Poll: London 2012 Olymipics

[gillywibble]

Excited that it's coming here, massive respect for Lord Coe, but can't wait to see the back of that dodgy Lisa Simpson logo.

 

[Wizzfizz]

I don't support it and London will be the ones raking in it's benefits.

 

[jp_bl_68]

I don't support it and London will be the ones raking in it's benefits.

As well as the lion's share of the costs, surely.



We should've let Paris have the 2012 games. Anyone who wanted to watch the games in person could still do so. It wouldn't be that much more expensive, it wouldn't add that much more time to your journey, plus you get to see Paris and pick up a load of duty free on the way home.

And it wouldn't have cost the rest of us a single penny.


Instead we get to have billions of pounds worth of disappointment, starting with this:

2012 will be an expensive embarrassment.

 

[Lunatic Dreyfus]

Can't wait! I've been wanting to attend a summer games since 1992. I intend to be there as much as possible, if I can get the tickets of course.

As for the nay-sayers.

 

[Amp34]

I'm pancake personally.

One thing is for sure I will be avoiding London like the plague whilst it's on. The tube is bad enough when it gets busy during rush hour/after big events so nuts to the Olympics tbh.

Because another 60-100k people spread over the tube is really going to do much compared to the millions that use it every day normally? Are you as annoyed after football games, where not that many less people go to?

All the moaning in this thread, people spend their entire time moaning about how bad "this" country is. Really? Go live somewhere else and see the corruption and chaos that comes with living in other countries (and that includes a lot of european countries).

 

[robbiemc]

I think the Paralympic Games should be shown first.

How on earth could they do that? The Paralympic games are on after the main Olympics.

 

[Amp34]

What I don't understand is if Olympics is such a waste of money and no real value for people then why so many countries want to host it?

Because it isn't.

It costs lots of money to host but it brings in thousands more tourists and massive investment from overseas, more than covering the cost. It also helps give "underprivileged" areas a massive boost.

 

[Tunney]

It's not the people of those countries that want to hold them, rather the governments and politicians.

The Back The Bid campaign seemed to garner a lot of signatures.

With a price tag of £9.3 billion (budget) you would think this country could find a lot better things to spend it on?

Stefan Szymanski puts forward an economists perspective in his book Why England Lose. Essentially, organisers of events like the Olympics always massively overstate the economic benefit of such an event. However, it does do wonders for the morale and spirit of the host city. Being an economist, Szymanski attaches a dollar worth to happiness (based on studies into money and happiness) and the resulting figure is much larger than the cost of hosting the games.

 

[Weebull]

This, why London, why not another city, London has had it three times now, will watch it on tv and would never even think about going to London, all the immigrants, crime and over priced hotels, food and beer that no doubt will go up because of the "games"

You do realise that a large majority of ALL the modern Olympic games have been based in the capital city of a country, don't you?

Don't let that affect the chip on your shoulder though.

 

[Rotty]

You do realise that a large majority of ALL the modern Olympic games have been based in the capital city of a country, don't you?

Don't let that affect the chip on your shoulder though.

apart from Antwerp, Montreal , Los Angeles ( twice ) , St Louis and Melbourne

and that's just the summer ones


ok the majority still have been but a large amount have not

 

[Yas786]

Oh and some Muslim countries have complained that the 2012 Olympic Games will take place during the month of Ramadan,
which in 2012 occurs from 20 July so it's not very nice for them.

Well im sure they will figure it out in the end or they just dont send any athletes to the games.

Personally, I'm happy for the Olympics. They've opened up a new platform onto the Central Line at Stratford, saving me a good 20 seconds on my daily commute.

LOL yes same here...saves me around 10 secs on my daily commute as well

 

[Yas786]

apart from Antwerp, Montreal , Los Angeles ( twice ) , St Louis and Melbourne

Thats why he said majority

 

[antijoke]

I hope it's not a spectacular **** up! I fear it will be though hence why I chose no to supporting it.

 

[Cosimo]

Thats why he said majority

That's why he did a ninja edit:

ok the majority still have been but a large amount have not

 

[Yas786]

That's why he did a ninja edit:

Oooooh ninja edit was good

 

[Admiral Huddy]

I pass the Olympic Site every day and although it's very impressive what people don't realise is that the area is split between the Olympic site and Westfield shopping centre which opens next year.

The Olympic site still seems a long way off completion. The Aquatics centre appears to be taking longer than the main stadium which is bizarre.

How can an event like this not be good? Not only does it give us a chance to take centre stage rather than being in the shadows all the time but it gives us so many opportunities. However, like most things there is always gong to be winners and losers.

My concern is what happens afterwards and only ten years after "the Domes" failure, let's hope lessons were learnt. My other concern is that it doesn't turn into "a diversity" showcase.

We all want the best from British sport so why not get behind it when the oppertuntiy arrises instead of knocking it.

 

[Weebull]

apart from Antwerp, Montreal , Los Angeles ( twice ) , St Louis and Melbourne

So seven (you missed Barcelona Rotty, I'm disappointed in you!) games, out of thirty (if you include the next two) altogether. That's a good, what, 85% or more that have been hosted in capital countries. Also considering that the USA, Canada and Australia are significantly bigger countries than Britain, I think my point gets to stand.

and that's just the summer ones

Well I was only including the summer games because they're one of the world's biggest events, and thus need an appropriate centrepiece to showcase themselves. The Winter Olympics I'd class as a lesser event, much like the Commonwealth or European Games (the athletic one), and so much more likely to get hosted in "smaller" cities.

And given that the winter games have to be hosted somewhere near a ski-able mountain, I would say that kind of rules out most capital cities, wouldn't you?

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Olympic Financing

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Oh and some Muslim countries have complained that the 2012 Olympic Games will take place during the month of Ramadan,
which in 2012 occurs from 20 July so it's not very nice for them.

oh well. May be they should change the dates of Ramadan is it means that much.

 

[platypus]

I think it's probably worthwhile in the long run, and will benefit local businesses as well, but I dislike the whole Olympics and their ethos. It hasn't been about amateur competition for ages.