Article extract >>

London has little chance of winning the Olympic bid, says the man who brought the Commonwealth Games to Manchester.
Sir Bob Scott, who also put together two failed Olympic bids for the city, said Paris had a much better chance.

And he said Britain's track record at winning bids for events such as the World Cup and the Rugby World Cup did not bode well for the Olympic bid.

But London's mayor dismissed the comments and accused Mr Scott of "stabbing us in the back".

Sir Bob said the fiasco over the 2005 World Athletics Championships bid had damaged London's credibility and even the Eurovision Song Contest failure showed the UK was not a favourite.

He told the BBC: "They're all indications that we're not really a deeply popular nation."

He believes London's bid to host the 2012 Games is unlikely to get past the voting stage.

It would be nice if Bob got on board rather than stabbing us in the back

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone
"There's a sort of, not a built-in resistance to London, but Paris has consistently revealed in its two bids that there is a large consistent 20 or so who will vote for Paris whatever happens," he said.

He added that he did not think the Iraq war was "going to help us".

But asked about the comments Mr Livingstone said: "It would be nice if Bob got on board rather than stabbing us in the back.

"People have to ask themselves does it help us or do we need their views?

"All people want this because of what it does for sport in the country and what it does for east London."

Britain's Olympic bid team officially launches its campaign on Friday and the bid must be completed by November.

Plans have already been unveiled for an 80,000-seater stadium and Olympic village to drive forward a massive regeneration effort in Stratford, east London.

Havana, Istanbul, Leipzig, London, Madrid, Moscow, New York, Paris and Rio de Janeiro are all in the running to stage the Games.

The final decision will be made by the International Olympic Committee in Singapore on 6 July, 2005.

End extract <<

So I'M, WE'RE not that popular hey, HA

I admit Eurovision was a bit of a downer but that was political, even our allies in these things The Irish and The Maltese bailed on us.

But now ENGLAND are the World Rugby Union Champions and we staged a superb Commonwealth games which is more than the frogs uhm, sorry the French can say with the IAAF world athletics last year.

Then there is the fact that London, England, Britain will have the world's greatest stadium for football if not any sport with the new Wembley in 06, it has cost a bit but it will be without equal in the football world for one.

So the French can count on 20 votes, surely some of the commonwealth nations and the Americans will pull through for us as we will do likewise i'm sure with New York and its bid. Not to mention the Spanish they might vote for us but that is a hope more than a fact or something near it. ;)

So what do you think, who would you prefer to get the bid or go furthest in the voting?

*Raises Union Flag graphic*

Also use this thread for any general Olympc bid chatterfrom other host nations.

So?? :agree: :disagree:

How are bids going near you, the Official launch of our bid is this Thursday, at least i think that is what it is, i might pop down.

Give us the Parthenon marbles back and I'll vote for London :D

I vote for Iraq. Just wanna see how fast athletes can run when they have a cruise missile on their six :D

Why don't you post your news in the news forum of WHT?

Give us the Parthenon marbles back and I'll vote for London

I visit the British Museum often [they do a good Tuna sandwich if you feel like some lunch], i saw them most recently in late 03. Anyway the last comment that i heard from the Director of the BM was that [The best place is the safest place." I tend to agree.

How about a loan deal, you get the marbles for 6 months and the BM gets to run the Tmermopylae/Sparta site for that time as an overseas branch. Maybe some other stuff too. :D

That is a complecated issue, it will take some time to solve but moving back to the games, the Athens Olymics looks like it is going to be good despite the initial worries. It'll be good to see how Greece reacts now the Olympics is back where it all began. From what i've heard either the torch or part of the opening ceremony will pass through the original site of Olympia. :agree:

I always watch the Olympics. :)

I vote for Iraq. Just wanna see how fast athletes can run when they have a cruise missile on their six

Havana, Istanbul, Leipzig, London, Madrid, Moscow, New York, Paris and Rio de Janeiro are all in the running to stage the Games. I don't think they'll be many cruise missiles around those cities but you never know, Brazil, France and Cuba have agravated Bush a bit recently, :laugh:

is0lized, firstly this isn't just news but more importantly, WHAT NEWS FORUM? :confused:

One more thing, hey own up, who voted fro the French? ;)

Originally posted by Critic
I visit the British Museum often [they do a good Tuna sandwich if you feel like some lunch], i saw them most recently in late 03. Anyway the last comment that i heard from the Director of the BM was that [The best place is the safest place." I tend to agree.

How about a loan deal, you get the marbles for 6 months and the BM gets to run the Tmermopylae/Sparta site for that time as an overseas branch. Maybe some other stuff too. :D

That is a complecated issue, it will take some time to solve but moving back to the games, the Athens Olymics looks like it is going to be good despite the initial worries. It'll be good to see how Greece reacts now the Olympics is back where it all began. From what i've heard either the torch or part of the opening ceremony will pass through the original site of Olympia. :agree:

I always watch the Olympics. :)



In reverse order: I watch the Olympics too, although the American coverage of the events trails that of other nations. Local favorite sports include NASCAR, "Football" and Baseball. With the inclusion of baseball as a demonstration sport in the Athens 2004 games, perhaps they will show some more of it :)

The torch relay always begins in Olympia: the torch is lit up by the rays of the sun in a concave mirror. Women dressed up as ancient maidens participate in the event.
This time, shot-putt will take place in Olympia as well, quite far from the Athenian limelight. I wonder why they chose the shot-putt instead of discus; doesn't make sense if you ask me. Perhaps because that'd require a large stadium.

As for the marbles...I hate to say it but the UK has no rights to it. It represents such major part of the temple of Parthenon that it's not simply another exhibit, statue or vase. It's like a stolen lover's letter.

Tony Blair had promised to send the marbles back before he took over. then he changed his tune; all politicians are genetically linked to Pinoccio.

timechange.com, on the first bit about Olympia, i didn't know most of that so you learn something every day or i did at least.

On coverage i know that the BBC will send hundreds of people out to cover the games and endless hours will be on TV. We're hoping for something in the rowing as weve proved quite good at that but hopefullythe actual day will be better than the trials last year on the site, most of the boats sunk due to the conditions and some days were cancelled. Then there is Dwain Chambers and the THG thing but maybe Mark Lewis Francise can bring hoe the Gold.

I watch all the Olympics and IAAF stuff or listen to it, its funny though considering the last time i showered myself in glory was an egg and spoon race or something :D

On to the Marbles, well as i said it is complecated and i don't believe that the BM will settle for anything less than some kind of swap or loan deal with Greece for parts of the year.

The whole marble debate in my opinion can be compared to similar events such as Hong Kong, Gibraltar or the Falklands and i don't see this going the way of Hong Kong in the short to medium term.

Tony Blair may have said he would do something and has probably agreed to send them back in principle but with all due respect The British Museum is not state run, it is a private entity so they have to agree too. By that it isn't all Blair.

I think that one thing that the BM and an major Museumon the planet is trying to avoid is some kind of global demand for the returning of everything in a museum. That is why i strongly believe that over time a loan deal will be arranged for the Greeks to have it for the Summer say and the BM has them for the Spring and the Winter. They will proabably want something in return however but that is something i cannot guess with any accuracy but the Sparta site might be an option with Thermopylae where they have some kind of influence and representation.

Originally posted by Critic
WHAT NEWS FORUM? :confused:

You think you could take a hint? :rolleyes:

What's with the obsession over Thermopylae? :D
Leonidas and the 300 men are long dead LOL

I understand that the British Museum is privately held. That's why I have no hope that the "marbles" will be returned this year, for exhibition even. And flying such important works of art back and forth is dangerous, in my opinion. Lloyds would charge a royal ransom for insurance :D

The sports events I liked most watching on the TV back when I was in the Old Continent, were track and field and football (soccer). I am a QPR fan and I have a mean left kick :D Oh and the BBC is still the king of networks, in my book.

timchange,com,

On the Thermopylae thing it is part personal interest in that event and city state but also it is in my view after the Parthenon and Athens the next best thing in terms of interest and standing.

On thing that is lost in some is that there were two axis of influence in Ancient Greece, the Athenians and the Peleponese which was headed by Sparta.

That's that bit. :)

Back to the British Museum, i agree that it would be dangerous to have them in moved on a regular basis but as i said i believe something similar will eventually solve the issue. With that taken into account probably something more long term than 6 months, possibly a 5 yearly duration, well anyway we aren't negotiating for the two groups so it is all hypothetical.

Yes i agree the insurance would be unbelievably expensive.

I too like the track and field but i will take a bigger interest in the Swimming this year as the Brits have put together quite a good team and we did well in the European champs not too long back.

I've never been able to get into the Olympic football/soccer as much; it hasn't helped my interest that Britain can't enter a team because of the whole home nations thing.

I know it is the wrong season but i also really like the Ski Jump and the Bobsleigh at the Winter games, always though i could be a bit of an Eddie the Eagle [British Ski Jumper].

QPR fan huh? You might go up into Div 1 but i personally always thought that if any team you would support Panathanikos or Olympiakos with the Greek roots. The former my team Man Utd did quite well against in the group stages of the Euro Champs League.

is0lized, now i know it is past 2am here where i am but that is no excuse for me just being a bit of a :dunce: when it comes to what you've been saying.

It's not one of those news in the Lounge things again is it?

Explain it to the slightly slow Brit would ya? This is really buggine me. ;)

QPR from the British football scene; my Greek team is AEK ever since I started kicking stuff around :D

I need an excuse to visit Paris again ... So lets have them in Paris.... :)

London.

1) I've always wanted to see London.
2) I just finished my last french class last semester and I swore I would never force myself to speak another sentence in french again. :)

Why? French is such a nice language. It's just a pitty the people are lazy, worthless, garlic eating, ....

Well, you get my opinion I hope ;)

No offence meant to any French visitors, I just love the stereotypes.

Might finally give them a reason to do some cleaning in Paris, though. Never been there myself (except for the maze they call the airport), but I hear it's not a very clean city.

I need an excuse to take the laptop downstairs and pass out watching TBS while attempting to drink Mountain Dew.

With that said...

Why? French is such a nice language. It's just a pitty the people are lazy, worthless, garlic eating, ....

Well, you get my opinion I hope

No offence meant to any French visitors, I just love the stereotypes.

Might finally give them a reason to do some cleaning in Paris, though. Never been there myself (except for the maze they call the airport), but I hear it's not a very clean city.

Now of course i am pro London but i have been to Paris in recent years; i didn't find the city anymore untidy that London but their transportation infrastructure made London's look like a Utopia and on those practical terms i think it is weaker than the London bid. However on political votes it is a another kettle of fish; i reckon France would get most of the European vote as it stands but how the other continents will go is something else, after that it is up to the IOC and then you have to hope sanity prevails and the best bid wins.

The sterotype thing gibes me an idea for a thead i was thinking about, hmm.

Some news on the pressure exercised to return the marbles can be found here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/8519278?source=Evening%20Standard

The poll mentioned in the article returned a whopping 80% public vote to return the marbles to Greece. It's evident the issue is simply political.

I liked the final paragraph:

"The marbles were removed by the seventh Earl of Elgin between 1801 and 1804 and later handed to the museum. "

In actuality, the marbles were ripped off the Parthenon zophorus by Elgin with the intention to copy by drawing. Greece was occupied territory back then and the Turkish ruler gave his permission. Instead, the marbles were loaded up on a ship and it sailed off to England. They were placed in storage at a climate far more humid and punishing than that where they stood for 2,200 years. In just 30 years a lot of damage was done and Elgin finally sold them to the British Museum.

Futher restoration attempts in the 1940's brutally chiseled off parts of the marble in order to remove the patina and mold that had stuck to the marbles.

The former British secretary of foreign affairs, Robin Cook, said that it's akin to splitting the statue of Nelson and leaving only the legs and base behind, with the torso and head being elsewhere.

Originally posted by Critic

One more thing, hey own up, who voted fro the French? ;)

I did.

Well out of those 2 options i would prefer Paris (i would like them to go to Madrid) since it's just a prettier city than london and also more clean (also a better change on good wheater :p). Didn't have any traffic problems with the world athletics and world cup when i was there so...

Originally posted by bagpuss
I did.

How surprising....hmm

Originally posted by Eric Cartman
Well out of those 2 options i would prefer Paris (i would like them to go to Madrid) since it's just a prettier city than london and also more clean (also a better change on good wheater :p). Didn't have any traffic problems with the world athletics and world cup when i was there so...



Well just to say that for the purposes of the article the only options were Paris and London. I can'e see Madrid getting that far in the decision making process, one very important reason is Barcelona 92, it is too soon for Spain to get another one and then there is the technical side of the bid but on that i don't have much info.

Going back to the world IAAF champs from last year, i have heard some shocking reports when it comes to congestion and stadium accessibility. Then there is the organisation on the track and the errors that occurred on the track by officials and on top of that the comments by i believe the Mayor of Paris concerning the London bid wasn't too clever, IOC should've done something more than they did.

On the state of London and how tidy it is, things aren't too bad and there are some huge improvements planned for the area in East London where the stadium will be. You also have to take into account that London is a larger city than Madridand then their is the global access to the latter city.

Originally posted by timechange.com
Some news on the pressure exercised to return the marbles can be found here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/8519278?source=Evening%20Standard

The poll mentioned in the article returned a whopping 80% public vote to return the marbles to Greece. It's evident the issue is simply political.

I liked the final paragraph:

"The marbles were removed by the seventh Earl of Elgin between 1801 and 1804 and later handed to the museum. "

In actuality, the marbles were ripped off the Parthenon zophorus by Elgin with the intention to copy by drawing. Greece was occupied territory back then and the Turkish ruler gave his permission. Instead, the marbles were loaded up on a ship and it sailed off to England. They were placed in storage at a climate far more humid and punishing than that where they stood for 2,200 years. In just 30 years a lot of damage was done and Elgin finally sold them to the British Museum.

Futher restoration attempts in the 1940's brutally chiseled off parts of the marble in order to remove the patina and mold that had stuck to the marbles.

The former British secretary of foreign affairs, Robin Cook, said that it's akin to splitting the statue of Nelson and leaving only the legs and base behind, with the torso and head being elsewhere.

It's evident the issue is simply political.

There is some politics involved yes but for the British Museum it is also very financial, i don't think they see a way that they could just give them back after all this time. I make donations to the BM but i don't think they'll cover it :)

This proabably backs that up and shows their current stance >>

From your article "But the British Museum and the Government say the marbles will not be allowed to leave Britain."

That's my local paper and i never heard anything about that, hm.

Does anybody here have any personal knowledge of the New York bid? Thta is the other major contender.

Britain should use Steve Redgrave as a figure head for their bid.

Redgrave's achievements in winning his 5 Olympic gold medals put him in a certain category, that only few, if any can join.

I voted for Paris..

a) 17th Commonwealth Games were held in Manchester 2002
b) France are ex-World Cup Winners and European Football champions.
c) Paris is a beautiful city, I goto London often and its a nice excuse to goto Paris for a few weeks..

If London wins then great, but there is not much fun in staying in your own country and meeting the same 'ol people.

From British point of view, it would be nice if it was in Paris; But on the other hand if it was in London it would bring in alot of extra tourists (like we already dont have enough) and extra income. :)

IHSL, Steven Redgrave is being used on the British bid, probably for the same reasons you gave. If Britain was to win it i would consider him for lighting the flame.

s.h.a.zz.y, yes the commonwealth games were in Manchester but it was a representation of the country too.


b) France are ex-World Cup Winners and European Football champions.
c) Paris is a beautiful city, I goto London often and its a nice excuse to goto Paris for a few weeks..

On part a, England is World Rugby Union Champions and i'll tell you after June whether we're Euro 2004 champs. :agree: Then there is the performance of domestic clubs in Europe in football.

On part C, Paris is a nice place to visit once ina while but last time i did i found it more expensive than London, can you believe that? I thought London was more expensive than Paris but not so for everything and as a Londoner, i'd rather spend the time here than in Paris but i suppose i'm biased. For the tourists we might not have the eiffelt tower and the Pompodou centre etc but we do have the London Eye, the Royal Parks, Tower of London, Some of the best Museums and galleries in the world, boat trips up the Thames up river toward more rural clibs. The weather is better at the minute too and you can get arund better here than in Paris, that said, i did like Paris but i wouldn't gibe them the Olympics over London. :D

Originally posted by Critic
How surprising....hmm


I voted for Paris, because they already have the vast majority of the infrastructure built, London doesn't. France also has a good record of hosting these things in recent times world cup, euro championships etc, Manchester did a great job with the commonwealth games, but our handling of picketts lock and the world atheletics championships (we were awarded it, but frigged it up so badly it got taken away again) was total disatster, not to mention wembley, which will hopefully be stunning when it's finished, but is prime example of why London shouldn't get the olympics, it's long overschedule, massively over budget and should of been built somewhere else. (Birmingham)

Originally posted by bagpuss
I voted for Paris, because they already have the vast majority of the infrastructure built, London doesn't. France also has a good record of hosting these things in recent times world cup, euro championships etc, Manchester did a great job with the commonwealth games, but our handling of picketts lock and the world atheletics championships (we were awarded it, but frigged it up so badly it got taken away again) was total disatster, not to mention wembley, which will hopefully be stunning when it's finished, but is prime example of why London shouldn't get the olympics, it's long overschedule, massively over budget and should of been built somewhere else. (Birmingham)

There will be at least 7 years from the award of the bid to the beginning of the Olympic Gmes, so in my opinion if you have the money and the will you level the playing field with Paris even though they have the Stade d' France.

Pickets Lock was a complete screw up, for that noone can argue but that is one major blip all alone. Britain has done EURO 96, Rugby World Cups and the commonwealth games which you already mentioned and none of them went that badly.

I've already commented on France and how it did with the IAAF world champs so i'll leave that there.

WEMBLEY, well yes it has cost a lot of money but it will probably be the most advanced Football stadium ever built and maybe in all sport. On how on time it is i have heard from the architect behind the operation and through other reports that it is in fact ahead of schedule but you might not have known that.

Wembley should hav ebeen in Birmingham huh? HA that is for another thread but let's just say i thnk it is fine where it is.

Article extract >> Source Sky news

London's tourist landmarks form the centrepiece of the capital's 2012 Olympic Games bid, unveiled at Covent Garden.

Under the plans, Wembley, Wimbledon, Lord's and the Millennium Dome will be transformed into top sporting venues.


Organisers also envisage competitors descending on Hyde Park for the triathlon and road cycling, beach volleyball in Horse Guards Parade and baseball and softball in Regent's Park.

Speaking at the launch, Prime Minister Tony Blair said the nation's passion for sport put London in a strong position to host the games.

He said: "When you look at this nation you see a nation that recognises the power and the joy of sport."

"What you will get from this country ... is the communication of that passion for sport that we saw just a few weeks ago with the English rugby victory."

Other venues outlined in the bid include:

:: Wembley Stadium to host both men's and women's football finals

:: Wimbledon to host tennis

:: Lord's could swap bats for bows to host the archery events.

:: Cardiff's Millennium Stadium, Glasgow's Hampden Park, Windsor Park in Belfast, Manchester's Old Trafford, Newcastle's St James' Park and Villa Park in Birmingham could host football matches in earlier rounds.

:: Main Olympic Park in lower Lea Valley to house 80,000-seat stadium for athletics and the opening and closing ceremonies; aquatic centre; Olympic village; hockey stadium and a multi-sport complex for basketball, handball, volleyball and modern pentathlon events.

:: Millennium Dome to be used for artistic gymnastics, trampolining, basketball and handball finals, while Greenwich Park would host the equestrian, modern pentathlon riding and running events.

:: Alexandra Palace to host fencing competitions.

:: Eton College Rowing Centre at Dorney Lake to host rowing and flatwater canoeing

London's proposals were submitted to the International Olympic Committee before the cut-off on Thursday.

Eight other cities have submitted bids including frontrunner Paris, New York, Moscow, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, Leipzig, Havana and Istanbul.

Paris (1900, 1924), London (1908, 1948) and Moscow (1980) have already organised the Games.

End extract <<

Looks superb to me, watched the whole launch on TV but i would've rather been there at The Royal House where it took place. I goota admit than when i was watching some of the footage of gold medalists and what it would llok like if we were successful was very moving, the former put a lump in your throat, oh i was so proud. :D :D

I like the idea of using London's historical landmarks for some of the events, that is a good idea in my opinion. A 500 acre Olympic main park and 17 events all within 15 minutes of the Village is ideal too.

Also the fact that London is the most international city in the world will help a great deal for such a global event; this is due to the fact that over 300 languages are spoken here, not i didn't know that.

Apparently the Paris bid was also launched from the Eiffel Tower today, i don't know about New York or Rio though, if anyone has any info it would be good.

Anyway, Opinions?? Comments??

Originally posted by Critic
There will be at least 7 years from the award of the bid to the beginning of the Olympic Gmes, so in my opinion if you have the money and the will you level the playing field with Paris even though they have the Stade d' France.

Pickets Lock was a complete screw up, for that noone can argue but that is one major blip all alone. Britain has done EURO 96, Rugby World Cups and the commonwealth games which you already mentioned and none of them went that badly.

I've already commented on France and how it did with the IAAF world champs so i'll leave that there.

WEMBLEY, well yes it has cost a lot of money but it will probably be the most advanced Football stadium ever built and maybe in all sport. On how on time it is i have heard from the architect behind the operation and through other reports that it is in fact ahead of schedule but you might not have known that.

Wembley should hav ebeen in Birmingham huh? HA that is for another thread but let's just say i thnk it is fine where it is.

Euro 96, well just pretend that their weren't any riots in London when England lost then. ;)

It's not that Wembley has cost a lot of money , but how the cost has miraculaously risen from £185 million when it was first announced to over £725 million. You say it's on schedule yet when the new wembley was announced we were told it would be compeleted by 2003, yet we curently have a bulding state not a state of the art stadium.

Wembley is also very convienent for me being in London, but I actually think it should be for the benefit of all football fans, most of which live north of Birmingham.

You see Bagpuss the difference between ou and me is that my glass if half full and yours is half empty if that.

Most people agree that Euro 96 was a success and the way that English fans are picked on compared to other nations in Europe so i don't really see that is a major issue with our improving track record on such things.

On Wembley as is aid that is really for another thread however if you do wish to bring up dated and aged figurees then fine but costs always rise with projects like that for many reasons and i think the end result will be a monument worth its cost when compared to other stadia within the M that are planned. Wembley will be at the centre of power, at the home of National football and where tens of millions of people live.

Instead of bringing up a quite old comment i take it you have nothing to comment concerning the Olympic Games and support the weaker supported Paris bid so we know where we stand.

Originally posted by Critic
You see Bagpuss the difference between ou and me is that my glass if half full and yours is half empty if that.

Most people agree that Euro 96 was a success and the way that English fans are picked on compared to other nations in Europe so i don't really see that is a major issue with our improving track record on such things.

On Wembley as is aid that is really for another thread however if you do wish to bring up dated and aged figurees then fine but costs always rise with projects like that for many reasons and i think the end result will be a monument worth its cost when compared to other stadia within the M that are planned. Wembley will be at the centre of power, at the home of National football and where tens of millions of people live.

Instead of bringing up a quite old comment i take it you have nothing to comment concerning the Olympic Games and support the weaker supported Paris bid so we know where we stand.

No Critic the difference between you and me is, you seemingly think our country is perfect and cannot take any criticism of it.

Wembley is very relevent, because if we actually get the Olympics we will have the equivilent of several wembleys to build, therefore the fact that the financing, organsiation and planning of it has been a total bodge job in seemingly everyones opinion (except your rose tinted view) brings up some questons on how well the building and financing for the olympics would go.

"Project costs always rise", that is just pathetic, wembley along with the Scottish Parliment building have constantly been on the news and questioned in parliment, becuase of the huge, exceptional rises in costs and schedule. Wembley will certainly not be worth it's cost when compaed to other stadia, the Millenuium stadium in cardiff cost £85 million, is Wembley going to be nearly 10 times better, the answer you are searching for is NO.

London may be at the center of power, but so what.

Yes Euro 96 was a success, except for the riots of course.

I brought up an old comment, because I don't use the internet everyday and that's where I was last time I was on, I wasn't actually aware of the special rule saying you can only respond within three hours of a post, maybe you could enlighten me.

Originally posted by bagpuss
No Critic the difference between you and me is, you seemingly think our country is perfect and cannot take any criticism of it.

Wembley is very relevent, because if we actually get the Olympics we will have the equivilent of several wembleys to build, therefore the fact that the financing, organsiation and planning of it has been a total bodge job in seemingly everyones opinion (except your rose tinted view) brings up some questons on how well the building and financing for the olympics would go.

"Project costs always rise", that is just pathetic, wembley along with the Scottish Parliment building have constantly been on the news and questioned in parliment, becuase of the huge, exceptional rises in costs and schedule. Wembley will certainly not be worth it's cost when compaed to other stadia, the Millenuium stadium in cardiff cost £85 million, is Wembley going to be nearly 10 times better, the answer you are searching for is NO.

London may be at the center of power, but so what.

Yes Euro 96 was a success, except for the riots of course.

I brought up an old comment, because I don't use the internet everyday and that's where I was last time I was on, I wasn't actually aware of the special rule saying you can only respond within three hours of a post, maybe you could enlighten me.

I see our faults as a nation and will admit them when there but i will defend it but at every point if i need someone to put it down you'll always be there or quite often or that it is how it appears. If you had read every thread or the majority of the ones i am ivolved in you will see that i can and have changed my opinion and do accept things when they are there so your claim seems a bit weak to me.

You say we will need many Wembley's but i'd like you to tell me how many 90,000 seater stadiums we will need for the bid? Last time i checked just the one for the track and field events, the Aquatic centre and the Velodrome would be great benefits to this area of the country and the Olympic size seimming pool would be the only one of its kind in London.

So as there are some questions concerning the our record it should not be attempted??

Were you not in any way impressed by the London bid? If not tell me when it comes to the technical bid alone and at the present what the Paris bid has over the London one that we cannot attain?

The Chairwoman of the bid is Barbera Cassani who has proven to be at the top of her field. If the IOC was to go on bid launches alone London is Paris' equal if not her better but of course they don't and as a bidding nation we hvae much work ahead of us. This will be bossted however by the open support of so many high profile figures. Depending upon the success of a World Cup bid by S America if it were not London i think it would not be a bad idea to award the games to Rio.

Wembley has had its problems and its price has gone up but 90,000 all seater stadia in the London area don't come cheap so that is to be expected but maybe not to this expense. Something to back this up is the new Ashburton Grove project for Arsenal in North London with an estimated price above half a billion and that is a 60,000 seater stadium. Concerning the Millennium Stadium in Cardif, it is in a terrible financial position and they are looking for buyers or that is what i have heard reported and spoken of by the current ownership. Wembley will receive far greater use and will be an architectural wonder among its peers, all 90,000 seats are heated, did you know that and the Arch which is being raised soon will stand out in the same way as the towers but with a more modern feel. Over time it will make back what has been invested in it and like the Olympics there are some non fiscal benefits that you just cannot measure which they will both provide.

You bring up riots of 96 but this is now 2004, do you not agree that the track record of England fans awayf rom home is massively improved and that other nations have continued to decline below our level?

We have some problems in this area but every attempt is being made to deal with this unlike some nations and of which a few are bidding for the Olympics along with us.

I notice how you said so what to London being the centre of power but could not ignore the fact that Wembley is the home of National football or that tens of millions of people live in close proximity. The people who were lobbying against the Wembley project either did it out of political gain at the time or were Birmingham MP's on the whole from what i remember.

I brought up an old comment, because I don't use the internet everyday and that's where I was last time I was on, I wasn't actually aware of the special rule saying you can only respond within three hours of a post, maybe you could enlighten me.

Not at all, there is no rule but i was just wondering why in a thread concerning Olympics you were going on a solely Wembley based approach. So i have no problem when you reply it was something that i was wondering and was trying to get further comment concerning the Olympics.

Speaking of which, you seem to prefer the Paris olympic bid and for that i don't just disagree based upon their olympic bid but from my knowledge of local infrastructure without investment of which i haven't heard any plans of the Paralympics would be difficult to stage there. I also hae personal experience of how it could affect someone who would compete in the Paralympics. This you have to remember is also part of the award process.

Originally posted by Critic

So as there are some questions concerning the our record it should not be attempted??

Were you not in any way impressed by the London bid? If not tell me when it comes to the technical bid alone and at the present what the Paris bid has over the London one that we cannot attain?


I do think we should attempt to get the olympics, but not at this time, because our bid is not as strong as others and I very much doubt we will win. Just to make it clear I think the actual bid (ie. the work done by Barbara Cassini) is very good, but we are starting from a very weak position :

- London (regardless of what you may think of the Paris subway ;) ) has the biggest congestion problem by some way, something which Barbera Cassani admits, although she puts a lot of down to the fact London has many times more people commuting to it everyday than the other cities, which may well be the case, but never the less the problem is there.

- We have virtually nothing built (not just stadiums, swimming centres, but extensions to railways, new roads etc), where as Paris has a large chunk already built and proven.

- The recent history, the people who make the decision will look at and take into acount the success of the commonwealth games and wether you like it or not they will also do the same for the failed world atheletics championships, the riotting in Euro 96 and the bodge up that is wembley. (particularly after Athens problems with getting things built on time)

Originally posted by Critic

So as
Wembley has had its problems and its price has gone up but 90,000 all seater stadia in the London area don't come cheap so that is to be expected but maybe not to this expense. Something to back this up is the new Ashburton Grove project for Arsenal in North London with an estimated price above half a billion and that is a 60,000 seater stadium.


True it doesn't come cheap and ashburton grove is another project which has zoomed out of control, so following your examples how much should I add on for the real cost of developing the olympic infrastructure, £2 billion? £4 billion??

I am sure higher prices in London were expected and were fully taken into account in the first estimate, so how does that lead to a 500% increase in the cost?

Originally posted by Critic

Concerning the Millennium Stadium in Cardif, it is in a terrible financial position and they are looking for buyers or that is what i have heard reported and spoken of by the current ownership. Wembley will receive far greater use and will be an architectural wonder among its peers, all 90,000 seats are heated, did you know that and the Arch which is being raised soon will stand out in the same way as the towers but with a more modern feel. Over time it will make back what has been invested in it and like the Olympics there are some non fiscal benefits that you just cannot measure which they will both provide.


I am not saying wembley won't look great, but that the project, both the planning and finance was handled very badly, that is what those in the ICO will look at, when deciding if London can deliver.

I fail to see what what the succes of the company operating the Millenium stadium as to to do with the relative cost of building it compared to Wembley.

Originally posted by Critic

You bring up riots of 96 but this is now 2004, do you not agree that the track record of England fans awayf rom home is massively improved and that other nations have continued to decline below our level?


Yes, in fact I find it amazing that Turkey haven't been banned form competing in European matches given the way their "fans" behave, but then that is somthing else.

Originally posted by Critic

I notice how you said so what to London being the centre of power but could not ignore the fact that Wembley is the home of National football or that tens of millions of people live in close proximity. The people who were lobbying against the Wembley project either did it out of political gain at the time or were Birmingham MP's on the whole from what i remember.


Well currently Old Trafford is the home of National football, but so what, just because the national team plays in one place for a long time is no basis for it to be played there forever.

On those who wanted the new stadium in bimingham, you are wrong, it was common sense, the majority of football fans and big clubs in this country are situated very much north of London, therefore it makes sense to have the national stadium in the centre of the country so Liverpool, Man Utd and Necastle fans can get to it just as easily as Arsenal or Chelsea fans.

Originally posted by Critic

Not at all, there is no rule but i was just wondering why in a thread concerning Olympics you were going on a solely Wembley based approach. So i have no problem when you reply it was something that i was wondering and was trying to get further comment concerning the Olympics.


I wasn't going on soley about wembley, I mentioned it as one reason out of several as to why Paris was better, you then lied making some claim that it was on schedule and trying to ignore the fact that it was vastly overbudget, thus we got on to wembley, which wouldn't of happened if you had been more honest rather than trying to give a politicians answer.

Originally posted by Critic

Speaking of which, you seem to prefer the Paris olympic bid and for that i don't just disagree based upon their olympic bid but from my knowledge of local infrastructure without investment of which i haven't heard any plans of the Paralympics would be difficult to stage there. I also hae personal experience of how it could affect someone who would compete in the Paralympics. This you have to remember is also part of the award process.

I couldn't comment on that, so I'll take your word on the Paraolympic difficulties. However if you think London can build vast amounts of infrastructure in time, I am sure it would be a far smaller challange for Paris to develop it's infrastructure to cope with the Paraolympics.

Basically I think we should of waited until London and the surrounding transport infrastructure gets the big overhaul it badly needs and some of recent problems (picketts lock, wembley) had disappered from memory somewhat, at least then we could start from a level playing field.

It would be nice to have it here (London) but one thing that really bothers me is that the police/council and whoever else don't seem to have the slightest clue when it comes to minimizing the effect that special events have on the general day to day running of things, most notably traffic.

For example, two quite recent events, the Bush visit and a new years parade were a complete headache for people like me just wanting to get from a to b and these were just medium size one-day events, i can't imagine the mess that they will make of things with something the size of the olympics, i don't even want to think about it. :eek:

I do think we should attempt to get the olympics, but not at this time, because our bid is not as strong as others and I very much doubt we will win. Just to make it clear I think the actual bid (ie. the work done by Barbara Cassini) is very good, but we are starting from a very weak position :

- London (regardless of what you may think of the Paris subway ) has the biggest congestion problem by some way, something which Barbera Cassani admits, although she puts a lot of down to the fact London has many times more people commuting to it everyday than the other cities, which may well be the case, but never the less the problem is there.

- We have virtually nothing built (not just stadiums, swimming centres, but extensions to railways, new roads etc), where as Paris has a large chunk already built and proven.

- The recent history, the people who make the decision will look at and take into acount the success of the commonwealth games and wether you like it or not they will also do the same for the failed world atheletics championships, the riotting in Euro 96 and the bodge up that is wembley. (particularly after Athens problems with getting things built on time)

On congestion in the London area, between now and there will be expansion to the DLR and overground rail in East London which has been factored in by the bid team and will reduce journey times to that area and make for a better travelling experience.

Yes we have much to build but we are comitted to do it and have the will to do so, as a result the IOC should not see this as a major problem. Many successful bidding cities do not have the majority of venues built a decade in advance but through the creation of such things as the aquatic centre there will be a lasting legacy for that kind of sport and it will help to generate new medal winners from that area of the nation. These types of things that will live on once the Olympics has a left a city will aid in our bid as the IOC likes to see something special remain afterward and i cannot see that in Paris at thistime.

Of course they will look at the history of bidding cities and how they coped previously and i'm sure if this was the only thing the decision was based upon we might have a problem but it is not. It is only on e of many but the IOC will take into account our improving track record in such areas but also how we are changing and the planning and effort that has gone into our bid.

The most recent figures according to the London Chamber of Commerce stated that London receives many more visitors than Paris now, something which has not been the case and add to that the 300 languages spoken in the city it really would be an Olympics for the World in the City of all its children, or near enough.

These things should help us balance the argument and then it will be down to politics.

True it doesn't come cheap and ashburton grove is another project which has zoomed out of control, so following your examples how much should I add on for the real cost of developing the olympic infrastructure, £2 billion? £4 billion??

I am sure higher prices in London were expected and were fully taken into account in the first estimate, so how does that lead to a 500% increase in the cost?

Well concerning non stadia infrastructrure much of it is being built regardless and will only be a very helpful boost to he bid but was not originally intended to be so.

On how much it will increase by and can i explain why it happened with Wembley, the simple answer is No i can't, not my field.

However i will point out that there are many non fiscal benefits to such an event and tourism will be boosted by such an event.

I fail to see what what the succes of the company operating the Millenium stadium as to to do with the relative cost of building it compared to Wembley.

I was just bringint it to your attention and considering you were holding up the Milennium stadium as some model i thought it might be something to consider. Of course i know you meant its initial cost and where it is now but there are some problems but anyway.

Yes, in fact I find it amazing that Turkey haven't been banned form competing in European matches given the way their "fans" behave, but then that is somthing else.

Well it does have a link to the Olympics considering Istanbul is a bidding city and as is Rio and hooliganism in S America is a bigger problem than in Britain when on the native continent. I can't see the riots playing that big a part in the decision process. Something else that should be taken into account is the racism in Sport and Britain is a pioneer in tackling this in football but other bidding nations are at the oppisite end of the scale; for instance Spain.

Can a games go to a nation where racism in Sport is dealt with so lightly? I am not too sure but then again i don't think along with riots will be at the top of the IOC priority list.

Well currently Old Trafford is the home of National football, but so what, just because the national team plays in one place for a long time is no basis for it to be played there forever.

On those who wanted the new stadium in bimingham, you are wrong, it was common sense, the majority of football fans and big clubs in this country are situated very much north of London, therefore it makes sense to have the national stadium in the centre of the country so Liverpool, Man Utd and Necastle fans can get to it just as easily as Arsenal or Chelsea fans.

Well in terms of the Domestic game i agree with you and the Wolves game aside it isn't heading back to Highbury in a hurry.

The historical theme and tradition of Wembley plays a bigger part than you give it credit, would the Cricket community move the home of that sport in Britain to Trent Bridge and away from Lords right now or in Rugby move it from Twickenham to Vickerage Road?? I can't see it myself.

I am wrong am i?

Let's take a look , you keep bringing up the fact that the majority of "football fans" live in the North or would rather it had gone to Birmingham.

Well 2001 census figures state that the population of England is 49.1 million people, well the population of South and Eastern England is 25.3 million people. I would like you to tell me how that is either a minority of indidviduals or something that can be ignored. You bring up clybs like Man Utd and how it would be easier for their fans to get to Birmingham, you are assuming the fans of these clubs will all be travelling from Manchester of that region. With an estimated fan base in England in the millions Man Utd will not follow your argument as there are many spread throughout the country.

If i can travel up to OldTrafford for a game in a few hours on a Saturday or on a weekday or whenever any true England fan would be willing to do the same as would i.

Doug Ellis and his arguent was more about taking a pin and putting it in the centre of England as he saw it and was not really thinking of population distribution, football tradition, what much of the public wanted in the end, overseas reputation etc

I wasn't going on soley about wembley, I mentioned it as one reason out of several as to why Paris was better, you then lied making some claim that it was on schedule and trying to ignore the fact that it was vastly overbudget, thus we got on to wembley, which wouldn't of happened if you had been more honest rather than trying to give a politicians answer.

Originally posted by bagpuss
Euro 96, well just pretend that their weren't any riots in London when England lost then. ;)

It's not that Wembley has cost a lot of money , but how the cost has miraculaously risen from £185 million when it was first announced to over £725 million. You say it's on schedule yet when the new wembley was announced we were told it would be compeleted by 2003, yet we curently have a bulding state not a state of the art stadium.

Wembley is also very convienent for me being in London, but I actually think it should be for the benefit of all football fans, most of which live north of Birmingham.

The previous extreact taken from page 2 of this thread seems pretty Wembley focused to me and THAT is what i was referring to.

you then lied making some claim that it was on schedule

I lied??

How do you know this, on the current and publicly known target of the Fa Cup Final of 2006 we are ahead of shedule by a few months and that is according to BBC Sport reports as well as claims by the Architect overseeing the project and if memory serves the FA supported the statemtn. This info is from late 03 and not that old. I don't remember ignoring the price increase but taking the long view for the project.

So i ask you again how was i lying??

If you were not awre of that then now you know.

I had to post twice, reached character limit ;)

Bagpuss <<
I couldn't comment on that, so I'll take your word on the Paraolympic difficulties. However if you think London can build vast amounts of infrastructure in time, I am sure it would be a far smaller challange for Paris to develop it's infrastructure to cope with the Paraolympics.

Basically I think we should of waited until London and the surrounding transport infrastructure gets the big overhaul it badly needs and some of recent problems (picketts lock, wembley) had disappered from memory somewhat, at least then we could start from a level playing field.

London does not need the infrastructure improvments on the scale of Paris for the Paralympics by a long way. I am not going by second hand reports here, I am visually impared and have used the Underground and the Paris Subway in recent months. I will list some reasons why that alone is a major issue.

1] The majority of stations do not have escalators and are dominated by steps.

2] Train doors are operated by a lever on the door intself and are not automated and the lever is not highly visable.

3] The trains do not have a PA system manned or automated as a guide for the route or stations and changes at such. Also no LCD screen to display where you are and perform the same function.

4] Text print in stations is small in most places.

The Underground will pass on at least 3 of those points where Pars would not; it may get congested but it is more accessible for the registered disabled.

We could wait and deal with the regeneration now or we could have it as part of out bid which will aid it and help bring the Olympics to London. As has been widely reported the IOC like the bid to have that something extra which London and Rio will have but Paris is lacking a bit.

This all said, we are talking about the technical side of the bid, politics will have a huge part to play when the final decision is made.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Loon
It would be nice to have it here (London) but one thing that really bothers me is that the police/council and whoever else don't seem to have the slightest clue when it comes to minimizing the effect that special events have on the general day to day running of things, most notably traffic.

For example, two quite recent events, the Bush visit and a new years parade were a complete headache for people like me just wanting to get from a to b and these were just medium size one-day events, i can't imagine the mess that they will make of things with something the size of the olympics, i don't even want to think about it. :eek:

Loon, what you have to remember is that this is in 2012 and if London was successful would have many years to decide upon the logistics and traffic regulation. For instance an idea that might be looked at that has been put forward with a previousl bid is for vehicles with Even ending reg plates can travel in a certain area on Monday but not Odd ending ones and this reverses for the following day and so on.

Now i am not saying this is right for London but schemes have always been created to lessen the impact on a host city and this would happen in London's case if we got it. You also have to remember that the roads that were closed for President Bush's visit and for the Parade would not be closed or in those numbers for the Olympics.

That should do it.

I visited London in 1992. I liked it a lot. Maybe because I was young and in love :D

But seriously, any European country would be great for hosting the Olympic games.

timechange.com, well the concensus is that it is Europe's turn so it would be nice but if it weren't London i'l rather it went to Rio though and if not them maybe Madrid. It would depend on whether Brazil was successful in bidding for the 2014 World Cup i think.

A samba games would be nice but let's have a bit of merry old London first :)

Got to be London.

Originally posted by Critic

Many successful bidding cities do not have the majority of venues built a decade in advance

Yes but the circumstances are slightly different this time, the IOC have just spent months worrying wether Athens will even be ready, I suspect they will be rather more cautious over the building work than they have sometimes been in the past.

Originally posted by Critic

Of course they will look at the history of bidding cities and how they coped previously and i'm sure if this was the only thing the decision was based upon we might have a problem but it is not.


I sort of agree, but the problem isn't that they won't look at other things, but that wether you like it or not Paris is a very strong bid and when the competition is that tight things like picketts lock well may be the difference.

Originally posted by Critic

Well concerning non stadia infrastructrure much of it is being built regardless and will only be a very helpful boost to he bid but was not originally intended to be so.


No some new infrastructure is being built, you seem to be under some sort of self delusion over Londons infrastructure, it needs a total overhaul, the planned imporvements will help a bit, mainly the atheletes, but will do very little for the rest of London which will struggle to cope with the increased capacity.

The French didn't highlight the effieciency and capacity of their transport network in their bid for the good of their health, they did it because one of their big rivals (London) has the worst transport network of any major developed city in the world.

Are the BBC lying when go through the strengths and weaknesses of the bids and write this?

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics_2004/olympics_2012/2570003.stm

Extract >>
Paris. Betting odds: 11-8
Strengths:

The French capital's accommodation capacity and transport infrastructure can cope with a huge influx of people.

London. Odds: 5-2
Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Its ailing transport infrastructure could also be a big handicap.
<< End Extract

Originally posted by Critic

Well it does have a link to the Olympics considering Istanbul is a bidding city and as is Rio and hooliganism in S America is a bigger problem than in Britain when on the native continent. I can't see the riots playing that big a part in the decision process. Something else that should be taken into account is the racism in Sport and Britain is a pioneer in tackling this in football but other bidding nations are at the oppisite end of the scale; for instance Spain.


I agree over racism, Britain is very good in that area, but on Rio and Istanbul I don't think London will be measured against them in the same way it will against Paris, New York, Madrird etc and so any hooliganism in Rio may well count less against it than it would in London or Paris.

Originally posted by Critic

Can a games go to a nation where racism in Sport is dealt with so lightly? I am not too sure but then again i don't think along with riots will be at the top of the IOC priority list.


No it may not be, but as I stated earlier Paris is tough competition so every little thing matters.

Originally posted by Critic

Well in terms of the Domestic game i agree with you and the Wolves game aside it isn't heading back to Highbury in a hurry.

The historical theme and tradition of Wembley plays a bigger part than you give it credit, would the Cricket community move the home of that sport in Britain to Trent Bridge and away from Lords right now or in Rugby move it from Twickenham to Vickerage Road?? I can't see it myself.


But Cricket plays it's international and cup games all over the country (just like many other footballing nations do) so there is no reason to move from Lords.

Rugby Union was and still is to some extent a game based mostly in the south of England so London is pretty near the centre anyway, again no reason to move.

Tradition does play a role in some peoples minds, but tradition isn't actually a reason in itself for anything, to a lot of peole tradition is just another way of saying "living in the past".

Originally posted by Critic

Let's take a look , you keep bringing up the fact that the majority of "football fans" live in the North or would rather it had gone to Birmingham.

Well 2001 census figures state that the population of England is 49.1 million people, well the population of South and Eastern England is 25.3 million people. I would like you to tell me how that is either a minority of indidviduals or something that can be ignored. You bring up clybs like Man Utd and how it would be easier for their fans to get to Birmingham, you are assuming the fans of these clubs will all be travelling from Manchester of that region. With an estimated fan base in England in the millions Man Utd will not follow your argument as there are many spread throughout the country.


Am I well aware that certain clubs such as Man Utd and Liverpool have a rather more widely disbursed fanbase than most, but I think I am correct in remembering Man Utd releasing figures showing the majority of fans who actually go to old trafford come from the surondong area, whilst there may be plenty of "armchair fans" in the south east there are not that many who actually go to matches are there.

There may be 25 million living in the south east, but you add up the attendence figures for Arsenal, Tottenham, Chealsea, Ipswich, Norwich, West Ham etc for the last 30 years and they will be dwarfed by the numbers for Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Leeds, Man City, Sunderland, Everton etc over the same period

Originally posted by Critic

Doug Ellis and his arguent was more about taking a pin and putting it in the centre of England as he saw it and was not really thinking of population distribution, football tradition, what much of the public wanted in the end, overseas reputation etc


The public didn't get what they wanted in the end :

When they polled the football supporters association, they found the following :

The majority (67%) of football fans want a new national stadium built in Birmingham rather than Wembley, and 72% want it to be a football-only venue.

Originally posted by Critic

The previous extreact taken from page 2 of this thread seems pretty Wembley focused to me and THAT is what i was referring to.


And as I said, if you had just accepted wembley was overscedule then I would of never of had to write that extract in the first place.

Originally posted by Critic

How do you know this, on the current and publicly known target of the Fa Cup Final of 2006 we are ahead of shedule by a few months and that is according to BBC Sport reports as well as claims by the Architect overseeing the project and if memory serves the FA supported the statemtn. This info is from late 03 and not that old. I don't remember ignoring the price increase but taking the long view for the project.

So i ask you again how was i lying??


Well no you may not of lied, you may of not known anything about the new wembley at all until the last two years and so may have been under the false impression that wembley was wonderfully on schedule. However given thatyou seem to like football and clearly take note of some source of news I find it very difficult to believe you have completely missed the much publicised fact that wembley was supposed to of already been finished.

If I say I will complete a project in 2 weeks, but miss the deadline, setting a new deadline of 2 extra weeks, doesn't mean I am now amazingly on time, it means I am on time for my new deadline, but the project is still late, the same applies to building stadiums, something which I thought anyone could grasp.

You ignored the price rise by brushing it off with "project costs always rise" and "I think it will be worth the cost", thus a politicians answer, no answer at all.

As I said I take your word over the Paris subway needing changes to cope with disabilities, but again which will take longer new escaltors etc or the total overhaul that most of Londons transport system needs?

Yes but the circumstances are slightly different this time, the IOC have just spent months worrying wether Athens will even be ready, I suspect they will be rather more cautious over the building work than they have sometimes been in the past.

I agree, the IOC is looking for a smooth ride with the olympics but Britain is no rd world nation and i'd say that the IOC will see in our proposal that we have the financial and political will to build what is necessary and with our bid team from around the world in nationality and field possess the expertise to do what is necessary.

I sort of agree, but the problem isn't that they won't look at other things, but that wether you like it or not Paris is a very strong bid and when the competition is that tight things like picketts lock well may be the difference.

You might be right but i think the Paris and London technical bids are close equal enough that it will come down to the politics of the voting. From what i've heard the two continents that will determine where the games will go are the votes from Asia and Africa with Oceania coming third. Zimbabwe could impact our vote in Africa and the commonwealth but Asia is a more complecated situation.

No some new infrastructure is being built, you seem to be under some sort of self delusion over Londons infrastructure, it needs a total overhaul, the planned imporvements will help a bit, mainly the atheletes, but will do very little for the rest of London which will struggle to cope with the increased capacity.

The French didn't highlight the effieciency and capacity of their transport network in their bid for the good of their health, they did it because one of their big rivals (London) has the worst transport network of any major developed city in the world.

Are the BBC lying when go through the strengths and weaknesses of the bids and write this?

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/oly...012/2570003.stm

Extract >>
Paris. Betting odds: 11-8
Strengths:

The French capital's accommodation capacity and transport infrastructure can cope with a huge influx of people.

London. Odds: 5-2
Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Its ailing transport infrastructure could also be a big handicap.
<< End Extract

Oh i agree, the Paris bid has a head start on London and not all of our infrastructure is non games related but what i was trying to say is and i heard this from a railways spokesman that a fair amount of improvments are not part of the bidding process and thus the cost of it and the hosting of the games. Paris does have more Hotel capacity but according to the London Chamber of Commerce Paris had less visitors than London according to a recent report. The thousands that would enter the city for such an event should be absorbed amongst our current hotel network.
Also with the Eurostar and the channel tunnel some continental Europeans could possibly make a day trip out of it and of course it would work the other way to Paris so that could benefit both bids.

With the continued improvments and extensions to the DLR and East -West line in London and with the Jubilee line i feel we should be able to cope for the duration. Now of course i'l like improvments from South and East London to where i am in the North and West and hopefully this will act as a catalyst for that.

[quote]Am I well aware that certain clubs such as Man Utd and Liverpool have a rather more widely disbursed fanbase than most, but I think I am correct in remembering Man Utd releasing figures showing the majority of fans who actually go to old trafford come from the surondong area, whilst there may be plenty of "armchair fans" in the south east there are not that many who actually go to matches are there.

There may be 25 million living in the south east, but you add up the attendence figures for Arsenal, Tottenham, Chealsea, Ipswich, Norwich, West Ham etc for the last 30 years and they will be dwarfed by the numbers for Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Leeds, Man City, Sunderland, Everton etc over the same period

There might be more from the Manchester region who managge to attend games at Old Trafford but in the present day is not down to location but history. Old Trafford only holds 67,000 but upwards of a million are fans in Britain. You have not been able to just buy a ticket from the club for many years now, you have to be a member of the club and then apply for a ticket for which there are only a small amount available. There are 3 club membership holders in my house and we haven't had a successful application in 2 and a half years. I am sorry nut you really don't know how difficult it is to get to a game whether you live in Altringhm or London. You either have to travel up and but from a tout or gain the benefit of MUDSA who supply a quota of free tickets for the registered disabled and one guest.

On top of this you are assuming once again that only those who manage to attend a game are the ones who would want to go to Wembley which is quite obviously not the case as not all football fans cannot get to matches week in week out or have been priced out of the market.

As a result i think you have to take into account the general population distribution, politican matters, overseas reputation, tradition and other considerations into the decision making process which i believe they did.

The public didn't get what they wanted in the end :

When they polled the football supporters association, they found the following :

The majority (67%) of football fans want a new national stadium built in Birmingham rather than Wembley, and 72% want it to be a football-only venue.

Well i could just say that is one poll of one segment of the poulation and an important one for this kind of matter but i will also refer back to my previous response and the other things that needed to be considered.

That said i was not aware of that particular poll but i was aware of some talksport or fivelive polls that didn't go the same way as the football supporters associate one but i have no secondary source to back it up.

And as I said, if you had just accepted wembley was overscedule then I would of never of had to write that extract in the first place.

And as i said ithat initial response was targeted at 1 reply where you appeared to be not talking about the Olympics itself and i was trying to get your opinion on that which has happened.

Do you think we can stop doing the "As i said " thing now..

Well no you may not of lied, you may of not known anything about the new wembley at all until the last two years and so may have been under the false impression that wembley was wonderfully on schedule. However given thatyou seem to like football and clearly take note of some source of news I find it very difficult to believe you have completely missed the much publicised fact that wembley was supposed to of already been finished.

If I say I will complete a project in 2 weeks, but miss the deadline, setting a new deadline of 2 extra weeks, doesn't mean I am now amazingly on time, it means I am on time for my new deadline, but the project is still late, the same applies to building stadiums, something which I thought anyone could grasp.

You ignored the price rise by brushing it off with "project costs always rise" and "I think it will be worth the cost", thus a politicians answer, no answer at all.

As I said I take your word over the Paris subway needing changes to cope with disabilities, but again which will take longer new escaltors etc or the total overhaul that most of Londons transport system needs?

I'll admit that i only have a sketchy recollection of the original plan for the stadium to be completed by 2003.

If i may however, when at any point i was saying that Wembley was on time or ahead of schedule i was alwasys using the current 06 Cup Final as the benchmark for completion.

"You ignored the price rise by brushing it off with "project costs always rise" and "I think it will be worth the cost", thus a politicians answer, no answer at all."

I didn't ignore it as i did accept that it took place; what i was doind and have done is to accept that it has now happened and are taking the long term view. And i hate it when MP's don't answer the question at PMQs so not something i try to replicate.

As I said I take your word over the Paris subway needing changes to cope with disabilities, but again which will take longer new escaltors etc or the total overhaul that most of Londons transport system needs?

I don't think there is much between the two but one thing that seperates the two is that London has pledged to upgrade the transportation network but Paris has pedged to do nothing so it matters not which is worse if one part is saying they won't even attempt it.

From what i've seen Paris would need to upgrade dozens of stations and overhaulf fleets of trains which is many many millions of Euros of investment.

When all is said an done, they re two strong technical bids and with these things a bit like the UN politics has the final say. It's everywhere :D