PDA

View Full Version : London 2012



Keith.A.Smith
-18th May 2004, 22:41
Congratulations to the LOndon 2012 organisation. Lonsdon is now on the short list for hsoting tshe 2012 Olympic Games. The final vote is in July 2005 in Singapore to see who gets to host the Olympics.

Start talking up London. It woud be marvelous to host the greatest sporting event on earth in London.

Keith

tigger
-19th May 2004, 07:49
What would it mean for fencing specifically? Would there be any automatic qualifying spots, or would the qualifying be just the same for the host nation?

To be absolutely honest I think that if London did get the Olympics there's a great chance of us 'doing an Athens' rather than a Sydney. if you kno what I mean:dizzy:

gbm
-19th May 2004, 08:30
I might even go if the Olympics came to London (though obviously as a spectator rather than a fencer, though I do have 8 years to train :strong: )

NLSC Sabreur
-19th May 2004, 09:31
Olympics in London?

Sounds like a transportation nightmare in the city with the world's most decayed underground system. The past record is not exactly good, the Dome, the Wembley Stadium fiasco.

The whole London bid process has become ever more pointless with the events in Iraq. A large proportion of the IOC voting members are never going to vote for London because Britain is seen (rightly or wrongly) as the American sidekick and things are only going to more and more messy in Iraq.

Barbara Cassani et al should give up (blame Tony Blair if they wish) and go and do something possible.

A London 2012 Olympics might be marvelous in an alternative universe where it could happen but it wont happen in this one.

symon
-19th May 2004, 14:43
this country can barely arrange a P*ss up in a brewery :grin: never mind olympics

Marcos
-19th May 2004, 15:04
what happened to your "can do" attitude??:confused:

Rdb811
-19th May 2004, 15:10
I don't this is exactly 'talking London up'. Euro 96 (or whenever) wasn't a disaster and nor were the Commonwealth Games in MAnchester.

Rdb811
-19th May 2004, 15:46
Originally posted by NLSC Sabreur


Barbara Cassani et al should give up (blame Tony Blair if they wish) and go and do something possible.


She kust has done (or rather stepped down yo vice-chairman) and Seb Coe has taken over.

Jambo
-19th May 2004, 16:46
Originally posted by Rdb811
nor were the Commonwealth Games in MAnchester.

Funny how things can be run outside of London isnt it?! :tongue:

Rdb811
-19th May 2004, 16:57
Rats - must remember to be consistent in my opininations.

gbm
-19th May 2004, 16:59
Should have held it in Cardiff. We know how to do things (we built the best stadium IN THE WORLD!!!! !!!! !!!! in the middle of the city)

JohnL
-19th May 2004, 17:25
For some obscure reason, I'm hoping that New York wins
:)

natsgrant
-19th May 2004, 19:04
No...!

Well, New York would be mildly better than London as it's a bit better organised.

But we'd all need to be fingerprinted before we could even consider getting to the country.

Now the chances of visiting any of my relations (most of them that aren't in Barbados) are seriously minimal as it's now a pain in the proverbials.

Go Cardiff is what I say! :)

Jambo
-19th May 2004, 21:13
In reconcilliation for my sarcastic comments... I do think it would be great if we got it, it sounds unlikely sadly. It would give British sport in general a good kick up the backside. London is not a good venue though, similarly neither is New York.

3 Card Trick
-20th May 2004, 07:39
If people in GB don't believe in the bid who else is going to?

Come on people, roll up your sleeves and get supporting.

We can pull off major events in this country and if Manchester can mange to make a success of the Commonwealth Games, surely you guys in London want to go one better.

Be positive - try to turn the dream into reality.

gbm
-20th May 2004, 08:53
It could be done if the right people are given a good kick up the, um, behind.

NLSC Sabreur
-20th May 2004, 09:22
Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester would all be good places for an Olympic games. The locals would be nearly all enthusiastic (which I guarentee you wont get in London). Room to build facilities and transport would all be far easier. Will a games in London be seen nationwide as something for the whole country or just more for London?

London was supposed to host the World Athletics championships in 2005 but it all disappeared in the confusion over the Wembley stadium and the lack of political direction.

Paris and Madrid are the two main contenders and are a long way in front London. The effective head of the French bid is the President himself who can devote large amounts of effort to the games. Tony Blair has Iraq and large numbers of his own party trying to oust him. So we get Lord Coe AKA Seb Coe the failed politician (former MP, unsuccessful junior minister, later adviser to William Hague). Coe's got a very impressive 4 olympic medals but there is no automatic conversion of that into votes.

Paris has most of the facilities all ready in place, a proven track record and apparently wide spread support amongst the French people. Can we say the same for London?

clockity
-20th May 2004, 09:41
Originally posted by NLSC Sabreur
Paris has most of the facilities all ready in place, a proven track record and apparently wide spread support amongst the French people. Can we say the same for London?
... and a decent public transport network. Paris is a better choice at present. :(

London would need Cross-Rail to be in place and some serious upgrades to the rest of London Transport's privatised networks. Plus the general feeling of apathy amongst the populace. :rolleyes:

gbm
-20th May 2004, 09:45
:( God, I'm getting depressed just reading about London... :(

clockity
-20th May 2004, 09:47
Originally posted by goodbadandme
:( God, I'm getting depressed just reading about London... :(
Be glad that you don't have to suffer the transport system everyday... It was a lot easier walking through Cardiff when I was studying there.

gbm
-20th May 2004, 09:55
Cardiff is great! Though I don't live there, I drive to Newport train station and catch a train every morning, but they are pretty reliable round here, since every train to Wales (which the exception of the one that goes up through mid-wales goes through Newport.

Marcos
-20th May 2004, 11:02
"always problems with this one..."
:yoda:

gbm
-20th May 2004, 13:16
I think you might be in the wrong thread...

Rdb811
-20th May 2004, 23:14
Originally posted by NLSC Sabreur
or just more for London?



So London is to be a milk cow for the rest of th country, mas usual ?


Originally posted by NLSC Sabreur

London was supposed to host the World Athletics championships in 2005 but it all disappeared in the confusion over the Wembley stadium and the lack of political direction.



Blame the government. Having said that, I still think the new Wembley is a hugh waste of money.

Rdb811
-20th May 2004, 23:18
Originally posted by clockity
... and a decent public transport network. Paris is a better choice at present. :(

London would need Cross-Rail to be in place and some serious upgrades to the rest of London Transport's privatised networks. Plus the general feeling of apathy amongst the populace. :rolleyes:

Actually, London's transport infrastructure can cope with very large crowds (it just has problems with commuters) - Crossrail and the other bits are needed anyway, and work shoule be started now, if we are serious about the Olympic bid. (Althouh the length of time taken to start on Thameslink 2000 and the East London Line extension suggests that it still wouldn't be complete on time.

Neo
-21st May 2004, 00:05
There's no way in hell Cardiff, Birmingham or Manchester would ever succeed, for the simple reason that no person in their right mind would go there. London has the internal standing to be able attract the games, the others do not.

Jambo
-21st May 2004, 06:03
Originally posted by Rdb811
Crossrail and the other bits are needed anyway, and work shoule be started now,

Whats crossrail? If you'll forgive my northern ignorance.

Neo: I presume you meant international? Maybe true, but Manchester would presumably get recognised for the Commonwealths, (by the IOC at least, if not Joe Bloggs).

Cyranox11
-21st May 2004, 08:45
I am always amused at British people and Londoners in particular complaining about transport...
In SA, we do not have a light rail system in any of our cities, we do have a bus service which costs no less than the petrol you would use if you had a car and only really runs at rush hour: if you want to get into the city after 9am you had better use private transport. Even within the city, it takes less time to walk from one end to the other than it takes to wait for a bus...
We do have an extensive privatised dytsem of transport: minibus taxis: here largely unroadworthy vehicles driven by often un-licensed drivers transport 30 people in vehicles desigfned to carry no more than 16 people at high speed, at a greater cost than using a bus...
Our normal rail system ONLY runs (in Johannesburg) from east to west and vice versa, there is no north south connection...
In anticipation of us getting the 2010 World Cup bid, we started planning a light rail sytem connecting Jhb to its international airport, as well as Jhb with Pretoria and Sandton...
This will hopefully be completed by 2010...
But we dont complain about our lack of public transport (maybe we should), instead we make a plan...
My brother in law lives in the UK and commutes to London everyday: he is amazed at how well the system works...
Different backgrounds, different attitudes I suppose...

Chris
-21st May 2004, 09:53
tbf mate, I thought it was pretty good when I stayed in london for a few days as well, and I travelled during rush hour...I've never really seen what people complain about either.

clockity
-21st May 2004, 10:49
Originally posted by Rdb811
Actually, London's transport infrastructure can cope with very large crowds (it just has problems with commuters) - Crossrail and the other bits are needed anyway, and work shoule be started now, if we are serious about the Olympic bid. (Althouh the length of time taken to start on Thameslink 2000 and the East London Line extension suggests that it still wouldn't be complete on time.

Unfortunately these large crowds would be on top of the commuters. the DLR can hardly cope with the number of office workers in all those new offices that are being built. It will not cope with the numbers expeting to fill an Olympic Stadium in Stratford or those travelling form London City Airport (if that link is built in time).

It needs to be dealt with whether London gets the Olympics or not. If all those projects (that continually get delayed or cancelled) are underway for the benefit of London then this will be favourable to the Olympic bid. Quite frankly how they expect the numbers to travel from Heathrow to Stratford is beyond me, Crossrail would definetly help.


Originally posted by Jambo
Whats crossrail? If you'll forgive my northern ignorance.
Crossrail (http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/rail/initiatives/crossrail.shtml) is a rail line that would connect West and East London together (Heathrow, Kingston, Paddington, Liverpool Street, Stratford, Shenfield, Ebbsfield).

Unfortunately it won't be ready until 2013 (if it ever gets the go ahead). It's pretty much the same with all the plans (east London extension, Thameslink 2000), they're all bogged under red tape awaiting review after review.

There is a linit to how many people can be squeezed down the funnel of the Jubilee Line...

Rdb811
-21st May 2004, 14:42
Crossrail has been in the planning stage for nearly twenty years - it was cancelled at some point in the nineties and has been revived (at one point it had something like fifty staff).

The point bit of the line is an underground rail line (much bigger than a tube) to carry the Liverpool Street (from Essex) through to Paddington and out west.

Rdb811
-21st May 2004, 14:50
Having browsed the Transport for London site, there are any number of schemes "planned" - many of which have been proposed in one form or another for at leat fifteen years.

Thameslink 2000 (still no sign of it happening) was due to be built about 10 years ago. (An upgrade of the Bedford - Brighton line which I have spent many years commuting on - these are the chaps with 'the wrong type of snow' which wiped put ll rail services for three weeks on the line and closed the connecting tunnel unde the City for another four week.s

Insipiens
-21st May 2004, 16:14
There is a plan to increase the length of all DLR trains by 50% and to increase the frequency (easily done given the wait). This would help but not cure the difficulties.

Does anybody actually know how many people turn up to an olympic games and try to get to a particular venue at the same time?

I think London can do it, but it needs authorisation for these plans to be given now. If Swiss Re can be allowed to build the gherkin why not?

While he is on a roll of unpopular policies, perhaps the prime minister could force through the transport plans. How much is cross-rail and how much is wasted by the government elsewhere?

Neo
-21st May 2004, 17:44
Perhaps they could put some innocent civilians in the tunnel before they bore it out... then Mr Blair and Bush could do it together ;)

Rdb811
-22nd May 2004, 00:18
Originally posted by Insipiens

I think London can do it, but it needs authorisation for these plans to be given now. If Swiss Re can be allowed to build the gherkin why not?

While he is on a roll of unpopular policies, perhaps the prime minister could force through the transport plans. How much is cross-rail and how much is wasted by the government elsewhere?

Well 500,000 jobs have been put on the state payroll - 20 BN according to one report, just in inefficient bureaucracy - about the cost of Cross-rail.

(35 m was spent on an 'e-University' that had 900 enrolements).



I like the gerkin - at least it was designed with the aid of more than a ruler.

Neo
-22nd May 2004, 00:20
was there a reply there or just a quote? :P

Rdb811
-22nd May 2004, 00:22
Originally posted by Neo
was there a reply there or just a quote? :P

A quoute then an edit.

Insipiens
-24th May 2004, 08:13
Originally posted by Rdb811
Well 500,000 jobs have been put on the state payroll - 20 BN according to one report, just in inefficient bureaucracy - about the cost of Cross-rail.

(35 m was spent on an 'e-University' that had 900 enrolements).



I like the gerkin - at least it was designed with the aid of more than a ruler.

Which probably means cross-rail would really cost twice the estimated cost (as they have not built in all the apparatchiks jobs).

clockity
-24th May 2004, 10:46
Originally posted by Rdb811
Thameslink 2000 (still no sign of it happening) was due to be built about 10 years ago. (An upgrade of the Bedford - Brighton line which I have spent many years commuting on - these are the chaps with 'the wrong type of snow' which wiped put ll rail services for three weeks on the line and closed the connecting tunnel unde the City for another four week.s

They should really just drop the 2000 as it is getting a bit embarrasing after all the delays.Thanmeslink eXPerience maybe? ;) I agree with the appaling nature of that line though, as I use it most days too. I think this has contributed to my some what jaded view of London holding the games. It would be nice if we could though.


Originally posted by Inspiens
There is a plan to increase the length of all DLR trains by 50% and to increase the frequency (easily done given the wait). This would help but not cure the difficulties.

It would take a long time to expand all the DLR stations to cope with 6 carriage trains, I think Bank, Canary Wharf and Heron's Quay are the only stations with platforms long enough to cope with them at the moment. If they expand West Ferry as well you could probably walk across the platform to the Canary Wharf DLR!

They could probably expand it in time htough if they started early enough.

The problem is the many numbers and levels of management companies who ru(i)n public transport in London. Well it is a nice cash cow for the Banks that own Metronet and the other holding companies...

I agree that the Swiss-Re tower looks very nice. I'll reserve judgement on that Spire of Glass that they want to build on London Bridge.

Good luck to the Olympic Bid, hopefully it will be more Sydney than Athens if we get it. I'm just not confident that London can cope with the logistics when compared to Paris.

Rdb811
-24th May 2004, 10:59
Originally posted by clockity
They should really just drop the 2000 as it is getting a bit embarrasing after all the delays.Thanmeslink eXPerience maybe? ;) I agree with the appaling nature of that line though, as I use it most days too. I think this has contributed to my some what jaded view of London holding the games.

It is the worst of the ones I use regularly- none of the others are quite as overcrowed or prone to such regular delays, despite having only two and a bit routes.

tigger
-26th May 2004, 11:07
All good positive stuff in this thread then!

Madrid won't get it cos Barcelona had it recently (92?). New York may get the 9/11 sympathy vote, but I think that's run its course and the security implications (and yankee paranoia!) are even more nightmarish than London. I think Paris is fave, with London a close 2nd. Realistically no other GB city is ever likely to win the Olympics, good tho it would be for other parts of the UK.

It's 8 years away, so if people actually got their arses in gear it's all do-able. despite the generally bad attitude of the folks in the big smoke.

haggis
-26th May 2004, 13:57
Would think that Paris will be strong favourites.

Would be quite happy to see London get the Olympics if I was sure they would do them as well as Australia put on the 2000 Games in Sydney. However, Australian sport and athletes benefitted from greater funding to help ensure that the Aussies would have plenty of athletes capable of winning medals at their own Games. Unfortunately it seems likely that if London wins the Games then there will be huge amounts of funding diverted away from athlete support (40 million removed from sportscotland's budget for example, according to yesterday's Scotsman newspaper). That's what really worries me about the prospect of London hosting the Games:(

Regards

Haggis

JohnL
-26th May 2004, 14:12
I was recently privvy to a presentation of the NY Olympic bid and what impressed me most wasn't the proposed organization and facilities, (All of which were remarkable) but the total enthusiasm and commitment of all concerned. As they say over here, "We can do it."

I happen to live in NY but I doubt if I will ever lose my South London accent.

The total apathy of the British and the people on this forum about hosting a great event anywhere in the UK disgusts me.

It's about time you all stopped whining and tried to achieve something of note, instead of coming up with so many excuses as to why you shouldn't even bother to try.

With the comments made so far, Britain doesn't deserve to host the Olympics. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be British!

Mr Flea
-26th May 2004, 14:18
oh, but if we didn't moan we wouldn't be British...its are favourite national past time...

...have to say i agree with you though...we will only get the Olympics if we can convince the committee that we can actaully do it...this is almost impossible if we ourselves don't think we can...

Saxon
-26th May 2004, 14:20
Originally posted by tigger
All good positive stuff in this thread then!

Realistically no other GB city is ever likely to win the Olympics, good tho it would be for other parts of the UK.

It's 8 years away, so if people actually got their arses in gear it's all do-able. despite the generally bad attitude of the folks in the big smoke.

Yup - it's a good job there are *some* positive attitudes in the bid itself. Seems everyone else within 50 miles is actually *trying* to lose it.

Rather a pity that nowhere except the capital is seen as having a chance - at least there are some people elsewhere who can pick their noses up off the floor...

3 Card Trick
-26th May 2004, 14:58
"The total apathy of the British and the people on this forum about hosting a great event anywhere in the UK disgusts me."

John, for once we are singing off the same hymn sheet.

We must believe in this bid. It would be fantastic for British Sport, never mind fencing.

I hope that the new impetus provided by Seb Coe will drive us forward.

Yes, let's go for it.

LONDON 2012

NLSC Sabreur
-26th May 2004, 16:20
Originally posted by 3 Card Trick
"The total apathy of the British and the people on this forum about hosting a great event anywhere in the UK disgusts me."

John, for once we are singing off the same hymn sheet.

We must believe in this bid. It would be fantastic for British Sport, never mind fencing.

I hope that the new impetus provided by Seb Coe will drive us forward.

Yes, let's go for it.

LONDON 2012

You can believe all you want but convincing the IOC is a whole different reality. The IOC decision is next year and they have to make up their minds on the basis of past performance, facilities currently in place and the promises given.

London's underground system has serious problems that require many billions to fix. Do you think that in the run up to the election the government is going to announce tax rises to fix it?

France has been heavily subsidising the Paris transport system for many decades. I don't know much about Madrid but I haven't heard bad things.

Recent staging of world events (and the IOC is looking for somewhere that can be trusted) Paris - 1 successful World Cup and 1 successful World Athletics championships. London - 0 World Athletics Championships (London was supposed to hold the 2005 games but it all went wrong). Oh there was that incredible 'The Dome' in London, the one the government predicted would a be gigantic international attraction.

The timing of the bid is possibly the worst problem.

Due to its involvement in the Iraq war the UK has annoyed a lot of other countries and that will lose at least a few votes.

The government has Iraq to worry about, an election to plan for, and Tony Blair faces leadership challenges from Gordon Blair and/or possibly others. France and Spain can make the Olympics a major national priority.

==========How to win in future==============

What is needed is for London to hold world championships for a wide variety of sports and do them all well. A good start would be the World Fencing Championships! If London can run big competitions of all sorts well then it has a very good chance of winning the big one. I think its case of needing to learn to walk before you try to run. And yes nations with little track record will win games in future but these will be from areas where of the world that have not had games. London has to compete directly with other European capitals.

haggis
-26th May 2004, 16:29
So all you hymn-singing, drum-banging devotees aren't bothered that sports funding in the UK (already one of the worst in Europe and declining) will be heavily hit for roughly a decade by a successful Olympic bid. Perhaps you haven't considered that if/when we are hosting the greatest sporting event in the world there would be a very strong chance that there would be far fewer Brits in contention for medals than there are now and that the long-term effects on elite sport in the UK would be potentially disastrous.

Enjoy your month in the London sunshine in 2012, guys, but I'll only be happy to join you if a successful bid is backed up by a funding policy that makes Britain a successful sporting nation rather than just a nice place to hold successful sporting events.

Regards

Haggis (thinking that you old buggers would be the cynics)

Saxon
-26th May 2004, 16:45
Well, at least a successful bid may make all those tired, sad, boring cynics in London perk up a bit when they have their infrastructure, new sporting venues, new housing (olympic villages, though whether these would be affordable/sellable is another matter).

I just hope in the (at the moment) unlikely event the bid gets through that at least some of them will cheer up a little and help out, or will it take bus-loads of the rest of us to come down there and pull them into shape?

Actually - sod it - they have to bang on about something - if we can just keep them amused here on the forum, they won't have the time to get out into the real world and get everyone else down...

Rdb811
-26th May 2004, 23:11
It would halp if we started putting the infrastructure in place regardless (for venues etc) and started increasing sports funding (which atthe end of day isn't that much and gives lots of people something to do other moldering in front of the TV set) - the same venues can then be used for other events anyway (football Wotrld Cup), which make money.

Also the numbers of people involved aren't that great compared to the millions ready using public transport in London - probably similar to the volume now working in Canary Wharf.

Biggles
-26th May 2004, 23:47
After today's obesity report maybe sports funding will get a bigger piece of the pie........erm...so to speak.

Athos
-2nd June 2004, 21:25
Originally posted by Cyranox11
I am always amused at British people and Londoners in particular complaining about transport...

As a relatively new inhabitant of Surrey, and having previously lived in Chichester and Exeter (where if you missed the bus it was quicker to walk than wait for the next one) I have to say that London is great for public transport - the tube is fantastic - you can go wherever you like, even if you don't know London that well, and most importantly you know when the trains are going to arrive! Obviously there are problems which commuters bear the brunt of - and I did experience some of those when I worked in London, but I suppose there is a certain inevitability in that when you're using the service all day every day. In terms of a car not being essential to getting around, I think London is pretty good!

Athos
-2nd June 2004, 21:32
Originally posted by Rdb811
It would halp if we started putting the infrastructure in place regardless (for venues etc) and started increasing sports funding (which atthe end of day isn't that much and gives lots of people something to do other moldering in front of the TV set) - the same venues can then be used for other events anyway (football Wotrld Cup), which make money.

The trouble with the bid at the moment is that it's rather oligarchic- there's a relatively small number of government/ business people who are running the thing, and there are a few murmers that we should all back it, expensive advertising campaigns etc. but without any suggestion for a practical application of we can all do to show our support, even though it's apparently important that we do so. It would be nice to see something happening on a more practical level which we could all get involved in, and feel like we are doing something that is a tangible support of getting the Olympics to London. And it is important - if for no other reason than it's our best chance to go and watch fencing and other sports at that level, which is something of a privilege...

There needs to be some sort of general promotion of sport - better funding of leisure centres, clubs etc, much as Rdb811 says, to help everyone embrace the idea of the Olympics.

JohnL
-3rd June 2004, 13:29
What a pathetic bunch (I don't know why I waste my time with you ;) )

With the pure energy I can feel from the people on this forum it is clear that the London Olympic bid stands as much chance of succeeding as Mary Poppins as a stripper.

Sounds like the UK will have to contend with the hardly bearable excitement over the next 20 years of the world synchronised swimming championships and Crufts.

You get what you deserve.

haggis
-3rd June 2004, 14:57
Originally posted by JohnL
What a pathetic bunch (I don't know why I waste my time with you ;) )


No one else will have you?:tongue:

Insipiens
-3rd June 2004, 17:11
Fortunately the contributors to this forum will have absolutely no effect on London's bid for the olympics, being obsessed with a minority sport and therefore probably all a bit weird.

What has happened to JohnL that he is trying to be positive (even if not about other contributions)?

:chair:

Athos
-4th June 2004, 08:02
Originally posted by JohnL
What a pathetic bunch (I don't know why I waste my time with you ;) )

With the pure energy I can feel from the people on this forum it is clear that the London Olympic bid stands as much chance of succeeding as Mary Poppins as a stripper.

Sounds like the UK will have to contend with the hardly bearable excitement over the next 20 years of the world synchronised swimming championships and Crufts.

You get what you deserve.

What I mean is that I support the London Olympics, but what does it matter if I think "yes, great idea" if there's no practical way of showing it, and helping the bid?

TBennett
-4th June 2004, 10:20
you say that Sports may be hit (funding wise) if we get the bid and therefore reduce our medal chances... I dont think so..

Even if funding is cut, there will be a huge increasing of Sponsorship of athletes because the Olympics is THE global event. "The best show on Earth deserves the best actors". This will obviously well covered by TV and companies will want people to wear their insignia.

I may not be making too much sense but the idea of the Olympics being hosted is to gain prestige etc but it also makes so much money London will benefit from free venues, hotels etc. For example, the Sydney olympics, the most successful yet, sold TV rights alone for 500 million.....

There is a huge profit to be had

haggis
-4th June 2004, 12:13
Hellphire

How noble of you to be prepared to sacrifice funding and support for fencing and plenty of other sports over the next 8 years in order to eventually reap the financial rewards of London hosting the Olympics. I had thought that between your current age (18?) and 26 you might have hoped to see improved funding and support for talented and ambitious fencers.

Given fencing's current difficulties in finding decent sponsorship packages I'm far from convinced that commercial sponsors will be fighting each other for the opportunity to be associated with British fencing.

Regards

Haggis

J_D
-4th June 2004, 15:22
Originally posted by JohnL
Mary Poppins as a stripper.
You get what you deserve.

Now there's a thought! :tongue:

TBennett
-4th June 2004, 15:33
I knew my logic would be called into question.... lol

What I meant was that the sports-funding would not suffer and if anything, would increase due to the want for medals....

Actually building venues for everything would come from the private sector as many companies want to associate themselves for an Olympics... I would have thought the sports funding would have stayed roughly the same in comparison...

Certainly Olympic hopefuls would be able to get more private funding though.....

(Btw I am 18 and 2 days now so you were right....)

haggis
-4th June 2004, 17:24
Sorry Hellphire but I am going to call your logic into question because all the signs are that funding would be diverted into the infrastructure improvemnts that would be required. The figures that I've seen refer to a 40 million pound cut over 4 years to the budget for sport scotland alone and would almost certainly be on a similar scale throughout the UK.

Most building projects would be joint-funded and the government funding looks likely to be taken directly from current sports funding. There have been no indications so far that funding for athletes would do anything other than suffer.

Private sponsorship might increase but I think there's a good chance that sponsors would look to associate themselves with the Games (the insert sponsor's name stadium/arena, etc.) rather than directly with athletes. If successful Olympians were that attractive to potential sponsors then there would be no trouble finding their support wherever the Olympics were held. Even if I'm wrong, fencers are rarely top of a potential sponsors shopping list of athletes that will ensure good media coverage. As for the 99.999% of british fencers who won't be potential Olympic medallists, they're going to have to get used having even less direct funding than they get at the moment.

I know all this makes me sound totally opposed to the idea of London hosting the 2012 Olympics but that's not the case. I'd love London to get it but only if it means that Britain finally takes sport seriously and ensures that we have properly funded and supported athletes, especially fencers, to compete successfully in the Greatest Show on Earth.

Regards

Haggis

TBennett
-4th June 2004, 17:50
Fair enough....I have to admit my logic isnt very logical at the best of Times.

I havent read the plans for the games properly so obviously cant say I am an authority on the subject. Past games (1980+ have all been making large amount of money. Before then, Montreal lost 30 million (I think) which they are still paying off)

Anyway, If my logic aint logical, Ignore my posts :rolleyes:

Athos
-4th June 2004, 17:56
I think Fencing needs to be covered on terrestrial TV before it is likely to gain in terms of Olympic sponsorships. As far as TV coverage goes, the Olympics is just a contest for gymnasts, track athletes and swimmers...

Maybe now, while the government is keen to appear that it takes sport seriously, would be a good time to go after better coverage for fencing...hey, it's a great sport for schools who've sold off their playing fields and have 30 to a class - maybe fencing could be the solution to childhood obesity? Might increase general interest in the sport as a starting point ....

Neo
-4th June 2004, 19:01
Its largely irrelevant if other things could be dangerous... crossing the road is dangerous, saying that its not the only thing is a null argument..

One point tho... see my other thread on disclaimers... got me thinking. Competitors sign a limited disclaimer, spectators do not. If one gets hit by a blade (especially if it could be proven that if the blade should have been taken out at weapons control and wasn't) there could be a hefty award of damages.