Re: Olympics : Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:26 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Actually it might well benefit the whole country. The economics of Olympics are complex and there's a significant contribution just from extra tourism. Not everyone who visits the UK for the Olympics will spend their entire time in or around London and the South.

One of our major clients has just spent several years encamped in London working on Wembley Stadium and now the Olympic Park, so they have benefited enormously.

Did I mention they are an Irish company ?

Re: Olympics : Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:48 pm  

Live Wired wrote:

... I enjoy RL at all levels from schoolgirls to Sl standard.

Strange, Glasgow, Cumbernauld, Sheffield, Leeds, Weymouth, Manchester, Newcastle and Southampton (and those are only the ones I know of) are all hosting training camps and team facilities before and during both the events. Places are benefiting not just because they are hosting sports you know.

Training centres, but no events? Wow. So wheres the benefit for those of us outside of the home counties? The 1966 Brazilian World Cup team stayed at the Lymm hotel in Warrington, certainly did'nt boost industrial output in Warrington.

Let's cut the waffle – and noting that you either haven't taken on board or understood the comments about tourism etc – and get back to your original point, shall we?

You claimed that you used to like the Olympics – when the events were contested by amateurs. So do you extend that to rugby and, if not, why not? If you're so fond of the amateur ethos (and disregarding the hypocrisy involved in it for years and in far more than one sport) then why do you follow a sport that has been openly professional since it began?

Re: Olympics : Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:24 pm  

Live Wired wrote: I used to love watching the olympics, when it was contested by amateurs who contested events based on speed, strength and enjurability. Now it has become a money making regime, and has lost all of its original purpose... Blimey, how old are you? Athletes started being allowed to have trust funds (esssentially deferred payment) in the early 1970's. The famous miler Derek Ibbotson (remember him?) is on record as saying that he'd tell the organisers (ahead of the race meeting) what prize he'd like if (and usually when) he won ... e.g. if he and his wife needed a new fridge, he'd request a fridge. This was commonplace, indeed "normal" ... but he and plenty of other top athletes were, effectively, being paid in kind ... but were nonetheless still regarded as "amateurs". I recommend a book entitled The Ghost Runner to see some of the ridiculous ideas about what constitutes an "amateur" ... whilst Ibbotson and many many others were allowed expensive "prizes", long distance runner John Tarrant was never allowed to participate in international events because he had received £17 for boxing whilst a teenager (this was from 8 winning bouts, his bus fares came to more than that, not exactly what I would call professional) . Here's a brief precis ... http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 05959.html I'm not blaming Ibbotson or any of the others, it was the committee men who were the total hypocrites, whilst lining their own pockets thank you very much.

Live Wired wrote: I used to love watching the olympics, when it was contested by amateurs who contested events based on speed, strength and enjurability. Now it has become a money making regime, and has lost all of its original purpose... Blimey, how old are you? Athletes started being allowed to have trust funds (esssentially deferred payment) in the early 1970's. The famous miler Derek Ibbotson (remember him?) is on record as saying that he'd tell the organisers (ahead of the race meeting) what prize he'd like if (and usually when) he won ... e.g. if he and his wife needed a new fridge, he'd request a fridge. This was commonplace, indeed "normal" ... but he and plenty of other top athletes were, effectively, being paid in kind ... but were nonetheless still regarded as "amateurs". I recommend a book entitled The Ghost Runner to see some of the ridiculous ideas about what constitutes an "amateur" ... whilst Ibbotson and many many others were allowed expensive "prizes", long distance runner John Tarrant was never allowed to participate in international events because he had received £17 for boxing whilst a teenager (this was from 8 winning bouts, his bus fares came to more than that, not exactly what I would call professional) . Here's a brief precis ... http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 05959.html I'm not blaming Ibbotson or any of the others, it was the committee men who were the total hypocrites, whilst lining their own pockets thank you very much.

Re: Olympics : Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:32 pm  

Mintball wrote:

... do you follow a sport that has been openly professional since it began?

Steady girl, steady.
When the Northern Union was formed, the rules were that only compensation for broken time could be paid.
Plus, amateur rugby league allowed no payment at all.

So, not a professional sport, as an entity, even if some in it were receiving payment.

Re: Olympics : Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:10 pm  

Live Wired wrote:

Training centres, but no events? Wow. So wheres the benefit for those of us outside of the home counties? The 1966 Brazilian World Cup team stayed at the Lymm hotel in Warrington, certainly did'nt boost industrial output in Warrington.

Mouths to feed, hotels to sleep in, tracks, pools and gyms to hire too, many areas will benefit as a direct result of the Olympics most outside the home counties. In case you haven't understood, the games are awarded to a city, that city is London, the organisers have to keep the majority of events close to the main stadium.

No one made any claims about industrial output.

Re: Olympics : Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:14 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Steady girl, steady.
When the Northern Union was formed, the rules were that only compensation for broken time could be paid.
Plus, amateur rugby league allowed no payment at all.

So, not a professional sport, as an entity, even if some in it were receiving payment.

1895 and all that.

Re: Olympics : Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:37 pm  

I was nearly in the Olympics, had trials for Rowing and Canoeing in 2007 to find raw talent who could be fast tracked to compete at London 2012, out of 3500 I got to the final 40 of Rowing and final 12 of Canoeing, gutted.

Re: Olympics : Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:26 am  

Couldn't you have volunteered for a country light on canoeists?

I worked witha guy who had Commonwealth Games qualifying standards for both the long jump and 100M (cue Commonwealth Games qualifying standard jokes...) and was born in Jersey who at the time had no reps for either event. He contacted their athletics committee letting them know about his availability etc, and even offered to pay for his travel and accommodation and his kit and suit, so keen was he just to compete (understandably). Bizarrely they refused to consider him with no reason given. Completely off topic, but true, story.

Re: Olympics : Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:30 pm  

post wrote:

I was nearly in the Olympics, had trials for Rowing and Canoeing in 2007 to find raw talent who could be fast tracked to compete at London 2012, out of 3500 I got to the final 40 of Rowing and final 12 of Canoeing, gutted.

Wow. That's still bloody impressive, even though you're obviously gutted.

Re: Olympics : Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:06 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Wow. That's still bloody impressive, even though you're obviously gutted.

To be honest I reckon I never got picked because I didn't go to University, they were more interested in people who were at Uni and not some rough ar5e plumber from Haydock.