Still a Chance for Vancouver 2026?

[Joe MacCarthy]

2 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Once awarded as a host city, how often do the Olympics or FIFA revoke the awarding? Plans change constantly, and some of the requests would have been tossed or modified.

Here's an interesting story not many know, actually involves Vancouver (sort of) as well

Another story: Colorado only state ever to turn down Olympics

Edited February 8, 2022 by Joe MacCarthy

[TGAA_Star]

I wanna see Vancouver replace Montreal as a host city 

Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver as your Canadian host cities for 2026...sounds about right

I know in BC Place, there would be sell out crowds at the World Cup every game no matter who is playing there 

[Free kick]

9 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Thing is, even Horgan's initial framing of a "blank check from BC taxpayers" was misleading. A number of the issues he was outraged about would be at the federal level and out of his jurisdiction. You can still quibble with them, but once the federal government had decided to move ahead it didn't matter. And as for some of the other costs he was outraged about, they could be renegotiated later. Furlong came out after this and talked about how the Vancouver Olympic committee agreed to quite a few things they renegotiated after being awarded the deal, because that's how this works - get the deal and then renegotiate, because FIFA wasn't going to pull out of the city after awarding it.

And that's really the crux of it - the NDP completely failed to understand how this type of bid works. As Unnamed Trialist said, it cost you nothing (well, little) to stay in the bid and see how things went. If they hadn't screwed it up at the start they'd be well on their way to being awarded it now, instead of desperately trying to get back in at the last minute.  But, Horgan wanted the big political show of standing up to FIFA and now it's cost him.

Yes.  I would add:

To steal a term or phase that someone else on this forum used a while back in relation the current BC government,  they (and their base of support) are of the belief that they need to be in control the process.  Especially when it comes to a foreign based "for profit" entity.   But in this case, FIFA is the type or organization that is owner of one of he most powerful brands (the World cup of soccer) in the world who wont surrender any control and they feel that they don't need to waste their time with a Canadian provincial government because they believe and know that they can go somewhere else.   

As much as i hate to bring in politics to the discussion, I feel its inescapable when it comes to these decisions.  

Edited February 8, 2022 by Free kick

[Approve My Account Pls]

1 hour ago, TGAA_Star said:

I wanna see Vancouver replace Montreal as a host city 

Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver as your Canadian host cities for 2026...sounds about right

I know in BC Place, there would be sell out crowds at the World Cup every game no matter who is playing there 

Montreal's not even in it. Just Toronto and Edmonton

[Watchmen]

8 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Here's an interesting story not many know, actually involves Vancouver (sort of) as well

Another story: Colorado only state ever to turn down Olympics

Yeah, though that involves the city turning down the Olympics after the fact, not the Olympics making the call.  Similar to Belgium withdrawing from the Euro this past summer after being awarded some games.  FIFA pulled the World Cup from Colombia in 1986, but I'm not aware of any individual cities being removed as a host after the awarding. Generally, no matter how disastrously any construction or set up is going, FIFA says "they'll be fine and ready on time" because as they don't want to relocate any games.

[ted]

18 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

There was no excuse not to give a provisional "yes" from the start and then negotiate on it.

That's a joke right?

Unless you have totally forgotten what happened, in which case let me help: FIFA required them to sign a non-negotiable commitment to pay for any and all 'security' associated with the games no matter what the cost and wothout having any clue what the final bill would be.

I'm not sure how much negotiation room would have been left after signing a blank cheque.  🤣

[Unnamed Trialist]

58 minutes ago, ted said:

That's a joke right?

Unless you have totally forgotten what happened, in which case let me help: FIFA required them to sign a non-negotiable commitment to pay for any and all 'security' associated with the games no matter what the cost and wothout having any clue what the final bill would be.

I'm not sure how much negotiation room would have been left after signing a blank cheque.  🤣

I don't believe that version of the events is accurate. There are many reasons why it is obvious it is not, beginning with how higher-level security is organised not only in Canada but in most countries in the world: nationally.

We haven't had a provincial police in BC for a few decades now, Ted.

In any case, it would be part of a national deal, with CSA backing, so that any city/region or venue signing any deal would have the backing and support of their national FA, Concacaf and most likely a federal ministry.

You are seriously arguing that the only municipal/regional government in recent history, world-wide, to do their due diligence and refuse to sign a "blank cheque" proposed by FIFA was Vancouver/BC? Emoji that!

Edit: I do see that some US cities were also reluctant to bid--but look how Seattle went through the numbers:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/hosting-the-world-cup-in-2026-could-cost-seattle-as-little-as-82000-city-estimates/

Edited February 8, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[ardsa]

Premier Horgan just indicated that it was FIFA (via CSA) that has approached the province about reconsidering.

Press conference is still live so I can can't link to a time stamp. 2nd question from reporters.

[Watchmen]

8 minutes ago, ardsa said:

Premier Horgan just indicated that it was FIFA (via CSA) that has approached the province about reconsidering.

Press conference is still live so I can can't link to a time stamp. 2nd question from reporters.

Makes me think they don't want just two host cities in Canada.

[narduch]

15 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Makes me think they don't want just two host cities in Canada.

Makes sense. 

They don't want Canada to host too many knock out games. If it was 2 cities with 5 games each it would have been difficult to give us only group games 

Edited February 9, 2022 by narduch

[EJsens1]

13 minutes ago, narduch said:

Makes sense. 

They don't want Canada to host too many knock out games. If it was 2 cities with 5 teams it would have been difficult to give us only group games 

Maybe I’m misinterpreting your point, but hasn’t it already been decided that Canada will get 10 games (7 group play, 2 round of 32 and 1 round of 16 match)?

[narduch]

28 minutes ago, EJsens1 said:

Maybe I’m misinterpreting your point, but hasn’t it already been decided that Canada will get 10 games (7 group play, 2 round of 32 and 1 round of 16 match)?

This schedule would be nearly impossible to do with only 2 cities.

[Free kick]

16 hours ago, ted said:

That's a joke right?

Unless you have totally forgotten what happened, in which case let me help: FIFA required them to sign a non-negotiable commitment to pay for any and all 'security' associated with the games no matter what the cost and wothout having any clue what the final bill would be.

I'm not sure how much negotiation room would have been left after signing a blank cheque.  🤣

This was the reason given at the time (June 2018) of the pullout:

Quote:"Our government has a responsibility to ensure that B.C. taxpayers are not on the hook for hidden costs. The province carefully assesses all sports events for value to taxpayers," she said.

"The FIFA bid agreement contained clauses which the government felt left taxpayers at unacceptable risk of additional costs. We tried very hard to get assurances regarding our concerns. Unfortunately, those assurances were not forthcoming."

Why Vancouver will be on the sidelines for the 2026 World Cup | CBC News  - Jun 2018

 

The question remains:  what could those cost have been that are unique to Vancouver and not relevant anywhere else?   As for those clauses?  well we think we all know what they are (see article below).  But everyone else signed up none the less and those clauses aren't going to go away.  They are the same as that that was applied for the 2015 WWC and and the 2007 U20 WC.   

PS.:  regrading those clauses,  I'll bet that this is what they baulked at:

Canada makes major guarantees, including tax exemptions to host FIFA 2026 games | National Post  - Dec 2021

 

PS2:  if you read that RECENT article (just above) note this:  "The Canadian government will also be on the hook for all security costs around the event. The 2014 games in Brazil came with approximately US$800 million in security costs."

THIS HAS TO BE WHY BC GOV'T WANTS BACK IN NOW.  The federal gov't is now picking up the tab for the security cost.   Thus proving Jamie's point (and UT's point)  that it was the BC government really who dropped the ball big time on this file.  

Edited February 9, 2022 by Free kick

[Joe MacCarthy]

5 hours ago, ted said:

That's a joke right?

Unless you have totally forgotten what happened, in which case let me help: FIFA required them to sign a non-negotiable commitment to pay for any and all 'security' associated with the games no matter what the cost and wothout having any clue what the final bill would be.

I'm not sure how much negotiation room would have been left after signing a blank cheque.  🤣

IIRC wasn't that the same reason Chicago pulled out.

[Unnamed Trialist]

If you read the article on Seattle I posted, it is all laid out. 

First, there is an initial committment, which seems steep. Then, to meet it, you partner, with other levels of government, and perhaps also with private entities (Tourism Board, sponsors). to meet certain security protocols you are not calling on the Vancouver PD anyways, it'd be RCMP and not a municipal outlay.

Then, there is a committment to receive funding from FIFA to cover part of the costs: initial outlay, subsequent repayment--at least that is what the article says (don't know the details).

Finally, the overall economic impact of an event of this nature is not hard to calculate. They have the numbers from the direct impact of the Women's final, which would be greatly exceeded by the having the men's WC in a city. Then the indirect impact, such as in promotional value and adverstising, features run in all media by international press. 

As mentioned here, what has changed:

-the NDP have a majority government with no need to make deals with a Green minority that would likely be opposed to this sort of event (though I am not entirely sure it is that clear). 

-priorities back in 2018 are not the same as they are now, faced with the one sector that has not had a chance to bounce back yet, being tourism.

-BC Place has been relatively dormant, almost an entire MLS season of matches, losing concerts, other fairs; they need to see the investment to redo it fully paid back. BC Place, apart from the plastic pitch, is by far the most complete large  outdoor sports venue in Canada.

-FIFA has asked them to take another look; which means that a certain FIFA VP who is Canadian asked them too. That flows over to the CSA and the BCSA.

-success of the MNT, after the women last summer, puts greater pressure on BC to respond and not be caught sitting out. 

-Also: that this has emerged after Edmonton suggests that quite possibly FIFA was not entirely convinced by Edmonton. I am speculating here, because as many say, they likely want 3 venue cities, not 2. But you have to wonder.

[Admin]

I really do hope this happens.  I am glad they have changed their mind and are trying to make this happen.

Some of Ted's reaction here is to my flippant remark about the withdrawal.   Things are of course always more complicated than that. 

I hope to be having BBQs with other V's in Vancouver come 2026.   

[TGAA_Star]

12 hours ago, EJsens1 said:

Maybe I’m misinterpreting your point, but hasn’t it already been decided that Canada will get 10 games (7 group play, 2 round of 32 and 1 round of 16 match)?

Exactly which makes it all the more important to have Vancouver as a host city right along with Toronto and Edmonton 

[Free kick]

15 hours ago, EJsens1 said:

Maybe I’m misinterpreting your point, but hasn’t it already been decided that Canada will get 10 games (7 group play, 2 round of 32 and 1 round of 16 match)?

Yes but with a 48 team tournament and 16 groups that would mean that there will be groups of only three teams and hence only three games per group and per city.  The initial plan, as i recall, called for 3-3-4.  Whereby one canadian city gets 4 games (ie.:  3 group stage games and one in the knowckout round) 

[Free kick]

3 hours ago, TGAA_Star said:

Exactly which makes it all the more important to have Vancouver as a host city right along with Toronto and Edmonton 

But then in the that article i posted several months ago in the appropriate thread for this topic,  Montagliani was quoted that they can do 5-5.  I still dont see how,  but that was what he said.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Free kick

[Unnamed Trialist]

13 minutes ago, Free kick said:

But then in the that article i posted several months ago in the appropriate thread for this topic,  Montagliani was quoted that they can do 5-5.  I still dont see how,  but that was what he said.

I am personally against a 48-team WC, but regardless: if you have more teams, you likely have more groups, a longer competition and you are spreading out matches a bit more. You can't be playing matches simulatenously (except last match of a group stage), to optimise tv viewing.

So this allows for a possible 5-5, two venues. It mostly has to do with getting fans in and out of a city, and then readying the stadium and pitch for a new match within no less than three days. Over a 15-day period you could play 5 matches (eg days 1, 4, 8, 11, 15). Still, that does put a lot of pressure on the grass, but it is possible. 

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You can't be playing matches simulatenously (except last match of a group stage), to optimise tv viewing.

With only 3 teams per group, there's no longer the issue of 2 group games simultaneously. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Watchmen

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, Free kick said:

But then in the that article i posted several months ago in the appropriate thread for this topic,  Montagliani was quoted that they can do 5-5.  I still dont see how,  but that was what he said.

My guess is that it was a bit of desperation from Montagliani to salvage Canada hosting 10 games, and FIFA's response has been "get another city if you want 10 games."

[ted]

18 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I don't believe that version of the events is accurate. There are many reasons why it is obvious it is not, beginning with how higher-level security is organised not only in Canada but in most countries in the world: nationally.

We haven't had a provincial police in BC for a few decades now, Ted.

In any case, it would be part of a national deal, with CSA backing, so that any city/region or venue signing any deal would have the backing and support of their national FA, Concacaf and most likely a federal ministry.

You are seriously arguing that the only municipal/regional government in recent history, world-wide, to do their due diligence and refuse to sign a "blank cheque" proposed by FIFA was Vancouver/BC? Emoji that!

Edit: I do see that some US cities were also reluctant to bid--but look how Seattle went through the numbers:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/hosting-the-world-cup-in-2026-could-cost-seattle-as-little-as-82000-city-estimates/

1. I believe my "version" is 100% accurate and I challenge you to show any published news report or media release from FIFA, CSA, BC or any involved organization that disagrees. I've been following the story closely but if I missed something I'm happy revise my opinion.

2. WTF does the question of the BC Provincial Police come in to things?!? WTF does that history have to do with the Province of BC being on the hook for security costs associated with the games?

3. As already pointed out, Chicago chose to stay out for similar reasons and many cites and even countries over the years have simply refused to participate in bids for these reasons.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm simply making sure you tell the truth. Disagree all you want but don't misrepresent to do so, please.

[Free kick]

1 hour ago, ted said:

1. I believe my "version" is 100% accurate and I challenge you to show any published news report or media release from FIFA, CSA, BC or any involved organization that disagrees. I've been following the story closely but if I missed something I'm happy revise my opinion.

2. WTF does the question of the BC Provincial Police come in to things?!? WTF does that history have to do with the Province of BC being on the hook for security costs associated with the games?

3. As already pointed out, Chicago chose to stay out for similar reasons and many cites and even countries over the years have simply refused to participate in bids for these reasons.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm simply making sure you tell the truth. Disagree all you want but don't misrepresent to do so, please.

But i am not sure what you are getting here Ted.  You haven't attached anything whereas others have.    Everything  i post on this topic is supported with an attachment of a published report or media release.    I read all your posts on this thread and the only claim you are making is:  "FIFA required them to sign a non-negotiable commitment to pay for any and all 'security' associated with the games no matter what the cost and wothout having any clue what the final bill would be. "  

But the govt never specifically said " security costs" anywhere.   You are not showing supporting evidence.  They talked rather in broader sense of costs in general.  Well that Dec 27, 2020 article from Post media  (if you read it) specifically says what costs that they meant.  And they talk about security costs and it says the federal govt is picking up the tab.     The key to understanding the gaps in your argument is the timelines, 2018 versus 2020.

 

PS.:  that news conference also tells us a lot.  he makes its a point to state that "they were a minority Govt in 2018".  But today they are not.  This tells us that ideologically,  some elements of the coalition would never have supported this regardless of all this stuff about guarantees, costs etc etc. Again, everyone else (other city) has to face the same FIFA rules. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Free kick

[Cheeta]

Have to say as grand as it would be to see BC Place all sexed up with real grass it would be equally heartbreaking to also see it removed afterwards.  A very cruel tease as it were.

Still....sexy time?  Huh?   Huh?