An Alternative Design For The Olympics Logo???

Welcome, Mates! Post here for General Discussions on how thoroughly sports suck. In general.
User avatar
Lewis
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:16 pm
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Re: An Alternative Design For The Olympics Logo???

Post by Lewis »

ComRes/ ITV News Olympics poll: Three quarters disagree that Olympics will benefit lives in their area

A new ComRes poll conducted for ITV News will reveal today that three quarters of the public disagree that the London 2012 Olympics will benefit the lives of people in their area,
two thirds disagree that the ticketing system was fair and half do not believe the event is worth the public money being spent on it.

A large majority (71%) believe that the London 2012 Olympics will not benefit the lives of people in their area with a tiny 13% who think it will and 16% who are unsure. Similarly, two thirds (61%) think the Olympics will only benefit London and the people living in the capital. A quarter disagrees and 14% donâ??t know. Similarly, nearly half of the public (48%) agree that the London 2012 Olympics is not worth the public money being spent on it. A third disagree (32%) and 21% are not sure.

More than half of the public (56%) disagree that they are excited about the London 2012 Olympics, while 35% agree they are excited and 9% are not sure.

Just 13% of the public agree that the Olympics ticketing system was fair, while two thirds (60%) disagree and a quarter (27%) are not sure. Unsurprisingly, the ticketing system has made 44% feel more negative about the Games.

Finally, the pressure is on for Team GB. 52% of the public agree they would be disappointed if the British Olympic Team didn't perform better on their home turf than they did in Beijing.
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/502/itv-ne ... s-poll.htm

Quelle surprise.
Image
User avatar
Lewis
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:16 pm
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Re: An Alternative Design For The Olympics Logo???

Post by Lewis »

Just found something slightly amusing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... sfeed=true

I can't wait for the hysteria to end, it's an utter waste of money.

The coins look awful too. Can any of you imagine this on your money?

Image
Image
User avatar
Lewis
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:16 pm
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Re: An Alternative Design For The Olympics Logo???

Post by Lewis »

London 2012: Olympic security cost raises concern among MPs

MPs have raised concerns the London 2012 Olympics may go over budget and said it was "staggering" initial estimates about security costs were so wrong.

The Public Accounts Committee's report also warned the stadium must not become a white elephant.

The government insists it is confident the event will come in under budget.

The Games and legacy projects are expected to cost about £11bn, the report said.

Margaret Hodge, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), said: "The venues and infrastructure of the London Olympic Games are on track to be delivered on time and within budget.

"The Olympic Delivery Authority's management of the building programme has been exemplary.

"However, the £9.3bn public sector funding package is close to being used up and we are concerned about whether the running of the Games will be held within budget.

"Taking into account costs outside the package, the full cost to the public of the Games and legacy projects is already heading for around £11bn."

'Weak negotiating position'
Mrs Hodge said the committee was "particularly concerned" about the significant increases in the security bill.

"Locog (the London organising committee) now needs more than twice the number of security guards it originally estimated and the costs have roughly doubled.

"It is staggering that the original estimates were so wrong."

The report states Locog has been forced to renegotiate its contract with G4S for venue security from a "weak negotiating position".

Mrs Hodge added: "There is a big question mark over whether it secured a good deal for the taxpayer."

Locog's original estimate for the number of security guards in and around the venues was 10,000 - a "finger in the air estimate", according to the PAC report.

The government announced in December that figure had more than doubled to 23,700.

Security costs from the Olympics budget have risen from £282m to £553m.

The report said: "Locog itself now has almost no contingency left to meet further costs, even though it has done well in its revenue generation."

On legacy, the PAC report raises concerns over sports participation targets and the stadium after a deal for West Ham United Football Club to take it over was scrapped.

Mrs Hodge added: "We were promised a strong Olympic legacy but the government has chosen not to adopt the target of one million more people participating in sport by 2013 and plans for the stadium have fallen through.

"It must not become a white elephant.

Legacy 'unclear'
"The government is dispersing responsibility for delivering the legacy and we need clarity about who is accountable."

The report states that with only 109,000 new people regularly participating in sport against the original one million target - which the new government chose not to adopt - the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) had got "poor value for money" for the £450m spent through national governing bodies.

"It is unclear what the sporting participation legacy of the Games is intended to be," says the report.

The DCMS rejected the figure of £11bn of public money being spent on the Games and defended the legacy aims.

A DCMS spokesman said: "With 140 days to go until the Olympic Games, we are on time and under budget, with over £500m worth of uncommitted contingency remaining.

"We are in a strong position and, while we can't be complacent, are confident that we can deliver the Games under budget.

"As we told the PAC in December we do not recognise the figure of £11bn. We have always been transparent about what is included in the £9.3bn.

"The cost of purchasing the Olympic Park land will ultimately come back to the public purse through the resale of the land after the Games and was therefore not included.

"Funding for the legacy programmes, that the PAC refer to, comes from existing business-as-usual budgets and we have been clear about this. These are for projects designed to capitalise on hosting London 2012 but are not an additional Olympic cost."

The DCMS said the legacy included regenerating part of east London and tenants had been secured for six out of eight venues on the Olympic Park.
Wow, so money is being wasted? What's next? Pope announcing he's a Catholic?
Image
Skul
Forum Admin
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 11:33 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: An Alternative Design For The Olympics Logo???

Post by Skul »

We already know the o-lame-pics are a waste of money. When will everybody else? Every four years, countries are going to converge their over-hyped bozos on one poor town and try to pretend they're better than another country just because they can beat them at children's events. Hey, you know what? I HOPE BRITAIN LOSES THE O-LAME-PICS!

You know what sucks a lot for me? I was planning on joining a fitness club at my local health center, which is only a 15-20 minute walk away, but I can't do that, because it's shut. Why is it shut? Because of the o-lame-pics! And how long will it be shut for? About two years! That's right. Two. Fucking. Years. So now, I'm having to look for another place further afield.

So yeah, I like the new logo. I just realised it looks like it spells out SHIT. Very fitting.
Forum Rules

SportsSuck.org. Bringing you the truth... no matter how bad it hurts.

Love and Tolerance!
User avatar
Lewis
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:16 pm
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Re: An Alternative Design For The Olympics Logo???

Post by Lewis »

London 2012: 10 reasons some people (aka the sane) will dread the Olympics

This year's Olympics have generated vast amounts of excitement among everybody in the UK. Well, that's not quite right. Some people are really, really dreading them.

It's been difficult to escape the crescendo of positive publicity about the London games.

IOC chief Jacques Rogge is visiting London for the final inspection, which is set to suggest everything is on track.

Everyone from politicians to pole vaulters has waxed lyrical about the amazing spectacle that is going to take place this summer, bringing together a nation in a blaze of feverish excitement and sporting pride.

But there are those who are not quite convinced.

There are criticisms from people in London that the Games will cause chaos, disrupt business and make life more difficult for many people.

And there are critics hundreds of miles away from London who still can't quite work out why they're paying for the Games.

So what are the reasons behind some people's lack of enthusiasm?

1. The "Zil" lanes

The organisers of London 2012 are creating 30 miles of Games Lanes for use by the "Olympic family". The lanes apply to major routes across London that have two or more carriageways and will be used by 4,000 BMWs and 1,500 coaches ferrying around Olympic VIPs, athletes, sponsors and the media. It has created anger about congestion and the preferential treatment of Olympic dignitaries and sponsors over ordinary Londoners. Anyone using the lane without authorisation will be fined heavily.

Critics have nicknamed them "Zil" lanes, a reference to the special treatment given to Zil limousines used by senior officials in the Soviet Union. Often it will be the bus lane that is used, and in about half of such cases, buses will be pushed into the lane for general traffic. Ambulances without their blue lights on are not allowed in the lanes - a decision that may lead vulnerable patients who are not deemed emergencies to get stuck in traffic, private ambulance providers say.

Transport for London admits that the lanes will create "hotspots" at certain places such as Euston Road and in Wimbledon while the tennis events are on. But "doomsday" will be avoided if drivers plan ahead to avoid the busiest times of day.

2. Cost

For some, the Games are a huge waste of public money. Originally estimated at a cost of £2.4bn, the budget had by 2007 ballooned to £9.3bn. Now that it looks likely to come in at just over £9.2bn, organisers are claiming that the Games are "on time and on budget".

"It's a colossal waste of dough," says Sam Leith, a columnist for the London Evening Standard. "Imagine a builder coming to your house, giving you a quote for £300, revising it to £1,500 and then saying it had come in under budget. You'd be outraged." If there was evidence to show that the Olympics boosted the host nation's economy then that might help. But this is not the case, Leith says.

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport says: "The budget for the Games was finalised and set in 2007 at £9.3bn and we have been completely transparent about the anticipated final cost, giving regular, quarterly financial updates. The benefits from hosting the Games are major in social, economic and sporting terms and will be a boost to the country."

But the economic benefits of hosting an Olympics are much disputed. Some cities, like Montreal, have suffered financially. And there have been theories that the Athens 2004 Olympics may have contributed to Greece's catastrophe.

The picture isn't clear in London. The British Chambers of Commerce has forecast that the Olympics may push growth down in the short term, with productivity reduced. Andrew Lloyd Webber has predicted a serious downturn for the theatre during the period.

3. What about the rest of the country?

As the last major site left in the capital, the land used for the Olympic park would have been redeveloped anyway by the private sector, says Edwin Heathcote, an architect and Financial Times writer. With London booming and short of land, it seems strange that a vast sum is being poured in, he argues. Far better to invest the money reviving deprived northern cities, he believes. Prof Michael Parkinson, Director of the European Institute for Urban Affairs, supports the London Olympics but regrets the repeated focus on London and the South East. "Look at the major infrastructure projects in the UK - high speed rail, Crossrail and the Olympics. They're all jolly good things but they all constitute very considerable investment in London and the South East."

But those behind the Olympics say they are "determined" that London 2012 benefits the whole of the UK. The DCMS says: "More than 1,500 businesses across the UK have already won £6 billion worth of contracts during the construction phase with additional business opportunities created as we prepare to stage the events. Our international and domestic tourism campaign - GREAT - is expected to generate £3 billion in trade and investment and additional tourist spend as well as creating more than 50,000 jobs. The Torch Relay will go to every corner of the UK as it visits more than 1,000 communities over 70 days. Towns and cities across the country will also benefit as athletes from round the world train at pre-Games training camps in local facilities."

4. Public transport chaos

In London, even for those who avoid the roads completely, there will be chaos on public transport. The Tube will get even busier and with major delays or hot summer weather could become unpleasant. The most likely blackspots are key interchanges on the Central, Jubilee, District and Hammersmith and City lines, which feed two stations - Stratford and West Ham - near the Olympic Park.

King's Cross is another potential problem as the Javelin trains serving Stratford International will leave from the adjacent St Pancras. Earlier this year, Network Rail chief executive Sir David Higgins warned that "bad things will happen" to London's transport system during the Olympics. The key thing was not to panic, he said. TfL says: "London's transport network will, at certain times and in certain places, be very busy next summer. People planning to travel in London next summer are advised to visit getaheadofthegames.com to see what steps they can take to avoid transport hotspots and keep themselves, and London, moving."

5. White elephants

There's already been much talk of impressive facilities becoming white elephants once the Olympics have finished. All previous Olympics have left behind a trail of expensive, often huge, amphitheatres of sport which cease to have a purpose once the Games have left town.

Athens is a notorious example but even the more successful hosts like Barcelona and Sydney have their fair share of empty arenas and "tumbleweed" spaces. Heathcote says that the sporting infrastructure is hard to justify for a few moments of national pride.

The process to pass on the £500m Olympic Stadium has already failed once, with a deal with West Ham and Newham Council to use it collapsing in October amid acrimony.

The cost of upkeep of other facilities is another worry. The Aquatics Centre, which is being taken over by Greenwich Leisure after the Games will be one of the most expensive pools in the world to maintain, according to Heathcote. Legacy uses have been found for the majority of the venues but the success of such arrangements will only be known in years to come.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company says: "There will be no white elephants. Legacy plans are more advanced than any previous Olympic host city. Already six of the eight permanent venues have their future secured, with the remaining two to be secured this summer.

"They will leave a great legacy for athletes, visitors and local people alike. We have already announced that the cost of a swim or court hire in the Aquatics Centre or Multi-Use Arena will be in line with existing local facilities, and 75% of jobs in those venues will go to local people."

6. Blanket coverage

The media will be providing blanket coverage that will be hard to escape. World Cup widows find the barrage of football for a month every four years hard to stomach. But the Olympics is bigger and crucially is being hosted in Britain. "Any of the big sporting events tends to swamp you," says Annie Chipchase, who campaigned against the Olympics before 2005 with NoLondon2012. "But the Olympics is even more over the top than the World Cup. I've been dreading this year." The BBC as official Olympic broadcaster is using BBC One and BBC Three to cover every sport from every venue during the Olympic Games.

Roger Mosey, the BBC's director of London 2012, argues that a balance will be maintained and that there will be "sanctuaries for people who don't want to go Olympic-crazy". But critics may respond that it won't just be the dedicated coverage of the events but all the surrounding hype and bombast that makes the Olympics hard to ignore.

7. Grassroots sport may actually suffer

Blah, Blah, Blah.

8. Natural beauty

The Olympic site is concreting over a unique urban wilderness, one of the last major undeveloped sites in London. There was something wonderful about the landscape that the Olympic site was built upon, says Chipchase. "It was this derelict area of east London but the wildlife had come back. You walked off Stratford High Road and you were suddenly in the country with interesting habitats and species." It was a place for families to go and reflect away from the crowds - crowds who are a feature of what has replaced it, she argues.

The Olympic Delivery Authority responds: "For more than 100 years much of what is now the Olympic Park was a heavily polluted dumping ground for industrial and domestic waste. Since 2005, we have cleaned miles of waterways and two million tonnes of soil, as well as removing disused buildings and scores of huge electricity pylons. London and the UK is getting a new sustainable urban park with more than 45 hectares acres of green space, including woodland and wildlife habitats, that will double in size after the Games as the Olympic Park is reshaped and for long-term public use for generations to come."

9. Control freakery and sponsorship

To some, the organisers are control freaks. Critics complain that only certain food and drinks will be allowed in, items of clothing that annoy sponsors will be banned and heavy-handed security will prevent political expression. The Olympics Act of 2006 protects London 2012 from companies associating themselves with the Games when they're not allowed to, something which small firms object to.

The author Iain Sinclair, who lives in Hackney, told Prospect magazine: "The only water you are allowed to buy is [sold by] Coca-Cola. The only food you are allowed to buy is McDonald's. The access to the site is through the Westfield shopping mallâ?¦ It is like an invasion."

The McDonald's in the Olympic Park will be the biggest in the world, although the company points out that other food outlets will be available. Critics - including boxer Amir Khan - find it galling that a nation fighting obesity will have a giant fast food outlet at the heart of its greatest sporting event.

Others attack the International Olympic Committee, which runs the Olympic movement and is being blamed for the Zil lanes. Far from being some "sub branch of the UN", it is a private company which has been accused of corruption in the past, and whose use of the term "Olympic Family" smacks of something sinister, says Leith.

For Times columnist Libby Purves, there is something humiliating about the way Britain has surrendered to the IOC. "There's an awful sense of being a conquered nation. The IOC really call all the shots."

The London 2012 Organising Committee (Locog) says: "We have clearly outlined in the terms and conditions of our ticketing guide what can and can't be brought into the Olympic Park and venues. We will take a firm but pragmatic approach to 'ambush marketing' at Games time and deal with any issues on a case-by-case basis."

10. Lack of real regeneration

The Games may not deliver real regeneration. The London 2012 masterplan has led to rebuilding rather than regeneration, says Heathcote. The plan missed the chance of creating a living, working neighbourhood. "When the Victorians built new bits of London there was industry, workshops and crafts. But the economic infrastructure is not being built there today."

Instead there is a Westfield shopping mall and a "vacuous" plan to develop a creative hub at the Olympic media centre, he suggests. The London Games of 1948 created a sense of "we're all in it together", whereas the 2012 version, has a corporate feel, symbolised by the sale of the athletes' village to the Qatari Sovereign Wealth Fund, he argues.

The DCMS says: "[The Olympics] has attracted massive private sector investment such as Westfield, and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park will house five new neighbourhoods where generations will work, live and play post London 2012. The speed of this regeneration would not have been possible was it not for London hosting the Games."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17525402
Image
User avatar
Lewis
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:16 pm
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Re: An Alternative Design For The Olympics Logo???

Post by Lewis »

London 2012: Taxpayers have 'paid too much' for Olympics

Nearly two-thirds of people asked in the UK believe taxpayers have paid too much to cover the cost of London 2012.
However, 55% of those questioned in a poll commissioned by BBC Radio 5 live said the Olympics would prove good value in terms of benefits to the UK.
The results were revealed as the 100-day countdown to the opening ceremony of the Games began.
A total of 2,007 adults were surveyed earlier this month for the poll carried out by market research firm ComRes.

Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport secretary Jeremy Hunt thinks the 64% of those questioned who believed taxpayers were paying too much would be lower if the same poll were conducted after the Games.
"It's like asking someone if they've spent too much on their Christmas dinner after the big Christmas shop, but before Christmas Day," he said.
"The time to ask whether it's been worth it all is after the event, when people can look at this amazing summer that we're going to have."
The results showed that the further people lived from London the more they thought taxpayers had paid too much towards hosting the Olympics.
In Scotland, 69% of those asked agreed taxpayers had paid too much and only 18% of people disagreed with the statement.
The bigger figure compared with 63% in the South East, 63% in the Midlands, 62% in northern England and 68% in Wales and the South West.
The poll also showed the further people lived from London the less they thought the Olympics would benefit their area.
Only 16% of people questioned in Scotland thought the Games would benefit them, compared with 37% of those in the South East, 31% in the Midlands, 23% northern England, 19% in Wales and the South West.
The opening ceremony will be held on 27 July in the Olympic Stadium in Stratford, east London, following a 70-day torch relay around the UK.

Image
We may have gone back into recession. We may be going through the wettest drought in human history. We may have Abu Qatada remaining in the country.

But at least we have still got the white elephant.

Sorry, I mean the Olympics.
Image
User avatar
Lewis
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:16 pm
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Re: An Alternative Design For The Olympics Logo???

Post by Lewis »

London 2012: Princess Anne would 'hate' to compete at home Olympics
â?¢ Princess Royal says pressure would be difficult to cope with
â?¢ 'I would have found it really difficult to do it on a home patch'

Princess Anne has admitted she would "hate" to compete at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

The Princess Royal is president of the British Olympic Association, an IOC member, and competed at the 1976 Games in Montreal but says the pressure and media intrusion from competing in London would have been hard to cope with.

She also conceded that she understood why some people might view the £9.2bn cost of staging London 2012 as an extravagance in difficult economic times.

Asked about competing in London, the Princess told BBC Sport: "I would have found it really difficult, I suspect, to do it on a home patch â?? much easier to have done it elsewhere. I'd hate to be doing it now â?? that's all I can tell you. It's got worse."

Asked if that was because of the pressures, she replied: "I think there's so much, yes, to everybody. Once upon a time it would have been for one or two of the athletes who were high profile and the BOA could help support and bring them on.

"All the things the electronic media have opened up, simply didn't exist when I was doing it. Some people do find it a help, I am sure, but I suspect for others that's a difficult level of intrusion to manage."

Princess Anne insisted that the London Games have had a positive impact on people's lives despite the economic climate.

She added: "When you think about the time when the decision was made and the bid was going through, how well everything was going and how well everyone thought they were â?? that's quite a dramatic difference. But having that focus of the Games which isn't a movable feast â?? it has to be done â?? there are also some advantages in having that.

"I understand that it looks like an extravagance but I think if they recognised the way a lot of that money has been spent, it has made quite a constructive impact on people's lives."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ma ... sfeed=true

*Sigh,* because Anne, it IS a waste of money. Not that she'd ever have to worry about things like that.

Also, during the ceremony there were several references to 'Sir' David Beckham. God help us if that ever happens.

Though the person who I hate most in all of this is Lord (thanks, Hague) Sebastian Coe. I wont say this often, but thank God for Blair and Labour! Coe's defeat in 97 was the only good thing in that election.

Enough of the Republican sentiment, we're getting an extra day off because of the Diamond Jubilee. What will the Olympics bring us bar debt?
Image
Post Reply