-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
The London 2012 Olympics - The Politics Discussion
- Thread starter Stelios
- Start date
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
That just simply isn't true. Unlike the billions wasted in Beijing and the absence of legacy in Athens, legacy has been our focus. Whilst there are massive costs involved in hosting the event itself, the majority of the budget has gone on regeneration of arguably the most deprived area in the country and infrastructural upgrades. The park includes thousands of new homes, a school, attractions to ensure investment in this area continues. The plans are underway to sell off venues and convert buildings elsewhere in the park for industrial use. Many previous Olympic games have had long lasting benefits, others have had long lasting damages. At this stage, everything points towards London benefiting from these games.
Also, most recent Olympic games have eventually made a profit. There's no reason to believe we won't follow suit.
Meat Pie said:
That just simply isn't true. Unlike the billions wasted in Beijing and the absence of legacy in Athens, legacy has been our focus. Whilst there are massive costs involved in hosting the event itself, the majority of the budget has gone on regeneration of arguably the most deprived area in the country and infrastructural upgrades. The park includes thousands of new homes, a school, attractions to ensure investment in this area continues. The plans are underway to sell off venues and convert buildings elsewhere in the park for industrial use. Many previous Olympic games have had long lasting benefits, others have had long lasting damages. At this stage, everything points towards London benefiting from these games.
Also, most recent Olympic games have eventually made a profit. There's no reason to believe we won't follow suit.
John
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Steel Vengeance
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
I'm not sure what you mean by "what really matters", but the Olympics is the biggest possible stage for many of its constituent events (athletics particularly). If you're suggesting that being an athlete is somehow inappropriate then that's another debate altogether.
This is no different to any other international sporting event, and anyone could make a similar argument about an event which is of no interest to them. Wimbledon is probably the most appropriate comparison as it sweeps away all before for 2 weeks every year. Tennis is 1 sport, the olympics features dozens and is therefore of interest to far more people. As such there is clearly huge interest in the olympics which justifies the coverage, and anyone not interested is more than welcome to watch any of the other channels not providing live coverage.Meat Pie said:
Meat Pie said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "what really matters", but the Olympics is the biggest possible stage for many of its constituent events (athletics particularly). If you're suggesting that being an athlete is somehow inappropriate then that's another debate altogether.
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
JamesF - The regeneration projects are largely a farce which will push the current residents of the effected communities out into other areas when wealthier people come along and buy out local property competitors in newly regenerated (and therefore desirable) areas. Within a generation or two, that area of London will be a middle class wonderland, where as the original inhabitants will still be in the same social/economic situation as before, but now in another area of London.
But let's just say for the sake of argument that these regeneration projects do benefit the current inhabitants, we shouldn't have to wait for some jumped-up sports contest to start regenerating these areas. Imagine if they pumped the money they put into the rest of the Olympics into socially progressive projects in inner city areas. If like me you believe this stuff should be happening anyway, it's a completely ineffective defense of the Olympic games.
As for the profit, I think you are wrong. Victor Matheson, a respected sports economist, likened events the Olympics to like a "wedding" where "If you are father of the bride, you're not making any money".
He has studied the economic impact of huge sporting events like the Olympic Games and the Super Bowl, and the research repeatedly shows that the high-profit hopes attached to hosting these events rarely pans out in reality.
-----------------------
John - You have got a point there about the sports coverage. It still doesn't make it any less frustrating for me though.
What do I mean by "what really matters"? I mean real life consequences and implications of hosting the games. I'm not saying that being an athlete is inappropriate but it is inappropriate to participate in this distastefully expensive, taxpayer funded event in a socially and economically deprived era. It's about having a moral standard and standing up for what's right, whether it has a negative impact on your career or not.
JamesF - The regeneration projects are largely a farce which will push the current residents of the effected communities out into other areas when wealthier people come along and buy out local property competitors in newly regenerated (and therefore desirable) areas. Within a generation or two, that area of London will be a middle class wonderland, where as the original inhabitants will still be in the same social/economic situation as before, but now in another area of London.
But let's just say for the sake of argument that these regeneration projects do benefit the current inhabitants, we shouldn't have to wait for some jumped-up sports contest to start regenerating these areas. Imagine if they pumped the money they put into the rest of the Olympics into socially progressive projects in inner city areas. If like me you believe this stuff should be happening anyway, it's a completely ineffective defense of the Olympic games.
As for the profit, I think you are wrong. Victor Matheson, a respected sports economist, likened events the Olympics to like a "wedding" where "If you are father of the bride, you're not making any money".
He has studied the economic impact of huge sporting events like the Olympic Games and the Super Bowl, and the research repeatedly shows that the high-profit hopes attached to hosting these events rarely pans out in reality.
-----------------------
John - You have got a point there about the sports coverage. It still doesn't make it any less frustrating for me though.
What do I mean by "what really matters"? I mean real life consequences and implications of hosting the games. I'm not saying that being an athlete is inappropriate but it is inappropriate to participate in this distastefully expensive, taxpayer funded event in a socially and economically deprived era. It's about having a moral standard and standing up for what's right, whether it has a negative impact on your career or not.
IanB
TS Member
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
The tax payers have certainly funded the Olympics, no doubt, but to claim we have Paid for it is Navie, and to suggest tickets should of been given away for free is questionable.
The cost of people buying tickets to attend events has been used to reduce the amount of money required from tax payers.
The use of Sponsors has been used to reduce government funding (Although I accept they have got tickets as part of this)
The use of lottery money has been used to reduce government funding (Again, I accept a third party has profited from this).
What you are suggesting they should of done, would of required more tax payer money to be spent, with people who have no interest applying (At least having the chance to apply, and then not turning up) for free tickets, and people like you, who have no interest in the Olympics having more of the tax you contribute been spent on the Olympics. Charging for tickets is not only a sensible thing to do to ensure people turn up, it also helps to reduce the cost of the Olympics on tax payers, and ensures people who have a interest in watching a event help fund the Olympics.
I also forget to mention, that there was plenty of opportunity for Volunteers to work at the games, and while they may have been having to carry out some work, they would of most likely been able to catch part of the games, I think there is a member of here who is Volunteering, so maybe they could shed some light on how much they get to see.
I also think that hosting the Olympics will have a positive effect on more people in Great Britain, than if money was spent of buying a piece of art for a gallery. I am not saying they should not continue do invest in other forms of culture, just that the Olympics will have more of a Legacy than a piece of Art being purchased, and put on display.
As for Uniqueness, I can think of Numerous examples of where a name has made something Unique, and the fact you could only throw a counter argument to a third of what I said made it Unique shows that you are struggling to argue against the Olympics been considered unique.
I think you have made your case for why the Olympics should not be held in England, and while I disagree with you, I am happy you have that opinion, just as I am not going to change your views on it, you will not change mine. With the Opening Ceremony on Friday, I think this topic should be used to Celebrate this Unique event taking place, and focus on the positive and negatives of the event itself, and not the politics behind it.
I have been lucky enough to get tickets, and I can not wait to go and watch the top Athletes in the world compete for a Olympic Gold Medal.
Ian
Meat Pie said:
The tax payers have certainly funded the Olympics, no doubt, but to claim we have Paid for it is Navie, and to suggest tickets should of been given away for free is questionable.
The cost of people buying tickets to attend events has been used to reduce the amount of money required from tax payers.
The use of Sponsors has been used to reduce government funding (Although I accept they have got tickets as part of this)
The use of lottery money has been used to reduce government funding (Again, I accept a third party has profited from this).
What you are suggesting they should of done, would of required more tax payer money to be spent, with people who have no interest applying (At least having the chance to apply, and then not turning up) for free tickets, and people like you, who have no interest in the Olympics having more of the tax you contribute been spent on the Olympics. Charging for tickets is not only a sensible thing to do to ensure people turn up, it also helps to reduce the cost of the Olympics on tax payers, and ensures people who have a interest in watching a event help fund the Olympics.
I also forget to mention, that there was plenty of opportunity for Volunteers to work at the games, and while they may have been having to carry out some work, they would of most likely been able to catch part of the games, I think there is a member of here who is Volunteering, so maybe they could shed some light on how much they get to see.
I also think that hosting the Olympics will have a positive effect on more people in Great Britain, than if money was spent of buying a piece of art for a gallery. I am not saying they should not continue do invest in other forms of culture, just that the Olympics will have more of a Legacy than a piece of Art being purchased, and put on display.
As for Uniqueness, I can think of Numerous examples of where a name has made something Unique, and the fact you could only throw a counter argument to a third of what I said made it Unique shows that you are struggling to argue against the Olympics been considered unique.
I think you have made your case for why the Olympics should not be held in England, and while I disagree with you, I am happy you have that opinion, just as I am not going to change your views on it, you will not change mine. With the Opening Ceremony on Friday, I think this topic should be used to Celebrate this Unique event taking place, and focus on the positive and negatives of the event itself, and not the politics behind it.
I have been lucky enough to get tickets, and I can not wait to go and watch the top Athletes in the world compete for a Olympic Gold Medal.
Ian
Islander
TS Member
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
. And that's a question better asked once the games have actually begun .
Still, many, and hopefully most, volunteers didn't do so to "catch part of the games", but rather to actually be a part of the games, and to help make them happen. We're called Games Makers for a reason!
Many are working in the various sporting venues, and so may catch the odd bit, but many (like myself) are working in operational areas, slightly removed from the main arenas, or in the general Olympic Park, or in the Athletes Village etc. We still get a great insight in to the games (media and broadcasting, operations, hospitality etc.), but in a completely different way to how a ticketed punter would. It really doesn't matter, though, because we were a part of it, and that's precisely why we applied
I'm curious: if you don't want regeneration, what exactly do you want? If we didn't have the games, but they still wanted to focus on 'fixing' (for want of a better term) the Stratford area, without regeneration, how exactly would you do it?Meat Pie said:
A collection of sporting events is not unique. The Olympics is, as it's so much more than that. I think Ian's definition of 'unique' was pretty spot on, but if you disagree, what's yours?Meat Pie said:
There's at least a couple of usIanB said:
. And that's a question better asked once the games have actually begun .Still, many, and hopefully most, volunteers didn't do so to "catch part of the games", but rather to actually be a part of the games, and to help make them happen. We're called Games Makers for a reason!
Many are working in the various sporting venues, and so may catch the odd bit, but many (like myself) are working in operational areas, slightly removed from the main arenas, or in the general Olympic Park, or in the Athletes Village etc. We still get a great insight in to the games (media and broadcasting, operations, hospitality etc.), but in a completely different way to how a ticketed punter would. It really doesn't matter, though, because we were a part of it, and that's precisely why we applied
IanB
TS Member
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
Apologizes Islander,
I did not mean to Imply that the only reason people would Volunteer for the games is to catch a glimpse of the events.
I just meant it was a way for people in the London area, who do not have the opportunity to purchase a ticket could be involved, and experience the Olympics in person.
Ian
Apologizes Islander,
I did not mean to Imply that the only reason people would Volunteer for the games is to catch a glimpse of the events.
I just meant it was a way for people in the London area, who do not have the opportunity to purchase a ticket could be involved, and experience the Olympics in person.
Ian
James
TS Founding Member
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
I'm on neither side of the argument, although have to pick up on this.
You pose a good point. Although equally billions and billions will go to waste with the Olympics. Many of the venues built solely for the event will be knocked down after the event. All that money gone to waste, the years of hard work done by architectures and builders... My main gripe is the amount of tax money that has been spent. As usual it is being thrown here and there with no cause for consideration.
As for the regeneration. It works in theory, but fails in practice. I can only think of one example (a rather crap example I will admit). Newport during the 2010 Ryder Cup. It was hoped to have given the city a major economic boost. We had whole areas renovated, streets redone, new houses built, new shops... only two years on Newport is back to being the dump it was before 2010.
Most places will fall back into how they were. In London's case, I agree with Meat Pie that it will more than likely become a 'middle class wonderland'.
I'm all for regeneration projects, they do improve some places, although overall within the climate we live in they just aren't working right now unless there's something unique and long term for it to withhold the quality of the regeneration itself.
Before anyone shoots me down. I'm not on either side of this argument. I mainly avoid getting involved with these topics. My general views on the Olympics are that I couldn't care less about it. But like everything else I do not like I will ignore it. I'll be watching the opening ceremony, as I'm rather interested in what it will look like. Other than that, it's nothing exciting for me, life will continue as usual.
JamesF said:
I'm on neither side of the argument, although have to pick up on this.
You pose a good point. Although equally billions and billions will go to waste with the Olympics. Many of the venues built solely for the event will be knocked down after the event. All that money gone to waste, the years of hard work done by architectures and builders... My main gripe is the amount of tax money that has been spent. As usual it is being thrown here and there with no cause for consideration.
As for the regeneration. It works in theory, but fails in practice. I can only think of one example (a rather crap example I will admit). Newport during the 2010 Ryder Cup. It was hoped to have given the city a major economic boost. We had whole areas renovated, streets redone, new houses built, new shops... only two years on Newport is back to being the dump it was before 2010.
Most places will fall back into how they were. In London's case, I agree with Meat Pie that it will more than likely become a 'middle class wonderland'.
I'm all for regeneration projects, they do improve some places, although overall within the climate we live in they just aren't working right now unless there's something unique and long term for it to withhold the quality of the regeneration itself.
Before anyone shoots me down. I'm not on either side of this argument. I mainly avoid getting involved with these topics. My general views on the Olympics are that I couldn't care less about it. But like everything else I do not like I will ignore it. I'll be watching the opening ceremony, as I'm rather interested in what it will look like. Other than that, it's nothing exciting for me, life will continue as usual.
Rowe
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Matterhorn Blitz (with an Aperol Spritz!)
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
SPOILER ALERT!
I've just come across this on Yahoo Sports, brace yourselves for possibly the most strangest opening ceremony for ANYTHING if this rumour is true!
Source: Yahoo Sports
SPOILER ALERT!
I've just come across this on Yahoo Sports, brace yourselves for possibly the most strangest opening ceremony for ANYTHING if this rumour is true!
Source: Yahoo Sports
Rose Of Dawn
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Eejanaika (Fuji-Q Highland)
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
I really hope that's true ^
I really hope that's true ^
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
Hardly a farce when the housing (both already constructed in the form of the atheletes village and homes to be constructed following the games) is set to vary significantly in size and cost. Regeneration relies on wealthier people moving in. Money and investment cannot be sustained with the wave of a wand, it relies on an area becoming more attractive to those who have the money to improve it indirectly, be it people or higher-order businesses; the very definition of gentrification. Succesful gentrification shouldn't drive the existing residents out in the long-term, and this isn't always the outcome. The Olympic park itself displaced very few homes, the communities surrounding the park will still be there when it's converted for homes and businesses, what happens in the long-term remains to be seen though. The hope is that those living in the poorer communities around the park will take advantage of the new employment opportunities, and improved transport links making jobs further afield more viable, alongside new schools in the area improving education standards, with the end result being the people lifting themselves away from poverty. I understand it's not as simple as that in practice, but that's the aim.
It SHOULD be happening anyway, it really should, and it's sad it's taken the Olympic games to justify regeneration on this scale. What the Olympics does is force huge investment in a very tight time-frame, while such a scheme minus the Olympics would probably end up with its budgets slashed and delayed by years due to planning disputes and what not. Also, try justifying to the British Public spending £9billion on a relatively small area of East London, that's not a pill they'd be willing to swallow and is almost certain political suicide. I can envisage the Daily Mail headlines of "Benefit Spongers and Immigrants get £9 billion of the tax payer for a new park". When you coat that pill in the Olympic games however, it's easier to swallow. It's great to see real, physical investment on this scale for once. Plenty of money gets pushed into schemes in inner city areas, it's refreshing to see some direct investment for once.
I've studied the finances closely. Some have made huge losses yes, but usually due to irresponsible levels of spending in the first place, which we've not done. Remember there's profit to be made from the sponsors (£1.5 billion), ticket sales and selling of television rights. We've also sold off the athletes village to private firm, to the tune of £557 million. If we even make up half the cost of the games, this regeneration has come at a bargain price, if we break even (as previous games usually have) the games will have been the best thing that could possibly have happened to East London.
Meat Pie said:
Hardly a farce when the housing (both already constructed in the form of the atheletes village and homes to be constructed following the games) is set to vary significantly in size and cost. Regeneration relies on wealthier people moving in. Money and investment cannot be sustained with the wave of a wand, it relies on an area becoming more attractive to those who have the money to improve it indirectly, be it people or higher-order businesses; the very definition of gentrification. Succesful gentrification shouldn't drive the existing residents out in the long-term, and this isn't always the outcome. The Olympic park itself displaced very few homes, the communities surrounding the park will still be there when it's converted for homes and businesses, what happens in the long-term remains to be seen though. The hope is that those living in the poorer communities around the park will take advantage of the new employment opportunities, and improved transport links making jobs further afield more viable, alongside new schools in the area improving education standards, with the end result being the people lifting themselves away from poverty. I understand it's not as simple as that in practice, but that's the aim.
It SHOULD be happening anyway, it really should, and it's sad it's taken the Olympic games to justify regeneration on this scale. What the Olympics does is force huge investment in a very tight time-frame, while such a scheme minus the Olympics would probably end up with its budgets slashed and delayed by years due to planning disputes and what not. Also, try justifying to the British Public spending £9billion on a relatively small area of East London, that's not a pill they'd be willing to swallow and is almost certain political suicide. I can envisage the Daily Mail headlines of "Benefit Spongers and Immigrants get £9 billion of the tax payer for a new park". When you coat that pill in the Olympic games however, it's easier to swallow. It's great to see real, physical investment on this scale for once. Plenty of money gets pushed into schemes in inner city areas, it's refreshing to see some direct investment for once.
I've studied the finances closely. Some have made huge losses yes, but usually due to irresponsible levels of spending in the first place, which we've not done. Remember there's profit to be made from the sponsors (£1.5 billion), ticket sales and selling of television rights. We've also sold off the athletes village to private firm, to the tune of £557 million. If we even make up half the cost of the games, this regeneration has come at a bargain price, if we break even (as previous games usually have) the games will have been the best thing that could possibly have happened to East London.
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
The brilliant thing is that not one of our venues will go to waste.
Olympic Stadium- due to be sold. Can be converted for use as a 25,000 to 80,000 seated stadium affordably. Will almost certainly go to West Ham, and the running track will remain for Athletics use.
Handball arena/ Copper box- due to become a concert venue.
Velodrome- will stay as it is and become the home of UK Track cycling, this better facility was much needed.
Basketball Arena- Temporary. Will be taken down and sold post-games. There was talk of giving it to Rio 2016 but I don't know if this has materialised.
Water polo arena- again, temporary. Will be taken down after the games.
Aquatics centre- will have its temporary seating stands removed post-games and become a local pool accessible to the public, capable of holding small swimming and diving events.
Media Centre- has just been purchased by iCity, with the aim of adapting it into a new technology cluster.
The Orbit- privately funded, and will remain open as a tourist attraction.
All other offices and admin buildings are simply temporary marquees and thus incur no construction costs and will be quickly removed after the games.
I've explained my views on the regeneration in the response I posted to Meat Pie just now. As you say, it may well fail, it may not. One thing's for sure though, it's not happened on this scale for a very very long time, and a more direct approach may well be what's needed. I'd rather spend money attempting to improve people's standard of living than resign hope to assuming it will fail.
James said:
The brilliant thing is that not one of our venues will go to waste.
Olympic Stadium- due to be sold. Can be converted for use as a 25,000 to 80,000 seated stadium affordably. Will almost certainly go to West Ham, and the running track will remain for Athletics use.
Handball arena/ Copper box- due to become a concert venue.
Velodrome- will stay as it is and become the home of UK Track cycling, this better facility was much needed.
Basketball Arena- Temporary. Will be taken down and sold post-games. There was talk of giving it to Rio 2016 but I don't know if this has materialised.
Water polo arena- again, temporary. Will be taken down after the games.
Aquatics centre- will have its temporary seating stands removed post-games and become a local pool accessible to the public, capable of holding small swimming and diving events.
Media Centre- has just been purchased by iCity, with the aim of adapting it into a new technology cluster.
The Orbit- privately funded, and will remain open as a tourist attraction.
All other offices and admin buildings are simply temporary marquees and thus incur no construction costs and will be quickly removed after the games.
I've explained my views on the regeneration in the response I posted to Meat Pie just now. As you say, it may well fail, it may not. One thing's for sure though, it's not happened on this scale for a very very long time, and a more direct approach may well be what's needed. I'd rather spend money attempting to improve people's standard of living than resign hope to assuming it will fail.
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
IanB - It is utter tosh that ticket prices reduce the price to the tax payer. The price of the tickets doesn't even make the tiniest of dents. All it is, is the corporate greed of Olympics™ trying to claw every penny they can.
I realise you feel like you have to defend the ticketing system, being a direct beneficiary of the economically discriminatory system which has supplied you tickets and kept the riff raff out but there really is no justification.
It is completely irrelevant that they received sponsor and lottery money, the tax payer and citizens of this country paid the biggest bucks at a time when we can't afford it and the least we deserve is an equal opportunity to benefit from the spoils.
As for volunteer work? So what... They took on free labour to their own benefit and this is meant to be in anyway admirable?
And no I've made a very conclusive case as to explain why it's not unique. What's unique about playing already existing sports but this time in close proximity to each other? Nothing. Nothing at all, and you've not made an effective counter case.
I lay awake at night worrying about the way our country is headed for issues such as these and I am as passionate about my views as any fan of the games. I would never tell anyone to stop contributing so please never do it to me.
--------------
Islander - I never said I didn't want regeneration, but I want the right kind of regeneration. More Social housing programmes rather than private rentals, focus on actually keeping sports centres open rather than closing them down, let’s put focus on keeping these places accessible to the working classes, rather than fixing it up ready to be sold to the comfortable office worker middle class darlings. However, that is undoubtedly not enough. I don't know exactly what has to be done but time and time again these 'regeneration' projects have failed and so something different needs to happen.
Explain to me how it is no more than a collection of different sports. That is literally all there is, with some jazzed up opening and closing ceremony. It's not unique. My definition of unique is something which is made of completely new composite parts and fresh ideas rather than some tired old sporting event. There's nothing new here at all. It's all tradition, no innovation.
--------------
JamesF - I take exception to the concept that regeneration can come if wealth moves into the area. That suggests that regeneration should be trying to exclusively focus on improving the economic standard and not improve the standard of living for the poor. Building flashy new buildings and enticing new businesses does not do anything to help the social problems.
Also, the only reason wealth moves into an area is because it is a nice place to live, and then pretty quickly the wealthy buy up all the properties like hot cakes and before you know it, the previous community that was there is destroyed. I don’t know what the exact answer is to this problem, increasing social housing might help but that measure exclusively is not enough to stop the displacement. Whatever happens, more focus needs to be put into preventing that from happening so that regeneration genuinely helps the current inhabitants, and it really does not look as if anything is done on that front.
I’m very sceptical that the Olympics will break even or make economically justifiable profits but if you can provide more figures that would suggest that it will, I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
IanB - It is utter tosh that ticket prices reduce the price to the tax payer. The price of the tickets doesn't even make the tiniest of dents. All it is, is the corporate greed of Olympics™ trying to claw every penny they can.
I realise you feel like you have to defend the ticketing system, being a direct beneficiary of the economically discriminatory system which has supplied you tickets and kept the riff raff out but there really is no justification.
It is completely irrelevant that they received sponsor and lottery money, the tax payer and citizens of this country paid the biggest bucks at a time when we can't afford it and the least we deserve is an equal opportunity to benefit from the spoils.
As for volunteer work? So what... They took on free labour to their own benefit and this is meant to be in anyway admirable?
And no I've made a very conclusive case as to explain why it's not unique. What's unique about playing already existing sports but this time in close proximity to each other? Nothing. Nothing at all, and you've not made an effective counter case.
I lay awake at night worrying about the way our country is headed for issues such as these and I am as passionate about my views as any fan of the games. I would never tell anyone to stop contributing so please never do it to me.
--------------
Islander - I never said I didn't want regeneration, but I want the right kind of regeneration. More Social housing programmes rather than private rentals, focus on actually keeping sports centres open rather than closing them down, let’s put focus on keeping these places accessible to the working classes, rather than fixing it up ready to be sold to the comfortable office worker middle class darlings. However, that is undoubtedly not enough. I don't know exactly what has to be done but time and time again these 'regeneration' projects have failed and so something different needs to happen.
Explain to me how it is no more than a collection of different sports. That is literally all there is, with some jazzed up opening and closing ceremony. It's not unique. My definition of unique is something which is made of completely new composite parts and fresh ideas rather than some tired old sporting event. There's nothing new here at all. It's all tradition, no innovation.
--------------
JamesF - I take exception to the concept that regeneration can come if wealth moves into the area. That suggests that regeneration should be trying to exclusively focus on improving the economic standard and not improve the standard of living for the poor. Building flashy new buildings and enticing new businesses does not do anything to help the social problems.
Also, the only reason wealth moves into an area is because it is a nice place to live, and then pretty quickly the wealthy buy up all the properties like hot cakes and before you know it, the previous community that was there is destroyed. I don’t know what the exact answer is to this problem, increasing social housing might help but that measure exclusively is not enough to stop the displacement. Whatever happens, more focus needs to be put into preventing that from happening so that regeneration genuinely helps the current inhabitants, and it really does not look as if anything is done on that front.
I’m very sceptical that the Olympics will break even or make economically justifiable profits but if you can provide more figures that would suggest that it will, I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
Martin
TS Member
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
Fed up of being told to enjoy the Olympics. Why? Just because they're here and won't be here again? So what? So what if I won't get to see some sportsmen and women compete on the same island I was born on and live on, not that I will 'see' the because most tickets for main events either went to suits or were priced out of the range of normal spectators?
Even as a fan of sports, I couldn't care either way about it until a month or so ago, when it all descended and I realised how un-Olympics this Olympics actually is. When the games start, we can talk about the events, I look forward to doing so. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about everything else in the meantime.
And as for Team GB, whatever was wrong with just referring to ourselves as Great Britain? Or should we go the whole way and get a comedy mascot and cheerleaders, and whenever we win a medal we can have the PA play Is The The Way To Amarillo?
Fed up of being told to enjoy the Olympics. Why? Just because they're here and won't be here again? So what? So what if I won't get to see some sportsmen and women compete on the same island I was born on and live on, not that I will 'see' the because most tickets for main events either went to suits or were priced out of the range of normal spectators?
Even as a fan of sports, I couldn't care either way about it until a month or so ago, when it all descended and I realised how un-Olympics this Olympics actually is. When the games start, we can talk about the events, I look forward to doing so. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about everything else in the meantime.
And as for Team GB, whatever was wrong with just referring to ourselves as Great Britain? Or should we go the whole way and get a comedy mascot and cheerleaders, and whenever we win a medal we can have the PA play Is The The Way To Amarillo?
IanB
TS Member
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
Wow, I did not realise, that by thinking about something, it actually made people do it, I will have to remember to use this power more often. Where did I tell you to stop expressing your opinion, I said "I think". I did not say "Do Not Express your opinion" or "Stop expressing your Opinion". Like I said, we think differently about this subject, and going around in a circle is not going to change our opinions.
This article discusses the boost the whole economy will get and £16.5BN sounds like a good return on the investment during these difficult economic times. Link - http://bit.ly/LSF2NB
So I am drawing a line under this, and I am not going to discuss the pro's or con's of hosting the Olympics any more in this topic. I am not going to start the Happy Olympic Thread as suggested, because for every happy thread you will have a sad thread, and it just becomes a mess, and like I said, I am happy to discuss the positives and negatives of the events taking place now, and during the games.
Please note, just to be clear, I am not telling anyone to discuss, or not discuss, or stop expressing, or start expressing themselves.
I am glad the spoiler tags have been added for the Opening Ceremony, I am looking forward to Friday night and watching it. From the reaction of people who have seen the test runs, it sounds like it is going to be a fantastic show.
Ian
Meat Pie said:
Wow, I did not realise, that by thinking about something, it actually made people do it, I will have to remember to use this power more often. Where did I tell you to stop expressing your opinion, I said "I think". I did not say "Do Not Express your opinion" or "Stop expressing your Opinion". Like I said, we think differently about this subject, and going around in a circle is not going to change our opinions.
The revenue from ticket sales from what I can gather is approaching £600M. Hardly a small amount. The total Corporate and Ticket Revenue will total £2bn. The Lottery funding is approximately£2bn, and the London Authority is contributing approximately£1bn.Meat Pie said:
This article discusses the boost the whole economy will get and £16.5BN sounds like a good return on the investment during these difficult economic times. Link - http://bit.ly/LSF2NB
I find this high offensive, I work very hard to earn enough money to support myself, and my family. I am lucky enough to have got tickets as a result of this hard work and I am going to enjoy watching the event I got tickets for. Again, some tickets were very expensive, but plenty have been made affordable, and Paralypmic tickets are even more affordable starting at £10 for Adults. This is not a system to keep "riff raff" out, or to just allow the Rich to buy all the tickets.Meat Pie said:
So how would this Ticket Lottery of worked, Only Tax Payers can enter, and those who paid the most tax get a bigger chance of winning, because it would not be equal if someone who contributed more tax, had the same chance of getting a ticket, than someone who paid less tax. A free for all ticket lottery would not of worked.Meat Pie said:
I thought you wanted to make the Olympics accessible to everyone, well surely this is the perfect way of doing that. People who can not afford a ticket, get to be part of it, and help make the event as good as it possibly can be.Meat Pie said:
In Summary, There is only one Olympics, it only happens every 4 years, and it does not compare to any other sporting event that takes place.Meat Pie said:
Just so we are clear, I never told anyone to stop expressing their feeling or to stop contributing. I only think that we should move on, but if people want to continue debating, and discussing the same thing, they can carry on, but when nothing new is being raised, and its the same points being raised, it gets a little boring, frustrating and takes away other issues that people are trying to raise or new items that people wish to discuss.Meat Pie said:
So I am drawing a line under this, and I am not going to discuss the pro's or con's of hosting the Olympics any more in this topic. I am not going to start the Happy Olympic Thread as suggested, because for every happy thread you will have a sad thread, and it just becomes a mess, and like I said, I am happy to discuss the positives and negatives of the events taking place now, and during the games.
Please note, just to be clear, I am not telling anyone to discuss, or not discuss, or stop expressing, or start expressing themselves.
I am glad the spoiler tags have been added for the Opening Ceremony, I am looking forward to Friday night and watching it. From the reaction of people who have seen the test runs, it sounds like it is going to be a fantastic show.
Ian
AstroDan
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Steel Vengeance, Cedar Point
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
I think the best thing anybody interested in the Olympics can do is leave this topic. Otherwise your enjoyment of the games could end up being hijacked by those who disagree with them.
I for one am now leaving this thread and look forward to what is probably the biggest sporting event that this country has ever seen.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
I think the best thing anybody interested in the Olympics can do is leave this topic. Otherwise your enjoyment of the games could end up being hijacked by those who disagree with them.
I for one am now leaving this thread and look forward to what is probably the biggest sporting event that this country has ever seen.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
Islander
TS Member
The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
As the Olympics start, and we start getting loads of new topics to talk about, I reckon it might be worth setting up a second thread - leave this one for debate regarding the value/worth of the Olympics, and a new one to discuss the event itself, not how it came to be, nor its legacy.
This one really has become too poisoned (by only two or three people, it's worth adding), for any positive discussion to really take place.
As the Olympics start, and we start getting loads of new topics to talk about, I reckon it might be worth setting up a second thread - leave this one for debate regarding the value/worth of the Olympics, and a new one to discuss the event itself, not how it came to be, nor its legacy.
This one really has become too poisoned (by only two or three people, it's worth adding), for any positive discussion to really take place.
Re: The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
You got your views challenged and you don't like it. It hasn't been poisoned, it's been disputed, if you can't handle the possibility that not everyone is a lover of the games, then you really are in the wrong place. This is a DISCUSSION forum.
And Astrodan, saying that this topic was 'hijacked' suggests that the pro-olympic crowd had ownership over the thread in the first place which is untrue. This is a thread about the Olympics and I'm discussing the Olympics.
You got your views challenged and you don't like it. It hasn't been poisoned, it's been disputed, if you can't handle the possibility that not everyone is a lover of the games, then you really are in the wrong place. This is a DISCUSSION forum.
And Astrodan, saying that this topic was 'hijacked' suggests that the pro-olympic crowd had ownership over the thread in the first place which is untrue. This is a thread about the Olympics and I'm discussing the Olympics.
Islander
TS Member
The London 2012 Olympics Discussion
I am more than happy for my views to be challenged. However, this thread has been poisoned, as whenever anyone dares say something positive about the Olympics, one or two members shoot it down straight away, with such ferociousness that any positive discussion has become impossible.
This is indeed a discussion forum, but discussion has been rendered impossible by you.
Lordy.Meat Pie said:
I am more than happy for my views to be challenged. However, this thread has been poisoned, as whenever anyone dares say something positive about the Olympics, one or two members shoot it down straight away, with such ferociousness that any positive discussion has become impossible.
This is indeed a discussion forum, but discussion has been rendered impossible by you.