Jump to content

A gallimaufry of London 2012 bits


Rob.

Recommended Posts

London, the UK government and the British public (particularly the passionate fans who went to Athens in 2004) knew or should have known about this at the moment of bidding. So crying foul now is a little easy.

Besides, as already pointed out, the option of using pre-paid cards do not oblige anyone to switch to a Visa Credit Card.

Unless of course LOCOG and BOA are keen to return the share of Visa money they got through the TOP Programme... <_<

What a ridiculous post! So with that logic you are saying that in order to bid for the Olympics any country, it's people or it's government, have to agree with and not question anything that the IOC demands.

And your point about pre-paid cards is flawed too as the whole point of putting your purchases on credit is not only about convenience, but means you have some time to pay off the balance. You need to have your entire budget up front in order to use the pre-pay option. Any other type of sponsor demands I could live with but not monopolising the methods of payment. That is restricting and I will never agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 618
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yes, I'm sure we are stuck with it but there's nothing wrong with grumbling, it's our national sport in many ways. :D

The European Commission certainly has the authority to act if they see fit though. You should see some of the fines and penalties they've handed out to Microsoft over the last five years...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7266629.stm

Over two billion dollars in fines and one of the the net results, Microsoft can longer ship Internet Explorer with Windows in Europe.

I think it's unlikely they'll do anything in this case because the IOC almost certainly aren't doing anything wrong, even if I and others don't like it. But the European Commission do have teeth and it's interesting that they're looking at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it isn't about the teeth, it is about the legality of the agreement and I'm certain that the IOC and Visa have a crack team of lawyers who made sure that the deal is bullet and water proof...so the Commission is not likely to be able to squash a deal that has existed for decades and backed by solid legal terms just because some people suddenly realized it will impact the way they purchase some sports tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a ridiculous post! So with that logic you are saying that in order to bid for the Olympics any country, it's people or it's government, have to agree with and not question anything that the IOC demands.

No need for the attitude.

That's not what I said. What I said is that if you have a problem with some of the conditions then you try to negotiate before you sign the host city contract. If you look at the Fifa World Cup bid, at least BBC did its job right but highlighting what they considered as abusive clauses from Fifa before the vote.

I do have issues with people that suddenly wake up a few months before the event, discover an issue when it's too late to do anything about it and then whine at anyone but themselves about how unfair life is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it isn't about the teeth, it is about the legality of the agreement and I'm certain that the IOC and Visa have a crack team of lawyers who made sure that the deal is bullet and water proof.

It's been challenged before...to no avail. Attending the Olympics is purely a voluntary thing...as is going to the movies. People pay cash at the movies; in principle, how different is doing that from the Olympics or a football game? Comparison to the Microsoft case is different because Microsoft's embedding of their OS system affects business and gov't to a much larger scheme, and there's an impact for years past and years to come. The unique situation of an Olympics is that it is a one-time leisure event.

I mean, if you don't like say going to the...just for example, a De Beers-named Stadium? That's your call. But they paid to have their name up there in every legal sense. Same thing with manner of payment for a 1-time happening; they paid for the exclusivity of it. It's a basic principle in a free-market society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need for the attitude.

That's not what I said. What I said is that if you have a problem with some of the conditions then you try to negotiate before you sign the host city contract. If you look at the Fifa World Cup bid, at least BBC did its job right but highlighting what they considered as abusive clauses from Fifa before the vote.

I do have issues with people that suddenly wake up a few months before the event, discover an issue when it's too late to do anything about it and then whine at anyone but themselves about how unfair life is.

There is no attitude in calling your post ridiculous, it is. I read your post again and whichever way you try to put it you are saying that we are not allowed to dispute anything that we knew before bidding. I find that a rather simplistic and authoritarian attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Onto another of the points in this article; the Rings:

Giant Olympic rings will be suspended from Tower Bridge and will also eventually adorn the London Eye and St Pancras station, terminus for the Olympic Park "Javelin" shuttle service. London's tallest building, the Shard of Glass, will also be crowned with the rings and there are plans for one of its 72 storeys to light up each time the home nation wins a medal.

Now, I'm sure those who have been on the forum long enough remember this from London's bid:

london-eye.jpg

As for Tower Bridge, we saw a mock-up by the BBC on a documentary on the Games a couple of years ago:

olympics+tower+bridge.JPG

Where would they go in St Pancras? On the inside under the clock, or on the outside? I'd imagine they'd want them on the inside, as this is what visitors would see when they step off the Eurostar:

2123381942_68ee0805e1.jpg

And of course, the Pièce de résistance, the rings on the Shard, high above London on Europe's soon to be tallest building. God knows how they'll get them up there!

46TheShard_pic8.jpg

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46TheShard_pic8.jpg

God, what a crazy patchwork layout London has!

A couple of questions, going left to right:

1. What is that train station at the base of The Shard?

2. What is that low, off-center conical bldg in the lower foreground?

3. Is that a battleship sitting on the Thames there?

4. 4 bridges up, what is that low, colonnaded building on the right bank?

Mighty obliged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What is that train station at the base of The Shard?

London Bridge station

2. What is that low, off-center conical bldg in the lower foreground?

City Hall

3. Is that a battleship sitting on the Thames there?

HMS Belfast

4. 4 bridges up, what is that low, colonnaded building on the right bank?

Unilever House

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's confirmation:

The first set of Olympic Rings, the symbol of the Olympic Games, will be unveiled this week at London’s St Pancras Station, 18 months ahead of the opening of the London Olympics 2012.

The five multicoloured, interlinked, aluminium rings, will be suspended in front of the clock at the end of the platforms at St Pancras. Measuring 70 foot wide and 30 foot high in total, they will remain hanging in the station until the games are over.

St Pancras was selected as the site for the first unveiling for the red, yellow, black, blue and green rings, because as one of London’s it is the station from which many visitors to the Olympic Park will set out on their journey.

The unveiling will take place on Thursday with key figures present including London’s Mayor Boris Johnson and Chairman of the Locog, Lord Coe.

http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/olympic-fever-hits-britain/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...