- This topic has 61 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
Prestbury.
- AuthorPosts
- June 6, 2007 at 12:11 #105328
It’ll be pulled for health and safety reasons but there won’t be a refund. That’s probably it !!
June 6, 2007 at 13:32 #105329Also, bear in mind that the 400k figure quoted will likely have been inflated something rotten by the tabloids – probably includes the cost of the website, the cost of the promotional video and the cost of all the stationary with the logo on it, all of which are costs which would have been incurred no matter what the logo would have been…
June 6, 2007 at 13:42 #105330Welcome to the forum psychosis .. the papers are saying the logo cost £500K and not the real price of £400K .. this is the same marketting company the swindled BT out of £50M for their ‘blue boy with trumpet logo’ that was ditched in favour of a more successful £50K logo.
The price is the cost of the logo alone .. any other costs are extra .. it works like that when you pretend your creative and don’t have a proper job, especially if your customer is using taxpayers money. If all the to$$ers think it’s so great they should pay for it with their own dosh.
June 6, 2007 at 16:33 #105331On the basis that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, the organising committee must be pleased that their logo launch has gone so well…
June 6, 2007 at 16:43 #105332Time for the IOC to review and give it to Paris after all
July 27, 2009 at 23:04 #12195…………..am I missing something or is just a slow news day but what exactly is there to get excited about re the London Olympics being 3 years away today?……….I’m a sport lover but I’m not sure I will even be getting excited about the Olympics when it is still 3 months away and as for the £9,300,000,000 cost………………..
July 28, 2009 at 16:07 #241337If you think that was bad Bob – just wait until it is two years, then one year and then the "countdown".
For all the so called "benefits" (and I think they are overhyped) I still cannot but think it is an obscene amount of money to throw at a sporting event and that the money could and should be better spent elsewhere.
July 28, 2009 at 19:47 #241361It was a very strange day when we got the vote for the Olympics; I was in town and expected people to be talking about it. I walked out of a charity shop and got chatting to an elderly lady who said she’d just phoned her son and heard that we’d got the Olympics, and neither of us could understand why no one around us seemed interested. I was actually quite excited about it, until the next day when the awful terrorist attacks sickened me to the core, and that was the end of my elation. We flew over Athens whilst the Olympics were on there, and saw the stadium lit up, and I thought it was wonderful. Having seen London for the first time in years a few weeks ago, and being surprised at how much cleaner and vibrant it seemed to be, I assumed it was because of the Games coming in 2012, and I’m sure thats why we did so well at the last ones. I just want it to be a huge success, and I feel quite patriotic about it. Jeux sans Frontieres and all that.
July 28, 2009 at 20:52 #241365I feared this might give a chance for the ‘grumpy old men’ to be heard, and so it seems.
Well I was chuffed when we got the Games, I’m looking forward to them and I will enjoy them when they arrive and look forward to travelling down to take in some of the events. If you don’t like it then, tough, deal with it!
Rob
July 28, 2009 at 21:15 #241366If you don’t like it then, tough, deal with it!
Rob
I see – so we aren’t allowed to make criticisms about our money being wasted then?
July 28, 2009 at 21:57 #241373Paul
I didn’t say you couldn’t, but it’s going to happen. I don’t really understand what it is in the British psyche, but anytime we are able to hold anything special people seem to think it’s waste of money. I seem to remember much fuss being made about money spent on the Millennium Dome. Solution seems to have been to call it the O2 Arena….
We discuss a sport on this Forum that sees vast amounts of money spent on it and arguably wasted every day. I’m sure I could think of many frivolous ways in money is frittered away every day, yet it continues.
I hope and believe that the people of Glasgow and Scotland will embrace the Commonwealth Games when they come along and see them for what they bring to the city and country.
Rob
July 28, 2009 at 22:25 #241375Paul
I didn’t say you couldn’t, but it’s going to happen. I don’t really understand what it is in the British psyche, but anytime we are able to hold anything special people seem to think it’s waste of money. I seem to remember much fuss being made about money spent on the Millennium Dome. Solution seems to have been to call it the O2 Arena….Rob
Sold off to a private concern at an infinitessimal fraction of the cost to the taxpayer.
Some solution.
July 28, 2009 at 22:48 #241380Paul
I didn’t say you couldn’t, but it’s going to happen.
It doesn’t have to – the Government could turn round and say – indeed be honest – and admit we cannot afford it.Of course they won’t because there are too many egos involved – but I tell you if a political party came out and said they would stop all Olympic spending then they would get my vote immediately.
I seem to remember much fuss being made about money spent on the Millennium Dome. Solution seems to have been to call it the O2 Arena….
and what benefit has the Dome bought to the country apart from hosting a millenium knees up and hosting some third rate exhibition. and as Grassy has pointed out then sold off to private enterprise at a loss.
We discuss a sport on this Forum that sees vast amounts of money spent on it and arguably wasted every day. I’m sure I could think of many frivolous ways in money is frittered away every day, yet it continues.
We do indeed Rob – however the money frittered away in our sport is not taxpayers money nor is it underwritten by the Government.
If the economic circumstances were different and we were in a time of prosperity I would welcome the Olympics with open arms – but we aren’t and there are more pressing financial priorities.
July 29, 2009 at 00:34 #241403Well that’s me told!
I’ll agree to differ on this one.
Rob
July 29, 2009 at 01:41 #241423as i understand, in fact everything but the canopy of the Dome has been demolished, and the Arena is a new building constructed under the canopy, taking up about half the floor space ?
reportedly there were all sorts of issues about building the Arena because keeping the canopy (a reference to GMT with its twelve points of a clock) meant that cranes could not be used for the Arena roof, which was built on the floor and then raised under the canopy.
although O2 have the naming rights to the Arena for GBP 6 million a year, the site owner is a development company of US billionaire Philip Anschutz, another of whose companies AEG (Anschutz Entertainment Group) operates the Arena.
John Prescott was a guest at Anchutz’s ranch and received presents from him – all undeclared by Prescott to parliament – at the time bids were going in for the Dome.
July 29, 2009 at 01:53 #241428Romantic notions and traditions of the Olympics aside IMO I don’t see what particularly would be lost if the Olympics remained the international festival of world sport that it is but in this televisual age it could actually come from different countries around the world at the same time.
For example,athletics from a European country,swimming from America,boxing from wherever etc etc.These could switch around each time and maybe we could do without so much of the costly and discredited bidding process for the whole event that goes on under current arrangements.
This way the joys and more importantly the costs and benefits of the events would be shared out maybe even using existing facilities rather than having them specially created and uses for them needing to be found afterwards.
With coordination and planning it wouldn’t make too much difference to how the event is enjoyed by the huge worldwide television audience and overall the same or an increased number of people would be able to go to an Olympic event if they chose to.
I’m not sure how much not being together with athletes from other sports would matter to all of the athletes taking part but this idea seems worth a try at making the Olympics more cost effective and more of an international event rather than a national financial burden
July 29, 2009 at 02:59 #241435I’m a bit indifferent to it .. it’s another London event, nothing to do with me. I might have a different view if I was forced to pay for it through my council tax.
The Olympics is nothing to do with sport and everything to do with politics. We have just seen the biggest disgrace in China, no-one seems to want to do the ‘right’ thing and take a moral stand.
I wonder if you will be able to have a Scotland flag in London, they were banned in China weren’t they .. you know, genocide in Tibet, cheap shoes, killing baby girls and etc ..
Uighur women demand release of detained relatives
.. they reckon that’s theres 15,000 Uighurs missing .. shame on those that went to China, shame on those that chose China, **** the Olympics and all it stands for.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.