Page 1 of 9
Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 18.53
by marksi
I don't care about the Olympics.
Meh.
Really, it's a corporate festival of dull.
Coca-Cola, Lloyds TSB and Samsung are sponsoring the torch relay. You can only pay for tickets with a Visa card, you don't know what tickets you have got until after you pay for them, you don't know what seats you've got until close to the time.
"Team GB" is a name that doesn't convince those of us who are not on the mainland that we're part of anything.
I really couldn't give a stuff. Just me?
Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 19.04
by Gavin Scott
Like the Royal wedding, I'll be vocal with my cynicism and disinterest, and sit watching the start of the event feeling a little bit of pride. And if they do it well, I'll have a lump in my throat.
So I'm a "glory fan", as I heard coined here the other day. Hey ho, its a victimless crime.
And lucky old London. Just like the Millennium Dome, they'll get vast swathes of the richest city in the land regenerated at the UK taxpayer's expense.
Hooray.
Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 19.23
by Nick Harvey
Just been watching a piece on television about how nobody in the UK (or was it GB?) will be more than an hour's travelling time from somewhere that the torch will pass through.
My reaction was "Too bloomin' close, man".
I'm with you two, actively apathetic.
Oh, and for goodness sake keep it only on the sport channels and not the mainstream ones (some hope).
Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 19.30
by marksi
Nick Harvey wrote:Just been watching a piece on television about how nobody in the UK (or was it GB?) will be more than an hour's travelling time from somewhere that the torch will pass through.
My reaction was "Too bloomin' close, man".
I'm with you two, actively apathetic.
Oh, and for goodness sake keep it only on the sport channels and not the mainstream ones (some hope).
Well that may be the only saving grace. I'm waiting for an email to tell me there'll be no junctions on BBC TWO for three weeks.
Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 20.03
by Dr Lobster*
i agree mark, the whole lot is dull. i saw a clip on the news with a bunch of corporate dipshits in pinstripe suits at a photo call with the launch of the 2012 olympic torch relay.
look at all that money it's cost to build the infrastructure for lots of it to be bulldozed down afterwards.
why did we want it anyway? surely it's a much better idea if one of those other crappy soulless eastern european countries to throw money down the drain at it instead?
Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 22.03
by Malpass93
It should be Team UK, I agree with you there Mark. Seems wrong to leave Northern Ireland out of it.
Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 22.48
by Alexia
Malpass93 wrote:It should be Team UK, I agree with you there Mark. Seems wrong to leave Northern Ireland out of it.
As with many Irish things, it's complicated. Athletes from NI can choose to represent either Great Britain & Northern Ireland (which is the OFFICIAL name of the team - "TeamGB" is just postmodern pish for the Facebook generation) OR Eire.
For those confused as to the difference between UK, GB etc, I recommend this handy Euler diagram:

Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 23.53
by Inspector Sands
marksi wrote:Coca-Cola, Lloyds TSB and Samsung are sponsoring the torch relay. You can only pay for tickets with a Visa card
It has to have corporate sponsors, that's who's paying for a very large proportion of the event. They don't give all that money for nothing.
"Team GB" is a name that doesn't convince those of us who are not on the mainland that we're part of anything.
Well then the athletes of Northern Ireland need to decide as a group which country they want to represent!

Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Thu 19 May, 2011 00.14
by Inspector Sands
Dr Lobster* wrote:look at all that money it's cost to build the infrastructure for lots of it to be bulldozed down afterwards.
Not much of it is being 'bulldozed' or demolished. The roads, communication and regenerated land is all staying put for future use.
The 9 new venues in the Olympic park and the new one outside (the white water course) are all staying put except 2, though some are being modified mainly to reduce capacity. The Olympic park too is staying. The other 2 are being relocated afterwards... one to Rio 2016 apparently.
The Olympic village and surrounding land is being sold off, some of the ancillary building there might well be demolished in particular the media centre.
The only other venue that is due to be demolished is Earls Court, but that's nothing to the olympics
Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Thu 19 May, 2011 00.22
by wells
Alexia wrote:Malpass93 wrote:

Out of interest do the Irish mind the fact they're called the British Isles?
Re: Olympics. Meh.
Posted: Thu 19 May, 2011 00.25
by Inspector Sands
Gavin Scott wrote:And lucky old London. Just like the Millennium Dome, they'll get vast swathes of the richest city in the land regenerated at the UK taxpayer's expense.
Though the area being regenerated was one of the poorest in the UK.
Of course some would say that it's nice for London to get some money back from the rest of the UK, normally the flow is the other way round!
