Olympic bid 2012

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by Big Twigge, Jan 25, 2005.


Do you agree with the GB Olympic bid?

  1. Yes - and it should be in London

    16 vote(s)
  2. Yes - but it shouldn't be in London

    17 vote(s)
  3. No!

    7 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Big Twigge

    Big Twigge Active Member

    Just wondering what people thought about the London bid? Personally I think it'd be great, an amazing experience (you could register support if you like!)
    It also might provide a good opportunity for a few bands to get into the public domain (opening/closing ceremonies for example). I seem to remember at the commonwealth games bands from local counties took part.

    Maybe a tmp band?
  2. brasscrest

    brasscrest Active Member

    The Washington-Baltimore area was originally in the competition for 2012, but was eliminated early on.

    As a resident of the area, I was against the bid. Most cities that host the Games don't make back the investment they have to make, which means that the taxpayers foot the bill for all of the necessary infrastructure, construction and other costs. And for the residents, all it would do is make the incredibly bad traffic situation in this area worse. Not to mention the increased security during the Games, which would be even more of a nuisance than it already is.

    I don't know how the London Olympic committee is planning to distribute tickets, but the committee that ran the Atlanta games in 1996 held a national lottery for tickets - so those who lived in the area had no better chance of actually getting to any of the events than anyone else in the country. So for the local people, it was just a colossal inconvenience for the most part.

    The part about playing opportunities is probably correct, though.
  3. WhatSharp?

    WhatSharp? Active Member

    I guess it's great if you don't live in London and have to pay for it with a hike in council tax!
    sorry but I can't see any benefit it could bring to London barring a wad of cash for those shops which cash in on the tourist industry. it won't result in any new sports facilities or better transport since it will all be localised and torn down afterwards.
  4. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    The new athletics stadium in the Lea Valley has been designed with the future beyond the Olympics in mind;

    at least some of the Olympic accommodation in the East of London near Startford will be turned into affordable housing for key workers; and

    as far as I've read, none of the planned buildings or stadiums are temporary. (There are some temporary uses of existing venues that will be reverted after the games.)

    So generally, Steve, I don't agree with you.

    That said, I've already booked three weeks holiday around the planned dates fpr the Olympics in 2012, and if London get them, I'll be watching the games from Houston!
  5. WhatSharp?

    WhatSharp? Active Member

    OK so I stand corrected about the permanence of the accomodation (not that it does anyone in the west of London much good despite still having to pay for it). My main gripes are :
    • £12m (I believe) just to put the bid in, if we don't get it it's £12m down the toilet!, I would have rather the money been spent improving the hospitals and schools in London
    • Nobody actually asked Londoners whether they wanted it or not?, now they find that a lot of people don't want it and the olympic bid people are moaning about it.
    • Even if we get the bid a massive cash investment would be required to create and generate the facilities. See my first point.
    • If they wanted to promote sports and get schools doing more perhaps the money should have gone directly to the schools, at the moment nearly all the schools in my area have little or no sports on the syllabus barring P.E. and the odd footy team (which at my sons school was started and run by the kids with very little help from the teachers).
    This whole thing smacks or political PR for Livingstone and his fat cash cronies (I see he now wants to charge people for using the North Circular!, not to mention the Heathrow congestion charge which will make the roads around my house a living hell) who are wasting money left right and centre on hari brained schemes and nothing seems to improve.

    Apologies to everyone I'll get off my soapbox and hide under it and await the incoming flak.

    Perhaps we should make this a poll?
  6. dyl

    dyl Active Member

    That's probably a good idea. What options would you like guys?
  7. WhatSharp?

    WhatSharp? Active Member

    Hows about :

    Yes have the olympics in London

    Yes have the olympics but not in London

    No don't have the olympics at all
  8. Big Twigge

    Big Twigge Active Member

    The problem with the option of 'yes, but not in London' is that it is the only place in the country that has a bid. So I'm not sure how it can be considered as a serious option when it is not even a possibility.
    I understand why some people are not happy, but here's my unresearched 2 pence worth...

    I saw the state Athens was in a few years ago(2001), by all accounts they pulled of a blinder and the regeneration of the city was quite astonishing. I belive that any changes after the olympics (on an overall level) will benefit the city and UK sport (admittedly I won't be the one paying the council tax).

    Using Manchester as an example after the commonwealth games, the majority of the changes that Manchester saw, I think, have been positive.

    I'm probably just get a bit over excited about the prospect of the Olympics being in this country and having an opportunity to see some fantastic sportsmen and women. My vote is yes, tis only my opinion and France will probably get it anyway:dunno
  9. ScrapingtheBottom

    ScrapingtheBottom Active Member

    Manchester should be the olympic bid city, this is all a bit stupid, it's just too expensive to stage an event like the olympics in London.
  10. Jan H

    Jan H Moderator Staff Member

    If I understand correctly, the current candidates are

    London, UK
    Madrid, Spain
    Moscow, Russia
    New York, USA
    Paris, France

    London and Paris both hosted the games 2 times already, but that was before WW2
    Spain hosted the 1992 games (in Barcelona) so I think that's maybe a bit soon to go back to that country already?
    Moscow hosted the 1980 games, in the days of the Cold War. But what about the security situation? (crime, terrorism,...?)
    The city of New York could get the "sympathy vote", but the US already had the 1996 games in Atlanta, and they didn't get much good points for the organisation then...

    I must admit that I don't know much details about the individual bids, but when I look at this list, I think that Paris does have the best chances to get the bid. Especially because France last organised the games in 1924.

    I know that last year, the Flemish regional government payed for a feasability study to investigate the possiblity for an olympic bid for 2016 (either for Brussels or Antwerp). Immediately a lot of protest came about the potential cost of the project, especially when it became known how much over budget the Athens 2004 games went... anyway, when the 2012 Olympics go the Paris or London (which seem the 2 most viable candidates to me), it is very unlikely thet the 2016 games will be in Europe anyway...
  11. brasscrest

    brasscrest Active Member

    The "bid city" is just the name used to impress the committee. A Summer Games is usually spread out over quite a distance, because some of the events (white-water kayak, for example) require specialized terrain. The Washington bid had some events proposed for venues up to 120 km away from the city.

    Probably true. Of the four European sites, only London and Paris seem to be contenders. New York is only on the list as a gesture to the Americans, I think.
  12. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    Don't see why you should get flak for expressing your opinion.

    The way I see it, is if any affordable housing for key workers is built anywhere in London, then provided there is an easy connection to the Jubilee Line which links to all the other underground lines, then residents can take jobs anywhere in London. With the DLR Teardrop Scheme north of Stratford likely to run to Temple Mills, most residents of the new properties will be within 10 minutes of Stratford and the Jubilee and Central Lines. Sure, the reliability of the underground still needs to be addressed, but I still see London as a whole benefiting from the longer term (ie beyond the Olympics) part of Lord Coe's team's plans.

    Of course, if the Government had the foresight to build crossrail into the plans, then all the major building schemes could be gotten out of the way by 2012, rather than having to restart disruption again for Crossrail after the Olympics. (Not that I'm ciritcising my politcal masters at all. No Sir. I want a job the other side of the election, yessireebob.:biggrin: I Like Labour, I like the Conservatives and I like the Lib Dems*. (*Well, you never know...))

    It would also be fair to state, given your east/west London divide comment, that no one in East London apparently stands to gain from the terminal 5 development at Heathrow Airport , yet most of the people working at the airport will likely be from airport's West of London sphere of influence.

    I voted yes, and to London.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2005
  13. WhatSharp?

    WhatSharp? Active Member

    True but I'm not sure you can compare the two, I believe the commercial viability of terminal 5 exceeds that of the olympic bid in that it will, eventually, pay for itself. at least thats the theory, and I have a feeling (and if I'm wrong then I stand corrected) that the bulk of the money for the Terminal 5 development has come out of BAA's coffers rather than local goverment taxes. Interestingly enough the Airport itself falls under central London goverment (ah yes hello Ken) which is how they can impose a congestion charge without consultation of local residents (who are Hounslow, Hillingdon and Surrey) and there is a lot of pressure from local residents to stop this happening (though I doubt this will have any result).
  14. WhatSharp?

    WhatSharp? Active Member

    Also found this in the observer...

    "The Observer understands that Ken Livingstone, London's mayor, is considering extending the capital's congestion charge scheme to include drivers going to Heathrow airport, and then using the money raised for the Olympics. "


    Well thanks a lot Mr Mayor, so now I'll get taxed twice for something I don't want!
    (any Jobs up North I wonder?)
  15. bigmamabadger

    bigmamabadger Active Member

    As I understand it, Athens has been practically bankrupted by the games, and all that wonderful real estate is now just going to waste cos they can't afford to do anything with it...millenium dome anyone?
    The tax will undoubtedly be taken from all tax payers, altho. Londoners may bear the brunt of any local taxes.

    I don't think the games should be hosted in London, for all the very good reasons already set out above. Also it's a long way from most of the country which means a fortune for 90% of the population to get there. Manchester and the NorthWest did a fine job with the Commonwealth Games so the region could be a candidate, but how about a Scottish bid?
  16. Jan H

    Jan H Moderator Staff Member

    I think you are all a bit late in discussing this. Shouldn't you have discussed this 4 or 5 years ago, when the initial plans were proposed (probably)? London is now one of the "final 5", whether you like it or not...
  17. Will the Sec

    Will the Sec Active Member

    I think every one should look at the bid in detail before saying they do or don't want the Olympics. People are expressing opinions here (and in many other places) that simply don't hold water in the face of the detail in the bid.

    If once you've read the detail of the bid and then you still don't want the Olympics to come to town, then by all means say so.

    BUT, and it's a big BUT - bear in mind that if we don't convince the Olympic Committee that the country at large will back a large scale event, (even if we don't ultimately get the Olympics) FIFA will never sanction a soccer World Cup in the UK. (My favourite daft assertion - heard it at length from a drunken yob on the tube home from Ramblers last night. "No Olymipcs! Yes to the World Cup!")

    Your views may vary.
  18. Dave Payn

    Dave Payn Active Member

    Doom merchant here...

    One reason the Olympics should never be in London. The ****ing awful transport system. We've had years and years of promises about how much better it's going to get but somehow, it manages to get even worse. Much as lack of government funding might have been the problem in the past, the main problems are (a) poor rail management (there have been several articles in recent months about how our 'workshy' rail repair contractors have clocked on, stayed for about 10 minutes, done nothing and then gone home for the day, leaving railways in a dangerous state of repair) (b) the rail unions. If Bob Crow is still RMT general secretary come the Olympics, you can bet your bottom dollar that he's already devising a reason to bring his members out on strike come any Olympics in 2012 and (c) the lack of willingness of railway companies to accept responibility for poor performance. It's always somebody else's fault. Until we can change that mentality then London doesn't stand an earthly of getting the Olympics.

    Manchester (from what I heard) made a good fist of the Commonwealth Games, why not them?
  19. Big Twigge

    Big Twigge Active Member

    Apparently (and I may be very much wrong here) one of the main problems with Manchester is that there would not be enough accommodation for the spectators and competitors. It's not even just a question of building a few hotels, apparently lots and lots and lots would have to be built.....I may be wrong but I'm sure I heard that from somewhere.

    In my eyes a central location makes much more sense, but for many reasons that I'm sure were discussed at length....London it is.
  20. brass journo

    brass journo Member

    Surely there is no point discussing where in the UK the Olympics should be as London is a final candidate, as pointed out earlier.
    Surely anything that can bring opportunities to the country is great and there should plenty of opportunity for musicians to get involved along the way.
    Our band already has pledged its support and is now officially associated with the London 2012 bid.

    see the press release below:

    Yorkshire Co-op pledges Olympic support

    THE United Co-op Yorkshire Brass Band is very proud to support to the London 2012 bid to host the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games.

    Not only has the band pledged its support to the bid but, in conjunction with its forthcoming tour to Singapore and New Zealand when the band will be representing Great Britain in the 125th New Zealand Brass Band Championships (the first ever band to do so), the band will proudly wear clothing branded with the London 2012 Olympic bid in the hope of gaining more support worldwide to bring the world’s largest sporting event to this country.

    Said Tabby Clegg of the band: “It is a great honour for the band to be representing Great Britain at the New Zealand Brass Band Championships but it is an even greater honour to be associated with such a global project as London 2012. We are proud to be able to draw together the worlds of the arts and sport in such a way and hope it gains London 2012 more valuable support.”

    You can pledge your support for London 2012 by logging on to: www.london2012.com
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page