Jump to content

Badminton & Rythmic Gymnastics Possible Move To Wembley Arena


The_Torch

Recommended Posts

Berlin was not a "socialist/communist" games. Hitler was a fascist.

I made an error while enjoying a wonderful Shiraz from the Darioush Winery in the Napa Valley. So shoot me! ;)

London is adapting to economic conditions. Did they promise more than they could deliver - no. They made promises made on the current economic conditions of the time. Those have changed.

In hindsight - yes, if it was 20/20 they might have done Wembley a little different than what they did. But who knew? Who knew when Montreal won the right to host '76 when Drapeau said "The Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby" what lay ahead.

As it is, I think that once again London will save the Olympics, this time from having a repeat of the unfortunate '68-'88 period. If anything it will bring the Olympics more down to earth after the Chineese frenzy of Bejing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made an error while enjoying a wonderful Shiraz from the Darioush Winery in the Napa Valley. So shoot me! ;)

London is adapting to economic conditions. Did they promise more than they could deliver - no. They made promises made on the current economic conditions of the time. Those have changed.

In hindsight - yes, if it was 20/20 they might have done Wembley a little different than what they did. But who knew? Who knew when Montreal won the right to host '76 when Drapeau said "The Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby" what lay ahead.

As it is, I think that once again London will save the Olympics, this time from having a repeat of the unfortunate '68-'88 period. If anything it will bring the Olympics more down to earth after the Chineese frenzy of Bejing.

This is the problem with games held in socialist Europe or even Socialism Canada in the 1970's . They tend to ignore history and deny the costs thinking they can do it better and cheaper then the last guy. When Montreal won the bid in 1970 Drapeau pooh poohed the massive cost overruns that Munich 1972 was dealing with.

Drapeau used the "we will have much less cost then Munich because we are using the infrastructure of the 1967 worlds fair" The only thing they used in that case was a body of water along side of Île Notre-Dame for the Rowing Venue which was a massive renovation and reconstruction project for the olympics to make the rowing Basin . A prefab stadium build by General Motors for Expo 67 named the Autostade was not used for the Montreal Games. Some how London 2012 draws some very strange parallels to Montreal 1976.

I think of this with the debate of Basketball wanting the O2 Dome which itself was not unlike the EXpo 67 case of a grand exposition celebrating the new millennium but failed to capture the promised audience thus becoming a white elephant for the local government.

The Promises are never kept if the promises are indeed to lofty to achieve without huge economic pain to the population . Montreal 1976 did not have the economic circumstances of London 2012 . If Montreal had of had that then it would probably be 300 years paying for the games compared to 30 years.

A Billion dollars for a stadium is totally stupid whether perminant or not. 1976 or 2008.

jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the removal of a temporary structure, and the saving of £40 Million as a 'poor decision'. The Olympic Games should not be allowed to bankrupt a nation or it's tax payers. I am one of those contributing to the cost of these Games, and I for one support saving money where it is prudent to do so.

I'm not advocating a 'tin-hut' Olympiad, but where we have excellent venues not included in the 2012 plan, then we should be using them. Wembley Arena is an excellent venue, with very good transport links.

Earls Court & Wembley Arena should always have been included in the 2012 plan, but were excluded because of the need to be more compact.

But that is the deception going away from the original bid. Lets say Paris had these venues, that London proposed as temporary venues, in place as permanent venues similar to an Earl's Court that only needed renovation for the Olympics. How fair is the process if Temporary Venues and a Greener games attracted the IOC votes and then 3 years down the road London cries uncle? Hey your former mayor made these promises and your national government did not stop him so you should paid dearly and honor every single word of the bid document to the last T and the First I. Sometimes Winning a bid is really Losing in the end.

To me if a city bids they should be well aware that they have to use the resources on the Ground IE the O2 dome and all other venues and scale back the hype . The Uk has this problem with thinking a Commonwealth Games or an Olympics should cure old industrial areas . That is the recipe for huge expense and that was shown even in Manchester with 2002.

I agree Earls Court and others should have been in the plan but the question would be could London actually have won the games bid without promising the moon and brand new venues ? Only the IOC membership could answer that question but somehow I think another city would have won and probably Paris.

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made an error while enjoying a wonderful Shiraz from the Darioush Winery in the Napa Valley. So shoot me! ;)

London is adapting to economic conditions. Did they promise more than they could deliver - no. They made promises made on the current economic conditions of the time. Those have changed.

In hindsight - yes, if it was 20/20 they might have done Wembley a little different than what they did. But who knew? Who knew when Montreal won the right to host '76 when Drapeau said "The Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby" what lay ahead.

As it is, I think that once again London will save the Olympics, this time from having a repeat of the unfortunate '68-'88 period. If anything it will bring the Olympics more down to earth after the Chineese frenzy of Bejing.

I think your last sentence is overstating things a bit - I don't think the Olympic movement needs 'saving'. But I agree that London 2012 will be a change from Beijing's uber-monumentalism and I think that's probably welcome. In general I agree with your point though. If these changes are made it will be because London is adapting to economic conditions which nobody could have predicted back in 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your last sentence is overstating things a bit - I don't think the Olympic movement needs 'saving'. But I agree that London 2012 will be a change from Beijing's uber-monumentalism and I think that's probably welcome. In general I agree with your point though. If these changes are made it will be because London is adapting to economic conditions which nobody could have predicted back in 2005.

Well realistically Rob the Olympics can't go on this way whether it was London or any other place in the 2012 time slot. For all I will crap on the Uk for the approach and the general history the timing could not be worse for London and many of these things of course can't be predicted. If these things were not changed now then truly the powers to be should be hung at London Tower. We have really been watching this tragic error in judgment for two years . I say tragic because many parts of British Society have their act together much better then what is reflexed with the people running the government and the olympics.

Ken Livingstone basically presented a big lie to get regeneration in East London. This is very Similar to the politics played by Drapeau in the 1970's . Local politicians want to have monuments built to themselves and that is a problem in any place.

I think even thou not making the short list for 2012 Rio De Janeiro with the place they stand today probably would not have these problems simply because they had to build for the Pan Am Games last year and really are far ahead then even London right now. With London or many first world places you get a sense of confidence. I have been to both Rio and London and really I see minor differences. These are not the worlds best for every single thing in Urban life. To me the tops of my personal experience would be an LA or Vancouver.

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well realistically Rob the Olympics can't go on this way whether it was London or any other place in the 2012 time slot. For all I will crap on the Uk for the approach and the general history the timing could not be worse for London and many of these things of course can't be predicted. If these things were not changed now then truly the powers to be should be hung at London Tower. We have really been watching this tragic error in judgment for two years . I say tragic because many parts of British Society have their act together much better then what is reflexed with the people running the government and the olympics.

Ken Livingstone basically presented a big lie to get regeneration in East London. This is very Similar to the politics played by Drapeau in the 1970's . Local politicians want to have monuments built to themselves and that is a problem in any place.

I think even thou not making the short list for 2012 Rio De Janeiro with the place they stand today probably would not have these problems simply because they had to build for the Pan Am Games last year and really are far ahead then even London right now. With London or many first world places you get a sense of confidence. I have been to both Rio and London and really I see minor differences. These are not the worlds best for every single thing in Urban life. To me the tops of my personal experience would be an LA or Vancouver.

Jim jones

I never normally read your posts. I did on this occasion - and now I wish I hadn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utter twat isn't he? Please don't quote him, it's like watching a car crash.

Dumbo Jones, your analysis of everything is so far off the mark that it's a waste of my time to go through and correct everything wrong in your posts but I'd like to pick you up on this small point if I may:

I have been to both Rio and London and really I see minor differences. These are not the worlds best for every single thing in Urban life.

I live in the London suburbs and can tell you they do not look like this:

86421634.kZcyUcqa.jpg

ROFLMAO!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utter twat isn't he? Please don't quote him, it's like watching a car crash.

It's slightly deflating when you can't even be bothered to argue. When there is just so much difference of opinion that it makes any attempt at debate, almost impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your last sentence is overstating things a bit - I don't think the Olympic movement needs 'saving'. But I agree that London 2012 will be a change from Beijing's uber-monumentalism and I think that's probably welcome. In general I agree with your point though. If these changes are made it will be because London is adapting to economic conditions which nobody could have predicted back in 2005.

I may have overstated a little, but I have said on here in the past I think that the Olympics are approaching again a situation similar to the time period of '68-'88. Except this time it appears that London has a handle on it and will keep things under control, unlike Munich and Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just checked out the 'Wembley Area' on the net, to me it looks really good, and would be an ideal venue for the badminton & Rythmic Gymnastics. Its recently been renovated, so its ready to go. Why build tempary venues when ones already in place?

Dont know how to post pics on here, but check them out. The arena looks great.

Under the current financial climate, it makes sense, and the saving could be beneficial elsewhere...eg improve the look of the stadium!!

Oh.. did not see any internal pics of the arena, can anyone post on here please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have overstated a little, but I have said on here in the past I think that the Olympics are approaching again a situation similar to the time period of '68-'88. Except this time it appears that London has a handle on it and will keep things under control, unlike Munich and Montreal.

The Olympic Movement is hardly approaching the same nadir as it did from 1968-1988. If there was one thing in your original post that was in fact truly accurate, it was that Los Angeles did indeed save the Olympic movement. After two back to back boycotts, Montreal's bankruptcy, Denver's rejection of their award to host the Winter Games, terrorism and murder of athletes, and political protest on the podium, the world had grown weary of the games. By the late 1970's (before the two boycotts had even taken place yet), there simply was almost no one left in the world genuinely interested in hosting the games. For 1984, other than Los Angeles, only Tehran, Iran, showed an interest (imagine that) and even they pulled out. Los Angeles won by default, there wasn't even a vote. For 1988 (for which bidding had occurred before Los Angeles took place) only two cities expressed an interest, Seoul, and Nagoya. It was only after the enormous success of Los Angeles that cities once again began lining up to host the games, with six cities (Barcelona, Paris, Brisbane, Belgrade, Birmingham, and Amsterdam) vying to be the 1992 host. At no other time in history was the Olympic movement closer to being extinguished, than at this time. I feel that had Los Angeles not hosted in 1984 then we may not even have had the London Games to look forward to today, or at least there may have been an even longer gap in time before the games came back to life, if they did at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Olympic Movement is hardly approaching the same nadir as it did from 1968-1988.

Leading up to Seoul, the games became bloated and expensive to the point that finally, few wanted them. Atlanta, Sydney and Athens progressively got more expensive with Sydney, from what I am reading on here, just now getting a return on their venues and Athens still in sad shape. Bejing, of course is another animal. Additionally, the 1970's had periodic recessions occurring worldwide, similar to the current financial crisis, not to mention the oil crisis. So it is not outside the realm of possibility that history may repeat itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leading up to Seoul, the games became bloated and expensive to the point that finally, few wanted them. Atlanta, Sydney and Athens progressively got more expensive with Sydney, from what I am reading on here, just now getting a return on their venues and Athens still in sad shape. Bejing, of course is another animal. Additionally, the 1970's had periodic recessions occurring worldwide, similar to the current financial crisis, not to mention the oil crisis. So it is not outside the realm of possibility that history may repeat itself.

Montreal's bankruptcy and the economic conditions of the 1970's were only two of several serious issues plaguing the movement at that time. History is not repeating itself, and saying that it is or will is another overstatement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Montreal's bankruptcy and the economic conditions of the 1970's were only two of several serious issues plaguing the movement at that time. History is not repeating itself, and saying that it is or will is another overstatement.

...and actually there were not two but three boycotts in a row during that period, I forgot about the boycott of Montreal in addition to Moscow and L.A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Montreal's bankruptcy and the economic conditions of the 1970's were only two of several serious issues plaguing the movement at that time. History is not repeating itself, and saying that it is or will is another overstatement.

I guess we will just have to wait and see then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any move to keep the Games cost under control is a welcomed one.

However, this always brings back to the eternal question: if Wembley Arena is OK now (and yea, it is OK, even though it will put greater pressure on the transport fleet - 2 or 3 football Games in Wembley is not the same thing as having a venue that will most likely be used almost every day of the Games), why was it not chosen during the bid phase in the first place? Same thing about the fencing arena...

I wish a city could win without sexing up its bid too much to be always more compact...

I don't think it's a case of 'sexing up' a bid on this occasion. You have to remember that Wembley Arena has not been a particularly favoured venue in recent times, principally during the building of the new stadium (which also saw the demolition of the old Conference Centre). It's quite an old venue which I think has had a bit of a facelift lately, but if there's a better option it's got to be worth going for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Rhythmic gymnastics approves Wembley move for 2012

Posted 5h 54m ago may 13, 2010

CHIBA, Japan (AP) — The international gymnastics federation has approved a cost-saving change in venue for rhythmic gymnastics at the 2012 London Olympics.

The FIG executive committee agreed Thursday to move the rhythmic events to Wembley Arena in north London.

The competition was originally scheduled to be held at a temporary venue near the Olympic Park in east London. But London organizers decided last year to scrap the temporary facility and relocate rhythmic gymnastics and badminton to Wembley, a move that will save tens of millions of pounds (dollars).

The two sports expressed concern about the travel time between the athletes' village and Wembley, and discussions dragged on for months.

Badminton is expected to ratify the move soon.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2010-05-13-3097979356_x.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May 15 - Badminton has finally given its official approval to a cost-saving move to Wembley Arena for the London 2012 Olympics - ending a stand-off that lasted more than a year.

The World Badminton Federation (WBF) voted at its annual meeting in Kuala Lumpar to rubber-stamp the move, joining rhythmic gymnastics, who voted last week to give their approval.

...

Badminton had been expected to back the decision during a meeting at the All-England Championships in Birmingham in March but it was put back to this month.

Badminton is already due to hold its World Championships at Wembley Arena in 2011, when the event will be held from August 8 until 14.

That event is now set to be a major test for London 2012.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9631:exclusive-badminton-finally-endorse-move-to-wembley-for-london-2012&catid=90:badminton-news&Itemid=122

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...