|
Post by sistersludge on Oct 11, 2010 7:48:55 GMT -1
And so it begins; www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11492297Is there really any solid evidence that bringing these type of events to Scotland actually makes a long term contribution to our local finances? Did it happen after the Games in Edinburgh all those years back? Anyone know? Do these ' initiatives' REALLY regenerate urban areas into shiny new ghettos where ordinary folks can actually afford to live? Or does it simply replace one problem with another? An acquaintance of mine is designing the new Velodrome in the east end. Idea is that local kids and other large cycling type events will be encouraged to use it in droves after the Games. Well pardon me, but couldn't GCC just have redeveloped the Kelvin Hall instead of this expensive newbuild? What are the pros of having the Games here, anyone? Is there solid evidence to the contrary? Too many moaning faced sods and not enough welcoming events like this. You see the sleekit racists gloating over the 'terrible' games in India.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Henry Rawlinson on Oct 11, 2010 10:31:05 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by westender on Oct 11, 2010 10:31:43 GMT -1
Is there solid evidence to the contrary? Too many moaning faced sods and not enough welcoming events like this. You see the sleekit racists gloating over the 'terrible' games in India. Oh dear. 'Racist'? There's nothing 'racist' about it. The games has been a disaster so far, and that would be the case if the facts of the games so far had happened anywhere in the world. Yes?
|
|
|
Post by westender on Oct 11, 2010 10:37:37 GMT -1
not enough welcoming events like this. If we're not interested in sport, then we're not interested. I reckon Glasgow's not interested. And why should we be? The Commonwealth Games is evidently not of much interest any more. Nobody in Delhi is interested, top athletes aren't interested and have stayed away... and if you check out groucho's post above, you will see that the BBC who know a thing or two about broadcasting sport, aren't interested either.... I don't see anything 'sleekit' about it.
|
|
|
Post by sistersludge on Oct 11, 2010 12:31:50 GMT -1
This is a great opportunity for Glasgow and we are girning already.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Oct 11, 2010 17:39:38 GMT -1
Sis, It is a great thing for Glasgow, it is a fact that the games are not so well respected as they were. However I can't find the race card being played, can you explain that please.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Oct 11, 2010 17:59:18 GMT -1
And so it begins; www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11492297Is there really any solid evidence that bringing these type of events to Scotland actually makes a long term contribution to our local finances? Did it happen after the Games in Edinburgh all those years back? Anyone know? Do these ' initiatives' REALLY regenerate urban areas into shiny new ghettos where ordinary folks can actually afford to live? Or does it simply replace one problem with another? An acquaintance of mine is designing the new Velodrome in the east end. Idea is that local kids and other large cycling type events will be encouraged to use it in droves after the Games. Well pardon me, but couldn't GCC just have redeveloped the Kelvin Hall instead of this expensive newbuild? What are the pros of having the Games here, anyone? Is there solid evidence to the contrary? Too many moaning faced sods and not enough welcoming events like this. You see the sleekit racists gloating over the 'terrible' games in India. As far as am concerned the games in India ur gettin'slagged aff because they (the Indian organisers) ur pish and seeem tae be making a pig's ear of it - ah cannae see any racialism in any ovra reports ah huv read
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Oct 11, 2010 18:58:51 GMT -1
Oh dear. 'Racist'? There's nothing 'racist' about it. The games has been a disaster so far, and that would be the case if the facts of the games so far had happened anywhere in the world. Yes? No they havent, been a great success 64 golds
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2010 19:01:47 GMT -1
Is there solid evidence to the contrary? Too many moaning faced sods and not enough welcoming events like this. You see the sleekit racists gloating over the 'terrible' games in India. The news that the Glasgow 2014 committee have revised their projected ticket income downwards plus the fact the BBC are not interested in covering the event speaks volumes, imho. Not having a major broadcaster on board potentially hits the budget badly in two ways; firstly the loss of broadcasting fees, secondly in terms of sponsorship and advertising as major companies want world-wide TV exposure for their buck. I'm all for investing in Glasgow (and Scotland) but questioning the use of £500 million of our money that might be invested in more concrete outcomes is hardly tantamount to treason, is it?
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Oct 11, 2010 20:04:24 GMT -1
Rolo, Is that true the BBC are not going to broadcast the Glasgow games? Can anyone imagine that happening if they were in England? No wonder the SNP do so well, I hope if Rolo is correct, then Mr Salmond makes plenty of noise about it. Shows the contempt that the (English) BBC show to us in Scotland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2010 21:15:43 GMT -1
Rolo, Is that true the BBC are not going to broadcast the Glasgow games? Can anyone imagine that happening if they were in England? No wonder the SNP do so well, I hope if Rolo is correct, then Mr Salmond makes plenty of noise about it. Shows the contempt that the (English) BBC show to us in Scotland. Well, I wouldn't be too sure it's simply down to the location of the Games, Bormes. The BBC is increasingly having to justify its expenditure of public money according to ratings. As far as I know it's not a definite no-no as yet---but the signs are it's looking like the Glasgow 2014 committee has budgeted in substantial income from broadcasting rights. And as anyone who works in events/telly/media will know, assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Oct 11, 2010 21:38:28 GMT -1
Rolo, Surely the beeb is a service too and as such they have a duty to all of the UK and potentially the Commonwealth, honestly, if Manchester had won it, or Birmingham does any one think they would not have broadcast them? Let us hope it is not correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2010 22:05:46 GMT -1
Rolo, Surely the beeb is a service too and as such they have a duty to all of the UK and potentially the Commonwealth, honestly, if Manchester had won it, or Birmingham does any one think they would not have broadcast them? Let us hope it is not correct. As a fresh-faced ingenue grad going into the BBC in 1979 I would have said yes, Bormes, it's a public service and should represent minority interests. But that was then and this is now Competition for ratings is so fierce now that every penny of pubic money via the license fee is being questioned and scrutinised. Value for money is key (apparently though how you measure that is anyone's guess) and if that means ten more years of Strictly Come Dancing et al, it's seemingly what the Beeb have to be seen to do to retain their market share. But we're getting a bit off topic here, really. The question I kicked off was are the Commonwealth Games going to be of lasting benefit to Glasgow?
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Oct 11, 2010 22:13:21 GMT -1
But we're getting a bit off topic here, really. The question I kicked off was are the Commonwealth Games going to be of lasting benefit to Glasgow? Speaking for here 10 years after the Olympics. No real lasting improvements other that a few stadii?? But by god we had a ball!!! Relax enjoy it PS mind you its hard to improve on perfect
|
|
|
Post by sistersludge on Oct 12, 2010 10:22:55 GMT -1
|
|