We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

I am so glad I was wrong!


john bunyan
Resolved

Likes # 0

My main concern for the Olympics, based upon information from usually good sources, was that the games presented a huge and risky terrorist threat, bearing in mind the small but dangerous number of home grown terrorists such as we have heard of in Syria (British citizens reported there to have threatened a British journalist). Maybe MI5 etc. have foiled unannounced plots, I do not know.

I am just glad to have been wrong; the games went very well in every way, and will be long remembered for the atmosphere created by the organisers and the whole British public.The volunteers and Service people were so impressive, and team GB did so well. At roughly one gold per 2000000 people we must be the top of the table?

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 0

The original thread was to be glad that, for whatever reason - deterrence by armed forces, early detection by MI5, or the "bad guys" deciding against using the Olympics as a target - that the Games went very well from the security point of view. A very well placed source had told me that there was a significant worry on this point a s far back as a couple of years ago. My being wrong was solely based on relief that no such outrage occurred.

I never commented on the cost. It seems to me that as one of the biggest world economies, once committed we had to put on a decent Games, and I think we did that very well, with the "legacy" issue well to the fore. It showcased our country in a much more modern and successful light. The cost was a lot less than Bejing. It is time to build on success both in sport and in motivating the new generation in a"can do" direction rather than bemoaning the cost.

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

One of the comments I heard on the radio over the last couple of weeks was that some countries do political games, i'e. China & USA Vs USSR in the '80s, some do national image upgrade games i.e. Greece, Spain, Rio.

But Britain and Australia did sport orientated games, and that is what made 2012 and 2000 the athletes pick as best games that they have competed in.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"Certainly a great sporting fortnight but someone has to pay for it and it's not difficult to work out who it will be."

No, it isn't. It will mainly be the people of London - the city that hosted the games.

I'm one of those people, and as far as I'm concerned my money was well-spent.

Like this post
Bing.alau

Likes # 0

FE. If you run short of spare change I can send you a couple of bob. Seriously I think the BBC should contribute a few million to the games. They have probably contributed already but it has been the best advertising they could have wished for. So they should be asked for a bit more. (you can tell that I am in the bracket that no longer pays for my licence fee).

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

Did the BBC get paid to televise the games, and who got the money for the global rights?

Like this post
interzone55

Likes # 0

The TV rights are sold by the IOC.

NBC paid $1.18Bn, I can't find out how much the BBC paid

http://www.olympic.org/olympic-broadcasting

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

Talking about money, I heard (on Radio4) this morning that Bolt, who typically gets £100,000 for appearances in UK, will not be appearing in the UK regularly now because his tax-advisors reckon it's not worth his while, as he would have to pay back more than that [ > £100k ] on TAX!

The London Olympics was a tax-free zone. (a window of opportunity).

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Quickbeam

"Did the BBC get paid to televise the games, and who got the money for the global rights?"

No, the BBC did not get paid. The BBC is funded by the licence revenue.

The worldwide broadcasting rights are paid for by many international TV and radio networks, and the revenue from them goes to the International Olympics Committee, and represents around 47% of that organisation's total revenue.

In turn, the IOC distributes most of its revenue - currently about 90% of it to support the staging of the games, and the development of sport.

Like this post
Pine Man

Likes # 0

FE

It will mainly be the people of London - the city that hosted the games

Mmmmm not so. Apart from Sport England London paid least leaving the bulk of it down to the country as a whole.

Central government £6.25 billion, National Lottery £2.18 billion, London £0.88 billion and Sport England £0.04 billion

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Pine Man

I'm sorry I confused the issue. The host city is always responsible for the cost of running the Olympic Games, but Public money usually pays for the infrastructure - building the venues and roads, etc.

In all, Londoners have paid 13% of the total cost of the games. Londoners are taxpayers of course, so a big chunk of the public funding has also indirectly come from us. London businesses for example contribute over a third of the total UK tax revenue. There will obviously have been some offsetting benefits to London-based businesses, but it's too early to venture a guess as to how much that will be.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

LED vs Halogen: Why now could be the right time to invest in LED bulbs

IDG UK Sites

Christmas' best ads: See great festive spots studios have created to promote themselves and clients

IDG UK Sites

Why Apple shouldn't be blamed for exploitation in China and Indonesia