|
Originally Posted by pabs
Couldn't have put it better myself!
What? - A Boring, closed-minded and unimaginative one line reply??? :rolleyes:.... NEXT! ;) |
Originally Posted by angrynorth
OK, if we are stereotyping lets add to that list:
London: filthy ****hole full of arrogant wankers doing their best not to talk to each other. :) One of the reasons why Manchester and Birmingham didn't get the Olympics when they went for it was the fact that the government didn't offer their backing to either city. There was also nowhere near the amount of publicity involved for either of these bids. Edit to add: I am not against the London Olympics BTW, but I am against prejudice and ignorant comments. :) They're all ****holes. |
Originally Posted by angrynorth
I am not against the London Olympics BTW, but I am against prejudice and ignorant comments. :)
;) Look at the polls to what a lack of understanding of subjects many SN's have. Unfortunately those who shout the loudest are among the most clueless. |
Cost of Sporting Venues £1billion
Cost of transport infrastructure £2billion Look on Chiracs face at the words "London" priceless No Olympics since Barcelona has made a loss, I dont just see it as London its England, and we beat the frogs, again |
I read somewhere that if you made the entire inside of the M25 a separate country it would still rank in the 10 richest countries in the world.
So it does deserve it and London probably subsidises the rest of the country. |
Originally Posted by Stevie.p
FANTASTIC...!!!!! WELL CHUFFED AND ABOUT TIME....:notworthy :) :luxhello: :luxhello: :thumb: ;) :cool: :cool: :cool:
STICK THIS UP YOUR ASS FROGGIE.........:hjtwofing :hjtwofing :hjtwofing :hjtwofing :hjtwofing :hjtwofing |
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
I read somewhere that if you made the entire inside of the M25 a separate country it would still rank in the 10 richest countries in the world.
So it does deserve it and London probably subsidises the rest of the country. London population: 7,465,100 Rest of UK (not Including London): 52,976,357 So based on that, how much tax is earnt by the coffers from tax payers outside London? Obviously a certain % is non-tax paying dole scavvers, pikeys and children but that affects the whole UK ;) Also if London was to be allowed to host the venue based on wealth, then the olympics should have been hosted in Luxembourg :cuckoo: |
Originally Posted by davyboy
What the hell do you use this web site for then?
;) Look at the polls to what a lack of understanding of subjects many SN's have. Unfortunately those who shout the loudest are among the most clueless. Good point :D I should have known better than to expect a balanced and open-minded viewpoint from NSR. ;) |
:lol: Sad, But true :D
|
erm, I think you might find that it's London that is subsidised by the rest of the UK: London population: 7,465,100 Rest of UK (not Including London): 52,976,357 So based on that, how much tax is earnt by the coffers from tax payers outside London? Obviously a certain % is non-tax paying dole scavvers, pikeys and children but that affects the whole UK Also if London was to be allowed to host the venue based on wealth, then the olympics should have been hosted in Luxembourg It still might be busy, a ****hole, full of arrogant people etc but there is no way the rest of the UK carries it. London - Overview: Home to the European headquarters of 33 percent of the world's largest companies, with an economy that is larger than that of several European nations, London is widely regarded as the primary location in Europe for business. Centuries of political and social stability and international trade have given rise to a thriving hub for international commerce. Over 65 percent of Fortune's Global 500 companies have chosen London as a center of operations and London plays host to more foreign banks than any other city in the world. Economy: The London economy contributes around 17 percent of the UK's total GDP and is comparable in size to that of Sweden, Belgium and Russia. Each of London's distinct regions - North, South, East, West and Central - is individually larger than many major cities elsewhere in Europe. The sheer size and diversity of London presents a wide variety of potential locations, so much so that most investors will find a region to meet their needs. The financial and business services are at the center of London's economy and together employ in the region of one-third the total Greater London workforce. With more overseas company listings than any other exchange, the London Stock Exchange is the largest in the world, accounting for more than 32 per cent of global turnover - more than the combined contribution of New York and Tokyo. The sector is concentrated in the City of London, which with around 500 foreign banks and numerous insurance and other business service companies, is rightly recognised as a dominant force on the international financial stage. London is also a major centre for European e-commerce and related sectors. Attracted by solid reliable infrastructure and an impressive track record in research, development, innovation and manufacturing, many of the worlds leading companies in the field have invested in London. It has the UK's largest concentration of Internet-related firms including Globix, Yahoo and Virgin. |
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
Rubbish, London far outperforms any other area in the UK. Extend that a tiny bit outside (M4 corridor, Kent, Herts, Essex etc) and the rest of the UK is of no importance, there is no way that London is ever subsidised by the rest of UK taxpayers money.
It still might be busy, a ****hole, full of arrogant people etc but there is no way the rest of the UK carries it. Well New York is another trade and financial captial - no olympics there (yet) And, if trade commerce and private industry has a link to the olympics explain why Atlanta or Melbourne hosted the olympics then? I've actually been to Atlanta, and I cannot find any reason why such a city stood out so significantly to warrant winning an olympics bid. |
Wasn't any of the below - I just just knew somebody would start a thread on this and let me guess, you don't live in London?? Biased perhaps??
Originally Posted by ALi-B
What? - A Boring, closed-minded and unimaginative one line reply??? :rolleyes:....
NEXT! ;) Where else in the UK has such a diverse cultural base who will be able to represent athletes of their own country. Where else has such a collection of tourist attractions which spectators can view while not watching the olympics. Which other city has the international connections available to meet the influx of people that will be travelling? The list goes on.... Name me the city you had in mind which matches all of the above and I will let you get away with your smart response to my first post on the subject. |
It's the only city in the Uk that could hold the games - bar none.
It's a big, dity, expensive sh1t hole but no other UK place can touch it for its attractions and facilities. I've lived here for 4 years or so and am looking to move as it wears you down but it's 30 years ahead of anywhere else in the UK. The UK is London, followed by a few insignificant small cities. |
Originally Posted by fatherpierre
The UK is London, followed by a few insignificant small cities.
|
Originally Posted by angrynorth
:rolleyes: and you lot wonder why the rest of the country things you're arrogant.
|
Originally Posted by Suresh
I think you'll find that yer average Lundener doesn't give a flying what the rest of the country thinks about them :p
|
Why London? Why Paris, why Madrid, why Moscow, why New York. Without writing in CAPITALS and giving visual clues do you not see the link.
|
Originally Posted by JackClark
Why London? Why Paris, why Madrid, why Moscow, why New York. Without writing in CAPITALS and giving visual clues do you not see the link.
|
Oops :D
Capital of Capitalism?? |
Originally Posted by JackClark
Oops :D
Capital of Capitalism?? :) |
Why London?
So red Ken can reap even more cash...
http://www.recklessrecords.biz/b3ta/...m_charging.jpg |
Who recons that it would have still been London if they had been voting today?
|
I woud hope that the IOC wouldn't bow down to terrorism, but no doubt there would have been some effect.
|
Originally Posted by fatherpierre
I've lived here for 4 years or so and am looking to move as it wears you down but it's 30 years ahead of anywhere else in the UK. The UK is London, followed by a few insignificant small cities. I've visited London recently - I didnt see flying cars, laser guns or day trips to mars while I was there? Its 30 years ahead of the 1970's but thats about it. Ahhh a millenium wheel of course... Silly me...Obviously an advanced culture down there then.... |
Originally Posted by ALi-B
The UK may not entirely support London, and it may well be a self supporting city, but you said London supported the UK, not true. That is because of the government - and that money flows into London from the rest of the UK before it's dished back out again (less whatever gets "lost" down the drain ;) ).
Well New York is another trade and financial captial - no olympics there (yet) And, if trade commerce and private industry has a link to the olympics explain why Atlanta or Melbourne hosted the olympics then? I've actually been to Atlanta, and I cannot find any reason why such a city stood out so significantly to warrant winning an olympics bid. London accounts for around 17% of UK GDP. South East accounts for around 17% of UK GDP. North West accounts for around 10% of UK GDP. West Midlands account for around 8% of UK GDP. If you took Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland's collective contribution to the UK GDP they still wouldn't equal that of London's or put the East and West Midlands contribution it's still smaller than that of London's. In other words, to suggest that London may not even be self supporting is totally incorrect when you consider that such a geographically small region has a GDP contribution that is only matched by the South East which is far bigger. As for Atlanta, that was down to telvision rights as much as anything else although I seem to remember that there was a scandal involving bribery/corruption so that might have entered into the equation. London has the infrastructure, the money and the ability to support the Olympics which few (if any) other UK cities have and given that 11.5 million tourists visit London each year it can easily handle the resulting tourism generated by the Olympics especially as that figure represents around half of the total tourism in the UK. As for Heathrow, it isn't running near capacity and even if it was by 2012 Terminal 5 will be up and running and Gatwick and Stanstead (not to mention Luton) could easily handle any increase in traffic resulting from the Olympics. |
London is overcrowded and over priced but its the only city large enough to gain any use form the soon to be empty velodromes stadiums swimming pools etc that will be built. The olimpic cost is an estimated 3 billion the transport and infrastructure costs are estimated 10 billion but are not included in the bid cost as Ken says that money would have had to have been spent anyway. Certain areas and stadiums will be paid for by the private sector who will then take possesion of the building and amenities they have built. ONly LA and Barcelona have ever held an olympics that wasn't a total financial disaster ask the Greeks or Canadians who will be paying for the next 50 years.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands