Body & Soul3 mins ago
Olympic Games
10 Answers
The projected cost of hosting the Olympics has now trebled. Would it have been better if London hadn't won the bid?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.No, I think it will be good for London.
I know it was on a smaller scale, but when the Commonwealth Games were held in Manchester, it brought a lot of investment to the city. A huge area was regenerated (and still is being). The public got new facilities (Swimming baths, hockey stadium etc) and the stadium became Manchester Citys ground and continues to generate income.
I think the Olympics in London is expected to do the same, but on a bigger scale. As long has the public investment is kept within acceptable limits, it should produce private investment that will benefit London and the Country. My only hesitation is that Gordon Brown will be cooking the books on this one, so it could cost us a lot more than we expect.
I know it was on a smaller scale, but when the Commonwealth Games were held in Manchester, it brought a lot of investment to the city. A huge area was regenerated (and still is being). The public got new facilities (Swimming baths, hockey stadium etc) and the stadium became Manchester Citys ground and continues to generate income.
I think the Olympics in London is expected to do the same, but on a bigger scale. As long has the public investment is kept within acceptable limits, it should produce private investment that will benefit London and the Country. My only hesitation is that Gordon Brown will be cooking the books on this one, so it could cost us a lot more than we expect.
Well, at the moment, its 9billion, and rising, the goverment is paying most, which is really yours and my money, also, they've raided the Lottery good causes, which is a despicable act in itself.
Good for London, yes, in the short term only, not good for the rest of country, and for how long after the games will we still be paying?.
Good for London, yes, in the short term only, not good for the rest of country, and for how long after the games will we still be paying?.
Someone speaking on TV the other day said that as most people watch the Olympics on TV, perhaps events should be spread across various cities around the world, utilising each one's ready-installed facilities, instead of a specific city footing the whole bill each time. What do you think of that idea?