Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I think you are misunderstanding what I said. The point of Las Vegas stepping in is to handle ALL of the indoor events, rendering the need for indoor venues in Reno pointless. Reno's duty would instead be outdoor events. So what Reno needs isn't arena's. What Reno needs is slopes, and that's where Tahoe would step in. Reno also has a larger hotel supply than Salt Lake City, so no need for an Athlete's Village, and if indeed it's needed, there are various resorts in the vicinity of Lake Tahoe. But let's be clear. Reno has a huge hotel inventory that could easily accommodate Athlete's, as Las Vegas does as well. 

So what purpose does Reno serve other than to be an intermediary between Las Vegas and Tahoe?  Having hotels rooms doesn't do much good if it's nowhere near any of the competition venues.  It's at least an hour from Reno to where much of the competition likely would be in Tahoe.  How many thousands of people do you expect to shuttle back and forth?

More importantly.. athletes at an Olympics don't stay at hotels.  They need a village that can provide services and most importantly, security.  In doing a little research, looks like the largest hotel in Reno is the Grand Sierra.  Around 2,000 rooms.  That can accommodate a lot of people.  But if I'm the owner of the Grand Sierra, am I really about to offer up my rooms to non-paying athletes and coaches?  Who probably will spend little, if any time in the casinos?  Not a chance.  That's all well and good for fans and Olympic big-wigs, but that's not sufficient for the purposes of a village for athletes/coaches/media.  Ditto for Las Vegas, where again, on average about 90% of rooms are already filled on a regular basis without the need for big events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I am not speaking to tourists. I am speaking to ticket sales. When you add up the available tickets from Las Vegas hosting indoor events compared to Salt Lake City, there is, simply put, more capacity in Las Vegas than Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City also is a stand alone metropolis, and as you just acknowledged both Reno and Las Vegas are in close proximity to San Francisco and Los Angeles. That doesn't even begin to mention that Las Vegas' population is twice that of Salt Lake City. I'm not saying Reno has an edge but these are, for better or for worse, features of that possibility. But moving to the new LA argument, I don't think anybody would argue that both Reno and Tahoe could use the boost from international exposure. And as far as this being bad PR for the IOC as mentioned before, there is precedent for it happening, and that would be the Raiders. Just 10 years ago the NFL would have said HELL NO to Las Vegas, until it said yes. And all of that has a lot to do with Nevada being friendly to sport. 

The abstract concept of "sport" you speak of is vastly different when you're talking about the NFL versus something like the Olympics.  You keep bringing up possibilities, but don't think them through.  Reno could use the international exposure.  Vegas doesn't need it.  The Olympics is not something that's going to add value to their city.  Not the same as building a stadium that is guaranteed to host at a bare minimum 10 NFL games a year and can be used to lure other things like the Super Bowl or a Final Four.  What the Olympics requires is something Las Vegas could handle, but I doubt it's something they'd be interested in.  Hotels and casinos bring in a ton of money and an occasional football game is a great excuse for someone to take a trip to Vegas.   Having the Olympics there with events all day and night means those tourists won't be spending as much time at the casinos.  That's an unwanted distraction and it's probably not all that good for business.  Sure, all the arenas would sell a ton of tickets, but if the casinos that own those arenas are losing money as a result, at best it's a zero sum game and probably worse than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I think I addressed this. A flight from McCarren International to Reno-Tahoe International is less than 1 hour. Though gate to gate is approx 1:15 min. But unlike most airports McCarren is literally across the freeway or within a few blocks from the New 65000 seat Raiders Stadium, 20000 seat T-Mobile Arena, 9500 seat Orleans, 16,800  MGM Garden Arena, and 18000 seat Thomas & Mack Center and 12000 seat Mandalay Events Center. There is also an eSports Arena inside the Luxor in this zone, literally a stones throw away from McCarren International. And just like Las Vegas Reno-Tahoe International is in very close proximity to downtown Reno. But it is important to be clear that Las Vegas would host indoor events and Reno-Tahoe outdoor events, virtually eliminating the need for that kind of travel as most figure skaters aren't likely to also be on the slopes at the same games. 

Have you been to an airport recently?  Add to that total at least an hour to get through security.  At least 15-30 minutes on either end to get to/from the airport, get luggage, etc.  And not for nothing, SLC is all of 8 miles from downtown, so it's not like that's a long trip.  Why deal with that potential headache for anyone who might want to attend events in both locations (or media who require that trip as a part of their job) when it's not necessarily with Salt Lake?  You keep pushing this concept of splitting the indoor and outdoor events, but there's an option where that doesn't need to exist.  Where all the venues are already built.  Las Vegas would need to built a speed skating venue.  Tahoe would need a sliding track, a ski jump hill, and probably more.  Doesn't help the argument if only one half of the bid is ready to go and the other half isn't exactly a short trip away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RuFF said:

That's a good argument for sure. But look at it this way. If you are a Reno Casino Owner and your city has been in the shadows of Las Vegas and perhaps even in decline, do you take advantage of the International Exposure? Those are absolute hurdles of Reno for sure, but I don't think they are insurmountable. Kind of like Sochi and Vancouver I would say, no? 

No.  What about any of this is like Sochi and Vancouver?  Especially Sochi which spent billions of dollars to conquer those hurdles.  You keep talking about Reno, but in your scenario, not a single competition is within an hour of Reno proper.  Tahoe is not a short distance away and that's an awful lot of people that would have to make that trek every day.  And if all the indoor events are in Las Vegas, why wouldn't I want to be there instead of in Reno, an hour away from the nearest competition?

Again, this boils down to a simple truth.. the USOC has the option of going with a bid that faces almost none of these hurdles.  Why would they choose this plan (which, let's be fair here, is one you are inventing rather than what Reno-Tahoe is actually offering) when there's a better plan out there from a city showing a ton of interest?  I hope you appreciate the irony here that you'd making a case for the risky option instead of the safe option when you have been championing LA largely because they were the safest option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RuFF said:

Silly question. Why do you suppose Las Vegas Convention Center is 2 million square feet and hotels are blocked for them? Do all those people feed the slot machines, too? Think about that for a second. 

Because when conventioneers come to town, they or the companies that sponsor them are paying for those hotel rooms.  Olympic athletes aren't paying.  Many of them probably don't have enough money or time to spend it in the casinos.  Do you see the difference between inviting the Olympics and virtually anything else that might come to town?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RuFF said:

You're entitled to you opinion. I'm not going to argue to convince you of whether or not it works. I am just stating features of the possibility. And I have no come up with the idea of adding Sacramento or Las Vegas to the mix, The Reno-Tahoe Coalition has and there are many news articles that speak of it. I just examined it as a possibility and those were the features I found. Again, is that necessarily better than SLC, I don't know. I am not the IOC and I will not be voting. But a solid vetting reveals that there are some benefits, and some drawbacks as well. 

Keep in mind.. you're not talking about the IOC.  You're talking about the USOC.  They get to choose what city (since they can only pick 1) they want to offer up for a bid.  And - the dumpster fire of a decision that was Boston aside - we can probably count on them picking the city/bid that is more likely to impress the IOC.  I'm taking in what you're offering here, but I don't see the USOC going for it.  Especially given the state of affairs with the IOC where a lot of emphasis is being put on already having things in place and not having to spend.  That's Salt Lake to a tee.  Nevada 2030 doesn't provide that.  There's a reason Reno-Tahoe is taking the lead on this and not Vegas.  After all, if what you were suggesting was the plan, then this is a Las Vegas bid, not a Reno-Tahoe bid.  And we saw what happened the last time Las Vegas tried to offer themselves up to the IOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RuFF said:

In the case of Los Angeles 2028 who do you think is paying for the use of UCLA and USC? Wouldn't it be the same in Las Vegas? Because in case you are not aware the Organizing committee is paying for it. The lateral lines are pretty good here man I don't know why you're trying to blind yourself to them. 

UCLA and USC are not offering up hotels.  They are using dorm rooms.  They are not pushing out revenue generating guests to make that work.  Asking a Las Vegas or Reno hotel to turn themselves into housing for athletes is a world of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I can't argue with that. I agree as a matter of fact. But that doesn't at all deduce Reno to zero. And taking the lead could the State possibly do it? Is there any possibility of Nevada 2030? Would that change things and we all know Nevada LIVES for exposure and tourism. 

My argument isn't to diminish SLC. I see very well what you are talking about. My argument is just to highlight that there is a lot more to that Reno bid than it's being given credit for. Look up the venues yourself and their location. And could anyone argue that the players in Nevada are light years ahead of the players in SLC as far as the business community? Many of the same hotel owners in Las Vegas have a stake in the hotels in Reno, much of which they also own. As a whole the state of Nevada has shown it is in the business of bringing in tourist whether it be by casinos or conventions. An Olympics would add to that. And of course the argument of ticket sales. Filling coffers and having a strong business community that has a history of large pockets. I'm certain SLC has it's merits and out of the gate it has the lead, but come on. 

You come on.  You're trying to take a Reno bid and make it into something it's not.  If the folks in charge of the bid coalition or in Vegas see it that will, that's one thing.  You trying to make a case for it to explore the possibility isn't.  And you can't view a Nevada bid (or whatever else it is) in a vacuum without acknowledging that Salt Lake is out there.  Either way, is the Olympics something that will benefit the state of Nevada beyond what they already bring in on a regular basis?  Not so sure about that.  You need to think this one through and look at the big picture, not to simply imagine plopping the Olympics down in Nevada and not looking at the consequences of what that means.  SLC has more than it's merits.  It has an almost completely ready to go plan for hosting an Olympics with little to no infrastructure needed.  Reno-Tahoe-whatever don't have anything close to that and I'd be very skeptical that the benefits would out-weight the costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Again, UCLA and USC are being paid for by the Organizing Committee. And if you think that's a cheap I don't know what to say but you are essentially disrupting operations at two of the worlds top Universities. And to say that a convention block at a hotel is much different than an Olympics block in a state whose primary business is tourism is a stretch at best, but in reality a regular day in Las Vegas and/or Reno. This is what they do, everyday, they'd just be changing the event. 

How much revenue do UCLA and USC dorms normally bring in during the Summer?  That's a total hypothetical, but if the organizing committee is paying to use all of those facilities, then they're probably making more money than they would otherwise, even if it's being disruptive.  Contrast that to a Las Vegas hotel where guests are spending money not only for the hotel but at the casino as well.  According to their website, the next 2 conventions in Vegas there are dermatology and a biomedical conference.  Doctors.  Not a skier from Austria who probably doesn't have a ton of time or money to spend at a casino.  So no, not a stretch to say those 2 things are completely different.  Businesses and industry types come to Vegas because for them it's a playground with tons of restaurants, shops, casinos, and other places to spend money.  When you replace those types with Olympic athletes and media who are working/training long hours, that's a much different crowd you're inviting into town and anything but a regular day because it also means a lot of people (or businesses or whoever their regular customers are) who might choose to spend a weekend there in February will then probably avoid the hassle altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RuFF said:

I think it's the other way around. You are trying to make Reno and Las Vegas into whatever appeals to your argument. Rather than actually examining what they have to offer. That's the difference here. I accept that SLC is ready to go. And at first glance it would appear that it is the only area capable of offering what the IOC is likely looking for. But I did some research and found something quite different. There is too much precedent of a drive the distance of Reno-Tahoe. There is precedent for the idea of a Regional Bid. Whether or not it's acceptable or better isn't up to me, but if you examine closely there is a lot to be offered in Nevada. And I'm not making up adding Las Vegas to the mix. I didn't even think about it until the media put out that the Coalition was considering adding Golden 1 Arena in Sacramento, followed by Las Vegas. I am not that smart, I couldn't have come up with that myself. 

But when they did, because if they're talking about it they probably are looking into it, I took a microscope to the possibility. That DOES NOT MEAN that it's better than SLC. It just means that there is some merit to what they are saying upon further examination. You're making it seem as if an hour and a half drive from Reno to Lake Tahoe is unheard of when it's on par with from Vancouver and from Sochi to their resorts. And to boot (if you examine) you will find that the road to South Lake Tahoe is a 4 lane highway through the mountains. I didn't come up with crap for the sake of coming up. I came up with it because I examined the possibility. Does that make it better, No. But is it possible? I think so. But that's my own examination free of what anybody thinks. And then to say that the hurdle is so large that it cost Sochi 51 billion to overcome it it completely dismisses the existing arenas in Las Vegas, which Sochi didn't have. It completely dismisses the endless inventory of hotels in both cities, which again, Sochi didn't have. It completely dismisses McCarren International which handles over 48 million passengers a year (twice as much as Vancouver) literally across the street, and again, Sochi (or Vancouver) didn't have that. It dismisses that even Reno is larger than Sochi and has a larger hotel inventory.  But somehow this is totally unimaginable in your eyes. You're busy counting arenas in Reno when it's obvious what they are planning and that's where we are departing because I am examining actual conditions, not saying it's better, just saying there is some merit and as is obvious, precedent. It's been done before, and in the case of Vancouver, responsibly. There IS precedent, and that's what you're completely glossing over.

I'm not glossing over anything.  I'm listening to what you're offering and analyzing it.  Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny because you want to view your "possibility" in a vacuum.  If Salt Lake wasn't in the picture, we would be looking at Reno's efforts a lot differently.  But Salt Lake is in the picture and they can't be ignored.  That aside..

You're saying there's precedent for a Reno-Tahoe-Vegas, but is there?  That distance is a lot longer than what Sochi or Vancouver had to deal with.  Winter Olympics have often had a city cluster and a mountain cluster, but usually they're close enough to be connected by road or rail, not by air.  That is unprecedented.  I see the stories you're talking about where Reno officials are talking about Vegas (and make a similar case as you where they're not that far apart compared to past hosts), but that doesn't mean it's a viable idea just because they're suggesting it.  Possible?  Sure.  But it comes from a place where I don't think it would work well in reality.  Not to put them on par with Boston, but sometimes you put a plan in motion and it doesn't work out as well in practice as it did in theory.

Something very important to keep in mind about distances if you're making comparisons to Vancouver and Sochi.  The 2010 Olympics had 2 villages, 1 in Vancouver and 1 in Whistler.  The 2010 Olympics had 2 villages, 1 in Sochi and the other up in the mountains.  Similarly, the 2018 Olympics had a village in the mountains and 1 closer to the coastal cluster.  Tell an athlete that the half and a hour drive between their accommodations in Reno and their competition venue in Tahoe is on par with past Olympics.  It's not.  Not even close.  That's fine to ask spectators to do that, but you can't tell athletes and coaches and team officials and media that it's going to be a 3 hour round trip every day, and that's without traffic.  I get you're examining the possibilities, but this one you didn't get from anything the committee has talked about.  This is on your own.  You're free to offer up these ideas, but I'm also free to scrutinize those ideas if they're not so good ideas.  Don't tell me you are examining actual conditions when you're inventing this on your own.  And if it's not better than the alternative, it's not going to get selected.  You did this a lot with LA.. you can't jump to the point where this plan has already been chosen and try to justify why it could work.  Just because it *could* work, doesn't mean it would get selected in the first place.  And to say "it's been done before" is being really disingenuous to what was done before and what you're suggesting now.  Let alone to make any comparison to Sochi, which is pretty much why the IOC is in the mess they are in now in the first place.

Bottom line.. you shouldn't be making the Atlanta argument where you're setting the baseline for what is acceptable and anything that surpasses that should be considered.  The bar is Salt Lake.  If this Nevada bid can't be better than that, it's not going to get a chance in the first place.  Doesn't mean they shouldn't try and just give up.  But there's very little in what you're offering up (and what they might offer up) that makes me think it's the best choice for the USOC.  I just can't see it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RuFF said:

Speaking of which on the Paris thread you just finished saying that LA is an exception at the right time where the IOC needed a city that is ready to go, and here you are arguing that SLC is ready to go, which it is. But for months you also argued that LA could not be a model because nowhere else on earth are cities are ready to go as LA. So my question is could a Las Vegas/Reno/Tahoe successful games be a better example to get European Cities on board? Could that trio set a template for other countries which would be in line with a regional bid using existing facilities? After all that's what you've been saying the movement needs instead of those rare ready to go exceptions. In this regard, I think this bid offers greater opportunity than SLC, though no doubt, SLC offers safety. But could anybody else replicate it?

You know what else I've said before.. there is no such thing as a model/template for an Olympics.  There are things cities can learn from each other, but what works for 1 city may not be what another city needs.  What exactly is it that you're hoping European cities could replicate?  That the selling point of Vegas is that they have 4 arenas within 4 miles of each other, what European city has that?  What European city has the quality and quantity of hotels they have in Nevada?  At some point, we're probably going to see a more regional bid for a Winter Olympics.  But I don't see it being the case that the USOC is going to put Vegas/Reno/Tahoe in as the bid (which is probably not in their best interests) and suddenly that's going to draw in European cities.  It's the IOC that has to relax their requirements and be more accepting of a regional bid, something they've said they would entertain, but that remains to be seen.  It doesn't need to be the case that someone else outside of Europe does it first before, say, a Stockholm/Are bid would put themselves in the running.

So a simple answer to your question.. no.  A successful Vegas/Reno/Tahoe games would not be a better example to get European Cities on board.  It wouldn't set a template for other countries.  Again, what the movement needs is for the IOC to be more flexible.  This needs to be about them, not what cities are presented in front of them.  As I've also said before, building things is not the antithesis of what a proper, successful bid needs.  It just needs to be done more responsibility and with more long-term planning.  That's as much on the IOC as it is on any city that might be interested in bidding for an Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Great stuff. I guess one would have to ask how far are Whistler and Edmonton are from Calgary. And that Reno has a ton of hotel rooms for spectators and visitors does not mean Tahoe has zero accommodations. Of the 4000 beds required for athletes and coaches, how many would be in vegas, and how many in Tahoe? The only vacuum I see is the one where you think discussing the potential is unacceptable because there is SLC. It’s just an examination.

23 minutes ago, RuFF said:

As a side note: Squaw Valley, host of the 1960 Olympics in Lake Tahoe merged with Alpine Meadows resort to become North America’s second largest ski resort and is currently undergoing a 1 billion expansion to add 860 hotel and condominium units. Also, Squaw Valley is one of 18 ski resorts on Lake Tahoe so Quakers implying that Lake Tahoe is a small village is not exactly rooted in any truth. 

That's adorable you think I implied that.  Please, feel free to show me where I implied such a thing.  Actually, don't bother, you won't be able to.

No, Tahoe is the biggest asset they probably have.  They already have an alpine venue that has hosted World Cup races.  Although it should noted that very little of what was in Squaw Valley for the 1960 Olympics still exists, so they'd have to build a lot from scratch.  Yes, it's notable that there's a major expansion project underway.  Probably should also be noted that it's part of a 25 year plan, not something that's going to be done in a year or 2.  Not to mention that it faced a good deal of local opposition.  So let's see what happens when there are proposals for things like a ski jump stadium and a sliding track are on the table.

See, here's the thing.  I'm all for looking at new ideas.  But you need to understand that it's been done here on this site before.  You're not the first person to try and envision an alternate version of a Reno-Tahoe bid and make a case for it.  And as with many of your posts about LA, you seem to only want to focus on positive aspects and be free of criticism.  That's not how it works.  If you want to discuss "the potential," those plans come with both positive and negatives.   There needs to be some form of an athletes' village, preferably in close proximity to competition venues.  You can't just say "but there are so many hotel rooms" and think that's the solution.  To be fair, Vegas being Vegas, they could probably justify building something brand news and using that and then whoever the developer is takes over afterwards.  Still, easier said than done.  And, much as I know you'll hate that I bring this up.. it's all a moot point anyway if folks running the bid can't convince the USOC to pick them over Salt Lake.  I'm listening to every argument you're making for Reno/Tahoe/Las Vegas/Nevada and giving you my opinion.  Very little of what you're offering up makes me think "you know what, that's a good idea, I think they should put that out there."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 2:50 PM, RuFF said:

I guess that’s what the problem is, you think I’m trying to convince you.

Nope, don't think that

On 7/10/2018 at 2:50 PM, RuFF said:

You also seem to think that I think this is a better bid than SLC.

Don't think that either

On 7/10/2018 at 2:50 PM, RuFF said:

And for whatever reason discussing attributes, whether they’re good enough or not seem to be the hot button that sets off criticism based on the aforementioned “thoughts” that you think I’m thinking. You know what normal people call this? They call it an insecure person who is trying to gain value by infecting their own narratives to steamroll others discussion and appear as some sort of greater source, when really nobody needs that. Attributes are attributes and all they are. They are not trying to convince anyone. So please, stop convincing yourself that I’m talking for the sake of somehow (insert your fabricated narrative here) and allow other people to engage with you chiming in on every post for crying out loud. 

You of all people are going to talk about infecting their own narratives?  Streamrolling others' discussion?  That's rich coming from you.  I don't have a narrative.  I have an opinion.  This isn't some hot button issue for me and I know it's not for you.  But if my opinion is being critical of what I perceive to be a poor idea, so be it.  In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not the only person here who thinks that.  Other people are more than welcome to engage as 2 people already have.  I'm not having this discussion to gain value.  You entered the conversation under the idea of "I was thinking that Reno is probably being overlooked here too much ".  Speaking of someone who sounds insecure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RuFF said:

And he said that all in one post. 

Appreciate the irony here that you paid more attention to him insulting me than insulting you.  But hey, whatever amuses you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RuFF said:

Take a Xanax honey and chill out. 

You're telling me to chill out.  I'm not the one who is all hot and bothered here.  This is an Internet forum.  And one that has a pretty bad reputation for people treating each other like **** and moderators that let it happen (less we discuss your colorful history).  Learn to handle criticism.  Figure out how to deal with someone disagreeing with you and offering a counter-point.  Or in this case, 3 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Lord have mercy Quaker you just don't give up. You're like public access television going all day but nobody is listening. Calm down. Get yourself together and then come back to the conversation. 

Says the guy who keeps posting in the LA thread that I'm not sure anyone is still paying much attention to.

We were having a decent conversation here.  Until some point you decided you didn't like someone being critical of your ideas and went rogue.  Yea, I'm well aware I can be abrasive.  I know that and I own it.  You knew that when we started a dialog.  Understand that conversations here about adding Vegas have been discussed before.  It's not something that has been overlooked, as was your opening salvo.  The idea of a Reno-Tahoe-whatever bid has been out there for years and it has been covered.  If you want to re-visit, that's all well and good, but don't patronize the crowd here to make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who enjoy looking at bid-related documents will undoubtedly be interested at this..

Who would pay $1.3 billion for the Olympics to be in Salt Lake City?

Direct link to the SLC Exploratory Committee Report - https://www.scribd.com/document/393236375/OEC-Report-Final-Web-Doc-1#download&from_embed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

OpEd: The Olympic Host City Conundrum
11/16/18

(ATR) Olympic expert Mike Moran chronicles the troubled history of Winter Olympic bids. In the wake of the defeat of the Olympic bid referendum in Calgary this week, Moran says he has a sense of foreboding.

Moran is a former director of communications for the U.S.Olympic Committee. In that role he’s been associated with two successful bids from the U.S. for the Olympics, Atlanta and Salt Lake City. He lives in Colorado Springs where he is senior media consultant for the Colorado Springs Sports Corporation. He was inducted into the Colorado Springs Sports Hall of Fame in 2005.

2xyrdfjq.2u5.png

Mike Moran lives in Colorado Springs. (M.Moran)

Mike Moran's Musings: The Olympic Host City Conundrum

Whoa! The International Olympic Committee has lost yet another city showing interest in hosting the 2026 Olympic Winter Games this week. The citizens of Calgary voted 56.4% against the bid in a non-binding citywide plebiscite, effectively killing any chance of the Olympics making a second visit to Alberta.

Calgary becomes the fifth city this year to withdraw their interest in hosting the 2026 Winter Games, joining Sapporo, Japan; Graz, Austria; Sion, Switzerland; and Erzurum, Turkey.

Just two cities are left, and both face significant opposition from governments and their citizens, Milan-Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy and Stockholm, Sweden.

Stockholm's bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics has been thrown into serious doubt after the City Council's two newly-merged parties agreed they will not host the Games. The city, which staged the Olympic Games in 1912, had been lacking support from the Swedish Government and the City Council.

Italy's former three-pronged bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics has been reduced to a two-city candidacy featuring Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo. Turin’s candidacy is dead in the water now, with the city’s exclusion following infighting between Milan Mayor Giuseppe Sala and Turin counterpart Chiara Appendino, who had been arguing over the bid's leadership and naming rights.

The question suddenly on the minds of millions is “does anyone want the Winter Games at all?” The costs are staggering.

When Squaw Valley was awarded the 1960 Winter Games over Innsbruck, some $80 million was spent to develop the infrastructure and venues at what had been an undeveloped resort. But it all came with controversy.

In 1957, the United States government threatened to deny visas to athletes from Communist countries. The IOC responded with a threat to revoke Squaw Valley's right to host the 1960 Games. The United States conceded and allowed entry to athletes from Communist countries. CBS purchased the television rights for just $50,000.

The USOC submitted a 1980 bid from tiny Lake Placid, which had hosted the 1932 Winter Games, and it turned out to be the only bid for IOC consideration. With no other city wishing to bid in light of the problems experienced from 1968-76 by the Winter Olympic host cities, only Lake Placid remained as a candidate when it came time for the IOC to award the 1980 Olympic Winter Games, and so the village was selected.

ABC paid $25 million for the television rights to the Games, which cost $49 million to stage in the town’s final Games operating budget.

Recent costs are mind-numbing.


Sarajevo 1984 ($55 million), Calgary 1988 ($438 million), Albertville 1992 ($2.1 billion and a cost overrun of 137%), Lillehammer 1994 ($1.1 billion), Nagano 1998
($2.2 billion), Salt Lake City 2002 ($1.4 billion and a $56 million surplus), Turin 2006 ($1.6 billion), Vancouver 2010 ($1.3 billion), Sochi 2014 ($51 billion), Pyeongchang 2018 ($13 billion).

But the current host city squabble is hardly the first controversy that the IOC has faced in modern times….let’s roll back to 1980 and the awarding of the 1984 Olympic Games to Los Angeles and the hassles in that city that had developed over the costs.

The IOC had given the LAOOC and the USOC until August 31, 1980, to come up with a guarantee, or else the Games were going elsewhere. The USOC promised $25 million, which it did not really have, the LA moguls pitched in another $25 million to indemnify the city against a shortfall, and the USOC gave the IOC a $300,000 deposit in good faith, allowing the Lausanne officials to wink and keep the Games in Los Angeles.

Since only Tehran had bid for the Games against Los Angeles, it’s anyone’s guess now where they would have moved the Games if Los Angeles, like Denver in 1973, had given them back. The Games were a huge success, earning a splendid $233 million surplus and giving the USOC back almost $111 million for its gamble, and the teamwork probably saved the Olympic Games for the future.

Los Angeles has been awarded the right to host the 2028 Olympic Games after Paris in 2024, and the USOC is analyzing cohesive bids from Denver and Salt Lake City for the proposed 2030 Olympic Winter Games.

Salt Lake says it can stage the Games for an ambitious $1.35 billion and Denver says it will look at a tab of about $2 billion to bring the Games to the Rockies. The USOC says it will make up its mind by the end of the year.

Salt Lake says it can host again at a lower cost than other places, but it will have to overcome the stigma from a bidding scandal that marred the buildup to the 2002 Games.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert says that the city is a clear front-runner because, based on the merits, "there's no place better. In fact, we are probably not only the best place in America to host the Olympics, we're probably the best place in the world."

Seated Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper says “I think one of the things that hosting an event like the Olympics allows a state to do is to show the world all the progress they've made, and if they've changed a lot in the last 10 or 15 years; they've built a transit system, they've got a great airport, a lot of the stuff that we've done that allows you to grow, as the infrastructure allows you to grow, that's where I come down and say, "Well, maybe that's a good idea."

Colorado’s Governor-Elect Jared Polis, doing his best Dick Lamm ’73 impersonation, has said he would not support bringing the Olympics to Colorado. In a June debate, Polis said he didn’t think Denver should even continue pursuing a bid. “These are like fun things for millionaires and business people but it leaves the rest of us with the debt and the price tag,” Polis said. He did not attend this week’s USOC site selection team visit to the Mile High city.

As if new USOC Chief Executive Officer Sarah Hirshland didn’t have enough else to concern herself with, right here in the organization’s home state in Colorado Springs, Olympic City USA.

Perhaps it will fall on the shoulders of Los Angeles to save the Games from extinction once again, but in the meantime, the defection of the handful of cities from the 2026 bidding process because of costs, overrun history and even climate change is foreboding.

Stay tuned, and don’t change the channel.

ATR

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sochi really did damage the winter olympics. Rogge's new frontiers goal really did it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmfao - is Quaker your GB’s mentor or something? And just FYI :lol:, but Quaker doesn’t believe that they’ll be any sort of double award here (if you’ve been following the forums these past few months, including this one). He’s quite adamant that the IOC at this point should ‘focus’ on 2026 & only 2026.

I OTOH, think that it’s in the best interest of the IOC to instill stability on the winter side of things for the next decade, like they did on the summer side. And it could be possible Milan 2026 & SLC 2030 could still work out very nicely for them if they’re interested at all in having no more bad PR around the bid process. It still gives them a European Winter Games in 2026 & also I don’t think the USOC is pursuing a 2030 candidate so early for no reason whatsoever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FYI said:

Lmfao - is Quaker your GB’s mentor or something? And just FYI :lol:, but Quaker doesn’t believe that they’ll be any sort of double award here (if you’ve been following the forums these past few months, including this one). He’s quite adamant that the IOC at this point should ‘focus’ on 2026 & only 2026.

I OTOH, think that it’s in the best interest of the IOC to instill stability on the winter side of things for the next decade, like they did on the summer side. And it could be possible Milan 2026 & SLC 2030 could still work out very nicely for them if they’re interested at all in having no more bad PR around the bid process. It still gives them a European Winter Games in 2026 & also I don’t think the USOC is pursuing a 2030 candidate so early for no reason whatsoever. 

Quaker started the thread a long time ago, and resurfaced it with this article, hence why I tagged him directly ... Do I need to call you out directly so you feel included?

 

I'm aware of his opinion, I wanted to know if it had changed given the new circumstances. And, if it was the same, I wanted to hear why. Just getting discussion rolling, hence the point of this thread, and forum entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FYI said:

I OTOH, think that it’s in the best interest of the IOC to instill stability on the winter side of things for the next decade, like they did on the summer side. And it could be possible Milan 2026 & SLC 2030 could still work out very nicely for them if they’re interested at all in having no more bad PR around the bid process. It still gives them a European Winter Games in 2026 & also I don’t think the USOC is pursuing a 2030 candidate so early for no reason whatsoever. 

Even though I did not tag you directly, thanks for sharing. I too am smelling a double-award on the horizon, I agree with you in that the USOC wouldn't be worrying this early about a 2030 bid, especially when they already have a full-on Olympics to plan, if they weren't expecting to find out about hosting 2030 next year. I also think they are putting some sort of trust in SLC about erasing some of the bad press, which is understandable.

 

Look, we agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know that’s the point of the forums (that’s why I mentioned my stance on it). But if you’ve also checked out the Calgary 2026/SLC 2030 thread lately, you’d see that his opinion hasn’t changed. As a matter of fact, he seems to think that the more these cities are dropping out of 2026, the less likely that there would be a double in this case, even though that’s exactly what happened in the summer category last year in order for that double to occur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×