+1 The 'Olympic spirit', thats to say the spirit of personal acheivement, betterment, inclusion, honesty and fair play are truly wonderful things that we should all aspire to. These were the foundations of the Olympics. However the 'Olympic Games' has absolutely nothing to do with any of it. In its simplist terms, its all about money and politics. The best seats are full of so called dignitaries, toadies, royalty and all the other hangers on and parasites. Also i agree about sports such as tennis and football..Dont they already have a big enough platform, and arent these 'athletes' paid professionals? The Olympics was supposed to be for amateurs. Lets get it back to track and field (which wont happen), not BMX biking. The fact that Mcdonalds are one of the main sponsors says it all..Why not Benson & Hedges?
I agree with both of you and loathe both the IOC and FIFA and the corporate sponsorship. But I don't think that that should tar the Olympic spirit which really is alive with the athletes. And at the end of the day, it is about the athletes. You can focus on the shabby hangers-on and politicians, or you can choose to focus on the amazing dedication, skill and strength of the competitors. I enjoy the latter. The amateur/pro debate seems simple to me. In the old days, there weren't any pros, because you couldn't earn a living at it. Now, if you are any good at anything, you turn pro if you can and the level is so high that you couldn't really hold down a full-time job and be any good at a sport. TV must have been the game-changer. So I have no problem with pros. Panem et circenses? Well of course it is - by it's very nature. But then that ought to be part of life. If life is just a struggle for existence, where's the fun? We may as well be cows in a field, existing. And no way is there any difference between motorbike racing and Olympic sports. It's all just entertainment and I'm all in favour of it.
You've lost me there, you underwrite something in case it isn't paid for, so how can you both underwrite it and pay for it? Surely the underwriting comes in if you don't pay??????
You can't just cut cost to make yourselves rich, you have to invest in driving up your income. As we are now a non-manufacturing service based economy highly dependent on tourism and visitors a 4 hour long opening advert to 1Bn potential customers would seem good value. If you didn't like all of that ceremony then you have issues, there were very many highlights and it has been very well received around the globe. Miserable ignorant gititus is plainly something the NHS and Danny Boyle have not yet found a cure for..........
It is underwritten in the sense that the cost of hosting the event always exceeds the revenue and the host nation aka the taxpayer picks up the difference, what is difficult about that ?
The summer Olympics between Atlanta in 84 up until the loss making Athens in 2004 all made a net profit. You can't underwrite something you fund, underwriting is a third party exercise. It was started by those who would financially back a trade or shipping venture at Lloyds of London in return for a fee. It's a simple concept.
you happy go lucky optimistic types make me sick..are you an Englishman or some bloody johnny foreigner?? Its called blighty for a reason son, now get with the program and pour scorn and derison on it like a true Brit ffs. My point about the amateur v pro debate is that when you get the likes of Sharapova et al taking part it takes the mick..im all for the track and field lot getting a spotlight, but the tennis and football get it all their own own way with multiple chamionships and tournaments...leave it to the athletes i say...next it'll be Tiger Woods and all his chums competing for medals..
Indeed and they pick up a portion of the losses if it all goes pear shaped. The IOC sells the Olympics to government and the taxpayer (the third party :wink underwrites the potential losses. It obviously isn't simple enough.
I'm looking forward to the javelin catching, nude beach volleyball and synchronised wanking events. Not much interested otherwise.
Suggest you look at number 2 Royum, or is the Collins English Dictionary dumb also ? The British taxpayer underwrites the cost of the Olympics in the sense that the ultimate financial responsibility rests with them. underwrite [ˈʊndəˌraɪt ˌʌndəˈraɪt] vb -writes, -writing, -wrote, -written (tr) 1. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) Finance to undertake to purchase at an agreed price any unsold portion of (a public issue of shares, etc.) 2. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) to accept financial responsibility for (a commercial project or enterprise) 3. (Business / Insurance) Insurance a. to sign and issue (an insurance policy) thus accepting liability if specified losses occur b. to insure (a property or risk) c. to accept liability up to (a specified amount) in an insurance policy 4. to write (words, a signature, etc.) beneath (other written matter); subscribe 5. to support or concur with (a decision, statement, etc.) by or as if by signature Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Soory m8 I don't spend my life attached to a keyboard. I have no need to apologise, underwriting in the context you used it cannot be undertaken by the person funding the event, the finance came from the tax payer they cannot underwrite it. If you want to argue your nonsense go and argue with someone else or be a keyboard terrorist as your want.
Yes you can, its called Private Equity. Check out the issues wih Spain and the brief case study on the airport outside Madrid. Money loaned so can be built but no money to run it; is that because all the exec behind the venture had businesses building the thing?!
