a real mess and the Olympic Games is the last thing on mind for Turkey now their economy could collapses anytime from now, The IOC must be hoping the anti Olympic Games mayor of Stockholm to be kicked out of office next month in the election, The Social Democrats and the Greens support in Sweden looking to drop by 12% which could be good news for the Olympic Bid in Sweden and by the time the government could be likely formed by in Sweden Calgary Canada might be out of the race if there is a NO result. 

If that happens and is just left with Sapporo Japan in the race along with Stockholm I think it would be good for the chance the government of Sweden and Stockholm will back the bid as it's a now or never case a double award with Stockholm Sweden 2026 - Sapporo Japan 2030 very likely? A Calgary NO result could be good for Sweden in getting government support.

[FYI]

Even if a more favorable government were to be elected in Sweden in the coming months, my main concern would still be about the citizens. Would THEY be in favor of an Olympic bid? And if history is any indication, then I’d say no. 

The Swedes were very vehemently (& that’s putting it mildy) against the Stockholm 2004 Summer Olympic bid back in 1997. And I don’t know if the sour attitude about the subject at hand has changed that much there since then, & that was back when the IOC was nowhere near the dire straights it finds itself now with trying to get suitable host cities.

Even if the Swedish bid were to go ahead with new political leaders behind the helm, a referendum would no doubt be put on the table by the opposition. And we all know how those have been ending up all across Europe these days.

[FYI]

Calgary’s pitch for a combined Alberta-B.C. Olympic bid seen as the only option

Whistler, B.C., is all but secured. The mountain resort is working on plans to host Olympic ski jumping for the second time as Calgary prepares its bid to host the Winter Games in 2026. Edmonton, whose arena could hold hockey and ice skating events, is not sure it wants to be part of the show, but side-door, closed-door talks continue.

What was once considered detrimental to an Olympic bid — proposing to spread events over multiple cities — is emerging as not just the best but the only path to staging the Games in a way that addresses a major complaint among potential hosts: the massive costs.

That strategy crystallized when Italian Olympic officials endorsed a 2026 bid designed to reuse existing facilities that included the cities of Cortina, Milan and Turin. The proposal reflects the recommendations in the International Olympic Committee’s Agenda 2020, which was introduced in 2014 to encourage more cities to bid on the Games by making them less pricey and more efficient to host.

“It’s starting to look like there’s no alternative," said Dick Pound, a long-time Canadian IOC member and a director with Calgary 2026, adding that the obvious logistical challenges of a multicity bid can be overcome.

“I think the candidates are going to have to spend a fair amount of time figuring out just how easily the communications and transfers can be made. There might be people who just like downhill [skiing] or who just like ski jumping, in which case they may not have to travel much.”

The staff at Calgary 2026 are gathering information for its bid book, which will be presented to the IOC on Jan. 11, 2019.

“Everything is on the table,” Scott Hutcheson, chair of Calgary 2026, wrote in an e-mail. “And I know when it is complete, we will deliver what is best for our country."

Whistler’s facilities may be the only sensible venue for ski jumping and Nordic combined.

The major attraction of using Whistler is the cost saving. Calgary has not used its large ski-jumping hill for decades, and the price to build a new one would be $100-million. In comparison, the cost of upgrading the Whistler jump would be $5-million, with another $30-million to cover operational and other costs.

Whistler Olympic Park, which is in the Callaghan Valley, has less red tape to slice through than other locations. It operates outside the jurisdiction of the resort’s municipal government. The local council is being kept informed as a key partner on plans and projects, but its approval is not required at the venue, although its co-operation on the athletes’ accommodations would be required. The B.C. government is not involved in any of the talks regarding ski jumping, at least not to this point.

Roger Soane, president and CEO of Whistler Sports Legacies, which maintains the ski-jump facility at Whistler Olympic Park, said he has spoken with Calgary organizers, and also discussed security issues with the RCMP’s Protective Services. The RCMP has handled security at past Olympics in Canada and for Canadian dignitaries at Olympics abroad.

Mr. Soane is not sure how much security would cost eight years into the future. At $1-billion, the bill for security was the highest individual cost of the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Games.

“There has been a fair amount of planning done,” Mr. Soane acknowledges. “We have an agreement in place that is supportive of Calgary’s bid and, yeah, just waiting to see what happens.”

While participating in 2026 would mean money for ski-jump maintenance and new housing in Whistler, Edmonton might not get much of anything. Calgary officials have had discreet discussions with their Edmonton counterparts. No offer has been put to paper and submitted to Edmonton council, let alone agreed upon.

Calgary is willing to have some men’s and women’s hockey at the 18,500-seat Rogers Place, since it expects the NHL would be more amenable to letting its players compete in a North American Olympics, rather than sitting out as they did for the Pyeongchang Games in South Korea.

Calgary lacks a suitable secondary arena after the Scotiabank Saddledome, and the estimated $4.6-billion cost of hosting the Olympics does not include the city’s share in funding a proposed new event centre that would be home to the Flames, the Western Hockey League Hitmen and the National Lacrosse League Roughnecks.

Calgary 2026 also wants to involve Edmonton as much as possible to ensure the Olympic bid draws full financial support from the provincial government.

“Once upon a time, I don’t think Edmonton would have wanted to help Calgary. At one point in time, Calgary wouldn’t have hosted a Games if it had to rely on Edmonton,” said University of Alberta professor Dan Mason, who consulted for the City of Edmonton in its negotiations to construct Rogers Place arena in the downtown core.

“If [Calgary] wants to have the Games, if the only way we can have the Games is to partner with Whistler and Edmonton, then I think the business and political leaders would be willing to do that.”

None of this means a shared Winter Olympics would be hassle-free.

Transportation for athletes, and spectators wanting to attend events in more than one place would require additional flights, bus routes, and rental vehicles. Accommodations are needed. Athletes’ Villages must be designated or constructed to house and feed competitors. Separate international broadcasting and press centres must be built. Then there are the increased security costs for watching over athletes and facilities, airports and public gathering places in multiple locations.

“There’s a difference between moving between three cities in Italy and three cities in Western Canada,” said Moshe Lander, a professor at the University of Concordia who has researched the economics of sport.

“Geographically, it’s not close. At least Italy has presented this as ‘we’re going to do this as a tri-city bid.’ Their initial intent was to do it that way. Now Calgary’s intention is, ‘I don’t know how we’re going to do it otherwise.’ "

A key concern to hosting a spread-out Olympics is not spreading them out too far and ruining the Games’ unique vibe. In 1992, the Albertville Winter Olympics were so stretched through the Savoie region of the French Alps that it felt like a collection of World Cup events – nice, but nothing special.

It’s something Calgary is being advised not to ignore as it works at giving its bid an appealing sense of purpose — a key factor in winning a bid at the IOC.

“The reason that Chicago failed for 2016: It didn’t have a story,” Mr Pound said.

“Nobody knew why they were doing it. The contrasting one was London beating Paris [for the 2012 Summer Games]. It had a story why London would be good for the Olympics and for youth that resonated. The aspirational aspect of it was there and I don’t think we [at Calgary 2026] have our hands around that particular bowl of Jell-O.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/canada/alberta/article-calgarys-pitch-for-a-combined-alberta-bc-olympic-bid-seen-as-the/