Nopesport

by **brooner** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:02 pm

Nopesport.com back the bid

http://www.london2012.org/

by **brooner** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:26 am

looks kinda familiar

by **Becks** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:55 am

Call me a little cynical - but back the bid so they can take away even more money from grass roots sport to build their fancy new stadiums in London when there's a perfectly good set in Manchester? Don't think so...

by **brooner** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:59 am

well yeah, i'm personally not in favour of it at all given the current state of gross underfunding of sport in this country but remember this is in banter :wink:

by **Nailest** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:20 am

I'm sure he's doing the best he can.

by **Kitch** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:06 pm

Sorry

you gotta.

What generates grass roots sport ?
grass roots activity.

what generates grass root activity?
grass roots interest.

what generates grass roots interest.
Elite sporting success.

what generates elite sporting success?
home advantage/inspiration/initiative.

don't piss in your own bed just beacause the Olympics would be in London.
Manchester showed the way, it showed the government we can do this kind of thing - that it is worth the effort. The whole thing gives sport political value and that my friends is what sports needs in this country.

by **eddie** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:27 pm

i think everyone would be worried that the 2012 olympics if it came to London would put us seriously in debt by spending vast amounts on lavish stadiums. everyone still worries about montreal in 1976 who are still paying back their olympic debt but as they are showing with the swimming worlds this year they're about as useful as a chocolate teapot at organising sporting events.

back the bid cause east london is a hole that needs filling why not create some cracking facilities. the frogs are arrogant enough come on now boys remember Calais, Henry V, 100 years war, Napoleon,Trafalgar. do you want this to happen again

i think not

lets kick the garlic munchers into next week

yours

by **Toni** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:33 pm

Quote brooner

well yeah, i'm personally not in favour of it at all given the current state of gross underfunding of sport in this country but remember this is in banter

gross underfunding of sport - what country are you in? You must be joking! Are you not aware of the £459 million being invested into school sport partnerships? As someone who was involved in the evaluation of a whole host of government funded initiatives I think you are out of your mind! You should go and live in a country with gross underfunding of sport then you might realise how much money the squad have wasted in the past few years because sport was being so over-funded! I'm sure we can all come up with examples of how much money was spent on crazy things!

by **mharky** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:51 pm

I had a lecture on this on Friday, very interesting indeed.

I agree with Becky, and so does Euugene my lecturer, olympics in london 2012 would take pretty much all the money from lesser sports. if ofcorse lottery fundinng still exists inn 2012.

i think the point kitch is making is right, and wrong.

what generates elite sporting success?
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY, amongst other things.

the top players need funding to train full time, no funding no full time trianing, no full time trainning, no elite sporting succes, nonone of that means no grass root interest etc etc etc...

Toni>>> If you are involved in the evaluationn of all this then you will know all the statistics surely. coz I do.
the lottery funding is the best thing to happen to british sport, and is undoubtedly having a great effect. However when it was started the lottery funding for sport wasa meant to be ontop of government expenditure, which now it isnt. the agreed proportion of sport financing from the lottery hasa gone down. from 1996-2000 and 2000-2004 it remeaineed at the same level, and due to inflationn that actualy means about a 12% loss in funnding.
iin 1997 ouur crap labour government deciided to put health & education under tthe lottery, thus shrinking how miuch money sport gets. a crafty trick. obviously health and education is more important. but that should come out of the gouvernment treasurey, not lottery funds.

the government are making more profit from the lottery than the lottery gives out to the good causes.

but back to the original point. if we get London Olympics it will take about 90% of the lottery funding to support it.

how many kids have been ouut and started sailing since our records? or athletics, or rugby since england won etc. not much. what is more important is funding for sports initiatives, sports officers, and increasing the oppurtunity.

but i hav to stop because this is bringing back nasty memories of sports in social context lectures.

by **Simon** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:16 pm

mharky wrote:what generates elite sporting success?
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY, amongst other things.

China. Since getting the 2008 games they have been funding elite sport to quite a high level, with the aim of achieving highly. Already this funding is starting to show, with the Chinese team performaning well in Athens.

mharky wrote:how many kids have been ouut and started sailing since our records? or athletics, or rugby since england won etc. not much. what is more important is funding for sports initiatives, sports officers, and increasing the oppurtunity.

Sailing is one of the sports to really show the benefits of the Lottery funding. They were a sport with a good infrastructure and gaining the increasing in funding allowed them to channel money to where it was needed to gain good results. This is unlike some other sports, swimming being the obvious example where an increase in funding has produced little benefit.

Rugby definitely had more people after the world cup, but the real question to be asked is how many of those new people are still playing?

by **mharky** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:11 pm

Great Britain isn't Chine, so dont make comparisons between 2 completely different couuntries with 2 completely different sports fundinng set-ups. It isnt cross-comparable.

Im fully aware of the new sailing accedomy which has been built. But this is aimed at our existing sailors, they do offere sailing oppourtinitiese to schools etc, but that isn't the main initiative. that was to get money to build facilities to train elites to win medals. money money money.

people playing rugby for a few weeks after the world cup doesnt count as new additioins to the sport. like wise, the inflex in darts plaing recently wwill probably fall in a month or so.

by **rob f** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:22 pm

I want thw olympics to watch but i don't want british sport to suffer. It depends on what future we want for this countries sport

by **ryeland of doom** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:21 pm

Olympics... No O!

Still fuming over all the money wasted on Wembley.
Its a shoe in for Paris, so I am not worried.

by **mharky** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:04 pm

Wembely £600 Million
Sydney Olympic Stadium £135 Million

hmm, were good at construction arent we

by **bolder** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:13 pm

Why the difference? :!:

Nopesport

The UK Online Orienteering Community

London 2012 - back the bid

London 2012 - back the bid

Who is online

Recent Stories