|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 6, 2005 12:03:52 GMT
YAY we won, the 2012 olympics will be held in London YAY
|
|
|
|
Post by Tsel on Jul 6, 2005 12:41:57 GMT
Oh man! I bet that really, really, really, PO's France to the max.  Tsel |
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Jul 6, 2005 17:19:35 GMT
Way to go, England.  Shan |
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Jul 6, 2005 17:22:48 GMT
Have the Olympics ever been held in England before? I can't remember. Shan |
|
|
|
Post by Venom65437 on Jul 6, 2005 20:59:13 GMT
Good for London. To be honest, I'd NEVER want to live in the same city the Olympics are being held in.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jul 6, 2005 21:01:24 GMT
Long live the Commonwealth!
Canada in 2010
England in 2012
God Save the Queen! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by philster on Jul 7, 2005 2:30:53 GMT
Have the Olympics ever been held in England before? I can't remember. Shan London hosted it twice before, I think... once it was interrupted by something. War? I can't remember. Anyway, congrats London. And I think Chirau lost the bid with his comments  They were the front runner and I'm not sure the voters ever go for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Ped of Ro on Jul 7, 2005 12:04:00 GMT
congrats to London...hope this kind of event helps the london/UK population .
around here it was felt almost like anational tragedy.
regards
|
|
tragic
Chaosite
Happiness is a cigar called hamlet
Posts: 627
|
Post by tragic on Jul 7, 2005 12:31:28 GMT
Yes London held them in 1948... France shouldnt have made those comments about the english food or spanish incapablitly to deal with eta. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 7, 2005 15:10:02 GMT
Chirac made a fool of himself - and by extension, he made a fool of France. I have no doubt that is indeed what won the Olympics for London.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Ped of Ro on Jul 7, 2005 17:08:47 GMT
Chirac made a fool of himself - and by extension, he made a fool of France. I have no doubt that is indeed what won the Olympics for London. it would be nice if things were that simple...but theyb aren't. London played rough on their contacts/lobbying and Paris since the irak situation, well...let us say that the coca-cola citizens still haven't forget it.  ;D the olympic commitee isn't too much disturbed by "low comments" made by the politicians regards |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 7, 2005 19:44:26 GMT
..And naturally France played entirely honourably and by the book at all times... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Ped of Ro on Jul 8, 2005 9:16:58 GMT
..And naturally France played entirely honourably and by the book at all times... ;D E. never swaid they did (about playing honourably, there isn't no one who can "throw the first stone", believe me). but it would be rather naive to ignore the british connections to it's texan partner and it's influence around the globe... just take a look at the budget presented by the french vs british, the way each one "played" with the olympic committee, the direct influence/contacts they have with the members of the OC, etc... shake everything and you'll better understand the outcome... in the end the OC will give the games to the city who can better give them what they want: power, influence and advantages. regards |
|
|
|
Post by philster on Jul 8, 2005 10:47:50 GMT
Boy, what a crazy couple of days it has been for London.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 8, 2005 16:12:54 GMT
This is definitely true, Pedro.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jul 8, 2005 21:22:02 GMT
Copenhagen in 2024 well, at least that's what our pioliticians want. Mucho congrats to London |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 8, 2005 21:32:29 GMT
It's a good prestige thing. And a definite surprise. I thought Paris had it sewn up. Blair is deeply unpopular with other world leaders, after all, and Britain is far from the world's most popular nation.
I am sure Pedro has something of a point when he says the Olympic Committee considered many political aspects and other perks, but I still think Chirac's foolish comments were the reason Paris lost in the final decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Ped of Ro on Jul 9, 2005 21:47:31 GMT
It's a good prestige thing. And a definite surprise. I thought Paris had it sewn up. Blair is deeply unpopular with other world leaders, after all, and Britain is far from the world's most popular nation. I am sure Pedro has something of a point when he says the Olympic Committee considered many political aspects and other perks, but I still think Chirac's foolish comments were the reason Paris lost in the final decision. E. The OC can be viewed/perceived as a variante (or a fusion) of a private entreprise and an association, with the most particular aspects that on it's "rules" (internal and external) aren't submited to any gouvernmental jurisdiction... all in all, if you look closely at the OC members, their social/financial and cultural background, their influences and real power, you have among hands one of the most powerful "groups" actualy. an association that exists, grows and keeps on developping/evolving thanks to an planetary event that happens every 4 years. this group has more power and influence than the majority of the actual governments (pick your continent and a medium/big chunck of the countrys depende in more than one way of this "honorable" group). the election of a city/country to receive the games can be compared to an almost invisible combat of influences, power and submission...in which "low public comments" made by the "aparent" country leaders won't have any real impact in the final decision (specially when "almost all of them do" - Blair and Chirac played the same strategy, even if the british team was much more rough/determined to achieve their goals). we can't use as a comparison to this kind of process others such as a country elections...the first ones are much more subtle, less visible, vaste and complex (i tend to view it as an planetary/sociological underground election). it's a fascinating, complex and interesting subject. imho what lacked to the french team was a certain "deadlier determination", which is a vital tool in todays OC internal fonctions (specially after the reforms performed in the 80's by the spanish president). regards |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 9, 2005 22:30:52 GMT
Because it's very much a prestige thing though, Pedro, there is also the 'face' element to be considered. The OC is not going to select a country whose leader it thinks is a fool, because that would reflect badly on the OC. Moreover, any leader who looks like a fool in public loses a chunk of influence on the world stage - and that WOULD be considered by the OC. They are fully aware that the Olympics is the world's second largest sporting event (After the World Cup) and the most prestigious. Appearance counts for a lot. So I mostly agree with you |
|
|
|
Post by philster on Jul 10, 2005 4:09:30 GMT
Now I've seen it all: an Englishman and a "Frenchman" (though technically Portuguese in origin) speaking calmly on something like this. |
|
;D