So just what benefit is the olympics going to be for UK PLC

Chat Forum

So just what benefit is the olympics going to be for UK PLC

166 posts & 57 voices | Started 4 months ago by project | Latest reply from konabunny

Tags:

No tags yet.

Pages: 12…5 Next »

project - Member

So today its anounced babies want be allowed in if they dont have a ticket even if they where not born when tickets where ordered,

despite large parks around london town no camping will be allowed,

The cost of the security operation is going through the roof, while Mrs Jones still gets mugged for her pension,in another part of uk plc

Heathrow airport is bulding a temporary departure/arrival lounge,at huge cost,

Huge amounts of money are being spent on new buses and road lines for the two weeks,along with thousands of multi lingual signs

Paramedics are being transfered there from round the uk just incase a foreigner is ill, while Mrs Jones somewhere else has a heart attack and has to wait for one to arrive,if there are any available,

Fianlly all the sports stadiums that are currently branded need all branding obliterated for the duration.

What a huge waste of cash, we could have thousands of miles of cycle tracks,more academy schools,and better public transport in the rest of the uk plc.

But just perhaps some peeps might like the idea of a giant costly school sports day for 2 weeks.

Posted 4 months ago #
mrmo - Member

how dare you question our masters, the olympics will bring benefits to the UK, all the politicians have said so, so it must be true.

Posted 4 months ago #
CaptJon - Member

The nearer it gets, the less i care about it. I might go abroad when it is on.

Posted 4 months ago #
project - Member

at least the tour de france is on at the same time.

Posted 4 months ago #
Drac - Moderator

Paramedics are being transfered there from round the uk just incase a foreigner is ill, while Mrs Jones somewhere else has a heart attack and has to wait for one to arrive,if there are any available,

They're all going in their own time and have to take annual leave or go in their time off, so normally services won't be effected.

Posted 4 months ago #
matt_outandabout - Member

It's OK, it's not like they chose to host it in the farthest corner of the country or anything...oh, hang on.

Posted 4 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Noe at all outsie the south east - and then the costs in terms of congestion and so on are horrendous.

Scotland has had is sports / lottery funding cut to pay for the olympics

Posted 4 months ago #
Bear - Member

The whole idea is to show Britain off to the rest of the world and generate tourism, but if that is the attitude of a typical Brit I might get them to stay away.

Yes it could have built lots of thing, I love cricket, golf, rugby and cycling it would have helped those sports massively. It will and has had an effect on cycling. Cycle to work being the main one that is obvious.

It is costing a lot but hopefully we will get a return on that investment.

Posted 4 months ago #
TheBrick - Member

matt_outandabout - Member
It's OK, it's not like they chose to host it in the farthest corner of the country or anything...oh, hang on.

Well more people do live in the S.E than any other are of the country so it is a lot more central and accessible in terms of population than you make out.

Posted 4 months ago #
teamhurtmore - Member

Look on the bright side - great time for a holiday?

Posted 4 months ago #
druidh - Member

Remember, it's the London Olympics, not the UK Olympics. No other city in the UK would have won the right to stage it and all the events (save football and yachting?) have to be in and around London.

So why isn't London paying for it?

Subsidy Junkies?

Posted 4 months ago #
Karinofnine - Member

I would love to see the real figures of how much extra £££s in tourism it generates versus how much it cost. Obviously if those figures are negative we will never see them.

So, if it's supposed to be a regeneration project, why wasn't it held somewhere that's depressed, like the Midlands who have lost a lot of heavy industry, or South Wales, where the steelworks shut down (and the mines) etc. There would be more room away from crowded London, which needs less help than other parts of the country. It would be easier from a security point of view too.

FFS, getting to work is going to be a nightmare. As for showcasing the UK, HELLO, London is only a small part of the UK and anyway, do visitors really want to see traffic jams and CCTV cameras?

Posted 4 months ago #
Klunk - Member

i've never been less interested in the olympic than this time, right load of corperate bolloxs.

Posted 4 months ago #
matt_outandabout - Member

Well more people do live in the S.E than any other are of the country so it is a lot more central and accessible in terms of population than you make out.

Oh yeah, I forgot that the SE doesn't have overcrowded public transport, roads or airports. And of course it doesn't absort more than it's fair share of funding for transport, sport, development etc.
/sarcasm mode off

Posted 4 months ago #
Bear - Member

Thank god the world is not populated by narrow minded individuals who can't see past there nose.

London is the capital and the biggest draw for tourists, who you never know might decide to visit some other parts of the UK. The part of London that has been regenerated was a very run down area, other areas in the UK may have been more deserving and do need help but please embrace something that hopefully will have a positive effect on the whole country for a good few years.

Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Posted 4 months ago #
vorlich - Member

right load of corperate bolloxs

IOC is just as corrupt as FIFA. I find the whole thing hugely distasteful, the government spunking all this cash for the spectacle of people running in circles, throwing bits of metal and jumping into pools of water. I understand how huge it is for the athletes, but really, who watches athletics at any other time, it's a minority sport.

Great for Britain they tell us. Is anyone convinced by this?

Posted 4 months ago #
matt_outandabout - Member

Yes, I am. Sporting heroes, aspirations, pride - all that is worth it. My issues are only on how much we feel that we 'have' to spend, and once more it is a SE favouring thing.

Posted 4 months ago #
Bear - Member

How much money has gone into cycling because of the success of the British Cycling team? I would say biking has been a massive winner of the investment in our elite athletes. They have a chance to showcase their ability and skill on home soil and who knows maybe just one kid will be inspired and go onto to great things.

If you don't like it don't watch, don't go, go ride your bike. I promise not to come and whine at you riding your bike whilst you could be doing something different.

Posted 4 months ago #
tron - Member

The olympics don't necessarily generate tourism. People assume everything will be booked up, busy, and twice the usual price. So they stay at home.

Tourism in Greece actually dropped during their olympics, even in the islands that were completely unaffected.

Posted 4 months ago #
TheBrick - Member

Oh yeah, I forgot that the SE doesn't have overcrowded public transport, roads or airports. And of course it doesn't absort more than it's fair share of funding for transport, sport, development etc.
/sarcasm mode off

This point is a separate point to you first point, your jumping from one point to the next. I was challenging your implied idea that the Olympics should be placed geographically centrally for a maximum number of people to visit.

Posted 4 months ago #
molgrips - Member

Heathrow airport is bulding a temporary departure/arrival lounge,at huge cost

So they are building extra facilities to accommodate extra passengers - presumably these passengers are paying fares? And hence will bring in more money?

Anyone know what the TV rights for the Olympics are worth? It's only the biggest TV event in the entire world (possibly - might be the second )

I imagine a lot of people will come to see it, and they'll be spending a lot of money whilst they are here.

Great for Britain they tell us. Is anyone convinced by this?

Of course not, but I do have an open mind, unlike apparently some on here, and I will wait for the figures before making a judgement.

Some people of course like to make judgments so much they don't wait for figures and evidence.

Posted 4 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Of course they should have been more central. Manchester would have been a much better proposition but the UK government with its south east bias refused to get behind a Manchester Olympics bid.

As it is the whole of the UK is paying for London to have this and will be no benefit only minuses outside of the south east. Scotland has lost a huge chunk of its sports funding to pay gr this

Its an embarrassment. Its going to be a bit crap as well - thats obvious Look at the logo and the mascots

Posted 4 months ago #
TheBrick - Member

Populus central, not geographical. The more populous central would probably be somewhere like Oxford or Northampton.

As it is the whole of the UK is paying for London to have this and will be no benefit only minuses outside of the south east. Scotland has lost a huge chunk of its sports funding to pay gr this

Separate point. There are lots of other points for and against the Olympics but I am talking about location for maximum number of people to have access. So populus central, not geographical.

Posted 4 months ago #
molgrips - Member

Did Manchester prepare a bid? I can't see how they'd have won. And anyway regardless of geographical location London has far better transport links than anywhere else in the UK. It's one of Europe's major air hubs for a start.

And I've explained about 10 times on here why the logo and mascot are the way they are. But you'd all rather have a great big WHINGE than do any thinking.. how sodding British of you

Posted 4 months ago #
rs - Member

Heathrow airport is bulding a temporary departure/arrival lounge,at huge cost
So they are building extra facilities to accommodate extra passengers - presumably these passengers are paying fares? And hence will bring in more money?

If it is like vancouver 2010, they built a temporary terminal but that was more for the purposes of handling the extra baggage that comes with the athletes and all the tv crews, etc. there the temp terminal was used the day after closing only.

Posted 4 months ago #
Anna B - Member

And I've explained about 10 times on here why the logo and mascot are the way they are

Have missed that, please can you explain again?

Posted 4 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Molgrips - manchester wanted to bid a few years ago but got no significant backing from the UK government so failed badly

Posted 4 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

So why are the logo and mascots so crap then molgrips - 'cos they are - they are embarassingly crap.

Posted 4 months ago #
molgrips - Member

There are two possible reasons for a Manchester bid not getting govt backing:

1) their bid was rubbish
2) It's a conspiracy against the North!

Re the mascots - remember they are meant to appeal globally. I'd imagine that they decided Europe and North America wouldn't give two hoots about these things, but Asian countries would be really into them so they designed them with a few billion Asians in mind.

It's just a guess mind, but it would explain why a country stocked with design talent made something looking like that.

Posted 4 months ago #
matt_outandabout - Member

There are lots of other points for and against the Olympics but I am talking about location for maximum number of people to have access.

Populus central does not meen more accessible - the issues with transport and increased cost of accomodation are barriers.

Posted 4 months ago #
mefty - Member

Manchester (twice) and Birmingham (once) bid unsuccessfully. After Atlanta, it was made clear that only world cities would get the games so London was our only option if we were to win.

Tourism does go down often and West End Theatre are very worried about next summer, whether it is a good thing or not, I have no idea and we will never have any decent data to evaluate.

London taxpayers have paid for part of it because it has been included in the Mayoral Levy added to our council tax, approximately £1billion.

Posted 4 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Mefty - those bids got no significant support from central government.

Scottish taxpayers have paid a part of it as well and will receive no benefit at all

Posted 4 months ago #
chewkw - Member

As long as the spin is in full force and London is making all the profit, with the rest fighting for leftovers, that is good enough for me. Just don't ask me to pay for the extra.

Posted 4 months ago #
hh45 - Member

Miserabilists really do need to get a grip of reality. The Olympics are going to be fantastic. The atmosphere will be great, the legacy of facilities and feel good factor will be great, the regeneration is already amazing. I do worry about bad weather and terrorism but if they do not materialise (too much in the case of rain)then all will be well.

As for the people who think it should be in Manchester, FFS, get a life. Manchester is not a world city like London, Sydney etc and was never a runner.

Oh, and its going to help lift us out of the economic slough of despond as well.

Posted 4 months ago #
mefty - Member

As usual you miss the point, post Atlanta, only a "world city" can win it, London is the only one in this country that meets this criteria, whether the other bids failed through lack of support is an irrelevance.

Londoners have paid for it twice, first through National taxes, like everyone else and then again through the council tax.

Posted 4 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Pages: 12…5 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

Singletrack Mountain Bike Magazine

Chat Forum

So just what benefit is the olympics going to be for UK PLC

Reply »

Don't miss…

Singletrack

Website & Forums

Exits