I noticed its 3 years till London 2012 and as most of you are probably from London I was wondering if you really think the games will have any benefit on the surrounding areas and for for the future in terms of a sporting legacy or is it a case of "this is another tax burden we really could do without thanks to Labour"?
Is this going to be a bit like Wimbledon...people will watch and hope Brits do well but once its over the numbers swimming,running and cycling will not greatly increase just because of the Olympics?
0
Comments
London has lacked investment into its social fabric and the money that is being spent should not just be considered to be a 2012 thing and then what (a problem that has afflicted many other cities that have hosted the games) but about the legacy. A lot of much needed housing will be constructed, transport infrastructure will be built and there'll be some top-class sporting venues left. Currently London's only international athletics arena is at Crystal Palace and that's a disgrace. The sporting venues have been designed so that once the games are over a lot of the extra seating that is there for the Olympics can be dismantled and so the arenas will be stripped down and be more suitable for smaller, less well attended non-Olympic sporting occasions.
Naturally they may not be sporting fans and ofcourse have a point that money could be spent elsewhere but then that is another debate!
In theory we could have 4 60000+ stadiums in london. So if the FA wanted to use simply the biggest ground for a world cup then it would be:
wembley
old trafford
stratford
new tottenham?
new anfield?
newcastle
sunderland
villa
Naturally when it does come and GB win medals they will be the first with massive headlines beaming with praise ofcourse!
I think some are just worried it will be like the Dome...and use it to have a bash at Labour (which maybe they deserve)
London is a first class city and it's regenerated an area that badly needed money pouring into it.
May be a Kent resident but I'm a Londoner at heart and yes I would have gladly paid extra on my Council tax as the whole country will benefit!
yeah,that'll be great and cheap keeping an empty stadium for 6 years. what crackpot came up with that clever idea?
Was mentioned on ITV news a lunch time. Not sure why it would be empty for 6 years though? If it was downsized to 25000, I assume they'd find uses for it, so why should it being bigger suddenly make them not use it? Surely it would be used more. They could offer to the same sort of events using wembley, but for a lower cost and better transport links.
It would benefit more people (and suit those who are anti London/South!) but I understand it was London or nothing.
Update on closure of Greenwich Park ... but bear in mind it is Andrew Gilligan reporting.
Why, specifically, would that be a concern?
On the contra side, I am more than happy that one journalist is actually highlighting this issue in the media but have a concern that at times it is more to promote himself than face the problem.
Particularly when i see some of the salaries that are getting paid it annoys me the money it is costing below average earners just cos they happen to live in a borough that constitutes london.
Pleased if the people of east london are getting better housing but then that should be borne by the whole country not just londoners.
I'd be wary of anything that Gilligan writes, especially if it has any connection to Boris Johnston. After Gilligan got the tin-tack from the BBC Boris helped get him a job at the Evening Standard and in return Gilligan wrote a series of articles attacking any/everything to do with Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London. You might think so what...but he also played a part in the death of David Kelly and the sexed-up dossier that led to the Iraq war.
linky here