The London 2012 Olympics: Current affairs discussion

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Angua

Someone needs to do some spell checking for the Basketball (Baketball) link.

Not to mention "Why does Britain does dominate dressage?" . "Why does Britain does"?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

I think that's a little misleading. As far as I know, the all-time medal table is heavily biased towards the period before WW2. Back then fewer nations competed, and the UK was still a world power, which led to GB winning a disproportionate number of medals. This 'evened out' after WW2.

In our most successful Olympics we allowed anyone from the Empire to compete for us, most were British or Irish admittedly but at least one was South African and those games went on for six months...

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Who's changed their mind then ?,out of the nay sayers who think that the Olympics is a huge waste of money who ,if any, have changed their mind and now thinks that there is some benefit ?

In terms of value for money they're right, it was a complete waste of cash

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Brilliant Olympics. Well Done Us.

I miss it...

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

In terms of value for money they're right, it was a complete waste of cash

I sincerely doubt you're in a position to make that claim on any sort of evidence base - not least because the added value assessments will need years to come through as we discover what impact it had on the generation that was meant to be inspired to take up sport and what becomes of the various permanent venues created for the games.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

I sincerely doubt you're in a position to make that claim on any sort of evidence base - not least because the added value assessments will need years to come through as we discover what impact it had on the generation that was meant to be inspired to take up sport and what becomes of the various permanent venues created for the games.

Agree 100%

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

I sincerely doubt you're in a position to make that claim on any sort of evidence base - not least because the added value assessments will need years to come through as we discover what impact it had on the generation that was meant to be inspired to take up sport and what becomes of the various permanent venues created for the games.

Whatever becomes of the buildings they wont add up to thirteen thousand million pounds plus and counting and if you could quantify inspiration in pounds it wont make up the shortfall either.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Whatever becomes of the buildings they wont add up to thirteen thousand million pounds plus and counting and if you could quantify inspiration in pounds it wont make up the shortfall either.

As I said - you do not, and cannot, possibly know that. You may assert at will.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Damien

You'd be a bit disappointed if you found yourself in Stanmore

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Whatever becomes of the buildings they wont add up to thirteen thousand million pounds plus and counting and if you could quantify inspiration in pounds it wont make up the shortfall either.

Depends how you value worth doesn't it? One of the most peculiar aspects of the criticism directed at the cost is that people seem to think it's a waste of money if it doesn't generate enough to pay for itself though tourism and so on.
There was considerable benefit and 'worth' to be had from the experience itself the enhanced image of the UK, the idea of more kids taking up sport and the increased confidence that we can do something as big as the Olympics well. That last one is huge.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

As I said - you do not, and cannot, possibly know that. You may assert at will.

You know what you're right, as we speak there are probably armies of economists, lawyers and bankers producing reports on how the games will turn out to be profitable in time, completely ignoring that they could've been more profitable if we hadn't been taken for such a ride at the start.

---------- Post added at 21:30 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Depends how you value worth doesn't it? One of the most peculiar aspects of the criticism directed at the cost is that people seem to think it's a waste of money if it doesn't generate enough to pay for itself though tourism and so on.
There was considerable benefit and 'worth' to be had from the experience itself the enhanced image of the UK, the idea of more kids taking up sport and the increased confidence that we can do something as big as the Olympics well. That last one is huge.

The last one would've been huge but I fear the opportunity has gone for that, sure Dave is making noise now but it's to late, every day that passes the bounce decreases.

[Osem]

The 'value' of London 2012 can be measured in all sorts of ways and over all sorts of timescales. Trying to reduce it to some sort of annual balance sheet might be politically convenient for some but that doesn't reflect the true 'value' to GB - the economy, our society, our future, our perceptions, our aspirations etc etc....

FGS naysayers, either just admit you're wrong or continue in denial but let's make something positive out of what you feel is a negative!!! Continuing to talk down an amazing, once in a lifetime event serves no positive purpose and if positives (i.e. jobs, growth etc) are what you're about (as opposed to petty party political point scoring) why not accept that the money's been spent and we need to get the best return from it? Pre games worries aside, why continue to talk down what's been globally perceived as a wonderful event? Who does that mentality serve? :confused? Or would you sleep better having snatched defeat from the jaws of success???
If even the Aussies are saying stuff like this isn't time you took note of the positives in all of this???

http://www.smh.com.au/olympics/news-...813-2448t.html

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Whatever becomes of the buildings they wont add up to thirteen thousand million pounds plus and counting and if you could quantify inspiration in pounds it wont make up the shortfall either.

Source for this figure please. I can only find £9.4bn and £24bn (though that wasn't a very thorough search )

To be honest I never thought that the point of hosting the Olympics was to make money.Or to even break even.

I have been reading the Austerity Olympics during these last two weeks..and the attitude in 1948 was pretty much that of today's naysayers.
However once it was awarded to London there was a truly fantastic transformation by the end..the attitude of all the athletes,volunteers,public and the world was how well war damaged and cash strapped GB managed to put on a creditable Olympics under the circumstances and how much camaraderie was achieved and shown by all.

It was a make do affair over all and there was very little left standing afterwards apart from the buildings that had been in place before the event.No housing or new stadia or parks.No improved transport and only a very modest profit made.Nothing was left to show that there had been an Olympics.

So in contrast the Olympics 2012 have actually left a permanent legacy and we can look at all the new stadia and housing and remind ourselves what was achieved.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Source for this figure please. I can only find £9.4bn and £24bn (though that wasn't a very thorough search )

The British House of Commons Public Accounts Committee puts the figure around 11 billion Pounds ($17.31 billion); Games Monitor calculates costs at 13 billion Pounds ($20.45 billion); but a Sky Sports investigative report estimates that, including public transport upgrades, the price tag will be closer to 24 billion Pounds ($37.76 billion)]

http://youxie.ca/sports-scholar-how-...-west/?lang=zh

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

To be honest I never thought that the point of hosting the Olympics was to make money.Or to even break even.

Neither do I, I'd have just preferred it if we hadn't been screwed over so royally...

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The British House of Commons Public Accounts Committee puts the figure around 11 billion Pounds ($17.31 billion); Games Monitor calculates costs at 13 billion Pounds ($20.45 billion); but a Sky Sports investigative report estimates that, including public transport upgrades, the price tag will be closer to 24 billion Pounds ($37.76 billion)]

http://youxie.ca/sports-scholar-how-...-west/?lang=zh

And you think the fact that all the road and transport upgrades weren't worth doing?That getting new stadia is wasted?

I suppose nothing less than wall to wall council housing will suit your agenda.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

And you think the fact that all the road and transport upgrades weren't worth doing?That getting new stadia is wasted?

I suppose nothing less than wall to wall council housing will suit your agenda.

Funny you mention the housing, I wonder how affordable the affordable housing is actually going to be.

What's my agenda then, or what do you think/ assumed it is?