2012 Olympics

all I have to say is I hope London do something about their transport system by then as right now we can hardly ferry our own workers across London let alone stage a world event. I reckeon the only reason Paris didnt get it is because their politics are poor at the moment, as they have a much better transport system and new stadium etc.

Dawn

Dawn, apparently they have lots of ideas for the (south) east part in particular, like Stratford and so on, and I sure hope they improve the transport system as the Blackwall tunnel for example -as main link between the north and south side of the Thames- is already a nightmare every day.

Thats why im glad we got it, they'll have to do something about the transport system and spend money on improving the City. They have 7 years to do it so its all good.

What a waste Chirac is...

IMO Paris and the team behind it deserved to win by a mile, they did an impressive job, with great fair play... When Chirac took 3 minutes to blow it with his stupid statements about the mad cow and how you can't trust people that can't cook etc... wtf?

Can't wait for him to retire.

Ponrauil

I agree it may have cost him dearly , he shouldnt have slagged down another country it makes him +his country look bad.

Dawn

I agree it may have cost him dearly , he shouldnt have slagged down another country it makes him +his country look bad.

Dawn

Congrats!!

But I was so disappointed (and on my birthday too) Madrid didn't get it At least I had hoped it would be up there in the final two I would have voted for Paris, really - it seemed pretty obvious

But oh well, I'll get over it :P

PS. But now London will be even more expensive!! Hard to believe as that is. But I hope they'll finally get round to improving their transport

I don't think it was anything he did wrong, it was just that Seb Coe's presentation was so good- some of the IOC members said they had 'tears in their eyes'.

But, YAAAYYY LONDON 2012!

Food for thought:

Quote:

Five reasons: for and against the London 2012 Olympics By Times Online Do you agree with our writers? A massive waste of time and money or the best thing since sliced bread? Two Times writers give you five good reasons why London should - or should not - host the 2012 Olympic Games. E-mail your response here Five Reasons For, By Simon Barnes, Chief Sports Writer 1. The Olympic Games is the greatest celebration of being alive that humanity has come up with. Being a part of it is a genuinely enthralling experience. We can forget all the - perfectly true, no doubt - guff about what the Games will do for posterity. After all, posterity has never done much for us. The point is now: and the Olympic Games hands the world and the world's chosen city 17 days of unbridled celebration of being alive. 2. Britain will win lots of medals. The host nation always does. This will be the most wonderful fun: one of the great shared national experiences: like the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, turned upside-down into joy. To be part of a city and a nation in heart-lift will enrich our lives. We will discover all kinds of unlikely heroes and heroines in all kinds of unexpected sport. We will be able to celebrate a great biodiversity of excellence. The vividness of partisanship will add the pleasure of the party. 3. The people who oppose Olympic Games suffer from two things. They are (a) unused to sport and (b) natural begrudgers. You find them everywhere. The Sydney Olympic Games were the greatest Games of all time and enriched the nation's spirit in a profound and meaningful way: and they were preceded by a seven-year chorus of begrudging and whinging. The point about the Games is they bring joy: whether you like sport or you do not. Every one is caught up in the brief for-all-time joy of it. 4. The Olympic Games will be an orgy of flag-waving. "A bit Nuremberg," said Billy Connolly, who neglected to notice that instead of there being one flag, there are 202. This compared with 32 at the World Cup. The Games is not a patriotic rally (outside the United States and the old Soviet Union) but a feast of crazy internationalism that will have a profound effect on the way we all think. The Olympic Games internationalises: sport is the world's Esperanto, and the experience is infinitely more vivid and important for those who are there. 5. The Olympic Games is a living mythology and its myths endure and become a part of us and a part of they way we look at life. Sir Steve Redgrave provided the heroic myth of the man who sacrifices all in pursuit of victory. The last Games gave us in successive days new tales to tell: Sir Matthew Pinsent's tears of victory, Paula Radcliffe's tears of defeat. The London Games would give us stories of the greatest possible vividness: living myths that would stay with us forever. That is what the Games are about: to provide meaning and drama and excellence, also misery and disappointment and anger and resentment. The presiding note is the enjoyment of being alive. It's about joy: and **** the begrudgers. Five Reasons Against, by Camilla Cavendish, Leader Writer 1) In financial terms, isn’t this a gamble of Olympic proportions? £3.8 billion is a lot of money to spend on feeling good for a fortnight (or just feeling sweaty and late, see next point). That’s more about 2p on income tax, and it’s only the initial estimate. The bill for the Athens Olympics is likely to come in at about £6 billion, more than double the original budget, even though the Greeks got the EU to foot most of the security bill. The 2000 Sydney Games went over budget and Australians are paying £18 million a year to prop up the Sydney venues. The good people of Montreal are still paying for the stadium built in 1976. 2) And don't forget we Brits haven’t a great track record in estimating the cost of public projects - the Channel Tunnel, the Dome, the Jubilee Line Extension, Portcullis House, Wembley Stadium. Very few Games have ever made a profit. And who will pay for the cost overruns? The unwitting taxpayer, of course, especially those of us in London. The Chancellor confirmed that ages ago. Remember, guys, we will want to see audited consultants’ fees and expenses bills after all this is over. 3) Tubes might fly, but they don’t. Sunny forecasts that we’ll easily squeeze a quarter of a million people passengers into our dismal sweaty carriages in seven years' time, at rush hour, when we can’t even mend an escalator in less than a month, seem misplaced. London will be playing host to roughly half a million spectators a day, up to half of whom are expected to travel to the Games every morning through central London. This is apparently going to cause minimal disruption, “given extensive Games-time management”. In reality they’ll just be doubling the signs urging you to take a bottle of water. 4) We keep hearing that the Olympics will “get people involved in sport”. Well many will watch it on television, and maybe even buy a St. George’s flag to hang out of the car window. Or maybe mug the odd athlete who takes the wrong turning. But if we really want to get a new generation involved in sport, if we want to create a base to nurture the athletes of the future, we need to spend money on inner city sports facilities, not elite performance venues. Some local sports projects have already been cut because Government has raided the sports budget to fund the Olympic bid. The budget for south-central London has fallen from £27 million over a three-year period to £16 million over four years. That’s money that would have gone to local basketball courts, tennis courts, playing fields. Sport England’s community budget is £2 million a year for the next five years for the whole of London: what is that going to buy? 5) Lastly, I dread the smug pomposity of all those who supported the cause - and of those who changed their minds at the last moment so as not to look uncool. Seven years is a long time to bear a national epidemic of sporting smugness.

What a difference a day makes

So true Carli