Why London?
 

It's great that the UK won the olympics :thumb: But it's not the UK is it? It's London.

Point being: Why London?

They have already hosted it twice now (1908 and 1948). So why not let another city have the chance?

Alongside with many other world events and attractions few other UK cities get a look in.

An argument that it's the capital is rather weak. Take for example:

When the US captial being Washington, but hosting their olympics in Altlanta and LA (twice).
Australia's capital: Canberra, Olympics Hosted in Sydney and Melbourne
Spain: Madrid, Olympics held at Barcelona. Etc etc, the list is huge.

Add to that the General Expense, Land pricing, Over loaded transport infrastructure etc.

Does the world not exist outside the M25 to politicians? Is there no voice loud enough to drown out the pro-Londeners? Is every city other than London completely useless at hosting such an event?

Just seems a shame that the rest of the UK is snubbed because the blinkered decision makers want it in their own back yards, making it uneconmical for any spectators outside of the South East to travel and watch it live. :(

Ahh well, I wasn't "that" bothered anyway ;)

Well Manchester (twice) and Birmingham have also bid for previous Olympics and lost. I don't think it is case other than letting another city have a go. Don't forget that events will be held all over the place - especially things like the football.

For a start I think you will find al ot of it is to do with having Gatwick and Heathrow on the doorstep to cope with all the people that will visit for the Olympics. I know Manchester and Glasgow have big airports too but nothing on the scale of Londons and could those airports really handle the air traffic that will be generated?

No other city in the Uk would stand a chance that's why...

Next!

why not belfast.

Why London?
 

Because of the spectacular cuisine, of course - Now M. Chirac can have his jellied eels in a polystyrene cup :)

Joolz

Did London not take the games on after WW2 to get it all going again....so that does not count as no other city could do it....
Athens hosted it more than once although I don`t think many are still around to remember the first one...
As already pointed out there is not another city big enough to host it and Birmingham or Manchester would not have had any chance against the other cities...

Ali-B,

you may as well ask why London didn't get the Commonwealth Games and as has been said before other UK cities have tried and failed to get the Games in the past. Also, Bliar didn't start the ball rolling on this he jumped on the bandwagon rather late in the day to be accused of failing to consider anything outside the M25, although I'm glad he did get involved as I'm certain he had a positive influence on the vote given the G8 summit etc.

Manchester - ****hole

Birmingham - ****hole

Liverpool - Err, Liverpool.

Leicester, fancy a curry??

Bristol - miles from anywhere

Leeds - Get back t'pit.

London - Awight geezah, fancy a ruby?

The baggage handlers at Manchester Airport can't cope with the bit of work they've got now, lazy tw@ts that they are

Its a worldwide event.......the ONLY city in the UK known around the world is London. Oz is very different and most ppl would think Syndney is the capital anyway!

The idea that Birmingham would attract the games is a joke.......take a list of the last 20 games and their cities...add Birmingham - now sing "....one of these kids is doing his own thing......." in a Seasame St styleeee

why london? off the top my head:

wimbledon
new wembley
new st.pancras chunnel link to mainland europe
4 airports (gatwick, heathrow, stansted, london city) - with heathrow being a global hub
000s of hotels within M25 ring used to handling massive tourist numbers
all the foreign embassies
proximity to dover/folkestone
transport network & infrastructure
telecommunications infrastructure
centre of UK track & field
plus everything else it offers as an iconic capital city, arguably the greatest and probably oldest in the world

etc etc

it has more available space, more regeneration opportunities and more facilities than any other city in the UK, all needed for an event this size. to be honest, it's a no-brainer, the only place the olympics CAN realistically go.

i live in the midlands, birmingham or manchester would be great but it's a pipe dream. too much is missing to make them viable at this much more rarified level of event.

Best of a bad crappy bunch.

Greatest?? Hmm.

When all is said and done, it gives you black bogeys!!!! Yuk!!

Oldest? Gimme a break. There was naff all there before AD 40 or so (http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...m/london1.html) Rome, Egypt, Baghdad and many others have history going back way before London.

I cant believe St Helens hasnt been used for the Olympic bid before now...

1/ We have small electric buses currently used to commute old people from the town centre to Morrisons, which could be used to carry the athletes.
2/ We have over 10 chippies and 4 currey houses within a 1mile radius of the town centre to feed the athletes.
3/ We have one hotel and premier travel inn to house the athletes.
4/ We have a local athletics track to host track and field and numerous footy pitches on local parks for the football. These parks also have tennis and basketball courts so all covered there too.
5/ We have pavements for the marathon / stupid fast walkers.
6/ Johnny Vegas could wobble the last stint of the olympic flame carrying escapade as he is the towns patron saint...

But Ooooo nooooo We're not bloody good enough for Lord Coe and the IOC... Well fine... We dont want your type here anyway... Dont come crying to us when it all goes wrong... You've all 'ad ya chance... :mad:

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. :)

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

Cos it's not in France

Northern monkeys :hjtwofing

:D

Exactly right. And it took it on in 1908 because it was supposed to be in Italy and Vesuvias erupted so we took it at short notice as an emergency measure. This is the first time London has actually wanted to host it and got it.

true. but for me, thankfully no more.

and none of them have the global standing and importance that london does.

you know exactly what i meant. go double-check that there are in fact 336 dimples on a titleist golf ball: more info here:

http://www.youfcukingtiresomepedanticjoey.com

For once I'll forgive Tony Blairs Cheshire cat grin when he meets Chirac at G8..oh to be a fly on that wall

:D

Shandy drinking rent boys :p

You may find checking on www.amItalkingOutOfMyArse.com will save future embarrasment :D

The points that other cities don't have enough going for them isn't valid: Because in some respects neither does London:

Heathrow is breaking point Gatwick nor standsted doesn't have capacity either. As is the road and rail infrastructure. Also last time I checked, London was also a ****hole ;) And with talking of huge quantitites of people, lets knock that on its head: As taking statistics from other olympics your not even talking millions of people - Sydney recorded about 250,000 visitors, (not to be confused with gross figures for the whole year or month) Athens had even less which only sold 120,000 hotel rooms in the main 6 day period . Somewhat less than a world cup football event

Also the fact that £15billion (actually I'm not sure of the exact figure..but it is definetly to the tune of tens of billions). Has to be invested in both building and improvements and making less of a ****hole than it already is. And its an admissision that London is not as suitable as certain people make it out to be. That is also not taking into account the billions of (national) taxpayers money as well as lottery money that already has been invested in London.

I thought that the money would have been more fairly invested in trying to improving some other ****hole for a change ;):D

Couldn't have put it better myself!