British Olympics - a money making racket?

Biggins

Apologies if posted in the wrong section.
Mods, please move if ye feel its necessary.

Once again, it seems the British organising of the Olympics for London might have turned into more partial farce.

Short version:
* Torch bearers having to buy their torch.
* Shoe names covered up to a daft extent.
* Billions in public money spent to benefit primarily giant corporations.
* Goldman Sachs set to also profit.

Long version:

LONDON—The notion that the Olympics have anything to do with the spirit of amateur athletics is one that corporations gleefully stabbed to death not too long before Michael Jordan and the Dream Team won gold in Barcelona in 1992, when Jordan almost boycotted the medal ceremony because his team's warm-up outfits bore the Reebok logo instead of the Nike swoosh.

Poor Reebok. A similar thing has already happened to them this time around. Last week, Aidan Kirkwood, a British war veteran and charity hero who will be one of the Olympics torchbearers in June, was forced to cover his Reebok tennis shoes in white tape at an event because they weren't made by Adidas, the official cordwainers of the torchbearing team. From The Telegraph:

Such is the level of paranoia at ambush marketing at the London Olympic Games that a soldier injured in Afghanistan was required to cover up the logo on his trainers when he appeared at an Olympic torch relay event this week.
...

Source: http://deadspin.com/5896548/the-goldman-sachs+y-group-behind-the-london-olympics-is-making-torchbearers-buy-their-own-torches?tag=goldman-sachs

---

I can understand having to cover the cost of many an item including torches but its seems very expensive and frankly, a bit of a cheek when the people that are being allowed to carry torches, have been awarded that honour for good deeds they have previously done and/or the high respect a community hold of them.

AngryBollix

Its almost guaranteed that any olympics will lose money.

Factoring that the organisers will have to invest heavily in infrastructure its almost inevitable that the games will be a losing proposition

hairyprincess

How much are they willing to pay for the torches? I have a few here they can buy

im invisible

A cordwainer (or cordovan) is a shoemaker/cobbler who makes fine soft leather shoes and other luxury footwear articles

ya learn something new every day

44leto

That is the rules of sponsorship, companies pay for the space, not the space for their competitive rivals. That sponsorship in turn recoups some of the massive public expense of staging the games. I personally see nothing wrong with that, otherwise the British taxpayer will have to foot the WHOLE bill.

Biggins

AngryBollix wrote: »

Its almost guaranteed that any olympics will lose money.

Factoring that the organisers that the organisers will have to invest heavily in infrastructure its almost inevitable that the games will be a losing proposition

Very true.
Certainly in the short or medium term, the government will definitely lose out.
The likes of Goldman Sachs, they being a business thou, seem to be making sure they reclaim as much as they can.
Understandable to some extent but as in the above case, maybe leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those participating?

Its just a thought.

Over the last few months I read of other cases of daftness.
One was in London where boat racing will be going on, a local council there decided to erect a long massive wall along a public quay and public park so that the public couldn't see the racing going on.

Daftness!

Doc Ruby

im invisible wrote: »

A cordwainer (or cordovan) is a shoemaker/cobbler who makes fine soft leather shoes and other luxury footwear articles

ya learn something new every day

Probably has something to do with sailors' shoes, which were soled in cord or rope at one stage.

Taco Corp

The most ironic thing has to be that McDonalds is the "official restaurant"

amacachi

Is this really news? All government exists to do is funnel money into their mates' companies.

Biggins

Surley wrote: »

The most ironic thing has to be that McDonalds is the "official restaurant"

:eek:

Fast food, sick quick?
New world records for throwing up? :pac:

44leto

Surley wrote: »

The most ironic thing has to be that McDonalds is the "official restaurant"

LOL

Maybe a cigarette company could sponsor the swimming.

AngryBollix

Biggins wrote: »

Very true.
Certainly in the short or medium term, the government will definitely lose out.
The likes of Goldman Sachs, they being a business thou, seem to be making sure they reclaim as much as they can.
Understandable to some extent but as in the above case, maybe leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those participating?

Its just a thought.

Over the last few months I read on other cases of daftness.
One was in London where boat racing will be going on, a local council there decided to erect a long massive wall along a public quay and public park so that the public couldn't see the racing going on.

Daftness!

Sponsors and investors are far more likely to make a killing. They are in a far better position to do so.

The government have to invest in the facilities will be long term losers (Velodromes, Swimming and diving facilities etc) Even the stadium may prove to be a white elephant.

But it would be foolish for sponsors or investors to front up their cash without reasonable expectation of a positive return.

Latchy

According to some news reports ,several million people who live in the greater London and surrounding areas (and other brits) plan to take their holidays abroad for the duration of the Olympic games and who can blame them because it's beginning to sound more like an over hyped , political football /headache of a security operation for the privileged than a sporting event, with the tab for any extra security picked up and paid for by the british tax payer.

I will watch probably watch the opening ceromony but am going to avoid all the OTT tv hype

Taco Corp

Biggins wrote: »

:eek:

Fast food, sick quick?
New world records for throwing up? :pac:

If anything it has to be some form of punishment for the athletes. You're about to run in the 100 meters and someone is munching down a Big Mac in the stand behind you. Cruel

Biggins

Surley wrote: »

If anything it has to be some form of punishment for the athletes. You're about to run in the 100 meters and someone is munching down a Big Mac in the stand behind you. Cruel

Actually sounds like fun - at least for sadistic viewers! :pac:

Maybe there is a new Olympic sport - how fast you can eat a McDee's meal!

Gordon

My understanding is that the torchbearer may buy the torch if they wish, but they don't have to buy it if they don't want to. There are thousands of torches as the flame is being passed around the country, not one single torch.

Anyway, what made you think that the Olympics is a charity?! Marathons are similar, there are many money making marathons that employ questionable tactics to get runners/charities in to the event.

sock puppet

Biggins wrote: »

Very true.
The likes of Goldman Sachs, they being a business thou, seem to be making sure they reclaim as much as they can.
Understandable to some extent but as in the above case, maybe leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those participating?

There's nothing in that article to suggest that Goldman Sachs have anything whatsoever to do with the Olympics.

realgirl

The short answer is yes, but its not confined to the British Olympics. Any major sporting event now seems to revolve around the money that pours into the pockets of the governing body via sponsors, tickets etc.

Biggins

Gordon wrote: »

My understanding is that the torchbearer may buy the torch if they wish, but they don't have to buy it if they don't want to. There are thousands of torches as the flame is being passed around the country, not one single torch.

Anyway, what made you think that the Olympics is a charity?! Marathons are similar, there are many money making marathons that employ questionable tactics to get runners/charities in to the event.

As I said,

I can understand having to cover the cost of many an item including torches but its seems very expensive and frankly, a bit of a cheek when the people that are being allowed to carry torches, have been awarded that honour for good deeds they have previously done and/or the high respect a community hold of them.

Thats all.
Have no personal problem with the Olympics and/or how they are running it.
Just observing that sometimes in funny ways, things seem a bit odd.

Have sister in law living in central London with four kids, they are thinking over moving back here while its on.
They are dreading it!

I note that Scotland also seems to be losing out on the Olympics being held in their islands soil.
Thats a bit of a bummer for them.

Biggins

sock puppet wrote: »

There's nothing in that article to suggest that Goldman Sachs have anything whatsoever to do with the Olympics.

My appologies - I left out the title of the article "The Goldman Sachs-y Group Behind The London Olympics Is Making Torchbearers Buy Their Own Torches"

...Would be seen on the link I gave.

I knew this anyway from my reading over the last few months, of their involvement.

Example: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-news/2012/02/26/bankers-to-goldman-sachs-spend-4m-on-olympics-hospitality-tickets-86908-23766599/

Sonnenblumen

Spare us your moaning FFS. It's not as if it's costing you one cent.

Gordon

Biggins wrote: »

As I said,


Thats all.
Have no personal problem with the Olympics and/or how they are running it.
Just observing that sometimes in funny ways, things seem a bit odd.

Have sister in law living in central London with four kids, they are thinking over moving back here while its on.
They are dreading it!

I note that Scotland also seems to be losing out on the Olympics being held in their islands soil.
Thats a bit of a bummer for them.

It's the London Olympics, why would Scotland expect anything to happen in Scotland?!

There are absolutely thousands of torchbearers, why would the Olympics give away thousands of these torches, isnt the pride of being a torchbearer plenty recognition? Expecting a free torch for thousands of people is a bit much. The Olympics isn't a charity.

44leto

Strongbow cider are sponsoring the archery.

sock puppet

Biggins wrote: »

My appologies - I left out the title of the article "The Goldman Sachs-y Group Behind The London Olympics Is Making Torchbearers Buy Their Own Torches"

...Would be seen on the link I gave.

I knew this anyway from my reading over the last few months, of their involvement.

Example: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-news/2012/02/26/bankers-to-goldman-sachs-spend-4m-on-olympics-hospitality-tickets-86908-23766599/

From their website 3 of their senior team are former Goldman Sachs employees. Quite a lot but they're not with the firm any more.

Gordon

B&Q are sponsoring the fencing.

Biggins

Gordon wrote: »

It's the London Olympics, why would Scotland expect anything to happen in Scotland?!

There are absolutely thousands of torchbearers, why would the Olympics give away thousands of these torches, isnt the pride of being a torchbearer plenty recognition? Expecting a free torch for thousands of people is a bit much. The Olympics isn't a charity.

It was just a passing thought amid many I have come across in reading of some strange things that occurring - thats all.

NOT aimed at yourself Gordon but some people posting here need to clam down!
Its just another thread with random posted rubbish in it.
Don't like the contents - then ignore this fool (me!) and carry on reading more interesting threads.
...And no, its won't cost me a cent - it might make me money too instead!

44leto

Supermacs are sponsoring the equestrian events.

Dubit10

Have a friend who lives there and is getting out of the city for a two week holiday. He thinks the tube system will fail under the intense pressure.

No interest at all myself.

Biggins

I like the weight-lifting, gymnastics and throwing of various items, myself.
The rest is passable.

Chuck Stone

The Olympics is a way of converting public money into private profits. The Olympics rarely turn a profit and are out of reach for the average person due to the costs of obtaining tickets.

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Spare us your moaning FFS. It's not as if it's costing you one cent.

So fucking what? If you don't want to discuss it just don't bother posting and leave to those who do.

Biggins

Anyone here going to it? Got tickets?

Gordon

Biggins wrote: »

It was just a passing thought amid many I have come across in reading of some strange things that occurring - thats all.

NOT aimed at yourself Gordon but some people posting here need to clam down!
Its just another thread with random posted rubbish in it.
Don't like the contents - then ignore this fool (me!) and carry on reading more interesting threads.
...And no, its won't cost me a cent - it might make me money too instead!

Hey, if you don't like the responses, ignore them and read other ones!

Cristiano Ronaldo is sponsoring the diving.

ArmaniJeanss

Biggins wrote: »

Have sister in law living in central London with four kids, they are thinking over moving back here while its on.
They are dreading it!

Whilst obviously its their decision, it seems a little strange to me to leave a city while the Olympics are on, especially with kids.
Its a once in a lifetime event.

Sure there'll be disruptions and hassles, but there'll also be a lifetimes of memories which will remain long after the 30 minute queue for the Tube has been forgotten.

There are plenty of free-to-view events (the two marathons, road cycling), plenty of events for which tickets are still available (football for definite, and I donn't think all the sessions of tennis, weighlifting, taekwando and stuff like that are sold out) and even going up to the Olympic Village just to sample the atmosphere would be a worthwhile trip.

For comparison purposes I'm paying an arm and a leg to bring my niece over to London - the though of actually living in London and leaving there for the duration shocks me.

Urge them to reconsider plz.

Biggins

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Whilst obviously its their decision, it seems a little strange to me to leave a city while the Olympics are on, especially with kids.
Its a once in a lifetime event...

It is to be sure but various councils have gone to extra-ordinary lengths to ensure very little is seen for free.
What's left for some London people is further huge traffic chaos, road closures, public transport altered, higher numbers of people packed in from around the world, hassle of trying to invariably trying to avoid possible higher numbers of those that would seek to gain illegal advantage (such as pick-pockets) over new higher numbers, squashed conditions, subway's crammed, etc.

ArmaniJeanss

Biggins wrote: »

It is to be sure but various councils have gone to extra-ordinary lengths to ensure very little is seen for free.

I've read some pathetic stuff alright, building high walls so that people can't get a free look at the sailing events (which aren't exactly a spectator sport anyway). But road cycling, marathons and the various walk events are confirmed as free, and there will be bands, sponsor events, facepainting and the like.

Biggins wrote: »

What's left for some London people is further huge traffic chaos, road closures, public transport altered, higher numbers of people packed in from around the world, hassle of trying to invariably trying to avoid possible higher numbers of those that would seek to gain illegal advantage (such as pick-pockets) over new higher numbers, squashed conditions, subway's crammed, etc.

Sometimes people in London don't appreciate their city ; it has an incredible ability to seamlessly cope with an influx of people, and a transport system which has a history of handling numbers very well.

Realistically, looking at the list of events and their capacities, the number of spectators involved in an entire days Olympics events is just a small fraction of the 1,000,000 who descend on the Tube between 7am and 8.30am every morning. So a small addition to normal commuter numbers, spread over a day - London will cope.

Biggins

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

...London will cope.

No doubt and hope they (small businesses in particular) make some extra dosh.
Some residents near where some of the events though, have decided to get out of the city for the period.

ArmaniJeanss

Biggins wrote: »

No doubt and hope they (small businesses in particular) make some extra dosh.
Some residents near where some of the events though, have decided to get out of the city for the period.

I still think its a mistake to leave when you have kids, this is genuinely a once-in-a-lifetime event.
IMO the memories the kids will get from it will be something they'll carry for the rest of their lives, the 15 days when London was the centre of the world and they were part of it.

But none of my business really.

westendgirlie

Applied for tickets, didn't get any. I'm still thinking of going over anyway.

There will be more Londoners staying in London for the olympics than leaving. The atmosphere will be amazing.

Biggins

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I still think its a mistake to leave when you have kids, this is genuinely a once-in-a-lifetime event.
IMO the memories the kids will get from it will be something they'll carry for the rest of their lives, the 15 days when London was the centre of the world and they were part of it.

But none of my business really.

Speaking only for the sister-in-law and her kids, they were seriously effected/scared by the London riots (right on her door step, barricaded themselves in) so large numbers (for them) again, might be a scary prospect for them.

Sonnenblumen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The Olympics is a way of converting public money into private profits. The Olympics rarely turn a profit and are out of reach for the average person due to the costs of obtaining tickets.



So fucking what? If you don't want to discuss it just don't bother posting and leave to those who do.

What hole are you speaking through or did you just bang your head?

You clearly know nothing about the Olympic movement, funding or indeed intended audience.

Attendance at big events is limited and always difficult for the 'avergae person'. Perhaps the fact that the Olympics the biggest sporting event in the world, which takes place every four years has somehow passed you by? How would you remotely think an 'average person' would/could get in?

You should practice what you preach.

westendgirlie

Biggins wrote: »

Speaking only for the sister-in-law and her kids, they were seriously effected/scared by the London riots (right on her door step, barricaded themselves in) so large numbers (for them) again, might be a scary prospect for them.

Make sure your Sis-in-Law hides the superglue. If those kids decide they want to stay in London for the games .........

Biggins

westendgirlie wrote: »

Make sure your Sis-in-Law hides the superglue. If those kids decide they want to stay in London for the games .........

They already done worse! :pac:

prinz

Whatever about the Olympics being a money making racket, it certainly has opened my eyes to Proctor & Gamble... every second TV ad seems to be P&G.:eek:

Chuck Stone

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

What hole are you speaking through or did you just bang your head?

You have a poor understanding of anatomy.

You clearly know nothing about the Olympic movement, funding or indeed intended audience.

And you do? Enlighten me?

Attendance at big events is limited and always difficult for the 'avergae person'. How would you remotely think an 'average person' would/could get in?

I've just said that.

Pathetic.

bwatson

The security bill is going to be crazy.

Royal Artillery operating air defence missile systems in SE London (although they are based in the area anyway) the Special Boat Service patrolling the Thames and all leave being cancelled at MI5 and the Met are just a few examples of how seriously its being taken.

I personally don't care much for the Olympics and will be out of the city at the time anyway, but I imagine the atmosphere will be amazing, especially in the centre of town.

Cardinal Richelieu

Biggins wrote: »

Speaking only for the sister-in-law and her kids, they were seriously effected/scared by the London riots (right on her door step, barricaded themselves in) so large numbers (for them) again, might be a scary prospect for them.

She could always rent her house out for the Olympic weeks, quite a few Londoners living in Wimbledon do that during the two Weeks of the Tennis.

Latchy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The Olympics is a way of converting public money into private profits. The Olympics rarely turn a profit and are out of reach for the average person due to the costs of obtaining tickets.

It's also all about putting London on the map again and try gloss over the riots and if the average person can't afford the ticket costs then the ones who can should foot the bill for the extra security which is the military reserves .

bwatson

Latchy wrote: »

It's also all about putting London on the map again and try gloss over the riots and if the average person can't afford the ticket costs then the ones who can should foot the bill for the extra security which is the military reserves .

The Olympics were awarded to London 6 years before the riots, which have done little to tarnish London's reputation overall.

Chuck Stone

Latchy wrote: »

the ones who can should foot the bill for the extra security which is the military reserves .

Yep. The cost of security, half a billion Pounds, will be socialized too.

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17302068

kowloon

Lots of 'once in a lifetime' events out there. Seeing who can run the fastest or jump the highest isn't going to top everyone's list.

old_aussie

It's one way for the host country to get lots of sporting and associated infrastructure, which will benefit people for many years to come.