The Big Question

First topic message reminder :

With the run up to the olympics well under way i wanted to garner peoples views on this...

As we know the Olympics was, and is going to be massively over budget and this has been at the expense of financial backing to some of the less prominent sports in the country, but should this be the case?

Don't we always do better in these sports?

Should we not be investing in these to find the new breakout stars of the future?

And what of the added costs? Whilst the money and redevelopment of certain London borough's will be good for the economy, but could the billions of pounds spent on bringing the Olympics here have been spent on other, more important causes, like the NHS?

Your thoughts?

You should have put a don't care option I just couldn't give a rats backside about the games
Have they got the clock running again?
How do professional sports persons get through the front door? If they earn a living through prise money in any sport they do not belong in the games

If Murray wins he'd do it for Scotland rather than 'GBR'.

Me thinks you belong on 606 *LondonJohnnyO*

And what's with the "WE" ???

The average spend for the UK per head and the breakdown is as follows:

1120 pounds will go to the NHS
763 pounds will go to local government (to help towards services such as police and education)
520 pounds will go to regional expenditure on Scotland and Wales
440 pounds will go to education
343 pounds will go to defence
135 pounds will be spent on Northern Ireland
75 pounds will go on international development
and 4200 pounds can't be accurately assigned as it goes on demand lead costs such as social security payments (state pensions - roughly 1000 pounds spend for each of us according to the pensions commission - but also unemployment benefit, disability benefit, etc)



So. That regional expenditure that is going to NI, Scotland and Wales... why isn't there one for England.

We subsidise scotland.

Hobo wrote:I dont like the fact that London is the one benefitting from it all - they get new stadia, taxation money and all the tourism.

I live in Scotland and am Welsh. What benefit does the London Olympics give me?

They should have held it in an area that could do with some rejuvination instead.

It should have been the Middlesborough 2012 Olympics or something.

actually that was what started the paying for it and where the money goes debate YM.

you know... for someone who is quick to tell people to not insult others you are quite happy to say things like others are 'vile'

If you make a comment expect a statement made in rebuttal. Whether you like it or not.

Hello all, can we please keep this on topic.
The question is about the olympics and the sporting oportunities arising therefrom and any financial implications on the economy.

Its not a Scotland/England debate (or any other nations), its not a thread to have a go at other posters. Lets get back on topic please and debate this sensibly.

Cheers
Y I Man

Y I, I agree that it should not be a ridiculous Scotland vs England slanging match but the question of what benefit the Olympics has on other regions than London is relevant to how people feel about the Olympics.

The calls for the Olympics to be in a region that could do with an economic boost, like Middlesbrough, are great but in an unrealistic world. London as a city will be funding a majority of the Olympics and were very lucky to narrowly beat Paris for the chance to host it. Realistically, what chance would Middlesbrough have had against Paris and the other major multicultural cities? Also, how on earth would they be able to fund it locally? This is why it is totally unrealistic and London is the only city capable of funding the event out of it's own pockets - it is not asking anything of anyone financially outside of London.

Also, I'm not really sure what perception people have of London and it's need for regeneration but the boroughs that are being regenerated and will benefit the most are Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets in the East of London whose residents are among the poorest in the country and will benefit from the money as much as anyone else.

As far as London subsidising the rest of the country, I know the accountant for the council next to mine, which is not a wealthy one, and in the 2009/10 tax year they gave away 42% of their income to be redistributed in the North of England and to Scotland/Wales and Northern Ireland. Now I don't have a problem with this at all despite my local services like rubbish collection getting worse, but for people to come on here and say that an increase in London's economy form the Olympics will not benefit them is just ridiculous.

As a southerner I would like to distance myself from the attitude of LondonJohnnyO who apparently lives in Essex not London!

No problem. As I say my views are very harsh.

And come from having grown up in Tower Hamlets and seen the amount of money spent on people who rape the systems for their own gain (and also where the London part comes from)

Personally, I was around some of the quarters of eastern London like Stanford a couple of years ago and I could easily tell the substantial progress and development compared to only a few years before - the influence of the Olympics build-up was evident throughout. And hasn't confined only around those areas.

Make also no mistake that holding the London Olympics has been instrumental in the substantial to huge rise across the board in British sports, maybe even by 80%.

When an event of such magnitude comes round to a country, there's no other way but simply launch and lay out high quality programs, bring in as many as possible of the best people in the business to put in their expertise, establish plenty of high quality competition and training facilities/centres around and, of course, the Olympics itself is a huge incentive for so many athletes.

There is no way that the budget of an Olympic Games is ever going to be contained within the initial estimations but what also matters a great deal is to turn holding that event to advantage, not only short- but also long-term and reap rewards and gains for years to follow at different levels.

Unfortunately, the timing of the Games comes a little inconvenient in the background of a global financial recession but that wasn't visible when it was undertaken. Nevertheless, to go ahead and overcome obstacles you need challenges and can't find many better than that.

LondonJonnyO wrote:

ospreylian wrote:and here i was almost celebrating the fact that 606v2 was WUMFREE>

just because a statement winds you up doesn't mean the person making it is a WUM.

It could just be that you are the sort of person who gets wound up when other people dare to have a different opinion than your own. Or even wants to live their life in a way they see fit.

LJO If you don't mind too much I would rather not engage in conversation with you, suffice to say that if you and i were in a pub at the same time..........it wouldn't be for long.

This is a public forum so get get used to it.

The first thing I'd like to say is that I'm very surprised that anyone on here who purports to be interested in athletics would not want to see the Olympics in our country.

The second is that up until now this part of the forum has run had a variety of interesting topics with disagreements of course, but has been a lovely contrast to the bickering on the original site. This particular topic seems to have attracted the attention of some who just seem intent on making political points. Please keep politics out of this.

The third is I can't believe there are people who think ther IOC delegates would have voted for anywhere other than London. There would have been zero interest.

My final point is that I'm really happy to see the rejuvination of that part of the East End. Well deserved in my opinion. An impoverished area as much any of the others areas mentioned above.