Jump to content

Are you listening Gordon Brown?


MIKYSALT

Recommended Posts

I suppose many of the Olympic sports are sports that rarely register on the radar over here. 2012 provides an opportunity to rectify that.

I do not agree with this call for "added investement" in sports across the Olympic board. In an ideal world, this would happen. But you need to look at whats more important... Britains health service/education, or future British Volleyball Olympic champions.

I do agree, however, that more money should be spent on sports where Britain has a realistic chance of winning medals. Swimming; athletics; archery; equestrian events; sailing;

For Britain to spend money on sports like wrestling, beach volleyball & baseball would be very unwise. The British public has no interest in these sports. It would be a novelty to them, but it would quickly wear off, and then you are left with investment in sports where there is little interest.

The same would happen in Belgium.

Stick with what you are good at, and enhance it. Coming @ a time when the UK is set to lose 1 billion a year from the EU, the BOA are quite unacceptable in asking for more funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly agree there should be more investment in British sport, afterall, the success of the Games at home will probably be to a large extent measured by any increase in our medal tally.  Also, any success at the Olympics usually encourages young people to paticipate in the particular discipline, especially, I would imagine, if the events are held in front of a home crowd - therefore improving the health of the nation (unless it's archery!).

But I also agree that money shouldn't be thrown away on lost causes - if handball doesn't have a particularly large following why try so hard to create a team that will sink back into obscurity afterwards.  Money would be much better spent on events that Britain does quite well at - reaching the final 10 or so people - events such as sailing, rowing, cycling, equestrian and athletics that we usually do well at and events such as judo, hockey, badminton and swimming and diving that we do quite well at but often just miss out on medals or achieve a one off medal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose many of the Olympic sports are sports that rarely register on the radar over here. 2012 provides an opportunity to rectify that.

I do not agree with this call for "added investement" in sports across the Olympic board. In an ideal world, this would happen. But you need to look at whats more important... Britains health service/education, or future British Volleyball Olympic champions.

I do agree, however, that more money should be spent on sports where Britain has a realistic chance of winning medals. Swimming; athletics; archery; equestrian events; sailing;

For Britain to spend money on sports like wrestling, beach volleyball & baseball would be very unwise. The British public has no interest in these sports. It would be a novelty to them, but it would quickly wear off, and then you are left with investment in sports where there is little interest.

The same would happen in Belgium.

Stick with what you are good at, and enhance it. Coming @ a time when the UK is set to lose 1 billion a year from the EU, the BOA are quite unacceptable in asking for more funds.

Providing proper investment for British sport is not going to harm the NHS or education and may well enhance them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose many of the Olympic sports are sports that rarely register on the radar over here. 2012 provides an opportunity to rectify that.

I do not agree with this call for "added investement" in sports across the Olympic board. In an ideal world, this would happen. But you need to look at whats more important... Britains health service/education, or future British Volleyball Olympic champions.

I do agree, however, that more money should be spent on sports where Britain has a realistic chance of winning medals. Swimming; athletics; archery; equestrian events; sailing;

For Britain to spend money on sports like wrestling, beach volleyball & baseball would be very unwise. The British public has no interest in these sports. It would be a novelty to them, but it would quickly wear off, and then you are left with investment in sports where there is little interest.

The same would happen in Belgium.

Stick with what you are good at, and enhance it. Coming @ a time when the UK is set to lose 1 billion a year from the EU, the BOA are quite unacceptable in asking for more funds.

Providing proper investment for British sport is not going to harm the NHS or education and may well enhance them.

Maybe so, but investing money in all Olympic sports is very foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want our government to support talented sportspeople, no matter what sport they take part in. If we have chances of winning medals in sports like handball or whatever in 2012, then we need to support them. But you are right to say we should not spend money for no reward.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming @ a time when the UK is set to lose 1 billion a year from the EU, the BOA are quite unacceptable in asking for more funds.

But don't forget that the 2000 olympics added $6.5 billion to the Australian economy, no doubt this figure will be surpassed by the 2008 games (bearing in mind Atlanta 96 added $5.1 billion dollars, a to the Georgia economy, a smaller figure than for Sydney 2000)

Hence the 2012 olympics will add billions to the UK economy, which should help to cover the cost of the 7 billion pounds lost to the EU between 2007 and 2013. This money will not be going to France, thank God. The investment lost by paris' failed 2012 will be going to London and the UK instead, whcih is satisfying to hear.

The first loss will be £500 million in the financial year 2007/8, but at that time the CAP will be reviwed and hopefully the French will lose money on that aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the French hold the EU Presidency in 2008? Are you sure?

Yes, that's been mentioned in the media, that Blair only has a promise that the CAP/ agriculture arrangements will be reviewed and changed in 2008, under a French presidency of the EU.

However, lets say in 2008, the French do not budge on CAP, there are no changes at all, then Britain can stop paying the extra money into Europe, as a result. Only £500 million would have been lost, rather than the full £7 billion over the 6/7 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon Brown, spends like for fun

Lays me down with the country he runs

Throughout the night

No need to fight

Never a frown with Gordon Brown

He'll do what's best in the interests of the country, and hopefully will follow Rogge's advice and plough more money into the London 2012 Olympic Fund.

We want to host the best Olympics, dont' we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...