billyfox1 Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 what some people are forgetting that is if we hosted it, there would be a garuantueed boost in club attendances after the tournament if england do well as like euro 96. We also get a subsidised expansion of the ground as it would at least be part funded by council/FA. Why?
CosbehFox Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 These Special Olympics are the British Championships essentially covering 18 teams from different regions. Hence the name Special Olympics GB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Olympics_Great_Britain
Chrysalis Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 Why? I will state the obvious, it increases interest in the sport.
Babylon Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 Paralympics = physically handicapped I'm sure this for learning difficulties a totally different handicap but as you say the Paralympics are part of the Olympics and although this is open to all nations it's a British initiative and only held in Britain - that's my understanding. I'm sure Ultra will correct me if I'm wrong. I know the special olympics is for learning difficulties, you brought up physical handicap?!?!?!... I'm confused. The special olympics was founded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Anne McGlone Burke in america. The big 'proper' special olympics is called 'Special Olympics World Summer Games'. The one we are hosting is 'The Special Olympics GB National Summer Games'.
Babylon Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 These Special Olympics are the British Championships essentially covering 18 teams from different regions. Hence the name Special Olympics GB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Olympics_Great_Britain So basically they are overplaying the 'olympic' bit way too much then, when in reality it's the british championships of sorts. I'd rather £3.5m went to helping parents of disabled children by setting up more rest bite centres. I know for sure my girlfriends family could use more help with her brother and some decent time for themselves.
leicesterseddon Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 Mr Leicester Seddon, I am sure you are a decent fellow (in fact I hereby formally invite you to Voj to toast the health of 'Arkan' with fresh bison blood - you may also bring up to three of your best lap dancers with you though they may have to share accommodation with me) but your taste in stadiums is very strange.Is not the Emirates full of character? And the City of Manchester also? Some of the new stadiums may be similar in appearance but so too no doubt were many of the old ones. In any case why is rotting timber and rusting corrugated iron so appealing to you? Erm....no. And neither Goodison nor Hillsborough are in such a state of disrepair. I am glad we now live in a country where unacceptable building standards and dangerous stadium design are not tolerated. I do not want to see 'rotting timber' and 'rusting corrugated iron'...and in all honesty I don't see how or why you have suggested this is 'appealing' to me. My gripe was with the trend (with a few exceptions) of uninspired stadium design in the last 15 years, which I fear may be accelerated by the 2018 bid because clubs will rush to build grounds as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to be involved in a bid which may only bring them a boring group game in the World Cup. I just don't think it's worth it, that's all. Obviously I haven't got through.
davieG Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 I know the special olympics is for learning difficulties, you brought up physical handicap?!?!?!... I'm confused.The special olympics was founded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Anne McGlone Burke in america. The big 'proper' special olympics is called 'Special Olympics World Summer Games'. The one we are hosting is 'The Special Olympics GB National Summer Games'. My Special Olympics that follows the 'real Olympics' is for physically handicapped people whereas this primarily a British initiative and is for those with some learning disability. I was saying that the Special Olympics which follows and is part of the real Olympics is just for physically handicapped, paralympics as you say. Where as these special Olympics, the British ones are for those with learning difficulties - I'm not sure what the confusion is about. Perhaps I shouldn't use the word special with respect to the Paralympics, I'm sure that's what they were originally called though.
CosbehFox Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 The way I understand it. The Special Olympics with for people with learning difficulties. Paralympics are for physical disabilities. Olympics full-bodied.
Babylon Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 My I was saying that the Special Olympics which follows and is part of the real Olympics is just for physically handicapped, paralympics as you say. Where as these special Olympics, the British ones are for those with learning difficulties - I'm not sure what the confusion is about. Perhaps I shouldn't use the word special with respect to the Paralympics, I'm sure that's what they were originally called though. Yes... your use of 'special olympics' instead of 'paralympics' for the physically disabled is what confused me. Can we have an olympics for the slightly tubby over 30's... every other buggers get their own!!!
Webbo Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 So while Willmott and Co sit there, for free in the best seats and get all the reflected glory whilst the council tax payers fork out a £1million. Not only that they are now asking the county tax payers to contribute.These events should be self supporting, this is not what council tax should be used for. If I want to give to charity, and I do it should be my choice not that of the council. Tbf these events will never be self supporting. There isn't any interest from TV, with the best will in the world not many of us would buy tickets for the events and now with the credit crunch there will be a lack of sponsorship. If the money is spent wisely I can't begrudge it.
Babylon Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 Tbf these events will never be self supporting. There isn't any interest from TV, with the best will in the world not many of us would buy tickets for the events and now with the credit crunch there will be a lack of sponsorship.If the money is spent wisely I can't begrudge it. That's my problem, the councils money could have been used to provide better services for the disabled that could have been long lasting. If the agency involved in the sponsorship hadn't (allegedly) annoyed all the local companies who DID want to get involved we probably wouldn't be in this position. As it is they sacrificed them for the big names they thought they could attract through their contacts.... turns out the agency were all mouth.
billyfox1 Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 I will state the obvious, it increases interest in the sport. Average Premier League Attendances:- 1993/94 23,000 +8.9% 1994/95 24,300 +5.5% 1995/96 27,600 +13.5% -------Euro 96---------- 1996/97 28,500 +3.2% 1997/98 29,200 +2.6%
Radovan's Caravan Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 Erm....no. And neither Goodison nor Hillsborough are in such a state of disrepair. I am glad we now live in a country where unacceptable building standards and dangerous stadium design are not tolerated. I do not want to see 'rotting timber' and 'rusting corrugated iron'...and in all honesty I don't see how or why you have suggested this is 'appealing' to me. My gripe was with the trend (with a few exceptions) of uninspired stadium design in the last 15 years, which I fear may be accelerated by the 2018 bid because clubs will rush to build grounds as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to be involved in a bid which may only bring them a boring group game in the World Cup. I just don't think it's worth it, that's all. Obviously I haven't got through. Mr Seddon of Leicester, I think that you are in a state of denial and I think that I can prove it. Can I ask whether you would prefer if Arakan's heroes played in a stadium like this one? I tell you most solemnly all the rubble and junk in Sarajevo could not meld to form a monstrosity such as this...
Radovan's Caravan Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 I really do not see your point Radavan? ...because you refuse to remove your 'Heritage' brand rose tinted spectacles from your nose. You see your old stadia in the same way that your 'culture vultures' view Palladian mansions and Gothic cathedrals. Virtually without exception all your old stadia are grim, ugly buildings. They have all been thrown together in an incongruous, piecemeal, 'higglede piggledy' (?) way with no sense of symmetry. A stadium should be a single entity not a motley collection of mizzen huts and cattlesheds. So that you can be in no doubt Mr 'C - man' the point that I am making is this: your Walkers Stadium is an attractive, well designed venue and vastly superior to ANY old ground that is still in use in the British Isles today. I hope that I express myself clearly.
Father Ted Posted 21 May 2009 Posted 21 May 2009 I really do not see your point Radavan? It's Radovan. Get it right
Ultra Posted 22 May 2009 Posted 22 May 2009 Tbf these events will never be self supporting. There isn't any interest from TV, with the best will in the world not many of us would buy tickets for the events and now with the credit crunch there will be a lack of sponsorship.If the money is spent wisely I can't begrudge it. Not true. ITV has signed up as a sponsor and will be giving extensive regional coverage both in its programmes and on its website.
C-man Posted 22 May 2009 Posted 22 May 2009 ...because you refuse to remove your 'Heritage' brand rose tinted spectacles from your nose. You see your old stadia in the same way that your 'culture vultures' view Palladian mansions and Gothic cathedrals. Virtually without exception all your old stadia are grim, ugly buildings. They have all been thrown together in an incongruous, piecemeal, 'higglede piggledy' (?) way with no sense of symmetry. A stadium should be a single entity not a motley collection of mizzen huts and cattlesheds. So that you can be in no doubt Mr 'C - man' the point that I am making is this: your Walkers Stadium is an attractive, well designed venue and vastly superior to ANY old ground that is still in use in the British Isles today. I hope that I express myself clearly. All I can say really is that I don't agree with you. It's Radovan.Get it right Yeah, well, see ya Father Cunt.
Ultra Posted 15 June 2009 Posted 15 June 2009 Show your support for England's 2018 bid here. And don't fforget to nominate Leicester as one of the host cities.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 15 June 2009 Posted 15 June 2009 Show your support for England's 2018 bid here.And don't fforget to nominate Leicester as one of the host cities. More importantly Australia officially launces there 2018/2022 Bid
Basingstoke Fox Posted 15 June 2009 Posted 15 June 2009 Show your support for England's 2018 bid here.And don't fforget to nominate Leicester as one of the host cities. Done
lcfc81 Posted 15 June 2009 Posted 15 June 2009 Show your support for England's 2018 bid here.And don't fforget to nominate Leicester as one of the host cities. Surely this should have it's own thread and everyone made to vote for Leicester before they're allowed to post again on the forum!
MarkDeVries Posted 15 June 2009 Posted 15 June 2009 Surely this should have it's own thread and everyone made to vote for Leicester before they're allowed to post again on the forum! I agree. Ladies & Gentleman, get voting.
MarkDeVries Posted 15 June 2009 Posted 15 June 2009 Erm....no. And neither Goodison nor Hillsborough are in such a state of disrepair. I am glad we now live in a country where unacceptable building standards and dangerous stadium design are not tolerated. I do not want to see 'rotting timber' and 'rusting corrugated iron'...and in all honesty I don't see how or why you have suggested this is 'appealing' to me. My gripe was with the trend (with a few exceptions) of uninspired stadium design in the last 15 years, which I fear may be accelerated by the 2018 bid because clubs will rush to build grounds as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to be involved in a bid which may only bring them a boring group game in the World Cup. I just don't think it's worth it, that's all. Obviously I haven't got through. WELCOME, TO THE WALKERS STADIUM.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.