- So just what benefit is the olympics going to be for UK PLC
Populus central does not meen more accessible – the issues with transport and increased cost of accomodation are barriers.
Good point, however I would say on that point that the S.E overall has the best transport and connections. Perhaps the metric should be a averaged (time to travel)*(price of trip)*some factor type thing. I’m not sure accommodation would be much cheaper anywhere else though profiteering would not be any less in another part of the country.Posted 7 years agoscaredypantsSubscriber
I’m going on holiday that fortnight 😀
Another vanity project moneypit so that a few UK bigwigs can invite their international tosspot counterparts over for a dinner party or 14 at everyone’s expense
I wouldn’t mind so much if they were offering decent access to events at sensible prices but it’s extortionate and even the oganisation of the sales is risible. CLosing off public spaces that are within sight of events (box hill, is it ?) is the final insult IMO
The IOC should **** off and realise that single-city events are a shitty idea
Anyhow, weather’s been nice 😉Posted 7 years agohh45Member
TJ – you make some fair-ish points but Scotland is the minority. National teams will be staying (and hence spending money, bringing some life etc) to places all over the country and not just London. Certainly as far as Midlands and I know that not the whole country but nowhere would benefit the whole country. I’m sorry your grass roots spending has been cut – we suffered the loss of Beastway that was bad enough but i expect some of those cuts get blamed on Olympics as it is a way to blame nasty English and in fact would have been cut anyway.
as others have pointed out Londoners have paid for it in all sorts of subtle ways so that’s not a good argument.
As for ‘cuts’ that is a different argument. The Olympic spending was perfect for sustaining jobs through the last four years downturn even if more by luck than judgement.
As for drugs, like all athletes I am drug free!Posted 7 years agoscuttlerMember
I’m in Yorkshire, love live sport, bid for tickets, got some and can’t wait. I always wanted to go to the Olympics but now I can do it for a few quid of petrol and a tent in my mates garden. I can’t be doing with this front-line service mentality – it’s coincidence its happening during austere times but if any smartarses in 2005 were predicting the crash then it sure as hell didn’t stop them spending like mad. Yeah spend it all on hospitals and schools and make the world turn grey. Sure the politicians are tossing themselves off over it and I hate that and the mentality of the IOC but it’s a spectacle of sport and loads and loads of people will enjoy it.Posted 7 years agoonehundredthidiotMember
On the plus side it’ll be a great time for a riot (outside London) given the number of police that are being called in. Strangely the Scottish forces aren’t being trained (well no word on it so far) in English law so there’s a get out clause. I really fancy a trip to France (101st will be on duty in london village) but i fancy the traffic will be terrible doon there. So it’s the west coast highlands for me.Posted 7 years agoaracerMember
Oh and not a huge net profit for UK plc as the majority of companies will be multinationals and HMRC will probably cut them a nice tax deal.
Where do you get the idea it will be a net profit for the UK at all? Even if you include the most spurious income it will still be a huge net loss. As for Londoners paying for it in all sorts of ways – well maybe, but at least you get most of the benefit from it, unlike the rest of the country who are still paying lots towards it.
however I would say on that point that the S.E overall has the best transport and connections.
So why are most of the events going to be so awkward to get to for those (the majority of people in this country) coming from outside London? Or was your last word supposed to be “congestion”?
I’m also with TJ on the funding issues for anything other than elite Olympic sport. This is nothing to do with the recession – such diversion of funds was planned right from when London won.Posted 7 years agobrooessMember
Cheer up you lot!Posted 7 years ago
If there was ever a time when the UK needed a bit of a national party…
We all love cycling, right? Remember how, for a few weeks, cycling was cool and positive PR all over the place in 2008, well we’ll get something similar however well the Brit squad do. And we get an ace new velodrome in London 🙂
We should be proud of our country, support our team and make the best of a once-in-a-lifetime party…AlasdairMcSubscriber
TandemJeremy – Member
hh45 – so I should celebrate the fact that Scotland is paying for something that will bring no benefit anywhere near to Scotland and indeed has already caused lasting damage to Scotland grass roots sport an will continue to do so for years?
Is it only Scottish money paying for the 2014 Commonwealth Games then? Swings and roundabouts – I’m all in favour of both events, 2014 mainly because it has prompted a long overdue refurbishment of the Commonwealth pool in Edinburgh.
In fact, speaking of Commonwealth Games, where were they held in 2002? With that in mind, why should there be a central England bias to sporting events when other cities are more capable (ie London)?!?
Regarding 2012, I agree that the logo is awful, reminds me of Lisa Simpson doing unspeakable things – but it is a strong brand that you recognise…Posted 7 years ago
Is it only Scottish money paying for the 2014 Commonwealth Games then?
yes – all funding from the UK s refused IIRC. 2014 is funded totaly from within Scotland
Whats worse under barnett formula Scotland gets a % of the total UK spending – But IIRC the Olympic funding was excluded from this calculation. So Scotland loses out again.Posted 7 years agogrumMember
The economic rationale for the project was that the private sector would raise the money needed. But the financial crisis meant it was unable to borrow, so the government bailed out the Games, with public funding increasing by £5.9bn – almost triple the original budget. According to the House of Commons public accounts committee, less than 2% of the budget has ended up coming from the private sector.
But despite the public bailout, London 2012 will not be leaving behind the type of public-spirited legacy equated with 1851 and 1951. Instead developments will be entirely private, sold off piecemeal to the highest bidder. The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park – the first park in Britain for 150 years – will not be run by the Royal Parks Agency, but by private companies; and the places within it, from the Olympic village to the venues, will be private. Or at least that was the intention, although the debacle over the sell-off of the stadium revealed how easily these deals can collapse.
Meanwhile, a £1bn bid by the Wellcome Trust to buy the Olympic Park and village and create a “Silicon Valley for Europe” – in conjunction with two universities, and providing a museum, social housing and 7,000 jobs – was turned down by the Olympic Park Legacy Company. One reason was that it didn’t offer “value for money” to the taxpayer. The village has now been sold to a consortium led by Qatar’s royal family.
The funding is being cut from all sorts of socially useful projects to pay for this. Much of the supposed ‘legacy’ and the targets for increased participation are being quietly dropped. This is while the government slashes the budget for sport in schools.Posted 7 years agorandomjeremyMember
I think it’s great that the Olympics are being held in Britain, you should be proud. I’m not a true Briton but I’m proud.
As for who will benefit and what legacy the Games will leave, well I’m not so positive about that. A few companies will make millions of pounds, that’s guaranteed.
I’m reminded of 2010 when the Celtic Manor in Newport hosted the Ryder Cup. This event was heralded as a rebirth of the town, with millions of pounds being pumped into the local economy. What actually happened was the organisers shipped in their own staff, their own catering, their own transport (they didn’t even use local bus companies) and created a walled garden for the event. A few multimillionaires made more money, the rest of the people were excluded.Posted 7 years ago
The net effect is likely to be negative. Two examples: Tourists who might otherwise have come to London are likely to be frightened away due to the expectation of higher hotel charges and lack of availability due to the ‘lympics. And the West End theatres are likely to suffer a ‘bloodbath’ according to Andrew Lloyd Webber for the same reason. The inevitable disruption of normal life and economic activity in the ‘special areas’ needs to be considered, but I doubt if you’ll hear about that when the BBC really get orgasmic about this pointless act of national masturbation.Posted 7 years ago
An example of the ‘lympic ****-up
Who do you think will end up paying for the poor delicate ‘lympic sponsior’s name to be protected? Us of course!Posted 7 years agoKarinofnineMember
I agree with TJ, it is important that the truth is known. The Olympic bid stated a budget, which was far exceeded very soon afterwards. How could they have got that so wrong? Or were they lying in the first place?
As for the benefits, the bid sounded very positive, lots of affordable housing and community projects. These things are not going to happen, instead private businesses are buying in and will make a huge profit. Profits are fine, that’s what businesses are all about, no problem with that BUT this was sold to us, the IOC and everyone else as a project which would regenerate the area for the benefit of the local community.
Have any of you travelled in rush hour in London? I do, four days a week, by train for the first part and by bicycle for the in-town part. The roads are already badly congested. In some places it’s hard to get through the jams even on a push bike. The tubes are already packed to capacity, horrible, hot, crowded, stinking things. It’s going to be a nightmare getting to work.
Oh, by the way, the marvellous velodrome, according to what I’ve heard, is going to be accessible only to clubs, and only with a proper track bike with special tyres. Hardly a turn-up-and-try is it?Posted 7 years ago
And don’t forget the exclusion of the local communities from ‘their’ games. As happened in Weymouth where at the announcement of the games the yokels were all excited about being able to view the sailing events. Ahem… the public parks are to be sealed off and used for ticket only spectators.Posted 7 years agoaracerMember
Oh, by the way, the marvellous velodrome, according to what I’ve heard, is going to be accessible only to clubs, and only with a proper track bike with special tyres. Hardly a turn-up-and-try is it?
You expect to be able to turn up and take your normal bike on? 😯 Name me a velodrome where you are allowed on without a track bike with special tyres. I presume the accessibility will be much like Manchester and Newport.
I do agree with your other points though.Posted 7 years agoPapa_LazarouMember
we spend on wars and activities that destroy the environment, so why not on something that brings nations together in a positive environment?
IMHO it will promote UK sport and encourage young people to be active. As in many cases across the country, my daughter’s primary school is planning lots of Olympic themed events, stimulating an interest in sport for both boys and girls at an early age, which I believe is a very good thing.Posted 7 years agoahwilesMember
it might happen,
but it’s never happened before.
(a professor at sheffield hallam was on that Radio4 the other day – saying he’d looked at past games to see if there was any related increase in sports-participation, there wasn’t. which is a surprising thing for him to say, because they’re getting a little funding to be all upbeat and positive about the games)Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘So just what benefit is the olympics going to be for UK PLC’ is closed to new replies.