Paula Radcliffe comments

Righty well here's the link to the article on the Beeb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/16060634.stm


Two main parts to this article really.

Firstly, the amount now being spent on the opening ceremony of the Olympics, personally I think Paula is being a bit reserved in saying it's frivilous but I do agree with this quote from her:

""Staging the Olympics costs quite a bit, so it would probably be better if we spent the money in ways that will give more back in the long term."

One of the main points of us hosting the Olympics is to leave a legacy in the country for generations to come, is £80mil really needed for something that will be over in a night? I know China put on a great show, but I honestly don't think an opening ceremony needs to have that much spent on it. What's suddenly got to expensive that it's had to be doubled, does anyone know?


Secondly, I think Paula goes on to another very good point in talking out agains thte dreadful article in the Daily Fail that states girls don't go into sports as it gives them "sinewy arms".

This quote to me is key "It is not about the success sport can bring, it's about the self-confidence it can give kids. It's about health, it's about getting them to work better in teams and in school. There are so many reasons. "

Sport can have so many benefits and I think it's something that isn't encouraged half as much as it should be in todays society. Also I think it was farcical for the Fail to say that only men should participate in sport (or words to that effect).

Here's a link to the daily fail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069605/Im-A-Celebrity-2011-Fatima-Whitbread-sinewy-arms-sport-NOT-good-thing.html

Just wondered what other's thought on the amount being spent on the opening ceremony, and also the role sport has to play in developing kids, especially girls. I for one, agree completely with Paula Radcliffe on the points she's made.

The only reason i think the opening ceremony is costing so much is because we're trying to out do Bejing. Personally i agree, that money would be better spent funding sports clubs, espically seeing as many school sports fields are be lost to redevelopment. At the end of the day a fantastic opening ceremony dosn't make a good olympics, and I won't be watching to see the opening ceremony, but to see who wins what events.

Sport has an important role in developing kids, not just in fitness, but in self development, enjoyment, compertivness and pushing yourself for betterment and self esteem to a degree. To me it dosn't matter what sex people are if you find a sport you enjoy, then carry on, and if your lucky enough to be very good to make a career out of it fantastic. But enjoyment should always come first.

Hope you don't mind RD, I moved this to the Olympic section!

Regarding the budget, I read that David Cameron saw the initial plans for the opening ceremony and decided that it wasn't "special" enough, so decided that the budget for it should be doubled.

It was argued that the opening ceremony would help to boost tourism in the future as it showcases the country. IMO it shows that the economy drive the country is supposed to be doesn't count if it gives a chance for Cameron and Co to look good on the world stage.

I started reading the "Daily Fail" Article (I'm gonna use that from now on) and I just had to turn it off as soon as it said "Sport is is often seen as a good thing, but is it?" Makes me want to hit things.

tigerrobins wrote:The only reason i think the opening ceremony is costing so much is because we're trying to out do Bejing.

Not true. Budget would need to have been several hundred million to even get close to Bejing's. I'm trusting that the money will ensure GB doesn't look as feeble as the promotion in the closing ceremony made us look.